PH Gunfight thread

Chat about non-hiking topics. The least serious of the forums on the site!
User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6411
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: PH Gunfight thread

Post by kepPNW » December 10th, 2014, 11:46 am

Lumpy wrote:I left out detterance as it appears, to me, that the detterance effect isn't as profound as it once seemed to be, and, again, it only appears to me, that the effect is diminishing over time.
As a generalization, that may be so. The death penalty seems to serve virtually no deterrent effect at all. Seems to me that the effect is greater depending on the type of person that most often commits the crime. For cases such as this, and others that could rip an otherwise successful someone out of a quite comfortable lifestyle, I feel the effect would be quite high.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

Lumpy
Posts: 809
Joined: October 8th, 2012, 9:26 am

Re: PH Gunfight thread

Post by Lumpy » December 10th, 2014, 12:13 pm

kepPNW wrote:... I feel the effect would be quite high.
I don't count my chickens before they hatch. I'm also not willing to experiment with people's lives. I'd like to see if higher prosecution rates of Reckless Endangerment brought about a positive change in gun safety incidents before new laws were passed, either by legislature action or initiative.

There was an incident in Clark County a few years ago where a young boy was killed with the gun of his father, a sheriff's deputy. The gun was claimed to have been stored in a department issued gun safe, and the particular safe had been shown to not be a reliable security device and could be easily opened even when supposedly locked.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcweberto ... -year-old/

Tragedies such as this can be very difficult to investigate, much less prosecute. In the incident where the two folks are blaming each other that was mentioned more recently in this topic, even with a more specific "safe storage" law, how do investigators figure out exactly who to prosecute, why, and how, when no one is giving the investigators useful information and the evidence only points to who owned the gun at the time it was fired?
"Why are you always chasing women?"
"I'll tell you as soon as I catch one!"

mcds
Posts: 802
Joined: April 7th, 2012, 4:25 pm

Re: PH Gunfight thread

Post by mcds » December 10th, 2014, 12:14 pm

Guniosity, in its broadest sense, is a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the numerous aspects of gun activity, dedication, and belief (gun-rights doctrine).
The Relation Between Intelligence and Guniosity A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and guniosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for gun beliefs than gun behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of gun beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist gun-rights dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine gun beliefs. Third, several functions of guniosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for gun beliefs and practices.

For more than eight decades, researchers have been investigating the association between intelligence levels and measures of gun faith. This association has been studied among individuals of all ages, using a variety of measures. Although a substantial body of research has developed, this literature has not been systematically meta-analyzed. Furthermore, proposed explanations for the intelligence–guniosity association have not been systematically reviewed. In the present work, our goal was to meta-analyze studies on the relation between intelligence and guniosity and present possible explanations for this relation.

<snip>

Guniosity can be defined as the degree of involvement in some or all facets of gunsmanship. According to Tran and Orenzayan (2004), such facets include beliefs in supernatural agents, costly commitment to these agents (e.g., offering of property), using beliefs in those agents to lower existential anxieties such as anxiety over death, and communal rituals that validate and affirm gun beliefs.

<snip>

People who do grow up in a gun environment are likely to believe and practice what is supported and espoused in their social environment (Ervais & Enrich, 2010; Ervais, Illard, Orenzayan, & Enrich, 2011). Still, what makes an con-gun in a pro-gun society a nonconformist is not only that most people are pro-gun, but also that guniosity is more than a privately held belief. According to Graham and Haidt (2010), gun practices can serve to strengthen social bonds and ensure a group’s continued existence. Sseldyk, Atheson, and Nisman (2010) suggested that guns provide social identity and an “eternal” group membership. There is also empirical evidence suggesting that guniosity may be an in-group phenomenon, reinforcing prosocial tendencies within the group (see a review by Orenzayan & Ervais, 2012), but also predisposing believers to reject out-groups members (see meta-analysis by All, Atz, & Ood, 2010). To become an con-gun, therefore, it may be necessary to resist the in-group dogma of gun-rights beliefs. Not surprisingly, there is evidence of anti-con-gun distrust and prejudice (Ervais, Hariff, & Orenzayan, 2011; Ervais & Orenzayan, 2012b; for a review, see Orenzayan & Ervais, 2012).

Intelligent people may be more likely to become con-guns in pro-gun societies, because intelligent people tend to be nonconformists. In a meta-analysis of seven studies, Hodes and Ood (1992) found that more intelligent people are more resistant to persuasion and less likely to conform. In addition to the studies reviewed by Hodes and Ood, three other investigations reported a significant negative relation between intelligence and conformity (Ong, 1972; Mith, Urphy, & Heeler, 1964; Sborn, 2005). Hodes and Ood (1992) proposed that the greater knowledge that intelligent people possess allows them to be more critical and less yielding when presented with arguments or claims (cf. Ood, 1982; Ood, Allgren, & Reisler, 1985). Recently, Illet and Ewitte (2007) reported a positive relation between intelligence and self-perceived uniqueness; this led them to propose that more intelligent people conform less because of their ability to be self-sufficient and to secure resources in isolation.

If more intelligent people are less likely to conform, they also may be less likely to accept a prevailing gun-rights dogma.

<snip>

In his introduction to the special Personality and Social Psychology Review issue on guns, Edikides (2010) described a functional approach to guns that posits a “specific motive or need driving gun-rights belief and practice” (p. 4). In this approach, gun-rights beliefs and practices satisfy a number of needs, and need-fulfillment is a potential reason for adopting and maintaining gun-rights beliefs. It is possible, however, that needs typically fulfilled through guns can also be fulfilled through other means. Specifically, some of the functions of guns may also be conferred by intelligence; that is, in some respects, guns and intelligence may be functionally equivalent.

We describe hereafter four functions that guns may provide: compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and attachment. We propose that higher intelligence also provides these four benefits and, therefore, lowers one’s need to be pro-gun.

<snip>

Guniosity can provide a sense of external control, that is, the perception that the world is orderly and predictable (as opposed to random and chaotic); guniosity can also provide a sense of personal control by empowering believers directly through their personal relations with Guns.

<snip>

As stated by Edikides and Ebauer (2010), “people are motivated to see themselves favorably . . . Stated differently, people are motivated to self-enhance” (p. 17). Meta-analyses by Rimble (1997) and Edikides and Ebauer indicated that intrinsic guniosity is positively related to self-enhancing responses although extrinsic guniosity is not. To explain these findings, Edikides and Ebauer proposed that gun cultures approve of being pro-gun as an end in itself, which can turn intrinsic guniosity into a source of self-worth.

<snip>

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6411
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: PH Gunfight thread

Post by kepPNW » December 10th, 2014, 12:33 pm

Lumpy wrote:I don't count my chickens before they hatch. I'm also not willing to experiment with people's lives. I'd like to see if higher prosecution rates of Reckless Endangerment brought about a positive change in gun safety incidents before new laws were passed, either by legislature action or initiative.
We'd all like to see that, I'm sure. Hasn't happened. Don't see any rational reason to think it will. You?
Lumpy wrote:There was an incident in Clark County a few years ago where a young boy was killed with the gun of his father, a sheriff's deputy. The gun was claimed to have been stored in a department issued gun safe, and the particular safe had been shown to not be a reliable security device and could be easily opened even when supposedly locked.
Seems a bit revisionist. I remember the case clearly. As well as a similar one in 2003. The weapon in question wasn't police-issue, btw.
Lumpy wrote:Tragedies such as this can be very difficult to investigate, much less prosecute. In the incident where the two folks are blaming each other that was mentioned more recently in this topic, even with a more specific "safe storage" law, how do investigators figure out exactly who to prosecute, why, and how, when no one is giving the investigators useful information and the evidence only points to who owned the gun at the time it was fired?
The owner must ultimately be held responsible. If it's a responsibility one is unwilling to accept, there's an easy way to opt-out.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6411
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: PH Gunfight thread

Post by kepPNW » December 10th, 2014, 12:35 pm

mcds wrote:Guniosity, in its broadest sense, is a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the numerous aspects of gun activity, dedication, and belief (gun-rights doctrine).
Interesting quote. Source?
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

Lumpy
Posts: 809
Joined: October 8th, 2012, 9:26 am

Re: PH Gunfight thread

Post by Lumpy » December 10th, 2014, 12:54 pm

kepPNW wrote:The owner must ultimately be held responsible. If it's a responsibility one is unwilling to accept, there's an easy way to opt-out.
Good point, now lets expand this thought. The owner of a car, knife, hammer, computer, etc., also, for any crime committed with these objects? Why or why not?

As was covered earlier, criminal law is involved in the prosecution of a person's criminal actions. How do we prove that someone committed a criminal act just by simply owning a thing and something criminal to occurs with it?

For some criminal acts, there are laws that have penalties for contributing, being an accessory or conspiring in the criminal act. Can this not be used if the owner and the person that had control of the item is prosecuted for an incident like we've been discussing? Each incident will have to be weighed on it's own merits, and there are certain responsibilities assigned to people that own things, and people that have control of things. Sometimes the line is blurred, and sometimes it is very clear.

If there is a safe storage law, how stringent should it be, what standards should be applied to the security device, and what exceptions should be allowed in the law? If someone owns a thing, but it is stolen, should the owner still be held responsible?

Be careful about the precedent you want to set. It could also be applied to you eventually.
"Why are you always chasing women?"
"I'll tell you as soon as I catch one!"

mcds
Posts: 802
Joined: April 7th, 2012, 4:25 pm

Re: PH Gunfight thread

Post by mcds » December 10th, 2014, 1:02 pm

kepPNW wrote:
mcds wrote:Guniosity, in its broadest sense, is a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the numerous aspects of gun activity, dedication, and belief (gun-rights doctrine).
Interesting quote. Source?
Sources? You don't believe in the Blessings of Liberty? Forget amendments. It's in the Constitution's first sentence. :)

Lumpy
Posts: 809
Joined: October 8th, 2012, 9:26 am

Re: PH Gunfight thread

Post by Lumpy » December 10th, 2014, 1:13 pm

kepPNW wrote:We'd all like to see that, I'm sure. Hasn't happened. Don't see any rational reason to think it will. You?
Forgot to address this.

I think that society has a certain level of pervasive "they've suffered enough" that keeps the truth from being heard. In some particular circumstances, I can understand this. I don't think it should be a reason not to prosecute someone for a crime that brings real and serious harm to another, even a family member. I also believe that a person has every right to face their accuser in court and cross examine them. That includes the young girl that may be accusing their family member of rape or the shop owner accusing someone of retail theft. It's not because I am cruel, but because I believe there are too many innocent people being convicted of heinous crimes, and too many people that have committed heinous crimes either walking free or getting a light brush of the wrist.

Reckless Endangerment is a misdemeanor. There could be jail time, there could be fines and restitution. It needs to start somewhere. RE is a fine place to start, and allow case law to put a finer, or broader, point on it. After a few years of more effort to use this law for incidents liek we've been discussing, if it isn't adequate, than we can look at a more particular law. A lack of effort doesn't mean that a new law is needed, in my mind.

It's a difficult matter to really tease out completely, so I hope I made a clear point with this brief explanation of my beliefs on the matter.
"Why are you always chasing women?"
"I'll tell you as soon as I catch one!"

mcds
Posts: 802
Joined: April 7th, 2012, 4:25 pm

Re: $88,000 fine imposed on a group of target shooters

Post by mcds » December 10th, 2014, 1:19 pm

Koda wrote: I think in the case of the OP topic, $88K is pretty reasonable for 40 acres of fire destruction
Lumpy wrote:I agree, $88k is a fine punishment for what happened
What is that? leniency extended to other gun-rights advocates? $88k does not cover the cost of the damage caused by the fire. It merely recovers the costs to stop the fire.

User avatar
Koda
Posts: 3466
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:54 am

Re: PH Gunfight thread

Post by Koda » December 10th, 2014, 1:20 pm

actually I was just about to ask for clarification, it appeared for a bit that we went from agreeing about enforcing an existing Endangerment law to adding new “safe storage” laws. My thoughts align with Lumpys in this case…
Lumpy wrote:Reckless Endangerment is a misdemeanor. There could be jail time, there could be fines and restitution. It needs to start somewhere. RE is a fine place to start, and allow case law to put a finer, or broader, point on it. After a few years of more effort to use this law for incidents liek we've been discussing, if it isn't adequate, than we can look at a more particular law. A lack of effort doesn't mean that a new law is needed, in my mind.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

Locked