I thought it was very interesting how the Cato Institute rejected the NRA's desire to join this lawsuit.
Even the liberal Matt Yglesias is against you on this one, hippie.
While the individual right interpretation of the 2d Amendment makes a reasonable amount of sense, it's obviously got to be subject to some sorts of regulation, or we wouldn't be able to ban any kind of weapons -- RPGs, suitcase nukes, they're all arms, and if you can constitutionally keep someone from buying RPGs, I can't see where you draw the line saying that you can't keep them from buying handguns.
Gawd knows I love Generation Awesome, but you people are such bitches. This ('88-'96) is what DC looks like when there's a crime problem. Y'all can afford a few more guns.
On this issue, people will feel the logical force of LB's "suitcase nukes" scenario, and by pushing an extreme interpretation of the 2nd, the right will have shot itself in the foot. I'm for getting out of the way for now.
What are the prevailing laws regarding RPGs?
Wait, the law was that you weren't allowed to keep handguns in your house? How was that not struck down already?
7: I'm sure you can find someplace where they'll let you shoot one.
Wait, the law was that you weren't allowed to keep handguns in your house? How was that not struck down already?
It's no different than not being able to own a sawed-off shotgun, or an automatic rifle.
Most handgun laws are restricted to carry/concealed carry regulations. (There are actually differences between handguns and automatic weapons.)
Sure, but those differences are not addressed in the text of the 2d Amendment. It's not clear to me that any regulation that's permissible with respect to automatic rifles is obviously unconstitutional with respect to handguns.
"the right will have shot itself in the foot."
That's why there need to be regulations about storage and training.
Because, ya know that murderers and drug dealers will absolutely obey conceal carry laws, being good citizens and all.
"the right will have shot itself in the foot."
That's why there need to be regulations about storage and training.
So they'll know to aim for their centers of mass?
The Second Amendment really needed some goddamn footnotes.
Look, American law hasn't taken the 2nd amendment literally in some time. It surprised me that DC banned owning handguns because usually there's a case to be made that owning a suitcase nuke is something like to hurt a large number of people, &c, state has a compelling interest. With handguns, that hasn't usually been the trend; regulation tends to come on the transport end of it.
The majority in yesterday's decision pointed to a 1998 dissent in which "at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read 'bear arms' in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering."
I'm sorry, when did we start using dissents as the prevailing precedent? How about the five members- aka the majority- who said in 1998 that gun control is constitutional?
Foortnotes my eye. The purpose of the Second Ammendment is to facilitate violent overthrow of an otherwise entrenched tyrannical central government. The last check and balance as it were. Obviously suitcase nukes should be in the hands of responsible citizens. No dusky immigrants, though. You never know who they are really loyal to.
I'm sure you can find someplace where they'll let you shoot one.
But I specifically don't want to join the military.
You can shoot them in Iraq. For free, even.
I dunno. I've never owned a gun, and doubt I ever will, but a ban on having a handgun in your own house seems completely nuts to me.
hell will have frozen over before i let yglesias bring a gun into the flophouse. that prospect is terrifying.
22: You should arm yourself against that possibility, so he knows he'll have to shoot it out.
TLL's been pretty funny recently.
21: It doesn't seem nuts at all to me, but it does sound unconstitutional.
22: But just think how much more exciting the squirrel story could have been!
I don't see Wreck coming out of that story well at all.
Anybody else got that damn Cher song from the sixties stuck in their head because of this post's title?
18: The probability of the government being overthrown by a bunch of militia nutjobs and NRA types is precisely zero. However implausibe, if it were ever to happen (violent overthrow of the US government by the population) it would happen when they lost consistent support of the military and soccer moms manned the barricades (having never owned or wanted a gun, many of them). Just like every other country. That's what makes 2nd amendment wankers annoying --- the co-opting of an ideal for their more prosaic desires. I'd like the gun-lobby a lot more if it were more honest.
I teach the legal portion of a concealed handgun class. (Totally fun!) As a result, I recently became a gun owner.
I fall into the idea that you can restrict certain weapons of widespread distruction, but I have issues with the idea that you can prevent individuals from owning semi-automatic weapons (long or short).
There are some people who make a convincing case that if more people wore handguns in the open, fewer crimes would take place. If you want to rob the 7/11 and you walk in and see 3 people with guys, you probably walk right out.
If Yglesias gets a gun, I'm stealing Spencer's flak jacket and wearing it 24-7.
btw 29 isn't meant to dismiss the gun wielding soccer moms, who are surely legion.
I bet I've fired more guns than MY. I'm sure I'm a better shot.
32 s/b referring to 28, of course.
29: All such arguments I've seen seem oversimplified, like your sketch of them. It's pretty clear that certain types of crimes would be reduced, like your 7/11 hold up. It's a big jump to get from that to an overall reduction, rather than a shift in profiles.
"There are some people who make a convincing case that if more people wore handguns in the open, fewer crimes would take place."
That's the argument of John Lott / Mary Rosh- I wouldn't take anything he says too seriously (too seriously = any more seriously than something the drunk guy on the corner says, whether or not he has a gun.)
33: We're still talking about firearms here, right, Smasher?
33 - Is there a gun range in DC? We should fieldtrip to a gun range.
28. You are of course correct, but only because we have violated the Founder's desires and have a large standing army to contend with. The revolution is only successful when the troops don't fire on the mob. All kidding aside, a lot of gun control laws are way too "nanny state" for my liking, and ridiculous to boot. Outside of a black powder muzzle loader, any firearm can kill with effeciency. So we argue about magazine capacity and pistol grips.
I once went to some batting cages that were near a firing range.
37: We're definitely getting machine guns for you and Catherine.
38: sure, but in that case (standing army) *that's* the real discussion, so why not have it.
I agree that arguing about magazine capacity and pistol grips is stupid. On the other hand, I could imagine disallowing entire classes of weapons because their nominal value as sport weapons is outweighed by their potential to be used as designed: to damage people very efficiently. Some are far more efficient than others, notwithstanding your point about black powder muzzle loaders.
I'm not saying this *should* be done, I'm saying that when such discussions get bogged down on the 2nd amendment, they are neither addressing the real design of the amendment as I understand it (and your comment seems to support that), nor do they tend to be honest about what the supporters actually want.
This is also one of those issues that seems to bring out a lot of statistical manipulation, on all sides.
Isn't the real distinction between allowed/not-allowed about whether you'll outgun the police or not?
"Isn't the real distinction between allowed/not-allowed about whether you'll outgun the police or not?"
If so, then the increasing militarization of the police is thrilling gun dealers.
42: which is always solvable by a arms race, no? There are an incredibly large number of so-called `tactical' units in the country now, for related reasons. Which has affected a negative change on the way policing is done, and the relationship between police forces and the people they (nominally) protect. It's a fair question as to whether or not that was avoidable.
40: Market the gadgets as fat jiggle reducing exercises instead of as weapons. That should work.
44. Unintended consequences rears its ugly head again. SWAT teams developed for large cities that had occasion to use them (SLA shootout, anyone?), but smaller jurisdictions were able to get Federal funding for these units, especially after 9/11. So now the City of Townsville has a team, and every other arrest is a "no-knock" raid. Then we are outraged when Granny gets waxed in a case of mistaken or mixed up warrants. On the other hand, the trailer park blew up while Thebideaux was cooking his meth, so maybe Townsville needs some specialists.
46: That's letting a lot of people off too easily. This was entirely foreseeable. Police make lousy soldiers and vice versa, and this has long been understood. Some of it is down to post 9/11 idiocy, true. This also was foreseeable.
Clearly some tactical capability was needed, but it was developed in pretty much exactly the wrong way.
In your example, the sort of specialists Townsville needed weren't SWAT, either.
29: Guns may make the holder safer measured from encounter to encounter, but more dangerous by provoking more risky encounters in total. I believe this not by way of statistics but through the principle of passive versus active safety. Since this is basically an analogy, for propriety's sake I will not repeat it here.
4
The decision allowed reasonable restrictions. One possible reasonable restriction is a bond requirement. The bond for a suitcase nuke would be prohibitive.
So, what, the very rich get suitcase nukes, but we schlubs don't?
The poor should get subsidized suitcase nukes!
I would have thought SWAT teams et al got their biggest impetuous in the early seventies. That's when the series of that name ran, and when I noticed up arming even of suburban cops. It was probably a reaction to the insurrectionary style and rhetoric, of black and white radicals alike, who had been out to heighten the contradictions—perhaps not realizing how many we could absorb.
But there was also the sheer volume of fire in the movies in those days, from Bonnie and Clyde on. It's as if the producers had been reading S.L.A. Marshall. And the whole thing is neato and thoroughly cop show anyway; wonder it didn't happen sooner.
What are the prevailing laws regarding RPGs?
d20, d10 and the occasional near-cousin (Palladium or GURPS, for instance) are allowed without a license but TORG and RoleMaster are heavily regulated and require a three-campaign waiting period.
53: It probably reached its peak with "The A Team". Unlike our current L.A. gangbangers those people could fire automatic weapons until the barrels melted without ever harming anyone. That takes skill. Or kids had faster reflexes back then, before they were poisoned by additive free, low-fat foods.
What's wrong with "schlubs"? I rather like the teutonic 'c'.
I recently went to a range and fired a handgun for the first time, and I rather liked it. I think I got the breathing right. I was pretty accurate, alternating between the head and the chest of my paper target. I shot a 9mm Berretta. I had no policy epiphanies.
The poor should get subsidized suitcase nukes!
In every production run, inevitably there'll be a couple that aren't up to spec; these you hand off to the government surplus program. Bonuses: glowing cheese, sporadic reductions in the number of poor people.
What are the prevailing laws regarding RPGs?
You know, I miss the days when people talked about "tanks" "jeeps" "bazookas" "tommy guns" etc. Seems quaint now. Now you want to show cred by using the correct acronym, itself chosen by some military w-lfs-n to accurately describe classes of weapons. So rpg for rocket-propelled grenade, instead of "bazooka" which sounds like bubble-gum, afv for armored fighting vehicle—a word-for-word translation of Panzer KampfWagen; who won the war anyway?—for our dear old "tank," and so on.
Becks and her title have got me thinking of Like a shotgun—bang! / What's up with that thang?
Over. And over.
58: The one that really annoys me is IED. I can't figure out what it conveys that 'bomb' doesn't -- who cares whether or not the explody thing was improvised or off-the-shelf?
What a bomb, what a bomb, what an improvised bomb.
60: No, that's Intra Euterine Device. High failure rate up through the seventies, now making a comeback with a new, safer, more reliable design.
53: You're right --- the SWAT problem was in full swing pre 2001. It has gained significant momentum since then, as various interests figure out ways to get hold of `security' money. But it was a real problem even in the late 80's.
That's just how eeeevil our enemies in Iraq are - they don't use proper bombs, like civilized folk. No, they improvise explosive devices, like some sort of hellish jazz-terrorists.
Abu Ghraib is too good for such inhuman thugs.
Isn't the deal with IEDs that they're basically landmines that come in all sorts of forms, including bits of sidewalk?
I can't figure out what it conveys that 'bomb' doesn't -- who cares whether or not the explody thing was improvised or off-the-shelf?
As the term has evolved, it does seem to convey a more specific meaning than "bomb." And, of course, bomb is generally still used in the military, I think, to refer to aerial bombs as opposed, for example, to artillery shells or tank shells or shaped charges, so saying bomb does not really convey what happened.
While I was bitterly opposed the war from the outset, I did take pleasure in getting to hear of the "earthen berms" again. Earthen berms, earthen berms. This is my shame.
Hrmpf. The spherical softball sized black thing with a fuse coming out of the top that an anarchist hides in the cushions of your carriage has been a 'bomb' since forever -- the word predates aerial bombs.
But seriously, 'IED' appears to be a new acronym from this war -- I never heard it before 2003. 'Exploding booby trap' can't be a new idea; what was wrong with whatever the militarily approved term for it was in the 90's, 80's, 70's or earlier?
Rap-terrorism isn't even terrorism. It's just blowing things up.
Goddam you, Bridgeplate -- people heard me making stifled snorting noises in response to that last comment.
60. Have you no appreciation for jargon? If the military can make it an acronym, so much the better.
I prefer the comically obfuscatory acronyms to the ones that are just plain old obfuscatory.
booby trap' can't be a new idea; what was wrong with whatever the militarily approved term for it was in the 90's, 80's, 70's or earlier?
For the same reason we do not refer to everything from arrows to ICBMs as flying projectiles. There are a number of circumstances where you care about being more specific about what it is you are being attacked with, because it affects how you defend against it. I doubt anyone will be offended if you call them bombs, though, so feel free.
I'm fond of the way W.M.D. has become absurdist slang.
68. Wasn't the anarchist's weapon of choice known as an "infernal device"? By the way, IEDs aren't landmines, they are usually old artillery shells rigged up to explode by remote control, thus improvised.
—ABCDBM?
—ICBM! UUUUUUU.
to the ones that are just plain old obfuscatory
Mostly, the jargon is not obfuscatory, it is helpful to those who understand it. Since they make it for their own use, they are not particularly concerned with whether you understand it. But that's not obfuscation, it's being indifferent to whether you understand.
I've come across the acronym IED in stuff about Vietnam.
"Yglesias has always been pro-gun."
I wouldn't argue with that per se, but what seemed very peculiar to me was that when Matt was asked what he'd do with a gun, he said he wanted to shoot them at a target range.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with gun control laws, which don't restrict one from going to a gun range and firing off a gun. So what he said made no sense to me.
If he'd said he wanted one to protect himself in his home, or on the street, that would be a rational discussion. But that's not what he said.
Did I miss something, which maybe someone who knows him better can answer? Does DC also outlaw target ranges, and does that have something to do with the general issue of carrying, or having a gun in one's home? Or what?
(My first thought when I read Matt saying he wanted to rush out and buy a gun was to wonder how much he'd practiced and been trained: I'd assume a fair amount, because anyone who wants to rush out to buy a gun, with no training or practice, is some kind of insane idiot; on the other hand, if he's a decent shot, hey, okay: I'm an agnostic about gun control laws, myself. But I'm having trouble reconciling this with his implying he hadn't ever gone to a range in D.C.)
(I declined to ask in his comments, because Matt has never, ever, once responded to a comment I've left him in the past 4 years, in his comments, and the last time he answered an e-mail from me was also several years ago.)
12: "It's not clear to me that any regulation that's permissible with respect to automatic rifles is obviously unconstitutional with respect to handguns."
What distinction are you making between "automatic rifles" and "handguns"? There are plenty of automatic hand weapons, of course, so I'm not following; length of the barrel isn't all that significant to you for some reason, is it?
"Booby trap" was the term prior, but that implies that if you trip the device you are (were) a booby. Obviously, better terminology was required.
Rushing out and buying a gun isn't a problem if you don't rush out and buy ammo.
RPGs, suitcase nukes, they're all arms, and if you can constitutionally keep someone from buying RPGs, I can't see where you draw the line saying that you can't keep them from buying handguns.
Full auto and explosive devices are already heavily regulated, and the overwhelming number of gun owners are fine with that.
Take this out of the 2nd Amendment context, and substitute the 1st or 4th. Just how comfortable would any of us be with this kind of micro regulation then? What if D.C. wanted to set up a system that required a permit and registration for anyone wanting to be a journalist?
Remarks like "Gun laws are exactly what federalism is for -- what is appropriate for Alabama or Montana is very different for what is appropriate for D.C." when applied to the Bill of Rights start sounding perilously close to the arguments for Jim Crow.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with gun control laws, which don't restrict one from going to a gun range and firing off a gun. So what he said made no sense to me.
If you're planning on doing it often enough, buying is cheaper than renting each time.
My first thought when I read Matt saying he wanted to rush out and buy a gun was to wonder how much he'd practiced and been trained: I'd assume a fair amount, because anyone who wants to rush out to buy a gun, with no training or practice, is some kind of insane idiot
Because of course you couldn't go buy the gun and then plan on immediately practicing and training with it. Nope, you must be an insane idiot.
gswift, I will personally pay you money to move to the distressed city of your choice.
it is helpful to those who understand it. Certainly for those who go looking in a manual for the instructions for defusing the thing. Somewhere I have some basic electricity and electronics course books originally written for the military (Navy, I think) in the '50s, I think. Those were models of clarity IMO.
And!
Remarks like "Remarks like 'Gun laws are exactly what federalism is for -- what is appropriate for Alabama or Montana is very different for what is appropriate for D.C.' when applied to the Bill of Rights start sounding perilously close to the arguments for Jim Crow" are exactly what the analogy ban is for.
I think LB is referring to "tank," which was obfuscatory, but stuck. Probably important that it was the British though, we don't do that so well. What we did do well was make words from acronyms: "Jeep" form GP, general purpose, "Huey" from HU1, later UH1, Helicopter, Utility.
Man, I hope my neighbors don't have guns. The elderly couple is daft, the family seems to have lots of arguments, and the walls are thin...
81: "Rushing out and buying a gun isn't a problem if you don't rush out and buy ammo."
True, but wouldn't a fake gun be just as useful, in that case? Or a target pistol?
83: "Because of course you couldn't go buy the gun and then plan on immediately practicing and training with it. Nope, you must be an insane idiot."
You could, and you wouldn't be necessarily insane, but your behavior wouldn't make any sense. when it's predicated on what Matt, you know, said. If you want to go practice with a gun, why not go practice with a gun? If you want to go shoot in a target range, what's that got to do with gun control laws?
That was my query, but apparently I wasn't clear. (If DC also bans gun ranges, that would answer much of my question.)
Jackmormon:
Better invest in a kevlar vest. I think you can get one to match your new shoes.
gswift, I will personally pay you money to move to the distressed city of your choice.
I grew up in L.A., and have family in Oakland and Richmond (bay area Richmond), so spare me.
are exactly what the analogy ban is for.
I'm not trying to make deliberately offensive analogies here. I really believe that allowing this kind of local control should not be allowed with basic rights. Regulation of basic rights at the local level takes us down a bad path. I don't want cities being able to ban handguns for the same reasons I don't want them setting their own definitions on free speech.
The starting off position here seems to be that guns are bad and that you have to justify having one. Why is that?
It seems quite possible there aren't any gun ranges in D.C., though apparently one can go to Maryland. How much travel time is required, I don't know.
If DC does ban gun ranges, rather than there not being any for some other reason, that would seem to be rather pointless, but so would be my speculating without information.
68
"But seriously, 'IED' appears to be a new acronym from this war ..."
The acronym predates Iraq. Here is an example from 1999.
92: I wish I could say it better than this, but: "handguns are made for killin' - ain't no good for nothin' else."
Guns that are not well-suited for hunting exist for only one function: coercive action against fellow humans beings. Whether this entails threatening them or killing them is secondary. Since the starting off position for most things around here is that coersion of others is a bad thing, it's not surprising that that attitude would extend to tools of coersion.
Shit. I made the rookie mistake of taking the topic seriously.
"Because of course you couldn't go buy the gun and then plan on immediately practicing and training with it."
And, actually, I'd say that buying a gun to take home, before one has ever been trained or had any practice, is an extremely bad bad bad idea.
I'm agnostic, as I said, about gun control in general, in the sense that I'm generally happy to let locales set their own laws according to what make sense for their region as they see it.
On the other hand, I do lean overwhelmingly towards favoring a training and licensing requirement, in tandem with "shall issue" laws. I'm willing to let locales, and states, have "shall issue" (meaning that gun permits must be issued to anyone who isn't otherwise banned, say for being a felon, or recently in a mental hospital), but I think you should have to pass a gun safety test first.
Taking home a gun without knowing how to use it is not something I favor, and, yeah, I lean towards "insane" as a colloquial characterization of the view that says it's a fine idea that we should allow.
I have no problem with being disagreed with on that, but I'll defend the position.
91: Did you know that over 300 people a year are killed by free speech in Washington, DC, alone? It's shocking, I tell you.
The fact that well-regulated militias appear on the same list with free speech and due process doesn't actually boot-strap them into "inalienable human rights," Think about it.
92: I wish I could say it better than this, but: "handguns are made for killin' - ain't no good for nothin' else."Thus target ranges do not exist, and people do not use them for fun.Guns that are not well-suited for hunting exist for only one function: coercive action against fellow humans beings.
What are BB guns for kids only for? Coercing fellow kids? And are water guns only for watering plants, and killin' paper mache?
The above is a nice cliche, with the small shortfall of not being true.
There are lots of good arguments to be made for a variety of small arms restrictions; cliche simplifications-to-the-point-of-falsehood are not good arguements.
I have a feeling that I'm going to want to shoot all of you in about ten comments.
95: Except that lots of people have lots of fun shooting the damn things at targets. I'd be perfectly happy to see all handguns disappear for all time, but it's not going to happen, and that being the case, is this really a fight worth having? It seems to me that one of the major effects of 40 years of fighting over gun control has been the creation of a lunatic fringe dedicated to guns as fetish objects, idiot conspiracy theories about gun-grabbing gummint thugs, and other rather scary stuff. It further seems to me that the best way of dealing with most such people is to leave them the fuck alone and stop reinforcing their persecution complexes.
The fact that well-regulated militias appear on the same list with free speech and due process doesn't actually boot-strap them into "inalienable human rights," Think about it.
No shit.
But question of arms as a right aside, think about what it looks like when locals start setting their own definitions on this stuff. Creationism in schools, Jim Crow, South Dakota abortion ban, etc. No thanks.
In the course of teaching this concealed carry class, I spend a lot of time with people who have interesting ideas about self defense. Some of them are new to firearms; others are not.
Many start off with the idea that they can use a gun in self-defense in situations that scare the beeejeezus about of me. Hopefully, by the end of the class, they have a better idea of the limits of self-defense.
Go read about Salvatore Culosi and Corey Maye for scary situations regarding police and guns and ask who should be held to a higher standard: police or homeowner.
Manchester thought it endearingly odd that MacArthur, who was a master of modern war and technology among the other things he was, used to refer in the middle of the 20th century to "the sound of musketry." But I like that: let the military have their precise terms, let the posers and journalists pick up the terms and spread them around, but also let us use terms that point to continuity, that have some cultural and historical resonance.
...and the rockets' red glare...
91.---Hey! What are you trying to saying about Oakland and Richmond?
95
"Since the starting off position for most things around here is that coersion of others is a bad thing, ..."
Untrue, libertarians are not very popular here.
But question of arms as a right aside, think about what it looks like when locals start setting their own definitions on this stuff. Creationism in schools, Jim Crow, South Dakota abortion ban, etc. No thanks.
The question of arms as a right aside, your analogy is completely empty. Think about what it looks like when locals start passing their own zoning ordinances, etc. etc.
103: At this point (and in this country) I'd say both of them, much.
The question of arms as a right aside, your analogy is completely empty. Think about what it looks like when locals start passing their own zoning ordinances, etc. etc.
Zoning ordinances are in the Bill of Rights?
I was wondering when Ogged would start whining about this thread.
So the 2nd Amendment is about target practice and squirt guns? I had no idea.
Seriously, people, what a fucking joke - guns exist mostly for shooting ranges? Look, I'm not a strong gun control advocate, but gun rights supporters spew so much bullshit on the subject that I can't fucking stand it. Admit what guns are and what they're for, and maybe we can have rational discussions about them. But as long as pro-gun people dance around the actual issue - that far more handguns are discharged in anger than for any productive - or even recreative - purpose - then these discussions will remain jokes. Someone call up Brett Bellemore, and we can really sound like idiots.
Zoning ordinances are in the Bill of Rights?
Evidently, James B Shearer would tell us that they go against the 5th Amendment.
What are you trying to saying about Oakland and Richmond?
Heh. You know what I'm talking about.
But as long as pro-gun people dance around the actual issue - that far more handguns are discharged in anger than for any productive - or even recreative - purpose - then these discussions will remain jokes.
Got a cite for the bolded bit? I'd be shocked if that isn't wrong by several orders of magnitude, but please educate me.
But as long as pro-gun people dance around the actual issue - that far more handguns are discharged in anger than for any productive - or even recreative - purpose - then these discussions will remain jokes.
Given how many rounds are popped off in a given day at my local range, I really doubt this to be true (the 25 yd. range, used primarily for andguns, that is).
"But as long as pro-gun people dance around the actual issue - that far more handguns are discharged in anger than for any productive - or even recreative - purpose - then these discussions will remain jokes."
Are they? How many times have crimes been prevented due to guns?
I honestly do not know the answers to those questions, but do you? Other than urban myth and conjecture?
Do you think criminals will ever not have guns?
You know what I'm talking about.
That there be black people?
Zoning ordinances are in the Bill of Rights?
We were setting aside the question of rights; and if we weren't, see again JRoth's 98.
Untrue, libertarians are not very popular here.
I think this really extends to all self-deluding idiots, James.
But as long as pro-gun people dance around the actual issue - that far more handguns are discharged in anger than for any productive - or even recreative - purpose
Gah. This just isn't true. Not even remotely. Handgun hunting, competitive shooting, and regular recreational range shooting are quite common.
The South Dakota analogy ban would been one of the most restrictive in the country.
119: well, the first part of that statement is true. The gun lobby, and many (most?) pro-gun people are quite practiced at dancing around issues. The numerics are way off though.
Hey dumbasses, I purposely didn't cite bullets. How many guns are fired at a range in a day? How many in the nearest metro area?
Which do you care more about? 100 rounds at a range or one on your street? And how many of you assholes have had one on your street this year?
"Manchester thought it endearingly odd that MacArthur"
Great biography, though, isn't American Caesar? (I also recall thinking extremely highly of Goodbye, Darkness.)
101: "It further seems to me that the best way of dealing with most such people is to leave them the fuck alone and stop reinforcing their persecution complexes."
Yeah, that's part of why I'm largely agnostic, and largely keep my mouth shut on the subject (this is a highly rare exception for me; I was feeling chatty); another part is that too many people have it characterized as a completely binary issue: either you're "pro-gun" or "anti-gun," neither of which could I say describes me, as I feel neither way, and my positions, such as they are, are pretty middle of the road, favoring no absolutism of either sort.
But most discussions of gnu control are famously useless flamefests, because immediately someone will start going on about the "you people" of The Other Side. That's always going to produce an idiotic discussion.
Note that I've said not a word about the Second Amendment. What's my opinion of it? Oh, try to find out from what I've written over the past 30 years, and good luck to you, anyone.
That there be black people?
The city of Richmond has in recent years suffered from a high crime rate, so serious that the mayor at one point requested a declaration of a state of emergency and asked for the intervention of the Contra Costa County Sheriff and the California Highway Patrol in order to stop crime waves.
How many guns are fired at a range in a day?
I think a lot more than you realize.
You could, and you wouldn't be necessarily insane, but your behavior wouldn't make any sense. when it's predicated on what Matt, you know, said. If you want to go practice with a gun, why not go practice with a gun? If you want to go shoot in a target range, what's that got to do with gun control laws?
Did you not read the first part of my comment? Or did you just choose to ignore it?
115: There is no credible evidence that handguns prevent a meaningful number of crimes per year. If there were, perhaps John Lott wouldn't have destroyed his career by fabricating evidence on the subject. He could have, you know, told the truth instead.
One caveat I'll add about the gun firings thing- I wasn't thinking in terms of police firing - since most officers fire their weapons (at ranges) quite a bit more often than civilian enthusiasts, it adds to the number of peaceful firings quite a bit.
And how many of you assholes have had one on your street this year?
Dude, you're kind of being a prick.
Time for the group sex.
"And how many of you assholes have had one on your street this year?"
I don't know which assholes you're interrogating, but I'd mildly suggest that queries phrased this way don't tend to lead to discussion that's either useful or pleasant.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Taking home a gun without knowing how to use it is not something I favor, and, yeah, I lean towards "insane" as a colloquial characterization of the view that says it's a fine idea that we should allow.
What exactly is "insane" about buying a gun, buying a locking case for it, sticking it in the locking case, and taking it home, particularly if you don't buy any ammo for it? Even if you don't do that, it's not like basic gun safety is *that* complicated, particularly if you don't have children in the house.
Take shelter from the distant, muffled sound of musketry, Gary, even if you listen for it with a thirsty ear. This discussion is not for us.
135: I stomp my feet, the dust stirs around my tough skinned feet.
130, 132: Sorry, it was the flurry of people (I count a quick 4) who responded to my 110 without reading it that got me testy.
But I'm on time out for now.
Dudes, everybody please calm down a bit.
"Dudes, everybody please calm down a bit," she says as she places her hand on the cold steel, black H&K .40 on her hip.
125: most discussions of gnu control
...depart from a very familiar premise.
128: "Did you not read the first part of my comment? Or did you just choose to ignore it?"
That was: "If you're planning on doing it often enough, buying is cheaper than renting each time."
Ignore it, I guess, since, as I said, I frown on people bringing home guns without any safety training, and I'm inclined to frown on people being allowed to bring home guns without any safety training.
I thought I'd indicated this in two separate prior comments, but I seem to have been unclear.
Also, while I've not fired, or touched, a gun, or been at a gun range, since I was, I think it was 11 (this means 37 years ago, though it might have been when I was 10 years old), I'm under the impression that many, if not most, gun ranges will let you store yours in a locker, so the relevancy of rent/buy, as regards a theoretical need to take the gun home, is unclear to me from that angle, even if it wasn't already irrelevant in the context of my now thrice-repeated opinion.
There is no credible evidence that handguns prevent a meaningful number of crimes per year. If there were, perhaps John Lott wouldn't have destroyed his career by fabricating evidence on the subject.
Lott was looking at concealed carry laws. But yeah, that guy is a nutjob.
With regard to defense with firearms in general, it does happen quite a bit. See some of the numbers here for example.
Average annual number of victimizations in which victims used firearms to defend themselves or their propertyTotal Attacked ThreatenedAll crimes 82,500 30,600 51,900
Total violent crime 62,200 25,500 36,700
Ignore it, I guess, since, as I said, I frown on people bringing home guns without any safety training, and I'm inclined to frown on people being allowed to bring home guns without any safety training.
I thought I'd indicated this in two separate prior comments, but I seem to have been unclear.
I was responding to "does not make sense". You may *disagree* with it, but what about my explanation does not make sense?
And sure, a lot of gun ranges will rent you a locker, but maybe Yglesias doesn't want to leave the gun someplace where he doesn't control it. Or maybe he just doesn't want to pay the rental fees.
And how many of you assholes have had one on your street this year?
Dude, I hear gunfire pretty regularly in the summer. In my last place, there was a gang-related murder a block from my house. I don't take any particular credit or claim any special knowledge from it other than to know guns exist and are being used. I'm not a gun owner, but on the times I've gone with my brother-in-law to shoot his guns at the local range, there were always 4-5 people shooting at the pistol range, all day. Total of maybe 35-40 over the course of a day? (Incidentally, the ones who really crack me up are the cowboy enthusiasts.) Multiply that 35-40 people by the (conservative WAG) dozen or so gun ranges in the Twin Cities metro, and I would suggest very srongly to you that your figure is pulled out of your someone else's ass and doesn't have a damn thing to do with reality.
Also, I read your whole damn comment, and commented on the part I thought was crap.
your someone else's s/b your or someone else's
And how many of you assholes have had one on your street this year?
One armed robbery in the carport this year and I'm in a "safe" section of town. Legalities and licenses be damned.
As for recreational shooting vs other kinds, in the Southeast it's got to be thousands of rounds expended in fun of various kinds for any round fired in anger. 'Twasn't uncommon to go through ten boxes of .22s in an afternoon's plinking at the abandoned quarry and I certainly wasn't the only gun-nut out there.
in the Southeast it's got to be thousands of rounds expended in fun of various kinds for any round fired in anger
Yeah, I'm purposefully avoiding this conversation, but I'm sure the ratio is quite high down here. At least outside of the big urban areas.
Incidentally, the ones who really crack me up are the cowboy enthusiasts.
Oh lordy. The outfits! And the nicknames! Those guys loved Quigley Down Under. There's an actual competition named after the character in that movie. Long distance stuff with Sharps reproduction rifles, hand loaded paper patch rounds and all.
At least outside of the big urban areas and for example, "rural" is about thirty minutes away from any citified part of Alabama and I think that's true of most of Georgia except Atlanta. There's lots of empty space, or at least there was ten years ago.
149: Gah! I was excluding round-counts! As I clarified at 123! 40 minutes ago! Pay attention!
[Back to time-out]
I'm assuming that JRoth didn't actually mean to claim that there were more rounds fired for criminal purposes than for recreational or other legitimate purposes; I know that's what it looks like he said, but it's far enough off anything likely that I'm guessing he misspoke. If I were going to guess, I'd say that while this:
But as long as pro-gun people dance around the actual issue - that far more handguns are discharged in anger than for any productive - or even recreative - purpose - then these discussions will remain jokes.
does look unlikely, that if you knock recreative (including training and so forth) purposes out, there's probably more handgun fire in the service of criminality than there is handgun fire in the service of law enforcement or self-defence. (Not saying that that's what JRoth said, but it seems like a reasonable thing to guess.)
Whoops, sorry for speaking for you, J. But you really weren't clear -- could you maybe take a fresh stab at what you meant?
142: I disagree. Most discussions of gnu control tend to start with CVS, even though it's technically not a part of the GNU project.
"does look unlikely, that if you knock recreative (including training and so forth) purposes out, there's probably more handgun fire in the service of criminality than there is handgun fire in the service of law enforcement or self-defence. (Not saying that that's what JRoth said, but it seems like a reasonable thing to guess.)"
I do not see the relevance. Are criminals going to suddenly not have guns?
I think the more interesting questions are
1. how many accidents are there with firearms?
2. How many times did an otherwise law-abiding person shoot a loved-one?
3. How many crimes were detered because of a firearm?
4. Is a criminal more or less likely to break into your home if they know you have a gun?
I think what he's saying is that if you count handguns, more are used illegally (or "in anger") than for target shooting, hunting, or whatever. I'd bet that's still wrong by a very large margin (and still be interested in a cite), but it would be a smaller large margin than you'd get by counting shots fired.
The questions in 157 would be good questions to ask if you were thinking of buying a gun for self-defense, but I don't think all that relevant to deciding what regulations are appropriate.
157.3 and 157.4 are very, very difficult to answer with any certainty.
Apostropher:
You are a criminal. Do you choose the one with the gun or the one without?
Do you rob the 7/11 with no guns or the convenience store with a shotgun?
"The questions in 157 would be good questions to ask if you were thinking of buying a gun for self-defense, but I don't think all that relevant to deciding what regulations are appropriate."
Why not? Arent those the essence of the questions being asked here? IE: why do people need a gun?
161: If I'm looking to steal a gun, I pick the house that I know has guns and wait for the owners to leave.
158: Okay, let's discount round counts. Really good numbers are hard to find but it looks like between 50% and 35% of households have one or more firearms on hand for various reasons. What's "used" mean?
That is to say, the vast majority of B&Es happen when nobody's home.
