# SenorBeef: "hey, dead kids. Everyone wins!" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 20, 2013, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417 "2013-03-20T02:34:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/81 "2013-03-21T12:59:47Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > \ But there’s not question that the pro-gun side has far more ignorance and hysteria than the pro-gun side. It’s not even close. That makes about as much sense as any argument in the gun debates. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/82 "2013-03-21T13:02:00Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Oh, look, a Republican talking to an empty chair. As many times as you present this caricature of pro-gun control people, it doesn’t make it any more true. A fringe minority of people think gun owners are murderous idiots. They themselves are idiots. And **Absolute** , just for reference, **Der Tris** isn’t a good cite. It’s like one of our more liberal posters quoting **Curlcoat** as a standard Republican viewpoint. Everyone realizes they’re crazy. We like to keep them around to makes things interesting. We keep the liberal ones around. We tend to ban the conservative ones quickly. > [@](#): > > What infuriates gun control proponents is that people reject any measures that would restrict guns rights in any way. Damn straight. I will oppose you all the way. > [@](#): > > Take universal background checks, for instance. Supported by 91% of the public. Supported by a majority of gun owners. However, it’s the devil because, you know, confiscation or some such nonsense. **Nobody** wants to take your guns unless you are a menace or potentially unbalanced. Even if people did want to take all the guns, how possible do you think that’d be when we can’t even get universal background checks passed when it has 91% public support? It’s ridiculous. Instead of screaming, “SECOND AMENDMENT!!11!eleventy” at the top of your lungs, how about you suggest something that would meaningfully curb gun violence and save innocent lives, because that’s all we’re trying to do. That’s the thing. It won’t save any lives. You want to save lives? Stop making schools and other places “gun free zones”. Allow concealed carry in more places. There are plenty of options that would save lives that the anti-gun people are opposed to. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/83 "2013-03-21T15:03:49Z")
Pretty much of an aside, but this is about as good a place to post as any. Was talking with a co-worker - an atty for a fed agency in NW IN. He’s a strong supporter of gun rights/ownership, but as liberal and judgmental as I am on most issues, I wouldn’t call him an ignorant “gun nut.” His commented that his daughter is doing a 4H shooting exercise, and said he has unable to find ammunition in the local stores. Not having to go to differnet stores, flat out unable to find it. Not even .22s. Not something I ever conceived of. Just saying, if folk out there are buying up ammo as fast as it is made, talking about banning whatever weapons impresses me as pretty much pissing in the wind. IMO, all of the proposed/enacted bans on various weapons are incredibly stupid and ineffectual. But they fit perfectly within the American preference for giving the appearance of doing something without really changing anything that matters. Sure, spend months/years debating whether to ban Bushmasters or 50 round clips, when I can go to the nearest gun show and buy as many pistols as I can haul away in my trunk. A response to gun violence impresses me as the type of issue that is very resistant to rational solution, because there are VERY LARGE numbers of persons on both sides who are not interested in or capable of considering it rationally, and powerful institutions profiting from one position or the other. Add to that a great number of folk who simply don’t want to change their lives one whit - no matter how great the possible benefits to others. So yeah, a bunch of dead kids in Ct, twice as many dead in a Colo theater… Who cares? Just keep your head down and pass the popcorn. Of course, far more folk shoot themselves, and darkskinned folk get shot day in/out with far less media coverage. Hell, I’d wager just about any of us are far more likely to die at the hands of some idiot driving while texting, than some nut with a gun. On days I’m feeling especially cynical, I welcome the pointless efforts our reps are spending on gun violence, as it distracts them from doing anything even more harmful! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/84 "2013-03-21T15:42:38Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > How many deaths at the hands of drunk drivers will it take to ban alcohol? Why do you not think “ENOUGH IS A-FUCKING-NOUGH!” whenever you hear of a child being killed by a drunk driver? What’s this? A vodka going on about banning alcohol? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Dogzilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@Dogzilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogzilla)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/85 "2013-03-21T15:46:17Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > The guy who committed those murders was a police officer, and he used a revolver! How this is a valid justification for trying to ban certain types of rifle and high-capacity magazines is beyond me. Or are you suggesting that her ultimate goal is in fact to ban all types of private gun ownership, and that her proposed assault weapons ban is just the first step? Hmm, where have I heard that before? All I’m suggesting is that, after a trauma like that, I’d have a hard on about banning guns myself. I have no idea and don’t care to speculate about what Feinstein’s goals are. I was addressing motivation. The question was asked, “But whhhyyyyy?” I hate guns, but I think more laws and more banning of things won’t help much. I think we are ignoring the larger issue that goes to, again, motivation of the perps who use guns for nefarious reasons, and that is: We have a serious problem with mental health care in this country. When someone is mentally ill, or desperate, or enraged, we stigmatize people who need professional help instead of getting them help. The insurance companies and employers don’t set up plans for meaningful significant mental health care as part of the benefit plans. Eh, maybe you get 6-8 appointments a year and those are only covered 50%. Is that really helpful for some paranoid schizophrenic who is hearing voices and wants to shoot them all down? If that schizophrenic person actually has access to health care/insurance at all. The problem is not about guns. It’s about gun _nuts._ IMO. YMMV ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/86 "2013-03-21T15:50:05Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > But there’s not question that the pro-gun side has far more ignorance and hysteria than the pro-gun side. It’s not even close. Couldn’t agree more. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/87 "2013-03-21T16:58:34Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > But there’s not question that the pro-gun side has far more ignorance and hysteria than the pro-gun side. It’s not even close. I think this might be the truest and most insightful thing you’ve ever posted. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/88 "2013-03-21T17:08:44Z")
I have a question on the Assault Weapons Ban. What is the basis for objecting to this? 1. it won’t work. People already have assault weapons and they will continue to be available despite a ban, or 2. It won’t work, people who want to do mass killings will just find a way with other weapons, or 3. It is important to for citizens to be able to have assault weapons, (and constitutionally protected), or 4. although there is no need for civilian assault weapons, and perhaps a ban would have some positive effect, we can’t justify infringing on any constitutional right simply because it would do some “good.” (slippery slope, and all that jazz) From what I’ve seen, it’s mostly 1) and 2). If so, what’s the harm in trying? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/89 "2013-03-21T17:54:33Z")
Bad legislation isn’t the answer. Assault Weapons are simply bog standard semi-automatic rifles with design alterations that are useful for the military, but do not change the basic capability of the rifle. What is helpful for a guy who has to lug it around for 12 hours a day, rain or shine, and may find himself in a split second firefight is not much of anything to a normal user, other than looking “cool”. Contrast that with legislation that does affect the capability of the weapon, like limiting magazine capacity. A 6 shot magazine vs 30 shot magazine can change the dynamic of a mass killing where eliminating a bayonet lug will not. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/90 "2013-03-21T18:37:42Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > That makes about as much sense as any argument in the gun debates. 🙂 Heh. I had to read the sentence several times before catching what he’d said :). **Debaser** , if you think you’re an objective judge of which side is more ignorant or hysterical, you’re clinically insane. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/91 "2013-03-21T18:41:55Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Heh. I had to read the sentence several times before catching what he’d said :). As a math geek, I love that it simplifies to A \> A. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/92 "2013-03-21T18:49:04Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > How many deaths at the hands of drunk drivers will it take to ban alcohol? Why do you not think “ENOUGH IS A-FUCKING-NOUGH!” whenever you hear of a child being killed by a drunk driver? We tried banning booze. It didn’t work and had a lot of unintended consequences. (Like gun violence) If we had and enforced tough laws on drunk driving, I would be all for that. Tell me about your iiability insurance for gun owners. What if insurers decided that the rate for this was more than a gun owner could afford? What then? Would that person be allowed to own a gun? What if the insurance companies said, you have to do this and this and this (like lock up your guns in a safe), would that be OK? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/93 "2013-03-21T20:46:24Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I have a question on the Assault Weapons Ban. What is the basis for objecting to this? > > 1. it won’t work. People already have assault weapons and they will continue to be available despite a ban, or > > 2. It won’t work, people who want to do mass killings will just find a way with other weapons, or > > 3. It is important to for citizens to be able to have assault weapons, (and constitutionally protected), or > > 4. although there is no need for civilian assault weapons, and perhaps a ban would have some positive effect, we can’t justify infringing on any constitutional right simply because it would do some “good.” (slippery slope, and all that jazz) > > From what I’ve seen, it’s mostly 1) and 2). If so, what’s the harm in trying? It’s been done before, with zero measurable effect. None. Yet this is the cutting edge of gun-control legislation. Welcome to 1993. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/94 "2013-03-22T01:21:44Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > It’s been done before, with zero measurable effect. None. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/95 "2013-03-22T02:31:19Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Cite? It’s been cited countless times in countless threads, but to appease you: [ > [@](#): > > The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the “assault weapon” ban and other gun control attempts, and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence,” noting “that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.” A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small… ]([Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Expiration_and_effect_on_crime)) The law did bupkis, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that a rifle, looking exactly the same, yet shorn of bayonet lug to prevent those terrifying bayonet charges and devoid of a flash hider which doesn’t actually hide the flash from anybody, was perfectly legal. Also, given that “assault weapons” were used in 2% of gun crimes, it wouldn’t have made any notable difference anyway. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/96 "2013-03-22T03:26:04Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Crazy long day, and I don’t have the energy left to address all the things asked of me at the moment, so I’ll get around to it tomorrow. Yeah, sorry, I had like 10 posts queued up and didn’t have time to sit here for a long time to post, so I’ll get around to it tonight, maybe bit by bit. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/97 "2013-03-22T10:55:35Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > It’s been cited countless times in countless threads, but to appease you: > > The law did bupkis, for a variety of reasons How do you get from “insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness” to “the law did bupkis”? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/98 "2013-03-22T11:25:55Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > It’s been cited countless times in countless threads, but to appease you: > > [URL=“[Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Expiration_and_effect_on_crime)”] > > The law did bupkis… Just in general, when you cite a source that explicitly says, “this doesn’t mean X,” I would advise not using that source as support for X. ETA: I’ll give you points, though, for not citing John R. Lott’s work, which is referred to a couple of paragraphs below the CDC report in the Wikipedia article. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/99 "2013-03-22T17:32:11Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > How do you get from “insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness” to “the law did bupkis”? If they can’t prove that the law did anything, which was explicitly the reason for passing the law, to do something, then it didn’t do anything. Pretty simple, their caveats notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417/100 "2013-03-22T18:41:53Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > If they can’t prove that the law did anything, which was explicitly the reason for passing the law, to do something, then it didn’t do anything. Pretty simple, their caveats notwithstanding. That’s some serious ignorance of the scientific method right there. And when you find yourself trusting the scientists in the first part of the paragraph but not the second part of the paragraph, that’s a pretty strong indicator of your own bias. Your reasoning, for what it’s worth, is nearly identical to the creationists who say that, because scientists are unable to find fossils of particular species (so-called “missing links”), those species did not exist. Let’s all say it together: ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senorbeef-hey-dead-kids-everyone-wins/653417.md?page=6)