Gun Control

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:19 am UTC

scienceroboticspunk wrote:I would love to see the ruger 10/22 and the mosin in that list because those are both pretty stable guns with their prices from what I can tell.


Don't have stats, but yeah, those are both pretty commonly used guns with a decent following. Gunbroker pegs 10/22s at about 300, and the Mosin at about $150. These don't seem crazy, and I'd imagine that their distance from the normal definition of "assault rifle" and great supply is giving them some breathing space.

Also, part of the ammo shortage may be due to the couple billion rounds purchased over the last several months by DHS. More paranoid folks than I believe that this mean imminent war on the us people or something...realistically, I suspect they figured they best stock up to avoid the shortage, and in doing so to a large degree (enough ammo to maintain the Iraq war at it's highest ammo consuming level for thirty years), they're actually making the issue worse.

Decent video link on registration leading to confiscation: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featu...n/2081848359001

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:20 am UTC

Are the Canadian in a civil war?
It was in English.
There was a video of a man throwing M-cocktails.
So interesting. They had a camera crew?
Shows good forethought.

Is it a comedy or are Canadians firebombing one another or it is staged for You Tube?
Strange clip. I did not make it all the way through.
Those are some excited guys. Acting excited is easy. Right?
Actors. Think about that. How hard it that to do? Hard. Right?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:46 pm UTC

addams wrote:Are the Canadian in a civil war?
It was in English.
There was a video of a man throwing M-cocktails.
So interesting. They had a camera crew?
Shows good forethought.


Well, the more important element was the discussion of registration leading to confiscation, but yes, the incident covered is also worthy of note. It was a real event, and it was four men firebombing his home. He was eventually acquitted of all charges, but all his firearms were taken from him when he was charged, leaving him virtually defenseless against people who were clearly willing to go to extreme lengths to harm him. Also, it might have been MUCH harder for him to have been acquitted had he not caught video of the attack on his security cameras. Additionally, he did not shoot his attackers, who were scared off by what were warning shots(according to the successful defense). The guy acted pretty reasonably, and the legal system was more interested in pursuing him than the people firebombing him.

Most of us don't have security cameras. Therefore, such a bias in law is MORE likely to adversely affect most of us acting in self defense, and should be avoided.

In today's episode of dumb things said by advocates of gun control, on a recent fox interview, Jesse Jackson claimed with regards to semi-automatic firearms, "You know that these weapons can shoot down airplanes, they can blow up railroads. This is really a whole national security issue" Now, the first of those claims, the airplane one, he's said before, and it was thoroughly debunked by the same source it appeared in. The railroads exploding bit is entirely new, though, and I suspect his only real source on this is hollywood. Shooting at things does not make them automatically explode. In fact, I can tell you first hand that it's pretty hard to get a container of gasoline to explode. A railroad is not going to care about a bullet whatsoever.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:17 am UTC

The reasons people care about trains being shot at isn't the train, it's the engineer sitting inside the cabin, but that's besides the point. Nobody is advocating publicly shooting things with scary guns.

A more interesting option is what are we gonna do with people that have repetitive head injuries. They keep getting their hands on guns and shooting people. Yea this statement throws the mentally ill under the bus, but we shouldn't ignore it. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/us/su ... lness.html
Not the actual link, since the original link involved a famed sniper getting killed since he thought giving a mentally ill solder a gun would be therapeutic. But this one is retardedly stupid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/ch ... illed.html
Edit: Found it. What a shame, a good soldier dying trying to help another.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:09 am UTC

sardia wrote:The reasons people care about trains being shot at isn't the train, it's the engineer sitting inside the cabin, but that's besides the point. Nobody is advocating publicly shooting things with scary guns.


His use of the word "explodes" is ridiculous in any context. Shooting at railroad tracks will not make them explode. Shooting at a train will not make it explode.

And even using the redefinition you propose...that's a moving target inside a cabin that generally has a pretty good amount of metal around it. It seems pretty unlikely, and hasn't historically been a problem. There was the one norfolk southern engineer who was shot, but that turned out to be self inflicted. There just isn't a big problem with people shooting at trains.

A more interesting option is what are we gonna do with people that have repetitive head injuries. They keep getting their hands on guns and shooting people. Yea this statement throws the mentally ill under the bus, but we shouldn't ignore it. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/us/su ... lness.html
Not the actual link, since the original link involved a famed sniper getting killed since he thought giving a mentally ill solder a gun would be therapeutic. But this one is retardedly stupid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/ch ... illed.html
Edit: Found it. What a shame, a good soldier dying trying to help another.


I don't see what the Kyle killing had to do with repetitive head injuries. The guy killed him for his truck, and said as much. Yeah, it's an absolute shame that Kyle died trying to help him out, but the shooter appears to be a man with a history of using violence to get what he wants who...did it again. The shooter did apparently have PTSD, but that doesn't necessarily mean repetitive head injuries, and I'm not aware of any released information confirming that theory.

Likewise, I didn't see any information that Alice Boland suffered from repetitive head injuries. She did have a history of violent precursors, sure, and definitely had mental issues.

I don't think that tightening restrictions on mental patients with a history of violence is really "throwing them under the bus". Society has long limited the access of such people for public safety. It's only throwing people under the bus if we don't target the risky population. If you're limiting the rights of say, anyone who had autism just because the CT shooter had autism? Absolutely that'd be throwing people under the bus. Terrible, terribly broad, not statistically sound methodology. But people with a history of violence AND mental illness? Yeah. That's very narrow, rational targeting of a problem group. Logical and rational.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:30 am UTC

IIRC, there's research on concussions in football, and studies on the brains of PTSD soldiers soldiers who have been through several bomb blasts who look very similar under an MRI. It's probably premature for me to say it, but there's a lot to explore on the effects of a near miss explosive on the brain. Of course, this is still jumping to conclusions since most people with PTSD don't fall into a cycle of violence. I believe the prevailing hypothesis is that the shockwave of IEDs and stuff deal damage to the brain similar to concussions. Still doesn't fully explain PTSD but it's interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opini ... aging.html
Edit: Ok, it's related to PTSD but it's a separate thing.

