I have to say, I was impressed by the booby-trapped apartment.

Try most states. In fact the only states where no criminal record does not equal any arsenal [s]he can afford (race and gender have nothing to do with it, but you knew that) are NY, NJ, MA, IL, and to a somewhat lesser extent CA.

You're so cute when you only half way understand wtf you are talking about.

[I'm not that guy.]

How come so many people on this site make niggling corrections to things I say and then throw in casual insults and congratulate themselves over it, as if only they understood how important their corrections were? THAT insecure? Really?

And how come most of you arseholes embrace right-wing ideology? Do you have to be obnoxious to embrace your principles?

If I had left out one word ("western"), would you have just shut up? (Hey, maybe I just don't give your rat's arse about what happens in eastern states, eh?)

In my writeup, I tried to give people like you opportunities to talk about evils of gun control even as ever-more American nuts go on shooting sprees, and even added that gun control doesn't seem to stop these sorts of incidents, but instead you want to have personal run-ins with me because of what you presume me to believe or not believe.

Fine. Maybe you should go hang out in Chicago, where they now have four times as many murders as New York, and tell them about how cool guns can be. Maybe you won't get shot yourself.    

Honestly I cannot see where in my original post that I was self-congratulatory.

And I'm "right wing" only if you define libertarianism as "right wing."

[I'm not that guy.]

OK, maybe you were merely being gratuitously insulting rather than self-congratulatory. It doesn't matter that much to me. Pick other words, since I feel reasonably confident you know what I was complaining about.

Libertarianism comes in many flavours in North America. When your Libertarian Party was founded (back in 1971), it cobbled together its hoped-for coalition from both left and right. Since it was originally founded in response to opposition to Vietnam and conscription (popular among leftists) as well as to ending America's gold standard (popular among some rightists), that coalition made sense. But leftists have seemed to be less and less comfortable in your party as decades passed, and many of them have moved on to affiliate with Greens or other groups, often taking their pre-existing left-libertarian views with them.

I don't really have anywhere near as many problems even with right-libertarians as I have with ordinary Republicans and Democrats. In this case, I was lashing back and grabbed whatever 2x4 was at hand.

On paper, my former city and the dystopian shithole of Buffalo, NY should be completely crime free as they are the subject of some of the most onerous gun laws in the nation. Same goes for Washington DC (Before DC v. Heller), Chicago, etc.

On paper, my current state of Vermont should be nearly Somalia. No gun laws AT ALL for over 100 years, plus the majority of the state does not have round the clock police coverage (outside of cities the state police doesn't have cars on the road past 1 or 2am and the dispatcher will either take a message or wake up a trooper at home if its something pressing).

Both situations are the exact opposite of which the anti-gun lobby would have you believe.

It's obviously not the guns causing the problem. Giving that, I submit that they should not be the subject of any regulatory infringement.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Vermont doesn't need gun control laws because it hardly has any crime of any description. Buffalo, Chicago, and DC really do need such laws because they have tonnes of gun-related crime, but your Supreme Court and your rural citizens think they shouldn't be allowed to have such laws in major urban areas because it will interfere with their hunting rights in Vermont.

I wonder what everybody hunts in urban America?

That's the thing. Laws do not stop criminals. They stop regular people like you and I from owning guns. Guns in this country will never go away. A criminal is going to get his hands on them no matter what. NY like gun laws do NOT work and only infringe on the rights of regular people. We repealed prohibition because it was ineffective and only made things worse. Given these facts, why not allow regular people their 2nd amendment rights to engage in shooting sports and to protect themselves?

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

"Me."

Definitely, you.

Gun laws may not stop people from committing crimes, but they make it much easier to punish criminals afterwards. It may be difficult to prove certain types of offenses, but it generally doesn't take much legal effort to convict people of gun crimes.

Also, when you discharge weapons in urban areas, your chances of hitting something unexpected and very unfortunate soar compared with your chances of accidentally hitting something unfortunate in most rural areas. Letting people "protect themselves" even if that means killing innocent bystanders doesn't make sense anywhere except America.

I've wondered about this for some time: the myth by which those gunfolk live is that they represent the true American spirit of freedom, rights and independence, if I'm correct.

There must be something wrong with the collective memory here though: my extensive experience of the American wild-west (Saturday afternoons on public television, next week: Room Service, by the Marx Brothers!!!) tells me that the usual ritual involves the sheriff taking away the guns of everybody entering into town. So, what gives: was I tricked into a warped version of the wild west by public (socialist!!!) telly, or has the modern cowboy simply moved on from Kit Carson to Llewelyn Moss?

I don't really understand why you are addressing me in particular as I'm having a hard time making the connection between my critique of novy's statement and your post. Nonetheless I'll offer a somewhat perplexed reply.

I'm not exactly sure who those "gunfolk" who apparently live by some western film mythology are. I'm certainly not one of them. I don't live in the american west. I don't even generally like westerns as a genre. I own firearms to protect my home, my life and the lives of my family, and as sporting equipment because I do thoroughly enjoy recreational target shooting. I don't hunt nor do I normally associate with people who do. I don't live in a compound nor do I consider myself a survivalist. I don't associate with armed fringe groups of any ideological hue. I like guns. I like owning guns. I like firing guns. I will do whatever I can to make sure my enjoyment of guns remains relatively unimpeded by state or federal statutes.

I'm not Kit Carson or Llewelyn Moss. None of the gun owners I know are, either.

[I'm not that guy.]

Just lewd commenting -- nothing personal here, nor did I assume you were a representative of whatever arms lobby may exist.

You know how it is: when a man got to do what he has got to do, he'll click on the first Reply link that's nearby.

I'm gonna pour me a Duvel now.

I would really like to be Kit Carson. Not Kit Carson, dead guy, I mean Kit Carson as my new name. Can I be Kit Carson?

I have never shot anything. I don't know if I would like it or not. One e-friend recently retold me his story about hunting chicken hawks in Laredo when he was 12. (Farmers were paying $75 per bird.) He didn't think he would hit anything, and he kept shooting at birds that he thought were out of his range, until he hit one, and it dropped. His friends were excited about reward money, but he ran back to their car and wouldn't participate any further, and he never went hunting or used guns ever again. I might be more like him than like you.

Recently I re-rented "Cadillac Man", about this failed car salesman who uses his gifts of gab and empathy to defuse one potentially violent hostage situation. I also might be more like him than like you.

I don't begrudge people like you weapons. I begrudge people like James Holmes weapons. I wish it was possible to prevent people like him from having guns, and I wish people like you were more active in figuring out how that should be done.

I don't begrudge people like you weapons. I begrudge people like James Holmes weapons. I wish it was possible to prevent people like him from having guns, and I wish people like you were more active in figuring out how that should be done.

The problem is there is always an astronomical risk of some psycho doing something fatuous like this. That's terrible. However, untold thousands die every year from heart attacks caused by their own fatty fat fat lifestyles. Yet the "Public Health" experts get CNN front page opinion articles suggesting that we shred the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution because of these events while they don't encourage such activities for events that statistically kill orders of magnitude more and are much more easily preventable. And that's sad.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Sad because there should be laws about my eating too many hamburgers, or sad because people in urban areas actually think they can protect themselves against psychos?

They do represent the true American spirit of freedom, rights, and independence.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

Speaking of places with awesome gun control laws, Colorado only needs to have another ten or so more rampages just like this to be a per-capita match for gun-related homicides with Chicago -- to date, in 2012 only.

How many of those homicides were multiple deaths with one shooter firing an assault weapon? And why are you bringing up Chicago homicides, because surely not many of them happened in your neighborhood, Gerry. Why pretend like you give a shit if two black guys shoot each other.

What is an "assault weapon"?

More concerned about what you call it than about the death it produces.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

"Let's get into semantics bs, because we damn sure know that the average citizen has no need for any of these weapons, just like there's have no need for a military-grade hummer H1 on the street."

...we damn sure know that the average citizen has no need for any of these weapons...

You that scared of your wife?

noun

    (military) a weapon, such as a rifle, that is intended for use by soldiers in battle

noun

    (mainly US) a semiautomatic firearm with additional features such as a large magazine, a bayonet fitting, etc

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/assault-weapon

Noun

assault weapon (plural assault weapons)

    (US) Any select fire firearm that allows semi-automatic and fully automatic operation, and is used or was once used by a military organization.
    (US) A semi-automatic firearm that resembles a military weapon.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assault_weapon

In United States military parlance assault weapon is often found as part of a system name of weapons designed for and used in assault operations. Current examples include the SMAW and SRAW used to breach obstacles or destroy structures. Historical examples include the Bangalore torpedo, the APOBS, and even the flame thrower.[2] Assault rifles and shotguns capable of fully automatic fire, such as the Heckler & Koch CAWS, the XM8, and the Russian 7.62mm/40mm Assault Weapon System are also classified as assault weapon systems. This definition differs from the current variety of legal definitions used in the United States of America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

As your various cut-and-pastes noted, there is no universally accepted definition.

What is yours?

All the cut and pastes give me a pretty standard definition. Maybe you should read again.

So you had in mind, for example, bangalore torpedoes? I rather doubt that.

Facts:

1. Assault rifles are guns.
   
2. Assault rifles fire ALL the time (unless they are set to semi or burst).
   
3. The purpose of the assault rifle is to flip out and shoot people.

But I DO KNOW that when you stick a LED flashlight onto an AR-15, it becomes a Tactical Firearm, which is AWESOME!

OK, who wants to see an example of REAL ULTIMATE POWER?! I present to you, the THE ULTIMATE AR-15 MALL NINJA TACTICAL ZOMBIE DESTROYER!

Another true fact: Adolph Hitler invented the assault weapon. He also invented the cities and the motor traffic rumble.

It's black. Looks scary.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

How many of those homicides were multiple deaths with one shooter firing an assault weapon?

A few, apparently. None with this level of harm, but a half-dozen I recall as being in the "one dead, several shot" category.

And why are you bringing up Chicago homicides, because surely not many of them happened in your neighborhood, Gerry.

I bring up the Chicago homicides because of the contrast between restrictive gun laws here with the permissive gun laws of Colorado.

Why pretend like you give a shit if two black guys shoot each other.

I don't pretend. A less violent city for them is also a less violent city for me.

You do you know, Gerry, that someone can buy a gun in another state and bring it to Chicago, right? I am sure you have that much sense. How many of those guns used in the homicides were bought in the state of Illinois?

How would your reaction to this event have been different if James Holmes had turned out to be Arab, Muslim, or even black?

I guess people in Colorado only slaughter one another if they think it would be really cool.

What, you mean a Muslim who thought he was The Joker?

Yeah, exactly, a Muslim who thought he was The Joker. No, wait, a Muslim who really was The Joker, and it would turn out that Batman's creators had ripped him off to come up with that particular super-villain character. You know, some Muslim who killed large numbers of innocent people because it was really funny rather than because of any jihad. It would turn out he was descended from Hassan-i Sabbah or Mamluk Sultan Baibars. No, wait, he would actually BE Mamluk Sultan Baibars, who NEVER DIED, and who lives with Adolph Hitler, Elvis Presley, JFK, and Marilyn Monroe in that famous apartment in Ontario.

Yeah, what would you think THEN?

Good point, more children die in Chicago every year from stray bullets.  Owning a handgun in Chicago is still technically illegal (I say technically as the law is most likely unconstitutional).

Chicago gun control laws mean nothing, per your Supreme Court.

She worked in Denver. She was supposed to be at tomato battles. But what was she doing in Toronto?

Hmmm.

When I was a biomedical research graduate student I was paid less than $26,000/yr and I wasn't a psychotic murdering psycho at the time. I feel ripped off.

Actually, I felt ripped off by the entire grad school experience, but whatever.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Killing large numbers of people doesn't strike me as "justice", but Jason certainly let things get out of hand.

Maybe in future Jason movies, they can reveal that his last name was Holmes.

Sounds like the Joker would have made a great libertarian.

More like an anarchist of the apoltical (and a-economic) type.  Although, hurting a minority of people "for the greater good" sounds a bit like a liberal.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

How long do you imagine it takes to swap a standard magazine?

Long enough to for Jared Loughner to be taken down by people around while he was attempting to reload.

Meet Patricia Maisch the woman who kept alleged shooter Jared Lee Loughner from reloading after he opened fire on a crowd of people in Arizona Saturday.

The Tuscon sheriff told Shep Smith yesterday she may have saved numerous lives and "it was one of the bravest actions he'd ever seen."

Maisch says that she made the decision to drop to the ground when the shooting started.  When shooting stopped at the woman next to her two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, tackled Loughner and Maisch grabbed the magazine so that he couldn't reload.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-10/entertainment/30008694_1_jared-lee-loughner-maisch-re loading#ixzz21Ig0Mk5w

How long would it take you to change the magazine in a dark, smoky theater with many people around you in a confined space and if you had no law enforcement or military training?

I have absolutely no law enforcement or military training, and I can easily drop a magazine, snap in another, and release the bolt to chamber the first round of the new mag in five seconds - maybe less. Darkness or smoke would have very little if anything to do with it.

[I'm not that guy.]

I expect you have a whole lot more practice than this guy.  Whether the training is formal or not doesn't matter much.

You forgot "while wearing a gas mask."

You forgot Jared Loughner.

Hey, by they way, since you seem to know so much about the topic, if a 100-round drum magazine on an "assault weapon" makes it so much more deadly, why doesn't the US military use them instead of the kinder, gentler 30 round variety?

Because it is the US military. Are you trying to make the point for me?

No, please explain.

It depends on the mission, doesn't it?  I mean, it isn't exactly the normal US Army mission to send one guy on a suicide mission to gun down as many civilians as possible in a crowded enclosed space before overwhelming numbers of police arrive and he is captured or killed.  And if it was, they'd use heavy weapons and not an assault rifle.

Anyhow, even the Army pretty much agrees that a larger magazine is more deadly.  The 30 round magazine exists to enforce fire discipline.  The last thing they want is their squads using all their bullets at the beginning of a fight so that they have nothing left and become easy prey, so they deliberately make it harder to do that by using a smaller magazine.

I wouldn't say they're "much more deadly", though.  The difference isn't really all that large.  There are other weapons which would significantly better at this type of mass murder than an assault rifle, since it isn't really optimized for the job.  You don't need it's range or body armor penetration ability.  I would think it would be possible to kill a lot more people with a submachine gun, even a semi-automatic one.  You could also go the automatic or semiautomatic shotgun with buckshot route, or use grenades.

even the Army pretty much agrees that a larger magazine is more deadly

I wouldn't say they're "much more deadly", though

Did you have a point, or were you just trying to get the last word, as usual?  Compared to not having a weapon, having an assault rifle with a 30-cartridge magazine is a huge improvement.  Compared to having a 30-cartridge magazine, having a 100-cartridge magazine is generally a small improvement.  How is this inconsistent?

Compared to having a 30-cartridge magazine, having a 100-cartridge magazine is generally a small improvement

Even funnier is the editorial you cited as a source about fire discipline. Not only was it not about fire discipline, but the sidebar has a link to the story Headless gymnast spotted in Ulster!

How is the statistic that the US shoots 300,000+ bullets for every "insurgent" it kills not a statement about fire discipline?

If you read the editorial you linked to you might realize that much of the ammunition used was for training.

Hey, by they way, since you seem to know so much about the topic, if a 100-round drum magazine on an "assault weapon" makes it so much more deadly, why doesn't the US military use them instead of the kinder, gentler 30 round variety?

The Army does use drums for weapons like the SAW.  I'm sure you're aware of it, so I'm not putting it out there like a "gotcha" but just to put it in the conversation for those who might not be aware.

Anyway, I won't claim to be fully versed on the pros and cons of a 100-round versus a 30-round magazine, but just from looking at pictures, I'd say that putting one in an M4 would make it almost impossible to get into the prone properly.  That would be a problem for, say, an infantry soldier but not some lunatic who wants to shoot up a movie theater.

There's also the matter of making it more difficult to redistribute ammunition after an engagement.

Even if the 30-round and 100-round magazines were otherwise identical, those two points would be enough to make the 30-rounder the superior choice for the Army while the high capacity would be of benefit to the lunatic.

There's also accuracy.

I was unaware that the US Army uses drum magazines for the SAW. I read about a field test a few years ago, but I thought it concluded that drums were not desirable for the M-4 and not an improvement over belt-fed for the M-249.

Yeah, I figured accuracy or misfiring might be an issue, too.

Not sure when the drums were introduced for the SAW.  Their advantage over belt-fed is when you're dismounted with no a-gunner-- and I rarely saw an a-gunner being used with the SAW.  Besides the greater capacity, they don't have the jamming problem-- as far as I know-- that the SAW has with a magazine.

The SAW isn't a crew-served weapon: why would you ever have an assistant gunner?

I only ever saw them used at a range.  They were there to keep the belt feeding in straight.  Maybe to spot targets.  I'm not sure-- I was never a SAW gunner.  But the first use shows why the drums come in handy.  If you're mounted, it's no big deal to have a rack in which to put an ammo can to feed the gun.  If you're dismounted, you're not going to walk around holding an ammo can, and the 30-round magazines get eaten too fast when they don't jam.

The SAW used to use a clip-on plastic box for the belted ammo.

Maybe my nomenclature is off.  That's what I'm referring to.  Or, less commonly, this or this (comment 7).

Those are containers for ammo belts. Drums are circular magazines.

Ah, got it.  Nope-- can't say I've ever seen them used in the Army.

And, perhaps a concealable, semi-auto with a 30 round mag is also too much.

Arms are already heavily regulated, many are illegal - Why is that? Because the risk to the public with such weapons proved too high. Maybe the present cutoff for "reasonably safe public risk" is still too liberal.

The founding fathers were not infallible futurists. In fact, if you visit Philly, witness the marker for Ben Franklin's privy pit, no more than four feet from a marker for Ben Franklin s water well. At that point in history could they possibly understand the true risks 200 years in the future?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

The founding fathers were not infallible futurists

They certainly didn't anticipate a blowhard like Scalia would pretend he can read their dead minds.

Ha ha! That's marvelous.

what do you think should be legal and what illegal?

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

You won't get a good answer to that question, but it doesn't matter because arbitrary gun laws aren't the solution anyway.  Even a blanket ban on all guns can never work because there are hundreds of millions of them already in the country.  Drugs are illegal and you can see how well that works.  Universal access to high-quality mental health care is how you treat the mentally ill before something violent happens.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

There's no good answer because proponents of guns can't aspect any answer that puts limits on private citizen gun ownership.

It's not arbitrary at all to say that more bullets in less time can equal more dead.

Comparing drugs and guns doesn't make any sense. You smoke pot or crack or opium, you can't smoke a gun, though I would like to see some people try.

High-quality mental health in the USA = medication. So you rather have 1/2 or 2/3 of the population on Big Pharma's meds instead of just saying "hey man maybe you don't need a gun that shoots 100 bullets in minutes for recreational shooting or trying to shoot a crafty deer."

It's not arbitrary at all to say that more bullets in less time can equal more dead

Of course comparing drugs to guns makes sense. Making laws that ban things does not prevent the individuals that you're trying to prevent from obtaining those things from actually obtaining those things. That's why you don't ban guns. Not because of the second amendment or because people are afraid of the government or any of those things. The second amendment is there because it's good smart law for a free and open society just like the first amendment. If the founding fathers had thought anyone could possibly ever have been dumb enough to ban drugs, legalized drugs probably would have been the third amendment.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

So we should allow everything? You want heroin to be sold over the counter at Wawa like a pack of cigarettes?

Nobody is talking about banning all guns, nor is anything talking about banning all drugs.

If the second amendment is such a good thing, why is it constantly being argued over? Why have the courts from the very beginnings of the country defined it narrowly? (about self-defense and not about protection from the government or overthrowing it) So we wouldn't have a free and open society with a level of gun control? No other countries but the US are free and open? That's ridiculous on it's face and quite foolishly nationalistic.

Nobody is talking about banning all guns

Plenty of people are talking about banning all guns. Most urbane, ivory tower, liberals I know want no one to have any guns ever and cannot think of any reason anyone could ever want or need one.

So we should allow everything? You want heroin to be sold over the counter at Wawa like a pack of cigarettes?

Personally, yes, I do think that all things should be allowed, in no small part because banning things has a heck of a track record of not working. Why shouldn't heroin be sold over the counter at Wawa like a pack of cigarettes? What horrible fate would be befall America were heroin sold at Wawa? Portugal decriminalized all drugs 10 years ago. Now that's not exactly selling them OTC but it's lessened their drug problem and drastically.

If the second amendment is such a good thing, why is it constantly being argued over?

I can't speak for why other people choose to hold less enlightened opinions than me.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

Most urbane, ivory tower, liberals I know want no one to have any guns ever and cannot think of any reason anyone could ever want or need one.

I want to disagree with you, but it's sadly true - unless (like me) said ivory tower liberal grew up in a rural area around guns, or lived in a really scary part of a city and felt the need to have a gun for protection, urban liberals tend to be incredibly dense when it comes to gun ownership.  It's a lot easier to talk to religious conservatives about gay rights than it is to talk about gun ownership with true blue urban liberals.  Fortunately there are enough rural Democrats for whom this is a major issue that (I think / hope) significant new gun control laws aren't coming down the pipeline anytime in the near future.

Allons-y!

It's a lot easier to talk to religious conservatives about gay rights than it is to talk about gun ownership with true blue urban liberals.

I think that's a gross overstatement.  I have no difficulty debating gun ownership with urban liberals.  The debates might even get heated, but I don't feel that I'm risking being cut off as I would if I tried to voice my opinion on gay rights with religious conservatives.

Hm, maybe I just associate with more tolerant religious conservatives.  I feel like I increasingly see a "live and let live" attitude from them (while still condemning the behavior, of course).  The urban liberals I've talked about gun control with, though, just can't seem to wrap their heads around the whole thing.  Not that they are hostile about it, but just that it's impossible for them to understand - it's like trying to convince them that the sun is actually the color purple, or something like that.

Allons-y!

Ah, but are the people you're thinking of objecting to gay rights on religious grounds?  For the reason I mentioned in my reply to zyxwvutsr below, I find it difficult to believe that such a person would be willing to debate the issue.  Lecture, yes.  Debate, no.

Ah, but are the people you're thinking of objecting to gay rights on religious grounds?

Yeah - they certainly think it's a sin, but they don't necessarily think it should be illegal.  They just liked the old norm where gay people had sex behind closed doors and nobody talked about it.  I guess maybe the area I grew up in was unusually tolerant for a conservative, rural area, but there were a lot of "bachelor uncles" around that everyone knew were gay, some even lived with their partners, but nobody talked about it, they didn't engage in PDA's, and everyone was cool if Uncle Chunk lived with his "friend" or whatever.  I don't really understand how living with that contradiction was / is preferable to just letting gay people be out and do what they want to do, but a lot of people seemed cool with it.

Allons-y!

Heh.  When I read your previous comment, I thought you meant that the religious conservatives you were thinking of were more tolerant of other viewpoints than ones I was thinking of-- which they might be-- not more tolerant of gays.  Got it now.

I thought you meant that the religious conservatives you were thinking of were more tolerant of other viewpoints

Well...I do think that religious conservatives can be more understanding of "live and let live" than liberals, depending on the issue...most religious conservatives ultimately know that their core beliefs come down to unprovable faith (I say most because yeah, there are some Creationist types who think God can be proved by science or whatever, but I think most mainstream theology takes some variation of "God is an unknowable and un-provable miracle beyond human unerstanding").  Anyone who holds these beliefs and reflects on them for a minute realizes that someone else could hold equally firm beliefs, and likewise would be unable to prove them...so you have your faith, I have my faith, and there it is.  We agree to disagree.  Liberals, on the other hand, are very empirical in their beliefs - or at least they think they are.  Generally this is a good thing, but if the evidence is contradictory or open to interpretation, you can end up with people who firmly believe ("Backed by evidence!") a certain thing that is completely wrong...and there's no way to reason with them, because they know their facts are right and your facts are wrong...and furthermore there's not that level of understanding that there's some faith involved - they know their beliefs are based on FACTS and anyone who thinks otherwise must be stupid or willfully ignorant.  Religious conservatives might find people who disagree with them to be distasteful sinners, while not necessarily thinking that they suffer from mental dysfunction - indeed they may well want do be doing the things the "sinners" are, but their religious beliefs stop them - so they very much understand where the other side is coming from, even as they disagree.  A certain kind of liberal, though, simply can't understand why any right thinking individual would come to any opinion other than the one that they have - after all, it's based on "logic" and "facts"!

Allons-y!

This post further proves that religious people you know are weak-minded old ladies and armchair Catholics. The religious person is one that thinks absolute truth springs from his God and his book. Of course his position will always be "I have absolute truth". At least a "liberal" (though it seems you're just using the word to mean skeptic) can be convinced with a new set of facts and/or logic.

This is a far cry from the religious person that believes your WHOLE reality is wrong. Not only are you facts wrong, but the how you got to them is completely wrong because they didn't come from his imaginary friend.

I don't think you have much interaction with religious people beyond arm-length hostile confrontations, do you?  I'm an atheist, but most of my family is very religious (although the majority are "mainline Protestants" of one stripe or another, mostly ELCA-Lutheran).  Yeah there are some Westboro Baptist types out there, but if you'll actually engage I think you'll find that most religious people in this country have beliefs that are more nuanced than your stereotypes provide.  That doesn't make them any less bizarre (to this atheist, anyway), but I think it's far it's too easy to "other" Christians rather than engage them, and not particularly helpful to do so.

