Debate ramps up on limiting ammo clips - La. (Louisiana) delegation is mostly skeptical

[shadowrider]

WASHINGTON -- Some members of Louisiana's congressional delegation are expressing skepticism of calls for a federal limit on the clip size of semiautomatic handguns as a way to deter attacks like the Jan. 8 shooting in Arizona that killed six and injured 19, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Police say Jared Lee Loughner, 22, fired 31 shots in quick succession with his Glock semiautomatic pistol during the deadly spree.

"The Tucson shooting was a horrible tragedy," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said Wednesday. "I hope it helps us focus on identifying and intervening with people with major mental health issues, not knee-jerk calls to restrict Second Amendment rights."

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-8/129611282483400.xml&coll=1

Focusing on identifying and intervening with people with major mental health issues is exactly what we should be doing instead of "do-good, do nothing laws" which provide nothing in the way of solving the problem.

[shadowrider]

1. I say if they want to ban/restrict 30 round "clips", go for it

I support that.

[MineralMan]

15. You realize that your semantics campaign is a waste, right?

The semantics surrounding magazines and clips is a dead end. Yes, there is a technical difference. Yes, people should use the correct terms. However, usage has made them equivalent in English, and you simply can't fight usage. I always use the terms correctly, but that's as far as I go with the subject. When someone says "30-round clip," I understand that they mean "30-round detachable magazine."

In fact, the use of the word "magazine" alone is incorrect. Without the modifier "detachable" or "removable," it's as confusing as the difference between "clip" and "magazine." Magazines can be fixed, as well as removable, as I'm sure you know.

So, unless you're willing to always use the adjectives to discriminate between fixed and removable magazines, you're just as vague and incorrect as the people who use the word "clip."

Semantics are not the key to the firearms issue. They only serve to make the discussion even more contentious. If someone uses the word "clip" and you understand what they mean to be "detachable magazine," why not argue the merits instead of the semantics?

[shadowrider]

17. I understand. Legal contracts (legislation) that specify "A"

Can also mean B, C and D even though they aren't specified, after all, "you know what I mean".

Sorry, legal documents don't work that way.

[MineralMan]

18. The legislation uses the correct terminology.

It's the individuals who use the term who get slammed by RKBA people who somehow believe that they're winning the battle by belittling people who either misuse or don't understand the nomenclature. The only thing that semantic "purity" does is piss people off, and that's not helpful.

The people who write the legislation know the difference and use the correct terms. Read some of it and you'll see that I'm right.

If you use semantics to avoid making the logical arguments, you fail at what you're trying to do.

It's one of the most annoying aspects of RKBA advocacy, and one that I've been pointing out for a very long time. Ridiculing a person for using the wrong terms is just plain stupid. It doesn't advance your argument in any way, and simply solidifies the opinion of that person.

Every time you use the word "magazine," without qualifying it with "detachable" or "removable," you're making a semantic error that is equally confusing. In fact, that's the reason language has to be included in legislation that exempts tubular magazine .22 semi-automatic rifles from some legislation, since that magazine often holds more rounds than the legislation limits.

If you're going to insist on precise use of language when it comes to firearms, then you must use precise language yourself. Otherwise, you're just doing the pot and kettle thing, and that trick never works. The best plan is to stop harping on precise nomenclature and use logical arguments to support your position. There are so many examples of how that will help. If someone who is not a firearms owner or expert says "bullet," it's obvious that they mean cartridge, not the actual projectile. Telling them they're stupid does not advance your position. You can explain the difference, politely, to educate the person, but you must also make your logical argument. The semantics error is not the issue. It is the logic of it that is the issue.

[shadowrider]

19. Sure they do. McCarthy wants to ban 30 round clips

I say go for it.

If the people wanting to institute restrictions don't know what they're talking about, well, that speaks for itself.

[MineralMan]

20. McCarthy means removable magazines when he uses the word

"clips." You know that. And if legislation is written, it will have the proper nomenclature in it. His semantic error is irrelevant to the discussion. Making that the issue wastes everybody's time.

Discuss the issue or not. That's up to you.

[PavePusher]

21. Speaking of nomenclature...

For McCarthy, it's "she" and "her".

Which kind of proves the point....

[Katya Mullethov]

26. Freudian Slip

Wacky ol Joe .

[beevul]

30. Read the bill.

"McCarthy means removable magazines when he uses the word "clips."


The bill as written would also effect firearms with fixxed and integral magazines.

If she means "detatchable/removable" either the bill was written wrong, or shes intentionally misleading people into thinking she means "removable".

[gejohnston]

33. this is the lady

that was having a press conference on banning heat seeking incendiary rifle rounds.

[Taitertots]

25. They have not become equivalent in English

Magazine alone is correct to describe both detachable and fixed magazines. Just like a sedan and a coupe can both be described with "car".
A clip is a specific device that is certainly different from both fixed and detached magazines. You wouldn't call a motorcycle a car just because they are both used to transport people. Anymore than you would call a clip, a magazine just because both are used to supply ammunition.

[geckosfeet]

2. Louisiana eh. I am sure you have seen this chart. Do you think that there

is any correlation? Can you say 'bury head in sand - problem go away?'

Firearms Death Rate per 100,000
The Geography of Gun Deaths
Murder Rates Nationally and By State

My money says that when the discussion turns to "identifying and intervening with people with major mental health issues", there will be a sudden hew and cry about privacy and the fourth amendment. If the La.congressional delegation were at all concerned about mental health issues, they would be backing implementation of mandated mental health care - at least on the state level.

Somehow I don't see that happening. See above comment regarding fourth amendment.

I suggest that we take a closer look at economic inequality and poverty.

On edit: added link to The Atlantic story and national murder rates

[lawodevolution]

4. So those who die from a gun are the only ones that are important?

Or are we concerned about total murder or suicide rate?

[geckosfeet]

6. No. But killing with a gun is easier than killing with a club.

It is also harder to shoot someone while cleaning your club.

I would think that people could understand that.

[shadowrider]

8. How do you feel about machetes?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/17/AR2005081701856.html

====

Beware MS-13

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is warning of a street gang, primarily comprised of illegal aliens from Central America, that has spread rapidly across the United States. MS-13 is especially known for the high level of violence committed during its crimes. Their signature weapon - the machete and other blunt instruments.

====

Nigeria machete massacre (500 dead)
Pics at link

http://www.listown.com/group/nigeria-massacre-pictures-10779

====

Police charge 49 with murder after Nigeria sectarian massacre

Police spokesman says more than 200 people detained in aftermath of machete attacks in Jos
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/nigeria-sectarian-massacre-murder-charges

[geckosfeet]

9. I keep mine locked and unloaded.

[shadowrider]

10. Are those machete victims more dead, or less dead, than had they been shot? n/t

[geckosfeet]

11. You really have to ask?

[shadowrider]

12. Yup. I want YOUR opinion.

Because it seems gun control proponents blow this kind of thing off, UNLESS guns were used.

Lemme see. 500 hacked to death. Can you site one, just one instance, where that number even came anywhere close, by shooting in the U.S.?

[geckosfeet]

13. They are dead. Just as dead.

And no, thank goodness, I can't site one instance where 500 were shot - all at once anyway.

People will always find a way to kill each other. As we all know, it is not the gun that is inherently a killing device. It is the intention behind it.

The point that needs to be made (by me) is that social, economic, political and cultural pressures cause people to somehow feel that killing someone else will solve their problem. eg: suicide bombers. The method is a matter of personal choice.

I know this does not address all the accidental gun deaths directly, but I believe that "lock and store" laws help. If you want to clean a loaded gun, no law will help.

[shadowrider]

14. A rational response. Now we're getting somewhere n/t

[geckosfeet]

16. So glad that you approve. eom

[lawodevolution]

24. I think the take home point for you is that when you concentrate on only gun violence

And you blow off other types of tools used to kill or commit suicide it shows that you really don't care much about the rate of violence or suicide but rather you just hate guns or gun owners.

[shadowrider]

27. Yup

Mass murder is apparently ok with a lot of people as long as a gun isn't used.

[Euromutt]

5. I see "firearms death rate" and "gun deaths"; I don't see numbers for deaths overall

Statistics focusing exclusively on deaths inflicted using firearms are bullshit, not because they're not true, but because they don't reflect the whole truth regarding questions of public health and safety.

As I put in a post in another thread recently:

Let's say we have two states/countries/jurisdictions: Xylophonia with loose gun laws and a murder rate of 3.0/100,000 population; and Yankeedoodledandia with stringent gun laws and a murder rate of 5.0/100,000.

In Xylophonia, 2/3 of murders are committed using firearms, yielding a gun murder rate of 2.0; in Yankeedoodledandia, 1/5 of murders are committed using a firearm, giving a gun murder rate of 1.0.

You can focus on the gun murder rate alone, and claim that guns must be a threat to public health and safety because the gun murder rate in X is double that in Y. But by doing so, you're willfully ignoring the fact that the overall murder rate in Y is 140% that of X.

To which I should add: you're also willfully ignoring the fact that the non-firearm homicide rate in Yankeedoodledandia is double that in Xylophonia.

When you restrict firearms, and as a result people shoot each other and themselves less, but compensate by stabbing each other and hanging themselves more, so that at the end of the day the homicide and suicide rates are the same, you haven't saved a single life. And while clamping down on guns might reduce the number of armed robberies using guns, by depriving the shopkeeper of a firearm, you make it harder for him to resist an armed robbery using a blade or bludgeon.

