A vast amount of thinking has been done, both pro control and anti control. The issue is not being trivialized. Nobody is taking this issue lightly. It's being hotly contested.I can't disagree that it's being hotly contested, and I'm sure a vast amount of thinking has been done. What troubles me is that from what has been made visible to the public, the only thinking that has been done to the degree you suggest is of the "what can we spend the necessary political capital to actually get passed?", rather than rigorous analysis of the practical effects of anything being proposed. It's been analysis of possibilities, not probabilities and effects. I am certainly wide open to being shown wrong on that (I would actually *like* to be wrong about that), but I've found very little indication of that kind of analysis (as opposed to knee-jerk Do Something responses) having been done.How exactly will that result in fewer murdered school children?Hopefully we will be able to effect better control of guns such that guys like Lanz, Whitman, etc will not have access to them. I thought we were talking about large capacity magazines, specifically?Look, regulations are not proposed for malicious reasons.That's a huge blanket statement that is historically, demonstrably untrue if applied to 100% of proposed legislation. Some are, and some are not - rigor and facts and measurability are some of the tools at our disposal to weed out those that are. If a regulation is "for a good reason" and "will change things for the better", then it shouldn't be that hard to actually show some reasonable expectation of the effects, with which it can actually be wholeheartedly and truthfully debated.We have serious problems that need to be addressed.Gun regulation / controlling needs updating. This may sound callous, but I'm not sure the data and the trends support that idea in the first place, especially if we're just looking to "update" it, at worst to Be Seen Doing Something, or at best in the blind hope that some unspecified positive changes will emerge without having any expectations about those changes beforehand. Banning AR-15s and "large-capacity" magazines need to have some kind of case made as to what concrete difference it will make. Virginia Tech guy didn't need either to do what he did, so *at best* we're talking about some vague notion of "we'll still have guys go nuts 'cause there's just no way to stop 'em completely if they're determined but not having these two things will make it less horrible, we hope." I like more rigor with my legislation, but I'm an engineer that's just how my brain works.Guns are a unique thing. I don't know that consistancy and equal application is desirable. Tromping around the hog hunting grounds of Texas with a rifle is different than tromping around a JC Penneys with a rifle. That's not the consistency and equal application I was talking about, not sure how you got that idea from the context. I was talking about consistency of what kind of arguments are required from both sides. When presented with the trends that I presented, a common response is "correlation doesn't equal causation", which is true. However, arguments are made on the other side without even attempting to show either correlation or causation and when those things are asked for, the requester is characterized as uncaring, as one who *wants* more people to die, which couldn't be further from the truth.JT
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<