|
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 10:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected.
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate.
Oh man that made you so happy that you think you got me didn't it? I'm so glad that you are proud of yourself. Lose sight of the whole argument to focus on semantics some more please, it's making you look so brilliant.
Why do people reference Sandy Hook to push gun control then? Mass shootings are just isolated incidents, they are too anecdotal to present an argument for stricter gun control right?
edit: I'll put it back since you responded to it: Nothin in the constitution says we can't have them either, and yes, it is up for debate, I still don't know why you are focusing on that though, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The overall numbers say that an extremely tiny amount of gun owners commit violent crimes.
|
That's why I said it was up for debate, lol. I focused on it in response to one guy. It's your own problem if you're somehow interpreting that as whatever else you thought
(^that sentence now makes little sense because I did not quote you initially, and you have since then edited what you had when I replied. apologies!)
Re: Why do gun control proponents do stupid things too.
Answer: Probably because there are also stupid people on that side of the debate too! I'm not sure why I am being lumped together with all gun control proponents. Yes, in direct response, referencing specific shootings is not useful in the overall scheme of things. I think a lot of the arguments on that side are stupid too!
|
On May 10 2013 11:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's why I said it was up for debate, lol.
(^that sentence now makes little sense because I did not quote you initially, and you have since then edited what you had when I replied. apologies!)
Re: Why do gun control proponents do stupid things too.
Answer: Probably because there are also stupid people on that side of the debate too! I'm not sure why I am being lumped together with all gun control proponents. I think a lot of the arguments on that side are stupid too!
So is stratos_spear is stupid for saying that anyone who doesn't think we should do something about the mass shootings is heartless? He brought that up and called me heartless for disagreeing, remember?
|
On May 10 2013 11:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's why I said it was up for debate, lol.
(^that sentence now makes little sense because I did not quote you initially, and you have since then edited what you had when I replied. apologies!)
Re: Why do gun control proponents do stupid things too.
Answer: Probably because there are also stupid people on that side of the debate too! I'm not sure why I am being lumped together with all gun control proponents. Yes, in direct response, referencing specific shootings is not useful in the overall scheme of things. I think a lot of the arguments on that side are stupid too!
So what do you want done then?
|
I recall him referencing the overall numbers, which was correct. If he said "we should get better gun control so that X person doesn't die or so that X school shooting does not happen" then yeah I'd say he's not focusing on the right thing. The overall numbers are the concern, not any one specific incident
On May 10 2013 11:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's why I said it was up for debate, lol.
(^that sentence now makes little sense because I did not quote you initially, and you have since then edited what you had when I replied. apologies!)
Re: Why do gun control proponents do stupid things too.
Answer: Probably because there are also stupid people on that side of the debate too! I'm not sure why I am being lumped together with all gun control proponents. Yes, in direct response, referencing specific shootings is not useful in the overall scheme of things. I think a lot of the arguments on that side are stupid too! So what do you want done then?
I want to see scientists, physicians, and other health care professionals receive the support and funding needed to form a body charged with reducing gun death and injury numbers in the US via better gun policies ranging from measures affecting sales and ownership all the way to education and the image of guns in our culture.
On May 10 2013 11:10 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I recall him referencing the overall numbers, which was correct. If he said "we should get better gun control so that X person doesn't die or so that X school shooting does not happen" then yeah I'd say he's not focusing on the right thing. The overall numbers are the concern, not any one specific incident
Which numbers specifically?
Gun casualties: Accidental injuries and deaths, assaults, homicides, and suicides.
|
On May 10 2013 11:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I recall him referencing the overall numbers, which was correct. If he said "we should get better gun control so that X person doesn't die or so that X school shooting does not happen" then yeah I'd say he's not focusing on the right thing. The overall numbers are the concern, not any one specific incident
Which numbers, specifically, are important to you?
On May 10 2013 11:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:I recall him referencing the overall numbers, which was correct. If he said "we should get better gun control so that X person doesn't die or so that X school shooting does not happen" then yeah I'd say he's not focusing on the right thing. The overall numbers are the concern, not any one specific incident Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:06 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's why I said it was up for debate, lol.
(^that sentence now makes little sense because I did not quote you initially, and you have since then edited what you had when I replied. apologies!)
Re: Why do gun control proponents do stupid things too.
Answer: Probably because there are also stupid people on that side of the debate too! I'm not sure why I am being lumped together with all gun control proponents. Yes, in direct response, referencing specific shootings is not useful in the overall scheme of things. I think a lot of the arguments on that side are stupid too! So what do you want done then? I want to see scientists, physicians, and other health care professionals receive the support and funding needed to form a body charged with reducing gun death and injury numbers in the US via better gun policies ranging from sales, ownership, all the way to education and the image of guns in our culture.
