Mass shootings every single day!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2012, 02:17 PM
RE: Mass shootings every single day!
(17-12-2012 02:11 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 02:08 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Listen kid, you're doing a strawman. Listen up and pay attention for once.


I don't subscribe to the "self-defense" argument. Nor do I subscribe to the hunting argument. Or any of those. You're attacking people who aren't here at the moment.


If all guns could magically vanish from the US all at once and a comprehensive ban of them be put in place, I would not be totally opposed to that. If you have a culture that never had guns in significant numbers, and ban guns, then you end up with not many guns. Then not many people are killed by guns anymore! They're killed by knives and cricket bats and lead pipes and so on, but at least they aren't getting holes poked in them from a distance.

But what happens when you ban guns, and there are already millions of guns floating around? The guns don't magically disappear. People don't rush to the gun trade-in centers to give away a $200 or $500 or $1500 gun for $50 (unless they're morons or getting rid of a murder weapon). People hang onto them, because when you ban guns they gain value. Criminals end up stealing guns, or buying them on the black market, having them imported from other countries... Or they end up just stabbing people or hitting them with something heavy.

What happens in the meantime? People who enjoy shooting, who see it as a sport--REGARDLESS of whether you do or not--get pissed. They hide their guns, they stock up on ammo before the ban goes in effect, they trade guns in secret. If you try to confiscate their guns, especially in the South, any of them who have violent or anti-authority tendencies might start shooting back. Cops die. Civilians die.

A depressed man wants to commit suicide, but he traded in his gun for $50 at the trade-in. He sticks his head in the oven instead or jumps off something high.

Another man wants the fame of being on the news when he goes out. Maybe he buys guns on the black market? Or perhaps he just pours some diesel into a bag of nitrate fertilizer and blows himself up in a coffee shop or a public building or a school.

Instances of accidental gun injuries decline. Yay!

The weak have no more protection against muggers or burglars. Guys break into your house with bats and knives, you should just go sit on the bed and let them take all your valuables. Don't worry, you can report it to the police!.. who will do nothing because they have too many other cases already. Or your insurance agency! "Oh, I'm sorry, your policy doesn't cover burglary, that's an extra $30/mo for your area." And if you're female you better hope they aren't feeling rapey that day.



The world keeps ticking. People keep killing each other and robbing and stealing. A little less efficiently in some ways, a little more efficiently in others. Some crime statistics go up, some go down. Death by gun decreases, death by other things goes up. Maybe in the end there's a little less death. But was it worth it?





That's what I'm saying. Banning guns isn't worth it. The changes it will accomplish in the US are miniscule and will take decades, maybe a century to settle out. In the meantime you're pissing off millions of people, seeing a huge spike in deaths, you're leaving the weak and old at the mercy of thieves with no practical defense. Maybe in the end you'll get a decrease in average mortality. I just don't think that small difference is worth the cost.

I also think that banning particular categories of gun, whether that be "Assault Weapons" or something else, will make about as much difference to crime as a fart in a brass band, except it will cost more and piss people off.
That whole post is a slippery slope fallacy.

I have replied to the other ideas embedded within it in my previous posts on this page.
Slippery slope to what? You've been saying you'd like guns to be banned. Well, that's what'll happen if you ban guns. No slippery slope involved. You can argue with my predictions if you like, but I think they're well-reasoned.


As for "why let them have guns if it doesn't decrease crime?" who said guns are there to decrease crime? Oh, some idiots probably did. I didn't. Guns are used for hunting and sport. I consider target shooting a sport. I like going out with a .22 and plinking or putting holes in a paper target. It's fun. It's a hobby. My owning that .22 doesn't hurt anyone. Heck, me owning a .223 or a .308 doesn't hurt anyone if all I'm doing is shooting at paper and cans and 2 liter bottles.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 02:23 PM
RE: Mass shootings every single day!
(17-12-2012 02:17 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 02:11 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  That whole post is a slippery slope fallacy.

I have replied to the other ideas embedded within it in my previous posts on this page.
Slippery slope to what? You've been saying you'd like guns to be banned. Well, that's what'll happen if you ban guns. No slippery slope involved. You can argue with my predictions if you like, but I think they're well-reasoned.


As for "why let them have guns if it doesn't decrease crime?" who said guns are there to decrease crime? Oh, some idiots probably did. I didn't. Guns are used for hunting and sport. I consider target shooting a sport. I like going out with a .22 and plinking or putting holes in a paper target. It's fun. It's a hobby. My owning that .22 doesn't hurt anyone. Heck, me owning a .223 or a .308 doesn't hurt anyone if all I'm doing is shooting at paper and cans and 2 liter bottles.
A) Your slippery slope is that banning them would result in all of the events you describe. You are asserting what would happen based on...what exactly? Did that happen somewhere else?

B) When did I say "ban"? I want better laws. I want regulation. I want them taxed (more on bullets). I want them registered nationally. I want people to need more than just a hunters safety course to get one.

C) I don't care about the person going to the gun range to play with their toy. I don't care that your favorite prey-item is the fearsome Al can. I am not worried about you with a gun, or a knife, or a car. I am worried about those who shouldn't drive, but do. I am worried about those who are not mentally fit being around others with a weapon (of any type). I am worried that a culture that defends weapons so vehemently is not generating discussion about what can be done to better ourselves.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
17-12-2012, 02:25 PM
RE: Mass shootings every single day!
Read that article about the kid from the anarchist soccer mom. I am worried about that kid. The one who's mother was told the only way to get him any attention is to get him in jail. I am worried about a country that thinks imprisonment is equivalent to rehabilitation and treatment.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 02:31 PM
RE: Mass shootings every single day!
(17-12-2012 02:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 02:17 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Slippery slope to what? You've been saying you'd like guns to be banned. Well, that's what'll happen if you ban guns. No slippery slope involved. You can argue with my predictions if you like, but I think they're well-reasoned.


As for "why let them have guns if it doesn't decrease crime?" who said guns are there to decrease crime? Oh, some idiots probably did. I didn't. Guns are used for hunting and sport. I consider target shooting a sport. I like going out with a .22 and plinking or putting holes in a paper target. It's fun. It's a hobby. My owning that .22 doesn't hurt anyone. Heck, me owning a .223 or a .308 doesn't hurt anyone if all I'm doing is shooting at paper and cans and 2 liter bottles.
A) Your slippery slope is that banning them would result in all of the events you describe. You are asserting what would happen based on...what exactly? Did that happen somewhere else?

B) When did I say "ban"? I want better laws. I want regulation. I want them taxed (more on bullets). I want them registered nationally. I want people to need more than just a hunters safety course to get one.

C) I don't care about the person going to the gun range to play with their toy. I don't care that your favorite prey-item is the fearsome Al can. I am not worried about you with a gun, or a knife, or a car. I am worried about those who shouldn't drive, but do. I am worried about those who are not mentally fit being around others with a weapon (of any type). I am worried that a culture that defends weapons so vehemently is not generating discussion about what can be done to better ourselves.

Then we disagree on methodology, not on the problem. I believe that better psychological healthcare and slightly more, but more importantly better-thought-out and clearer gun regulation is the solution.

You seem to think that much, much more regulation and taxation is the solution.


A few pages back I proposed a system that I think would drastically reduce the number of mass shootings and homicides with guns while still allowing people who see it as a sport or a right to continue in about the same way. Instead of banning dangerous weapons, it keeps dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals while letting people who are not dangerous keep their weapon.


The problem is that there is a significant lobby would would like to ban all guns--call them bleeding-heart pussies. There is also a significant lobby that will tolerate no restriction on gun ownership--call them redneck assholes. These two groups will not compromise. How about instead of siding with one or the other because we agree with them slightly more, we work on moderating and de-polarizing the assholes and pussies to a point where we can pass effective legislation that does not become over-restrictive, but is effective at reducing crime and mass shootings?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
17-12-2012, 02:40 PM
RE: Mass shootings every single day!
That can only be done by having a conversation about it that doesn't involve demeaning one another.

I do want more regulation. We jump through all manner of hoops to drive and own a car. We register the car, we pay taxes on the car and every time we fill up, we register ourselves to drive, we buy insurance in case we hurt someone with our car. Why do we not do that with guns?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 03:04 PM
RE: Mass shootings every single day!
(17-12-2012 02:40 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  That can only be done by having a conversation about it that doesn't involve demeaning one another.

I do want more regulation. We jump through all manner of hoops to drive and own a car. We register the car, we pay taxes on the car and every time we fill up, we register ourselves to drive, we buy insurance in case we hurt someone with our car. Why do we not do that with guns?
Many jurisdictions do. One problem is that there are 50 state legislatures and a federal government, so there are 51 sets of laws.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-12-2012, 03:09 PM
RE: Mass shootings every single day!
(17-12-2012 03:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 02:40 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  That can only be done by having a conversation about it that doesn't involve demeaning one another.

I do want more regulation. We jump through all manner of hoops to drive and own a car. We register the car, we pay taxes on the car and every time we fill up, we register ourselves to drive, we buy insurance in case we hurt someone with our car. Why do we not do that with guns?
Many jurisdictions do. One problem is that there are 50 state legislatures and a federal government, so there are 51 sets of laws.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! I know and that is so goddamn absurd it makes my head spin. It is one of the biggest barriers for reforming education too. "But we have to protect states rights from big government." It is still big government, just big STATE government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So many things to make my head explode from stupid overload.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 03:12 PM
RE: Mass shootings every single day!
(17-12-2012 03:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 03:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Many jurisdictions do. One problem is that there are 50 state legislatures and a federal government, so there are 51 sets of laws.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! I know and that is so goddamn absurd it makes my head spin. It is one of the biggest barriers for reforming education too. "But we have to protect states rights from big government." It is still big government, just big STATE government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So many things to make my head explode from stupid overload.


Yes, I absolutely agree that it is absurd. The time of states' rights is long past.

The solution includes true universal health care which includes mental health services without limits. A sane society treats people with dignity. It's not about God, it's not about guns, it's about a healthy society.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-12-2012, 03:17 PM
RE: Mass shootings every single day!
(17-12-2012 03:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 03:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! I know and that is so goddamn absurd it makes my head spin. It is one of the biggest barriers for reforming education too. "But we have to protect states rights from big government." It is still big government, just big STATE government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So many things to make my head explode from stupid overload.


Yes, I absolutely agree that it is absurd. The time of states' rights is long past.

The solution includes true universal health care which includes mental health services without limits. A sane society treats people with dignity. It's not about God, it's not about guns, it's about a healthy society.
I can get behind the brunt of that argument.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 04:07 PM
RE: Mass shootings every single day!
(17-12-2012 01:44 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 01:41 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  My father is sitting beside me, and he is in the military. I am also providing a definition for both. There is no difference other than the magazine cartridge size.

What are you talking about? What the hell is "magazine cartridge size"? Size of the magazine? Both the AR-15 and M16 take standard STANAG magazines with a capacity between 10 and 30, and up to 100 (though those usually suck and are unreliable). Size of the cartridge fired? They fire .223 and 5.56x45mm respectively, which are actually basically identical. 5.56 is specced to take a slightly higher pressure. An M16 will fire either .223 or 5.56x45mm equally well, and with a changed upper can fire almost any round conceivable. A well-built (not knock-off quality) AR-15 will fire both rounds equally as well, and again can fire almost anything if you change out the upper.


So you're wrong on both counts, whichever you were thinking of.


Here's the difference, Logica.

An M16, if you put the selector switch to "Burst" will fire three rounds when you pull the trigger (unless it's an M16A1 from the 70s, in which case it will fire full automatic).

An AR-15 does not have a "Burst" mode and will only ever fire one round when you pull the trigger.


I am well aware of the difference. I said that the AR 15 is an assault rifle, an extremely generic term from what I understand. If I am incorrect, I apologize for my arguing about classification.

However, I'd like to get back to the point of my argument. I see no real need to posses such a weapon.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: