Gun Control

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

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:23 pm UTC

You've only shown that some gun-related research not advocating gun-dontrol happened post-cut.
- Not that research biased against guns existed before to a significant degree (it could very well be that the politicians didn't like the results of the gun-related research, rather than their supposed bias)
- Not that other gun-related research has been maintained to the same level (which is what you claimed and which, considering the pressure received, is unlikely)
- Not even that research biased against guns has abated (was it even significant in the first place?)

In short, your two examples don't give us much information. That's what we call "anecdotal evidence".
The CDC does a lot of research, and detecting changes in how they do it requires wider-ranging analysis.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

If research shows that there should be more gun control, then it should say so. It's if there's bias that harms the quality of research that it should be rejected.
And then the correct corrective action is to check the papers for errors and defund the researcher if his research is in fact significantly worse than others, not pressure the CDC to not research guns in general.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:31 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:You've only shown that some gun-related research not advocating gun-dontrol happened post-cut.


Yes, and? That already puts the lie to the idea that congress banned research(which, frankly, has been reported very poorly to begin with).

- Not that research biased against guns existed before to a significant degree (it could very well be that the politicians didn't like the results of the gun-related research, rather than their supposed bias)


Not all of it, certainly. Much research the CDC has done has been very well done. As usual, this follows a single highly publicized incident. That's pretty typical. An agency is involved in some high profile mistake, and they pick up restrictions to ensure it doesn't happen again. It doesn't mean everything they do is bad.

- Not that other gun-related research has been maintained to the same level (which is what you claimed and which, considering the pressure received, is unlikely)


That's not really important to my claim. It may not be the same level, but if some was bad and some was good before, and we ditched the bad, well...overall levels are down, but the overall quality is improved. That's a win in my book.

- Not even that research biased against guns has abated (was it even significant in the first place?)


Ongoing bias in current research against guns by the CDC is not a claim by either side. Why bother to try to prove something that isn't a point of contention?

If it IS still a problem, then perhaps we need to look at what is necessary to prevent it, but I don't see anyone saying that the CDC is causing problems currently.

In short, your two examples don't give us much information. That's what we call "anecdotal evidence".
The CDC does a lot of research, and detecting changes in how they do it requires wider-ranging analysis.


Nah. The contingent that says the restriction on lobbying should be lifted has described it as a de-facto ban on research. Pointing out that the research continues is entirely relevant. Me saying "I know a guy that works on gun research at CDC" would be an anecdote, because of the nature of the unverifiable info. Me pointing you to studies you can read is evidence. Merely being unsatisfied with the quantity of it does not change it to an anecdote.

If research shows that there should be more gun control, then it should say so. It's if there's bias that harms the quality of research that it should be rejected.
And then the correct corrective action is to check the papers for errors and defund the researcher if his research is in fact significantly worse than others, not pressure the CDC to not research guns in general.


Again, you are jumping back to "not research guns in general". That's not what happened.

Also, congress doesn't generally assign funds at the individual researcher level. That's a tool that really isn't appropriate for them to be using...putting restrictions on the agency is. Plus, perhaps that researcher is perfectly competent in other fields...banning him rather than the specific behavior seems like a messy fix. Simply banning the researcher doesn't prevent the problem from recurring, and is a wee bit too much like a personal vendetta. That's NOT what congress should be engaging in.

realbart
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:02 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby realbart » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:16 pm UTC

1) Your experience with firearms.
Virtually none.

2) Your opinion on Gun Control laws, national, state whatever.
I do not mind guns being prohibited. Like it is here in the Netherlands. Most people over here are amazed at the gun laws you have over there. Why are you willing to accept shootings at schools and children killing other children and all kinds of accidents? Some arguments and my answer:

"We need guns to hunt"
Nobody NEEDS to hunt nowadays. As a people we're able to farm any animal with a much smaller environmental impact then to go out and shoot them. If a life in captivity is not suitable for a perticular animal, we need to change our diet.
Hunting is luxury. A sport. If I can preserve ANY life by abolishing ANY sport, I will.
(to me, it's a "greater good" thing)

"I like to shoot at the shooting range"
I repeat: If I can preserve ANY life by abolishing ANY sport, I will. However, few accidents happen at shooting ranges. Many are wel organised and sufficient precausions are taken from guns illegaly being taken home. I'll tolerate those.

"I need to defend myself against crooks"
A gun is no shield. A crook with a gun is more likely to shoot you if you have a gun. There are criminals everywhere, and there are no less in countries where guns are legal. Of course, if a crook can choose to rob a house with guns and one without, he'll go for the unarmed one. But this forces houses without guns to buy guns as well. And guess what. In countries where guns are allowed, crooks are far more likely to carry guns. Of course, hardcore criminals will always be able to get guns. But if they are forbidden, it's also easier to detain and jail them!

"I need to defend myself against the government if they go bad"
I do not trust my government either, but I do not think guns improve my chances of getting my way. Todays governments maintain there grip through media manipulation. If ever my government decides to use gun force to control me, I think my gun is not going to save me anyway.

HOWEVER
I find these reasons valid for the country I live in.
That's why I will always VOTE this way in MY country.
Of course, I will try to convince as many people I can to see things my way.

But I can understand people who value their individual freedom somewhat more. You can see handing over your guns as trading your freedom away for safety, which of course is not a positive thing. I only think I don't need the freedom to carry guns because I've never had them. As with all change, people tend to value the things they (might) loose more than the things they (might) gain.

3) Your general political persuasion.
I think I can be classified as a Liberal Socialist.

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby juststrange » Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:15 pm UTC

Bart,
That was one of the most reasonable posts I've seen here in a long time. While you and I disagree, you are willing to admit that my opinion and values are different but not wrong. I think that's the big divide anymore. We can mostly agree on what the numbers are, they are numbers afterall, quantities. If more people understood that the conclusions you draw from said numbers are colored by your own opinions and bias, and that two perfectly reasonable intelligent people can draw different conclusions from the some data set, the better off we will be.

Don't get me wrong, for something simple, we can agree on what the numbers say. 2+2 is 4. Improper pH kills fish. Firearms used improperly are dangerous. You can't legislate crazy. For more complicated things like effect of a single policy change on things like crime rate which is colored also by social\economic\solar flare conditions, its hard to compare apples and oranges and durian. Sadly there is no real effective way to isolate they effect that gun control legislation has, and both sides can easily find something to pick apart or emphasize as it supports them.

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Alexius » Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:48 pm UTC

realbart wrote:"We need guns to hunt"
Nobody NEEDS to hunt nowadays. As a people we're able to farm any animal with a much smaller environmental impact then to go out and shoot them. If a life in captivity is not suitable for a perticular animal, we need to change our diet.
Hunting is luxury. A sport. If I can preserve ANY life by abolishing ANY sport, I will.
(to me, it's a "greater good" thing)

So you are in favour of the abolition of boxing, rugby, motor racing and sailing, then? The "if it saves one life" argument really doesn't lend itself to absolutes.

Also, it could certainly be argued that hunting animals has less of an environmental impact than raising them in captivity, as you don't need to grow food for them. Not to mention that plenty of people hunt for pest/population control rather than for food, both in a general sense (having a deer season in order to keep the deer population down) and in a specific sense (owning a shotgun or small rifle to keep vermin off your crops or garden).

Maybe that doesn't happen in the Netherlands, as it's much more densely populated than even the UK (which has 2 million legal guns, many of which are for pest control) let alone the US.

soratidus999
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:37 am UTC
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Gun Control

Postby soratidus999 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:58 pm UTC

I'm Australian... giant patch of dirt - 23 million people

yeah we dont have guns anymore - there may be people with hectares? (i dont know my imperial.... the big one) of land and have to shoot kangaroos and wolves, but really we don't have guns

Infact i distinctly remember an american politician using Australia as a basis for statistics, saying that gun crime rose 60% and we had our largest mass murder AFTER we had a national gun hand-in thingy... which was a flat out lie

the truth is we had a man killed 35 people with a shotgun before turning on himself - this THEN started our national gun reforms and gun crime DROPPED 60%, so did murder, aggravated assault, BnE and so on...

I am curious if anyone remembers who it was that quoted those statistics wrong?

also disclaimer: i don't pretend to understand america, all i know is good ol' oz... and i like it that way

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:53 pm UTC

Your argument was very clear and quite a few of your points raised make enough sense in your country. I do want to address this one part:
realbart wrote:Why are you willing to accept shootings at schools and children killing other children and all kinds of accidents?

From a pro gun standpoint school shootings are incredibly rare events and crazy people are going to find a way to be crazy anyway (a certain group of plane hijackers used box cutters), we just need to have in place systems to be prepared to respond immediately.
Accidents are a far greater concern. A lot of people do behave recklessly and instilling a less carefree attitude about gun handling would help to reduce the amount of accidental deaths and injuries. We are taught as kids to not run with scissors; we should have the same common sense ideas for everything ingrained in the population.
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.

realbart
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:02 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby realbart » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:59 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:Accidents are a far greater concern. A lot of people do behave recklessly and instilling a less carefree attitude about gun handling would help to reduce the amount of accidental deaths and injuries. We are taught as kids to not run with scissors; we should have the same common sense ideas for everything ingrained in the population.


I do not have much faith in people. There will always be reckless people. And if guns are prohibited, there will be less reckless people with guns.
I know the good suffer from the bad, but to me it's a fair tradeoff. But like I said before, it depends on what you value most.

realbart
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:02 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby realbart » Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:04 pm UTC

Alexius wrote:
realbart wrote:Hunting is luxury. A sport. If I can preserve ANY life by abolishing ANY sport, I will.

So you are in favour of the abolition of boxing, rugby, motor racing and sailing, then? The "if it saves one life" argument really doesn't lend itself to absolutes.


You are right: I overstressed the word ANY.
Still, If a the existence of a sport (or recreational activity) creates a risk to people not participating, I'm not easily convinced to allow this activity.

Bsob
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:44 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Bsob » Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:49 pm UTC

soratidus999 wrote:the truth is we had a man killed 35 people with a shotgun before turning on himself - this THEN started our national gun reforms and gun crime DROPPED 60%, so did murder, aggravated assault, BnE and so on...

I don't think murder dropped 60%.

I mean, if we're gonna yell at some nameless strawman for lying, we should at least try and tell the truth ourselves.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:24 pm UTC

realbart wrote:
Alexius wrote:
realbart wrote:Hunting is luxury. A sport. If I can preserve ANY life by abolishing ANY sport, I will.

So you are in favour of the abolition of boxing, rugby, motor racing and sailing, then? The "if it saves one life" argument really doesn't lend itself to absolutes.


You are right: I overstressed the word ANY.
Still, If a the existence of a sport (or recreational activity) creates a risk to people not participating, I'm not easily convinced to allow this activity.


Noone is at risk when I go target shooting. Nor when I (hypothetically) go hunting.

At least no more so than someone is at risk on a football sideline or a baseball stadium by being hit by a ball/player. Or a race track, being hit by a car. Or anything else of the sort.
Omni.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:57 pm UTC

realbart wrote:"We need guns to hunt"
Nobody NEEDS to hunt nowadays. As a people we're able to farm any animal with a much smaller environmental impact then to go out and shoot them. If a life in captivity is not suitable for a perticular animal, we need to change our diet.
Hunting is luxury. A sport. If I can preserve ANY life by abolishing ANY sport, I will.
(to me, it's a "greater good" thing)


While I'm not a hunter anymore and don't enjoy it myself, it's not a luxury for everyone...that depends greatly on culture and wealth. For some people, it absolutely is a luxury. For some, it's how you work to feed yourself. And as for environmental impact, hunting is an important part of managing animal populations properly. When populations get too large, you end up in a nasty boom/bust cycle with predator species following the prey in a similar cycle, with starvation, disease, etc running rampant.

No doubt you've heard the US folks rail against gov...but in practice, it only tends to be against certain agencies. Nobody likes the IRS because taxes, for instance. However, the US Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources, etc are generally fairly well liked, and considered reasonably effective. They usually do a pretty solid job managing permits.

"I like to shoot at the shooting range"
I repeat: If I can preserve ANY life by abolishing ANY sport, I will. However, few accidents happen at shooting ranges. Many are wel organised and sufficient precausions are taken from guns illegaly being taken home. I'll tolerate those.


Well, there's a slight dissonance between your sentences here. At first, you seem to take a zero tolerance approach, which, frankly, would mean banning all sports. Then, you seem to tolerate fairly low risk activities, which, as you state, would include shooting range activities. If this is your actual preference, then...how low is a reasonable tolerance? It seems to me that this could be at least a somewhat subjective area.

. In countries where guns are allowed, crooks are far more likely to carry guns. Of course, hardcore criminals will always be able to get guns. But if they are forbidden, it's also easier to detain and jail them!


Sometimes, this line of reasoning does not hold true. Consider Mexico, which has extremely strict rules about gun ownership(only a single legal gun shop exists in the entire country), but in which crooks with guns are extremely common...and since they're armed on par with the police/military and better than everyone else, detaining and jailing them is not easy at all. There's definitely a huge cultural, etc aspect here as well.

HOWEVER
I find these reasons valid for the country I live in.
That's why I will always VOTE this way in MY country.
Of course, I will try to convince as many people I can to see things my way.

But I can understand people who value their individual freedom somewhat more. You can see handing over your guns as trading your freedom away for safety, which of course is not a positive thing. I only think I don't need the freedom to carry guns because I've never had them. As with all change, people tend to value the things they (might) loose more than the things they (might) gain.


I do agree that different countries have different needs, of course. Actually, I think that's one of the big things we've been arguing over. The solution for country X might not be equally good for country Y if the problems they face differ significantly.

And sure, losses definitely get valued higher. The loss is usually in the here and now, while the gain is speculative and in the future. I think that's a commonality to a lot of laws, actually.

realbart wrote:You are right: I overstressed the word ANY.
Still, If a the existence of a sport (or recreational activity) creates a risk to people not participating, I'm not easily convinced to allow this activity.


It's fair to consider risk to others much higher than risk to people engaged in the sport. After all, they've chosen to participate. I'm perfectly ok with people doing crazy dangerous sports that only risk themselves. Fortunately, legal firearms fall pretty neatly into this category, at least in the US. Accident rates are pretty low overall, and accidents overwhelmingly happen to the careless themselves...and sometimes their families, which is damned unfortunate, but that seems to be the case with most risk factors. Still, your odds of a stranger accidentally hurting you with a gun in the US are smaller than those of being struck by lightning.

Now, intentional misuse of guns is an entirely different story, but those folks aren't really sporting types.

soratidus999 wrote:Infact i distinctly remember an american politician using Australia as a basis for statistics, saying that gun crime rose 60% and we had our largest mass murder AFTER we had a national gun hand-in thingy... which was a flat out lie
...
I am curious if anyone remembers who it was that quoted those statistics wrong?


Sadly, here in the US, a politicians who used stats to lie is...not that uncommon. I'd feel safe saying it literally happens every single day. Quite possibly every single day in the area of gun politics alone. Stats tend to get kind of abused here by both major parties to support what they like, rather than to find the truth. *shrug*

Update: Toomey-Manchin is dead. I've got mixed feelings. The actual text was kind of a dog's breakfast, but the sentiment behind it seemed quite admirable. Probably for the best that this particular version didn't pass, but I hope it isn't an end to those ideas, yknow? Dunno if there's hope for the Coburn amendment still, but it'd be nice(it adds an online resource for doing background checks. Seems like a nice option in addition to the ol' pen and paper forms)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:51 am UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/po ... tml?ref=us
I read the analysis, and it mirrors a lot of the arguments gun supporters made here. Once you rephrase background checks as a gun registry, aka gun seizure conspiracy, support from vulnerable democrats and general republicans fall way off. It certainly didn't help that the NRA took such a hard line, going from a limited expansion in background checks to nothing at all. At this point, all that's left is replacing background checks for guns with the mentally ill, which the gun rights groups have no problem with despite being philosophically the same. And a lot less useful since the mentally ill aren't statistically more violent than anyone else.

Bleh, I think I need some air. That, and making those republicans eat crow over immigration. That will make me feel better, or at least that's what I tell myself at night.

Edit: Now that the backbone of the legislation is dead, there's a couple bones I wanna pick over.

Well, keep in mind that the initial study that kicked this off was denounced by the head of the GA AMA(this was mostly a Georgia event) as "junk science", and does kind of purport to draw sweeping conclusions from the data of a mere three countries, and leaps from correlation to an entirely unsupported causality.

Additionally, the CDCs $2.6 mil was merely earmarked for prevention of traumatic brain injury. So, while this likely did mean it was a "stop supporting gun control" statement, it isn't as if it meant lower investment in public safety. I realize you haven't claimed this, but I thought it an important clarification.

Now, every federal agency I've known of has had a lot of strictures, many MUCH more onerous than this one. Normally, when you want to research something close to the line, you run it through your agencies legal division, and get the thumbs up/down. In this case, they either seem to have an extremely risk adverse legal department, or there's simply a lack of interest in studying the topic. Or...wait, maybe they kept doing research anyway.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/pd ... d_yrbs.pdf actually breaks down violence by weapon carrying tendencies. It was done after '96. It simply avoids the provocative title and unproven causality. Also, has a much larger dataset.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtm ... mm6018a1_w directly mentions gun control among the ways being used to try to stop firearm violence. Definitely done after '96. Seems to take a much more holistic view than simply trying to say "guns are bad", though. Instead, they're analyzing a specific problem and outlining a number of solutions.

So, from those sources, I'd say the stricture is having exactly the intended effect. They haven't been diverted away from studying anything to do with gun violence, they merely can't use it to lobby for gun control.

I read those "studies" you linked; you call it holistic, I call it data that might be used someday as part of a real study, at best. No questions are asked, or laid out to be peer reviewed. You're saying because of these two reports, the congressional directive had no ill effect other than to advise the CDC to stay out of politics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -find-out/
"Funding for gun-violence research by the Centers for Disease Control dropped from $2.5 million per year in the early 1990s to a mere $100,000 per year today." So...does that mean that there was $2 million of studies that was nothing but gun control propaganda?
They created the study to lobby for gun control? Maybe they created the study to advance our knowledge base, and that study in particular dropped in the "gun control" bucket instead of the "guns are good" bucket. All research plays odds on proving there is a statistical difference, that's why we peer review and do multiple studies. Anyway, funding didn't just go down at the CDC, all sorts of agencies have stopped funding gun research, Congress (for some unknown reason...) never funds or purposely blocks funding for it at the ATF and the department of justice.

realbart
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:02 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby realbart » Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:07 pm UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:
realbart wrote:Still, If a the existence of a sport (or recreational activity) creates a risk to people not participating, I'm not easily convinced to allow this activity.


Noone is at risk when I go target shooting. Nor when I (hypothetically) go hunting.

At least no more so than someone is at risk on a football sideline or a baseball stadium by being hit by a ball/player. Or a race track, being hit by a car. Or anything else of the sort.


Well, actually there is. By allowing YOU to go target shooting, I'd be allowing many more people than you to keep arms at home. And though many people may have the responsibility and discipline to always lock their guns away efficiently, some have not. And though some cities take the resoponsibility to thoroughly check the background of people owning guns, some do not.

So. If I let you go hunt or shoot target, I'll be increasing the number of people not being careful with their guns and i'd be making it easier for criminals and lunatics to acquire guns.
That's why I'd rather not make it easier for common people to have guns.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:18 pm UTC

realbart wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:
realbart wrote:Still, If a the existence of a sport (or recreational activity) creates a risk to people not participating, I'm not easily convinced to allow this activity.


Noone is at risk when I go target shooting. Nor when I (hypothetically) go hunting.

At least no more so than someone is at risk on a football sideline or a baseball stadium by being hit by a ball/player. Or a race track, being hit by a car. Or anything else of the sort.


Well, actually there is. By allowing YOU to go target shooting, I'd be allowing many more people than you to keep arms at home. And though many people may have the responsibility and discipline to always lock their guns away efficiently, some have not. And though some cities take the resoponsibility to thoroughly check the background of people owning guns, some do not.

So. If I let you go hunt or shoot target, I'll be increasing the number of people not being careful with their guns and i'd be making it easier for criminals and lunatics to acquire guns.
That's why I'd rather not make it easier for common people to have guns.


The vast majority of firearms used by criminals are acquired... illegally. Additionally, the majority would be prevented by... drumroll please... removing early release for violent gun criminals. Which will not impede anyone's sport, fun, or livelihood (either in the sense that they own a gun shop or in the sense that they must hunt in order to have enough food to feed their family - which does happen, I live with someone whose father had to.
Omni.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:57 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/politics/despite-tearful-pleas-no-real-chance.html?ref=us
I read the analysis, and it mirrors a lot of the arguments gun supporters made here. Once you rephrase background checks as a gun registry, aka gun seizure conspiracy, support from vulnerable democrats and general republicans fall way off.


Absolutely. What happened here is that the NRA hadn't realized that until they looked around and realized that all the other gun rights groups were against them on this issue, and were in fact using it as a wedge to steal members from the NRA. So, they surveyed their member base, and discovered that if asked about the negative aspects of registration, >90% of their members were against it. So, faced with that, they shifted their position.

Philosophically, I must concede that it is entirely possible to have background checks without a registry in place...and that such a system is not objectionable to me. However, there seems little desire to propose such a system on the part of politicians.

At this point, all that's left is replacing background checks for guns with the mentally ill, which the gun rights groups have no problem with despite being philosophically the same. And a lot less useful since the mentally ill aren't statistically more violent than anyone else.


Overall, yes. However, the portion of mentally ill folks that have been targetted by most background check issues and the like are those that have been judged to be danger to themselves and others. I think there's a reasonable case to be made that mental health professionals are decent at judging these cases. Hell, in the most recent unfortunate events, there were ample signs of mental instability. Holmes had been to see three mental health professionals prior to his shooting spree. At least one of them was sufficiently worried over his violent tendencies to notify campus police of the danger, but no action was taken. It's that last part where the problem lies.

Edit: Now that the backbone of the legislation is dead, there's a couple bones I wanna pick over.


Most of it was never going anywhere. An assault weapon ban was never going to make it through congress, for instance. That said, there is some virtue to it having come to a vote in the senate before being defeated. It at least gets some votes on record so people know where their senator really stands.

I read those "studies" you linked; you call it holistic, I call it data that might be used someday as part of a real study, at best. No questions are asked, or laid out to be peer reviewed. You're saying because of these two reports, the congressional directive had no ill effect other than to advise the CDC to stay out of politics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -find-out/
"Funding for gun-violence research by the Centers for Disease Control dropped from $2.5 million per year in the early 1990s to a mere $100,000 per year today." So...does that mean that there was $2 million of studies that was nothing but gun control propaganda?
They created the study to lobby for gun control? Maybe they created the study to advance our knowledge base, and that study in particular dropped in the "gun control" bucket instead of the "guns are good" bucket. All research plays odds on proving there is a statistical difference, that's why we peer review and do multiple studies. Anyway, funding didn't just go down at the CDC, all sorts of agencies have stopped funding gun research, Congress (for some unknown reason...) never funds or purposely blocks funding for it at the ATF and the department of justice.


Money is limited. If it was being spent on poor, unscientific studies, what's the harm in redirecting it to another field of research? Traumatic brain injury research wasn't a bad thing to dump the cash into. We can definitely use that. In fact, I'd argue that there's a LOT of great fields of study that don't get enough attention. Why keep pumping money into a dodgy one?

As for the ATF, they were blocked from sharing gun data in a rather specific way. They can't pass around the sales records to create a master database of everyone with a gun or the like. They definitely can share data that is involved in a crime, like say, when they get a trace request. That said, they fulfill only a tiny fraction of trace requests currently, so they probably need to improve that before they can gather any meaningful data. The ATF is pretty dysfunctional in a lot of ways.

Also, why would you want all these agencies doing gun research? Isn't there a severe duplication of effort problem if you've got a pile of agencies doing the same thing? I'm also leery of the potential feedback loops for manufacturing consent/data by having organizations responsible for reporting on the area that they enforce. It's like asking the oil industry for data on what oil laws should be. Useful, perhaps, but you're only going to get a very specific viewpoint that tends to match their interests.

realbart wrote:Well, actually there is. By allowing YOU to go target shooting, I'd be allowing many more people than you to keep arms at home. And though many people may have the responsibility and discipline to always lock their guns away efficiently, some have not. And though some cities take the resoponsibility to thoroughly check the background of people owning guns, some do not.

So. If I let you go hunt or shoot target, I'll be increasing the number of people not being careful with their guns and i'd be making it easier for criminals and lunatics to acquire guns.
That's why I'd rather not make it easier for common people to have guns.


Well, on the issue of locking guns away...I lock my guns for accident prevention reasons, not for theft reasons. Once, having lost the key to a gun lock, I had to dremel it off. Took about twenty seconds. Given that even this minor time only comes up during a theft if the gun is chained TO something, locks would be mostly irrelevant. Safes are also pretty damned crackable. Even the good safes generally don't last long. A safe is a good thing, but it's also kind of a beacon that screams "goodies found in here". Now, accident prevention is a good reason to have both of those, as your young kidlet isn't gonna crack a safe, but accident prevention will not pose a risk to you either way.

As for background checks, those happen at a federal level for us. Some localities pose additional restrictions, but actually, all the highest murder/violence areas are those with additional layers of restrictions. They're all highly urban areas like Chicago, and yes, there are many factors in addition to checks that affect violence, but there is very little data showing that checks do any good, and in fact, our federal government has concluded that they do nothing to prevent violence.

Additionally, guns are sufficiently embedded in our society that, when guns are unavailable, criminals sometimes manufacture their own(google up "zip guns" for examples). In a culture where guns just aren't relevant, that may not be the case, but it definitely happens here.

realbart
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:02 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby realbart » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:09 pm UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:
realbart wrote:So. If I let you go hunt or shoot target, I'll be increasing the number of people not being careful with their guns and i'd be making it easier for criminals and lunatics to acquire guns.
That's why I'd rather not make it easier for common people to have guns.


The vast majority of firearms used by criminals are acquired... illegally. Additionally, the majority would be prevented by... drumroll please... removing early release for violent gun criminals. Which will not impede anyone's sport, fun, or livelihood (either in the sense that they own a gun shop or in the sense that they must hunt in order to have enough food to feed their family - which does happen, I live with someone whose father had to.


You make a good point. The vast majority of firearms used by criminals ARE acquired illegally. Still, I think at least part of the reason criminals use guns much less over here in the Netherlands, is because it is more difficult to acquire them. Getting them illegally is more difficult because there are less people to get them FROM.
But I have to agree that if you are in a country where there are many guns to begin with, the positive effect of prohibiting them will be negligible, while the negative effect (good folks like you having to hand over your guns) are fully there.
I can understand why you won't abolish gun ownership, but I hope you understand why I wouldn't want to legelize it over here.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:43 pm UTC

realbart wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:Accidents are a far greater concern. A lot of people do behave recklessly and instilling a less carefree attitude about gun handling would help to reduce the amount of accidental deaths and injuries. We are taught as kids to not run with scissors; we should have the same common sense ideas for everything ingrained in the population.


I do not have much faith in people. There will always be reckless people. And if guns are prohibited, there will be less reckless people with guns.
I know the good suffer from the bad, but to me it's a fair tradeoff.
Yes there are reckless people, it happens, hormonal highs like adrenaline rushes cause people to do really stupid stuff like jump of dams and throw fireworks at each other. Recklessness from guns is an entirely different bucket of worms however and is on par with my running with scissor analogy. I don't want it to feel like people are ganging up on you so I'll address it a bit more in depth a bit later.

But like I said before, it depends on what you value most.
Now I absolutely hate when this phrase is used. It creates a false dichotomy of freedom and death vs safety and alive; It reads a lot like "you don't care if children die" and I do care but I don't believe that the methods that are proposed to be implemented to try to keep kids from dying will actually accomplish it.


I'll stay out of the thread for a while, I'm gonna put together my own list of reasons you shouldn't own a gun.
oh and before I forget and it becomes even more incredibly late here is the plane gun I was talking about before:
Spoiler:
Take special notice of how unmistakably not a gun it looks like.
Image
Personally I would be more concerned that my kid wanted a toy MiG
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.

realbart
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:02 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby realbart » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:47 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
But like I said before, it depends on what you value most.
Now I absolutely hate when this phrase is used. It creates a false dichotomy of freedom and death vs safety and alive; It reads a lot like "you don't care if children die" and I do care but I don't believe that the methods that are proposed to be implemented to try to keep kids from dying will actually accomplish it.


I did not mean to sound condescending (though I probably did. We Dutch are not considered the rudest people on earth for nothing...)
In this case it's more a question of conforming to a group vs individual freedom.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Fire Brns » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:18 am UTC

No I don't fault you in any way. It's just the inherent definition of the phrase that's implicative.

It's use at the end of a paragraph in any case is a redundancy. The fact that an argument is occurring is a strong indicator that people have different starting points to base their opinions off of.
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.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:13 am UTC

Philosophically, I must concede that it is entirely possible to have background checks without a registry in place...and that such a system is not objectionable to me. However, there seems little desire to propose such a system on the part of politicians. Most of it was never going anywhere. An assault weapon ban was never going to make it through congress, for instance. That said, there is some virtue to it having come to a vote in the senate before being defeated. It at least gets some votes on record so people know where their senator really stands.

That was bullshit that you even brought up the possibility. You, fireburns, and Edgarpublius all bought into the a false possibility that was never even considered.
Defeated a stunning 54 for gun control, and 46 against gun control. You're confusing filibustered for majority vote.

If it was being spent on poor, unscientific studies, what's the harm in redirecting it to another field of research? Traumatic brain injury research wasn't a bad thing to dump the cash into. We can definitely use that. In fact, I'd argue that there's a LOT of great fields of study that don't get enough attention. Why keep pumping money into a dodgy one? Also, why would you want all these agencies doing gun research? Isn't there a severe duplication of effort problem if you've got a pile of agencies doing the same thing? I'm also leery of the potential feedback loops for manufacturing consent/data by having organizations responsible for reporting on the area that they enforce. It's like asking the oil industry for data on what oil laws should be. Useful, perhaps, but you're only going to get a very specific viewpoint that tends to match their interests.

I'm willing to entertain your theories about the conflict of interest behind agencies of the government if you didn't have a conflict of interest about not conducting gun studies. If you wanna claim we have bad studies, that's one thing. We can peer review the scholarly work. But to impede the progress of science and then ask us to ignore the man behind the curtains is a blatant insult. You make it sound like we spend billions on gun control studies, and spending is on the rise. It's not. The odds of a study being duplicative are low, and would be a good idea since it would reinforce any claims made. Scientific method, Remember?

I know you have a lot to lose, and little to gain for you. At best, we save a bunch of lives(statistically, any legislation wouldn't improve your life noticeably)and at worst you'd suffer through a ton of paperwork just to keep a gun. However, I caution you on the approach you're taking. Your source is about how legislative option x y and z don't work. But why did you stop there? Didn't you notice how the Justice Deparment memo came with all these caveats? Weren't you curious to know what would happen if you explored their nuanced statement? You say Chicago's background checks don't work, and then you ran off. Stay a while, and listen. Think it through. Why does a background check for those who buy guns in Chicago not reduce prevent violence? You seem perfectly happy with the stagnant assumptions and trends of yesteryear.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:19 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Philosophically, I must concede that it is entirely possible to have background checks without a registry in place...and that such a system is not objectionable to me. However, there seems little desire to propose such a system on the part of politicians. Most of it was never going anywhere. An assault weapon ban was never going to make it through congress, for instance. That said, there is some virtue to it having come to a vote in the senate before being defeated. It at least gets some votes on record so people know where their senator really stands.

That was bullshit that you even brought up the possibility. You, fireburns, and Edgarpublius all bought into the a false possibility that was never even considered.
Defeated a stunning 54 for gun control, and 46 against gun control. You're confusing filibustered for majority vote.


There was no filibuster. The administration demanded an accelerated process to limit the possible amendments, and Reid conceded. This also had the effect of harshly limiting discussion of these amendments. All nine votes required 60 votes to pass. The filibuster didn't go anywhere since there was bipartisan support for cloture, so they quickly moved on to the nine votes.

Additionally, that was the score for Toomey-Manchin. Many amendments got much less support. For instance, the assault weapon ban collected only 40 yes votes, and would have died regardless of voting rules(as would have mag limits). The couple pro-gun amendments actually got more votes that even Toomey-Manchin did. More folks voted for concealed carry reciprocity than voted for Toomey-Manchin, yet Obama curiously failed to mention that in his rant.

Then, Reid pulled the whole bill.

This wasn't a fillibuster issue. This is a simple issue of not having the support to do what you want. Yes, the possibility that was not considered(just background checks) is something we'd accept. See, that's the issue that was polled. Support is high for background checks. Support is not high for background checks with a side order of other gun limitations.

I'm willing to entertain your theories about the conflict of interest behind agencies of the government if you didn't have a conflict of interest about not conducting gun studies. If you wanna claim we have bad studies, that's one thing. We can peer review the scholarly work. But to impede the progress of science and then ask us to ignore the man behind the curtains is a blatant insult. You make it sound like we spend billions on gun control studies, and spending is on the rise. It's not. The odds of a study being duplicative are low, and would be a good idea since it would reinforce any claims made. Scientific method, Remember?


Impede the progress of science? It was to impede the progress of politicizing an agency that normally isn't terribly partisan, and really shouldn't be.

I know you have a lot to lose, and little to gain for you. At best, we save a bunch of lives(statistically, any legislation wouldn't improve your life noticeably)and at worst you'd suffer through a ton of paperwork just to keep a gun. However, I caution you on the approach you're taking. Your source is about how legislative option x y and z don't work. But why did you stop there? Didn't you notice how the Justice Deparment memo came with all these caveats? Weren't you curious to know what would happen if you explored their nuanced statement? You say Chicago's background checks don't work, and then you ran off. Stay a while, and listen. Think it through. Why does a background check for those who buy guns in Chicago not reduce prevent violence? You seem perfectly happy with the stagnant assumptions and trends of yesteryear.


I read through the full memo. It was indeed not exactly an NRA piece. Still, it was useful.

As for "stagnant assumptions and trends", I'm perfectly willing to explore legislative changes. However, change merely for the sake of change isn't the same as progress. And it isn't the pro-gun side that keeps doing their best to ditch the whole conversation part they called for. See, the anti-gunners didn't actually want a conversation or a vote. They got both of those, despite trying to accelerate the process past as much as possible. They wanted everyone to just roll over and give them what they wanted, while skipping the normal democratic process.

The question is, why? What's so special about gun control that new york couldn't take the couple of days to have public discussion of the bill? What's so special that maryland had to fake town hall meetings? What's so special that the senate couldn't discuss the amendments like anything else?

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The question is, why? What's so special about gun control that new york couldn't take the couple of days to have public discussion of the bill? What's so special that maryland had to fake town hall meetings? What's so special that the senate couldn't discuss the amendments like anything else?


That seems like a textbook attempt to ram something through without popular support. Reminds me a bit of post-terrorism "security" measure - of which this is probably a subset come to think of it.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:35 pm UTC

You're saying the only reason Reid did an accelerated bill was because Obama wanted him to? There's no other reason to limit amendments and discussion? Like say to prevent a minority of Republicans from putting in poison pill amendments? Are you arguing that Reid could have simply passed the bill through the slower process and you'd be fine with a simple majority vote on those amendments?
You're right, support for background checks is high, and it still failed. Must be the guy with sacks of cash threatening to beat you up during your next job interview. Yes, support is not high for other gun limitations, mostly because you phrased it as the generic scary big brother "gun limitations". Put in some details, what limitations, why is support lower for each option.

"It was to impede the progress of politicizing an agency that normally isn't terribly partisan, and really shouldn't be."
Yes, you mentioned the CDC got hit hard by Congress for publishing studies that were contested. Which is legitimate(I disagree but it's not crazy)...Until you expanded it to the ATF, Justice Department, and other executive agencies. You claimed duplicate work, and conflicts of interest from the ATF and the Justice Department because they were all doing gun studies.
"As for "stagnant assumptions and trends", I'm perfectly willing to explore legislative changes. However, change merely for the sake of change isn't the same as progress. And it isn't the pro-gun side that keeps doing their best to ditch the whole conversation part they called for. See, the anti-gunners didn't actually want a conversation or a vote. They got both of those, despite trying to accelerate the process past as much as possible. They wanted everyone to just roll over and give them what they wanted, while skipping the normal democratic process.

The question is, why? What's so special about gun control that new york couldn't take the couple of days to have public discussion of the bill? What's so special that maryland had to fake town hall meetings? What's so special that the senate couldn't discuss the amendments like anything else?"

That's why all these studies are a good idea. You're espousing a line where we suppress studies on guns. So you end up declaring that you're ok with legislating laws that work well, but nobody can find out what kind of law could work well, because academics should be apolitical. What do we do? We do generic shit that sounds like a good idea. Let's ban assault weapons, let's do more background checks, let's expand conceal carry.

What's with the naive political ideal talk in the last paragraph? What was so special about the budget bill that they permanently extended the ban on the ATF and CDC from collecting data? I believed you said you were disappointed that they did it, and then you shrugged it off. You said so yourself, you didn't have the votes to stop Maryland so it went through. You know what would be a good idea? Having a federal study that shows what parts of gun controls laws really work. It wouldn't change anything, but at least you'd know right? =)

That seems like a textbook attempt to ram something through without popular support. Reminds me a bit of post-terrorism "security" measure - of which this is probably a subset come to think of it.
What it really reminds me of, is the Republican Libertarian conservative line : Government doesn't work. *Votes against debt limit* See, *Votes against ACA* it *Votes against fiscal cliff* doesn't *Votes against violence against women* work!
You get a couple votes right, don't push your luck. Don't we still have the patriot act? How many libertarians do we have in Congress? How many of them voted to renew it? I'm gonna google this.

Edit: I really don't want to quote snipe, but this is hard.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:14 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Must be the guy with sacks of cash threatening to beat you up during your next job interview.

Yeah, Prominent gun-control advocate Mike Bloomberg does have a lot of cash. Even when compared to The NRA!

Do I get bonus points for using Bloomberg's own site against him?


Yes, support is not high for other gun limitations, mostly because you phrased it as the generic scary big brother "gun limitations". Put in some details, what limitations, why is support lower for each option.

"It was to impede the progress of politicizing an agency that normally isn't terribly partisan, and really shouldn't be."
Yes, you mentioned the CDC got hit hard by Congress for publishing studies that were contested. Which is legitimate(I disagree but it's not crazy)...Until you expanded it to the ATF, Justice Department, and other executive agencies. You claimed duplicate work, and conflicts of interest from the ATF and the Justice Department because they were all doing gun studies.

I'm not sure how the ATF and Justice Department both studying guns isn't a conflict of interest. "Well, we can get more funding if we make this out to be a big threat."

I also am not sure how it's not duplicate work, though that's a lesser concern.

"As for "stagnant assumptions and trends", I'm perfectly willing to explore legislative changes. However, change merely for the sake of change isn't the same as progress. And it isn't the pro-gun side that keeps doing their best to ditch the whole conversation part they called for. See, the anti-gunners didn't actually want a conversation or a vote. They got both of those, despite trying to accelerate the process past as much as possible. They wanted everyone to just roll over and give them what they wanted, while skipping the normal democratic process.

The question is, why? What's so special about gun control that new york couldn't take the couple of days to have public discussion of the bill? What's so special that maryland had to fake town hall meetings? What's so special that the senate couldn't discuss the amendments like anything else?"

That's why all these studies are a good idea. You're espousing a line where we suppress studies on guns. So you end up declaring that you're ok with legislating laws that work well, but nobody can find out what kind of law could work well, because academics should be apolitical. What do we do? We do generic shit that sounds like a good idea. Let's ban assault weapons, let's do more background checks, let's expand conceal carry.

Studies would be wonderful.

Not ramming bills through without public discussion, particularly when it's expressly against your state constitution, is probably more important.

What's with the naive political ideal talk in the last paragraph? What was so special about the budget bill that they permanently extended the ban on the ATF and CDC from collecting data? I believed you said you were disappointed that they did it, and then you shrugged it off. You said so yourself, you didn't have the votes to stop Maryland so it went through. You know what would be a good idea? Having a federal study that shows what parts of gun controls laws really work. It wouldn't change anything, but at least you'd know right? =)


That'd be wonderful. Now get an organization that isn't biased to do it.

Shit.


That seems like a textbook attempt to ram something through without popular support. Reminds me a bit of post-terrorism "security" measure - of which this is probably a subset come to think of it.
What it really reminds me of, is the Republican Libertarian conservative line : Government doesn't work. *Votes against debt limit* See, *Votes against ACA* it *Votes against fiscal cliff* doesn't *Votes against violence against women* work!
You get a couple votes right, don't push your luck. Don't we still have the patriot act? How many libertarians do we have in Congress? How many of them voted to renew it? I'm gonna google this.[/quote]

I believe they voted against debt-limit and ACA because their constituents were against it and because they felt historically that they would pan out poorly.

The entire fiscal cliff debacle was a sickening media circus show.

I believe the VAWA was pretty nearly unanimous the second time around, once gender-specific language was toned back seriously, but I could be wrong.


Edit: I really don't want to quote snipe, but this is hard.


I don't feel you're quote sniping, don't worry. That's when you pull out a point or two and ignore the rest.
Omni.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:03 am UTC

sardia wrote:You're saying the only reason Reid did an accelerated bill was because Obama wanted him to? There's no other reason to limit amendments and discussion? Like say to prevent a minority of Republicans from putting in poison pill amendments? Are you arguing that Reid could have simply passed the bill through the slower process and you'd be fine with a simple majority vote on those amendments?
You're right, support for background checks is high, and it still failed. Must be the guy with sacks of cash threatening to beat you up during your next job interview. Yes, support is not high for other gun limitations, mostly because you phrased it as the generic scary big brother "gun limitations". Put in some details, what limitations, why is support lower for each option.


Reid may have other reasons, I cannot claim to know what's inside his head. However, it is a matter of record that the White House requested it and Reid acceded. Regardless of his reasons, it certainly had those effects, and looking at the vote totals, had they gone by simple majority, sure, we'd have Toomey-Manchin, but we wouldn't have the assault weapons ban or the mag limits. Also, we'd definitely have gotten reciprocity, and the clarification amendment that gifts don't count as straw purchases. All in all, pretty much a win for the pro-gun camp with very little traded off. That probably isn't what the admin was going for.

As for "sacks of cash", your implication of the NRA being the entity with all the power...well, the NRA endorsed the gun trafficking bit, and that went down too. Seems like there's a strong pull for gun rights that isn't driven by NRA endorsement.

"It was to impede the progress of politicizing an agency that normally isn't terribly partisan, and really shouldn't be."
Yes, you mentioned the CDC got hit hard by Congress for publishing studies that were contested. Which is legitimate(I disagree but it's not crazy)...Until you expanded it to the ATF, Justice Department, and other executive agencies. You claimed duplicate work, and conflicts of interest from the ATF and the Justice Department because they were all doing gun studies.


Let me clarify. I don't have a problem with them reporting on trends and the like. This happens, and is not controversial. The idea that we need to ditch anti-lobbying language because it makes research impossible is a dubious one, though.

The question is, why? What's so special about gun control that new york couldn't take the couple of days to have public discussion of the bill? What's so special that maryland had to fake town hall meetings? What's so special that the senate couldn't discuss the amendments like anything else?"

That's why all these studies are a good idea. You're espousing a line where we suppress studies on guns. So you end up declaring that you're ok with legislating laws that work well, but nobody can find out what kind of law could work well, because academics should be apolitical. What do we do? We do generic shit that sounds like a good idea. Let's ban assault weapons, let's do more background checks, let's expand conceal carry. [/quote]

No...we use the apolitical data to make cases, and the political world lobbies for and against that. Probably misuing the data horribly, but at least starting out with unbiased data is a plus.

I also agree that it's inherently difficult to have an agency study the need for itself(BATF would be especially relevant here). I suspect it would be remarkably rare for an agency to come right out and say that they're friggin' pointless. Hell, the TSA seems to have managed to keep it's head in the sand for a while. Nah, I expect the BATF will pretty much always endorse the things it regulates as being problems...just like TSA always discusses airline security as if it were the most critical of problems, that only their brave, highly trained screeners can solve.

What's with the naive political ideal talk in the last paragraph? What was so special about the budget bill that they permanently extended the ban on the ATF and CDC from collecting data? I believed you said you were disappointed that they did it, and then you shrugged it off. You said so yourself, you didn't have the votes to stop Maryland so it went through. You know what would be a good idea? Having a federal study that shows what parts of gun controls laws really work. It wouldn't change anything, but at least you'd know right? =)


I'm most disappointed that it ever had to be necessary. Ideally, the CDC would never have tried to play lobbying games to begin with. I don't have a problem with the limitation being entacted...though I dislike the entire style of attaching riders to bills. It's done by all parties, sure, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Likewise, I'm sure that non-gun issues have also been shoved through the legislature, but the duplicity involved in asking for a conversation on guns while trying desperately to avoid one is worthy of comment.

That seems like a textbook attempt to ram something through without popular support. Reminds me a bit of post-terrorism "security" measure - of which this is probably a subset come to think of it.
What it really reminds me of, is the Republican Libertarian conservative line : Government doesn't work. *Votes against debt limit* See, *Votes against ACA* it *Votes against fiscal cliff* doesn't *Votes against violence against women* work!
You get a couple votes right, don't push your luck. Don't we still have the patriot act? How many libertarians do we have in Congress? How many of them voted to renew it? I'm gonna google this.

Edit: I really don't want to quote snipe, but this is hard.


Someone voting against the thing you like is not an equivalent of bypassing the usual legislative procedure. Both sides frequently vote against things I like(or for things I don't). Such is life. However, it's especially irksome when they're clearly acting as if the rules don't apply to them, and they act as though they expect nobody to notice. The gun crowd cares a lot. They notice. Sure, most bills, you probably can BS the contents in the summary, and most people won't read 'em.

For instance, everyone keeps saying "lawl, the gun nuts are so stupid. They think Toomey-Manchin supports gun registries, but it bans them!". Well, no. The summaries of the bills say that. The actual bill amends USC, Title 18, Section 923 to prohibit the creation of a gun registry by the AG. That is well and good, but the AG's office isn't the only office that could conceivably implement a registry. So, no, it's not a ban on a government registry. It's merely a limitation on who could run one. Oh, and who does the limitation apply to? Only people with a license under that chapter of the code. IE, FFLs, because that's what that section of the US Code deals with. I get it...reading bills is a bitch, because of all the damned cross-references and what not, but this is something that actually routinely happens on this issue. Was this the intended effect of the law? Who knows. Quite possibly not, but that may make little difference to a federal judge ruling on the legality of a registry.

As for quote sniping, there's a lot of ideas per post. Feel free to separate them out and address them individually if that makes more sense to you. Sometimes, it adds to clarity. I haven't had a problem with the discussion in this regard.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:01 pm UTC

Update with developing info.

Reid introduces S.B. 792 for Sen Lautenberg, proposing background checks for powder purchases, supposedly because Boston bombing something. This appears odd, as it appears they got their materials from fireworks, and nothing is done to address that. I presume the bill was written before the fireworks connection was found. It also makes "making explosives" at home illegal. This, obviously, is already wildly illegal for actual explosives, but the bill unfortunately refers to materials like gunpowder that do not actually detonate as explosives. This has unfortunate implications for hobbyist reloaders, and for model rocketeers.

Israel introduces HR 1474, which is a revamped version of the Undetectable Firearms Act that expires this year. If it were simply the old bill with the dates changed, it would be merely an amusing case of banning the impossible(if anyone cares, I'll get into why a 100% plastic gun is a bad idea, but honestly, it should be fairly obvious), but apparently, he's heard about 3d printing, and doesn't understand it much, but he doesn't like it.

Let's take one of his quotes "Background checks and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print high-capacity magazines at home."

Well...background checks are on guns, not mags. People can and do buy mags of whatever capacity at gun shows, online, by phone, etc. Homemade mags do not provide a capacity that is unique. What is he proposing?

Well, for one thing, he's got a clause in there that would ban "undetectable ammunition magazines". For another, he's said "Law enforcement officials should have the power to stop high-capacity magazines from proliferating with a Google search." That...would seem to indicate he's considering censorship. Sharing data falls pretty squarely under free speech.

In addition, he has added language banning "undetectable firearm receivers made by individuals". Presumably this is a reaction to people like me printing lowers. Also, he's apparently just fine with companies making undetectable receivers. Odd. I suppose I should point out that polymer lower receivers have been in mass production for quite a while, and do not render the gun undetectable.

Apparently, undetectable is code for "not made of metal". At least 3.7 oz of metal, anyway. This would actually describe a substantial(perhaps the majority) amount of mags. Magpull, etc make mags that are plastic other than the spring(because physics require metal springs). This would appear to be a sweeping ban of a lot of mags based on design material(which has basically no correlation to size).

The 3.7oz metal standard is also wildly outdated. Airport scanners have changed a wee bit since the 80s. Even if you COULD make a gun out of 100% plastic(or close to it), you're still gonna see it on an x-ray, you're gonna detect it in a frisk(at LEAST as easily as a standard gun), and you're gonna see it on backscatter.

Honestly, there's so many logical levels of fail that it's a bit exausting even trying to list them. I'm assuming that he can't possibly be that stupid, and is simply looking for another avenue to restrict firearms.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:19 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Update with developing info.

Reid introduces S.B. 792 for Sen Lautenberg, proposing background checks for powder purchases, supposedly because Boston bombing something. This appears odd, as it appears they got their materials from fireworks, and nothing is done to address that. I presume the bill was written before the fireworks connection was found. It also makes "making explosives" at home illegal. This, obviously, is already wildly illegal for actual explosives, but the bill unfortunately refers to materials like gunpowder that do not actually detonate as explosives. This has unfortunate implications for hobbyist reloaders, and for model rocketeers.

Israel introduces HR 1474, which is a revamped version of the Undetectable Firearms Act that expires this year. If it were simply the old bill with the dates changed, it would be merely an amusing case of banning the impossible(if anyone cares, I'll get into why a 100% plastic gun is a bad idea, but honestly, it should be fairly obvious), but apparently, he's heard about 3d printing, and doesn't understand it much, but he doesn't like it.

Let's take one of his quotes "Background checks and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print high-capacity magazines at home."

Well...background checks are on guns, not mags. People can and do buy mags of whatever capacity at gun shows, online, by phone, etc. Homemade mags do not provide a capacity that is unique. What is he proposing?

Well, for one thing, he's got a clause in there that would ban "undetectable ammunition magazines". For another, he's said "Law enforcement officials should have the power to stop high-capacity magazines from proliferating with a Google search." That...would seem to indicate he's considering censorship. Sharing data falls pretty squarely under free speech.

In addition, he has added language banning "undetectable firearm receivers made by individuals". Presumably this is a reaction to people like me printing lowers. Also, he's apparently just fine with companies making undetectable receivers. Odd. I suppose I should point out that polymer lower receivers have been in mass production for quite a while, and do not render the gun undetectable.

Apparently, undetectable is code for "not made of metal". At least 3.7 oz of metal, anyway. This would actually describe a substantial(perhaps the majority) amount of mags. Magpull, etc make mags that are plastic other than the spring(because physics require metal springs). This would appear to be a sweeping ban of a lot of mags based on design material(which has basically no correlation to size).

The 3.7oz metal standard is also wildly outdated. Airport scanners have changed a wee bit since the 80s. Even if you COULD make a gun out of 100% plastic(or close to it), you're still gonna see it on an x-ray, you're gonna detect it in a frisk(at LEAST as easily as a standard gun), and you're gonna see it on backscatter.

Honestly, there's so many logical levels of fail that it's a bit exausting even trying to list them. I'm assuming that he can't possibly be that stupid, and is simply looking for another avenue to restrict firearms.


Does the bill define "metal?" because if not, i see a booming market in poly(acetylene)-based firearms parts ;)
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:02 am UTC

Strictly stainless steel.

Text:
Spoiler:
Provided, however, That at the close of such 12-month period, and at appropriate times thereafter the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations to permit the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of receivers for a rifle or receivers for a handgun, that were previously prohibited under this subparagraph that are as detectable as the `Receiver Security Exemplar' for a rifle or for a handgun, as the case may be, which contains 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel, in a shape resembling the lower receiver for a rifle or for a handgun


Holy crap. If non-stainless steel receivers are banned, that's a HUGE change. Can't believe I didn't catch that. Almost no lowers are made from stainless steel, they're almost invariably aluminum. That amounts to almost a complete ban on currently manufactured ARs. And probably, many another weapon as well. Stainless is in really common use for barrel/chamber/bolt, usually crome lined, but lower receivers, not holding pressure, tend to be made of a lighter material.

This DOES appear to be a sweeping gun ban. Good idea to examine the material provisions.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:28 pm UTC

Are you complaining about an Israeli bill? And you're saying it's gonna pass? Or is this part of the Reid bill? Because I'm not sure how this relates. I'm not saying you can't talk about it, but are there implications for us?

entire style of attaching riders to bills. It's done by all parties, sure, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Likewise, I'm sure that non-gun issues have also been shoved through the legislature, but the duplicity involved in asking for a conversation on guns while trying desperately to avoid one is worthy of comment.

I'd say if this were a less divisive bill, we'd probably could have worked out a good compromise. ie Voluntary background checks in exchange for a national database + improvements in efficiency. But this isn't the 20th century anymore. Democrats don't trust republicans, and vice versa.
A decade ago, I would say the NRA does represent the gun camp, but not anymore. They're still big, and more importantly a lot easier to describe compared to "crazy citizens for the violent uprising against the man". To prove my point about the lack of compromise, you yourself said that the NRA looked around and saw their fellow peers moved further to the right, so they scooted themselves further to the right as well.

Side Notes, I found it laughable that Ralith claimed Bloomberg alone is equal in strength to the big gun factions. What's next, the Brady Campaign puts the NRA on the ropes?

Let me clarify. I don't have a problem with them reporting on trends and the like. This happens, and is not controversial. The idea that we need to ditch anti-lobbying language because it makes research impossible is a dubious one, though. No...we use the apolitical data to make cases, and the political world lobbies for and against that. Probably misuing the data horribly, but at least starting out with unbiased data is a plus.
I also agree that it's inherently difficult to have an agency study the need for itself(BATF would be especially relevant here). I suspect it would be remarkably rare for an agency to come right out and say that they're friggin' pointless.


How do you define apoliticalness? Are you just gonna say "this study says seizing all handguns will reduce the overall murder rate, it's politicizing"! Of course, having an experimental study (as opposed to correlational ones) is way outside any political scope. But the point is that you need to define a neutral 3rd party, and not declare it after the fact. You're guilty of this as well, remember your libertarians sources for pro guns?
Also, are you saying the BATF is pointless or not run well? There's a difference. We disparage the effectiveness of Congress a lot, doesn't mean we don't need them.

PS I think we're conflating state vs Federal law here. I really don't want to defend some other state just because it is blue. I'm sure nobody here wants to defend Arizona's racial profiling of immigrants or Walker's Wisconsin union busting just becuase you share some libertarian ideals.

PS2: Ormurinn, I'd appreciate it you toned down the fearmongering. It's hard enough to discuss gun control without it leading to "big brother is gonna lead us to Orwellian police state".

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Sat Apr 27, 2013 7:39 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Side Notes, I found it laughable that Ralith claimed Bloomberg alone is equal in strength to the big gun factions. What's next, the Brady Campaign puts the NRA on the ropes?



Not meaning to snipe, here, but I only have a few...

For one thing, Bloomberg (a single citizen) is worth more than the entire NRA and every other gun lobby group combined. He personally plowed 13 million into a TV campaign for gun control legislation.

More directly... Look at the amount recieved by those supporting and those opposing and tell me there's not more money on the pro-control side.
Omni.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:45 pm UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:Not meaning to snipe, here, but I only have a few...

For one thing, Bloomberg (a single citizen) is worth more than the entire NRA and every other gun lobby group combined. He personally plowed 13 million into a TV campaign for gun control legislation.

More directly... Look at the amount recieved by those supporting and those opposing and tell me there's not more money on the pro-control side.

Did you know the Koch Brothers are filthy rich? Each Koch Brother has more money than Bloomberg, and there's 2 Kochs, and only 1 Bloomberg...More to the point, are you claiming that gun advocates are outfunded, by Bloomberg alone?

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:19 pm UTC

@ Sardia - I already live in a disarmed country. There are childrens toys thnat are illegal here for being too powerful :)

Are you referring to when I pointed out similarities between firearms bills and PATRIOT-act type bills (both of dubious efficacy, pushed through, bypass conventional political debate, and generally exploit tragedies), or to the tongue in cheek observation that different things are "metals" depending on your frame of reference?

I've actually been trying to lie low in this thread, see my sig.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:54 am UTC

Ormurinn wrote:@ Sardia - I already live in a disarmed country. There are childrens toys thnat are illegal here for being too powerful :)

Are you referring to when I pointed out similarities between firearms bills and PATRIOT-act type bills (both of dubious efficacy, pushed through, bypass conventional political debate, and generally exploit tragedies), or to the tongue in cheek observation that different things are "metals" depending on your frame of reference?

I've actually been trying to lie low in this thread, see my sig.

I live in a country drowning in guns. The only limitation is how much cash you have and whatever is most convenient. This description, and yours don't really help.

I am referring to when you make unsubstantiated claims that A is bad. A is B, therefore B is bad. You're also implying that we shouldn't have discussion since it's advocating Orweillian police states. By the metrics you laid out, the laws stemming from Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" is just as bad as the Patriot Act.

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Alexius » Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:04 am UTC

sardia wrote:Are you complaining about an Israeli bill? And you're saying it's gonna pass? Or is this part of the Reid bill? Because I'm not sure how this relates. I'm not saying you can't talk about it, but are there implications for us?

No, it's an American bill. It was introduced by Rep. Steve Israel.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:28 am UTC

Sardia, could you please give me examples of those claims so i can substantiate them? I do see a lot of nasty expansion of state power, militarization of police coupled with disempowering civilians and increased surveillance of ordinary people, as it happens, but that's only tangentially related to guns.

I ever said we should't be having a debate - I'm on the side of increased debate, standing against people who want to legislate without consultation! Im genuinely confused.

Are you saying that the claim that gun control bills tend to be passed in a similar way to anti-terror legislation is unsubstantiated?
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:25 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Are you complaining about an Israeli bill? And you're saying it's gonna pass? Or is this part of the Reid bill? Because I'm not sure how this relates. I'm not saying you can't talk about it, but are there implications for us?


Talking about new US bills. One senate bill, one house bill.

In addition, it appears that a non-bill US policy change at BATF has resulted in 80% build parties going from legal to illegal. At least partially, anyway. Full convo at Calguns. Yes, I know this is just "internet forum discussion of a letter some guy got". That's how BATF policy changes get propagated, unfortunately.

For those unfamiliar with what an 80% build party is...it is considered perfectly legal to build your own gun. There's also a product known as an 80% lower which is essentially a block of aluminum the size and shape of an AR lower, with none of the cavities, threading, or other holes carved out. This is legally not a gun. Their purpose is for someone to buy them, then finish it themselves. A build party is several people doing this together, each doing their own gun, usually sharing tools. This restriction applies to this area, with anyone helping you set up tools, etc apparently being a violation.

I'd say if this were a less divisive bill, we'd probably could have worked out a good compromise. ie Voluntary background checks in exchange for a national database + improvements in efficiency. But this isn't the 20th century anymore. Democrats don't trust republicans, and vice versa.
A decade ago, I would say the NRA does represent the gun camp, but not anymore. They're still big, and more importantly a lot easier to describe compared to "crazy citizens for the violent uprising against the man". To prove my point about the lack of compromise, you yourself said that the NRA looked around and saw their fellow peers moved further to the right, so they scooted themselves further to the right as well.


Oh, for sure. There isn't a huge amount of support on the ground for any compromise whatsoever. Compromises tend to be a challenge to sell, but in this case, there is remarkably little trust. Any possible loophole in a bill at all is going to be regarded as a reason to toss it out, regardless of assurances that it won't be enforced. This is fixable, but it does require some very tight bill writing, and probably more time to convince everyone involved that it's a good bargain(and maybe a change this way or that to address concerns).

I don't know that everyone on that end of the spectrum is for violent uprising, though. I certainly am not. As a practical consideration, such things are absolutely the last resort you seek to avoid desperately. Would some people resist an extreme "round up all the guns" scenario? Yeah, probably. But I can't imagine anyone wants it to come to that.

Side Notes, I found it laughable that Ralith claimed Bloomberg alone is equal in strength to the big gun factions. What's next, the Brady Campaign puts the NRA on the ropes?


He's got the money...but money alone isn't the same as power. He's lacking the massive, organized faction of people that the gun culture has. They had a "stop the NRA" rally in DC the other day. Nobody showed up. Seriously, the news reporters outnumbered the protesters. Something like that does their side no favors. Whenever the pro-gun side has a rally, it's huge. Frequently record setting for the venue. That's a form of power that money can't buy(well, not entirely. Paying people to protest is a thing, but it only goes so far).

How do you define apoliticalness? Are you just gonna say "this study says seizing all handguns will reduce the overall murder rate, it's politicizing"! Of course, having an experimental study (as opposed to correlational ones) is way outside any political scope. But the point is that you need to define a neutral 3rd party, and not declare it after the fact. You're guilty of this as well, remember your libertarians sources for pro guns?
Also, are you saying the BATF is pointless or not run well? There's a difference. We disparage the effectiveness of Congress a lot, doesn't mean we don't need them.


Apoliticalness can be sticky. Normally, there's a legal department that adjudicates what is legit for a given agency. If they have a bunch of denials, they can certainly trot those requests out and defend them as legitimate topics of research. This hasn't happened for the CDC, which I find interesting. I would think that at a minimum, they'd talk about the numbers, if they were impressive. X studies on gun violence didn't happen because of this, that sort of argument.

Also, I make no pretense of being apolitical. I'm very definitely on the pro-gun side here.

PS I think we're conflating state vs Federal law here. I really don't want to defend some other state just because it is blue. I'm sure nobody here wants to defend Arizona's racial profiling of immigrants or Walker's Wisconsin union busting just becuase you share some libertarian ideals.

PS2: Ormurinn, I'd appreciate it you toned down the fearmongering. It's hard enough to discuss gun control without it leading to "big brother is gonna lead us to Orwellian police state".


I think we're mostly on federal law here...but there is definite interplay between state and federal law. Assault weapon bans were kind of a fad to attempt at the state level after the initial federal one, for instance. Of course, even if you are for certain laws, you need not defend ALL laws that fall under the gun control heading. It's perfectly reasonable to say that, for instance, you'd like background checks, but don't see the point in assault weapon bans.

Incidentally, fear-mongering is why I'm not part of NAGR. NRA, etc is pretty good about keeping their scope of activity to just firearms and firearm related stuff. When alerting you about a bill, etc, it tends to be very focused and to the point. NAGR tends to be a rambling invective that sort of assumes you're a republican, and thus, demonizing obama, the dems, the un, etc is par for the course. They are a useful organization, I admit, but I don't much like the level of diatribe they produce.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Wed May 01, 2013 7:28 pm UTC

5-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills 2-year-old sister with 'My First Rifle'
Image
Actual guns are being sold to kids as toys.
Is there anyone here who thinks that this shouldn't be grounds for some kind of regulation?
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Wed May 01, 2013 8:10 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:5-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills 2-year-old sister with 'My First Rifle'
Image
Actual guns are being sold to kids as toys.
Is there anyone here who thinks that this shouldn't be grounds for some kind of regulation?


As callous as this seems, a single child was bought a gun by parents who did not properly impress upon him that guns are not toys. On the 24th, four children died in a house fire in South Carolina. The mother of the children is facing charges. The parents of the children involved in this case should also face charges. Giving a child anything dangerous - be it a box of matches (not implying that happened here, but as a theoretical) or a firearm - without properly impressing upon them the danger of such (which is nearly impossible with your average five year old) is criminally negligent and should be punished, particularly if it results in damages to life or property.

It's a shame that a 2 year old girl died because of irresponsible parents. That's not cause to infringe the rights of other people. If someone yelling fire in a movie theater leads to someone getting trampled and killed, you don't rally for limitations and regulations on the first amendment - it's already illegal, so carry out the punishment, and leave sacrosanct rights intact (or get the 2nd amendment repealed, if you feel it has overstayed its welcome)
Omni.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Thu May 02, 2013 7:59 am UTC

jules.LT wrote:5-year-old boy accidentally shoots and kills 2-year-old sister with 'My First Rifle'
Image
Actual guns are being sold to kids as toys.
Is there anyone here who thinks that this shouldn't be grounds for some kind of regulation?


13-year-old boy accidentally clubs to death campmate.

Actual clubs are being sold to kids as toys.
Is there anyone here who thinks this shouldn't be grounds for regulation?

-------------------

I'm being facetious here - obviously a rifle is more dangerous than a baseball bat - but regulation should be proportionate - it's sporting equipment - treat it as such. I'm also relatively sure that this case is covered under existing negligence legislation.

I'm going to give an example of nonsense regulation from my own life - my dad has had to dismantle air-rifles before because they were shooting at over 12 ft-lbs. Meanwhile the compound bows we own are subject to no regulation whatsoever - despite being much, much more dangerous. The only explanation of this that makes sense to me is that the people passing the regulation have an irrational aversion to anything gun-shaped. The bows are by absolutely any metric superior weapons to the air-rifles - and they're brightly-coloured, just like the gun in that picture!
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests