|
Dead Reckoning posted:What's so important about getting twisted on a Friday that it merits enabling shitheels to drive drunk, kill themselves through cirrhosis, or (mathematically speaking) beat their wives & children more often? I don't see any real reason to believe that banning alcohol would change any of that (not to mention that driving drunk is already illegal), whereas banning guns would very directly reduce the access of vulnerable people to deadly weapons with which they could kill themselves almost instantly after making the decision to do so, that is undeniable. quote:I can't justify it through a pure utility ("why do you need that") metric, but I don't think that principle should guide our policy decisions. Similarly, there isn't conclusive information to prove that access to guns is a significant net good or ill in individual cases divorced from the context (confounding variables) of poverty or illness. Even if we assume the worst cases proposed by those in favor of gun control, that owning a gun in the home is moderately correlated to successful suicides through direct causes and slightly more likely to be correlated to dying in a homicide through correlation with no causal mechanism, I don't think that is a compelling case for the government to decide what level of risk people should be allowed to accept instead of making that choice themselves. I know the risks of a gun in the home (bang), I know the risks of skydiving (splat), I know the risks of drinking (many), and I know the long term risks of eating peanut butter (cholesterol, cancer via arsenic or aflatoxin), but I choose to accept all of those. You literally can't articulate any way that gun ownership is necessary or beneficial? And there are plenty of people who do not decide to take on the risk of having a gun in their home and yet end up dead because some idiot did. quote:As to your second point, it's easy to make a gun at home. If people really want it, there will be someone to meet that demand. A simple safety tube submachinegun was made by every country in the darkest days of WWII, and can be made by the incautious with basic hand tools. Few people in America do this now, but supply would certainly rise to meet demand. That's assuming we don't import like every other country with a crime problem. Sweden and Canada have both had full on organized crime wars with explosives and machine guns. France had a full-on terrorist mass shooting. America imports felony quantities of narcotics on a regular basis, and can likely import guns via the same channels. Not saying that illegally importing guns shouldn't be illegal, just saying that attempts to restrict access to guns to only extra-legal channels is likely to be as effective as doing the same with drugs or booze (a lot of which was run across the Canadian and southern borders during prohibition.) If people are determined to kill themselves, they can do it without manufacturing a gun or purchasing one illegally. If you take measures to reduce gun ownership to only those people so determined to own one that they are willing to commit a serious crime in order to do so, far fewer vulnerable will have access people to deadly weapons with which they could kill themselves almost instantly after making the decision to do so. Fewer kids will pick up a gun and unwittingly end another's life. Fewer people will kill their family in a moment of blind rage.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Lemming posted:Yes, they'd rather hide or give in than do the violent uprising fantasy that was being alluded to. Well there have been some pretty tense standoffs between ranchers and feds already, and this is without actual door-to-door confiscation. But I'm sure you're right that it's completely delusional to think the molon labe crew would actually escalate a situation where their most-valued civil right is being revoked by force.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
I might some day take you up on that shooting offer, but ill have to disagree with this bit. Australia reduced the amount of guns in the country by approximately 30% following the buyback program. In the following decades, the banned guns have largely been replaced by legal guns. Illegally imported guns still only rarely play a role in Australian crime. Incidentally, this reduced firearm related homicide by 80%, there was no related increase in other methods of homicide. Same example goes for the United Kingdom. Banning guns does not result in a completely compensatory or even relevant increase in illegal guns. Most of the violent crimes guns are used for are not perpetrated by a bad guy with a gun, the notorious career criminal. They are family members, friends, spouses, jilted ex-lovers, angry or depressed men after a drink and disgruntled employees. The people who until that very moment were the good guys with a gun. These people are not going to access the black market, build their own weapons or spend thousand on having an illegal firearm imported in their crimes of passion. You on the other hand, might build your own illegal firearm, but that doesn't really upset me. Because even though gun fanatics can be a bit scary, I doubt that they are the main problem demographic when it comes to committing or enabling gun violence. Its the average Joe that's the most scary. That's also why i think restrictive gun laws can work if they reduce the prevalence of guns by increasing the burden of acquiring a gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:Well there have been some pretty tense standoffs between ranchers and feds already, and this is without actual door-to-door confiscation. But I'm sure you're right that it's completely delusional to think the molon labe crew would actually escalate a situation where their most-valued civil right is being revoked by force. You're talking about the brave heroes whose plan was to hide behind the women and children when the bullets started flying, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:Well there have been some pretty tense standoffs between ranchers and feds already, and this is without actual door-to-door confiscation. But I'm sure you're right that it's completely delusional to think the molon labe crew would actually escalate a situation where their most-valued civil right is being revoked by force. Oh, you mean that guy abusing public land and refusing to pay his legal dues who turned it into a standoff about resisting tyrany? That lying rear end in a top hat?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
Yesterday the New York Times published an op-ed opposing a novel theory about mass shootings.The New York Times posted:A Facebook page called “Families Against Autistic Shooters” ranted about “the soulless, dead eyes of autistic children,” and characterized them as “cold, calculating killing machines with no regard for human life!” Its author announced: “What do all shooters over the last few years have in common? A lack of empathy and compassion due to Autism!” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/opinion/the-myth-of-the-autistic-shooter.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:Risk accept Why should I accept your risk to me when I have no gains?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Yesterday the New York Times published an op-ed opposing a novel theory about mass shootings. Vaccines!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm throwing in my lot with Obama's homo-muslimtroopers in civil war 2, because gun owners couldn't insurgency their way out of a paper bag. I think people are too quick to dismiss these assholes, many of them are so hardcore racist they absolutely would start an insurgency, if not to protect their guns, then to protect white supremacy. They will die for white supremacy, it is the only thing they have--the guns are merely a symbol of their actual cause, which is the preservation of white supremacy at all costs. Movement conservatives cannot and will not coexist peacefully with the rest of the country. It's not like they haven't done this before. Blithely dismissing the threat they pose is extremely dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:I think people are too quick to dismiss these assholes, many of them are so hardcore racist they absolutely would start an insurgency, if not to protect their guns, then to protect white supremacy. They will die for white supremacy, it is the only thing they have--the guns are merely a symbol of their actual cause, which is the preservation of white supremacy at all costs. Movement conservatives cannot and will not coexist peacefully with the rest of the country. It's not like they haven't done this before. Blithely dismissing the threat they pose is extremely dangerous. What is this line of thought even based on? I highly doubt the Black Panthers are going to give up their guns either. Consider that not everyone owning a gun is the fat redneck strawman in your mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
The Black Panthers arn't even a blip numerically. while rural whites are far from the only owners of guns, the stereotype exists for a reason. The history of paranoia about maintaining arms in the USA is a pretty sordid one if you start in pre-revolutionary times and trace it to the modern day. Fear of slave revolts turns to fear of 'black bucks' turns to assholes winking to eachother about 'zombies' and the masturbatory fantasies of shooting the hordes of inner city savages fleeing New Orleans in order to savage the suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:What is this line of thought even based on? I highly doubt the Black Panthers are going to give up their guns either. Consider that not everyone owning a gun is the fat redneck strawman in your mind. If literally every Black Panthers member bought five guns and open carried them all 24/7 they wouldn't even be a bump on the 'people who own guns broken down by groups' chart
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:What is this line of thought even based on? I highly doubt the Black Panthers are going to give up their guns either. Consider that not everyone owning a gun is the fat redneck strawman in your mind. Well they are not all fat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:What is this line of thought even based on? I highly doubt the Black Panthers are going to give up their guns either. Consider that not everyone owning a gun is the fat redneck strawman in your mind. For fucks sake: Nobody is coming to take your guns. poo poo, that is a strawman in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Anybody unironically bringing up the   BLACK PANTHERS in 2015 in an argument about guns is pretty much announcing that they're racist, by the way. The original Black Panther Party for Self-Defense doesn't even exist anymore, and the New Black Panther Party that's disavowed by the original BPP barely exists at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:For fucks sake: Did you even read the previous posts in this thread and elsewhere? Taking the guns is absolutely the end goal through incrementalism and denying that fact is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Did you even read the previous posts in this thread and elsewhere? Taking the guns is absolutely the end goal through incrementalism and denying that fact is ridiculous. He's not saying people don't exist who would like to ban all guns, he's saying that no people will come to take your guns because a ban on guns is not a plausible thing that could happen in the US. Our tolerance for dead children shot by guns has basically been proven to be unlimited.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Did you even read the previous posts in this thread and elsewhere? Taking the guns is absolutely the end goal through incrementalism and denying that fact is ridiculous. Ah yes, we can't have reasonable gun laws because they empower Obama the Gun-Grabber. Enforcing the laws against straw purchases will make Obama grow fifty times his size, smash the Supreme Court, roll a joint with every copy of the Bill of Rights, tear apart your house to eat your guns, then put you in a homosexual breeding camp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah yes, we can't have reasonable gun laws because they empower Obama the Gun-Grabber. Enforcing the laws against straw purchases will make Obama grow fifty times his size, smash the Supreme Court, roll a joint with every copy of the Bill of Rights, tear apart your house to eat your guns, then put you in a homosexual breeding camp. At no point did I say we shouldn't enforce laws against straw purchases. In fact, we need to do a way better job of enforcing them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Did you even read the previous posts in this thread and elsewhere? Taking the guns is absolutely the end goal through incrementalism and denying that fact is ridiculous. It's implausible and highly unlikely due to the need to amend the US Constitution to do so. Stop listening to the NRA, its a gently caress bag of Republican talking points and bullshit. Find a better gun group. Chill the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:My point being that, if a prohibition isn't actually preventing people from committing the crimes that it purports to target, maybe it shouldn't be a law. Same with alcohol prohibition in the United States, same as the war on drugs. You know, I've heard you beat this drum for awhile now but maybe you should realize that no law prevents 100% of the crimes it targets. None. Zero. None. That is the shittiest argument against legislation. The goal is to reduce the risk of willy-nilly mass murder--which, at the current moment, is insanely easy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:At no point did I say we shouldn't enforce laws against straw purchases. In fact, we need to do a way better job of enforcing them. Then why are you whining that every gun law is secret incrementalism in Obama's plot to take your guns and replace them with mandatory gay sharia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:You know, I've heard you beat this drum for awhile now but maybe you should realize that no law prevents 100% of the crimes it targets. None. Zero. None. No it's a good one. I for example oppose food inspections and health codes because they haven't stopped 100% of foodborne illness and thus should be repealed
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Then why are you whining that every gun law is secret incrementalism in Obama's plot to take your guns and replace them with mandatory gay sharia? Some people have claimed they want far more Gun Control than others. Ergo, all Gun Control is a fiendish plot to Grab His Guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:while rural whites are far from the only owners of guns, the stereotype exists for a reason. Assuming by race the remainder is Asian and "other"... 60% of gun owners are non-white according to that link. That's a hell of a stupid stereotype then as proportionately minorities well outstrip whites in gun ownership.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Some people have claimed they want far more Gun Control than others. Ergo, all Gun Control is a fiendish plot to Grab His Guns. Considering that the GOP has spent...what...nearly 6 years claiming this very thing and people BUY it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's actually a great way to run a society because I don't want the government to wait until after I die of salmonella to inspect the kitchens of the restaurant that killed me and regulate what they can do. Also, the health department cites restaurants for actual unsafe practices, they don't take away all their raw chicken because they might not cook it right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Why should I accept your risk to me when I have no gains? Oh, sorry. I meant it was a risk I was willing to accept. If I was socially responsible I wouldn't be supporting the gun industry in the first place. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Considering that the GOP has spent...what...nearly 6 years claiming this very thing and people BUY it. People buy it because you can just look at NY and California where they tighten the noose at every chance they get. NY slammed through their gun control package literally in the middle of the night before anyone could oppose it. The result is a ton of poo poo is now illegal to own suddenly and your options are either turn them in, sell them out of state, or you're now a criminal. There's a quote from Feinstein the lovely California senator saying she'd force everyone to turn in their guns if she had the votes, and you've got the president applauding Australia's gun control scheme, a major part of which was a huge buyback/turn in. What's your take on it? Like you think they're just going to wash their hands and say "ok we're cool" after they get background checks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Why bother banning guns now? I already lost a friend. Why ban them now? I think everyone should experience the loss of a friend or loved one to a mass shooting. It makes you hate the world even more. And if more of us hate the world, maybe we'll finally wipe our pathetic faces off the planet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
xwing posted:Assuming by race the remainder is Asian and "other"... 60% of gun owners are non-white according to that link. That's a hell of a stupid stereotype then as proportionately minorities well outstrip whites in gun ownership. Non-Hispanic White: 41% Black: 19% Hispanic: 20% Whites own guns at double the rate of any other racial group. Also the numbers refer to the amount within each racial group who own guns, not all gun owners broken down by percentage of race, unless I'm missing something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Commercial businesses that sell firearms are already subject to inspection.  The 'inspections' and 'registration/background checks' are state driven, there was a piece on NPR where they talked with the FBI about gun registration and background checks and most gun stores keep very little records, often never submitting the records till they go out of business.If they submit them at all. various cheeses posted:People buy it because you can just look at NY and California where they tighten the noose at every chance they get. NY slammed through their gun control package literally in the middle of the night before anyone could oppose it. The result is a ton of poo poo is now illegal to own suddenly and your options are either turn them in, sell them out of state, or you're now a criminal. There's a quote from Feinstein the lovely California senator saying she'd force everyone to turn in their guns if she had the votes, and you've got the president applauding Australia's gun control scheme, a major part of which was a huge buyback/turn in. Feinstein is an idiot, and if you are judging the entire gun control movement based on a radical, its just as bad saying all firearms owners (including me) are all in bed with the NRA. My take? You are an alarmist who buys right wing talking points and has already promoted very questionable gun safety and ideas in your own thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Feinstein is an idiot, and if you are judging the entire gun control movement based on a radical, its just as bad saying all firearms owners (including me) are all in bed with the NRA. Feinstein is an idiot on more than just guns, but she and several others like her are always the ones leading the push for more. I'm not part of the NRA either, and I don't agree with all their talking points (lol cops in every school, who is going to pay for this poo poo). What questionable gun safety have I promoted? I'll ask again, do you think they're really going to just be finished with gun control after universal background checks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Megaschmoo posted:Non-Hispanic White: 41% Nope, I missed that note at the top and read it incorrectly. This link has a bit more from the horses mouth: HERE
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
It's not surprising that minorities own guns at less than half the rate of whites. As people at higher risk of being victimized by violent crime it's to be expected that they have less favor towards the implements of violent crime than the rural/suburban dude demographic whose experience with them is mostly as cool toys to hoot at like imbeciles when they make a loud noise
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:I'll ask again, do you think they're really going to just be finished with gun control after universal background checks? Should they be? It looks like you are trying to push a narrative of "OMG Goverment gonna sieze mah guns and then turn into a dictatorship." You're AR-15 is not going to stop the Government from turning into a dictatorship if they decide to, no more than Hitler loosening gun control laws in post Weimar Republic Germany stopped the Holocaust (Oh, Carson, you silly little man...)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Should they be? It looks like you are trying to push a narrative of "OMG Goverment gonna sieze mah guns and then turn into a dictatorship." If it looks that way it's not my intention. I notice you're avoiding the question though. How far do you think they want to take gun control before they decide it's at an equilibrium?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:I notice you're avoiding the question though. How far do you think they want to take gun control before they decide it's at an equilibrium? I'm not avoiding the question, I answered it. You are promoting this idea that the equilibrium is going to be a total gun ban, and therefore any and all gun control laws are evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:How far do you think they want to take gun control before they decide it's at an equilibrium? As far as they want to go. They are the government of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Tezzor posted:It's not surprising that minorities own guns at less than half the rate of whites. As people at higher risk of being victimized by violent crime it's to be expected that they have less favor towards the implements of violent crime than the rural/suburban dude demographic whose experience with them is mostly as cool toys to hoot at like imbeciles when they make a loud noise Besides your obvious disdain... that might be only one explanation. Without numbers I'd suspect it's also because they're generally poorer and in urban areas that are stricter on gun ownership. No one has ever proposed gun control to keep guns out of dark people's hands...
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:50
|
|