Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Connecticut: Every day is the day to talk about Gun Control

Connecticut: Every day is the day to talk about Gun Control (Page 8)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
While the rest of the world has these games, music, and movies, they don't glorify the violence as much, combine that with the number of guns (and our attitudes towards mental illness) and it's a noxious mix.
Spot on I suspect.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
But, giving up firearms, instead of addressing the triggering factors, is truly lazy. The weapons don't magically make people become mass murderers.
It might be intellectually lazy, but its practical. Diagnosing and treating mental illness is difficult and expensive. Changing the gun laws is much cheaper.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You don't see the "harm"? Giving up a core Constitutional right isn't "harm"? When did you say you're moving out of the US?
I think the fact its seen as such a core right is a part of the problem.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Your implying that the number of firearms somehow affects the number of firearm related murders.
The numbers in other countries imply that that is precisely the case. You could argue that it might not work in America, and it might not but it seems very likely that it would so maybe its worth a try?


Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
You're also still somehow convinced that any law or regulation you pass is going to affect the behavior of criminals. Especially, like in CT, first time offenders.
You don't have to affect their behaviour when you can affect their efficiency. By limiting their supply of guns, you limit their ability to kill with guns. You limit their supply by making it harder to get guns. As a rule, people become criminals because its easier than working for a living. Criminals are lazy. Make them work harder for guns and they'll get hold of fewer guns.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't see much purpose in wondering about it in the first place. If it's possible to wipe the slate clean, then it's possible to keep doing it
The purpose of wondering about it was to get to the truth of peoples opinions on guns. Lots of people who take a pro-gun stance claim to do so because of the practical difficulty of removing the current weapons from circulation. Many of the current legal owners won't give them up, most criminals won't either and if you took away all the legal guns there would be a period where the criminals had vastly better firepower and that could be pretty catastrophic.
The hypothetical was constructed to see if people who used that perfectly valid reason to justify their position would change their position if they had the power to remove most of the guns that in reality they wouldn't be able to.

Captain Picard is a busy man. He's got planets to warp to and tea to drink, so he is only going to clean up your town once. After that its your problem.

If someones only concern about gun control is the transition from the current situation to one where most of the guns have been removed from society, then they should want to take Picard up on his offer. If they are just using it to mask the fact that they''d rather keep their guns no matter what but prefer to sound more reasonable, then they should find an excuse to decline Picard's offer. Alternatively, they can pick it apart and try to avoid the question instead.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I never said it wasn't. In fact I said it was. Both sides are reactionary, I've said that numerous times.
I must have missed that.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
In the vast majority of gun crime, the motive is to gain a personal advantage. See game theory. A personal advantage is nullified by imprisonment. This is the basis of the entire concept of a penal code (heehee, "penal"). If you can't understand that, I'm afraid MacNN is not going to be able to help.
I'm not convinced I'm the one struggling to understand.

The pro-gun reasoning is completely circular when it comes to protection. If I want to hold up a liquor store in the UK, I could probably do it with a baseball bat or a big knife. In the US, the guy at the counter probably has a gun, so I need a gun or he isn't going to empty the till for me. The gun ownership law has just necessitated that I use a gun to commit that crime. I could buy one legally, but if I have to use it, it could be traced to me too easily, so I need one with no link to me. An illegal gun.
If I want to rob a house in the UK, I just sneak in and if I get interrupted, I run for it. The odds I'll get shot at are very slim. Even if the resident owns guns, he has to unlock them from the cabinet so I'll probably hear him moving about or loading them. In the US, anyone who interrupts me probably has a gun and is within their rights to shoot me dead without consequence. Even if I put my hands up and surrender, they can shoot me anyway and claim I tried to jump them. Since I'm robbing them, they will probably be pissed off and so they will probably prefer to shoot me. If I survive, no-one will believe me because I'm a thief. Therefore, I need to carry a gun in case I have to shoot the resident if he wakes up just to stop him shooting me. Again, I want an illegal gun so it can't be traced if I drop it or toss it. I might be risking a harsher sentence by taking that gun, but risking death is worse.