In short, you can't point to firearm crime/death statistics and say "this place is more/less safe due to tighter/looser gun laws."

I suggest that we take a closer look at economic inequality and poverty.

Uh, hell yes. That is what actually has a chance of making a difference. Urban young black men wouldn't be anywhere near as likely to be involved in homicide--both as perps and as victims--if the illicit drug trade weren't their only reliable vehicle of upward socio-economic mobility.

[geckosfeet]

7. I am willfully ignoring your nonsense as well.

What is so hard to understand about death rate from firearms per one hundred thousand?

I can make all kinds of stuff up to - but those death rates represent real deaths - real people - real guns. Whether you choose accept that or not is not my concern.
Murder Rates Nationally and By State

Here is an interesting statistic:

Arizona reported more than 3,000 murders with guns over a nine-year span (1999-2007), according to CDC data. That amounts to six gun murders per 100,000 residents. The national rate was about four.

Arizona's total gun-death rate - a figure that includes murders, suicides, accidents, police shootings and other unclassified killings - was nearly 16 per 100,000. The national rate was about 10.

/***/

Crime data collected by the FBI show Arizona is not especially violent. From 2005 to 2009, the state's murder rate was higher than the national average, but its overall violent-crime rate fell below the national average in 2008 and 2009. That was largely because of steep drops in aggravated assaults, which fell below the national rate and far outnumber slayings.

Zimring and Kleck caution against presumptions that state gun laws explain gun-death numbers, saying there are too many other factors involved.

Read more: Arizona's gun-death rate among the worst in U.S.
Can we assume that the difference between the AZ and national murder by gun rates is due to gun laws? Or should we attribute it to the abject poverty in AZ?

Murder by gun is approximately one third of the total death by gun rate - which means that two thirds are suicide, accident, self-defense etc. Just food for thought.


on edit - link to national murder rates and azcentral.com

[lawodevolution]

22. Japans murder plus suicide rate is about 25 / 100,000 while the US

Is around 16/100,000. Is if we just focused on death rate by firearms it would dismiss a lot of self inflicted violence in Japan as not important.

[beevul]

28. Nothing is hard to understand about it.

The problem, is in looking at it on a State vs State basis, and expressing it in "per 100,000". When looked at in that way, you aren't really looking at it WHERE the problem exists.

Where does the problem generally exist? Is it in the cities or the rural areas?

Cities, clearly.

What happens when you look at it on a state v state basis, is states with a low populations, such as AZ and NE, have their "rates" magnified by the fact that they have very small populations, while states with large populations have their rates diluted into larger populations. This is how a place like chicago can be...overlooked...in having so many murders via the gun, while AZ can be singled out.

Which is of course, why those who support gun control insist that it be looked at that way.

Once again, focus on the problem where it exists - in the cities, and the numbers lead to quite different conclusions.

[Euromutt]

29. "What is so hard to understand about death rate from firearms per one hundred thousand?" Nothing.

Including the fact that when you focus on gun deaths, you're overlooking deaths inflicted by means other than firearms. Those are "real deaths - real people" too.

The overall murder rates per state gives a much better view. But if we look at some other states with comparatively loose gun laws, not just Louisiana, we see that the correlation vanishes: Wyoming 2.4; Washington 2.4; Oregon 2.2; Idaho 1.4; Vermont 1.1. Compare that to Illinois 6.0 and Maryland 7.7 and we can start to form a hypothesis that there's probably a closer correlation between socio-economically deprived black populations and crime levels than there is between gun laws and crime levels

Can we assume that the difference between the AZ and national murder by gun rates is due to gun laws?

That's not an unreasonable hypothesis, but do note that the AZ Central piece you linked to points out, "Overall, violent-crime rates in Arizona are not far from rates for the U.S. as a whole <...>" Criminological and other evidence indicates that where firearms are more readily available to private citizens, that influences the choice of weapon in homicides and suicides, but not the overall number of homicides and suicides that occur. For much of the 1980s and 1990s, Switzerland had the highest "death by gun" rate in western Europe, in that it had the highest percentages of homicides and suicides committed using firearms, while at the same time it had an unremarkable suicide rate and one of the lowest homicide rates.

[pocoloco]

3. "do-good, do nothing laws" get repugs elected

and enabled!!

And they do quite a lot, endless wars, bloodshed, heartache!
A million dead in Iraq alone.

Piss off any chance of decent healtcare or any other needed
programs ever passing congress.

The best election tool the right has!

[Katya Mullethov]

23. They have their hands full with the war on bath salts already

Good God man . They're only human .

[east texas lib]

31. Thank God they haven't gotten around to rosin core solder yet...

I'm under the radar, man.

[gejohnston]

32. wow

Never though I would see the day that I would agree with David Vitter on anything.