Mark Steel on NRA reaction to Boston bomb. Genius

Page 6 of 12 [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

30 Apr 2013, 10:41 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
I don’t agree with gun control. Gun control of any kind is an infringement. We gun culture people grudgingly put up with what we've been saddled with at the time but it cannot be proven that the laws we have to live with now are effective.


Politically, that may be a fair statement. But you're on the wrong side of the law. The United States Supreme Court--which is the only body capable of rendering a final decision on the meaning of the Constitution--has already said that not all regulation is infringement. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept that this is the state of the law. Whether regulations are effective or not, is irrelevant. The relevant issue is whether they are constitutional.

No, actually I don’t have to accept anything.

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
"Real-time” is what it is and I have no desire to “fly” with you. I have literally flown over you unless you were out of town that day so that’ll have to suffice for your flying with me fantasies.
By stopping violence real-time I meant individual acts of violence by directly and personally neutralizing the threat on the spot as it happens by whatever means necessary.
For long term we have to figure out what the root cause is (we’ll never agree) and what should and can be done to curb (not end) it long term (we’d never agree on that, either).


So what of my argument that government does deal in the instant case, but deals in the aggregate? If you can't address my whole argument, you're not even airborne.

You’re on an entirely different page than me. Probably in a different book for that matter. :?

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
“I see self-control as the root cause.
You see it as an income disparity but income depends on what you do, where you do it, and who you do it for. It will never be equal.
No point delving further into either because you know and I know we won’t agree with each other.


There is every point, because neither of us know if the other is right, and both of us can nonetheless evaluate policy choices in the framework of alternative theories of causation.

Now, for my part, I have academic studies to back up my argument that inequality and violence are correlated. Have you got academic studies on self-control? That is not meant to be a snide question. I am asking whether your view of causation is based on an intuitive understanding of violence, or whether this has, in fact been studied. If it has, I would like to read up on it.

No, it’s more like condescension with a teaspoon of snarkyness for flavor but you know that does not bother me since I am the proud embodiment of all things uncivil. :twisted:

As for the academic study on self-control; no I don’t haven’t done a study and I don’t have someone else’s on hand to refer to since human behavior is not my field of endeavor.
Nonetheless I’ll still voice my opinion on the subject as I see fit. I don't go in for that dogma that one must have a study to refer to or be a scholar of a particular subject to have an opinion of their own. Read what you want into it.

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
The idea is to not give government any more tasks to make a bureaucratic mess of than it already has. As it stands now a NICS check at point of transfer is about all government can competently handle and they cannot always handle that well.

But that doesn't answer the question. If firearms need to be kept out of the hands of certain classes of people, and if those people will not self-identify, then who will perform that necessary task? Who can be trusted to do it? Whether government is overloaded or not, that does not permit government to abdicate its responsibility for the safety and security of the citizenry. And if government isn't doing its job properly, then it is incumbent upon citizens and the legislature to inquire as to the reasons for that, and provide government with the resources and remove the impediments to that job being done properly.


My point was, not that it’ll do any good to reiterate or even clarify, is that we have that control in place already. It does not catch everything and nothing ever will catch everything. I don’t want to see the government get it’s mitts on any more in an ill-fated attempt to do what it can’t do.
It’s important to remember that you are an embracer of government and I am generally untrusting of government and see it as a necessary evil to be used sparingly.

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
The question isn't a need of cultural change but what exactly is broken and how to fix it.
Neither side will agree on either since right and left are as much cultural as anything.


What is broken is a social concensus that it is appropriate to rely upon violence to enforce affronts to personal rights, and that it is appropriate for individuals to appropriate the enforcement jurisdiction of government. Sides don't have to agree on anything where cultural change is concerned. All it takes is one citizen at a time, coming around to a different way of seeing and understanding things.

It’s appropriate to meet force with force. We’ve been over this before.

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Nice try. :roll:


But interestingly, you can't actually rebut what I said.

I forgot what I even responding to. Always remember, though, that I can always toss in a rebuttal of some kind.

visagrunt wrote:
You have projected opinions and positions on to me that are not grounded in what I have said. You say I'm not neutral. I'm not. I never have been. I am fully taking the side I want to, which is that neither of the polar extremes in this debate are right. I can back up my claim. Can you?

If you’re talking about debates in this forum I can say with certainly that the pro-gun side has at least brought rational points to the table. All I’ve seen from the anti-gun side is canned rhetoric that’s as old, stale, and flawed as the anti-gun movement itself.
If you've actually seen a valid anti-gun argument in these forums please copy and past the link to it here.

Raptor wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Already been addressed above. The bottom line is that deep down you think guns are icky and an armed society is a cowardly society. With that I can't see much hope of progress being made here.


I think nothing of the kind. You appear to make the assumption that everyone who disagrees with you in substance can automatically be lumped together into one political category. Your thinking is polarized and uncritical.

I am a firearms owner and user. I have a Possession and Acquisition License. I support a general freedom to possess and use firearms, within a reasonable and transparent regulatory framework. I believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with firearms possession and use, provided that their possession and use is responsible, and I believe that government has a role to play in ensuring that possession and use are responsible.

So how come you’re just now coming out as a gun owner??? There have been scores of these debates and this is the first I’ve noticed you admitting to being a gun owner.
I’ve had the displeasure of knowing enough anti-gun gun owners.
“Oh, I have a handgun for personal protection and I think people should have the right to that kind of protection BUT assault weapons really should be banned”.
Or
“I have guns and go shooting but I really think all guns should be registered”
I could go on but this is a sample the kind of nuttiness I’ve actually heard.
I spend a lot of time at the shooting range. Not just me shooting but I’m also a volunteer range safely officer so I get to hear a lots and lots unsolicited opinions and “facts”. :roll: :roll:

visagrunt wrote:
Now, my beliefs may be misguided, and it may be that your government is so dysfunctional that it can never play such a role. But I do not believe either of those things to be the case.

Ah yes! There it is; the “my dog is better than dog” taunt that I just knew you'd have to toss in here somewhere.
May as well arguing on the kindergarten playground.

visagrunt wrote:
But I'm willing to have an adult conversation about it. Are you?

As long as I fully agree that we need a Canadian to tell us how to run our country I bet you are willing.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

01 May 2013, 1:01 am

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
Raptor wrote:
I don’t agree with gun control. Gun control of any kind is an infringement. We gun culture people grudgingly put up with what we've been saddled with at the time but it cannot be proven that the laws we have to live with now are effective.


Sorry, but you're wrong.

You wish. :lol:
Quote:
You can make the argument all day long that gun control is ineffective, but you *cannot* make the argument that any regulation is an infringement of the second amendment - because it has no basis in law. Rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution are not unlimited (DC v. Heller), which is the entire point behind the judicial system. My right to swing my arms freely stops where my fist meets your face.

What's the rationale behind gun control other than giving the hand wringers something to feel good about?


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

01 May 2013, 4:42 am

I'll catch this debate again next time around. My IRL social life got busy! :)


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

01 May 2013, 7:04 am

Raptor wrote:
What's the rationale behind gun control other than giving the hand wringers something to feel good about?


Same rationale that's behind forcing bars to check ID of the people who might be underage - if you don't have the check, then the law is as good as useless. But, that wasn't the point you made - you said "Gun Control of any kind is an infringement" - which is the same argument as "the second amendment right is absolute". That statement has no basis in fact *or* law. No rights can be absolute in any kind of society - because by definition you are consenting to limit your freedoms in exchange for the benefits of society.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

01 May 2013, 7:43 am

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
Raptor wrote:
What's the rationale behind gun control other than giving the hand wringers something to feel good about?


Same rationale that's behind forcing bars to check ID of the people who might be underage - if you don't have the check, then the law is as good as useless. But, that wasn't the point you made - you said "Gun Control of any kind is an infringement" - which is the same argument as "the second amendment right is absolute". That statement has no basis in fact *or* law. No rights can be absolute in any kind of society - because by definition you are consenting to limit your freedoms in exchange for the benefits of society.
i disagree with analogy.
there is a diference between slight possible result and definate result.
only a miniscule portion of gun owners are criminals.however alchohol always gets gets people drunk.so keeping alchohol from people to young to handle its affects and keeping guns from everyone in order to keep guns from the dangerous 1% of the population is two different things


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 May 2013, 8:47 am

Any person on the No Fly list or who has relatives on the No Fly lists should not be allowed to purchase pressure cookers.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

01 May 2013, 11:39 am

Raptor wrote:
No, actually I don’t have to accept anything.


Whether you accept it or not, the law is the law.

Quote:
You’re on an entirely different page than me. Probably in a different book for that matter. :?


This is likely the case. That doesn't mean that there isn't still a discussion worth having.

Quote:
No, it’s more like condescension with a teaspoon of snarkyness for flavor but you know that does not bother me since I am the proud embodiment of all things uncivil. :twisted:

As for the academic study on self-control; no I don’t haven’t done a study and I don’t have someone else’s on hand to refer to since human behavior is not my field of endeavor.
Nonetheless I’ll still voice my opinion on the subject as I see fit. I don't go in for that dogma that one must have a study to refer to or be a scholar of a particular subject to have an opinion of their own. Read what you want into it.


Fair enough. I like to frame my opinions based on evidence and scholarly literature. My intuition has been wrong often enough that I value research, but that's by no means obligatory.

Quote:
My point was, not that it’ll do any good to reiterate or even clarify, is that we have that control in place already. It does not catch everything and nothing ever will catch everything. I don’t want to see the government get it’s mitts on any more in an ill-fated attempt to do what it can’t do.
It’s important to remember that you are an embracer of government and I am generally untrusting of government and see it as a necessary evil to be used sparingly.


I think it's a point very much worth repeating. At a fundamental level, a person's trust or distrust of government is going to be influenced by experience. If you are living in a jurisdiction in which goverment has done a poor job of implementation, your distrust is perfectly rational.

So why can't government do its job properly? Is it under-resourced? Are there legal impediments in its way? Are there lacunae in the regulations that are being exploited? If there are ways of making existing controls work better, what are they? I think that these are all questions that are worth asking.

Quote:
It’s appropriate to meet force with force. We’ve been over this before.


I don't entirely disagree, but I do think that meeting force with force should be exceptional rather than typical. So there's the cultural gap between us.

Now the question is, which way are individuals in the body politic moving on this political question? Over the last 80 years, there has been a steady movement over to your side; but now I think it is poised to start moving back in the other direction.

Quote:
So how come you’re just now coming out as a gun owner??? There have been scores of these debates and this is the first I’ve noticed you admitting to being a gun owner.
I’ve had the displeasure of knowing enough anti-gun gun owners.
“Oh, I have a handgun for personal protection and I think people should have the right to that kind of protection BUT assault weapons really should be banned”.
Or
“I have guns and go shooting but I really think all guns should be registered”
I could go on but this is a sample the kind of nuttiness I’ve actually heard.
I spend a lot of time at the shooting range. Not just me shooting but I’m also a volunteer range safely officer so I get to hear a lots and lots unsolicited opinions and “facts”. :roll: :roll:


Because the question of whether or not I am a firearms owner is entirely irrelevant to the question of what an appropriate regulatory framework is, or to the role that culture plays in the abuse of firearms. The question only became relevant when you made assumptions about my personal feelings about firearms.

It seems to me that you are engaged in an exercise of "playing the man, not the ball." By dismissing people as "anti-gun gun owners," you never need to engage in a substantive dialogue. You rely on the "no true Scotsman," fallacy.

Quote:
Ah yes! There it is; the “my dog is better than dog” taunt that I just knew you'd have to toss in here somewhere.
May as well arguing on the kindergarten playground.


There was nothing of the "my dog is better than your dog," in what I said. I said, "These are my views. They might be wrong, but I don't think that they are." How do you get, "my dog is better than your dog," from that?

Quote:
As long as I fully agree that we need a Canadian to tell us how to run our country I bet you are willing.


I'm not telling you how to run your country. I'm making observations about how our two countries are different, and I think we both might learn from that.

Take from it as much or as little as you will. I know I will never persuade you, but that doesn't make the conversation valueless.


_________________
--James


Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

01 May 2013, 12:00 pm

And here in the pressure cooker comes truth.

Everyone is wrong about gun control.

Regulations are needed, but the main problem is, some people rob other people's houses for a living, and even if convicted felons, who can not even handle a gun, will steal one.

Almost all the killing around here is drug related, and the gun was not legal. We turn up some that have been connected to shootings in Chicago, where stolen, then Memphis, Jackson, then in New Orleans.

Felons will not pass the background check, but they try.

Crime does not come from the brighter, it is trial and error from the least.

Long guns are rarely used in crimes. small hand guns are the favored weapon.

It is people control, and at least 10% of America should never have, touch, use, a gun, for anything.

On the other end, machine guns are legal, if you have the permit to buy one.

As someone trained at a white shooters camp, BSA, I got the merit badge, which calls for hitting what you aim at, safe handling, and cleaning. As a teen I carried a rifle around in a case on foot from the Scouts back and forth to my house.

Ten years later boys younger than me were carrying guns in Viet Nam.

I was trained by my uncle, who hunted snipers in the south Pacific. He taught me that one shot had better work. Only hits count.

Maintaining a gun culture come in useful in war. This includes hunting skills, one shot kills, and being at home in the woods.

It is a skill, and the other side is being a bullet catcher who clears mine fields by walking through them.

This is nothing you would learn in basic training in six weeks.

In Afganistan they drive to work in huge trucks that can be heard for ten miles. Even Elmer Fudd knew better.

A plan is always needed, for Sandy Hook, the police showed up in 22 minutes. At your home expect longer, and I grew up sixteen miles out in the country. The defense of you and yours is always on you.

My uncle did not think much of Government training. They taught to obey the government. That will not win wars.

It is the same with the self defense of you and yours, the police are there to write a report sometime later. Burgler or homeowner is all the same to them, just another body, some overtime.

Since they claim to be so great, we should send the Government and Police to Afganistan. One way or the other, problem solved.

Our wars are fought by twenty year olds, now conditioned to avoid weapons, and not defend their country. They get sent somewhere, kill a lot of civilians, chant USA#1, and wonder why they get killed.

After the fall of the government, the slaughter of the politically correct multicultural army, we will still have to defend our country, falling back on the skills of ages.

This is why it always falls on the People, to be the main defense of Their Nation. That is why a standing army is a threat. It is a false idea of defense.

It was a citizen army that slaughtered the Japanese back to Japan.

It was a Government Army that lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, and could not win Korea II.

War is an ugly business, and the only thing worse is losing.

Boston got bombed because the Government did not follow up on a strong report from the Russians.

The same was said of Pearl Harbor.

With all the arms being pumped into the Mid East, North Africa, the next front could be France.

A standing army will bankrupt the country.

All of these problems are very old, our ancestors knew them.

An armed population is the only security.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

01 May 2013, 12:09 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
Raptor wrote:
What's the rationale behind gun control other than giving the hand wringers something to feel good about?

Same rationale that's behind forcing bars to check ID of the people who might be underage - if you don't have the check, then the law is as good as useless.

Consumption and serving of alcoholic beverages is an act and there lies the difference between that and an object.
Should we control water (ALL water) because there have been so many deaths by drowning?

Quote:
No rights can be absolute in any kind of society - because by definition you are consenting to limit your freedoms in exchange for the benefits of society.

And what benefits of society am I or anyone else reaping from gun control?
I don't know what your goal is here but it won't be reached with me. You claim to be pro-gun yet insist on shitpicking and handwringing over such inane details like this with others who are pro-gun just to try to get one up on them for whatever reason.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,458
Location: Reading, England

01 May 2013, 1:17 pm

Raptor wrote:
sliqua-jcooter wrote:
Raptor wrote:
What's the rationale behind gun control other than giving the hand wringers something to feel good about?

Same rationale that's behind forcing bars to check ID of the people who might be underage - if you don't have the check, then the law is as good as useless.

Consumption and serving of alcoholic beverages is an act and there lies the difference between that and an object.

Okay then, let's control the acts of selling, using, hiring, or possessing a gun. Guns can continue to exist as long as nobody owns or uses them.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

01 May 2013, 1:50 pm

/\ /\ /\ /\

Image


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Last edited by Raptor on 01 May 2013, 3:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

01 May 2013, 2:41 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
No, actually I don’t have to accept anything.

Whether you accept it or not, the law is the law.

Whatever……

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
You’re on an entirely different page than me. Probably in a different book for that matter. :?

This is likely the case. That doesn't mean that there isn't still a discussion worth having.

Look back over time and you’ll see that you and I have discussed all of the topics in these last few posts time and time again.
To what avail?

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
No, it’s more like condescension with a teaspoon of snarkyness for flavor but you know that does not bother me since I am the proud embodiment of all things uncivil. :twisted:

As for the academic study on self-control; no I don’t haven’t done a study and I don’t have someone else’s on hand to refer to since human behavior is not my field of endeavor.
Nonetheless I’ll still voice my opinion on the subject as I see fit. I don't go in for that dogma that one must have a study to refer to or be a scholar of a particular subject to have an opinion of their own. Read what you want into it.


Fair enough. I like to frame my opinions based on evidence and scholarly literature. My intuition has been wrong often enough that I value research, but that's by no means obligatory.


visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
My point was, not that it’ll do any good to reiterate or even clarify, is that we have that control in place already. It does not catch everything and nothing ever will catch everything. I don’t want to see the government get it’s mitts on any more in an ill-fated attempt to do what it can’t do.
It’s important to remember that you are an embracer of government and I am generally untrusting of government and see it as a necessary evil to be used sparingly.


I think it's a point very much worth repeating. At a fundamental level, a person's trust or distrust of government is going to be influenced by experience. If you are living in a jurisdiction in which goverment has done a poor job of implementation, your distrust is perfectly rational.

Everyone lives in a jurisdiction of poor job implementation by the government. Every ounce of efficiency you observe is only what’s been boiled down from pounds of inefficiency and bureaucratic BS.

Quote:
So why can't government do its job properly? Is it under-resourced? Are there legal impediments in its way? Are there lacunae in the regulations that are being exploited? If there are ways of making existing controls work better, what are they? I think that these are all questions that are worth asking.


You and I have discussed at length our personal experiences in working for the government both civil service and in my case as a contractor employee working directly with the a government agency in their house.

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
It’s appropriate to meet force with force. We’ve been over this before.


I don't entirely disagree, but I do think that meeting force with force should be exceptional rather than typical. So there's the cultural gap between us.

You do what ya gotta do at the time you cross paths with the wolf, not discus culture and fine arts or whatever with him.

Quote:
Now the question is, which way are individuals in the body politic moving on this political question? Over the last 80 years, there has been a steady movement over to your side; but now I think it is poised to start moving back in the other direction.

Right now there a lot of people on the dole, a lot of it due to the recent economy, and that influences their judgment at the polls. I figure that will change sooner or later the only question is would be how the republicans accommodate that shift the next time.

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
So how come you’re just now coming out as a gun owner??? There have been scores of these debates and this is the first I’ve noticed you admitting to being a gun owner.
I’ve had the displeasure of knowing enough anti-gun gun owners.
“Oh, I have a handgun for personal protection and I think people should have the right to that kind of protection BUT assault weapons really should be banned”.
Or
“I have guns and go shooting but I really think all guns should be registered”
I could go on but this is a sample the kind of nuttiness I’ve actually heard.
I spend a lot of time at the shooting range. Not just me shooting but I’m also a volunteer range safely officer so I get to hear a lots and lots unsolicited opinions and “facts”. :roll: :roll:


Because the question of whether or not I am a firearms owner is entirely irrelevant to the question of what an appropriate regulatory framework is, or to the role that culture plays in the abuse of firearms. The question only became relevant when you made assumptions about my personal feelings about firearms.

It’s not irrelevant. Having a vested interest in something can add considerable weight.

Quote:
It seems to me that you are engaged in an exercise of "playing the man, not the ball." By dismissing people as "anti-gun gun owners," you never need to engage in a substantive dialogue. You rely on the "no true Scotsman," fallacy.

It’s pretty much a black and white topic and I along with others have spent hours upon hours explaining it in this forum over the years. I’ll go as far as to say that it has a shade of dark gray at one end and light gray at the other but I’ll never agree that there is a third side to this.

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Ah yes! There it is; the “my dog is better than dog” taunt that I just knew you'd have to toss in here somewhere.
May as well arguing on the kindergarten playground.


There was nothing of the "my dog is better than your dog," in what I said. I said, "These are my views. They might be wrong, but I don't think that they are." How do you get, "my dog is better than your dog," from that?

Um, yes there was. You constantly imply that your government or even your country is better than mine. It doesn't take a genius to see the analogy.

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
As long as I fully agree that we need a Canadian to tell us how to run our country I bet you are willing.

I'm not telling you how to run your country. I'm making observations about how our two countries are different, and I think we both might learn from that.

Uh huh….. :roll:

Quote:
Take from it as much or as little as you will. I know I will never persuade you, but that doesn't make the conversation valueless.

It’s valueless but so are all the other gunz-r-bad debates we have here.
Oh well….


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

02 May 2013, 4:19 am

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
Moreover, the second amendment doesn't just guarantee the right to keep arms, but also to bear arms. Taken literally and absolutely, that would mean that "shooting whenever they felt like it" *would* be protected under the Constitution, and that laws against brandishing and assault with a deadly weapon would be infringements on that right. Obviously, this is insane.


Arguing with strawmen is never a good use of your time; "bearing arms" has nothing to do with committing crimes, and no one here is advocating legalizing assault and murder, that's just silly. Not even a 2nd Amendment absolutist would argue that, and I doubt you'd be able to find someone who has actually made that argument in seriousness. I would actually like to see the brandishing, menacing, wielding, etc laws looked into, as they are often used to abuse open carriers, and tend to be vaguely written enough to qualify for review if nothing else.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

02 May 2013, 4:27 am

visagrunt wrote:
Ah, but Dox47, you aren't arguing from either of the poles. My whole point is that there are not only two sides to this question. I venture to say that you and I are probably the only people who are arguing from the centre.

I am somewhat left of centre, in that I take the view that government can and should have a role to play in addressing violence; and I suspect (but stand to be corrected) that you take a view that government attempts to do that are doomed to become unreasonable exercises.

But in essence, I believe that our thinking is roughly aligned.


Ahh, I took your usage of "poles" less literally than I should have. I would agree that were on different pages in the same chapter, but I wouldn't really characterize myself as arguing from the center, I'm more of a gun rights absolutist who happens to be able to make my case in a variety of ways, many of them more nuanced than the standard stuff you tend to see in these arguments.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

02 May 2013, 4:57 am

The_Walrus wrote:
I deliberately didn't say "gun control reduces the murder rate", because of that lack of evidence. I said it would help to cut out mass shootings, as it has in Australia. I don't think it is clear by any means, and I often get lambasted by fellow liberals for saying the evidence isn't clear cut and it might not reduce violent crime at all. I do think it will reduce accidents and suicides, and may cut out a few murders. I also think it could (but might well not) be the beginning of the end for the gun culture in America and would consequently cause long term reductions in crime.


I'm particularly interested in the part in bold. Given that you're arguing with me, I take it you're prepared to back up that assertion that "the gun culture" in America is responsible for a lot of crime? Some studies and citations, perhaps?

The_Walrus wrote:
You can cry all you like about rates of violence not actually falling in Australia, but that shows a lack of interest in saving any lives whatsoever.


Who's crying? Also, it merely shows that I'm not interested in trampling upon the rights of tens of millions to save less people than are struck by lightening every year. Let's not forget that I've repeatedly proposed a policy that would save more lives than a complete firearms ban; ending the drug war. but I'm the cold blooded one because I oppose an infective policy that might save dozens of lives while proposing one to save millions...


The_Walrus wrote:
I chose that example because it was being used by the likes of yourself and Jacoby and Raptor (not necessarily those individuals) as evidence that lunatics will be lunatics regardless of whether they have access to guns, around the time of the Sandy Hook shootings.

The lack of weapon may well not suppress violent urges, but it will make it harder to inflict serious damage.

I would suggest that the UK's weapons control will be an unambiguous case of weapons control successfully cutting the murder rate in a few years, once we have enough data points for studies to be done, but obviously that is speculation. The reduction in murders has come despite the socio-economic problems in this country (such as poverty, unemployment and inequality) getting steadily worse as the economy flatlines, police budgets being slashed, and crime reporting falling by a less than statistically significant amount.


So in a few more years, you think you'll have the proof... Okay.

The_Walrus wrote:
This is argument is comparable to me saying "America leads the developed world in murders and gun ownership, therefore if they cut out guns there would be a reduction in murders".


I couldn't figure out what you were talking about here. Here's the unedited quote of me that you were responding to:
Quote:
They do count less than murders as far as the appropriateness of government interference as a remedy; suicide is a personal matter, and accidents are both small in number and easily addressed through safety classes. The NRA offers classes for free and will even come to your classroom, if you let them. I would also point out that the US, despite our position atop the civilian gun possession pyramid, does not lead the world in suicides, not even close. The Japanese, for example, manage to off themselves in greater numbers than we do, despite their nearly complete lack of firearms.


What part of my statement does your post refer to?

The_Walrus wrote:
See my earlier answer.


You prefer to step on millions to save dozens using ineffective government regulations. Got it.

The_Walrus wrote:
We haven't really blanketed our country in surveillance cameras. Shop owners blanket their shops in surveillance cameras. And seriously, you need to sort your priorities out if you think that's worse than violent crime.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance
Quote:
At the end of 2006, the UK was described by the Surveillance Studies Network as being 'the most surveilled country' among the industrialized Western states.[5] Although, the report this was based on has since been disputed. The original study states that there are ~4.2m CCTV Cameras in operation in the UK, a new report in 2011 shows that there are actually ~1.85m cameras in operation in the UK,[6] 92% of which, being privately owned.

On 6 February 2009 a report by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Surveillance: Citizens and the State,[7] warned that increasing use of surveillance by the government and private companies is a serious threat to freedoms and constitutional rights, stating that "The expansion in the use of surveillance represents one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the Second World War. Mass surveillance has the potential to erode privacy. As privacy is an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom, its erosion weakens the constitutional foundations on which democracy and good governance have traditionally been based in this country."


I'm worried about the continued erosion of civil liberties and privacy protections from an ever encroaching state, while you worry about a statistically rare crime that you're more likely to die falling out of bead in the morning than be affected by, and yet I'm the one with the mixed up priorities?

The_Walrus wrote:
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Firearms don't exist naturally, so it seems a stretch to say that the right to own and operate firearms exists naturally, if indeed rights exist naturally at all.


I have a right to self preservation, which includes a right to self defense, which necessitates access to the proper tools. Not sure I can simplify it further.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

02 May 2013, 11:42 am

Raptor wrote:
Whatever……

Look back over time and you’ll see that you and I have discussed all of the topics in these last few posts time and time again.
To what avail?
...
Everyone lives in a jurisdiction of poor job implementation by the government. Every ounce of efficiency you observe is only what’s been boiled down from pounds of inefficiency and bureaucratic BS.
...
You and I have discussed at length our personal experiences in working for the government both civil service and in my case as a contractor employee working directly with the a government agency in their house.
...
You do what ya gotta do at the time you cross paths with the wolf, not discus culture and fine arts or whatever with him.
...
Right now there a lot of people on the dole, a lot of it due to the recent economy, and that influences their judgment at the polls. I figure that will change sooner or later the only question is would be how the republicans accommodate that shift the next time.
...
It’s not irrelevant. Having a vested interest in something can add considerable weight.
...
It’s pretty much a black and white topic and I along with others have spent hours upon hours explaining it in this forum over the years. I’ll go as far as to say that it has a shade of dark gray at one end and light gray at the other but I’ll never agree that there is a third side to this.
...
Um, yes there was. You constantly imply that your government or even your country is better than mine. It doesn't take a genius to see the analogy.
...
Uh huh….. :roll:
...
It’s valueless but so are all the other gunz-r-bad debates we have here.
Oh well….


And there we have it. The intellectual capacity of Raptor's argument. The cupboard is bare.

And that's why the cultural shift is going to take place, because there aren't enough people like Dox47 to stop it.


_________________
--James