Its very much a case of I need a gun because he has one and he needs one because I have one ad infinitum.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's like saying the only way to keep Muslim terrorists' hands off of bombs is to imprison all the Muslims before they get a chance. Totally stupid and reactionary.
No, its nothing like saying that. Now you're thinking like Judge Death. Totally stupid is right though.

There are reasons that we keep sharp objects away from children and mental patients.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The numbers in other countries imply that that is precisely the case. You could argue that it might not work in America, and it might not but it seems very likely that it would so maybe its worth a try?
That's funny the numbers I saw showed there was an increase in violent crime when there were less guns.
You don't have to affect their behaviour when you can affect their efficiency. By limiting their supply of guns, you limit their ability to kill with guns. You limit their supply by making it harder to get guns. As a rule, people become criminals because its easier than working for a living. Criminals are lazy. Make them work harder for guns and they'll get hold of fewer guns.
I dont care if one person dies or 30 people do. One was to many. The type of weapon is irrelveant to that equation.

Nothing you pass now will have any affect on a criminals ability to get a gun. Even if you "beam" away every gun in the us, you'd have to do it again in 3 months. You'd also have an increase in violent crime because the guns would be valuable enough to kill for. And an increase in non violent crime to fund the purchase of the more expensive guns.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
I dont care if one person dies or 30 people do. One was to many. The type of weapon is irrelveant to that equation.
This is something we all can agree upon.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If someones only concern about gun control is the transition from the current situation to one where most of the guns have been removed from society, then they should want to take Picard up on his offer. If they are just using it to mask the fact that they''d rather keep their guns no matter what but prefer to sound more reasonable, then they should find an excuse to decline Picard's offer. Alternatively, they can pick it apart and try to avoid the question instead.
And if they still care just a little bit about balancing the government's monopoly on force, we'll just pretend they don't exist?


Waragainstsleep"]The pro-gun reasoning is completely circular when it comes to protection. I need a gun because he has one and he needs one because I have one ad infinitum.[/quote]
And "freedom." Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

I already know what you're going to say, you don't care about liberty and you'll take your security, thank you very much. That's great, and it explains why we disagree. We value liberty for its own sake, you don't. I get it.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
and the only way to deprive them is to deprive everyone
That's like saying the only way to keep Muslim terrorists' hands off of bombs is to imprison all the Muslims before they get a chance.
There are reasons that we keep sharp objects away from children and mental patients.
And the only way to deprive them is to deprive everyone?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
And if they still care just a little bit about balancing the government's monopoly on force, we'll just pretend they don't exist?
What does that matter? The hypothetical was merely intended to cut out a potential method of hiding ones opinion on the subject. If a pro-gun person is only pro-gun because of the practical difficulties of removing existing weapons from circulation, but would take Picard's deal, I would say they aren't really pro-gun at all.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
And "freedom." Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
I already know what you're going to say, you don't care about liberty and you'll take your security, thank you very much. That's great, and it explains why we disagree. We value liberty for its own sake, you don't. I get it.
Thats spun very nicely to make me sound inferior somehow. I think I'd prefer to think that we differ on our opinion of what really constitutes freedom. And that soundbite has a ring to it but its short-sighted. If you don't have security, liberty doesn't really matter very much. I don't care at all for the freedom to get shot for my TV set. (On a completely unrelated matter, does the use of the term "set" seem a little odd with the advent of LCD TV?)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
And the only way to deprive them is to deprive everyone?
Well, yes. Deprivation is the default for any controlled or licensed item or substance. You need to earn your right to drive a car, you need a medical reason to acquire certain drugs or a degree to prescribe them. Chemical, nuclear and biological weapons are just the most obvious of the items that everyone is deprived of. Mostly because their sole purpose is to kill people and they can be used to kill lots of people in a short space of time. Hang on, that rings a bell....
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post

