Paranoid Gun Fetishist Parades Around Atlanta Airport

In Georgia, it’s perfectly legal to walk around in public with automatic assault rifles, even in the busiest airport in the country. A guy with a serious gun fetish and enough paranoia for a Black Sabbath song took advantage of that to wander around Hartsfield International Airport.

Jim Cooley carried his assault weapon with a 100-round drum attached to it while accompanied by his wife as they dropped their daughter off, alerting the press later after he was stopped multiple times by authorities.

In an interview with WSB-TV, Cooley explained that he knew it was legal to carry the weapon into the airport as long as he didn’t approach any TSA checkpoints, explaining “You can carry in unsecured areas of the airport. Past TSA, never.”

While in the airport, Cooley was approached by a fire marshal asking him why he was carrying the gun, an Atlanta police officer who asked him if he had a carry permit, and then multiple officers who followed him to his car while taking pictures.

Asked why he carried the weapon, pausing to pose with it for a picture he later posted to his Facebook page, Cooley explained, “It shouldn’t matter what I carry, just that I choose to carry. You never know where something might happen.”

Yeah, you never know. But having people with this kind of hard-on for military-grade assault weapons wandering around in public makes it a lot more likely that something very bad is going to happen. How the hell is anyone else in that public place supposed to know what their intentions are? How are they supposed to feel secure with heavily-armed paranoiacs walking around with enough firepower to take out dozens and dozens of people? How are the security personnel supposed to react to this, where anyone carrying a gun could be there to rob the place or worse? This is simply madness.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • busterggi

    He’s a white paranoiac so its okay. Its also why he’s still alive.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Hmm… Wouldn’t a “military grade” assault rifle be fully automatic? Aren’t those illegal?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    He posed no danger. He was simply standing up for his right to advertise his insecurity over his tiny dick, like me and my sports car.

     

    Unarmed black people running away or Muslins with unopened cans of pop, now those are dangerous!

  • bmiller

    I am just OFFENDED that he is not allowed to carry HIS PRECIOUS onto the plane. If he was on board, he could have just blown the cabin door off and saved the German flight!

    LOL

  • bmiller

    Seriously, though. I wonder if these Ammosexuals REALLY want the United States to devolve into, say, a Yemen (without the foreign bombardment, of course. Being bombed by flying death robots is only for the lesser orders)

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    This guy is the perfect poster-boy for pointless, stupid macho posturing — a.k.a. the “open-carry movement” that sabrekgb mentioned awhile back.

    While in the airport, Cooley was approached by a fire marshal asking him why he was carrying the gun, an Atlanta police officer who asked him if he had a carry permit, and then multiple officers who followed him to his car while taking pictures.

    If he had been black, would he even be alive now? Looks like he’s also a perfect poster-boy for off-the-chain white privilege.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Protip: “Assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are meaningless bullshit terms used by those who do not understand firearms. The legal distinction is largely cosmetic. The public’s understanding of “assault weapon” encompasses basically all modern conventional semi-auto rifles.

    As for Ed’s assertion that it was an automatic rifle, that seems highly dubious. I don’t see that detail in the original story.

    The unusual bits about the situation are the 100 round drum magazine, and that the guy was open carrying any sort of gun in an airport.

  • bmiller

    He probably needed to have enough bullets to handle the horde of atheists, gays, and uppity black people that would have overwhelmed him otherwise!

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Worse, the stock is extended, in an crowded area that would be a close-quarters firefight when the ChiComs invade, and the vertical foregrip is comically far forward. And don’t get me started on the open ejection port cover!

  • jaybee

    EnlightenmentLIberal, there is no legal distinction or clear boundary between a sports car and a soccer mom car, but the description is still useful. The point is this wasn’t a bolt action hunting rifle; it isn’t a target shooting sport rifle; it is the type of rifle designed to kill a lot of people very quickly.

    I admit to knowing very little about guns, so please explain why what I said is “meaningless bullshit.”

  • John Pieret

    EnlightenmentLiberal:

    As for Ed’s assertion that it was an automatic rifle, that seems highly dubious.

    What he was carrying was an AR-15, the “civilian” version of the M-16, which can operate either in semi-automatic or automatic mode. I don’t believe the AR-15 comes with that option but there are kits available all over the internet that allow someone to fire it in automatic mode … and a guy who has a hundred round clip is more than likely to have made the conversion so he can shoot his sperm ammo rapidly all over the firing range.

    Plus the picture shows him with the rifle slung in front of him pointing down where, if it went off accidently, he could shoot someone, spray ricochets around or, preferably, shoot himself, instead of slung with its barrel pointing up.

  • http://cheapsignals.blogspot.com Gretchen

    The National Lobby for Sexual Fetishes woud like to request an apology from the denizens of this blog post for associating them with such unsavory characters as a man carrying a large semi-automatic weapon in an airport.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    John Pieret “I don’t believe the AR-15 comes with that option but there are kits available all over the internet that allow someone to fire it in automatic mode … and a guy who has a hundred round clip is more than likely to have made the conversion so he can shoot his sperm ammo rapidly all over the firing range.”

    To be fair, it’s an AR15, so it’s more of a “Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Jam…Clear…Clear…Bang! Bang! Jam…Clear…Clear… Bang! Jam…Clear…Clear…Clear…Jam…Disassemble…Clean…Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!…”*

     

    * Hah! Take that, rifle with a long-running and well-deserved reputation for unreliability!

  • brinderwalt

    More of this please. The more these nuts do stupid, self-sabotaging shit like this, the sooner people will realize they are full of crap and demand we get rid of this open carry bullshit.

  • Synfandel

    Cooley says he doesn’t believe Atlanta police officers should have followed him out of the airport to his car.

    Ah, but they have the right to follow him to his car and “if you don’t exercise your rights, the government doesn’t have any hesitation in takin’ them away.”

  • rietpluim

    @brinderwalt – I hope so, but I’m not holding my breath.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @jaybee

    The abstractions of “sports car” and “soccer mom car” make sense. They describe real world differences that make sense as objective categories.

    Here’s a good introduction found by a google search. (Note that I think the tone is way off, and the article is too sympathic to the imaginary position that the assault weapons ban did anything productive.)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/

    Here’s the definition of an “assault rifle” according to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban:

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

    Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

    * Folding or telescoping stock

    * Pistol grip

    * Bayonet mount

    * Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

    * Grenade launcher mount

    Your concern is about “weapons designed to kill people”. Basically none of the characteristics of the assault weapons ban has anything to do with your concern. The proper way to describe your concern is “modern conventional firearms”.

    It is a fact that in most mass shootings, the shooter had plenty of time. They could have done the same amount of damage with 2 handguns with a dozen 10 round magazines. For not-mass shootings, ammo capacity of the magazine generally isn’t a concern. Even putting limits like max 10 rounds on magazines is a feel-good do-nothing measure.

    “But he has to reload!” In the real world, reloading a modern conventional firearm is not a 10 minute long process. I have never handled a firearm, but with a mere 10 minutes of practice, I could get down to 3 seconds. Push magazine release, grab new mag, push mag into place, and perhaps fiddle with one more gadget to put the first round into the chamber. That’s not that long. Professional and people with lots of practice can get even faster. In almost all real world situations of civilian gun violence, and including almost all civilian mass shootings, requiring the shooter to reload after every 10 shots is not a noteworthy impediment to their crime. Remember that they can have two handguns.

    There is a real world objective categorical difference between “sports car” and “soccer mom car”. The only way to make a real world objective category for “assault rifle” is to define “assault rifle” as “a modern conventional rifle”. You did bring up single shot breech loaded hunting rifles and the like, but it’s a ridiculous characterization to say that anything else is “military style”. That same sort of logic would apply to basically every handgun – most handguns are a semi-auto with a detachable box magazine or a revolver (and there are things called speedloaders), and I would think it’s ridiculous to characterize basically all handguns are “military”. It’s just dishonest or ignorant fearmongering to those who don’t know better.

    Mass shootings are tragic, but not the problem. The number of deaths per year on average from mass shootings are smaller than a thousand times less than the rest of the gun deaths. Focusing on rifles of any kind is a mistake – unless your goal is political and part of a longer-term agenda of slowing ratcheting down the controls.

    Worse, this kind of dishonest and/or ignorant fear mongering of “assault weapons” means that we’re not focusing on the real problems. IMHO, the only restrictions by gun type that would make an appreciable difference must include a simple ban on all semi-auto handguns. Without that, you’re not even going to make a dent. Without that, any sort of restriction by gun type is going to make less than a 1% difference in gun deaths.

    Now, I happen to think / hope that there are alternatives that could survive the federal Second Amendment. I think that it makes sense to require a gun ownership license. Not a license per gun – that would freak gun nuts out – but a mere license to own any number of guns. It’s like a driver’s license. There would be an associated gun ownership class, just like driver’s ed. We could even scale the gun ownership class to be much harder than driver’s ed. The class would teach safety, the relevant laws of gun ownership, the relevant laws of self defense and moral and legal use of guns for self defense, how to secure your firearm from children, and it can even be used to throw out some scare statistics of how owning a gun often means you’re more likely to shoot yourself or a friend accidentally compared to successfully using the gun in self defense, etc. I have a few gun nut friends, and all of them would be ok with that kind of legislation, and even supportive. I think that would make a difference. Remember that the NRA is not representative of most gun nuts.

    Oh, and of course mandatory background checks. Close the loopholes on that.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @John Pieret

    “Possibly thus probably” fallacy. Yes it’s possibly he illegaly (probably illegally) modified the firearm to have an auto. The supposition that he did so is completely unfounded, pulled out of thin air, and probably false. I doubt the loon would have done something so stupid in this public stunt. I doubt the loon would have done something that easily could have gotten him arrested and jailed for a long time. Going from my prior evidence, most people who do open carry stunts like this are aware of the relevant laws on what can and cannot be open carried, and they often obey the letter of the law. Based on this prior evidence, you need some compelling evidence that he did use an illegal kit to modify it to auto. Otherwise, you’re just pulling shit out of your ass.

  • acroyear

    “Even putting limits like max 10 rounds on magazines is a feel-good do-nothing measure.”

    Here, there is citable evidence against your claim. The LAX 2002 shooter at the El Al ticket counter could only get 10 shots off, his two guns only having 5-round magazines. He was then physically taken down by security before he could re-load, and only had the knife to counter-attack security before finally being taken down.

    Had his weapons been able to hold more ammo, he would have not reached that point and FAR more people would have been killed, including the security agents that had finally taken him down.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @acroyear

    Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. If you do a comprehensive look at mass shootings, that’s simply not true for a vast majority of them.

  • Synfandel

    “Assault weapon”, “assault rifle”, “military grade”,…whatever. A man walking around an airport with a loaded flintlock musket is still something to be concerned about.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    That’s a lot of typing you did one-handed.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @Marcus Ranum

    Got anything besides a snide comment to make? Like maybe an assertion or argument against a particular point I’ve made?

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    @#23

    Nope.

  • John Pieret

    EnlightenmentLiberal

    I doubt the loon would have done something that easily could have gotten him arrested and jailed for a long time.

    The gun laws of Georgia do not prohibit machine guns, silencers, or sawed off shotguns.

    http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/georgias-carry-laws-explained/frequently-asked-questions/

    All he needs is a Georgia Weapons License, which he undoubtedly has if he wasn’t detained.

    I made a guess based on his ownership of a hundred round clip. You made a guess based on not knowing the Georgia law of bothering to look it up. Talk about pulling it out of your ass.

  • brucegee1962

    The big question is, what’s going to happen when two of these Yahoos show up on the same day, and both assume it’s their day to play Rambo?

  • kyoseki

    There are plenty of rifles out there that are functionally identical to assault weapons but do not meet the qualifying criteria for the term (and so are generally left out of assault weapon legislation ostensibly designed to make people safer).

    Example: The worst mass shooting of the past few decades, the massacre in Utoya was committed with a Ruger Mini 14, sold as a hunting rifle. The Mini 14 is a box fed, semi automatic centerfire rifle chambered in 5.56mm, just as the AR15 is a box fed, semi automatic centerfire rifle (typically) chambered in 5.56mm. These are almost identical guns, but because the Mini 14 has a regular wood/plastic stock instead of a pistol grip (literally, this is the only significant difference) it doesn’t qualify as an assault weapon and so isn’t subject to any bans on the same. Even Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons bill from a couple years back explicitly protected the Mini 14 as a hunting/sporting weapon whilst decrying the largely identical AR15 as being unsuitable for any hunting or sporting purpose – there’s a reason that 90% of these bills spend their time trying to describe exactly what is meant by “assault weapon” and it always involves cosmetic features that ultimately don’t affect performance.

    These bills don’t ban dangerous guns, they bans guns that LOOK LIKE dangerous guns and that’s not the same thing, is it?

    Then, of course, there’s the reality that an “assault weapon” is really just a scaled up handgun, they’re both box fed semi automatic firearms, one is just longer.

    This means it’s more accurate and fires a more powerful cartridge (the muzzle energy of a 5.56mm round is about 3x that of a 9mm round and about double that of a .45), which ultimately really only matters if you’re shooting at people who are shooting back. In terms of mass shootings against unarmed individuals (which is what is always cited in these instances) a handgun is just as dangerous as an “assualt weapon”, more so in fact because they’re both concealable and it’s easy to carry more than one (most major mass shootings involve multiple firearms so the shooter always has a loaded weapon if he runs dry on the main one), you can also reload a handgun faster and handgun magazines are substantially smaller than rifle magazines making it easier to carry more (the Virginia Tech shooter, for example, only had 10&15 round magazines with him, but he had 20+ of the damned things).

    … and no, there are not plenty of “conversion kits” kicking around on the Internet to turn a semi automatic AR-15 into a fully automatic one, since even the possession of the parts necessary to do so is considered a felony unless you have the right paperwork (the parts themselves are considered a machine gun and so you need all of the same paperwork to own them as you would a minigun).

    The idea that banning “military grade assault weapons” will make anyone safer, particularly the idea that it reduces the likely casualty count in a mass shooting simply doesn’t make logical sense. If you want to save lives, you need to focus on the widespread availability of handguns which is responsible for the vast majority of gun deaths.

  • puppygod

    Uhm, EnlightenmentLiberal, in your ammosexual fervor you throw out the baby with the bathwater conflating “assault rifle” with “assault weapon”. “Assault rifle” is perfectly valid, established (for over 70 years, as it dates back to original Sturmgewehr!) technical term refering to large magazine, select-fire weapon shooting intermediate cartridge. Check the wiki, if you don’t believe me. It’s meaningful term used by most people knowing a whole lot about weapons.

    And while lack of select fire-capability makes most of assault rifle-styled weapons in US technically fall outside of that definition, they still retain all the other characteristics of assault rifles. Also, it’s not like you can distinguish at a glance whether fire selector goes only from “safe” to “single” or all the way to “burst”. Anyway – even with semi-automatic they still can be used to kill a lot of people in short time.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @John Pieret

    You made a guess based on not knowing the Georgia law of bothering to look it up. Talk about pulling it out of your ass.

    You’re a funny guy.

    For most US states, the great difficulty in legally owning an automatic firearm is not state law. It’s federal law.

    It’s plausible that he has a ATF civilian license for an automatic firearm, but you cannot get an ATF license for an automatic firearm constructed after 19 May 1986. Specifically, the ATF maintains a registry of all such automatic firearms, and if your automatic firearm is not on the registry, then it’s illegal to own it, and there’s no license that the ATF provides which makes it legal to own it (except if you’re a licensed dealer). The regular civilian license is very expensive for automatic firearms constructed before 19 May 1986, and all registered pre 19 May 1986 automatic firearms are very expensive – we’re talking tens of thousands of dollars.

    It’s possible that he has a ATF dealer license, which means he can own automatic firearms manufactured after 19 May 1986, but that’s highly unlikely.

    Note that applied a full-auto conversion kit counts as “date of manufacture” for the purposes of the ATF licenses and registration, and the ATF is not accepting any new registrations for automatic firearms, which means the hypothesis that he applied a conversion kit in the last 19 years is rather moot for determining legality. If it was the case that he legally bought a semi-auto AR, then applied a conversion kit something in the last 19 years, then he would be in violation of federal law, and he would not be free to go right now.

    Again, it’s entirely possible that he was lugging around a pre 19 May 1986 automatic firearm, but those things are rare and the license to have such things are expensive, and again thus the burden of proof rests on the person making the extraordinary claim that it’s an automatic rifle.

    For further information, here’s a random link I found by google that nicely summarizes the federal law.

    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @puppygod

    Words are not magic. Words do not have inherent meaning. Words have usages. The meaning of words change over time. I agree that there might be old and new technical military meanings of these terms, but I’m not talking about technical meanings. I’m talking about the term as used by the majority of the population, the news media, and legislation. As a counter-point, it makes no sense. You even seem to end up agreeing with my position when you end with this:

    Anyway – even with semi-automatic they still can be used to kill a lot of people in short time.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @kyoseki

    Thanks for the good point on the Rugre Mini-14 vs the AR-15. For those who don’t know anything about guns (most people in the thread), take a look at the difference between the two guns:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

    Both are semi-auto. Both can fire the .223 and the 5.56. Both are fed by detachable box magazines of various sizes, 5 to 30 or more. To the general person, one is a “normal hunting rifle” and the other is an “assault weapon”. However, they’re largely identical firearms with largely identical capability. Offhand, the difference might be a wood appearance of the Mini-14 compared to the black and steel appearance of the AR-15.

    I went poking around to verify kyoseki’s claims before posting, and I discovered reality is even funnier than I could have imagined.

    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

    One firearm specifically banned by make and model:

    Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF.

    One firearm specifically exempted from new regulation by make and model:

    Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock)

    What’s the difference? Well, most obviously, one comes with a wood appearance by default, and the other comes with a scary black and steel appearance. In terms of functionality, the difference is (surprise surprise) a collapsible stock and pistol grip. Otherwise it’s literally the same gun. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed legislation literally explicitly bans one make but exempts a near identical make of the same gun.

    If this is not a sufficient demonstration of the intellectual bankruptcy of the modern popular and legal usage of the term “assault weapon”, then I don’t know what would.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Well, shit. Too many links. Posting in separate posts because Ed almost never gets around to approving posts like that.

    @kyoseki

    Thanks for the good point on the Rugre Mini-14 vs the AR-15. For those who don’t know anything about guns (most people in the thread), take a look at the difference between the two guns:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

    Both are semi-auto. Both can fire the .223 and the 5.56. Both are fed by detachable box magazines of various sizes, 5 to 30 or more. To the general person, one is a “normal hunting rifle” and the other is an “assault weapon”. However, they’re largely identical firearms with largely identical capability. Offhand, the difference might be a wood appearance of the Mini-14 compared to the black and steel appearance of the AR-15.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    I went poking around to verify kyoseki’s claims before posting, and I discovered reality is even funnier than I could have imagined.

    The text of Dianne Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban.

    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

    One firearm specifically banned by make and model:

    Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF.

    One firearm specifically exempted from new regulation by make and model:

    Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock)

    What’s the difference? Well, most obviously, one comes with a wood appearance by default, and the other comes with a scary black and steel appearance. In terms of functionality, the difference is (surprise surprise) a collapsible stock and pistol grip. Otherwise it’s literally the same gun. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed legislation literally explicitly bans one make but exempts a near identical make of the same gun.

    If this is not a sufficient demonstration of the intellectual bankruptcy of the modern popular and legal usage of the term “assault weapon”, then I don’t know what would.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    John Pieret “The gun laws of Georgia do not prohibit machine guns, silencers, or sawed off shotguns. All he needs is a Georgia Weapons License, which he undoubtedly has if he wasn’t detained.”

    Yes, and.

  • coragyps

    Brinderwalt @ 14:

    Yeah, we would like to hope. But the fucking morons we call a legislature just voted open-carry into existence here in Texas.

  • kyoseki

    For what it’s worth, I think guns are far too easy to obtain in this country, there should be mandatory training & testing, people should have to own manual firearms for a couple years before being allowed near semi autos and handguns should be a LOT tougher to obtain.

    I don’t even have a problem with people owning machine guns, but the paperwork should be biblical.

  • jaybee

    Enlightenment liberal, you are describing a lot of trees and missing the forest. You are pulling in a lot of other pet issues you have and are defending your side of arguments which haven’t been made here.

    Why do you see the value in the hazy categories of family car vs sports car, yet you can’t accept, say, hunting rifle vs assault rifle? To someone like you who loves and appreciates all the nuance between myriad types of rifles, the category is meaningless, but to people who don’t give a fuck about them, it is a useful categorization. In a crown, a military style rifle has the potential to cause a lot more harm than a hunting rifle.

    Someone upthread gave an example where reload time made a difference. Another example where capacity made a difference is when Gabby Giffords and I think six others were shot, most killed. The shooter was tackled by a guy when he had to stop to reload. OK, you can reload in 3 seconds. I can tackle you in less than three seconds. If capacity is a non-issue, then why do people cry so hard when someone tries to pass a law to set a limit?

    I fully agree that mass shootings are a very small slice of the problem. How often do you use that argument, though, when the gun lobbyists uses such shootings to justify why we should allow teachers and adult students to be armed in the classroom?

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    I see that “Englightenment Liberal” is acting a lot like various other trolls–Milesius, for one–who like to blather on and demonstrate two things–a lack of any sort of humanity and a lot less specific product knowledge than they pretend to possess.

    I have a had a few other guys tell me that they they’re “Classic” or “Enlightenment Liberals”. They all turn out to be Teabaggerz and gunzloonz.

    Fuck off, troll.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @jaybee

    yet you can’t accept, say, hunting rifle vs assault rifle

    Because the purported distinction doesn’t exist. That’s my point. You don’t seem to realize that yet. I want you again to look at Feinstein’s bill and see how it explicitly protects the “hunting rifle” Ruger Mini-14, and also explicitly bans the “assault weapon” Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF. I again want you to look at their specs, and I want you to realize that it’s the exact same weapon, except one has a black and steel appearance, a pistol grip, and a collapsible stock, none of which has any significant bearing on how dangerous it is.

    Perhaps you mean to call for a ban on semi-auto rifles with detachable box magazines. If that’s what you want to ban, then say that. Don’t use nebulous underdefined bullshit terms like “assault weapon” and “assault rifle”.

    @democommie

    We’ve had this conversation before. You’re a dishonest asshole who refuses to answer basic questions about their position on related topics. (Raging Bee too.)

    I have in no way in this thread taken a position for or against gun control. I have merely noted that many gun control advocates are amazingly ignorant of the issues involved, which result in do-nothing legislation and invention of completely fictitious terms like “assault weapons” (or for the anal pedants out there – hijacking of existing well-defined terms and redefinition into oblivion).

    I have said nothing that you should find objectionable in this thread if you want to be part of the fact-based evidence-based community.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @jaybee

    Also:

    If capacity is a non-issue, then why do people cry so hard when someone tries to pass a law to set a limit?

    I’m probably much more on your side compared to so-called gun nuts.

    However, I’d rather we focus our time and political capital on things that will do something. Instead, we’re wasting our political capital on measures that won’t do a damn, and pissing off people like several of my gun nut friends who might otherwise be very pro Democratic party if not for their gun pet issue. I think focusing on magazine sizes is an incredibly bad move politically and if your goal is to actually change something important. If you want to change something important, again I strongly suggest we focus on the following better strategies which will actually do something about the problem: eliminating background check loopholes, waiting periods before purchase, requiring a license and examine to own a gun comparable to a driver’s license and driver’s ed – or something much harder.

    Focusing on magazine sizes will do jack shit except make illegal a significant majority of handguns and rifles (until replacement magazines can be made). Many handguns come default with magazines larger than 10 rounds. This restriction is a huge inconvenience to gun owners that serves basically no purpose.

    Again, you need to educate yourself on the issues. Yes it helped in that one case, but for every case you show me of a mass shooter getting stopped because they had to reload, I can show you 10 more where they had all the time in the world and it wouldn’t matter if you restricted their magazines to 5 rounds. Do not delude yourself into thinking magazine size limits is this amazing thing. You’ll be lucky if it reduces gun deaths by 0.1%.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    So who’s protecting my right to wait for an airplane without having to figure out if this is a Good Guy With A Gun™, or a Bad Guy With A Gun™? Sorry, skin color just doesn’t cover it (haven’t the majority of mass shooters been white?) I really don’t want to spend my time in the airport trying to identify escape routes and places to hide if he loses his shit suddenly.

    I’m very, very tired of these people waiving their blued-steel penis extensions around. There is absolutely no rational reason at all to carry a weapon like that. None. This guy isn’t going to be a hero if something else goes south; he’s just going to start spraying and killing innocents. His fantasy of standing up to a tyrannical government with his rifle is nothing more than a fantasy.

  • dingojack

    “Focusing on magazine sizes will do jack shit except make illegal a significant majority of handguns and rifles (until replacement magazines can be made). Many handguns come default with magazines larger than 10 rounds. This restriction is a huge inconvenience to gun owners that serves basically no purpose. ”

    And what, pray tell, is that ‘huge inconvenience, and why is it relevant?

    Dingo

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @dingo

    Is our goal to make our society safer and better? Or is our goal merely to annoy gun owners? This plan merely annoys gun owners, which helps the Republican party for no gain on our side. I’d rather we promote a political plan that makes sense and is not self destructive.

  • dingojack

    So gun owner can’t get the penis replacements they so desperately need? Awww.

    Do ya see petrol-heads whining because the ‘ebul government’ won’t deliver a fully-fuelled F1 to their door? Hardly a ‘huge inconvenience’.

    Next.

    Dingo

  • John Pieret

    Modus & ElightenmentLiberal:

    Here is a more definitive site from the ATF re the National Firearms Act:

    https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/national-firearms-act

    An individual possessor of automatic weapons can’t be made to register it with the Feds. Only manufacturers and distributers can be. And what the manufacturers and distributers have to do is pay a $200 transfer tax when they ship them and put a serial number on them so they can be traced.

    I won’t guarantee that this site is legally correct, but it is the kind of information that our Airport Asshole would rely on. It’s expensive, but there is, apparently, a legal way to convert an AR-15 to full automatic as far as the Feds are concerned … at least in some people’s minds.

    http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html

    While the expense certainly reduces the probability that the AA did the conversion, he’s still a guy who thought it was a good idea to take (at least) a semi-automatic rifle with 100 rounds of ammo to a public airport. There’s no reason to think his fiscal judgment is any better than his social.

  • John Pieret

    PS: it is the conversion kits that have to be manufactured before 1986, not the rifle.

  • kyoseki

    PS: it is the conversion kits that have to be manufactured before 1986, not the rifle.

    As far as the ATF is concerned, there’s no distinction between owning a conversion kit and owning a machine gun, they’re both subject to the same restrictions – the ATF website doesn’t make it particularly clear, but the tax stamp is filed & paid for by the person receiving the item, not the manufacturer, so the feds do, in fact, know who is buying this stuff – silencers have the same restrictions, there’s a lot of paperwork involved here.

    (I’d like to see all firearms tracked in this way, but I’m a dirty socialist European, so clearly I support Obama’s plan to force everyone into FEMA camps).

    The fuckstick (and all these open carry bozos are fucksticks) in the original article almost certainly didn’t have an automatic AR-15, because almost none of them ever are (even illegally converted ARs are mercifully rare), but the distinction is irrelevant, the rarity of automatic ARs isn’t why the cops didn’t overreact, it’s the fact that he’s white, if he’d been black, or worse, brown, I’d be surprised if they’d have bothered talking to him before calling in SWAT.

  • pixiedust

    @ Enlightenment Liberal, #7

    “Pro tip: “Assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are meaningless, bullshit terms used by those who do not understand firearms.”

    “Garland, TX Police Public Information Officer Joe Harn was asked if he could brag about his officer’s actions in stopping a shooting at the Mohammed Art Exhibit and Contest in a press conference on Monday. After Harn stated that the two shooters “had assault rifles, came around the back of the car, and started shooting at the police car…” http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/04/reporter-to-garland-police-please-brag-about-your-officer-more/

    I concede that a police PIO may not understand firearms.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @dingo

    In an ideal world where there aren’t insane Republicans, go ahead with the plan. I think it’s still misguided because people are way overselling the benefits of a magazine capacity limit, but hey, maybe I’m wrong.

    I just think people should go in informed rather than relying on fiction.

    I also think that in this world, Republicans are real people with voting rights, and focusing our resources to get one thing done hurts us in other places. I think your public policy plan is a bad plan because there are better plans to accomplish your goals. I think your plan is actually counter-productive on the goal of lowering gun deaths because it will harden Republican resistance against real plans that might actually do something, and in exchange we get basically nothing.

    You already dodged this argument once, and I don’t know why I’m repeating it. From my past experience, you are very bad at engaging critically, or you’re bad communicator, or you’re just dishonest. I’m not sure which. It seems like you just do drive-by trolls. I’m hoping you will improve, but that’s just delusion on my part.

  • John Pieret

    kyoseki:

    As far as the ATF is concerned, there’s no distinction between owning a conversion kit and owning a machine gun

    Yes, that’s my understanding too.

    The fuckstick … in the original article almost certainly didn’t have an automatic AR-15, because almost none of them ever are (even illegally converted ARs are mercifully rare)

    Nor did I ever assert he had one but I knew that such conversion kits existed, he certainly appeared … with his super-max magazine and braggadocio … to be the type to own one (and the fact that the local authorities would have problems taking it away from him and dismantling it, which is the only way to tell if it had been converted) that it was as likely as not that he did. I suppose I should also point out that I was being less than totally serious, as my comment about his spraying his sperm around the rifle range might have suggested to less self-important people … I guess I have to use sarcasm/humor tags more often.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @pixiedust

    Is this a joke? There’s so many fallacies in that little post, I don’t even know where to start.

    A kind of quote mining – the cop just happened to use a very imprecise word in a context that allows for that degree of imprecision. The cop was in no way claiming, implying, or resting on the premise that “assault rifle” is a well-defined categorization of rifles.

    Even assuming the cop said what you implied he said, it’s a fallacious appeal to authority. You cite a seemingly random cop as an authority on anything? Really?

    Here, tell you what. Try to describe to me what an “assault rifle” is or find me a source that tries, and describe to me why you think they should banned or restricted. I’ll be here waiting. While you’re trying to do that yourself, remember that I will want to know if it’s something fundamentally different than a normal semi-auto rifle with a detachable box magazine, and I will want to know if the same argument applies to normal semi-auto handguns with detachable box magazines, and I will want to know if the same argument applies to normal handgun revolvers when used with speedloaders. Have fun!

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @John Pieret

    Hmmm… Ok. I still think that he doesn’t seem like a guy with tens of thousands of dollars available free to spend to get one of the legal automatic rifles. He’s a loon, and loons in my experience tend to be poor.

  • sabrekgb

    @6 Raging Bee

    This guy is the perfect poster-boy for pointless, stupid macho posturing — a.k.a. the “open-carry movement” that sabrekgb mentioned awhile back.

    Meh, I don’t know about perfect. Would have to know more details… Worth noting, no one got hurt and no law was violated. Seems like a non-event, no?

    @11 John Pieret

    What he was carrying was an AR-15, the “civilian” version of the M-16, which can operate either in semi-automatic or automatic mode. I don’t believe the AR-15 comes with that option but there are kits available all over the internet that allow someone to fire it in automatic mode … and a guy who has a hundred round clip is more than likely to have made the conversion so he can shoot his sperm ammo rapidly all over the firing range.

    That’s some cool stuff you pulled out of your ass there… EL has trashed this bullshit you decided to assert enough above, but it’s worth quoting again because it is so egregious.

    @25

    I made a guess based on his ownership of a hundred round clip. You made a guess based on not knowing the Georgia law of bothering to look it up. Talk about pulling it out of your ass.

    Dude, you are profoundly ignorant about this topic. Also, you pulled stuff out of your ass prior…come on. At least be bothered to understand some basics.

    @26 brucegee1962

    The big question is, what’s going to happen when two of these Yahoos show up on the same day, and both assume it’s their day to play Rambo?

    Unless one of them is in the process of committing violence upon someone, the answer is most likely: not much. Maybe a question/comment about the other’s weapon.

    I find it odd that people think this is somehow a problem. Yes, if you are of the mindset that the only possible reason for someone to be armed is ill intent, then maybe that would be your first thought…but that’s obviously not the case for the vast majority of people who carry weapons. It’s not the presence of a gun that matters, it’s the actions of a person. It’s a profoundly silly question/argument. Do police officers have a habit of shooting each other when they show up at the same place? I mean…they both have guns…

    @35 coragyps

    Yeah, we would like to hope. But the fucking morons we call a legislature just voted open-carry into existence here in Texas.

    Woo-hoo! Only a couple of states to go :)

    @37 jaybee

    Why do you see the value in the hazy categories of family car vs sports car, yet you can’t accept, say, hunting rifle vs assault rifle?

    Not to ninja EL, but I felt like responding to this.

    With those different categories of car, there is usually a difference in performance, yes? A sports car can be relied upon to have a higher acceleration, top speed, power-to-weight ratio, etc. than a “family car”. There is some utility in this differentiation. The guns, specifically the mini-14 variants already mentioned to make things easier, are functionally very similar (exactly similar, in the mini-14 case, as it’s the same action). It’s like having cars with the same body and engine, but different paint jobs, rims, and interiors, and calling them different types of cars. Changing superficial characteristics, but keeping the same stuff under the hood. Make a bit of sense why people would harp on such naming conventions?

    @38 democommie

    Ahh, off to a good start with substance-less posts on this thread, eh? As previous, calling someone a troll doesn’t make them one…nor does it distract people from seeing that your own post is, itself, troll-y.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    EnlightenmentLiberal “The guns, specifically the mini-14 variants already mentioned to make things easier, are functionally very similar (exactly similar, in the mini-14 case, as it’s the same action).”

    No it isn’t. Although it’s chambered for a .556 or .223 (like the M16 and civi variants), it’s based on the M14 (7.62mm), which was a different generation’s battle rifle.

    I’m not saying you don’t have a point. You do. The Assault Weapons ban was a indiscriminate as it was easy to get around, and there are other far more effective strategies for limiting gun violence (like, for example, keeping a better eye on crooked stores that sell Saturday Night Specials to straw purchasers, closing loopholes, etc). What I’m saying is that the M14 was the gun in Full Metal Jacket that got Pyle into a world of shit in the first act that everybody remembers, while the M16 was used in the rest of the movie that nobody remembers. Still, that first act is a great movie. So great, in fact, that I forgot my point. Something about details and focusing, probably.

  • sabrekgb

    @54 Modus

    Perhaps I phrased that poorly…

    I meant that the mini-14 variants themselves all have the same action. ie, the “tactical” variant vs. the wood stock ranch rifle. I was not saying that the mini-14 (or M-14) was the same action as the M-16 (or AR-15). My point was for the purposes of the analogy between the rifles and the cars.

  • kyoseki

    the local authorities would have problems taking it away from him and dismantling it, which is the only way to tell if it had been converted) that it was as likely as not that he did.

    Actually, no, even if the fire selector doesn’t flip all the way around to the burst fire position (semi auto versions of the gun only have 2 positions, the select fire version has 3), if you pull the rear takedown pin the top of the gun flips open and you can inspect the action. It’s readily apparent if someone is using a full auto hammer or a lightning link, takes maybe 10-15 seconds to check and restore the gun to functioning order, but I don’t know if there’s a fourth amendment argument against field stripping the gun this way.

    I guess I have to use sarcasm/humor tags more often.

    Well, you know, if you have to explain that it’s a joke..

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    sabrekgb, okay. Now I’m wondering how I copy/pasted your comment but someone else’s name in there. I assume that Obama is to blame. Thanks Obama!

  • Nick Gotts

    It always throws me when Modusoperandi posts a comment without snark or humour! I assume that Obama is to blame when he does so. Thanks Obama!

  • John Pieret

    kyoseki:

    I don’t know if there’s a fourth amendment argument against field stripping the gun this way

    Under the Georgia law, about the same as if they wanted to “field strip” your wallet.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    @democommie#38

    Maybe we can somehow get the boring gun-polishers spun up at SLC1 and they can have a great big nuke-and-gun-and-genocide wankfest.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    The big question is, what’s going to happen when two of these Yahoos show up on the same day, and both assume it’s their day to play Rambo?

    That’s easy: watch what has happened in this thread – they will both die of boredom arguing about the minutiae of guns and masturbating like chimpanzees on meth.

  • Nick Gotts

    At least be bothered to understand some basics. – sabrekgb@53

    The “basics” are that paranoid jackasses are toting weapons that could be used to slaughter dozens of people in a very short time around places where large number of people gather. But I understand that for some people it’s much more important to use exactly the right technical vocabulary to describe those weapons.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Protip: “Assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are meaningless bullshit terms used by those who do not understand firearms.

    Here’s another protip: lecturing people about firearms terminology is a meaningless bullshit tactic used by gun-nuts to pretend they’re the smartest guys in the room, without having to say anything sensible about anything that’s actually relevant to real people.

    The point here is that: a) Georgia’s open-carry law is just plain idiotic and counterproductive; and b) this guy is a fucking idiot parading around with a gun where it’s not at all needed, like a little kid showing off a new toy to people who have no reason to care.

    Worth noting, no one got hurt and no law was violated.

    Also worth noting, no one was getting hurt, and no law was being violated, BEFORE that wanker showed up with his gun (seriously, I haven’t heard anyone complaining that airports have too little security these days); there was no incident or circumstance requiring ANY civilian to be carrying ANY firearms in that place, and no reasonable chance that this moron could have done anyone any good by the use of that gun. All such morons do, in fact, is raise doubts in everyone else’s mind as to their mindsets, motives and likely imminent actions.

  • Blondin

    I wonder if it ever occurs to these good guys with guns that most bad guys with guns would likely take them out first.

  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    Blondin, the psychic powers his rifle provides him will warn him before the bad guy shoots him. After all, like his fellows with similar ideas, he seems to think he can instantly tell who the bad guy with a gun is if violence occurs, which must involve psychic powers of some sort.

  • sabrekgb

    @62 Nick Gotts

    The “basics” are that paranoid jackasses are toting weapons that could be used to slaughter dozens of people in a very short time around places where large number of people gather. But I understand that for some people it’s much more important to use exactly the right technical vocabulary to describe those weapons.

    Is it the having of something that could “slaughter dozens of people” that you find objectionable, or the fact that other people could see that he had it?

    Do you object to other instances where people could potentially kill many people in a short time if they misuse something…like, say: driving a car near a place where people walk (next to a sidewalk, perhaps), or flying a plane over a parade or sporting event?

    @63 Raging Bee

    The point here is that: a) Georgia’s open-carry law is just plain idiotic and counterproductive; and b) this guy is a fucking idiot parading around with a gun where it’s not at all needed, like a little kid showing off a new toy to people who have no reason to care.

    a) Can you elaborate on this, as opposed to just asserting it? Why is it idiotic? Why is it counterproductive? And, more importantly…counterproductive in regards to what?

    b) Ok, lets just run with your characterization… If that’s true, and he’s just showing off a toy to people who don’t care, well, why care? Are you gonna take the toy away from the kid if he’s not doing anything bad?

    I don’t give a shit about the dude down the street with the ridiculously souped-up car. It’s dangerous (he could run dozens of people over in a very short time!), and no “civilian” needs to own a vehicle with that much horsepower or speed. He could run from the cops, and they wouldn’t be able to catch him. Now, I don’t care about cool cars, but he isn’t actually doing any of these bad things he’s capable of…should we take his toy away? Should we keep him from driving his legal toy on the streets where he might (potentially) do damage or illegal things?

    Also worth noting, no one was getting hurt, and no law was being violated, BEFORE that wanker showed up with his gun (seriously, I haven’t heard anyone complaining that airports have too little security these days); there was no incident or circumstance requiring ANY civilian to be carrying ANY firearms in that place, and no reasonable chance that this moron could have done anyone any good by the use of that gun. All such morons do, in fact, is raise doubts in everyone else’s mind as to their mindsets, motives and likely imminent actions.

    Cool, so both before and after, no one is getting hurt. I like that outcome!

    If you say that there is no reason for any civilian to carry a firearm in that place (airport, i assume you mean), then be consistent: have unarmed police, unarmed air marshals, and no armed pilots. All of those people are civilians. Correct me if i’m wrong, but i don’t think that’s what you’re actually wanting.

    Here’s the thing: was there a chance for good? Debateable. The chance of something bad happening anywhere necessitating an armed response is very low. Thankfully. Very low does not mean zero, though, and because of the unpredictable nature of it, it’s not unreasonable to be armed. This incident (non-incident, really) was obviously not an “everyday carry” sort of thing. He knew what he was doing and he did it to make a statement, sure. Does that statement have value…? I’d say that it does, especially in light of your last sentence. If it happens often enough that people stop questioning it and just roll their eyes, then i think it’s mission accomplished.

  • ffakr

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    I don’t think anyone pointed out that the Gabriel Giffords shooter was also subdued during a magazine change. He was able to get off a lot of shots because he had the high-capacity magazines (30 round?) but he fumbled and dropped the next magazine when he went to reload and someone on the scene grabbed it. If the shooter at the Giffords event had an AR15 with a 100-round drum, he would have likely killed everyone there.

    Also, in response to your claim that someone can go in with two hand guns and do just as much damage.. I’ve tried to fire two pistols at once and it’s basically impossible to aim either one even near accurately. Unless I was within arms reach of them.. I’d much rather face someone firing two pistols like some movie action-hero than a guy with an accurate AR15.

    One more point about that Giffords shooting. To all the pro-carry folk.. remember that there was someone on-scene with a concealed handgun leaving a neighboring store. By the time he reached the scene of the shooting, the crowd had disarmed the shooter. The “good guy with the gun” has publicly stated that he would have shot an innocent bystander holding the shooter’s Glock if he hadn’t decided to stay out of it at the last minute. That’s the problem with an armed society. The Good-Guys with guns often look just like the Bad-Guys with guns.

  • footface

    The distinction between “good guy with a gun” and “bad guy with a gun” can be pretty damn arbitrary sometimes. Humans are complicated. A “good guy” can be angry, frustrated, careless, mistaken, desperate, frightened… and can do things indistinguishable from the actions of a “bad guy.”

    Nobody says, “At least it was a good guy who killed my kid.”

  • ffakr

    @66 sabrekgb

    Do you object to other instances where people could potentially kill many people in a short time if they misuse something…like, say: driving a car near a place where people walk (next to a sidewalk, perhaps), or flying a plane over a parade or sporting event?

    In a way, yes I do.. but not in the way you’d suspect.

    First off, Cars and planes are not designed to kill people. They’re a ubiquitous transportation device that our modern society requires to function. Especially true in this instance, the AR15 is literally the civilian [semi-automatic] version of a long-rifle designed specifically for the Military. This weapon platform wasn’t designed to be a target rifle, or hunting rifle, neither of which would belong in a frickin airport either. It’s a tweaked version of a device that was designed to kill people in combat, as many people as possible.

    To expand upon your point though, even though cars are not purpose-designed to kill as many people as possible, we STILL take reasonable steps to prevent drivers from accidentally or intentionally murdering masses of people with cars. This may shock you, but those high curbs and concrete pillars that you may have noticed on streets, or in front of entrances to places where masses of pedestrians tend to gather [parks, stores, streets that have been converted for only foot-traffic].. those things are there because we recognize that Cars can be dangerous. Why should we treat a device that was intentionally designed to enable someone to kill as many people as possible with less caution than we do a machine that is designed to move people and materials from point a to point b?

    In case you haven’t noticed.. we don’t allow people to drive cars through airport terminals. Rational people realize this would increase the likelihood that someone would get injured. How is this fundamentally different from choosing to say, “maybe we should tell people to keep their people-murdering machines at home too”?

    Last thought for you.. Ever see the video of the goober Pro-OC dude with AR15 on his back who gets all tangled up in his strap when he attempts to shift the weapon? I think it might have been in another airport in fact. Can’t find the link now, but it was both hilarious and terrifying. Imagine someone accidentally bump-firing an AR with a 100-round drum in a crowded Airport.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @ffakr

    That mass shooting has been brought up, and I have noted that it is not indicative of most mass shootings. In most mass shootings, it takes place over 10s of minutes or hours, and reload time is not an issue. In most mass shootings, it ends by other people with guns showing up, e.g. the police, not by some hero leaping at the person during a reload.

    I’m not making any general pro or anti gun control arguments here. I’m just asking that if you want to piss off the Republicans, please at least pass effective sensible legislation. Outlawing “assault weapons” is a joke. Limiting magazine size limits to 10 will do almost nothing. I’ve said it before, but you’re skimming, and so I will say it again: Less than 1 / 1000 of gun deaths are from mass shootings, and magazine limits will do nothing for the majority of gun deaths. In maybe 90% or more of mass shootings, it happens over 10s of minutes or hours, and again magazine limits will do very little.

    If you want effective gun control, consider: A gun owner’s class and a gun owner’s license analogous to driver’s ed and a driver’s license – or maybe even harder than driver’s ed. Universal background checks. Universal 3 day waiting periods. If you want to get rid of the second amendment, you could also simply ban all semi-auto firearms with detachable box magazines, and ban all revolvers (remember speedloaders are a thing) – that would definitely do something.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @Raging Bee

    I know you’re probably psychologically incapable, but take your head out of your ass. I’m trying to help you out right now by pointing out how your plans at reducing gun deaths are a joke and will do absolutely nothing, and I’m pointing out far superior strategies that might actually do something. That’s helping. If you want to revel in ignorance, go ahead and keep believing in magazine size limits and especially “assault weapons” bans , but don’t be surprised when your plan is just going to backfire in your face and accomplish jack shit.

  • coragyps

    And meanwhile, far from the mainstream national media, two addled gun-toters on an assignment from God were noodling around my grandson’s elementary school early in the morning yesterday, killing a “defective” cat and pointing a gun at a bus driver.

    ‘ “If it would have ‘been God’s will to shoot children and teachers’ then they said they would have done so,” Holland said during a news conference Friday morning.’

    The couple is safely in jail. Had they been representing Allah, I’m confident they might not have gotten that far – but the news would have spread past Western North Carolina, and it would have been terrorism rather than too much methamphetamine, which is my hypothesis.

  • sabrekgb

    @ffakr 66/69

    I think EL meant 2 guns in the sense that one would simply draw the next one and fire, as opposed to stopping to reload. Not that the person would be firing both weapons concurrently. In that case, 2 guns is indeed inaccurate and pretty pointless.

    Magazine size is, as EL and others have correctly stated, concentrating on a tree while standing amid a forest. CHeck this out: http://mic.com/articles/24263/gun-control-facts-why-a-high-capacity-magazine-ban-would-not-prevent-mass-shootings

    It does nothing substantive, while seeming to impinge on rights. This is why people who like guns don’t like it. And it is annoying…you have to reload at the range more often, you have to consider carrying 2 mags for your weapon when one standard-sized one would do (and that makes it more difficult to conceal), more mags cost more, etc. If there was a real benefit, that might be worth it…but there isn’t.

    First off, Cars and planes are not designed to kill people.

    That argument is irrelevant for the purpose of the question I asked, which has to do with things having the potential to kill many people when misused. My point with that, is that there are many things in society that have that potential. Guns are not unique in that regard. We accept the risk with other things, though; so, it’s not that the risk, in principle, is unacceptable. Modern society had put much more physical power in the hands of almost anyone, and for the most part, things work out ok. The original quote i was replying to just mentioned “toting weapons that could be used to slaughter dozens of people in a very short time around places where large number of people gather”. Clearly, since there are other situations that have the potential for the exact same outcome, if the speaker does not argue against those as well, then there are other factors at play than just the ones he mentioned. We should be talking about those, then. Else, the position is inconsistent…which is usually a flag that it should be considered further.

    we STILL take reasonable steps to prevent drivers from accidentally or intentionally murdering masses of people with cars. This may shock you, but those high curbs and concrete pillars that you may have noticed on streets, or in front of entrances to places where masses of pedestrians tend to gather [parks, stores, streets that have been converted for only foot-traffic].. those things are there because we recognize that Cars can be dangerous.

    Two things…i’m pretty sure that most places are not actually taking steps to keep pedestrians from being murdered by drivers. Accidents, yes, intentionalities, no. Curbs do not prevent someone from running down a large number of pedestrians intentionally. They do help prevent it from happening accidentally, though. Obstacles that prevent vehicle entry into parks (maybe it’s a location difference, these are not common where i live, except for situations like where a T intersection is next to a park entrance and someone might accidentally think a trail was the continuation of a road) are much like a fence…they prevent accidents, not malice. Outside of military and hardened government facilities, I have rarely seen an obstacle that would actually be preventative of malice. I think you may be imparting more purpose to these things than is there.

    Why should we treat a device that was intentionally designed to enable someone to kill as many people as possible with less caution than we do a machine that is designed to move people and materials from point a to point b?

    This is actually a fair point. In this case (and the vast majority of carry cases), there is not a lack of caution. I think people should act cautiously and responsibly with regards to weapons at all times. One big difference is that I don’t think carrying a weapon in and of itself is uncautious. If you do, you need to show how that is so, you can’t just assert it. Much like just driving near pedestrians is not in and of itself uncautious. It could be, or it could not be…we must judge the actions in question. Details matter.

    If you are instead referring to licensing and/or training…well, that’s a different issue. You didn’t specify. You are talking about carry. Also, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Would it be more acceptable to you if the person had to take a safety/operator class (as EL has mentioned) before carrying his weapon in the airport? Or, is it the fact of carrying itself, no matter how safely?

    Saying people don’t drive through terminals is missing the point. They drive right up to them, they drive near pedestrians, hell they even drive in parades sometimes. There is not a physical preclusion to carrying a firearm in a terminal as there is to driving a car through one. This is not a good argument.

    Last thought for you.. Ever see the video of the goober Pro-OC dude with AR15 on his back who gets all tangled up in his strap when he attempts to shift the weapon? I think it might have been in another airport in fact. Can’t find the link now, but it was both hilarious and terrifying. Imagine someone accidentally bump-firing an AR with a 100-round drum in a crowded Airport.

    If people do something stupid and negligent, then i’m all for holding them responsible. If someone accidentally hurts someone else through their firearm…i hope they get sued and punished appropriately. There are plenty of goobers out there, but we shouldn’t restrict the rights of non-goobers just based on what billy-joe-bob jr did that one time.

    Also, i don’t think you know what bump-firing is. A negligent discharge is not a “bump” fire, and while “bump-firing” can shoot a lot of rounds off quickly, it’s not possible to do it by getting caught up in your sling. Also, pretty much all modern firearms don’t go off because you drop them. Nitpick, because seeing a dude caught in his sling is always hilarious.

    @70 Enlightenment Liberal

    Universal 3 day waiting periods.

    These are pointless (possibly increase danger, in certain rare circumstances), especially if you’re already licensing people and/or running background checks. Also, they’re annoying as hell. I want my new toy now, damn it! :)

  • footface

    Maybe I missed it, but what is the point of bringing your gun to the airport? To scare the bad guys and put them on notice? To make people feel safe? To be ready “just in case”? To piss people off? To feel like a big man? Is it just a legal alternative to masturbating in public?

  • kyoseki

    Regarding 3 day waiting periods:

    These are pointless (possibly increase danger, in certain rare circumstances), especially if you’re already licensing people and/or running background checks. Also, they’re annoying as hell. I want my new toy now, damn it! :)

    They’re certainly pointless if the person in question already owns a firearm, but a cooling off period for the first firearm doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me. IIRC they do seem to help reduce the usage of firearms for things like suicides and impulse related murders, which I would imagine more than outweighs the frequency of someone needing a firearm and not being able to get one (the most obvious case here would be in instances of domestic violence, in which case an exception could possibly be made as long as a formal complaint was filed?).

    Maybe I missed it, but what is the point of bringing your gun to the airport?

    He’s pretty much just being an attention whore as far as I can tell, I’m sure he’s loving the publicity.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Universal 3 day waiting periods.

    These are pointless (possibly increase danger, in certain rare circumstances), especially if you’re already licensing people and/or running background checks. Also, they’re annoying as hell. I want my new toy now, damn it! :)

    I am not highly convinced. I merely suspect that they would do something in a noteworthy number of cases, and such rules are not a noteworthy infringement of the second amendment. However, if someone hard some hard evidence that waiting periods actually don’t do anything, I would be open to changing my mind.

  • Nick Gotts

    sabrekgb@66

    Is it the having of something that could “slaughter dozens of people” that you find objectionable, or the fact that other people could see that he had it?

    The former, primarily. The latter makes it worse in that it subjects others to entirely reasonable fear that the jackass carrying the weapon might intend murder, and raises the possibility that some other jackass will decide the first jackass is a threat, and start shooting.

    Do you object to other instances where people could potentially kill many people in a short time if they misuse something…like, say: driving a car near a place where people walk (next to a sidewalk, perhaps), or flying a plane over a parade or sporting event?

    Yes, if there is not an adequate justification for the risk involved. There is no justification at all for private citizens even owning weapons with that sort of capacity, let alone carrying them at an airport, outside fuckwitted American gun fetishism.

  • pixiedust

    @ Enlightment Liberal

    You didn’t seem to comprehend my comment. You claimed — I quoted you — that the term “assault rifle” is used by people who don’t understand firearms.

    I quoted a police officer using that term. If you are correct in your claim, then that police office doesn’t understand firearms. If that police officer does understand firarms, then your claim has been refuted.

    I think that is is plausible to think that police officer just might “understand firearms” — whatever that ill-defined term means.

    The rest of your reply was a non sequitur, obviously.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @pixiedust

    My reply is non-sequitur? I don’t even…

    Random cops are not trustworthy authorities on firearms. Why the hell do you think that all cops are knowledgeable about firearms – and honest – and not prone to making mistakes of terminology? Stop the cop worship. A lot of cops are lucky to know one end of the gun from the other. It’s a simple fallacious appeal to authority. Instead, you might try to make an argument yourself instead of appealing to an authority. You might also do better by appealing to an actual trustworthy authority instead of some random cop – more specifically a news article about a bragging random cop.

    It’s flatly ridiculous to even claim that this cop believes that “assault rifle” is a useful categorization. You have to ignore the whole context of the article in order to make that absurd conclusion. The cop was asked to brag and said he was bragging, and it’s no surprise that he’s going to use imprecise terms that are big and scary in order to brag. It’s completely unreasonable to come to the conclusion that even this random cop believes that “assault rifle” is a useful categorization from the given evidence.

  • sabrekgb

    @74 footface

    Maybe I missed it, but what is the point of bringing your gun to the airport?

    In this case, likely publicity and “because I can”. *shrug* I don’t think, his quotes notwithstanding, anyone is arguing this was anything other than that. Masturbation or not, if he ain’t hurtin’ no-one…

    Not that “because I can” isn’t a perfectly legitimate reason. As a philosophical exercise or a bit of political speech, I usually don’t have a problem with people exercising rights “just ’cause”…I think it can often be a good thing for our society in general, even if not in particular.

    More generally, though, one could say that the reason to bring your gun to the airport is simply because you choose to go armed in general. Let us imagine that, instead of an AR-15 clone with attached 100(ish) round drum magazine, a person chose to do the same thing this guy did, drop his daughter off at the airport and kiss her goodbye before a trip, but he was carrying a more usual (for self defense and everyday-carry) pistol properly holstered on his hip. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

    kyoseki & Enlightenment Liberal; re: waiting periods

    They’re certainly pointless if the person in question already owns a firearm

    Indeed…and annoying as shit. Yes, i know that life is filled with annoyances, but still…

    The data seems to suggest only a small effect on suicides (and among older people at that, not in general) and no statistical effect on crime. The first sentence of one published in JAMA in 2000 reads:

    Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within states that were required to institute waiting periods and background checks, implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates. [1]

    Leaving aside my thought that suicide and actual gun violence are two separate and distinct issues, and conflation of the two does a dis-service to problem solving and is intellectually dishonest… A meta-study in 2012 had this to say about waiting periods:

    Also showing little promise were several popular types of gun laws. Effect sizes from methodologically rigorous studies evaluating waiting periods and background checks were not statistically significant. [2]

    While I take your concern about initial purchases and domestic violence potential…I think you have it backward as far as the danger is concerned. Keeping mind that anecdote is not the singular of data… It seems that waiting periods would do more to harm victims of domestic violence than to help. A batterer is unlikely to go purchase a firearm in order to continue their battery, and if they are inclined towards deadly violence it seems likely that they either already own a firearm or have little compunction about making use of another means.

    Contrast that with a victim who is purchasing a firearm to defend themself against such an abuser. A waiting period subjects that person to more danger. If things have gotten to the point where a person who does not already own a firearm feels compelled to purchase one because of actual or threatened domestic violence, that waiting period only exposes them to more danger at the absolute worst time for it.

    I’m sure some lives have been saved because of waiting periods, and i’m sure some have been lost. I think the data shows that any such numbers either cancel out or are lost in the statistical noise. I don’t think that domestic violence is a good argument for waiting periods, though, even anecdotally.

    @77 Nick Gotts

    So, do you then object to the hypotheticals I mentioned above? (persons driving near pedestrians, or flying over events/sports/parades)

    There is no justification at all for private citizens even owning weapons with that sort of capacity, let alone carrying them

    I disagree. Here are a few: Self-defense. Target shooting. Hunting. Collecting. Fun in general. To seem cool to certain other people. Sexual gratification. “Because fuck you, that’s why.”, among others. But, the things is, you’re coming at it from the wrong direction. It’s not “What justification do you have for having that?”…that’s not how our system is supposed to operate, the default position is having whatever you damn well please and can afford, until and unless a compelling reason can be put forth why you should not. This is even leaving aside the second amendment. The question, then, is “What justification do you have for prohibiting that…and what authority?” That has to be answered, because the default answer to the question you posed is “Because I wanna.”

    You’ve got an uphill battle, though, because the data show that this type of weapon actually doesn’t correlate with hardly any crime. And, again, it bears noting: nothing bad happened in the case prompting this discussion.

    @78 pixiedust

    I think that is is plausible to think that police officer just might “understand firearms”

    You’d be surprised at how many don’t. Most of the ones in NYC, for instance. “Cop” and “firearm expert” are not synonyms. “Cop” and “firearm competent” are not even synonyms. He could also have just been sloppy with his words, or targeting his audience, if you’ll pardon the pun.

    [1] Ludwig & Cook, “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated with Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act”, JAMA 2 August 2000, Vol 284, No. 5, 585 (http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JAMA_Brady_2000.pdf)

    [2] Makarios & Pratt, “The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis”, 2012, DOI: 10.1177/0011128708321321, 236 (http://jonathanstray.com/papers/Gun%20Violence%20Meta-analysis.pdf)

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Can you elaborate on this, as opposed to just asserting it?

    Why should I? It’s a simple conclusion, easily ascertained from the facts.

    Why is it idiotic?

    That’s been explained already. You’re starting to sound like a little kid saying “Why?” to everything his parents say.

    Ok, lets just run with your characterization… If that’s true, and he’s just showing off a toy to people who don’t care, well, why care? Are you gonna take the toy away from the kid if he’s not doing anything bad?

    Well, yeah, given that this toy is a DEADLY WEAPON, and given that he has no reason to carry a deadly weapon at an airport, his toy SHOULD be taken away, if asking him to leave doesn’t work.

    I don’t give a shit about the dude down the street with the ridiculously souped-up car. It’s dangerous (he could run dozens of people over in a very short time!), and no “civilian” needs to own a vehicle with that much horsepower or speed…

    Comparing cars to guns is bullshit because cars have a nonlethal purpose, while guns have no purpose but to threaten, injure or kill people.

    Cool, so both before and after, no one is getting hurt. I like that outcome!

    So the only way you can justify this is by saying nothing bad happened that time? That’s no justification at all really — especially since there’s a few bad things that could have happened (i.e., he gets uppity and starts pretending he can decide who’s a threat); and nothing good that had any real chance of happening.

    If you say that there is no reason for any civilian to carry a firearm in that place (airport, i assume you mean), then be consistent: have unarmed police, unarmed air marshals, and no armed pilots.

    Do you really think that confusing an armed idiot with a member of a trained, organized security organization is “consistent?” Of course you don’t — you’re just flailing about trying to pretend you have a sensible argument.

    …and because of the unpredictable nature of it, it’s not unreasonable to be armed.

    If you’re not part of a security team, and have no training or specific protocols to follow, then yes, it IS unreasonable to be armed. Are you saying that every traveler who goes to an airport unarmed is being unreasonable?

    Thanks, sabre, for once again reminding us how immature, shortsighted and selfish you gun-nuts really are.

    And as for Entitled Liar’s latest blithering…

    @Raging Bee, I know you’re probably psychologically incapable, but take your head out of your ass. I’m trying to help you out right now by pointing out how your plans at reducing gun deaths are a joke and will do absolutely nothing…

    I didn’t offer any plan, you stupid lying asshat, I merely pointed out the stupidity and immaturity of the open-carry crowd, as exemplified by you, sabrekgb (that fake-macho name is just plain laughable in itself), and that dimwitted wannabee at the airport. You can’t even properly describe what I said, let alone refute it.

    That mass shooting has been brought up, and I have noted that it is not indicative of most mass shootings.

    Why? Because it doesn’t support your blither-points?

  • ourmandave

    But he knows the NRA has his back.

    Can the put a no guns sign at the airport like they do at restaurants, etc.?

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @Raging Bee

    I merely pointed out the stupidity and immaturity of the open-carry crowd, as exemplified by you,

    You can’t even properly describe what I said, let alone refute it.

    Nor can you apparently. I have been nothing but dismissive of the open carry guy of the story, ex calling him a “loon” repeatedly. In no way have I been defending open carry in this thread.

  • footface

    I don’t know. The more I think about it, the more fetishist seems like the right term.

  • sabrekgb

    @81 Raging Bee

    It’s a simple conclusion, easily ascertained from the facts.

    That’s been explained already. You’re starting to sound like a little kid saying “Why?” to everything his parents say.

    If I keep asking why, it’s because you keep not answering. Making assertions that someone has no right to do something or shouldn’t do something or that something is “idiotic”, are not explanations. They’re assertions. You just sailed over most of that question anyway.

    Well, yeah, given that this toy is a DEADLY WEAPON, and given that he has no reason to carry a deadly weapon at an airport, his toy SHOULD be taken away, if asking him to leave doesn’t work.

    Was he asked to leave? I didn’t see that in the article. If so (and they had the authority to do so) and he remained, that’s usually trespass.

    It doesn’t really matter what his toy is. It’s legal, he’s not hurting anything by having it, and if your dismissive categorization is correct (showing off a toy), then it’s kinda pointless to get worked up over it, no? And you say deadly weapon here, but then immediately ignore the deadly nature of the next toy I mention…can the un-necessary souped-up car not be used as a deadly weapon?

    Nothing bad happened here. You’re just arguing potentialities, so you can’t ignore the potentiality in the hypothetical.

    Comparing cars to guns is bullshit because cars have a nonlethal purpose, while guns have no purpose but to threaten, injure or kill people.

    No, it isn’t bullshit. I specifically structured the hypothetical so that the object in question is just an unnecessary toy that is potentially lethal if misused…literally the same description that you could apply to the firearm and encompassing the salient points you harp on (ie, danger and being un-necessary)…but you don’t seem to have a problem with that. This indicates that it’s not the actual factors you’re concerned about. You don’t like guns (in the hands of non-uniform-wearers). That’s fine if it’s your position, but unless you are being consistent about it with the reasons you mention (which you aren’t), you’re forced to say it’s just an emotional opinion. You’re scared of people having guns (though not cops, oddly). Ok, fine. Say that then. Don’t be disingenuous and say you have a good reason if you’re not going to be consistent about it. I think you’re wrong either way, but as you’re going about it you’re not being intellectually honest.

    So the only way you can justify this is by saying nothing bad happened that time? That’s no justification at all really — especially since there’s a few bad things that could have happened (i.e., he gets uppity and starts pretending he can decide who’s a threat); and nothing good that had any real chance of happening.

    I have justified this several different ways…saying that i only used the reasoning that because it turned out fine it was ok is being deceptive. That’s a big point, sure, but it’s far from the only one i’ve made. Oh, and if he gets “uppity” as you’re suggesting…then he dies. It’s a big corrective measure, and it’s got a pretty big deterrent effect for people who don’t want to die. Unless someone is a suicide attacker, we’ve got some pretty good mechanisms in place to discourage the type of anti-social behaviour you just casually imparted to a random dude with no evidence to back it up.

    Do you really think that confusing an armed idiot with a member of a trained, organized security organization is “consistent?”

    I’m not confusing anyone…you’re the person who said “there was no incident or circumstance requiring ANY civilian to be carrying ANY firearms in that place”. Yet you have no problem with all those other civilians carrying firearms.

    Further, you have no idea what this guy’s level of training is. Or the police/marshal/pilot, for that matter. He could be some ridiculously well-trained 3-gun uber-marksman. We don’t know. You make unfounded assumptions, and then sweeping statements based on them.

    How about this: If he was well trained, then would it be ok? If yes, then that’s the issue and we can explore it. If no, then it’s not the issue (to you) and you should stop harping like it is…because you seem to have no clue about training, firearms or otherwise.

    If you’re not part of a security team, and have no training or specific protocols to follow, then yes, it IS unreasonable to be armed.

    Bullshit. I will agree with you that everyone who decides to pick up a weapon and take responsibility for their own safety has a duty to be competent, informed, and safe with it. But to say that no one who isn’t part of a security team shouldn’t be armed is morally repugnant thinking. It is not just abdicating responsibility for one’s own defense for one’s self…it’s forcing that abdication upon everyone else…and that’s not rightfully your choice to make for them. If you wish to cede that duty to someone else, be my guest. I hope you never have cause to regret it, and I hope nothing bad ever happens to you. But I don’t choose to cede it. I chose to take responsibility upon myself to defend not just me, but others if such circumstances manifest. You have no right to take self-defense away from me, and you can go fuck yourself for trying.

    Are you saying that every traveler who goes to an airport unarmed is being unreasonable?

    No. I’m saying it’s their choice to make. Also, he wasn’t a traveller, he was dropping someone off. And doing a publicity stunt.

    sabrekgb (that fake-macho name is just plain laughable in itself)

    Are you fucking kidding me…? We’re on the internet, “Raging Bee”, screen-names are a thing. And you’ve got fuck-all idea what mine derives from (hint, poker). Saying something like that is just being childish. Eat a dick.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    Boy, this is what I don’t miss at all by not having the intertoobz at home–listening to (reading) bloviating fuckwads like Endarkled Fucktardlican and SabreKGB (can you work on a scarier name, douchenozzle?). Both of you KKKlowns spend way too much time beating your dead horse about YOUR PERSONAL FREEDDOM TO BE DICKHEADZ WIT TEH GUNZ IN PUBLIC SPACES. I think that we all get it–you’re going to be anti-social assholes for your entire lives.

    You’re boring, get over yourselves, or not, but do fuck off.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    YOUR PERSONAL FREEDDOM TO BE DICKHEADZ WIT TEH GUNZ IN PUBLIC SPACES

    Could you please point out where I did that in this thread? Pretty sure I didn’t.

  • sabrekgb

    @86 democmmie

    Someone with the screenname “democommie” is going to bitch about my screenname? Seriously…? Pot to fucking kettle.

    Engage with the argument…or don’t, i guess. Your interaction with me on these posts has never been value-added. Enjoying the childish word-changing game? “KKKlowns”…nice. Very…something. I don’t even know what you mean by it, or if it’s just something you do to say “Wah, I don’t like something but don’t want to be bothered to make coherent arguments against it or actually establish a reasonable position!” Seriously, is it some implication of racism or what…?

    We don’t miss you having the intertoobz at home either. *shrug*

  • Nick Gotts

    sabrekgb@80

    I disagree. Here are a few: Self-defense. Target shooting. Hunting. Collecting. Fun in general. To seem cool to certain other people. Sexual gratification. “Because fuck you, that’s why.”, among others. But, the things is, you’re coming at it from the wrong direction. It’s not “What justification do you have for having that?”…that’s not how our system is supposed to operate, the default position is having whatever you damn well please and can afford, until and unless a compelling reason can be put forth why you should not. This is even leaving aside the second amendment. The question, then, is “What justification do you have for prohibiting that…and what authority?” That has to be answered, because the default answer to the question you posed is “Because I wanna.”

    Most of those “justifications” come under the heading of fuckwitted American gun fetishism. About the only ones that don’t are target shooting, for which you don’t need to own a weapon, or at least, don’t need to take it out of a shooting range in a useable condition), and hunting, which can be done quite adequately with the kinds of gun that can’t fire multiple rounds in quick succession. The compelling reason is the risk to other people (try looking up the number of homicidal and accidental gun deaths in the USA compared to socio-economically comparable countries, and particularly the number of “spree” killings); a secondary reason is the justifiable fear created in other people.

    How far do you take this “Because I wanna” attitude to weapons? Most of your “justifications” would apply just as well to private individuals owning rocket launchers, bombs, weaponised drones, artillery, tanks, attack helicopters, weaponised anthrax, supplies of nerve gas, nuclear weapons. And as far as I can see, if the second amendment covers modern military-style firearms, it covers those as well – at least, any of them you can carry.

  • sabrekgb

    @89 Nick Gotts

    Most of those “justifications” come under the heading of fuckwitted American gun fetishism.

    Cool story, bro. You do realize that just labeling something doesn’t make it so. You can put any or all of the reasons i listed under “fetishism”, if you like, but you said there were no reasons. I listed some. I also showed how your implied question was itself the wrong question to be asking. Now, you can disagree with my stance that things should be allowed absent a compelling reason to prohibit them, but then lets actually argue that. I’m not sure you’d keep a consistent position there if it didn’t involve guns, but maybe i’m wrong.

    You don’t like the reasons? Well, we can argue them too. Hell, I’d argue that self-defense is the single most important one, but you just casually hand-wave it away. Can’t do that. It’s debatable how useful/important/effective/moral/etc self-defense as a reason to carry a weapon is, but just not engaging the reason is not defeating it.

    How far do you take this “Because I wanna” attitude to weapons?

    Interesting question, and one which i think we could have a good debate on. I’m of the opinion that the two extremes of “allow everything” and “allow nothing” are both incorrect and wrong. So, where do we draw the line? I have ideas, but i’m open to changing them in the face of good argument and evidence.

    I’m of the opinion that an important principle to use in such a discussion would be the one of “discrimination”. If a weapon is of such a nature that it’s use is inherently indiscriminate, then I would lean towards prohibiting it for private possession. This applies to Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Radiological weapons by their very nature. It also applies to explosives, at least above a certain threshold. Bam…through that one principle, you and I agree on about half your list there. And we haven’t even gotten into the weeds on discussing it.

    I’m not saying there are no good reasons to prohibit things. I’m saying that the default is to not…and you’ve got the burden of proof. Also, there are constitutional issues, but those are separate (though, of course, related).

    Nick, let me ask you this: Why do you think self-defense in general is not a good or sufficient reason to own/carry a firearm? Assume a reasonable person, with sufficient training and proficiency, and with no indications of a propensity to violence or criminality higher than the population average.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Oh, and if he gets “uppity” as you’re suggesting…then he dies.

    Before or after killing someone else?

  • sabrekgb

    @91 Raging Bee

    Before or after killing someone else?

    Could go either way.

    The person who decides to run down pedestrians might be stopped before or after he kills people.

    The murderer who poisoned someone might be stopped before or after they kill.

    The only way to stop everyone before they kill someone is to sacrifice freedom in the name of security. We have chosen not to do that in general. I would argue that it’s a good choice. It does come with risks and consequences, though. It’s rare that people just randomly kill someone for no reason. We punish that behavior harshly and that sort of deterrence generally works (leaving aside that I think a desire to randomly kill is aberrant). It’s not a perfect prior-restraint, though. It’s possible someone might be killed. That sucks. The benefits outweigh the detriments, though.