Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Fooling the gullibleFollow

#1 Jan 03 2013 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
****
6,753 posts
Linky

Quote:
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has announced that she will be introducing legislation to reenact the ban on so-called assault weapons that she authored in 1994. The evidence is in on the effect of her previous assault weapons ban: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes. The ban made no perceptible difference in the gun violence statistics when it went into effect, and no perceptible difference when it was allowed to expire 10 years later, in 2003.

That is because the term “assault weapon” is just a PR stunt that fools the gullible and easily deluded. It is defined in legislation by cosmetic features that frighten white bread suburbanites, but do not involve any functionality of any gun. We tried it, conservatives said it wouldn’t work, and it didn’t work. Yet, it is the liberal answer to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn.

Why do the hard work of actually making a difference, when with no work at all you can perform a meaningless and irrelevant gesture that won’t make any difference? A Connecticut state law already banned assault weapons. The difference that made in stopping the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes.

The sharpest analyst in America, and probably the whole world, on the issue of guns and crime is economist John Lott, the author of the classic book, More Guns, Less Crime. Early in his career, Lott served as an economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which adopted uniform, mandatory, criminal sentencing guidelines for the federal courts. That led to his subsequent career as the world’s foremost expert on statistics relating to violent crime and guns.



There's more as well. I don't know if I'd go so far as the bonus thing for teachers who get trained and licensed for conceal-to-carry, but the argument about how criminals and psycho's target areas and sites that ban weapons certainly is an intriguing point. We might not know if it was a factor in the Connecticut shooting and may never know, but it would be interesting to see any proof that could validate the argument.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#2 Jan 03 2013 at 12:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,271 posts
Well, the real problem is that you can walk down the street and buy a gun in the first place.

Type only matters if it's effectively defined. I would consider most handguns to be assault weapons. They are designed for assaulting people so they are assault weapons. If it's not designed for hunting and/or you aren't a hunter with a valid license why do you need it?

There is no reason for a gun to be able to fire more than a few shots unless it's for killing people, in which case you shouldn't have it unless your job involves killing people...

Every single weapon type and weapon accessory should require sale approval. If a feature on a gun is not required for the purposes of the license it is being purchased under, you shouldn't be allowed to sell it. There should be a hunting license, a police license, and a military license. The only publicly available purchases should be for hunting licenses which means the general public only has access to weapons specifically designed for hunting game that do not have features designed for killing people and the stores that sell them are only allowed to have hunting license approved items.

Another thing, why does ANYONE need a conceal carry permit? It has absolutely no practical use. As far as I'm concerned if you have a gun everyone around you should be able to see that you have a gun so they can avoid you if they feel the need.
#3 Jan 03 2013 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,041 posts
The author seems to be a condescending ***, blowing all the latest catchphrases out his ****.

I couldn't get past 'white bread suburbanite's.





Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 8:31pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#4 Jan 03 2013 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
The author seems to be a condescending ***, blowing all the latest catchphrases out his ****.

I couldn't get past 'white bread suburbanite's.


He's a Heartland Institute blowhard. And Lott, the guy he's endlessly exalting, seems to be a purveyor of sketchy statistics.

Quote:
Fooling the gullible


Indeed.


EDIT: Though I'll readily admit that I've seen enough uninformed pundits decrying "assault weapons" without the slightest inclination of what they're talking about. That kind of ignorance is a problem, but one can't let it distract from more meaningful debate.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 2:39pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#5 Jan 03 2013 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts

There's more as well. I don't know if I'd go so far as the bonus thing for teachers who get trained and licensed for conceal-to-carry, but the argument about how criminals and psycho's target areas and sites that ban weapons certainly is an intriguing point


Yeah, fascinating. Also, rain targets areas with the highest humidity. Sneaky ******* rain.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Jan 03 2013 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,580 posts
Kakar wrote:
but the argument about how criminals and psycho's target areas and sites that ban weapons certainly is an intriguing point.

Not really. Localized bans don't work. A non-smoking section in an undivided room achieves nothing.
#7 Jan 03 2013 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,576 posts

Yeah, a single state, especially Connecticut, banning assault rifles does nothing because there's no border guards between states and you can trivially drive to 10 other nearby states to buy a weapon if you wanted.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#8 Jan 03 2013 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,576 posts
Kakar wrote:
There's more as well. I don't know if I'd go so far as the bonus thing for teachers who get trained and licensed for conceal-to-carry, but the argument about how criminals and psycho's target areas and sites that ban weapons certainly is an intriguing point. We might not know if it was a factor in the Connecticut shooting and may never know, but it would be interesting to see any proof that could validate the argument.

What's "fooling the gullible" is the notion that any proposal by either side is going to cause a meaningful reduction or increase in these mass shootings. What's also "fooling the gullible" is the notion that reducing these mass shootings is the most important thing.

Really this event is just being used as a bugaboo or a tool to pass some sort of broader-reaching gun legislation than can help reduce the thousands of commonplace gun murders every year. In this regard, you're correct that assault rifles aren't being used in the most homicides, it's handguns. But you take in slack on the rope when you can get it, I suppose.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#9 Jan 03 2013 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Well, the real problem is that you can walk down the street and buy a gun in the first place.

Type only matters if it's effectively defined. I would consider most handguns to be assault weapons. They are designed for assaulting people so they are assault weapons. If it's not designed for hunting and/or you aren't a hunter with a valid license why do you need it?

There is no reason for a gun to be able to fire more than a few shots unless it's for killing people, in which case you shouldn't have it unless your job involves killing people...

Every single weapon type and weapon accessory should require sale approval. If a feature on a gun is not required for the purposes of the license it is being purchased under, you shouldn't be allowed to sell it. There should be a hunting license, a police license, and a military license. The only publicly available purchases should be for hunting licenses which means the general public only has access to weapons specifically designed for hunting game that do not have features designed for killing people and the stores that sell them are only allowed to have hunting license approved items.

Another thing, why does ANYONE need a conceal carry permit? It has absolutely no practical use. As far as I'm concerned if you have a gun everyone around you should be able to see that you have a gun so they can avoid you if they feel the need.



This post affirms the thread subject nicely.

Three quick points:

1. If any gun used for "assaulting people" should be labeled an "assault weapon", then why bother with the label? Hint: the label is used to scare people.

2. Any gun that fires any number of shots can be used for killing people. Similarly, any gun capable of being used to hunt can be used to kill people.

3. The purpose of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting anyway.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Jan 03 2013 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Yeah, a single state, especially Connecticut, banning assault rifles does nothing because there's no border guards between states and you can trivially drive to 10 other nearby states to buy a weapon if you wanted.


The point you're missing is that the weapons used in that shooting were legal to own in Connecticut under the existing "assault weapons ban". They were not transported from one state to another. Part of the point of the article is that such bans are meaningless because there is no actual functional definition of an assault weapon. A point that a few of you seem to have completely missed.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 1:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Jan 03 2013 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,576 posts
Kakar wrote:
Linky

Forbes wrote:
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has announced that she will be introducing legislation to reenact the ban on so-called assault weapons that she authored in 1994. The evidence is in on the effect of her previous assault weapons ban: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes. The ban made no perceptible difference in the gun violence statistics when it went into effect, and no perceptible difference when it was allowed to expire 10 years later, in 2003.

That is because the term “assault weapon” is just a PR stunt that fools the gullible and easily deluded. It is defined in legislation by cosmetic features that frighten white bread suburbanites, but do not involve any functionality of any gun. We tried it, conservatives said it wouldn’t work, and it didn’t work. Yet, it is the liberal answer to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn.

A third thing that's dumb about this article is the idea that just because the previous legislation mis-targetted cosmetic features of assault rifles, that the new one will too. Who says that her new legislation is going to be identical to the old one?

And if your big problem is that the legislation poorly defines what an assault rifle is, then why wouldn't you argue to improve that definition? Instead of calling the whole thing worthless? (Obviously - the reason why is because he just wants to advocate pro-gun positions, not to fix the problem).


Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 3:40pm by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#12 Jan 03 2013 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,271 posts
gbaji wrote:
1. If any gun used for "assaulting people" should be labeled an "assault weapon", then why bother with the label? Hint: the label is used to scare people.


Yep, that would be true, completely irrelevant since that's not what I suggested, but true.

gbaji wrote:
2. Any gun that fires any number of shots can be used for killing people. Similarly, any gun capable of being used to hunt can be used to kill people.


Yep, how many people can you kill with 3 round shotgun vs say an AR-15 in 10 minutes? When you buy an AR-15 you're not buying it to hunt with, you're buying it because it's a lethal human killing weapon with a badass looking profile.

gbaji wrote:
3. The purpose of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting anyway.


You have no idea how much I don't give a @#$% about your 2nd amendment. It's one of the most retarded excuses for retarded behaviour I've ever seen.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow militias to maintain firearms in defence of their communities in the event that government got out of control and started oppressing the people. 1. Which militia are you a part of? 2. Do you seriously think a bunch of hicks with guns have even the slightest of chances against the US military? 3. Is it even a concern in modern times? How oppressed do you really think you're going to be living in the US? People can read now, guns are no longer necessary to maintain your freedom, get over it.

#13 Jan 03 2013 at 4:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
trickybeck wrote:
A third thing that's dumb about this article is the idea that just because the previous legislation mis-targetted cosmetic features of assault rifles, that the new one will too. Who says that her new legislation is going to be identical to the old one?


Because she's re-enacting the same ban. While I'm sure they may attempt some minor linguistic changes, they really are talking about just passing the same law again.

Quote:
And if your big problem is that the legislation poorly defines what an assault rifle is, then why wouldn't you argue to improve that definition?


Because while there is an actual definition of "assault rifle", those are already banned (fully automatic rifles btw), there's no functionally useful definition of "assault weapon". The problem is the attempt to come up with a definition which bans "scary guns", which are not fully automatic, without violating the 2nd amendment. This is what the author was talking about. You can't do it. It's like trying to come up with a way to ban "cars that gang members like to drive" as a means of reducing gang violence. It's stupid. It's absurd. Sure, we might be able to point to a car and say "that's the kind of car a gang member might drive", but try actually writing legislative language around that and you'll fail.

Quote:
Instead of calling the whole thing worthless? (Obviously - the reason why is because he just wants to advocate pro-gun positions, not to fix the problem).


Try to not think of this based on being pro or anti gun. It's worthless because it is actually worthless. There's no way to do more than ban cosmetic features of firearms via this approach. Trying to do more ends out with too broad a ban which will never pass constitutional muster. These kinds of laws really do end out being attempts to placate anti-gun folks by appearing to do something about the kinds of guns that scare them. And that's just a really really dumb way to approach the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Jan 03 2013 at 4:15 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
gbaji wrote:
2. Any gun that fires any number of shots can be used for killing people. Similarly, any gun capable of being used to hunt can be used to kill people.


Yep, how many people can you kill with 3 round shotgun vs say an AR-15 in 10 minutes? When you buy an AR-15 you're not buying it to hunt with, you're buying it because it's a lethal human killing weapon with a badass looking profile.