I'm actually hope that gun control will lead to better mental health and general welfare laws. But that'll be buried inside whatever emerges from Congress and after the lobbyists tear through it. I dunno why our laws on "history of violence + mentall illness" people appear ineffective.

Ok, he said he killed them because he wanted the truck. He also paranoid and he thought those 2 were gonna kill him at the target range. Why are people bringing PTSD soldiers to a target range?

Sigh, guns and mental health are pretty intertwined.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:14 am UTC

We didn't have a lot of concerns about head injuries before ww1, not that we didn't have insane mass murderers. We also only really had leather helmets and anything that could cause that type of injury (to make someone mass murdery) would also kill the individual. We have advance "not dieing from head injury" technology to such a point that it is leading to other problems. Progress eh?
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:11 pm UTC

sardia wrote:IIRC, there's research on concussions in football, and studies on the brains of PTSD soldiers soldiers who have been through several bomb blasts who look very similar under an MRI. It's probably premature for me to say it, but there's a lot to explore on the effects of a near miss explosive on the brain. Of course, this is still jumping to conclusions since most people with PTSD don't fall into a cycle of violence. I believe the prevailing hypothesis is that the shockwave of IEDs and stuff deal damage to the brain similar to concussions. Still doesn't fully explain PTSD but it's interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opini ... aging.html
Edit: Ok, it's related to PTSD but it's a separate thing.

I'm actually hope that gun control will lead to better mental health and general welfare laws. But that'll be buried inside whatever emerges from Congress and after the lobbyists tear through it. I dunno why our laws on "history of violence + mentall illness" people appear ineffective.


PTSD can be related to such things, but it's far from a guarantee that you were exposed to such stuff. Repeated concussions are definitely bad for you, but this seems like you're stretching a bit for a correlation.

Ok, he said he killed them because he wanted the truck. He also paranoid and he thought those 2 were gonna kill him at the target range. Why are people bringing PTSD soldiers to a target range?


I don't know that there's any evidence that he thought the two were gonna kill him. He did, however, steal the truck, and then told his sister "I traded my soul for a new truck".

I hesitate to blame the victim for bringing him to a target range...apparently, the guy had done a lot of work with troubled veterans, and as he's not here to defend himself, it seems a bit unfair. Keep in mind the guy had been released from the mental health facility, so there's at least an implied level of "this guy is able to function in society", yes? The shooter had a history of substance abuse, mental health issues and violence. That's a nasty set of circumstances. Still, I don't think Kyle should be faulted for trying to help him, even if some risk was involved.

Sigh, guns and mental health are pretty intertwined.


Not especially so. Politically, in the current environment, yeah...but in actual use, not so much. The vast majority of mental health issues have little to do with guns, and the vast majority of guns have little to do with mental health. There is a narrow spectrum that could benefit from improvements in background checking information and the like, but it's actually quite small compared to either group as a whole.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:50 pm UTC

umm. The deer have come back. They have been back for weeks. I was walking in the dark, several hours ago. The deer were in the shadows. I didn't see them, until they spooked and ran by me. One of those things could hurt a person. It is a good thing they don't eat meat.

Hell-o; Gun Control;

War in Far Off Places? Mental Health? Head Injuries?

I know a little bit about those things. Head Injuries. I have had head injuries. Repeatedly? Yep.
And; I was close to a person that also received a head injury.
Not all people that are hit in the head are the same.
We are not the same before; How the Hell could we all be the same, after.

I also read up a bit and listened to what experts were saying. Unpredictable Personality changes. That is the one that is so strange to live through.
I can not tell if my personality has changed.

It was such a strange experience for me. A person I loved became a person that did not like me.
She had sustained head injury. To be FAIR! How many people make it though life with no injury to the head?
Almost, none. Right?

Our heads are big and heavy. We are an active curious creature.

Mental Health is a great deal like Physical Health.
Some are born with great health and vigor, then are nurtured and live robust lives.
Math. Remember math?
Some are born frail at best. If cared for well, then a good and joyful life is possible.

Mental Health has parallels.
A vigorous person can sustain injury or disease and be unwell for moments, days, weeks, or may be crippled, in some way, forever.
A frail person will not respond to injury or decease as well as a strong one will.

This is all basic stuff. Right?

What does it have to do with Gun Control?
Do The People want a way to predict who will become ill and what kind of ill they will become?
That is silly. An automobile license does not come with a psychoanalysis.
!!What a Great Idea!!
Every five years everyone must go through a 12 session psychoanalysis!

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
How does a nation become more sane?
How does a person become more sane?

It Is Not Possible To Be Too Sane.

Gun Control? Nah. Self control.
And; Something that has to do with other people.
I have no idea what it is.
Kind thoughts?
Mental Illness is always about thoughts. Right?

Congress should not attempt to take the guns away. It would never work.
It is very important to encourage people to seek Mental Health Care.
It is very important to National Security. The people are frightened of one another; And, for good reason.

Seeking professional guidance should be rewarded, not punished.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:23 pm UTC

We just had a lovely "live public town hall meeting" for MD on google hangout with the Lt Gov to discuss "public safety", ie, the gun control bill for MD.

The whole thing was a fraud. I got into the google hangout nice and early. The instant it opened, in fact. Most couldn't get in, because it was highly limited in number of participants. I suspect this was to cover up the fact that nobody in the hangout that was broadcast via youtube as the event was actually in the event advertised via O'Malley's(MD governor) G+ page. Or vice versa. In fact, none of the questions asked came from there at all. Don't know where they did come from.

The moderator didn't even bother to appear unbiased, and opted to answer some of the questions herself. Given that the only people visible in the broadcast event were the four individuals answering(counting the moderator), and the questions were also asked by the moderator...either they were culled from some list that wasn't at all visible or advertised as part of the event, or they were invented wholesale.

This has gone a bit beyond hating guns. It's now more about hating democracy.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby ctdonath » Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:30 pm UTC

sardia wrote:why the price difference for essentially the same gun? They're all AR-15s.

Same reason there's a price difference for 4-door sedans, even though they're all 4-door sedans.
A mundane 3-rd tier brand of AR-15 may go for $500. A premium brand semicustom small-batch precision model can go for 5-10x that easy.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:32 am UTC

http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/ ... o-podcast/
Interesting take on guns, they agree with some of Tymyndor's assestments, but without the "god given right" shtick.
Pertinent points: A typical handgun will kill .001 person, so you need to take 1000 guns off the street to save 1 life. The average gun buyback takes away 500 guns, mostly from people who didn't want them in the first place. Unless you made the buyback mandatory, and capped the overall gun supply, but that's just a fancy way of prohibiting guns.

Check out this argument against guns deterring violence, or at least concealed guns. Thoughts?
Spoiler:
in the fifties and sixties when there weren’t that many guns around, disputes would be solved with fist fights or maybe with knives, okay. And the thing is, look when you fight someone who’s much bigger and stronger than you, you know who’s going to win. And if you already know who’s going to win you don't need to fight, because if you know you’re going to lose, why bother? So actually in that setting, where disputes are decided by fighting, you know, with your fists, you don't have to have many fights because there’s not a lot of uncertainty. But guns, okay, and this is Canada’s point, guns really destroy that order because anybody with a gun can beat anybody without a gun, right? It doesn’t matter how strong you are or whether you’re popular or unpopular. The gun basically makes it so that uncertainty of the outcome of the fight is immense. And then that actually has the opposite effect of deterrents, because now if anybody can win the fight there can be more fights, because it’s not like you’ve got a certain winner and certain loser, which means you don't have to fight in the first place.


Swimming pools and other mundane things like cars kill more than guns do; we tolerate them because we're bad at seeing risk. (Though if we had robot guns like we have robot cars, we'll see how many people put their money where their mouth is and trade up.) I knew this already, but w/e, we're talking about gun control, not improving society control.

Overall, I don't think you guys would like their worldview on guns. You'd either have no guns at all, or would eat a 10 year bonus on your prison sentence for any crime that had a gun nearby. In addition, you'd also have to somehow make society spend more money on healthcare(even if it's just mental healthcare), which violates many libertarian and republican principles. His conclusion is kinda sad, we want our guns, so the only way to reduce gun violence is to get rid of the people who are violent with guns. Which leads back to bigger presence of government in our lives. Unless you found some nongovernmental way. Religion? Free-market? Cultural and demographic shifts?

User avatar
Eseell
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:58 am UTC
Location: WA

Re: Gun Control

Postby Eseell » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:58 am UTC

sardia wrote:in the fifties and sixties when there weren’t that many guns around, disputes would be solved with fist fights or maybe with knives, okay. And the thing is, look when you fight someone who’s much bigger and stronger than you, you know who’s going to win. And if you already know who’s going to win you don't need to fight, because if you know you’re going to lose, why bother? So actually in that setting, where disputes are decided by fighting, you know, with your fists, you don't have to have many fights because there’s not a lot of uncertainty. But guns, okay, and this is Canada’s point, guns really destroy that order because anybody with a gun can beat anybody without a gun, right? It doesn’t matter how strong you are or whether you’re popular or unpopular. The gun basically makes it so that uncertainty of the outcome of the fight is immense. And then that actually has the opposite effect of deterrents, because now if anybody can win the fight there can be more fights, because it’s not like you’ve got a certain winner and certain loser, which means you don't have to fight in the first place.

Yes, guns do shake up the power structure. That is precisely why many of us think they are desirable. Even if guns do not prevent violence, they definitely democratize violence. In the gunless society that you're describing, the disarmed or physically weak avoid confrontation with the physically strong, and the strong get to enjoy the privilege of their power relatively unquestioned (and if it is questioned, then they just beat the questioner into submission.) Firearms put physical power - at least in the way that matters in interpersonal conflict - into the hands of everyone. People with guns are more difficult to compel by force than people without guns. People with guns make poor victims.
"Math is hard work and it occupies your mind -- and it doesn't hurt to learn all you can of it, no matter what rank you are; everything of any importance is founded on mathematics." - Robert A. Heinlein

Trasvi
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:11 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Trasvi » Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:14 am UTC

Eseell wrote:Yes, guns do shake up the power structure. That is precisely why many of us think they are desirable. Even if guns do not prevent violence, they definitely democratize violence. In the gunless society that you're describing, the disarmed or physically weak avoid confrontation with the physically strong, and the strong get to enjoy the privilege of their power relatively unquestioned (and if it is questioned, then they just beat the questioner into submission.) Firearms put physical power - at least in the way that matters in interpersonal conflict - into the hands of everyone. People with guns are more difficult to compel by force than people without guns. People with guns make poor victims.


You can turn that around to prove the other side of the argument. If people can get guns, then I have to be afraid that every twelve-year-old on the street can rob me and kill me from ten yards away. At least if I'm being attacked by someone just relying on their physical strength they have to be near me, they have to put time and effort into subduing me, and I can give up before I'm seriously injured. A situation with guns (especially on both sides of the altercation) turns the minimum injury from a bruise to a potentially fatal wound. Guns put the 'power' into the hands of whoever can draw first; ie the attacker, not the victim.


