Does the NRA have a stupid pill problem?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 921 - 940 of total 1386 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:41am PT
[Norton:]WHO is talking about "taking away" guns from people who legally own them?
[Dr.F:]No one
It's just typical slippery slope right wing paranoia
[Norton:]
that's what I thought too


down the slippery slope we go

as soon as anyone mentions the possibility of some vague kind of legislation to mitigate mass slaughter in some small way, out jumps the "they are gonna take all my guns away tomorrow" fear crapola


I see. All we need to get guns out of the hands of those who illegally own them is to pass a law making illegal gun ownership more illegal. And people call gun owners nuts!

In truth, the only way to reduce the supply of illegally possessed firearms is to reduce the number of legally possessed firearms. THus, those who are advocating change in our gun laws are either advocating a useless policy, or else they are, in fact, advocating taking firearms away from legal owners.

Admitting the latter would be a good start to having a worthwhile discussion. Pretending that one side is sane and the other paranoid simply insures the continued existence of the status quo.

John
jghedge

climber
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:52am PT
"Admitting the latter would be a good start to having a worthwhile discussion"

I do admit it, and I can prove that it would work, by looking the experience of other countries, where they are outlawed..

I don't believe gun laws in this country work, by looking at the experience in this country, which refuses to outlaw them.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 29, 2012 - 01:08am PT
Shouldn't the focus be what if any laws and policies would be constitutionally acceptable, reasonably likely to be enacted, and reasonably likely to reduce incidents of mass murder?

Anders, I think Kris and I, among several others, have been trying to put the focus there. Certain other posters, however, can't get over their naive ideas that the Second Amendment can be changed easily, or that we can get most of the hundreds of millions of firearms currently in circulation in the U.S. out of circulation through simple legislation. They refuse even to confront the issues.

Some posters simply say, in effect, "Austalia and the U.K. have much lower gun crime, and much lower guns per capita, therefore legislation restricting guns will reduce the rate of gun violence in the U.S." The "therefore" is, of course, a non-sequitur. Trying to compare gun crime rates to gun restrictions by U.S. states and the District of Columbia shows no signigicant correlation. D.C. has the lowest rate of legal gun ownership per capita, and the highest gun murder (and all murder) rate, by far. Kentucky, the most armed state, has a murder rate per capita that is sabout 2/3 that of California, the most restrictive state for gun ownership.

I think Kris's point about focusing on the perptrator has merit if, for no other reason, because there seems to be very little that we can realistically legislate to make it measurably more unlikely that people intent on sending themselves and a bunch of innocents to the grave will succeed.

In any case, I appreciate your formulation of the problem. Ignoring the noise might actually produce an interesting discussion.

John

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Dec 29, 2012 - 01:12am PT
In truth, the only way to reduce the supply of illegally possessed firearms is to reduce the number of legally possessed firearms.

I think this is a distortion of the truth. If there is a reduction it will be restricted to the worst weapons of mass destruction, guns which damage potential far outweighs whatever utilitarian benefit they hold. Any further reduction would be in the order of removing guns from those who are deemed unworthy of the responsibility of owning them.

A further benefit will be the cultural shift in values. Right now "anything goes / free love" creates a wildly permisive wild west environment which actually encourages irresponsibility, such as something as simple as secure storage. If people can actually wrap their heads around the notion that well reasoned restrictions do not unduly restrict responsible gun use and ownership and that what little individual liberties that are lost are more than offset by public safety improvements then it will be accepted and become the prevailing ethic.

If as Ron suggests this self evident fact is intolerable due to purely ideological reasons then you guys really have to wonder wether you are a mature and responsible people capable of taking the right risks for the right reasons.
jghedge

climber
Dec 29, 2012 - 01:24am PT
"D.C. has the lowest rate of legal gun ownership per capita, and the highest gun murder (and all murder) rate, by far. Kentucky, the most armed state, has a murder rate per capita that is sabout 2/3 that of California, the most restrictive state for gun ownership."

Sources, please, or you're wasting your time, and ours. Only wingnuts take anecdotal evidence seriously. You quoted a WSJ editorial this morning that you claimed said gun murder rates had doubled in Britain - and it said nothing of the sort.


"... there seems to be very little that we can realistically legislate to make it measurably more unlikely that people intent on sending themselves and a bunch of innocents to the grave will succeed."

Short of what other countries have (successfully) done, you're right.
jghedge

climber
Dec 29, 2012 - 01:30am PT
"If as Ron suggests this self evident fact is intolerable due to purely ideological reasons then you guys really have to wonder wether you are a mature and responsible people capable of taking the right risks for the right reasons."

Well, mature and responsible adults have no reason to amass arsenals - so you can stop wondering.
climbingjones

Trad climber
grass valley,ca
Dec 29, 2012 - 02:49am PT
If you think guns are the problem then you are an idiot.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 29, 2012 - 11:08am PT
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-increase.html

And firearms related deaths and injuries decrease.


jghedge

climber
Dec 29, 2012 - 11:18am PT
"And firearms related deaths and injuries decrease."

"Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11 percent drop, state health figures show.

2800? Compared to 35 in the UK?

Every time gun nuts cite stats, they make the case for outlawing guns
Sierra Ledge Rat

Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
Dec 29, 2012 - 11:33am PT
Great....

Now an Arizona sherrif has authorized armed volunteer "posses" to patrol Arizona schools...

Can you imagine "Bubba," armed to the teeth, walking around your child's school armed with an assault rifle? That thought alone would be enough for me to home-school my children.

Gun nuts are crazy. It's time we divided America into the Sane and Insane, build a big fence, and keep the insane gun nuts out of our communities.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 29, 2012 - 11:41am PT
If you think guns are the problem then you are an idiot.

well, I don't think guns per se are the problem

but, some kinds of guns seem to be "a" problem, like the easy availability of full scale assault weapons that are simply not necessary for home defense but cool to own/shoot


in addition, I think that a gun "culture" in this country that is glorified in video games, movies etc also contributes to the problem


and JohnE?
I agree that simply passing more legislation does not in itself make things safer

but would you agree that IF large clips and military assault weapons WERE banned say some 20 years ago that right NOW they would not be as easy to get ahold of, and IF they are not so easy to procure then is it likely THAT would save lives?

if your answer is yes that makes basic sense, then why not ban them right now, have the governments offer cash for them, and MAYBE in 20 years down the road lives would be saved?

Isn't it better to do something than take the easy route by criticizing other's suggestions, while offering nothing constructive oneself?
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Dec 29, 2012 - 11:55am PT
Your allusions to "Dixie" and the confederate flag really piqued my curiosity. I've noticed the odd confederate flag down there. Whats up with that? How the hell can anybody be proud of that?

I made an observation about the local culture and you assume that I am proud of it?
These are the same visigoths that put swastikas outside my house. Screw Godwins Law, it really happens here. WTF makes you think I am "proud" of it?
Or do you?

I came here for the rocks not the culture.
But a lot of them have seen me shoot and, though backstabbers, they stay out of my face for the most part.







if there is a reduction it will be restricted to the worst weapons of mass destruction, guns which damage potential far outweighs whatever utilitarian benefit they hold

What? Like my Bushmaster? Do you even know what a 3 Gun Competition is?
Who decides what is utilitarian? Somebody like Bloomberg who doesn't like black guns?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:05pm PT
Chicago jut passed their 500th homicide this year.. Quite a milestone for the state with the most restrictive gun laws..

Gun laws work?? tell that to Chi-town..
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:10pm PT
whoa whoa, I didn't say I saw you flying the confederate flag or singing Dixie! I was just looking for an explanation for the pride invested in it by whoever flies the flag. Don't worry man just because you like guns I'm not lumping you in with your Visigoth neighbors.

Seriously whats it all about? Here's what i really want to know - like I said I get the states rights / rugged individual / don't tread on me stuff but why use the dominant symbol of the Slave holding past as your flag for that? ..... unless of course the slave holding thing is also a point of pride?

Which is what I'm driving at about morality. Do you really want the visigoths to determine the morality of your country?

Who decides what is utilitarian?


Well somebody sure as hell has to. I'm sure Ted Nugent or some other fatuous turd would just love to have a 3 gun competition with Stinger missiles but I'm sure most reasonable people would agree that the utility of that desire is somewhat out weighed by the profound public safety threat of making such weaponry widely available. I suggest most if not all automatic weaponry also falls in that catagory and I assume you have the right people to make that determination.... likely not some Mayor of some bohunk town.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:17pm PT
Just making an observation about the locals.
They are not likely to give up their guns easily.

To many the flag is coded racism, another thing many locals are not likely to give up easily.


But the sun is out and I have a bunch of drums loaded.
Catcha later.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:23pm PT
Just making an observation about the locals.
They are not likely to give up their guns easily.

Yeah. I understand they weren't that psyched to give up thier multiple adolescent wives either.
jghedge

climber
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:31pm PT
"Gun laws work?? tell that to Chi-town.."

The funny thing is, we both know the only thing that will work, and that's been proven to work

You just refuse to admit it, because it refutes your ideology (as reality always does)
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:32pm PT
care to take a guess at how many more murders there would be in Chicago without restrictive gun laws, Ron?

pretty big population in Chicago, right? maybe a couple thousand instead of a couple hundred?


Ron A, can you also explain why the states with the most restrictive gun laws are also the states with the least handgun murder rates?

Like say Massachusetts, toughest gun laws and the lowest gun murder rate?

or how about Nevada way up on the list of gun deaths and with very loose gun laws
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

or say Alaska, where everyone has a couple guns also being the state with the highest gun death rate in the nation
Riley Wyna

Trad climber
A crack near you
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:33pm PT
why bother folks....
why bother
jghedge

climber
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:37pm PT
"Ron A, can you also explain why the states with the most restrictive gun laws are also the states with the least handgun murder rates?"

Or why the countries that have outlawed guns have gun death rates a tiny fraction of ours?
Messages 921 - 940 of total 1386 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