Mark Steel on NRA reaction to Boston bomb. Genius

Post Reply New Topic

I don't doubt that it is largely impractical.

If I were in charge and had a good amount of resources and had decided that gun control was the way to go, I would:
1) change all states to "may issue", giving them the option of changing to "will not issue"
1b) impose stricter criteria for who "may" get a gun- previous concealed carry permit holders would be allowed to renew their permits every few years, new applicants would have to either prove they needed a gun for work or some such, or else do a gun safety and responsibility course (which it would be possible to fail)
1c) ban private gun sales
2) do a gun buyback which would not be compulsory but would offer generous prices
2b) advertise this buyback

No going door to door, no secret raids, that's just going to make things worse and antagonise people.

It probably won't take any guns out of the hands of gangsters and crazy people straight away, and it certainly wouldn't get rid of guns altogether, but hopefully it would make it harder for them to acquire them in the long run as the only people with guns will be those who are passionate about them and will keep them secure.

Seems to me you made your mind up several threads and a year or two ago that gun banning is the answer.

So much for state’s rights, eh? With all the carry permits and gun carriers in society where are all the crimes from them to justify this?

That goes against the "will not issue" that you embraced in your last wish. /\

Yes, I'm sure all of the village bad guys will go through dealers in their trade.
More punishment of the innocent is what it boils down to.

Generous meaning blue book value, I assume, and you want to try and bring in millions of guns.
Who's payin' for it?

More spending but that's not a surprise.


And cause many more deaths in the process.


Other than screwing with people who are not the problem it's all for naught, then.

So you admit that guns can't just be taken away but all you offer is more gun control, having admitted it'll be generally ineffective as always, and a buttload of spending.

I've been avoiding dealing with this thread because of the level of effort involved in the triple fisking, so I'm going to try and break things down and go point by point at my leisure.

Why? Carry permit holders are the most law abiding people in the country, why would you make life more difficult for them? We have a lower crime rate than the police what possible reason could you have for making it harder to get a carry permit when the system already works perfectly well?

Do you know what "may issue" really means? It means that you have to be connected in order to get a permit; movie stars and moguls have no problem getting a NYC carry permit, but it's virtually impossible for a battered wife with actual need of protection to get one. That's the system you want?



How?



More generous than the massive black market you'd be creating?



So you'd trample all over a fundamental right and criminalize millions of people on hope? Why am I supposed to respect this opinion again?

I believe in open borders. Again, what's your point? Have I at any point argued that guns are not deadly weapons? Beating up a strawman does not make you a badass, and it's undignified to boot.



You offered up the example of the fact that the hardest man to kill in the world hasn't been killed as proof that restricting access to weaponry is effective, I countered with several examples of how it could actually be done cheaply and his survival is more due to lack of interest in the deed, and now you want to pick nits. You also didn't say anything about my other example, which is telling.



I'm not a screenwriter, and my views on the government and it's head are well documented. Given my specialized knowledge and capabilities, things I say could much more easily be interpreted as a "true threat" than those of the average person.



Oh, so you specialize in non-sequitur then? You'd have a point if I only used the Constitutional argument, but I don't, and you don't. As usual.



And I'm sure you're going to point out those fallacies you claim are there? Or is this just another drive-by?



Legal ownership of destructive devices. Big difference.



Criminals trust their lives to zip guns, why do you think they'd suddenly get all discerning in the face of a ban? Also, CNC machine tools can make commercial quality firearms with the push of a button, no skill required, and the price of entry is dropping into the low 4 figures. People are willing to risk decades in prison or worse to make a buck off of drugs, why do you think guns would be any different?

And I shall reply with "better still would be remedying the situations that make people want to harm one another".

You really need to cut this bad faith sh*t out.
Statistically insignificant is statistically insignificant, no matter how tragic the particular statistic happens to be. Less people die in mass shootings in the US than are killed by f*cking lighting every year, should we mandate insulated clothing to not appear indifferent to that tragedy? You truly cannot grasp the idea of someone honestly disagreeing with you, can you? In your mind, it has to involve some sort of ulterior motive as no one could possibly have a better grasp of the subject and have come to a different conclusion absent some sort of willful bias. I'll say it again: Come up with some actual evidence that my opinions are based on trying to protect my interests and are not genuine beliefs, or kindly admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

Are you really going to take that tack with a straight face? You're too young to ever have even known a fraction of the freedoms I have and that you have lost, let alone have any experience of what life is actually like in the US; your criticism cuts you at least as much as it does me. You don't value your civil liberties, that much is abundantly clear. I don't know what else I can say to that.

I read it the first time, it's horses**t. His methodology is beyond flawed when it comes to tracking "assault weapons", he doesn't seem to have realized that functionally identical weapons were available throughout the duration of the ban, and he relies upon numbers obtained from the VPC and MAIG, anti gun groups with dogs in the fight. Those are just the most obvious flaws.

Work on that bad faith thing.

Well, from what I've read, and obviously you'd be better informed than me, in some states it is enforced essentially as "will not issue", in some states it is enforced as "shall issue", with some states being everywhere in between. I would like a golden mean, but with states having the option to cut out gun sales altogether if they wish.

Almost forgot to respond to the first half. The aim isn't "make it harder to get a carry permit", it is "make it so the only people who legally acquire new guns are those who need to, or really want to and will be responsible with them"- that is, carry permit holders. As I said above, this will hopefully ensure that everyone who owns a gun will buy into the culture of responsibility that you and so many others buy into. After all, as you say, permit holders are the most responsible people in America.

And fwiw, the solution to domestic violence isn't buying a gun, but getting away from them.

Start by closing the gun show loophole. Of course, there will always be people selling guns to their neighbours and it would be futile to try and stop them.

I use "hope" because I am not so arrogant as to presume I have a magic bullet, if you will pardon the turn of phrase.

If you think that what I am suggesting would be trampling over a fundamental right, then you need to stop being so paranoid and get a sense of perspective, even before we get onto whether or not gun ownership is a fundamental right. Firstly, you'll notice that I am still not suggesting criminalising gun ownership. What I'm suggesting is moving closer towards the "well regulated militia".

Come up with some actual evidence that I think anyone who disagrees with me has to have an ulterior motive.

I suggested a scenario where you were not acting out of bad faith in that very post.

You also seem to struggle with the idea of someone disagreeing with you and you have resorted to throwing around largely unfounded accusations of "bad faith" and "narrow mindedness" as soon as I present a view that is neither exactly what you said nor "guns-r-bad". I will happily admit that my belief is coloured by my upbringing in a country that is almost universally anti-gun and is doing very well thanks to it, but I don't think that stops it being a genuine belief, just as I don't doubt that you have genuine beliefs that are probably coloured by your experiences. It is the nature of being a human that objectivity is very, very hard. If you have managed to transcend that, then well done you, but statistically that is very unlikely.

A life is worth protecting, even if it isn't statistically significant. I can accept that you might have come to be hardened to loss of life in mass shootings in the same way we're all accustomed to people throwing themselves in front of public transport or people in war zones are accustomed to bombings. I don't think that makes you a bad person.

For what it is worth, there is a significant difference between maleficent people who can't be stopped without taking away their means, and lightning, which is not an agent. If there are areas where lightning strikes are reasonably common, I would inform people of the risks and encourage them to wear insulating boots. I would not enforce it, because I think people should be allowed to take the risk. If there was some way of preventing lightning strikes by seeding the atmosphere, then I would go ahead with that.


I don't think I can read your post with a straight face, unfortunately. I have all the freedoms you have until I decide to rob a shop or beat someone up in public and the matter is reported to the police. I have freedom to travel anonymously, I can do whatever I want within the law, I have total privacy if I want it.

Now if the government started putting cameras in people's homes, I would object very strongly, and I suspect my family would move to Canada as soon as possible (though some practical things would prevent us moving immediately, such as elderly relatives).

I spoke to my parents (in their early 50s) about this matter, and they both essentially agreed with me. My mum (left school at 15, Conservative voter) had no problem with the status quo. My dad (university graduate, has voted for all three left wing parties) had some concerns about the future but didn't see why anyone except a criminal would object to how things are at the moment.

You know what's a real threat to my privacy? The internet. It is theoretically possible for Google to find out more or less everything I have searched for with ease. If people post publicly on Facebook or Twitter, the police can and do read what they say (though usually only if it is reported first) and have interpreted innocent remarks in the worst way possible. Thankfully I can stop anyone outside of those I have approved from seeing what I write on those sites, and I deliberately filter what I say as an extra precaution. There's very little I can do to stop Google though (the only competitor, Microsoft's Bing, is no better)- I just have to rely on them having far too much data to deal with, and knowing that ultimately I'm not doing anything wrong, though of course someone could always twist what I am doing to paint me in a bad light.

You are being paranoid (and yourself assuming bad faith) if you think that is a post where I have assumed bad faith.

What is wrong with using the data from anti-gun groups?

I'll start with the easy one. If someone posted a study that showed unequivocally that guns saved far more lives than they ended every year and were a panacea for solving social ills, and that study was entirely generated by the NRA or another pro gun group, would you accept it at face value? Let me put it this way; I wouldn't.

The NRA has something of an ulterior motive though, it is funded by gun owners (who value guns) and gun manufacturers (who make money from guns). Anti-gun groups don't have the same vested interests, they're against guns because they think, rightly or wrongly, that their position shall reduce crime or prevent deaths. They don't stand to benefit from data showing that guns cause crime, even though it fits conveniently. Of course, it is not as ideal as independent data from a supposedly neutral source, but I'd argue that anyone who had data which showed, hypothetically, any dangers of guns or any benefits of gun control, would be seen as being anti-gun.

What? How do you get that anti-gun groups have no vested interests?


The benefit is precisely that it does fit conveniently.

They don't have the same vested interests.

Nobody makes money from "anti-gun" positions except maybe for alternative weapons manufactures. Nobody goes to fire their anti-gun down the range.

These groups have to justify their existence I guess, and there are probably all kinds of pencil pushers who have secure jobs thanks to these groups. But someone who takes an anti-gun position cannot benefit from it in the way that someone who takes a pro-gun position often does.


But what motivation do they have for being anti-gun in the first place? Nobody in their right mind would think "for my career I'm going to make it look like Mexico's gun problem is more related to the widespread availability of guns in America than it really is". For a start, there's much more money to be made in the pro-gun position.

The trend for “shall issue” has gone up over the past 25 years but the crime has not grown with it. It’s gone down, in fact.
The only “no issue” states are Illinois and DC (surprise surprise ).



We’re not going to be told what we need and what we can have. Do we really want to break the constitution down into needs to protect us from a non-issue?


So what about the millions of existing guns?
You think we’re going to just give them to the government until they decide our needs for us?
I aint.


If they CAN get away from them.


Again with the gun show "loop hole".
What’s with this loophole the antis keep screeching about? I've been to lots and lots of gun shows, have filled out lots of form 4473’s at them, and have had lots of NICS checks done from gun shows. If I even suggested to a dealer to sell a gun to me under the table he'd tell me to f*ck off and die.


It’s a very naive hope, too.


It is trampling over rights and you don’t know what the militia is.

At the moment I have bigger fish to fry so I’ll end with this FOR NOW.

BTW, maybe you need to find some kind of hobby. You’re so far out of your league on this subject that I don’t know whether to cry for you or laugh at you.

If someone can get away from their abusive partner long enough to buy a gun, they can get away long enough to... well, get away.

You "ending this" will only involve you ignoring 5% more of my posts.

I only got dragged into this because the likes of yourself and Dox misunderstood a frankly hilarious article.

Well, duh, what if they already own the gun?
What if they are being stalked? Stalking can go on for days, weeks, or months.


Didn't end anything I just had something else on my plate at the moment.
Believe it or not some people have lives and jobs and stuff and cannot spend every waking moment online.
BTW, I know how to reply to your post before you even know what you’re going to write.
If you go back about five years you’ll see that I have long experience in these gunz-r-bad threads and anything you can bring up has already been brought up and shot down before.


Yes, well if it was meant to be humorous it’s still close enough to the kind of hysteria the anti-gun crowd is notorious for spewing. We can’t always tell.