Sadly, it's the bolded bit which most makes you scared of the weapon though. There are plenty of quite lethal weapons which don't have badass looking profiles, but no proposed "assault weapon ban" will affect them. Hence, why they're useless.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
3. The purpose of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting anyway.


You have no idea how much I don't give a @#$% about your 2nd amendment. It's one of the most retarded excuses for retarded behaviour I've ever seen.


Given that we're talking about legislative action in the US, your opinion of the 2nd amendment is somewhat trumped by its actual importance in US law.

Quote:
The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow militias to maintain firearms in defence of their communities in the event that government got out of control and started oppressing the people.


Almost correct. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that all citizens could freely keep and bear their own arms, so that they could form into such militias in time of need. You do realize that if you're not allowed to have weapons until after you form into a militia, it's kinda too late, right?

Quote:
1. Which militia are you a part of?


None. But that's not a prerequisite.

Quote:
2. Do you seriously think a bunch of hicks with guns have even the slightest of chances against the US military?


Not the point. Or, more correctly, it's a great point for having less restrictions on private firearms rather than more. I'm sure that's not where you were going with this though.

Quote:
3. Is it even a concern in modern times?


It's always "modern times". Think about it.

Quote:
How oppressed do you really think you're going to be living in the US? People can read now, guns are no longer necessary to maintain your freedom, get over it.


Excuse me. What was the literacy rate in 1930s Germany? Is this seriously your argument? That there's some kind of magic that prevents governments in "modern times" from oppressing their citizens? How incredibly naive you are.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Jan 03 2013 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,422 posts
I don't think this ban will achieve anything.

I'd rather have a law that requires on-site background checks for gun shows and put in place an infrastructure to support it. That loophole has go to go.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#16 Jan 03 2013 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
****
6,753 posts
catwho wrote:
I don't think this ban will achieve anything.

I'd rather have a law that requires on-site background checks for gun shows and put in place an infrastructure to support it. That loophole has go to go.


I'm curious about this loophole, as I keep hearing about it. I've been to gunshows here in Colorado, and even purchased one of my guns there. I had to fill out the paperwork and have a background check run while I waited before I could finish the purchase. Is that not the case in other States? If so, I guess Colorado has closed that loophole, not sure why other States have not yet. I have no objections to that.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 4:02pm by Kakar
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#17 Jan 03 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
****
6,753 posts
Elinda wrote:
The author seems to be a condescending ***, blowing all the latest catchphrases out his ****.

I couldn't get past 'white bread suburbanite's.



Can't say I disagree, almost lost me there too.


Eske Esquire wrote:

EDIT: Though I'll readily admit that I've seen enough uninformed pundits decrying "assault weapons" without the slightest inclination of what they're talking about. That kind of ignorance is a problem, but one can't let it distract from more meaningful debate.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 2:39pm by Eske


One should ensure that they're somewhat educated on the subject before arguing against it and having a "meaningful debate" though don't you think?

trickybeck wrote:

Really this event is just being used as a bugaboo or a tool to pass some sort of broader-reaching gun legislation than can help reduce the thousands of commonplace gun murders every year. In this regard, you're correct that assault rifles aren't being used in the most homicides, it's handguns. But you take in slack on the rope when you can get it, I suppose.


Agreed, so what would be a more practical approach to it? Banning all handguns, or just certain kinds such as those with clips, or certain capacity clips?



trickybeck wrote:
A third thing that's dumb about this article is the idea that just because the previous legislation mis-targetted cosmetic features of assault rifles, that the new one will too. Who says that her new legislation is going to be identical to the old one?

And if your big problem is that the legislation poorly defines what an assault rifle is, then why wouldn't you argue to improve that definition? Instead of calling the whole thing worthless? (Obviously - the reason why is because he just wants to advocate pro-gun positions, not to fix the problem).


Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 3:40pm by trickybeck


The legislation would have to be changed or it would be pretty worthless. The gun manufacturers would just do the same thing as last time and modify weapons to conform to the standards allowed. Better defining it might work, again assuming you could do so without allowing loopholes for manufacturer's to manuever around.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#18 Jan 03 2013 at 5:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,422 posts
Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Controversies

"Private sellers" and those who only make "occasional sales" - the types of folks that can rent a booth at a gun show three or four times a year and not have to legally register with the department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms - aren't required to conduct background checks at gun shows. So, a big store that comes down to a gun show will likely have the criminal background check stuff set up, require the forms, and whatnot. The dude with the rack of weapons that look like they were stolen from a Mexican drug cartel? Nope, he's exempt because he only occasionally sells guns.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 6:41pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#19 Jan 03 2013 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
****
7,809 posts
Kakar wrote:
catwho wrote:
I don't think this ban will achieve anything.

I'd rather have a law that requires on-site background checks for gun shows and put in place an infrastructure to support it. That loophole has go to go.


I'm curious about this loophole, as I keep hearing about it. I've been to gunshows here in Colorado, and even purchased one of my guns there. I had to fill out the paperwork and have a background check run while I waited before I could finish the purchase. Is that not the case in other States? If so, I guess Colorado has closed that loophole, not sure why other States have not yet. I have no objections to that.

It's pretty simple really, if you're an FFL dealer, you have to do the background check. If you're not then you don't.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#20 Jan 03 2013 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Kakar wrote:
trickybeck wrote:

Really this event is just being used as a bugaboo or a tool to pass some sort of broader-reaching gun legislation than can help reduce the thousands of commonplace gun murders every year. In this regard, you're correct that assault rifles aren't being used in the most homicides, it's handguns. But you take in slack on the rope when you can get it, I suppose.


Agreed, so what would be a more practical approach to it? Banning all handguns, or just certain kinds such as those with clips, or certain capacity clips?


And this is where we get to the crux of the problem. We *can't* ban all handguns. Supreme Court just ruled on that quite clearly a few years back. That's a done issue. You can't ban "guns with clips" either. You can ban magazines above a certain capacity and still remain within the constitutional boundaries, but despite big media attention of "assault weapons" with "high capacity magazines" being used in high profile shootings, the overwhelming percentage of time a firearm is used in the commission of a crime, it's either not fired at all, or only a few shots are fired. So limiting magazine size just doesn't have any effect at all. Additionally, trying to confiscate all existing magazines would be problematic (and potentially run afoul of the constitution again), so such bans can only affect new sales, or new construction. Which means that if someone really wants or needs to obtain high capacity magazines, there's a zillion of them out there.

And that's before realizing that magazines are the simplest component to a firearm anyway. It's a box with a spring. The mechanism on the gun itself has no knowledge or care about the capacity of the magazine. It could be 100 miles long as far as the gun is concerned and it works the same way. Point being that if you can't ban all forms of semi-automatics (which you can't), then you can't really ban high capacity magazines. They're trivially easy to make. Kids could make them in shop class if they wanted to.


Quote:
The legislation would have to be changed or it would be pretty worthless. The gun manufacturers would just do the same thing as last time and modify weapons to conform to the standards allowed. Better defining it might work, again assuming you could do so without allowing loopholes for manufacturer's to manuever around.


Yeah. But I just don't think it's possible to write legislation solid enough to avoid loopholes and still comply with the 2nd amendment which would accomplish what those writing it want. Heck, I'm not even sure what they actually want either. It appears like the whole point is just to look like they're "doing something" to panicky people who know nothing about firearms. It's basically legislation which has the intent of accomplishing nothing at all. That's what makes it worthless.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Jan 03 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
****
6,753 posts
catwho wrote:
Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Controversies

"Private sellers" and those who only make "occasional sales" - the types of folks that can rent a booth at a gun show three or four times a year and not have to legally register with the department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms - aren't required to conduct background checks at gun shows. So, a big store that comes down to a gun show will likely have the criminal background check stuff set up, require the forms, and whatnot. The dude with the rack of weapons that look like they were stolen from a Mexican drug cartel? Nope, he's exempt because he only occasionally sells guns.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 6:41pm by catwho


Ahhh, gotcha. I guess neither myself or the friends I went with bought from the non-licensed sellers. Guess I know where to get the ones I can file the serial numbers off of...
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#22 Jan 03 2013 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
****
7,809 posts
Kakar wrote:
catwho wrote:
Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Controversies

"Private sellers" and those who only make "occasional sales" - the types of folks that can rent a booth at a gun show three or four times a year and not have to legally register with the department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms - aren't required to conduct background checks at gun shows. So, a big store that comes down to a gun show will likely have the criminal background check stuff set up, require the forms, and whatnot. The dude with the rack of weapons that look like they were stolen from a Mexican drug cartel? Nope, he's exempt because he only occasionally sells guns.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 6:41pm by catwho


Ahhh, gotcha. I guess neither myself or the friends I went with bought from the non-licensed sellers. Guess I know where to get the ones I can file the serial numbers off of...

You don't even need to do that, the gun isn't traceable to you anyhow...
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#23 Jan 04 2013 at 3:13 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Yeah, a single state, especially Connecticut, banning assault rifles does nothing because there's no border guards between states and you can trivially drive to 10 other nearby states to buy a weapon if you wanted.


I realize this is an edge case, but interstate law violations do occasionally get prosecuted when found.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#24 Jan 04 2013 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,041 posts
Kakar wrote:


The legislation would have to be changed or it would be pretty worthless. The gun manufacturers would just do the same thing as last time and modify weapons to conform to the standards allowed. Better defining it might work, again assuming you could do so without allowing loopholes for manufacturer's to manuever around.

Any legislation that attempts to curtail types of guns versus a flat out ban will be useless under this type scenario. The gun manufacturers will find a work around, the gun lobby will support the loophole...probably even expand it. So yeah, I'd agree - there are many gullible legislators that actually think making laws for the good of all is a worthwhile business.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#25 Jan 04 2013 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,271 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You can't do it. It's like trying to come up with a way to ban "cars that gang members like to drive" as a means of reducing gang violence.


No, it's like banning cars with spiked bumpers designed to impale people.

If you want to keep the guns that were available when the 2nd amendment was written fair enough. Anything more advanced shouldn't have the same protections. We didn't have mobile guns that could kill masses of people in minutes when the 2nd amendment was written. When the 2nd amendment was written you'd have been tackled before you got your second shot loaded.

This idea that the constitution (of any country) is the be all/end all of legislation regardless of technological progress is the height of ignorance.

Frankly I don't think this can be solved, there are too many guns in circulation in the US to put a cap on it now so the only option is to put limitations in place that prevent adding to the problem and let the old guns die off over time, a very very long time.

I'm aware, of course, that my opinions have no bearing on US politics.
#26 Jan 04 2013 at 9:41 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Frankly I don't think this can be solved, there are too many guns in circulation in the US to put a cap on it now so the only option is to put limitations in place that prevent adding to the problem and let the old guns die off over time, a very very long time.


Most assault rifles use one of a few various types of ammo incompatible with common hunting and self-defense weapons. Ban such ammo sales, and the problem will eventually fix itself (outside of illegal sales, which is a law enforcement issue, not a legislative one). There's absolutely zero reason a citizen should be able to stockpile .762 nato rounds or any variant thereof.

However, there's a larger ignorance problem at work here. Just yesterday, I was reading a Sandy Hook article stating that the shooter used a .223 bushmaster rifle in his mass shooting, which is entirely false. He had one, yes, but the shootings inside the school were committed with common 9mm handguns. No amount of assault rifle bans will prevent this scenario. It's a red herring, in this case.

Edited, Jan 4th 2013 9:43am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#27 Jan 04 2013 at 10:09 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,697 posts
Why is gbaji the one making the logical posts in this thread. Shame on all of you.

Also I find the justifications/ideas presented for "banning assault weapons" cute and laughable.

Edited, Jan 4th 2013 11:10am by Deadgye
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#28 Jan 04 2013 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,271 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
However, there's a larger ignorance problem at work here. Just yesterday, I was reading a Sandy Hook article stating that the shooter used a .223 bushmaster rifle in his mass shooting, which is entirely false. He had one, yes, but the shootings inside the school were committed with common 9mm handguns. No amount of assault rifle bans will prevent this scenario. It's a red herring, in this case.


The above is an example of why I said most handguns are assault weapons.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/08/14/f-handguns-carry.html

Up here it's quite difficult to get licensed for a handgun. There's just no good reason to own one for the vast majority of people. Handguns are more dangerous than assault rifles in my opinion.

Handguns are easily hidden, cheap (relatively), maneuverable, easily used without training, and just as deadly as any assault weapon in an urban setting at short ranges against unarmoured targets.

Hunting rifles are difficult to hide, difficult to use effectively at short ranges and have a legitimate use other than killing people.

Edit: misuse of the word "exactly"
Edit2: clarification, apparently not at my best today.

Edited, Jan 4th 2013 12:54pm by Yodabunny
#29 Jan 04 2013 at 12:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,576 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
However, there's a larger ignorance problem at work here. Just yesterday, I was reading a Sandy Hook article stating that the shooter used a .223 bushmaster rifle in his mass shooting, which is entirely false. He had one, yes, but the shootings inside the school were committed with common 9mm handguns. No amount of assault rifle bans will prevent this scenario. It's a red herring, in this case.

A red herring sure, but as I said before, hopefully it will be used to address the larger problem of broader gun control as a whole, and not just mass-school-shooting prevention gun control.

Ideally you could advocate gun control with rational statistics and not have to rely on appeals to emotion like Sandy Hook, but the general populace is stupid and so you have to play politics based on stupid, emotional factors. It'll be the Left's version of Bush using the appeal to emotion of 9/11 to get the Patriot Act passed.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#30 Jan 04 2013 at 4:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
Frankly I don't think this can be solved, there are too many guns in circulation in the US to put a cap on it now so the only option is to put limitations in place that prevent adding to the problem and let the old guns die off over time, a very very long time.


Most assault rifles use one of a few various types of ammo incompatible with common hunting and self-defense weapons. Ban such ammo sales, and the problem will eventually fix itself (outside of illegal sales, which is a law enforcement issue, not a legislative one). There's absolutely zero reason a citizen should be able to stockpile .762 nato rounds or any variant thereof.


That's completely circular though. And it wont pass constitutional muster anyway. Since the only reason you'd be targeting those specific sizes of ammunition would be to target the firearms which use them, you'd face the same problems as trying a blanket ban in the first place. It's a no-go. There's nothing inherent to those rounds that would justify banning them other than the same arbitrary rationale one might use to ban "assault weapons" in the first place. While I have a healthy skepticism with regard to the Supreme Court, they're not dumb enough to fail to see what's really going on there.

It also wouldn't work. Those with the weapons would simply stockpile the ammunition and reload their own rounds. Most gun enthusiasts do this already anyway. Long before you'd eliminate the capability for these weapons to be used by large numbers of people, the gun manufacturers will have made new guns with rounds that aren't banned. You're still back to the same basic problem that you can't legally do what you want to do. You can't ban "all guns", or even "all handguns" or "all semi-auto rifles". Ultimately, there's no functional difference between semi-auto rifles used commonly for hunting and those people call "assault weapons". It's purely cosmetic, and more and more we're seeing rifles with the "scary" cosmetic stuff being used legitimately for hunting. AR-10s are commonly sized for .308 Winchester ammo these days (just in case you still thought that banning ammo types would make any difference at all). Guess what? Most people could not tell the difference between that and an AR-15 if their lives depended on it. And that goes double for the scared anti-gun types.


It's the wrong end of the issue to go after IMO. We spend a ridiculous amount of time and effort trying to do things we can't do and which wont help anyway instead of focusing on other aspects of violent crime which can more easily bear fruit. While I know it's cliche, the idea that guns don't kill people, but people kill people really is accurate. Instead of obsessing over the tool, let's try to prevent the crime and/or stop the criminal. Doesn't that make more sense?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Jan 04 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
While I know it's cliche, the idea that guns don't kill people, but people kill people really is accurate. Instead of obsessing over the tool, let's try to prevent the crime and/or stop the criminal. Doesn't that make more sense?


So let's give more people the tool, right? ******* idiot.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#32 Jan 04 2013 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
While I know it's cliche, the idea that guns don't kill people, but people kill people really is accurate. Instead of obsessing over the tool, let's try to prevent the crime and/or stop the criminal. Doesn't that make more sense?


So let's give more people the tool, right?


No. Let's not take away the tool from people who aren't misusing it. Firearms are equalizers. The same aspect that makes them scary to some people (the ability for anyone with minimal training/skill to be able to kill other people relatively easily) is also its greatest positive aspect. It means that for the first time in man's history, the little old lady sitting at home isn't completely subject to the whim of any random person who wants to rob or kill her. When any potential victim may be armed, then the strong can't always prey on the weak. Sadly, we forget this important aspect of firearms in our fear of the occasional misuse of them. Worse, we pass laws making it harder and harder for potential victims to obtain them, thus limiting their use for defense, while doing absolutely nothing to prevent their use in criminal acts.


It's not a dumb idea to allow people to arm themselves if they want to. It's a dumb idea to pass laws trying to prevent them from doing so. Because the criminals aren't going to obey those laws, so all you do is disarm their potential victims. There's a reason why the biggest statistical crime effect from Australia's recent firearms ban was a relative increase in assault/rapes against women and assaults/robberies against the elderly. All you accomplish with these sorts of laws is make it easier for a criminal to succeed against a potential victim, and you make the traditional targets of violent crime that much more attractive to those criminals as a result.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Jan 04 2013 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
No. Let's not take away the tool from people who aren't misusing it. Firearms are equalizers. The same aspect that makes them scary to some people (the ability for anyone with minimal training/skill to be able to kill other people relatively easily) is also its greatest positive aspect. It means that for the first time in man's history, the little old lady sitting at home isn't completely subject to the whim of any random person who wants to rob or kill her. When any potential victim may be armed, then the strong can't always prey on the weak. Sadly, we forget this important aspect of firearms in our fear of the occasional misuse of them. Worse, we pass laws making it harder and harder for potential victims to obtain them, thus limiting their use for defense, while doing absolutely nothing to prevent their use in criminal acts.


It's not a dumb idea to allow people to arm themselves if they want to. It's a dumb idea to pass laws trying to prevent them from doing so. Because the criminals aren't going to obey those laws, so all you do is disarm their potential victims. There's a reason why the biggest statistical crime effect from Australia's recent firearms ban was a relative increase in assault/rapes against women and assaults/robberies against the elderly. All you accomplish with these sorts of laws is make it easier for a criminal to succeed against a potential victim, and you make the traditional targets of violent crime that much more attractive to those criminals as a result.


That may be the most cogent well written re-stating of what you're told to believe that I've seen. Wrong on multiple counts both factually and logically, but still, let's all read it again and imagine a world where you don't attempt any math or analogies involving ***** or bruises.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#34 Jan 04 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
While I know it's cliche, the idea that guns don't kill people, but people kill people really is accurate. Instead of obsessing over the tool, let's try to prevent the crime and/or stop the criminal.

Great idea. How? How do we implement this pre-crime monitoring system whereby we prevent people from snapping and using trivially acquired high capacity firearms to kill other people? Armed government agents in every home keeping careful watch?

The price of liberty being outcomes we don't like is an acceptable argument. If you want free speech, you have to include speech you don't like. If you want the right to weapons you ave to accept they'll occasionally be used to kill people.

The price of liberty being nothing, because we magically hand waive negative realities away isn't an acceptable argument.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#35 Jan 04 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,946 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
How do we implement this pre-crime monitoring system whereby we prevent people from snapping and using trivially acquired high capacity firearms to kill other people?


Like this.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#36 Jan 04 2013 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
How do we implement this pre-crime monitoring system whereby we prevent people from snapping and using trivially acquired high capacity firearms to kill other people?


Like this.

I already made the precog joke recently in another thread (or was it this one)?

Smiley: glare
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#37 Jan 04 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
While I know it's cliche, the idea that guns don't kill people, but people kill people really is accurate. Instead of obsessing over the tool, let's try to prevent the crime and/or stop the criminal.

Great idea. How? How do we implement this pre-crime monitoring system whereby we prevent people from snapping and using trivially acquired high capacity firearms to kill other people?


How do we do so when criminals aren't equipped with such weapons? You're arguing a false dilemma Smash. The same tools which we use to deal with crimes not committed with guns apply to crimes committed with guns. Insisting on a perfect solution for one set, but not the other is pretty silly.

Quote:
Armed government agents in every home keeping careful watch?


And that's beyond pretty silly and has gone right into ludicrous speed.

Quote:
The price of liberty being outcomes we don't like is an acceptable argument.


Yup. So allow me, as a free citizen, the greatest ability possible to affect my own outcomes.

Quote:
If you want free speech, you have to include speech you don't like. If you want the right to weapons you ave to accept they'll occasionally be used to kill people.


Yes. That is absolutely correct. We don't ban speech because some people abuse it. We punish those who do so (and guess what? We do so *after* they do so, so no pre-crime solution there either). You're doing a great job of arguing my position Smash.

Quote:
The price of liberty being nothing, because we magically hand waive negative realities away isn't an acceptable argument.


Not sure what you're trying to say here. Sounds pretty, but that's about it. Can we agree that there's a whole middle ground between hand waving negatives away, and allowing negatives to so completely scare you that you do something even worse in response? No one on the pro-gun side argues that guns are perfectly safe, or that no one will use a gun to commit a crime. What we argue is that limiting the rights of all with regard to guns not only doesn't help protect us from the occasional misuse, but often makes us more vulnerable to such misuse *and* has the effect of being an infringement of rights. We should take actions which have the least impact on our rights, doubly so if they are similarly or even more effective.


But I never underestimate the consistency with which the political left will, when given multiple courses to follow, to always follow the one that involves the most infringement of rights regardless of the effectiveness in other areas. It's about the one true constant to that political ideology.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Jan 04 2013 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
gbaji wrote:


Quote:
If you want free speech, you have to include speech you don't like. If you want the right to weapons you ave to accept they'll occasionally be used to kill people.


Yes. That is absolutely correct. We don't ban speech because some people abuse it. We punish those who do so (and guess what? We do so *after* they do so, so no pre-crime solution there either).

Kinda hard to punish people that go on killing spree, kill 20-something five year olds and then kill themselves.

I'm so tired of hearing that we should arm ourselves in order to protect ourselves. I DON'T WANT A FRIGGIN GUN. I want people to take mental illness seriously. I want gun control in place so those law-abiding citizens that NEED those guns aren't allowed to own them so that their insane relative can get a hold of them.
#39 Jan 04 2013 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:


Quote:
If you want free speech, you have to include speech you don't like. If you want the right to weapons you ave to accept they'll occasionally be used to kill people.


Yes. That is absolutely correct. We don't ban speech because some people abuse it. We punish those who do so (and guess what? We do so *after* they do so, so no pre-crime solution there either).

Kinda hard to punish people that go on killing spree, kill 20-something five year olds and then kill themselves.


So the correct solution is to punish everyone who didn't go on a killing spree instead?

Quote:
I'm so tired of hearing that we should arm ourselves in order to protect ourselves. I DON'T WANT A FRIGGIN GUN.


No one's forcing you to own a gun. But you do expect the police to be armed, right? So on some level, you accept that the existence of armed people upholding the law protects you. Why is it so hard to take that to the next step and accept that allowing law abiding citizens to own guns protects you from crime? Even if all it does is reduce the likelihood that someone will break into your home because that person doesn't know that you don't own a gun, you are still protected because of this.


The problem is that we only see the blatant examples of the very rare cases in which someone uses a gun to do something terrible, and we never see the every day positive effect that an armed populace has. But it's a pretty terrible mistake to toss one out in a vain attempt to prevent the other. Not only will it not work, but it will arguably make things worse in other ways that you have not even considered.

Quote:
I want people to take mental illness seriously.


I agree. That's a tricky issue by itself, but no one's arguing that we shouldn't do so. But that also has nothing to do with restricting gun rights for everyone else.

Quote:
I want gun control in place so those law-abiding citizens that NEED those guns aren't allowed to own them so that their insane relative can get a hold of them.


Completely unworkable though. Are you including police in that? How about armed security guards? You're not allowed to work in those professions if there's anyone who might get a hold of you guns in your family, or your neighborhood? There's no way to do this. Sometimes, you have to accept that bad people will do bad things and unless you force everyone to live their lives in bubble wrap, you can't prevent them. The best you can do is mitigate them when they occur. And at the risk of repeating an argument I made in an earlier thread about this, the one common pattern we see in most of these types of shootings is that they end when armed opposition arrives on the scene. The faster that happens, the sooner the shooting stops. Given that people don't tend to start such shootings in close proximity to armed uniformed security/police, the best way to stop these shootings as quickly as possible is to allow people who are not uniformed to carry concealed weapons.

There's no way you can keep guns out of the hands of the occasional determined whack-job without keeping them out of the hands of everyone else first. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Jan 04 2013 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Gbaji just excluded the middle so hard that it's almost a hate crime.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#41 Jan 04 2013 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sometimes, you have to accept that bad people will do bad things and unless you force everyone to live their lives in bubble wrap, you can't prevent them. The best you can do is mitigate them when they occur.

Like not having them use guns to kill a bunch of people.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Jan 04 2013 at 8:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Gbaji just excluded the middle so hard that it's almost a hate crime.


It's only a fallacy if there's a middle to exclude. I specifically argued that said proposed gun control wouldn't allow us a middle. It's not a fallacy to point that out. Of course, you're free to argue that we can impose sufficient gun control measures so as to ensure that no such shootings will ever occur again without massively restricting the rights of everyone who isn't going on shooting sprees from owning guns (and thus arguing that there's a middle to this), but I've yet to see such an argument made.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Jan 04 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
How do we do so when criminals aren't equipped with such weapons? You're arguing a false dilemma Smash.

Yeah, no. I'm not. I'm not sure if you just learned the phrase "false dilemma" or what, but it's not actually applicable as a response to anything you disagree with. Here's a false dilemma: "If we take away guns, then people will use knives, if we take away knives, they'll use sticks, if we take away sticks, they'll use fists. Do you want to cut everyone's hands off?"

What I asked was a simple question. Saying "we should try to have less crime" is nice, but completely fucking useless. Enacting stricter gun control laws may or may not reduce gun crimes, but there's an obvious logical reason to think it might, and really not much of an argument that it will increase gun crimes. It's an attempt to take action to solve a problem. Surely you can distinguish between that and "golly we should all wish really hard that people weren't so mean".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Jan 04 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sometimes, you have to accept that bad people will do bad things and unless you force everyone to live their lives in bubble wrap, you can't prevent them. The best you can do is mitigate them when they occur.

Like not having them use guns to kill a bunch of people.


And how do you accomplish that without restricting the right of everyone who isn't going on a shooting spree to own firearms? That's the point, isn't it? You can't do one without doing the other. So we have two major directions to go:

1. Try to remove all guns from society. Eliminate the 2nd amendment. Confiscate all personal firearms. Keep doing this until there are no guns left. Then hope that this actually reduces crime and prevents nut jobs from deciding to use other weapons to kill mass numbers of people.

2. Decriminalize as much as possible the private ownership and carrying of weapons. That way, those contemplating violence will be less likely to attempt it because they will be more likely to be stopped quickly by random people around them *and* they will be more likely to be stopped quickly by random people around them.


One of those is at least as effective (and arguably more so) at reducing rates of crime and mass killing sprees and reducing the harm committed by both of those things when they do occur. The other fails to make any of those things better, arguably makes them worse, and manages to infringe a major right of every single citizen in the process. It is only because of flawed emotional arguments that anyone considers the first option at all. But then, this thread is titled "Fooling the gullible".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Jan 04 2013 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Can we agree that there's a whole middle ground between hand waving negatives away, and allowing negatives to so completely scare you that you do something even worse in response? No one on the pro-gun side argues that guns are perfectly safe, or that no one will use a gun to commit a crime. What we argue is that limiting the rights of all with regard to guns not only doesn't help protect us from the occasional misuse, but often makes us more vulnerable to such misuse *and* has the effect of being an infringement of rights

Not that I really care much, but you don't and never have owned a gun, correct?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 Jan 04 2013 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And how do you accomplish that without restricting the right of everyone who isn't going on a shooting spree to own firearms?

Works in numerous other countries.
Quote:
It is only because of flawed emotional arguments that anyone considers the first option at all.

You mean arguments like "I bet those parents wish every teacher had a gun so they could kill that guy first"?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Jan 04 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
How do we do so when criminals aren't equipped with such weapons? You're arguing a false dilemma Smash.

Yeah, no. I'm not. I'm not sure if you just learned the phrase "false dilemma" or what, but it's not actually applicable as a response to anything you disagree with. Here's a false dilemma: "If we take away guns, then people will use knives, if we take away knives, they'll use sticks, if we take away sticks, they'll use fists. Do you want to cut everyone's hands off?"


Actually, that's a slippery slope fallacy Smash. Try to keep them straight.

A False Dilemma is when you present an argument in the form of "either A, or B", when there are other choices available. So when you argue that in the absence of a perfect means to prevent gun crime before it happens we must eliminate all guns, you are committing a false dilemma fallacy. You're saying that we either devise a perfect pre-crime solution to gun violence *or* ban all guns. There are other options though. Hence the fallacy.

Quote:
What I asked was a simple question. Saying "we should try to have less crime" is nice, but completely fucking useless.


And yet, that's how we deal with all other forms of crime, isn't it? It's exceptionally rare for a police officer to prevent a crime from occurring, yet we still have police departments, don't we? So it's a bit silly to argue that a course of action should be rejected because it can't prevent gun violence before it happens. But that's exactly the argument you made. We can't prevent robbery from happening. We can only punish those who commit the crime. Same for pretty much all criminal acts in our society.

If you want to make a broader argument about how we should approach criminal justice, by all means, go ahead. But don't treat gun violence as though it's somehow special or different in this regard.


Quote:
Enacting stricter gun control laws may or may not reduce gun crimes, but there's an obvious logical reason to think it might, and really not much of an argument that it will increase gun crimes.


Remove the word gun in "gun crimes" and it's a different issue though. Isn't the objective to prevent "crime", and not worry about how the crime is committed? We could ban blue cars, and pat ourselves on the back about how much we've reduced the rate of "blue car accidents", but that would be a really really silly way to approach the issue.

Quote:
It's an attempt to take action to solve a problem. Surely you can distinguish between that and "golly we should all wish really hard that people weren't so mean".


Except the proposed action has no likelihood of addressing let along solving the problem and involves a significant infringement of a long established right within our legal system. So forgive me if I reject it as a legitimate solution. The degree to which other law enforcement and investigative measures can be enacted which might have some minor benefit seems more reasonable, if for no other reason than they are less likely to both make us less safe from criminal activities and less likely to automatically infringe our rights.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Jan 04 2013 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And how do you accomplish that without restricting the right of everyone who isn't going on a shooting spree to own firearms?

Works in numerous other countries.


At preventing everyone else from owning firearms? Yes. At preventing spree killings? Not so much.

One might think that the objective isn't to prevent spree killings, but just to prevent guns. Cart ahead of horse really.

Quote:
Quote:
It is only because of flawed emotional arguments that anyone considers the first option at all.

You mean arguments like "I bet those parents wish every teacher had a gun so they could kill that guy first"?


No. Because that's not a flawed argument. A flawed argument would be "if only we could put enough gun control in place, those kids would have been perfectly safe". It's doubly silly in this case since the perpetrator was not a gun nut, nor was he enacting some kind of gun spree fantasy (like the Colorado theater shooter). He targeted a specific class of kids because he believed his mom loved them more than she loved him. You don't seriously believe that lack of access to firearms would have prevented this, do you?

Lack of firearms by anyone else in the area prevented them from stopping it though. So I don't think it's a flawed argument at all to point that out. One person with a firearm (other than the shooter) could possibly have saved every single one of those kids. No amount of gun control would have.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Jan 04 2013 at 8:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Oh. Smash? Ironically, about the only thing that can actually prevent a crime from being committed is an armed potential victim. You proposed some sort of pre-crime solution by our police as the only solution to the problem at hand (other than banning guns), but we don't need an all-seeing government agency to stop crime. Armed civilians do a much better job, and don't require an infringement of our rights.


So instead of armed police in every home. How about allowing civilians to be their own protectors? Amazing concept, isn't it? Of course, it doesn't fit the big government ideology of the left, so it must be stomped as quickly as possible. Can't let people think they can take care of their own lives and their own problems, can we? How can we convince them to let the government do everything for them if that's the case?

Lol!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Jan 04 2013 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
Actually, that's a slippery slope fallacy Smash. Try to keep them straight.


It's both; indeed, the slippery slope fallacy is the reason it's a false dilemma and not just a dilemma.

The false dilemma is keeping gun regulation as it is and chopping off everyone's hands.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#51 Jan 04 2013 at 9:04 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
At preventing everyone else from owning firearms? Yes. At preventing spree killings? Not so much.

Smiley: laugh

Ah, you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help