Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we regulate guns ... ?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
(2)
Message 14 of 955 (686372)
12-31-2012 3:09 PM


Given where you are, to make any difference at all, you'd have to get properly harsh.
An outright ban on the ownership of handguns and assault weapons. A recall of existing guns in those categories and strong Federal - not state - licensing of hunting rifles and shotguns.
And don't dick about splitting hairs with definitions.
Good luck with all that.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
(1)
Message 41 of 955 (686439)
01-01-2013 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
01-01-2013 1:17 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
Jar writes:
Any gun is capable of mass killings. Any knife is capable of mass killings. Any car is capable of mass killings.
Knives are obviously not quite as efficient as assault rifles - Sean Connery's line 'only an idiot brings a knife to a gun fight' is fairly instructive - but I Googled 'knife massacre' anyway and found this:
Hong Kong (CNN) -- On Friday morning, a man walked through the entrance of an elementary school and, without warning, began ruthlessly cutting down children at the school. Before he was subdued, nearly two dozen were hit.
While it sounds like the horrific massacre in Connecticut, this attack took place about 8,000 miles away in central China. And while several of the victims were reported in critical condition, none of the 22 children were killed. The 36-year-old suspect in China -- which has strict gun control laws -- attacked the children with a knife, according to local reports.
"The huge difference between this case and the U.S. is not the suspect, nor the situation, but the simple fact he did not have an effective weapon," said Dr. Ding Xueliang, a Harvard-educated sociologist at the University of Science and Technology in Hong Kong.
Then there's cars.
A lot can be said about the relative efficiency of committing murder with cars versus guns, but unlike guns, cars are made for other purposes than killing.
They have massive benefits for society and all societies have accepted the downside that they cause injury and death also. The compromise is that we highly regulate cars with speed control, licencing, proficiency testing, safety equipment and so on.
But really, it's totally spurious to say that because cars and knives cause death, we should not try to do something about guns causing death.
This is just the false choice fallacy; the task is to reduce risk, not to cure all societies problems at once or do nothing at all.
Sorry but while mass killings are a tragedy, they are still a real anomaly.
They are, but they are an increasingly frequent anomoly and they're having a disproportionatly chilling effect on your society as a whole.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 01-01-2013 1:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 01-01-2013 2:42 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 43 of 955 (686442)
01-01-2013 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
01-01-2013 2:42 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
Jar writes:
I doubt you have a clue what an assault rifle is so that's simply a sign of *********.
If you'd care to take a small - fuck it - large, wager on that, I'll prove otherwise. Please place you bet with Percy. (Before you do anything really stupid, know that I shot 202 rifle for my university.)
In the US though we do not highly control driving, in fact even having killed someone with a car is insufficient to stop them from driving.
Really? No speed restriction on US freeways? i feel another bet coming on. No age restrictions? No driving tests? No air bags, no, well you probably get the argument by now.
And as for knives, if I'm withing 15 or 20 feet of you a knife is as great if not a greater threat than a gun.
I feel yet another HUGE bet coming on.
Guns simply don't cause deaths.
Hmmm, but cars and knives somehow do........

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 01-01-2013 2:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 01-01-2013 5:06 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
(3)
Message 46 of 955 (686445)
01-01-2013 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Jon
01-01-2013 12:51 PM


Re: Regulation Proposal #1 owner licenses
Jon writes:
Are you just spitting out crap that feels good, or do you have some solid proof that these proposals are both effective and non-infringing on citizens' rights?
Most people outside the US find it odd that it needs proving that more guns would lead to more gun deaths. Even odder, that whilst demading proof before restricting access to guns, the NRA simultaneously prevents research to find the evidence.
Anyway, have a look at this:
States are laboratories for democracy, culture, and social policy. For example, my home state of New Jersey is #49 out of 50 in per-capita gun ownership. Only Hawaii is lower. And we are ranked #47 out of 50 in the rate of gun death. (These are good things — I am not enthusiastic at the thought of the cast of Jersey Shore packing heat.)
Based on statistics on gun ownership and deaths, the overall tendency is clear:
The three states with the highest rate of gun ownership (MT, AK, WY) have a gun death rate of 17.8 per 100,000, over 4 times that of the three lowest-ownership states (HI, NJ, MA; 4.0 gun deaths per 100,000). The relationship is a near-perfect linear proportion: on average, as G goes up, D goes up (r=+0.63). These data suggest that whether or not our society finds it desirable, gun safety/control is a plausible means of reducing gun deaths.
A striking aspect of this graph is that the rate of gun ownership varies by almost tenfold across states. Residents of different states are in very different environments, gunwise. When opponents of regulation, who are usually in gun-rich states, say that a sufficiently-determined evildoer could get a gun even under a heavy regulatory regime, that could be correct. Think of this measure as an index of gun culture.
http://election.princeton.edu/...entific-americans-gun-error

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Jon, posted 01-01-2013 12:51 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Jon, posted 01-01-2013 5:15 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2013 6:09 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 53 of 955 (686452)
01-01-2013 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
01-01-2013 5:06 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
Are you trying to make the point that because there are a number of weapons that have been called assault rifles that effective regulation can't be drafted?
Well that's just nonsense, the legislators are used to dealing with ambiguity and are perfectly capable of writing laws that work - if they're not hamstrung by those that don't want it to work that is.
If you need a leg-up start here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/5/contents/enacted

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 01-01-2013 5:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 01-01-2013 5:38 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 55 of 955 (686455)
01-01-2013 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
01-01-2013 5:38 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
I see, and how do you hope to do that? And what do you hope to achieve by it?
Are you're hoping you can sideline the material debate into a pointless definitional squabble? If so, you're wasting your time but not mine - sorry.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 01-01-2013 5:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 01-01-2013 6:03 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 10:21 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(7)
(3)
Message 73 of 955 (686479)
01-02-2013 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Coyote
01-01-2013 10:51 PM


Re: A rant in reaction to the typical feel-good solutions
I suspect the 'feel-good' liberal types in your country would also like the problems related to gang murders tackled too. I know we feel-good types in the UK did.
But it seems to me - correct me if I'm wrong - that the feel-bad types are also the right-wing types and they aren't interested in doing anything that might begin to get to grips witih the inequalities in society that may get to root causes - poverty, housing, education, health, drugs etc.
So, in the meantime, the feel-good types have an opportunity to at least make a start on fiixing some of the problem - which is gun ownership, whether you like it or not.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Coyote, posted 01-01-2013 10:51 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 84 of 955 (686507)
01-02-2013 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 10:21 AM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
crashfrog writes:
Laws have to be based on definitions
Of course and legislators spend their lives doing just that. But silly arguments about what is and what is not an assault rifle is merely a distraction strategy. The laws can be formed on rate of fire, magazine size and so on, as they have been here and elsewhere.
It's not rocket science. There'll be issues, because there always are - it doesn't stop the laws being made and being effective.
What does stop laws not working is compromised legislation forced by vested interests.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 10:21 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 12:44 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
(2)
Message 93 of 955 (686551)
01-02-2013 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 12:44 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
crashfrog writes:
Then why do you keep getting it wrong?
This is what I have said:
tangle writes:
Given where you are, to make any difference at all, you'd have to get properly harsh.
An outright ban on the ownership of handguns and assault weapons. A recall of existing guns in those categories and strong Federal - not state - licensing of hunting rifles and shotguns.
And don't dick about splitting hairs with definitions.
I have also offered as a starting point the UK Firearms Act (amended) which provides definitions of what is allowed and what isn't.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/5/contents
Given that I've never attempted a definition myself because that just leads to deliberately distracting and futile arguments like this one; it's rather hard to be wrong about it.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 12:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Genomicus, posted 01-02-2013 1:22 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 1:29 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
(2)
Message 100 of 955 (686560)
01-02-2013 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 1:29 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
crashfrog writes:
Yes, but that's what you're wrong about - the idea that you can regulate something you can't define
I know you're desperate to distract the conversation off into the undergrowth of magazine size, barrel length and calibre, but I ain't going there; it's obviously possible to define the kinds of weapons that you wish to ban as it has been done successfully in other countries.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 1:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:12 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 105 of 955 (686571)
01-02-2013 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 2:12 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
crashfrog writes:
Semi-automatic "military-style" weapons with accessory rails such as these were used in spree killings as recently as the 2010 Cumbria shootings. The firearms license for "hunting" guns such as shotguns and rifles (section 1) would allow the ownership of such a gun as this, as well.
Oh dear, an article from the Sun.
I'm more than happy to add .22 repeating rabbit guns to the list. Next?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:48 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 110 of 955 (686580)
01-02-2013 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 2:48 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
crashfrog writes:
Well, ok, but you didn't.
Yes, but that's the point of the legislation, it can be amended whenever necessary - and has been. [The obvious fact that perfection is not achievable is not a reason to do nothing.]

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 3:32 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 115 of 955 (686610)
01-02-2013 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 3:32 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
crashfrog writes:
Amended how? Amended to what extent?
If you read the link to the Act you can see exactly how the last (1997) Act was amended. There have also been numerous firearm Acts over the years. As with all laws, Governments produce and update them when they think there is a need.
"People can go back in and fix it if we fuck up" isn't a reason to do something.
Correct, the reason to do it is independent of the fact that it can be updated once done. Have a look at the version of your Operating System, does it say v1.0?
I'm sure one day we'll invent phasers and probably have to add a paragraph or two.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 3:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 4:13 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 202 of 955 (686895)
01-05-2013 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by crashfrog
01-04-2013 10:33 PM


Re: killing efficiency vs weapon of choice
Crashfrog writes:
How would I know? I still don't understand what you mean by "efficiency." Maybe a definition would help:
It seems to me, reading this post and a series of others that you've had with Percy lately and me earlier, that the heart of everyone's impatience with you and your subsequent feelings of paranoia, is your refusal to back down and stop arguing when you're obviously in the wrong.
Now you're going to say that you're not in the wrong here - of course - you think that you're being completely reasonable asking for increasing levels of definitions but to the rest of us, the position is absurd because it's simply a truism that guns are more efficient at killing than knives (or fists.)
This is not something that needs a scientific definition, nor continuous discussion. It's something we should all be able to nod in agreement on as entirely self evident and pass on to the main issue. To find ourselves arguing, at length over pedantry is extremely frustrating.
And you do it on every damn subject, once you have a position you are impervious to evidence against it and feel that you must argue impossible positions regardless of the damage it does you.
Don't you see that if you're not prepared to accept the self-evident fact that guns are efficient ways of killing a lot of people quickly without moving into equivocation and prove it mode, there just isn't going to be a way of having a rational discussion at all?
Look it must be possible to have a reasoned discussion with you, you're an intelligent guy, I just think you're actually in the 'stand your ground' mode at all times and shooting from the hip spraying points everywhere. If you took a bit more time to consider answers and produce more data, less posts and less words, you'd make more progress.
Just a thought. We could all be wrong about you, but doesn't it seem unlikely?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 10:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by crashfrog, posted 01-05-2013 9:57 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9540
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 262 of 955 (687017)
01-06-2013 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by crashfrog
01-06-2013 2:52 PM


Re: Moderator On Duty
Hi Crash - you were responding to me so I feel partly to blame. If you can put all this nonsense aside, i'd like you back and scrapping.
Oh fuck, too late.....
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by crashfrog, posted 01-06-2013 2:52 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024