163: true. Of course, most criminals want to get into the house when you are not home.
But, you were avoiding my point.
Just so long as the angry Arab guy doesn't realize what kind of ammo he's buying, we all win, right? The kind in the red boxes kills the best.
162: Because there's a large gap between deciding that it's a bad idea to buy a gun for self-defense and deciding that it's a good idea to try to pass more gun-control legislation.
"But, you were avoiding my point."
The idea that love-crush-objects play hard-to-get is largely a myth.
166: sure he was, but your point is a red herring. That is, it is not meaningful to the discussion, because it's a bad model of the real world.
"but your point is a red herring."
Now this is just the sort of unproductive talk we try to avoid here, and I expect better of soub.
Will, I won't avoid your point: If I am a criminal, and it's likely that any convenience store or house I target is armed, my likeliest choice is to get bigger guns and make sure I'm prepared to use them. (Of most people who are willing to risk their safety in criminal activity, you should probably assume that "let's just stay home and play Uno" is not realistically going to factor into their list of options.) This pattern is usually why criminal gun violence tends to spikes in response to a heavily-armed citizenry -- cf. South Africa, for instance, or Colombia.
Now, if I'm the police, and gun control legislation is off the table, the most sensible course of action is of course to respond aggressively to gun violence, as the cops in Johannesburg recently concluded.
Kind of a downward spiral there.
You can tell it is a liberal website when I am the one defending gun ownership.
My buddy in Arizona with the huge stash of guns (legal) and food would laugh at the thought of me being the gun defender.
172: The basic problem is "modern" gun technology is over a hundred years old and any small machine shop can turn them out. Substitute "war on drugs" for "gun control legislation" to predict the future.
When I was in high school I once went to a party where the host stacked up a pile of magazines in his backyard and fired a pistol down into it to see how far the bullets would go. I also have some relatives who collect guns.
You can tell it is a liberal website when I am the one defending gun ownership.
You ain't kidding, brother.
175: If that was really the basic problem, gun control legislation would never have any measurable impact on gun-related crime in any context. Since it clearly can have such an impact, it seems obvious that the mere ability to produce guns is not destiny. (I think it's fair to say that other conditions have to be present for gun control to work -- like an efficient state apparatus, reasonably functional economy and so on -- but dubious at best to argue that those conditions aren't present in the States.)
Sorry, had to go pick up the kid. But 170 kinda is the point; whether it makes a criminal more or less likely to break into your house really isn't clear. For clarity's sake, I'm neither here nor there on gun control legislation. I don't own one but don't particularly care whether other people do, so long as they don't point them at me. Like capital gains taxes, it just isn't an issue that has any relevance for me, so I'm not wedded to either set of arguments.
On emore example for Apostropher: You are getting out of your car when Gerald Henderson runs toward you with malicious intent.....
178: I suspect really strong GCL would cause a shift to knives or hammers as the weapon of choice for domestic violence and small machine shops would be a growth industry. We haven't seen the latter yet 'cause the criminals haven't felt a shortage.
What actually does deter the hard-core? Nothing, really. They're either off the streets or they're committing crimes. I haven't seen any evidence that drugs can be controlled and guns and ammo are easier to make.
IMO, while the NRA is nutty about any number of things, so are the Brady people and I know a slippery slope when I'm skidding on it.
"Substitute 'war on drugs' for 'gun control legislation' to predict the future."
Who are the people (with power) plotting to institute national gun control legislation that will be similar to the "war on drugs," exactly, who will bring us this future?
To lunge back to the etymology part of the threat, it seems that the Unabomber mailed out 'improvised explosive devices' back in the day, too.
"If that was really the basic problem, gun control legislation would never have any measurable impact on gun-related crime in any context. Since it clearly can have such an impact, it seems obvious that the mere ability to produce guns is not destiny. "
How do they clealy have such an impact?
Williams: He [the soap-box speaker] said everything should be made use of.
Hildy: It makes quite a bit of sense, doesn't it?...Now look, Earl, when you found yourself with that gun in your hand, and that policeman coming at you, what did you think about?...You must have thought of something...Could it have been, uh, 'production for use'?...What's a gun for Earl?
Williams: A gun?...Why to shoot, of course.
Hildy: Oh. Maybe that's why you used it.
Williams: Maybe.
Hildy: Seems reasonable?
Williams: Yes, yes it is. You see, I've never had a gun in my hand before. That's what a gun's for, isn't it? Maybe that's why.
Hildy: Sure it is.
Williams: Yes, that's what I thought of. Production for use. Why, it's simple isn't it?
Hildy: Very simple.
Williams: There's nothing crazy about that, is there?
Hildy: Nope. Nothing at all.
Williams: You'll write about that in your paper, won't you?
Hildy: You bet I will.
Oh, I was griping about nothing. IED still sounds silly to me.
Who are the people (with power) plotting to institute national gun control legislation that will be similar to the "war on drugs," exactly, who will bring us this future?
Liberals, Gary, liberals!
Oh, I was griping about nothing. IED still sounds silly to me.
This is a remarkably funny thread given the subject matter.
185: I should be working, so I'm not going to look it up, but don't you get wildly different rates of gun crime in countries with stricter or less strict gun control? It doesn't work within the US because we haven't got controlled internal borders, of course.
188: "Liberals, Gary, liberals!"
Well, those of us who are liberals will be out of luck when that time comes, since we're unarmed, won't we?
I'm more than not with apostropher's "I don't own one but don't particularly care whether other people do, so long as they don't point them at me," though.
If I were in other circumstances, such as, perhaps, in a sufficiently isolated rural house, I might contemplate a use for a gun, maybe. But, as I said, my major concern re guns is simply that people have safety training before being allowed to handle one; I pretty much put cars and guns in a similar category. Cars are pretty damn dangerous pieces of machinery. I don't favor forbidding them, however, no matter how easy it is to kill someone with one.
Me: The Oklahoma City Bombing was financed in part by the sale of a burglarized collection of classic guns.
2nd Amendment defender: Yes, but for every successful burglary of a gun collection used to finance terrorism, there are several attempted terrorist burglaries of gun collections which are foiled by armed gun collectors. Furthermore, only 31% the financing of the Oklahoma City bombing was from the proceeds of the gun collection burglaries -- would you prohibit cash and amphetamines just because burglars steal them too? Also, the proceeds of many burglaries of gun collections are used for harmless or charitable purposes, such as buying penicillin for third world children. Finally, many of the guns stolen were just good, high-quality gus and not "classic guns" by any stretch of the imagination, which shows how ignorant of the issue you really are.
185: How do they clealy have such an impact?
I'm a little nonplussed by this sort of question, which strikes me as comparable to demanding a cite to demonstrate that smoking has a relationship to lung cancer. Are you saying you've never seen a cite of any of the numerous comparative studies of gun violence? If so, I can dig a few examples up later.
175: I'm trying to stay out of this so I can get work done, but...
Back in the day when professionally manufactured handguns were a lot less common (50s and 60s), gangs would use homemade zip guns. These rarely caused any fatalities and weren't even fired that often, because they were so unreliable.
193: But you haven't mentioned the use of firearms to create relationship-free existences. Utility and efficiency is all.
