Mr Skeptic Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 But if Fox News is riling people up, isn't it possible that Democracy Now! riled up this guy and contributed to him going over the top? I know we can't know exactly what happened with this guy, and of course he didn't shoot anybody, but it seems like a comparable situation to me, albeit at lesser scale. Well, if nothing else this gives plenty more people a great opportunity to say things that are contradictory, "my team's speech doesn't rile people up but their side's does". 1
swansont Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 "Riled up" is a strawman, IMO. You can move someone to action, or just get them mad, without suggesting they do violence to or kill someone. It's not the same thing. 1
Pangloss Posted January 16, 2011 Author Posted January 16, 2011 Well, if nothing else this gives plenty more people a great opportunity to say things that are contradictory, "my team's speech doesn't rile people up but their side's does". Ayup. "Riled up" is a strawman, IMO. You can move someone to action, or just get them mad, without suggesting they do violence to or kill someone. It's not the same thing. So you're fine with most of what Fox News does, then?
ydoaPs Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 So you're fine with most of what Fox News does, then? Yeah, it's fine to completely fabricate false stories. 1
Pangloss Posted January 16, 2011 Author Posted January 16, 2011 So you're fine with most of what Fox News does, then? Yeah, it's fine to completely fabricate false stories. I doubt you can make a case that that's most of what Fox News does. Are you fine with Fox News getting people mad and "moving them to action" so long as they don't advocate violence?
swansont Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 So you're fine with most of what Fox News does, then? No, because as Ydoaps noted, there is the material that is fabricated. But that's a separate question. Getting someone mad based on a lie is intellectually dishonest and unethical, and I am opposed to that, but it's still not the same as advocating violence. But this is like asking someone who tells you they are against murder if that means they are OK with rape. It's a non-sequitur.
john5746 Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) I'm not sure i understand why anyone would think the lone crazy could be stopped because he thinks someone else has a gun, He doesn't care, he is willing to die to get his target, the only way to prevent that is make sure no one has a weapon of any kind. If he wanted to take out the person and all he had was a pocket knife the job could still be done. I don't know, was the guy suicidal? Maybe police or armed public would have made him think twice. In the USA and I suspect anywhere else in the world, if you want a gun bad enough someone will sell you one. I would be willing to bet in the UK if you really want a gun there are enough people who will sell you a gun. No way no how has every gun been taken from civilians, if the USA were to try and confiscate all guns the only guns they would likely get are the legal ones. A great many people have unregistered guns, guns handed down from grandpa, guns bought in gun shows, guns currently being held by criminals. Can't get rid of guns, so just give up and let just about anyone have them. No training or education required. Not even a healthy brain. Gun laws, lax or strong, have nothing to do with this man killing anyone... Yes, and planes had nothing to do with those deaths on 9/11. Heck, they could have done it with plastic chopsticks. Edited January 17, 2011 by john5746
Moontanman Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 I don't know, was the guy suicidal? Maybe police or armed public would have made him think twice. Pretty obviously they did not... Can't get rid of guns, so just give up and let just about anyone have them. No training or education required. Not even a healthy brain. I'm sorry on what planet did I suggest crazy people should be allowed to own guns or that there should not be any gun laws? Yes, and planes had nothing to do with those deaths on 9/11. Heck, they could have done it with plastic chopsticks. Restrictions on flying aircraft didn't seem to be effective at all did they?
Pangloss Posted January 17, 2011 Author Posted January 17, 2011 Getting someone mad based on a lie is intellectually dishonest and unethical, and I am opposed to that, but it's still not the same as advocating violence. I agree, and I'm sure you would also agree that it's intellectually dishonest and unethical no matter who does it, not just when it's Fox News Channel, a Republican, or a conservative who's doing the lying.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 I agree, and I'm sure you would also agree that it's intellectually dishonest and unethical no matter who does it, not just when it's Fox News Channel, a Republican, or a conservative who's doing the lying. Golly what an astute observation!
john5746 Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Restrictions on flying aircraft didn't seem to be effective at all did they? We have made some changes regarding security, especially in airports as a result of this attack. Similarly, I think gun laws should be examined in the wake of this incident. Tighter gun control is warranted, with evidence provided when comparing states within the US and comparing the US with foreign countries. I think it the easiest, most sensible thing to do. If he doesn't have a gun, there is no way he kills 6 people.
swansont Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 I agree, and I'm sure you would also agree that it's intellectually dishonest and unethical no matter who does it, not just when it's Fox News Channel, a Republican, or a conservative who's doing the lying. Of course. I don't think I have implied otherwise; I'm not the one who brought up Fox news.
swansont Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 We have made some changes regarding security, especially in airports as a result of this attack. Similarly, I think gun laws should be examined in the wake of this incident. Tighter gun control is warranted, with evidence provided when comparing states within the US and comparing the US with foreign countries. I think it the easiest, most sensible thing to do. If he doesn't have a gun, there is no way he kills 6 people. That's not going to happen, though. In the US we have the second amendment to the Constitution, so the solution of nobody owning a gun is a non-starter. 1
ParanoiA Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 We have made some changes regarding security, especially in airports as a result of this attack. Similarly, I think gun laws should be examined in the wake of this incident. Tighter gun control is warranted, with evidence provided when comparing states within the US and comparing the US with foreign countries. I think it the easiest, most sensible thing to do. If he doesn't have a gun, there is no way he kills 6 people. That's funny, the changes in airport security came after three thousand people were murdered *without* a gun. So yeah, if he doesn't have a gun, there most certainly is a way he kills 6 or more people. Many, many ways in fact. All of them just as cowardly. If gun laws work, how come murder laws don't? If it's believed gun laws will prevent enough people from carrying a gun, then why isn't murder law preventing enough people from committing murder? This isn't rhetorical, I really am asking. If it's believed that gun laws will remove guns from society, then how come drug laws have not removed drugs from society? Prostitution? How come prohibition doesn't eradicate the prohibited? Can we see some data and evidence that gun laws will remove guns from society? If this data or evidence does not exist, then why would we consider such solutions? I prefer we *deal* with our problems instead of hip shooting prohibitions and legal smack. Prohibition pyschology is why we still have the problems that prohibition wants to resolve. Prohibition cures are why we have violent crime in the markets we prohibit. All markets have rules and disputes. Legal markets use courts and policemen, illegal markets use guns and poor people. This why we don't have wine cartels or shady street corner beer dealers by the way. Sure, if there were no guns then no one could die from them. And if there were no bad people then no one would be innocently murdered. And if there were no hunger, no one would starve. But let's try to face the world we actually live in... More importantly though, it's absolutely immoral to deny citizens the right to wield such tools to defend themselves. There is no other weapon yet that can equalize a 5 foot 80 pound female with a 6 foot 300 pound male like a firearm. I know gun control isn't supposed to imply a gun ban, but I'm not sure what kind of gun control is suddenly going to make this crime less awful. From what I've read, it's childish idealizing about clip size... I predict these idiots will pass something that makes them feel wonderful about themselves and makes them believe they've "done" something about this tragedy. Then they'll go back to their introverted disposition, content that "laws" are solving their problems for them, while those who truly need help continue to be neglected, or until they inadvertantly trigger our bureaucratic legal intervention process... 2
imatfaal Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 An amendment to the constitution can and has been repealed (admittedly not one of the bill of rights). The chances of that happening to the second are, I agree, practically zero. I cannot see any likelihood of Scotus getting any more involved than it already is and last two cases the majority/plurality confirmed the right to bear arms (in limited and constrained legal questions)
swansont Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 That's funny, the changes in airport security came after three thousand people were murdered *without* a gun. So yeah, if he doesn't have a gun, there most certainly is a way he kills 6 or more people. Many, many ways in fact. All of them just as cowardly. If gun laws work, how come murder laws don't? If it's believed gun laws will prevent enough people from carrying a gun, then why isn't murder law preventing enough people from committing murder? This isn't rhetorical, I really am asking. If it's believed that gun laws will remove guns from society, then how come drug laws have not removed drugs from society? Prostitution? How come prohibition doesn't eradicate the prohibited? Can we see some data and evidence that gun laws will remove guns from society? If this data or evidence does not exist, then why would we consider such solutions? I prefer we *deal* with our problems instead of hip shooting prohibitions and legal smack. Prohibition pyschology is why we still have the problems that prohibition wants to resolve. Prohibition cures are why we have violent crime in the markets we prohibit. All markets have rules and disputes. Legal markets use courts and policemen, illegal markets use guns and poor people. This why we don't have wine cartels or shady street corner beer dealers by the way. Sure, if there were no guns then no one could die from them. And if there were no bad people then no one would be innocently murdered. And if there were no hunger, no one would starve. But let's try to face the world we actually live in... More importantly though, it's absolutely immoral to deny citizens the right to wield such tools to defend themselves. There is no other weapon yet that can equalize a 5 foot 80 pound female with a 6 foot 300 pound male like a firearm. I know gun control isn't supposed to imply a gun ban, but I'm not sure what kind of gun control is suddenly going to make this crime less awful. From what I've read, it's childish idealizing about clip size... I predict these idiots will pass something that makes them feel wonderful about themselves and makes them believe they've "done" something about this tragedy. Then they'll go back to their introverted disposition, content that "laws" are solving their problems for them, while those who truly need help continue to be neglected, or until they inadvertantly trigger our bureaucratic legal intervention process... While I understand and agree with the basic argument, there is one flaw — there are data that suggest making guns against the law does reduce the number of guns. In nations with more restrictive gun ownership laws, they have fewer guns per capita. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership And if laws do not reduce the number of murders or drug use, etc., then why have the laws on the books? Would the rates of these crimes go up if there were no laws against them? Don't we have people who would repeat their illegal behavior but can't (or find it more difficult) because they're in jail?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 And if laws do not reduce the number of murders or drug use, etc., then why have the laws on the books? Would the rates of these crimes go up if there were no laws against them? Don't we have people who would repeat their illegal behavior but can't (or find it more difficult) because they're in jail? Decriminalizing drugs has worked for at least one country: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html 1
ParanoiA Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 While I understand and agree with the basic argument, there is one flaw — there are data that suggest making guns against the law does reduce the number of guns. In nations with more restrictive gun ownership laws, they have fewer guns per capita. http://en.wikipedia....y_gun_ownership Fewer, but not removed - as I stated. Because fewer is not useful. Fewer doesn't indicate if ALL criminals have guns while ALL law abiding citizens do not, or otherwise. Only law abiding citizens will follow laws, by definition. Enter the most overused anti-gun control phrase..."outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns". Funny thing is, it's quite defensible. Fewer doesn't provide less death when one "side" simply melts down their weapons - the essential result of gun control laws that remove guns from circulation. And if laws do not reduce the number of murders or drug use, etc., then why have the laws on the books? Would the rates of these crimes go up if there were no laws against them? Don't we have people who would repeat their illegal behavior but can't (or find it more difficult) because they're in jail? Again, I didn't say or ask that. I asked, if murder laws do not prevent enough people to committ murder, then why would we believe gun laws will prevent enough people to committ murder? I'm accepting the notion of a reduction of a prohibited behavior, however I'm questioning how the prohibition of a less severe behavior, with a mild punishment - like carrying an outlawed tool - is somehow going to be more effective than the prohibition of a dramatically more severe condemned behavior like murder, with extreme punishment. It's like sending people to prison for graffiti, while ticketing people carrying paint cans because of a recent rise in graffiti. If they're going to risk prision for graffiti, then you can bet they'll risk a freaking ticket for graffiti too. Laws are absolutely necessary and they do reduce crime and certain behaviors - but laws don't fix things. Laws manage them. Laws don't make your world safe. They do damage control. The courts spend their time reviewing the past - terrible things that happened already. Police spend most of their calls reviewing the past. Lawyers make their money on the past. Most of the time law enforcement deals with things that have already happened, and laws provide us a mechanism to sort them out and provide something that resembles justice. I think we use laws to fix things so that we don't have to personally engage a societal problem. We want to be able to ignore the poor guy in the cold asking everyone for money for a bus ticket; we want to be able to feel good enough to sleep at night in the face of young runaways selling themselves for drugs; we want to be able to turn our nose up at "crazy" people yelling at telephone poles - because we paid our taxes and passed laws for that problem. We can ignore everything we personally encounter because we have impersonally paid into a pool of "caring" - laws and tax funded programs. 1
swansont Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 Fewer, but not removed - as I stated. Because fewer is not useful. Fewer doesn't indicate if ALL criminals have guns while ALL law abiding citizens do not, or otherwise. Only law abiding citizens will follow laws, by definition. Enter the most overused anti-gun control phrase..."outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns". Funny thing is, it's quite defensible. Fewer doesn't provide less death when one "side" simply melts down their weapons - the essential result of gun control laws that remove guns from circulation. But we have examples of places where essentially only the outlaws have guns, because of restrictive gun ownership laws. And their death rate from guns is much lower than ours. The thing is, that's not the argument for having the right. The original argument (from the Federalist Papers) was to balance the power posed by a standing army. It's a political argument that, despite higher death rates, we still have this right. It's the price we pay for having that freedom. The problem is in massaging statistics to support the argument when they don't, or making the argument that because eliminating gun ownership won't completely solve the problem, it's not worth doing. 1
john5746 Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 Fewer, but not removed - as I stated. Because fewer is not useful. Fewer doesn't indicate if ALL criminals have guns while ALL law abiding citizens do not, or otherwise. Only law abiding citizens will follow laws, by definition. Enter the most overused anti-gun control phrase..."outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns". Funny thing is, it's quite defensible. Fewer doesn't provide less death when one "side" simply melts down their weapons - the essential result of gun control laws that remove guns from circulation. Fewer does provide less gun death as evidence that I have provided suggests. Laws do help, they are far from perfect. What is the alternative? Should I become Eastwood and go around taking the bad guys out? More importantly though, it's absolutely immoral to deny citizens the right to wield such tools to defend themselves. There is no other weapon yet that can equalize a 5 foot 80 pound female with a 6 foot 300 pound male like a firearm. I know gun control isn't supposed to imply a gun ban, but I'm not sure what kind of gun control is suddenly going to make this crime less awful. From what I've read, it's childish idealizing about clip size... maybe a taser? Oh yeah, the bad guys have guns, so maybe a grenade launcher for small females. Fewer, but not removed - as I stated. Because fewer is not useful. Fewer doesn't indicate if ALL criminals have guns while ALL law abiding citizens do not, or otherwise. Only law abiding citizens will follow laws, by definition. Enter the most overused anti-gun control phrase..."outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns". Funny thing is, it's quite defensible. Funny thing, no matter what happens, people extrapolate to the extreme where only bad people have guns. Fewer is useful as has been shown already. In this particular case, the guy had a mental disorder and obtained a gun LEGALLY. That is what I am talking about. Again, I didn't say or ask that. I asked, if murder laws do not prevent enough people to committ murder, then why would we believe gun laws will prevent enough people to committ murder? I'm accepting the notion of a reduction of a prohibited behavior, however I'm questioning how the prohibition of a less severe behavior, with a mild punishment - like carrying an outlawed tool - is somehow going to be more effective than the prohibition of a dramatically more severe condemned behavior like murder, with extreme punishment. We already limit many weapons and various guns. It makes it harder to obtain them if the SELLER also can get into trouble. So having a system in place to prevent people from obtaining grenades, even if it isn't a life sentence to buy one, is effective.
Moontanman Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 Fewer does provide less gun death as evidence that I have provided suggests. Laws do help, they are far from perfect. What is the alternative? Should I become Eastwood and go around taking the bad guys out? Why does me having a gun bother you so much? Why would you think owning a gun means going out to look for reasons to use it? maybe a taser? Oh yeah, the bad guys have guns, so maybe a grenade launcher for small females. Strawman Funny thing, no matter what happens, people extrapolate to the extreme where only bad people have guns. Fewer is useful as has been shown already. In this particular case, the guy had a mental disorder and obtained a gun LEGALLY. That is what I am talking about. it should be hard to obtain a gun, i won't deny that We already limit many weapons and various guns. It makes it harder to obtain them if the SELLER also can get into trouble. So having a system in place to prevent people from obtaining grenades, even if it isn't a life sentence to buy one, is effective. I know a lot of people who have grenades.
john5746 Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 it should be hard to obtain a gun, i won't deny that Thanks, we have some agreement.
Moontanman Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 Obtaining a license to own a gun should be at least as difficult as obtaining a drivers license. (personally I think it should be harder than it is to obtain a drivers license) You should at least be able to show some ability to use the weapon as well as be well schooled in the safety and legal aspects of owning a gun. A mental test of some sort is also reasonable but once you obtain that license you should be able to buy with minimal interference from the government.
rigney Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) Why does me having a gun bother you so much? Why would you think owning a gun means going out to look for reasons to use it? Strawman it should be hard to obtain a gun, i won't deny that I know a lot of people who have grenades. "I need, or want a gun"! Such simple words spoken to the right (wrong) person, sane or nutso, and you can have one almost immediately. Size, caliber, make and model, your choosing. Once you've been checked out, the "Price" is negotiable. At least half of you know this is a fact. The rest, only naive. Hand grenades? They could be a problem. Edited January 19, 2011 by rigney
Pangloss Posted January 19, 2011 Author Posted January 19, 2011 I favor gun ownership, but I wonder sometimes if licensing would actually solve problems for both sides in the debate. For gun opponents it improves safety. For gun owners it keeps the guns and answers the opposition's argument. I learned recently that purchasing restrictions only apply to gun stores -- private sales aren't affected. This is usually reported in the media with a focus on gun shows, but if you look at a typical community discussion forum for gun owners you can usually find a trading section with people posting their firearms along with prices, arranging meetings to sell the items, etc. At that point, of course, the buyer hops in their state-licensed, state-registered piece of steel and drives across town to purchase another equally dangerous piece of steel free and clear of any government notice whatsoever. As inconvenient as gun laws can be, it ultimately just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have it that way. Not when we can have our cake and eat it too. We can have gun ownership AND improve safety through regulation, registration and licensing. My two bits, anyway.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now