At least a "liberal" (though it seems you're just using the word to mean skeptic) can be convinced with a new set of facts and/or logic.

"Facts" are often pretty malleable.  I'm sure Ken (zyx) could gladly come up with a list a mile long of stereotypical liberal beliefs based on "facts" that are open to interpretation or just outright wrong.  This isn't just a liberal thing, mind you - conservatives can be just as bad or worse when it comes to issues where they're convinced they have the facts on their side.  I think that on average liberals are just a little bit worse, though, because their world-view tends to be entirely fact based.  For faith to exist, you also have to have doubt (if you're 100% certain about something, it's not faith, just a fact...).  It's a little easier, I think, for liberals to live in a world without doubt than it is for conservative to do so.  I think the best of both worlds is a doubting liberal...but an un-reflective liberal can be pretty scary (almost as scary as your hypothetical 100% convinced religious true believer).

Allons-y!

For faith to exist, you also have to have doubt (if you're 100% certain about something, it's not faith, just a fact...).  

This is 100% reversed.  Faith involves belief that can't be proven, or even in spite of facts.  If you have doubt about something faith-based-- if you are not 100% certain-- that is, in fact, a crisis of faith.

Fact-based beliefs, such as a scientific theory, are malleable in the face of new facts.  They are adjusted to accomodate the new facts.

I typed out a whole post, but you said better it.

(I still have a reply for Port, but I don't want to piss it out. I'll come back to it.)

This is 100% reversed.  Faith involves belief that can't be proven, or even in spite of facts.  If you have doubt about something faith-based-- if you are not 100% certain-- that is, in fact, a crisis of faith.

You're missing my point.  From a logical standpoint, faith can't exist without the possibility of doubt - if there is no possibility of doubt, there's nothing special about faith, it's simply fact.  Christianity requires faith in the face of doubt, it doesn't deny that the possibility of doubt exists.

Fact-based beliefs, such as a scientific theory, are malleable in the face of new facts.  They are adjusted to accomodate the new facts.

Again, you're missing my point.  Ideally this is true, but there's nothing more annoying that someone who THINKS that they have all the facts, but is in fact completely wrong, and yet is so convinced of their rightness that no matter the contradictory facts you point out to them, they simply ignore them.  You might counter that those people aren't actually being fact-based and scientific, and I'd agree with you 100%, but that doesn't make them any less annoying, and I do think that this is a weakness / blind spot that liberals are somewhat more likely to have than conservatives.  Conservatives understand that a lot of major life questions come down to faith / beliefs whatever you want to call them.  Liberals sometimes forget this and think everything can be decided objectively.

Allons-y!

there's nothing more annoying that someone who THINKS that they have all the facts, but is in fact completely wrong, and yet is so convinced of their rightness that no matter the contradictory facts you point out to them,

True, although I would place that as equally annoying as someone for whom facts literally don't matter because those facts contradict their faith.

And I hardly think liberals are any worse in this vein than conservatives.  I can no longer, for example, reply to friends who post on Facebook ("Obama is the only President since WWII who skipped going to the D-Day monument on D-Day!") with a list of reasons why that's not true and a link to the Snopes article from which I got my information.  Nope, see, Snopes-- and I am by no means arguing it's perfect-- has contradicted those wacky claims from the Right one too many times, so now it's just another source of liberal bias.  Now, I have to link to the five or six sources to which Snopes linked for its article . . . but eventually, I'm sure White House presidential schedules, the monument websites, and three year-old newspaper articles will be deemed tainted by liberals in order to cover up The Truth-- defined as whatever they choose to believe in the face of contradictory facts.

True, although I would place that as equally annoying as someone for whom facts literally don't matter because those facts contradict their faith.

I agree those people are very annoying, really it's impossible to say which is worse.  It probably depends on who you have to deal with more on a daily basis...

Allons-y!

I don't think you have much interaction with religious people beyond arm-length hostile confrontations, do you?

Not really. I actually have a lot of interaction with religious people of many types, considering that India has a good population of Hindus, Muslims, and Christians. And in the US, there's greater diversity amongst Indians because people from different states and different religions migrated to the us.

I'm sure you have a very homogenous experience in that the "religious people" you interact  with are almost all probably Protestants and Catholics, most of which only considering "practice" as attending church once a week and having a festive meal during a religious holiday. I, on the other hand, get to interact with people that live their religions (practice daily, fast, attend church/temple/mosque frequently, etc.)

Most religious people in America are not really religious. Religion for them is mainly about politics and social networking, practice is usually very limited or non-existent. You can see that by comparing Christians to other Christians. The South American Catholics are way more "religious" and take their religion way more seriously.

The Catholics.

"Live and let live" attitude is more or less a white flag of defeat. It's a begrudging attitude.

BTW, I have lived in some pretty shitty areas... including Newark, NJ for 4 years. And I probably know more people than any one here, who are routinely in situations where gun violence is a major threat to them. Most of the posters here posture and pose about gun threats, while living in rural and/or safe neighborhoods. Their biggest threats of gun violence come from within the home, not outside of the home. I don't have any problems with gun ownership, I have problems with gun control. Two different conversations.

. Most of the posters here posture and pose about gun threats, while living in rural and/or safe neighborhoods.

I'm sure he'll mention it himself, but pO157 lived in a REALLY scary part of Buffalo for about four years.  Like, SWAT teams regularly shooting at people in his front yard scary, lots of drug dealers and gang activity scary, Buffalo police won't investigate any crime short of murder (and even then...) scary.  Before living their, he was a very blue liberal - Al Gore supporter, etc.  The first time he shot a real gun was when I took him and some friends to my family's home to do some target shooting.  Now he's a raving libertarian who has his own arsenal, and he largely blames Buffalo.  

Allons-y!

If it's worth anything, I wasn't talking about PO and I should have made that clear. And you're right, he makes challenging arguments (which I appreciate) because of his balanced experience.

I don't know much aboub Buffalo, but from reading PO's posts about it, I gather it's like white Newark. Or like how Camden is to blacks, as Gloucester City is to whites.

The extreme liberal position "no one should be allowed to own guns" is commonplace. The analogous anti-gay position "homosexuals should be imprisoned or killed" is rare.

I'd say the analogous position would be "homosexuals shouldn't be 'allowed' to be homosexual" and that that's almost as common.

But, regardless, I'm discussing how easy it is to talk about the issue.  I have a very large Evangelical Christian wing in my family-- my uncle is a priest in a denomination that's allowed to get married and have kids*, one of the cousins owns a Chick-Fil-A specifically because he wanted to be part of a company with Christian values-- and while they don't think gays should be rounded up in camps, they certainly think that acting on homosexuality is a choice that can and should be criminalized.  I could never, ever outwardly disagree with them on the topic if I wanted to remain family.

On the other hand, most of my local friends would qualify as "urban liberals".  Probably a good third of them would like to see guns completely banned, but I've never had any difficulty discussing the topic with them . . . even though we ultimately disagree.

Based on the motive behind each belief system it makes sense to me: the former believe that their stance comes from the inerrant word of an omnipotent being.  The latter think that their stance comes from individual examination of the associated facts and emotions.  Of course the former would be more inflexible in their stance; they should be if they're being at all consistent.

*Though they were just re-accepted into the Catholic church.  It's very confusing to try to explain to people.

The extreme liberal position "no one should be allowed to own guns" is commonplace.

LOL.

Sorry for the confusion- I was describing an "pipedream ideal" solution instead of an "American status quo solution" (I tried to imply that with the "universal access" part).

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

My bad, I hear ya. I just think the mental health industry itself is pretty fucked so I doubt it could help/deal with guys like Holmes without reforming itself first. And I think Urkel is right, these guys aren't your best patients by definition. On the flip side, do we really want institutions to have greater discretion in declaring people mentally ill?

On the flip side, do we really want institutions to have greater discretion in declaring people mentally ill?

Ask the surviving Colorado theater patrons I guess?

If your concern is the mentally ill being unfairly stigmatized though, then I see where you're coming from.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Often the insane don't want mental health treatment.

Holmes had access to mental health care at the University of Colorado.

The Virginia Tech shooter visited his school's mental health center twice - they ticked the loon box on his forms, but he never came back for a follow up. He also had an overnight stay in the local psych ward.

Eric Harris had a personal therapist.

These conversations easily fall into technical aspects of firearms because proponents of [all] firearms tend to want to distract away and obfuscate from the core issue of what is useful for self-defense and what goes beyond that. I am not an expert on guns so I won't be like "yeah well this caliber and this many rounds and this many cupholders and this many nascar stickers..." That's up to lawmakers and paranoid schizophrenics that have hardons for guns.

And anyway, I can ask you the same question: what should be illegal? Should a private citizen be able to own a rocket launcher? I'm dead serious. This is not an argument along the lines of "if we legalize gay marriage then people will marry animals." It's true and serious that if you allow people to have bigger, more dangerous weapons that can kill many people in a very short attempt of time then it will happen. And you might think you have every right to own every weapon found in Counter Strike, and you might even believe that you're just an amazing shot because you've played first-person shooters so often, often enough to join Seal Team Six, but certainly you won't be happy if the last guy that looked at you wrong or the last guy that cut off should have that same right. I don't.

These conversations easily fall into technical aspects of firearms because proponents of [all] firearms tend to want to distract away and obfuscate

That's ridiculous. These conversations fail to achieve anything substantively because liberals generally have no idea of the technical aspects of things and simply want to make laws that help them feel good about themselves.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

There is no substantive position here with gun nuts. The world for them is divided into allow all guns or ban all guns (which they think is the liberal position). That's nonsense and that's why there isn't a discriminating conversation about what is appropriate and what isn't. Gun ownership is high in other countries like Norway but Norway doesn't have the violence and homicides that the US has. Because in Norway most people own guns for hunting and are very strict about their guns.

US is tied up by gun culture and a very powerful gun lobby.

As Wikipedia points out, Assault "weapons" are a legal definition separate from a technical one. The main issue is the size of the magazine, but the original law lets you  ban weapons that include a Chinese Menu of irrelevant features, like a barrel threaded for a possible silencer (silencers are already illegal) or a flash suppressor. I've even heard of some state laws that toss a bayonet mount into the pot. It seems to me that the size of the clip is the only real issue, the rest is just silly.

I've even heard of some state laws that toss a bayonet mount into the pot.

NY has a bayonet mount included in its definition of "assault weapon." Of course, after having seen that bayonet charge by the Crips on the breastworks surrounding the Buffalo Police Station I can completely agree on its usefulness. The only way the police were able to repulse that attack was to get a sharpshooter to take out the Crips' fife and drum players and throw their lines into confusion.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Most assault weapon legislation is akin to trying to prevent Neo wannabe's by outlawing black leather trenchcoats and Blinde sunglasses. That said, as a gun-owning liberal, I get a certain vibe from some of the guys who lug their .50 cal 'tactical' cannons around the range, that I don't get from the guys slow-firing their stock 9mm's, and it can creep me out a bit.

What concerns me more than the features of various guns is the attitude displayed by guys who say they have a CHL, and say that what would've prevented or lessened the tragedy in Aurora would for every theater patron to have been carrying. My brother-in-law is a cop. He's told me some 'interesting' stories about investigating the aftermath of SWAT raids, where entire clips were emptied into walls, and the ceiling, and the floor, where no one got hit. Or, where cops accidentally shot each other. That these guys think that because they spent a couple of Saturdays at a 'tactical training seminar', they'd get a clear shot at a gunman in a darkened, tear gas filled theater full of panicked people trying to get out, freaks me the fuck out. Whether they want to carry an AR-15 with all the trimmings, or a .22LR pistol, the carry permitting process needs to be a lot more rigorous.

You make an interesting point about the uncertainties of gun battles. During the notorious North Hollywood shootout of 1997, nearly 1800 bullets were fired by both the police and the two bankrobbers.  Most were from the criminals who had illegally modified full-auto AR-15s. Yet in the storm of flying lead the only two people killed were the robbers themselves, and one of them shot himself after being wounded. (Eleven police officers and seven civilians were wounded.)

Not just gun battles, uncertainty in everyday life too.

You know what the government is banned from studying? The causes of gun violence. The NRA took care of that 16 years ago when the CDC found that gun owners were 2.7 times more likely to be shot than non gun owners.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

The NRA took care of that 16 years ago when the CDC found that gun owners were 2.7 times more likely to be shot than non gun owners.

Car owners are more likely to die in car accidents than people who don't own cars.

Allons-y!

Whether they want to carry an AR-15 with all the trimmings, or a .22LR pistol, the carry permitting process needs to be a lot more rigorous.

Here's a trade I can get behind - all states should go "shall-issue" in exchange for significantly more stringent permitting processes, six month renewals with a certain amount of mandatory verified range time over that six months, refresher classes, etc.  Everyone should have the right to carry, but if you're going to carry you should put in the time to do it right.

Allons-y!

Do you have any idea how much utter bullshit you shoveled into that single post?

The fact that technical definitions come up in these debates has nothing to do with pro-gun folk trying to obfuscate anything. Technical aspects come up because anti-gun forces try to regulate guns based on technical issues that they often (hell I'd say always) fail to understand. Basic concepts like the (huge) difference between "full auto" and "semi auto" action types. Or utter silliness like the presence of flash hiders or forward grips* or adjustable stocks.

We freak out over the technical stuff because your side insists on being so goddamned willfully stupid about it. Sorry if that comes across as harsh but it is accurate.

*The forward grips thing in particular personally offends me. I cannot fully rotate my right wrist (I'm left-handed) for reasons that many of you already know but are beyond the scope of this post. In order to shoot any long gun, I must have some sort of forward grip. I even have them custom installed on my wooden-stocked "hunting" rifles and shotguns. For me, they are an ADA-ish accommodation.

[I'm not that guy.]

One time I saw a gun with a shoulder thing that goes up freak out and kill like 17 people.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Carolyn McCarthy is one of my favs. If she didn't exist, we'd have to invent her. She's the living breathing embodiment of smug liberal ignorance and privilege.

[I'm not that guy.]

My favorite part is how she admits that the bill she wrote sucks in an attempt to get out of answering the question.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Erratum at the bottom of a webpage from a NY Times editorial:

A photo caption on an earlier version of this article misstated the type of gun pictured: it is a Remington 870 shotgun, not a rifle.

Typical NYT gaffe. Call a shotgun - and in this case a very typical shotgun used primarily for hunting - an "assault rifle."

However I must admit that I found the editorial itself to be surprisingly even-handed considering where it appeared.

[I'm not that guy.]

Douthat is one of the Times' token conservatives.

Those Amish parents didn't just announce that they had forgiven Mr. Nutjob, they visited his own parents and consoled them. I think you almost have to hold magical beliefs about our universe and its true nature to pull that off. I like to think I could do it, but I feel deep gratitude that I haven't ever been tested.

Once one accepts that we have lives and souls beyond this one, it makes much more sense, as do most things.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

I accept that I have "lives and souls beyond this one", but I routinely engage in magical thinking and think that I should be open about it. I also think it important to acknowledge what many people think of such things.