Politics And Current Events

[Freddy Rumsen]

Every piece of information that comes out makes the Sheriff's department look worse.

These call for service details on the Florida shooter are extremely troubling

https://t.co/YKwX2Qlli8

[Freddy Rumsen]

“Are We Putting Too Much Pressure on the Parkland Survivors?” - my thoughts on the dangers of romanticization, for @politico

https://t.co/N5w6CIL03Q

[eddy]

JUST IN: We have a superseding indictment in DC against Manafort that is being unsealed, per order of Judge Amy Berman Jackson. https://t.co/AfvW8n9krG

[tifosi77]

One of the reasons so many gun owners have problems with proposals for gun control is that it quickly becomes obvious that the proposers have no idea how guns work (or are feigning ignorance).

We were watching TV last night, and someone used the phrase "30-clip mags", or something. I don't approach 2A stuff from the same perspective as you, but I agree on this.

[Shyster]

step back for a second. the purpose is to decrease the overall number of bullets fired and the rate at which they would be fired. imposing a timer rule, whatever it is (10 seconds...20...60), would achieve this, no? Maybe it would depend on the interval. I wouldn't know what that specific interval should be. 10 seconds was a placeholder.

Let me ask this. Let's say the average semi-automatic rifle fires at a rate of X rounds per minute. In terms of a fraction of X, what do you believe the firing rate is for a bolt-action rifle, a pump-action rifle, and a lever-action rifle. For example, if you think a pump-action rifle is only capable of firing 1/10 as fast, then you would say "one tenth X." How fast do you think those types of guns are capable of firing? Assume the operator is someone of average skill and not a competitive shooter or anything like that. If you want, you could also phrase it in terms of shots and second, such as "I think a pump-action gun is capable of firing one shot every five seconds."

[tifosi77]

the "10 second rule" would be applied to all semi autos, btw.

So I've got my gun with its ten-second timer, and there's a dude standing in my living room who shouldn't be there. He pulls his gun (which does not have said timer installed); I showed up with my own gun, so I'm ready for this. I get my first shot off, and it just wings him.

"Pardon me, armed intruder. Please hold station for ten seconds while my timer resets."

Or do you propose that if that first shot is not successful I just throw the pistol at him?

[Freddy Rumsen]

Vice evidently thinks ladies shouldn't have firearms.

The NRA wants to put guns in the hands of:
• Schoolteachers
• Preachers
• Anyone who goes into a nightclub
• Women

...just to name a few.

https://t.co/Zk0KzPRKtjw

[Freddy Rumsen]

step back for a second. the purpose is to decrease the overall number of bullets fired and the rate at which they would be fired. imposing a timer rule, whatever it is (10 seconds...20...60), would achieve this, no? Maybe it would depend on the interval. I wouldn't know what that specific interval should be. 10 seconds was a placeholder.

Let me ask this. Let's say the average semi-automatic rifle fires at a rate of X rounds per minute. In terms of a fraction of X, what do you believe the firing rate is for a bolt-action rifle, a pump-action rifle, and a lever-action rifle. For example, if you think a pump-action rifle is only capable of firing 1/10 as fast, then you would say "one tenth X." How fast do you think those types of guns are capable of firing? Assume the operator is someone of average skill and not a competitive shooter or anything like that. If you want, you could also phrase it in terms of shots and second, such as "I think a pump-action gun is capable of firing one shot every five seconds."

Just for giggles I went outside and took the plug out of my pump 12 guage and timed myself. I was able to get off 5 rounds in 15 seconds.

[shmenguin]

step back for a second. the purpose is to decrease the overall number of bullets fired and the rate at which they would be fired. imposing a timer rule, whatever it is (10 seconds...20...60), would achieve this, no? Maybe it would depend on the interval. I wouldn't know what that specific interval should be. 10 seconds was a placeholder.

Let me ask this. Let's say the average semi-automatic rifle fires at a rate of X rounds per minute. In terms of a fraction of X, what do you believe the firing rate is for a bolt-action rifle, a pump-action rifle, and a lever-action rifle. For example, if you think a pump-action rifle is only capable of firing 1/10 as fast, then you would say "one tenth X." How fast do you think those types of guns are capable of firing? Assume the operator is someone of average skill and not a competitive shooter or anything like that. If you want, you could also phrase it in terms of shots and second, such as "I think a pump-action gun is capable of firing one shot every five seconds."

the point of this exercise is what, exactly? i don't know the answers to your questions. hazarding a guess wouldn't be constructive. i think we've established that 10 seconds is arbitrary, and ultimately i'd prefer to ban all semi automatic weapons. but i know this is very impractical so i'm trying to figure out what a compromise would be.

[MR25]

Vice evidently thinks ladies shouldn't have firearms.

The NRA wants to put guns in the hands of:
• Schoolteachers
• Preachers
• Anyone who goes into a nightclub
• Women

...just to name a few.

https://t.co/Zk0KzPRKtjw

I think their point is that it's sexist to assume a woman can't protect herself without the use if a gun, which is what the NRA is saying in that list.

[shmenguin]

the "10 second rule" would be applied to all semi autos, btw.

So I've got my gun with its ten-second timer, and there's a dude standing in my living room who shouldn't be there. He pulls his gun (which does not have said timer installed); I showed up with my own gun, so I'm ready for this. I get my first shot off, and it just wings him.

"Pardon me, armed intruder. Please hold station for ten seconds while my timer resets."

Or do you propose that if that first shot is not successful I just throw the pistol at him?

sure. or you quite possible own several guns and just use one of them. freddy just got off 5 rounds in 15 seconds with a pump action. i think that's probably sufficient.

so here's another scenario. a shooter goes into a school with a semi automatic rifle. not only is he unapproachable because you aren't going to have a chance between rounds to intervene, but he's also firing more lethal bullets than a semi auto handgun (riiiiight?) so you're double f***ed.

in the 2 scenarios posited, only in one are the victims left stripped of their agency. and they're children. you can defend your home in a variety of ways. paint cans, tarantulas, a variety of shotguns and pistols...but you aren't going to use a semi-auto. or if you are, it's going to be throttled.

[tifosi77]

That is a really stupid idea, and I don't throw that term around lightly.

[Shyster]

the point of this exercise is what, exactly? i don't know the answers to your questions. hazarding a guess wouldn't be constructive. i think we've established that 10 seconds is arbitrary, and ultimately i'd prefer to ban all semi automatic weapons. but i know this is very impractical so i'm trying to figure out what a compromise would be.

I was trying to figure out if you have any idea how guns work or how fast they are capable of firing. It would seem you just conformed that you do not.

You might want to take the advice offered by Ken White in his Talking Productively About Guns post on the Popehat blog. I'll quote the specific bit I'm referring to:

Gun Terminology Matters

If we had the "reasonable gun control" I keep hearing about, what guns would be limited? I'm arguably not a complete idiot, but I can't figure it out. I hear "nobody wants to take away all your guns" a lot — which seems demonstrably false — but what guns do gun-control advocates want to take away, or restrict? Most of the time I don't know and I suspect that the advocates don't know either.

That's because there's a terminology gap. Many people advocating for gun control mangle and misuse descriptive words about guns. No doubt some of them are being deliberately ambiguous, but I think most people just haven't educated themselves on the meaning of a relatively small array of terms. That's how you get a debate framed around gibberish like "multi-automatic round weapons" and the like. You get people using "semi-automatic" and "automatic" without knowing what they mean, and you get the term "assault weapon" thrown about as if it means more than whatever we choose to make it mean, which it does not.

If you don't understand these terms already, why should you care? You should care because when you misuse them, you signal substantially broader gun restrictions than you may actually be advocating. So, for instance, if you have no idea what semi-automatic means, but you've heard it and it sounds scary, and you assume that it means some kind of machine gun, so you argue semi-automatics should be restricted, you've just conveyed that most modern handguns (save for revolvers) should be restricted, even if that's not what you meant.

It's hard to grasp the reaction of someone who understands gun terminology to someone who doesn't. So imagine we're going through one of our periodic moral panics over dogs and I'm trying to persuade you that there should be restrictions on, say, Rottweilers.

Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the f***.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?

Because I'm just talking out of my ass, the impression I convey is that I want to ban some arbitrary, uninformed category of dogs that I can't articulate. Are you comfortable that my rule is going to be drawn in a principled, informed, narrow way?

So. If you'd like to persuade people to accept some sort of restrictions on guns, consider educating yourself so you understand the terminology that you're using. And if you're reacting to someone suggesting gun restrictions, and they seem to suggest something nonsensical, consider a polite question of clarification about terminology.

[shmenguin]

the "10 second rule" would be applied to all semi autos, btw.

So I've got my gun with its ten-second timer, and there's a dude standing in my living room who shouldn't be there. He pulls his gun (which does not have said timer installed); I showed up with my own gun, so I'm ready for this. I get my first shot off, and it just wings him.

"Pardon me, armed intruder. Please hold station for ten seconds while my timer resets."

Or do you propose that if that first shot is not successful I just throw the pistol at him?

and just so i'm clear, you don't believe things like bump stocks, semi autos, and any other technological advances since the 1700's are grandfathered in to 2A protection do you?

[tifosi77]

Bump stocks, no. Semi autos, yes.

I mean, the way you're putting it, even self-contained cartridges would be outside the scope of the 2A.

[shmenguin]

the point of this exercise is what, exactly? i don't know the answers to your questions. hazarding a guess wouldn't be constructive. i think we've established that 10 seconds is arbitrary, and ultimately i'd prefer to ban all semi automatic weapons. but i know this is very impractical so i'm trying to figure out what a compromise would be.

I was trying to figure out if you have any idea how guns work or how fast they are capable of firing. It would seem you just conformed that you do not.

You might want to take the advice offered by Ken White in his Talking Productively About Guns post on the Popehat blog. I'll quote the specific bit I'm referring to:

Gun Terminology Matters

If we had the "reasonable gun control" I keep hearing about, what guns would be limited? I'm arguably not a complete idiot, but I can't figure it out. I hear "nobody wants to take away all your guns" a lot — which seems demonstrably false — but what guns do gun-control advocates want to take away, or restrict? Most of the time I don't know and I suspect that the advocates don't know either.

That's because there's a terminology gap. Many people advocating for gun control mangle and misuse descriptive words about guns. No doubt some of them are being deliberately ambiguous, but I think most people just haven't educated themselves on the meaning of a relatively small array of terms. That's how you get a debate framed around gibberish like "multi-automatic round weapons" and the like. You get people using "semi-automatic" and "automatic" without knowing what they mean, and you get the term "assault weapon" thrown about as if it means more than whatever we choose to make it mean, which it does not.

If you don't understand these terms already, why should you care? You should care because when you misuse them, you signal substantially broader gun restrictions than you may actually be advocating. So, for instance, if you have no idea what semi-automatic means, but you've heard it and it sounds scary, and you assume that it means some kind of machine gun, so you argue semi-automatics should be restricted, you've just conveyed that most modern handguns (save for revolvers) should be restricted, even if that's not what you meant.

It's hard to grasp the reaction of someone who understands gun terminology to someone who doesn't. So imagine we're going through one of our periodic moral panics over dogs and I'm trying to persuade you that there should be restrictions on, say, Rottweilers.

Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the f***.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?

Because I'm just talking out of my ass, the impression I convey is that I want to ban some arbitrary, uninformed category of dogs that I can't articulate. Are you comfortable that my rule is going to be drawn in a principled, informed, narrow way?

So. If you'd like to persuade people to accept some sort of restrictions on guns, consider educating yourself so you understand the terminology that you're using. And if you're reacting to someone suggesting gun restrictions, and they seem to suggest something nonsensical, consider a polite question of clarification about terminology.

oh. i think you're misunderstanding. i'm aware that semi automatics are everywhere. i also am careful with my terminology use. i don't say "assault rifle" because i don't know what that is, and i also doubt it's a relevant distinction.

terminology matters if you're an elected official or you're getting into the weeds. we've generally been speaking abstractly, and when i'm vulnerable to my ignorance, i qualify my position. which is why you're more hung up on "10 seconds" than I am.

the truth is that i of course don't respect firearms. i have a lot of ways i could expand on that, but they would come off as personal attacks, which isn't helpful. but what this means is that in your dog scenario, i'm banning all kinds of cute puppies as well at pit bulls. because i don't believe the distinction is relevant. because i don't respect dog ownership. but i'm trying to figure out ways for you to keep your dog, even though he's an a**hole.

[dodint]

Someone is going to win a Pulitzer outlining all the cracks the shooter slipped through to get to here.

[CBear3]

Can we just sticky the conversation we had two days ago where we actually had compromise and decent discussion? That'd be grreeaaattt.

I know I'm an idiot when it comes to guns. And I'm very thankful to have engaged in conversations here with people that know better, with an open mind to learning more and not being ashamed of how little I know.

[Shyster]

the truth is that i of course don't respect firearms. i have a lot of ways i could expand on that, but they would come off as personal attacks, which isn't helpful. but what this means is that in your dog scenario, i'm banning all kinds of cute puppies as well at pit bulls. because i don't believe the distinction is relevant. because i don't respect dog ownership. but i'm trying to figure out ways for you to keep your dog, even though he's an a**hole.

I understand that you don't like guns and would prefer them to cease to exist. I'm actually trying to do you a favor by respectfully pointing out just how staggeringly ignorant and uninformed you sound. Because you do sound every bit as clueless as the example offered by Mr. White. Don't you think you should educate yourself—even just marginally—on a subject where you are advocating sweeping legal changes? And if you are perfectly willing to speak out of ignorance, why should anyone believe anything you say on any other subject? Are we supposed to believe you are ignorant about this but knowledgeable about other things?

[grunthy]

the "10 second rule" would be applied to all semi autos, btw.

So I've got my gun with its ten-second timer, and there's a dude standing in my living room who shouldn't be there. He pulls his gun (which does not have said timer installed); I showed up with my own gun, so I'm ready for this. I get my first shot off, and it just wings him.

"Pardon me, armed intruder. Please hold station for ten seconds while my timer resets."

Or do you propose that if that first shot is not successful I just throw the pistol at him?

and just so i'm clear, you don't believe things like bump stocks, semi autos, and any other technological advances since the 1700's are grandfathered in to 2A protection do you?

Should freedom of the press include TV stations and internet?

[tifosi77]

Tipster’s Warning to F.B.I. on Florida Shooting Suspect: ‘I Know He’s Going to Explode’

A woman who knew the teenager accused of shooting 17 people to death at a Florida high school last week told the F.B.I. last month that Nikolas Cruz possessed an arsenal of weapons and ammunition, and she worried he might be “getting into a school and just shooting the place up.”

“I know he’s going to explode,” the woman said in a call to the F.B.I.’s tip hotline on Jan. 5, according to a transcript of the call obtained by The New York Times.

The acting F.B.I. deputy director, David L. Bowdich, briefed congressional staff members about the call on Friday and acknowledged the F.B.I.’s failure to investigate the tip, according to a federal official. The details of the call were first reported Friday by The Wall Street Journal.

The tip came in more than a month before the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. It was the clearest warning sign ignored by the authorities that Mr. Cruz, who had a long history of troubling behavior, represented a dangerous threat to others.

Over the course of the call, which lasted more than 13 minutes, the tipster warned the F.B.I. that Mr. Cruz had been adrift since his mother’s death in November. The tipster provided four Instagram accounts for Mr. Cruz, which she said showed photos of sliced up animals and the firearms he had amassed. The caller, whose name was redacted on the transcript, said Mr. Cruz had used money from a life insurance policy after his mother’s death to purchase the weapons.

“If you go onto his Instagram pages, you’ll see all the guns,” the woman said.

Before calling the F.B.I., the woman telephoned law enforcement officials in Parkland, worried that Mr. Cruz might kill himself. But she didn’t hear back from them and became increasingly alarmed after she said Mr. Cruz posted online that “he wants to kill people.”

The Broward County sheriff’s office, which staffs the Parkland police station, received a call in November from a caller raising similar concerns about Mr. Cruz: that he was collecting guns and knives, might kill himself and “could be a school shooter in the making.” The caller was in Massachusetts, the sheriff’s office said in a summary of the call released on Thursday.

Two deputies have been placed on restricted duty while the office investigates how two calls about Mr. Cruz — the one in November and an earlier one in 2016 — were mishandled.

I don't normally like posting entire articles, but I think an exception is warranted here.

[Shyster]

And to get back to concrete examples, something like a pump-action is going to be slower than a semi-auto, but not tremendously slower. Freddy Rumsen could do a lot better than one shot every three seconds; I'm sure he was having a bad day and was also slowed down by the recoil of his 12-gauge, among other factors. A pump rifle in a fairly low-recoil caliber like .223 could easily be fired once per second, if not faster. A lever gun wouldn't be much slower. And both types of guns can be fitted with detachable magazines. Troy Industries, for example, makes pump-action rifles that accept the standard STANAG magazines used by the AR-15.

[tifosi77]

One thing that I would add, is that while I'm no 2A truther, seeing 'compromises' put forward that amount to "I don't want to ban your guns, I just want to render them functionally useless for legitimate purposes outside of 'expensive paperweight'" actually moves me more to the dig-my-heels-in camp. It makes me much less receptive to talk about limits, because it veers very far away from the the most basic fact about the Second Amendment: It's a Constitutional right, and dicking around with limits on the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right can have some very profound and lasting unintended consequences.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Ok, I went back out did it in 10 seconds.

My shoulder might be sore later.

[Shyster]

Ok, I went back out did it in 10 seconds.

My shoulder might be sore later.

See, I knew you could do a lot better.