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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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 4th October 2017, 11:47 AM   #121
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,001
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Exactly what situation are people preparing for which requires an individual to be able to kill 50 people in 10 seconds?
I think the people who want to be armed for that refer to the situation as WTSHTF. It's when the feces hit the fan. I've seen that acronym used somewhat regularly when I've peeked at Patriot Movement and Survivalist sites.

Their idea is that something apocalyptic is coming by way of race war or civil war or government seizing all guns by force or armed Muslims invading the land or other things like those. When lots of armed people come for you and your family you want to have maximum firepower and ammo and peanut butter.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 4th October 2017, 11:54 AM   #122
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,567
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I think the people who want to be armed for that refer to the situation as WTSHTF. It's when the feces hit the fan. I've seen that acronym used somewhat regularly when I've peeked at Patriot Movement and Survivalist sites.

Their idea is that something apocalyptic is coming by way of race war or civil war or government seizing all guns by force or armed Muslims invading the land or other things like those. When lots of armed people come for you and your family you want to have maximum firepower and ammo and peanut butter.
And this has moved to the Left, with a number of armed groups forming over the past six months. Except for the slogans and rhetoric, pretty much the same as the right wing crowd.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 4th October 2017, 12:05 PM   #123
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,168
One third of all automobile fatalities in the US involve DUI. I grew up in a time when people would commonly have one for the road and drinking and driving wasn't even illegal so long as you weren't drunk. People laughed at MADD as a bunch of busy bodies who can't hold their liquor. Most drunk people get home fine, what's the big deal? Why should a few "really drunk" people ruin a night out for everyone. Things changed. I think they changed for the better.

Two thirds of all murders in the US involve firearms. My kids have grown up in a time where concealed carry and open carry have become far more common. I can hope that things change, but I don't have a lot of faith that they will.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith 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 4th October 2017, 12:24 PM   #124
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,064
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Which necromongers are talking to? Or are you shouting into the wind?
I'm talking to the necromongers who feel naked and afraid unless they can kill 50 people in seconds.

I thought I had made that abundantly clear.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown 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 4th October 2017, 12:27 PM   #125
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,285
Bump firing devices should be illegal, but I wouldn't think they would be that difficult to fabricate.

You can take my rubber bands from my cold hard hands, or something like that.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 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 4th October 2017, 12:29 PM   #126
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,919
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
I'm talking to the necromongers who feel naked and afraid unless they can kill 50 people in seconds.

I thought I had made that abundantly clear.
Who are they?
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 12:32 PM   #127
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,711
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post

Two thirds of all murders in the US involve firearms. My kids have grown up in a time where concealed carry and open carry have become far more common. I can hope that things change, but I don't have a lot of faith that they will.
This is barking up the wrong tree. Only a tiny, miniscule amount of the gun deaths in America are caused by wrongful use of a lawfully carried (concealed or open) weapon.

There are a number of good conversations that can be had – but your comment seems to be about retreating into your comfort zone rather than finding a data based solution.

There are different issues/drivers/solutions to:
- ‘Crime’ shootings
- Mass shootings
- Terror shootings
- State/’BLM’ shootings

Instead of a knowledgeable constructive debate (say, along BStrongs post elsewhere on this forum), we get fear driven knee jerk “ban X”, “ban Y”, “ban barrel shrouds!”
Giz 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 4th October 2017, 12:41 PM   #128
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,484
I've been thinking about the comparison to alcohol a lot recently. Alcohol causes a LOT of deaths in this country...more so than guns. A rough brush of the data shows about 34.000 gun deaths per year versus 88,000 per year from alcohol-related fatalities. Not even getting into the related problems of addiction and long-term damage. Yet there are relatively few calls for banning alcohol. Or for restricting sales of anything above 100 proof, say (why would anyone want Everclear? Beer and wine should be fine for anyone!).

Another similarity is that banning doesn't work (Prohibition was a failure).

We need rational, effective gun control, not knee jerk bans or ineffective legislation based on emotion. Have to second Giz's reference to BStrong's posts in the other thread...that's the direction we should move in. Instead we get stuck with mothing happening in a fight between the vocal extremes: "All guns are evil, and so are you if you have one!" "No, any gun control is fascism!"
Hellbound 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 4th October 2017, 12:43 PM   #129
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,001
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
Who are they?
Well some examples of "them" are the former occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Many of the same ones and others were at the Bunkerville Standoff.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 4th October 2017, 12:45 PM   #130
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
This is barking up the wrong tree. Only a tiny, miniscule amount of the gun deaths in America are caused by wrongful use of a lawfully carried (concealed or open) weapon.

