Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aurora Colorado Violence
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 136 of 236 (668782)
07-24-2012 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by DevilsAdvocate
07-24-2012 11:41 AM


Re: Gun control question
All legislation is incomplete and have room for improvement.
So what improvements do you propose? CS is right to refer to your position on this as "vacuous", since so far you've called for the law to be made "tougher" and "stronger" without giving any indication of what actual policy you would change.
Your position, so far, has all the content of a politician's promise to be "tough on crime." Ok, but what would you actually do?
Not allowing people to buy arsenols of guns and ammo with little to no regulation or tracking.
James Holmes didn't have an "arsenal", he owned a total of four firearms. He also had booby trapped his home with explosives, something he definitely wasn't "allowed" to do, so you'd have to explain exactly how any further laws would have helped in this instance if you're going to use the Aurora shooting to justify new laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-24-2012 11:41 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3828 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 137 of 236 (668783)
07-24-2012 12:44 PM


I am glad that so many Americans are arming themselves.
Keep up the good work.
It can only end well.

CRYSTALS!!

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 1:03 PM Panda has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 236 (668785)
07-24-2012 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by DevilsAdvocate
07-24-2012 11:41 AM


Re: Gun control question
What is your point?
People who know nothing about guns wrote the Assault Weapos Ban. Its based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine and that's stupid.
What does me 'contributing' to the Assault Weapons Ban have to do with the price of tea in China?
What does your experience and opinion about guns have to do with how stupid the Assault Weapons Ban was?
All legislation is incomplete and have room for improvement. Again, please be specific in how you think it was shitty so we can discuss what needs to be fixed.
I already did in the message you replied to:
quote:
Calling a gun an "assault weapon" based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine is completely retarded.
You can put a pistol grip, folding stock, and banana mag on a .22 and there'd be no good reason to call it an "assault weapon".
So how, exactly, do you want the gun laws to be tougher?
Not allowing people to buy arsenols of guns and ammo with little to no regulation or tracking.
Okay, so how do you stop that and what is the justification?
It is easier for me to go down and buy a highly lethal assault rifle and 6000 rds of ammo than to buy over-the counter drugs.
Are you sure? In what state?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-24-2012 11:41 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-24-2012 4:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2012 9:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4260 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 139 of 236 (668787)
07-24-2012 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Panda
07-24-2012 12:44 PM


Hi Panda,
It can be difficult for someone who hasn't grown up with guns and the freedom to own them to understand the mentality of many Americans when it pertains to gun ownership. I grew up hunting and it was a right of passage as a boy to get a bb gun, then as a young man to receive my first real gun. I was taught well and consider myself to be a responsible owner.
I own several weapons that have been passed down through the years from father to son, some guns for hunting and a couple for cheap target practice. I have a couple just because I can. I keep all of them in a gun safe unloaded, except for 1 shotgun for home defense as well as a 45 auto for the same purpose, I have no kids and my only concern would be having them stole. When I go out for any period of time then they get locked up with the others.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Panda, posted 07-24-2012 12:44 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Panda, posted 07-24-2012 6:46 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 236 (668788)
07-24-2012 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tangle
07-23-2012 6:19 PM


Re: Death penalty
The deal we have with the state is that we hand over the punishment of crimes against us to the state on the understanding that they will independently and objectively deal with the offence.
One reason we do this is to prevent knee jerk and violent retribution by those who are understandably distraught by their loss. It seems to me to be an abrogation of the state's role in playing out their disinterested role of justice to ask the victims families how they should proceed.
I don't see it as them asking the vicitims' families how they should proceed, I see it as them considering the wishes of the families as part of their objective assessment of the situation.
How many finger nails should we pull out before we flay him, 1, 3, 7 or 10?
None. And he should be put to death as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spalling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 07-23-2012 6:19 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2012 4:19 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 141 of 236 (668790)
07-24-2012 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
07-24-2012 7:06 AM


Re: Gun control question
It's just a flat-out lie to say that I didn't.
No, you've just repeatedly used it as such and I am calling you out on it. I asked you to point out where in message 64 you indicated your usage because I read it and found nothing. Please rectify this misunderstanding.
I'm comparing rifles to handguns.
I'm sending you to Afghanistan. You get to choose between a "rifle" and a "handgun". You're telling me you will choose a handgun?
Why should I believe that caliber is a proxy for "danger"?
Because most people judge danger by the potential to harm. And if you don't understand how a higher caliber round is more dangerous than a smaller one, you shouldn't even be in this conversation. But keep saying that handguns are more dangerous than landmines. Hell, handguns are more dangerous than TNT or C4.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 7:06 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 1:55 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 2:00 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 145 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 2:02 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 142 of 236 (668791)
07-24-2012 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by frako
07-24-2012 9:22 AM


prevalence
Yea America 88.8 Guns per 100 people the first in the world in guns second place held by Serbia 58.2 guns per 100 people
I've heard quite the variety of figures - I'm guessing nobody knows the real number - what's your source for this particular figure? * Here is a random news report
quote:
On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.
France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.
For comparison, Karp, Aaron. 2007. ‘Completing the Count: Civilian firearms.’ Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City, suggests the UK is 6.72 firearms per 100 people.


*Actually - I just saw the 88.8 figure on the source I just linked to, so I'm guessing that's your source!
Edited by Modulous, : added footnote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by frako, posted 07-24-2012 9:22 AM frako has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 143 of 236 (668792)
07-24-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by hooah212002
07-24-2012 1:39 PM


Re: Gun control question
Why should I believe that caliber is a proxy for "danger"?
Because most people judge danger by the potential to harm.
The potentail to harm is not necessarily determined by the caliber. And its not by the caliber alone.
A .22 caliber rifle is a puny little thing with almost no power.
And AR-15 shoots a .223 caliber bullet. That's only 0.003 inches bigger.
But take a look at the actual rounds:
The .223 has a lot more gunpowder and actually the bullet is much bigger, its just that its a lot longer rather than being a larger diameter.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 1:39 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 2:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 144 of 236 (668794)
07-24-2012 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by hooah212002
07-24-2012 1:39 PM


Re: Gun control question
I asked you to point out where in message 64 you indicated your usage because I read it and found nothing.
Well, I don't know what to do about that. I can't link to specific sentences within posts. Copying and pasting the material would be pointless - if you couldn't read or understand it the first time, repetition won't have any effect. I told you what post is was. If you don't want to read it - not my problem.
I'm sending you to Afghanistan. You get to choose between a "rifle" and a "handgun". You're telling me you will choose a handgun?
Why would I chose the most dangerous weapon? Why wouldn't I choose the weapon that was the most reliable, versatile, and accurate?
And if you don't understand how a higher caliber round is more dangerous than a smaller one, you shouldn't even be in this conversation.
Oh, I see. You think "caliber" means "size."
But keep saying that handguns are more dangerous than landmines.
I didn't even once say that handguns are more dangerous than landmines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 1:39 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 2:21 PM crashfrog has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4260 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 145 of 236 (668795)
07-24-2012 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by hooah212002
07-24-2012 1:39 PM


Re: Gun control question
Because most people judge danger by the potential to harm.
Caliber is a poor way to judge how powerful or dangerous a bullet is. Which would you think was the more powerful and dangerous round, a .17 Remington Fireball or a .22 Winchester Magnum with the same weight bullets?
.22 WMR 30 gr (1.9 g) HP 2,200 ft/s (670 m/s) 322 ftlbf
.17 RF 30 gr (1.9 g) HP 3,569 ft/s (1,088 m/s) 849 ftlbf
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 1:39 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 146 of 236 (668796)
07-24-2012 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 1:55 PM


Re: Gun control question
The potentail to harm is not necessarily determined by the caliber. And its not by the caliber alone.
A .22 caliber rifle is a puny little thing with almost no power.
So is a .22 pistol more dangerous (all other things equal) than a Barrett M82A1? Because, like crash says, handguns are more dangerous than rifles.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 1:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 2:28 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 2:40 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 147 of 236 (668797)
07-24-2012 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by crashfrog
07-24-2012 2:00 PM


Re: Gun control question
not my problem
I did read that post and you did not make yourself clear. If you want to be misinterpreted, then sure, it's not your problem.
Why wouldn't I choose the weapon that was the most reliable, versatile, and accurate?
So every handgun is more "reliable, versatile, and accurate" than every rifle?
I didn't even once say that handguns are more dangerous than landmines.
Not explicitly. But neither did you explicitly say how you were using the word dangerous. I extrapolated your usage of the word dangerous, I used your definition of it, to say "handguns are more dangerous than landmines" because more people are killed in the US by handguns than landmines.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 2:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 2:57 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4260 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 148 of 236 (668798)
07-24-2012 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by hooah212002
07-24-2012 2:17 PM


Re: Gun control question
So is a .22 pistol more dangerous (all other things equal) than a Barrett M82A1? Because, like crash says, handguns are more dangerous than rifles.
In close quarters yes.
I think that is part of the problem we are having here, some guns and rounds are better in certain circumstances, a shotgun is great for clearing rooms if it doesn't matter what gets hit. What may be more dangerous in one environment may not hold true in another. A man with a glock 40 is a lot less of a threat at 100 yrds then a man with a nice .22 rifle.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 2:17 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 2:30 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 149 of 236 (668799)
07-24-2012 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by fearandloathing
07-24-2012 2:28 PM


Re: Gun control question
I think that is part of the problem we are having here, some guns and rounds are better in certain circumstances, a shotgun is great for clearing rooms if it doesn't matter what gets hit. What may be more dangerous in one environment may not hold true in another. A man with a glock 40 is a lot less of a threat at 100 yrds then a man with a nice .22 rifle.
PRECISELY the point I am making. The only point, actually. It is dishonest and inaccurate to blatantly say "handguns are more dangerous than rifles". However, crash has continued this mantra with no qualifiers, hence my hyperbole about landmines and RPG's and shit.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 2:28 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 2:48 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 236 (668800)
07-24-2012 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by hooah212002
07-24-2012 2:17 PM


Re: Gun control question
So is a .22 pistol more dangerous (all other things equal) than a Barrett M82A1? Because, like crash says, handguns are more dangerous than rifles.
More dangerous how? And to what?
Crash seems to be talking about danger to society via death, which is fair in a discussion about what kind of gun laws should be enacted. He's calling handguns more dangerous than rifles because more people are killed each year by handguns than rifles. If you want to enact a law that protects people from being killed by guns, then handguns would be better to focus on than rifles.
Not explicitly. But neither did you explicitly say how you were using the word dangerous. I extrapolated your usage of the word dangerous, I used your definition of it, to say "handguns are more dangerous than landmines" because more people are killed in the US by handguns than landmines.
Handguns are more dangerous to society in the US than landmines are, even tho an individual landmine can be more dangerous than an individual gun, because more people are killed by handguns. If you want to enact a law that prevents death, then tightening the regs on landmines would be a lot worse at that than tightening them on handguns.
Somebody was saying that the AR-15 should be outlawed because its so dangerous, and CF was countering that by pointing out that handguns are more dangerous to society because more people are killed by them. So if you want to outlaw something for being dangerous, you don't need to be looking at the AR-15. Regardless of the fact that an individual AR-15 can be more dangerous than an individual handgun.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 2:17 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by hooah212002, posted 07-24-2012 2:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 153 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 2:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024