|
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 07 2013 10:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:07 Deezl wrote:
It's my understanding that the right to bear arms exists to ensure that the citizens have the power to revolt in case the government starts being all North Korea and shit. I'm a Democrat that's for a broad interpretation of that amendment, and I think guns are mostly fine and we should treat the crazy people instead. We should treat criminals and crazy people, for sure. But how about on top of doing that, we also address the environment in which the problem of too many gun deaths per year in the US persists, based on a public health approach -- the same approaches that were applied successfully to other public health concerns in the past? Here's one way to think about it: 1) Today an ever-growing number of physicians, epidemiologists, and other public health professionals recognize gun violence as a public health problem in the US. The medical and public health community community understands this perspective and accepts the challenge to address the problem. 2) Although other problems, such as car accidents, cancer, and heart disease kill many more people each day, it remains a fact that too many people die to guns in the US each year. That other problems exist does not mean all of them can't be addressed in parallel. People can work, for example, on curing cancer while others work on decreasing gun deaths and injury numbers in the US via a public health approach. 3) The logic behind a public health approach is to address the problem in a special way: The strategy to solve the problem, rather than simplistically aiming at only the victims/perpetrators of the problem, aims at the actual agent and environment in which the problem persists (without necessarily excluding approaches that aim at victims/perpetrators). 4) In the case of gun violence, the agent and environment in which the problem occurs are guns and gun prevalence, if the problem is traced as far upstream as possible, and if overall numbers are the focus rather than specific individuals and instances of the problem. This approach enables the focus to shift from "what can we do to stop criminals from being criminals" or "what can we do to stop humans from making mistakes or behaving poorly" to "what can we do to make being a criminal more difficult, and to make committing errors more forgiving?". 5) In addition to this approach, of course, it would also be highly desirable to address problems with why criminals exist in the US, how to solve that issue, etc.http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167
You do realize that #5 is a tacit admission that the problem isn't the guns so much as it's the people, right?
|
No, it is an acknowledgement that although addressing the agent and environment in which the problem persists may very well yield the best results from a public health perspective, it remains true that addressing individuals would be important too.
Here's an analogy to help envision why focus on the agent/environment may prove more effective than focus on the victim/perpetrator, even if it goes against common intuition:
At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer?
My apologies if you made the assumption that it was a tacit admission that the problem isn't the guns so much as it's the people.
|
On May 07 2013 10:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:No, it is an acknowledgement that although addressing the agent and environment in which the problem persists may very well yield the best results from a public health perspective, it remains true that addressing individuals would be important too. Here's an analogy to help envision why focus on the agent/environment may prove more effective than focus on the victim/perpetrator, even if it goes against common intuition: Show nested quote +At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer? My apologies if you made the assumption that it was a tacit admission that the problem isn't the guns so much as it's the people.
Likening firearm safety to advances in automobile safety doesn't work. A gun is a gun. It is designed to kill people. Automobiles clearly are not.
|
On May 07 2013 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 09:56 kmillz wrote:
What if nobody cares to own any of those things? Dunno. What if?
Then nobody would have a reason to change the laws to include those things, so its a strawman.
|
On May 07 2013 10:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:No, it is an acknowledgement that although addressing the agent and environment in which the problem persists may very well yield the best results from a public health perspective, it remains true that addressing individuals would be important too. Here's an analogy to help envision why focus on the agent/environment may prove more effective than focus on the victim/perpetrator, even if it goes against common intuition: At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer? My apologies if you made the assumption that it was a tacit admission that the problem isn't the guns so much as it's the people. Likening firearm safety to advances in automobile safety doesn't work. A gun is a gun. It is designed to kill people. Automobiles clearly are not.
I think I'd broaden up that by saying it's designed to do bodily harm. Because if the only purpose of guns were to kill people, then there'd be little debate on gun control.
|
On May 07 2013 10:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:No, it is an acknowledgement that although addressing the agent and environment in which the problem persists may very well yield the best results from a public health perspective, it remains true that addressing individuals would be important too. Here's an analogy to help envision why focus on the agent/environment may prove more effective than focus on the victim/perpetrator, even if it goes against common intuition: At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer? My apologies if you made the assumption that it was a tacit admission that the problem isn't the guns so much as it's the people. Likening firearm safety to advances in automobile safety doesn't work. A gun is a gun. It is designed to kill people. Automobiles clearly are not.
That's an interesting argument, but unfortunately I think it is insufficient to refute all the research and papers suggesting otherwise. Appreciate the opinion, though
On May 07 2013 10:32 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 07 2013 09:56 kmillz wrote:
What if nobody cares to own any of those things? Dunno. What if? Then nobody would have a reason to change the laws to include those things, so its a strawman.
Sorry I think you're sort of confused. I should have just ignored your reply when I first saw it, but I thought I'd humor you. I wasn't actually expecting a response. The original comment to which you replied was some food-for-thought for another poster who commented on an issue that I recalled having been touched on in an Economist piece I'd read featuring Scalia. No need to butt heads over something utterly confused and trivial.
On May 07 2013 10:37 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 07 2013 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 07 2013 10:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:No, it is an acknowledgement that although addressing the agent and environment in which the problem persists may very well yield the best results from a public health perspective, it remains true that addressing individuals would be important too. Here's an analogy to help envision why focus on the agent/environment may prove more effective than focus on the victim/perpetrator, even if it goes against common intuition: At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer? My apologies if you made the assumption that it was a tacit admission that the problem isn't the guns so much as it's the people. Likening firearm safety to advances in automobile safety doesn't work. A gun is a gun. It is designed to kill people. Automobiles clearly are not. That's an interesting argument, but unfortunately I think it is insufficient to refute all the research and papers suggesting otherwise. Appreciate the opinion, though The only way you could make that comparison would be to make guns weaker
Interesting. I wonder why none of the reviewers thought of that strong argument when they assessed the original manuscript in which the author describes the issue as a public health concern, drawing parallels to other public health approaches.
|
On May 07 2013 10:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 07 2013 10:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:No, it is an acknowledgement that although addressing the agent and environment in which the problem persists may very well yield the best results from a public health perspective, it remains true that addressing individuals would be important too. Here's an analogy to help envision why focus on the agent/environment may prove more effective than focus on the victim/perpetrator, even if it goes against common intuition: At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer? My apologies if you made the assumption that it was a tacit admission that the problem isn't the guns so much as it's the people. Likening firearm safety to advances in automobile safety doesn't work. A gun is a gun. It is designed to kill people. Automobiles clearly are not. That's an interesting argument, but unfortunately I think it is insufficient to refute all the research and papers suggesting otherwise. Appreciate the opinion, though
The only way you could make that comparison would be to make guns weaker or less effective at killing people or things, which would totally defeat the purpose of having one. You can make a car safer without destroying its function.
On May 07 2013 10:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 07 2013 10:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:No, it is an acknowledgement that although addressing the agent and environment in which the problem persists may very well yield the best results from a public health perspective, it remains true that addressing individuals would be important too. Here's an analogy to help envision why focus on the agent/environment may prove more effective than focus on the victim/perpetrator, even if it goes against common intuition: At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer? My apologies if you made the assumption that it was a tacit admission that the problem isn't the guns so much as it's the people. Likening firearm safety to advances in automobile safety doesn't work. A gun is a gun. It is designed to kill people. Automobiles clearly are not. That's an interesting argument, but unfortunately I think it is insufficient to refute all the research and papers suggesting otherwise. Appreciate the opinion, though Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:32 kmillz wrote:On May 07 2013 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 07 2013 09:56 kmillz wrote:
What if nobody cares to own any of those things? Dunno. What if? Then nobody would have a reason to change the laws to include those things, so its a strawman. Sorry I think you're sort of confused. I should have just ignored your reply when I first saw it, but I thought I'd humor you. I wasn't actually expecting a response. The original comment to which you replied was some food-for-thought for another poster who commented on an issue that I recalled having been touched on in an Economist piece I'd read featuring Scalia. No need to butt heads over something utterly confused and trivial.
If the article was just for fun, great, but it doesn't mean anything in a rational discussion on gun regulation, because nobody is arguing to loosen up the regulation on the things mentioned in the article.
On May 07 2013 10:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 07 2013 10:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:No, it is an acknowledgement that although addressing the agent and environment in which the problem persists may very well yield the best results from a public health perspective, it remains true that addressing individuals would be important too. Here's an analogy to help envision why focus on the agent/environment may prove more effective than focus on the victim/perpetrator, even if it goes against common intuition: At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer? My apologies if you made the assumption that it was a tacit admission that the problem isn't the guns so much as it's the people. Likening firearm safety to advances in automobile safety doesn't work. A gun is a gun. It is designed to kill people. Automobiles clearly are not. That's an interesting argument, but unfortunately I think it is insufficient to refute all the research and papers suggesting otherwise. Appreciate the opinion, though Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:32 kmillz wrote:On May 07 2013 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 07 2013 09:56 kmillz wrote:
What if nobody cares to own any of those things? Dunno. What if? Then nobody would have a reason to change the laws to include those things, so its a strawman. Sorry I think you're sort of confused. I should have just ignored your reply when I first saw it, but I thought I'd humor you. I wasn't actually expecting a response. The original comment to which you replied was some food-for-thought for another poster who commented on an issue that I recalled having been touched on in an Economist piece I'd read featuring Scalia. No need to butt heads over something utterly confused and trivial. Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:37 kmillz wrote:On May 07 2013 10:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 07 2013 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 07 2013 10:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:No, it is an acknowledgement that although addressing the agent and environment in which the problem persists may very well yield the best results from a public health perspective, it remains true that addressing individuals would be important too. Here's an analogy to help envision why focus on the agent/environment may prove more effective than focus on the victim/perpetrator, even if it goes against common intuition: At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer? My apologies if you made the assumption that it was a tacit admission that the problem isn't the guns so much as it's the people. Likening firearm safety to advances in automobile safety doesn't work. A gun is a gun. It is designed to kill people. Automobiles clearly are not. That's an interesting argument, but unfortunately I think it is insufficient to refute all the research and papers suggesting otherwise. Appreciate the opinion, though The only way you could make that comparison would be to make guns weaker Interesting. I wonder why none of the reviewers thought of that strong argument when they assessed the original manuscript in which the author describes the issue as a public health concern, drawing parallels to other public health approaches.
