|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How can we regulate guns ... ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Do you think social policy should be based upon:
A) Blind adherence to ideologically derived assumptions.B) Blind adherence to a document written 200+ years ago C) Blind adherence to the perceived wishes of some long dead 'founding fathers' D) Evidence based research jar writes: Again, you admit that guns in the US are a special case. It is only a "special case" in the sense that you choose to make it so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Crash writes: What do you mean "kill efficiently"? Well if I wanted to walk into a school and massacre a large number of people and I had the following choice of weapons which of the following would I be best served arming myself with in order to achieve my stated aim: A) Some cutting remarksB) A pea shooter C) A feather duster D) A sharp pencil E) My fists and nothing else F) A swiss army knife G) A baseball bat E) The sort of gun used in recent massacres F) A machine gun Now throw in the availability factor of the above on top of the 'deadliness' factor and 'voila'........ We seem to have identified why it is that guns are used when people want to go on killing rampages don't we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If I ever suggested that social policy should be made based on:
A) Blind adherence to ideologically derived assumptions.B) Blind adherence to a document written 200+ years ago C) Blind adherence to the perceived wishes of some long dead 'founding fathers' then the answers to those question might be relevant. But I haven't and so as usual, you are simply posting irrelevancies.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You're engaged in motivated reasoning based on your desire to see an America with strong laws against the private ownership of powerful firearms. Really? Do you feel labeling my position as bizarre advances discussion? I am expressing the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that was used by the Supreme Court in every case prior to DC vs. Heller. t's not some bizarre insupportable viewpoint. I might just as well say that you have a motivated gun advocates interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Do you agree that social policy is best derived from evidence based research?
If so - Do you also agree that this applies as much to the USA as anywhere else?
Straggler writes: Do you think social policy should be based upon: A) Blind adherence to ideologically derived assumptions.B) Blind adherence to a document written 200+ years ago C) Blind adherence to the perceived wishes of some long dead 'founding fathers' D) Evidence based research jar writes: If I ever suggested that social policy should be made based on: A) Blind adherence to ideologically derived assumptions.B) Blind adherence to a document written 200+ years ago C) Blind adherence to the perceived wishes of some long dead 'founding fathers' then the answers to those question might be relevant. They weren't questions. They were suggested answers to a single question. To me the answer to that question is obviously D) Evidence based research. To me this this is obviously applies to the US as much as anywhere else. But according to you the US is a "special case" so I included some other possibilities along other lines. If you have another answer feel free to reveal it.......(rather than going down the tiresome and tedious route of telling us what you didn't say)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But I never said the US is a "special case".
And I have presented my ideas of how to deal with the problem of violence in the US and stated that I see no "gun" problem. Look at Message 32 and Message 70 and Message 117.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3796 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined:
|
Gun-control regulation will not stop violence. Part of the problem that Chicago and other regions with tight gun-control regulations have is that there is still a flow of guns into these areas from outside. It would be akin to me complaining that we shouldn't have pollution regulations because pollution does not stop at the borders. It is also the case that there is a correlation between poverty and violence. Those areas you point out as having 'failed' in their gun-control regulation also happen to have lots of poverty.
While I know it can be difficult for someone to change their pet ideology, I would expect that you as a 'trained' scientist would take the time to actually do some background research before drawing a conclusion.
Here is a study detailing the impact of the Australian 1996 law.Here is a 2011 Harvard summary of the research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you agree that social policy is best derived from evidence based research? Or not?
jar writes: But I never said the US is a "special case". Yes you did.
jar writes: Again, you admit that guns in the US are a special case. jar writes: Guns are a special case, one that is specifically addressed in our Constitution. See - There is you asserting that the US is a "special case".
jar writes: And I have presented my ideas of how to deal with the problem of violence in the US and stated that I see no "gun" problem. quote: Link Do you dispute these findings?
jar writes: Look at Message 32 and Message 70 and Message 117. Do you think other nations have taken steps in the directions you outline (e.g. partial decriminilisation of drugs)? What can be learnt from those examples? Why not take both social measures and act on the prevalence of guns if both are factors?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
straggler writes: jar writes: But I never said the US is a "special case". Yes you did.
jar writes: Again, you admit that guns in the US are a special case. jar writes: Guns are a special case, one that is specifically addressed in our Constitution. See - There is you asserting that the US is a "special case". Saying that guns in the US are a special case is not saying that the US is a special case. And I still see no "gun problem". Edited by jar, : appalin spallinAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's awesome that you got a bunch of upvotes for completely avoiding the question, but it's not a "gotcha", it's a serious question I have about the terms you've chosen to use. I wish you'd answer it.
Now throw in the availability factor of the above on top of the 'deadliness' factor and 'voila'........ We seem to have identified why it is that guns are used when people want to go on killing rampages don't we? Right, but I didn't ask you about what weapons would be likely to be used by people going on killing rampages. I asked you to define your term "kill efficiency." "Efficiency" implies a ratio of some kind; you know, the way "gas efficiency" is about distance traveled per volume of gasoline consumed. I'm just wondering what the terms of your ratio are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I am expressing the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that was used by the Supreme Court in every case prior to DC vs. Heller. No, you're not. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Second Amendment as providing for the government's right to arm it's own armies. Not before DC vs. Heller or at any other time. Armies get to have arms simply by definition of being some country's army.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Second Amendment as providing for the government's right to arm it's own armies. That's not my position, crashfrog. The provision for Congress to arm the militia is provided elsewhere in the constitution. My position, as I have explicitly stated, is that the 2nd amendment prevents the feds from disarming the militia. Here is what I actually said in Message 171.
It is not my position that the 2nd amendment arms the militia. The 2nd amendment prevents the federal government from disarming the militia. But the purpose and functioning of the militia is spelled out explicitly in the constitution. The federal government Congress and the President is in charge of the militia. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The provision for Congress to arm the militia is provided elsewhere in the constitution. My position, as I have explicitly stated, is that the 2nd amendment prevents the feds from disarming the militia. But that makes no sense at all. Why would the Constitution give Congress the authority to do something in one place and the requirement for them to do it in another? No Supreme Court has ever ruled that way, because it makes no sense. I'm not sure legal rulings have to make sense, per se, but if you want this claim to be accepted than you have to square it both with the fact that armies are armed simply by definition of being armies and that the Second Amendment refers not to the right of the states, or the right of the militia, but the right of the people, specifically. You've not done either, so I'm not convinced. I could be, you just have to be convincing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Crashfrog writes:
Let's compare guns to knives then: "Efficiency" implies a ratio of some kind; you know, the way "gas efficiency" is about distance traveled per volume of gasoline consumed. I'm just wondering what the terms of your ratio are.Gunshot wounds result in a higher mortality rate than knife wounds. Gunshot wounds can be made at a faster rate than knife wounds. Gunshot wounds can be made at a larger range of distances than knife wounds. Therefore guns are more efficient at killing people than knives. Do you know of a weapon more efficient than guns?(Obviously weapons like nuclear bombs are more efficient than guns, but I don't see anyone in this thread advocating their use.) Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Therefore guns are more efficient at killing people than knives. I don't follow the "therefore." Guns can only be fired a limited number of times before becoming completely ineffective; a knife can do harm indefinitely. Therefore knives are more efficient than guns? Again, the critical word for me is "efficiency." I'm specifically looking for the ratio of one characteristic or measure to another that would allow me to distinguish two firearms on the basis of their "efficiency."
Do you know of a weapon more efficient than guns? How would I know? I still don't understand what you mean by "efficiency." Maybe a definition would help:
quote: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/efficiency Help me apply that in such a way that one firearm can be distinguished from another.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024