What does that matter? The hypothetical was merely intended to cut out a potential method of hiding ones opinion on the subject. If a pro-gun person is only pro-gun because of the practical difficulties of removing existing weapons from circulation, but would take Picard's deal, I would say they aren't really pro-gun at all.
Thats spun very nicely to make me sound inferior somehow. I think I'd prefer to think that we differ on our opinion of what really constitutes freedom. And that soundbite has a ring to it but its short-sighted. If you don't have security, liberty doesn't really matter very much. I don't care at all for the freedom to get shot for my TV set. (On a completely unrelated matter, does the use of the term "set" seem a little odd with the advent of LCD TV?)
Well, yes. Deprivation is the default for any controlled or licensed item or substance. You need to earn your right to drive a car, you need a medical reason to acquire certain drugs or a degree to prescribe them. Chemical, nuclear and biological weapons are just the most obvious of the items that everyone is deprived of. Mostly because their sole purpose is to kill people and they can be used to kill lots of people in a short space of time. Hang on, that rings a bell....
The funny thing is that human beings living in modern society really don't have a whole lot of freedom anyway.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
That's funny the numbers I saw showed there was an increase in violent crime when there were less guns.
There is a strong correlation between tighter gun controls and therefore fewer guns with fewer gun deaths.

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
I dont care if one person dies or 30 people do. One was to many. The type of weapon is irrelveant to that equation.
One is too many, but the type of weapon is entirely relevant if it gives you a way to do something about it. Outlawing the crossbow is not likely to reduce the number of gun deaths, any more than banning guns would reduce deaths from cancer.


Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Nothing you pass now will have any affect on a criminals ability to get a gun. Even if you "beam" away every gun in the us, you'd have to do it again in 3 months. You'd also have an increase in violent crime because the guns would be valuable enough to kill for. And an increase in non violent crime to fund the purchase of the more expensive guns.
I believe it is possible to pass legislation that would would affect criminals ability to purchase guns. Driving up prices would affect that ability, reducing the supply would also affect it.
If the self defence argument is to be believed, it should be easier said than done to kill someone for their gun right? Since they clearly have one to defend themselves with.
An increase in non-violent crime would be be a good thing if it were accompanied by a decrease in violent crime. If guns were rarer, that could well be the case.

I don't doubt that a transition to fewer guns would cause difficulties, but nor do I doubt those issues would be worth it in the long run.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

The funny thing is that human beings living in modern society really don't have a whole lot of freedom anyway.
Thats my take. I think I'm more free knowing that I can walk down the street with a very minimal risk of getting shot at. Or if someone is being a dick that I can confront him knowing he won't be packing heat.

I place little value on my freedom to die at the hands of my fellow citizens.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
And if they still care just a little bit about balancing the government's monopoly on force, we'll just pretend they don't exist?
What does that matter? The hypothetical was merely intended to cut out a potential method of hiding ones opinion on the subject. If a pro-gun person is only pro-gun because of the practical difficulties of removing existing weapons from circulation, but would take Picard's deal, I would say they aren't really pro-gun at all.
I don't think they even wanted to be labeled "pro gun," I thought that was supposed to be an accusation.


If you don't have security, liberty doesn't really matter very much.
Maybe you'd prefer this version: I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees
It leaves less to the imagination


I don't care at all for the freedom to get shot for my TV set. (On a completely unrelated matter, does the use of the term "set" seem a little odd with the advent of LCD TV?)
Yes, quite. Maybe it's like a "set" of silverware?


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
And the only way to deprive them is to deprive everyone?
Well, yes. Deprivation is the default for any controlled or licensed item or substance.
"Sharp objects?" Did you forget that's what you were talking about?


Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I place little value on my freedom to die at the hands of my fellow citizens.
Bingo
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I believe it is possible to pass legislation that would would affect criminals ability to purchase guns.
Wouldn't it be better (quicker, simpler, more likely to work, less reactionary) to enforce the laws that we already have about that? The article Dakar posted about where criminals get guns said that the most common methods are already illegal (straw sales and corrupt dealers). We don't need to pass any new laws, all we need to do is crack down on the ones we already have. And if we're not willing to enforce existing laws, then new laws are kind of an empty gesture don't you think?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2012, 06:48 PM
 
[quote name="Waragainstsleep"]reducing the supply would also affect it.[/quote]

Criminals and legal gun owners operate from two different supply pools.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 03:38 AM
 
[QUOTE=Uncle Skeleton;4208298]
I don't think they even wanted to be labeled "pro gun," I thought that was supposed to be an accusation.