Source: Countries with tough gun laws are not filled with roaming gangs just waiting to beat someone up for their money.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3725
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:47 am UTC

guns really destroy that order because anybody with a gun can beat anybody without a gun, right?


The question then is whether 'that order' is desirable or not. Do we really want (physical) might to make right?

The gun basically makes it so that uncertainty of the outcome of the fight is immense. And then that actually has the opposite effect of deterrents, because now if anybody can win the fight there can be more fights, because it’s not like you’ve got a certain winner and certain loser, which means you don't have to fight in the first place.


Think of it the other way.

If, without firearms, you know it's very unlikely that you'll lose a fight, then why not fight if you might gain something by it? On the other hand, with firearms, anyone can potentially lose a fight, regardless of how strong or skilled they may be, the disincentives to start a fight are immense. That's your deterrent effect.

Certainty is almost never a deterrent, people fear the uncertain and unknown possibilities much more than ones they think they can understand and judge accurately.

Trasvi wrote:Source: Countries with tough gun laws are not filled with roaming gangs just waiting to beat someone up for their money.


In Australia, after the '96 ban, the rate of simple assault, sexual assault and all forms of robbery increased by a not-insignificant amount.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby ctdonath » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:44 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Check out this argument against guns deterring violence, or at least concealed guns. Thoughts?

A couple key flaws:

The argument fails to address escalated punishment for mundane fighting. Back then you could get into a fistfight, get it out of the participant's systems with a few lumps, and get on with life. Nowadays, police & society are quick to throw you in jail and pretty much ruin your life just because you punched a would-be mugger or barroom brawler in the face. Now, people are disinclined to resolve the issue early, leaving whatever the problem is to fester and escalate until it DOES get to the point where shooting is the only viable solution. Bullies get used to getting their way, knowing nobody will push back, until someone has little choice but to shoot back.

There WERE many guns around. Kids took 'em to school even. People carried 'em on airplanes. Restrictions were few. People were more familiar with what they were and what they did and how to use them, and respected that power. Fights were mitigated by people having guns, knowing other people having guns, and the good guys with them who used them - by simple display - were not severely punished for the mere act of possession. Maybe not _everyone_, but enough did that most jerks behaved themselves because they knew _someone_ around was armed. Today, getting caught carrying a gun in many places will get your life pretty much wrecked - the government is a bigger threat than a thug, so many good people _don't_ carry guns.

So between those two points, we've transitioned from a society where mundane fighting was tolerated when appropriate (insofar as a good guy might need to do so to stop a bad guy) and good guys were armed without getting hassled for it, to a society that severely punishes anyone for any action short of justified shooting and severely punishes anyone for having the tools for such a situation. There is no "pressure release valve" now.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:29 am UTC

Colorado is systemically eliminating every gun right.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:20 am UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-think-about-guns-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
Interesting take on guns, they agree with some of Tymyndor's assestments, but without the "god given right" shtick.


I'm an atheist. I'm not advocating god given anything.

Pertinent points: A typical handgun will kill .001 person, so you need to take 1000 guns off the street to save 1 life. The average gun buyback takes away 500 guns, mostly from people who didn't want them in the first place. Unless you made the buyback mandatory, and capped the overall gun supply, but that's just a fancy way of prohibiting guns.


Assuming a minimal buyback cost of $100/gun(many are much more, because frankly, guns cost a lot more), and ignoring the cost of paying the cops to run the show, this means we're hitting $100,000 per life saved.

As handguns are by far the most dangerous guns, buying back other guns would greatly increase the effective cost. This also assumes that you're getting an even distribution of firearms(very optimistic), and is considering all gun deaths exactly equivalent and assuming no substitution effect whatsoever. It's interesting that even given such highly idealistic premises, it still ends up being a very costly way to accomplish anything.

Voluntary buybacks aren't really a big problem for gun owners...but they're probably not going to accomplish much either. Feel free to invest your money into this if you're so inclined, but most people simply aren't going to be able to do much.

Check out this argument against guns deterring violence, or at least concealed guns. Thoughts?
Spoiler:
in the fifties and sixties when there weren’t that many guns around, disputes would be solved with fist fights or maybe with knives, okay. And the thing is, look when you fight someone who’s much bigger and stronger than you, you know who’s going to win. And if you already know who’s going to win you don't need to fight, because if you know you’re going to lose, why bother? So actually in that setting, where disputes are decided by fighting, you know, with your fists, you don't have to have many fights because there’s not a lot of uncertainty. But guns, okay, and this is Canada’s point, guns really destroy that order because anybody with a gun can beat anybody without a gun, right? It doesn’t matter how strong you are or whether you’re popular or unpopular. The gun basically makes it so that uncertainty of the outcome of the fight is immense. And then that actually has the opposite effect of deterrents, because now if anybody can win the fight there can be more fights, because it’s not like you’ve got a certain winner and certain loser, which means you don't have to fight in the first place.


Life in the fifties and sixties was substantially different from life now in many ways....but the 60s, at least, were not any more lethal than today. So, the hypothesis doesn't actually have any data to support it.

Swimming pools and other mundane things like cars kill more than guns do; we tolerate them because we're bad at seeing risk. (Though if we had robot guns like we have robot cars, we'll see how many people put their money where their mouth is and trade up.) I knew this already, but w/e, we're talking about gun control, not improving society control.


Honestly, robot cars probably will be adopted very slowly because people fear loss of control entirely separately from accident rates. A robot driver that is exactly as good as an average driver, despite being a statistically good investment for almost half the population, probably wouldn't be popular.

Robots guns are a thing, though. Giving robots guns is well within modern technology, but it tends to bother a lot of people, probably for similar reasons.

Overall, I don't think you guys would like their worldview on guns. You'd either have no guns at all, or would eat a 10 year bonus on your prison sentence for any crime that had a gun nearby. In addition, you'd also have to somehow make society spend more money on healthcare(even if it's just mental healthcare), which violates many libertarian and republican principles. His conclusion is kinda sad, we want our guns, so the only way to reduce gun violence is to get rid of the people who are violent with guns. Which leads back to bigger presence of government in our lives. Unless you found some nongovernmental way. Religion? Free-market? Cultural and demographic shifts?


It is traditional for even the most pro-gun organizations to support increased punishment for criminals utilizing firearms. This is not something they see as problematic at all.

Hell, here in MD, they proposed such a new bill that would kill plea bargaining, parole, and early release options for criminals who commit violent crime with a gun. I don't really have a problem with it. It's statistically pretty well supported, and won't bother my firearm use in the slightest.

Now, in additional crazy things happening, we've got this fellow, who's basically signing up citizens into a reserve force to prevent federal enforcement of firearm law. Interesting, anyway.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3725
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:27 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:[
Pertinent points: A typical handgun will kill .001 person, so you need to take 1000 guns off the street to save 1 life. The average gun buyback takes away 500 guns, mostly from people who didn't want them in the first place. Unless you made the buyback mandatory, and capped the overall gun supply, but that's just a fancy way of prohibiting guns.


Assuming a minimal buyback cost of $100/gun(many are much more, because frankly, guns cost a lot more), and ignoring the cost of paying the cops to run the show, this means we're hitting $100,000 per life saved.

As handguns are by far the most dangerous guns, buying back other guns would greatly increase the effective cost. This also assumes that you're getting an even distribution of firearms(very optimistic), and is considering all gun deaths exactly equivalent and assuming no substitution effect whatsoever. It's interesting that even given such highly idealistic premises, it still ends up being a very costly way to accomplish anything.

Voluntary buybacks aren't really a big problem for gun owners...but they're probably not going to accomplish much either. Feel free to invest your money into this if you're so inclined, but most people simply aren't going to be able to do much.


That's not really a strong argument.
For one thing, the government apparently values a life at about $7 million for policy decisions, so $100,000 is not really that expensive.

For another, one of the most common bits of rhetoric used by gun-control supporters is that 'if gun-control saves even one life, it's worth it'. there are probably numerous examples of that in this very thread even.

Finally, I just can't agree with the idea that it's possible to spend any amount of money on a gun buy-back and save even one life. The evidence shows very strong replacement and substitution effects which overwhelm any reduction in the availability of firearms.

Voluntary buy-backs are pointless, they fundamentally target the firearms that are least likely to be used in a crime and because the supply of firearms in a given area is usually highly elastic, they don't actually reduce the availability of firearms at all.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:04 pm UTC

Those are merely estimates of how much given policies value lives given how much money is spent. Politicians are not actually calculating dollars spent vs lives saved for every policy decision. Which, btw, is a shame...we might get better policy if they did.

No, this merely illustrates that given even extremely optimal math, gun buybacks are wildly unlikely to do much of anything. Hell, some anti-gun organizations even admit as much(read an article on this in the last coupla days, can't recall where though. They still support them, despite admitting lives won't actually be saved).

One hugely complicating factor is that gun values vary a lot. It'd be like if we had a car buyback at $2000 a car. Nobody is gonna turn in their shiny new car that they need for that price, but anyone with a non running beater that isn't worth half that is gonna be like, "Score!". And of course, probably use the funds to end up driving a better car.

That said, while I acknowledge buybacks are pretty pointless, they at least stop short of being actually harmful in the way that proposed gun bans are. Waste of money is really their worst problem.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:05 pm UTC

Yea, one of the points of the article is that gun buybacks target the wrong population of guns, unless it's mandatory, then it's no longer a gun buyback. In other words, buybacks are a bad idea.

As for increasing punishment for the use of guns in violent crimes or crimes in general, I can't help feel the sense of de ja vu. Didn't we try this shit with the drug wars? Why would this incentive/punishment work on guns but not on drugs? If it works, great, let's try it, but I'm skeptical.

The reason I brought up the robot cars to robotic guns analogy is that I think the relative danger argument is misplaced. Earlier, you've argued we tolerate much more dangerous things, like bathtubs and swimming pools, yet we're focusing on gun control. But now if we brought up a way to make guns safer, you brought up the loss of control and freedom. What happened to the relative danger argument?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:48 am UTC

sardia wrote:As for increasing punishment for the use of guns in violent crimes or crimes in general, I can't help feel the sense of de ja vu. Didn't we try this shit with the drug wars? Why would this incentive/punishment work on guns but not on drugs? If it works, great, let's try it, but I'm skeptical.


Well, it's something that at least doesn't impact legitimate gun owners much, so there's a lot more openness to trying it...but I agree that disincentives eventually tend to plateau. For instance, straw buyers already can be jailed for ten years and fined a quarter million dollars, yet there's current pushes to make this tougher.

Personally, I suspect most people in this business do not have a quarter million in assets to take, so increasingly larger fines will be pretty pointless, and ten years is already a pretty substantial term. I suspect you'll need to boost the rate at which the crime is enforced to get much more significant growth...but it's less bad than trying something we already know doesn't work and that severely impacts non criminals.

[quote\The reason I brought up the robot cars to robotic guns analogy is that I think the relative danger argument is misplaced. Earlier, you've argued we tolerate much more dangerous things, like bathtubs and swimming pools, yet we're focusing on gun control. But now if we brought up a way to make guns safer, you brought up the loss of control and freedom. What happened to the relative danger argument?[/quote]

The relative danger argument is still legit, but it's hardly the only valid point. The loss of freedoms on the part of the law abiding types is a clear cost, and proposals that have a significant impact need to have a sound basis in a proportionally great beneficial effect to make up for it. Consider the classic limitation on freedom of speech, yelling fire in a crowded theater. Obviously, this is a type of free speech that needs to be limited...but it's very narrowly defined, and restricted only to the point where there is a clear and obvious danger. A guy mentioning fire in an appropriate context in a conversation isn't going to get in trouble. Neither is someone shouting fire if there actually is a fire. Only the jackass trying to start a dangerous stampede is actually going to end up in trouble over this, because we can very clearly point out the danger of his actions.

Nobody would argue that any right is without limit, but pre-emptively banning entire classes of guns or similar is roughly akin to banning entire types of computers, typewriters, or other devices for utilizing freedom of speech across the board. Not very well targeted at all.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:36 am UTC

I think there's a difference in freedom vs control. Btw, this is getting increasingly hypothetical, but I'll run with it. Let's compare a robot car to your old car. You drive it wherever you want, and it goes there. Only difference, you aren't driving it anymore than you'd drive a taxi cab, and the driver was a computer. What freedom did you lose in getting a robot car? Nothing, except the freedom to be worse at driving. It gets blurrier with a robot gun. Compare a typical handgun, robot gun, and a security officer. They all function similarly enough, you see danger, target gets shot. Now we start getting into problems. Everyone can agree on a destination for a car, how do you agree to a legitimate use for a gun? Of course, with current technology, I think the only robotics we could add would be a use verification system to prevent unauthorized gun users.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:02 pm UTC

Honestly, I'm not even sure what you mean by robot gun...robotic auto-turrets are currently a thing, but automatic verification systems, generally speaking, are not. People have tinkered with them, but the failure rates are pretty high. Having to rescan your fingerprint or what have you in a life or death situation seems to be particularly unattractive to users, and in any case, they can be disabled really easily if stolen, so the utility is highly limited.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby ctdonath » Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:while I acknowledge buybacks are pretty pointless, they at least stop short of being actually harmful in the way that proposed gun bans are. Waste of money is really their worst problem.

"Buybacks" are harmful.

1. They give criminals a great way to dispose of primary evidence. No questions asked, no analysis/investigation, assured destruction, and get $100 for doing so.

2. Destruction of high-value (even cultural relics) items. The ignorant end up disposing of what may look mundane but is in fact worth thousands if not "priceless". Even items obviously valuable (pristine quality, intricate artwork) get destroyed.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:12 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:while I acknowledge buybacks are pretty pointless, they at least stop short of being actually harmful in the way that proposed gun bans are. Waste of money is really their worst problem.

"Buybacks" are harmful.

1. They give criminals a great way to dispose of primary evidence. No questions asked, no analysis/investigation, assured destruction, and get $100 for doing so.

2. Destruction of high-value (even cultural relics) items. The ignorant end up disposing of what may look mundane but is in fact worth thousands if not "priceless". Even items obviously valuable (pristine quality, intricate artwork) get destroyed.


I see your point. The guns should be put in a room on display.
There could be a room at The Smithsonian.

Those people are interested in history as it is unfolding. Well, there are rumors. It could be true.
A room at the Smithsonian. Like the display rooms at Auschwitz. The Public can see them.

Don't get mad at me. I think leaving the guns where they are is the right thing to do.
What needs to move is the landscape between the ears of the persons with guns and everyone else, too.

A happy secure man. A content woman.
What would these people do with a gun?

A little target practice? Tennis is cheeper, and tests more skills.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

scienceroboticspunk
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(or in NJ, USA)

Re: Gun Control

Postby scienceroboticspunk » Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:45 pm UTC

addams wrote:A happy secure man. A content woman.
What would these people do with a gun?

A little target practice? Tennis is cheeper, and tests more skills.


I just want to focus on these two points. People that are happy, secure, content, whatever, can all find practical uses for guns. They can hunt for food because some deer they hunt can last a long time and be a whole lot cheaper then buying an equal amount of food from the store. There are a lot of people who also use their guns successfully and safely in self defense. I say safely because that means the only people they are shooting is a very specific target with no overshooting and all.

Now to get on to the shooting for sport part, since in my state we don't have the right to self defense(New Jersey, you can not use a gun in self defense if they don't openly threaten you, if they are just stealing your stuff all you can do is wait for the cops). Sport shooting is a major hobby and not too expensive. Lets start with the ammo, 550 rounds of .22 ammo can be between $5 and $15 dollars. Not exactly in the current gun scare but if I remember how it usually is. Now 3 tennis balls are probably $4 or $5. I don't know how much a tennis racket costs so my Google searches bring me from very cheap ones to multiple hundreds of dollars. So lets just say $150 for the sake of this argument. So you need all that to play tennis and you'd need a second person and a tennis court.

I think a prepanic ruger 10/22 was about $200(feel free to correct me if I am wrong). The major difference between a 10/22 and a tennis racket is the 10/22 could last multiple lifetimes and be given down from parent to child. That is probably one of the biggest differences between sport shooting and most other sports. The equipment in sport shooting is made to last. Shooting can get even cheaper if someone chooses to invest in reloading equipment. The gun will also hold its value or pretty darn close to it throughout the years.

This is a very loose cost comparison between the two since you brought up the example. There are a lot more things someone could own for a gun and there are a lot more things someone could own to play tennis.
these are words
type, type, type

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:44 am UTC

ctdonath wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:while I acknowledge buybacks are pretty pointless, they at least stop short of being actually harmful in the way that proposed gun bans are. Waste of money is really their worst problem.

"Buybacks" are harmful.

1. They give criminals a great way to dispose of primary evidence. No questions asked, no analysis/investigation, assured destruction, and get $100 for doing so.

2. Destruction of high-value (even cultural relics) items. The ignorant end up disposing of what may look mundane but is in fact worth thousands if not "priceless". Even items obviously valuable (pristine quality, intricate artwork) get destroyed.


Absolutely, both of these are of concern for current buyback schemas. However, one can easily imagine these issues being reduced or eliminated(for instance, by ditching the policy of buying guns with no questions asked).

Granted, you still have a worthless program at the end of that, but in theory, you can get the program up to being merely worthless, which is far, far better than some proposed scenarios.

Also, someone, way, way back in the thread didn't agree that a magazine was easy to make, and wanted video of a homemade one. Magazines are visible in the video linked from the article listed here. I'll all the relevant stuff online whenever I get around to it(already grabbed printablefirearms.com in anticipation of slapping this stuff online). Don't recall if they used any of the shots of the magazine actually working with the standard AR, but honestly, getting a mag to fit was pretty easy. I did that off trial and error before I even got calipers(which make precision stuff about a dozen times easier).

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Derek » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:39 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Also, someone, way, way back in the thread didn't agree that a magazine was easy to make, and wanted video of a homemade one. Magazines are visible in the video linked from the article listed here. I'll all the relevant stuff online whenever I get around to it(already grabbed printablefirearms.com in anticipation of slapping this stuff online). Don't recall if they used any of the shots of the magazine actually working with the standard AR, but honestly, getting a mag to fit was pretty easy. I did that off trial and error before I even got calipers(which make precision stuff about a dozen times easier).

Is that you in the article?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:46 pm UTC

Yup.

To be honest, the whole "with a 3d printer" aspect, while popular now, is a touch overrated. People have been making guns at home since the invention of firearms. The advantage of the 3d printer is really that you use the same skills to make everything.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Роберт » Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:53 pm UTC

Conveniently timed for the gun control debates in the U.S. comes news from South Africa. Oscar Pistorius, the Paralympic athlete who did well in the regular Olympics, claims that him shooting four times into his bathroom through the locked door was not murder.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/world ... .html?_r=0
Spoiler:
PRETORIA, South Africa — Facing a charge of premeditated murder in the death of his girlfriend, Oscar Pistorius, the double amputee track star and one of the world’s best-known athletes, denied on Tuesday that he had intended to take her life when he opened fire at a closed bathroom door at his home last week, saying he did not know that she was on the other side.

I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated,” he said in an affidavit read to the packed courtroom by his defense lawyer, Barry Roux, “I had no intention to kill my girlfriend.”

His assertion contradicted an earlier accusation from the prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, that Mr. Pistorius committed premeditated murder when he rose from his bed, pulled on artificial legs, walked more than 20 feet from his bedroom and pumped four bullets into the door, three of which struck his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, on the other side.

It was the first time that either the prosecution or Mr. Pistorius had publicly provided details of their radically divergent accounts of a killing that has shocked the nation and made news around the world.

The case broke open last Thursday when the police arrived at Mr. Pistorius’s house in a gated community here in Pretoria to find Ms. Steenkamp dead from gunshot wounds.

Developments since then have been all the more dramatic, since Mr. Pistorius had been an emblem of triumph over adversity, his sporting achievement on a world stage blending with the glamour of celebrity at home. Mr. Pistorius, 26, and Ms. Steenkamp, 29, a model and law school graduate, had been depicted as a golden couple.

“We were deeply in love and I could not be happier,” said Mr. Pistorius’s affidavit, read at a bail hearing. “I know she felt the same way.” As it was read out loud, the athlete wept so uncontrollably that the magistrate, Desmond Nair, ordered a brief recess to permit him to regain his composure.

Magistrate Nair adjourned the case until Wednesday without ruling on whether the athlete would be granted bail.

Mr. Pistorius said he and Ms. Steenkamp had gone to bed early on Wednesday night, but in the middle of the night he heard a noise from the bathroom and went to investigate on his stumps, not his artificial legs.

He was nervous, he said, because the bathroom window did not have burglar bars and contractors who had been working there had left ladders behind.

The room was dark, he said, and he did not realize that Ms. Steenkamp was not in bed. He felt vulnerable and fearful without his prosthetics and opened fire at the door, he said, calling to Ms. Steenkamp to telephone the police.

Only then did he realize that she was not in bed, he said. He put on his artificial legs and tried to kick down the door before breaking it open with a cricket bat to discover Ms. Steenkamp.

He carried her downstairs, he said, and “she died in my arms.”

Earlier, Magistrate Nair said he could not exclude premeditation in the killing, so Mr. Pistorius’s bail application will be much more difficult. But he said he would consider downgrading the charges depending on evidence at subsequent hearings.

Mr. Nel said Ms. Steenkamp, who had just made her debut in a reality television show, had been in a tiny room measuring less than 20 square feet when the shots rang out. “She could not go anywhere,” he said. “It must have been horrific.”

“She locked the door for a purpose. We will get to that purpose,” he said.

But Mr. Roux, a lawyer representing Mr. Pistorius, said the defense would “submit that this is not a murder.” He said there was no evidence that Mr. Pistorius and Ms. Steenkamp had fought and no evidence of a motive. He also challenged the prosecution to produce a witness to corroborate its version of Mr. Pistorius’s actions.

“Scratch the veneer” of the prosecution case, he said, and there is no evidence to support it.

“All we really know is she locked herself behind the toilet door and she was shot,” Mr. Roux said.

Mr. Nel, the prosecutor, however, declared: “If I arm myself, walk a distance and murder a person, that is premeditated. The door is closed. There is no doubt. I walk seven meters and I kill.”

He added: “The motive is, ‘I want to kill.’ That’s it.”

If convicted of premeditated murder, Mr. Pistorius would face a mandatory life sentence, though under South African law he would be eligible for parole in 25 years at the latest. South Africa abolished the death penalty in 1995.

Mr. Pistorius was appearing in court for the second time since Friday. He arrived looking grim-faced, his jaw set. But, as during his earlier appearance, he broke down in tears when the prosecutor said that he had “killed an innocent woman.”

The hearing was adjourned Tuesday afternoon and will resume Wednesday.Earlier, as the court went into a midday recess, Ms. Steenkamp’s private funeral service began in the southern coastal city of Port Elizabeth, her hometown, with six pallbearers carrying a coffin swathed in a white cloth and white flowers as mourners expressed dismay and rage. More than 100 relatives and friends attended the funeral at the Victoria Park crematorium.

“Why? Why my little girl? Why did this happen? Why did he do this?” June Steenkamp, the victim’s mother, told The Times of Johannesburg.

Gavin Venter, a former jockey who worked for the victim’s father, a horse trainer, said on Tuesday: “She was an angel. She was so soft, so innocent. Such a lovely person. It’s just sad that this could happen to somebody so good.”

The killing has stunned a nation that had elevated Mr. Pistorius as an emblem of the ability to overcome acute adversity and a symbol of South Africa’s ability to project its achievements onto the world stage.

Mr. Pistorius was born without fibula bones and both of his legs were amputated below the knee as an infant. But he became a Paralympic champion and the first Paralympic sprinter to compete against able-bodied athletes at the 2012 London Olympics.

But several companies have now withdrawn lucrative sponsorships and his case has played into an emotional debate in South Africa about violence against women.

Members of the Women’s League of the ruling African National Congress protested outside the building, waving placards saying “No Bail for Pistorius,” Reuters reported.

“I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder” he said in an affidavit

...so someone is posing no threat to you (they locked themselves in your bathroom), and according to your testimony, without any sort of warning, you shot them through the door and killed them. And you fail to understand how this is considered "murder".
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby ctdonath » Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:01 pm UTC

addams wrote:A happy secure man. A content woman.
What would these people do with a gun?

Maintain their happiness, security, and contentment against those who would violently destroy that status.

"You carry a gun, what are you afraid of?"
"Nothing."

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Роберт » Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:43 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:
addams wrote:A happy secure man. A content woman.
What would these people do with a gun?

Maintain their happiness, security, and contentment against those who would violently destroy that status.

"You carry a gun, what are you afraid of?"
"Nothing."

...posted right after an article about a man claiming he accidentally killed his SO with a gun. Irony: it has many definitions. I'm sure one of them applies here.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby ctdonath » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:35 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:...posted right after an article about a man claiming he accidentally killed his SO with a gun.

Anomalies happen. It's the same reason we keep driving cars despite them killing some 33,000 people per year.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Роберт » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:39 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:
Роберт wrote:...posted right after an article about a man claiming he accidentally killed his SO with a gun.

Anomalies happen. It's the same reason we keep driving cars despite them killing some 33,000 people per year.

And we don't allow people to drive unless they have a license and liability insurance. I have a feeling that wasn't your point, but I'm not sure what your point was.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:07 am UTC

Роберт wrote:
ctdonath wrote:
addams wrote:A happy secure man. A content woman.
What would these people do with a gun?

Maintain their happiness, security, and contentment against those who would violently destroy that status.

"You carry a gun, what are you afraid of?"
"Nothing."

...posted right after an article about a man claiming he accidentally killed his SO with a gun.

"Claiming", the evidence right now suggests murder. People like to not assume blame for anything, criminal actions the most.
And we don't allow people to drive unless they have a license and liability insurance.
Background checks, a number of other safety precautions are legally obligated or encouraged as well.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Trasvi
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:11 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Trasvi » Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:37 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
And we don't allow people to drive unless they have a license and liability insurance.
Background checks, a number of other safety precautions are legally obligated or encouraged as well.


There are a number of types of vehicles which people aren't allowed to own, or if they may own them they may only be used in certain places / under certain conditions. Formula1 cars, for example. Would such a system for guns be appropriate?

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3725
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:50 am UTC

Trasvi wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:
And we don't allow people to drive unless they have a license and liability insurance.
Background checks, a number of other safety precautions are legally obligated or encouraged as well.


There are a number of types of vehicles which people aren't allowed to own, or if they may own them they may only be used in certain places / under certain conditions. Formula1 cars, for example. Would such a system for guns be appropriate?


That's a particularly apt comparison considering that firearms may only ever be used under fairly strict conditions, and there are a number of types of firearms which people aren't allowed to own, or if they may own them require extensive paperwork, additional background checks and fees, a de facto waiting period of several months and may only be used under even more strict conditions than other firearms. NFA firearms for example.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:30 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
Trasvi wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:
And we don't allow people to drive unless they have a license and liability insurance.
Background checks, a number of other safety precautions are legally obligated or encouraged as well.


There are a number of types of vehicles which people aren't allowed to own, or if they may own them they may only be used in certain places / under certain conditions. Formula1 cars, for example. Would such a system for guns be appropriate?


That's a particularly apt comparison considering that firearms may only ever be used under fairly strict conditions, and there are a number of types of firearms which people aren't allowed to own, or if they may own them require extensive paperwork, additional background checks and fees, a de facto waiting period of several months and may only be used under even more strict conditions than other firearms. NFA firearms for example.


Honestly, I can't think of much in the way of cars that are outright banned.

Additionally, there is no "not allowed to own" for a formula 1 car. If you've got the requisite mound of cash, you can buy one at will. Hell, sites like http://www.f1-sales.com/stock.htm exist to hook you up. Certain features are required to make a car street legal, but you can literally purchase any car, then do the minor modifications to make it street legal...or just race it. Entirely up to you.

Making guns regulated equivalently to cars would result in MASSIVE deregulation of guns.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Роберт » Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:17 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Making guns regulated equivalently to cars would result in MASSIVE deregulation of guns.

So you are for requiring liability insurance for gun owners?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests