|
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 10 2013 04:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:
Great, then if you are well aware of the process, that just means you willfully misrepresented the truth by saying "the current law allows you to transfer a gun to a criminal" when you should have said "the current law forbids you to determine if you are transferring guns to a criminal."
These are very different statements, as yours begs the need for increased state control while mine demands the state to be logical without adding additional and redundant laws to the pile.
Did you seriously just chop off half of a sentence to misrepresent what I said? If you're having trouble responding to what I have actually said maybe you should just not reply?
On May 10 2013 04:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:
Edit: No, I didn't make that statement because I feel "superior." I made that statement because people are always blaming private sellers for "giving guns to criminals" and basically starting a witch-hunt against us. Meanwhile, back in reality, private sellers are trying to let everyone know THAT IT'S ILLEGAL FOR US TO DO CHECKS.
I don't understand. You're complaining that you as a non FFL seller cannot run checks. Yet you're against forcing all sales to be run through the process. wtf?
|
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.
Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?
Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!
|
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.
Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?
Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!
Your really hopeless you know that? You spent the whole time being a hyper partisan dick making gaudy accusations with no examples, borderline whining for the most part, pretend to hold an intellectual high ground from throwing mud at your opponent, then at the end of all this expect people to show any interest in putting work into something that you just showed in exhaustive extent that you wouldn't give any credence to?
You are the thesis of why we can't have responsible gun control in america. The extent that you will ignore, insult, and insolvent any actually responsible gun control. Flailing around making a big huff on a subject you know nothing about, that you know you won't do anything about, that you know you've lost from the very beginning only makes you look dumb.
|
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.
Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?
Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!
The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns?
You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US.
You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery.
You have a third side that wishes the US was Europe
And you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention.
In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!)
Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do?
Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings.
|
On May 10 2013 07:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.
Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?
Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500! The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns? You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US.
You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery.
You have a third side that wishes the US was EuropeAnd you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention. In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!) Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do? Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings.
Holy strawmans batman.
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.
Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?
Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!
You can't simply shift the burden of proof like that. You need to bring forth concrete proof that your ideas for more gun control will significantly lower violent crimes (NOT gun violence, that isn't the crux of the issue and you seem to keep forgetting that) otherwise nobody will take you seriously. Stop calling it "responsible" policy that is about as useless terminology as "assault weapon".
|
On May 10 2013 08:28 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 07:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.
Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?
Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500! The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns? You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US. You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery. You have a third side that wishes the US was Europe And you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention. In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!) Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do? Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings. Holy strawmans batman.
??
I wasn't making an argument. That is an observation of what's happening on this thread.
|
On May 10 2013 04:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:34 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 10 2013 04:23 Millitron wrote:
Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway. I had this argument several pages back, it is pointless. He simply does not understand. I think the most relevant response he had was something like "not everyone has enough private property" or something similar. Actually--no, that was me. Urban residences don't have speed limit laws within private property since most places only have at most a garage or two of space and so speed limits are not needed since there's no room to drive. Noise and disturbing the peace complaints can be filed if you simply rev up your engine or kick dirt around your backyard. Rural areas where you have enough space to actually drive around in are also places your allowed to shoot guns in. So... they both are treated equally.
BUT THEY AREN'T. In NY, I can't have a magazine with more than 7 bullets, even if I have miles and miles of private land. I can't have an automatic weapon no matter how much private land I have.
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.
Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?
Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!
Here's an argument, don't fix what isn't broken. As that pew poll has pointed out, gun violence is at a record low since 93. No change is needed, at least not stricter gun-control, because things are better than ever.
|
On May 10 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 08:28 kmillz wrote:On May 10 2013 07:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.
Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?
Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500! The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns? You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US. You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery. You have a third side that wishes the US was Europe And you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention. In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!) Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do? Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings. Holy strawmans batman. ?? I wasn't making an argument. That is an observation of what's happening on this thread.
So you are stating it as if it is fact, that is even more insulting. Name me who is on the side that thinks without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US? That is so fucking absurd I don't even know why I'm responding to it.
|
On May 10 2013 08:36 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 08:28 kmillz wrote:On May 10 2013 07:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.
Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?
Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500! The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns? You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US. You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery. You have a third side that wishes the US was Europe And you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention. In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!) Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do? Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings. Holy strawmans batman. ?? I wasn't making an argument. That is an observation of what's happening on this thread. So you are stating it as if it is fact, that is even more insulting. Name me who is on the side that thinks without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US? That is so fucking absurd I don't even know why I'm responding to it.
People say its to defend against tyranny all the time 
EDIT:
I don't actually believe a zombie hitler will reinstate the 3rd Reich in america without the 2nd amendment
|
On May 10 2013 08:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 04:34 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 10 2013 04:23 Millitron wrote:
Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway. I had this argument several pages back, it is pointless. He simply does not understand. I think the most relevant response he had was something like "not everyone has enough private property" or something similar. Actually--no, that was me. Urban residences don't have speed limit laws within private property since most places only have at most a garage or two of space and so speed limits are not needed since there's no room to drive. Noise and disturbing the peace complaints can be filed if you simply rev up your engine or kick dirt around your backyard. Rural areas where you have enough space to actually drive around in are also places your allowed to shoot guns in. So... they both are treated equally. BUT THEY AREN'T. In NY, I can't have a magazine with more than 7 bullets, even if I have miles and miles of private land. I can't have an automatic weapon no matter how much private land I have.
Maybe this is because I'm not a gun enthusiast, but can you fill me in on relevant uses for automatic weapons on your private land? It seems like overkill for hunting and self defense. I guess you can shoot at targets with them? Is there something more than that?
|
On May 10 2013 08:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 08:36 kmillz wrote:On May 10 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 08:28 kmillz wrote:On May 10 2013 07:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.
Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?
Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500! The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns? You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US. You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery. You have a third side that wishes the US was Europe And you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention. In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!) Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do? Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings. Holy strawmans batman. ?? I wasn't making an argument. That is an observation of what's happening on this thread. So you are stating it as if it is fact, that is even more insulting. Name me who is on the side that thinks without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US? That is so fucking absurd I don't even know why I'm responding to it. People say its to defend against tyranny all the time EDIT: I don't actually believe a zombie hitler will reinstate the 3rd Reich in america without the 2nd amendment
The tyranny argument is just the reasoning for why the second amendment was put in place, people aren't saying that we would have a tyranny if it weren't for the second amendment, it's just there as a SAFE guard. Just because I probably won't get into an accident doesn't mean I won't put my seatbelt on.
You named 4 "sides" about gun control and you said there is no "philosophical stance" of guns or no guns, which is complete and total bullshit. Your 4 sides were just non-sense hyperbole that just make you look even more condescending.
|
I personally think a constitutional amendment needs to be made either way because the 2nd Amendment is incredibly poorly written. I mean, look at Madison's original pitched 2nd amendment:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Final version:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
They lifted chunks of it, but chunks in such a way that the Supreme Court has had no idea what to do with it historically (this much is clearly in evident from their decisions on things like the definition of arms, the presence of an individual or collective right, and whether or not felons are permitted to own guns). There's even a comma splice! Unfortunately the founding fathers didn't account very well for changing language and include a glossary in the Constitution...
|
On May 10 2013 09:20 Shiori wrote:
Maybe this is because I'm not a gun enthusiast, but can you fill me in on relevant uses for automatic weapons on your private land? It seems like overkill for hunting and self defense. I guess you can shoot at targets with them? Is there something more than that?
Automatic weapons are not *useful* for anything apart from eliminating enemy combatants, and even then the rifles used by actual warfighters rarely see use of full automatic fire unless it is to suppress the opposing force. The thing you're getting at is they're loads of fun to shoot, and nothing more. There is absolutely no reason to have one in a civilian setting apart from the fun.
I've had the pleasure of playing with a select-fire PKM at an outdoor place in the desert where I grew up. Thinking about it, it's sort of hard to describe why it's fun to squeeze a trigger just to send lots of lead down range. Hitting targets is one thing but the fun of just shooting an automatic weapon is another. There's no clear good reason for it being fun -- just sorta is, if it appeals to you. You try it, and it either feels entirely like it's scary, nothing at all, or lots of fun.
The reason to own one in a civilian setting is just "fun". That being said, I understand fully that just because something is fun does not mean other considerations should not be taken, such as safety concerns, which is why I have no problem setting aside what I think is fun in order to focus on what I think needs to be done toward greater responsibility and safety.
On May 10 2013 08:32 Millitron wrote:
Here's an argument, don't fix what isn't broken. As that pew poll has pointed out, gun violence is at a record low since 93. No change is needed, at least not stricter gun-control, because things are better than ever.
That Pew poll does not conclude that gun-control is not needed, unless I missed that part of the paper. The observation featured in the Pew poll that violence -- including gun violence -- is at a relative low point compared to violence in the 80s and 90s does not concern the fact that gun deaths have been at a steady ~30,000 per year in the US for over a decade, without any further progress going down. In fact, it is estimated that gun death numbers in the US will surpass vehicle deaths by 2015!
Gun deaths and injuries are of great concern to many physicians and healthcare professionals in the US, who support the idea of more responsible gun policy and culture.
So while you may be of the personal opinion that "nothing is broken" and that everything is "better than ever", many professionals who can argue authoritatively on this subject disagree.
On May 10 2013 09:46 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 09:42 zdfgucker wrote:
I don't understand how you need a militia - if the US government wanted to oppress its people, what are you going to do against tanks, stuff like B52 bombers destroying a few cities here and there (to scare people everywhere) and then forcing you to surrender/give them your weapons/whatever they want to? Fire your cute little rifles at them?
That was a neat idea 300 years ago, nowadays it's a laughable idea.
Overall I am not against weapons per se, just make ammunition more expensive. If the government chose to go full on dictator mode there would be a civil war. There would be huge rifts in the military. Entire portions of the military would fight alongside the rebels. Pretending it would be small arm equipped civilians vs the entire might of the US military is naive.
You missed his point entirely. His point is that small arms -- AR15 rifles, .45 handguns, shotguns, and the like -- have no place in deciding the outcomes of combat involving modernized military forces at large. Even in your example it is still the power of the US military that is dictating the pace despite being fragmented and turned against itself -- not the small arms-bearing civilians.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights
On May 10 2013 08:28 kmillz wrote:
You can't simply shift the burden of proof like that. You need to bring forth concrete proof that your ideas for more gun control will significantly lower violent crimes (NOT gun violence, that isn't the crux of the issue and you seem to keep forgetting that) otherwise nobody will take you seriously. Stop calling it "responsible" policy that is about as useless terminology as "assault weapon".
Actually I can given that there is no burden of proof already resting on me. I have provided on many counts evidence for approaching gun control through the lens of public health, which despite your misgivings is actually a perfectly valid approach -- one that is actually authoritative given that it has passed through the process of peer review by other scientists who are thinking about problems from scientific rather than political perspectives, which is incredibly valuable for forming reasonable policy. At this point I'm just very interested to see if there exists even just one persuasive argument in favor of doing nothing toward more responsible gun policy and culture, and I'm completely free to request such a thing. Who are you to tell me I'm not allowed to ask for a good argument rather than crappy presumptive/misinformed responses such as the ones that have littered many pages of this thread?
Furthermore, although you personally think it's only an issue of violent crime, and that guns themselves or the environment in which guns are used are irrelevant, public health professionals and physicians disagree. Crime plays a role, but so does the way we deal with gun prevalence and use. Addressing both affects gun death/injury numbers. Asking for "proof" that a public health approach works is essentially asking for proof that something works before allowing it to be tested. Other models show it works. What is left now is to apply it here, and see how it fares.
|
I don't understand how you need a militia - if the US government wanted to oppress its people, what are you going to do against tanks, stuff like B52 bombers destroying a few cities here and there (to scare people everywhere) and then forcing you to surrender/give them your weapons/whatever they want to? Fire your cute little rifles at them?
That was a neat idea 300 years ago, nowadays it's a laughable idea.
Overall I am not against weapons per se, just make ammunition more expensive.
|
On May 10 2013 08:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 04:34 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 10 2013 04:23 Millitron wrote:
Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway. I had this argument several pages back, it is pointless. He simply does not understand. I think the most relevant response he had was something like "not everyone has enough private property" or something similar. Actually--no, that was me. Urban residences don't have speed limit laws within private property since most places only have at most a garage or two of space and so speed limits are not needed since there's no room to drive. Noise and disturbing the peace complaints can be filed if you simply rev up your engine or kick dirt around your backyard. Rural areas where you have enough space to actually drive around in are also places your allowed to shoot guns in. So... they both are treated equally. BUT THEY AREN'T. In NY, I can't have a magazine with more than 7 bullets, even if I have miles and miles of private land. I can't have an automatic weapon no matter how much private land I have. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.
Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?
Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500! Here's an argument, don't fix what isn't broken. As that pew poll has pointed out, gun violence is at a record low since 93. No change is needed, at least not stricter gun-control, because things are better than ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
|
On May 10 2013 09:42 zdfgucker wrote:
I don't understand how you need a militia - if the US government wanted to oppress its people, what are you going to do against tanks, stuff like B52 bombers destroying a few cities here and there (to scare people everywhere) and then forcing you to surrender/give them your weapons/whatever they want to? Fire your cute little rifles at them?
That was a neat idea 300 years ago, nowadays it's a laughable idea.
Overall I am not against weapons per se, just make ammunition more expensive.
If the government chose to go full on dictator mode there would be a civil war. There would be huge rifts in the military. Entire portions of the military would fight alongside the rebels. Pretending it would be small arm equipped civilians vs the entire might of the US military is naive.
|
On May 10 2013 09:46 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 09:42 zdfgucker wrote:
I don't understand how you need a militia - if the US government wanted to oppress its people, what are you going to do against tanks, stuff like B52 bombers destroying a few cities here and there (to scare people everywhere) and then forcing you to surrender/give them your weapons/whatever they want to? Fire your cute little rifles at them?
That was a neat idea 300 years ago, nowadays it's a laughable idea.
Overall I am not against weapons per se, just make ammunition more expensive. If the government chose to go full on dictator mode there would be a civil war. There would be huge rifts in the military. Entire portions of the military would fight alongside the rebels. Pretending it would be small arm equipped civilians vs the entire might of the US military is naive.
It's also pretty naive to suppose this kind of fantasy has any real chance of occurring.
|
You can't simply shift the burden of proof like that. You need to bring forth concrete proof that your ideas for more gun control will significantly lower violent crimes (NOT gun violence, that isn't the crux of the issue and you seem to keep forgetting that) otherwise nobody will take you seriously. Stop calling it "responsible" policy that is about as useless terminology as "assault weapon".
1) Every other developed country in the world with strict firearm laws has homicide and gun-related crime rates than we do.
2) Australia effectively banned firearms in 1996. A quick Google search of "Australia homicide rates by year" shows that, since then, many sources show that there hasn't been a single mass shooting and the homicide rate has a pattern of steady decline.
Here's an argument, don't fix what isn't broken. As that pew poll has pointed out, gun violence is at a record low since 93. No change is needed, at least not stricter gun-control, because things are better than ever.
"Things aren't complete and utter shit, therefore we don't need to fix them!"
Ridiculous. We have higher crime rates than the rest of the developed world, higher gun-related crime than the rest of the world, and we have has well over 1 mass shooting/year for the past however long now. There is a problem, and just because you're too heartless to see a problem affecting large portions of this country doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be fixed.
|
On May 10 2013 09:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:
1) Every other developed country in the world with strict firearm laws has lower crime rates (including homicide and violent crime) than we do.
Not to imply that I think any other countries are comparable to the US but that statement is simply false.
|
On May 10 2013 09:56 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 09:46 heliusx wrote:On May 10 2013 09:42 zdfgucker wrote:
I don't understand how you need a militia - if the US government wanted to oppress its people, what are you going to do against tanks, stuff like B52 bombers destroying a few cities here and there (to scare people everywhere) and then forcing you to surrender/give them your weapons/whatever they want to? Fire your cute little rifles at them?
That was a neat idea 300 years ago, nowadays it's a laughable idea.
Overall I am not against weapons per se, just make ammunition more expensive. If the government chose to go full on dictator mode there would be a civil war. There would be huge rifts in the military. Entire portions of the military would fight alongside the rebels. Pretending it would be small arm equipped civilians vs the entire might of the US military is naive. It's also pretty naive to suppose this kind of fantasy has any real chance of occurring.
Thanks for another one of your useless posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
