|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
It strikes me that you're using rules and ideas from the 18th century to govern your activities in the 21st. To the outside world this approach looks like madness. That's rich coming from a subject to a crown
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I linked to it before:
http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu For some strange reason, /r/ogu is private. I've applied for access.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Okay, NoNukes was right, you're not using a search engine. Again, we have to use the same approach or it's not meaningful, although I'm listening if you have ideas for how to balance different approaches. Meh, count me out. Are you still standing by this?:
quote: Its neither a myth, nor considered amazing every time it happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Your answer about stronger sentencing and somehow identifying "people who are willing to use guns illegally" was self-evidently absurd. The two-year old who shot his mother wasn't thinking about sentencing. The Vermont woman who just killed a social worker and three members of her family provided no hint that she was dangerous. But you didn't ask me how I would reduce every single conceivable death by a gun. And you just purposefully brought up examples that couldn't be prevented by any other way than removing the gun from the equation. So we're not even talking about the same thing. And your question wasn't even an honest one. I won't address it again. Anyways, you identify a person who is willing to use their gun illegally by the fact that they did do just that, and then you slap them with a really harsh sentence. You're not going to identify people who are willing to use their gun illegally at some point in the future.
Yes, we know, and guns purchased for defense are far more likely to be used against family and friends than against a criminal. Okay, what are the odds? Are we talking the difference between 0.0000001% and 0.00001%?
Part of the problem of talking about the Federal level, is that in some of the States many of the people actually do need significant firepower to survive as they do. Now you're just sounding loony and paranoid. Think Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas... Think dangerous wildlife, think hunting.
Yes, we know, but obviously everyone isn't you. The statistical aggregate tells us that guns increase the risk of injury and death to gun owners and those around them. Okay, so were not talking about the same thing. Your using that stat as a metric for making the decision for other people as a group in whether or not they should have guns. I'm using the stat as a metric for making the decision for myself in whether or not I should have a gun. I stand by the fact that it is not your decision to make for other people.
Well, sure, criminals could adjust to more people carrying in other ways. For example, they might just sneak up from behind and club you unconscious with a baseball bat rather than deal with the possibility that you might be armed. Or they might decide to just not commit the crime.
The point is that you're wrong to believe that more people carrying will deter crime. It won't, or at least not much. I don't believe that, nor do I believe that it is something that you know.
Deterrence and intimidation has a long and honored record of failure. Threatening someone with incarceration or violence doesn't necessarily deter them. It often makes them sneakier or more violent or something else, but it doesn't deter them. It worked for drunk driving. Since MADD, drunk driving incidents have halved. Part of the solution was stronger punishment.
That attitude encapsulates the whole problem. You gun nuts only care about keeping your guns and not about the lives and safety of others. That's absurd, and hypocritical. If someone brings up driving deaths then you reply that you are capable of caring about more than one thing. But if someone disagrees with your idea for gun control, then they are only capable of caring about one thing and one thing only. Get real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
We have other ways of making the comparison. I don't see the point. I already was willing to grant you a ration of 1000:1 and move on. Again, what kind of odds are we talking about? Granting you the 1000:1 ratio, are we talking about 0.0000001% vs. 0.0001%?
But it *is* a myth. For example, your first story... Okay then, why don't you go ahead and tell me what it is you are talking about and how you are going to measure it? I'm not going to waste my time trying to find cases to fit some unknown criteria so that you can nit pick them apart and discount them. But regardless, we're so far apart that I doubt this conversation is worth continuing. Like:
The burglar wasn't threatening them. I mean, that is so retarded that I don't even want to talk to you any more. A guy cutting the screen on your window and breaking into your house is certainly a threat. A huge threat. (And the perp was a visitor to a neighborhood residence, not the residence that got broken in to)
We have to stop insanity like this and take peoples' guns away. Okay, yeah, I'm done with you. Good luck in your endeavor, you'll get no support from me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Imagine: It only takes one addict's word to send the SWAT team shooting and screaming into your house. Its doesn't even have to be an addict. Jerks have been setting up disliked acquaintances to be raided by the police for a while now. Its called Swatting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Background checks for all gun purchases. A central database for gun purchases. All purchases? At a Federal level? I'd pass. The juice ain't worth the squeeze. I don't think it'd help a lot and it would cost too much. What about gifts? Can I buy my brother a shotgun for Christmas? Can someone give me a gun so long as I don't purchase it from them?
Expanding the ATF's capabilities. Nope.
Research into gun safety Sure, I can't see why anybody would be against research unless it hurt their bottom line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
It's Latin: Reductio ad pistolium
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The question is whether or not throwing guns into that mix will make things better or worse. Why is that the question? And what is the point of asking it?
Worse seems to be the obvious answer. Well, obviously guns are more effective weapons. What's your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Cat Sci writes: The question is whether or not throwing guns into that mix will make things better or worse.
Why is that the question? And what is the point of asking it? Obtuseness as a debate strategy. Interesting. I'd rather not make false assumptions. I *think* I get the point, but it sounds ridiculous. So I figure I should get clarity from the author before explaining how stupid these questions are. Is that a bad strategy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
We should all be in favor of approaches that reduce the number of injured and killed due to guns, because our own loved ones will be among those saved. Not when you're trading loved ones' injuries and lives for the ones for armed robbers and home intruders that got shot. Especially when you have to assume that those people are willing to kill the victims. The law should lean heavily against the ones perpetrating the crimes and away from the victims, so if that means lumping the robbers, burglars and carjackers in there then that should be acceptable. It would take a significant amount of reduction in the total killed due to guns, for me to get on an approach that just aims to reduce all killed due to guns, in general. Especially when I see the approaches that have already been offered from that side, and how blindly draped they are and how insignificant the effects are that they produce. As your article ultimately exposes, this is an urban culture problem rather than a gun law problem. As per the OP, here is a list of selected quotes from your article:
quote: The article spawned from one in the Journal of Urban Health. I'd love to see their data n'stuff, but it's $40.00 In the abstract is says that the study:
quote: Given that this is an urban culture problem, wouldn't those be the things that would have a big impact on the gun deaths? You know, the poverty, unemployment, crime, incarceration, and policing levels? Aren't those the things that are having a bigger impact on the gun deaths in the urban culture? If the culture isn't even aware of the laws that are in place, then can they even be having an actual impact? So, if you control for those things, regardless, then you can find that there was:
quote: Since an increase of one is about a fifth, then you went from 5 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000. How far outside the standard deviation is that?
These estimated effects translate to increases of between 55 and 63 homicides per year in Missouri. Given that Missouri has ~6 million people, 1 in 100,000 does add up to 60 people. That's not a whole lot, if it was put into perspective. If you consider that you're looking at Missouri’s 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase (PTP) handgun law, then the causation is way too hard to pin this correlation on. From your same article:
quote: Not only did the old system fail to show that worked, the urban culture problem wasn't even aware of the permit system that was in place. And given that the repeal of the permit system still meant that it was illegal to carry a firearm within the city limits of St. Louis, the urban culture still wasn't following the law anyways. So it makes even less sense to try to get that legislative side that is predominantly white, rural and suburban to agree with blanket restrictions that they are going to end up obeying anyways, despite that the problem wasn't even aware of them in the first place. On top of the fact, this isn't even their problem, specifically, to begin with; it's an black urban cultural one, not uncle farmer-hunter's! If these young black men are being raised in a culture that is anti-law, then blanket laws are not going to solve the problem. This is not an issue with gun laws, this is an urban culture problem. State-wide blanket laws will not solve it. Despite your good intentions, you are not helping. .
Take a look at this link that Cat Sci once provided: https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu (see Message 4043). Are you still standing by the claim that dgu is a myth that never happens?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
We need to work cooperatively to find ways to reduce gun deaths. As your quotes from the NYT article I provided make clear, guns as toys or status symbols exacerbate the problem, but I don't see any reason that should affect our resolve to reduce gun deaths. It should affect where we focus our resolve, not the strength behind our blind charge. For Missouri, we need to work cooperatively to find ways to reduce the urban cultural problem that is causing gun deaths. Attack that exacerbation. We do not need state-wide blanket restrictions that are only going to be followed by the rural and suburban cultures. The urban culture not only does not follow the laws, they are not even aware of their existence, according to your article. A big part of the problem I have with your side's approach, is that you are zoomed too far out and are not focusing on the actual problem, but instead just want to pass sweeping legislation. That will only hurt people who are not a part of the problem and will do nothing to help the people that are. Not only that, it's legislation that probably won't get passed. But hey, statistics never lie and they say what they say - so you just cannot be wrong. And since your heart is in the right place, then you cannot be mislead. I realize this is a fruitless endeavor on my part, but you need to think about focused laws that address that real problem, not feel-good laws that don't help. That article just didn't get it. They talked about the repeal of the permit system, and how easy it is for young men to get guns, but what they failed to account for was that those men weren't following the law to begin with. So whether or not the law existed couldn't have had much of an affect on whether or not those men could get a gun.
Take a look at this link that Cat Sci once provided: https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu (see Message 4043). Are you still standing by the claim that dgu is a myth that never happens? That's not the argument I made I'm talking about:
quote: From Message 4021. Full context:
quote: Your picture is totally skewed. Most of the gun deaths are black men shooting other black men in the city. It is not more common for people to get caught in the crossfire. Until you get the picture right and offer legislation that addresses the real problem, you're never going to make any progress. And I stand by what I said: I'm willing to trade the lives of a handful of felony gang members fighting turf wars in the city to prevent the injury of my neighbors out here in the sticks. Reducing all of the guns from both of those groups, in an effort to reduce all gun deaths, is not an approach that I am willing to support. In fact, I think it is the wrong way to do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I guess when the hard data is against you "hard data" You've got a loose correlation and a fallacy of division.
The real world isn't offering that trade. Except that's exactly what your article talked about... The repeal of the PTP somehow caused black men to shoot each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Your picture is totally skewed. Most of the gun deaths are Americans shooting other Americans in America. America - Where the prevalence and ease of access to guns is notorious. I wonder what the connection could possibly be here........ Why stop there? Most of the gun deaths are Earthlings shooting other Earthlings on Earth. The UK should disarm its military so that young black men in St. Louis will stop shooting each other. If you want to reduce guns deaths, then we need to reduce the total number of guns on Earth. There's a statistical correlation between the number of guns on Earth and the number of gun deaths on Earth, so if you care about reducing the number of gun deaths, then you will start reducing the number of guns in your military.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
When I began that paragraph with, "A gun-packing good guy getting the jump on a criminal is a myth," I was back to addressing your claim that no armed criminal intent on murdering you could ever get the jump on you while you were walking around in public with your gun, because you were ever vigilant. You're talking about 3000 posts ago from 3 years back? I explicitly said that a person could get a jump on me. You were saying that I could never see a criminal coming, and that's still bullshit.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024