What you fail to realize is that those of us who support the legality of the AR-15 also support the legality of the urban (or in this case, suburban) garden. Before the latest gun control push, we had more free time and many of us were agitating for these gardeners and for the ability of the Amish to sell raw milk.
Freedom isn't an either or thing. We like and want it all.
AR15s kill and injure people, while less deadly weapons in terms of rate of fire and magazine capacity do not do so as frequently that are an acceptable and traditional alternative to the sporting gun user.
Raw milk kills people and makes other people sick; frequently these people are children, who cannot make informed consent about what they consume. The claims that raw milk offers health benefits is bogus, completely unproven, debunked. The claim that it is dangerous is proven microbiology fact. Again - a better, safer alternative is available, and therefore those are reasonable laws.
The issue with this garden is that the neighbors might not agree with the aesthetics of a vegetable garden, or certain kinds of flower choices - it is only an issue of preferences. In the case of people who let their yards go wild without mowing or managing weeds, or who plant alternative ecosystem plantings like prairie grass to go native -- that actually makes it harder and more costly for other neighbors to exercise their choice for a traditional lawn, because those species are more invasive, more likely to sprout under normal conditions in someone else's front yard, interfering with THEIR choices.
Now if you sign an agreement with a home owners association to adhere to different standards and then change your mind about wanting to paint your house bright purple or go Goode neighbors with your front yard - that's about not living up to a contract you signed by choice, a very different kind of legality.
So the two items in the photo are not even remotely equivalent, which is the point here about what is reasonably illegal and what is legal. Items tat kill people - guns, raw milk - are and should be illegal, with limited exceptions.
I don't want to ban AR 15s because they look scary. I want to ban the because they make it possible, as was the case with one little boy killed at Sandy Hook elementary school, for someone to fire 11 shots into his body, blowing away the lower half of his head, essentially his jaw from below the nose down and most of his left hand, as well as the damage to his body which left his internal organs liquified, as well as other children in the same room without reloading.
The AR 15 and guns like it have a high frequency of use in these kinds of shootings, and in shootings which endanger or kill or injure law enforcement, as do the high capacity magazines. They are designed to be a military weapon or like a military weapon. That it has other uses does not change that design intent or that it makes this a reasonable gun to restrict or ban outright.
I wasn't saying that the things were equivalent. I was noting that there wasn't an either or choice to be had since the graphic was suggesting that we needed to flip the relationship. With regards to the raw milk, frankly I made an assumption that you'd be in favor of it considering your support of the garden, medical marijuana, etc. I'm not a proponent of Raw Milk being some miracle food, I just know it tastes better and is available in Europe without a large number of adverse incidents, so I don't see a reason for the government to tell a person what the can or can't buy or drink.
I also understand the issue with HOA's. I rather like the freedom to contract and the self-regulatory nature of these.
But our main bone of contention is the AR 15 and other Assault rifles. My question is what makes the AR so much more lethal that the firearm itself has to be banned. Lets not talk magazines at this moment since mags are actually pretty easy to make/modify for it and many other guns, and even 10 rounders can be changed fast. I'm open to discussing these magazine laws, but they're a side issue. Why is the AR itself so much more dangerous?
As for what you cite about the nature of the wounds sustained by the children, this is the tragic result of strikes from any rifle bullet. If the shooter had used a traditional hunting rifle, (e.g. .30-30 lever gun or 30-06 hunting rifle) the wounds would likely look even worse. Either way, they're dead, killed by a person who abandoned his conscience.
A number of studies have show that the .223 round is substantially more likely to shatter upon entering a liquid (e.g. human) body than the .762mm Nato round. This is in part due to the relatively high muzzle velocity of the round. Consequently, no, the 30-30 round is NOT likely to produce similar (or as lethal) wounds, though when shooting 6 year olds, it likely wouldn't have matttered. The .306 round is likely as lethal due to it's larger calibre, but please point out for me a hunting rifle using .306 which takes a 20 round magazine? Most are bolt action, which means they have a substantially lower rate of fire and so Mr. Lanza would have found shooting fleeing children to be harder to accomplish.
The AR-15, the semi-auto version of the M-14, the semi-auto version of the FN-FAL, none are "more dangerous" than the other, but all are more useful as military weapons, by far, than as hunting weapons. They are, by far, more dangerous than bolt action rifles when being employed to shoot people at close range and have little civilian value in even home defense due to their high likelyhood to penetrate wallsand unweildiness as compared to side-arms.
You mean the difference between something like a bolt action rifle and a semi-automatic with large ammunition capacity isn't obvious to you?
OK, you want to use the difference between ammunition, and want to compare 5.56x45 to a .30 type rifle and say that the damage would be as horrific. But, that misses the point that there were far more rounds expended by this shooter. The children were hit bay as many as 11 rounds, which would not have been possible with a hunting rifle.
Also, the high capacity magazine allowed for more rounds to be fired without reloading, which takes us to:
The grandaddy of all these assault rifle guns, which was something called the StG44, or Sturmgewehr44.
Sturmgewehr, if you don't know German translates as "assault rifle". So, don't say that term is meaningless--it's what they've been called since they were developed.
And they were developed by the German Army. They wanted something that was a cross between a standard rifle and a machinegun (does that begin to answer your question?)
From the STG-44 to the Bushmaster XM-15, assault rifles have incorporated into their design specific features that enable shooters to spray ("hose down") a large number of bullets over a broad killing zone, without having to aim at each individual target. These features not only give assault weapons a distinctive appearance, they make it easy to simply point the gun while rapidly pulling the trigger—including firing from the hip, a procedure seldom used in hunting anything but human beings. The most important of these design features are:
"High-capacity," detachable ammunition magazines that hold up to 75-100 rounds of ammunition. This allows the high volume of fire critical to the "assault rifle" concept."
A rear pistol grip (handle), including so-called "thumb-hole stocks", a design feature found in the guns that skirted the last AWB, and magazines that function like pistol grips (e.g., Uzi and Tech-9).
Most Assault rifles use a "intermediate" cartridge which reduces recoil. Thsi from the development of the StG-44:
"Several attempts had been made to introduce lightweight machine guns or automatic rifles for these roles, but invariably recoil from the powerful 7.92x57mm round made them too difficult to control in automatic fire. The German solution was to use a round of intermediate power, between that of a full-power rifle cartridge and pistol ammunition. Experiments with several such intermediate rounds had been going on since the 1930s, but had been constantly rejected for use by the army. By 1941, it was becoming clear that action needed to be taken, and one of the experimental rounds, the Polte 8x33mm Kurzpatrone ("short cartridge") was selected. To minimize logistical problems, the Mauser 8 mm rifle cartridge was used as the basis for the final 7.92x33mm intermediate round, which also utilized an aerodynamic spitzer rifle bullet design."
In short, what makes these different from actual sporting firearms is that they were designed for killing in combat.
Actual sporting weapons have a lower magazine capacity, and can often be single shot, since most sporting uses have limits to rounds which can be used for hunting or target shooting.
I should add something else about assault rifles, which is even though the civilian versions are not capable of fully automatic fire (that is firing multiple times form one pull of the trigger), they are still capable of high rates of fire. Not only can those high rates of fire compare to a machinegun, they are also more accurate.
Fully automatic weapons have something called "muzzle-climb" which is where the muzzle rises with each round fired.
Semi-automatic rifles do not experience this phenomenon and can be more accurate.
So, while the actual rate of fire may not be as high as a fully-automatic weapon, the weapon is more accurate. That is it will be aiming closer to the target than an automatic weapon would.
Besides, if you are being shot at by someone putting down a high rate of fire, are you going to ask "is that a machinegun you're using?"
Computer SNAFU--if this double posted, just delete the duplicate.
Laci,
Thanks for the quick reply. Before I get into it, I just want to say that you have clearly done your homework on the weapons and have a better grasp of many of the mechanics and much of the history and development of the guns than most people on your side, which should make this discussion a bit easier.
Please don’t take my response as a fisking—it is not intended as such, I just wish to address your points and will be happy to see any point by point response to any of my posts.
“You mean the difference between something like a bolt action rifle and a semi-automatic with large ammunition capacity isn't obvious to you?”
I certainly see a difference between bolt and semi-auto. However, I see less of a difference between lever guns like the .30-30 and various 30-06 semi-autos that would not be affected by Diane Feinstein’s bill. My point about taking magazine capacity out is that it is pretty easy to modify these aught sixes to have a higher capacity. There are also M1 Garands that have skipped every AWB that I’ve ever seen, and these can be reloaded very quickly (hence their ability to overcome the STG in WWII).
My questions regarding what makes the AR more dangerous is primarily aimed at these semi-autos that most gun control proponents say are fine, but it can also apply to lever guns which nobody has suggested are a problem.
“The children were hit bay as many as 11 rounds, which would not have been possible with a hunting rifle.”
The semi’s and lever guns I mention above are easy to reload quickly, and all but the Garand are considered hunting rifles. There are also plenty of Garand’s used for hunting by WWII and Korea vets and other people I know. Would he have shot them 11 times with the bigger calibers? Maybe not, but the outcome would have been the same.
Something else regarding the ability to keep shooting without reloading: http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-sandyhook-lanza-earplugs-20130106,0,2370630.story
This is information I hadn’t heard before today. The article talks about how he reloaded frequently, even after a few shots, and compares the tactics to those used in video games. This is a real world tactic, and had he used even a lever gun, such tactical reloading would be possible. Since he never was presented with a situation where more than 3-4 teachers were charging him at once, he would have been able to pull off the same monstrous effects.
You go on to discuss the spray tactics possible with an assault rifle. This tactic is less useful with a semi-auto as even slight decreases in the rate of fire make it more likely that your spray will miss targets as you sweep past them in the firing. This is why those few people who take part in machine gun competitions will ramp up the firing rate of their machine guns used in bowling pin matches where you try to mow down a line of bowling pins in the least amount of time.
When it comes to a semi-auto, slowing down your rate of fire slightly by aiming each shot will be a far more effective tactic. This becomes especially true when using a limited capacity firearm. This appears to be the tactic this shooter used, as well as the tactic used by other shooters like the one in Aurora and various others.
You move on to discussing pistol grips and referencing shooting from the hip. I don’t know if you connect these two the way that the VPC does, but if you do, I would encourage you to pantomime holding a pistol grip stock at the hip, and them holding a traditional stock. The traditional stock is the better configuration for this, both for comfort of holding the gun, and for dealing with the torque that comes from recoil.
I cannot see any way in which using a pistol grip changes the ability of a shooter to shoot accurately—I actually find them less stable and less desirable in many cases. This is one reason I see their inclusion as a feature that makes something an Assault weapon as window dressing.
This also brings up your statement about the origins of the term Assault Rifle. I don’t quibble with that term. It has a definition that goes to the function of the gun, the type of ammo used, and what the gun is intended for. What I quibble with is the term “assault weapon” which refers to guns with semi-auto functions, sometimes different ammo, and and different purposes and applications. The differences in definitions results in “Assault Weapon” including guns that are not “Assault Rifles,” and not including the semi-auto versons of some guns that would be considered “Assault Rifles.” This is why I see it as poorly drafted legislation.
“Most Assault rifles use a "intermediate" cartridge which reduces recoil. This from the development of the StG-44:”
These intermediate cartridges do make it easier to shoot an assault rifle because of the recoil and muzzle climb you speak of. It also improves military logistics. As you note, these are not issues in mass shootings with semi-autos (unless we figure that the shooter had no problem killing children and shooting himself, but was afraid of a little extra recoil—unlikely).
These same intermediate cartridges have good uses for hunting as they allow shooters to learn how to shoot before they learn to deal with recoil, and as the lower power cartridges avoid spoiling the meat in smaller game (e.g. whitetail deer vs. elk and moose). The .30-30 is considered the most common hunting round in the US, and it is an intermediate cartridge with similar power to the 7.62x39 round used by the AK. (Which cartridge has been beginning to replace it in poorer parts of the south since it is cheaper and there are nice bolt-actions that shoot it along with low capacity SKS rifles.)
“In short, what makes these different from actual sporting firearms is that they were designed for killing in combat.”
Bolt and Lever action rifles were also designed for this. The semi-auto “Assault Weapons” bear closer resemblance in function, use, and appropriate tactics to semi-autos that are not up for a ban than they do to the “Assault Rifles” they descend from (or spawned in some cases).
As I said above, my question relates to what makes an “Assault Weapon” more dangerous than other semi-auto’s that are not up for a ban, or more dangerous than a lever action which also has a sufficiently high rate of fire for a mass murderer. If the answer is magazine size, I propose that we discuss that and leave the idea of “Assault Weapon Bans” behind.
Sorry, but even if bolt action weapons such as the SMLE were confused for being machineguns, they do not have the ability to accept the large capacity magazines that an assault rifle does or even the same rate of fire that an AR can achieve.
While bolt and lever action rifles may have been designed for combat, how many are now used in service? Most modern military forces have switched to AR type weapons. Not to mention, very few mass shootings have used non-semi-auto weapons (one of the earliest used an M1 Carbine). And in the few incidents where they did, the death count wasn't as high (e.g Jonesboro).
I think if you look into the history of mass shootings, that you will find semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines tend to be the preferred weapon of choice, and not pump, lever, or bolt action weapons.
Of course ,the easiest way to legislate these weapons is to regulate any firearm that has a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds and the sale of such magazines banned, which is what is usually done in most jurisdictions where they are effectively controlled.
Also, the regulation of any weapon capable of accepting a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds (and those magazines) is most likely what will happen according to what I have read is being seriously discussed.
BTW, since most of my working life was spent in military procurement, I would expect I have some idea of modern firearms.
Yes, bolt action rifles are used for specialised purposes, such as sniper rifles, but most service weapons are of the Assault Rifle genre. Even then, there are sniper rifles which are semi auto, such as the Dragunov and Barrett M82.
I would also add, that lever action rifles were not widely accepted by most nations' military establishments for the following reasons:
"While lever-action rifles were (and are) popular with hunters and sporting shooters, they were not widely accepted by the military. One significant reason for this was that it is harder to fire a lever-action from the prone position (compared to a straight-pull or rotating-bolt bolt-action rifle), and while nominally possessing a greater rate of fire (contemporary Winchester advertisements claimed their rifles could fire 2 shots a second) than bolt-action rifles, lever-action firearms are also generally fed from a tubular magazine, which limits the ammunition that can be used in them."
So, it seems Fezzik, that this "anti" seems to know more about fireearms than YOU do!
I acknowledge that a semi-auto is the preferred gun in most mass shootings, and that semi-autos enable a higher rate of fire. However, what I was getting at is that non “Assault Weapon” semi-autos and other higher rate of fire guns, such as lever guns, can also provide enough of a rate of fire for someone intent on a mass shooting, so banning semi-autos is not the guaranteed way to cut the death toll that it is billed as.
“Of course ,the easiest way to legislate these weapons is to regulate any firearm that has a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds and the sale of such magazines banned…”
I would agree that this has a bit more potential than banning “Assault Weapons” based on a features test. Where I think it would fall apart is that there is already an incredibly large number of these guns and magazines out there, and I don’t see how you could effectively keep criminals from getting their hands on them. (There is also the matter that they are not that hard to make.) It also falls apart since the shooters can easily reload these 10 round magazines in the same manner it appears that the CT shooter did from the article I provided a link for, and the way that the VT shooter did. Finally, a ban on such guns and magazines discounts that their far more common use is by people who load them into a home defense gun or a gun used for hunting dangerous game.
Finally, you kept coming back to bolt action and lever action rifles and talking about why they’re not used by militaries today. My reason for noting their military design was because you had stated that “Assault Weapons” were designed for military use, and I took that as an implication that they should be banned since they were designed for the military to kill people with. My point was that these were implements of war that were repurposed for individuals to use as hunting weapons. This same repurposing has been happening with the weapons you call “Assault Weapons.”
I’m sorry I missed your comment above earlier. You are correct that the .223, in military loadings, is designed to shatter. This is, as you said, a largely due to its velocity. There are other factors like it having a thinner copper jacket than the 7.62 NATO and others. Hunting .223 rounds have a thicker jacket and different design that causes them to mushroom the way other hunting bullets do. Wikipedia (I know, not a good source, but I think satisfactory for our purposes) shows the muzzle energy of a military loading of .223 as approx 1,300 joules. The .30-30 ranges from 900-1,800 depending on loading. I picked it because it’s not overpowered when compared to a .223 like 7.62 NATO and .30-06 (which are pretty similar to each other). The level of energy imparted to the target is what measures the lethality—mushrooming and fragmentation are just two ways of slowing the bullet and imparting the energy. The Military goes with fragmentation because the Hague convention bans expanding bullets (mushrooming), not because fragmentation is a better option.
The greater lethality of the .30-30 (due to its larger diameter and the use of the higher energy loadings) can be seen in the fact that it is chosen to bring down whitetail deer more than .223—some states ban the use of .223 because they don’t want deer being wounded and getting away, and even in the states that allow it, many hunters won’t use it because they prefer a clean, humane kill.
Regarding the utility of a semi-auto vs. a bolt action in a mass shooting like Newtown, there is no comparison. Shooters with bolt actions would not be able to do an attack like that (though they could still conduct attacks like the Texas A&M shooting, matching tactics to the gun available). However, my comments are aimed at the legislative tactic of defining some semi-autos as “assault weapons” and leaving others available as legal hunting guns (which they have been for a long time—first semi auto rifle was made in 1885 if memory serves; first semi-auto hunting rifles in the US were in the 1910’s). I see this as a legislative action that seems to fix the problem at first glance, but which falls apart on further evaluation.
An example of this would be that under the new AWB Senator Feinstein is proposing, unless she makes an exception for the M-14 by listing it by name even though it doesn’t meet her features test, the M-14 would be legal with 10 round magazines while the FAL and AR would not.
Finally, regarding your comment about home defense, this is where the AR-15 can actually shine as a better choice than the other “Assault Weapons,” and also when compared to handguns.
Any firearm can penetrate drywall and even wood paneling with ease. Handgun bullets are usually twice the mass of a .223, so they actually have the ability to penetrate further. (Penetration works differently in these dry, thin, brittle substances than in human or animal tissue.) When loaded with frangible ammunition (like is used by air marshals in their handguns) the .223 is actually a pretty good choice. Yes, you could use a pistol loaded with frangibles like the Air Marshals do, but it is harder to hit a target with a pistol than with a rifle due to the rifle’s length and the stability provided by three points of contact (hand, hand, and shoulder). True, a shot gun has this same advantage in length and stability, but even birdshot penetrates most walls, and frangible buck shot is so hard to find that I have never seen any for sale. Meanwhile, .223 frangibles are easy to find and I’ve bought many to give away to people using AR’s for home defense to make sure they have the safest loading for their gun.
Sorry for the typos, my IPad keyboard double strikes a LOT.
As regards whole milk, pastuerization was put in place because of bacterial infections causing deaths. Milk would reach market in a not-obviously but still spoiled condition. I'm sure if you drink milk on a farm which is straight from the cow, it tastes better than after it is pastuerized. How many deaths are acceptable to you per year to allow folks to market and sell a product which has not just the likelyhood, but the high likelyhood of killing a few folks each year? I am one of the most staunch lliberterians you will ever meet, but to me, when saying "people should be allowed to do pretty much what they want so long as it doesn't hurt other people" includes a requirement that it be the person only. Selling a product with a long history of misuse with some sort of warning label which says "Hey, you're taking this risk, it's on you" doesn't equate to a civil liberty, it equates to abbrogation of responsibility by the manufacturer. Equally, a freedom should be about something meaningful, something important. There is no enshrined or even implied liberty to have access to/be provided food products with a known history of flaw/s leading to fatalities when a much safer product is available. Pot isn't going to kill you or even make you likely to do yourself or someone else harm, so I don't object to people growing and selling it. The end consumer may be stupid and use it (if you think that's stupid), but they won't be likely to die if they do so. Washing your hands of the practical reality that among 330 Million people there are a few (or more than a few) stupid ones isn't protecting civil liberty, it's basically turning your back on a responsibility to have sound public policy. Put another way, Fez, if Joe Six-Pack buys whole milk and gives it to his 6 year old, who dies from e-coli infection, who is responsible, Joe or you? in my mind it's both. The kid didn't know any better and trusted his dad. He didn't make the choice, his dad did.
I don't have a problem requiring a label that says "This product contains raw milk which carries these risks, etc. I just have a problem with banning the product.
Proper labeling and proper actions against those who do not label or who sell diseased products are good things for the government to be involved in. I'm not a total anarchist. In Europe, you can get raw milk if you want it, and LOTS of raw cheeses, as well as pasteurized versions of both. Personally, I won't buy the raw milk if I don't know the source, but I'm less concerned with cheese made from raw milk which I know to be wonderful.
You are partially right about freedom needing to be about something meaningful. Un-banning and properly regulating raw milk is something I'll talk with people about, sign petitions, and talk to politicians about. Same with pot and various other things, but I'm not going to make a huge deal about them and prioritize them over more important issues when I vote or decide how to spend my time protesting, campaigning, etc. Not when there are bigger, more vital issues afoot.
Where I disagree with you is in so far as your statement would cause us to say, well, I don't really need that freedom. The strategy of authoritarians, left and right, is to set precedents on these little things and then expand them to other issues and areas. When it's not authoritarians, it's crony capitalists who use these things to get bigger, newer regulations approved so that they can squash the competition. They talk about this as a strategy in Business School, and it has a long and storied history. The pot issue originated when a guy bred a strain of hemp that didn't have THC in it and got himself a monopoly on the supply of plants when traditional hemp was banned. I'm a staunch capitalist, and that means that I hate this type of bullshit as much or more than I hate socialism. (Unfortunately, this is just how we do business in America these days.)
Whole milk comes under my area of expertise. Dairies do spot mastitis checks on some cows, every milking, but not necessarily all cows in the dairy - I've actually done them. I'm more familiar with milking procedures, including pre and post milking teat disinfecting procedures than most of the people I have met who consume raw milk. I also know more than the average consumer about the potential microbes that can affect milk and milking.
There are even regional differences; I suggest you read up on some of the problems associated with raw milk, including shorter safe shelf life. But you might want to start here: http://www.extension.org/pages/22418/best-management-practices-to-reduce-mastitis-and-improve-milk-quality
It is impossible to be safe simply by knowing the source of raw milk. Period. There is too much variation in the microbes present from one milking to the next, from one day to the next and from each cow for that to be any kind of guarantee of safety, although it is the common aspect of raw milk on which too many people rely.
What you think tastes the best is simply a matter of what you are used to drinking.
The reality is that there is no guarantee any time you choose to drink raw milk that you are not going to either get really really sick, or die. It's playing russian roulette with a glass instead of a gun.
At the same time, other than a taste preference, you ave no demonstrable benefit.
As to cheeses, because of the length of time it takes to make the cheese, and the processing of it, even when it is made from milk tat is not pasteurized it is still more easily tested for harmful pathogens that might have grown on it, unlike the testing of milk. The processes involved in cheese making to some extent minimize the problem in a way that drinking raw milk does not offer. I have no problem with unpasteurized cheese, so long as there is a safety check run on it to be sure it only has the desirable bacteria (as in bleu cheese) that are necessary for the cheese to be produced. There, the evidence of desirable benefit combined with diminished risk makes it a more reasonable product to allow.
That, and most people don't feed those kinds of cheese to children multiple times a day, risking their health and development.
Thanks for the education on the dairy business. I didn't know all the details on the milk production, but this is why I would be wary of raw milk and noted that I wouldn't want to drink it unless I knew the producer. By this, I meant that I knew who they were, what procedures they used, that they were a small producer and checked every cow, etc., and that I knew their character enough to know they weren't lying to me about the procedures.
Also, I can't see big producers selling raw milk, even if it was legalized, because of the liability threat. It wouldn't be worth the cost of the safety procedures required, or the lawsuits they would be sure to get if they didn't institute these. There would probably be more raw cheeses, tested as you recommend, but the raw milk actually sold would probably be done in small amounts from small producers as is done today. It would just be a legal market instead of the current black market that leads to SWAT raids on Amish farms.
A mastitis check, even if one is done on every cow, is not sufficient to guarantee you are getting safe milk.
The testing on every gallon of milk produced from every would take too long for the milk to still be fresh, and as there are too many kinds of bacteria for that to be practical. That bacteria is going to be different and in different proportions at every milking.
Just knowing your source is not a guarantee, because your producer cannot do anything in their milking procedures or herd management that will reduce that quantity of bacteria. The only thing that works - the ONLY thing that makes milk safe - is pasteurization. Has nothing whatsoever to do with what they tell you or don't tell you; it has everything to do with what is possible and not possible to do with safety. There IS NO CHECKING of every cow that will make the milk safe.
That is what you fail to understand. The producers do not have and cannot provide you the information you need, so therefore how large or small they are, the age of their cows, what they feed their cows, what kind of vet care/ VX schedule they follow, or what kind of milking procedures they use are completely irrelevant to what kind of bacteria is in the milk you are drinking.
They cannot provide you the information you would need. Relying on what they do tell you is as foolish as believing it is safe to cross the street without looking both ways because someone reliable tells you the sky is blue. The one piece of information has nothing to do with the risk you take.
So unless you have a much greater depth of knowledge of microbiology and herd health than I do, sorry, but with all due respect, you're a fool. There is no way that raw milk consumption should be legal, with good reason. Simply labeling it with non-specific vague risk warnings is inadequate, which is why as a matter of public health we don't do that. Freedom has nothing to do with it.
I yield to your superior knowledge of the subject. You make a good case as far as raw milk is concerned, and I have insufficient knowledge to argue against anything you've brought up. I just raise chickens, so dairies are not my specialty as they appear to be yours.
Chickens are smelly, anti-social, uncivilized creatures, but they and their eggs taste great. We pretty much just raise them for the eggs, which are far better than what you get from the store.
If you try it, and if you're in the US, The pen and coup have to be built like a supermax prison, or foxes and raccoons will find a way in and take your flock one at a time. RI Reds are the best layers I've dealt with, but they're pretty bad for establishing a pecking order by ripping each others' feathers out, establishing a visible cue of the pecking order. Avoid Black Sex Linked (cross between a Barred Rock and a RI Red)--Every one of these that we have had was mentally unstable--would eat their eggs, peck each other cruelly, and exhibit worse anti-social behavior than any of the other breeds.
First thing's first. I want to commend you for your civility. It's rare among the far right. It's more rare, imho, than from the far left. DemCommie, our own resident far leftie, is a bit crude, but still FAR more civil than virtually anyone I've ever talked with (and that's a lot of people) on the far right. No offense DemCommie.
Now, on to your points/posts -
Raw Milk - my point is not about not defending meaningful rights or trying to define certain rights as meaningful, others not. My point was as you surmized, about whether this is something worth spending political capital and time on. Rights are eroded, not taken openly, so it is something to be mindful of when considering what things to fight for vs. not, but by contrast, the "slippery slope" argument is over-used (dramatically so) by many. Limiting armaments which may be owned by civilians isn't a prelude to confiscation. It is a reasonable limit. We (citizens) have no need to own artillery, phosgene gas, or Titan ICBM's or the Multiple, Independent Re-Entry Vehicles which tip them. Equally so, it is reasonable to place limits on requiring licensure and background checks to impair (note I did not say prevent) the ability of the dangerously mentally ill to posess or buy firearms.
In the case of raw milk, my objection isn't about "not caring", nor is my suggestion some assault on liberties, it is making a point that absolving producers of liability/responsibility for bringing to market a product which is unsafe if not stored very carefully, not obtained equally carefully, is unacceptable. Since we've seen the impacts of not doing taking these great cares, since we know people will and do cut corners for profit (it's human nature), it hardly seems worth the risk in this case. Writing off such concerns as "well, they WERE warned" is quite bluntly, utterly, totally irresponsible. They were, that's true, but we warn people not to climb into zoo pits with polar bears and STILL put up fences to make it harder to accomplish. We do so because there are ignorant/foolish/ill-informed people, and it's a LOT easier to ALSO govern a few sites after warning people, than to attempt to govern the actions of 10,000,000 people. The same is true with respect to financial services/mortgages. While we can bally-whoo about the irresponsible borrower, many of whom cashed out their equity simply to be able to keep paying normal bills, not buy new cars, where is our condemnation of the stupidity of the lenders? We put rules in place about "conforming" loans to try to ensure mortgage issuers would write loans which were sound risks, not make themselves rich in the short term by writing any loan to anyone regardless of their ability to pay. We COULD attempt to regulate 330,000,000 people, but it's damned hard, it's totalitarian, and it's simply MUCH easier to tell mortgage issuers they must conform to certain rules to call a loan A-rated, other base rules for B-rated, and so on. No, it will not be perfect, but it is better than the disasterous variability which results from an unregulated market (like we had occur in 2008 when the MANY regulations were either repealed or simply ignored because the enforcement arm was in the back pocket of the industry).
So, in short, I hold the producer accountable if their product is unsafe. A warning label is a poor-man's excuse for failure. Furthermore, I see no intrinsic liberty which is being infringed. It's not a "small loss", I would have no issue with people having the ability to buy raw milk directly at a farm but ONLY if it were illegal for them to give that milk to their children - because the children didn't consent, they can't, they aren't competent to do so. So I don't oppose the ability of people to buy raw milk, I oppose the idea that the producer would be held harmless if they failed to provide a safe product and further I object to the idea that this product could be provided to those who cannot legally consent.
I agree with you fully on not absolving producers of liability for providing unsafe products. Dog Gone has brought up some good points regarding the possibility of safely providing raw milk products vs. cheeses, etc. My starting point with various products, which I was applying to raw milk until Dog Gone provided me new information to begin assimilating to my framework on that issue, is that the government should not involve itself in determinations of what is or is not available unless there is no way to have a safe product--e.g. old syphilis treatments that used mercury. However, if an unsafe product is offered, or if someone is selling "snake oil" I think that government involvement, both passively through the Civil Courts, and actively through criminal prosecutions for unsafe products or fraudulent products, is a proper role. In other words, I would focus more of our resources on finding and harshly punishing these bad actors rather than our current practice of having tons of up front regulations (which are often recommended by industry as barriers to competition) that only result in slap on the wrist fines which allow bad actors to pay a little and keep exposing people to unsafe products or practices.
To come back to the gun issue since you mentioned limiting the types of firearms owned, first I want to say something about this liability issue since I know many gun control proponents dislike the law that was passed in the 90's to protect manufacturers from lawsuits from shooting victims. This law was passed to deal with lawsuits that were attempting to place liability for a third party's misuse of the product on a manufacturer. I cannot see any reason to allow this with guns when we don't allow it with any other product. As far as I know, the law doesn't, and it definitely Shouldn't, limit liability for defective weapons or for actual illegal trafficking (which typically happens much further down the stream).
When it comes to availability of weapons, I think we can quickly dispense with most gas weapons, nukes, etc. as beyond the scope of the Second Amendment (I could give a Constitutional discussion on this if it's requested, but since we're in agreement, I don't think it's worth the hours of composition that it would require to post here in the comments.) Also, I said most gas weapons because most pepper spray has tear gas in it to make it more effective in stopping an attacker who doesn't have training in fighting through tear gas.
I've laid out some of my issues with "Assault Weapon" bans above, trying to show why I don't think they would be effective and why I think they're poorly drafted. A conversation yesterday with one of Senator Feinstein's staff regarding the weapons banned vs. those allowed has further strengthened my impression that the law is a poorly drafted, feel-good piece of legislation that is both under and over inclusive when it comes to meeting its stated goal.
As for the issue of effectiveness, Laci was correct in pointing out that the weapons I suggested mass shooters could use are limited in their effectiveness as military weapons in the modern day. I understood this very clearly before I made my post. However, mass shooters are not going up against military units. If they are met by police, or even an armed citizen, they often (though certainly not always) surrender quickly. What they are after is a godlike feeling of power. Being shot back at isn't their thing because it removes their power, whereas if they shoot at helpless people, they have all the power, and when the police arrive, whether they shoot themselves or surrender to the police so that the cops can't shoot they are still exercising power.
Whether these shooters pick gun free zones or not, they are working under the assumption that they will either be the only one with a gun, or that they will catch people with guns by surprise and still manage a lot of carnage. When this is the goal, a spree shooter doesn't need an assault rifle with high capacity magazines. He just needs a slightly higher rate of fire, the ability to reload reasonably quickly, and tactics that will allow him to not be overwhelmed by people fighting back.
Without assault weapons few shooters will try to kill a lot of people from the middle of a crowd like the Tuscon shooter, though this is rare even with assault weapons. Instead, they will do like the Newtown Shooter and fire from a distance, reloading before they move to the next target. With even a small distance, they can reload or pull another weapon before they get overwhelmed. This is the type of tactic used by the spree shooters with the largest numbers of killed and injured. The Texas A&M shooter picked an inaccessible place that allowed him to shoot many people before he was taken down by a combination of cops and citizens who stormed his clock tower. Holmes used surprise, and either tear gas or smoke bombs to confuse people and put distance between him and them. Also, when his AR jammed, he switched guns to a manually operated pump shotgun--something that can be loaded, cycled, and shot as quickly as the lever actions I'm talking about, and which, like them, would not be touched by an "Assault Weapon" ban. The court's gag order has prevented us from learning, so far, which gun did more damage, but I would not be surprised if we learn that the shotgun led to more fatalities as each person hit by it may have been hit by 9 or more projectiles.
We have historically required products be fit for consumption in order for them to be marketed to the public.
There is no way for a producer to safely market raw milk. There is no way that a producer could fairly be liable for many of the potential exposures to something as dangerous as raw milk either. That is why the government tries to prevent unsafe products from going to market, rather than relying on the more expensive, less reliable method of litigation -- more expensive for the public, and it relies on the consumer being able to afford to seek redress.
Prevention is pretty much always cheaper and better than correction or redress after the fact of something bad happening.
Would any amount of money make it up to you if you lost a child who died because of raw milk? Would you be able to simultaneously pay for both litigation, normal living costs, and really really high medical costs, even with the best insurance? Keep in mind many people have no health insurance, or minimal health insurance. The example of the tobacco industry for decades upon decades demonstrates the reason that those who are injured cannot reliably expect to prevail if the opposition has deep pockets.
If liability suits worked for raw milk illnesses and deaths, why do we continue to have so many illnesses, and deaths, when we only have very very limited sales of raw milk?
When was the last time you heard of someone dying from drinking pasteurized milk or milk products, other than from an allergy?
You see the problem with the mechanism you propose?
And look at the problem with vaccinating children, and all of the stupid parents who have not vaccinated their kids because they were mislead into believing there was a connection to autism.
Not only have children died from preventable diseases, adults have died, or been permanently affected, including rendered sterile, because of childhood illnesses spreading.
Where widespread vaccination takes place, childhood illnesses can be minimized tremendously and controlled to near eradication.
But instead we are having epidemics, avoidable ones, where what should be controlled illnesses just start spreading like wildfire. Just relying on intelligent people to make the right decision is not enough; sometimes we need more public health policy.
Wearing seatbelts was another example - even when people were first required to have them, they didn't use them, in spite of the dramatic evidence they reduced injuries and death. It took ticketing people to make them do the right thing, ditto motorcycle helmets.
People do not always, predictably act as they should, and it has an impact beyond their own lives, sometimes a very dramatic one on the larger public. And often that becomes a huge financial burden to the rest of the community.
You already convinced me that the Raw Milk was exceptionally dangerous and couldn't be made safe without pastuerization. I was trying to transition away from that issue into commentary regarding products that Can be provided safely.
Yes, prevention is cheaper. I do have a general problem with the current state of regulatory affairs which is that regulation is increasingly being used by established businesses to keep competition from entering the market rather than addressing actual safety issues. Proper regulation that promotes safety is appropriate, however, and I didn't mean to imply that this wasn't the case.
I reviewed my comment above and see where I was unclear. When I talked about an unsafe product going to market, I was typing faster than I was thinking and didn't state what I meant. What I was intending to talk about was when there was a product that could be delivered safely and was delivered unsafely--e.g. milk delivered without proper refrigeration, even after pasteurization.
Also, I didn't mean to imply getting rid of up front regulations, just simplifying them to something logical and that promotes safety--e.g. demand that milk be transported and stored in sterile containers and at a temperature of ____ degrees, but don't waste time or resources coming up with regulations of specifications that won't increase safety--use that money for enforcement whether that's by spot checks to see if refrigeration units are functional and well maintained or by hammering those who violated the rules and got someone sick as a deterrent for others who would cut corners.
I agree with you to a point. For example, we have had repeated peanut butter recalls because of problems like salmonella. Despite regulations, despite sanctions, despite inspections, and despite law suits, a product which SHOULD be relatively easy to get to the consumer is a safe condition for consumption has not been.
I've been thinking about our discussion here in terms of all the things pre-consumer and post-consumer that should have worked, but clearly have not.
Here in MN we have had deaths from unsafe peanut butter, as well as people so very ill they were hospitalized.
And of course, another issue is how to contain costs reasonably.
What you fail to realize is that those of us who support the legality of the AR-15 also support the legality of the urban (or in this case, suburban) garden. Before the latest gun control push, we had more free time and many of us were agitating for these gardeners and for the ability of the Amish to sell raw milk.
ReplyDeleteFreedom isn't an either or thing. We like and want it all.
AR15s kill and injure people, while less deadly weapons in terms of rate of fire and magazine capacity do not do so as frequently that are an acceptable and traditional alternative to the sporting gun user.
ReplyDeleteRaw milk kills people and makes other people sick; frequently these people are children, who cannot make informed consent about what they consume. The claims that raw milk offers health benefits is bogus, completely unproven, debunked. The claim that it is dangerous is proven microbiology fact. Again - a better, safer alternative is available, and therefore those are reasonable laws.
The issue with this garden is that the neighbors might not agree with the aesthetics of a vegetable garden, or certain kinds of flower choices - it is only an issue of preferences. In the case of people who let their yards go wild without mowing or managing weeds, or who plant alternative ecosystem plantings like prairie grass to go native -- that actually makes it harder and more costly for other neighbors to exercise their choice for a traditional lawn, because those species are more invasive, more likely to sprout under normal conditions in someone else's front yard, interfering with THEIR choices.
Now if you sign an agreement with a home owners association to adhere to different standards and then change your mind about wanting to paint your house bright purple or go Goode neighbors with your front yard - that's about not living up to a contract you signed by choice, a very different kind of legality.
So the two items in the photo are not even remotely equivalent, which is the point here about what is reasonably illegal and what is legal. Items tat kill people - guns, raw milk - are and should be illegal, with limited exceptions.
I don't want to ban AR 15s because they look scary. I want to ban the because they make it possible, as was the case with one little boy killed at Sandy Hook elementary school, for someone to fire 11 shots into his body, blowing away the lower half of his head, essentially his jaw from below the nose down and most of his left hand, as well as the damage to his body which left his internal organs liquified, as well as other children in the same room without reloading.
The AR 15 and guns like it have a high frequency of use in these kinds of shootings, and in shootings which endanger or kill or injure law enforcement, as do the high capacity magazines. They are designed to be a military weapon or like a military weapon. That it has other uses does not change that design intent or that it makes this a reasonable gun to restrict or ban outright.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't saying that the things were equivalent. I was noting that there wasn't an either or choice to be had since the graphic was suggesting that we needed to flip the relationship. With regards to the raw milk, frankly I made an assumption that you'd be in favor of it considering your support of the garden, medical marijuana, etc. I'm not a proponent of Raw Milk being some miracle food, I just know it tastes better and is available in Europe without a large number of adverse incidents, so I don't see a reason for the government to tell a person what the can or can't buy or drink.
I also understand the issue with HOA's. I rather like the freedom to contract and the self-regulatory nature of these.
But our main bone of contention is the AR 15 and other Assault rifles. My question is what makes the AR so much more lethal that the firearm itself has to be banned. Lets not talk magazines at this moment since mags are actually pretty easy to make/modify for it and many other guns, and even 10 rounders can be changed fast. I'm open to discussing these magazine laws, but they're a side issue. Why is the AR itself so much more dangerous?
As for what you cite about the nature of the wounds sustained by the children, this is the tragic result of strikes from any rifle bullet. If the shooter had used a traditional hunting rifle, (e.g. .30-30 lever gun or 30-06 hunting rifle) the wounds would likely look even worse. Either way, they're dead, killed by a person who abandoned his conscience.
Fezzik,
DeleteA number of studies have show that the .223 round is substantially more likely to shatter upon entering a liquid (e.g. human) body than the .762mm Nato round. This is in part due to the relatively high muzzle velocity of the round. Consequently, no, the 30-30 round is NOT likely to produce similar (or as lethal) wounds, though when shooting 6 year olds, it likely wouldn't have matttered. The .306 round is likely as lethal due to it's larger calibre, but please point out for me a hunting rifle using .306 which takes a 20 round magazine? Most are bolt action, which means they have a substantially lower rate of fire and so Mr. Lanza would have found shooting fleeing children to be harder to accomplish.
The AR-15, the semi-auto version of the M-14, the semi-auto version of the FN-FAL, none are "more dangerous" than the other, but all are more useful as military weapons, by far, than as hunting weapons. They are, by far, more dangerous than bolt action rifles when being employed to shoot people at close range and have little civilian value in even home defense due to their high likelyhood to penetrate wallsand unweildiness as compared to side-arms.
You mean the difference between something like a bolt action rifle and a semi-automatic with large ammunition capacity isn't obvious to you?
DeleteOK, you want to use the difference between ammunition, and want to compare 5.56x45 to a .30 type rifle and say that the damage would be as horrific. But, that misses the point that there were far more rounds expended by this shooter. The children were hit bay as many as 11 rounds, which would not have been possible with a hunting rifle.
Also, the high capacity magazine allowed for more rounds to be fired without reloading, which takes us to:
The grandaddy of all these assault rifle guns, which was something called the StG44, or Sturmgewehr44.
Sturmgewehr, if you don't know German translates as "assault rifle". So, don't say that term is meaningless--it's what they've been called since they were developed.
And they were developed by the German Army. They wanted something that was a cross between a standard rifle and a machinegun (does that begin to answer your question?)
From the STG-44 to the Bushmaster XM-15, assault rifles have incorporated into their design specific features that enable shooters to spray ("hose down") a large number of bullets over a broad killing zone, without having to aim at each individual target. These features not only give assault weapons a distinctive appearance, they make it easy to simply point the gun while rapidly pulling the trigger—including firing from the hip, a procedure seldom used in hunting anything but human beings. The most important of these design features are:
"High-capacity," detachable ammunition magazines that hold up to 75-100 rounds of ammunition. This allows the high volume of fire critical to the "assault rifle" concept."
A rear pistol grip (handle), including so-called "thumb-hole stocks", a design feature found in the guns that skirted the last AWB, and magazines that function like pistol grips (e.g., Uzi and Tech-9).
Most Assault rifles use a "intermediate" cartridge which reduces recoil. Thsi from the development of the StG-44:
"Several attempts had been made to introduce lightweight machine guns or automatic rifles for these roles, but invariably recoil from the powerful 7.92x57mm round made them too difficult to control in automatic fire. The German solution was to use a round of intermediate power, between that of a full-power rifle cartridge and pistol ammunition. Experiments with several such intermediate rounds had been going on since the 1930s, but had been constantly rejected for use by the army. By 1941, it was becoming clear that action needed to be taken, and one of the experimental rounds, the Polte 8x33mm Kurzpatrone ("short cartridge") was selected. To minimize logistical problems, the Mauser 8 mm rifle cartridge was used as the basis for the final 7.92x33mm intermediate round, which also utilized an aerodynamic spitzer rifle bullet design."
In short, what makes these different from actual sporting firearms is that they were designed for killing in combat.
Actual sporting weapons have a lower magazine capacity, and can often be single shot, since most sporting uses have limits to rounds which can be used for hunting or target shooting.
I should add something else about assault rifles, which is even though the civilian versions are not capable of fully automatic fire (that is firing multiple times form one pull of the trigger), they are still capable of high rates of fire. Not only can those high rates of fire compare to a machinegun, they are also more accurate.
DeleteFully automatic weapons have something called "muzzle-climb" which is where the muzzle rises with each round fired.
Semi-automatic rifles do not experience this phenomenon and can be more accurate.
So, while the actual rate of fire may not be as high as a fully-automatic weapon, the weapon is more accurate. That is it will be aiming closer to the target than an automatic weapon would.
Besides, if you are being shot at by someone putting down a high rate of fire, are you going to ask "is that a machinegun you're using?"
Computer SNAFU--if this double posted, just delete the duplicate.
DeleteLaci,
Thanks for the quick reply. Before I get into it, I just want to say that you have clearly done your homework on the weapons and have a better grasp of many of the mechanics and much of the history and development of the guns than most people on your side, which should make this discussion a bit easier.
Please don’t take my response as a fisking—it is not intended as such, I just wish to address your points and will be happy to see any point by point response to any of my posts.
“You mean the difference between something like a bolt action rifle and a semi-automatic with large ammunition capacity isn't obvious to you?”
I certainly see a difference between bolt and semi-auto. However, I see less of a difference between lever guns like the .30-30 and various 30-06 semi-autos that would not be affected by Diane Feinstein’s bill. My point about taking magazine capacity out is that it is pretty easy to modify these aught sixes to have a higher capacity. There are also M1 Garands that have skipped every AWB that I’ve ever seen, and these can be reloaded very quickly (hence their ability to overcome the STG in WWII).
My questions regarding what makes the AR more dangerous is primarily aimed at these semi-autos that most gun control proponents say are fine, but it can also apply to lever guns which nobody has suggested are a problem.
“The children were hit bay as many as 11 rounds, which would not have been possible with a hunting rifle.”
The semi’s and lever guns I mention above are easy to reload quickly, and all but the Garand are considered hunting rifles. There are also plenty of Garand’s used for hunting by WWII and Korea vets and other people I know. Would he have shot them 11 times with the bigger calibers? Maybe not, but the outcome would have been the same.
Something else regarding the ability to keep shooting without reloading:
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-sandyhook-lanza-earplugs-20130106,0,2370630.story
This is information I hadn’t heard before today. The article talks about how he reloaded frequently, even after a few shots, and compares the tactics to those used in video games. This is a real world tactic, and had he used even a lever gun, such tactical reloading would be possible. Since he never was presented with a situation where more than 3-4 teachers were charging him at once, he would have been able to pull off the same monstrous effects.
You go on to discuss the spray tactics possible with an assault rifle. This tactic is less useful with a semi-auto as even slight decreases in the rate of fire make it more likely that your spray will miss targets as you sweep past them in the firing. This is why those few people who take part in machine gun competitions will ramp up the firing rate of their machine guns used in bowling pin matches where you try to mow down a line of bowling pins in the least amount of time.
Cont.
Pt. 2.
DeleteWhen it comes to a semi-auto, slowing down your rate of fire slightly by aiming each shot will be a far more effective tactic. This becomes especially true when using a limited capacity firearm. This appears to be the tactic this shooter used, as well as the tactic used by other shooters like the one in Aurora and various others.
You move on to discussing pistol grips and referencing shooting from the hip. I don’t know if you connect these two the way that the VPC does, but if you do, I would encourage you to pantomime holding a pistol grip stock at the hip, and them holding a traditional stock. The traditional stock is the better configuration for this, both for comfort of holding the gun, and for dealing with the torque that comes from recoil.
I cannot see any way in which using a pistol grip changes the ability of a shooter to shoot accurately—I actually find them less stable and less desirable in many cases. This is one reason I see their inclusion as a feature that makes something an Assault weapon as window dressing.
This also brings up your statement about the origins of the term Assault Rifle. I don’t quibble with that term. It has a definition that goes to the function of the gun, the type of ammo used, and what the gun is intended for. What I quibble with is the term “assault weapon” which refers to guns with semi-auto functions, sometimes different ammo, and and different purposes and applications. The differences in definitions results in “Assault Weapon” including guns that are not “Assault Rifles,” and not including the semi-auto versons of some guns that would be considered “Assault Rifles.” This is why I see it as poorly drafted legislation.
“Most Assault rifles use a "intermediate" cartridge which reduces recoil. This from the development of the StG-44:”
These intermediate cartridges do make it easier to shoot an assault rifle because of the recoil and muzzle climb you speak of. It also improves military logistics. As you note, these are not issues in mass shootings with semi-autos (unless we figure that the shooter had no problem killing children and shooting himself, but was afraid of a little extra recoil—unlikely).
These same intermediate cartridges have good uses for hunting as they allow shooters to learn how to shoot before they learn to deal with recoil, and as the lower power cartridges avoid spoiling the meat in smaller game (e.g. whitetail deer vs. elk and moose). The .30-30 is considered the most common hunting round in the US, and it is an intermediate cartridge with similar power to the 7.62x39 round used by the AK. (Which cartridge has been beginning to replace it in poorer parts of the south since it is cheaper and there are nice bolt-actions that shoot it along with low capacity SKS rifles.)
“In short, what makes these different from actual sporting firearms is that they were designed for killing in combat.”
Bolt and Lever action rifles were also designed for this. The semi-auto “Assault Weapons” bear closer resemblance in function, use, and appropriate tactics to semi-autos that are not up for a ban than they do to the “Assault Rifles” they descend from (or spawned in some cases).
As I said above, my question relates to what makes an “Assault Weapon” more dangerous than other semi-auto’s that are not up for a ban, or more dangerous than a lever action which also has a sufficiently high rate of fire for a mass murderer. If the answer is magazine size, I propose that we discuss that and leave the idea of “Assault Weapon Bans” behind.
Sorry, but even if bolt action weapons such as the SMLE were confused for being machineguns, they do not have the ability to accept the large capacity magazines that an assault rifle does or even the same rate of fire that an AR can achieve.
DeleteWhile bolt and lever action rifles may have been designed for combat, how many are now used in service? Most modern military forces have switched to AR type weapons. Not to mention, very few mass shootings have used non-semi-auto weapons (one of the earliest used an M1 Carbine). And in the few incidents where they did, the death count wasn't as high (e.g Jonesboro).
I think if you look into the history of mass shootings, that you will find semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines tend to be the preferred weapon of choice, and not pump, lever, or bolt action weapons.
Of course ,the easiest way to legislate these weapons is to regulate any firearm that has a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds and the sale of such magazines banned, which is what is usually done in most jurisdictions where they are effectively controlled.
Also, the regulation of any weapon capable of accepting a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds (and those magazines) is most likely what will happen according to what I have read is being seriously discussed.
BTW, since most of my working life was spent in military procurement, I would expect I have some idea of modern firearms.
Yes, bolt action rifles are used for specialised purposes, such as sniper rifles, but most service weapons are of the Assault Rifle genre. Even then, there are sniper rifles which are semi auto, such as the Dragunov and Barrett M82.
DeleteI would also add, that lever action rifles were not widely accepted by most nations' military establishments for the following reasons:
Delete"While lever-action rifles were (and are) popular with hunters and sporting shooters, they were not widely accepted by the military. One significant reason for this was that it is harder to fire a lever-action from the prone position (compared to a straight-pull or rotating-bolt bolt-action rifle), and while nominally possessing a greater rate of fire (contemporary Winchester advertisements claimed their rifles could fire 2 shots a second) than bolt-action rifles, lever-action firearms are also generally fed from a tubular magazine, which limits the ammunition that can be used in them."
So, it seems Fezzik, that this "anti" seems to know more about fireearms than YOU do!
Laci,
DeleteI acknowledge that a semi-auto is the preferred gun in most mass shootings, and that semi-autos enable a higher rate of fire. However, what I was getting at is that non “Assault Weapon” semi-autos and other higher rate of fire guns, such as lever guns, can also provide enough of a rate of fire for someone intent on a mass shooting, so banning semi-autos is not the guaranteed way to cut the death toll that it is billed as.
“Of course ,the easiest way to legislate these weapons is to regulate any firearm that has a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds and the sale of such magazines banned…”
I would agree that this has a bit more potential than banning “Assault Weapons” based on a features test. Where I think it would fall apart is that there is already an incredibly large number of these guns and magazines out there, and I don’t see how you could effectively keep criminals from getting their hands on them. (There is also the matter that they are not that hard to make.) It also falls apart since the shooters can easily reload these 10 round magazines in the same manner it appears that the CT shooter did from the article I provided a link for, and the way that the VT shooter did. Finally, a ban on such guns and magazines discounts that their far more common use is by people who load them into a home defense gun or a gun used for hunting dangerous game.
Finally, you kept coming back to bolt action and lever action rifles and talking about why they’re not used by militaries today. My reason for noting their military design was because you had stated that “Assault Weapons” were designed for military use, and I took that as an implication that they should be banned since they were designed for the military to kill people with. My point was that these were implements of war that were repurposed for individuals to use as hunting weapons. This same repurposing has been happening with the weapons you call “Assault Weapons.”
Penigma,
DeleteI’m sorry I missed your comment above earlier. You are correct that the .223, in military loadings, is designed to shatter. This is, as you said, a largely due to its velocity. There are other factors like it having a thinner copper jacket than the 7.62 NATO and others. Hunting .223 rounds have a thicker jacket and different design that causes them to mushroom the way other hunting bullets do. Wikipedia (I know, not a good source, but I think satisfactory for our purposes) shows the muzzle energy of a military loading of .223 as approx 1,300 joules. The .30-30 ranges from 900-1,800 depending on loading. I picked it because it’s not overpowered when compared to a .223 like 7.62 NATO and .30-06 (which are pretty similar to each other). The level of energy imparted to the target is what measures the lethality—mushrooming and fragmentation are just two ways of slowing the bullet and imparting the energy. The Military goes with fragmentation because the Hague convention bans expanding bullets (mushrooming), not because fragmentation is a better option.
The greater lethality of the .30-30 (due to its larger diameter and the use of the higher energy loadings) can be seen in the fact that it is chosen to bring down whitetail deer more than .223—some states ban the use of .223 because they don’t want deer being wounded and getting away, and even in the states that allow it, many hunters won’t use it because they prefer a clean, humane kill.
Regarding the utility of a semi-auto vs. a bolt action in a mass shooting like Newtown, there is no comparison. Shooters with bolt actions would not be able to do an attack like that (though they could still conduct attacks like the Texas A&M shooting, matching tactics to the gun available). However, my comments are aimed at the legislative tactic of defining some semi-autos as “assault weapons” and leaving others available as legal hunting guns (which they have been for a long time—first semi auto rifle was made in 1885 if memory serves; first semi-auto hunting rifles in the US were in the 1910’s). I see this as a legislative action that seems to fix the problem at first glance, but which falls apart on further evaluation.
An example of this would be that under the new AWB Senator Feinstein is proposing, unless she makes an exception for the M-14 by listing it by name even though it doesn’t meet her features test, the M-14 would be legal with 10 round magazines while the FAL and AR would not.
Finally, regarding your comment about home defense, this is where the AR-15 can actually shine as a better choice than the other “Assault Weapons,” and also when compared to handguns.
Any firearm can penetrate drywall and even wood paneling with ease. Handgun bullets are usually twice the mass of a .223, so they actually have the ability to penetrate further. (Penetration works differently in these dry, thin, brittle substances than in human or animal tissue.) When loaded with frangible ammunition (like is used by air marshals in their handguns) the .223 is actually a pretty good choice. Yes, you could use a pistol loaded with frangibles like the Air Marshals do, but it is harder to hit a target with a pistol than with a rifle due to the rifle’s length and the stability provided by three points of contact (hand, hand, and shoulder). True, a shot gun has this same advantage in length and stability, but even birdshot penetrates most walls, and frangible buck shot is so hard to find that I have never seen any for sale. Meanwhile, .223 frangibles are easy to find and I’ve bought many to give away to people using AR’s for home defense to make sure they have the safest loading for their gun.
Sorry for the typos, my IPad keyboard double strikes a LOT.
ReplyDeleteAs regards whole milk, pastuerization was put in place because of bacterial infections causing deaths. Milk would reach market in a not-obviously but still spoiled condition. I'm sure if you drink milk on a farm which is straight from the cow, it tastes better than after it is pastuerized. How many deaths are acceptable to you per year to allow folks to market and sell a product which has not just the likelyhood, but the high likelyhood of killing a few folks each year? I am one of the most staunch lliberterians you will ever meet, but to me, when saying "people should be allowed to do pretty much what they want so long as it doesn't hurt other people" includes a requirement that it be the person only. Selling a product with a long history of misuse with some sort of warning label which says "Hey, you're taking this risk, it's on you" doesn't equate to a civil liberty, it equates to abbrogation of responsibility by the manufacturer. Equally, a freedom should be about something meaningful, something important. There is no enshrined or even implied liberty to have access to/be provided food products with a known history of flaw/s leading to fatalities when a much safer product is available. Pot isn't going to kill you or even make you likely to do yourself or someone else harm, so I don't object to people growing and selling it. The end consumer may be stupid and use it (if you think that's stupid), but they won't be likely to die if they do so. Washing your hands of the practical reality that among 330 Million people there are a few (or more than a few) stupid ones isn't protecting civil liberty, it's basically turning your back on a responsibility to have sound public policy. Put another way, Fez, if Joe Six-Pack buys whole milk and gives it to his 6 year old, who dies from e-coli infection, who is responsible, Joe or you? in my mind it's both. The kid didn't know any better and trusted his dad. He didn't make the choice, his dad did.
Penigma,
DeleteI don't have a problem requiring a label that says "This product contains raw milk which carries these risks, etc. I just have a problem with banning the product.
Proper labeling and proper actions against those who do not label or who sell diseased products are good things for the government to be involved in. I'm not a total anarchist. In Europe, you can get raw milk if you want it, and LOTS of raw cheeses, as well as pasteurized versions of both. Personally, I won't buy the raw milk if I don't know the source, but I'm less concerned with cheese made from raw milk which I know to be wonderful.
You are partially right about freedom needing to be about something meaningful. Un-banning and properly regulating raw milk is something I'll talk with people about, sign petitions, and talk to politicians about. Same with pot and various other things, but I'm not going to make a huge deal about them and prioritize them over more important issues when I vote or decide how to spend my time protesting, campaigning, etc. Not when there are bigger, more vital issues afoot.
Where I disagree with you is in so far as your statement would cause us to say, well, I don't really need that freedom. The strategy of authoritarians, left and right, is to set precedents on these little things and then expand them to other issues and areas. When it's not authoritarians, it's crony capitalists who use these things to get bigger, newer regulations approved so that they can squash the competition. They talk about this as a strategy in Business School, and it has a long and storied history. The pot issue originated when a guy bred a strain of hemp that didn't have THC in it and got himself a monopoly on the supply of plants when traditional hemp was banned. I'm a staunch capitalist, and that means that I hate this type of bullshit as much or more than I hate socialism. (Unfortunately, this is just how we do business in America these days.)
Whole milk comes under my area of expertise. Dairies do spot mastitis checks on some cows, every milking, but not necessarily all cows in the dairy - I've actually done them. I'm more familiar with milking procedures, including pre and post milking teat disinfecting procedures than most of the people I have met who consume raw milk. I also know more than the average consumer about the potential microbes that can affect milk and milking.
DeleteThere are even regional differences; I suggest you read up on some of the problems associated with raw milk, including shorter safe shelf life. But you might want to start here: http://www.extension.org/pages/22418/best-management-practices-to-reduce-mastitis-and-improve-milk-quality
It is impossible to be safe simply by knowing the source of raw milk. Period. There is too much variation in the microbes present from one milking to the next, from one day to the next and from each cow for that to be any kind of guarantee of safety, although it is the common aspect of raw milk on which too many people rely.
What you think tastes the best is simply a matter of what you are used to drinking.
The reality is that there is no guarantee any time you choose to drink raw milk that you are not going to either get really really sick, or die. It's playing russian roulette with a glass instead of a gun.
At the same time, other than a taste preference, you ave no demonstrable benefit.
As to cheeses, because of the length of time it takes to make the cheese, and the processing of it, even when it is made from milk tat is not pasteurized it is still more easily tested for harmful pathogens that might have grown on it, unlike the testing of milk. The processes involved in cheese making to some extent minimize the problem in a way that drinking raw milk does not offer. I have no problem with unpasteurized cheese, so long as there is a safety check run on it to be sure it only has the desirable bacteria (as in bleu cheese) that are necessary for the cheese to be produced. There, the evidence of desirable benefit combined with diminished risk makes it a more reasonable product to allow.
That, and most people don't feed those kinds of cheese to children multiple times a day, risking their health and development.
Dog Gone,
DeleteThanks for the education on the dairy business. I didn't know all the details on the milk production, but this is why I would be wary of raw milk and noted that I wouldn't want to drink it unless I knew the producer. By this, I meant that I knew who they were, what procedures they used, that they were a small producer and checked every cow, etc., and that I knew their character enough to know they weren't lying to me about the procedures.
Also, I can't see big producers selling raw milk, even if it was legalized, because of the liability threat. It wouldn't be worth the cost of the safety procedures required, or the lawsuits they would be sure to get if they didn't institute these. There would probably be more raw cheeses, tested as you recommend, but the raw milk actually sold would probably be done in small amounts from small producers as is done today. It would just be a legal market instead of the current black market that leads to SWAT raids on Amish farms.
A mastitis check, even if one is done on every cow, is not sufficient to guarantee you are getting safe milk.
ReplyDeleteThe testing on every gallon of milk produced from every would take too long for the milk to still be fresh, and as there are too many kinds of bacteria for that to be practical. That bacteria is going to be different and in different proportions at every milking.
Just knowing your source is not a guarantee, because your producer cannot do anything in their milking procedures or herd management that will reduce that quantity of bacteria. The only thing that works - the ONLY thing that makes milk safe - is pasteurization. Has nothing whatsoever to do with what they tell you or don't tell you; it has everything to do with what is possible and not possible to do with safety. There IS NO CHECKING of every cow that will make the milk safe.
That is what you fail to understand. The producers do not have and cannot provide you the information you need, so therefore how large or small they are, the age of their cows, what they feed their cows, what kind of vet care/ VX schedule they follow, or what kind of milking procedures they use are completely irrelevant to what kind of bacteria is in the milk you are drinking.
They cannot provide you the information you would need. Relying on what they do tell you is as foolish as believing it is safe to cross the street without looking both ways because someone reliable tells you the sky is blue. The one piece of information has nothing to do with the risk you take.
So unless you have a much greater depth of knowledge of microbiology and herd health than I do, sorry, but with all due respect, you're a fool. There is no way that raw milk consumption should be legal, with good reason. Simply labeling it with non-specific vague risk warnings is inadequate, which is why as a matter of public health we don't do that. Freedom has nothing to do with it.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI yield to your superior knowledge of the subject. You make a good case as far as raw milk is concerned, and I have insufficient knowledge to argue against anything you've brought up. I just raise chickens, so dairies are not my specialty as they appear to be yours.
Good show, and thanks for the enlightenment.
I've only done minimal work with chickens, but it is something I'd like to try.
ReplyDeleteJust be safe - we'd like to have you continue to be around, to comment.
Chickens are smelly, anti-social, uncivilized creatures, but they and their eggs taste great. We pretty much just raise them for the eggs, which are far better than what you get from the store.
DeleteIf you try it, and if you're in the US, The pen and coup have to be built like a supermax prison, or foxes and raccoons will find a way in and take your flock one at a time. RI Reds are the best layers I've dealt with, but they're pretty bad for establishing a pecking order by ripping each others' feathers out, establishing a visible cue of the pecking order. Avoid Black Sex Linked (cross between a Barred Rock and a RI Red)--Every one of these that we have had was mentally unstable--would eat their eggs, peck each other cruelly, and exhibit worse anti-social behavior than any of the other breeds.
Fezzik,
ReplyDeleteFirst thing's first. I want to commend you for your civility. It's rare among the far right. It's more rare, imho, than from the far left. DemCommie, our own resident far leftie, is a bit crude, but still FAR more civil than virtually anyone I've ever talked with (and that's a lot of people) on the far right. No offense DemCommie.
Now, on to your points/posts -
Raw Milk - my point is not about not defending meaningful rights or trying to define certain rights as meaningful, others not. My point was as you surmized, about whether this is something worth spending political capital and time on. Rights are eroded, not taken openly, so it is something to be mindful of when considering what things to fight for vs. not, but by contrast, the "slippery slope" argument is over-used (dramatically so) by many. Limiting armaments which may be owned by civilians isn't a prelude to confiscation. It is a reasonable limit. We (citizens) have no need to own artillery, phosgene gas, or Titan ICBM's or the Multiple, Independent Re-Entry Vehicles which tip them. Equally so, it is reasonable to place limits on requiring licensure and background checks to impair (note I did not say prevent) the ability of the dangerously mentally ill to posess or buy firearms.
In the case of raw milk, my objection isn't about "not caring", nor is my suggestion some assault on liberties, it is making a point that absolving producers of liability/responsibility for bringing to market a product which is unsafe if not stored very carefully, not obtained equally carefully, is unacceptable. Since we've seen the impacts of not doing taking these great cares, since we know people will and do cut corners for profit (it's human nature), it hardly seems worth the risk in this case. Writing off such concerns as "well, they WERE warned" is quite bluntly, utterly, totally irresponsible. They were, that's true, but we warn people not to climb into zoo pits with polar bears and STILL put up fences to make it harder to accomplish. We do so because there are ignorant/foolish/ill-informed people, and it's a LOT easier to ALSO govern a few sites after warning people, than to attempt to govern the actions of 10,000,000 people. The same is true with respect to financial services/mortgages. While we can bally-whoo about the irresponsible borrower, many of whom cashed out their equity simply to be able to keep paying normal bills, not buy new cars, where is our condemnation of the stupidity of the lenders? We put rules in place about "conforming" loans to try to ensure mortgage issuers would write loans which were sound risks, not make themselves rich in the short term by writing any loan to anyone regardless of their ability to pay. We COULD attempt to regulate 330,000,000 people, but it's damned hard, it's totalitarian, and it's simply MUCH easier to tell mortgage issuers they must conform to certain rules to call a loan A-rated, other base rules for B-rated, and so on. No, it will not be perfect, but it is better than the disasterous variability which results from an unregulated market (like we had occur in 2008 when the MANY regulations were either repealed or simply ignored because the enforcement arm was in the back pocket of the industry).
ReplyDeleteSo, in short, I hold the producer accountable if their product is unsafe. A warning label is a poor-man's excuse for failure. Furthermore, I see no intrinsic liberty which is being infringed. It's not a "small loss", I would have no issue with people having the ability to buy raw milk directly at a farm but ONLY if it were illegal for them to give that milk to their children - because the children didn't consent, they can't, they aren't competent to do so. So I don't oppose the ability of people to buy raw milk, I oppose the idea that the producer would be held harmless if they failed to provide a safe product and further I object to the idea that this product could be provided to those who cannot legally consent.
Penigma,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you fully on not absolving producers of liability for providing unsafe products. Dog Gone has brought up some good points regarding the possibility of safely providing raw milk products vs. cheeses, etc. My starting point with various products, which I was applying to raw milk until Dog Gone provided me new information to begin assimilating to my framework on that issue, is that the government should not involve itself in determinations of what is or is not available unless there is no way to have a safe product--e.g. old syphilis treatments that used mercury. However, if an unsafe product is offered, or if someone is selling "snake oil" I think that government involvement, both passively through the Civil Courts, and actively through criminal prosecutions for unsafe products or fraudulent products, is a proper role. In other words, I would focus more of our resources on finding and harshly punishing these bad actors rather than our current practice of having tons of up front regulations (which are often recommended by industry as barriers to competition) that only result in slap on the wrist fines which allow bad actors to pay a little and keep exposing people to unsafe products or practices.
To come back to the gun issue since you mentioned limiting the types of firearms owned, first I want to say something about this liability issue since I know many gun control proponents dislike the law that was passed in the 90's to protect manufacturers from lawsuits from shooting victims. This law was passed to deal with lawsuits that were attempting to place liability for a third party's misuse of the product on a manufacturer. I cannot see any reason to allow this with guns when we don't allow it with any other product. As far as I know, the law doesn't, and it definitely Shouldn't, limit liability for defective weapons or for actual illegal trafficking (which typically happens much further down the stream).
When it comes to availability of weapons, I think we can quickly dispense with most gas weapons, nukes, etc. as beyond the scope of the Second Amendment (I could give a Constitutional discussion on this if it's requested, but since we're in agreement, I don't think it's worth the hours of composition that it would require to post here in the comments.) Also, I said most gas weapons because most pepper spray has tear gas in it to make it more effective in stopping an attacker who doesn't have training in fighting through tear gas.
I've laid out some of my issues with "Assault Weapon" bans above, trying to show why I don't think they would be effective and why I think they're poorly drafted. A conversation yesterday with one of Senator Feinstein's staff regarding the weapons banned vs. those allowed has further strengthened my impression that the law is a poorly drafted, feel-good piece of legislation that is both under and over inclusive when it comes to meeting its stated goal.
ReplyDeleteAs for the issue of effectiveness, Laci was correct in pointing out that the weapons I suggested mass shooters could use are limited in their effectiveness as military weapons in the modern day. I understood this very clearly before I made my post. However, mass shooters are not going up against military units. If they are met by police, or even an armed citizen, they often (though certainly not always) surrender quickly. What they are after is a godlike feeling of power. Being shot back at isn't their thing because it removes their power, whereas if they shoot at helpless people, they have all the power, and when the police arrive, whether they shoot themselves or surrender to the police so that the cops can't shoot they are still exercising power.
Whether these shooters pick gun free zones or not, they are working under the assumption that they will either be the only one with a gun, or that they will catch people with guns by surprise and still manage a lot of carnage. When this is the goal, a spree shooter doesn't need an assault rifle with high capacity magazines. He just needs a slightly higher rate of fire, the ability to reload reasonably quickly, and tactics that will allow him to not be overwhelmed by people fighting back.
Without assault weapons few shooters will try to kill a lot of people from the middle of a crowd like the Tuscon shooter, though this is rare even with assault weapons. Instead, they will do like the Newtown Shooter and fire from a distance, reloading before they move to the next target. With even a small distance, they can reload or pull another weapon before they get overwhelmed. This is the type of tactic used by the spree shooters with the largest numbers of killed and injured. The Texas A&M shooter picked an inaccessible place that allowed him to shoot many people before he was taken down by a combination of cops and citizens who stormed his clock tower. Holmes used surprise, and either tear gas or smoke bombs to confuse people and put distance between him and them. Also, when his AR jammed, he switched guns to a manually operated pump shotgun--something that can be loaded, cycled, and shot as quickly as the lever actions I'm talking about, and which, like them, would not be touched by an "Assault Weapon" ban. The court's gag order has prevented us from learning, so far, which gun did more damage, but I would not be surprised if we learn that the shotgun led to more fatalities as each person hit by it may have been hit by 9 or more projectiles.
We have historically required products be fit for consumption in order for them to be marketed to the public.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way for a producer to safely market raw milk. There is no way that a producer could fairly be liable for many of the potential exposures to something as dangerous as raw milk either. That is why the government tries to prevent unsafe products from going to market, rather than relying on the more expensive, less reliable method of litigation -- more expensive for the public, and it relies on the consumer being able to afford to seek redress.
Prevention is pretty much always cheaper and better than correction or redress after the fact of something bad happening.
Would any amount of money make it up to you if you lost a child who died because of raw milk? Would you be able to simultaneously pay for both litigation, normal living costs, and really really high medical costs, even with the best insurance? Keep in mind many people have no health insurance, or minimal health insurance. The example of the tobacco industry for decades upon decades demonstrates the reason that those who are injured cannot reliably expect to prevail if the opposition has deep pockets.
If liability suits worked for raw milk illnesses and deaths, why do we continue to have so many illnesses, and deaths, when we only have very very limited sales of raw milk?
When was the last time you heard of someone dying from drinking pasteurized milk or milk products, other than from an allergy?
You see the problem with the mechanism you propose?
And look at the problem with vaccinating children, and all of the stupid parents who have not vaccinated their kids because they were mislead into believing there was a connection to autism.
Not only have children died from preventable diseases, adults have died, or been permanently affected, including rendered sterile, because of childhood illnesses spreading.
Where widespread vaccination takes place, childhood illnesses can be minimized tremendously and controlled to near eradication.
But instead we are having epidemics, avoidable ones, where what should be controlled illnesses just start spreading like wildfire. Just relying on intelligent people to make the right decision is not enough; sometimes we need more public health policy.
Wearing seatbelts was another example - even when people were first required to have them, they didn't use them, in spite of the dramatic evidence they reduced injuries and death. It took ticketing people to make them do the right thing, ditto motorcycle helmets.
People do not always, predictably act as they should, and it has an impact beyond their own lives, sometimes a very dramatic one on the larger public. And often that becomes a huge financial burden to the rest of the community.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou already convinced me that the Raw Milk was exceptionally dangerous and couldn't be made safe without pastuerization. I was trying to transition away from that issue into commentary regarding products that Can be provided safely.
Yes, prevention is cheaper. I do have a general problem with the current state of regulatory affairs which is that regulation is increasingly being used by established businesses to keep competition from entering the market rather than addressing actual safety issues. Proper regulation that promotes safety is appropriate, however, and I didn't mean to imply that this wasn't the case.
I reviewed my comment above and see where I was unclear. When I talked about an unsafe product going to market, I was typing faster than I was thinking and didn't state what I meant. What I was intending to talk about was when there was a product that could be delivered safely and was delivered unsafely--e.g. milk delivered without proper refrigeration, even after pasteurization.
Also, I didn't mean to imply getting rid of up front regulations, just simplifying them to something logical and that promotes safety--e.g. demand that milk be transported and stored in sterile containers and at a temperature of ____ degrees, but don't waste time or resources coming up with regulations of specifications that won't increase safety--use that money for enforcement whether that's by spot checks to see if refrigeration units are functional and well maintained or by hammering those who violated the rules and got someone sick as a deterrent for others who would cut corners.
I agree with you to a point. For example, we have had repeated peanut butter recalls because of problems like salmonella. Despite regulations, despite sanctions, despite inspections, and despite law suits, a product which SHOULD be relatively easy to get to the consumer is a safe condition for consumption has not been.
DeleteI've been thinking about our discussion here in terms of all the things pre-consumer and post-consumer that should have worked, but clearly have not.
Here in MN we have had deaths from unsafe peanut butter, as well as people so very ill they were hospitalized.
And of course, another issue is how to contain costs reasonably.