The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5141 - 5160 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 12, 2015 - 08:48pm PT
"Show me ONE supply-side "war on" anything the government has waged that: 1) has been successful in stopping or even significantly reducing the amount of xyz in circulation; and 2) did not produce a vast black market of xyz, coupled with the violent cartels that spring up to manage the flow of xyz at huge profit."

The Clean Air Act?

The Japanese Empire?

The Tennessee Valley?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 12, 2015 - 09:18pm PT
Okay, I'll play, since clearly this has become a joke:

Polio and Measles vaccines -- You're saying the government waged a war on the product that is the vaccines? Uhh... no. You're saying the government waged a war on the products Polio and Measles? Try to hold the point in your head here.... In what way is Polio and Measles like guns? Is there a "market" for Polio or Measles? Does anybody purchase or consume Polio or Measles?

Illiteracy -- Uhh... no win in sight on this one, and the above point holds. Illiteracy is no product with a market.

DDT -- Ahh... a possible contender. No real "war on." Instead, the government simply made it illegal, and chemicals companies filled the void with things that work as well without the (same) side-effects. So, if you want a true parallel, you'd have to have a "war on" pesticides. Didn't happen. Won't happen. And if the government declared "war on" guns, and some company could make a better alternative that was legal, that company would own the market. Otherwise, the black market will own the market.

The Clean Air Act -- Just dumb. Is pollution a product with a market? Is there a demand for pollution that the government has rendered illegal on the demand side?

The Japanese Empire -- Same points as above.

Asbestos -- Finally, another contender. Again, the government didn't make insulation illegal. It rendered a particular form of insulation illegal in certain contexts (asbestos is NOT illegal in all contexts). There has been nothing resembling a "war on" asbestos, and chemical companies have provided viable alternatives in the few contexts in which it is illegal. Again, whenever the government makes even certain forms of guns illegal, manufacturers will simply produce others that serve the same purpose but that skirt the regulation(s).

Lead Paint -- Same as above, only even more so.

You guys aren't even trying to argue charitably!

I'm obviously not saying that the government is utterly, entirely ineffectual in all respects. What I am saying is that the government has yet to successfully wage a "war on" any in-demand product, either by punishing people demanding the product or by shutting down the supply side of that product.

Pick any vice you wish (and for anti-gunners, guns are a "vice" of the "gun-nuts"), and the government has not successfully shut that vice down. THAT sort of "war on" is what the government cannot successful wage.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 12, 2015 - 09:44pm PT
Take a knee li'l buckaroo,

The world took aim at polio and measles not so long ago and managed to rally the medical troops to infiltrate the population and inoculate us all. Any questions about fairness were left to GOD ALMIGHTY to sort out.

If this triumph of intelligence over individual rights tried to happen today, we would all be covered in spots with a fever, coughing at anyone who was still alive, or with legs the same size, about abrogation of civil rights !

HAHAHA !
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Mar 12, 2015 - 09:47pm PT

Polio and Measles vaccines -- You're saying the government waged a war on the product that the vaccines? Uhh... no. You're saying the government waged a war on the products Polio and Measles? Try to hold the point in your head here.... In what way is Polio and Measles like guns? Is there a "market" for Polio or Measles? Does anybody purchase or consume Polio or Measles?

Illiteracy -- Uhh... no win in sight on this one, and the above point holds. Illiteracy is no product with a market.

DDT -- Ahh... a possible contender. No real "war on." Instead, the government simply made it illegal, and chemicals companies filled the void with things that work as well without the (same) side-effects. So, if you want a true parallel, you'd have to have a "war on" pesticides. Didn't happen. Won't happen. And if the government declared "war on" guns, and some company could make a better alternative that was legal, that company would own the market. Otherwise, the black market will own the market.

The Clean Air Act -- Just dumb. Is pollution a product with a market? Is there a demand for pollution that the government has rendered illegal on the demand side?

The Japanese Empire -- Same points as above.

Asbestos -- Finally, another contender. Again, the government didn't make insulation illegal. It rendered a particular form of insulation illegal in certain contexts (asbestos is NOT illegal in all contexts). There has been nothing resembling a "war on" asbestos, and chemical companies have provided viable alternatives in the few contexts in which it is illegal. Again, whenever the government makes even certain forms of guns illegal, manufacturers will simply produce others that serve the same purpose but that skirt the regulation(s).

Lead Paint -- Same as above, only even more so.

You guys aren't even trying to argue charitably!

I'm obviously not saying that the government is utterly, entirely ineffectual in all respects. What I am saying is that the government has yet to successfully wage a "war on" any in-demand product, either by punishing people demanding the product or by shutting down the supply side of that product.

Pick any vice you wish (and for anti-gunners, guns are a "vice" of the "gun-nuts"), and the government has not successfully shut that vice down. THAT sort of "war on" is what the government cannot successful wage

All while on one leg,
spinning and whistling while rubbing your tummy,
and mixing a drink,
while winking alternate eyes,
and playing a harmonica,
and doing a handstand,
while painting a bridge
.........
..........,
.....
.......,,,,
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 12, 2015 - 09:59pm PT
There's too much gun violence in this country, don't you think?

I think that there's just too much violence! Period. Guns make a subset of that violence easier to perpetrate.

The endless focus on the tool is TO avoid the much harder questions about the real causes.

"Meanwhile," you'll say, "Let's make the tool much harder to get." But, as I've tried to argue above, that is the thing the government won't accomplish. The harder you make any "vice" product to get, the higher the price of it goes and the more crime (including organized) WILL spring up around the market for that vice.

As I've said upthread, decades ago when I lived in the Inland Empire, I knew lots of gangland people. I could have gotten Laos Rockets if I wanted them. Grenades and grenade launchers? No problem. ALL totally illegal for civilian possession. ALL totally accessible through black market channels, and none so expensive that even a guy like me couldn't afford them. The only reason I didn't have a pile of grenades is that I couldn't think of any good use for them. Everybody I knew was packing, all illegally.

The average, law-abiding person doesn't realize HOW MUCH illegal weaponry is available and how cheaply. I found that it was cheaper to buy an illegal gun from people I knew than to buy that exact same gun over the counter, sometimes as little as half the cost of the legal gun.

It's naive' in the extreme to think that "reducing" the tool is really going to "reduce" it in the black market. Such efforts may push the costs up, and that may push the real low-life criminals to even more-so cheap-crap weapons. But ultimately, the very people you most don't want having weapons are the very ones that will always have them.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 12, 2015 - 10:07pm PT
The "war on" terminology is hysterical rhetoric.

There's no "war on guns" except in your head. Nobody wishes to make guns illegal in all contexts.

I was responding to:

That's why we need to work on the supply side. Stop manufacturing firearms.

And my point was that it doesn't work.

Your lame comparisons to polio/measles and pollution entirely miss the point (I have now concluded: intentionally). Polio/measles and pollution do not fit the "supply/demand" model. There is no product, no "market," no supply/demand equation at all, and, hence, no "war on" in the sense that the government tries to eliminate/reduce "vices" like drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc.

All talk of what the government can do when it "really, really tries," so to speak, pitching "democracy" to the winds, is yet more specious argumentation. FIRST the government got people motivated to eradicate these diseases. And even then, there was far from 100% compliance (just as today) in the "mandatory" vaccination programs.

Nothing of the sort applies to the gun argument, nor will anything of the sort make a dent in the gun market, democracy or no.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 12, 2015 - 10:17pm PT
But, seriously....

What do you WANT?

What do you think "success" looks like?

Don't say "a reduction in gun violence," because in this context "reduction" is a moving target (smirk).

If you were Emperor Obama right now, and could just ignore Congress and the SCOTUS however you pleased, what would you enact by executive order RIGHT NOW to "reduce" gun violence? And what "reduction" effect would you project your action to produce?

Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 12, 2015 - 10:18pm PT
Let's avoid confusion.

You started a sub discussion regarding what any "war" on anything a government has won. You were then offered many examples but couldn't understand how a subject can also be an object.

Damn right everyone was made to line up and get an immunization shot whether they liked it or not. A population is by definition, homogenous. In a time of epidemic, no one gives a sh#t about what you hold to be precious, personally.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 12, 2015 - 10:37pm PT
You started a sub discussion regarding what any "war" on anything a government has won. You were then offered many examples but couldn't understand how a subject can also be an object.

I didn't start the sub discussion. I simply responded to it.

I was offered many irrelevant examples.

I pointed out their irrelevancy.

Any Garyesque "war on" guns to "stop their manufacture" will have the exact same results as every other "war on" a "vice" market has had. Attack the demand side, and you accomplish exactly nothing. Attack the supply side, and for every supplier you take down, ten more will spring up in place.

If there's ANYTHING relevant about the disease examples, it is that FIRST the government has to engage in a sweeping education campaign.

Unlike with diseases, you will not succeed in an education campaign to convince a majority of the population that guns are a "disease" that should be eradicated. Furthermore, your right to polio is NOT an inalienable right. LOL

These "success" examples are irrelevant in every respect.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 12, 2015 - 10:43pm PT
Each of these items, while still in production, are now regulated and we should be happy that they are. They were hard-fought battles, each and every one.

Did you even read my responses to your examples?

I don't give a crap about guns, but when I do, I read gun forums.

Okaaaayyyy... So, I guess you just answered your own point below. The last one I quote.

Why you waving around your guns on a climbing forum? You ISIS? You all look the same to me.

I'm clueless what you can possibly be talking about! I'm guessing that you missed both the correct thread and day. I think you want to be posting to the "Friday night posting while drunk" thread.

Tomorrow.

Night.

What do I want? Okay, we got a bunch of kids in East Palo Alto working on bicycles. Who wants to chip in?

Good on you. PERHAPS that sort of effort will actually reduce the criminal element that really IS the "gun problem" in this country.

What do I want? How about a climbing forum with no hysteria on the home page so I can post some pictures again?

The only hysteria I see on here is yours. "ISIS"??? Really???

And you just contributed to this thread rising to the top again. Thanks!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 12, 2015 - 10:48pm PT
DDT.
Agent Orange.
Asbestos.
Lead paint.

I'm glad we're not feeding them to our kids.

Me too!

They have ZERO to do with the "gun problem," and how they were regulated is irrelevant to the "gun problem" in all respects.

Nobody is debating that the government can make laws.

Nobody is debating that the government can successfully regulate.

Nobody is debating that the government can encourage new products to spring up.

And none of your examples represent inalienable rights!

None of your examples is mentioned in the constitution, with reference to a pre-existing right that "shall not be INFRINGED."

The DAY the government can encourage some new self-defense product that has all of the advantages of guns and without the "negative side-effects," that is the day your DDT example might have some relevancy.

Meanwhile, the market WILL have guns, and NO amount of legislation will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Remember prohibition, and see how your examples relate to that.
Flip Flop

climber
salad bowl, california
Mar 13, 2015 - 12:02am PT
The Australians have had excellent success.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 13, 2015 - 12:26am PT
Kory Watkins, coordinator for Open Carry Tarrant County poses for a portrait holding his Romanian AK 47

And what, exactly, do you imagine that has to do with me?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 13, 2015 - 01:48am PT
The Australians have had excellent success.

I guess that depends on what you call a "success."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-18/opinion/chi-the-failure-of-gun-control-in-australia-20130118_1_gun-control-mandatory-gun-gun-deaths

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/obama-again-touts-australian-gun-control-misleads-again-on-background-checks/

I'll quote from that last one, which quotes from a University of Melbourne study in 2008, plenty of years after the 1996 package of sweeping gun control like will almost certainly never happen in this country:

"[a]lthough gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the publicís fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths."

Also from that same article:

A 2006 study published in the British Journal of Criminology that studied Australia similarly noted, "There is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates."

After the Australian government "bought back" over 640,000 personal, previously legally-owned firearms, in the following seven years it watched as the average annual firearm-caused homicides dropped by a paltry 3.2% (2003 study by the left-leaning Brookings Institute, which also noted that homicide by firearms had been in slow but steady decline for two decades before the 1996 passage of sweeping gun control). So, there was no significant effect of Australian's gun control in terms of firearm-caused homicide.

This admission is from THEIR OWN analysis, as quoted here: http://joeforamerica.com/2013/05/look-at-australia-gun-control-works-or-so-they-say/

Again, I'll quote from that article:

When that law passed in 1996, the Australian government spent $500 million dollars "buying back" (how can it be "buying back" if they never owned them in the first place) over 640,000 guns which they then destroyed. Subsequent to that, there has been no significant decline in felonious gun usage, and this is documented by many sources, not the least of which is the Australian government's own New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research which in 2005 published a report documenting no significant reduction. When criticized by gun control proponents for releasing their results, the head of that bureau, Don Weatherburn, responding saying:

"The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."

Now there's a CRITICAL part of that quote from Australia's OWN department that would know the FACTS better than anybody. And it's particularly prescient when considered in the context of this very thread. We'll see how many "get it."

It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice.

There's this pesky thing about Australia's "success." As the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research itself admits, there has been NO demonstrable "success" from the effort. And we're far enough into the experiment now to be able to tell something.

Credit: madbolter1

The number of gun-caused homicides in Australia in 1996 was 354. Three years later, that number peaked at 385. It declined slightly through 2002, where it then peaked again at over 360. And from 2003 to 2007 (the last data that FactCheck had) there was a decline to 282 in 2007. And these facts are skewed by two significant realities:

1) 1996 was an elevated year, as that was the year in which the Port Arthur massacre claimed 35 lives.

2) Pick a time-slice in the graph, and you can show a "trend" any direction you please. There's nothing special about 2003-2007. Instead, look at 2004-2006, which shows an increasing trend instead of decreasing.

Again, the best summary comes from their own crime statistic department, which, in the interests of scientific accuracy rather than bias, concluded: "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide." That's because there was already a long-term downward trend, and radical gun control did nothing measurable to affect that trend.

And Wikipedia actually has a well-researched and cited article on the subject that draws the same overall conclusions. It's a much better summary of credible sources than I would be able to compile in an evening's work!

And, as just an example of how "time-slicing" can get you whatever "trends" you care to shake a stick at, in 2000, four years after the gun-control legislation, "success" could be cast this way:

* homicides up 3.2 percent

* assaults up 8.6 percent

* armed robberies up over 44 percent

* In Victoria, gun homicides up 300 percent

Instead of "success," Australia has experienced its overall violent crime rate (not including homicide) significantly increase. There are many studies that support this claim, but I'll cite just one article that is a jumping-off point for others.

So, in the end, what do we know? A knee-jerk reaction to the Port Arthur mass-shooting has not increased an overall declining homicide rate that was trending for decades prior to the 1996 law and that in particular time-slices can be shown to actually increase gun-caused homicides; and that has led to a significant increase in assault, home invasions, and other violent crime.

Of course, Australian statistics are a classic example of "lies, damned lies, and statistics," as any statistical discussion can "make" either the gun-control OR anti-gun-control case! My points here are (obviously) designed to "make" the anti-gun-control case. I readily admit that a gun-control case can be made from the same data! And that's the beauty and fun of statistical interpretation (the "damned lies").

For my own part, I'll accept what the widely-cited and extremely credible Australian statistician, Don Weatherburn, stated: "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide."

Oh, and Australia COULD legally do this to its citizens, because THEIR founders didn't have to foresight to mention the pre-existing right of self-defense and defense against tyranny, and explicitly place that right and the resulting governmental hands-off policy in our founding documents. Ours did have the foresight. And, because our founders knew that even the causal evidence wouldn't be enough to convince unreasonable minds, they appealed to a priori principles instead.

Hard to get around those.

So, yaayyyy... "excellent success," Australia!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 13, 2015 - 01:58am PT
Nice rifle. What's on his flag? The dick up your buttocks?

Ahh... I understand now....

that QITNL is gunning to be banned from this site.

LOL
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Mar 13, 2015 - 02:04pm PT
On further analysis of the newly proposed background check law, I think I'll refuse to support it because it doesn't explicitly prohibit the use of a legally purchased gun to kill someone.

TE
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 13, 2015 - 02:30pm PT
It is patently obvious that the poster child for the anti-gun crowd is
undoubtedly the good Don Quixote. Although he was a man on a noble quest
I fear he would be bemused by the hand-wringers who would rather tilt at
similar phantasms than concern themselves with addressing the reasons why
people want to kill each other. To wit, how about passing some meaningful
laws like:

If Thou Dost Not Graduate From High School With a C Average Thou
Shalt Have Thine Tubes Tied In Perpetuity.

My 'data' shows this would reduce homicides by 39% as well as take many
beaters off the streets. Well, wife-beaters anyway.
Craig Fry

Trad climber
So Cal.
Mar 13, 2015 - 02:38pm PT
The new word to define Gun Nuts is

"Ammosexual"
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 13, 2015 - 02:54pm PT
That's right, Craig, we're FMJLGBT and proud of it!

Speaking of tilting at windmills I gotta get back to my taxes.
Where the hell did I put that Foreign Tax Credit form?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 13, 2015 - 03:12pm PT
If Thou Dost Not Graduate From High School With a C Average Thou
Shalt Have Thine Tubes Tied In Perpetuity.

+100
Messages 5141 - 5160 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews