Gun Control

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:34 pm UTC

now, Wait a moment.
I remember when that guy got shot in the Theater.

That sucks.
It truly does.

Old people get 'crotchety'.
Not all old people; Some.

Yes. Some of your other points do make sense.

When you cut some person off in Traffic, you are taking your chances.
That is a dangerous maneuver.

If clipping that guy's front end does not kill you.
And; the Blows from the Tire Iron do not kill you.
Maybe, a Bullet will.

Don't cut people off in Traffic.

The part about not being able to voice legitimate grievances.
We are There. (have you not been paying attention)

Your statement about Bystanders:
Maybe, being armed is empowering.

A little old lady might come to the rescue if she knows she might walk back out, again.

Besides!
There is no point in lamenting what an armed population might be like.
We Are an armed population.

Let us remember the one thing we have in common.
We have a sense of humor.

I have seen Classic GrandMa's with concealed weapons.
That is funny stuff.

One had stretch waist jeans and a holster attached to the waist.
Cracked me up. I was laughing and popping of photos.

Maybe, not too bad an idea.
If everyone knows GrandMa is packing,
GrandMa will have a Pleasant View of Society.

Idiots and AssHoles will give her a Wide Berth.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Gun Control

Postby EMTP » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:32 pm UTC

Maybe, not too bad an idea.
If everyone knows GrandMa is packing,
GrandMa will have a Pleasant View of Society.

Idiots and AssHoles will give her a Wide Berth.


Won't the gun fetishists be lonely, if their fellow assholes start to avoid them?

You're done here.

- Az
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:40 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
Maybe, not too bad an idea.
If everyone knows GrandMa is packing,
GrandMa will have a Pleasant View of Society.

Idiots and AssHoles will give her a Wide Berth.


Won't the gun fetishists be lonely, if their fellow assholes start to avoid them?

I don't know.
Armed or UnArmed, AssHoles hang out in Packs and Herds.

There is no shortage of Idiots and AssHoles.
If one bunch does not like your gun, hang out with a different bunch.

How hard can it be?
It is almost like First Nature with us.

What did the Old Guys say?
"Water seeks its own level."
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Gun Control

Postby Mokele » Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:23 pm UTC

addams wrote:now, Wait a moment.
I remember when that guy got shot in the Theater.

That sucks.
It truly does.

Old people get 'crotchety'.
Not all old people; Some.


It's a bit beyond "that sucks". Sure, not everyone will shoot someone for disagreeing with them. But even now, when a relatively modest percentage of people carry guns in public, it still happens. Increasing the number of armed folks will only increase the problem by giving more assholes guns.

And sure, the possible consequence of jail may deter some, but for "heat of the moment" stuff? And legal penalties won't bring the dead back to life after the fact.

Never mind that with these moronic Stand Your Ground laws, all that person needs to do is have even the slightest feeling of being threatened to escape any punishment at all. And if there's the assumption that everyone is armed, then any tiny gesture that could be interpreted as reaching for a hidden gun could be justification, even if there never was a gun.

I'd prefer not to be shot in the face because I put my hands on my hips in exasperation while debating who hit who in a minor fender bender, thanks.

The part about not being able to voice legitimate grievances.
We are There. (have you not been paying attention)


Which is precisely the problem. I fail to see how that's anything *but* a scathing indictment of the "armed society = polite society" cliche, and an automatic proof that further arming with make things worse.

Your statement about Bystanders:
Maybe, being armed is empowering.

A little old lady might come to the rescue if she knows she might walk back out, again.


Which means that in order to intervene in a situation or voice an unpopular opinion, you *must* be armed. And that any such disagreement will inevitably devolve into an action movie standoff at best.

That means that the price of interacting in a society is the willingness to carry a deadly weapon and kill people. And if, for moral or other reasons you can't/won't? Enjoy life as the punching bag of anyone who will?

If everyone knows GrandMa is packing,
GrandMa will have a Pleasant View of Society.

Idiots and AssHoles will give her a Wide Berth.


And what if grandma *is* the idiot / asshole? They do grow old eventually, you know. And they don't usually become more in-step with modern society as they do.

I'd prefer not to see Armed Asshole Grandma waving a gun at an inter-racial couple and screaming about purity while dropping racial slurs.



An armed society is one where everyone has to walk on eggshells all the time, for fear that their slightest mistake will set off some jackass with a hot temper and poor impulse control. That's the opposite of freedom.
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:12 am UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:38 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

Soteria
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Soteria » Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:47 am UTC

I thought Gone with the Wind made a decent argument for why an armed society might actually be pretty civil. Not because someone might draw their gone and shoot you dead (that would be murder and you'd probably end up hanged), but knowing that you might face serious consequences for any egregious insult would probably make a lot of people more polite. But that's really more about dueling culture specifically than actually carrying guns. Lots of folks carried for various reasons in the West in the late 1800s, but the "Wild West" such as it was is not really known for civility.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:14 am UTC

Mokele wrote:
addams wrote:now, Wait a moment.
I remember when that guy got shot in the Theater.

That sucks.
It truly does.

Old people get 'crotchety'.
Not all old people; Some.


It's a bit beyond "that sucks". Sure, not everyone will shoot someone for disagreeing with them. But even now, when a relatively modest percentage of people carry guns in public, it still happens. Increasing the number of armed folks will only increase the problem by giving more assholes guns.

And sure, the possible consequence of jail may deter some, but for "heat of the moment" stuff? And legal penalties won't bring the dead back to life after the fact.

Never mind that with these moronic Stand Your Ground laws, all that person needs to do is have even the slightest feeling of being threatened to escape any punishment at all. And if there's the assumption that everyone is armed, then any tiny gesture that could be interpreted as reaching for a hidden gun could be justification, even if there never was a gun.

I'd prefer not to be shot in the face because I put my hands on my hips in exasperation while debating who hit who in a minor fender bender, thanks.

The part about not being able to voice legitimate grievances.
We are There. (have you not been paying attention)


Which is precisely the problem. I fail to see how that's anything *but* a scathing indictment of the "armed society = polite society" cliche, and an automatic proof that further arming with make things worse.

Your statement about Bystanders:
Maybe, being armed is empowering.

A little old lady might come to the rescue if she knows she might walk back out, again.


Which means that in order to intervene in a situation or voice an unpopular opinion, you *must* be armed. And that any such disagreement will inevitably devolve into an action movie standoff at best.

That means that the price of interacting in a society is the willingness to carry a deadly weapon and kill people. And if, for moral or other reasons you can't/won't? Enjoy life as the punching bag of anyone who will?

If everyone knows GrandMa is packing,
GrandMa will have a Pleasant View of Society.

Idiots and AssHoles will give her a Wide Berth.


And what if grandma *is* the idiot / asshole? They do grow old eventually, you know. And they don't usually become more in-step with modern society as they do.

I'd prefer not to see Armed Asshole Grandma waving a gun at an inter-racial couple and screaming about purity while dropping racial slurs.



An armed society is one where everyone has to walk on eggshells all the time, for fear that their slightest mistake will set off some jackass with a hot temper and poor impulse control. That's the opposite of freedom.

Nice post.
It is nice that you addressed each part you disagreed with.

I agree with you to a great degree.
I think every one of your points are good.

In one part you might be Wrong.
Maybe. I'm not sure.
Addams wrote:
Your statement about Bystanders:
Maybe, being armed is empowering.

A little old lady might come to the rescue if she knows she might walk back out, again.

Mokele wrote:
Which means that in order to intervene in a situation or voice an unpopular opinion, you *must* be armed. And that any such disagreement will inevitably devolve into an action movie standoff at best.

That means that the price of interacting in a society is the willingness to carry a deadly weapon and kill people. And if, for moral or other reasons you can't/won't? Enjoy life as the punching bag of anyone who will?


We do live in an armed society.
I don't see much gunfire.

A little.
Mostly aftermath.

My people are not well mannered and kind to one another.
It is cultural. Somewhere we learned to behave this way.

I have had some first hand and close second hand experience with guns.

I'm not sure this proves anyone's point:
There was a disagreement in a Food Store parking lot.
A gun was pulled.

Tempers were still High.
The unarmed man was Sooo Angery.

Yet; This same guy will sit with his buddies and talk about pulling guns on others.
He had an opportunity to learn, "it's Not so funny when it happens to You."

Did he learn that?
Maybe.

I listened to him tattle to the Police.
The Police seem to have heard it all before.

"Were shots fired?" she asked.
"No." was the answer.

She, just, looked at him.

She let him say his Peace,
then she let him leave.

It was like something out of an old Twilight Zone movie.
She gave him a form and told him no one would read it.

It is legal to have a gun.
It is legal to tell some AssHole to back off or you will use it.

I have learned that Offenders are easily Offended.
I wonder if that man learned anything.

I did.
Did you?

Of course, I would rather live in an unarmed society.
There are Tons of things I would rather.

I Don't live in an unarmed society and it is Not going to happen.
How do we live as well as possible inside an armed society?

Fighting with Gun Nuts is not going to further the cause of Peace.

If we need guns, then we should have guns.
When we don't need guns, we will let them go. (i hope)

I agree with Soteria.
The idea that you might have to get up before dawn, get dressed in the cold, call your Mom, tell her and go out in some stupid field somewhere,
to shoot at and be shot at by some other JackAss...

Well...Just the idea will slow some of those Flapping Lips down.

"Rap is not so fucking Cool, now."
"Is it, Junior?"


Mokele's point about a small minded racist old woman ordering people around at the point of a gun,
Is a good point.

We don't have much of that.
Why?

Because! People are Animals and the kind of Animal we are rarely does that.

I am back arguing that many people feel helpless.
We feel helpless and having a gun is empowering.

I think that the little old ladies that are carrying their own gun have a sense of competence about them.
I have done a very small survey.

I am so old that when I was a child, Everyone had a gun.
They were no Big Deal.

Shooting some one was a big deal.
Rarely did anyone get shot.

My Mom fired off a few rounds in anger.
She shot a car one time.

Reasonable people will lose their shit and Shoot the car, Shoot the refrigerator, Shoot at the neighbors.
When left alone, we shoot a lot more Things than People.

I am trying to reassure myself.
I Live Here! Ahhhhh!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3534
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:35 am UTC

Soteria wrote: Lots of folks carried for various reasons in the West in the late 1800s, but the "Wild West" such as it was is not really known for civility.


The Wild West is not really known for lots of stuff that actually went on there, and is known for lots of stuff that didn't.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:04 pm UTC

Mokele wrote:
addams wrote:It is a Fact I know from Experience.
People that will Fuck with an unarmed person will not Fuck with an armed one.

If everyone thinks everyone else is armed,
Our Manners Improve!


That's not manners, that's fear.

That's fear that I might get shot for yelling at someone for cutting me off in traffic. Or objecting to someone cutting in line. Or telling someone who's aggressively hitting on my wife to shove off. Or that I might be shot without warning by an off-duty cop for sending a few discreet texts during the never-ending movie previews.

An armed society is not a "polite" one; it's one where everyone is so terrified of each other that they can't voice legitimate grievances (however politely) without fearing for their lives.

Sure, most gun owners won't fly off the handle and shoot people over minor crap, but some definitely do (see link), which makes any sort of objection or confrontation, ironically, a game a Russian Roulette.

People bemoan a society where bystanders refuse to get involved and stop bad crap from happening right in front of them, but this "well-armed society" is the fastest way to make sure bystanders never intervene ever again.


Most gun control in the US is not aimed at cops. In fact, they often have explicit exceptions written into the law for them. Law enforcement does have some attitude problems, and is overly eager to use force in many cases, both off duty and on, but this is not a problem limited to firearms, or one that generalizes to all firearm owners. Folks who are licensed to carry have a lower rate of violence than average...which you would expect, because a violent criminal record usually bars one from being licensed, and past violence is a good predictor of future violence.

quote="Mokele"]It's a bit beyond "that sucks". Sure, not everyone will shoot someone for disagreeing with them. But even now, when a relatively modest percentage of people carry guns in public, it still happens. Increasing the number of armed folks will only increase the problem by giving more assholes guns.

And sure, the possible consequence of jail may deter some, but for "heat of the moment" stuff? And legal penalties won't bring the dead back to life after the fact.[/quote]

I would suggest that anyone who feels that the only thing stopping them from randomly committing murders is having the means at hand should seek counciling. I would also suggest that if you believe that is true for people you know, you should try to help them get help. That's...not ok or normal.

Mokele wrote:Never mind that with these moronic Stand Your Ground laws, all that person needs to do is have even the slightest feeling of being threatened to escape any punishment at all. And if there's the assumption that everyone is armed, then any tiny gesture that could be interpreted as reaching for a hidden gun could be justification, even if there never was a gun.

I'd prefer not to be shot in the face because I put my hands on my hips in exasperation while debating who hit who in a minor fender bender, thanks.


That is not how Stand Your Ground laws work, and I suggest you read them before describing them as moronic, since you evidently do not know what they are.

A feeling of being threatened, absent anything else, does not justify shooting people. This is true regardless of SYG or not. All SYG means is that you do not have a duty to flee before defending yourself. You still need to make the case for self defense, just like you would otherwise. There is not an automatic assumption of self defense for shootings.

Your statement about Bystanders:
Maybe, being armed is empowering.

A little old lady might come to the rescue if she knows she might walk back out, again.


Which means that in order to intervene in a situation or voice an unpopular opinion, you *must* be armed. And that any such disagreement will inevitably devolve into an action movie standoff at best.

That means that the price of interacting in a society is the willingness to carry a deadly weapon and kill people. And if, for moral or other reasons you can't/won't? Enjoy life as the punching bag of anyone who will?


It's not a price, it's an ability. You CAN get involved when othere people are threatened, carrying or not. That's the case now. Sometimes people do, sometimes people don't. Fear can be one reason they don't, sure. The example little old lady is more likely to be victimized, due to perceived vulnerability. Biological differences are reduced in effect with firearms. Not entirely eliminated, maybe, but it's progress in the right direction.

And what if grandma *is* the idiot / asshole? They do grow old eventually, you know. And they don't usually become more in-step with modern society as they do.

I'd prefer not to see Armed Asshole Grandma waving a gun at an inter-racial couple and screaming about purity while dropping racial slurs.


Doing this in public is an excellent way to get locked up. I am reasonably sure we already have a number of laws against doing this.

Additionally, violence is overwelmingly not committed by grandmas, but instead by young males. Demographics DOES indicate that people are less likely to engage in violence as they age. They may not be perfectly in step with modern society, but they've mostly learned to deal with that.

Soteria wrote:I thought Gone with the Wind made a decent argument for why an armed society might actually be pretty civil. Not because someone might draw their gone and shoot you dead (that would be murder and you'd probably end up hanged), but knowing that you might face serious consequences for any egregious insult would probably make a lot of people more polite. But that's really more about dueling culture specifically than actually carrying guns. Lots of folks carried for various reasons in the West in the late 1800s, but the "Wild West" such as it was is not really known for civility.


Rates of violence and murder were extremely low. The big gunfight that went down in history, the "battle at OK corral", had three fatalities. Shit, nowadays three fatalities doesn't even make the news unless it's in a nice part of town, where the rich folk live.

User avatar
Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Gun Control

Postby Mokele » Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:33 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Most gun control in the US is not aimed at cops. In fact, they often have explicit exceptions written into the law for them. Law enforcement does have some attitude problems, and is overly eager to use force in many cases, both off duty and on, but this is not a problem limited to firearms, or one that generalizes to all firearm owners. Folks who are licensed to carry have a lower rate of violence than average...which you would expect, because a violent criminal record usually bars one from being licensed, and past violence is a good predictor of future violence.


My point was that someone who'd no doubt passed all sorts of background checks and had tons of training was still so unstable and violent that he did this. If so, what hope is there for the rest of the populace.

Tyndmyr wrote:I would suggest that anyone who feels that the only thing stopping them from randomly committing murders is having the means at hand should seek counciling. I would also suggest that if you believe that is true for people you know, you should try to help them get help. That's...not ok or normal.


Let's say that only 1 in 10,000 people is like this.

How many people do you pass on the street, or sit in a restaurant with, or sit in a theater with, or drive alongside, every week?

1 in 10,000 sounds small until you have a sample size of 300,000. How many weeks until you reach that number? Not many.

Tyndmyr wrote:
Mokele wrote:Never mind that with these moronic Stand Your Ground laws, all that person needs to do is have even the slightest feeling of being threatened to escape any punishment at all. And if there's the assumption that everyone is armed, then any tiny gesture that could be interpreted as reaching for a hidden gun could be justification, even if there never was a gun.

I'd prefer not to be shot in the face because I put my hands on my hips in exasperation while debating who hit who in a minor fender bender, thanks.


That is not how Stand Your Ground laws work, and I suggest you read them before describing them as moronic, since you evidently do not know what they are.

A feeling of being threatened, absent anything else, does not justify shooting people. This is true regardless of SYG or not. All SYG means is that you do not have a duty to flee before defending yourself. You still need to make the case for self defense, just like you would otherwise. There is not an automatic assumption of self defense for shootings.


Apparently, the threshhold for "self defense" is "they had dark skin, and were carrying iced tea and skittles". So yeah, there pretty much is an automatic assumption of self defense and legal immunity, so long as the shooter is at least 5 color shades lighter than the victim.

Furthermore, if they thought I was going for a gun, even if I wasn't, that constitutes a reasonable basis for self defense, and any lawyer could get them off. Legally, it doesn't matter that I wasn't *actually* a threat, only that he had reasonable justification for believing I was.

Besides, all of this doesn't matter if I'm dead. In a world where *everyone* is carrying, it's very easy to assume the other guy is going for his gun, and that you need to shoot first to protect yourself. It creates a permanent tension to every dispute, makes everything potentially lethal.

Tyndmyr wrote:It's not a price, it's an ability. You CAN get involved when othere people are threatened, carrying or not. That's the case now. Sometimes people do, sometimes people don't. Fear can be one reason they don't, sure. The example little old lady is more likely to be victimized, due to perceived vulnerability. Biological differences are reduced in effect with firearms. Not entirely eliminated, maybe, but it's progress in the right direction.


They reduce differences in the wrong way. A bullet kills everyone, so rather than make everyone strong, widespread guns make everyone weak. If everyone has the ability to end your life with a thought and a gesture, how does that help? Before the little old lady couldn't intervene because she's weak, now she can't intervene because she'll just get shot in the head. And now people who previously *could* intervene because of a combination of strength and morality can't without risking fatal consequences.

Widespread guns don't benefit the weak, and strip the knight of all her shining armor. It makes everyone weak.

Tyndmyr wrote:
And what if grandma *is* the idiot / asshole? They do grow old eventually, you know. And they don't usually become more in-step with modern society as they do.

I'd prefer not to see Armed Asshole Grandma waving a gun at an inter-racial couple and screaming about purity while dropping racial slurs.


Doing this in public is an excellent way to get locked up. I am reasonably sure we already have a number of laws against doing this.

Additionally, violence is overwelmingly not committed by grandmas, but instead by young males. Demographics DOES indicate that people are less likely to engage in violence as they age. They may not be perfectly in step with modern society, but they've mostly learned to deal with that.


Laws don't matter to dead people. I don't want my death avenged by the legal system, I want to not be dead in the first place.

Dismissing age, what of violent bigots (racists, homophobes, rapists, etc.)? For folks in assorted minority groups, a heavily armed populace, many of whom hate them, is far from a neutral proposition, even if they themselves can be armed.

Remember, the NRA was all for gun control when the Black Panthers started arming themselves. And the entire reason the second amendment was added was to allow armed local militias in the South to quash slave uprisings and preserve slavery.
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

Soteria
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Soteria » Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:59 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
Soteria wrote: Lots of folks carried for various reasons in the West in the late 1800s, but the "Wild West" such as it was is not really known for civility.


The Wild West is not really known for lots of stuff that actually went on there, and is known for lots of stuff that didn't.


Tyndmyr wrote:Rates of violence and murder were extremely low. The big gunfight that went down in history, the "battle at OK corral", had three fatalities. Shit, nowadays three fatalities doesn't even make the news unless it's in a nice part of town, where the rich folk live.


Reported rates of violence and murder, you mean? Assuming that all or even most violent incidents were reported in an era with spotty telegraph coverage is pretty unrealistic, I think.

And you mention that 3 fatalities wouldn't make the news--what town are you thinking of? One with a population of around 5000, like Tombstone in 1881? Homicide rates are measured per 100,000, meaning that if those three were the only men who died all year (and assuming we count those as homicides), it would have a homicide rate of 60. If you pay attention to authors who talk about how peaceful the old West was, you'll notice that they usually don't mention how few people there were.

Of course, we know that they weren't the only violent deaths that year since one of the Earp brothers was later murdered, and another was shot and wounded. I never claimed that gunfights were common--I said it wasn't a very civil era. You and Edgar made what I think is a common error--point out that the legend of the gunfight is exaggerated, and conclude implicitly that it was a peaceful time.

I'd also like to point out that most major towns eventually banned both concealed and open carry in an attempt to curtail gun violence and presumably to attract more wealth. Gun violence was a problem--many men owned and carried guns to protect themselves on the trail or for hunting or other reasons, but towns often banned them inside the city limits.

http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/sc ... /guns.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/2 ... n-than-now

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:21 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:38 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:44 pm UTC

Soteria;
http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/sc ... /guns.html

That was entertaining reading.
So true. So true.

I can't find anything on the internet.
But; I think it is True.

Men have been Shot for Snoring.
This is the way I heard it.
The men slept in BunkHouses.

They got Tired.
Their work was not a walk in the Park.

The next day they were going to do it, again.
More than once, a man was shot for Snoring.

It was called Justifiable Homicide.
The AssHole had been warned.

It's Horrible and It's Funny.

What do people get shot for, today?
Back talking to a Police?

See?
It's our Mouths.
I swear it is.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:52 pm UTC

Soteria wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:
Soteria wrote: Lots of folks carried for various reasons in the West in the late 1800s, but the "Wild West" such as it was is not really known for civility.


The Wild West is not really known for lots of stuff that actually went on there, and is known for lots of stuff that didn't.


Tyndmyr wrote:Rates of violence and murder were extremely low. The big gunfight that went down in history, the "battle at OK corral", had three fatalities. Shit, nowadays three fatalities doesn't even make the news unless it's in a nice part of town, where the rich folk live.


Reported rates of violence and murder, you mean? Assuming that all or even most violent incidents were reported in an era with spotty telegraph coverage is pretty unrealistic, I think.

And you mention that 3 fatalities wouldn't make the news--what town are you thinking of? One with a population of around 5000, like Tombstone in 1881? Homicide rates are measured per 100,000, meaning that if those three were the only men who died all year (and assuming we count those as homicides), it would have a homicide rate of 60. If you pay attention to authors who talk about how peaceful the old West was, you'll notice that they usually don't mention how few people there were.

Of course, we know that they weren't the only violent deaths that year since one of the Earp brothers was later murdered, and another was shot and wounded. I never claimed that gunfights were common--I said it wasn't a very civil era. You and Edgar made what I think is a common error--point out that the legend of the gunfight is exaggerated, and conclude implicitly that it was a peaceful time.

I'd also like to point out that most major towns eventually banned both concealed and open carry in an attempt to curtail gun violence and presumably to attract more wealth. Gun violence was a problem--many men owned and carried guns to protect themselves on the trail or for hunting or other reasons, but towns often banned them inside the city limits.

http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/sc ... /guns.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/2 ... n-than-now


The above incidents happened as a RESULT of gun control, ironically enough. I live between Baltimore and DC. Three people dying isn't really news unless something funky happens. Oh it happened at the zoo, and a PANDA could have been shot? News. Half a dozen people actually got shot? Not news. Unless they were white and rich, of course.

As for overall rates, Dodge City, etc had a murder rate of about .6 per year. That's pretty decent by present standards. Sure, you could cherry pick out the one town in the most violent year ever, but that's not really accurate. Murder is a crime that's historically pretty well reported. Perfect, nah, but it's going to be far more consistant than most metrics you can collect.

As for if an area is civil or not, well...a lack of violence/murder would generally be a decent measure of civility. Murder and violent crime is usually considered to be fairly rude. Do you have better metrics for demonstrating that firearms caused incivility in the old west?

Brace wrote:Gentrification never changes. How horrifying.


People are people. Human nature really isn't THAT different than it was in bygone ages. Evolution is a slow force, and humans have relatively decent generation lengths. There isn't that many ancestors separating us from the old west, or from the middle ages, even. Many of the same mistakes have been made over and over again in history. Little depressing sometimes, I agree. I don't think it's inevitible that we repeat the mistakes of the past, but it's definitely a very real danger.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:10 pm UTC

Yes.
Yes, to every word of that.

Humans have the same capacity for Poor Behavior today that Humans had a long time ago.
Every generation makes the same mistakes the generations before it did; With a Twist.

Every generation has people that answer the questions of living in Wonderful, Peaceful and Wholesome ways.

Sometimes, it is Not a majority.
The Majority swing this way and that way.

There have always been people that get the Right answer, right away.
Those people have left clues, directions and encouraging words.

We can live well with guns.
We can live well without guns.

It is trickier with guns, than it is without guns.
We better start being more thoughtful and polite.

And; I suppose, we as a Nation, had better start practicing.

If we can't live without guns,
we can require that people know how to use them.

Back to Mandatory Military Service for all Citizens.
We will learn safe handling practices during service.

Hey! We might learn how to be well mannered, too.
Two Birds with One Stone.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Soteria
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Soteria » Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:17 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Soteria wrote:Reported rates of violence and murder, you mean? Assuming that all or even most violent incidents were reported in an era with spotty telegraph coverage is pretty unrealistic, I think.

And you mention that 3 fatalities wouldn't make the news--what town are you thinking of? One with a population of around 5000, like Tombstone in 1881? Homicide rates are measured per 100,000, meaning that if those three were the only men who died all year (and assuming we count those as homicides), it would have a homicide rate of 60. If you pay attention to authors who talk about how peaceful the old West was, you'll notice that they usually don't mention how few people there were.

Of course, we know that they weren't the only violent deaths that year since one of the Earp brothers was later murdered, and another was shot and wounded. I never claimed that gunfights were common--I said it wasn't a very civil era. You and Edgar made what I think is a common error--point out that the legend of the gunfight is exaggerated, and conclude implicitly that it was a peaceful time.

I'd also like to point out that most major towns eventually banned both concealed and open carry in an attempt to curtail gun violence and presumably to attract more wealth. Gun violence was a problem--many men owned and carried guns to protect themselves on the trail or for hunting or other reasons, but towns often banned them inside the city limits.

http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/sc ... /guns.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/2 ... n-than-now


The above incidents happened as a RESULT of gun control, ironically enough. I live between Baltimore and DC. Three people dying isn't really news unless something funky happens. Oh it happened at the zoo, and a PANDA could have been shot? News. Half a dozen people actually got shot? Not news. Unless they were white and rich, of course.

As for overall rates, Dodge City, etc had a murder rate of about .6 per year. That's pretty decent by present standards. Sure, you could cherry pick out the one town in the most violent year ever, but that's not really accurate. Murder is a crime that's historically pretty well reported. Perfect, nah, but it's going to be far more consistant than most metrics you can collect.

As for if an area is civil or not, well...a lack of violence/murder would generally be a decent measure of civility. Murder and violent crime is usually considered to be fairly rude. Do you have better metrics for demonstrating that firearms caused incivility in the old west?


Surely you mean "DESPITE" gun control? If you have some evidence that gun control laws caused that gunfight, I'd be interested to hear it. My understanding is that it was a result of an ongoing feud, and I don't think I really cherry picked an event--I just went with the one you provided. If you want to make the point that gun control is often ineffective, I'll concede that. My point is that More Guns != Politer and Safer Society. But to continue with Tombstone, apparently there were 5 more deaths that same year. If we assume that I'm somehow cherry picking the one bad year, and no one else died over a 20 year period, that's still a murder rate of 8 assuming an average population of 5000.

http://www.history.co.uk/biographies/wyatt-earp

Where are you getting the murder rate of .6 for Dodge City? According to http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf (he's trying to make the point that the town was quite peaceful), there were 45 homicides from 1870 - 1885, or 1.5 a year. At the time the city had a population of less than 2000, as far as I can tell. That's a murder rate of what, 75? And on the subject of Dodge City, here's a description of a good weekend:

In June 1879, the Ford County Globe reported, "The boys and girls across the deadline had a high old time last Friday. They sang and danced, and fought and bit, and cut and had a good time generally, making music for the entire settlement. Our reporter summed up five knockdowns, three broken heads, two cuts and several incidental bruises. Unfortunately none of the injuries will prove fatal.

My emphasis. http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ks-dodgecity3.html

Dodge City used to be that way and there was a reign of terror in the town, until finally the twelve organized vigilantes became desperate and took affairs in their own hands. They notified six of the leading desperadoes that they must be out of the place by a certain day and hour. Four went, but two were defiant and remained. When the specified hour had passed, twelve double-barreled shotguns were loaded with buckshot, and in a body the vigilantes hunted these men down as they would mad dogs and riddled each one through and through with the big shot! It was an awful thing to do, but it seems to have been absolutely necessary and the only way of establishing law and order. Our friends at Fort Dodge tell us that the place is now quite decent, and that a man can safely walk in the streets without pistols and a belt full of cartridges.

From a letter written by an army wife. http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ks-dodg ... ltext.html The gun control laws came later, as a response to the frequent violence. I would not say that guns created the violence--that was probably the booze, whores, gambling, and general culture. My point is that guns did not make society more civil or polite. Otherwise, why did so many towns find it necessary to get rid of them?

Edit: Adding this just because it's a great quote:

January 14, 1931 - Dodge City Daily Globe
"Ham Bell says the idea that he never drew a gun on a man when he was sheriff here in the early days is all wrong. He never shot a man, he says, and that was mainly because he was always careful to draw his gun in plenty of time before the other man drew his. 'If I'd never drawn a gun,' he says, 'I wouldn't have lived a week.'"

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ks-dodg ... text6.html

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Wed Sep 03, 2014 1:00 am UTC

oh, You make some good arguments.
But; It is a little late to turn back The Clock.

It is a different day and age.
People being People there are to this very day,

Riotous people that mess up The Night for (jesus!) Miles in Every Direction!
Bar Brawls still happen.
Does no one remember the Mosh Pit?

I did not indulge.
I saw men.
Mostly men, after playing Mosh Pit.

What the Hell?
People willingly get the crap beat out of themselves and their best friends.

It has something to do with Sex.
I am Not willing to do Any of the Research.
I don't want to know.

Guns?
We have guns.

We can learn good manners.
We are stumbling into a time of, "Call before you come over."

Call.
Call with a Cell Phone.
Call with a clear strong voice, "My Cell Phone is Dead. Call My Mom!"

See?
To be fair; as fucked up as we are,
We are not as ill mannered and ignorant as the Regular Joe born 1850.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

operagost
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby operagost » Wed Sep 10, 2014 8:53 pm UTC

Soteria wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:
Soteria wrote: Lots of folks carried for various reasons in the West in the late 1800s, but the "Wild West" such as it was is not really known for civility.


The Wild West is not really known for lots of stuff that actually went on there, and is known for lots of stuff that didn't.


Tyndmyr wrote:Rates of violence and murder were extremely low. The big gunfight that went down in history, the "battle at OK corral", had three fatalities. Shit, nowadays three fatalities doesn't even make the news unless it's in a nice part of town, where the rich folk live.


Reported rates of violence and murder, you mean? Assuming that all or even most violent incidents were reported in an era with spotty telegraph coverage is pretty unrealistic, I think.

And you mention that 3 fatalities wouldn't make the news--what town are you thinking of? One with a population of around 5000, like Tombstone in 1881? Homicide rates are measured per 100,000, meaning that if those three were the only men who died all year (and assuming we count those as homicides), it would have a homicide rate of 60. If you pay attention to authors who talk about how peaceful the old West was, you'll notice that they usually don't mention how few people there were.

Of course, we know that they weren't the only violent deaths that year since one of the Earp brothers was later murdered, and another was shot and wounded. I never claimed that gunfights were common--I said it wasn't a very civil era. You and Edgar made what I think is a common error--point out that the legend of the gunfight is exaggerated, and conclude implicitly that it was a peaceful time.

I'd also like to point out that most major towns eventually banned both concealed and open carry in an attempt to curtail gun violence and presumably to attract more wealth. Gun violence was a problem--many men owned and carried guns to protect themselves on the trail or for hunting or other reasons, but towns often banned them inside the city limits.

http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/sc ... /guns.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/2 ... n-than-now

You do remember why the Earps had that gunfight, right? The "cowboys" were not good guys, but in the end were killed just because they were carrying firearms in town.

Soteria
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Soteria » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:52 am UTC

You do remember why the Earps had that gunfight, right? The "cowboys" were not good guys, but in the end were killed just because they were carrying firearms in town.


Who said anything about good guys? And no, they weren't. They were killed because they wanted a fight.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:12 pm UTC

Soteria wrote:
You do remember why the Earps had that gunfight, right? The "cowboys" were not good guys, but in the end were killed just because they were carrying firearms in town.


Who said anything about good guys? And no, they weren't. They were killed because they wanted a fight.


This is akin to saying that "no, people in the US aren't killed because of the war on drugs, they are killed because they want a fight". The actual law over which the confrontation happened was regarding carrying firearms in town. The lawmen were attempting to disarm them. By force. Given that it lead to the most notorious gunfight in the west, followed by a campaign of assination and ambush, it...would make a very poor poster child for gun control.

Now, were there politeness issues beforehand? Certainly. But shooting one another dead was an escalation, not a cure.

However, it would be overstating the case to generalize from one small town frontier example to all gun control ever. Certainly, the old west was not much like the modern hollywood portrayal of it, but...much more boring, with guns occupying a far more utilitarian role. If there was a violence problem in the old west, it was almost certainly the inter-society conflict with the native americans. That WAS a huge problem....but I digress. That wasn't a politeness issue cased by guns(though I dare say that if the natives had not been so outmatched in the long run, history might have gone differently).

If we want to correlate politeness and guns in the modern era, we need to define what we're looking at. Is politeness merely crime, or is it something more? Surely, NYC has a reputation for rudeness that goes beyond a mere perception of crime. Likewise, the swiss are not noted for rudeness, despite a policy of keeping firearms at home for military purposes. Now, they don't really carry them everywhere, but general access to firearms is certainly quite high....but they do not seem particularly rude or violent. Surely the same is true of Norway, which has the highest private ownership of firearms in europe. They're a pretty affable sort, and not terribly violent.

The US, well, we vary a lot. Quite high on firearms overall, but significant variation in ownership exists within the US. Likewise, perceptions of rudeness.

I suspect that rudeness is the fuzziest definition of the lot, but on a state by state level, surveys do exist, such as the one at http://twentytwowords.com/maps-showing-how-americans-feel-about-different-states-in-the-u-s-15-pictures/, and you can further extrapolate from the "nicest" map as well(the two maps do line up fairly well with each other). Similar maps exist for firearm ownership, as shown at http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BmJ0sd4XzTA/UBGlpDVugcI/AAAAAAAAACE/jE3NiGKEPZY/s640/StateGuns.jpg*. And bam, we have correlation between perceived niceness and gun ownership rates, with the rudest states all being quite low on firearm ownership.

Now, obviously, correlation is not causality. The most likely explanation for causality is simply one of urban vs rural. Urban areas are generally perceived as ruder, and also trend lower in firearm ownership. So, the old "an armed society is a polite society" appears to be true, but mostly because of shared causes.

*Actual data culled from wikipedia, as listead on the site, but maps offer a nice quick visual estimate.

Soteria
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Soteria » Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:36 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Soteria wrote:
You do remember why the Earps had that gunfight, right? The "cowboys" were not good guys, but in the end were killed just because they were carrying firearms in town.


Who said anything about good guys? And no, they weren't. They were killed because they wanted a fight.


This is akin to saying that "no, people in the US aren't killed because of the war on drugs, they are killed because they want a fight". The actual law over which the confrontation happened was regarding carrying firearms in town. The lawmen were attempting to disarm them. By force. Given that it lead to the most notorious gunfight in the west, followed by a campaign of assination and ambush, it...would make a very poor poster child for gun control.

Now, were there politeness issues beforehand? Certainly. But shooting one another dead was an escalation, not a cure.


Bad analogy. They were carrying the guns specifically because they wanted a fight over the politeness issues, as you call them. An out-of-town witness said this at the trial:

I saw four or five men standing in front of the O. K. Corral on October 26th, about two o’clock in the afternoon, talking of some trouble they had had with Virgil Earp, and they made threats at the time that on meeting him they would kill him on sight. Some one of the party spoke up at the time and said: “That they would kill the whole party of Earps when they met them.” I then walked up the street and made inquiry as to who Virgil Earp and the Earps were. A man on the street pointed out Virgil Earp to me and told me he was the city marshal. I went over and called him one side, and told him of the threats that I had overheard this party make. One of the men that made the threats had a bandage around his head at the time, and the day of the funeral he was pointed out to me as Isaac Clanton.


So in your analogy to drugs the people killed would have had to somehow weaponize their drugs and attack the cops with them. I'm saying that the gun control law was almost completely irrelevant in this case--the cowboys would have carried their guns with or without the law, and the fight would have happened with or without the gun law. It almost certainly would have happened on different terms, but the bad blood between them went much farther back than that day.

You cannot say that the law was the cause when the cowboys had said (repeatedly) that they planned to kill the Earps when they saw them. Saying "the confrontation was over the law" is an extremely shallow view of the situation. The confrontation was that both groups wanted the other group dead or gone. I might add that it doesn't seem like anyone at the time was saying, "Man, if it weren't for that gun ban, this would never have happened." Ironically, you're doing the same thing anti-gun people do today--blame something other than the people involved for violence. "If we could get rid of guns, this wouldn't have happened." "If we didn't have that law, this wouldn't have happened." How about, "If those guys hadn't made a series of decisions that led them down that path, this wouldn't have happened," instead?

The point I was making with the comment about the Old West not being polite is that there's not a lot of evidence for guns having that effect. Most towns seem to have eventually banned guns, which is evidence that if guns make for a polite society, those people thought they had too much of a good thing.

If we want to correlate politeness and guns in the modern era, we need to define what we're looking at. Is politeness merely crime, or is it something more? Surely, NYC has a reputation for rudeness that goes beyond a mere perception of crime. Likewise, the swiss are not noted for rudeness, despite a policy of keeping firearms at home for military purposes. Now, they don't really carry them everywhere, but general access to firearms is certainly quite high....but they do not seem particularly rude or violent. Surely the same is true of Norway, which has the highest private ownership of firearms in europe. They're a pretty affable sort, and not terribly violent.

The US, well, we vary a lot. Quite high on firearms overall, but significant variation in ownership exists within the US. Likewise, perceptions of rudeness.


I don't know about Norway, but Danes can be pretty rude if you do the wrong thing. Try walking in the bike lane.

I suspect that rudeness is the fuzziest definition of the lot, but on a state by state level, surveys do exist, such as the one at http://twentytwowords.com/maps-showing-how-americans-feel-about-different-states-in-the-u-s-15-pictures/, and you can further extrapolate from the "nicest" map as well(the two maps do line up fairly well with each other). Similar maps exist for firearm ownership, as shown at http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BmJ0sd4XzTA/UBGlpDVugcI/AAAAAAAAACE/jE3NiGKEPZY/s640/StateGuns.jpg*. And bam, we have correlation between perceived niceness and gun ownership rates, with the rudest states all being quite low on firearm ownership.

Now, obviously, correlation is not causality. The most likely explanation for causality is simply one of urban vs rural. Urban areas are generally perceived as ruder, and also trend lower in firearm ownership. So, the old "an armed society is a polite society" appears to be true, but mostly because of shared causes.

*Actual data culled from wikipedia, as listead on the site, but maps offer a nice quick visual estimate.


Eh, it's a pretty weak correlation. I agree with your final statement--there's other causes. Interestingly, perceived intelligence appears to be just as strongly correlated. And ironically, there doesn't seem to be any correlation in that map between gun ownership and gun deaths.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:40 am UTC

Tyndmyr;
Thank you for the maps.
I think it is so funny.

The very last map showed what states the people of the US want to Kick Out.
Texas and California. So, funny.

If Texas and California stopped all the competition would ours become a Happy and Peacful Nation?
Why do The People want to kick California out? Valley Girls? Valley Girls with Guns? (makes sense)

It is funny.
Gun control is serious.

Most of what people do is funny.
When seen from a distance.

Up close and personal, That Valley Girl and her tatted up Tough Guy boyfriend are a little off putting.
Just think...That girl is armed and not very dangerous as long as you talk nice to her boyfriend.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:26 pm UTC

Let's post small rants about which states we don't like!

No, let's post about the topic.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Soteria wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Soteria wrote:
You do remember why the Earps had that gunfight, right? The "cowboys" were not good guys, but in the end were killed just because they were carrying firearms in town.


Who said anything about good guys? And no, they weren't. They were killed because they wanted a fight.


This is akin to saying that "no, people in the US aren't killed because of the war on drugs, they are killed because they want a fight". The actual law over which the confrontation happened was regarding carrying firearms in town. The lawmen were attempting to disarm them. By force. Given that it lead to the most notorious gunfight in the west, followed by a campaign of assination and ambush, it...would make a very poor poster child for gun control.

Now, were there politeness issues beforehand? Certainly. But shooting one another dead was an escalation, not a cure.


Bad analogy. They were carrying the guns specifically because they wanted a fight over the politeness issues, as you call them. An out-of-town witness said this at the trial:

I saw four or five men standing in front of the O. K. Corral on October 26th, about two o’clock in the afternoon, talking of some trouble they had had with Virgil Earp, and they made threats at the time that on meeting him they would kill him on sight. Some one of the party spoke up at the time and said: “That they would kill the whole party of Earps when they met them.” I then walked up the street and made inquiry as to who Virgil Earp and the Earps were. A man on the street pointed out Virgil Earp to me and told me he was the city marshal. I went over and called him one side, and told him of the threats that I had overheard this party make. One of the men that made the threats had a bandage around his head at the time, and the day of the funeral he was pointed out to me as Isaac Clanton.


So in your analogy to drugs the people killed would have had to somehow weaponize their drugs and attack the cops with them. I'm saying that the gun control law was almost completely irrelevant in this case--the cowboys would have carried their guns with or without the law, and the fight would have happened with or without the gun law. It almost certainly would have happened on different terms, but the bad blood between them went much farther back than that day.

You cannot say that the law was the cause when the cowboys had said (repeatedly) that they planned to kill the Earps when they saw them. Saying "the confrontation was over the law" is an extremely shallow view of the situation. The confrontation was that both groups wanted the other group dead or gone. I might add that it doesn't seem like anyone at the time was saying, "Man, if it weren't for that gun ban, this would never have happened." Ironically, you're doing the same thing anti-gun people do today--blame something other than the people involved for violence. "If we could get rid of guns, this wouldn't have happened." "If we didn't have that law, this wouldn't have happened." How about, "If those guys hadn't made a series of decisions that led them down that path, this wouldn't have happened," instead?

The point I was making with the comment about the Old West not being polite is that there's not a lot of evidence for guns having that effect. Most towns seem to have eventually banned guns, which is evidence that if guns make for a polite society, those people thought they had too much of a good thing.


Timeline, dude. Things that happened AFTER the gunfight do not support your claim. Of COURSE there was bad blood after the gunfight. But the deaths as a result of the gunfight could not have caused the gunfight. Yeah, maybe it would have happened anyways for some other reason, and maybe it wouldn't have, but the cause of the shootout was overtly over disarming them. There are a LOT of groups that squabble and want each other gone, yet don't kill each other. Accepting this outcome as a foregone conclusion is unnecessary.

Many towns had restrictions on guns, yes. Quite a few didn't, but really, people are basically the same then as today. Just because something was a somewhat popular opinion doesn't mean it was correct.

I don't know about Norway, but Danes can be pretty rude if you do the wrong thing. Try walking in the bike lane.


I dare say that danish bikers do not tend to be carrying a great deal of firearms. Not seeing the support here.

Eh, it's a pretty weak correlation. I agree with your final statement--there's other causes. Interestingly, perceived intelligence appears to be just as strongly correlated. And ironically, there doesn't seem to be any correlation in that map between gun ownership and gun deaths.


It's a pretty weak correlation indeed, but the top ten states with most deaths clearly lean to low-firearm ownership rate states. However, the variation is extremely high, with a couple states with high firearm ownership rates also in the top ten. This of course indicates that other factors dominate the firearm death rate.

Additionally, to demonstrate overall rudeness, you'd probably want to go off overall death rate, not merely firearm death rate, as killing people via other means is also generally considered rude.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:52 am UTC

Additionally, to demonstrate overall rudeness, you'd probably want to go off overall death rate, not merely firearm death rate, as killing people via other means is also generally considered rude.

ok.
I'll buy the premise.

But...Why are War Heroes ummm. Heroes?
They have a stated mission, "To Kill People."

When they do it they become the Paragon of Culture.
How Come?

If killing is rude, Why do we reward it?

oh, Thought...
It is not ok to kill your own enemy or family or friend.
It IS ok to do it for someone else..

Soldier is a legitimate profession.
It may be the worlds second oldest perfection.
I have heard it likened to the world's oldest.

What do Prostitutes and Soldiers have to do with Gun Control?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5765
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:37 pm UTC

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/s ... esentation
Can we infer anything about open carry from the shootings of minorities by officers? We know that police give armed white people more time than minorities before gunning them down. We see examples of the disparity between how the public reacts to minority vs whites. Is it the polices fault for overreacting to what is essentially a swatting prank call or is it the publics fault for being panicked racists?

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:10 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:36 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:31 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/ohio-walmart-police-slideshow-active-shooter-presentation
Can we infer anything about open carry from the shootings of minorities by officers? We know that police give armed white people more time than minorities before gunning them down. We see examples of the disparity between how the public reacts to minority vs whites. Is it the polices fault for overreacting to what is essentially a swatting prank call or is it the publics fault for being panicked racists?


Yes.

I'm perfectly comfortable blaming both overreacting parties. Obviously BS or false calls to police should result in the caller being held responsible for his part. However, it also falls on the police to not get all killy because one random dude is scared.

On a side note, the term "active shooter" seems a bit redundant. Is "passive shooter" a valid classification? I know it's gained popularity, but I don't know that it adds information over "shooter".

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:37 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:36 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5765
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:20 pm UTC

what about the sincere but false beliefs that led to the 911 call? Aren't you letting the public slide here?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:23 pm UTC

Brace wrote:Well, they stop being active when they're finished. So James Holmes would just be a shooter, whereas he was an Active Shooter for the duration of the Aurora shooting. The distinction is necessary so that you can continue to apply the label "shooter" to them forever after. It's part of the general tendency to treat criminal and other pejorative labels as nouns for types of people in order to distance and dehumanize, I think. James Holmes doesn't get to go back to being James Holmes, he's now a shooter. Specifically, a shooter, not a man who shot people.


Makes sense, I guess. I'm comfortable with simply using labels like 'murderer' or 'killer', which already seem to enjoy significant use, and seem less like a euphemism.

sardia wrote:what about the sincere but false beliefs that led to the 911 call? Aren't you letting the public slide here?


It depends on the apparent validity of the threat. If someone apparently has good cause to feel fear, well...good faith calls without complete information are one thing.

I believe this case has outright false information like that he was loading the gun, though. Also, that he was pointing it at children, while video shows him standing still, with the rifle at his side. Passing along false information that escalates the scenario gets into sketchy ground. Certainly, when the whole ball of wax is invented, as with swatting cases, the caller should be held accountable. There might be some edge cases where it's hard to tell if the misinformation was intentional, of course, but when you've got video that shows the caller was inventing stuff from whole cloth, it seems like at least a little blame falls on the caller.

Of course, fears can be invalid for other reasons. If your fear stems mainly from race, etc, and not, yknow, actual actions...ya, maybe you shouldn't be calling 911 over that.

'course, treating this like an ongoing shooting situation when the only actual thing is "some dude feels threatened" is also a horrible overreaction. So, blame them too. Bad reporting will happen. It doesn't give the police license to kill whoever.

Euphonium
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: Inland Empire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Euphonium » Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:46 pm UTC

Soteria wrote:I thought Gone with the Wind made a decent argument for why an armed society might actually be pretty civil. Not because someone might draw their gone and shoot you dead (that would be murder and you'd probably end up hanged), but knowing that you might face serious consequences for any egregious insulta completely disproportionate response.

This is supposed to be a good thing?

Anyway, you're seriously using a slave society as an example of how we should model ourselves? Because the presence of slavery and the social customs of the society that had it cannot be separated from one another--they're intimately intertwined.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:16 pm UTC

Well, it's also an example from, yknow, fiction. So...we need not accept it as a great example of realism. Certainly, I do not think that slavery was being argued as essential to politeness or anything else.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5765
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:35 pm UTC

Doesn't current precedent gives a lot of leeway to sincere false belief? Like if someone banged on the door of the wrong home and you shot them. You had a belief that they were dangerous and you were in danger. The belief is sincere even though it is false. Most case you get off Scott free if it ever went to trial. Which it doesn't. I don't see a legal solution. I mean you essentially said if you're a secret racist, don't act on your racists fears. Did that caller even feel remorse that he got a man killed? We are stuck with having uncomfortable conversations on racism in America. Probably the best solution.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:47 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:
Soteria wrote:I thought Gone with the Wind made a decent argument for why an armed society might actually be pretty civil. Not because someone might draw their gone and shoot you dead (that would be murder and you'd probably end up hanged), but knowing that you might face serious consequences for any egregious insulta completely disproportionate response.

This is supposed to be a good thing?

Anyway, you're seriously using a slave society as an example of how we should model ourselves? Because the presence of slavery and the social customs of the society that had it cannot be separated from one another--they're intimately intertwined.

Wait a moment.
I think you are misrepresenting that shit Wrong.

To be polite and careful with other people is Not a product of American Pre-Civil War Slavery.

To deny how much easier it is to be Polite and Noble
while having a bunch of people at your beck and call would be stupid.

Guns in the Pre-Civil war south….
What the Hell does that have to do with Guns in the 21st Century?

The guns are different.
The way they are used is different.
The way they are transported is different.

The people that use the machine today are not the same people
that either did or did not use the machine then.

Those people are interesting.
Can we learn anything about good Public Relations from them?
They are All dead, now. We will be, soon enough.

Between now and death,
What is the Collective Wisdom on gun ownership and use?

What is legal?
Is an important question.

What do you Want to do with a gun?
That is another important question.

Who has The Right to question you about your gun?

The guy that resisters it?
The guy that sells you your ammo?

The guys at the shooting range?
The target instructor?

The local Police?
Any other Police?

How do you feel about talking to Strangers?
A gun is, sort of, personal. Who is this guy?

Just because some AssHole has on a Uniform does not mean he is an officer of the court.
If I know him, and he is a Police guy in Uniform….Then I might talk to him…You?

Is it Polite to talk to the Police?

If I want to talk to them, they might put some effort in and talk to me.
If they want to talk to me. For some reason, I don’t seem to have a choice.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Euphonium
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: Inland Empire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Euphonium » Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:16 pm UTC

addams wrote:
Euphonium wrote:
Soteria wrote:I thought Gone with the Wind made a decent argument for why an armed society might actually be pretty civil. Not because someone might draw their gone and shoot you dead (that would be murder and you'd probably end up hanged), but knowing that you might face serious consequences for any egregious insulta completely disproportionate response.

This is supposed to be a good thing?

Anyway, you're seriously using a slave society as an example of how we should model ourselves? Because the presence of slavery and the social customs of the society that had it cannot be separated from one another--they're intimately intertwined.

Wait a moment.
I think you are misrepresenting that shit Wrong.

To be polite and careful with other people is Not a product of American Pre-Civil War Slavery.


No, but the specific complex of it depicted in Gone With the Wind is.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Sat Sep 27, 2014 2:24 am UTC

That was a weird movie.
I made it all the way through it One Time.

It took us Six Hours.
We had to talk to attempt to figure out what was going on.

The famous Line, "Frankly Scarlet; I don't give a damn."
I was looking foreword to that scene.

By the time that scene came onto the screen...
Frankly, ....I did not give a Damn.

That movie?
I have to understand that movie to understand the relationship between good manners and guns?

Fuck!
There has Got to be a different, if not better way!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Soteria
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Soteria » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:27 am UTC

Euphonium wrote:
Soteria wrote:I thought Gone with the Wind made a decent argument for why an armed society might actually be pretty civil. Not because someone might draw their gone and shoot you dead (that would be murder and you'd probably end up hanged), but knowing that you might face serious consequences for any egregious insulta completely disproportionate response.

This is supposed to be a good thing?

Anyway, you're seriously using a slave society as an example of how we should model ourselves? Because the presence of slavery and the social customs of the society that had it cannot be separated from one another--they're intimately intertwined.


No, I'm not. I'm not sure how you went from my "pretty civil" to your "how we should model ourselves."

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:10 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Doesn't current precedent gives a lot of leeway to sincere false belief? Like if someone banged on the door of the wrong home and you shot them. You had a belief that they were dangerous and you were in danger. The belief is sincere even though it is false. Most case you get off Scott free if it ever went to trial. Which it doesn't. I don't see a legal solution. I mean you essentially said if you're a secret racist, don't act on your racists fears. Did that caller even feel remorse that he got a man killed? We are stuck with having uncomfortable conversations on racism in America. Probably the best solution.


That dude was found guilty. So, precedent there indicates that there is a responsibility to not freak out and kill someone just because you're a little uncomfortable.

And yes, if you are a secret racist, you shouldn't act on that. Being an adult means understanding that not every impulse is one to be embraced. A racist with even a modicum of self-awareness should realize that maybe his anti-social sentiments are going to result in trouble if acted upon.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5765
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:00 pm UTC

http://www.civilrights.org/publications ... -on-trial/
I was trying to find a study that showed statistically significant differences in how whites vs minorities are treated by the authorities. The link was the closest a quick Google could get me.

Tyndmyr. If secret racism is limited by the criminal justice system, doesn't that imply secret racists are reprimand Ed less often? This assumes the system treats minorities and whites differently.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests