'We were bored and didn’t have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody.' (Read 569 times)

     

    Is this fair, or a mis-characterization of your general stance?

     

    This is my general stance:

     

    Come all you no-hopers, you jokers and rogues
    We're on the road to nowhere, let's find out where it goes
    nachosgrande


      Yes, I am a lurker here.

       

      And yes, I finally registered for the sole purpose of posting this, though maybe a little late and out of context:

       

      I hear the “why are you trying to take my guns away but you’re not trying to ban cars?!” argument all the time, and it’s stupid. Here’s why. The specific laws may vary subtly in your municipality, but broadly speaking, in order to own/operate a vehicle legally, you must 1) be of a certain age, 2) pass a written examination of your knowledge of associated laws, 3) demonstrate your ability to safely operate a vehicle, 4) purchase insurance against any damage that may occur as the result of an automobile accident, and 5) register your vehicle, name and address with your local government and renew that registration on a regular basis. If you fail to do any of these things, you get in trouble. If you want to take your car to certain public places, like a parking garage or a toll road, you often have to pay a fee. If you’re caught doing something irresponsible with your vehicle, you often have to pay a fee. Sometimes, you go to jail and lose your right to operate a vehicle.

       

      Cars are well-regulated tools that are intended to transport people and sometimes, usually not on purpose, kill people.

       

      So if you’re going to use the “why are you trying to take my guns away but you’re not trying to ban cars?!” argument, you should, by logical necessity, be willing to submit gun ownership to the same level of regulation and scrutiny that cars get. I think that would satisfy a lot of the people who “want to take your guns away.”

       

      Yes, vehicles are well regulated and still sometimes kill people. But imagine the number of automobile-related deaths if we were to reduce or remove the level of automobile regulation to match the level of regulation gun ownership receives. The "it won't do any good" argument is no reason to not enact legislation to try to prevent gun crime.

       

      And really, to complete the analogy you’re using, we should differentiate between make, model and usage. For example, let’s equate a Glock handgun to a Ford sedan: they’re sort of the ubiquitous tool. They’re practical examples of common usage. So then we would need to equate assault rifle to a vehicle that is correspondingly specialized in its intended usage. Let’s say automatic rifles are like tractors. Now, are you at work? Look outside into the parking lot and count how many people drove a tractor to work. Wait, zero? That’s right, because that would be retarded. Most non-farming people don’t own tractors. Because they don’t fucking need them.

       

      Flame away.

       

      Thank you for this.  The car example is such a ridiculous straw man that I can't believe people actually debated it here for 10 friggin pages.  Regulation aside, cars have become a necessity in American society, which, currently, if they were removed/taken away, society would cease to function.  Now, lets play that same game with guns.  Remove all guns from the hands of the private citizenry tomorrow (and I'm not advocating that).  Does anything change?  (Other than some pissed off NRA members protesting in the streets)

        Personally I find it very frustrating the amount of time and political capital that has been wasted on gun control, when that effort and energy could have been put into addressing the problems of inner city culture that lead to incredibly violent areas (the tool used to conduct the violence aside) or towards largely under-enforced existing laws.

         

        I agree that addressing "the problems of inner city culture that lead to incredibly violent areas"  would be of great benefit to society.  The problem is, you need a lot more than just "effort and energy" if you truly want to address those problems in an effective and lasting way.    Specifically, you need a very significant expenditure of tax dollars. You can bet on the fact that the same conservatives who oppose gun control would scream like bloody murder if the government tried to allocate sufficient financial resources to actually resolve the problems of inner city culture.  Therefore, that simply isn't going to happen.

         

        Also, the problem is that many existing gun laws are full of loopholes:

         

        http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090923_gun_study/index.html

         

        Enforcing defective existing laws isn't the answer.

        nachosgrande


          Spaniel:

          Okay.  So your position is that Violence is a problem in society, but methods of its execution, the ease of access to means that someone can translate their violence into a fatal action, are not worthy of concern.  If someone is violent their access to a firearm has no affect on whether their future actions result in fatalities; they would find other means which are just as easy to procure, are just as quick to turn a hot situation into a fatal one and that the number of victims does not go up when a gun is involved.

           

          In other words, violence is the problem that should be solved.  [I think everyone agrees here].  But as that root cause has no clear solution, you do not think it valuable to pursue mitigating the means of violence as efforts to do so take away resources that should be dedicated to root cause.  Furthermore, because removing guns will not solve the problem, it is not worth impinging on the rights of those who lawfully own firearms.

           

          Is this fair, or a mis-characterization of your general stance?

           

          The argument should be summed us as: "Your dead child is the price of freedom."

          npaden


            I'm a pro-gun person and own two semi-automatic rifles (along with 2 shotguns, 2 other rifles and 1 revolver) and I'm all for the gun owners having to pass some type of a check and maintain a current license to show that they are capable of owning and taking care of a weapon.  That way if someone is caught without a license to own and carry a gun they would be immediately be arrested for it.

             

            It just isn't going to work that way without a constitutional amendment because of the bill of rights.  Gun ownership is a right, driving a car is not.

             

            There's all kinds of other issues with the concept as well.  My 6 year old can barely read or write so there is no way he could take and pass a gun ownership test, but I let him shoot a .22 rifle under close supervision.  When I was 8 or 9 years old, I had my own .22 rifle that I hauled around and in most states you can legally hunt by yourself at age 12.  You do have to take a class, pass a hunters safety test, and buy a license to hunt by yourself in just about any state now though.  You just don't need to take a class, pass a test or have a license to run around killing people.

             

            Another issue is the government has already shown the tendency to overcomplicate and overprice the process of licensing.  I would like to put a noise suppressor on my AR-15 for hog hunting.  It is legal in the state of Texas and would help a little bit in trying to control the hog population.  To do so I have to get a class 3 weapons license that requires all kinds of hoops to jump through and a $200 fee per gun and register and keep up a FFL license (that costs money each year) and all kinds of other fun stuff.  Folks are worried that if they make it such a difficult process to get a suppressor that they will make any type of other process difficult as well to discourage people from owning guns.

             

            Oh well, the problem isn't the weapon used, it the folks using the weapon.

             

            My 2 cents.

            Age: 50 Weight: 224 Height: 6'3" (Goal weight 195)

            Current PR's:  Mara 3:14:36* (2017); HM 1:36:13 (2017); 10K 43:59 (2014); 5K 21:12 (2016)


            Menace to Sobriety

               

              Since assault weapons are fully-automatic by definition and those are extraordinarily rare even in criminal hands, you're about as likely to win the Powerball as have that happen.

               

              And why are they so rare?

              Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go f*** himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.


              Feeling the growl again

                Spaniel:

                Okay.  So your position is that Violence is a problem in society, but methods of its execution, the ease of access to means that someone can translate their violence into a fatal action, are not worthy of concern.  If someone is violent their access to a firearm has no affect on whether their future actions result in fatalities; they would find other means which are just as easy to procure, are just as quick to turn a hot situation into a fatal one and that the number of victims does not go up when a gun is involved.

                 

                In other words, violence is the problem that should be solved.  [I think everyone agrees here].  But as that root cause has no clear solution, you do not think it valuable to pursue mitigating the means of violence as efforts to do so take away resources that should be dedicated to root cause.  Furthermore, because removing guns will not solve the problem, it is not worth impinging on the rights of those who lawfully own firearms.

                 

                Is this fair, or a mis-characterization of your general stance?

                It's a complete mischaracterization.  The issue becomes that any discussion of reasonable restrictions quickly turns into banning (or the equivalent of it), and most of those discussing what they want to happen actually have no understanding of the firearms laws already on the books because they have never had to deal with them.

                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                 

                I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                 


                Feeling the growl again

                   

                  And why are they so rare?

                   

                  As one of the sets of laws not well understood....

                   

                  Fully automatic weapons are class III weapons federally controlled under very strict licensing.  Further, their manufacture and important has been heavily, heavily curtailed since circa 1986 by additional laws.  Basically, getting one costs in the neighborhood of $5K-$10K (plus associated bureaucracy and headaches) and each one is tracked.  Additional legalities control if the weapon must be surrendered to the gov't upon your death; your family can't just sell it off.

                  "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                   

                  I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                   


                  Feeling the growl again

                     

                    Does anything change?  (Other than some pissed off NRA members protesting in the streets)

                     

                     

                    Well, see this is part of the problem.  You live in a bubble and don't know how large numbers of people in this country live, so you assume everywhere is like the little urban or suburban bubble where you live, everyone lives like you, and can only see the nation through that lens.

                     

                    And based on this nice little gem...

                     

                    "This could be summed up as:  Your dead child is the price of freedom"

                     

                    ...it's clear you aren't worth explaining it to.

                     

                    When you can't use information and logic to form a coherent discussion, insult someone and try to turn it into an emotional argument.  Create a charicature of anyone who disagrees with you as being a heartless monster to form the basis of your argument rather than discussing it on the merits. To write something like that really shows something about your personality.

                    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                     

                    I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                     


                    Feeling the growl again

                      I'm a pro-gun person and own two semi-automatic rifles (along with 2 shotguns, 2 other rifles and 1 revolver) and I'm all for the gun owners having to pass some type of a check and maintain a current license to show that they are capable of owning and taking care of a weapon.  That way if someone is caught without a license to own and carry a gun they would be immediately be arrested for it.

                       

                       

                      Most states require CCW, criminals can't get a permit, and carry anyways.  Often they are caught with the gun but prosecution for this is often not harsh enough.  A few months back the teenager in Louisiana shot up that parade; he had been arrested for a gun offense not long before that and was already out on the street again.

                       

                      The problem with a gun ownership license (Illinois has such a system) is that it does not regulate the individual firearm.  A license holder could still purchase and they could then end up in criminal hands.  As Chicago shows, it really does nothing but inconvenience those that follow the law (this is why the "universal background check" is also a waste of time).  The only way to prevent the criminal transfer effectively would be a registration database on individual firearms by serial #.  The problem with this is that abuse is a virtual certainty, and there are too many nations where such a registration was passed on the promise of pure purpose but confiscation then followed.  So while I would support some of the end goals registration is a non-starter.

                       

                      There are a lot of things that could be done.  Increased prosecution of straw purchasers and identification of dealers knowingly participating in such sales.  Harsher prosecution of those caught illegally carrying.   Etc etc.  Focus on those that are law breaking and not law following.

                      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                       

                      I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                       


                      MoBramExam

                        ...Most non-farming people don’t own tractors. Because they don’t fucking need them.

                         

                        Flame away.

                         

                        I am a non-farming person, but if I want a tractor (in my persuit of happiness), and me having that tractor does not infringe on any of your rights, who are you to say that I don't "need" it?

                         




                        Feeling the growl again

                           

                           

                          And really, to complete the analogy you’re using, we should differentiate between make, model and usage. For example, let’s equate a Glock handgun to a Ford sedan: they’re sort of the ubiquitous tool. They’re practical examples of common usage. So then we would need to equate assault rifle to a vehicle that is correspondingly specialized in its intended usage. Let’s say automatic rifles are like tractors. Now, are you at work? Look outside into the parking lot and count how many people drove a tractor to work. Wait, zero? That’s right, because that would be retarded. Most non-farming people don’t own tractors. Because they don’t fucking need them.

                           

                          Flame away.

                           

                          AR-15s are one of the (if not THE) highest volume sales items and have been for years.  Go to any range; they are everywhere in common usage for hunting, competition, and home defense.

                           

                          They are also not an automatic rifle.  Do you know the difference?

                           

                          I'm really not opposed to efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  But I find it hard to maintain a middle ground discussion when this is the kind of ignorance framing the discussion.

                           

                          As for asserting that it won't do any good is no excuse not to try and enact ineffective legislation....really?  Think about that for a moment.  You really expect people to have to deal with laws that will not be effective at preventing crime but will affect them, just so you can feel better and say you tried something?

                           

                          I'll end where I started....this type of thought process really concerns me for the future of our country.

                          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                           

                          I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                           


                          No Talent Drips

                             

                            This ought to elicit a reaction. Just a touch of real world evidence in an otherwise largley rhetorical debate. Also too, funny.

                             

                            Or not. Curious.

                             Dei Gratia

                             

                              You guys are on the verge of solving this issue once and for all this time, I can feel it.

                              Runners run


                              MoBramExam

                                You guys are on the verge of solving this issue once and for all this time, I can feel it.

                                 

                                Going to have to...abortion starts Saturday at 10:00 a.m. EST.