They don't, but perhaps they should be. Hence the hypothetical.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Maybe you'd prefer this version: I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees
It leaves less to the imagination
The only difference is you'd prefer to subjugated by all your fellow citizens (who you didn't elect) than restricted by people you did. You are every bit as on your knees as I am or maybe I am as free as you, you just don't see it.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
"Sharp objects?" Did you forget that's what you were talking about?
I thought we were talking about guns.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 03:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Wouldn't it be better (quicker, simpler, more likely to work, less reactionary) to enforce the laws that we already have about that? The article Dakar posted about where criminals get guns said that the most common methods are already illegal (straw sales and corrupt dealers). We don't need to pass any new laws, all we need to do is crack down on the ones we already have. And if we're not willing to enforce existing laws, then new laws are kind of an empty gesture don't you think?
That would probably be an excellent start, yes.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
PS: you mis-attributed some quotes in that post, it would be sporting if you edit them
Sorry about that, copy/paste fail.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 03:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Criminals and legal gun owners operate from two different supply pools.
What is the origin of criminal's guns in your opinion? Seems pretty likely to me that a great many of them start life out as legally purchased guns.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 06:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
What is the origin of criminal's guns in your opinion? Seems pretty likely to me that a great many of them start life out as legally purchased guns.
Originally they were manufactured by someone. I see that your trying to argue that if you couldn't legally purchase guns then criminals couldn't get them. But you'd need to do several things that are impossible. 1 seize all the criminals guns. 2 seize all the legally owned guns. 3 stop all manufacturing of guns. 4 do this global basis. 5 don't forget to disarm the militaries as well.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 07:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Originally they were manufactured by someone. I see that your trying to argue that if you couldn't legally purchase guns then criminals couldn't get them. But you'd need to do several things that are impossible. 1 seize all the criminals guns. 2 seize all the legally owned guns. 3 stop all manufacturing of guns. 4 do this global basis. 5 don't forget to disarm the militaries as well.
Now we're getting there. Even if you did ban all legal guns, criminals would indeed find ways to get them, but the more difficult it is, the more determined and resourceful the criminal has to be. Petty thieves and low rent crooks who knock over liquor stores are lazy. Otherwise they'd get jobs.

My contention is that if a legal gun owner gets hard up, he can sell one off the books and claim it was stolen. Some of them will be stolen since they aren't required to be locked up securely when not in use. Its a very easy vector to get guns into the hands of criminals. If you were to remove the legal guns, criminals would have to buy illegally imported weapons, reactivate disarmed antiques, or have someone engineer one from scratch. All these options are more labour intensive, riskier and probably more expensive due to the extra labour involved. Of course I'm, not saying that all legal guns should be revoked, but my understanding is that most criminals don't hold up liquor stores or rob houses using rifles or full length shotguns.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't think they even wanted to be labeled "pro gun," I thought that was supposed to be an accusation.
They don't, but perhaps they should be. Hence the hypothetical.
But you just finished explaining how your hypothetical can change them away from "pro gun" after I proved that it can't change them to it. If you're now changing your story to say it's supposed to change them to it you're going to have to finally address the elephant in the room.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Maybe you'd prefer this version: I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees
It leaves less to the imagination
The only difference is you'd prefer to subjugated by all your fellow citizens (who you didn't elect) than restricted by people you did. You are every bit as on your knees as I am or maybe I am as free as you, you just don't see it.
Separation of power, the more the better.



I thought we were talking about guns.
You do demand a lot of hand-holding.
Maybe this short attention span of yours is why you're arguing the wrong side


Waragainstsleep and the only way to deprive them is to deprive everyone
Uncle Skeleton That's like saying the only way to keep Muslim terrorists' hands off of bombs is to imprison all the Muslims before they get a chance.
Waragainstsleep There are reasons that we keep sharp objects away from children and mental patients.
Uncle Skeleton And the only way to deprive them is to deprive everyone?
Waragainstsleep Well, yes. Deprivation is the default for any controlled or licensed item or substance.
Uncle Skeleton "Sharp objects?" Did you forget that's what you were talking about?
Waragainstsleep I thought we were talking about guns.



Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Wouldn't it be better (quicker, simpler, more likely to work, less reactionary) to enforce the laws that we already have about that? The article Dakar posted about where criminals get guns said that the most common methods are already illegal (straw sales and corrupt dealers). We don't need to pass any new laws, all we need to do is crack down on the ones we already have. And if we're not willing to enforce existing laws, then new laws are kind of an empty gesture don't you think?
That would probably be an excellent start, yes.
I propose we start at the start. Who's with me?

Edit: I mean, there's nothing wrong with the "pursue all roads" argument, in theory. But in practice, it raises too many concerns if they're not even enforcing the old laws. It means that (1) new laws are pointless, and more importantly (2) the government is proving us "conspiracy theorists" right, when we suspect them of being more interested in control than in doing their jobs. The only reason to delay in making good use of the old laws is to extract new expanded powers for themselves. Using the old laws is a test of whether they need (read: deserve) new laws and new powers, or whether the government is just playing us and we need to turn an even more critical eye on them (not to mention find someone else to protect us from crime, like an armed society). Why aren't they increasing enforcement already, right now? Tick tick tick.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 08:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Now we're getting there. Even if you did ban all legal guns, criminals would indeed find ways to get them, but the more difficult it is, the more determined and resourceful the criminal has to be.
No it's, "the more determined and resourceful one of the criminals has to be." Besides you could boost one tractor trailer leaving S&W and all of this is for naught. Also you need to deal with the fact that your initial conditions are impossible to achieve.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 09:24 AM
 
Give the truck driver a gun.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 09:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Give the truck driver a gun.
If guns are made to be worth their weight in gold, who's to say the truck driver won't be the one boosting it?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
No it's, "the more determined and resourceful one of the criminals has to be." Besides you could boost one tractor trailer leaving S&W and all of this is for naught. Also you need to deal with the fact that your initial conditions are impossible to achieve.
I highly doubt such trailers are left unattended. If they are, then S&W are horribly irresponsible and so is the government or police force for not requiring more security on a shipment of that kind. If they are (as I suspect) quite well protected, they can still be stolen, but it requires more effort, planning, personnel, and hardware. That means more cost and the guns will be more valuable if they come to be sold to other criminals. You can't stop them all, no reason not to try to stop any of them by making it more difficult for them.

My initial conditions are very difficult, but not impossible. It requires a well thought out transition plan and considerable time and patience, but its not impossible. Start by taxing legal weapons, enforcing some of the less enforced laws that currently exist around guns as Uncle Skeleton suggested. Change things gradually.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
But you just finished explaining how your hypothetical can change them away from "pro gun" after I proved that it can't change them to it. If you're now changing your story to say it's supposed to change them to it you're going to have to finally address the elephant in the room.

My hypothetical wasn't about changing anything, it was about getting to the truth. Some people who are pro-gun pretend not to be by citing the fact it is too difficult to remove guns from circulation. Some people use that to simply avoid making their minds up. The hypothetical was designed to bypass that cop out and get to people's real opinion or push them to form one. Its clearly a little out of your range, lets just forget it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You do demand a lot of hand-holding.
Maybe this short attention span of yours is why you're arguing the wrong side
Waragainstsleep and the only way to deprive them is to deprive everyone
Uncle Skeleton That's like saying the only way to keep Muslim terrorists' hands off of bombs is to imprison all the Muslims before they get a chance.
Waragainstsleep There are reasons that we keep sharp objects away from children and mental patients.
Uncle Skeleton And the only way to deprive them is to deprive everyone?
Waragainstsleep Well, yes. Deprivation is the default for any controlled or licensed item or substance.
Uncle Skeleton "Sharp objects?" Did you forget that's what you were talking about?
Waragainstsleep I thought we were talking about guns.

OK, my sharp objects analogy is obviously flawed because we don't deprive everyone of sharp objects. Your muslim analogy was also silly though.
Mass deprivation is clearly ok policy when it comes to explosives, so why not guns?


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I propose we start at the start. Who's with me?
Edit: I mean, there's nothing wrong with the "pursue all roads" argument, in theory. But in practice, it raises too many concerns if they're not even enforcing the old laws. It means that (1) new laws are pointless, and more importantly (2) the government is proving us "conspiracy theorists" right, when we suspect them of being more interested in control than in doing their jobs. The only reason to delay in making good use of the old laws is to extract new expanded powers for themselves. Using the old laws is a test of whether they need (read: deserve) new laws and new powers, or whether the government is just playing us and we need to turn an even more critical eye on them (not to mention find someone else to protect us from crime, like an armed society). Why aren't they increasing enforcement already, right now? Tick tick tick.
Thats a very good point. I confess I don't know exactly what gun laws you have that aren't being enforced, but starting to enforce any that might help prevent just one more spree killing strikes me as a no brainer. That given the attitude I see from the more hardcore gun nuts, your law enforcement people have my sympathy.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I highly doubt such trailers are left unattended. If they are, then S&W are horribly irresponsible and so is the government or police force for not requiring more security on a shipment of that kind. If they are (as I suspect) quite well protected, they can still be stolen, but it requires more effort, planning, personnel, and hardware. That means more cost and the guns will be more valuable if they come to be sold to other criminals. You can't stop them all, no reason not to try to stop any of them by making it more difficult for them.
My initial conditions are very difficult, but not impossible. It requires a well thought out transition plan and considerable time and patience, but its not impossible. Start by taxing legal weapons, enforcing some of the less enforced laws that currently exist around guns as Uncle Skeleton suggested. Change things gradually.
You're initial conditions are impossible, the legal gun owners won't give up their weapons and they outnumber the police. Never mind that the majority of the police will be on their side. And you have to amend the constitution before you can even start.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
My hypothetical wasn't about changing anything, it was about getting to the truth. Some people who are pro-gun pretend not to be by citing the fact it is too difficult to remove guns from circulation. Some people use that to simply avoid making their minds up. The hypothetical was designed to bypass that cop out and get to people's real opinion or push them to form one. Its clearly a little out of your range, lets just forget it.
Ad hom

OK, my sharp objects analogy is obviously flawed because we don't deprive everyone of sharp objects. Your muslim analogy was also silly though.
Another ad hom

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Thats a very good point. I confess I don't know exactly what gun laws you have that aren't being enforced, but starting to enforce any that might help prevent just one more spree killing strikes me as a no brainer. That given the attitude I see from the more hardcore gun nuts, your law enforcement people have my sympathy.
Looks like you're running out of steam here. Gun "nuts?" Based on your conduct, you're less interested in getting to the truth than you simply have an axe to grind. I hope you got what you wanted out of all this.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
You're initial conditions are impossible, the legal gun owners won't give up their weapons and they outnumber the police. Never mind that the majority of the police will be on their side. And you have to amend the constitution before you can even start.
Difficult is not the same as impossible. I don't think you need to amend the constitution to make the changes that would bring your gun laws into line with the rest of the developed world.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Looks like you're running out of steam here. Gun "nuts?" Based on your conduct, you're less interested in getting to the truth than you simply have an axe to grind. I hope you got what you wanted out of all this.
I really haven't.

Based on your conduct it feels like you are just trying to avoid any discussion at all by missing my points in the hope I'll get frustrated and give up.


You are clearly taking offence at my use of the term 'gun nut'. You may even be assuming that I am just applying a stereotype but I'm not. Do you really think there is no such thing? Even if my definition was looser than yours, is there no-one you would consider a gun nut?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post

I really haven't.
Based on your conduct it feels like you are just trying to avoid any discussion at all by missing my points in the hope I'll get frustrated and give up.
I guess it's nice to know I'm not the only person this happens to with him.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Based on your conduct it feels like you are just trying to avoid any discussion at all by missing my points in the hope I'll get frustrated and give up.
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I guess it's nice to know I'm not the only person this happens to with him.
You guys are figuring this out now?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Difficult is not the same as impossible. I don't think you need to amend the constitution to make the changes that would bring your gun laws into line with the rest of the developed world.
It takes an amendment to reverse an amendment. By the time the politicians got anywheres on it, the need to be seen doing something will have passed and all they'll be left with is the thread of not getting reflected.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
You guys are figuring this out now?
I've had debates with Skelly in the past where he actually succeeded in making me think about my position. Of course, I never admitted it at the time....

I'm disappointed in a way, like he's fallen short of my expectations this time. Not that he has any duty of care to live up to them but still.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
It takes an amendment to reverse an amendment. By the time the politicians got anywheres on it, the need to be seen doing something will have passed and all they'll be left with is the thread of not getting reflected.
There is plenty they could do without going that far though. Like make the assault weapon ban permanent maybe? I have to think that preventing gun sales in Wal-mart would be a good thing too. I suppose that could be legally tricky though.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post

I've had debates with Skelly in the past where he actually succeeded in making me think about my position. Of course, I never admitted it at the time....
I'm disappointed in a way, like he's fallen short of my expectations this time. Not that he has any duty of care to live up to them but still.
I hope I have satisfied your expectations, if not exceeded them in every fathomable way.

Would you like me to make you a sandwich?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
There is plenty they could do without going that far though. Like make the assault weapon ban permanent maybe? I have to think that preventing gun sales in Wal-mart would be a good thing too. I suppose that could be legally tricky though.
You mean the assault weapons ban that expired, and they didn't extend it or anything because everyone agrees it didn't do anything.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 08:53 PM
 
I think this tag-team ragging on Uncle Skeleton is bullshit.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 06:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Based on your conduct it feels like you are just trying to avoid any discussion at all by missing my points in the hope I'll get frustrated and give up.
I'm glad you said that, because it's exactly the same way I've felt about you, and it only started in the last 24 hours or so. Maybe it's been a misunderstanding? I'll start a clean slate if you will.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think this tag-team ragging on Uncle Skeleton is bullshit.
Thanks, I was starting to feel a little
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 06:39 AM
 
I've heard several calls from the Left for "state control" of guns rather than federal. You know, make it a local issue.

So... it's OK for guns & pot but not for abortion, environmental protection or insurance? How does THAT work?

Same with "stay out of my bedroom." How about "stay out of my gun cabinet." It's funny that the same folks who want "freedom" to do whatever they want to without consequences also want to take away my right of self-defense.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 07:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm glad you said that, because it's exactly the same way I've felt about you, and it only started in the last 24 hours or so. Maybe it's been a misunderstanding? I'll start a clean slate if you will.
Agreed. Lets just forget my hypothetical altogether, no need to rehash it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 07:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
I've heard several calls from the Left for "state control" of guns rather than federal. You know, make it a local issue.
So... it's OK for guns & pot but not for abortion, environmental protection or insurance? How does THAT work?
I don't think gun control should be a state issue, restricting availability will only work if every state does it.
Likewise why clean up your state if your neighbour just decides to dump toxic waste upstream of you?
Pot is essentially harmless so it may as well be down to whether the locals are offended by it or not.
Abortion is a personal freedom usually tied to religion. Isn't freedom of religion a core part of your constitution?
I don't know which insurance you mean.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
I've heard several calls from the Left for "state control" of guns rather than federal. You know, make it a local issue.

So... it's OK for guns & pot but not for abortion, environmental protection or insurance? How does THAT work?
That's a good point. Except for abortion (the reasoning is that it's a right, not a violation like all the others), these are problems that would contaminate neighboring states with ease. Assuming we agree with the premise that they are bad things to start with.

Same with "stay out of my bedroom." How about "stay out of my gun cabinet." It's funny that the same folks who want "freedom" to do whatever they want to without consequences also want to take away my right of self-defense.
That is not a good point. What you do in your bedroom doesn't affect your neighbors, but stray bullets do.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Pot is essentially harmless so it may as well be down to whether the locals are offended by it or not.
That's not fair, the only difference between this and the rest of the list is that you're questioning the premise that this substance should be controlled in the first place. If guns were "essentially harmless" then your reasoning would apply to them too.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm glad you said that, because it's exactly the same way I've felt about you, and it only started in the last 24 hours or so. Maybe it's been a misunderstanding? I'll start a clean slate if you will.
Agreed. Lets just forget my hypothetical altogether, no need to rehash it.
(WTF is wrong with me, why am I opening my fat mouth? ... ... ... don't know why)

What if the question was "would you be happy if guns were never invented in the first place?"
Would that satisfy your test (if anyone agreed to answer)?

My biggest uneasiness with your version, and hence why I'm unwilling to attempt to answer it, is the blurry line between fantasy and reality in it. What assumptions from reality can I keep and what can't I? It's too much uncertainty to stand behind an answer on.

Or here is another alternative, "if you had the power to do so, would you add more gun freedoms to Great Britain to make it more like the US?"

Don't know what's wrong with me, but I still want to understand. My inclination is that you want to know something like "is the transition per se necessary and/or sufficient to prevent gun bans from being acceptable?" Am I missing your point?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 09:56 AM
 
How is pot "essentially harmless" if someone is high and runs into a schoolbus, hurting a bunch of kids? Or they're high and make a mistake at work, injuring someone? How is pot "harmless" when there are drug gangs shooting up the streets with illegal weapons, obfuscating the self-defense rights of legal owners? Pot used irresponsibly has just as much chance of harm as a gun.

And I think the "stay out of my bedroom" thing is apt - it's a principle. It's OK to tell law-abiding citizens how to live their lives if they have guns. It's either right to insert your moral views into the lives of others or it's not.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
And I think the "stay out of my bedroom" thing is apt - it's a principle. It's OK to tell law-abiding citizens how to live their lives if they have guns. It's either right to insert your moral views into the lives of others or it's not.
Except they don't care how you live your lives as long as it doesn't end up killing people. You could bbq using a nuclear weapon, if there was a way to do it without harming your neighbors. The challenge isn't about getting them to stop caring about your lifestyle, that's a freebie because they already don't care. The challenge is in convincing them that you can manage to live it that way without inadvertently killing people.

The same isn't true of sex stuff. Even if it's so contained they don't even know it's going on, those against it still wouldn't want it going on.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2012, 06:26 AM
 
Not much to add to the thread other than the NRA conference was hilariously devoid of self-responsibility. Them endorsing a quasi-police state was mind-blowing.

I also found their indictment of video games incredibly out of touch as well as hypocritical – I can only surmise that Call of Duty was conspicuously absent because it both glorifies the military and helps more people get interested in guns as a hobby which probably has done more PR for the NRA or the gun lobby the past five years than anything else.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2012, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
How is pot "essentially harmless" if someone is high and runs into a schoolbus, hurting a bunch of kids?
Yeah, this happens all the time.


Funny though how you think its ok for people to have guns even though some of them will kill, but its not ok to have pot because seem people will drive or operate heavy machinery. Double standard much?


Originally Posted by finboy View Post
How is pot "harmless" when there are drug gangs shooting up the streets with illegal weapons, obfuscating the self-defense rights of legal owners? Pot used irresponsibly has just as much chance of harm as a gun.
Utter nonsense, and yet again the primary purpose of pot is not to kill other human beings. Pot gangs are orders of magnitude less likely to be involved in gun crime because the margins on it are so much lower than the drugs that do attract guns.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2012, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
I've heard several calls from the Left for "state control" of guns rather than federal. You know, make it a local issue.
So... it's OK for guns & pot but not for abortion, environmental protection or insurance? How does THAT work?
Sounds to me like an attempt at compromise.

A notion clearly in need of a good kick in the teeth.

[golf clap]
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2012, 01:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sounds to me like an attempt at compromise.
A notion clearly in need of a good kick in the teeth.
[golf clap]
It sounds like a compromise but it would fail, which is why it was suggested. Then the pro-gun lobby can point at states A,B and C and say "look how it failed there" just like they do with Chicago and DC. If every state passed the control laws bar one, that one would end up with massive gun factories supplying the black markets in the rest of the US.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:41 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2