EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4768 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 07 2015 09:55 acker wrote: This is the third time this study has been used to support grand, sweeping "conclusions" in the last 12 pages. At some point, you have to wonder what exactly this means for whoever wrote the study and why they did not nip this in the bud in their publication, as done in translational medicine papers. Reminds me of the most recent study on Connecticut's licensing laws, where their mathematical model weighted murder-haven Maryland by over 50% for the gun homicide model and by less than 5% for the "all other homicides" model. A study can be technically accurate in its abstract...while burying its modeling behind a paywall. I can only hope kwizach isn't using Kellerman as one of his studies, because Kellerman had to retract his own paper. Counting criminals bringing guns into houses for the express purpose of homicide as "gun-owning households" will do that, no matter how technically accurate the paper is. The CDC was technically defunded for funding technically accurate publications, according to the NRA. Why give the NRA more technically accurate ammo? you don't seem to be listening; go reread the ACTUAL study. It's ALWAYS been the case that other people and the media overstate study conclusions. It happens almost every time anything scientific is in the news. It's incorrect to blame the study for people who don't understand how science actually works and who didn't read the actual wording the scientists used. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 07 2015 16:34 evilfatsh1t wrote: you keep going back to the point that the freedom of law abiding citizens is being revoked. what im trying to say is each and everyone one of those 'law abiding citizens' who had the freedom to buy their own gun are potential shootings just waiting to happen. Stopped reading here, screw this. If you're going to argue on the basis that people are fucking stupid and irresponsible, then we can't have this debate at all. Unlike communist sheep, I like to think that citizens of any country are grown up and responsible enough to take care of themselves. People aren't sheep, they're people. They do things and make decisions on their own. They don't need Big Brother to tell them what color knickers they should be wearing. Until you come to realize that people should be independent (and CAN be) without the government micro-managing their every day lives, we really can't have this discussion. I encourage you to review your outlook on the world if you really place such little faith in human beings. edit: On October 07 2015 17:02 TRAP[yoo] wrote: "Unfortunately my view is that you (and others) are too quick to revoke the rights of law-abiding citizens in the name of "security". I just cannot agree to that." yet your country has the patriot act, spys on law abiding citizens, waterboards/tortures potential terrorists + Show Spoiler + law abiding citizens Unfortunately I am French and neither do I condone the Patriot Act, spying citizens, torturing and so on. This proves that if anything, the government should be given less influence rather than more, since they can't be trusted to respect basic human rights. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12475 Posts
On October 07 2015 23:23 Incognoto wrote: Unlike communist sheep, I like to think that citizens of any country are grown up and responsible enough to take care of themselves. People aren't sheep, they're people. They do things and make decisions on their own. They don't need Big Brother to tell them what color knickers they should be wearing. That's not an argument, that's an arbitrary line. If you believe there are too many regulations, which is possible, that doesn't make every regulation that doesn't exist yet automatically bad. You should fight against the regulations that aren't necessary. You cannot on principle dismiss a regulation just because there are others already. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 07 2015 23:59 Nebuchad wrote: That's not an argument, that's an arbitrary line. If you believe there are too many regulations, which is possible, that doesn't make every regulation that doesn't exist yet automatically bad. You should fight against the regulations that aren't necessary. You cannot on principle dismiss a regulation just because there are others already. Indeed, and I firmly believe that a responsible gun-owner who regularly uses their gun at the shooting range, for hunting, or for self-defense, does not cross that arbitrary line. That's because when they do those activities, they do not, in any shape or form, impede on the rights of others. | ||
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 08 2015 00:14 KwarK wrote: And those people aren't the issue but it's very hard to come up with a law that only hits the people causing trouble. Hell, take speed limits. Those are designed around the least safe cars on the road, technology has gotten better and your car could be safer while considerably over the speed limit than someone with shitty breaks going under it. But it's not possible to have a law personalized around your individual car and it's not reasonable to expect that. So you suck it up and you go slower than you'd need to because some other guy can't get his brakes tuned up regularly. Never said I had anything against better or tighter regulations. Those clearly aren't in place, I'd say. For example, did the last shooter own the gun he used? I don't know if it's true or not, but if he were using someone else's firearm, then the owner should be held accountable for it. Similarly, the parents of the 11 year old who his sister should be held accountable for that atrociousness. I'd say that the problem either way with school shootings is that they're such a mediated blast that anyone with suicidal thoughts is going to consider putting on a show before they go. e.g. that German guy who crashed his airliner into the alps. Maybe we should instead wonder why these people are so inclined to commit these crimes in the first place, rather than the means (tools) they employ to do it. | ||
|
Dizmaul
United States831 Posts
On October 08 2015 00:14 KwarK wrote: And those people aren't the issue but it's very hard to come up with a law that only hits the people causing trouble. Hell, take speed limits. Those are designed around the least safe cars on the road, technology has gotten better and your car could be safer while considerably over the speed limit than someone with shitty brakes going under it. But it's not possible to have a law personalized around your individual car and it's not reasonable to expect that. So you suck it up and you go slower than you'd need to because some other guy can't get his brakes tuned up regularly. I've always wondered why its legal to make production cars that can exceed the speed limits of almost all roads by 2-3 times. To me that's very similar to peoples problem with fully automatic weapons. Why when a celebrity crash's his Porsche at 120 mph and dies no one blames Porsche? | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On October 08 2015 00:41 Dizmaul wrote: I've always wondered why its legal to make production cars that can exceed the speed limits of almost all roads by 2-3 times. To me that's very similar to peoples problem with fully automatic weapons. Why when a celebrity crash's his Porsche at 120 mph and dies no one blames Porsche? If you really want to expand that image to gun control, I believe it's more like people are more blaming that it's perfectly legal to go 120 mph inner city and are asking for introduction of speed limit . | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On October 08 2015 00:41 Dizmaul wrote: I've always wondered why its legal to make production cars that can exceed the speed limits of almost all roads by 2-3 times. To me that's very similar to peoples problem with fully automatic weapons. Why when a celebrity crash's his Porsche at 120 mph and dies no one blames Porsche? You could say full automatics are similar because they are a) rare and b) expensive nowadays so rarely used for mass shootings. I think the focus on banning automatic weapons is pretty misguided now that there are so many restrictions in the US. However, the comparison falls apart for semi auto handguns/shotguns/AR-15 clones which are cheap and widely available. Any crazy dude can get access to an item which allows them to harm many others very quickly with a minimal amount of resources. A porsche on the other hand is prohibitively expensive and usually kills it's own occupants. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1963 Posts
On October 08 2015 00:08 Incognoto wrote: Indeed, and I firmly believe that a responsible gun-owner who regularly uses their gun at the shooting range, for hunting, or for self-defense, does not cross that arbitrary line. That's because when they do those activities, they do not, in any shape or form, impede on the rights of others. Uhm, except that the right for self defense in the USA impedes on the right of the intruder to live. Of course a sport shooter does not, and no one is asking that all sport shooting is banned. People might ask, that no one is allowed to keep his sportsgun and the ammo for it at his house. Or that assault weapons cannot be labeled sport weapons. What people are arguing is that in countries with strict regulations regarding gun distribution, less people are getting killed. The murder rate in western europe is about 4 times as low as in the states. Maybe those things are correlated. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On October 08 2015 00:49 zatic wrote: If you really want to expand that image to gun control, I believe it's more like people are more blaming that it's perfectly legal to go 120 mph inner city and are asking for introduction of speed limit . But I'm a responsible car owner and would never need a speed limit to not go 120 in an inner city. Why should a speed limit apply to me just because other people would go too fast without it? And anyway, they would still break it so it's not worth doing. Also I'm pretty sure that this speed limit you propose would do nothing to fix diabetes. If it doesn't fix diabetes I'm not interested in your solution. Why don't you care more about diabetics? | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 08 2015 01:25 KwarK wrote: But I'm a responsible car owner and would never need a speed limit to not go 120 in an inner city. Why should a speed limit apply to me just because other people would go too fast without it? And anyway, they would still break it so it's not worth doing. Also I'm pretty sure that this speed limit you propose would do nothing to fix diabetes. If it doesn't fix diabetes I'm not interested in your solution. Why don't you care more about diabetics? Your analogy stops when you realize that driving at such speeds in a crowded area is obviously dangerous. Just owning a gun and using it responsibly is much less dangerous than driving at such speeds in a city. For the sake of your analogy, let's say you drive at 120 mph on a race-track, which was built for that purpose. Uhm, except that the right for self defense in the USA impedes on the right of the intruder to live. What happens when the intruder (aka the criminal) decides to impede on YOUR right to live? With a knife, which is arguably the most dangerous close quarter weapon out there due to the fact that is so easy to obtain, conceal and use lethally? I suppose that you are not allowed to defend your own life, or the life of those close to you. Indeed, you're stating that the intruder's life deserves more protection than the victim's. You aren't running away from a knife in your home, there's such a thing as legitimate defense, even in Europe: + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24108 Posts
| ||
|
Dizmaul
United States831 Posts
| ||
|
TRAP[yoo]
Hungary6026 Posts
On October 08 2015 03:11 GreenHorizons wrote: How many people arguing this own/have shot a gun before? arguing what? strict gun regulations? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On October 08 2015 03:13 Dizmaul wrote: I was trying to ask why car manufactures are allowed to make something that allow's people to break the law. The answer might be because it's the drivers responsibility to use his car legally. When someone crash's at 120mph, maybe drunk and maybe killing a family of 3, you blame the person not the tool he used. Guns on the other hand... also I don't like the argument that cars are not made to kill people while guns are. Is it not sad that a tool made to kill people kills less people then a tool where this is not intended? Both have laws and both are easy to acquire. We don't just have laws against killing people, regardless of the tool used, and use those to police car safety. Instead we got proactive and worked out that some design features and some ways of using cars as a tool made them more likely to be misused. And then we legislated on those. Car control exists and it's been a resounding success. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24108 Posts
Just saying it doesn't seem like many people arguing here on either side actually own/shoot guns or ever have. There are reasonable common sense approaches that can be taken with gun control but they virtually never get seriously discussed. This thread is another example of that. So I was curious for those pro or against how many of them had any actual experience with firearms. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
| ||
|
TRAP[yoo]
Hungary6026 Posts
| ||
| ||
