UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (25) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: RustyMath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 12880  
Subject: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/17/2013 8:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
...the past several threads on this board boil down to arguments either for or against the expansion or restriction on personal freedoms. Ok, that's not the funny part. That comes from weco in one post demanding I observe his right to smoke dope all the while in the very next post he demands I must also forfeit my 2nd Amendment rights. Strange that...

Rusty
Print the post Back To Top
Author: wecoguy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12835 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/17/2013 8:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It is funny, that you want to restrict my rights to simple harmless pleasures even in my own home, where all I want is a safe environment outside my home for my kids, grandkids...

Why is it we feel safer traveling the world, back alleys, middle of the night, than we do in our own country, our own cities?

weco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RustyMath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12836 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/17/2013 9:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
It is funny, that you want to restrict my rights to simple harmless pleasures even in my own home...

And now you've drifted in to the world of false assumptions. You're all over the map today.

Why is it we feel safer traveling the world, back alleys, middle of the night, than we do in our own country, our own cities?

I can't speak to your irrational fears. What I do know is that the US localities with the strongest gun restrictions also suffer from the highest incidence of gun crime while localities with lax gun restrictions enjoy significantly lower crime in general and lower gun related crime specifically.

Don't feel safe in your own city? Perhaps you should move. Perhaps someplace with less gun control, you'll be much safer.

Rusty

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12838 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/17/2013 9:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
That comes from weco in one post demanding I observe his right to smoke dope all the while in the very next post he demands I must also forfeit my 2nd Amendment rights.

But he'll let me keep mine, so it's cool.

Look, it's obvious what he opposes; whack jobs running around with 30 round ar's.

Nobody wants to live in a place where 13 yr olds are running around chewing khat with kalashnikovs and machetes draped over their shoulders.

Too hyperbolic?

If we didn't have a ban on full auto guns there would be a lot more events like the San Ysidro McDonalds massacre.

If we ban big magazines now, EVENTUALLY we'll see a reduction in slaughters by guys with 30 round Bushmasters.

If we don't, then we'll see an increase in slaughters by guys with 30, 50, 100 round guns.

Me, I'm perfectly content with 10 .45's in the clip and 6 12 gauge shells in the pump.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12839 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/17/2013 10:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
sano,

If we didn't have a ban on full auto guns there would be a lot more events like the If we didn't have a ban on full auto guns there would be a lot more events like the San Ysidro McDonalds massacre.

Of course the US doesn't have a ban on full auto guns (it's perfectly legal to own various models of full auto guns) and there were no full auto guns used in the San Ysidro McDonalds massacre.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheJTrain Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12841 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/17/2013 10:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Me, I'm perfectly content with 10 .45's in the clip and 6 12 gauge shells in the pump.

Whoa whoa, what ever happened to the guy who said this:
it's not my call to make
...THE only right way.
To each his own.


So it's "don't tell me how to fish" but "10 is good for me, therefore it's good for you"? I don't mean this harshly, but that's kind of inconsistent, no?

What gets me about all this talk about large-capacity magazines ("large" being subjective of course, and subject to changes in definition depending on how lucky the ruling political party is feeling that year) is how it's not about prevention vs. non-prevention, but it's about degrees (in other words, how many people can one shooter kill, given that he's gonna kill somebody), and no one really seems to want to do the math. I've never done it myself, so let's try some back-of-the-napkin stuff here on a Thursday night.

The Newtown ME said something like each victim was hit 8-10 times, and he ended up killing 28 people, is that right? So he's saying that the shooter fired somewhere between 224 and 280 rounds (assuming he never missed), which means he used at least 10 magazines in the rifle, meaning he had to reload at least 9 times (assuming he used the very last round in the last of his 10 magazines to take the coward's way out and punch his own ticket). How long does it take to drop a mag and reload? 3 seconds maybe? 4 tops? Especially if all these troubled and angry young men are playing "murder simulators" all night and practicing and rehearsing for their premeditated big appearance. Right? So that's 27-36 seconds that he used to reload his rifle 9 times. If he only had 10-round mags he would have had to reload 28 times, so that's 84-112 seconds spent reloading (and I'd argue, being familiar with the reload/rack/recharge mechanism on his rifle and on a semi-auto handgun, that the elapsed time on a handgun reload is less than that of a rifle, so it's probably closer to 84 seconds than 112). So instead of spending ~30 seconds reloading he could be made to spend ~90 seconds reloading if he was denied 30-round magazines. Given the typical elapsed time of these shootings, I would argue that the 60 seconds a "large-capacity" magazine ban would cost an active shooter in the midst of his evildoing would in all likelihood save zero lives on average. At the cost of reduced freedom for the 99.7% of gun owners who have broken no laws. But I'm certainly open to opposing viewpoints and arguments.

I mean, if we're concerned about facts and empirical evidence and logic and all that, shouldn't that kind of thing be what we're talking about, rather than just off-the-cuff emotional ranting about dictating to other people (who are just as law-abiding as those doing the dictating) what they "need"? I mean, nobody "needs" a motorcycle that can outrun cop cars, but we don't ban them, right? Why not? Because dammit, this is America and there's already a law against going too fast. So I, as a free human being with all the privileges and immunities, etc. etc., can *have* a motorcycle that *can* outrun cop cars, as long as I *don't* outrun cop cars, that's ok. So the question shouldn't be about what half the country thinks they can dictate what the other half *need* just based on the fact that they don't like that thing, there should be some reason and logic and math rolled in there somewhere.

I mean, right? Or is it crazy to want that kind of rationality in today's America, where the right to *feel* safe trumps empirical evidence (mentioned by RustyMath) about *being* safe?

JT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12843 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/17/2013 11:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Of course the US doesn't have a ban on full auto guns (it's perfectly legal to own various models of full auto guns)

You got a class 3? it's been illegal to import or domestically produce machine guns since 1986.

and there were no full auto guns used in the San Ysidro McDonalds massacre.

I stand corrected. The shooters primary gun, an UZI, was configured for semi-auto. What a relief for the 40 people he shot that it wasn't full auto.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12846 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/18/2013 1:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
sano,

it's perfectly legal to own various models of full auto guns — Radish

You got a class 3? it's been illegal to import or domestically produce machine guns since 1986.


What does owning a gun have to do with importing or producing a gun? Nothing.

It is in fact perfectly legal to own various models of full auto guns in the US, exactly like I said.

I stand corrected. The shooters primary gun, an UZI, was configured for semi-auto.

There's been a thread on this on the Conservative Fools board. The use of full auto weapons in the US is incredibly rare. I posed the question of whether there has ever been a (non-Mafia) mass murder in the US where an automatic weapon was used. No one can think of any. There was a mass shooting, the North Hollywood Shootout in which semi-auto guns had been modified for full-auto operation, but no one was killed except the bank robbers themselves.

So it's very strange when people call for a ban on full-auto weapons in response to mass killings... seeing as how apparently it has never even happened.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12848 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/18/2013 9:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So instead of spending ~30 seconds reloading he could be made to spend ~90 seconds reloading if he was denied 30-round magazines.

That was a bunch of interesting math. But the point remains that if we ban big clips, gradually big clips will become less commmon, just as the ban on manufacturing and importation of full auto weapons has made them rare.

I would argue that the 60 seconds a "large-capacity" magazine ban would cost an active shooter in the midst of his evildoing would in all likelihood save zero lives on average.

Many of the shooting episodes talk about people fleeing whenthe shooter is temporarily distracted/reloading... whatever. Lives on average is not a phrase you'd be brazenly profer if it were your grandchildren mowed down in McDonalds.

If it's that great an infringment on your freedom, since you're okay with class 3 license and regs for full auto weapons, how about a license and regs for semi-auto gun owners?

Combined with federal recording of all buys/sells, this would go a long way to keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12849 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/18/2013 9:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Whoa whoa, what ever happened to the guy who said this:

I'm right here. My quotes were taken out of their intended contexts.


it's not my call to make....as to how many legal weapons a person safely and responsibly owns.


...THE only right way.I know <fisher>men who think that one man, one rod is THE only right way.

Is a reference to how many guns one owns or uses. It is not an endorsement of fishing with high explosives.

To each his own. Refers to collecting legal stuff that interests one. I cannot collect wild animals in my neighborhood, or import certain animals , or foods.

My absolute freedoms are impacted in many ways. I can deal with that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12852 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/18/2013 2:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
he demands I must also forfeit my 2nd Amendment rights.

It's impossible to have any discussion about gun laws when you start off hysterically lying.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12853 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/18/2013 2:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What I do know is that the US localities with the strongest gun restrictions also suffer from the highest incidence of gun crime while localities with lax gun restrictions enjoy significantly lower crime in general and lower gun related crime specifically.

