Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-10-2018, 04:32 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Probably because you've started from a different "something" that is being reduced. Namely, the right codified in the 2nd amendment isn't about levels of firepower (see SCOTUS in Caetano) so this type of comparison is irrelevant when it comes to the scope of the right.
Gestalt (whom I quoted):
Quote:
Haven't we whittled it down to almost nothing? In the whole world of "arms," many Americans are only allowed to own personal-use firearms of limited magazine. What is the philosophical basis behind that?
My response was in regards to "limited magazine". Effectively, no whittling has been done.
  #52  
Old 12-10-2018, 04:38 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It is false to say that the militia clause was the basis for firearm ownership. It's false because every time the amendment is interpreted SCOTUS says that the right codified in the 2nd amendment is in no way dependent on the constitution.
Every time? Well, that once, in a ruling upholding Jim Crow, which you go on to cite to us as something respectable and authoritative.

But do please acknowledge that you're claiming the Second does not, in fact, protect a fundamental right to gun ownership.
  #53  
Old 12-10-2018, 05:17 PM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,416
More guns per capita = more gun deaths per capita. It's that simple.

What is not simple is weening Americans off of their belief in guns. Even once the facts are in front of them, they fall back on their special snowflake argument in defence of their belief that they are incapable of changing their course.
  #54  
Old 12-10-2018, 05:22 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
So what's your idea?
Why not let the police continue as they have, without any more reduction in our Rights? Violent crime in going down.

How about more help with mental illness. More aid to poor areas on the uSA, more ways for people in Ghettos to get decent jobs without turning to Drugs and violence?

Why not better prisons, where the fist time offender is not mixed in with hardore violent criminals, and were more attempts at rehabilitation are made?

Why not get rid of this fucking stupid, useless and wasteful war on drugs? Start by legalizing Marijuana across the board.
  #55  
Old 12-10-2018, 05:24 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
More guns per capita = more gun deaths per capita. It's that simple.
.
Except that is not true.

American has the MOST guns per capita, and falls straight in the middle of murder rate by nation.
  #56  
Old 12-10-2018, 06:40 PM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Except that is not true.

American has the MOST guns per capita, and falls straight in the middle of murder rate by nation.
That is only because you are not comparing apples to apples. Bracket the USA in the middle of the first twenty-six countries on the Human Development Index and see where the USA ranks against these countries on murder rates. I'll give you a hint -- the USA has a far higher murder rate than any of those countries. If you want to be bracketed by ten countries on either side of you based on murder rates rather than human development index, then you are midway between second world's Kyrgyzstan and third world's Bolivia. Believing that your murder rate is average is just plain silly, for it ignores context. When placed in context, your murder rate is anything but average -- it is abysmal.


Even then you are ignoring the elephant in the room. If guns are so darn effective at preventing murders, then the USA, which is awash in guns, should be the safest country in the world, but as set out above, when it comes to murder rates, the USA is only middling when compared against the world, and abysmal when compared against the top couple of dozen countries with high development indices.
  #57  
Old 12-10-2018, 07:31 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,662
Edit by me

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gestalt View Post
And federally, no one can own.........automatic weapons, etc.
That's not correct at all. Automatic weapons are legal under federal law and about 40 states.

But they've made the process of obtaining one an irritating pain in the nuts, and then the cost of buying one prohibitively expensive for most people. Most simply give up on trying to obtain one or simply cannot afford one. The cheapest one I've seen lately was over 24 grand.

It is my observation that there are factions who would like to make this so for any kind of firearm. First by making so many things a disqualifier for owning one, then by making the process for getting one exceeding long and finally by making the purchase unreasonably costly. The end result being only the wealthy and elite will be able to buy/posses firearms legally and the right to bear arms for the rest of us will be meaningless.

But the criminal element will still have their illegal arms. I'm sure we all know how uncomplicated it is to make a gun and powder, or to steal one from somebody that has one legally.
  #58  
Old 12-10-2018, 08:01 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
That is only because you are not comparing apples to apples. Bracket the USA in the middle of the first twenty-six countries on the Human Development Index and see where the USA ranks against these countries on murder rates. I'll give you a hint -- the USA has a far higher murder rate than any of those countries....

Even then you are ignoring the elephant in the room. If guns are so darn effective at preventing murders, then the USA, which is awash in guns, should be the safest country in the world, but as set out above, when it comes to murder rates, the USA is only middling when compared against the world, and abysmal when compared against the top couple of dozen countries with high development indices.
Cherrypicked. According to that list the USA falls in the middle. Or compare Americas- the USA ranks 7th lowest out of 50 nations in the Americas.

I never said guns are effective at preventing murder.
  #59  
Old 12-10-2018, 09:55 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Cherrypicked. According to that list the USA falls in the middle. Or compare Americas- the USA ranks 7th lowest out of 50 nations in the Americas.
Also cherrypicked. You're just suggesting that physical location in the western hemisphere is more important than economic development or per-capita GDP, which strikes me as particularly arbitrary.
  #60  
Old 12-10-2018, 11:44 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Also cherrypicked. You're just suggesting that physical location in the western hemisphere is more important than economic development or per-capita GDP, which strikes me as particularly arbitrary.
Sure, so let's go back to the entire freaken world.


Every damn county. All of them.


I mean, Muffin wants to compare us to Andorra and Liechtenstein, who combined have a population of a little over 100,000. About that of a large American town. Not city. Town. About that of Provo or Peoria.
  #61  
Old 12-11-2018, 06:23 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sure, so let's go back to the entire freaken world.


Every damn county. All of them.


I mean, Muffin wants to compare us to Andorra and Liechtenstein, who combined have a population of a little over 100,000. About that of a large American town. Not city. Town. About that of Provo or Peoria.
You didn't read Muffin's post very well, then:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin
Bracket the USA in the middle of the first twenty-six countries on the Human Development Index and see where the USA ranks against these countries on murder rates.
The world list may be provided, but Muffin's intent is clearly to only look at the upper tier.
  #62  
Old 12-11-2018, 07:44 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'm certain that future crime can be prevented if we curtailed the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments. Terrorists certainly would have their efforts to organize if we limited speech, etc.
I can't see it. Can you explain how terrorists in X country would be prevented from planning and carrying out an attack by a curtailment of any US amendment?
  #63  
Old 12-11-2018, 08:28 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
According to that list the USA falls in the middle.
Canada's murder rate is 1/3rd of ours, but you're feeling proud because ours is 1/3rd of Mexico's.

We're in the middle, that's good enough, right?
  #64  
Old 12-11-2018, 08:35 AM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gestalt View Post
Haven't we whittled it down to almost nothing? In the whole world of "arms," many Americans are only allowed to own personal-use firearms of limited magazine. What is the philosophical basis behind that?
The law does not deal exclusively (or even usually in philosophical purity). It can't, because it reflects interests of conflicting populations. The framers wrote the 2nd amendment in a vague and coy fashion as to its intent, as an amendment to a self-amending document. This left it wide open to judicial and legislative erosion. The framers weren't stupid, I suspect they knew they were kicking the can down the road to future generations.

I (like most people) would favor of an amendment to repeal and replace the 2nd amendment to provide more clarity around the "right to bear arms", both for the real harm it would prevent, and for the clarity of knowing what is or isn't allowed. Other people prioritize unrestricted ownership of arms above everything else, so they prefer the openness to interpretation.

Coincidentally (or not), gun enthusiasm seems more centered upon states with congressional representation disproportionate to their population, thus outright repeal is impossible even if a majority of the population supports it. Hence we end up with gradual erosion of a vague amendment, as expected. Someday we may reach the point of saying it's eroded to uselessness, but I can't imagine that happening anytime soon.
  #65  
Old 12-11-2018, 02:09 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
You didn't read Muffin's post very well, then:



The world list may be provided, but Muffin's intent is clearly to only look at the upper tier.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries

In those 26 upper tier, you have Brunei, Luxemburg, Andorra and Liechtenstein.
  #66  
Old 12-11-2018, 02:11 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
I can't see it. Can you explain how terrorists in X country would be prevented from planning and carrying out an attack by a curtailment of any US amendment?
What is the purpose of Terrorism? To spread Terror.

If no one(other than the victims) knows it happened, no terror.
  #67  
Old 12-11-2018, 02:14 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Canada's murder rate is 1/3rd of ours, but you're feeling proud because ours is 1/3rd of Mexico's.

We're in the middle, that's good enough, right?
Not feeling good, not good enough. We can do many things to cut our violent crime rate, I have already listed many of them.

However, gun control isn't one of them. The whole "Liechtenstein has gun control and a low murder rate thereby gun controls cause a low murder rate" isn't only bad logic, but it falls apart when you look at ALL the nations. It's bad logic but it's the only thing in the gun grabber argument book.

What's more important is that gun control , here in the USofA, has not reduced violent crime.
  #68  
Old 12-11-2018, 02:49 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Gun control in the US hasn't reduced violent crime because gun control in the US is a joke. No matter how hard Chicago cracks down on guns, they can't stop someone from leaving Chicago, buying a gun, and driving back to Chicago.

The reality of guns is that they make killing people super easy. Easy enough that a toddler can do it, without even intending to. You want to kill someone with a knife? That's WORK, you're not flexing your finger 2 or 3 times from 20 feet away then making a run for it. You have to get right up in there, close and personal to make it happen. 75% of homicides use firearms. It's simple math to see how getting rid of firearms means that 75% would have to be accomplished some other way, and every other weapon option is FAR harder than pulling a trigger.


Anyway, it's not Liechtenstein that's important, it's Liechtenstein, Norway, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Italy, Poland, Singapore, Netherlands, Austria......... It's the 100 countries that have half our murder rate. That's right, we could cut our murder rate in half tomorrow and not crack the top 100. Do we have problems they don't have? Sure, but one of the biggest is the availability of guns.
  #69  
Old 12-11-2018, 02:59 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Gun control in the US hasn't reduced violent crime because gun control in the US is a joke. No matter how hard Chicago cracks down on guns, they can't stop someone from leaving Chicago, buying a gun, and driving back to Chicago.
...
Sure, but of course- it is illegal to buy a gun in a state where you are not a resident*. So there is a law to stop that. Illinois has pretty strict gun laws. It is rated B+ by gun control proponents.

* and it illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a out of state customer. Gun stores must check IDs. While it is true that private sales have no such requirement in all states, it is illegal for them to knowingly sell a gun to a out of state buyer.

So by going out of state to buy a gun you are breaking several laws, and you have to find a non-questioning private seller.

So the laws we have on the books don't do anything.
  #70  
Old 12-11-2018, 03:14 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So the laws we have on the books don't do anything.
Exactly.
  #71  
Old 12-11-2018, 03:25 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Exactly.
And of course, since the gun laws we do have dont do anything, the only answer is more gun laws, right?
  #72  
Old 12-11-2018, 03:42 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And of course, since the gun laws we do have dont do anything, the only answer is more gun laws, right?
Boy, you sure got me there! I fell into your clever trap.

Seriously, if the gun laws are "let's ban this cosmetic feature" or "let's regulate sales in this tiny subset of the market", then adding more of them is worthless.

Our gun laws don't work because they operate under the umbrella idea that "every American has the right to buy a semi-automatic pistol or rifle, just cuz they want one" Until that nonsense goes away, none of these gun laws will do anything but pick at the edges of the problem.

Maybe, MAYBE, if we had a robust* system of registration, it might make a dent, other than that, it's rearranging the deck chairs.

*Robust being a nice word for the government being ALL up in your ass about that gun you own.
  #73  
Old 12-11-2018, 03:48 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Yes, and on a national level, too. It doesn't help Chicago to have tight gun laws if they're loose in adjoining Indiana, for instance. Yet the gun lobby loves to point to that and say "See? Gun laws don't work!", just as if they were pointing at a screen door and saying "See? Doors don't keep the rain and wind out!".

On an international level, the same principle applies across the border - for instance, most of Mexico's illegal guns are trafficked from the US (things come from the places they're easiest to get, duh).
  #74  
Old 12-11-2018, 06:19 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
75% of homicides use firearms. It's simple math to see how getting rid of firearms means that 75% would have to be accomplished some other way, and every other weapon option is FAR harder than pulling a trigger.
Out of all the arguments I've made over the years regarding guns/gun control, this is the simplest and easiest to grasp when it comes to a way to reduce homicides. And yet, I've never convinced a single gun owner to agree with me. I once exaggerated something of the sort, asking somewhat facetiously, "how many gun-related homicides would there be in the US if we literally got rid of all guns?" Knowing that in this admittedly far-fetched example, saying none would illustrate my point for me, no one has ever dared answer. Predictably, they want to ask how we could get rid of guns or otherwise change the subject.
  #75  
Old 12-11-2018, 07:15 PM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What is the purpose of Terrorism? To spread Terror.

If no one(other than the victims) knows it happened, no terror.
He said crime could be prevented, not terrorism. Let him speak up for himself.
  #76  
Old 12-11-2018, 07:21 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
I can't see it. Can you explain how terrorists in X country would be prevented from planning and carrying out an attack by a curtailment of any US amendment?
Domestic terrorists would have their ability to organize hampered if we could curtail speech. Foreign terrorists could potentially be stymied if they weren't able to coordinate with domestic persons. Ultimately, if we simply killed everyone, no more crime or terrorism.
  #77  
Old 12-11-2018, 07:23 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Out of all the arguments I've made over the years regarding guns/gun control, this is the simplest and easiest to grasp when it comes to a way to reduce homicides. And yet, I've never convinced a single gun owner to agree with me. I once exaggerated something of the sort, asking somewhat facetiously, "how many gun-related homicides would there be in the US if we literally got rid of all guns?" Knowing that in this admittedly far-fetched example, saying none would illustrate my point for me, no one has ever dared answer. Predictably, they want to ask how we could get rid of guns or otherwise change the subject.
What's the gotcha? If all guns were magically disappeared then of course gun crime would plummet. If I had wheels I'd be a wagon. Is there some brilliant point to be made here?
  #78  
Old 12-11-2018, 07:56 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
He said crime could be prevented, not terrorism. Let him speak up for himself.

Huh?
  #79  
Old 12-11-2018, 08:01 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
What's the gotcha? If all guns were magically disappeared then of course gun crime would plummet. If I had wheels I'd be a wagon. Is there some brilliant point to be made here?
But- would violent crime go down and stay down?

It's all very nice to ask for a reduction in "gun crime" but myself, I'd also rather not be knifed, thenkyouverymuch.

Of course violent crime would go down for a while, until crooks adapted. Zip guns, or even guns made from 3D printers, crossbows, whatever. Now, I will guess that violent crime would be reduced somewhat forever- by waving that magic wand and making all guns go away. Or would it? The guns in the hands of police and security would go away also.

But if the same magic wand was used to say get rid of all 'semiautomatic' guns- that dip would be smaller and go away faster. Sawed off shotguns and revolvers can easily replace Glocks.
  #80  
Old 12-11-2018, 11:12 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
What's the gotcha? If all guns were magically disappeared then of course gun crime would plummet. If I had wheels I'd be a wagon. Is there some brilliant point to be made here?
Guns killed more people in America than car crashes in 2017 (mostly via suicide).

If we're interested in reducing a number of deaths comparable to car crashes, then regulating guns would be an effective way to do that. Particularly since many of these deaths were suicide, because guns so easily serve such impulse decisions.

Gun enthusiasts believe that guns mostly kill people who deserve it, but a more careful look reveals the victims to be innocent bystanders, suicides, domestic violence victims, one child killing another, etc. We can assume some of that rage would find its way to a knife or tire iron, but those are much higher-effort ways to hurt someone. Guns are especially dangerous to people who don't deserve to be killed.
  #81  
Old 12-11-2018, 11:23 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Guns killed more people in America than car crashes in 2017 (mostly via suicide).

If we're interested in reducing a number of deaths comparable to car crashes, then regulating guns would be an effective way to do that. Particularly since many of these deaths were suicide, because guns so easily serve such impulse decisions.

Gun enthusiasts believe that guns mostly kill people who deserve it, but a more careful look reveals the victims to be innocent bystanders, suicides, domestic violence victims, one child killing another, etc. We can assume some of that rage would find its way to a knife or tire iron, but those are much higher-effort ways to hurt someone. Guns are especially dangerous to people who don't deserve to be killed.
What happens if I'm not interested in reducing one thing compared to an irrelevant thing?

Lumping suicide with other causes is asinine.
  #82  
Old 12-11-2018, 11:41 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
What happens if I'm not interested in reducing one thing compared to an irrelevant thing?

Lumping suicide with other causes is asinine.
Yes, I agree, which I certainly agree we have too many murders here in America, the solution to unwanted suicide is better mental health programs, not less guns.

I dont want people driving into oncoming traffic, suicide by police ,or standing in front of a train to finish it.

As long as they have thought it thru and been counseled- well it's their right.
  #83  
Old 12-12-2018, 12:08 AM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,084
Part of it is it is not written that 'the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed' - which would be cut and dry clear, but that is tied to a ideal that it has to due with the security of a free state and requires a well regulated militia. So like the great questions of humanity, this one is not cut and dry. Compare and contrast to the first which does not introduce such as strange philosophical statement as a condition of the right.

And that philosophical statement is part of the amendment itself, which opens it up to trying to figure out how the hell that first part of the amendment bears on the second as you just can't ignore that first part and honestly enforce the second, for as soon as you ignore the first part you negate the reason to follow the second part. So they must be take together, and it is not a right to keep and bare arms, but a certain condition where the right to keep and bare arms must be met.
  #84  
Old 12-12-2018, 12:21 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Part of it is it is not written that 'the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed' - which would be cut and dry clear, but that is tied to a ideal that it has to due with the security of a free state and requires a well regulated militia. So like the great questions of humanity, this one is not cut and dry. Compare and contrast to the first which does not introduce such as strange philosophical statement as a condition of the right.

And that philosophical statement is part of the amendment itself, which opens it up to trying to figure out how the hell that first part of the amendment bears on the second as you just can't ignore that first part and honestly enforce the second, for as soon as you ignore the first part you negate the reason to follow the second part. So they must be take together, and it is not a right to keep and bare arms, but a certain condition where the right to keep and bare arms must be met.
None of this is true after Heller. Have you read it? The prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause.
  #85  
Old 12-12-2018, 01:01 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
What's the gotcha? If all guns were magically disappeared then of course gun crime would plummet. If I had wheels I'd be a wagon. Is there some brilliant point to be made here?
No, it's not brilliant at all. It's simplicity itself. You don't have to get rid of ALL guns for that to happen, just a whole lot of them. Handguns, for instance. How about we start with those.
  #86  
Old 12-12-2018, 01:57 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
No, it's not brilliant at all. It's simplicity itself. You don't have to get rid of ALL guns for that to happen, just a whole lot of them. Handguns, for instance. How about we start with those.
Handguns are indeed the #1 gun used by criminals. But the 2nd Ad stands in your way.

And of course it would cost billions.
  #87  
Old 12-12-2018, 02:26 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
No, it's not brilliant at all. It's simplicity itself. You don't have to get rid of ALL guns for that to happen, just a whole lot of them. Handguns, for instance. How about we start with those.
I honk the Democratic Party should totally campaign on this issue. Good luck!
  #88  
Old 12-12-2018, 05:51 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
The prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause.
I do admire the audacity of the gun lobby in inventing a new structure of grammatical rules specifically for one purpose, that of dismissing an inconvenient part. Anywhere else, a subordinate clause does indeed modify the main clause. That's what it's for.
  #89  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:00 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
But the 2nd Ad stands in your way.
Why "your" and not "our"?

Quote:
And of course it would cost billions.
Know what else costs billions or more and yet we believe we have to do it anyway? Lots. No excuses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
What happens if I'm not interested in reducing one thing compared to an irrelevant thing?

Lumping suicide with other causes is asinine.
Why would you not be interested in helping preserve human life? Please explain the value system that lets you make that statement.
  #90  
Old 12-12-2018, 07:54 AM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
None of this is true after Heller. Have you read it? The prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause.
While seemingly true in legal terms, in practice that clause does seem to still carry weight. If it didn't the restrictions would be stuck down as the 'operative clause' is crystal clear.
  #91  
Old 12-12-2018, 07:57 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
What happens if I'm not interested in reducing one thing compared to an irrelevant thing?

Lumping suicide with other causes is asinine.
When talking about the overall societal impact of guns, the fact that they are a quick, easy, and disturbingly effective method of taking one's own life* is not only not a factor to be ignored, it may be the single most important factor due to the sheer number of people who die at their own hands with the help of a gun.

*(And given that the vast majority of people who survive a suicide attempt regret it, and that methods of suicide are not fungible, and all the other shit we already know about suicide which I felt might be important to bring up here - seriously, people who don't know much about the state of evidence regarding guns and suicides should read up before tackling the issue...)

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 12-12-2018 at 07:59 AM.
  #92  
Old 12-12-2018, 09:26 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
While seemingly true in legal terms, in practice that clause does seem to still carry weight. If it didn't the restrictions would be stuck down as the 'operative clause' is crystal clear.
Not seemingly, actually true in legal terms. As for restrictions that would be struck down - give it time. It takes a while to get to SCOTUS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
When talking about the overall societal impact of guns, the fact that they are a quick, easy, and disturbingly effective method of taking one's own life* is not only not a factor to be ignored, it may be the single most important factor due to the sheer number of people who die at their own hands with the help of a gun.
Suicide is certainly a very serious issue, and should not be ignored. But the causes of and solutions to mitigate suicide are wholly different than those aimed at other gun related problems. Gun control advocacy tends to conflate suicide with other items because it inflates numbers. Anyone who groups together suicide and let's say, crime, when talking about issues with guns either doesn't know what they are talking about or is being misleading.

Look at some of the things pushed in terms of gun control: magazine limits, 1 gun in 30 days limits, restrictions on concealed carry, CA not unsafe roster, 10 day waiting period even if you already own firearms, assault weapon bans, ammo bans, semi-auto handgun tax, cosmetic based bans, bullet button bans, bump stock bans, machine gun restrictions, etc. All of these things are irrelevant to suicide prevention. That's because the approach to suicide prevention is entirely different than the approach towards other issues with firearms.
  #93  
Old 12-12-2018, 09:33 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Here's one big one - treating the right to own a gun as a fundamental human right.

Owning a gun when you suffer from bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or depression is a really bad idea. Indeed, it's one of those cases where gun confiscation is an extremely good idea, because the danger of rather permanent self-harm is a serious one.

At the same time, I hope you can understand why I'm wary of removing constitutional rights on the basis of mental disorders as a matter of principle, regardless of how good of an idea it would be in practice - the precedent set is incredibly dangerous. It puts the mentally ill in a no-win scenario.

And yeah, of course many gun control issues have nothing to do with suicide, and people posting suicide stats to push for bump stock regulations are being dishonest. But how 'bout we wait for someone to actually do that before we start throwing around that accusation? HMS Irruncible's post was entirely fair in that regards.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 12-12-2018 at 09:35 AM.
  #94  
Old 12-12-2018, 11:46 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
But how 'bout we wait for someone to actually do that before we start throwing around that accusation? HMS Irruncible's post was entirely fair in that regards.
Fair in what regard? Post #80 lumped in victims such as 'innocent bystanders, suicides, domestic violence victims, one child killing another, etc.' Is that type of grouping fair or even informative? Suicide prevention is an important issue. But the magnitude of suicides do virtually nothing to inform the rational in support of the right to arms. Even if the rate of suicide were significantly higher, 10x or 100x, it would not change the rationale in support of the right to arms a single iota. The approach I favor is much greater mental health availability and outreach. I think background checks could have value, but I'm not willing to concede the issue because gun control advocacy is so fundamentally flawed that they must be stopped as a matter of principle.

This is in addition to the fact that the framing of the post indicates that guns are doing the killing, as if they have a will of their own, as well as assuming a belief about who deserves what, the entire last paragraph is just a mess.

The first paragraph of post #80 doesn't fare much better. Comparing guns to cars is convenient, but trite. It's also fundamentally wrong because the two are entirely different. So asking if we are interested in reducing the number of deaths comparable to car crashes is like asking if we are interested in reducing the number of deaths comparable to lightning strikes, or spontaneous combustion. It's irrelevant. Just as are comparisons to other countries, etc. are not useful. Other countries have their own laws, history, customs, and culture. Good for them.
  #95  
Old 12-12-2018, 12:59 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Fair in what regard? Post #80 lumped in victims such as 'innocent bystanders, suicides, domestic violence victims, one child killing another, etc.' Is that type of grouping fair or even informative?
I think that given your outright opposition to all gun control, it's questionable whether there's any grouping at all that you'd consider informative. And I'm not sure what it means to be "fair" to an inanimate object.

It is very informative in the sense that it shows guns cause a great many deaths that are unrelated to the purpose of self-defense, regulated-militia-forming, or whatever other reasons people use to support the 2nd amendment.

It matters relative to car crashes not because gun deaths are like car crashes, but because it gives an idea as to how widespread the problem is.

Quote:
Suicide prevention is an important issue.
Do you have any proposals on how to address it? It seems like this is usually offered to shift discussion away from the role of guns in suicides.
  #96  
Old 12-12-2018, 01:09 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Guns killed more people in America than car crashes in 2017 (mostly via suicide).

If we're interested in reducing a number of deaths comparable to car crashes, then regulating guns would be an effective way to do that. Particularly since many of these deaths were suicide, because guns so easily serve such impulse decisions.

Gun enthusiasts believe that guns mostly kill people who deserve it, but a more careful look reveals the victims to be innocent bystanders, suicides, domestic violence victims, one child killing another, etc. We can assume some of that rage would find its way to a knife or tire iron, but those are much higher-effort ways to hurt someone. Guns are especially dangerous to people who don't deserve to be killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Fair in what regard? Post #80 lumped in victims such as 'innocent bystanders, suicides, domestic violence victims, one child killing another, etc.' Is that type of grouping fair or even informative? Suicide prevention is an important issue. But the magnitude of suicides do virtually nothing to inform the rational in support of the right to arms. Even if the rate of suicide were significantly higher, 10x or 100x, it would not change the rationale in support of the right to arms a single iota.
Well... yeah. It's an externality. They tend not to affect the arguments in favor of something, because they're orthogonal. The argument in favor of burning fossil fuels comes down to things like "it makes cars go"; whether that also warms the globe and causes international catastrophes has no effect on the fact that fuel makes cars go.

That doesn't mean we can ignore it, though. It just means that we need to have a slightly more complex analysis of the pros and cons of legal gun ownership than "list the arguments in favor and see if they hold up to scrutiny".

Quote:
The first paragraph of post #80 doesn't fare much better. Comparing guns to cars is convenient, but trite. It's also fundamentally wrong because the two are entirely different. So asking if we are interested in reducing the number of deaths comparable to car crashes is like asking if we are interested in reducing the number of deaths comparable to lightning strikes, or spontaneous combustion. It's irrelevant.
It's a comparison that really doesn't favor you - cars are useful and necessary. Guns... aren't.

Quote:
Just as are comparisons to other countries, etc. are not useful. Other countries have their own laws, history, customs, and culture. Good for them.
This is mighty convenient - what possible data could we bring to bear on the issue of gun violence if we say a priori that almost any data we could use for a comparison is inherently useless?
  #97  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:41 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I do admire the audacity of the gun lobby in inventing a new structure of grammatical rules specifically for one purpose, that of dismissing an inconvenient part. Anywhere else, a subordinate clause does indeed modify the main clause. That's what it's for.
Did it do so in 1791 and did the writer know those rules?
  #98  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:43 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Why "your" and not "our"?

Know what else costs billions or more and yet we believe we have to do it anyway? Lots. No excuses.

Why would you not be interested in helping preserve human life? Please explain the value system that lets you make that statement.
Because I know that banning all handguns will just put a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens in prisons, and in the end, not significant reduce violent crime.

Sure, lets get rid of the war on drugs.

Because suicide is a choice and a right. Instead do the billions and billions wasted on banning guns, lets spend a little on better mental health.
  #99  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:51 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
It's a comparison that really doesn't favor you - cars are useful and necessary. Guns... aren't.
Those two words, useful and necessary...

Of course guns are useful, they're just useful for something that you don't think is necessary.

What it boils down to is whether the ability to use deadly force should be allowed to the general public, or if it should be restricted to official agents of the government like law enforcement and the military.

As it stands today, in America, the answer to that question is "yes, with some restrictions." What those restrictions are, is an ongoing subject of debate, and yes, subject to change. Based on legislation.
  #100  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:56 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Because I know that banning all handguns will just put a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens in prisons.
If they wind up in prison, they weren't law-abiding, were they? It's easy to be law abiding when the laws don't stop you from doing the things you want to do.

We've spent decades throwing brown people in jail for scraps of weed or selling loosies, and now it's all "let's not jail people for petty crimes, like owning a banned weapon that can kill with a twitch of a finger."
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017