[split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-06-2016, 06:18 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(20-06-2016 06:03 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-06-2016 05:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  If that is voluntary, it won't garner many guns. Consider

Make it involuntary. It's not total taking away of people's guns, it's removing the ones typically used for mass murders (I imagine high magazine capacity and so forth, not that I know much about that). And not even totally that I would imagine - just making it much harder to legally own such weapons. People can still own their pistols for home defence, their rifles for hunting.

Look, I know it must look hopelessly naive, but I can't see any other way to achieve the objective of less mass shootings other than reducing the number of those type of guns that make mass shootings possible. Thump mentioned just now, that if he wanted to obtain a weapon illegally, with the number of weapons in circulation in America right now, it'd be as easy as pie. So somehow *if* the objective is worth going for, the number of these kinds of weapons which make mass shootings easy must be reduced.

Or you could make it prohibitively expensive to own a licence for more than two firearms? My bro in the UK was saying that the government is making it super expensive to own a second home - maybe something like that would work.

While these are measures which won't be popular with OnlineBiker, targeting legal gun owners, they're the kind of steps that might stand a chance of reducing the number of weapons in circulation.

I don't think you're hopelessly naive, just naive. Big Grin

The primary problem with your ideas is that they trample individual rights with actions that have no proven effectiveness. "Sounds like a good idea" is just not enough.

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
20-06-2016, 06:21 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(20-06-2016 06:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-06-2016 05:04 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  http://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169439243/...-they-work

NPR Wrote:A Harvard University study dating from the mid-1990s concluded that buybacks were largely ineffective in reducing gun violence because they weren't getting the right kinds of weapons off the street.

Yeah, different opinions. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 06:22 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(20-06-2016 06:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  The primary problem with your ideas is that they trample individual rights with actions that have no proven effectiveness. "Sounds like a good idea" is just not enough.

How about my right to not be in the same room with an unknown person swaggering about with a long gun over their shoulder?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 06:34 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(20-06-2016 06:22 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(20-06-2016 06:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  The primary problem with your ideas is that they trample individual rights with actions that have no proven effectiveness. "Sounds like a good idea" is just not enough.

How about my right to not be in the same room with an unknown person swaggering about with a long gun over their shoulder?

Does this regularly happen to you? Or anyone? Consider

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
20-06-2016, 06:37 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(20-06-2016 06:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-06-2016 06:22 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  How about my right to not be in the same room with an unknown person swaggering about with a long gun over their shoulder?

Does this regularly happen to you? Or anyone? Consider

Anywhere open carry is legal you'll see such. But how many times is "enough" for you to accept that it happens? And concealed carry is worse, because we don't know that the person is armed. In those cases we can't exercise due caution of get away from a threat.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 07:03 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(20-06-2016 06:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  The primary problem with your ideas is that they trample individual rights with actions that have no proven effectiveness. "Sounds like a good idea" is just not enough.

I disagree that this tramples individual rights. Your right to a gun is preserved, your right to a gun of firepower sufficient to commit mass murder is curtailed.

I cannot do otherwise than to talk in terms of what "sounds like a good idea" - I am no expert. What I think is possibly useful is to kick ideas around, see what comes out. No one solves a problem like this in one fell swoop.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
20-06-2016, 07:07 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(20-06-2016 06:37 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(20-06-2016 06:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  Does this regularly happen to you? Or anyone? Consider

Anywhere open carry is legal you'll see such. But how many times is "enough" for you to accept that it happens? And concealed carry is worse, because we don't know that the person is armed. In those cases we can't exercise due caution of get away from a threat.

My carrying a concealed firearm is not a threat to you.

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
20-06-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(20-06-2016 07:03 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-06-2016 06:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  The primary problem with your ideas is that they trample individual rights with actions that have no proven effectiveness. "Sounds like a good idea" is just not enough.

I disagree that this tramples individual rights. Your right to a gun is preserved, your right to a gun of firepower sufficient to commit mass murder is curtailed.

I cannot do otherwise than to talk in terms of what "sounds like a good idea" - I am no expert. What I think is possibly useful is to kick ideas around, see what comes out. No one solves a problem like this in one fell swoop.

I am all for talking about things that sound like a good idea. What I object to is enacting laws based on what sounds like a good idea without determining effectiveness.

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
20-06-2016, 07:34 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(20-06-2016 07:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am all for talking about things that sound like a good idea. What I object to is enacting laws based on what sounds like a good idea without determining effectiveness.

... Well sure. So let's talk about how one could trial a solution? Pick one state, change the laws, see how things work out? If it works, expand, if not, think again.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 07:47 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(20-06-2016 07:34 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-06-2016 07:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am all for talking about things that sound like a good idea. What I object to is enacting laws based on what sounds like a good idea without determining effectiveness.

... Well sure. So let's talk about how one could trial a solution? Pick one state, change the laws, see how things work out? If it works, expand, if not, think again.

That's already being done. Just in the northeast U.S. the laws vary from very little regulation (VT, NH, ME) to quite a lot (NY, NJ, CT, MA).
The effects on firearms violence does not correlate well to the regulations.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: