You’re absolutely right. That’s the razor’s edge we walk. Here’s what I consider key: if a political discussion / debate breaks out here, is it markedly different — because of the forward-looking content — from one that you might find in the comments section of Powerline, Huffpo, Daily Kos, LGF, etc.? If so, great. If not, it would probably fit better in one of those spots.

The trick is that a discussion that starts out looking ahead can get sucked back into present-day political struggles pretty easily. That’s what I want to avoid.

And drivers licensing may be a poor example (I still have bad feeligns about my licensing challenge years ago when I moved to Colroado- took 3 visits to the DMV, each a week a apart, each with long lines to get my drivers license. Took 1 visit and some waiting to get both my gun and my private carry permit) to speculate on the point – but the point is still useful: some things are regulated, (including guns – I never meant to suggest they aren’t) and some are not. Some things are regulated more than others. Why? and How? And is there a way to make the US a better place, specifically in the context of gun violence as being discussed, with other regulation than what we have?
If so- is it more regulation we need? Less regulation? Different regulation or is the regulation we already have as good as it gets? FWIW- I’m not aware of any proposed increased gun control legislation that I would support- logic would suggest some uniformity nationwide woudl be useful. (natch Colorado rules for everyone is my vote)

I understand and will respect the desire to stick with the more intellectually pure and potentially answerable non-political specualtion on the site. But if a speculist is one what contends with what might be, social organizations need to …well, organize. And though thet gets politicized- I’m convinced there is a worthy intellectual exercise in thinking about that organization.

And in case my other point about smarter people than I should be thinking about technological solutions to bad guys with weapons needs reinforsement- regulate the ammunition is not something that had ever occurred to me.

There are few simpler mechanical devices than a simple STEN submachine gun, and every muffler shop in the country has the necessary materials and tools to build one from scratch. With a blueprint from the internet and maybe $1-200 worth of tools and steel from home depot, any reasonably mechanical person with enough time could churn out functional firearms.

But…what if we regulate ammunition instead?

The chemistry needed to make nitrocellouse or lead styphnate is an order of magnitude simpler than that needed to manufacture most drugs (LSD, synthetic opiods, etc…and you can see how successful efforts to completely eliminate clandestine drug manufacture are.

Simple guns and ammunition and the very, very bottom rung of complexity as far as science and engineering and can be made from virtually nothing. Heck even the most backwards of countries can churn out cheap tube submachine guns, pipe shotguns and AK’s.

And, of course, the real impact on bandwidth is negligible.

There.

I feel better.

It seems that James and many opposed to regulating guns are opposed to anything that imposes responsibility to act or change on gun owners. Why?

Now I’ll quote James:

This does beg the question: What are people like MDarling trying to do? They obviously don’t propose more gun control measures because they are concerned about the lives of innocent people.

Tsk, tsk. What a bunch of dirtbags we have reading this blog — people trying to avoid all responsibility and/or take away the rights of others while pretending to have other concerns.

I don’t buy it, and it’s one of the many reasons I try to stay off (conventional) politics around here. To quote yours truly:

As with most political debates, virtually everybody goes in already knowing the answer.

Plus there’s this presumption of bad will on the part of those with whom we disagree that I just can’t stomach. Fellas, you aren’t going to convince each other of anything, and you’re chewing up my bandwidth on political crapola that I value almost as much as porn spam.

So let’s give it a rest, eh?

Earlier you made the statement that it was harder to acquire a drivers license than a firearm. That was false, a complete lie. And it is a lie that has been presented as truth by the anti-gun lobby for decades, a malicious piece of propaganda.

MDarling seems to be starting from the premise that guns are hardly regulated at all. That virtually anyone who wants a firearm can simply wander into a pawn shop or gun store and acquire anything that they need. This is yet another falsehood, another lie.

Felons are not allowed to own or possess firearms, and they are barred from living in a house where another person owns a gun. It is illegal for a previously convicted felon from even trying to purchase a gun, and there are mandatory sentences if they make the attempt.

There is a national background check before you can purchase a gun. Valid ID must be presented before the purchase. It is illegal to buy a gun for someone who is barred by law from owning or possessing a firearm, and the penalties for doing so is worse than that for many offenses which prevents someone from ever owning a gun.

In many states, people of reduced mental competence are banned from owning or possessing guns. (The Virginia Tech shooter should have been in this category, but laws protecting medical records kept him from being flagged when he purchased his firearms.)

It is illegal in a few of our big cities to buy ammunition unless you have a special license. The purchase is even recorded and turned over to the police. It is a violation of our Constitution for the authorities to keep records of gun purchases because of the very real fear of confiscation, but the anti-gun lobby found a loophole.

Heck, many states have a law where someone who is accused of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge, someone who has not even been convicted, is barred from owning, purchasing or possessing guns! “Guilty until proven” simply doesn’t apply when dealing with firearms.

The idea that there isn’t enough legislation is absurd.

James- are there regulations on guns that you support?

I heartily approve of banning felons from owning or possessing firearms. I even agree on keeping straw purchases illegal. I don’t think that people who are judged mentally incompetent should own firearms, either.

But it is absurd for those who are not even convicted of a crime to be banned from owning firearms.

Keep in mind that gun control measures have been tried before, and they simply do not work. Some of the most violent cities in this country have been experimenting with them for the past 5 decades, and the number of violent crimes simply rises faster than in areas where there are less restrictions. Not only that, but violent crime tends to drop faster when a concealed carry law is put in place.

This does beg the question: What are people like MDarling trying to do? They obviously don’t propose more gun control measures because they are concerned about the lives of innocent people.

James

Yes – felons can get a driver’s license and supposedly not a gun. LIkewise 16 year olds. But we regulate cars and driving.

It seems that James and many opposed to regulating guns are opposed to anything that imposes responsability to act or change on gun owners. Why?

James- are there regulations on guns that you support? Or should they be more like… clothes- no regulation, just the free market.

Police issued a warrant to examine the shooter’s medical records. So if they piece together various bits of information to determine he was “troubled,” will there be a heuristic way to determine similar trends? Where is the narrow-focus AI mining the data warehouse of public behavior and incidents of crime? I know, we’ve seen the movie about letting computers predict who is going to commit crimes, but seriously, isn’t there a way to short-circuit this violence be liberally applying countermeasures BEFORE a disaster?

(btw, why is the comment textarea so narrow?)

How easy would it be to rape someone on a college campus if you had such a device? And mass murders would be easy, too – just “freeze” a bunch of people, then stab or bludgeon at your leisure. Hell, it might even be MORE effective than a handgun, since there would not be any gunshot to alert people.

So I doubt, once the equivalence becomes clear to everyone, that the anti-gun lobby will be fine with people carrying extremely effective less-lethal weapons.

I apologize to Phil.

No harm, no foul. But I ask you to take my word for it on the following:

…cynical ploys by the anti-gun lobby …Claiming that tasers or other less lethal weapons can provide any reasonable measure of protection…certainly fits this pattern.

We ain’t them, and this ain’t one of those ploys.

Proposing something that does not work is a sign of someone being “technologically wise”? Speculating about devices that would render useless the very guns needed for defense is an “improvement”?

Phil didn’t suggest that “people should be forced by law to face a mad gunman with anything less than their own firearm.”

You are right, Stephen, and I misspoke. I apologize to Phil.

It is important to remember that I have been actively trying to help people protect themselves for more than a decade. I have seen legions of unrealistic proposals over the years, most of them cynical ploys by the anti-gun lobby to try and reduce the public perception of the role that firearms play in defending innocent lives.

These ploys usually follow a similar pattern. A completely unrealistic or even patently false claim is made where the absolute need for a firearm to resist an armed attack is challenged.

Claiming that tasers or other less lethal weapons can provide any reasonable measure of protection against someone armed with a handgun certainly fits this pattern.

James

Except that neither one can stand up to the pounding and incredible stresses that a gun suffers every time it fires, making the gun useless in short order.

Another thing to keep in mind is that these computerized disabling devices work on batteries. If the batteries run dry, or something is wrong with the electronics, then we want cops or law abiding citizens to be unarmed?

How about a GPS chip required on every licensed gun.

Licensing guns has, in the past, been used to confiscate those same guns. (See the California Gun Ban for a big example.)

Why is it harder to get a driver’s license than a gun?

This is an outright falsehood, a complete lie. Do you think any 16 year old can legally get a gun? A felon after they serve their sentence? Because they can get drivers licenses, but they are specifically barred from purchasing guns.

MDarling is actually proposing some of the “solutions” favored by the anti-gun lobby. Speaking as a professional, they would also cost lives if our politicians were ignorant enough to take them seriously.

James

Wait – here’s another. An acoustic sensor, coupled with a powerful visual identification software that detects the presence of an unauthorized gun – or gun shot in the case of acoustic sensing.

And then immobilizes the humans in the environment asap. And sequesters the gun. And. And.

All of the above ignores the quite relevant constitutional individual right to carry firearms – obviously, ones that work.

…….

On the overall thread… non-lethal weapons with the capabilities of firearms would indeed make the world a better place. I’d trade in my protection weapons for them any time. Unfortunately, they remain fiction at this time, and there is no reason to expect a quick breakthrough.

The human body is remarkably resilient, and can continue to function efficiently and lethally *after* being killed! In other words, even if you shoot someone in the heart with a gun, they still have around 15 seconds of fully functional time in which to shoot or stab you, before they die. Weapons like tasers in theory could be *more* effective in a defense situation because they instantly disrupt the nervous system, but in fact they don’t often work – even if you hit the target from within the short effective range. Rodney Kind withstood multiple taser jolts and continued to fight.