Yay, GUNS!

[john5746]

My point was more about how silly things get when you think you need to say something but do not give any thought to what you are actually saying.

Yeah, would be better to say more difficult, but slogans usually go for effect, not Truth.

 

lapierre

Illegal guns is a huge problem, often drugs are exchanged for guns, guns originate in states where guns are easy to get and I-40 is a pipe line for drugs coming from up north and guns coming from down south.

Yes, but METH is illegal, GUNS are not. Its situational, so trying to do something about illegal guns will bring in lapoop(lapierre) complaining that criminals won't listen to laws and it will be such a burden on regular people.

[Moontanman]

Yeah, would be better to say more difficult, but slogans usually go for effect, not Truth.

 

lapierreYes, but METH is illegal, GUNS are not. Its situational, so trying to do something about illegal guns will bring in lapoop(lapierre) complaining that criminals won't listen to laws and it will be such a burden on regular people.

 

 

Illegal guns are.... illegal, illegal guns are being traded for drugs, in fact a large part of the drug trade is financed by illegal guns and may even contribute to the crimes that gun owners want to protect themselves from ie gun theft...

[Iggy]

Can't find that - you didn't quote, is the problem. Post number?

 

No amount of references or footnotes would prevent your dissembling problem. Post 510:

 

Two problems with the comparison: you are not required to obtain any kind of a license or insurance to simply own a car, any number of cars, or operate any or all of them on private property, regardless of the risk to yourself or others present;

 

and car operation is not a Constitutional right. License and insurance requirements for owning basic "militia" level firearms would be comparable to similar requirements for assembling in the street, speaking and writing at will, or refusing unreasonable police search of one's bedroom.

 

 

 

So nothing on insurance, the motivating topic, and three tries is the charm.

 

If you had something interesting to say about mandatory firearm insurance I'd be happy to comment. I gave a link explaining that it wouldn't be a constitutional problem and I explained my reservations about the idea. Nothing else to chew on I'm afraid.

 

We turn to the less problematic "license" - and you posted a couple of plausible things carefully called "permits": your first adult contribution to the thread.

 

My first adult contribution?

 

My God, what an immature and childish point you must have made earlier:

 

As iggy pointed out, that is too black and white - the guns normally work by degrees and influences, for prevention not rebellion, and that is what they are thought to work for by their owners.

 

Just silly.

 

...a couple of plausible things carefully called "permits"...

 

Distinction without a difference.

A license is granted as permission to do something or use something...

 

<snip>

 

A permit is another type of license which is granted by a government agency.

 

Licenses and Permits

So as noted above, in my posts, it may be possible to get some kind of actual gun ownership license past even a reasonable Supreme Court, at the State level, if it imposed no serious burden and applied equally to everybody.

 

They do seem serious about staying away from any licensing / registration particulars. After lifting the ban on handguns in DC they as much as told Heller that he could apply for a license now. He "could obtain a license, assuming he is not otherwise disqualified" and so long as the licensing wasn't "enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner". They didn't have a problem with Heller's lawyer's take on that.

 

Two years after DC vs. Heller opened the flood gates of cases, they said in McDonald v. Chicago (almost sounding annoyed):

 

 

It is important to keep in mind that [DC vs.] Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Id., at ______ (slip op., at 5455). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.

It may be Chicago's turn again because I heard they were insisting on a firearm safety or shooting class at a gun range before issuing a permit. Illinois' circuit court said it is unconstitutional, but I don't know the particulars of why. But, that will be landing on the Supreme's door if it hasn't already.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Iggy

[overtone]

No amount of references or footnotes would prevent your dissembling problem. Post 510:

Post 510 contains the phrase "license or insurance" as a negative reference (as the contradiction to "license and insurance") in a description of car and driver regulation (car and driver regulation being inextricably confused to begin with, here). So I didn't use "both", but used one and its negation. (The negation of "a and b" is "not a or b", if you follow).

 

The question becomes: is your later reference to that instead of the "license and insurance" in all the relevant posts deliberately dishonest, or derived from an inability to follow the argument in 510? Given your behavior, I can't tell. Both possibilities are supported by your subsequent posting.

 

If you had something interesting to say about mandatory firearm

insurance I'd be happy to comment.

Sure, you apparently missed it - To repeat: The point is simply that imposing mandatory insurance on the exercise of a Constitutional right presents considerable difficulty - and is unprecedented, AFAIK.

I gave a link explaining that it

wouldn't be a constitutional problem

Your link explained nothing. It consisted of the assertion that the US government could found a "compelling interest" sufficient to override multiple Constitutional rights on the fact that guns sometimes caused damage. Whether that somehow could be done is hard to say, but it certainly isn't obvious - compare imposing mandatory liability insurance on freedom from arbitrary search and seizure, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. The damages caused by stuff protected from discovery under the warrant for search requirement have run to many billions and many deaths over the years, but no one has even suggested imposing an insurance requirement on the exercise of that right.

 

.a couple of plausible things carefully called "permits"...

 

Distinction without a difference.

They - your sources, btw - apparently thought otherwise. The distinction is normally carefully preserved and legally consequential, in matters such as this - one gets a permit to install furnaces and wiring, for example, separately from a license to install boilers and wiring. Or to keep the discussion on topic, there is no such thing in the US as a license to own a car, and requiring a license to own a gun would not be something modeled after the the car regulations - would instead be unprecedented and of serious Constitutional import.

 

My first adult contribution?

First and only - establishes the precedent: you can. You just have to bear down a bit.

 

Quit doing things like this, say:

"It is important to keep in mind that [DC vs.] Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for

whatever purpose - - - "

as if the relevance to the thread were the open possibilities, and not the strikedown of the possession ban, in the first place.

Edited February 1, 2013 by overtone

[Iggy]

Post 510 contains the phrase "license or insurance" as a negative reference (as the contradiction to "license and insurance") in a description of car and driver regulation (car and driver regulation being inextricably confused to begin with, here). So I didn't use "both", but used one and its negation. (The negation of "a and b" is "not a or b", if you follow).

 

Right. You've reached what I like to think of as the Bill Clinton critical mass. It's the "I didn't have sex with her, she had sex with me" moment -- the "depends on what is, is" moment -- when the absurdity can't support its own mass and implodes.

 

You didn't say "a or b", you said not "a or b".

 

It's predictable. Next you'll say "I didn't mean neither a nor b, so there's no point in refuting a without b".

 

I sometimes wonder if you can see the collapse from your side of the horizon, but it's too late to know. You've become causally disconnected from the discussion and any relation we could have now would only draw me into the collapse. For that way lies folly.

 

No, best to admit the truth, the uninteresting has become boring.

[overtone]

You didn't say "a or b", you said not "a or b".

You do register the difference - the one the opposite of the other? And the distinction was right at the center, right at the main point of the argument in the post (510). So people who claim I said "a or b" and "a and b" both are either 1) not following the argument and/or 2) dishonest, deliberately misrepresenting my post and its argument.

 

So are people who reword stuff in ways that change its meaning in ways directly at issue, and present it as other people's quotes (as iggy said). You see my dilemma - which are you? How much slack do I cut, in a discussion thread, for what has become entirely illegitimate personal attack at a grade school level?

 

Look at this shit:

It's predictable. Next you'll say "I didn't mean neither a nor b, so there's no point in refuting a without b".

Wrong as always, when making assertions about me instead of the issue at hand. Not just wrong,btw, but entirely wrongheaded. And entirely unforced error - you went way out of your way to say something stupid by way of insult. That's several such assertions now, taking over your posts and obscuring any argument you have. Why not just stop making them?

 

But I do apologize for forgetting your reasonable posts earlier, before you got distracted by my unsympathetic take on Paranoia and lost your ability to handle this stuff. You do have several adult posts on this thread, just not addressed to me. So charity toward others - not you - should intervene.

 

And I pledge it will:

 

we have established the difficutly of such things as mandatory insurance, effective curbing of gun ownership via licensing, and the kind.

 

We also have, by example not just foreigners, a picture of the debate as jammed by genuinely existing extremist positions, framed by Fox and Media into "you and him fight" setups obscuring an actual and reasonable variety of middle grounds.

 

We have on the table: magazine size restrictions, background checks, special rules pertaining to weaponry with special capabilities (assault rifles, handguns, maybe plastic or otherwise concealable getups, hollow point and explosive ammo, etc etc) and so forth.

Edited February 1, 2013 by overtone

[ParanoiA]

Overtone, here's an example of what it looks like when you support your claims. I claimed the American left supports gun control and the right supports gun rights. You got all weird and decided it might be fun to pretend like that is questionable. So here's some support of what is obvious to everyone but you:

 

1927 – Mailing Firearms act of 1927 – republican majority,

1934 – National Firearms Act of 1934 – Split congress, 73^rd congress, NRA supports the bill – opposition from southern and western states over 2^nd amendment concerns

1938 – Federal Firearms Act of 1938 – democrat supermajority, 75^th congress, NRA supports the bill

1968 – Gun Control Act of 1968, democrat supermajority in the senate, major majority in house, 90^th congress, signed by Lyndon B Johnson, Endorsed by the NRA to the dismay of gun rights activists.
Unable to find a roll call vote (In fact, it seems extremely difficult to find any roll call votes for the 90^th, 91^st and 92^nd US congress) Despite democrat supermajorities, I do believe republicans basically supported this bit of gun control in addition to the NRA.

1976 – DC Council in 12-1 vote restricting resident’s access to handguns, 12 democrats, 1 republican on the council, NRA does not support this – turning point in NRA gun rights support.

1986 – Firearms Owner’s Protection Act, A bill to protect firearm owners’ constitutional rights, civil liberties, and rights to privacy, sponsored by republican Senator James McClure, signed by Ronald Reagan.
Unable to find a roll call vote.

1993 – HR 1025 Brady Bill, democrat majority in house and senate, 103^rd congress, NRA lobbies against this bill
House: Yeas – 238 (183 D’s / 54 R’s) Nays – 189 (69 D’s / 119 R’s)
Senate: Yeas – 63 (47 D’s / 16 R’s) Nays – 36 (6 D’s / 30 R’s)

1994 – HR 3355 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act or Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, Signed by Bill Clinton.
House: 235 yeas (188 D’s / 64 R’s) 195 Nays (64 D’s / 131 R’s)
Senate: 61 yeas ( 55 D’s / 6 R’s ) 38 Nays ( 2 D’s / 36 R’s)

 

2005 - The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits) – 109^th congress, republican majority in Senate and House, signed by GWB, NRA supports the bill
Senate: 65 yeas (49 R’s, 15 D’s) and 31 Nays (2 R’s / 29 D’s)
House: 283 yeas (223 R’s / 59 D’s) and 144 Nays (4 R’s / 140 D’s)

 

2009 – Credit Card act of 2009 contained an Amendment added by republicans to lift restriction on guns in national parks. The act passed House and Senate, signed by Barack Obama.
Senate: 90 Yeas (53 D’s / 35 R’s) 5 Nays (1 D / 4 R’s)
House: 279 Yeas (104 D’s / 175 R’s) 147 Nays (145 D’s / 2 R’s)

 

The history of gun rights in America shows a democrat-republican divide starting around the 1970’s. Same with the NRA. American “lefties” are indeed for gun control as American “righties” are clearly against it. This is basic information that I really didn’t need to dig up for you, but here it is anyway. Took me a long damn time to find those roll call votes…

And, I did not include the myriad of state legislation on gun control, in which California, New York and Illinoise would provide a mountain of more evidence of democrat-lefty sponsored gun control measures. Again, more common knowledge that I didn't really need to dig up for you..

 

 

Now, you still need to support your claim about the NRA exploiting children and using victims. You can't point to the NRA ad charging Obama with hypocrisy and pretend like that's exploiting children when the context *is* armed guards protecting children in schools. *AND* they didn't parade his children on stage with a press conference dog and pony show with their emotionalism on display. They charged him with hypocrisy just like outed gay republicans are repeatedly charged with hypocrisy over their views over gay rights. It's a fair argument, and well done.

 

In case you forgot, the NRA ad was in response to Obama's comments on Meet The Press in December:

"I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools, and I think the vast majority of the Amer

ican people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem," Obama said. "And, look, here's the bottom line. We're not going to get this done unless the American people decide it's important."

Edited February 26, 2013 by ParanoiA

[overtone]

 

Overtone, here's an example of what it looks like when you support your claims.

That looks to me like someone demonstrating beyond doubt that they have been drinking deeply of the talk radio koolaid. You apparently have no idea what a lefty is, how they talk or what they think.

 

There is an entire set of schools of lefty intellectuals - from Ken Kesey and Abbie Hoffman to Edward Abbey and the conservationists in general - who regard private ownership of guns as a borderline sacred American right.

 

There is an entire set of factions of rightwing - - - searching for the term - - thinking and opinion, who strongly favor much stricter government regulation and control of private gun ownership than any of those lefties I named or referenced - you can start with the police departments of most large American cities, and work out the ripples of implication from there.

 

It's not a left/right issue. It's a libertarian/authoritarian issue, and they both come lefty and righty.

 

The history of gun rights in America shows a democrat-republican divide
starting around the 1970’s. Same with the NRA. American “lefties” are
indeed for gun control as American “righties” are clearly against it.

Putting lefties and righties in quotes was smart, because otherwise I could simply point out that Democrat vs Republican in the US does not correspond to left vs right in any reality based sense.

 

I think I will simply point that out anyway, as you apparently think Congressional roll call votes align with libertarian left ideology somehow, and that is talk radio level misapprehension.

[rigney]

That looks to me like someone demonstrating beyond doubt that they have been drinking deeply of the talk radio koolaid. You apparently have no idea what a lefty is, how they talk or what they think.

 

There is an entire set of schools of lefty intellectuals - from Ken Kesey and Abbie Hoffman to Edward Abbey and the conservationists in general - who regard private ownership of guns as a borderline sacred American right.

 

There is an entire set of factions of rightwing - - - searching for the term - - thinking and opinion, who strongly favor much stricter government regulation and control of private gun ownership than any of those lefties I named or referenced - you can start with the police departments of most large American cities, and work out the ripples of implication from there.

 

It's not a left/right issue. It's a libertarian/authoritarian issue, and they both come lefty and righty.

 

Putting lefties and righties in quotes was smart, because otherwise I could simply point out that Democrat vs Republican in the US does not correspond to left vs right in any reality based sense.

 

I think I will simply point that out anyway, as you apparently think Congressional roll call votes align with libertarian left ideology somehow, and that is talk radio level misapprehension.

This incident happened more than 65 years ago, but tends to stress what can occur if people get fed up with government corruption, regardless of its size

.

At some point, the price of corruption is retribution.

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html This one, 4 minutes.

This one, an hour or so from my own home town and 2 hrs. in length. But this was what guns were made for back then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usBvIZKtWXQ

Edited February 27, 2013 by rigney

[rigney]

This post has almost slipped from the table, but let's not forget it just yet. Yesterday a conviction of 1st Degree Murder was handed down to a Hi School student here in Gaugua County, Ohio. I can't go into the particulars because they are too deep and involved. But is this a face of a killer showing the type of smugness that perpitrates such violance by saying! You don't dare kill me, so put my ass in prison, give it your best shot and all of you be damned? Have i missed something?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/19/17370830-ohio-school-shooter-wearing-killer-t-shirt-sentenced-to-life-in-prison?lite

Edited March 20, 2013 by rigney

[john5746]

something like this happens almost everyday in the US. Let me guess, you wish all the kids on that bus would have a gun?

[John Cuthber]

This post has almost slipped from the table, but let's not forget it just yet. Yesterday a conviction of 1st Degree Murder was handed down to a Hi School student here in Gaugua County, Ohio. I can't go into the particulars because they are too deep and involved. But is this a face of a killer showing the type of smugness that perpitrates such violance by saying! You don't dare kill me, so put my ass in prison, give it your best shot and all of you be damned? Have i missed something?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/19/17370830-ohio-school-shooter-wearing-killer-t-shirt-sentenced-to-life-in-prison?lite

You seem to have missed the bit where it would have been better if he hadn't been able to get hold of a gun so easily.

[rigney]

something like this happens almost everyday in the US. Let me guess, you wish all the kids on that bus would have a gun?

 

something like this happens almost everyday in the US. Let me guess, you wish all the kids on that bus would have a gun?

You and I are not even on the same page! This happene was in a school cafeteria, not on a school bus. And "NO," guns are for the sanely rational, not those with an irrational syndrome known as youth.

Edited March 20, 2013 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

"And "NO," guns are for the sanely rational, not those with an irrational syndrome known as youth."

So, we outlaw irrationality, or we outlaw guns.

One of those is difficult: the other is impossible.

[overtone]

 

something like this happens almost everyday in the US.

That is not true.

 

 

So, we outlaw irrationality, or we outlaw guns.

One of those is difficult: the other is impossible.

The attempt to do either of those would be tyranny.

[john5746]

You and I are not even on the same page! This happene was in a school cafeteria, not on a school bus. And "NO," guns are for the sanely rational, not those with an irrational syndrome known as youth.

The guy in the link shot kids on a bus, I guess I shouldn't pay attention to any links you provide. Forget page, I like to be on a different book than you.

 

As far as sanely rational, well unfortunately, 100% of us are "insanely" irrational at some point in our lives. If we happen to have a gun handy, it makes this temper tantrum become very deadly.

 

That is not true.

 

The attempt to do either of those would be tyranny.

Well, that depends on what "like this" means. If we are talking just school shootings, maybe once a week is a closer estimate. But, I think an innocent person is shot daily in the US.

 

Tyranny to ban guns? I disagree. We already do it to some extent.

[overtone]

 

Tyranny to ban guns? I disagree. We already do it to some extent

We limit all deeds, possessions, and activities to some extent - banning them altogether is not the same kind of thing.

 

You cannot ban guns in the US without imposing tyranny. That is not a theoretical proposition but an observation of fact - beginning with the violation of Constitutional limits on governmental power, and proceeding with the mechanisms of enforcement required, you would be destroying the rule of law and the infrastructure of democratic government.

[John Cuthber]

 

That is not true.

 

The attempt to do either of those would be tyranny.

No.

Outlawing stupidity would be pointless.

Outlawing guns is quite commonplace.

Why are you trying to argue that much of the Western world is a tyranny?

Are you just now aware of the reality elsewhere, or were you ignoring it?

To do it suddenly in the US might well require tyranny.

To do it sensibly would not.

Once you explain to people that they are more likely to kill the wrong person than the right person , the guns should pretty nearly ban themselves.

It may take a long time, but banning guns would not by tyranny and it's silly to say it would be..

[Moontanman]

No.

Outlawing stupidity would be pointless.

Outlawing guns is quite commonplace.

Why are you trying to argue that much of the Western world is a tyranny?

Are you just now aware of the reality elsewhere, or were you ignoring it?

To do it suddenly in the US might well require tyranny.

To do it sensibly would not.

Once you explain to people that they are more likely to kill the wrong person than the right person , the guns should pretty nearly ban themselves.

It may take a long time, but banning guns would not by tyranny and it's silly to say it would be..

 

 

I will agree that hand guns are dangerous, just handling them, even by knowledgeable professionals, can end in tragedy. The bad thing is that hand guns are often marketed as safer and easier to handle than long guns.

 

Concealed carry is yet another can of worms, few crimes are committed by legal guns, we just hear about it more due to the fact that criminals usually don't just shoot people for fun like crazies do.

 

However convincing Joe home owner he cannot have a shot gun for home protection is going to be a hard sell. Knowing that criminals are not going to stop having guns is going to be a big stumbling block. In the US it is a given that the police cannot protect you, the best they can do is investigate after the fact, not having a gun has resulted in many deaths, rapes, and beatings associated with criminals having the upper hand. Convincing me I am safer by not having my shot gun is gonna take more than an appeal to emotion...

 

Hunting rifles are yet another matter and saying that assault style weapons are more dangerous than any other semi auto weapon is difficult to show and banning them accomplishes nothing but political capital..

 

That pesky thing called a constitution is in the way for banning guns completely anyway...

[John Cuthber]

Why do people always say that the constitution stops them doing stuff?

Have you all forgotten that you can change it?

 

"Convincing me I am safer by not having my shot gun is gonna take more than an appeal to emotion..."

OK, count the number of legal homicides by members of the public (as opposed to the armed forces) where the weapon was a shotgun.

Count the number accidental of deaths from shotguns.

If the second number is bigger than the first, then it's not an appeal to emotions (it never was anyway) it's an appeal to common sense.

[Moontanman]

Why do people always say that the constitution stops them doing stuff?

Have you all forgotten that you can change it?

 

"Convincing me I am safer by not having my shot gun is gonna take more than an appeal to emotion..."

OK, count the number of legal homicides by members of the public (as opposed to the armed forces) where the weapon was a shotgun.

Count the number accidental of deaths from shotguns.

If the second number is bigger than the first, then it's not an appeal to emotions (it never was anyway) it's an appeal to common sense.

 

 

John you know that you can't use statistics to predict individuals actions. I know a great many people with guns, they range from people I wouldn't trust with a sling shot to people I would trust with my life. Guess who is causing the problem? I do admit that people who seem the most enamored with guns are the ones who would seem least safe to have them.

 

My thoughts on this is to require at least as much training to own a gun as it is to own and operate an automobile. This seems to be the most reasonable attitude to me at this point, i want to reserve my right to defend my self from a criminal but I should be required to demonstrate an ability to safely operate a gun.

 

As i said before hunting rifles, hand guns, and concealed carry are different issues but one thing is clear, if honest citizens give up their guns they will be the only people who do not have them, criminals are not going to give up their guns and most gun deaths are due to criminals committing crimes with guns not honest citizens gone crazy...

 

The media portrays this as though most gun deaths are due to other wise honest people killing people either by accident or due to being nucking futs, this is not true... In fact i would assert that the fear of a victim having a gun is enough to deter many criminals, poor neighborhoods where legal gun ownership is low simply because owning one is very expensive allows those who commit crimes with guns a free hand...

 

As i sit here in my own house behind locked doors I know I am an unlikely victim, I have a house with solid doors that have solid dead locks, my yard is fenced in and the gates have solid well made locks on them as well, i have three dogs who seldom miss any odd noise and bark immediately, one is howling right now but he is communicating with the other neighborhood dogs. I can tell by the tone of his barks he is not afraid of something new.

 

I am in a new and relatively safe neighborhood now, the fence and locks are mainly to keep my dogs from wondering around and being a nuisance. But in my old neighborhood, every last house on my street had things stolen and few actual assaults took place except for my house. I give most of the credit to my dogs but once I had to threaten a man who was a neighbor by telling him if he came into my house I would kill him, that i had the means to do so and no problem with doing so. I talked to the local police, he was an ex con and had several warrants out for his arrest which he somehow continually avoided, he was a suspect in several break-ins and one rape in my neighborhood.

 

The police actually told me the best way to deal with him if he threatened me again was to kill him because he was likely to kill me or rape my wife if he got the chance (he actually threatened to do just that), he was a crack head couldn't hold a job and when he ran out of crack he started looking for something to steal, his young daughter would come to my house to hide from him regularly. He was in and out of jail so much it was difficult to keep track of when he was around. But a week end seldom went by the police weren't at his house looking for him for questioning... his girlfriend was as bad and waved a gun around all the time but it always vanished when the police showed up as did the man... take my gun, I don't think so... but then i only have one gun, I see no need for many guns or assault weapons.

 

I am glad i am no longer in such close proximity to such a dangerous man... that I know of... but i will not give up my shot gun because some crazy killed people for what ever reason...

 

I no longer keep my gun loaded but I do keep shells handy just in case...

[Iggy]

John you know that you can't use statistics to predict individuals actions.

 

I think they call it an ecological fallacy.

[John Cuthber]

"John you know that you can't use statistics to predict individuals actions."

Indeed, but you can use them to predict what will happen on a large scale.

 

On the large scale, more "good people" than "bad people" will die. (At any rate this is true if we ignore gang violence and criminals shooting eachother- to some extent they are not the point because (I trust) you and I are not criminals).

There's a very simple reason for that. Good people massively outnumber bad people.

 

The point is that you also can't reliably predict individuals' actions on any other basis either.

Imagine you could go back in time to the week before any accidental shooting and ask the shooter if they are "the sort of person who will accidentally shoot someone".

 

If they have any sense whatsoever they will say no.

After all, if they thought they were more likely to kill an innocent bystander than, for example, a thief, they probably wouldn't want the gun. Why would they want that unwarranted death on their hands?

 

And yet, even though (just like you) they were sure that their gun wouldn't kill someone, it did.

 

Heaven forbid, but it is possible that you might find yourself in that position- being responsible for the death of some poor soul for no good reason.

 

And the indirect reason would be the thing you hear after every accident "I didn't think it could happen to me".

Nobody thinks it will happen to them, so they don't do the one thing that would guarantee that it can't.

They don't get rid of the guns.

And the people keep dying.

[overtone]

Once you explain to people that they are more likely to kill the wrong

person than the right person , the guns should pretty nearly ban

themselves.

Sounds like a plan - you do that.

 

But if things don't quite work out as you expect, and you decide that a little more coercion is necessary, and you gradually come around to an understanding of what level of coercion would be involved in banning guns from possession by US citizens,

 

don't say nobody told you.

 

Meanwhile, how are the people trying to get some reasonable regulations on modern weaponry supposed to respond when people say "You are naive, the people who are proposing this just want to set things up so they can confiscate all our guns"? I mean, they have a point there: quite a few of the people who are trying to get universal background checks and magazine limits and so forth really are doing just that - setting up for a mass banning and confiscation of people's guns.

Edited March 21, 2013 by overtone

[Moontanman]

"John you know that you can't use statistics to predict individuals actions."

Indeed, but you can use them to predict what will happen on a large scale.

 

On the large scale, more "good people" than "bad people" will die. (At any rate this is true if we ignore gang violence and criminals shooting eachother- to some extent they are not the point because (I trust) you and I are not criminals).

There's a very simple reason for that. Good people massively outnumber bad people.

 

The point is that you also can't reliably predict individuals' actions on any other basis either.

Imagine you could go back in time to the week before any accidental shooting and ask the shooter if they are "the sort of person who will accidentally shoot someone".

 

If they have any sense whatsoever they will say no.

After all, if they thought they were more likely to kill an innocent bystander than, for example, a thief, they probably wouldn't want the gun. Why would they want that unwarranted death on their hands?

 

And yet, even though (just like you) they were sure that their gun wouldn't kill someone, it did.

 

Heaven forbid, but it is possible that you might find yourself in that position- being responsible for the death of some poor soul for no good reason.

 

And the indirect reason would be the thing you hear after every accident "I didn't think it could happen to me".

Nobody thinks it will happen to them, so they don't do the one thing that would guarantee that it can't.

They don't get rid of the guns.

And the people keep dying.

 

Some guns are far more dangerous than others, my shotgun is far less dangerous than say an auto pistol, some people are far less dangerous than others. I don't play with my gun, I don't take it out and show it to people or handle it unnecessarily I never chamber a round unless i am going to shoot it. You would be horrified to know how many people treat their guns like toys for adults. No one is going to be killed accidentally by my gun but there are real differences between guns, some are just dangerous others not so much.

 

My current gun has only been shot once, at the factory, I have of course shot many guns, I used to be an avid hunter when I was a kid, I lost interest as an adult. When I do go to shoot i go to a range, when i owned a pistol, or out into the game lands where no one is in range and I can shoot against a solid hillside. My wife is more of a gun advocate than i am, she is very good with a pistol and used to practice at the Sheriffs department range when she owned a pistol.

 

I know it sounds like a bad argument but i don't fear a responsible gun owner but so many tend to view guns as some sort of toy or contest to own they do worry me, sometimes it reminds me of people who own tricked out 4X4 trucks, all jacked up with huge tires, wenches, high water intakes, huge engines, and they never take them off road.... it's a contest to see whose manhood is bigger via who has a bigger toy... i do not ascribe to that premise, when i had a jeep it was modest and unassuming and it took me to many off road locations quite well, I view my gun much the same way, it's not to impress anyone but a criminal who wants to do me harm.