195: Which brings up a thought: one assumes that professionally manufactured handguns were less common back in the day because they were less affordable (lower incomes, higher costs). Perhaps a large excise tax would be a more productive approach to reducing numbers than more direct forms of regulation?
193: just good, high-quality gus
Here is the highest-quality gus.
181: I haven't seen any evidence that drugs can be controlled and guns and ammo are easier to make.
I'm not sure what "controlled" means here. "Gun control" in many contexts means the regulation of gun use, not the prohibition of guns. Whether or not it's easy to make guns (and I think it's dubious to contend that guns and ammo are "easier" to make than any number of drugs) doesn't address that.
I know that Apo already made this point, but I want to reiterate it. This:
3. How many crimes were deterred because of a firearm?
is really, really hard to measure. In my experience, when used in these type of arguments, it becomes an article of faith (whether for or against) precisely because it's so darn hard to quantify.
I once saw a libertarian argument that loud beeping sound that trucks make when backing up should be abolished, because the noise was annoying and there was no evidence that it had saved a single life. The gun-brandishing argument isn't like that, but it seems almost as kooky to me to imagine that this is something we can defensibly measure.
199: Hmph. Rip-off of this, if you ask me. Once my favorite-ever book.
Also, shouldn't someone check on Jackmormon? I heard a troubling onomatopoeia from over her way.
the regulation of gun use like making it not nice to use them for murder, robbery, settling insults, etc.? Let's be serious, it's cultural issue, not a gadget issue.
Has anyone looked at any change in death rates per shooting in Canada? The mention of "zip guns" reminded me of the shift to higher quality guns when the "Saturday Night Special" laws started coming in. Canadians tend to use high-power hunting rifles when they go off the deep end, don't they?
but don't you get wildly different rates of gun crime in countries with stricter or less strict gun I bet you'control?
I think the trouble with trying to compare the U.S. to a lot of Western Europe is that there's obviously a lot of differences in social policies that will affect crime. If this country had universal access to decent health care, 5 weeks of paid vacation a year, sane drug policies, and a decent minimum wage and this country would look a lot more like Switzerland.
Canadians tend to use high-power hunting rifles when they go off the deep end, don't they?
Seems like it.
205: Let's be serious, it's cultural issue, not a gadget issue.
I think I just said it's not a gadget issue. And laws and such are part of culture, right? There was a time when beating your wife was culturally acceptable in Canada, and part of changing the cultural norm was/is applying pressure through the judicial system.
Canadians tend to use high-power hunting rifles when they go off the deep end, don't they?
I know I do, but that's a discussion for another time...
"I'm a little nonplussed by this sort of question, which strikes me as comparable to demanding a cite to demonstrate that smoking has a relationship to lung cancer. Are you saying you've never seen a cite of any of the numerous comparative studies of gun violence? If so, I can dig a few examples up later."
I do not think it is comparable at all. Gswift spells part of it out.
I am neither an NRA person nor a Brady person. I think that they both make a lot of claims without a lot of backing up of those claims.
"Clearly" doesnt go well with anything related to guns.
don't you get wildly different rates of gun crime in countries with stricter or less strict gun control?
Yes.
I base my thoughts on gun control on those police video tv shows. Have you lot over there ever seen any British ones? You'd find them laughably tame. But I'm pretty sure I'd rather live in a country where if I got stopped driving a stolen car, the cops would be very stern with me; rather than in one where I'd have to crawl out of the car on my stomach with 6 guns pointed at my head.
209: That was really all my 160 was saying. Comity!
Have you lot over there ever seen any British ones?
"Yesterday, some hooligans knocked over a dustbin in Shaftsbury."
Source. I don't know what the video has to do with the audio, though.
There's a Thames Valley one that do a lot of filming around here, so we sometimes watch it to spot the end of our road. It's mostly two policemen (Carl and Steve I think they are) saying "Have you got any drugs on you?" Answer: "No." Cops: "Come on, don't lie to me." Answer: "OK, here's my stash." No guns or shouting involved.
Friend of mine once came home from visiting his dealer, walked into his street with a moderate sized stash on him ... to find about 40 armed cops and a stern voice through a megaphone "Moan oot wi' yer hauns up". Took him about 2 paranoid minutes to realize that they were filming a siege scene from an episode of Taggart in his street.
But as long as pro-gun people dance around the actual issue - that far more handguns are discharged in anger than for any productive - or even recreative - purpose - then these discussions will remain jokes.
People like to blow holes in paper targets. There's whole competitive leagues an'at and if you actually talk to some of them, you'll find that most of them are quite sane individuals, and for a significantly high percentage, it doesn't even count as training for self-defense because it's just for fun. There are sportsclubs in your area!
Shivbunny grew up shooting gophers with a .22. He doesn't have much of an opinion on American gun laws, except that he's always a bit perplexed by how much the 2nd amendment colors discourse on it on both sides of it. Also, the gun buyback program in his area was a colossal failure, and most of his rural family just ignored the registration laws on the grounds that if the government had no business getting anyone's rifles.
Suitcase nukes : handguns :: polygamy : gay marriage
I haven't owned any guns for 25 years, but have no objection to ownership by responsible people. that said, I do not believe that the 2d Amd provides an individual right, and think Judge Silberman's treatment of Miller was a little on the light side. The Gary Wills book on the 2d Amd was pretty good, as I recall.
Even if the DC law didn't cut down on gun ownership by robbers, it may well have decreased impulse gun buying. Theoretically, at some margin, some people who'd have gone to buy a gun to avenge some public slight were dissuaded by the long drive, etc.
A guy pointed a gun at me once. He was known at the time for using it. Gave me an opportunity to think about what's important.
148: Et tu, will? Or are you just preening for HG?
"Took him about 2 paranoid minutes to realize that they were filming a siege scene from an episode of Taggart in his street."
I was just reading a bit the other day about how Taggart was the longest-running British cop show; I've never seen a moment of any year's; are any worth seeing by a furriner?
"The Gary Wills book on the 2d Amd was pretty good, as I recall."
Garry Wills.
202: I once saw a libertarian argument that loud beeping sound that
trucks make when backing up should be abolished.
That's the problem with libertarians -- they want to ban everything.
Taggart? No.
Morse, that was good. Nicer scenery too.
And Life on Mars, which is on at the moment, is supposed to be good.
I can't think of any other police shows which aren't basically bollocks.
"And Life on Mars, which is on at the moment, is supposed to be good."
So I've read; inevitably, there is an American remake in the works.
Morse has been on PBS a lot (as well as the novels being available, of course); I've somehow managed to never watch or read one, as yet.
Though I might also add that although I've a fair amount of professional experience as an editor with mysteries, and used to read innumerable ones with enjoyment when I was younger, I've not read one in many years (a large part of that was getting out of the habit of reading fiction that I otherwise didn't feel absolutely compelled to, unless I was being paid, some years ago; and another part is the internet).
But, then, novels and tv series only have a certain amount in common, anyway.
I'd note that I'd not yet run into any British mystery/police show that I've been immensely fond of, but, then, I've seen very few, really. I wouldn't count The Avengers or Danger Man; there's been lots of Prime Suspect on PBS, but otherwise I've just not really seen much British tv output in those genres, and thus my mild curiosity.
(Of the American fare, I was a fan of Hill St. Blues, NYPD Blue, and probabably a few other things that are slipping my memory at the moment.)
I really don't care if they use guns or not in mystery/police fiction, bringing us back to the Topic.
Non-sequituring, how lovely this is:
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts...," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way."
Pace said the military should not tolerate homosexual acts the way it does not tolerate military members who commit adultery with another service member's spouse, noting that that behavior is punished.Everyone will be talkin'.
I believe remakes are immoral, and however much I do enjoy Michael Scott and Jim and Pam and Dwight, I cannot condone their existence.
That Pace guy - I guess he loves guns; could someone shoot him?
And yes, it's late here and I'm talking shit - unfortunately I just learnt to play backgammon a few days ago (against my 6 year old - we were quite well matched) and have just spent the last couple of hours getting my arse whipped by some Java applet.
Just one last game ....
225 belongs in the 300 thread. Duh.
225: Dropping bombs on civilian areas from high altitude aircraft, though? A-OK.
229. Low and slow over civilian areas. Make sure to drop the Hershey bars first, to get the kids into the street. High altitude is reserved for areas that shoot back. Get with the program, Apo.
I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way.
I know many people who believe that drinking and dancing are immoral. I assume General Pace will be advocating the dismissal of any soldiers who drink or dance forthwith.
Christ, what an asshole.
TLL has really been on fire recently.
Low and slow over civilian areas. Make sure to drop the Hershey bars first, to get the kids into the street.
No, no, no. In honor of the 52nd anniversary of the Tokyo raid of March 9-10, 1945, we start with high explosives to get everything busted up good, then drop the incindieries, get a good firestorm going, and bake the little fuckers in their shelters. Nukes, bah.
I'm not sure that Iraq would burn as well as Japan did. Different construction materials.
I can't think of any other police shows which aren't basically bollocks.
I'm not a fan of the genre, but Cracker and Prime Suspect are both pretty cop show as cop shows go.
And of course Reno 911.
237: Niecy Nash's prosthetic butt was "the most expensive prop, by far."
Yess, Garry Wills: A Necessary Evil.
Life on Mars is really great. Also, Cracker when it was in its prime, was really excellent -- touched on issues of class and race in a way that most cop shows never do, and had some great central performances. I can't think of much else I really enjoyed. Prime Suspect was OK.
Taggart was always a bit crap -- given the reality of urban Glasgow there'd have been scope to make a really great cop/crime show there, but Taggart wasn't it -- and Morse never my cup of tea (although I did literally bump into Kevin Whateley in the street recently while they were filming the new Lewis spin off).
Also, re: Morse, the novels are crap. Or at least, that was my feeling the last time I tried to read a couple.
Life on Mars is awesome but culturally very British (you really do need to know something about 1970s Britain and, probably, have at least a passing familiarity with The Sweeney). An American remake would have to be a very different thing, but it could work.
The Morse novels are pretty crap, but the TV series was much better. Cracker, too. ITV went through a phase of making great long-running police series. The only one left must be Taggart , which I've never really seen (but it does require some ability to understand Scottish. "Mudda!").
Some years ago now there was a series called The Cops which American viewers probably would find tame, but it was great stuff. Kind of translation of something like Hill Street Blues to a scummy northern English council housing estate. The very first episode, IIRC, kicked off with a constable at the end of a night out in a club doing coke or speed in a nightclub to wake her up so she could make it to work. That set the moral tone fairly well.
I think a lot of the enjoyment of Morse probably came from living in Oxford and laughing at the way he could turn a corner and suddenly be 3 miles away! I was surprised the other day to catch a glimpse of that Lewis programme - for some reason I thought he'd probably fucked off back up North, not be still hanging around the Radcliffe Camera.
re: 244
Yeah, I can drive people crazy when watching Morse (since I'm also living in Oxford). The bits where he walks through an archway in college X and comes through it and at the other side is in college Y -- 2 miles away, etc.
re: 243
Yeah, The Cops was really good. It used documentary-style/verité camera work to great effect, too. I suspect it's been quite influential in terms of the look of a lot of later TV stuff.
Re: Life on Mars -- yeah, I was born in the 70s but retain enough of a memory of the 'look' of the period that watching it has lots of "my mate's Dad had a car just like that" moments.
2 miles away, etc.
Matter transmission and teleportation happens all the time in L.A. but only cops, PIs, and reporters have it. It's probably a good thing, I'm not sure a series can stand many episodes where one watches stalled traffic for an hour. Also, quite often parallel streets intersect at the crime scene according to the police radio chatter.
"148: Et tu, will? Or are you just preening for HG?"
It took me a moment to realize what you meant by HG.
Does that mean HG is Cleopatra or that Ogged is Marc Antony? If so, I thought Cleopatra was vicious to other women.
New York movies do that all the time: a two minute walk will start on 14th street, be two miles uptown in the fifties after crossing one street, and then finish in the thirties. I find it hilarious and maddening.
TTL stands for "t(o)t(al)l(y) brings the funny," IMO.
Rah and I have watched most of the first series of Life on Mars and despite being able to fit what I know of the UK in the 1970's into a thimble - a small, decorative thimble no less - I have loved it. A major point in its favor: it is not a show about a renegade professional who bucks the rules!!one! It is a show about a professional who clings to the ethics of his profession to help anchor himself in unfamiliar circumstances; it's a nice little inversion of the usual Rebel Science Doctor, Homicide Division crap.
There are plenty of cultural references that I know I am not getting (and yes we occasionally have to turn on the subtitles) but the acting and the writing are really top-notch. Plus, those clothes!
I am also, however, an inveterate watcher of Prime Suspect. I love 'em.
by the way ttaM, are you going to any of the Oxford Literary Festival events? I'm coming up for a couple of evening talks (one with my eldest, one alone - yay!).
179: Like capital gains taxes, it just isn't an issue that has any relevance for me, ...
You can take my capital gains tax break when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. The original correct copy of the second amendment read "a well regulated militia, and tax advantaged capital gains, being necessary for the security of a free State ... ." I'm going to start a joint effort of AARP and the NRA to organize Geezers With Guns, dedicated to the proposition that we are endowed by our creator with an inalienable right to a 15% maximum tax rate on capital gains. It's implicit in our concept of ordered liberty, as anyone who has taken Econ 101 knows.
re: 250
I've not really been keeping an eye on what's on (I'm an inveterate misser of interesting events, usually the first time I know about something cool that's happening is when I read the report of it after the fact).
Looking at the program there does seem to be a lot on, so if something grabs my eye ... was there anything you saw that looked particularly good?
I'm going to see Will Self on Tuesday night, and then coming back the next night for the Philip Reeve talk with my daughter. Nothing more serious or cultural, I found myself getting more excited over the kids' authors than anyone else!
Cool. Will Self always seems good 'value', although I'm ambivalent about a lot of his stuff (his early Quantity theory of insanity collection is great, though).
IJWT thank folks for the British cop show talk; as someone with an interest in things British, I appreciate it.