It appears that (again) you are refusing to explain your position.
See, you first (seemingly) claimed that the effects of gun control are impossible to measure. Then you qualified your position – the effects of gun control cannot be measured with precision.
I’m simply trying to pin down what you mean so I can tell if your point really does undermine my claim or not. Unsurprisingly, you refuse to be pinned down.
And note the assymetry – your position is essentially unfalsifiable whereas mine is easily falsified.
I own 6 guns. None of which I purchased. All where handed down to me.
Except two.
One was a gift from my Mom and Dad when I was 12. I saved up for it. Worked hard for it. But instead, I found it on my bed when I came home from school. Mom and Dad bought it for me. It’s a beautiful .22 Browning lever action.
And then there is my Brother. He hates getting gifts. Hates it with a passion. But he likes giving them.
About 6 years ago, he bought me a Ruger GP-100. Somehow, he remembered that I liked that particular gun.
The others are part of my family.
My Dad’s .22 single shot bolt action. My first gun. He shot aspirin at 100 yards with that gun. Or so he says J. He got it for 9 dollars. Then he gave it to me back in 1977. He got it in the 1940’s
The 20 gauge Ithaca (featherlight) shotgun. Wow. A beauty. My first shotgun. The fella my Dad bought it from offered to by it back at twice the price.
The 12 gauge Remington automatic. Dad gave me that as well. I can’t miss with it. Wonderful piece of engineering. Thousands of shells have gone through it.
Oh, and the model ’94 30-30. My brother says the front sight is messed up. But I can’t miss with it.
I would be hard pressed to part with any of these. They are part of my family’s history.
So, if guns are so bad. Why don’t you get rid of yours?
As regards my “quick answers,” they are simply summaries of my beliefs. I am firmly convinced that private ownership of firearms provides a net benefit to society.
If I lived in Brasil, I would be even more convinced of the need for firearms in private hands. This article on the BBC will tell you why.
Okay, I suspected you might return to that. Perhaps then, since we’ve determined here, and as evidenced by the CDC report (notorious for it’s anti-gun stance in recent years) that the effects of gun regulation cannot be measured, (either because they’re occluded by factors which cannot be statistically controlled, or because they’re not statistically significant—I make no judgment here), we can demonstrate with logic, either more or less rigorous, that the additional gun regulations you propos will indeed deter gun crime. (After all, that is the goal, is it not?)
[list=A]
In order to support this, which I will concede may have some effect on reducing the number of guns obtained by risky owners, you must first determine the number of guns that are transferred to risky owners through each of these conceivable means. And then demonstrate that there’s a reasonable expectation of compliance with your proposed regulation, by the parties involved in these risky transactions. Demonstration that otherwise legitimate owners will comply proves nothing. There are also monetary costs to weigh.
• First, the cartridge and the shell are the same thing, but I’m pretty sure you meant “bullet” for one of those terms.
• Second, please explain how this will reduce gun crime. In order for your proposal to come into play, the crime we’re trying to prevent, must necessarily take place—this idea does nothing to prevent crime. I will admit there may be some small deterrence effect here (and this is highly debatable), since the owner of the gun could possibly be identified, but this only holds true if every transfer of the gun follows legal channels and is duly recorded vis-à-vis your first proposal. It does nothing for stolen guns (which are the guns most often used in crime), or other firearms that may “fall through the cracks.”
• Third, I submit that this proposal presents a significant danger to any law-abiding gun owner through errors in the database and other bureaucratic oversight. Suppose, for instance and gun is stolen and later used in a crime and it proves that this guns entries in the database were not updated in a timely or correct fashion. This places the legitimate owner at serious risk from law enforcement agencies and could lead to great expense to clear himself of spurious charges. You must prove that the benefits and costs of what you propose, outweigh these risks.
• Fourth, please describe what form you believe this undefined technology might assume and make some estimate of the monetary costs associated with that. You have built an extremely costly and risky system based on questionable technology with very little benefit that can be logically supported. You have a very high hurdle to clear with this proposal.
This seems a necessary adjunct to your proposal immediately above (that’s why I’ve taken these out of order). I’ve stated my objections and the logical hurdles you must clear to that proposal already and at length. Most of the same points apply since this would seem to be a necessary part of that proposal.
Why? How many guns, which are used in crimes, have had this modification performed on them? You must answer this question first. I don’t have any numbers either, but if fully automatic weapons were being used in a significant number of crimes, I’m certain the press, and others, would be shouting it from the rooftops. The onus lies on you as the proponent of this costly regulation to prove that it’s worthwhile. I don’t recall but a couple isolated incidents of crime with automatic weapons—converted or originally manufactured. It appears to me you are attempting to apply a solution to a problem that doesn’t even exist. This is totally unsupportable by logic.
Well, you failed to support your proposals with anything in that other thread, I thought perhaps you might wish to do it here. Guess not. Again. Frankly there’s little new in any of these debates, yet you continue to participate, so your protestation is rather discreditable.
So. Here’s where we stand. The current gun regulations cannot be shown to have any effect. Nor is it likely that any future legislation will show a measureable effect. The variables are simply to complex to statistically control (this is your assertion, I’ll note). In addition, proposals you have made, are to date, totally unsupported by the only means to defending them left available to you—that being logic. And yet you refuse to even attempt to apply this method to your proposals.
Do you see how absurd one must find that? How is one to take you seriously? (Not to mention, that once again, you leave me with nothing to grab onto except my oft-stated conclusion that you refuse to argue in good faith.) Or am I to take your last statement to mean you are busily drawing up plans for that wheel? In which case, I will respectfully withdraw my parenthetical remark, but somehow, I don’t think that will be necessary. I can also understand that perhaps you may not wish to continue this discussion in this particular thread, but should you wish to do so elsewhere, I’d be happy to participate. It’s entirely up to you, minty.
Beer, I have no desire to waste my time opening up what promises to be yet another endless argument on a subject that was thoroughly discussed more than a year ago. Rest assured that I am declining your invitation out of disinterest, not a lack of answers. If someone else wants to take up the argument, they’re welcome to do so. Me, I’m bored with it.
Sure. But at what point do you stop? We have laws prohibiting certain people from owning guns. I believe that’s a good thing. But I wouldn’t consider myself ‘pro gun-control’. At least not in the way that it seems to be presented in these threads.
I asked minty a genuine question. I was curious.
How did he come to own a gun.
I then explained how I came to own my guns.
Then I asked ‘If guns are so bad, why don’t you get rid of yours’? I should rephrase that.
Would you support legislation that would require you to give up your gun/guns.? I’m not suggesting that you do support that. And don’t know if that is your position. That’s why I ask.
It’s not like guns are anything special in Texas. I learned to shoot when I was a kid. But sorry, I’m not going to get any more specific than that with your question.
No, I would not support a general ban on gun ownership in the U.S. I would, however, comply with such a law if it were to be enacted. I’m a law and order kinda guy, after all.
I’m currently reading “Judgement Ridge,” a new book about the Dartmouth murders a few years back. The two teenage killers, Martin and Tulloch, devised a scheme where they would knock on doors, claim their car had broken down and ask to use the phone. The first guy they tried this with, a father home alone with his toddler son, got suspicious and wouldn’t open the door. He did, however, casually introduce the teens to Mr. Glock by raising the gun so it could be seen. (The teens, by the way, were only armed with knives.) The would-be killers ran like rabbits.
They kept trying until the Zantops, two pacifist Dartmouth professors, let the boys in. Buh bye, Zantops.
When the first attempted victim saw the boys on the news after their arrests for the murders, he said, “See? THIS is why we need the Second Ammendment!”