It's very important to remember that correlation ALWAYS means causality.

(for Republicans)

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheJTrain Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12855 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/18/2013 5:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But the point remains that if we ban big clips, gradually big clips will become less commmon, just as the ban on manufacturing and importation of full auto weapons has made them rare.

Agreed. But just what would that accomplish, in practical terms, other than the decrease in commonality of a particular physical item? We can ban all guns with a "Q" on them, and over time, they'd get rarer and rarer, true, but would that change violent crime rates or homicide rates or anything at all? Didn't the federal "assault weapon" ban also have a provision about "large-capacity" magazines? Or am I conflating it with Californias? Hasn't the research shown (from the CDC, among other places) that the fed ban had zero measurable effect on any crime statistics at all?

Lives on average is not a phrase you'd be brazenly profer if it were your grandchildren mowed down in McDonalds.

But isn't that what we *should* be talking about, given that it's a given that 100% prevention is impossible (and it absolutely is)? Shouldn't there be some kind of criteria for a law being passed, other than to Be Seen Doing Something, especially if it rubs up against a cherished Constitutional protection? The judicial branch applies certain levels of scrutiny to legislation based on that kind of thing (though the legal name for the concept escapes me), shouldn't we draft legislation with that in mind as well? Legislation shouldn't be driven by what "feels right" or an emotional appeal ("Hard cases make bad law"), but by logic and rational calculations - cold-hearted though they may seem at the time - "bang for the buck", if you'll excuse the expression. As expressed elsewhere, we should pass laws that we have a reasonable, rational expectation to *make* us safer, not laws that make us *feel* safer but can be reasonably shown will not *make* us safer.

If it's that great an infringment on your freedom, since you're okay with class 3 license and regs for full auto weapons, how about a license and regs for semi-auto gun owners?

When did I state my position on full-auto? But since you asked, I'll give you two reasons why I'm against registration (not that we have a choice here in Kalifornia): 1) it's been demonstrably shown that the data is not and cannot be kept safe from being published, giving criminals exact information as to which houses are armed and which ones aren't (to do with as they please, whether that means occupied home-invasion on unarmed homes as has become the rage in the UK, or unoccupied sneak-and-steal on armed homes to arm themselves), and 2) there is not a case I'm aware of in all of history where mandatory registration has not led to confiscation - I'm not comfortable bucking those odds.

JT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheJTrain Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12856 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/18/2013 5:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm right here. My quotes were taken out of their intended contexts.

My apologies. The intent wasn't to take them out of their intended contexts; the intent was to gather them together in a more holistic view, in hopes of finding (or encouraging!) consistency of philosophy. If I saw such consistency where it did not exist, I admit my mistake.

JT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12857 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/18/2013 6:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
We can ban all guns with a "Q" on them, and over time, they'd get rarer and rarer, true, but would that change violent crime rates or homicide rates or anything at all?

Time will tell. The steady increase in mass shootings since the decade 1980 has to be addressed.

There's going to be attention given to all the relevant factors. Stolen guns are a big issue. Mental health is a big issue. Registration and background checking is a big issue.

But isn't 'lives on average' what we *should* be talking about, given that it's a given that 100% prevention is impossible

Lives on average? Maybe. Maybe not. Semantics are too easily tweaked.

How about we look at the people who are doing these mass shooting and see what kind of response might reduce the uptrend in mass shootings.

Hw about we look at the criminals who are getting guns illegally and talk about how to prevent these guns from ending up on the streets for cheap cash purchase.

Restricting big magazines is a slam dunk idea.

it's been demonstrably shown that the data is not and cannot be kept safe from being published

Based on that one NY paper? That's the only event I'm aware of and Cuomo is on the case. It shouldn't happen again.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wecoguy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12859 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/19/2013 3:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Remember the old Birchers? That's all these new clowns are, calling themselves Libertarians, they are so superior, they've proven over and over elsewhere as well as here that they will twist and lie as we see...

I have had him, others punks like him in the P-box for years.. Tele, Dope, all in the same slime bucket... Despicable anti-American creeps all... A waste of all our time..

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheJTrain Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12860 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/19/2013 8:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The steady increase in mass shootings since the decade 1980 has to be addressed.

But they haven't increased, only the amount of coverage they receive in the media has:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becomin...
Don't take this one guy's word for it, click through to the AP story linked there, and to the Northeastern University professor's article, where the graph comes from. Here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impac...
http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/n...

