[CTphpnwb]

Atli, on 16 December 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Which is easier to obtain over there: a license to own a gun, or a license to drive a car?

You don't need a license to own a gun in the US. Some states require registration and permits, but there is no standard, and there a many loopholes. Driving licenses are fairly easy to get, but probably harder than gun permits in most places.

[CTphpnwb]

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

What I said was that the level of crime dropped in the area where the potential criminal knows his odds of running a victim who is armed is greater. They either don't do the crime or they do it in a place where it's not as likely they'll end up dead for their troubles. Since you acknowledged that then your next suggestion (that if all areas were equally as hazardous to their activities = they'll ignore the hazard and do the crime anyway) is nothing more than the product of your bias and is entirely disconnected from reality. For your assertion to be true, the compulsion to commit the crime must be so strong as to override the universal increased hazard to their health...which suggests that there is a mental defect to the makeup of a felon (as opposed to the usually trotted out "socio-economic" bases). That, of course, has not been suggested by anyone primarily because it's entirely delusional and patently ridiculous.

They're criminals, and they've already decided to take the risk (to their health) of committing the crime! All you've shown is that they're not entirely stupid, so they'll choose to take a lower risk when an obvious one is present. There is no need to assume anything else about them, and you can't assume that if you increase the risk (slightly) in all other towns they'll make a new calculation and decide to go straight. That would be delusional.

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I'll be pleased to hear your solution for solving crime rates via the disarming of future felons (as opposed to everyone).

Right, since we can't stop all crime we should make no effort to stop any.

[farrell2k]

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Now, if we could either work on making mental health care a lot more accessible

Not possible here. Insurance companies would weasel out of paying, and any politician who tried to change that would be branded an evil "Socialist".

dorknexus, on 16 December 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

If you give a drunk a car, you can expect bad shit to happen. We don't ban alcohol or cars.
If you give a mentally unstable individual a gun, you can expect bad shit to happen. We want to ban guns?

I don't really understand this obsession with targeting the means rather than the man. What happened to sense and reason?

Yep. You cannot even trust people to not hurt you with their cars, so why would any rational individual add even more to the mix by trusting a complete stranger to also carry a loaded gun around them? On the other hand, a gun only has one purpose, to kill during defense or assault. Cars and booze aren't designed to kill. Most car related deaths are accidental. Most gun deaths re not.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 16 December 2012 - 02:59 PM

[CTphpnwb]

dorknexus, on 16 December 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

If you give a drunk a car, you can expect bad shit to happen. We don't ban alcohol or cars.
If you give a mentally unstable individual a gun, you can expect bad shit to happen. We want to ban guns?

I don't really understand this obsession with targeting the means rather than the man. What happened to sense and reason?

Gun regulations are supposed to be designed to target man, but the NRA waters them down because they represent gun makers who make their money selling guns and who don't want any limits on who they can sell to. Nobody's saying guns should be banned, but anyone saying that some people shouldn't be allowed to buy them is seen as a threat by the NRA.

This post has been edited by CTphpnwb: 16 December 2012 - 02:55 PM

[dorknexus]

Agreed, the NRA are a bunch of conservitard lobbyists who scream bloody murder if you even have a dream about reducing access to firearms.
However, on the either side of the field are a bunch of know-nothing libtards who couldn't tell you the difference between the muzzle or breach of a firearm, attempting (and horridly failing) to regulate firearms in some meaningful way.

That's because both sides are arguing from platforms of emotion and so nothing that actually improves public safety get's done.

[Python_4_President]

dorknexus, on 16 December 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

However, on the either side of the field are a bunch of know-nothing libtards who couldn't tell you the difference between the muzzle or breach of a firearm, attempting (and horridly failing) to regulate firearms in some meaningful way.

Hahaha, that reminded me of this:

WHAT'S A BARREL SHROUD CAROLYN MCCARTHY?
A.) It's the shoulder thing that goes up!

This post has been edited by Python_4_President: 16 December 2012 - 03:26 PM

[dorknexus]

"I have no idea what this legislation actually means, but I fully support it." DERP.

[farrell2k]

dorknexus, on 16 December 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

However, on the either side of the field are a bunch of know-nothing libtards who couldn't tell you the difference between the muzzle or breach of a firearm, attempting (and horridly failing) to regulate firearms in some meaningful way.

One doesn't really need to know much about guns other than they are only dangerous in the hands of people, as their sole purpose is to inflict bodily damage against another, so limiting people's exposure to them should be a priority. In fact, one would think it would be an important goal to a country supposedly founded upon "Judeo-Christian" values, according to the loony right-wingers. But then again, if that were actually true, we all would have followed Jesus' advice in Matthew 19:21, and none of us would have a computer and Internet access with which to argue these things, as we'd all be too busy actually following Jesus.

[jon.kiparsky]

dorknexus, on 16 December 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Agreed, the NRA are a bunch of conservitard lobbyists who scream bloody murder if you even have a dream about reducing access to firearms.
However, on the either side of the field are a bunch of know-nothing libtards who couldn't tell you the difference between the muzzle or breach of a firearm, attempting (and horridly failing) to regulate firearms in some meaningful way.

That's because both sides are arguing from platforms of emotion and so nothing that actually improves public safety get's done.

And don't forget, somewhere in there are a bunch of techtards who think that you have to know a bunch of gun-parts jargon if you want to talk about policy issues.

[dorknexus]

Yeah cause when a bunch of people get together and try to pass a law about something they do not understand, it's a good thing. <Cough> SOPA <Cough>

All you need to know is, the tubes are dangerous.

[Atli]

The difference here is that the danger of guns is obvious. You don't have to know what a barrel shroud is to realize the danger of ANY gun, and why regulating them is a good thing. The people trying to pass SOPA, and other such nonsense, have no clue what the hell they are trying to "protect" people from. They were just nodding their heads along with the crowd, all the while thinking: "What the hell is happening here? Why are these music reps handing out buckets of cash?! Actually, who the fuck cares!!"

[farrell2k]

dorknexus, on 16 December 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

Yeah cause when a bunch of people get together and try to pass a law about something they do not understand, it's a good thing. <Cough> SOPA <Cough>

All you need to know is, the tubes are dangerous.

You have committed what is known as the fallacy of false equivalence.

[dorknexus]

Millions of people exercise safe and responsible gun ownership in this country every single day and would never use firearms in anger or aggression against anyone, regardless of the kind of firearm it is. However, there are certain kinds of people out there who are a threat to public safety regardless of the weapons they might choose. So again, this should really be a mental health debate and not a gun-grabbing debate.

No amount of gun regulation in the world is going to stop someone with a mental health problem from killing and/or injuring people.

Quote

You don't have to know what a barrel shroud is to realize the danger of ANY gun,

No, but when you do know what a barrel shroud is, you realize passing laws restricting their use is asinine and doesn't make anyone safer. Maybe they could pass more effective legislation if they actually understood what it was they were legislating.

This post has been edited by dorknexus: 16 December 2012 - 04:52 PM

[Atli]

Quote

No amount of gun regulation in the world is going to stop someone with a mental health problem from killing and/or injuring people.

True, but restricting their access to certain types of weapons will reduce the damage when/if they go off on a killing spree. You won't kill 27 people with a knife before somebody takes you down.

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

Yeah cause when a bunch of people get together and try to pass a law about something they do not understand, it's a good thing. <Cough> SOPA <Cough>

Oh, let's don't be stupid. The decision will be made, and it will not be made just by a bunch of gun nerds who know the specs for every handgun and rifle on the market for the last fifty years, which is a good thing, since we'd like to include some thoughts from people who might be busy knowing about things other than guns.

So, if you're one of the gun nerds, what do you do? Dismiss everything said by someone who doesn't spend all of their spare time obsessively collecting gun trivia and practicing shooting, or try to bring some of this famous knowledge of yours to the discussion and enlighten the rest of us?

Let's play a fun game: it's called "be smart at me". It goes like this:

Assume there is to be a gun-control policy, at the national level. Assume the goal of that policy is to prevent, as much as possible, human death and injury from handguns, considering both crimes and accidental deaths, and also to prevent as much as possible the use of guns in the commission of crime. Assume that registration and licensing are two tools available to execute this policy, and that restrictions on type and configuration of weapon and type of ammunition is also available as a tool. Other tools may be considered, the policy need not be limited to these devices.

You, as a nationally recognized expert on weapons of all sorts, are asked to advise this panel on the formation and the execution of this policy.

What is your advice?

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 16 December 2012 - 04:57 PM