Scientists, physicians, and other health care professionals aren't necessarily experts on what makes people commit heinous crimes, so that would be a waste of funding. That is for the criminology department, or arguably, psychologists if you want to go through the mental health approach to figure out what causes people to do those things and what we can do to stop them before they do it.
On May 10 2013 11:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:I recall him referencing the overall numbers, which was correct. If he said "we should get better gun control so that X person doesn't die or so that X school shooting does not happen" then yeah I'd say he's not focusing on the right thing. The overall numbers are the concern, not any one specific incident Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:06 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's why I said it was up for debate, lol.
(^that sentence now makes little sense because I did not quote you initially, and you have since then edited what you had when I replied. apologies!)
Re: Why do gun control proponents do stupid things too.
Answer: Probably because there are also stupid people on that side of the debate too! I'm not sure why I am being lumped together with all gun control proponents. Yes, in direct response, referencing specific shootings is not useful in the overall scheme of things. I think a lot of the arguments on that side are stupid too! So what do you want done then? I want to see scientists, physicians, and other health care professionals receive the support and funding needed to form a body charged with reducing gun death and injury numbers in the US via better gun policies ranging from measures affecting sales and ownership all the way to education and the image of guns in our culture. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:10 kmillz wrote:On May 10 2013 11:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I recall him referencing the overall numbers, which was correct. If he said "we should get better gun control so that X person doesn't die or so that X school shooting does not happen" then yeah I'd say he's not focusing on the right thing. The overall numbers are the concern, not any one specific incident
Which numbers specifically? Gun casualties: Accidental injuries and deaths, assaults, homicides, and suicides.
What about just: casualties? Is that not important?
|
Heinous crime is not the only thing at stake though, which is why I was very careful to emphasize accidental injury and death, and suicide, IN ADDITION to assault and homicide.
In fact, there are more suicides than murders with firearms. Research has demonstrated that more firearm prevalence = greater use of guns in suicide, for example.
Think about it this way: Why do these people want to address the issue of guns? Is it that they personally dislike guns? They don't like the NRA? Something political? The answer is NO -- none of that! They have analyzed the situation from a scientific perspective and come to the conclusion that something needs to be done abut our gun problem numbers.
One relevant approach is to address crimes on the whole, while another more specific approach is to address the agent of and environment in which the problem persists. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, so saying that a crime based approach is useful does not necessarily mean a public health approach is useless.
|
On May 10 2013 11:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:I recall him referencing the overall numbers, which was correct. If he said "we should get better gun control so that X person doesn't die or so that X school shooting does not happen" then yeah I'd say he's not focusing on the right thing. The overall numbers are the concern, not any one specific incident Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:06 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's why I said it was up for debate, lol.
(^that sentence now makes little sense because I did not quote you initially, and you have since then edited what you had when I replied. apologies!)
Re: Why do gun control proponents do stupid things too.
Answer: Probably because there are also stupid people on that side of the debate too! I'm not sure why I am being lumped together with all gun control proponents. Yes, in direct response, referencing specific shootings is not useful in the overall scheme of things. I think a lot of the arguments on that side are stupid too! So what do you want done then? I want to see scientists, physicians, and other health care professionals receive the support and funding needed to form a body charged with reducing gun death and injury numbers in the US via better gun policies ranging from sales, ownership, all the way to education and the image of guns in our culture. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:10 kmillz wrote:On May 10 2013 11:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I recall him referencing the overall numbers, which was correct. If he said "we should get better gun control so that X person doesn't die or so that X school shooting does not happen" then yeah I'd say he's not focusing on the right thing. The overall numbers are the concern, not any one specific incident
Which numbers specifically? Gun casualties: Accidental injuries and deaths, assaults, homicides, and suicides.
Well, tons of mundane things kill more than accidental gunshots. Should we have more research into the harmful effects of pools?
|
On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 10 2013 10:44 kmillz wrote:
If 5 less people get shot to death and 5 more get stabbed to death, what is accomplished? Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks  On May 10 2013 10:45 Millitron wrote:
In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon. Show nested quote +
Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected.
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate.
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do. Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them.
Well... If we want to get technical...
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
The militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment.
Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it.
Just to keep things in perspective.
|
On May 10 2013 11:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:I recall him referencing the overall numbers, which was correct. If he said "we should get better gun control so that X person doesn't die or so that X school shooting does not happen" then yeah I'd say he's not focusing on the right thing. The overall numbers are the concern, not any one specific incident On May 10 2013 11:06 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's why I said it was up for debate, lol.
(^that sentence now makes little sense because I did not quote you initially, and you have since then edited what you had when I replied. apologies!)
Re: Why do gun control proponents do stupid things too.
Answer: Probably because there are also stupid people on that side of the debate too! I'm not sure why I am being lumped together with all gun control proponents. Yes, in direct response, referencing specific shootings is not useful in the overall scheme of things. I think a lot of the arguments on that side are stupid too! So what do you want done then? I want to see scientists, physicians, and other health care professionals receive the support and funding needed to form a body charged with reducing gun death and injury numbers in the US via better gun policies ranging from sales, ownership, all the way to education and the image of guns in our culture. On May 10 2013 11:10 kmillz wrote:On May 10 2013 11:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I recall him referencing the overall numbers, which was correct. If he said "we should get better gun control so that X person doesn't die or so that X school shooting does not happen" then yeah I'd say he's not focusing on the right thing. The overall numbers are the concern, not any one specific incident
Which numbers specifically? Gun casualties: Accidental injuries and deaths, assaults, homicides, and suicides. Well, tons of mundane things kill more than accidental gunshots. Should we have more research into the harmful effects of pools?
It's been mentioned before, but I'll remind you: That other things kill more does not mean both things cannot be addressed in parallel. We can have people working on pool safety while others work on gun safety.
|
On May 10 2013 11:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Heinous crime is not the only thing at stake though, which is why I was very careful to emphasize accidental injury and death, and suicide, IN ADDITION to assault and homicide.
In fact, there are more suicides than murders with firearms. Research has demonstrated that more firearm prevalence = greater use of guns in suicide, for example.
Well shouldn't there be more emphasis on accidents from car crashes, accidental falls, poisoning by liquids, fires, drowning, etc.. than guns? Those kill way more people by accident, wouldn't it be a waste of resources to allocate them to investigating gun accidents over those things?
"Oh I don't have a gun, guess I can't kill myself now" doesn't sound too likely either.
And again, murder and assault numbers are the problem. Owning a gun isn't what makes people murder or assault other people.
|
On May 10 2013 11:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Heinous crime is not the only thing at stake though, which is why I was very careful to emphasize accidental injury and death, and suicide, IN ADDITION to assault and homicide.
In fact, there are more suicides than murders with firearms. Research has demonstrated that more firearm prevalence = greater use of guns in suicide, for example.
Think about it this way: Why do these people want to address the issue of guns? Is it that they personally dislike guns? They don't like the NRA? Something political? The answer is NO -- none of that! They have analyzed the situation from a scientific perspective and come to the conclusion that something needs to be done abut our gun problem numbers.
One relevant approach is to address crimes on the whole, while another more specific approach is to address the agent of and environment in which the problem persists. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, so saying that a crime based approach is useful does not necessarily mean a public health approach is useless.
What do scientists know?
I'm sure the NRA has saved far more lives and have advanced human civilization a lot more than these biased scientists
|
Eh, don't be snarky about it Magpie. It's partly the reason some get worked up in here!
|
On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 10 2013 10:44 kmillz wrote:
If 5 less people get shot to death and 5 more get stabbed to death, what is accomplished? Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks On May 10 2013 10:45 Millitron wrote:
In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected.
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate.
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do. Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... Show nested quote +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 The militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective.
A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it?
Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations.
|
On May 10 2013 11:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Eh, don't be snarky about it Magpie. It's partly the reason some get worked up in here!
Snarkiness doesn't bother me, saying things like these bothers me:
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.
or
We've yet to see a single persuasive argument in favor of doing nothing toward more responsible gun policy.
or
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.
or
Yes, if you say this, you are heartless. Suck it up and face it.
or
There is no philosophical argument about guns or no guns
Just the overall attitude of complete dismissal to the other side and insisting that you have the moral high ground while ignoring any argument that is contrary to your own. It's just annoying because there is nothing backing up any of these absurd claims. It's just "I'm right you're wrong LA LA LA I can't hear you!!!!"
|
On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 10 2013 10:44 kmillz wrote:
If 5 less people get shot to death and 5 more get stabbed to death, what is accomplished? Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks On May 10 2013 10:45 Millitron wrote:
In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected.
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate.
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do. Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... 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 The militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations.
That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense.
It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped.
@Gold
Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research.
|
|
|
I'm a property rights guy. Taking away of guns is not on the table for me unless its proven a detriment to society. I am up for gun laws up the wazoo but mostly because I don't like guns.
|
Just because you disagree doesn't mean they aren't there
|
On May 10 2013 11:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I'm a property rights guy. Taking away of guns is not on the table for me unless its proven a detriment to society. I am up for gun laws up the wazoo but mostly because I don't like guns.
That's fine. "Taking away guns" would be taking the idea all the way to the absurd extreme. Many, many, many ideas are out there for implementation of more responsible measures that do not require moving door to door grabbing everyone's guns. Many ideas could be conceived that don't require removing every gun in the US. The way I understand it many if not all responsible gun owners would still have access to guns at the end of the day.
On May 10 2013 11:37 kmillz wrote:Just because you disagree doesn't mean they aren't there
Nice. Would you mind providing one? And just to clarify I'm not interested in personal opinions from anonymous members of the Internet, I'm interested in a real, preferably peer reviewed overview of a position favoring no steps toward better gun control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
