The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Commodore]

It wasn't met with violence by the feds last time. The secessionist started the violence.

I wasn't specifically referring to the Civil War, I was referring to your implication that the only possible result of secession is civil war. But since you bring it up, how exactly was the Confederacy supposed to react? Lincoln was talking about preserving the Union at any cost in the lead up to the Civil War. Now, if you are a secessionist and you hear that, wouldn't you essentially take that as a declaration of war? I would because that's the head of the federal government basically telling you that he doesn't care about your right to self-determination.

So the shelling of Fort Sumter could just be seen as a preemptive strike against an inevitable aggressor. Plus, all Lincoln had to do to at least delay open hostilities was surrender Fort Sumter to the CSA. No one can say Confederate forces didn't give the Union garrison ample opportunity to resolve the siege peacefully.

Is there any reason we can't do that now, without literally ripping the country into pieces?

Yes there is a reason. That reason being that both Democrats and Republicans are getting increasingly tired of living under the thumb of federal law when it comes to running the states they control how they see fit. Beyond the party politics, there are also regional issues that the federal government has shown it is completely incapable of handling, yet their regulations and laws keep regional and local authorities from being able to take the lead and deal with those issues. Right now, we have a situation where no one is really getting anything they want out of the current arrangement, so maybe it's time we all just go our own way.

So basically, it boils down to two things: Increasing frustration with the federal system in general among both citizens and state governments, and a growing desire among local authorities for greater autonomy without allowing politicians from the other side of the country having a say in their affairs.

I'm not sure the Eurozone is exactly a model right now. I mean, why would a prosperous region like the Northeast want to be in a simple trade relationship with Mississippi or Oklahoma? Can those states really support themselves without the rest of us? We put more money into the federal coffers than we take out, and I don't know if the farming states want to replace that with whatever trade deals they can negotiate with us.

Again, assuming the dissolution is peaceful, I could see things remaining relatively unchanged economically. I guess a better way to describe what I'm envisioning is something that's halfway between the relationship between the states during the Articles of Confederation days and the system we have now. Economically, we'd still function as a single nation, but politically each new region, however it ends up being divided, would be free to establish its own laws and even it's own system of governance. I don't know if such an arrangement would even be possible, but that's what I'm envisioning.

Secession is illegal.

Not really. The Constitution is completely silent on the matter and even after the Civil War, no legislation or amendment to the Constitution establishes the legality or illegality of secession. And according to the 10th Amendment, any powers not specifically given to the federal government go to either the states or the people themselves. So I'd say a pretty strong argument could be made that the power to decide whether or not to remain in the Union lies with the states.

The Civil War was not a court case, it was a military conflict. As such, it's outcome has no legal bearing on the issue of secession. Now there is one Supreme Court case dealing with secession: Texas v. White. The ruling in that case says that only unilateral secession is illegal. However, the ruling does also say that secession by successful revolution or through consent of the federal government would be legal. So there actually is a road to secession. The federal government just needs to set their pride aside and agree with the will of the people in a given state. I mean seriously, if a state votes to leave, why would the federal government want to keep them around anyway aside from the "we need to put these filthy rebels in their place and show them who's boss!" mentality.

RE: Commodore's map, y'all can't be discussing drawing up new borders and completely ignore Cascadia.

Sorry, Tim and I have already negotiated the new border agreement. You'll have to take the Cascadia issue up with your new Californian overlords.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Yes there is a reason. That reason being that both Democrats and Republicans are getting increasingly tired of living under the thumb of federal law when it comes to running the states they control how they see fit. Beyond the party politics, there are also regional issues that the federal government has shown it is completely incapable of handling, yet their regulations and laws keep regional and local authorities from being able to take the lead and deal with those issues. Right now, we have a situation where no one is really getting anything they want out of the current arrangement, so maybe it's time we all just go our own way.

So basically, it boils down to two things: Increasing frustration with the federal system in general among both citizens and state governments, and a growing desire among local authorities for greater autonomy without allowing politicians from the other side of the country having a say in their affairs.

Again, assuming the dissolution is peaceful, I could see things remaining relatively unchanged economically. I guess a better way to describe what I'm envisioning is something that's halfway between the relationship between the states during the Articles of Confederation days and the system we have now. Economically, we'd still function as a single nation, but politically each new region, however it ends up being divided, would be free to establish its own laws and even it's own system of governance. I don't know if such an arrangement would even be possible, but that's what I'm envisioning.

I dunno, at a glance, this looks like wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. An article by Politifact - "Does California give more than it gets from Washington D.C.?" - cites a 2016 report that found California paid $14 billion more to the federal government in FY2014 than it got back. Another study found that, in 2007, California received $0.78 back for every $1.00 it paid. That same study notes that Mississippi received $2.57 in federal funds for every $1.00 it contributed. (If anyone's wondering, New Jersey was the biggest net contributor, getting $0.77 back for every $1.00.)

Off the top of my head, I don't know how we'd still function as a single nation economically but without the politics. I mean, when Kansas and Arkansas wanted to keep their schools segregated back in 1954, did they still expect the rest of us to pay for their highways and national defense? I imagine they did, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

ahh... I did not make myself clear enough.

Yes I also think that the reasons that some states are "poor" are coming from their economy, geography, history, etc
And good to know that as of now the Federal Government is overspending there by contracts, hiring. Although I am not that confident that that kind of money is really doing more than creating local jobs with consumer spending economy. I doubt it really develops the economy.
My thoughts to strenghten them was to let them, by their citizens federal tax, pay less into the federal cost to have more money to develop their state.

Yeah, it's hard to figure out what we mean by 'develops the economy'. I'm in Alberta, so I am rather familiar with the idea of an economy not being sufficiently diversified (we mainly dig out oil), but also the idea of an economy being too leveraged. But, after that, a 'good economy' (for me) is for people to engage in valued work that brings them improvements to quality-of-life through a mixture of consumer spending and the ephemerals of whatever it is that makes life better.

Federal spending in these regions certainly doesn't help diversify their economy. It doesn't make their economy more independently productive, except as an externality of increasing their net wealth. They'll not be more capable of handling secession if these Federal dollars flow in for a few more years, for example, so the economy is not being 'built'. But those dollars are providing the ability for people to engage in valued work and giving them money to spend on stuff they want. It improves their quality of life in ways that will be lost after secession, because the Union won't be helping to rebalance the fiscal inequities that those regions suffer.

Unlike Egon, I am not just talking about the benefits of the Union "buying stuff for them", because that's not the main benefit I perceive. Most of my position seems to implicitly focus on the benefits of a multiplier effect and the bringing in of outside dollars in exchange for services that they provide to the country..

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What else are you going to do, Cutlass? Hide in the corner and wait your turn to die? Get under your desk and pretend this isn't happening?

Attacking the shooter, or him running out of ammo, is the only thing that could keep the collective alive.

I'm not exactly at peak athletic efficiency, but I doubt kindergartners would win "throwing and swarming" me barehanded. I don't even want to imagine what doing this to a shooter looks like.

It's a horrible scenario. If the shooter is going after the kids regardless, their best bet is to run scattering in different directions, hopefully the room has more than one exit.

Canadian laws about weapon ownership and carry ain't bad. But in our last mass shooting, our restriction in the magazine capacity was a critical factor in the number of dead

How does that work? Changing magazines takes very little time from what I've seen of actual people doing it.

It's a game theory question. The society that swarms an active shooter will have fewer deaths than one that cowers from one. But the individuals involved have a higher chance of survival if they hope that by hiding their individual odds are better.

Swarming might make sense for adults, if you have enough people buying in. Kids that are still so young can't generate the necessary force. Running or hiding are their only real options, unless they're training them all to accurately throw poison darts or something similarly silly. Maybe pitching something as you run helps? Don't know the data on that.

 

[El_Machinae]

How does that work? Changing magazines takes very little time from what I've seen of actual people doing it.

It's true, in the grand scheme of things, it's very little work and time. Practical considerations aside (smaller magazine cost most per bullet to own, you need more fast-access pockets per shot fired, etc.), Active shooting events are fast-paced. During an event when literal microseconds count, those factors add up. It's similar in reasoning as to why a licensed-carry state will allow people to have guns on their hips, but not point them at people. In practicality, it only takes a second or two draw and point a pistol. But it makes a critical difference in the actual and perceived safety of people.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's similar in reasoning as to why a licensed-carry state will allow people to have guns on their hips, but not point them at people.

I don't think this is similar reasoning! In one case we're comparing capacity for damage in a given timeframe. In the other, a specific person has a very specific and emphatic reason to feel an elevated level of threat.

Or put another way, I would be much more alarmed by a 6 bullet revolver pointed straight at me than I would about a super 30 round magazine on a weapon someone isn't aiming at me rather than 10. I suspect that in this case my opinion is not an outlier.

 

[Farm Boy]

You're fundamentally misunderstanding swarming. They aren't trying to win and attack. They're supposed to all run and maybe throw stuff. With 6 year olds that's kind a pipe dream anyways. Like I said, he still thinks of it mostly like a tornado drill. The door is locked and the kids are quiet, ideally. Once that's spent and a shooter is inside everything that is movement, that is distraction slows down aiming, perhaps spends rounds of ammunition into a wall, or into the floor. There's another locked door with kids hiding just down the hall. And again. And again. And in theory there are squad cars blowing out their engines on county roads and other kids booking it across the playground.

Let's put it another way. Grey squirrels sometimes dig into houses and cause damage. They're an invasive species, unlike the brown ones, and if you trap them you are not allowed to relocate and release them. So, if you have a trapped squirrel and a .22 it is easier, faster, and more ammo efficient to stand far enough back from the cage that it isn't slamming around trying to get away from you, you step back until it stops and stares.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You're fundamentally misunderstanding swarming. They aren't trying to win and attack. They're supposed to all run and maybe throw stuff. With 6 year olds that's kind a pipe dream anyways. Like I said, he still thinks of it mostly like a tornado drill. The door is locked and the kids are quiet, ideally. Once that's spent and a shooter is inside everything that is movement, that is distraction slows down aiming, perhaps spends rounds of ammunition into a wall, or into the floor. There's another locked door with kids hiding just down the hall. And again. And again. And in theory there are squad cars blowing out their engines on county roads and other kids booking it across the playground.

Let's put it another way. Grey squirrels sometimes dig into houses and cause damage. They're an invasive species, unlike the brown ones, and if you trap them you are not allowed to relocate and release them. So, if you have a trapped squirrel and a .22 it is easier, faster, and more ammo efficient to stand far enough back from the cage that it isn't slamming around trying to get away from you, you step back until it stops and stares.

If they're throwing while running, or can't run given the room layout, I guess this is reasonable. I certainly agree running like crazy and scattering targets would stand a good chance of at least reducing casualties.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's a horrible scenario.

This is kind of the bottom line, for me. By the time an adult with guns is inside a school, intent on murder, we've all forked up big time. The mere fact that schools need to figure out how to deal with such a scenario is a blight on our nation and people, and I'd be really embarrassed if I weren't too busy being horrified.

 

[Farm Boy]

If it makes you feel better, the tornado and fire drills are way more functionally useful.

 

[EgonSpengler]

If it makes you feel better, the tornado drills are way more functionally useful.

It does. Thank you. I assume talking a tornado out of throwing things around would be harder than passing gun legislation (I've been wrong before, though...).

Random tornado story: There was a photo from a nearby town that got hit a couple of years ago. The brick exterior wall of the building was completely gone, but the photographs hanging on the interior wall - which you could now see from outside the building - were still neatly in their places, seemingly untouched. I'm sure that was a small, short-lived tornado, but still.

 

[Synobun]

You're fundamentally misunderstanding swarming. They aren't trying to win and attack. They're supposed to all run and maybe throw stuff. With 6 year olds that's kind a pipe dream anyways. Like I said, he still thinks of it mostly like a tornado drill. The door is locked and the kids are quiet, ideally. Once that's spent and a shooter is inside everything that is movement, that is distraction slows down aiming, perhaps spends rounds of ammunition into a wall, or into the floor. There's another locked door with kids hiding just down the hall. And again. And again. And in theory there are squad cars blowing out their engines on county roads and other kids booking it across the playground.

Swarming also reduces the likelihood of the adult in the room being shot. Kindergartners may not be capable of taking down an armed assailant but their teacher/aide might be.

Even people who are military-trained are rarely calm and centered in an active firing scenario at first. Somebody who's snapped and is on a rampage isn't going to have the calculated precision of someone in their tenth armed conflict. A lot of movement and commotion reduces effectiveness. In a situation where the shooter is already in the room, you inevitably have to focus on reducing future harm as much as possible.

It's morbid, obviously, but it makes practical sense.

 

[Farm Boy]

Random tornado story: There was a photo from a nearby town that got hit a couple of years ago. The brick exterior wall of the building was completely gone, but the photographs hanging on the interior wall - which you could now see from outside the building - were still neatly in their places, seemingly untouched. I'm sure that was a small, short-lived tornado, but still.

Yeah, at least there a lot of loss potential is significantly mitigated by making sure the school isn't milling and loading buses when there's danger one might be/form near.

 

[El_Machinae]

Or put another way, I would be much more alarmed by a 6 bullet revolver pointed straight at me than I would about a super 30 round magazine on a weapon someone isn't aiming at me rather than 10. I suspect that in this case my opinion is not an outlier.

It's not an outlier, it's a normal opinion. But if you were to measure the actual difference in threat level, it's minuscule. The only reason why we care about a revolver being pointed at us is (a) we're afraid of accidents and (b) it's literally a social signal of 'I am threatening you'. Let's change the situation: if you knew someone wanted to murder you, would you feel significantly safer if they had a 30 round rifle slung over their shoulder than if they had a pistol pointed at you? If you do, then you understand why seconds are critical. If you don't, then you can see why a 30 round magazine is much better at killing. I'm much less afraid of a friend pointing a revolver at me than of a murderous person with an automatic pistol on his hip.

It was a strange analogy, I'll grant. But the level of danger from a murderer is critically dependent upon seconds, is my point. The level of danger is the quality of the murder's weapon, and defanging that quality really changes things. I can think of no mass shootings in the States that wouldn't be better with a smaller magazine.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It does. Thank you. I assume talking a tornado out of throwing things around would be harder than passing gun legislation (I've been wrong before, though...).

Random tornado story: There was a photo from a nearby town that got hit a couple of years ago. The brick exterior wall of the building was completely gone, but the photographs hanging on the interior wall - which you could now see from outside the building - were still neatly in their places, seemingly untouched. I'm sure that was a small, short-lived tornado, but still.

Lower grade tornados like F0 or F1 don't destroy brick structures though typically. In principle if you somehow had 0 debris you could face check one and not be harmed, big contrast to those mile-wide ones that can kill you dead perfectly well on their own, along with straight up removing anything above ground in their path, including concrete structures.

And yes as Farm Boy points out active shooter risk on a per school basis is very small. It's massively over-reported, compared to other sources of death, even among violent crime. If we really care about gun homicide rate making a law that says you can't use a certain kind of stock is comedy-central levels of missing the point.

It was a strange analogy, I'll grant. But the level of danger from a murderer is critically dependent upon seconds, is my point. The level of danger is the quality of the murder's weapon, and defanging that quality really changes things. I can think of no mass shootings in the States that wouldn't be better with a smaller magazine.

I see your point now. It still seems like such a small gesture compared to avoiding the preceding steps. I might feel less threatened by a known murder attempt with 10 shots than 30, but in the relative sense it's not much less. I can't tank 5 bullets and live consistently, there's a good chance I don't survive one. But yes, it's still technically better if that guy has less shots.

 

[El_Machinae]

I see your point now. It still seems like such a small gesture compared to avoiding the preceding steps. I might feel less threatened by a known murder attempt with 10 shots than 30, but in the relative sense it's not much less. I can't tank 5 bullets and live consistently, there's a good chance I don't survive one. But yes, it's still technically better if that guy has less shots.

It's absolutely a small effect compared to the murderer not having a gun in the first place, by a huge margin. But in an active shooting situation, a murderer with 5-round magazines for his rifle will be just amazingly less deadly than one with 30 round magazines. Our Canadian restriction on capacity doesn't negatively affect hunting or home defence, neither does our more careful control over who owns pistols. A person with a five-round magazine can kill people. So can someone with a hammer. But if we're counting numbers, one is more deadly than the other, easily so.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's absolutely a small effect compared to the murderer not having a gun in the first place, by a huge margin.

You sure about that?

Let's make some general assumptions:

You park your car in a parking lot and walk into a building where you work.
You have a fixed address where you live.

Okay, now, someone takes it into their head to hire out your killing. They have three choices. One guy is a basic thug who owns a number of handguns and has killed a number of people. One guy is a basic thug who owns no guns, but has successfully killed numerous targets using his favorite sap to the head from behind and haul them off to the woods method. One guy is an arsonist that has turned his passion for fire into a lucrative business by roasting numerous targets in their homes.

Is there any real preference as to which hit man is sent after you? I submit there is not. Once you introduce "murderer" to the discussion it makes no real difference how they are armed.

Where having a gun or not having a gun matters is with people who are not murderers. You get in a minor fender bender in a parking lot, and the other driver is a hot headed fool...whether he has a gun or not is a critical difference, because he might do something regrettable under the influence of thinking the gun gives him power. Your home is broken into by a petty burglar who is surprised to find that you didn't go to work that day...whether he just picked up your gun or just picked up your prize comic book when he catches sight of you makes all the difference in the world. Whether your wife has a gun in her purse or not makes all the difference in the world when she surprise visits you at work and you are naked on your desk with a coworker.

But someone who is intent on killing you is more or less the same problem no matter how they are armed.

 

[El_Machinae]

If it makes no difference, then why do so many mass shooters choose guns? Do we see Mass murderers with a closet full of guns that they left at home? Obviously they feel that using a firearm is a superior choice to using a sap in order to get their Mayhem done

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's absolutely a small effect compared to the murderer not having a gun in the first place, by a huge margin. But in an active shooting situation, a murderer with 5-round magazines for his rifle will be just amazingly less deadly than one with 30 round magazines. Our Canadian restriction on capacity doesn't negatively affect hunting or home defence, neither does our more careful control over who owns pistols. A person with a five-round magazine can kill people. So can someone with a hammer. But if we're counting numbers, one is more deadly than the other, easily so.

I agree, the not-uncommon claim by gun enthusiasts that someone can be killed "just as dead" with a knife or a vehicle or a power tool is ridiculous. Of course guns are superior weapons. And it's ironic that such a claim would ever come from a gun enthusiast, since they ought to be the people most familiar with the game-changing nature of firearms in warfare and self-defense. Of course not everybody who is an enthusiast is by definition an expert, or vice-versa, but I still find it ironic.

Where having a gun or not having a gun matters is with people who are not murderers.

Again, I agree. And when we're talking about legislation and regulation, we must be talking about populations and not individuals: iirc, it's been found that, in aggregate, homes that have a gun are less safe than those that don't.

 

[Cutlass]

I wasn't specifically referring to the Civil War, I was referring to your implication that the only possible result of secession is civil war. But since you bring it up, how exactly was the Confederacy supposed to react? Lincoln was talking about preserving the Union at any cost in the lead up to the Civil War. Now, if you are a secessionist and you hear that, wouldn't you essentially take that as a declaration of war? I would because that's the head of the federal government basically telling you that he doesn't care about your right to self-determination.

So the shelling of Fort Sumter could just be seen as a preemptive strike against an inevitable aggressor. Plus, all Lincoln had to do to at least delay open hostilities was surrender Fort Sumter to the CSA. No one can say Confederate forces didn't give the Union garrison ample opportunity to resolve the siege peacefully.

Poor Hitler was so misundrstood!