Gun Control

[Stoked]

No. I agree with his statement that most who text and drive will not get killed doing so, or kill others. Off the top of my head, I don't recall the other specific behaviors he mentioned. Anyhow, I was agreeing with the concept that something harmful should not necessarily be allowed to occur without any regulation or restriction simply because harm does not ALWAYS result.

I interpreted his statement to mean that it is OK to restrict a behavior, such as texting while driving, even though many who do it will not cause any harm while doing it. The fact that many can do something without causing harm to occur does not mean that it should be completely unregulated. I agreed with that.

So to the question of gun owners, the fact that the majority of them are responsible people whose guns will cause no harm is not a reason for me to say that there should be no regulations regarding the owning of guns. The argument opposing gun regulation based on the idea that "most gun owners are law-abiding citizens" is not a convincing one for me.

OK, fair enough. However the argument that we should restrict guns even more based on what someone might do does not convince me that more laws are needed. In my honest opinion this is a topic better left alone by the anti gun crowd. If the AWB is passed people will not abide by it. They are already using 3d printers to get around a potential clip/magazine limiting law.

So then the government finds themselves in a position where they have to enforce a law on a large population in disobedience or not enforce it and make the law effectively useless. If people attempt to enforce it than something will happen and you will see mass revolt. I'm talking civil war type ****.

I am not calling for it but just what I see happening. You'll have a million little wacos and as they start to fall they will band together and then you'll have 500,000 medium wacos, then 200,000 large ones and so on...

 

[Bronco70]

No. I agree with his statement that most who text and drive will not get killed doing so, or kill others. Off the top of my head, I don't recall the other specific behaviors he mentioned. Anyhow, I was agreeing with the concept that something harmful should not necessarily be allowed to occur without any regulation or restriction simply because harm does not ALWAYS result.

I interpreted his statement to mean that it is OK to restrict a behavior, such as texting while driving, even though many who do it will not cause any harm while doing it. The fact that many can do something without causing harm to occur does not mean that it should be completely unregulated. I agreed with that.

So to the question of gun owners, the fact that the majority of them are responsible people whose guns will cause no harm is not a reason for me to say that there should be no regulations regarding the owning of guns. The argument opposing gun regulation based on the idea that "most gun owners are law-abiding citizens" is not a convincing one for me.

The flaw in this comparison is, there is no substantive benefit from texting while driving. Texting while driving does not have the potential to defend someone's life or repel an assault. Gun owners who carry don't do so just for ****s and giggles. You (and Brow) don't seem to want to acknowledge that there is a benefit to law abiding citizens being armed, but there most certainly is.

 

[moevillini]

Whether there is a benefit or not is beside the point as far as I'm concerned, and should not negate taking steps to minimize risks.

 

[bordelais7]

Whether there is a benefit or not is beside the point as far as I'm concerned, and should not negate taking steps to minimize risks.

This is silly. So based on this, you want to regulate...everything that exists? Everything that we do has some level of risk. And no matter how many "steps" you take, there will still be risk to "minimize". Where do you draw the line?

I think we should ban food because it can be a choking hazard. Whether there is a benefit or not is beside the point as far as I'm concerned.

You HAVE to consider benefits in any argument.

 

[Bronco70]

Whether there is a benefit or not is beside the point as far as I'm concerned, and should not negate taking steps to minimize risks.

Beside the point? It is the point. But Bordy covered it, so I won't belabor it.

 

[moevillini]

Yeah, because food has never been regulated!


:rolls eyes:

 

[moevillini]

but anyhow, I'm a little verklempt, talk amongst yourselves...

 

[Bronco70]

Guns are also currently regulated.

 

[One Brow]

Although you rarely if ever take an actual position or advocate for specifics (a convenient way to deny that you are against something eh?), the benefits of gun ownership are clearly lacking in your analysis of (attack on) guns. Your sole focus has been on victims for 50 straight pages without giving the tiniest recognition to the other side of the coin.

Basically, it's a "you take a position so I can chisel out the tiniest specks of dust for 82 pages while playing naive of the actual granite statue from which they came" tactic. That's why I've mostly stayed out of it, and also why many like myself have gone from an attitude of considering new regulations to saying screw that slippery slope there's no pleasing the anti-gun crowd.

I'm not taking any positions because the issue is difficult and anything more than general ideas is way beyond my level of expertise. I honestly don't know what is the best approach. I do know that making a decision based on faulty paradigms or naked statements of rights is unlikely to be a good approach, because that's never a good approach. As for the focus of my disagreement, outside of moevillini (who hasn't put forth any policy proposals recently), the people in here doing the arguing are very much focused on the pros of owning guns, with nearly an outright dismissal of victims, in some cases. Naturally, by comparison, I'll seem focused on the victims.

Just a couple of pages ago, I said that if all gun owners behaved as Stoked described himself behaving, then I would see no need for gun control. Considering that, do you really think there is no pleasing me?

 

[One Brow]

At the end of the day, it's pretty damn funny how going overboard has backfired on the anti-2nd amendment crowd.

What is the overboard regulation being considered?

 

[One Brow]

You mean the argument that, potentially, anyone could act irrationally, so the best strategy to employ is to impose stringent limits on those who will most likely use guns responsibly, for personal defense or to diffuse a dangerous situation?

What specific stringent limit have I endorsed? At most, I said I could see why a ban on university property is reasonable.

 

[Stoked]

What is the overboard regulation being considered?

The AWB and clip/magazine restrictions.

For info on this it is right here in this thread, usually provided in the best detail by Gameface.

 

[One Brow]

However the argument that we should restrict guns even more based on what someone might do does not convince me that more laws are needed. In my honest opinion this is a topic better left alone by the anti gun crowd. If the AWB is passed people will not abide by it.

Not an argument on what might happen, but one on what does happen with measurable frequency.

So, you're saying this great, law-abiding gun culture will decide that laws aren't worth obeying after all, and that at heart they are criminals?

 

[One Brow]

The flaw in this comparison is, there is no substantive benefit from texting while driving. Texting while driving does not have the potential to defend someone's life or repel an assault. Gun owners who carry don't do so just for ****s and giggles. You (and Brow) don't seem to want to acknowledge that there is a benefit to law abiding citizens being armed, but there most certainly is.

If people did not feel they were benefiting from texting while driving, they would not be doing it.

Given that, when I made the comparison to hand washing, I explicitly said that gun ownership had more benefits than not washing hands and the issue was more complex, your statement of what I will or will not acknowledge is demonstrably false.

 

[Stoked]

Not an argument on what might happen, but one on what does happen with measurable frequency.

So, you're saying this great, law-abiding gun culture will decide that laws aren't worth obeying after all, and that at heart they are criminals?

Very clever. At heart they will stand up for their freedoms regardless of wether others think they will have it.

As for the "...what does happen with measurable frequency..." How many CC holders have commited murder or attempted to with their weapon at a university campus? How will banning 6 cosmetic features on a weapon stop shootings? How are gun free zones working out?

 

[One Brow]

The AWB and clip/magazine restrictions.

For info on this it is right here in this thread, usually provided in the best detail by Gameface.

From what's been in this thread so far, the AWB restriction was inappropriate because there's no good definition of an AWB (and the last ban had some illogical and ill-considered restrictions), and I never did get a good reason why limiting magazine sizes was some huge inconvenience, since the main argument against such limits seems to be that magazines can be seapped out quickly. I agree badly defined legislation is not worth having, but that doesn't make a ban itself an overreach (for example, I believe fully automatic weapons are banned), the overreach will be based on the definition provided for an AWB in this bill.

So, why do you consider these overboard regulations? Can you contrast them with regulations you do not consider an overboard, to help illustrate the difference?

 

[One Brow]

Very clever. At heart they will stand up for their freedoms regardless of wether others think they will have it.

As for the "...what does happen with measurable frequency..." How many CC holders have commited murder or attempted to with their weapon at a university campus? How will banning 6 cosmetic features on a weapon stop shootings? How are gun free zones working out?

There was nothing particularly clever about noting the disconnect between the constant slinging of terms like 'law-abiding gun-holders' and the claims that they will break the law even though they will receive no benefit from doing so.

Answers:
1) I don't know.
2) It won't, but stopping shootings is not realistic, nor necessarily the goal.
3) Overall, fairly well, but some occasional ugly incidents thrown in.

 

[One Brow]

Then what is the goal? Because it will do one of two things:
1. act as a deterent to law abiding citizens
or
2. turn them into criminals.

The goal is limiting access. As long as guns are plentiful, criminals will have access to guns. The more powerful the gun that is legally available, the more powerful the gun that a criminal can access with low risk. Part of the reason there are very few gun-toting criminals in England or Germany is that 1) they are difficult to get, and you don't need them to commit crimes.

Do you remember the recent incident in New York where a newspaper put on-line the locations of gun-owners? I heard several people complain that this made their home a target for a criminal looking for guns. I heard no one say this made their home less of a target because a burglar would want to go into a home without a gun.

 

[Bronco70]

One Brow,

I am done discussing this with you. I am tired of your wild goose chases and straw men, and your unwillingness to recognize hyperbole or interpret simple analogies. I'm weary of quibbling over semantics. I will end by acknowledging your superior intellect, and I commend your mental stamina to continually pursue a fruitless argument. I am not going to change your mind, and you certainly aren't going to change mine. Thanks for your time.

Bronco

 

[One Brow]

I am done discussing this with you.

I'm sorry that you see my points in that fashion. As much as anything else, I have been trying to attack bad arguments. There are very good arguments for and against more gun control, but the bad arguments get in the way of critical thinking and rational discussion.

Thank you for the compliments.