Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,176 Year: 5,433/9,624 Month: 458/323 Week: 98/204 Day: 14/26 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 241 of 310 (669575)
07-31-2012 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Dr Adequate
07-30-2012 9:16 PM


I said that what made the difference was non-violent protest.
And I'm sure that it was our strongly worded letter that ended hostilities with Japan in WWII.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-30-2012 9:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2012 1:12 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 245 of 310 (669588)
07-31-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Modulous
07-31-2012 9:21 AM


Re: opportunity, not motive
I don't think unlocking a case makes it a lot more difficult to get your gun.
I would say that manipulating a lock, or remembering a numeric code, is precisely the sort of fine-dexterity task that you really can't do in the middle of a dissociative rage. That's the point of a locked case, after all - to make it hard for people to get your gun.
Not to the degree that pulling a trigger is easier than stabbing someone.
Right, you made the argument earlier that stabbing someone is somehow more visceral (pardon the pun) and direct than a firearm, and that that's an obstacle to some amount of murders.
But is it? I feel like if the law against murder - if the moral norm against murder - isn't enough, than the mental block against plunging blades into another person's body probably isn't going to be an obstacle.
And most people know their killer, too.
Exactly. Homicide is the crime with the lowest recidivism because murders are usually for a perceived reason. Random mass murder, by any means, is just absurdly rare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2012 9:21 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2012 4:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 249 of 310 (669593)
07-31-2012 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Tangle
07-31-2012 10:55 AM


But it also has a lot to say about whether firearms are merely substituting deaths by other methods and if you'd care to read some of the research itself
I'd like to read some of the research itself. Let us know when you post some.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Tangle, posted 07-31-2012 10:55 AM Tangle has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 254 of 310 (669611)
07-31-2012 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2012 1:12 PM


I'm not, because, y'know, that was a different historical event in which something else happened.
Yes, that's the general trend with your conception of history: different events in which something else happened than, you know, what actually happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2012 1:12 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 256 of 310 (669619)
07-31-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Modulous
07-31-2012 4:31 PM


Re: opportunity, not motive
Well, I'm afraid I don't see why opening a lock is something that you really can't do if your mad enough to kill someone.
Seriously? Think back to the last time you were so mad at someone you literally saw red. Fine motor tasks? Perfect recollection of random data? Would you say that typifies your capabilities and mental state at that time?
I have no idea. But so goes the argument. It's pretty difficult to test it in practice.
Fine, so, we're all just handwaving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2012 4:31 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2012 6:09 PM crashfrog has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 266 of 310 (669634)
07-31-2012 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by NoNukes
07-31-2012 8:42 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Not even Justice Scalia would interpret the constitution in a way that allows citizens the bazookas, tanks and body armor that would allow opposing the a state government let alone the feds.
Uh, wait a sec. I assure you, body armor is perfectly legal provided you're not a felon. And why shouldn't it be? Regardless of your view on whether the Second Amendment preserves the right of the people to ensure the vulnerability of their government, I can't think of any legal or democratic principle by which the government has a right to mandate the vulnerability of the people.
Whatever you think about guns, ballistic vests definitely would have saved lives in Aurora and unlike a handgun, wouldn't have posed any threat to anyone else. A government that regulates the right of law-abiding citizens to not be shot is surely one that has overstepped its bounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2012 8:42 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2012 10:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1578 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 308 of 310 (669783)
08-02-2012 5:58 PM


Do guns cause murders? Does ownership harm public safety, and if so, does that justify forcible disarmament of the populace? Given the capacity of printing presses to facilitate libel (or is it slander?) or foment discord should ownership of such presses be restricted?
I don't know that there's any easy answer to these questions. I don't know whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right to guns, as it's been interpreted in both ways. But I do know that however you interpret the Second Amendment, whatever your position on it, you can't ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, or pretend that it's not a major obstacle to enacting the kind of gun control that may have worked in other countries.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024