Lives on average? Maybe. Maybe not. Semantics are too easily tweaked.

Couldn't agree more re: semantics. I'm not wedded to that one measure, of course, it was just an example. But it really should be something that's measurable, shouldn't it? Rather than just enacting something to Be Seen Doing Something?

How about we look at the people who are doing these mass shootings

Hw about we look at the criminals who are getting guns illegally


Sound like great ideas to me, have anything particular in mind, or have read about that you want to share?

Restricting big magazines is a slam dunk idea.

But again, why? To what end? What practical effect should we expect to see from such a restriction? That's what I have yet to hear from anyone putting the idea forward. My quick-and-dirty back-of-the-napkin numbers were the first analysis (if I can call it an "analysis" that I've seen on the subject from either angle. The "no more than 10" restriction was in effect during the fed "assault weapon" ban and it had zero measurable affect on anything.

Based on that one NY paper? That's the only event I'm aware of and Cuomo is on the case. It shouldn't happen again.

Nope, it's happened before. The same paper did it in 2006. It happened in Roanoke, VA in 2007, except that was a list of concealed-carry permit holders. Same thing in Memphis in 2008. Same thing in North Carolina in July of last year. It happened in Philadelphia in October of last year for a subset of concealed-carry permit holders. The Illinois DoJ wanted to do it themselves in 2011 but the State Police refused to go along with it.

JT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12861 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/19/2013 9:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But it really should be something that's measurable, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I think you're over-thinking this.

I have a fairly decent memory, even when I'm enjoying a beer and tacos and college ball....

... things like Charles Whitman, the SanYsidro Massacre, the accumulation of guns at Ruby Ridge and Waco, school shootings, dead kindergartners, postal shootings, .... you can single out 'random.mass.killings.' or whatever and filter out yer malvo's and that truck driver outside the bay area with his arsenal... and the uzi driv-bys in the inner cities, and the oakland 3 per day..

Right?

Add them all up and you see why cops and many responsible gun owners are saying "ENOUGH"!

Let the CDC keep tabs on it. Some of these shooters are mentally ill, some of them are sociopaths, some of them are just brainwashed uber-low IQ deficient. We need a federal database on them and we need a federal database on the guns.

It won't stop you and me from sharing a thermos of hot soup in a duck blind.

It won't stop house-mom from blowing away a bad guy with her S&W.38 Special.

But again, why? To what end?

Less murdered school children.

Based on that one NY paper? ....Nope, it's happened before.

Well, vote for me and I'll geld those editors.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheJTrain Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12862 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/20/2013 11:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
With all due respect,

Thanks, very appreciated - backatcha. This is certainly one of the more pleasant conversations on the topic that I've had.

I think you're over-thinking this.

I disagree - I think anyone proposing legislation about anything without doing some analysis on the actual practical effects is under-thinking it. And the amount of analysis/thinking should be increased when the legislation deals with limiting freedoms that have until then been enjoyed. I know it seems like a trivial thing at first glance ("Not having a 30-round mag won't stop me from protecting my home/family"), but shouldn't those in power have concrete reasons for taking things away from the plebs like us, no matter what it is?

Take that principle and apply it to something else we enjoy having and see how we feel about losing it. Having a 32-oz soda is a pretty trivial thing, but when banning it was proposed in NY, did anyone do any kind of analysis, or was it banned on a hunch and a prayer? In my mind, any time someone in government (for, by, of the people, right?) pipes up and says, "We've decided that you can't have plastic and metal formed into that shape anymore" my first thought is, "Tell me why or no sale." In a country like ours, with a history like ours, that should be everyone's first thought.

But again, why? To what end?

Less murdered school children.


Sorry, it was unclear of me to phrase it that way and leave it. How exactly will that result in fewer murdered school children? Let me be clear: I would love as much as anyone else to see fewer murdered school children. Can anyone say with any degree of likelihood/certainly that that's what the effect will actually be? According to the studies done after the fed ban sunset, it had zero practical, measurable effect in the 10 years it was in place. Has something changed that will make it have a practical, measurable effect this time? That's probably why I'm bristling on this seemingly trivial "slam dunk" idea more than I otherwise would - it's been tried before, and it did nothing. Why are we spending energy and resources trying it again instead of looking for other solutions that have logic/statistics/reason going for them?

things like Charles Whitman, the SanYsidro Massacre, the accumulation of guns at Ruby Ridge and Waco, school shootings, dead kindergartners, postal shootings, .... you can single out 'random.mass.killings.' or whatever and filter out yer malvo's and that truck driver outside the bay area with his arsenal... and the uzi driv-bys in the inner cities, and the oakland 3 per day..

Add them all up and you see why cops and many responsible gun owners are saying "ENOUGH"!


But, despite naming particular events and thus making them memorable, overall violent crime rates and homicide rates (including gun homicide rates) are at historic lows, a multi-decade decline in each (before, during, and after the fed ban), despite the number of firearms in circulation being at historic highs and overall firearm restrictions being gradually eased in the majority of states (other than the strongholds like CA, NY, IL, etc.). Obviously correlation is not necessarily causation but when you look at the two trends (less crime, more guns) and then look at the measures being proposed to decrease "memorable" events like Newtown/Aurora/etc. (chiefly, fewer or different guns), I'm not sure a case can be made that it stands to reason that the hoped-for effect will be there. I mean, if the pro-gun crowd must acknowledge that the less crime/more guns correlation doesn't necessarily equal less crime/more guns causation, then shouldn't those pushing for additional restrictions also acknowledge that there isn't necessarily a less guns/less crime causation? The folks who protested the proliferation of concealed-carry laws (again, in a majority of states, starting with FL in 1987) predicted that there would be a more guns/more crime causation ("wild west" "blood in the streets") that, looking back, has not appeared. Now the same folks are advancing the less guns/less crime causation, and with just as little to back it up. I don't think we should just take it on faith, just to Be Seen Doing Something.

Consistency and equal application is all I'm looking for, is that crazy?

JT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12863 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/20/2013 12:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think anyone proposing legislation about anything without doing some analysis on the actual practical effects is under-thinking it. And the amount of analysis/thinking should be increased when the legislation deals with limiting freedoms that have until then been enjoyed. I know it seems like a trivial thing at first glance ("Not having a 30-round mag won't stop me from protecting my home/family"), but shouldn't those in power have concrete reasons for taking things away from the plebs like us, no matter what it is?


We aren't plebs. We elected these guys. 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.

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.

Look, regulations are not proposed for malicious reasons. We have serious problems that need to be addressed.

Gun regulation / controlling needs updating.

Consistency and equal application is all I'm looking for, is that crazy?

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.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheJTrain Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12864 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/21/2013 11:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
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

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12865 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/21/2013 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
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?",


I'm having a bit of trouble with that sentence. Is it 'should we spend the political capital to get something passed?"

If so, keep in mind that Obama can go for the brass ring, not worrying about re-election. Plus, he's got backing from some significant blocs; law enforcement, Catholic Church.. a lot of republicans will get branded RINo on this one. Mark my words.

rather than rigorous analysis of the practical effects of anything being proposed.

I don't know that rigorouus analysis is possible on this issue. We're sandwiched between 2 nations with porous borders, we have a non-homogenuous population, and a violent history that glorified guns. Only time wil tell, trial and error. Waiting for analysis that is acceptable to all will result in nothing getting improved.

My opinion: Fascination with guns is both immature and detrimental to our society. The role of guns in history is important, but they were just tools to implement change. They still just do one thing, the same thing they've always done. Kill stuff. If we really want to kill a lot of stuff, guns are passe. It's an atomic age. It's a drone age. Our top killers sit in cliimate controlled offices in Omaha at video consoles.

Guns are a tool I use to hunt and break clay, and then lie dormant. Out of sight, out of mind. I could care less about them when I don't intend to use them. The people I've met who live and breath guns are, generally, not the most informed intellects. They are not the ones who should be trusted with important matters. They ain't generals or presidents. They are followers. Cannon fodder.

I like more rigor with my legislation, but I'm an engineer that's just how my brain works....the requester is characterized as uncaring, as one who *wants* more people to die, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Aha... there's our disconnect. You're an engineer and I have more of an artists soul.

Seriously, I know you care. But there's always going to be disagreement as to what level of analysis CAN be achieved. Once analysis is doen, how it's accepted and interpretted leads to yet more inertia.

The cool thing about this country is that this president's executive orders can be challenged in our courts, and in 4 years we get to peacefully select a like individual or a person with a different mindset. Either way, this behemoth of a country will keep on chuggin' along.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12866 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/21/2013 3:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I can't speak to your irrational fears. What I do know is that the US localities with the strongest gun restrictions also suffer from the highest incidence of gun crime while localities with lax gun restrictions enjoy significantly lower crime in general and lower gun related crime specifically.


Complete hogwash

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.p......

Look no farther than Alaska or Texas, which have high concentrations of guns and loose gun laws. Alaska's violent crime rate is 632 per 100k, Texas's is 508 per 100k. These numbers significantly exceed states like New York (385 per 100k) or Oregon (265 per 100k).
See the census web site for more data.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12867 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/21/2013 7:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
See the census web site for more data.

*snort*

You say that like he might give up his carefully-dug-up phony numbers in exchange for real ones that contradict his agenda.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheJTrain Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12868 of 12880
Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny... Date: 1/23/2013 8:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm having a bit of trouble with that sentence. Is it 'should we spend the political capital to get something passed?"

Yeah, I wasn't very clear on that one, was I? More like, "How much political capital do we have to spend on this and where is the bar / how high can we aim such that we can utilize the political capital we have to get it passed?" The thought/analysis that has been done has been "how far *can* we go" more than "how far *should* we go".

I don't know that rigorouus analysis is possible on this issue. Waiting for analysis that is acceptable to all will result in nothing getting improved.
...
But there's always going to be disagreement as to what level of analysis CAN be achieved. Once analysis is doen, how it's accepted and interpretted leads to yet more inertia.


Not much to disagree with there - but that said, some analysis, even theoretical back-of-the-napkin-type stuff, would be more than what we've seen done to date, and would at least have 2 positive results: 1) it would be an early indicator whether a given measure passes the smell test, and 2) it would lend some momentum towards having a debate on the measure by showing any potential opposition that the proponents have at least tried to head down the path of due diligence. What we're seeing now is one side saying, "We should do this 'cause we say so," and the other side saying, "Nuh uh, no sale." Obviously we can never know for sure what the concrete effects of a particular measure are going to be, simply because no one knows the future. But there's data out there where things have been tried before, and we know the results of those attempts, and we can theorize on how things will go down, and we can try to do the best we can to anticipate and mitigate the ubiquitous unintended consequences. Just because we can't know for sure/analyze to within an inch of its life/please everyone is no reason to not even get started with something.

The role of guns in history is important, but they were just tools to implement change. They still just do one thing, the same thing they've always done. Kill stuff. If we really want to kill a lot of stuff, guns are passe. It's an atomic age. It's a drone age. Our top killers sit in cliimate controlled offices in Omaha at video consoles.

I would argue that you've described the role of guns to a state: kill stuff, and lots of it, for a variety of reasons. But if you break it down further they have another, more personal role: equalizer among disparate individuals. From the first time Ook cold-clocked Gluk with a tree branch and took his food, man-made weapons have replaced for we soft-skinned, fangless, talonless, clawless humans what nature gave most of the rest of the animal kingdom, but advancement in those has always favored the strong, or the dextrous, or the quick, to the detriment of those who are weaker, slower, clumsier. Until the firearm. Less than a pound of steel and/or polymer can put a 90-lb grandmother in a wheelchair on equal footing with a 300-lb linebacker-sized dude. I couldn't care less about killing lots of stuff, or being a "top killer", and there's just one reason I would want to kill something - to stop him from doing likewise to me and mine. That's been the role of guns for longer than nations have used them to do the various things they do with 'em.

The people I've met who live and breath guns are, generally, not the most informed intellects. They are not the ones who should be trusted with important matters. They ain't generals or presidents. They are followers. Cannon fodder.

I'm sure there are guys like that on both sides of the issue, perhaps even more weighted towards the side you're talking about (but not necessarily). But they're not the ones out making reasoned arguments that might actually get talked about in the halls of power. Unless we're talking about the tendency of politicians to answer every dilemma with "whichever will get me re-elected", and then you're just talking about the power of the mob, who has the most numbers, and it doesn't matter much how smart or dumb those guys are. But I don't really know any folks like that, I'm not really all that connected to the "gun culture". But I read a lot, and on this subject it's mostly guys like Dave Hardy, Dave Kopel, Clayton Cramer, Stephen Halbrook, Don Kates, etc (more than one of them are published law professors). If there's a "Cletus's blog about shootin' stuff", I've probably never been there.

The cool thing about this country is that this president's executive orders can be challenged in our courts, and in 4 years we get to peacefully select a like individual or a person with a different mindset. Either way, this behemoth of a country will keep on chuggin' along.

Amen to all of that, brother.

JT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (25) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement