Deep breath--the gun thing again

[jbuck919]

Knowing that I will have to put on my flak jacket, I will be the first to raise the issue:

Would it not be the teensiest tiniest touch better in New Orleans if the looters, etc., could not just pick up a gun and shoot at will? I mean, like, if perhaps civilized laws had kept them from access to those guns in the first place. I mean, like, maybe we can learn a lesson from this.

[BWV 1080]

Considering that the worst elements are drug-dealing street gangs who have the resources to acquire guns whether they are legal or not, I fail to see how a prohibition on guns would do little to help the situation

[jbuck919]

Considering that the worst elements are drug-dealing street gangs who have the resources to acquire guns whether they are legal or not, I fail to see how a prohibition on guns would do little to help the situation

In the first place, armed elements in a situation of lawlessness are not, alas, limited to drug-dealing street gangs. In the second, you can't use your resources to acquire what is not available in the first place.

Poor Steve, I did not mean to draw you into this as a relative newbie. We're going to hear from, ahem, certain other members about why the world is enobled when everyone has a gun readily at hand to shoot at will.

[BWV 1080]

Furthermore, in a crisis like this we need to make sure that gun dealers are not engaging in price gauging

[jbuck919]

Furthermore, in a crisis like this we need to make sure that gun dealers are not engaging in price gauging

[Ralph]

Gun dealers, whether individual stores or Wal-Mart, are held to at least three standards of care: law as in statutes, ordinances and regulations; tort law and insurance company requirements.

The levee break could not have been anticipated by private entities nor the breakdown in order including at least half the police department deserting their duty.

Gun control is a valid issue for debate but not in the context of the extraordinary Katrina catastrophe.

[jbuck919]

Gun dealers, whether individual stores or Wal-Mart, are held to at least three standards of care: law as in statutes, ordinances and regulations; tort law and insurance company requirements.

The levee break could not have been anticipated by private entities nor the breakdown in order including at least half the police department deserting their duty.

Gun control is a valid issue for debate but not in the context of the extraordinary Katrina catastrophe.

Ralph, we don't need the legalese. For once, the situation is plain in the face. There are too many guns and too many people own them. They shoot each other with them. If the dikes broke in Holland, people would not start running around with guns in their hands shooting everyone in sight.

I can't think of a better occasion to make the case for gun control.

[pizza]

Gun dealers, whether individual stores or Wal-Mart, are held to at least three standards of care: law as in statutes, ordinances and regulations; tort law and insurance company requirements.

The levee break could not have been anticipated by private entities nor the breakdown in order including at least half the police department deserting their duty.

Gun control is a valid issue for debate but not in the context of the extraordinary Katrina catastrophe.

In plain English, there are too many guns and too many people own them. They shoot each other with them. If the dikes broke in Holland, people would not start running around with guns in their hands shooting everyone in sight.

I can't think of a better occasion to make the case for gun control.

I don't doubt the accuracy of your last sentence but the idea is nonsense. What you want is people control, not gun control. There were plenty of looters looting without guns in case you didn't notice. The ones with guns took the headlines, but the vast majority of looters without guns took the loot.

And what about all the other hurricanes and natural disasters in our history? Did roaming gangs with guns go about shooting everyone in sight or did we just happen to miss it? If you can't think of a better occasion than an historical anomaly to make the case for gun control, you ain't the one to make it.

[jbuck919]

Gun dealers, whether individual stores or Wal-Mart, are held to at least three standards of care: law as in statutes, ordinances and regulations; tort law and insurance company requirements.

The levee break could not have been anticipated by private entities nor the breakdown in order including at least half the police department deserting their duty.

Gun control is a valid issue for debate but not in the context of the extraordinary Katrina catastrophe.

In plain English, there are too many guns and too many people own them. They shoot each other with them. If the dikes broke in Holland, people would not start running around with guns in their hands shooting everyone in sight.

I can't think of a better occasion to make the case for gun control.

I don't doubt the accuracy of your last sentence but the idea is nonsense. What you want is people control, not gun control. There were plenty of looters looting without guns in case you didn't notice. The ones with guns took the headlines, but the vast majority of looters without guns took the loot.

And what about all the other hurricanes and natural disasters in our history? Did roaming gangs with guns go about shooting everyone in sight or did we just happen to miss it? If you can't think of a better occasion than an historical anomaly to make the case for gun control, you ain't the one to make it.

That is a great deal like saying that smoking is ok because we are going to die anyway.

[pizza]

Gun dealers, whether individual stores or Wal-Mart, are held to at least three standards of care: law as in statutes, ordinances and regulations; tort law and insurance company requirements.

The levee break could not have been anticipated by private entities nor the breakdown in order including at least half the police department deserting their duty.

Gun control is a valid issue for debate but not in the context of the extraordinary Katrina catastrophe.

In plain English, there are too many guns and too many people own them. They shoot each other with them. If the dikes broke in Holland, people would not start running around with guns in their hands shooting everyone in sight.

I can't think of a better occasion to make the case for gun control.

I don't doubt the accuracy of your last sentence but the idea is nonsense. What you want is people control, not gun control. There were plenty of looters looting without guns in case you didn't notice. The ones with guns took the headlines, but the vast majority of looters without guns took the loot.

And what about all the other hurricanes and natural disasters in our history? Did roaming gangs with guns go about shooting everyone in sight or did we just happen to miss it? If you can't think of a better occasion than an historical anomaly to make the case for gun control, you ain't the one to make it.

That is a great deal like saying that smoking is ok because we are going to die anyway.

Not at all. Smoking has been proven to be a health hazard and will affect the health of every smoker on some level, but even so, not every smoker will die of lung cancer, emphysema or from smoking-related diseases. Unlike smoking, gun ownership has never been proven to be universally hazardous.

[jbuck919]

Gun dealers, whether individual stores or Wal-Mart, are held to at least three standards of care: law as in statutes, ordinances and regulations; tort law and insurance company requirements.

The levee break could not have been anticipated by private entities nor the breakdown in order including at least half the police department deserting their duty.

Gun control is a valid issue for debate but not in the context of the extraordinary Katrina catastrophe.

In plain English, there are too many guns and too many people own them. They shoot each other with them. If the dikes broke in Holland, people would not start running around with guns in their hands shooting everyone in sight.

I can't think of a better occasion to make the case for gun control.

I don't doubt the accuracy of your last sentence but the idea is nonsense. What you want is people control, not gun control. There were plenty of looters looting without guns in case you didn't notice. The ones with guns took the headlines, but the vast majority of looters without guns took the loot.

And what about all the other hurricanes and natural disasters in our history? Did roaming gangs with guns go about shooting everyone in sight or did we just happen to miss it? If you can't think of a better occasion than an historical anomaly to make the case for gun control, you ain't the one to make it.

That is a great deal like saying that smoking is ok because we are going to die anyway.

Not at all. Smoking has been proven to be a health hazard and will affect the health of every smoker on some level, but even so, not every smoker will die of lung cancer, emphysema or from smoking-related diseases. Unlike smoking, gun ownership has never been proven to be universally hazardous.

Tell that to the substantial portion of America that has a significant statistical chance of being shot, which is obviously in the current case increased circumstantially.

[pizza]

Gun dealers, whether individual stores or Wal-Mart, are held to at least three standards of care: law as in statutes, ordinances and regulations; tort law and insurance company requirements.

The levee break could not have been anticipated by private entities nor the breakdown in order including at least half the police department deserting their duty.

Gun control is a valid issue for debate but not in the context of the extraordinary Katrina catastrophe.

In plain English, there are too many guns and too many people own them. They shoot each other with them. If the dikes broke in Holland, people would not start running around with guns in their hands shooting everyone in sight.

I can't think of a better occasion to make the case for gun control.

I don't doubt the accuracy of your last sentence but the idea is nonsense. What you want is people control, not gun control. There were plenty of looters looting without guns in case you didn't notice. The ones with guns took the headlines, but the vast majority of looters without guns took the loot.

And what about all the other hurricanes and natural disasters in our history? Did roaming gangs with guns go about shooting everyone in sight or did we just happen to miss it? If you can't think of a better occasion than an historical anomaly to make the case for gun control, you ain't the one to make it.

That is a great deal like saying that smoking is ok because we are going to die anyway.

Not at all. Smoking has been proven to be a health hazard and will affect the health of every smoker on some level, but even so, not every smoker will die of lung cancer, emphysema or from smoking-related diseases. Unlike smoking, gun ownership has never been proven to be universally hazardous.

Tell that to the substantial portion of America that has a significant statistical chance of being shot, which is obviously in the current case increased circumstantially.

Regardless of who hears it, it's true. You're the one who raised the smoking comparison. You tell them -- and be sure to give them the sources of your statistical comparisons between the two unrelated issues.

[jbuck919]

You were implying that there is not much point in worrying about guns in New Orleans because everything else about the situation is anomalous. My point was that this is false reasoning, the same reasoning smokers use to claim that it is all right to smoke because, after all, the bigger picture.....

I was not trying to compare smoking and handgun deaths, though I do seem to have fallen into my own trap that way. I am not afraid of dying of smoking because I don't smoke. And I don't walk around in terror in the US because someone might shoot me. But, someone might, and that is the whole point.

[pizza]

You were implying that there is not much point in worrying about guns in New Orleans because everything else about the situation is anomalous. My point was that this is false reasoning, the same reasoning smokers use to claim that it is all right to smoke because, after all, the bigger picture.....

I was not trying to compare smoking and handgun deaths, though I do seem to have fallen into my own trap that way. I am not afraid of dying of smoking because I don't smoke. And I don't walk around in terror in the US because someone might shoot me. But, someone might, and that is the whole point.

I wasn't implying anything. I said straight out that there is no basis for trying to make a case for gun control based upon one aberrant event. Someone will more likely run you down with an auto than shoot you; do you also want to inhibit the ownership of automobiles?

[jbuck919]

I wasn't implying anything. I said straight out that there is no basis for trying to make a case for gun control based upon one aberrant event. Someone will more likely run you down with an auto than shoot you; do you also want to inhibit the ownership of automobiles?

This ground has been gone over many times. Guns exist to kill, automobiles exist to get people from place to place. I also do not propose banning electricity because a number of people each year die of electrocution.

You know, if we were on the main street in an old-fashioned shoot-em-down western, and I threw off my gun and bared myself to your next shot, you would manage to hit your own foot. You don't even get when you are being given an opening for a friendly exchange malgre tout.

[pizza]

I wasn't implying anything. I said straight out that there is no basis for trying to make a case for gun control based upon one aberrant event. Someone will more likely run you down with an auto than shoot you; do you also want to inhibit the ownership of automobiles?

This ground has been gone over many times. Guns exist to kill, automobiles exist to get people from place to place. I also do not propose banning electricity because a number of people each year die of electrocution.

You know, if we were on the main street in an old-fashioned shoot-em-down western, and I threw off my gun and bared myself to your next shot, you would manage to hit your own foot. You don't even get when you are being given an opening for a friendly exchange malgre tout.

Guns also exist for self-defense by responsible people against thugs who use them to kill. And they are used quite successfully for that purpose, regardless of the hype that deliberately suppresses that information.

I'm still quite friendly in this thread. Sorry if logic rubs you the wrong way.

[jbuck919]

I wasn't implying anything. I said straight out that there is no basis for trying to make a case for gun control based upon one aberrant event. Someone will more likely run you down with an auto than shoot you; do you also want to inhibit the ownership of automobiles?

This ground has been gone over many times. Guns exist to kill, automobiles exist to get people from place to place. I also do not propose banning electricity because a number of people each year die of electrocution.

You know, if we were on the main street in an old-fashioned shoot-em-down western, and I threw off my gun and bared myself to your next shot, you would manage to hit your own foot. You don't even get when you are being given an opening for a friendly exchange malgre tout.

Guns also exist for self-defense by responsible people against thugs who use them to kill. And they are used quite successfully for that purpose, regardless of the hype that deliberately suppresses that information.

I'm still quite friendly in this thread. Sorry if logic rubs you the wrong way.

Now you sound like Corlyss in her sleep-walking alter ego. There is not a shred of evidence that ordinary citizen gun ownership has ever been used to its intended effect in a reliable way for self-defense. This is the very fantasy of people who just like guns and who unfortunately have political clout in the US. You've been watching too many reruns of the last episode of The Fugitive.

[Ralph]

Gun dealers, whether individual stores or Wal-Mart, are held to at least three standards of care: law as in statutes, ordinances and regulations; tort law and insurance company requirements.

The levee break could not have been anticipated by private entities nor the breakdown in order including at least half the police department deserting their duty.

Gun control is a valid issue for debate but not in the context of the extraordinary Katrina catastrophe.

Ralph, we don't need the legalese. For once, the situation is plain in the face. There are too many guns and too many people own them. They shoot each other with them. If the dikes broke in Holland, people would not start running around with guns in their hands shooting everyone in sight.

I can't think of a better occasion to make the case for gun control.

*****

You've exaggerated the situation beyond what even the media has done.

And what kind of gun control are you talking about? Wal-Mart stores were looted for rifles and shotguns. Generally these weapons don't even figure in gun control debates unless they're assault rifles. Do you think there's any political support for eliminating this kind of firearm from retail sale?

Stating the law isn't an exercise in "legalese." It's a simple reality check.

[jbuck919]

Gun dealers, whether individual stores or Wal-Mart, are held to at least three standards of care: law as in statutes, ordinances and regulations; tort law and insurance company requirements.

The levee break could not have been anticipated by private entities nor the breakdown in order including at least half the police department deserting their duty.

Gun control is a valid issue for debate but not in the context of the extraordinary Katrina catastrophe.

Ralph, we don't need the legalese. For once, the situation is plain in the face. There are too many guns and too many people own them. They shoot each other with them. If the dikes broke in Holland, people would not start running around with guns in their hands shooting everyone in sight.

I can't think of a better occasion to make the case for gun control.

*****

You've exaggerated the situation beyond what even the media has done.

And what kind of gun control are you talking about? Wal-Mart stores were looted for rifles and shotguns. Generally these weapons don't even figure in gun control debates unless they're assault rifles. Do you think there's any political support for eliminating this kind of firearm from retail sale?

Stating the law isn't an exercise in "legalese." It's a simple reality check.

The notion of handguns being available at a department store like WalMart is laughable to the rest of the civilized world. I wasn't even talking about looting stores where handguns are available. I was talking about people shooting other people because guns are just, one way or another, hanging around in the US.

Ralph, you are an excellent lawyer and a fine friend, but you do have a tendency to buy into the extremes of nonsense that pervade US law as though it were some kind of norm and not a hideous contortion of decent standards. I know you need to adopt this kind of posture for your law classes, but do you really have to argue among us that it makes any sense for someone to be able to go down to the corner store and (legally or illegally) just pick up a gun to shoot someone?

[Ralph]

Gun dealers, whether individual stores or Wal-Mart, are held to at least three standards of care: law as in statutes, ordinances and regulations; tort law and insurance company requirements.

The levee break could not have been anticipated by private entities nor the breakdown in order including at least half the police department deserting their duty.

Gun control is a valid issue for debate but not in the context of the extraordinary Katrina catastrophe.

Ralph, we don't need the legalese. For once, the situation is plain in the face. There are too many guns and too many people own them. They shoot each other with them. If the dikes broke in Holland, people would not start running around with guns in their hands shooting everyone in sight.

I can't think of a better occasion to make the case for gun control.

*****

You've exaggerated the situation beyond what even the media has done.

And what kind of gun control are you talking about? Wal-Mart stores were looted for rifles and shotguns. Generally these weapons don't even figure in gun control debates unless they're assault rifles. Do you think there's any political support for eliminating this kind of firearm from retail sale?

Stating the law isn't an exercise in "legalese." It's a simple reality check.

The notion of handguns being available at a department store like WalMart is laughable to the rest of the civilized world. I wasn't even talking about looting stores where handguns are available. I was talking about people shooting other people because guns are just, one way or another, hanging around in the US.

Ralph, you are an excellent lawyer and a fine friend, but you do have a tendency to buy into the extremes of nonsense that pervade US law as though it were some kind of norm and not a hideous contortion of decent standards. I know you need to adopt this kind of posture for your law classes, but do you really have to argue among us that it makes any sense for someone to be able to go down to the corner store and (legally or illegally) just pick up a gun to shoot someone?

****

First, I don't have a classroom posture different than how I express myself here.

Second, I am a strong proponent of handgun control and reasonable regulation of gun acquisition including records checks of potential buyers.

Given that gun sales are lawful in all jurisdictions I find no logic in using criminal acts to acquire weapons when law enforcement is very temporarily absent as a rational basis for discussing a very important issue.

And on CNN this morning the reports of snipers are being investigated and some real misreporting the past week is obvious. It would seem that the snipers were truly poor shots since there's hardly an account of anyone killed or wounded. That's not to say that any authenticated incident isn't serious but so is every violent crime.

[Corlyss_D]

Knowing that I will have to put on my flak jacket, I will be the first to raise the issue:

Would it not be the teensiest tiniest touch better in New Orleans if the looters, etc., could not just pick up a gun and shoot at will? I mean, like, if perhaps civilized laws had kept them from access to those guns in the first place. I mean, like, maybe we can learn a lesson from this.

Wouldn't it be nice if more people were armed so the looters wouldn't know for an absolute certainty that they can ravage an unarmed population, made supine by all the sacchrine goody goody intentions of gun-control advocates who have not a single shred, not a scintilla of evidence to support their co*ckeye sociology of unilateral disarmament? The criminals will always have guns. Gun control disarms only the law-abiding citizens.

[BuKiNisT]

This gun-control discussion is a very interesting one if one looks at it from a perspective.

So let me go slightly off-topic for a while.
In Russia there exists a similar discussion - and it's there for years, just like in the US, about guns. The only difference is, not only gun carriage, but gun ownership and sale is strictly prohibited in Russia, and the conditions for getting a license are insanely rigid. So the discussion naturally revolves around whether should gun ownership and carriage be allowed - like in the US - because the crime situation as it is is far from normal. Yes, most people don't have guns. But they still kill, still rape, still rob - there are just far more tools available for that than merely the firearms. After all, bare hands or a boulder picked up nearby make you just as dead in the end. And the more organised crime elements still have no problem with guns or anything else whatsoever. What if guns were allowed? Some argue it would let people defend themselves, some argue that far more criminals would have access to guns and that would escalate the issue far more...

But in the end one must conclude that it's the people what matters, and for personal self-defence it's the mindset and awareness of a given individual.

No gun policy, whether prohibition or the opposite is going to change that.

And my personal opinion would be that this is relevant to the US just as much.

But there is an another question yet to ask. What would happen if the laws againt guns passed and the corresponding actions were taken? One can argue, but I, personally, am more than sure that it would result in a wave of violence and a dramatic temporary rise of crime rates.

If they allowed guns in Russia the result would be exactly the same.

So my opinion on the matter would be: leave a thing that has worked and still works - in place.

It would have been much better in NO if the local authorities were more responsive and if a better social system has had been built in the first place.

Poor people plus a major disorder always equals to plunder and murder. No gun situation in the world is going to change that.

[jbuck919]

This gun-control discussion is a very interesting one if one looks at it from a perspective.

So let me go slightly off-topic for a while.
In Russia there exists a similar discussion - and it's there for years, just like in the US, about guns. The only difference is, not only gun carriage, but gun ownership and sale is strictly prohibited in Russia, and the conditions for getting a license are insanely rigid. So the discussion naturally revolves around whether should gun ownership and carriage be allowed - like in the US - because the crime situation as it is is far from normal. Yes, most people don't have guns. But they still kill, still rape, still rob - there are just far more tools available for that than merely the firearms. After all, bare hands or a boulder picked up nearby make you just as dead in the end. And the more organised crime elements still have no problem with guns or anything else whatsoever. What if guns were allowed? Some argue it would let people defend themselves, some argue that far more criminals would have access to guns and that would escalate the issue far more...

But in the end one must conclude that it's the people what matters, and for personal self-defence it's the mindset and awareness of a given individual.

No gun policy, whether prohibition or the opposite is going to change that.

And my personal opinion would be that this is relevant to the US just as much.

But there is an another question yet to ask. What would happen if the laws againt guns passed and the corresponding actions were taken? One can argue, but I, personally, am more than sure that it would result in a wave of violence and a dramatic temporary rise of crime rates.

If they allowed guns in Russia the result would be exactly the same.

So my opinion on the matter would be: leave a thing that has worked and still works - in place.

It would have been much better in NO if the local authorities were more responsive and if a better social system has had been built in the first place.

Poor people plus a major disorder always equals to plunder and murder. No gun situation in the world is going to change that.

Russia, a country so great that it should sit at the table with the world's greatest nations, is still suffering from the effects of communism, the greatest evil the world has ever known. I am sorry that I do not kinow how to help.

[BuKiNisT]

jbuck919,

While I absolutely cannot agree with you on communism being the greatest evil (blah blah) - that being a judgement highly affected by (and mostly based on ) the anti-communist propaganda, that issue is beyond this discussion.

I only mentioned Russia to give an example of how gun situation doesn't affect anything