ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 17th April 2018, 10:50 PM   #281
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,122
not worth it.
__________________
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 01:33 AM   #282
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,987
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
The only think making it hard is a zero tolerance policy for any gun regulation by the NRA and politicians supported by them.
Plus there sheer number of guns to be seized, which is way higher than any other country. Plus not knowing who has many of the guns, which is unlike any other country. Plus the guns that are in the hands of criminal, gangs, militias and others unlikely to cooperate in any seizure, unlike any other country.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 01:38 AM   #283
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,987
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
....

Let me be clear: Law-abiding gun owners contribute to a culture and a market for easy and cheap illegal access to and use of firearms in America. Law-abiding gun owners should - they have a moral duty to - draw back that culture and market for the sake of society. To make gun ownership, culturally, an exception rather than an expectation. They are the only ones who can do that.
Many so called law abiding gun owners are just people with guns who do not break the law, till they do. Think of all the shootings by the previously law abiding that have been highlighted and discussed on this forum. From kids getting hold of a parents insecure gun and shooting a sibling, to an minor argument resulting in a shooting.

Many have been through minimal background checks, if any at all, unlike the law abiding gun owners in the UK and elsewhere. They have been properly established as law abiding with thorough checks.

It is that lack of proper checking prior to being able to get a gun that is the main reason why the USA has problems no where else has.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 04:59 AM   #284
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,095
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Plus there sheer number of guns to be seized, which is way higher than any other country. Plus not knowing who has many of the guns, which is unlike any other country. Plus the guns that are in the hands of criminal, gangs, militias and others unlikely to cooperate in any seizure, unlike any other country.
I don't think guns need to be seized.

It's like regulating emissions on cars. You don't need to seize the older cars to make them work and for the regulations to make a difference.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 12:17 PM   #285
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,987
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I don't think guns need to be seized.

It's like regulating emissions on cars. You don't need to seize the older cars to make them work and for the regulations to make a difference.
What, guns get scrapped like cars do? What is the average life span of a gun before it is scrapped?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 01:49 PM   #286
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 57,929
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Cultural and political...as opposed to what?
As opposed to top-town authoritative legislation and widespread seizure.

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
So not until the culture changes.

In the meantime I think a lot could be accomplished by shoring up existing laws and setting national standards. Things that could be accomplished without waiting around for the culture to change.
Yeah? How's that been working so far?

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
In the previous paragraph you identified the problem as you see it as widespread gun ownership. If that's how you identify the problem then it follows your solution would target them personally.

If that's the case then you need to own up to it. If not, then be clear about what you mean.
No, My solution would not target them personally. My solution would be for them to "target" themselves. Notice that we're using a gun metaphor there. Once people are willing to accept that guns are a net detriment to society, then legislation can be put into place to prevent the pendulum from swinging back. But legislation will never pass without widespread cultural support. And that means that those who currently identify as law-abiding gun owners have to support it.

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I don't disagree with you there, but the reason law-abiding gund owners contribute to such a culture is because they allow the issues to be framed by political lobbies that have a zero tolerance policy for any gun legislation and present it all as commin' to take their guns. Presented in terms of just closing loopholes and shoring up existing legislation, support becomes much higher even among the gun crowd.

There needs to be an alternative NRA. One that promotes responsible gun ownership, gun safety, gun sports and reasonable gun laws. The NRA we have now is run by fanatics.
No disagreement with that. But what's to stop your "new" NRA from being taken over by fanatics in the future? Voluntary controls work only for as long as people are willing to volunteer to control themselves. After that you need regulation to ensure that the people who aren't willing to volunteer get power.

"I don't need regulation because I'll never do that." Fine. I fully believe that you will never do that. But what about the person who comes after you? What about the person who comes after that person? Do you trust them?

The problem with a voluntary code of conduct is that however good your intentions, you always have to trust that other people will also abide by it. Once people start defecting, the payoffs for continuing to cooperate become smaller and smaller, until eventually it isn't worth it any more.
__________________
"Curiosity killed time by making up for lost cats."
The Three-Word Story
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 03:57 PM   #287
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,095
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
What, guns get scrapped like cars do? What is the average life span of a gun before it is scrapped?
I don't know, but they do wear out and they don't last forever.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2018, 04:41 PM   #288
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,095
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
As opposed to top-town authoritative legislation and widespread seizure.
A political solution that can't be enacted because the culture wouldn't allow it.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yeah? How's that been working so far?
Better than waiting for the culture to change? Just last month a Republican governor of Florida enacted legislation to raise the legal age to purchase guns and increase the waiting time, among other things. It may not be enough, but it is progress.

At some point gun enthusiasts will come to understand that it will be a choice between common sense gun laws and authoritarian gun seizures, and they will endorse the first to avoid the second. Everyone wins.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No, My solution would not target them personally. My solution would be for them to "target" themselves. Notice that we're using a gun metaphor there. Once people are willing to accept that guns are a net detriment to society, then legislation can be put into place to prevent the pendulum from swinging back. But legislation will never pass without widespread cultural support. And that means that those who currently identify as law-abiding gun owners have to support it.
Those people are not going to agree that the mere existence of guns is the problem. They believe, and I agree, it's guns in the wrong hands that's the problem.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No disagreement with that. But what's to stop your "new" NRA from being taken over by fanatics in the future?
We have this tendency to think of law-making as something you do and then it's settled.

It's not like that. Those judges and law-makers are changing things all the time as if it were their jobs or something.

So what stops politics from swinging one way in the future? Nothing except people working to swing it the other way instead.

Right now the NRA holds an extremist no-compromise position that the vast majority of gun owners don't agree with, but they go along with it because they see the alternative is people enacting laws that result in the government comming to get their guns. Having a choice would allow them to choose more moderate politics and to consider what they really want from a national association.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Voluntary controls work only for as long as people are willing to volunteer to control themselves. After that you need regulation to ensure that the people who aren't willing to volunteer get power.
I don't disagree, but neither did I suggest voluntary controls.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 01:12 PM   #289
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 57,929
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
A political solution that can't be enacted because the culture wouldn't allow it.
Which is what I've been saying. I'm glad we've found the place where we agree.

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Better than waiting for the culture to change? Just last month a Republican governor of Florida enacted legislation to raise the legal age to purchase guns and increase the waiting time, among other things. It may not be enough, but it is progress.
Is it? Or is it a merely symbolic gesture that has very little practical effect?

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
At some point gun enthusiasts will come to understand that it will be a choice between common sense gun laws and authoritarian gun seizures, and they will endorse the first to avoid the second. Everyone wins.
And I'm sure that in such a binary situation they would. Unfortunately the world does not work in binaries.

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Those people are not going to agree that the mere existence of guns is the problem. They believe, and I agree, it's guns in the wrong hands that's the problem.
We've always agreed that it's guns in the wrong hands that's the problem. We differ - and every person with an opinion differs - on whose hands are the wrong hands. Seems to me that American gun ownership advocates tend to be of the opinion that their hands can never be wrong.

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
We have this tendency to think of law-making as something you do and then it's settled.

It's not like that. Those judges and law-makers are changing things all the time as if it were their jobs or something.

So what stops politics from swinging one way in the future? Nothing except people working to swing it the other way instead.
Politics hasn't swung against the Second Amendment in two hundred years. The Constitution is designed, by intent, to be very hard to change.

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Right now the NRA holds an extremist no-compromise position that the vast majority of gun owners don't agree with, but they go along with it because they see the alternative is people enacting laws that result in the government comming to get their guns. Having a choice would allow them to choose more moderate politics and to consider what they really want from a national association.
That kind of binary is exactly what the NRA has been intending. They promote the slippery slope - the myth that passing any kind of gun control will lead to jackbooted thugs marching down the street, breaking into homes to confiscate guns. The binary serves the NRA's purpose. They've been very successful.

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I don't disagree, but neither did I suggest voluntary controls.
As I said, voluntary controls only work when people want to volunteer. That's why the first change has to be cultural. I admire and support the kids who have been marching recently, but I am skeptical that it will cause any practical change in the short term.
__________________
"Curiosity killed time by making up for lost cats."
The Three-Word Story
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 04:48 PM   #290
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,216
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Politics hasn't swung against the Second Amendment in two hundred years. The Constitution is designed, by intent, to be very hard to change.
Effectively all the currently enforced gun laws in the 50 states do not violate the 2nd amendment (most have passed multiple court challenges). The laws vary between the 50 states significantly. There is a greater than 5X difference in gun death rates between the 50 states (spread is 3.4 to 23.0 per 100k). Therefore if all the states adopted laws similar to the low death rate states then we should very significantly reduce gun deaths without violating the 2nd amendment. Some states may see a 4X or more reduction in their gun death rate.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 04:52 PM   #291
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,332
Have you looked at the gun laws in Vermont, versus the rate of gun deaths there?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2018, 05:23 PM   #292
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,095
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Which is what I've been saying. I'm glad we've found the place where we agree.
We probably agree on more than we disagree.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Is it? Or is it a merely symbolic gesture that has very little practical effect?
I'd say that raising the legal age to buy and extending the waiting period are both real gains. At the same time it's not a lot and it's only Florida.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
And I'm sure that in such a binary situation they would. Unfortunately the world does not work in binaries.
It does when it's forced to.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
We've always agreed that it's guns in the wrong hands that's the problem. We differ - and every person with an opinion differs - on whose hands are the wrong hands. Seems to me that American gun ownership advocates tend to be of the opinion that their hands can never be wrong.
I think the majority will agree that the mentally ill, criminal and abusive people are the wrong hands. It's expanding it beyond that where you're going to fail in reaching a consensus.

But those limitations are good and useful, and would save lives.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Politics hasn't swung against the Second Amendment in two hundred years. The Constitution is designed, by intent, to be very hard to change.
Nor should it swing against the second amendment. At the same time, the second amendment doesn't gurantee a right to keep and bear arms for the mentally ill, criminals, and abusive people.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
That kind of binary is exactly what the NRA has been intending. They promote the slippery slope - the myth that passing any kind of gun control will lead to jackbooted thugs marching down the street, breaking into homes to confiscate guns. The binary serves the NRA's purpose. They've been very successful.
They have, but that false dichotomy works both ways. If their base is convinced that any gun control leads to mass confiscation, then resisting change will guarantee that change will be radical when it comes. Pressure that's allowed to build up gets released explosively.

Again, I think we agree more than not.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
As I said, voluntary controls only work when people want to volunteer. That's why the first change has to be cultural. I admire and support the kids who have been marching recently, but I am skeptical that it will cause any practical change in the short term.
The message needs to be directed at the moderate NRA base and needs to be presented in such a way that it doesn't trigger their fears.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 06:03 AM   #293
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,209
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Many so called law abiding gun owners are just people with guns who do not break the law, till they do.....
I think that is an unfair attitude unless you're wiling to apply it to anyone else. For example car owners are just people who drive until they choose to get drunk and kill someone on the road.

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 12:47 PM   #294
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,987
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I think that is an unfair attitude unless you're wiling to apply it to anyone else. For example car owners are just people who drive until they choose to get drunk and kill someone on the road.

Ranb
I would apply that attitude to others who are law abiding, till they drink drive, steal something, evade taxes or punch their partner.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 01:59 PM   #295
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,216
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Have you looked at the gun laws in Vermont, versus the rate of gun deaths there?
Vermont isn't too bad, a death rate of 11.0/100K with a violent crime rate of 158.3/100,000 (2nd lowest in the USA). But compared to the Massachusetts with a death rate of 3.4/100K and a violent crime rate of 376.9/100K (23rd highest), Vermont has a lot of room for improvement (greater than 3X the death rate with less than half the violent crime rate). If they tightened their gun laws they should be able to easily be less than 3.4/100K taking the lead considering their very low crime rate.

Data from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-up/359395002/
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 01:40 AM   #296
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,987
Originally Posted by paulhutch View Post
Vermont isn't too bad, a death rate of 11.0/100K with a violent crime rate of 158.3/100,000 (2nd lowest in the USA). But compared to the Massachusetts with a death rate of 3.4/100K and a violent crime rate of 376.9/100K (23rd highest), Vermont has a lot of room for improvement (greater than 3X the death rate with less than half the violent crime rate). If they tightened their gun laws they should be able to easily be less than 3.4/100K taking the lead considering their very low crime rate.

Data from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-up/359395002/
The issue here is, can Vermont act to improve the rates and if it can, why has it not done so already?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 06:29 AM   #297
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,332
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The issue here is, can Vermont act to improve the rates and if it can, why has it not done so already?
The issue here is, what can other states do get down Vermont's rate?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 05:33 PM   #298
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 57,929
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I think that is an unfair attitude unless you're wiling to apply it to anyone else. For example car owners are just people who drive until they choose to get drunk and kill someone on the road.
The difference is in the intent, purpose and design of the particular device in question.
__________________
"Curiosity killed time by making up for lost cats."
The Three-Word Story
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 04:28 AM   #299
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,987
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The issue here is, what can other states do get down Vermont's rate?
Nothing, going by past performance and with no sign of any change in attitude, that is expected to continue.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 06:24 AM   #300
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,332
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Nothing, going by past performance and with no sign of any change in attitude, that is expected to continue.
Have you looked at Vermont's gun laws, yet?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 06:47 AM   #301
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,987
I knew it was a pretty lax state with few restrictions and a low rate of crime. I did not know, until I just checked, there was a tightening of restrictions and this;

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b09712fec335d7

"New Vermont Gun Law Won’t Work, Gun Advocates Say As They Try To Undermine It
Firearms enthusiasts protested a new restriction on high-capacity magazines by giving away 1,200 of the soon-to-be banned devices."

Other issues include leaving existing high capacity guns untouched and with no serial numbers to identify high capacity magazines, no way of identifying pre law from post.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 09:58 AM   #302
SuburbanTurkey
Critical Thinker
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I knew it was a pretty lax state with few restrictions and a low rate of crime. I did not know, until I just checked, there was a tightening of restrictions and this;



"New Vermont Gun Law Won’t Work, Gun Advocates Say As They Try To Undermine It
Firearms enthusiasts protested a new restriction on high-capacity magazines by giving away 1,200 of the soon-to-be banned devices."

Other issues include leaving existing high capacity guns untouched and with no serial numbers to identify high capacity magazines, no way of identifying pre law from post.
The mag limit ban criticism is pretty spot on. Most magazines are not serialized and for most pre and post ban production yields identical products. Since these bans never have the guts to not include a grandfather clause, standard capacity mags will remain available, although at greatly inflated prices. I live in Mass which has had it's own "Assault Weapons Ban" (AWB) and magazine limit for decades, but pre-ban rifles and magazines are abundant if you're willing to pay 2-3x the non-restricted price. I'm sure plenty of magazines flow in from out of state, since magazines are not firearms and the sales aren't monitored in any way. Unless you buy a magazine that couldn't have been made before the ban (say, a newer style polymer AR mag, or a mag for a gun that didn't exist when the ban went into place) there's no way to know it's history of lawful status. Same with "Assault Weapons", I could easily buy a pre-ban AR if I were willing to pay 1500-2000 USD, as opposed to maybe $500-600 in the unrestricted market.

Regardless how you feel about guns, the AWB is a very vague, difficult to enforce law. AWB compliant versions of all the firearms targeted by the law have become available in these markets, since the criteria for the law are largely cosmetic. AWB compliant AR-15's are ugly monstrosities, some having thumbhole stocks and unthreaded muzzles with no bayonet lugs, or pinned magazines, silly "bullet buttons", or AR "pistols" with arm braces that aren't stocks by law, but are just as deadly as their pre-ban brothers.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 01:53 AM   #303
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,987
What has happened in Vermont is one reason why I argue nothing can be done. If the authorities do not know who has what gun/magazine (which the authorities in the UK and Australia did know) and there are literally millions in circulation (there were way less in the UK and Australia) and there are people openly stating they will oppose and disrupt action to seize guns (which there was not in the UK and Australia), then the USA cannot stop the problem.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 01:33 PM   #304
SuburbanTurkey
Critical Thinker
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
What has happened in Vermont is one reason why I argue nothing can be done. If the authorities do not know who has what gun/magazine (which the authorities in the UK and Australia did know) and there are literally millions in circulation (there were way less in the UK and Australia) and there are people openly stating they will oppose and disrupt action to seize guns (which there was not in the UK and Australia), then the USA cannot stop the problem.
The Vermont bans, the AWB, and mag limits are all political theatre. Gives the appearance of doing something about the problem, but it's limited enough to not too directly anger pro-gun Americans.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 01:42 PM   #305
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,332
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
What has happened in Vermont is one reason why I argue nothing can be done. If the authorities do not know who has what gun/magazine (which the authorities in the UK and Australia did know) and there are literally millions in circulation (there were way less in the UK and Australia) and there are people openly stating they will oppose and disrupt action to seize guns (which there was not in the UK and Australia), then the USA cannot stop the problem.
You're missing the point completely. Vermont has relatively lenient gun laws, and relatively low rates of gun crime. I think you need to recheck pretty much all of your assumptions.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 01:50 PM   #306
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,338
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The difference is in the intent, purpose and design of the particular device in question.
Let's look at that.

At what point does a delivery van or truck become a weapon?

At point of manufacture, delivery or at the instant it is used as such? If alcohol or drugs are involved does that mitigate the criminal use of a vehicle as a weapon?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2018, 05:32 AM   #307
SuburbanTurkey
Critical Thinker
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The difference is in the intent, purpose and design of the particular device in question.
I won't pretend that most of these rifles aren't primarily attractive because they are the best available man-slaying firearms on the market.

I think the fundamental disagreement comes about the philosophy about the monopolization of force in a society. I think Americans often differ from their European counterparts in that they are more likely to feel that citizens ought to be able to posses the means to use force in a meaningful way, where other countries believe that is strictly the purview of the state. It's explicitly written into our Bill of Rights. People haggle over the words of 2A, but I can't find any credible argument that the founders intended for the state to have a total monopoly on force and weaponry in this country.

I don't think I'm in the radical fringe of American society for believing any citizen, not otherwise disqualified, ought to be able to posses the skills and technology necessary for basic military marksmanship activities.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2018, 02:26 PM   #308
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 57,929
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
At what point does a delivery van or truck become a weapon?
When it is designed to be a weapon. In other words, when it's a tank.

A delivery van or a truck is not designed to harm people. It is designed to move cargo from one place to another. That it can sometimes be used to harm people is as close to irrelevant as you can get. A brick can be used to harm people - heck, I could probably to a lot of harm to someone with a pair of trousers - but bricks and trousers are not designed for that purpose.

Firearms are, and always have been, designed to harm people. They were invented as weapons of war, to kill and maim people. That they have other functions - killing animals, or paper targets - doesn't change the fact that they are designed for the purpose of harming people.

Do you see now why they're different?
__________________
"Curiosity killed time by making up for lost cats."
The Three-Word Story
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2018, 02:40 PM   #309
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 57,929
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I won't pretend that most of these rifles aren't primarily attractive because they are the best available man-slaying firearms on the market.

I think the fundamental disagreement comes about the philosophy about the monopolization of force in a society. I think Americans often differ from their European counterparts in that they are more likely to feel that citizens ought to be able to posses the means to use force in a meaningful way, where other countries believe that is strictly the purview of the state. It's explicitly written into our Bill of Rights. People haggle over the words of 2A, but I can't find any credible argument that the founders intended for the state to have a total monopoly on force and weaponry in this country.

I don't think I'm in the radical fringe of American society for believing any citizen, not otherwise disqualified, ought to be able to posses the skills and technology necessary for basic military marksmanship activities.
It is my opinion that based on the evidence, people can't be trusted with such power. There needs to be a system of restrictions on who is permitted to wield deadly force, and for what purposes.
__________________
"Curiosity killed time by making up for lost cats."
The Three-Word Story
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.