The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 3981 - 4000 of total 5824 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 10:59am PT
Harry Reid-tard is a MALINGERER who has stood upon the back of his state and watched it hit the bottom.. He cant even solve Nevada problems- so thinking he is on top of natl problems probably isnt statistically possible.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 11:02am PT
By the way,, did anyone else catch that interview with a female "lawmaker" that was talking about magazines, and that they would "run out" of bullets and be USELESS ROFLMAO! Yeah,, these are the people put in charge of coming up with gun laws.. Amazingly ignorant at best.



In fact,, one would wonder why those politicians that OBVIOULSY dont even know how guns work would be the ones put in charge of coming up with logical laws.

That would be like putting a person that NEVER climbed in thier life- in charge of making laws regarding the crags. Non sense right?
frank wyman

Mountain climber
montana
Apr 4, 2013 - 11:10am PT
Darn...You mean to tell me I can use those things more than once??
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 11:13am PT
Yep Frank,, can you believe it! And here ive been chucking them in the garbage after they "ran out" LOL!
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 11:33am PT
Odds of a child getting abducted: 1:1,500,000

Way less likely than getting shot in a school.

Will a simple Brady check for a stranger on the street suffice to make them your next baby sitter?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 11:43am PT
Keep trying to work that line - just shows how bankrupt your argument really is.

Yup, the statistical facts count as a "bankrupt argument" just like Bill Gates' balance sheet counts as a bankrupt net worth.

Like I said, do what you will. I'm not opposing it. Just saying that if you're gonna devote the national will to that issue, you'd accomplish more good by legislating sprinkler systems to cover every square inch of America to "reduce" fire risk. It's just a cost/benefit game.

Go ahead: bang your head.

Will a simple Brady check for a stranger on the street suffice to make them your next baby sitter?

Ahh, finally, the light of reason! Exactly: PERSONAL responsibility is what actually does the most good, rather than government legislation.

mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 12:00pm PT
PERSONAL responsibility is what actually does the most good, rather than government legislation.

Ah, yes, but why would a gun shop take any personal responsibility to make sure their products are being sold to responsible parties and risk their profits?

They wouldn't. Which is why we have.... you guessed it LEGISLATION.

Parents should and do choose who babysits their kids. They don't get to choose who buys a gun (save through their elected officials). Gun nuts would leave that up to a 200+ year old document, a cursory background check that excludes any assessment of mental health, and the gun shop clerk's judgement... judgement that carries with it NO consequences for the clerk.

Tell me again, where is the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in that situation?

you'd accomplish more good by legislating sprinkler systems to cover every square inch of America to "reduce" fire risk.

So now you want to lump gun murders and school shootings in with "natural" disasters? No wonder Ron admires your logic.


It's just a cost/benefit game.

No, it is a "we live in a society where unfortunately people (gun sellers) will only take on as much responsibility as they have to... despite being in the business of selling killing machines... so we have to find a way to reduce the negative impacts of their irresponsibility... through legislation enacted by our elected officials" game.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Apr 4, 2013 - 12:10pm PT
Like I said, do what you will. I'm not opposing it. Just saying that if you're gonna devote the national will to that issue, you'd accomplish more good by legislating sprinkler systems to cover every square inch of America to "reduce" fire risk. It's just a cost/benefit game.

Huh. A lot of "you'd be better off" arguments going on. I guess politics don't work that way.

Or sprinkler systems.

It's a culture war, pure and simple. I don't like the neurotic and alarmist end-of-days argumentation of the pro-gun side, nor do I like the smarmy, mealy-mouthed elitist rhetoric of the anti-gun side. I guess my redneck roots peep through every once in a while, trapping me in the middle.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Apr 4, 2013 - 12:43pm PT
According to the US Census Bureau, there were 55.5 million kids enrolled in school, grades 1-12, in 2012. Of that number, 565 were killed by guns (in any context!) in that year. That translates into basic odds for 1-12-graders of 1 in 98,230 of being killed by a gun (anywhere, in any context) in 2012.

However, those odds are for being killed by a gun at ANY point in the year 2012, yet kids are in school a small fraction of the total hours in a year, certainly less than 1/3 of the time. But the stated odds are not for being gun-killed AT school. The odds are far lower when contemplating ONLY at-school hours. Even non-complex thinking about this yields something like 1 in 294,690 for the odds of a kid being killed by a gun AT school in 2012. More sophisticated analysis would produce even longer odds, all things considered.

Which is exactly why the NRA's proposal is pointless and laughable. But taking your numbers at face value, you appear to be saying that 565 dead kids every year is an acceptable price to pay for the right to punch holes in paper.

TE



madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 12:58pm PT
It's a culture war, pure and simple. I don't like the neurotic and alarmist end-of-days argumentation of the pro-gun side, nor do I like the smarmy, mealy-mouthed elitist rhetoric of the anti-gun side. I guess my redneck roots peep through every once in a while, trapping me in the middle.

Exactly. Well said. Both sides think they own the moral high ground. But politics is pragmatism, plain and simple. Legislation should go where it does the most good, be it sprinkler systems, anti-cigs-in-the-home laws, or even gun-responsibility laws... as long as the cost/benefit analysis is pragmatically sound.

The idea that there should be "no murder," or "no murder of kids," or some such ideal is pragmatically unattainable.

The "war on terror" justified the most sweeping loss of basic freedoms ever seen in this nation; the NSA is now an invasive Juggernaut that Orwell could not have imagined in his wildest nightmares.

Point is that we cannot "make things safe" for anybody, at any cost and at any amount of effort. So, we settle. We settle for what makes sense.

And what "makes sense" is a purely pragmatic decision. There's no grand moral high ground here to be had. We can only settle.

So the debate rages in "moral terms," but it's really a purely pragmatic issue: What legislation is both cost-effective, enforceable, and empirically demonstrable as likely to have a statistically significant effect.

All the "stupid" and "immoral" accusations on both sides just muddies the waters. Both sides have reasonable positions. Even the "extremists" on both sides have good reasons for their perspectives. They are not "idiots." The fact that intelligent people disagree doesn't make any of them prima facie "stupid." Typically, we disagree about the nature of the facts themselves. Our perspectives emerge from our interpretation of the data we have and the data we believe is relevant (which is, itself, a function of other perspectives, etc.).

So, if we could simply ratchet back the rhetoric a few notches, and systematically come to agreement about the facts and how to interpret them, perhaps we could achieve genuine consensus about what makes the most pragmatic sense.

But the basic lack of philosophical charity in the debate accomplishes nothing toward that end.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:06pm PT
Legislation should go where it does the most good, be it sprinkler systems, anti-cigs-in-the-home laws

Ah, yes, more of that "personal responsibility" you speak so highly about.

The idea that there should be "no murder," or "no murder of kids," or some such ideal is pragmatically unattainable.

Of course. But why do you insist on twisting it into complete bullshit like that?

It is clearly more an ideal of "making sure guns are ONLY sold to mentally fit, responsible people." While that may not be 100% unattainable, we can CERTAINLY get closer than letting ANY non felon purchase 2 guns a week with nothing more than a cursory Brady check!

We settle for what makes sense.

Does it make sense to sell killing machines capable of slaughtering dozens of people in minutes to ANY non felon, as long as they pass the cursory Brady check?
Gary

Social climber
Right outside of Delacroix
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
The idea that there should be "no murder," or "no murder of kids," or some such ideal is pragmatically unattainable.

True, so let's just do away with those pointless laws against murder. Obviously, they don't work.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:10pm PT
Shooting and guns are part of the fabric of this country. They even have shooting in the Olympics.

MY GUNS have not shot anyone in quite some time. Ive never been involved with any illegal shootings or mass murders.
For his forst 4 years in office, Obama hardly made a peep about gun control. Even when asked during the debates, NOT MUCH was said on any of it. But let a horrific incident take place, and they climb on those bodies to USE as a political ploy to A) make weaponry harder to obtain by LEGAL citizens and B) to drum up PARTY support. obama uses that same line over and over to elicit emotions while he plays folks like a fiddle. That to me is one of the biggest problems in America now, not guns. Where was his outlash during the OTHER mass shootings? Why does he not mention in recent speeches that in fact, homicides are falling? Nooooo, just more rhetoric with behind the scene intentions as a driver. And THAT is PATHETIC.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:12pm PT
Oh, yeah, Ron's back with his "fabric of this country" and "my guns haven't killed anyone" bullsh#t.

I wonder if he is ever going to admit NOBODY needs to buy 2 guns a week or that the requirement for owning killing machines should be a bit more than "non felon" status.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:15pm PT
Also that it would be OK if some of them were his own children, since the statistical triviality factor renders all other factors irrelevant.

That's a straw man argument, and you know it.

As a nation, we cannot decide policy based upon this or that individual's experiences. Those individual experiences serve as data points in a very, very large and complicated pragmatic equation. In fact, we get outraged when we hear of a particular person's experience/priorities (such as those of a congressman) trumping national policy.

Of course I would be heartbroken if my child were murdered, and I am sorry for the loss of murder-affected families. But grief and sympathy in individual cases is not a sufficient condition for changing national policy. They are important data points. And I don't trivialize "important." But I do say that we put our efforts and money where they have statistical significance. And 565 kids being murdered in a nation of 1/3 of a billion people is not statistically significant. It's sad. It's tragic. But it is NOT statistically significant.

Now, if you could solve the problem by doing virtually nothing, such as burping once, then the cost/benefit analysis would be slam-dunk, and you'd do it without a second thought.

But this problem is NOT solved by burping once. It demands a major shift in national policy and a very large expenditure of resources. Indeed, our congress-critters are expending significant national resources on this issue right now, and that's before we even have policy! And in this case, the cost/benefit analysis is NOT slam-dunk.

This is a matter of statistical perspective and pragmatics, NOT some grand, moral view. My whole point has been that for you to maintain the grand, moral high ground, you'd have to be a lot more consistent about devoting the national will and resources to a lot more preventable causes of child death than gun-murder. There's nothing that makes "murder" something special here. As long as a child death is preventable, you have to consider how/IF to prevent it. And that comes down to pragmatic considerations of statistical data.

The sort of sound-bite thinking going on in this thread is a case study in why we can't elect a decent president (or even congress-critters, for that matter). We are so quick to paint with the "stupid brush" people that simply interpret the facts differently. And we are so quick to straw-man positions that we find threatening or disagreeable. So, elections come down to who has the best verbal drive-by-shootings, and the debates consist of interruptions and bashing rather than a thoughtful, charitable consideration of what motivates conflicting perspectives.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
Hey wes,, do you throw yur "magazines" away after they run out of bullets??



Yeah,, talk about NON sense,, and THAT politician is one forming gun laws.. Might as well get an one legged , blind accordian player to lay out the new rules about climbing.


HOW STUPID can a person be to publically say "when the magazines run out of bullets -they will be useless"???????


And that gets natl soundbites??



edit: it is NO ONES business if some legal law abiding tax payer wants to buy four guns in a week. Not you , not me. WHY would you give a rip how many guns an individual has anyhow? One can only shoot one weapon at a time and can carry only so many as well. So what if someone likes to collect guns. People callect all manner of things. Stamps for instance- Just as inane as about 98% of the other guns that harm NO ONE.

mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:20pm PT
Indeed, our congress-critters are expending significant national resources on this issue right now,

Only because gun nuts are refusing to compromise on ANYTHING.

And we are so quick to straw-man positions that we find threatening or disagreeable.

You mean like suggesting that smoking near children is worse than holding them at gun point?


Hey Ron, wtf are you talking about? Lay off the glue man.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:23pm PT
Does it make sense to sell killing machines capable of slaughtering dozens of people in minutes to ANY non felon, as long as they pass the cursory Brady check?

apparently so

oh not to the vast majority of NRA members and most Americans

but yes it makes sense to our Federal level congresspeople whose campaigns are NRA contributed


and this "personal responsibility" thing?

that just does seem to work, does it?

mass murderers do not give a damn about personal responsibility now do they
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:30pm PT
Ah, yes, but why would a gun shop take any personal responsibility to make sure their products are being sold to responsible parties and risk their profits?


because guns don't kill people, people kill people, and because gun corporations are people who kill people=?...wait...
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:32pm PT
because guns don't kill people, people kill people, and because gun corporations are people who kill people

NICE!
Messages 3981 - 4000 of total 5824 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews