The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5121 - 5140 of total 6462 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 8, 2014 - 02:31pm PT
...but rather a reactionary thing AFTER they commit more crime and finally get caught.

Ron is on to something. We need to be proactive and arrest people BEFORE they commit crime.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 8, 2014 - 02:34pm PT
This guy is worth watching and listening to.

"I'm not looking to scare folks."

Bullsh#t.
StahlBro

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Jul 8, 2014 - 02:50pm PT
What is really scary is a bunch of heavily armed, paranoid people.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jul 8, 2014 - 03:14pm PT
News flash Gary,, entering ILLEGALLY into this country IS a "crime" punishable by law. Hence the reference "Illegals/gang members...
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 8, 2014 - 03:20pm PT
Moose,, there are directives and policies pushed by the FED govt that prevent MANY illegals from being removed. The VERY same policies that now fly plane loads of recently rounded up illegals from the border to various American towns and cities. Why are those illegals not being flown back into Central or South American countries from whence they came?

These policies protect illegals from local law enforcement to a great degree. When our sheriff put an article in our local news about how many KNOWN gang members now resided in our town, he couldnt even identify them to the public as they are given the SAME rights at legal US citizens in many regards.
Maybe you should ask why several states now issue

So many stupid statements in only two small paragraphs.
Why don't you educate yourself as to what laws apply to illegal immigrants and why law dictates who stays and who goes back immediately. Also educate yourself to the legal differences between adjacent countries and non-adjacent ones. There's also a difference between children and adults aliens.

Do your own homework for a change.
crankster

Trad climber
Jul 8, 2014 - 03:40pm PT
^^^
You can't expect someone to educate themselves when they display his kind of ignorance. Regularly.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Jul 8, 2014 - 03:45pm PT
I totally see the light now....



Guns is totally necessary and you second amendment f*#kers are all correct in you assertions that guns are not the problem.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 8, 2014 - 04:02pm PT
Yeah, but how many died in auto accidents? Let us have our guns because they aren't that dangerous!

We also need guns because guns are totally fuking dangerous.

Or something.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 04:33pm PT
Why are you equating background laws (regulations) to banning? Alcohol and drugs should be legal and regulated. Just like guns.

I'm equating them because people like you are proposing that there should be NEW laws to BAN gun sales to criminals.

You are talking ban: keep them out of the hands of criminals. Your argument went as follows:

1) There are too many guns in the hands of criminals, which makes the streets unsafe, particularly in some places.

2) (1) contributes to an overall proliferation of guns, because law-abiding citizens thus wish to protect themselves.

3) Address (1) by strong legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and you will reduce overall gun violence, both from criminals and from law abiding citizens that might misuse their gun.



4) Thus, the solution to gun violence is increased legislation to entirely ban criminals from having guns.

You outright told me upthread that citizens would have no need of a gun if criminals could be kept from getting guns.

Thus, I talk about a "war on guns" in exactly the context of a BAN, because that is precisely what you propose: legislate guns out of the hands of criminals!

And you have EXACTLY the same chance of success with that BAN as you have seen in the other "wars on...."

CURRENT laws BAN guns in the hands of criminals. CURRENT laws preclude criminals from purchasing guns by standard channels. And NO proposed laws will have the slightest effect on mass shootings, as even Colorado's goofball current governor now admits.

You simply are not going to legislate this problem away, as we have already seen that even the current "war on guns" has had no measurable effect.

Now, regarding "feeling safe" in some areas and not in others, I can only say: good luck with that. So far you've had good luck. I promise you, however, that the woman robbed at gunpoint across the street from our office three weeks ago had EVERY reason to feel safe where she was. But that "feeling" of being in a "safe and decent area" was irrelevant to the facts.

"Tactical" and "situational awareness" already presumes the sort of training that responsible gun owners develop. You have it, so you take it for granted. But notice how you got it. The average person simply does not think like somebody who EVER carries a gun. And they should! So thank you for helping make my point.

Regarding "feeling safe" in places where I can't carry, you entirely miss the point. This has nothing to do with "feeling" anything. I prefer to intentionally address risks as appropriate, and where I cannot, I accept risks as necessary.

My gun is not a big, heavy, dangerous tool! My gun is quite small, quite light, and not at all dangerous in itself. Look up the safety features on the H&K P30. It is about the safest gun on the market, while being very quickly deployable. It would actually be HARD to accidentally fire it off. And I already don't notice it on my hip most of the day. I find my ring of keys FAR more irritating and noticeable during the day.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 8, 2014 - 05:19pm PT
4) Thus, the solution to gun violence is increased legislation to entirely ban criminals from having guns.

Woh! Holy strawman batman. I specifically mentioned we can't ban criminals from having guns, we should just take steps to reduce the number easily available to them. But it seems you don't want to debate that. Instead you need to spin my arguments into unreasonable conclusions that you CAN refute.

You outright told me upthread that citizens would have no need of a gun if criminals could be kept from getting guns.

What?! LOL. Show me where I said that.

You asked the question:

How about we go back to the really pressing question, which is: What proposed gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of criminal?

Which I answered, but in my first post I stated you would not accept the answer, and in my second post I said you would attempt to refute with fallacies (which you have done, see the strawman argument above.)

Maybe you meant "keep ALL guns out of the hands of criminals", but that's an absurd question since it's an impossible task, so I took it more as the reasonable "keep any significant number of guns out of the hands of criminals". Which is a reasonable and attainable goal.

P.S. I've learned a lot more about staying safe and avoiding confrontation in martial arts training than in firearms training. If I only could choose one to stay safe I'd take the martial arts training every time.

P.P.S. You asked for a proposed gun law. Not a "solution to gun violence". Which would logically include better mental health care, more jobs for inner city youth, perhaps legalizing drugs, etc. There is no "solution", there are just things we can do to help reduce gun violence, and some of them are gun laws. California's relatively strict gun laws have probably been a factor in the state's gun violence decreasing more than the rest of the country has, and as a gun owner they don't bother me in the least.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jul 8, 2014 - 05:21pm PT
Bullshyt^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Weapons are the NUMBER ONE world wide traded commodity. If they cant get guns here they will import them across borders that are as secure as a gangland neighborhood.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 8, 2014 - 05:33pm PT
News flash Gary,, entering ILLEGALLY into this country IS a "crime" punishable by law. Hence the reference "Illegals/gang members...

When you start complaining about corporations and their Republican stooges giving them jobs, I'll listen to what you have to say.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jul 8, 2014 - 05:40pm PT
Better look up thread then Gary, because i HAVE complained about that. And it ISNT just republicoons hiring them.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 06:48pm PT
Woh! Holy strawman batman. I specifically mentioned we can't ban criminals from having guns, we should just take steps to reduce the number easily available to them. But it seems you don't want to debate that. Instead you need to spin my arguments into unreasonable conclusions that you CAN refute.

Well, actually, you blow hot and cold on this point. You do indeed often talk about "reducing," but you ALSO use verbiage that can only reasonably be taken as "ban." To whit:

Aug. 15, 2012
The whole point of course is keeping very dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and insane folks.

Now, looking further in that passage, you do mitigate the above by saying: "the harder you make them to obtain and the less of them that are out there, the less the likelihood they will end up in the wrong hands, and the less people will die." But when you juxtapose that mitigation against the initial statement, the IDEAL would be, of course, to KEEP guns out of the hands of criminals and insane folks.

Moving on....

Jan. 18, 2013
IT'S NOT ABOUT NO GUNS IT'S ABOUT NO GUNS THAT CAN KILL DOZENS OF PEOPLE IN A FEW MINUTES.

Okay, this looks "reasonable," because you are acknowledging that we can't "ban" all guns. But this sure looks like an OUTRIGHT BAN of at least certain sorts of guns.

June 12, 2014
They won't even agree to us doing what it takes to help try to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies.

Completely unmitigated ban. KEEP the OUT of the hands of the crazies. Of course, "all we can do is try." But what is the goal? KEEP them away from crazies.

In short, you use language that is at best subject to interpretation. If you SAY that you ONLY intend to "reduce" access, well fine. But what you have actually SAID repeatedly sure looks like an effort to "ban" guns (certainly at least some sorts) from "criminals and crazy folks." No straw man here. If I've misinterpreted your (various) statements, it was unintentional. In the future I'll refer strictly to "reduce."

You outright told me upthread that citizens would have no need of a gun if criminals could be kept from getting guns.

What?! LOL. Show me where I said that.

My bad on this one. I conflated several people's statements and coupled them with you saying this: "There have been maybe 2 or 3 times I would have felt safer with a gun after taking a wrong turn and ending up in a dangerous neighborhood.... I have never felt unsafe in Mexico because I stay out of the wrong areas and don't act stupid."

I think that you IMPLY what I said you "outright told me," but that implication feels stronger to me in the context of other people's claims on this thread. So I more strongly attributed this to you than I should have. I sincerely apologize for that. I am typically more careful.

How about we go back to the really pressing question, which is: What proposed gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of criminal?

Which I answered, but in my first post I stated you would not accept the answer, and in my second post I said you would attempt to refute with fallacies (which you have done, see the strawman argument above.

Nope, this one I continue to deny. And even your "answer" based on the idea of "reduce" falls to a similar line of argumentation to what I used above.

You continue to assert that I just "won't" get it. But it's not "won't." It's that you have simply failed to convince because your idea is laden with the same problems as an actual ban.

The appeal to legislating "reductions" in gun access by criminals rests on two suppositions: 1) an actual reduction is possible; 2) a reduction will have a measurable and/or significant corollary in a reduction of gun-related homicides. And both of these rest on the common intuition: "If can save even 1 life, then isn't that a good thing?"

The issue is not so simple or "intuitively accurate," however. First, the slate of laws already in place are quite impressive. California is a great example.

Second, the only way to argue from California (or Chicago) that these laws have had the desired effect is to look at the continued rash of gun violence and say (in completely question-begging fashion): "Well, things would obviously be a LOT worse without all the gun laws that we DO have!"

The response to those points will typically be, "Okay, sure, maybe we don't know for sure, or it isn't measurable, but surely at least one life has been saved by a delay in access or a lower-quality weapon that jammed, or other such things. Obviously 'making it harder' for criminals to get high-quality guns has saved SOME lives! And isn't even ONE life saved worth it?"

And my answer to THAT question would be a resounding NO!

All human life is precious, and it is indeed a great shame when somebody unnecessarily dies, particularly in violent fashion. However, that said, we don't go to ANY lengths to "reduce" unnecessary death! We don't even go to CONVENIENT lengths!

Clearly we value people's right to smoke FAR more than we value "even one life," including the lives of the (many hundreds of) kids who die each year from second-hand smoke (WHO statistics can follow, if you desire).

There are countless examples in this society of valuing convenience and sheer hedonism over life. And we count it as a violation of some right (who knows which one?) to make smoking outright illegal. Doing so would demonstrably save far more than one life! But we won't go there.

By contrast with smoking, the rights of self defense and of revolution are inalienable rights, both protected by our Constitution. And our founders were crystal clear on both this fact and on the fact that individual gun ownership/carry derives from these rights. Forget about the second amendment! What I'm talking about is crystal clear according to the founders, by whose lights we can best interpret the Constitution.

So, the "balance" is to "reduce" criminal access to guns, while having zero effect upon the access law-abiding citizens have to them. CAN'T be done!

Thus, the problems even your "reduction" idea have include: 1) it cannot be demonstrated to have any significant effect, even in places where it has had an excellent shot at a noticeable effect; 2) the more "rigorous" the efforts are to have an effect, the more invasive these efforts are in the lives of people whose inalienable right must not be infringed; 3) "reduce" at a certain threshold (who knows what it is?) and the "effect" is negligible, leading to the doomed "save even one life" flail; and 4) the "war on" mentality is really not different at all whether the goal is "ban" or "reduce," because you are only talking about an (undefined) quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one.

To YOU, your perspective seems all obvious and intuitive. But, again, the very fact that there is such debate indicates that your perspective is NOT sweepingly obvious nor intuitive to many people (most in Colorado!).

And your response to THAT fact indeed HAS been to reduce your rhetoric to epithets and insults (happy to provide many quotes to sustain that claim, if desired).

When you talk about better mental health care, jobs and education programs for inner city youth, and so on, you've got my ear! But universal background checks, in the minds of many people, will not even "reduce" the problem, while they ARE offensive to many because of the resounding "Big Brother" implications. Not all such people are justifiably entitled to your epithets and insults.
Binks

climber
Uranus
Jul 8, 2014 - 06:52pm PT
82 people were shot in Chicago over the 4th, 17 died so far.

Gun nuts are evil. The NRA is evil

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-chicago-shot-weekend-violence-20140707-story.html

Revoke the 2nd Amendment
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jul 8, 2014 - 06:58pm PT
Yah like it was NRA members shooting up Chicago...Cheezus & Rice there is no cure for STUPID.
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:00pm PT
Yes, 'revoking' the 2nd Amendment would certainly fix the rampant poverty and gang violence in Chicago.

When the media tells you to jump, how do you know how high to go?
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:27pm PT
Yes, 'revoking' the 2nd Amendment would certainly fix the rampant poverty and gang violence in Chicago.

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. As long as the rich are given free reign to run this entire nation for their, and only their benefit, there will be poverty, and with poverty comes crime. Who here would watch their children slowly wither away from malnutrition?

The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.
- Voltaire

Meanwhile, still waiting for the "legalize drugs" crowd to explain which, and how that's going to be a good thing.

Because it reduces crime and deaths. But don't take my word for it. Consumer Reports laid it all out 40 years ago.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:55pm PT
Read Licit and Illicit Drugs and then get back to me about prohibiting drugs.

When a mad man bursts into a school room and starts injecting children with overdoses of heroin, then maybe we can equate easy access to guns with legal drugs.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:06pm PT

jonnyrig

climber

Jul 8, 2014 - 07:39pm PT
Brilliant. Ban guns, legalize drugs. F*#k this place.

Prohibition failed once and is failing again. Alcohol is a drug. A very dangerous one, in fact. Durp.

I don't advocate legalization of every drug, but the war against drugs has failed the masses miserably. Mandatory minimum sentences for non violent drug charges only fatten prison guards and their industry, rob families of their loved ones, and create hardened repeat offenders. We have stigmatized and penalized drug addicts and torn this society apart while profiting the scum on either side of the bars. Wise the hell up before you blather your accusatory gun sensitive drama.

Messages 5121 - 5140 of total 6462 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