|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
Trying to convince others that gun control is necessary is literally not nothing. Well, no, you're not. You're not doing a goddamn thing to lower those deaths. Literally nothing is what you're doing.It is literally how democracy works. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The fact that it happened in Connecticut indicates, to me, that this is an incredibly rare event that's going to happen in some statistically-uneliminateable small number of cases, regardless of our legal gun control regime. This is what I don't understand. If guns were unavailable at the kid's house (my understanding is that the gun was own by the parent) the killings would not have occurred. How is that hard to grasp? (Not saying it is hard for you to grasp, in a rhetorical way).The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Larni writes: How is that hard to grasp? My dad's favourite quote was "there's none so blind as will not see." You won't get an answer. Just as you won't get an answer to why curing knife crime won't be achieved by issuing the population with knives.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If guns were unavailable at the kid's house (my understanding is that the gun was own by the parent) the killings would not have occurred.
On what basis could you say that? If guns had not been at his house he might well have still obtained them. If guns had been completely illegal he might still have obtained them. If guns had been unobtainable he might simply have used something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And if that is the case, doesn't it then simply become a case of society weighing up the overall statisitcs, and determining whether gun control results in a likelihood of greater or fewer deaths by guns for society overall ?
"Death by guns" isn't the right statistic, though, now is it? If you're killed in a situation where a gun might have saved your life, it doesn't follow that it would be classified as a gun death.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: This is not about "gun nuts," I'm no gun nut,... I don't know if there's a formal definition, but your irrational arguments should warrant you serious consideration. Gun deaths won't stop until there are no guns. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Crashfrog writes: On what basis could you say that? If guns had not been at his house he might well have still obtained them. If guns had been completely illegal he might still have obtained them. If guns had been unobtainable he might simply have used something else. Scenario 1. I'm mad as hell about something and feel tha I have to kill as many people as I can, right now. There are two hand guns and a pile of ammunition upstairs in my mother's drawer. I take the guns and kill a load of children. Scenario 2. I'm mad as hell about something and want to kill as many people as I can right now. There are no guns in the house and I have no idea how to get one. I spend a few hours/days trying to get a gun and some ammunition. I fail because guns are not freely available in this society and anyway, I'm not so mad anymore - the mania has passed. Of course anyone truly and irrevocably set on killing a lot of people will eventually find a way of doing some damage somehow, but without simple and immediate access to both a gun and a lot of bullets, it's not an easy thing to achieve. It's impossible to argue that less gun would not mean less death by guns - impossible.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Faith
Message 104: Yes, the PEOPLE, not an army run by the state, the PEOPLE. "Well regulated" implies you don't arm people with a history of violence or mental disorder, and they need some organization and training, ... And the constitution clearly states that the regulation, organization and training are functions for the states, not mobs of self-appointed people.
... The National Guard is not what the founders had in mind. But it is what the state run militias are. They are doing the duties layed out in the constitution for the militias.
Did you read any of the quotes in my post, or that article at the end? I generally ignore the second hand opinions of people who try to revise things to suit their personal agendas, and rely instead on the original documents when forming my opinions ... in this case the constitution. For instance you can go to an on-line version of the current constitution (with amendments) at: http://congressionalconstitutioncaucus-garr.../...nstitution and you can search the text for "militia" ... with these results:
quote: This does not mean that people bearing arms are the Militia. The duties set for the Militia are those presently being done by the National Guard, and there is no other body that does this, ergo the National Guard is de facto the Militia as envisaged by the founders. That is what the constitution tells me.
See peek for message as posted, see Message 197 for more complete version. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : duplicate post delayed by dinner partyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
If you want to legitimately include that in the tally for a country that has made the private ownership of guns largely illegal, then you don't include deaths where gun ownership "might" have saved your life - you include deaths where gun ownership "would" have saved your life.
This does introduce a hypothetical element into the statisitics, but as we know from the recent tragedy (and every other such tragedy, and every other instance where innocent people are killed by a criminal shooting), the fact that the victim (or their parents) could, or even did, own a gun which "might" have saved their life, does not mean that it would have. In my opinion, the inclusion of those deaths which would have been prevented by gun ownership would not begin to make an appreciable dent in the gulf between the statistics for gun deaths in the US and gun deaths in a country which bans general gun ownership.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I fail because guns are not freely available in this society and anyway, I'm not so mad anymore - the mania has passed. These shootings don't happen because of a passing "mania" or anger. They're not the result of a guy "flipping out" or losing control. They invariably represents months of planning prior to execution. The Columbine killers plotted for over a year, gathering weapons, explosives, and marksmanship training. James Holmes stockpiled weapons and ammunition for a year. The Clackamas, Oregon mall guy - whose mass shooting has largely disappeared from the news as a result of this latest one, and also because, having been stopped by the actions of a concealed-carry permit holder, don't fit the emerging "guns are terrible" narrative - spent the better part of a day gathering magazines, ammunition, and stealing the AR-15 before opening fire. We now know that the Sandy Hook shooter's weapons all belonged to his mother. They weren't from out of state as it was earlier suggested. It's fine to talk about background checks, closing loopholes, or Canada's "two references" requirement but there's no licensure regime in the world that is going to flag a middle-aged suburban divorcee as an unacceptable risk. Again, this shooting happened in a state that has nearly every characteristic of the model gun control state - an incredibly strict control regime, half the firearms per capita of more than a dozen nations, including the vaunted Canada, no "shall-issue" concealed-carry permits. Everything you guys have suggested as a solution to the problem of gun violence, Connecticut has. And it didn't prevent this tragedy.
It's impossible to argue that less gun would not mean less death by guns - impossible. Of course. It absolutely means less gun deaths. But similarly, it's impossible to argue that the incredibly strict measures of the War on Drugs haven't reduced deaths from drugs. It absolutely has. But that's not the sole criteria. No control measure comes for free. It's widely understood and not controversial at all, at this point, to note that the War on Drugs - the anti-drug measures themselves - have resulted in enormous human immiseration and actual death. I don't understand why people like you can't understand that a topographically-identical War on Guns being proposed, here, wouldn't have topographically-identical results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If you want to legitimately include that in the tally for a country that has made the private ownership of guns largely illegal, then you don't include deaths where gun ownership "might" have saved your life - you include deaths where gun ownership "would" have saved your life. Ok, but then you can't count as a "gun death" those deaths where the victim would still have been killed had their assailant been armed with a knife or a bomb or any other weapon. Fair's fair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined:
|
crashfrog writes: .
On what basis could you say that? If guns had not been at his house he might well have still obtained them. If guns had been completely illegal he might still have obtained them. If guns had been unobtainable he might simply have used something else. In this case he did try to buy a rifle type weapon but because of the 2 week waiting period he gave up and went home and got mom's. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In this case he did try to buy a rifle type weapon but because of the 2 week waiting period he gave up and went home and got mom's. So the "mania" didn't pass, I guess?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
So the "mania" didn't pass, I guess? We will never know, he didn't wait the 2 weeks, but went right home and got the guns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Percy says:
The massacres will continue as long as gun availability continues. ...and of course, I say massacres will continue as long as humans are alive. But i agree that 100-shot magazines are more easily capable of creating shocking massacres. There is no easy way out. It's about the parents bringing up the wackos. It's about professionals in the field of psychology not identifying and informing the appropriate authorities about dangerous wackos and how hopelessly inadequate that field is today. It's about having police roaming the school halls in some gestapo-ish way. It's about making ammunition signatured and limited on a yearly basis. No easy way out. It's also tangentially about the relative risks to our children being assessed in a country that seems to suffer horribly from innumeracy, as crashfrog pointed out. No easy way out.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024