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 31st March 2018, 03:30 PM   #161
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,906
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Have we even defined what "rapid fire gun" is in this thread? A semi-auto AR-15 will fire as fast as a semi-auto Glock pistol, like the police use. We're not talking machine guns here...are we?

Hope this doesn't get me accused of derailing the thread with minutia.
Surely, this isn't minutia in this context.
phiwum 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 31st March 2018, 03:48 PM   #162
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,290
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Surely, this isn't minutia in this context.
Around here? You'd be surprised. I've been told (in a gun thread) that "machine guns" is common parlance for semi-autos and that trying to differentiate was something only a gun nut cared about. And this from someone who really ought to know better.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris 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 31st March 2018, 03:56 PM   #163
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,906
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Around here? You'd be surprised. I've been told (in a gun thread) that "machine guns" is common parlance for semi-autos and that trying to differentiate was something only a gun nut cared about. And this from someone who really ought to know better.
Well, I don't have your experience, but I thought your comment was on point.
phiwum 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 31st March 2018, 06:15 PM   #164
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,460
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Is there much resupply? I thought that fully automatic weapons were fairly rare.
That's just another layer of irony. If Nessie actually meant machine guns, she'd already have a good example of how a ban dries up supply. Her whole premise is fractally wrong, from the ignorant terminology to the ignorance of modern history.
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 31st March 2018, 06:26 PM   #165
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,799
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That leaves dealing with guns as they are found as the way to get them off gangs, criminals, domestic abusers and others unsuitable to have them.

Until the original manufactures and sellers supply is cut off, that supply just replaces any guns which are seized.

So nothing actually happens.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
SezMe 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 31st March 2018, 07:28 PM   #166
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,298
I don't understand the all or nothing rhetoric regarding gun control. It's not a choice between zero regulation whatsoever and were coming to get your guns!!!

There are already regulations on guns. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a dialogue about what reasonable changes could be made to existing gun law that would keep them available to the vast majority of people that want them but still make them harder to get for criminals and mentally disturbed people?
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 31st March 2018, 09:02 PM   #167
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,091
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I don't understand the all or nothing rhetoric regarding gun control. It's not a choice between zero regulation whatsoever and were coming to get your guns!!!

There are already regulations on guns. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a dialogue about what reasonable changes could be made to existing gun law that would keep them available to the vast majority of people that want them but still make them harder to get for criminals and mentally disturbed people?
There is a slight problem of extremists on both sides.

I've noticed it a lot


It seems to me when you have a few people saying "They want to take all our guns by force!!!" And a few people saying "Take all the guns. Guns are evil!!!", they tend to get highlighted more than they should and used as some sort of evidence of a hidden agenda.

Which is a bit sad as I think the vast majority of US people sit in the middle and just want nutters not owning guns.

Purely observation though

Could be talking pants
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With todayís Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz 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 31st March 2018, 09:07 PM   #168
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 900
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Around here? You'd be surprised. I've been told (in a gun thread) that "machine guns" is common parlance for semi-autos and that trying to differentiate was something only a gun nut cared about. And this from someone who really ought to know better.
There are alot of people around here who have very strong opinions about gun control who really don't know what they're talking about. It's not minutia. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion without defining what we're talking about.
CaptainHowdy 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 1st April 2018, 12:28 AM   #169
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
There are alot of people around here who have very strong opinions about gun control who really don't know what they're talking about. It's not minutia. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion without defining what we're talking about.
Twaddle. Piffle. Apologist ********. The last redoubt of those with no argument: bar your opponents from speaking on the matter unless they reach some ad hoc movable threshold of your choosing. Your side of the argument has held sway for 40+ years and left American schoolkids regularly massacred, practising "shooter" drills, and with metal detectors and armed guards on the gate. You had your turn. You ********** up badly, so go quietly stand in the corner with your hands on your head whilst others with better intentions clear up the god-awful mess you've made.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 1st April 2018, 01:25 AM   #170
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You've banned automatic weapons. Where is the resupply coming from?
I have never seen any advocate of a ban of a type of weapon, also advocate that it is made illegal to manufacture them.

There is a massive source of guns which had been previously legally and illegally been exported, in particular to Mexico.
__________________
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 1st April 2018, 01:31 AM   #171
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's just another layer of irony. If Nessie actually meant machine guns, she'd already have a good example of how a ban dries up supply. Her whole premise is fractally wrong, from the ignorant terminology to the ignorance of modern history.
What ever phrase I used to describe a type of rapid fire gun, it does not matter to the point of the thread.

The point of the thread is to discuss if the idea of banning any type of rapid fire gun is actually possible to enact.

That so many people here are unhappy even discussing that, is one of the reasons why I say properly regulated gun control will never happen in the USA.
__________________
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 1st April 2018, 01:42 AM   #172
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
There is a slight problem of extremists on both sides.

I've noticed it a lot


It seems to me when you have a few people saying "They want to take all our guns by force!!!" And a few people saying "Take all the guns. Guns are evil!!!", they tend to get highlighted more than they should and used as some sort of evidence of a hidden agenda.

Which is a bit sad as I think the vast majority of US people sit in the middle and just want nutters not owning guns.

Purely observation though

Could be talking pants
Not at all. No one wants criminals, gangs, the mentally ill and kids who re harbouring resentment against fellow pupils to be in possession of guns, in particular rapid fire guns. Not the NRA, not Black Lives Matter, not Trump, no one. Despite that agreement, remarkably no agreement can be reached on how to tackle the problem.

But, I am arguing it is even worse than that.

Even if all the various sides got together and agreed to act, they could not solve the problem. That is obviously not going to be a popular argument, telling an American they are incapable of achieving something.

There are just too many guns already in circulation, too many of which are already in the wrong hands and too many people who will not give them up without a fight, that US gun deaths will continue for at least the foreseeable future at a rate far higher than elsewhere.
__________________
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 1st April 2018, 01:55 AM   #173
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,091
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Not at all. No one wants criminals, gangs, the mentally ill and kids who re harbouring resentment against fellow pupils to be in possession of guns, in particular rapid fire guns. Not the NRA, not Black Lives Matter, not Trump, no one. Despite that agreement, remarkably no agreement can be reached on how to tackle the problem.

But, I am arguing it is even worse than that.

Even if all the various sides got together and agreed to act, they could not solve the problem. That is obviously not going to be a popular argument, telling an American they are incapable of achieving something.

There are just too many guns already in circulation, too many of which are already in the wrong hands and too many people who will not give them up without a fight, that US gun deaths will continue for at least the foreseeable future at a rate far higher than elsewhere.
I get your argument, but forgive me if I see it as basically the same old "Won't solve it over night. Not worth doing" argument.

Proper gun control in the US will probably take 1 or 2 .... maybe even 3 generations, but it is just hard, not impossible.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With todayís Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz 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 1st April 2018, 11:32 AM   #174
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Not at all. No one wants criminals, gangs, the mentally ill and kids who re harbouring resentment against fellow pupils to be in possession of guns, in particular rapid fire guns. Not the NRA...
I'm going to disagree with that. I think that by their actions the NRA has demonstrated it does want criminals, gangs and the mentally ill to have guns. They have categorically opposed any regulation whatsoever including the collection and dissemination of information that would be necessary to even identify people with mental issues or criminal histories.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
But, I am arguing it is even worse than that.

Even if all the various sides got together and agreed to act, they could not solve the problem. That is obviously not going to be a popular argument, telling an American they are incapable of achieving something.

There are just too many guns already in circulation, too many of which are already in the wrong hands and too many people who will not give them up without a fight, that US gun deaths will continue for at least the foreseeable future at a rate far higher than elsewhere.
Guns donít last forever. They break down and wear out. If the production of AR-15s were stopped today, next year there would be fewer of them, and fewer the year after that. Itís not necessary to eliminate them all to have a huge impact on their availability. The forces of supply and demand alone should be enough to place them out of reach of angry teenaged kids.

The argument that because 100% success isnít attainable that we shouldnít try anything is silly. Laws against murder donít stop murders from happening, but they certainly reduce them and empower the state to pursue and lock up killers. We can make efforts to reduce the availability of certain types of weapons to certain types of people, and we donít need to achieve 100% effectiveness to save lives in doing so.
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 1st April 2018, 12:32 PM   #175
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I get your argument, but forgive me if I see it as basically the same old "Won't solve it over night. Not worth doing" argument.

Proper gun control in the US will probably take 1 or 2 .... maybe even 3 generations, but it is just hard, not impossible.
I think it is worth continuing tinkering, as has been happening in some states, such as Connecticut after Sandy Hook. Even if a few lives are saved, that is better than none.

Maybe there could be a major change, in a few generations. We will know better if the Parkland campaign for change is having a real effect in say, 5 years time.
__________________
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 1st April 2018, 12:48 PM   #176
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I'm going to disagree with that. I think that by their actions the NRA has demonstrated it does want criminals, gangs and the mentally ill to have guns. They have categorically opposed any regulation whatsoever including the collection and dissemination of information that would be necessary to even identify people with mental issues or criminal histories.
In other words, big on talk, little on actual action.


Quote:
Guns donít last forever. They break down and wear out. If the production of AR-15s were stopped today, next year there would be fewer of them, and fewer the year after that. Itís not necessary to eliminate them all to have a huge impact on their availability. The forces of supply and demand alone should be enough to place them out of reach of angry teenaged kids.
Is there any idea how many AR15s are out there, including those exported to Mexico?

Quote:
The argument that because 100% success isnít attainable that we shouldnít try anything is silly. Laws against murder donít stop murders from happening, but they certainly reduce them and empower the state to pursue and lock up killers. We can make efforts to reduce the availability of certain types of weapons to certain types of people, and we donít need to achieve 100% effectiveness to save lives in doing so.
I have not be making that argument. No where have I argued nothing should be done. Instead I have argued that any change is going to have a very limited effect. It is fine to keep going hoping for change, but don't expect much to happen, for a long, long time, if at all.

I say at present the likely success rate for productive change is maybe 10% at best. It is fine to keep going as a 10% reduction is still lives saved.

The reason why I say that is because over the past few decades of numerous massacres, the high death rate during crimes, instances of self defence and when the police make arrests, new gun control laws have been introduced. But, the overall effect has been minimal to non existent.

Until there is an underlying, radical change, that situation will 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 1st April 2018, 01:39 PM   #177
Metullus
Forum ĺ-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,045
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
I don't really have that much of a problem with this. A range is the only place I'd use something like that anyway (I have a pump-action shotgun for home protection) and it would free up closet space.

I do have to echo the question raised by theprestige and Giz though, of what is the goal? Is it to reduce gun deaths or just mass-shootings? I don't think it will do either, since handguns are used in the overwhelming majority of gun deaths, and have been shown to work just fine for mass-shootings. Without imposing similar restrictions on the type of weapon behind the bulk of the problem, this is just a feel-good non-solution.
I do have a problem with this. There are many areas where there are no public shooting ranges or gun clubs, and, absent legislation that prevents local government from prohibiting them, there never will be.
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus 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 1st April 2018, 07:41 PM   #178
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 900
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Twaddle. Piffle. Apologist ********. The last redoubt of those with no argument: bar your opponents from speaking on the matter unless they reach some ad hoc movable threshold of your choosing. Your side of the argument has held sway for 40+ years and left American schoolkids regularly massacred, practising "shooter" drills, and with metal detectors and armed guards on the gate. You had your turn. You ********** up badly, so go quietly stand in the corner with your hands on your head whilst others with better intentions clear up the god-awful mess you've made.
So says the man who defends the people who allowed a violent psychopath who drew swastikas on things to acquire dangerous assault rifles and shoot up a school.
CaptainHowdy 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 1st April 2018, 09:31 PM   #179
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 59,373
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I don't understand the all or nothing rhetoric regarding gun control. It's not a choice between zero regulation whatsoever and were coming to get your guns!!!

There are already regulations on guns. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a dialogue about what reasonable changes could be made to existing gun law that would keep them available to the vast majority of people that want them but still make them harder to get for criminals and mentally disturbed people?
Why should "the vast majority of people" be allowed to have them?
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is online now   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 2nd April 2018, 01:06 AM   #180
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
So says the man who defends the people who allowed a violent psychopath who drew swastikas on things to acquire dangerous assault rifles and shoot up a school.
Rather than gutlessly chucking around such bollocks, how about quoting me? When you can't find anything to support this lie, how about apologising?
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 2nd April 2018, 02:06 AM   #181
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
So says the man who defends the people who allowed a violent psychopath who drew swastikas on things to acquire dangerous assault rifles and shoot up a school.
Link and quote please. Otherwise, you are being called out for lying.
__________________
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 2nd April 2018, 05:12 AM   #182
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Why should "the vast majority of people" be allowed to have them?
Because the vast majority of people do not go around shooting up schools. Also because in a democracy centrist ideas are easier to enact than extremist ideas.
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 2nd April 2018, 12:35 PM   #183
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 59,373
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Because the vast majority of people do not go around shooting up schools. Also because in a democracy centrist ideas are easier to enact than extremist ideas.
Neither of those are good reasons for "the vast majority of people" to be able to have guns. Most people would also not shoot up schools if they didn't have guns. You could argue that more people would not shoot up schools if they didn't have guns.

And it's only the American perspective that considers "most people don't need guns" to be an extremist position. For the rest of the developed world, the extremist idea is that "the vast majority of people should be able to get guns if they want them".
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is online now   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 2nd April 2018, 02:00 PM   #184
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 900
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Rather than gutlessly chucking around such bollocks, how about quoting me? When you can't find anything to support this lie, how about apologising?
You accused me of 'defending a mass murderer' because I believe that the mass murderer in question--whom his peers, neighbors, and own brother say was bullied--was bullied.

Yet you have not acknowledged that the people who had multiple opportunities to prevent a violent psychopath (who drew swastikas on things) from acquiring a gun are far more responsible for the mass murder he committed than a non-government agency with no enforcement power that believes violent psychopaths should not have guns.

Attempting to deflect the blame from the people responsible for letting a mass murderer acquire a gun is closer to 'defending a mass murderer' than saying a mass murderer was treated the way everybody says he was treated.

If you actually believe that the Broward County sheriff shares a greater responsibility for the Parkland shooting than the NRA, then I'm sorry. I misunderstood your position.
CaptainHowdy 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 2nd April 2018, 02:11 PM   #185
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,460
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
What ever phrase I used to describe a type of rapid fire gun, it does not matter to the point of the thread.
I think it kind of does.

Quote:
The point of the thread is to discuss if the idea of banning any type of rapid fire gun is actually possible to enact.

That so many people here are unhappy even discussing that, is one of the reasons why I say properly regulated gun control will never happen in the USA.
Everybody in this thread besides you seems quite happy to discuss that. A lot of them aren't happy with your predetermined conclusion to the discussion, but that's a different problem entirely.
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 2nd April 2018, 02:31 PM   #186
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,460
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I have never seen any advocate of a ban of a type of weapon, also advocate that it is made illegal to manufacture them.
Look at what happened to machine guns, though (and this is why proper terminology is important). They are effectively banned. Manufacture is limited. Supply is limited. Demand is low. Machine guns aren't very numerous in civilian hands. All without anybody having to go confiscate machine guns and get shot down in the process.

Same thing here: Ban semi-automatic weapons. What happens next? Retailers can't sell them anymore, so they stop ordering them. Without orders, the manufacturers stop manufacturing - they're not going to dump a bunch of illegal merchandise on the street for free, after all.

And if a manufacturer *did* decide to dump a bunch of merchandise somehow, the source would be trivially easy to trace. Not to mention how the manufacturer accounts for all the parts and labor costs in making the guns, but not the revenue generated to offset those costs.

At that point, the manufacturer is selling to the military, law enforcement, and private security firms. At that point, you can impose strict registration and auditing requirements on the few entities still legally allowed to buy. If a private security firm tries to middleman their way into the black market, their registered and audited legal purchases will be found on the street and they will be shut down.

So banning, along with sensible and obvious supporting regulations, will greatly diminish supply at the manufacturing end, while chopping out legal retail entirely, and making the few remaining legal owners extremely easy to monitor.

After that, you can focus on confiscating those firearms that are encountered during normal policing, and shutting down the various smuggling routes. I mean, the UK is pretty much living that dream right now. Are you very concerned about criminal resupply in the UK?

If your goal is to put a stop to the resupply of criminal gangs who keep getting their firearms confiscated, then a ban on such firearms, followed by crackdown on black market and smuggling sources - which the police should be doing anyway - seems like an obvious and highly productive first step. Why are you so resistant to the idea?

I don't even want to ban "automatic" weapons, and I'm still putting way more effort into seeing your vision succeed than you are.

What problem are you really trying to solve?

Last edited by theprestige; 2nd April 2018 at 02:33 PM.
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 2nd April 2018, 09:08 PM   #187
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,298
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
And it's only the American perspective that considers "most people don't need guns" to be an extremist position.
Yes. It is an American perspective. I'm speaking as an American with an American point of view about an American topic. While I'm aware that perspectives are different in other parts of the world, that's not important or relevent in this discussion.
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 3rd April 2018, 02:52 AM   #188
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
......

I don't even want to ban "automatic" weapons, and I'm still putting way more effort into seeing your vision succeed than you are.

What problem are you really trying to solve?
You and others claim various visions, each to achieve a reduction in US gun murders.

I am asking you to provide evidence your vision is achievable. All you do is repeatedly tell me your vision.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic

Last edited by Nessie; 3rd April 2018 at 02:54 AM.
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 3rd April 2018, 06:39 AM   #189
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,460
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
You and others claim various visions, each to achieve a reduction in US gun murders.

I am asking you to provide evidence your vision is achievable. All you do is repeatedly tell me your vision.
We've seen it done in the US with machine guns. We've seen it done in Australia and the UK with firearms across the board. At this point, I think it's up to you to provide evidence it wouldn't work again. Instead of just repeating your claim.
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 3rd April 2018, 07:58 AM   #190
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,185
I have been providing evidence (maybe not all in this thread admittedly);

I have shown how despite numerous mass murders, including Sandy Hook, has resulted in little to no legislative and enforcement change and reduction in the rate of such shootings.

I have shown how buy backs made little to no difference.

I have shown that trying to seize guns is likely to result in even more deaths as gangs, criminals and nuts are unlikely to give them up without a fight.

I have explained how the huge supply of guns in the US (88.8+ per 100 people) plus all the guns in Mexico means even if there was a ban and manufacturers had to stop making the guns, means still tons of unregulated guns.

I have shown the divisions in US society over gun control and how in the UK and Australia there were no such divisions when it came to certain types of gun being banned and removed from circulation.

I have shown how the UK and Australia having one universal gun law covering the whole country, as opposed to numerous different gun laws, means more effective national control.
__________________
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 3rd April 2018, 08:11 AM   #191
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,185
As for machine guns, they have been subject to control for years and were never really allowed to go out of control.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/machine-gun...ry?id=50256580

With 630,019 registered machine guns in the USA, most of which are registered to law enforcement and strict background checks for the few in public hands, no wonder they do not pose a 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 3rd April 2018, 08:30 AM   #192
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
....... you have not acknowledged that the people who had multiple opportunities to prevent a violent psychopath (who drew swastikas on things) from acquiring a gun are far more responsible for the mass murder he committed than a non-government agency with no enforcement power that believes violent psychopaths should not have guns.

Attempting to deflect the blame from the people responsible for letting a mass murderer acquire a gun is closer to 'defending a mass murderer' than saying a mass murderer was treated the way everybody says he was treated.

If you actually believe that the Broward County sheriff shares a greater responsibility for the Parkland shooting than the NRA, then I'm sorry. I misunderstood your position.
This is contemptible. No, it's below contemptible.

"you have not acknowledged" does not, in any way, support your ridiculous accusation:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
So says the man who defends the people who allowed a violent psychopath who drew swastikas on things to acquire dangerous assault rifles and shoot up a school.
Righto. If you've an ounce of decency left in you, you'll either quote me "defending those who allowed a violent psychopath...to acquire...assault rifles and shoot up a school" (actual quote: my words quoted back at me), or you'll apologise. I know you can't do the former, and I don't believe you have it in you to do the latter. Surprise me.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 3rd April 2018, 08:47 AM   #193
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,460
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I have been providing evidence (maybe not all in this thread admittedly);
Maybe not? Why are you complaining about a discussion you're not even having, then?

Quote:
I have shown how despite numerous mass murders, including Sandy Hook, has resulted in little to no legislative and enforcement change and reduction in the rate of such shootings.
Different problem, not the topic you're trying to discuss here.

Quote:
I have shown how buy backs made little to no difference.
Buy backs without a supporting ban and related regulation. Look at how well buy back plus ban worked in Australia.

Quote:
I have shown that trying to seize guns is likely to result in even more deaths as gangs, criminals and nuts are unlikely to give them up without a fight.
You have claimed this. I don't think you've shown evidence of it. Others have pointed out that enforcement in the breach is an adequate approach - and one that appears to be working well in the UK and Australia.

Quote:
I have explained how the huge supply of guns in the US (88.8+ per 100 people) plus all the guns in Mexico means even if there was a ban and manufacturers had to stop making the guns, means still tons of unregulated guns.
To begin with, sure. Why would you not expect that to do gown over time, as guns are confiscated and new supply dwindles?

Quote:
I have shown the divisions in US society over gun control and how in the UK and Australia there were no such divisions when it came to certain types of gun being banned and removed from circulation.

I have shown how the UK and Australia having one universal gun law covering the whole country, as opposed to numerous different gun laws, means more effective national control.
Different problem, not relevant to this discussion. I agree that getting Americans to agree to such a ban is impossible - but you started this thread by asking us to assume such agreement had been reached. You can't assume widespread support for a ban, and then ignore what that implies about support for enforcement. Australia is a good example of how the two go hand in hand.

You ignore proper terminology.

You ignore recent history.

You ignore your very own premise.

What problem are you really trying to solve?
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 3rd April 2018, 12:28 PM   #194
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 59,373
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Yes. It is an American perspective. I'm speaking as an American with an American point of view about an American topic. While I'm aware that perspectives are different in other parts of the world, that's not important or relevent in this discussion.
Right, because America is different, America is special, America's concerns do not matter to the rest of the world and America doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.

Never mind that America exports its culture wholesale to the rest of the world. That doesn't matter to American concerns.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is online now   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 3rd April 2018, 12:37 PM   #195
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,185
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Maybe not? Why are you complaining about a discussion you're not even having, then?


Different problem, not the topic you're trying to discuss here.


Buy backs without a supporting ban and related regulation. Look at how well buy back plus ban worked in Australia.
It worked because they knew who had the guns to ensure they were sold and there was not millions of guns to buy.

Quote:
You have claimed this. I don't think you've shown evidence of it. Others have pointed out that enforcement in the breach is an adequate approach - and one that appears to be working well in the UK and Australia.
It is rare to find an illegal gun in the UK and Australia and I am not aware of any shoot out to get hold of that gun.

Are you really disputing that making a certain type of gun illegal will mean gangs and criminals and militias will hand them over?

Quote:
To begin with, sure. Why would you not expect that to do gown over time, as guns are confiscated and new supply dwindles?
If the supply is dried up then of course any action to remove guns, even a reactive seize if found will reduce the number.

Quote:
Different problem, not relevant to this discussion. I agree that getting Americans to agree to such a ban is impossible - but you started this thread by asking us to assume such agreement had been reached. You can't assume widespread support for a ban, and then ignore what that implies about support for enforcement. Australia is a good example of how the two go hand in hand.

You ignore proper terminology.

You ignore recent history.

You ignore your very own premise.

What problem are you really trying to solve?
No matter how often you question the purpose of this thread, it is still to discuss the practicalities of enforcing a ban.
__________________
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 3rd April 2018, 12:45 PM   #196
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Right, because America is different, America is special, America's concerns do not matter to the rest of the world and America doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.

Never mind that America exports its culture wholesale to the rest of the world. That doesn't matter to American concerns.
It's more than that, though, arthwollipot. It's like watching a best friend get into drugs, or become obese. You say something because they're your best friend.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 3rd April 2018, 12:51 PM   #197
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 59,373
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
It's more than that, though, arthwollipot. It's like watching a best friend get into drugs, or become obese. You say something because they're your best friend.
Yes, that's a very good point too.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is online now   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 3rd April 2018, 12:58 PM   #198
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post

Never mind that America exports its culture wholesale to the rest of the world. That doesn't matter to American concerns.
The rest of the world is free to produce and consume its own culture.
Giz 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 3rd April 2018, 01:03 PM   #199
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,460
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
It's more than that, though, arthwollipot. It's like watching a best friend get into drugs, or become obese. You say something because they're your best friend.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yes, that's a very good point too.
I long ago gave up the fantasy that Australia's notion of the US is anything as charitable as "best friend".
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 3rd April 2018, 11:18 PM   #200
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
The rest of the world is free to produce and consume its own culture.
If only it were as easy as that. America has a way of insinuating itself into all sorts of corners of the world with dominant organisations like Hollywood (and now Google, Youtube and Facebook), Coca Cola, MacDonalds, and Starbucks. These organisations are economically stronger than and bigger than many of the countries they enter, who are far too weak to be able to say no.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 12:22 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.