Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 40

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #120 : June 13, 2013, 12:25:55 PM »

"guns are relatively easily controlled"

Its certainly been a snap so far.

what's been done so far? Even if I was a criminal or mentally incompetent, I could go buy an AR-15 and 1000 rounds right now. that's the point and the problem
« : June 13, 2013, 12:29:10 PM VinBucFan »

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15497
Online
« #121 : June 13, 2013, 12:37:55 PM »

UCLA Professor:

“One of the problems with the state-based firearms laws…is that people can easily go into Nevada and Arizona and buy firearms there and bring them back. They’re not supposed to be allowed to do that.”

That same Professor said this in exactly the same sentence:

“I don’t think there’s any gun control law we can adopt that’s gonna stop a crazed madman from killing a lot of people,”

Then,  after pausing for breath he said this:

"“…if more people are armed, there’s likely to be someone who might stand up and defend themselves,"

Game.  Set. Match. Spartan wins.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
« #122 : June 13, 2013, 12:44:09 PM »

My first response:  do we have everything now? In other words, you are for Universal background checks as long as those 7 caveats are included?  I ask because you said "do you want more". Is there more? I will address each item, including any new ones, once you respond.

For now, if I think of anything else during the course of the discussion I will let you known.

On the second part, regarding mental illness -- you're arguing against yourself in one respect and then falling back on the same fallacy.  Let's start with the fallacy (in bold) Universal background checks do not have to prevent every gun death to be "effective."  What you're describing is "prefection" not "effectiveness." There is value in just making it tougher to get guns and certainly in closing the current loopholes EVEN IF it would not have prevented this (Santa Monica) event.

Not wanting to state the obvious, but if the checks weren't "effective" there would be no point in having them. The degree of effectiveness can be determined later. And stop cherry picking words, it makes you look pedantic.

Now, arguing against yourself. Your comment about "anbody who goes to a doctor" illustrates precisely why any solution has to include gun restrictions. As an oversimplified example, the Santa Monica event was the result of MENTAL ILLNESS + FAMILY ISSUES + ACCESS TO GUNS.  Not every person with a mental illness is violent and even those mental illness with the potential for violence are not absolute enough to say "person a has "x" he/she mass murders" so the notion that "anybody who goes to a Doctor with any kind of mental problem will no doubt have to submit their medical records to the FBI, actually illustrates (although you intended it differently, I imagine) precisely why it is NONSENSE for gun advocates to say, essentially, "well, dont do anything about guns because the problem is mental illness." Mental illness is A problem and should be addressed,

I am not arguing against myself but pointing out a potential danger to what is being proposed. Trying to identify areas that could have unintended consequences etc. For example, the background checks, to be able to identify those with mental conditions and might harm someone, those records have to be available to the checking mechanism BEFORE the check is done. Otherwise it will be pointless. So, if lil Tommy goes to his Doctor saying he is hearing voices, that information will have to be sent to the Govt; Or at least some adjudication authority. I am pretty sure someone will raise the spectre of the 4th Amendment there. Also, are you happy for the Feds to have and to access all of your mental health records? I mean it's not like they have a history of abuse of these things is it? Oh wait .....

You might roll your eyes at that, and it doesn't matter if I am speaking for myself or not,  I can safely bet that there is going to be a whole of people who will be extremely uncomfortable with that fact.

but you comment actually underscores why an solution has to focus in large part on guns because guns are the easier thing to control . .  . especially when there are 300 million of them around and almost no meaningful barriers to purchase.  It could take DECADES UPON DECADES to figure out enough about mental illness to accurately predict violence (like the "Minority Report -lol), but guns are relatively easily controlled, albeit no solution is perfect.

Not the first time you have said that. It indicates that the reality of it is that you believe the only real solution should be to remove guns from the equation.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #123 : June 13, 2013, 12:48:29 PM »

UCLA Professor:

“One of the problems with the state-based firearms laws…is that people can easily go into Nevada and Arizona and buy firearms there and bring them back. They’re not supposed to be allowed to do that.”

That same Professor said this in exactly the same sentence:

“I don’t think there’s any gun control law we can adopt that’s gonna stop a crazed madman from killing a lot of people,”

Then,  after pausing for breath he said this:

"“…if more people are armed, there’s likely to be someone who might stand up and defend themselves,"

Game.  Set. Match. Spartan wins.

lol.  keep reading buddy . . . .I posted the dreaded "rest of the article"


That said, honestly . . . honestly .  . . do you think that arming everyone in the US is the solution?

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #124 : June 13, 2013, 12:49:56 PM »

My first response:  do we have everything now? In other words, you are for Universal background checks as long as those 7 caveats are included?  I ask because you said "do you want more". Is there more? I will address each item, including any new ones, once you respond.

For now, if I think of anything else during the course of the discussion I will let you known.

lol . . .  that whole "good faith" concept is taking a beating

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #125 : June 13, 2013, 12:53:05 PM »

On the second part, regarding mental illness -- you're arguing against yourself in one respect and then falling back on the same fallacy.  Let's start with the fallacy (in bold) Universal background checks do not have to prevent every gun death to be "effective."  What you're describing is "prefection" not "effectiveness." There is value in just making it tougher to get guns and certainly in closing the current loopholes EVEN IF it would not have prevented this (Santa Monica) event.

Not wanting to state the obvious, but if the checks weren't "effective" there would be no point in having them. The degree of effectiveness can be determined later. And stop cherry picking words, it makes you look pedantic.


I did not cherry pick a word, I respond to your words (plural) and words do matter. Background checks are effective. Period. Full stop. Plenty of examples, here's one quick one:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/244027/158/Stats-Show-Va-Gun-Background-Checks-Effective


Right now we apply them selectively so what is stopped from going out one door goes out the other.  But, what you were describing was actually perfection
« : June 13, 2013, 12:54:41 PM VinBucFan »

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #126 : June 13, 2013, 12:59:22 PM »


Now, arguing against yourself. Your comment about "anbody who goes to a doctor" illustrates precisely why any solution has to include gun restrictions. As an oversimplified example, the Santa Monica event was the result of MENTAL ILLNESS + FAMILY ISSUES + ACCESS TO GUNS.  Not every person with a mental illness is violent and even those mental illness with the potential for violence are not absolute enough to say "person a has "x" he/she mass murders" so the notion that "anybody who goes to a Doctor with any kind of mental problem will no doubt have to submit their medical records to the FBI, actually illustrates (although you intended it differently, I imagine) precisely why it is NONSENSE for gun advocates to say, essentially, "well, dont do anything about guns because the problem is mental illness." Mental illness is A problem and should be addressed,

I am not arguing against myself but pointing out a potential danger to what is being proposed. Trying to identify areas that could have unintended consequences etc. For example, the background checks, to be able to identify those with mental conditions and might harm someone, those records have to be available to the checking mechanism BEFORE the check is done. Otherwise it will be pointless. So, if lil Tommy goes to his Doctor saying he is hearing voices, that information will have to be sent to the Govt; Or at least some adjudication authority. I am pretty sure someone will raise the spectre of the 4th Amendment there. Also, are you happy for the Feds to have and to access all of your mental health records? I mean it's not like they have a history of abuse of these things is it? Oh wait .....

You might roll your eyes at that, and it doesn't matter if I am speaking for myself or not,  I can safely bet that there is going to be a whole of people who will be extremely uncomfortable with that fact.

Maybe it would make sense to you if I said that you are arguing against a PRO-GUN argument that is all over these boards; namely, that its not guns, that we should focus on its mental illness. 

You are highlighting precisely why focusing on mental illness to the exclusion of guns makes no sense.  The only person with a mental illenss that could be stopped by a background check is a person who has been adjudictaed mentallly incompetent or dangerous. We should stop thoise people, no doubt, but as I already said earlier in the thread (discussing the CA propsed statute) it would only apply to an incredibly small number of people, that is the problem and that is why any solkution has to focus, at least in part, on guns --- they are more easily controlled.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #127 : June 13, 2013, 01:06:47 PM »

but you comment actually underscores why an solution has to focus in large part on guns because guns are the easier thing to control . .  . especially when there are 300 million of them around and almost no meaningful barriers to purchase.  It could take DECADES UPON DECADES to figure out enough about mental illness to accurately predict violence (like the "Minority Report -lol), but guns are relatively easily controlled, albeit no solution is perfect.

Not the first time you have said that. It indicates that the reality of it is that you believe the only real solution should be to remove guns from the equation.

F-E-A-R . . . .  . you should go get Escobar because he says fear is not an issue

I am not attempting to criticize or belittle by raising FEAR as an issue, I am just saying that there is a reason that you and other pro-gun people always fall back on fear and that is, in part, because the other arguments you can advance, however well-intentioned, simply dont pass the smell test. In other words, the idea that there should be no restrictions on guns (essentially the status quo in the US) is beyong absurd . . . so in the final analysis ANY restriction is viewed as a devious plot. That's the fallback defense.

Proof of that is that I have said repeatedly that I do not want to ban guns, I want to reduce access to them, make it tougher to get your hands on one while still preserving our right to bear arms . . . and yet . . . .  FEAR always comes up . . . its why you will actually NEVER offer a proposal you will accept on universal background checks . . . you will not actually accept them under any REASONABLE circumstances so you play along in the discussion, but nothing else:

My first response:  do we have everything now? In other words, you are for Universal background checks as long as those 7 caveats are included?  I ask because you said "do you want more". Is there more? I will address each item, including any new ones, once you respond.

For now, if I think of anything else during the course of the discussion I will let you known.
« : June 13, 2013, 01:12:55 PM VinBucFan »

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
« #128 : June 13, 2013, 01:24:51 PM »

OBVIOUSLY . . .. . (cant believe I even have to type this) . . . . the solution is NOT to be the only civilzed nation on the planet that has every citizen walking around with a gun for personal defense. . .  . . . . wow


Is Switzerland NOT a civilized nation???

In Switzerland, all able bodied males are required to enlist in the militia where they are trained and issued weapons that they then store at their house. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (61% of all Swiss own or have a gun). Switzerland's gun homicide rate is 1/10th that of the US.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #129 : June 13, 2013, 02:00:33 PM »

OBVIOUSLY . . .. . (cant believe I even have to type this) . . . . the solution is NOT to be the only civilzed nation on the planet that has every citizen walking around with a gun for personal defense. . .  . . . . wow


Is Switzerland NOT a civilized nation???

In Switzerland, all able bodied males are required to enlist in the militia where they are trained and issued weapons that they then store at their house. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (61% of all Swiss own or have a gun). Switzerland's gun homicide rate is 1/10th that of the US.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

militia   --- not personal use

by the way -- have you ever been to Switzerland? I am guessing no if you think that the militia gun requirement is why the gun homicide rate is so low. (Hint: think banks) Anyway, no need to take my word as there is a lot of writing on the subject. I will not find it all for you, but here's a couple quick ones:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Anyway, its really not that complicated.  We have WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY more guns than most similar civilized societies . . . .  and way more gun death . . . . hardly shocking  . . . . and a very wealthy country of  about 7 million of homogenous people keeping a gun in their home for militia duties does not chnage those simple statistics. 
« : June 13, 2013, 02:04:14 PM VinBucFan »

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15497
Online
« #130 : June 13, 2013, 02:36:00 PM »

Doesnt matter if its the solution , Vince.   I don't think you MORALLY have the right to disarm me if Im not using my arms to agress on you in any way. I don't care how scared you are.

A lot of violence problems can be solved through tyranny,  im sure,  but count me out.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #131 : June 13, 2013, 02:48:37 PM »

Doesnt matter if its the solution , Vince.   I don't think you MORALLY have the right to disarm me if Im not using my arms to agress on you in any way. I don't care how scared you are.

A lot of violence problems can be solved through tyranny,  im sure,  but count me out.

translated:  no, arming everyone is not the solution but dont disarm me. Right?

For what its worth, I dont want to disarm anyone nor do I want to have anyone disarm me. Dosnt chnage the fact that there are just too many guns and they are too easy to get.

Oh, and by your defintion I guess requiring someone to wear seatblets is tyranny? trying to get people to stop smoking is tryanny, I guess? The reason we make those efforts is because those freedoms have a cost, right? That's sort of the flaw with the libertarian view, at least as it meshes with the real world. In the real world, one person's freedom is another's expense.  Someone who exercises their freedom by smoking costs non-smokers money because the smoker becomes a drain on society( productivity, healthcare, children etc.).  Same thing with guns . . .  no different. Public health issue, not a "freedom" issue.

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3679
Offline
« #132 : June 13, 2013, 02:49:44 PM »

 "A lot of violence problems can be solved through tyranny,  im sure,  but count me out."

A bit premature, aren't you? The Fear Salesman has yet to even admit he wants us all disarmed, let alone announce his clockwork orange follow-up plan.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #133 : June 13, 2013, 02:50:40 PM »

"A lot of violence problems can be solved through tyranny,  im sure,  but count me out."

A bit premature, aren't you? The Fear Salesman has yet to even admit he wants us all disarmed, let alone announce his clockwork orange follow-up plan.

lol

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31380
Online
« #134 : June 13, 2013, 02:59:23 PM »

"guns are relatively easily controlled"

Its certainly been a snap so far.

lolz

  Page: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 40
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools