Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
You insinuated that the ACLU's opinion matters. It doesn't, they have no authority over the Constitution.
And as for the cases being recent, I'm aware of that. But it doesn't matter. If they were older cases you'd just say they're out-of-touch with the modern world.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
They're not the expectation. They're incredibly rare, they just garner a great deal of attention when they do happen.
LOL. Okay. You apparently know better than I do what I said.
If you weren't insinuating that their opinion mattered, you wouldn't have brought it up.
On May 02 2013 05:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 02 2013 05:18 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 02 2013 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 02 2013 04:36 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 02 2013 02:08 sunprince wrote:
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
No, we don't ban cars. But we instill safety regulations like seat belts and drinking laws as well as make you go through a driving test to see if you are capable of driving on the road without getting yourself or anyone else hurt or killed. And as far as knives are concerned, the only thing I can really say is that guns have a more specific purpose, and in more cases than not they're supposed to inflict bodily harm on something or someone.
I'm not in favor of banning guns. I think people have a right to property and the state has no right to regulate that for the most part, but I am in favor of expanding background checks to make sure people who have dangerous criminal records are deterred from purchasing weapons.
If guns had their own gun-way patrol checking on the owners of registered guns and making those owners take continual tests as well as forcing those owners regular re-licensing, searches, and gear maintenance like fix-it tickets--then maybe gun owners would realize that cars have more regulations than guns do. And--wait for it--are not being taken from their owners.
Wait, so what's your point? ><
Cars have more regulations on them than guns do--car owners don't seem to mind. It has not lead to confiscation or banning despite high motor vehicle death and cars being related to many crimes in the US. I don't see why guns should be treated any differently.
Except none of those regulations apply on private property. Whereas gun laws do.
I can drive a car without a license, tail-lights, license plate, seat-belt, and at whatever speed I like on my property. But I can't buy a handgun to shoot cardboard boxes and empty soda cans on my own property.
Wait you can't? o_O
I guess the main difference would be you're probably unlikely to be driving a car around your property if you just have a small parking lot and messing things up at 100mph (I'd imagine this would only be applicable if you had a larger property).On the other hand, if you used a firearm and shot through a cardboard box and it went to your neighbor's wall, I guess that'd be pretty inconvenient.
Still, didn't know that.
yeah but what he's talking about is a very contrived example.
A lot of guns can be purchased without being registered, but that's not true for cars. You have to register a car when you purchase it from a dealer or even from a private owner. Even enforcing simple registration laws would prevent many criminals from purchasing guns (like felons).
The public sphere for guns is quite a bit different than that for cars. That's why concealed carry permits exist.
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
You insinuated that the ACLU's opinion matters. It doesn't, they have no authority over the Constitution.
And as for the cases being recent, I'm aware of that. But it doesn't matter. If they were older cases you'd just say they're out-of-touch with the modern world.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
They're not the expectation. They're incredibly rare, they just garner a great deal of attention when they do happen.
LOL. Okay. You apparently know better than I do what I said.
If you weren't insinuating that their opinion mattered, you wouldn't have brought it up.
Did you even read what I was responding to?
I wrote that I contributed politically by working for the ACLU (and btw, their opinion DOES matter, just as any other lobbying group-just look at the gun lobby.) and I was mocked. The post I made was in response to that mockery. It had nothing to do with your passive aggressive suggestion that I think the ACLU is superior to the Supreme Court or whatever bullshit you're putting in my mouth.
"Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms." These two sentences don't really have anything to do with the mockery. Why bring up the ACLU's official position on the matter?
The ACLU's opinion doesn't matter, and neither does the NRA's, because neither of them interpret the Constitution. If the Supreme Court said tomorrow that the Constitution actually banned guns, nothing the NRA could say or do could change that. Lobbyist opinions only matter in Congress, the Supreme Court is above all that.
Lol I feel like I'm getting trolled.
Do you really fail this hard at reading comprehension?
Of course their opinion matters. No, they don't interpret the Constitution, but they influence the officials who appoint people to the Supreme Court. Are you that stupid that you don't even understand how our political system works? You don't need to have direct influence for your opinion to matter.
Anyway I'm going to do now what I should've done earlier, and leave the thread. You're either a troll or completely dense-arguing with you is a complete waste of time.
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
Find me a case where SCOTUS went back and said "Oh no, this right isn't incorporated to the states anymore".
*popcorn*
Seperate but equal was an interpretation of the constitution, not a determination of whether a right should be selectively incorporated as is the case with the second amendment.
On May 02 2013 05:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Is the highway patrol a government body that keeps track of the misuse of cars? Yes.
Are car registrations still required to drive around in a car? Yes.
Have car registrations and an armed police force lead to the confiscation of cars? No.
Is it bothersome that you need a license, government registration, insurance (and private registration), as well as mandatory training, retraining, testing, retesting, and expected and regulated maintenance laws when it comes to owning a car? Yes.
Could you theoretically take a care and hide a car under your bed and not register it in case the feds invade your home town and you need to take down the american dictator? Yes.
Actually, registration is not required to operate a car. To use public resources, yes, but not to operate it on private property (as you would a gun). Nor is registration required to purchase a car. None of this is required to purchase one.
You do not need registration--private or otherwise, insurance, mandatory training, retraining, testing, retesting, or maintenance just to operate a car. So pretty much everything you said is wrong.
All I am doing is discounting this gun vs car argument because it is pointless. One is used for defending yourself, the other for transportation. One has a specific constitutional protection, the other does not.
This is only true in rural areas where you can shoot guns to your heart's content in private property. I've had friends who'v had to do it to stop bears, scare cats, and to pass the time. They also drive as they please in their private property since rural areas are the places where you have enough property to do that on.
So, um, please step away from this discussion if you're only interested in twisting facts.
On May 02 2013 05:31 MarlieChurphy wrote: In a few decades, people are going to be printing their own guns. No licenses, no serial numbers, no barrel markings recorded, hell even melting the gun away when you are done with it.
On May 02 2013 05:31 MarlieChurphy wrote: In a few decades, people are going to be printing their own guns. No licenses, no serial numbers, no barrel markings recorded, hell even melting the gun away when you are done with it.
On May 02 2013 05:31 MarlieChurphy wrote: In a few decades, people are going to be printing their own guns. No licenses, no serial numbers, no barrel markings recorded, hell even melting the gun away when you are done with it.
On May 02 2013 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:This is only true in rural areas where you can shoot guns to your heart's content in private property. I've had friends who'v had to do it to stop bears, scare cats, and to pass the time. They also drive as they please in their private property since rural areas are the places where you have enough property to do that on.
So, um, please step away from this discussion if you're only interested in twisting facts.
Wait, what? What am I twisting? I said none of these apply on private property. You are arguing with "b-b-but only if you have private property." Yeah, thanks for that bit of info, but it still doesn't make what I said false.
Imagine if I responded to your claim:
On May 02 2013 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:cars have more regulations than guns do
On May 02 2013 05:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:This is only true in rural areas where you can shoot guns to your heart's content in private property. I've had friends who'v had to do it to stop bears, scare cats, and to pass the time. They also drive as they please in their private property since rural areas are the places where you have enough property to do that on.
So, um, please step away from this discussion if you're only interested in twisting facts.
Wait, what? What am I twisting? I said none of these apply on private property. You are arguing with "b-b-but only if you have private property." Yeah, thanks for that bit of info, but it still doesn't make what I said false.
On May 02 2013 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:cars have more regulations than guns do
With: "but only if you have a car!"
Urban laws are the way they are because of size and proximity. If you shoot a gun in a suburb the threat of hitting someone is too high to not regulate.
However, rev your car in the middle of the suburb and people can and do issue noise complaints and disturbing the peace complaints--because of proximity.
Rural laws differ because things are far enough away. You can't go 100mph in your "private property" in an urban area because you only have about 2 car lengths worth of property to drive in. So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same.
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
No, we don't ban cars. But we instill safety regulations like seat belts and drinking laws as well as make you go through a driving test to see if you are capable of driving on the road without getting yourself or anyone else hurt or killed. And as far as knives are concerned, the only thing I can really say is that guns have a more specific purpose, and in more cases than not they're supposed to inflict bodily harm on something or someone.
I'm not in favor of banning guns. I think people have a right to property and the state has no right to regulate that for the most part, but I am in favor of expanding background checks to make sure people who have dangerous criminal records are deterred from purchasing weapons.
And if you've read my posts in this thread, I fully agree with you.
Although I am a proponent of legal firearm ownership, and a gun owner, I also believe firearms should be as heavily regulated, if not moreso, than vehicles.
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
Crossbows do not kill with the same ease. For a single shot, perhaps the lethality of the weapons are comparable. What you seem to be suggesting though is that a weapon with capacity for hitting many targets in seconds is comparable to a weapon capable of hitting one target in between reloading.
Crossbows absolutely do not kill with similar ease. Who could inflict more fatalities? A gunman with an AR15 and 3 detachable 30rd magazines or a crossbowman, in the same time frame? I highly doubt you believe yourself when you claim the two weapons are comparable. Even replacing the AR15 with a .45 handgun 8rd magazine, the point stands.
My point here was to illustrate is that the line is arbitrary, unless you use the simple legal/philosophical principle I've been repeating over and over: does it have a legitimate purpose?
On May 02 2013 04:04 FallDownMarigold wrote: I completely agree with you that the line is hard to draw, but it does exist. I am not a proponent of outright banning guns in one instance. In fact I am an avid target shooter and I quite enjoy taking an AR15 to the range. That being said I will not let my own idea of fun overcome my understanding of what needs to be done with regard to gun control. I am in favor of stricter background checking and gun registration, among other things -- things that don't outright "take away freedom", but rather bring responsibility.
And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles.
Just to put up one of my concerns, one thing I'm curious about is how well do background checks really work. For example, let's say you purchase a gun when you're 25 years old, and over the years as your relationships with others turn sour, you lose your job, and you go through bouts of depression and self-pity, you decide you need to use your gun to kill someone you know out of scorn or jealousy.
Or how about a more recent example: I'm told that there was a police officer, during the day of the Boston Marathon Bombing (pretty sure it's unrelated but just to show how recent it is), that decided to shoot not only herself, but her boyfriend, and their infant son. Her 19 year-old son escaped. She was a police officer for 13 years. What good did a background check do for her and her family?
I guess what I'm saying is while I'm in favor of background checks, I have my doubts on how well they work as a policy. It seems to me that they're mainly there for deterrence, but the question becomes how effective are they as a deterrence (especially as years go by), and by extension how effective are they at actually determining whether or not you are suited to owning a weapon?
And to add on to that for people who are really concerned about their right to privacy, how do we make a balance between a background check that can effectively weed out those who are just unsuited to purchasing weapons and one that doesn't infringe on one's right to privacy?
On May 02 2013 09:26 Zergneedsfood wrote: Or how about a more recent example: I'm told that there was a police officer, during the day of the Boston Marathon Bombing (pretty sure it's unrelated but just to show how recent it is), that decided to shoot not only herself, but her boyfriend, and their infant son. Her 19 year-old son escaped. She was a police officer for 13 years. What good did a background check do for her and her family?
Nothing, but since she was a police officer there's virtually nothing that would have removed her access to firearms. The issue here is a lack of help for mental health issues. That said, these types of death are but a tiny fraction of preventable American deaths.
On May 02 2013 09:26 Zergneedsfood wrote: I guess what I'm saying is while I'm in favor of background checks, I have my doubts on how well they work as a policy. It seems to me that they're mainly there for deterrence, but the question becomes how effective are they as a deterrence (especially as years go by), and by extension how effective are they at actually determining whether or not you are suited to owning a weapon?
I would guess that they actually do serve a deterrent effect, but they're probably woefully ineffective at determining whether you're a suitable firearms owner, merely that you're not blatantly unsuited.
One thing we could certainly do is establish a licensing program for firearms ownership/usage, much like we have for vehicles. That is, if you want to own a firearm, that's quite fine, but you need to make at least a basic demonstrate that you're of sound mind and body, and that you are properly trained in firearms safety and usage. Requiring periodic renewals would also address the problem you mentioned about firearms remaining in the possession of people long after they are no longer suitable owners.
On May 02 2013 09:26 Zergneedsfood wrote: And to add on to that for people who are really concerned about their right to privacy, how do we make a balance between a background check that can effectively weed out those who are just unsuited to purchasing weapons and one that doesn't infringe on one's right to privacy?
I think people should be willing to waive their right to privacy in order to own a firearm, the same way people are willing to waive their right to privacy in order to own a vehicle.
On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same.
Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions).
On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles.
And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation.
On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same.
Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions).
On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles.
And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation.
Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process.
On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same.
Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions).
On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles.
And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation.
Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process.
By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes.
On May 03 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process.
Be more careful about what you say. You are much more likely to be killed by a vehicle than a privately owned gun--period. Not everything needs to be normalized to some other number to make it some type of "per capita" unless you really need to find a way to skew things for your argument.
On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same.
Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions).
On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles.
And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation.
Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process.
By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes.
Yeah, it hurts more when kids die then when some random gang members gets shot in a drive by. Obviousely we should focus more on stopping things like the newtown massacre then avoiding gang shootouts.
On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same.
Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions).
On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles.
And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation.
Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process.
By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes.
My point was that he was comparing two two things that aren't logically comparable. I offered no view of my own, I only refuted his own, because it was wrong. By the same logic you could say that 1. Guns killed more people than nukes in world war 2 2. Therefore, nukes are more dangerous than guns. This example is equally as absurd as his suggestion. They both ignore the prevalence of the two events when comparing them. The correct way to express a comparison between the two would be to come up with relevant usage factors for both, prevalence of both, and use that to establish a ratio by which you could compare the two.
So no, what you posted here makes no sense. I didn't say his point was trivial. It was just simply wrong.
On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same.
Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions).
On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles.
And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation.
Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process.
By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes.
Yeah, it hurts more when kids die then when some random gang members gets shot in a drive by. Obviousely we should focus more on stopping things like the newtown massacre then avoiding gang shootouts.
No this isn't obvious. Obviously we should focus on stopping both. The amount of attention we give to stopping each type of gun crime event should somehow be proportional to the severity. One event which kills 10 children is definitely at least 10x worse than one event which kills 1 person, but it is not so much worse that it suddenly becomes unimportant to worry about all those solo individuals (including inner city gang members) who die via gun crime. In fact, there are way more than 10x cases of the latter in the USA.
Instead of a thought process of <multi-shooting at school> ---> <proposed laws using that multi-shooting as a leverage point> we should be using a thought process of <objectively, the problems we are having are X> ---> <ways to address those problems somewhat proportionally>.
I'm okay with giving the dangers of driving some leeway due to the fact that almost everybody uses and needs cars, but that also means that the large amount of private/legal gun ownership/usage needs to be given some credence when looking at how much damage is also caused by guns in crimes. Instead of just looking directly at proposed gun legislation usually proposed in the wake of some media frenzy like Newtown we should actually try to address the other problems as well which lead to things like tons of gang members shooting at each other in the inner city or people feeling compelled to go into schools and shoot them up before committing suicide. I can't believe how often I hear (both here and elsewhere) "there are other things we can do such as make progress on mental health, but they are all too difficult and unlikely to happen so we should just make the gun laws stricter to compensate." Those people might also wonder why they get such uncompromising push-back, as though parading parents of shooting victims is making a legitimate point.
On May 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:So they don't need to add in laws for things that are not a problem. The only times you can actually drive around recklessly is in the same areas you can shoot recklessly. Which means you don't really have anything refuting what I'm saying since in both areas guns and cars are treated the same.
Then we are agreeing on this. However, registration requirements for guns would not be confined to those which only use public resources. And, if you think about it, no gun "uses" public resources or is otherwise allowed to be used on public lands (with a few exceptions).
On May 02 2013 09:20 sunprince wrote:And I agree with you fully. Firearms should be regulated at least as strictly as vehicles.
And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation.
Vehicles are far more widely used and used far more often. Directly comparing the two shows a complete ignorance of basic statistical process.
By this statistical approach however events like Newtown should basically get swept under the rug since they make up a very small percentage of the homicides committed with firearms. On the other hand many people use 'mass shootings' as a primary reason for why they have the 'strict gun control' stance they do. It actually seems like people want it both ways sometimes.
Yeah, it hurts more when kids die then when some random gang members gets shot in a drive by. Obviousely we should focus more on stopping things like the newtown massacre then avoiding gang shootouts.
No this isn't obvious. Obviously we should focus on stopping both.
Yeah, i get that but basically what i ment was that it is more important to stop school massacres. Ofcourse stopping massacres of both types is the best solution, but i'm saying that school massacres is the most important one as young innocent children die and families are torn apart.
EPT
