|
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. |
It's possible he wasn't being literal when he said "anything". Who knows.
@Kmillz in response to your post below ˇˇˇˇˇˇ
Fair enough! (very fast reply indeed, good timing on the page refresh hehe)
|
On May 14 2013 08:54 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? It may reduce the total number of firearms that aren't responsibly kept and maintained, without affecting those who responsibly keep and maintain their firearms already. You tend to focus on firearm murder. Keep in mind that firearm suicide is much larger with respect to firearm murder, not to mention accidental death & injury on top of that. I respect your own opinion that a gun registry would have no effect though. Perhaps it is possible you might change your (correct me if I am wrong) completely anti-control stance upon becoming more familiar with the scientific literature on the topic, even if not specifically in favor of an actual gun registry, but instead more open to thinking about other measures that would count toward better gun control. We can't know for sure by how much a gun registry would reduce the concerning numbers, but we can be sure that something in the form of better control does need to happen. Whether that necessarily involves implementation of a gun registry I do not know. And yeah just to reiterate, feel free to correct me if I was wrong to assume you're completely against control. It's possible you're only against significant measures such as registries, and more open to other control ideas. At this point there's a lot of different stances in here -- hard to keep track of which ones are 100% anti control and which have specific complaints against specific proposed control measures, while remaining open to other ideas.
I'm not completely anti-control, I am open-minded to certain things such as background checks and I would be supportive of stricter penalties on crimes committed with guns. I don't like the idea of gun registries because even though it may not necessarily result in confiscations, it could and that alone concerns me.
edit: holy shit that was a fast response lol
|
On May 10 2013 16:31 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:16 Myrddraal wrote:On May 10 2013 04:17 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:11 Piledriver wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns? Those are only required for driving cars on public property. You don't need them for private property. The same IS true of guns in most states. Public carry licenses involve all sorts of classes and safety tests. In some states it's even outright forbidden. On May 10 2013 04:12 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_StandardsWrong again. Again, this is only for public property. I know this was a few pages ago, but you kept saying it and it's getting quite frustrating. I understand that you are arguing for the fact that you should be able to do what you want with guns on your own property, but surely if you applied even the slightest amount of logic (and I'm sure you have) rather than just furthering your own agenda you would see that there are significant differences with regards to guns and cars that allowing their unregulated use in private and public is incomparable. The main issue that comes to mind is the capability to abuse the differences in private and public ownership/usage laws. One of the reasons to create gun regulations is to attempt to stop people from committing crimes in public, if you only regulate in public and allow total freedom in private, then obviously people will be able to abuse these laws in order to take their guns from their home into the public. Of course someone could try to abuse said differences with a car but a car is a lot harder to conceal than a gun, requires clearly visible registration and license plates and there is always the chance that they might get pulled for a license check. Another reason off the top of my head are the facts that since cars are primarily used for transportation in the vast majority of cases people are going to have no use for them on private property, so I can't see many reasons why people would even bother abusing these differences or why the government would even bother putting restrictions on vehicles in private property. If you really have a problem with people driving around unlicensed or unregistered on private property I suggest you take that argument somewhere else, but please stop pretending that it is a valid argument for allowing free usage of guns on private property*. *Note: I don't have anything against valid arguments for private gun usage, and I am not trying to debate this as a whole, I am only attempting to disprove the idea that private usage of cars = private usage of guns. On May 10 2013 00:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. I do see the difference. Alcohol and cars are far more dangerous, as are knives if you live in the UK. Claiming that cars and alcohol are more dangerous than guns purely based on the number of fatalities is pretty disingenuous. Shiori suggested looking at fatalities per incident, but I would go further and suggest injuries and fatalities per time used. Since statistics for this would be extremely hard to find/calculate I'll just run through a broad generalisation that I feel is pretty reasonable. What percentage of people in the US would you say drive/are driven (ie make use of a car or bus) every week day to go to work/school? I'm not sure but I would guess at least 80%, so there and back thats 80% at least twice a day for varying amounts of time. How many people do you think use a gun every day (actually shooting a gun)? I would guess less than 10%. My generalisation could be way off, but surely you can see the people use cars far far more often than they use guns. Based off fatalities you could say that you are statistically more likely to die from cars or alcohol but this does not make them more dangerous. How can something be statistically more likely to kill you and less dangerous at the same time? Isn't that contradictory? Unless your definition of dangerous is different than mine.
Well cars are only statistically more likely to kill you because you come in contact with them far far more often. I would say it makes more sense to gauge how dangerous something is based on how likely it is to kill you individually rather than how many people die from it per year.
For example, if cars had a 1% fatality rate (ie chance of dying when using/coming in contact with them) and guns had 10% I would say that guns are ten times more dangerous than cars. but if we had 1000 people who drive 10 times a week yet only 100 of them used a gun 2 times a week, we would expect 1000 * 10 * .01 = 100 deaths from cars and 100 * 2 * 0.1 = 20 deaths from guns in a week.
Of course the fatality rates in this example are unrealistic, but it should be pretty obvious that the average person uses cars far more than they use guns, and it should also be obvious that a tool designed for killing is more dangerous than one designed for transport.
|
On May 14 2013 13:24 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:31 kmillz wrote:On May 10 2013 16:16 Myrddraal wrote:On May 10 2013 04:17 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:11 Piledriver wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns? Those are only required for driving cars on public property. You don't need them for private property. The same IS true of guns in most states. Public carry licenses involve all sorts of classes and safety tests. In some states it's even outright forbidden. On May 10 2013 04:12 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_StandardsWrong again. Again, this is only for public property. I know this was a few pages ago, but you kept saying it and it's getting quite frustrating. I understand that you are arguing for the fact that you should be able to do what you want with guns on your own property, but surely if you applied even the slightest amount of logic (and I'm sure you have) rather than just furthering your own agenda you would see that there are significant differences with regards to guns and cars that allowing their unregulated use in private and public is incomparable. The main issue that comes to mind is the capability to abuse the differences in private and public ownership/usage laws. One of the reasons to create gun regulations is to attempt to stop people from committing crimes in public, if you only regulate in public and allow total freedom in private, then obviously people will be able to abuse these laws in order to take their guns from their home into the public. Of course someone could try to abuse said differences with a car but a car is a lot harder to conceal than a gun, requires clearly visible registration and license plates and there is always the chance that they might get pulled for a license check. Another reason off the top of my head are the facts that since cars are primarily used for transportation in the vast majority of cases people are going to have no use for them on private property, so I can't see many reasons why people would even bother abusing these differences or why the government would even bother putting restrictions on vehicles in private property. If you really have a problem with people driving around unlicensed or unregistered on private property I suggest you take that argument somewhere else, but please stop pretending that it is a valid argument for allowing free usage of guns on private property*. *Note: I don't have anything against valid arguments for private gun usage, and I am not trying to debate this as a whole, I am only attempting to disprove the idea that private usage of cars = private usage of guns. On May 10 2013 00:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. I do see the difference. Alcohol and cars are far more dangerous, as are knives if you live in the UK. Claiming that cars and alcohol are more dangerous than guns purely based on the number of fatalities is pretty disingenuous. Shiori suggested looking at fatalities per incident, but I would go further and suggest injuries and fatalities per time used. Since statistics for this would be extremely hard to find/calculate I'll just run through a broad generalisation that I feel is pretty reasonable. What percentage of people in the US would you say drive/are driven (ie make use of a car or bus) every week day to go to work/school? I'm not sure but I would guess at least 80%, so there and back thats 80% at least twice a day for varying amounts of time. How many people do you think use a gun every day (actually shooting a gun)? I would guess less than 10%. My generalisation could be way off, but surely you can see the people use cars far far more often than they use guns. Based off fatalities you could say that you are statistically more likely to die from cars or alcohol but this does not make them more dangerous. How can something be statistically more likely to kill you and less dangerous at the same time? Isn't that contradictory? Unless your definition of dangerous is different than mine. Well cars are only statistically more likely to kill you because you come in contact with them far far more often. I would say it makes more sense to gauge how dangerous something is based on how likely it is to kill you individually rather than how many people die from it per year. For example, if cars had a 1% fatality rate (ie chance of dying when using/coming in contact with them) and guns had 10% I would say that guns are ten times more dangerous than cars. but if we had 1000 people who drive 10 times a week yet only 100 of them used a gun 2 times a week, we would expect 1000 * 10 * .01 = 100 deaths from cars and 100 * 2 * 0.1 = 20 deaths from guns in a week. Of course the fatality rates in this example are unrealistic, but it should be pretty obvious that the average person uses cars far more than they use guns, and it should also be obvious that a tool designed for killing is more dangerous than one designed for transport.
The fact that the usage of the two varies greatly doesn't change the fact that you are statistically more likely to die from a car than a gun. I don't know how one would measure 'dangerous' but I personally measure it on the probability of it killing or doing serious harm to somebody, regardless of frequency of use.
I guess it is probably too subjective to actually measure so I won't go too far into this one.
|
United States24671 Posts
On May 14 2013 13:36 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 13:24 Myrddraal wrote:On May 10 2013 16:31 kmillz wrote:On May 10 2013 16:16 Myrddraal wrote:On May 10 2013 04:17 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:11 Piledriver wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns? Those are only required for driving cars on public property. You don't need them for private property. The same IS true of guns in most states. Public carry licenses involve all sorts of classes and safety tests. In some states it's even outright forbidden. On May 10 2013 04:12 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_StandardsWrong again. Again, this is only for public property. I know this was a few pages ago, but you kept saying it and it's getting quite frustrating. I understand that you are arguing for the fact that you should be able to do what you want with guns on your own property, but surely if you applied even the slightest amount of logic (and I'm sure you have) rather than just furthering your own agenda you would see that there are significant differences with regards to guns and cars that allowing their unregulated use in private and public is incomparable. The main issue that comes to mind is the capability to abuse the differences in private and public ownership/usage laws. One of the reasons to create gun regulations is to attempt to stop people from committing crimes in public, if you only regulate in public and allow total freedom in private, then obviously people will be able to abuse these laws in order to take their guns from their home into the public. Of course someone could try to abuse said differences with a car but a car is a lot harder to conceal than a gun, requires clearly visible registration and license plates and there is always the chance that they might get pulled for a license check. Another reason off the top of my head are the facts that since cars are primarily used for transportation in the vast majority of cases people are going to have no use for them on private property, so I can't see many reasons why people would even bother abusing these differences or why the government would even bother putting restrictions on vehicles in private property. If you really have a problem with people driving around unlicensed or unregistered on private property I suggest you take that argument somewhere else, but please stop pretending that it is a valid argument for allowing free usage of guns on private property*. *Note: I don't have anything against valid arguments for private gun usage, and I am not trying to debate this as a whole, I am only attempting to disprove the idea that private usage of cars = private usage of guns. On May 10 2013 00:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. I do see the difference. Alcohol and cars are far more dangerous, as are knives if you live in the UK. Claiming that cars and alcohol are more dangerous than guns purely based on the number of fatalities is pretty disingenuous. Shiori suggested looking at fatalities per incident, but I would go further and suggest injuries and fatalities per time used. Since statistics for this would be extremely hard to find/calculate I'll just run through a broad generalisation that I feel is pretty reasonable. What percentage of people in the US would you say drive/are driven (ie make use of a car or bus) every week day to go to work/school? I'm not sure but I would guess at least 80%, so there and back thats 80% at least twice a day for varying amounts of time. How many people do you think use a gun every day (actually shooting a gun)? I would guess less than 10%. My generalisation could be way off, but surely you can see the people use cars far far more often than they use guns. Based off fatalities you could say that you are statistically more likely to die from cars or alcohol but this does not make them more dangerous. How can something be statistically more likely to kill you and less dangerous at the same time? Isn't that contradictory? Unless your definition of dangerous is different than mine. Well cars are only statistically more likely to kill you because you come in contact with them far far more often. I would say it makes more sense to gauge how dangerous something is based on how likely it is to kill you individually rather than how many people die from it per year. For example, if cars had a 1% fatality rate (ie chance of dying when using/coming in contact with them) and guns had 10% I would say that guns are ten times more dangerous than cars. but if we had 1000 people who drive 10 times a week yet only 100 of them used a gun 2 times a week, we would expect 1000 * 10 * .01 = 100 deaths from cars and 100 * 2 * 0.1 = 20 deaths from guns in a week. Of course the fatality rates in this example are unrealistic, but it should be pretty obvious that the average person uses cars far more than they use guns, and it should also be obvious that a tool designed for killing is more dangerous than one designed for transport. The fact that the usage of the two varies greatly doesn't change the fact that you are statistically more likely to die from a car than a gun. I don't know how one would measure 'dangerous' but I personally measure it on the probability of it killing or doing serious harm to somebody, regardless of frequency of use. I guess it is probably too subjective to actually measure so I won't go too far into this one.
Although it is indeed subjective, I do understand the view that something can be dangerous without actually killing many people in recent events. Cars are pretty dangerous in that deadly accidents happen all the time, even in the neighborhoods around you, but mustard gas, despite killing nobody in a while, is extremely dangerous stuff. As is nitroglycerin.
Personally I would prefer to subscribe to a view where the danger of something is more inherent than societal.
|
On May 14 2013 13:43 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 13:36 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 13:24 Myrddraal wrote:On May 10 2013 16:31 kmillz wrote:On May 10 2013 16:16 Myrddraal wrote:On May 10 2013 04:17 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:11 Piledriver wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns? Those are only required for driving cars on public property. You don't need them for private property. The same IS true of guns in most states. Public carry licenses involve all sorts of classes and safety tests. In some states it's even outright forbidden. On May 10 2013 04:12 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_StandardsWrong again. Again, this is only for public property. I know this was a few pages ago, but you kept saying it and it's getting quite frustrating. I understand that you are arguing for the fact that you should be able to do what you want with guns on your own property, but surely if you applied even the slightest amount of logic (and I'm sure you have) rather than just furthering your own agenda you would see that there are significant differences with regards to guns and cars that allowing their unregulated use in private and public is incomparable. The main issue that comes to mind is the capability to abuse the differences in private and public ownership/usage laws. One of the reasons to create gun regulations is to attempt to stop people from committing crimes in public, if you only regulate in public and allow total freedom in private, then obviously people will be able to abuse these laws in order to take their guns from their home into the public. Of course someone could try to abuse said differences with a car but a car is a lot harder to conceal than a gun, requires clearly visible registration and license plates and there is always the chance that they might get pulled for a license check. Another reason off the top of my head are the facts that since cars are primarily used for transportation in the vast majority of cases people are going to have no use for them on private property, so I can't see many reasons why people would even bother abusing these differences or why the government would even bother putting restrictions on vehicles in private property. If you really have a problem with people driving around unlicensed or unregistered on private property I suggest you take that argument somewhere else, but please stop pretending that it is a valid argument for allowing free usage of guns on private property*. *Note: I don't have anything against valid arguments for private gun usage, and I am not trying to debate this as a whole, I am only attempting to disprove the idea that private usage of cars = private usage of guns. On May 10 2013 00:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. I do see the difference. Alcohol and cars are far more dangerous, as are knives if you live in the UK. Claiming that cars and alcohol are more dangerous than guns purely based on the number of fatalities is pretty disingenuous. Shiori suggested looking at fatalities per incident, but I would go further and suggest injuries and fatalities per time used. Since statistics for this would be extremely hard to find/calculate I'll just run through a broad generalisation that I feel is pretty reasonable. What percentage of people in the US would you say drive/are driven (ie make use of a car or bus) every week day to go to work/school? I'm not sure but I would guess at least 80%, so there and back thats 80% at least twice a day for varying amounts of time. How many people do you think use a gun every day (actually shooting a gun)? I would guess less than 10%. My generalisation could be way off, but surely you can see the people use cars far far more often than they use guns. Based off fatalities you could say that you are statistically more likely to die from cars or alcohol but this does not make them more dangerous. How can something be statistically more likely to kill you and less dangerous at the same time? Isn't that contradictory? Unless your definition of dangerous is different than mine. Well cars are only statistically more likely to kill you because you come in contact with them far far more often. I would say it makes more sense to gauge how dangerous something is based on how likely it is to kill you individually rather than how many people die from it per year. For example, if cars had a 1% fatality rate (ie chance of dying when using/coming in contact with them) and guns had 10% I would say that guns are ten times more dangerous than cars. but if we had 1000 people who drive 10 times a week yet only 100 of them used a gun 2 times a week, we would expect 1000 * 10 * .01 = 100 deaths from cars and 100 * 2 * 0.1 = 20 deaths from guns in a week. Of course the fatality rates in this example are unrealistic, but it should be pretty obvious that the average person uses cars far more than they use guns, and it should also be obvious that a tool designed for killing is more dangerous than one designed for transport. The fact that the usage of the two varies greatly doesn't change the fact that you are statistically more likely to die from a car than a gun. I don't know how one would measure 'dangerous' but I personally measure it on the probability of it killing or doing serious harm to somebody, regardless of frequency of use. I guess it is probably too subjective to actually measure so I won't go too far into this one. Although it is indeed subjective, I do understand the view that something can be dangerous without actually killing many people in recent events. Cars are pretty dangerous in that deadly accidents happen all the time, even in the neighborhoods around you, but mustard gas, despite killing nobody in a while, is extremely dangerous stuff. As is nitroglycerin. Personally I would prefer to subscribe to a view where the danger of something is more inherent than societal.
Good point, yeah I guess that pretty much shits on my definition of dangerous. Based on what I said nuclear bombs or anthrax are harmless since they are rarely used. Logic failure realized. My bad Myrddraal lol
|
On May 14 2013 13:48 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 13:43 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 13:36 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 13:24 Myrddraal wrote:On May 10 2013 16:31 kmillz wrote:On May 10 2013 16:16 Myrddraal wrote:On May 10 2013 04:17 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:11 Piledriver wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns? Those are only required for driving cars on public property. You don't need them for private property. The same IS true of guns in most states. Public carry licenses involve all sorts of classes and safety tests. In some states it's even outright forbidden. On May 10 2013 04:12 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_StandardsWrong again. Again, this is only for public property. I know this was a few pages ago, but you kept saying it and it's getting quite frustrating. I understand that you are arguing for the fact that you should be able to do what you want with guns on your own property, but surely if you applied even the slightest amount of logic (and I'm sure you have) rather than just furthering your own agenda you would see that there are significant differences with regards to guns and cars that allowing their unregulated use in private and public is incomparable. The main issue that comes to mind is the capability to abuse the differences in private and public ownership/usage laws. One of the reasons to create gun regulations is to attempt to stop people from committing crimes in public, if you only regulate in public and allow total freedom in private, then obviously people will be able to abuse these laws in order to take their guns from their home into the public. Of course someone could try to abuse said differences with a car but a car is a lot harder to conceal than a gun, requires clearly visible registration and license plates and there is always the chance that they might get pulled for a license check. Another reason off the top of my head are the facts that since cars are primarily used for transportation in the vast majority of cases people are going to have no use for them on private property, so I can't see many reasons why people would even bother abusing these differences or why the government would even bother putting restrictions on vehicles in private property. If you really have a problem with people driving around unlicensed or unregistered on private property I suggest you take that argument somewhere else, but please stop pretending that it is a valid argument for allowing free usage of guns on private property*. *Note: I don't have anything against valid arguments for private gun usage, and I am not trying to debate this as a whole, I am only attempting to disprove the idea that private usage of cars = private usage of guns. On May 10 2013 00:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. I do see the difference. Alcohol and cars are far more dangerous, as are knives if you live in the UK. Claiming that cars and alcohol are more dangerous than guns purely based on the number of fatalities is pretty disingenuous. Shiori suggested looking at fatalities per incident, but I would go further and suggest injuries and fatalities per time used. Since statistics for this would be extremely hard to find/calculate I'll just run through a broad generalisation that I feel is pretty reasonable. What percentage of people in the US would you say drive/are driven (ie make use of a car or bus) every week day to go to work/school? I'm not sure but I would guess at least 80%, so there and back thats 80% at least twice a day for varying amounts of time. How many people do you think use a gun every day (actually shooting a gun)? I would guess less than 10%. My generalisation could be way off, but surely you can see the people use cars far far more often than they use guns. Based off fatalities you could say that you are statistically more likely to die from cars or alcohol but this does not make them more dangerous. How can something be statistically more likely to kill you and less dangerous at the same time? Isn't that contradictory? Unless your definition of dangerous is different than mine. Well cars are only statistically more likely to kill you because you come in contact with them far far more often. I would say it makes more sense to gauge how dangerous something is based on how likely it is to kill you individually rather than how many people die from it per year. For example, if cars had a 1% fatality rate (ie chance of dying when using/coming in contact with them) and guns had 10% I would say that guns are ten times more dangerous than cars. but if we had 1000 people who drive 10 times a week yet only 100 of them used a gun 2 times a week, we would expect 1000 * 10 * .01 = 100 deaths from cars and 100 * 2 * 0.1 = 20 deaths from guns in a week. Of course the fatality rates in this example are unrealistic, but it should be pretty obvious that the average person uses cars far more than they use guns, and it should also be obvious that a tool designed for killing is more dangerous than one designed for transport. The fact that the usage of the two varies greatly doesn't change the fact that you are statistically more likely to die from a car than a gun. I don't know how one would measure 'dangerous' but I personally measure it on the probability of it killing or doing serious harm to somebody, regardless of frequency of use. I guess it is probably too subjective to actually measure so I won't go too far into this one. Although it is indeed subjective, I do understand the view that something can be dangerous without actually killing many people in recent events. Cars are pretty dangerous in that deadly accidents happen all the time, even in the neighborhoods around you, but mustard gas, despite killing nobody in a while, is extremely dangerous stuff. As is nitroglycerin. Personally I would prefer to subscribe to a view where the danger of something is more inherent than societal. Good point, yeah I guess that pretty much shits on my definition of dangerous. Based on what I said nuclear bombs or anthrax are harmless since they are rarely used. Logic failure realized. My bad Myrddraal lol
Hehe no worries man, I still think number of total deaths is an important factor with regards to regulation just that these statistics should not be used as proof that cars/alcohol/whatever are more dangerous.
|
On May 14 2013 11:04 norjoncal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. While we are at it lets just abolish the 4th and 5th amendments then it will make easier for cops to catch criminals.
Only if you believe cops don't use evidence when catching criminals. With proper evidence you can get warrants for anything. If they don't have evidence, then they can't do anything. Why would a registry equate to police not requiring evidence? They already have a car registry, address registry, income registry, etc... Somehow a gun registry is the one registry they've been waiting for to stop requiring evidence for searches?
|
On May 14 2013 15:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 11:04 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:
Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally.
[quote]
Think your statement for a moment...
Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. While we are at it lets just abolish the 4th and 5th amendments then it will make easier for cops to catch criminals. Only if you believe cops don't use evidence when catching criminals. With proper evidence you can get warrants for anything. If they don't have evidence, then they can't do anything. Why would a registry equate to police not requiring evidence? They already have a car registry, address registry, income registry, etc... Somehow a gun registry is the one registry they've been waiting for to stop requiring evidence for searches?
Erm...you're missing the point of his sarcasm.
On May 14 2013 09:34 Splynn wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Correlation =/= causation.
Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people.
If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people.
Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. What would be crazy would be to apply this (unqualified) logic to other issues. Allowing cops to enter your home in the middle of the night for no reason and search would increase the likelihood of finding people who conduct illegal activities in their home. We could extend this to random strip searches in the street. By your logic, you'd have to be crazy to think this is a bad thing as it makes it easier for cops to catch criminals. Obviously this isn't what you meant, but in this controversial discussion you should choose your words carefully if you want to sway anyone. More reasonably, there is a balance between the pros and cons of instituting a wide-scale gun registry, and people on both sides of the issue need to try to understand both the pros and the cons before deciding whether or not we should institute one. It seems like most people decide whether or not we should institute one and then study what the pros and cons would be (which doesn't end well). Both entering a person's home and strip searching random people requires a warrant--I don't see why a registry wouldn't require a warrant to search through as well... I hold my home very dearly, but a warrant allows cops to search it. You hold your guns dearly, can't a cop be required to have a warrant before using the registry? If it's good enough for houses its good enough for guns. His point was not that if they implement gun controls then everything will be thrown out. He was pointing out the implications of your statement that you were okay with anything that made it easier for cops to catch criminals. It would be MUCH easier for cops to catch criminals if they didn't need warrants. He's just pointing out that what you said can't be what you mean, since what you said means that you're okay with getting rid of things such as warrants, reasonable doubt, and due process. Since you obviously don't think those things should be done (doing so would be incredibly dangerous), you must not believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is okay.
^ This guy pretty much sums up why you didn't really mean that you think anything that makes it easier to catch criminals is a good thing. Abolishing the 4th and 5th amendments would make it easier to catch criminals, do you think that would be a good thing?
|
On May 15 2013 03:18 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 15:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 11:04 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Correlation =/= causation.
Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people.
If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people.
Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. While we are at it lets just abolish the 4th and 5th amendments then it will make easier for cops to catch criminals. Only if you believe cops don't use evidence when catching criminals. With proper evidence you can get warrants for anything. If they don't have evidence, then they can't do anything. Why would a registry equate to police not requiring evidence? They already have a car registry, address registry, income registry, etc... Somehow a gun registry is the one registry they've been waiting for to stop requiring evidence for searches? Erm...you're missing the point of his sarcasm. Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 09:34 Splynn wrote:On May 14 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:
[quote]o
Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. What would be crazy would be to apply this (unqualified) logic to other issues. Allowing cops to enter your home in the middle of the night for no reason and search would increase the likelihood of finding people who conduct illegal activities in their home. We could extend this to random strip searches in the street. By your logic, you'd have to be crazy to think this is a bad thing as it makes it easier for cops to catch criminals. Obviously this isn't what you meant, but in this controversial discussion you should choose your words carefully if you want to sway anyone. More reasonably, there is a balance between the pros and cons of instituting a wide-scale gun registry, and people on both sides of the issue need to try to understand both the pros and the cons before deciding whether or not we should institute one. It seems like most people decide whether or not we should institute one and then study what the pros and cons would be (which doesn't end well). Both entering a person's home and strip searching random people requires a warrant--I don't see why a registry wouldn't require a warrant to search through as well... I hold my home very dearly, but a warrant allows cops to search it. You hold your guns dearly, can't a cop be required to have a warrant before using the registry? If it's good enough for houses its good enough for guns. His point was not that if they implement gun controls then everything will be thrown out. He was pointing out the implications of your statement that you were okay with anything that made it easier for cops to catch criminals. It would be MUCH easier for cops to catch criminals if they didn't need warrants. He's just pointing out that what you said can't be what you mean, since what you said means that you're okay with getting rid of things such as warrants, reasonable doubt, and due process. Since you obviously don't think those things should be done (doing so would be incredibly dangerous), you must not believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is okay. ^ This guy pretty much sums up why you didn't really mean that you think anything that makes it easier to catch criminals is a good thing. Abolishing the 4th and 5th amendments would make it easier to catch criminals, do you think that would be a good thing?
Abolishing the 4th and 5th amendments does not make it easier to catch criminals since you can already ignore them if you have a warrant which requires evidence. You can already ignore them assuming evidence, abolishing them simply suggests that you don't need evidence, but if you don't have evidence you have not caught anyone.
The only thing abolishing those amendments does is make it easier to accuse people, it doesn't make it easier to catch people. If evidence is present that even suggests that a person of interest lives in X location, a warrant is given and you can simply barge into their property and tear it apart to search for what your evidence suggests they have. With evidence you can already, right now, ignore those amendments. Why? Because catching criminals is about evidence and not about rounding up random people for shits and giggles. So no, abolishing those amendments does absolutely nothing since the existence of those amendments does not dictate the existence or lack there-of of evidence.
Now, if you're paranoid, and feel that the government doesn't follow its own laws and that the police get their jollies off of chasing random people in the street and the only preventing them from barging into a random house is because there's an amendment and not because they are busy people who follow evidence that they find--then I can see where you're coming from. But that requires you to not trust any law present in this country, in which case--why trust any of the amendments at all?
|
On May 15 2013 03:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 03:18 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 15:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 11:04 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:
[quote]o
Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. While we are at it lets just abolish the 4th and 5th amendments then it will make easier for cops to catch criminals. Only if you believe cops don't use evidence when catching criminals. With proper evidence you can get warrants for anything. If they don't have evidence, then they can't do anything. Why would a registry equate to police not requiring evidence? They already have a car registry, address registry, income registry, etc... Somehow a gun registry is the one registry they've been waiting for to stop requiring evidence for searches? Erm...you're missing the point of his sarcasm. On May 14 2013 09:34 Splynn wrote:On May 14 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. What would be crazy would be to apply this (unqualified) logic to other issues. Allowing cops to enter your home in the middle of the night for no reason and search would increase the likelihood of finding people who conduct illegal activities in their home. We could extend this to random strip searches in the street. By your logic, you'd have to be crazy to think this is a bad thing as it makes it easier for cops to catch criminals. Obviously this isn't what you meant, but in this controversial discussion you should choose your words carefully if you want to sway anyone. More reasonably, there is a balance between the pros and cons of instituting a wide-scale gun registry, and people on both sides of the issue need to try to understand both the pros and the cons before deciding whether or not we should institute one. It seems like most people decide whether or not we should institute one and then study what the pros and cons would be (which doesn't end well). Both entering a person's home and strip searching random people requires a warrant--I don't see why a registry wouldn't require a warrant to search through as well... I hold my home very dearly, but a warrant allows cops to search it. You hold your guns dearly, can't a cop be required to have a warrant before using the registry? If it's good enough for houses its good enough for guns. His point was not that if they implement gun controls then everything will be thrown out. He was pointing out the implications of your statement that you were okay with anything that made it easier for cops to catch criminals. It would be MUCH easier for cops to catch criminals if they didn't need warrants. He's just pointing out that what you said can't be what you mean, since what you said means that you're okay with getting rid of things such as warrants, reasonable doubt, and due process. Since you obviously don't think those things should be done (doing so would be incredibly dangerous), you must not believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is okay. ^ This guy pretty much sums up why you didn't really mean that you think anything that makes it easier to catch criminals is a good thing. Abolishing the 4th and 5th amendments would make it easier to catch criminals, do you think that would be a good thing? Abolishing the 4th and 5th amendments does not make it easier to catch criminals since you can already ignore them if you have a warrant which requires evidence. You can already ignore them assuming evidence, abolishing them simply suggests that you don't need evidence, but if you don't have evidence you have not caught anyone. The only thing abolishing those amendments does is make it easier to accuse people, it doesn't make it easier to catch people. If evidence is present that even suggests that a person of interest lives in X location, a warrant is given and you can simply barge into their property and tear it apart to search for what your evidence suggests they have. With evidence you can already, right now, ignore those amendments. Why? Because catching criminals is about evidence and not about rounding up random people for shits and giggles. So no, abolishing those amendments does absolutely nothing since the existence of those amendments does not dictate the existence or lack there-of of evidence. Now, if you're paranoid, and feel that the government doesn't follow its own laws and that the police get their jollies off of chasing random people in the street and the only preventing them from barging into a random house is because there's an amendment and not because they are busy people who follow evidence that they find--then I can see where you're coming from. But that requires you to not trust any law present in this country, in which case--why trust any of the amendments at all?
This isn't even worth addressing.
|
On May 15 2013 03:37 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 03:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 15 2013 03:18 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 15:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 11:04 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. While we are at it lets just abolish the 4th and 5th amendments then it will make easier for cops to catch criminals. Only if you believe cops don't use evidence when catching criminals. With proper evidence you can get warrants for anything. If they don't have evidence, then they can't do anything. Why would a registry equate to police not requiring evidence? They already have a car registry, address registry, income registry, etc... Somehow a gun registry is the one registry they've been waiting for to stop requiring evidence for searches? Erm...you're missing the point of his sarcasm. On May 14 2013 09:34 Splynn wrote:On May 14 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
That's the strawman you are attacking lol
Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. What would be crazy would be to apply this (unqualified) logic to other issues. Allowing cops to enter your home in the middle of the night for no reason and search would increase the likelihood of finding people who conduct illegal activities in their home. We could extend this to random strip searches in the street. By your logic, you'd have to be crazy to think this is a bad thing as it makes it easier for cops to catch criminals. Obviously this isn't what you meant, but in this controversial discussion you should choose your words carefully if you want to sway anyone. More reasonably, there is a balance between the pros and cons of instituting a wide-scale gun registry, and people on both sides of the issue need to try to understand both the pros and the cons before deciding whether or not we should institute one. It seems like most people decide whether or not we should institute one and then study what the pros and cons would be (which doesn't end well). Both entering a person's home and strip searching random people requires a warrant--I don't see why a registry wouldn't require a warrant to search through as well... I hold my home very dearly, but a warrant allows cops to search it. You hold your guns dearly, can't a cop be required to have a warrant before using the registry? If it's good enough for houses its good enough for guns. His point was not that if they implement gun controls then everything will be thrown out. He was pointing out the implications of your statement that you were okay with anything that made it easier for cops to catch criminals. It would be MUCH easier for cops to catch criminals if they didn't need warrants. He's just pointing out that what you said can't be what you mean, since what you said means that you're okay with getting rid of things such as warrants, reasonable doubt, and due process. Since you obviously don't think those things should be done (doing so would be incredibly dangerous), you must not believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is okay. ^ This guy pretty much sums up why you didn't really mean that you think anything that makes it easier to catch criminals is a good thing. Abolishing the 4th and 5th amendments would make it easier to catch criminals, do you think that would be a good thing? Abolishing the 4th and 5th amendments does not make it easier to catch criminals since you can already ignore them if you have a warrant which requires evidence. You can already ignore them assuming evidence, abolishing them simply suggests that you don't need evidence, but if you don't have evidence you have not caught anyone. The only thing abolishing those amendments does is make it easier to accuse people, it doesn't make it easier to catch people. If evidence is present that even suggests that a person of interest lives in X location, a warrant is given and you can simply barge into their property and tear it apart to search for what your evidence suggests they have. With evidence you can already, right now, ignore those amendments. Why? Because catching criminals is about evidence and not about rounding up random people for shits and giggles. So no, abolishing those amendments does absolutely nothing since the existence of those amendments does not dictate the existence or lack there-of of evidence. Now, if you're paranoid, and feel that the government doesn't follow its own laws and that the police get their jollies off of chasing random people in the street and the only preventing them from barging into a random house is because there's an amendment and not because they are busy people who follow evidence that they find--then I can see where you're coming from. But that requires you to not trust any law present in this country, in which case--why trust any of the amendments at all? This isn't even worth addressing.
It is worth addressing because I think I finally figured out why they are paranoid about almost anything being passed that makes guns harder to get.
A registry does nothing but allow police to have an easier time gathering evidence for their investigation.
They are equating using a registry for evidence (which is what they already do with driving records, bank records, health records, etc...) with not requiring evidence to pursue a procedure. They are literally equating a registry with loss of the fourth amendment saying that its the same thing as randomly barging into homes when a gun registry does nothing of the sort for the same reason that a car registry has done nothing of the sort.
Its a bullshit world view.
Helping the police sift through evidence is not the same as allowing police to break into random people's homes--which is what their "joke" is attempting to imply. So I'm going to call them on that bullshit. Giving the police the ability to ask "what did the gun look like" is no different from giving the police the ability to ask "what did the car look like" "what was he wearing?" etc.... and yet the only parallel they wish to make is black bagging of random citizens? That's bullshit argumentation, it's not even argumentation, its literally avoiding and silencing the topic.
The only reason a joke like that makes sense is the assumption that evidence isn't used in investigations--which is bullshit. The reason we have warrants is because we as a country believe that so long as there is evidence for something we can pursue it. The only thing the 4th and 5th amendment protects is from being randomly attacked and harassed and accused by the government. That's it. It does not dictate the presence or absence of evidence so removing those amendments does not make it easier to catch criminals in any way shape or form. Neither does removing the necessity of warrants. The only way you know you caught a criminal is because the evidence is there leading you to that person. Otherwise you're just guessing. And to believe that somehow the removal of the 5th and 4th amendments helps police is assuming that police do nothing but guess who the criminals are.
And that's bullshit.
|
On May 15 2013 03:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 03:37 Jormundr wrote:On May 15 2013 03:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 15 2013 03:18 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 15:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 11:04 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
That's the strawman you are attacking lol
Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. While we are at it lets just abolish the 4th and 5th amendments then it will make easier for cops to catch criminals. Only if you believe cops don't use evidence when catching criminals. With proper evidence you can get warrants for anything. If they don't have evidence, then they can't do anything. Why would a registry equate to police not requiring evidence? They already have a car registry, address registry, income registry, etc... Somehow a gun registry is the one registry they've been waiting for to stop requiring evidence for searches? Erm...you're missing the point of his sarcasm. On May 14 2013 09:34 Splynn wrote:On May 14 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:
[quote]
If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then...
May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US.
Would this be another way to frame that "argument":
"Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death."
And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. What would be crazy would be to apply this (unqualified) logic to other issues. Allowing cops to enter your home in the middle of the night for no reason and search would increase the likelihood of finding people who conduct illegal activities in their home. We could extend this to random strip searches in the street. By your logic, you'd have to be crazy to think this is a bad thing as it makes it easier for cops to catch criminals. Obviously this isn't what you meant, but in this controversial discussion you should choose your words carefully if you want to sway anyone. More reasonably, there is a balance between the pros and cons of instituting a wide-scale gun registry, and people on both sides of the issue need to try to understand both the pros and the cons before deciding whether or not we should institute one. It seems like most people decide whether or not we should institute one and then study what the pros and cons would be (which doesn't end well). Both entering a person's home and strip searching random people requires a warrant--I don't see why a registry wouldn't require a warrant to search through as well... I hold my home very dearly, but a warrant allows cops to search it. You hold your guns dearly, can't a cop be required to have a warrant before using the registry? If it's good enough for houses its good enough for guns. His point was not that if they implement gun controls then everything will be thrown out. He was pointing out the implications of your statement that you were okay with anything that made it easier for cops to catch criminals. It would be MUCH easier for cops to catch criminals if they didn't need warrants. He's just pointing out that what you said can't be what you mean, since what you said means that you're okay with getting rid of things such as warrants, reasonable doubt, and due process. Since you obviously don't think those things should be done (doing so would be incredibly dangerous), you must not believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is okay. ^ This guy pretty much sums up why you didn't really mean that you think anything that makes it easier to catch criminals is a good thing. Abolishing the 4th and 5th amendments would make it easier to catch criminals, do you think that would be a good thing? Abolishing the 4th and 5th amendments does not make it easier to catch criminals since you can already ignore them if you have a warrant which requires evidence. You can already ignore them assuming evidence, abolishing them simply suggests that you don't need evidence, but if you don't have evidence you have not caught anyone. The only thing abolishing those amendments does is make it easier to accuse people, it doesn't make it easier to catch people. If evidence is present that even suggests that a person of interest lives in X location, a warrant is given and you can simply barge into their property and tear it apart to search for what your evidence suggests they have. With evidence you can already, right now, ignore those amendments. Why? Because catching criminals is about evidence and not about rounding up random people for shits and giggles. So no, abolishing those amendments does absolutely nothing since the existence of those amendments does not dictate the existence or lack there-of of evidence. Now, if you're paranoid, and feel that the government doesn't follow its own laws and that the police get their jollies off of chasing random people in the street and the only preventing them from barging into a random house is because there's an amendment and not because they are busy people who follow evidence that they find--then I can see where you're coming from. But that requires you to not trust any law present in this country, in which case--why trust any of the amendments at all? This isn't even worth addressing. It is worth addressing because I think I finally figured out why they are paranoid about almost anything being passed that makes guns harder to get. A registry does nothing but allow police to have an easier time gathering evidence for their investigation. They are equating using a registry for evidence (which is what they already do with driving records, bank records, health records, etc...) with not requiring evidence to pursue a procedure. They are literally equating a registry with loss of the fourth amendment saying that its the same thing as randomly barging into homes when a gun registry does nothing of the sort for the same reason that a car registry has done nothing of the sort. Its a bullshit world view. Helping the police sift through evidence is not the same as allowing police to break into random people's homes--which is what their "joke" is attempting to imply. So I'm going to call them on that bullshit. Giving the police the ability to ask "what did the gun look like" is no different from giving the police the ability to ask "what did the car look like" "what was he wearing?" etc.... and yet the only parallel they wish to make is black bagging of random citizens? That's bullshit argumentation, it's not even argumentation, its literally avoiding and silencing the topic. The only reason a joke like that makes sense is the assumption that evidence isn't used in investigations--which is bullshit. The reason we have warrants is because we as a country believe that so long as there is evidence for something we can pursue it. The only thing the 4th and 5th amendment protects is from being randomly attacked and harassed and accused by the government. That's it. It does not dictate the presence or absence of evidence so removing those amendments does not make it easier to catch criminals in any way shape or form. Neither does removing the necessity of warrants. The only way you know you caught a criminal is because the evidence is there leading you to that person. Otherwise you're just guessing. And to believe that somehow the removal of the 5th and 4th amendments helps police is assuming that police do nothing but guess who the criminals are. And that's bullshit.
Ok so you do literally mean ANYTHING that helps us catch criminals is a good thing. What about hidden cameras in every room in every house without the owners consent or knowledge to catch criminals in the act of committing crimes such as rape, assault or robbery? Would those be good things? You clearly have no grasp on the importance of the 4th and 5th amendments...so I'm not going to waste my time explaining those. I tried to be charitable and guess that you didn't REALLY mean anything that helps you catch criminals is a good thing, so until you admit that you didn't really mean that I'll just find more examples of why not everything that makes it easier to catch criminals is necessarily a good thing.
It is worth addressing because I think I finally figured out why they are paranoid about almost anything being passed that makes guns harder to get.
Lol wtf? You finally figured it out eh? We're just a bunch of paranoid crazy people because we like to defend our constitutional rights. It's nice that its so easy for you to make that leap.
A registry does nothing but allow police to have an easier time gathering evidence for their investigation.
Nonsense.
They are equating using a registry for evidence (which is what they already do with driving records, bank records, health records, etc...) with not requiring evidence to pursue a procedure. They are literally equating a registry with loss of the fourth amendment saying that its the same thing as randomly barging into homes when a gun registry does nothing of the sort for the same reason that a car registry has done nothing of the sort.
Nobody is equating registry for evidence except for you, all we are doing is showing you why you said something stupid and you keep trying to analyze it and think you are some genius for finally figuring out "why we're paranoid" when the reality is we are just telling you that you are wrong, in fact, not every thing that makes it easier to catch criminals is a good thing. That's it.
|
On May 15 2013 04:17 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2013 03:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 15 2013 03:37 Jormundr wrote:On May 15 2013 03:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 15 2013 03:18 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 15:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 11:04 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:
[quote]
If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then...
May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US.
Would this be another way to frame that "argument":
"Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death."
And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. While we are at it lets just abolish the 4th and 5th amendments then it will make easier for cops to catch criminals. Only if you believe cops don't use evidence when catching criminals. With proper evidence you can get warrants for anything. If they don't have evidence, then they can't do anything. Why would a registry equate to police not requiring evidence? They already have a car registry, address registry, income registry, etc... Somehow a gun registry is the one registry they've been waiting for to stop requiring evidence for searches? Erm...you're missing the point of his sarcasm. On May 14 2013 09:34 Splynn wrote:On May 14 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people?
Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. What would be crazy would be to apply this (unqualified) logic to other issues. Allowing cops to enter your home in the middle of the night for no reason and search would increase the likelihood of finding people who conduct illegal activities in their home. We could extend this to random strip searches in the street. By your logic, you'd have to be crazy to think this is a bad thing as it makes it easier for cops to catch criminals. Obviously this isn't what you meant, but in this controversial discussion you should choose your words carefully if you want to sway anyone. More reasonably, there is a balance between the pros and cons of instituting a wide-scale gun registry, and people on both sides of the issue need to try to understand both the pros and the cons before deciding whether or not we should institute one. It seems like most people decide whether or not we should institute one and then study what the pros and cons would be (which doesn't end well). Both entering a person's home and strip searching random people requires a warrant--I don't see why a registry wouldn't require a warrant to search through as well... I hold my home very dearly, but a warrant allows cops to search it. You hold your guns dearly, can't a cop be required to have a warrant before using the registry? If it's good enough for houses its good enough for guns. His point was not that if they implement gun controls then everything will be thrown out. He was pointing out the implications of your statement that you were okay with anything that made it easier for cops to catch criminals. It would be MUCH easier for cops to catch criminals if they didn't need warrants. He's just pointing out that what you said can't be what you mean, since what you said means that you're okay with getting rid of things such as warrants, reasonable doubt, and due process. Since you obviously don't think those things should be done (doing so would be incredibly dangerous), you must not believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is okay. ^ This guy pretty much sums up why you didn't really mean that you think anything that makes it easier to catch criminals is a good thing. Abolishing the 4th and 5th amendments would make it easier to catch criminals, do you think that would be a good thing? Abolishing the 4th and 5th amendments does not make it easier to catch criminals since you can already ignore them if you have a warrant which requires evidence. You can already ignore them assuming evidence, abolishing them simply suggests that you don't need evidence, but if you don't have evidence you have not caught anyone. The only thing abolishing those amendments does is make it easier to accuse people, it doesn't make it easier to catch people. If evidence is present that even suggests that a person of interest lives in X location, a warrant is given and you can simply barge into their property and tear it apart to search for what your evidence suggests they have. With evidence you can already, right now, ignore those amendments. Why? Because catching criminals is about evidence and not about rounding up random people for shits and giggles. So no, abolishing those amendments does absolutely nothing since the existence of those amendments does not dictate the existence or lack there-of of evidence. Now, if you're paranoid, and feel that the government doesn't follow its own laws and that the police get their jollies off of chasing random people in the street and the only preventing them from barging into a random house is because there's an amendment and not because they are busy people who follow evidence that they find--then I can see where you're coming from. But that requires you to not trust any law present in this country, in which case--why trust any of the amendments at all? This isn't even worth addressing. It is worth addressing because I think I finally figured out why they are paranoid about almost anything being passed that makes guns harder to get. A registry does nothing but allow police to have an easier time gathering evidence for their investigation. They are equating using a registry for evidence (which is what they already do with driving records, bank records, health records, etc...) with not requiring evidence to pursue a procedure. They are literally equating a registry with loss of the fourth amendment saying that its the same thing as randomly barging into homes when a gun registry does nothing of the sort for the same reason that a car registry has done nothing of the sort. Its a bullshit world view. Helping the police sift through evidence is not the same as allowing police to break into random people's homes--which is what their "joke" is attempting to imply. So I'm going to call them on that bullshit. Giving the police the ability to ask "what did the gun look like" is no different from giving the police the ability to ask "what did the car look like" "what was he wearing?" etc.... and yet the only parallel they wish to make is black bagging of random citizens? That's bullshit argumentation, it's not even argumentation, its literally avoiding and silencing the topic. The only reason a joke like that makes sense is the assumption that evidence isn't used in investigations--which is bullshit. The reason we have warrants is because we as a country believe that so long as there is evidence for something we can pursue it. The only thing the 4th and 5th amendment protects is from being randomly attacked and harassed and accused by the government. That's it. It does not dictate the presence or absence of evidence so removing those amendments does not make it easier to catch criminals in any way shape or form. Neither does removing the necessity of warrants. The only way you know you caught a criminal is because the evidence is there leading you to that person. Otherwise you're just guessing. And to believe that somehow the removal of the 5th and 4th amendments helps police is assuming that police do nothing but guess who the criminals are. And that's bullshit. Ok so you do literally mean ANYTHING that helps us catch criminals is a good thing. What about hidden cameras in every room in every house without the owners consent or knowledge to catch criminals in the act of committing crimes such as rape, assault or robbery? Would those be good things? You clearly have no grasp on the importance of the 4th and 5th amendments...so I'm not going to waste my time explaining those. I tried to be charitable and guess that you didn't REALLY mean anything that helps you catch criminals is a good thing, so until you admit that you didn't really mean that I'll just find more examples of why not everything that makes it easier to catch criminals is necessarily a good thing. Show nested quote +It is worth addressing because I think I finally figured out why they are paranoid about almost anything being passed that makes guns harder to get. Lol wtf? You finally figured it out eh? We're just a bunch of paranoid crazy people because we like to defend our constitutional rights. It's nice that its so easy for you to make that leap. Show nested quote +A registry does nothing but allow police to have an easier time gathering evidence for their investigation. Nonsense. Show nested quote +
They are equating using a registry for evidence (which is what they already do with driving records, bank records, health records, etc...) with not requiring evidence to pursue a procedure. They are literally equating a registry with loss of the fourth amendment saying that its the same thing as randomly barging into homes when a gun registry does nothing of the sort for the same reason that a car registry has done nothing of the sort.
Nobody is equating registry for evidence except for you, all we are doing is showing you why you said something stupid and you keep trying to analyze it and think you are some genius for finally figuring out "why we're paranoid" when the reality is we are just telling you that you are wrong, in fact, not every thing that makes it easier to catch criminals is a good thing. That's it.
Wow. Okay, since you seem to not understand how America works, let me explain it to you.
Right now, if the police have evidence, they can already "break" into your house, put surveillance in your house, and even seize your property. No changes need to be made to the 4th, 5th, or 2nd amendment. If there is evidence implicating you--they can already do those things.
The police do not need to remove the 4th amendment to break into your house so long as they have evidence.
The police do not need to remove the 5th amendment to accuse you of a crime, so long as they have evidence.
These "examples" you keep showing is of police disregarding evidence and just guessing randomly. This world you're trying to show is of police not caring about investigations and only caring about accusations. Guess what? Accusations does not catch criminals since catching criminals requires evidence. Helping police catch criminals does not mean helping police be able to make wild ass guesses since wild ass guesses don't prove that someone is a criminal.
Every single example you have are things the police can already do by having evidence and only are unable to do in the absence of evidence. These "nightmare scenarios" you are so keen on pointing out is only relevant if you honestly believe that the police don't care about evidence.
You know why?
BECAUSE THEY CAN ALREADY DO THESE THINGS WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
It's not "oh, the 4th amendment says the police can't ever break into my house" the 4th amendment simply stops police from making wild ass guesses about who is at fault--ie, it helps them catch criminals.
Much like car registries, medical records, bank records, housing records, etc... a gun registry simply allows police better control of evidence which they need to catch criminals. Helping police catch criminals is a good thing. Believing that the police is held back by the 4th amendment is stupid because if they have evidence they can already break into someones house. Believing that the police are held back by the 5th amendment is stupid because with evidence they can already accuse someone of a crime. Police use evidence to pursue and catch criminals. Helping police catch criminals is good.
You assuming that random searches and random cameras in random houses helps police catch criminals is stupid since that assumes that police do nothing but guess randomly who and where the criminals are. You are literally avoiding the discussion.
|
Nobody is equating registry for evidence except for you, all we are doing is showing you why you said something stupid and you keep trying to analyze it and think you are some genius for finally figuring out "why we're paranoid" when the reality is we are just telling you that you are wrong, in fact, not every thing that makes it easier to catch criminals is a good thing. That's it.
Also, since your reading skills (notice I did not say comprehension--because that requires you read the sentence at all) is bad, let me show you the sentence you are responding to.
"They are equating using a registry for evidence (which is what they already do with driving records, bank records, health records, etc...) with not requiring evidence to pursue a procedure."
Yes, I am saying people will use the registry for evidence. Your counter-examples of why helping the police is bad are examples of the police not using evidence to pursue criminals. Hence why the end of the sentence says "with not requiring evidence to pursue a procedure"
Why did I say this?
Because I said a registry helps police catch criminals.
You say that police breaking into random people's houses also catches criminals.
Im saying that police CAN ALREADY break into people's houses by simply getting a warrant. The only reason you think that example is "bad" is because you believe that police randomly breaking into people's houses actually helps the police when the whole reason I made my point that registries helps police catch criminals and that is a good thing is because police use registries ALREADY to catch criminals and that is a good thing. Giving them ANOTHER of their many registries simply helps them do what they are already doing.
You keep bringing up examples of police not using evidence and are somehow aghast that someone would say "equating registry for evidence" as this bad evil thing when police ALREADY USE REGISTRIES FOR EVIDENCE.
|
United States24671 Posts
I'm surprised you are still somehow defending the ridiculous sentiment:
Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing.
I immediately admitted it was probably just you misspeaking, and that the point you obviously meant was much more reasonable. However, there have been like dozens of back and forth posts since then and not a single one of them (from what I saw) shows you backing off on that statement at all. Do you seriously stand by that? If so, we can't have a productive gun legislation discussion with you since you have such an extreme view on overall law enforcement. Either way let's just clear this issue up so we can move past it as it is practically hijacking the thread.
|
On the whole gun control issue I think the USA is a hypocrite. Why?
They in the UN push for all memeber countries to implement gun control measures, from background checks to training and also approval etc. Yet they won't implement the same thing?
|
United States24671 Posts
On May 16 2013 01:48 phANT1m wrote:
On the whole gun control issue I think the USA is a hypocrite. Why?
They in the UN push for all memeber countries to implement gun control measures, from background checks to training and also approval etc. Yet they won't implement the same thing?
I'd be interested to learn more about this. Can you point to any text online which talks about this?
|
On May 16 2013 01:42 micronesia wrote:I'm surprised you are still somehow defending the ridiculous sentiment: Show nested quote +Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. I immediately admitted it was probably just you misspeaking, and that the point you obviously meant was much more reasonable. However, there have been like dozens of back and forth posts since then and not a single one of them (from what I saw) shows you backing off on that statement at all. Do you seriously stand by that? If so, we can't have a productive gun legislation discussion with you since you have such an extreme view on overall law enforcement. Either way let's just clear this issue up so we can move past it as it is practically hijacking the thread.
I'm willing to back off from this issue, but I don't think there is anything extreme about helping the police do their job.
As for the UN thing, here's what a quick google search shows.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/09/double-barreled-threat-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-and-universal-background-checks/
|
I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