I don't see anything in what you posted making any analogy comparing cars to guns, that was from your words as far as I can tell.
|
On May 07 2013 10:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's an interesting argument, but unfortunately I think it is insufficient to refute all the research and papers suggesting otherwise. Appreciate the opinion, though
What in the world are you talking about? There's a serious logical fallacy with your analogy. How can you possibly miss it? Progressions in automobile safety would be akin to some developments in gun safety, such as adding safeties and promoting trigger locks, gun safes, and other means of preventing injury and death from accidental discharge. Obviously this thread isn't about accidental discharge, and gun control advocates aren't really concerned about merely stopping incidents of accidental discharge. This thread is about removing the means for a person to intentionally shoot another person. See the problem?
|
Heh, Kmillz, you don't get to decide what belongs and what does not belong in a "rational debate on gun control". Don't be silly.
If you'd like to respond to any specific points I've referenced, feel free. I'm not going to bother responding to anything unworthy of a response from now on. A lot of what you say is based on your own bold, often outrageous assumptions, which makes it not only very hard to carry on a reasonable argument with you, but more importantly very unpleasant.
Cheers
|
On May 07 2013 10:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's an interesting argument, but unfortunately I think it is insufficient to refute all the research and papers suggesting otherwise. Appreciate the opinion, though What in the world are you talking about? There's a serious logical fallacy with your analogy. How can you possibly miss it? Progressions in automobile safety would be akin to some developments in gun safety, such as adding safeties and promoting trigger locks, gun safes, and other means of preventing injury and death from accidental discharge. Obviously this thread isn't about accidental discharge, and gun control advocates aren't really concerned about merely stopping incidents of accidental discharge. This thread is about removing the means for a person to intentionally shoot another person. See the problem?
I think it's less about automobile safety in the sense that you install safety features in automobiles. I think a lot of people are making the case that in automobile safety there's a lot of regulations involved, concerning alcohol, age limits, driving permits, driving tests, all of which concern things outside the physical improvements to a car. At that point it's asking if cars, which are not designed to kill, are regulated because they can cause death, why should guns not be subject to similar regulations?
|
On May 07 2013 09:13 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:47 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:43 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ I had the biggest shit eating grin on my face when I read they successfully fired the damn thing. Man, I love the internet. Nothing brings joy to my face more, than the idea of untrained unlicensed people printing guns by the dozens and doing what they please with them  Wait... I mean, to be entirely fair, we'd still be shooting par for the course based on that criteria... On May 07 2013 08:21 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ . That sounds incredibly dangerous. I'mma do something people hate right here, and quote Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." I hope you stand by this view when it comes to nuclear material. Or anthrax. Or any number of exceedingly dangerous materials that most people would agree don't belong in the hands of the average citizen. Not comparing guns to WMDs, of course, but it's a little ridiculous to say that the notion of people manufacturing weapons is good because them not being able to is the equivalent of slavery. I mean, there are plenty of things we'd like to put restrictions on (e.g. nukes) that are very much worth whatever moronic liberty we give up to do so. The reason guns are different is because of the 2nd Amendment. Legally, yes. Honestly? It's because I want guns and fuck anyone for telling me different. Don't plan on shooting people, hell, I don't even hunt, I just like collecting and taking them out to shoot at targets. Not sure why that's a problem. Also @Shiori I've never claimed to be logically consistent in what I want and what I'm comfortable with others having. I'm not comfortable that some people can have children, but I'm cognizant of the fact that if I want something, I better find a way to be okay with others having it too. At it's core, the gun argument is wholly emotional on both sides. Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 09:02 Defacer wrote:On May 07 2013 08:43 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ I had the biggest shit eating grin on my face when I read they successfully fired the damn thing. Man, I love the internet. Nothing brings joy to my face more, than the idea of untrained unlicensed people printing guns by the dozens and doing what they please with them Wait... I mean, to be entirely fair, we'd still be shooting par for the course based on that criteria... On May 07 2013 08:21 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ . That sounds incredibly dangerous. I'mma do something people hate right here, and quote Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Ummm, wasn't Jefferson's entire estate built primarily on the backs of slaves? Context man! In a few hundred years I expect that we'll look back at anti-sweatshop quotes and say, "But that motherfucker had an Ipod, what a hypocrite." And so they all bowed to the font of historical relativism because no one reads sufficiently on the topic of historiography. And they lived happily ever after... The end. The Frumptious fantasy mulling aside, I understand that doesn't make Jefferson's actions"good" or "right" but what does that have to do with his statement? O_o? (despite the overt irony). Goddamn defeatist history they teach in school these days.... 
I'm just busting your chops.
As romantic, well-spoken and imminently quotable as Jefferson was, one of my biggest pet peeves when discussing gun legislation is when people start quoting Jefferson and Washington. As wonderful as those guys are as historical figures, they have nothing to do with the state of gun culture, politics and legislation today.
It's hard to respect Pro-gun advocates when they avoid talking about the complexity of gun legislation and the importance of public safety, and instead introduce with frivolous platitudes.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Well, sure, obviously.
But gun legislation ISN'T a decision between personal freedom and self-imposed slavery. It's a discussion about Accessibility/Convenience versus Responsibility/Public Safety. That's all. No more, no less.
People might think a background check on private sales is a) a headache inconvenience or b) a half-assed solution to a much bigger problem. One thing it ISN'T is the first step to being enslaved by a facist government that want's to enslave the free world. Give your country, it's civilians, and your own government some more credit than that.
It's nothing personal, I'm sorry if it comes off that way. It's just a pet peeve. You're not the first guy to drop truth-bombs from America's greatest hit makers, as if gun legislation is the make or break issue for sustaining the Great Almighty America forever and ever.
It ain't. I'd be more worried about public health, education, access to energy etc.
|
On May 07 2013 10:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's an interesting argument, but unfortunately I think it is insufficient to refute all the research and papers suggesting otherwise. Appreciate the opinion, though What in the world are you talking about? There's a serious logical fallacy with your analogy. How can you possibly miss it? Progressions in automobile safety would be akin to some developments in gun safety, such as adding safeties and promoting trigger locks, gun safes, and other means of preventing injury and death from accidental discharge. Obviously this thread isn't about accidental discharge, and gun control advocates aren't really concerned about merely stopping incidents of accidental discharge. This thread is about removing the means for a person to intentionally shoot another person. See the problem?
Oh. I see. What is the formal "logical fallacy" I've committed? For the record it's not *my* analogy. It's an analogy I referenced from a paper -- one I linked in a post above.
I don't see the problem because in what you've described you've made a lot of terrible assumptions with which I disagree (and I'm sure the authors would disagree too).
|
On May 07 2013 10:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Heh, Kmillz, you don't get to decide what belongs and what does not belong in a "rational debate on gun control". Don't be silly.
If you'd like to respond to any specific points I've referenced, feel free. I'm not going to bother responding to anything unworthy of a response from now on. A lot of what you say is based on your own bold, often outrageous assumptions, which makes it not only very hard to carry on a reasonable argument with you, but more importantly very unpleasant.
Cheers
And neither do you. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic. When you realize you are wrong, you tuck your tail and run, then point back to your articles and try to assert that you are on the side of "science" or "logic" when nothing you are saying backs any of that up.
On May 07 2013 10:47 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 07 2013 10:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's an interesting argument, but unfortunately I think it is insufficient to refute all the research and papers suggesting otherwise. Appreciate the opinion, though What in the world are you talking about? There's a serious logical fallacy with your analogy. How can you possibly miss it? Progressions in automobile safety would be akin to some developments in gun safety, such as adding safeties and promoting trigger locks, gun safes, and other means of preventing injury and death from accidental discharge. Obviously this thread isn't about accidental discharge, and gun control advocates aren't really concerned about merely stopping incidents of accidental discharge. This thread is about removing the means for a person to intentionally shoot another person. See the problem? Oh. I see. What is the formal "logical fallacy" I've committed? For the record it's not *my* analogy. It's an analogy I referenced from a paper -- one I linked in a post above. I don't see the problem because in what you've described you've made a lot of terrible assumptions with which I disagree (and I'm sure the authors would disagree too).
You quoted some article about the history of car safety and tried to make a false analogy (which is the fallacy btw) to guns.
|
On May 07 2013 10:47 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 09:13 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:47 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:43 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ I had the biggest shit eating grin on my face when I read they successfully fired the damn thing. Man, I love the internet. Nothing brings joy to my face more, than the idea of untrained unlicensed people printing guns by the dozens and doing what they please with them Wait... I mean, to be entirely fair, we'd still be shooting par for the course based on that criteria... On May 07 2013 08:21 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ . That sounds incredibly dangerous. I'mma do something people hate right here, and quote Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." I hope you stand by this view when it comes to nuclear material. Or anthrax. Or any number of exceedingly dangerous materials that most people would agree don't belong in the hands of the average citizen. Not comparing guns to WMDs, of course, but it's a little ridiculous to say that the notion of people manufacturing weapons is good because them not being able to is the equivalent of slavery. I mean, there are plenty of things we'd like to put restrictions on (e.g. nukes) that are very much worth whatever moronic liberty we give up to do so. The reason guns are different is because of the 2nd Amendment. Legally, yes. Honestly? It's because I want guns and fuck anyone for telling me different. Don't plan on shooting people, hell, I don't even hunt, I just like collecting and taking them out to shoot at targets. Not sure why that's a problem. Also @Shiori I've never claimed to be logically consistent in what I want and what I'm comfortable with others having. I'm not comfortable that some people can have children, but I'm cognizant of the fact that if I want something, I better find a way to be okay with others having it too. At it's core, the gun argument is wholly emotional on both sides. On May 07 2013 09:02 Defacer wrote:On May 07 2013 08:43 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ I had the biggest shit eating grin on my face when I read they successfully fired the damn thing. Man, I love the internet. Nothing brings joy to my face more, than the idea of untrained unlicensed people printing guns by the dozens and doing what they please with them Wait... I mean, to be entirely fair, we'd still be shooting par for the course based on that criteria... On May 07 2013 08:21 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ . That sounds incredibly dangerous. I'mma do something people hate right here, and quote Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Ummm, wasn't Jefferson's entire estate built primarily on the backs of slaves? Context man! In a few hundred years I expect that we'll look back at anti-sweatshop quotes and say, "But that motherfucker had an Ipod, what a hypocrite." And so they all bowed to the font of historical relativism because no one reads sufficiently on the topic of historiography. And they lived happily ever after... The end. The Frumptious fantasy mulling aside, I understand that doesn't make Jefferson's actions"good" or "right" but what does that have to do with his statement? O_o? (despite the overt irony). Goddamn defeatist history they teach in school these days.... I'm just busting your chops. As romantic, well-spoken and imminently quotable as Jefferson was, one of my biggest pet peeves when discussing gun legislation is when people start quoting Jefferson and Washington. As wonderful as those guys are as historical figures, they have nothing to do with the state of gun culture, politics and legislation today. It's hard to respect Pro-gun advocates when they avoid talking about the complexity of gun legislation and the importance of public safety, and instead introduce with frivolous platitudes. "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Well, sure, obviously. But gun legislation ISN'T a decision between personal freedom and self-imposed slavery. It's a discussion about Accessibility/Convenience versus Responsibility/Public Safety. That's all. No more, no less. People might think a background check on private sales is a) a headache inconvenience or b) a half-assed solution to a much bigger problem. One thing it ISN'T is the first step to being enslaved by a facist government that want's to enslave the free world. Give your country, it's civilians, and your own government some more credit than that. It's nothing personal, I'm sorry if it comes off that way. It's just a pet peeve. You're not the first guy to drop truth-bombs from America's greatest hit makers, as if gun legislation is the make or break issue for sustaining the Great Almighty America forever and ever. It ain't. I'd be more worried about public health, education, access to energy etc.
I wouldn't discredit gun rights advocates so quickly by saying they think it's the first step to a fascist government. It's more about individual rights versus the collective good of a society/community/country. Here's something I'll quote from someone I vehemently disagree with, but I find the argument at the very least compelling, and not at all like someone's who's scared of a fascist government (in fact he's not opposed to any government as long as they protect the natural rights of its citizens).
Background checks aren't intrusive if a person consents. A person has an indisputable right to his/her own life, so derivatively a person has a right to what he/she has produced from said life. There's not point to life, in one can't maximize its utility (pursue happiness.) So whatever is produced from one's life is to serve one's utility. A person must, therefore, have absolute discretion over his/her life and all that is produced from it, since one's will is the only guarantee in serving one's utility.
If a person consents to a background check, then there's nothing wrong since it is done in accordance to said person's will. If it is done without consent, then it violates one's will and therefore countermands one's will in one's pursuit to maximize the utility of one's property. So what does this all mean in layman's? The information about myself is something that I own, and even though I can't prevent its reproduction, no one has a higher priority than me. The forceful extraction of this information which I own is a violation because it goes against my will. You want me to prove that? I can't. It's an ethical principle. I can't prove that murder is wrong, either, yet the principle is the same.
I can agree that the practicality of his statement means little in the status quo, but a belief that one owns his own property means a lot to people more than (what they perceive to be) irrational beliefs that gun control will lead to any reasonable changes in gun violence.
|
Kmillz, I actually feel kind of bad now. I see that you thought I was providing that article to Micronesia in order to argue whether or not massively destructive weapons should be considered under the second amendment. You really ought to stop making these assumptions, man! It makes things really difficult. In the future when you're a bit unsure about something, just ask! Ask for clarification instead of forming your own assumption. To assume is to make an ASS out of U and ME 
In any case, the article was provided to illustrate the oddity of the wording in the second amendment, and how it causes even the highest level experts on US legal matters to pause. The possibility of owning those kinds of weapons under the 2nd amendment was raised as a spectacle to consider at the extreme, not as a primary point of debate.
On May 07 2013 10:47 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Heh, Kmillz, you don't get to decide what belongs and what does not belong in a "rational debate on gun control". Don't be silly.
If you'd like to respond to any specific points I've referenced, feel free. I'm not going to bother responding to anything unworthy of a response from now on. A lot of what you say is based on your own bold, often outrageous assumptions, which makes it not only very hard to carry on a reasonable argument with you, but more importantly very unpleasant.
Cheers And neither do you. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic. When you realize you are wrong, you tuck your tail and run, then point back to your articles and try to assert that you are on the side of "science" or "logic" when nothing you are saying backs any of that up. Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:47 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 07 2013 10:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 07 2013 10:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's an interesting argument, but unfortunately I think it is insufficient to refute all the research and papers suggesting otherwise. Appreciate the opinion, though What in the world are you talking about? There's a serious logical fallacy with your analogy. How can you possibly miss it? Progressions in automobile safety would be akin to some developments in gun safety, such as adding safeties and promoting trigger locks, gun safes, and other means of preventing injury and death from accidental discharge. Obviously this thread isn't about accidental discharge, and gun control advocates aren't really concerned about merely stopping incidents of accidental discharge. This thread is about removing the means for a person to intentionally shoot another person. See the problem? Oh. I see. What is the formal "logical fallacy" I've committed? For the record it's not *my* analogy. It's an analogy I referenced from a paper -- one I linked in a post above. I don't see the problem because in what you've described you've made a lot of terrible assumptions with which I disagree (and I'm sure the authors would disagree too). You quoted some article about the history of car safety and tried to make a false analogy (which is the fallacy btw) to guns.
LOL. The quote from "some article" is actually an introductory quote from the public health physicians who wrote one of the papers I've been referencing. You can call it out for being "irrational" and crap, but the fact of the matter is that it's a highly reputable group of authors making a point in a reputable journal. While I can't merely appeal to authority here, I can defend by saying you need to do a better job at attacking than just pointing and saying something doesn't fit because you don't think it does.
Shoot, all this time I'd thought you'd actually read it, or at least made it through the first couple of paragraphs. Seriously, please read it, it might make a lot of sense to you if you give it a shot!
And please, for your own sake, quite pretending that you're "pointing out flaws in logic". You aren't. It's kind of embarrassing, actually. When I "tuck my tail and run because my logic is bad", what I'm actually doing is realizing that the level of reading comprehension and the amount of wild, outrageous assumptions among you and a few others is so low that I can't continue.
|
On May 07 2013 10:51 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:47 Defacer wrote:On May 07 2013 09:13 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:47 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:43 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ I had the biggest shit eating grin on my face when I read they successfully fired the damn thing. Man, I love the internet. Nothing brings joy to my face more, than the idea of untrained unlicensed people printing guns by the dozens and doing what they please with them Wait... I mean, to be entirely fair, we'd still be shooting par for the course based on that criteria... On May 07 2013 08:21 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ . That sounds incredibly dangerous. I'mma do something people hate right here, and quote Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." I hope you stand by this view when it comes to nuclear material. Or anthrax. Or any number of exceedingly dangerous materials that most people would agree don't belong in the hands of the average citizen. Not comparing guns to WMDs, of course, but it's a little ridiculous to say that the notion of people manufacturing weapons is good because them not being able to is the equivalent of slavery. I mean, there are plenty of things we'd like to put restrictions on (e.g. nukes) that are very much worth whatever moronic liberty we give up to do so. The reason guns are different is because of the 2nd Amendment. Legally, yes. Honestly? It's because I want guns and fuck anyone for telling me different. Don't plan on shooting people, hell, I don't even hunt, I just like collecting and taking them out to shoot at targets. Not sure why that's a problem. Also @Shiori I've never claimed to be logically consistent in what I want and what I'm comfortable with others having. I'm not comfortable that some people can have children, but I'm cognizant of the fact that if I want something, I better find a way to be okay with others having it too. At it's core, the gun argument is wholly emotional on both sides. On May 07 2013 09:02 Defacer wrote:On May 07 2013 08:43 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ I had the biggest shit eating grin on my face when I read they successfully fired the damn thing. Man, I love the internet. Nothing brings joy to my face more, than the idea of untrained unlicensed people printing guns by the dozens and doing what they please with them Wait... I mean, to be entirely fair, we'd still be shooting par for the course based on that criteria... On May 07 2013 08:21 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ . That sounds incredibly dangerous. I'mma do something people hate right here, and quote Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Ummm, wasn't Jefferson's entire estate built primarily on the backs of slaves? Context man! In a few hundred years I expect that we'll look back at anti-sweatshop quotes and say, "But that motherfucker had an Ipod, what a hypocrite." And so they all bowed to the font of historical relativism because no one reads sufficiently on the topic of historiography. And they lived happily ever after... The end. The Frumptious fantasy mulling aside, I understand that doesn't make Jefferson's actions"good" or "right" but what does that have to do with his statement? O_o? (despite the overt irony). Goddamn defeatist history they teach in school these days.... I'm just busting your chops. As romantic, well-spoken and imminently quotable as Jefferson was, one of my biggest pet peeves when discussing gun legislation is when people start quoting Jefferson and Washington. As wonderful as those guys are as historical figures, they have nothing to do with the state of gun culture, politics and legislation today. It's hard to respect Pro-gun advocates when they avoid talking about the complexity of gun legislation and the importance of public safety, and instead introduce with frivolous platitudes. "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Well, sure, obviously. But gun legislation ISN'T a decision between personal freedom and self-imposed slavery. It's a discussion about Accessibility/Convenience versus Responsibility/Public Safety. That's all. No more, no less. People might think a background check on private sales is a) a headache inconvenience or b) a half-assed solution to a much bigger problem. One thing it ISN'T is the first step to being enslaved by a facist government that want's to enslave the free world. Give your country, it's civilians, and your own government some more credit than that. It's nothing personal, I'm sorry if it comes off that way. It's just a pet peeve. You're not the first guy to drop truth-bombs from America's greatest hit makers, as if gun legislation is the make or break issue for sustaining the Great Almighty America forever and ever. It ain't. I'd be more worried about public health, education, access to energy etc. I wouldn't discredit gun rights advocates so quickly by saying they think it's the first step to a fascist government. It's more about individual rights versus the collective good of a society/community/country. Here's something I'll quote from someone I vehemently disagree with, but I find the argument at the very least compelling, and not at all like someone's who's scared of a fascist government. Show nested quote +Background checks aren't intrusive if a person consents. A person has an indisputable right to his/her own life, so derivatively a person has a right to what he/she has produced from said life. There's not point to life, in one can't maximize its utility (pursue happiness.) So whatever is produced from one's life is to serve one's utility. A person must, therefore, have absolute discretion over his/her life and all that is produced from it, since one's will is the only guarantee in serving one's utility.
If a person consents to a background check, then there's nothing wrong since it is done in accordance to said person's will. If it is done without consent, then it violates one's will and therefore countermands one's will in one's pursuit to maximize the utility of one's property. So what does this all mean in layman's? The information about myself is something that I own, and even though I can't prevent its reproduction, no one has a higher priority than me. The forceful extraction of this information which I own is a violation because it goes against my will. You want me to prove that? I can't. It's an ethical principle. I can't prove that murder is wrong, either, yet the principle is the same. I can agree that the practicality of his statement means little in the status quo, but a belief that one owns his own property means a lot to people more than (what they perceive to be) irrational beliefs that gun control will lead to any reasonable changes in gun violence.
That bold part is the crux of the issue, people keep losing sight of it and attempt to strawman the otherside with wild assertions. To me personally, I rarely reference the second amendment because that isn't the reason I find gun rights to be important. That's just circular reasoning to me (Gun rights are important because we have the second amendment so we can have gun rights...) I prefer the approach of gun rights are important because they have benefits to society, and those benefits outweigh the risk of gun ownership to me.
On May 07 2013 10:53 FallDownMarigold wrote:Kmillz, I actually feel kind of bad now. I see that you thought I was providing that article to Micronesia in order to argue whether or not massively destructive weapons should be considered under the second amendment. You really ought to stop making these assumptions, man! It makes things really difficult. In the future when you're a bit unsure about something, just ask! Ask for clarification instead of forming your own assumption. To assume is to make and ASS out of U and ME In any case, the article was provided to illustrate the oddity of the wording in the second amendment, and how it causes even the highest level experts on US legal matters to pause. The possibility of owning those kinds of weapons under the 2nd amendment was raised as a spectacle to consider at the extreme, not as a primary point of debate.
Ugh.. my bad. I thought you were doing the same old strawman that wherebugsgo made previously about anthrax lol
On May 07 2013 10:53 FallDownMarigold wrote:
LOL. The quote from "some article" is actually an introductory quote from the public health physicians who wrote one of the papers I've been referencing. You can call it out for being "irrational" and crap, but the fact of the matter is that it's a highly reputable group of authors making a point in a reputable journal. While I can't merely appeal to authority here, I can defend by saying you need to do a better job at attacking than just pointing and saying something doesn't fit because you don't think it does.
Shoot, all this time I'd thought you'd actually read it, or at least made it through the first couple of paragraphs. Seriously, please read it, it might make a lot of sense to you if you give it a shot!
And please, for your own sake, quite pretending that you're "pointing out flaws in logic". You aren't. It's kind of embarrassing, actually. When I "tuck my tail and run because my logic is bad", what I'm actually doing is realizing that the level of comprehension among you and a few others is so low that I can't continue.
Where is the article?? I only read what you posted and put in a quote, I saw no link to the entire read.
|
Well you should really quit making that many assumptions about basically every single comment to which you respond
Everything will flow much smoother if no assumptions are made, and instead questions are asked when things are unclear.
|
On May 07 2013 11:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:Well you should really quit making that many assumptions about basically every single comment to which you respond Everything will flow much smoother if no assumptions are made, and instead questions are asked when things are unclear.
Well here is the part that I read:
At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer?
Where is the source for this?
|
On May 07 2013 10:47 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 09:13 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:47 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:43 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ I had the biggest shit eating grin on my face when I read they successfully fired the damn thing. Man, I love the internet. Nothing brings joy to my face more, than the idea of untrained unlicensed people printing guns by the dozens and doing what they please with them Wait... I mean, to be entirely fair, we'd still be shooting par for the course based on that criteria... On May 07 2013 08:21 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ . That sounds incredibly dangerous. I'mma do something people hate right here, and quote Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." I hope you stand by this view when it comes to nuclear material. Or anthrax. Or any number of exceedingly dangerous materials that most people would agree don't belong in the hands of the average citizen. Not comparing guns to WMDs, of course, but it's a little ridiculous to say that the notion of people manufacturing weapons is good because them not being able to is the equivalent of slavery. I mean, there are plenty of things we'd like to put restrictions on (e.g. nukes) that are very much worth whatever moronic liberty we give up to do so. The reason guns are different is because of the 2nd Amendment. Legally, yes. Honestly? It's because I want guns and fuck anyone for telling me different. Don't plan on shooting people, hell, I don't even hunt, I just like collecting and taking them out to shoot at targets. Not sure why that's a problem. Also @Shiori I've never claimed to be logically consistent in what I want and what I'm comfortable with others having. I'm not comfortable that some people can have children, but I'm cognizant of the fact that if I want something, I better find a way to be okay with others having it too. At it's core, the gun argument is wholly emotional on both sides. On May 07 2013 09:02 Defacer wrote:On May 07 2013 08:43 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ I had the biggest shit eating grin on my face when I read they successfully fired the damn thing. Man, I love the internet. Nothing brings joy to my face more, than the idea of untrained unlicensed people printing guns by the dozens and doing what they please with them Wait... I mean, to be entirely fair, we'd still be shooting par for the course based on that criteria... On May 07 2013 08:21 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ . That sounds incredibly dangerous. I'mma do something people hate right here, and quote Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Ummm, wasn't Jefferson's entire estate built primarily on the backs of slaves? Context man! In a few hundred years I expect that we'll look back at anti-sweatshop quotes and say, "But that motherfucker had an Ipod, what a hypocrite." And so they all bowed to the font of historical relativism because no one reads sufficiently on the topic of historiography. And they lived happily ever after... The end. The Frumptious fantasy mulling aside, I understand that doesn't make Jefferson's actions"good" or "right" but what does that have to do with his statement? O_o? (despite the overt irony). Goddamn defeatist history they teach in school these days.... I'm just busting your chops. As romantic, well-spoken and imminently quotable as Jefferson was, one of my biggest pet peeves when discussing gun legislation is when people start quoting Jefferson and Washington. As wonderful as those guys are as historical figures, they have nothing to do with the state of gun culture, politics and legislation today. It's hard to respect Pro-gun advocates when they avoid talking about the complexity of gun legislation and the importance of public safety, and instead introduce with frivolous platitudes. "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Well, sure, obviously. But gun legislation ISN'T a decision between personal freedom and self-imposed slavery. It's a discussion about Accessibility/Convenience versus Responsibility/Public Safety. That's all. No more, no less. People might think a background check on private sales is a) a headache inconvenience or b) a half-assed solution to a much bigger problem. One thing it ISN'T is the first step to being enslaved by a facist government that want's to enslave the free world. Give your country, it's civilians, and your own government some more credit than that. It's nothing personal, I'm sorry if it comes off that way. It's just a pet peeve. You're not the first guy to drop truth-bombs from America's greatest hit makers, as if gun legislation is the make or break issue for sustaining the Great Almighty America forever and ever. It ain't. I'd be more worried about public health, education, access to energy etc.
Word.
I figured you were being humorous, but at the same time:
"But gun legislation ISN'T a decision between personal freedom and self-imposed slavery. It's a discussion about Accessibility/Convenience versus Responsibility/Public Safety. That's all. No more, no less."
I can't disagree with that more. Individual liberty vs. Collective Will is the very core of the debate. If one is unwilling to accept what is collectively deemed as being congruent with "Public Safety" then it becomes part and parcel a debate about freedom vs. slavery.
The issue arises from the definition of "freedom". I've always stood by the notion that you cannot define what liberty is, only what it is not. You can describe what liberty/freedom is, but it's simply a description, not a definition. Descriptively freedom is ACTUALLY a state of being which derives from the interaction (superficially) of mindset, person (the individual part of yourself that forms the core of "you") and environment then expressed, acted upon and reflected upon.
It's a perspective. To you it may be about Accessibility/Convenience vs. Responsibility/Public Safety. Not to me. That dichotomy is simply the vehicle conveying the larger ideological frameworks, it dictates the language, but not what the language is describing.
|
On May 07 2013 11:03 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 11:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:Well you should really quit making that many assumptions about basically every single comment to which you respond Everything will flow much smoother if no assumptions are made, and instead questions are asked when things are unclear. Well here is the part that I read: Show nested quote +At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer? Where is the source for this?
It's linked in the post I made that xDaunt mistakenly attacked due to making an inaccurate assumption:
+ Show Spoiler +On May 07 2013 10:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:07 Deezl wrote:
It's my understanding that the right to bear arms exists to ensure that the citizens have the power to revolt in case the government starts being all North Korea and shit. I'm a Democrat that's for a broad interpretation of that amendment, and I think guns are mostly fine and we should treat the crazy people instead. We should treat criminals and crazy people, for sure. But how about on top of doing that, we also address the environment in which the problem of too many gun deaths per year in the US persists, based on a public health approach -- the same approaches that were applied successfully to other public health concerns in the past? Here's one way to think about it: 1) Today an ever-growing number of physicians, epidemiologists, and other public health professionals recognize gun violence as a public health problem in the US. The medical and public health community community understands this perspective and accepts the challenge to address the problem. 2) Although other problems, such as car accidents, cancer, and heart disease kill many more people each day, it remains a fact that too many people die to guns in the US each year. That other problems exist does not mean all of them can't be addressed in parallel. People can work, for example, on curing cancer while others work on decreasing gun deaths and injury numbers in the US via a public health approach. 3) The logic behind a public health approach is to address the problem in a special way: The strategy to solve the problem, rather than simplistically aiming at only the victims/perpetrators of the problem, aims at the actual agent and environment in which the problem persists (without necessarily excluding approaches that aim at victims/perpetrators). 4) In the case of gun violence, the agent and environment in which the problem occurs are guns and gun prevalence, if the problem is traced as far upstream as possible, and if overall numbers are the focus rather than specific individuals and instances of the problem. This approach enables the focus to shift from "what can we do to stop criminals from being criminals" or "what can we do to stop humans from making mistakes or behaving poorly" to "what can we do to make being a criminal more difficult, and to make committing errors more forgiving?". 5) In addition to this approach, of course, it would also be highly desirable to address problems with why criminals exist in the US, how to solve that issue, etc. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167
It's the NEJM link. I thought you would have recognized it because a couple days ago you were involved in a discussion that spawned over that same article, as if you had read the article too.
In any case, please, in the future so we can have more productive discussions and move forward on this issue, let's not make anymore assumptions!!!!!! If you read something and it elicits a strong gut reaction, or a "WTF he's crazy", but it seems like maybe you're a little unsure, just go ahead and ask for clarification before jumping down an argument based on an assumption that may end up confusing the issue and taking attention away from the brunt of points
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
