Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

You don't stop people from using Heroin by banning needles.

Reality would like to comment on the fact that you don't stop people from using Heroin by banning Heroin either.

Also, wouldn't guns BE needles, in this case? The tool for delivering the thing we want to avoid (murder)?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

You don't stop people from using Heroin by banning needles.

Reality would like to comment on the fact that you don't stop people from using Heroin by banning Heroin either.

If a law is not 100% effective we should entirely stop supporting trying to enforce it?

How about rape law? The laws are long-and-complicated and don't stop all rapes in our country.

[Nadaka]

We already have a law banning the use of an assault weapon to murder people. Your analogy to rape does not hold. If you were suggesting that we ban penises instead, it would be more accurate, but no less absurd.

[PTTG??]

Let's not muddle this with complex metaphors.

You can't catch all crazy people before they go crazy, no matter how intense your mental health net- and if you go too far, you start getting negative returns on investment (if you sedate everyone and throw them in an institution preemtively, then frankly that's worse than the occasional mental breakdown). Similarly, you can't prevent people from getting guns, not 100%- and if guns were entirely banned, then people would seek other forms of violence. Nor are these the only two positions; there are many others and many other axis of discussion for civil policy.

No policy I have heard proposed is an extreme argument from any side.

Everyone wants to approach the ideal level- that point where the good effect of freedom of arms, plus the good effect of prevention of violence, are at the highest point.

So, let's step back one more step. Instead of arguing over what the fine-level restrictions there should be, let us discuss what kinds of compromises we want, and how best to determine what effect a change in the law might have in both directions.

[Frumple]

So, let's step back one more step. Instead of arguing over what the fine-level restrictions there should be, let us discuss what kinds of compromises we want, and how best to determine what effect a change in the law might have in both directions. In a different thread.

And with that small change, your statement is made largely impeccable.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

We already have a law banning the use of an assault weapon to murder people. Your analogy to rape does not hold. If you were suggesting that we ban penises instead, it would be more accurate, but no less absurd.

I'm not even arguing for that. The reason we have such ridiculous gun violence isn't because our laws are ineffective, it's because we have too many fucking guns on the streets to deal with. Mostly, thanks to the Military-Industrial complex loving all the money those 88 weapons per 100 people gives them.

We need to take the direct source of this: The guns. The people selling them, specifically. You cannot tackle gun violence without the underlying cause, the guns. Akin to drug laws. Or rape laws. You do not legislate around the crime [gun violence], you address the crimes being committed and fashion the law to handle that if there are oversights [such as our system with massive holes such as Gun-shows and individual resale].

My comment on rape law is sarcastic, a response to people who claim the gun laws are worthless and 'don't change anything' because we do have gun violence still. But that's because we simply have too many weapons to oversee in the first place [especially Detroit/Philadelphia/Sacramento, because hey, guess what, their border states are basically gun shops and the criminals there can't get weapons normally].

We need an entire overhaul of not only how we sell civilians weapons, but those companies manage to proliferate such strong weapons and masses of ammunition to everyone that it helps dilute the entire set of laws [until we get actual consistent nationwide federal backbone in the laws] to worthlessness. As anyone can go out and buy a second-hand weapon. I'm just tired of the blame being deflected at everything other than the tool causing the deaths.

I say this as a person who owns a rifle. The second amendment isn't a right to amass an unsecured armory.

[Nadaka]

we have a "gun violence" problem, not because we have to many guns or the wrong kinds of guns. but because guns are a convenient way to do violence. taking away the guns isnt going to change the underlieing causes of that violence.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

we have a "gun violence" problem, not because we have to many guns or the wrong kinds of guns. but because guns are a convenient way to do violence. taking away the guns isnt going to change the underlieing causes of that violence.

And is stopping them from getting a hold of those weapons not a part of solving the gun violence?

I'd trade 40 mass shootings for 1 mass stabbing any day, sorry.

And before you go further: Show me these underlying causes? Guns in the media? Violent culture in general [that worships, you guessed it, guns]? Because once again all those simply show how the issue is still guns being depicted and promoted.

[Nadaka]

we have a "gun violence" problem, not because we have to many guns or the wrong kinds of guns. but because guns are a convenient way to do violence. taking away the guns isnt going to change the underlieing causes of that violence.

And is stopping them from getting a hold of those weapons not a part of solving the gun violence?

I'd trade 40 mass shootings for 1 mass stabbing any day, sorry.

You will trade 40 mass shootings for a combination of 40 bombings, trucks driving through crowds and other just as destructive things, not 1 stabbing. That was a terribly poor argument to attempt.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

You will trade 40 mass shootings for a combination of 40 bombings, trucks driving through crowds and other just as destructive things, not 1 stabbing. That was a terribly poor argument to attempt.

Show me where people decide to take up running over masses of people since they cannot get a hold of guns. I do say 40:1 because China tends to have mass stabbings since they actually enforce their gun laws. There is a reason their violence rate is 1/4 of ours despite being a huge country. As well as every single other country with stringent firearm regulation or outright banning. The criminals tend to take knives to up their arsenal as opposed to a Glock. I accept that as a positive change.

There's a reason we have such a high gun-murder rate, and it is because of the prevalence and access to weaponry that can easily kill. Bottom line.

[Frumple]

Heeey. Take it to another thread! Please?

Or go and dredge up any of the dozen or so threads on the top that's been locked in the past, in which everything you're saying will have already been said. Also a good idea!

Or at least wait until we actually see what the fallout from NY doing what it's doing is. Yes? This stuff is getting into the meta-politics zone.

[GlyphGryph]

The worst part is that I (and I'm assuming Nadaka) am not even opposed to gun regulation.

Fuck, I'd be fine with a gun ban. But this doesn't make your arguments and less poor or nonsensical. In fact, your entire method of argument is quite frankly insulting to the concept of reasoned debate.

One: You presuppose the problem as that which is addressed by your solution, rather than the things that are actually wrong. The problem is not "gun violence", it's violence and particularly lethal violence, period. This is something important to remember. Banning guns may very well reduce incidences of lethal violence. Fine, I can accept that. But you're, at this moment, pushing an ideology where there is something particularly abhorrent about the tool used beyond it's effectiveness for the task at hand, without justification. That's bullshit.

Two: You keep using really, really terrible analogies. It may just be better to avoid them.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

One: You presuppose the problem as that which is addressed by your solution, rather than the things that are actually wrong. The problem is not "gun violence", it's violence and particularly lethal violence, period. This is something important to remember.

What I'm telling you is the violent culture directs its praise at one thing: Guns. That is not an argument. There are facts, statistics and evidence showing that banning or stringently regulating the sale and acquisition of weaponry does reduce violence.

To counter this silliness that they'd just kill people otherwise:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/26/16169576-chart-before-and-after-the-assault-weapons-ban?lite
I know, it's Maddow, but the chart is very informative despite writer bias

1994 is the year the ever-hated Assault-Weapon ban was introduced. In the ten years that followed [before its lapse], what other types of violent crime spiked?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/22/scientific-americans-gun-error/

We need to get rid of the guns. Bottom line.

[Darvi]

I'm surprised at how little murder there comparatively is.

[Nadaka]

I am not opposed to some gun regulations, and in some cases more strict gun regulations. But I don't think that bans are either good or constitutional.