There are a number of good conversations that can be had – but your comment seems to be about retreating into your comfort zone rather than finding a data based solution.

There are different issues/drivers/solutions to:
- ‘Crime’ shootings
- Mass shootings
- Terror shootings
- State/’BLM’ shootings

Instead of a knowledgeable constructive debate (say, along BStrongs post elsewhere on this forum), we get fear driven knee jerk “ban X”, “ban Y”, “ban barrel shrouds!”
I struggle with this a bit myself. Just a week ago, I'd imagine that the total number of murders ever committed using bump fire devices was pretty minuscule. Even now it probably barely registers as a blip statistically. But my immediate reaction is to want them banned. If I was a legislator, I'd want to wait a bit to calm down before I actually took a position on the issue.
Civet 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 4th October 2017, 12:46 PM   #131
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,168
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
This is barking up the wrong tree. Only a tiny, miniscule amount of the gun deaths in America are caused by wrongful use of a lawfully carried (concealed or open) weapon.
More guns is highly correlated to more gun deaths.

Only a tiny minuscule amount of vehicular deaths were caused by people who had just had a few drinks. Most were caused by the well and truly drunk. Most people who had just had a few drinks made it home no problem. And yet we have gotten to the point where most people who have just had a few drinks don't try to drive home. I don't see that as a problem.

Quote:
There are a number of good conversations that can be had – but your comment seems to be about retreating into your comfort zone rather than finding a data based solution.
My comment is only meant to show that we are at the "deriding MADD as crazy old bats" stage of this debate.

We may move forward or we may stay here. I don't know. I've tried to participate in these debates on a more substantive level (see my sig, not the part about the pain fetishist) and I agree that BStrong's post is a step in the right direction. That doesn't mean I can't point out that until we get past making fun of "gun grabbers" we won't move past where we are.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith 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 4th October 2017, 12:51 PM   #132
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,711
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
We may move forward or we may stay here. I don't know. I've tried to participate in these debates on a more substantive level (see my sig, not the part about the pain fetishist) and I agree that BStrong's post is a step in the right direction. That doesn't mean I can't point out that until we get past making fun of "gun grabbers" we won't move past where we are.
I'd suggest that a constructive debate will require getting past making fun of both sides.
Giz 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 4th October 2017, 12:57 PM   #133
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,064
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I think the people who want to be armed for that refer to the situation as WTSHTF. It's when the feces hit the fan. I've seen that acronym used somewhat regularly when I've peeked at Patriot Movement and Survivalist sites.

Their idea is that something apocalyptic is coming by way of race war or civil war or government seizing all guns by force or armed Muslims invading the land or other things like those. When lots of armed people come for you and your family you want to have maximum firepower and ammo and peanut butter.
That would be a poor response to a poor threat assessment. They're wasting tons of money on weapons that will be useless against what is most likely to come for them.

Floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, forest fires...all totally immune to their puny little bullets. Even a drunk driver can strike devastatingly, without warning.

An automatic weapon couldn't even put a dent in a swarm of locusts, which is also a more likely threat than a mass Muslim attack.

And try picking off an incoming micrometeor or lightning bolt with a rifle.

And how will an assault rifle protect them from their own furniture, which is statistically a greater threat to them than Muslim terrorists?

Gosh. Life really is full of risks, isn't it. Almost all of them an order of magnitude more likely than all of those threats you mentioned combined.

Now I'm getting scared.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 4th October 2017 at 01:46 PM.
Toontown 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 4th October 2017, 01:00 PM   #134
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,980
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Another similarity is that banning doesn't work (Prohibition was a failure).
That's a popular myth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

Prohibition was successful in reducing alcohol consumption, and the negative externalities associated with prohibition are wildly overblown in the public imagination.

Prohibition was undone by ordinary politics--once the great depression rolled up on us, people found that they wanted a drink.

Even if it were true that prohibition had failed, it would be a mistake to infer that bans in general don't work. Some bans work just fine. Nobody in NYC is going to underground transfat restaurants. Guns and drugs (and foods and pets) have different properties.

This should not be construed as an argument in favor of a gun ban (or prohibition, for that matter).
mumblethrax 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 4th October 2017, 01:01 PM   #135
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,168
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
I'd suggest that a constructive debate will require getting past making fun of both sides.
Suggestion noted. <tips longneck in acknowledgement and drives off>
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith 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 4th October 2017, 01:03 PM   #136
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,168
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Now I'm getting scared.
I don't have guns or a trampoline in my home. But I do have a pool, just to let people know I'm a bad ass in unpredictable ways.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith 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 4th October 2017, 01:06 PM   #137
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,772
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
That's a popular myth.
My take would be also that we need to stop conflating registration with confiscation.

That may a talking point in some circles, but it is a straw man argument.

The other great argument I've seen many times is to oppose plans or suggestions that are good, but not perfect.

We cannot eliminate the supply of guns to criminals - but we can probably gradually reduce them. That's not perfect, but it is still good.

We cannot prevent all people with poor or deteriorating mental health from accessing firearms - but we can make a reduction. We might not have been able to catch one like this guy, but we might have been able to catch one like the Aurora theater shooter.

The perfect is not the enemy of the good.
crescent 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 4th October 2017, 01:11 PM   #138
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,919
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Well some examples of "them" are the former occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Many of the same ones and others were at the Bunkerville Standoff.
Indeed? Which of them are "the necromongers who feel naked and afraid unless they can kill 50 people in seconds." There are people who believe that their liberties are best maintained and protected by being armed. There are people who believe that state and federal government agencies and policy do not adequately protect them and their rights. These people often act in ways that we think are extreme and irrational. It does not, however, make them "necromongers who feel naked and afraid unless they can kill 50 people in seconds."
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 01:17 PM   #139
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,874
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
That would be a poor response to a poor threat assessment. They're wasting tons of money on weapons that will be useless against what is most likely to come for them.

Floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, forest fires...all totally immune to their puny little bullets.
I wouldn't assume that everyone understands that.

Florida sheriff's office warns people not to shoot at Hurricane Irma.

Quote:
Over 99% of the people out there have common sense and are listening, but we in law enforcement deal with the 1%, so we are trying to get the message to them," explained Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco.
Kestrel 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 4th October 2017, 01:17 PM   #140
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,484
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
That's a popular myth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

Prohibition was successful in reducing alcohol consumption, and the negative externalities associated with prohibition are wildly overblown in the public imagination.

Prohibition was undone by ordinary politics--once the great depression rolled up on us, people found that they wanted a drink.

Even if it were true that prohibition had failed, it would be a mistake to infer that bans in general don't work. Some bans work just fine. Nobody in NYC is going to underground transfat restaurants. Guns and drugs (and foods and pets) have different properties.

This should not be construed as an argument in favor of a gun ban (or prohibition, for that matter).
I was, admittedly, summarizing immensely. But the problem with prohibition is that it didn't inhibit the problem that much (certainly didn't cure it), led to more dangers in use due to deregulation, and created a huge black market that arguably was a major contributor to the rising power of organized crime. Alcohol was too common beforehand, and too easy to make/bring in/obtain illegally.

The situation with guns is similar. Yes, ban probably would reduce the overall numbers, but it would add in a lot of ancillary problems that are as bad or worse. And I think more rational (less extreme) solutions would do more to combat the problem, just as other types of programs and regulations have worked to reduce the problems of alcohol.

ETA: One major point of comparison is that we allow twice as many alcohol deaths for something that is, literally, only for fun, without demonizing those who use it responsibly. But the same principal doesn't apply to guns, for whatever reason. And guns actually can be used for more than just fun (supplemental hunting is common in many areas, for example, and the role firearms play in defense. Not major justifications, but more than exist for alcohol).

Last edited by Hellbound; 4th October 2017 at 01:22 PM.
Hellbound 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 4th October 2017, 01:22 PM   #141
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,874
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
I struggle with this a bit myself. Just a week ago, I'd imagine that the total number of murders ever committed using bump fire devices was pretty minuscule. Even now it probably barely registers as a blip statistically. But my immediate reaction is to want them banned. If I was a legislator, I'd want to wait a bit to calm down before I actually took a position on the issue.
Legislation is a balance between harm and good. We saw how bump fire devices could harm last Sunday.

Can anyone here explain the good?
Kestrel 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 4th October 2017, 01:24 PM   #142
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,729
The UK has effective gun control because we know who owns the guns, what guns they own and if that person is suitable to have the gun. There are very few guns outwith that control. The UK has kept guns with the good guys and away from nuts, criminals, gangs, angry people and youths.

The USA cannot have effective control because you know little about who owns the guns, what guns they have and if they are suitable or not to have the gun. In certain circumstances there is good gun control, for example Texas CCW permit holders. You know who they are, what guns they have and if they are OK to have a gun. But that is overwhelmed by the sheer number of illegally held guns and unsuitable people who have access to them. The USA has failed to keep guns away from nuts, criminals, gangs, angry people and youths.

All the talk about gun control only affects some of the guns and people. Until there is gun control that can affect the vast majority, I am afraid you are just tinkering.

For proper gun control, the USA needs to get everyone to register their guns, undergo proper background checks and punish those who who buy or sell unregistered guns to people who have not undergone background checks.

The chances of that happening is pretty much nil. There is no political will, the culture is against it and the law is pretty much against it as well. If Sandy Hook could not persuade people to change, nothing can.

The USA has shot itself in the leg, lost that leg and has to just learn to live with a permanent disability of its own making.
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 01:30 PM   #143
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,795
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
More guns is highly correlated to more gun deaths.
Well, yes, I'd think that's true.

Quote:
Only a tiny minuscule amount of vehicular deaths were caused by people who had just had a few drinks. Most were caused by the well and truly drunk. Most people who had just had a few drinks made it home no problem. And yet we have gotten to the point where most people who have just had a few drinks don't try to drive home. I don't see that as a problem.
More legal access to alcohol is highly correlated to more alcohol-related deaths. Duh.

I'm not making an argument against gun laws, but pointing out that your tautology above really doesn't make a case for gun laws. It's just a trivially true claim.
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 4th October 2017, 01:33 PM   #144
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
My take would be also that we need to stop conflating registration with confiscation.

That may a talking point in some circles, but it is a straw man argument.
It's not a straw man, it's a slippery slope. Different fallacy.

The theory is that registration would allow confiscation to be easier, since the Feds have that handy centralized list of all the guns and gun owners.

My skepticism of the idea comes from the fact that when the Feds try to compile a database of anything, the contents inevitably only show a passing relationship with reality, and it doesn't improve over time. (See: No-fly list.)
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon 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 4th October 2017, 01:38 PM   #145
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,795
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Legislation is a balance between harm and good. We saw how bump fire devices could harm last Sunday.

Can anyone here explain the good?
Here is my best take on it. I'm not personally invested in this argument, but I think it is an argument that proponents might make.

The second amendment is partly motivated by the realization that, once in a while, a people might need to overthrow their government. Now, I know that it seems unlikely that the US population could succeed in an uprising, but imagine that many servicemen refused to fire on their own folk. In such a situation, in which the military effectiveness was greatly diminished, having the ability to quickly throw bullets may make a difference.

Now, I haven't seen anyone make this argument, but I think it's consistent with arguments I have seen (but with a few more caveats thrown in).
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 4th October 2017, 01:38 PM   #146
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,772
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
ETA: One major point of comparison is that we allow twice as many alcohol deaths for something that is, literally, only for fun, without demonizing those who use it responsibly. But the same principal doesn't apply to guns, for whatever reason. And guns actually can be used for more than just fun (supplemental hunting is common in many areas, for example, and the role firearms play in defense. Not major justifications, but more than exist for alcohol).
One comparison might be to alcohol over 100 proof as an analogue to some of the military appearance/style semi-auto rifles, or slide-stocks such as was used here.

I say that, because very few people support or suggest banning all guns. I view that as a sort of a red herring/strawman argument.

With very hard liquor, there are few deaths. But what if that changed? What if it became trendy and the number of alcohol related fatalities associated with 100+ proof liquor went higher? Then states could make more restrictions. That's not impossible, they have the legislative ability to do so. They could ban it outright - people could still buy less concentrated liquor, or make their own. Few would,most might grumble but make due with less concentrated liquors.

Compare that to firearms. The military appearance/style weapons are quite popular with the III%er/militia types, many of whom openly state that they are preparing for a civil war with our own government. They have been used in mass shootings. Can we place restrictions on those types of rifles? Can we place restrictions on bump fire/slide stock devices? Can we begin phasing out manufacture and sale of new long guns with detachable magazines, reverting to the older blind magazine style I grew up with?

This does not mean banning all guns. This does not mean confiscation - detachable magazine rifles could continue in circulation, subject to registration. They become valuable, but over time, the supply starts to diminish. Not instantly - but that goes to my argument that the perfect plan need not be the enemy of the good plan.
crescent 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 4th October 2017, 01:41 PM   #147
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,795
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The UK has effective gun control because we know who owns the guns, what guns they own and if that person is suitable to have the gun. There are very few guns outwith that control. The UK has kept guns with the good guys and away from nuts, criminals, gangs, angry people and youths.

The USA cannot have effective control because you know little about who owns the guns, what guns they have and if they are suitable or not to have the gun. In certain circumstances there is good gun control, for example Texas CCW permit holders. You know who they are, what guns they have and if they are OK to have a gun. But that is overwhelmed by the sheer number of illegally held guns and unsuitable people who have access to them. The USA has failed to keep guns away from nuts, criminals, gangs, angry people and youths.

All the talk about gun control only affects some of the guns and people. Until there is gun control that can affect the vast majority, I am afraid you are just tinkering.

For proper gun control, the USA needs to get everyone to register their guns, undergo proper background checks and punish those who who buy or sell unregistered guns to people who have not undergone background checks.
Well, yes, but there is a historic reason for the second amendment, one which involves the right to revolt. You might find that reason laughable, but it's a very real part of the discussion here. It can't be dismissed out of hand.
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 4th October 2017, 01:45 PM   #148
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,484
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
One comparison might be to alcohol over 100 proof as an analogue to some of the military appearance/style semi-auto rifles, or slide-stocks such as was used here.

I say that, because very few people support or suggest banning all guns. I view that as a sort of a red herring/strawman argument.

With very hard liquor, there are few deaths. But what if that changed? What if it became trendy and the number of alcohol related fatalities associated with 100+ proof liquor went higher? Then states could make more restrictions. That's not impossible, they have the legislative ability to do so. They could ban it outright - people could still buy less concentrated liquor, or make their own. Few would,most might grumble but make due with less concentrated liquors.

Compare that to firearms. The military appearance/style weapons are quite popular with the III%er/militia types, many of whom openly state that they are preparing for a civil war with our own government. They have been used in mass shootings. Can we place restrictions on those types of rifles? Can we place restrictions on bump fire/slide stock devices? Can we begin phasing out manufacture and sale of new long guns with detachable magazines, reverting to the older blind magazine style I grew up with?

This does not mean banning all guns. This does not mean confiscation - detachable magazine rifles could continue in circulation, subject to registration. They become valuable, but over time, the supply starts to diminish. Not instantly - but that goes to my argument that the perfect plan need not be the enemy of the good plan.
Actually, using your own analogy, the military style rifles are by far responsible for the minority of gun-related deaths. The vast majority (80%+ IIRC, but I'll admit that's from memory, so may not be accurate) are caused by handguns. Just as the vast majority of alcohol incidents tend to be from lower-proof, inexpensive alcohol (beer, wine, cheap whiskey, etc).

That being said, I've stated elsewhere I'm all for adding some things (bump-fire stocks and trigger cranks, specifically) to the NFA list just like machineguns, but I wouldn't support a ban on so-called assault weapons (generally, semi-auto weapons that look like military-style weapons). They simply make up a very small minority of gun deaths, and there are valid civilian uses for them (more so than for 100 proof alcohol).
Hellbound 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 4th October 2017, 01:46 PM   #149
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,729
More guns is only causally linked to more gun deaths where more guns are in the hands of unsuitable people.

The potential 270 million guns in the USA could be managed successfully if they could be kept away from unsuitable people. Switzerland has a very large number of guns, which are kept away from unsuitable people. They do not have a gun 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 4th October 2017, 01:47 PM   #150
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,064
A carload of automatic weapons wouldn't have helped this guy, who has met the enemy, and he is him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EwWwanXO2c
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 4th October 2017 at 01:49 PM.
Toontown 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 4th October 2017, 01:48 PM   #151
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,168
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'm not making an argument against gun laws, but pointing out that your tautology above really doesn't make a case for gun laws. It's just a trivially true claim.
I'm not making the case for gun laws in this thread. I've made it elsewhere and it is a waste of time.

I'm making the case that there will have to be a cultural backlash before anything changes. People have to want things to change. People have to see the carnage and realize that their unique refusal to act allows the carnage to continue uniquely here. People have to realize that other countries have guns but don't have near the gun deaths we do. People will have to realize that we can do better. Will that happen? I don't know.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith 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 4th October 2017, 01:49 PM   #152
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,168
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
More guns is only causally linked to more gun deaths where more guns are in the hands of unsuitable people.

The potential 270 million guns in the USA could be managed successfully if they could be kept away from unsuitable people. Switzerland has a very large number of guns, which are kept away from unsuitable people. They do not have a gun problem.
They do not have anywhere near the gun problem that the US has, but they do have more of a gun problem than countries with far fewer guns.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith 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 4th October 2017, 01:50 PM   #153
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,711
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
My take would be also that we need to stop conflating registration with confiscation.

That may a talking point in some circles, but it is a straw man argument.
Oh please. Registration has been used to enable confiscation (whether rightfully or wrongfully) in California, New York, Australia...

http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/1...ealed-the-doom

To push for registration without addressing concerns regarding confiscation will:
- be dishonest
- lead to associated efforts failing (as happened with the push for universal background checks... someone overreached and added registration, without addressing confiscation concerns, and the whole thing was lost. Stop making that mistake - don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!)
Giz 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 4th October 2017, 01:51 PM   #154
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Well, yes, but there is a historic reason for the second amendment, one which involves the right to revolt. You might find that reason laughable, but it's a very real part of the discussion here. It can't be dismissed out of hand.
I am not dismissing it at all. Indeed, I am sure the well regulated militia part of the 2nd was the authors saying, keep all guns controlled by sensible people and away from unsuitable people.

That bit has been pretty much ignored and the price is being paid, time and time again, with no chance of a cure.
__________________
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 4th October 2017, 02:01 PM   #155
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,795
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I'm not making the case for gun laws in this thread. I've made it elsewhere and it is a waste of time.

I'm making the case that there will have to be a cultural backlash before anything changes. People have to want things to change. People have to see the carnage and realize that their unique refusal to act allows the carnage to continue uniquely here. People have to realize that other countries have guns but don't have near the gun deaths we do. People will have to realize that we can do better. Will that happen? I don't know.
Well, dear kind sir, the availability of tulips is correlated to tulip deaths. I mean this is undeniable. Were there fewer tulips, there would be fewer deaths due to tulips.

So, here's what makes my argument stupid: there are few deaths due to tulips, and lots of deaths due to guns. Either have the courage to make that particular argument, together with an argument that gun rights ain't worth the harm, or just let it go. Or if the accessibility of guns isn't the issue, then what is?
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 4th October 2017, 02:03 PM   #156
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,795
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I am not dismissing it at all. Indeed, I am sure the well regulated militia part of the 2nd was the authors saying, keep all guns controlled by sensible people and away from unsuitable people.

That bit has been pretty much ignored and the price is being paid, time and time again, with no chance of a cure.
I think that point is fair enough.
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 4th October 2017, 02:04 PM   #157
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Any citizen without a criminal record for any reason.
Seems a bit abartitary really. Under this then the protester who was arrested and convicted on trespass for staging a sit in to protect a wildlife sanctuary would not be allowed to buy a gun, but their neighbour who was found not guilty for beating on his wife because she was too scared to testify can buy one to finish the job.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf 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 4th October 2017, 02:06 PM   #158
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,772
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Actually, using your own analogy, the military style rifles are by far responsible for the minority of gun-related deaths. The vast majority (80%+ IIRC, but I'll admit that's from memory, so may not be accurate) are caused by handguns. Just as the vast majority of alcohol incidents tend to be from lower-proof, inexpensive alcohol (beer, wine, cheap whiskey, etc).

That being said, I've stated elsewhere I'm all for adding some things (bump-fire stocks and trigger cranks, specifically) to the NFA list just like machineguns, but I wouldn't support a ban on so-called assault weapons (generally, semi-auto weapons that look like military-style weapons). They simply make up a very small minority of gun deaths, and there are valid civilian uses for them (more so than for 100 proof alcohol).
I tend to agree with most of what you said. Most of the gun control thoughts I have had are focused on what causes the most deaths. Cheap handguns, and how to keep them out of the hands of criminals. More recently, I've been giving though to mentally ill people, especially after the Aurora theater shooting.

That said, I was working for the Bureau of Land Management during the Bunkerville standoff. I was not at the site itself or involved with it, but I was at the closest permanent BLM facility. I knew people who were there the day of the confrontation. My co-workers sent their families into hiding. My house received extra law enforcement coverage. I am extremely hostile to the militia movement. I do not want them to have such ready access to firearms this effective.

I don't care about hunting - although these types of rifles can be and are used for hunting, the majority of hunters prefer other styles.

This is where the cultural part comes in. I hate, truly hate that the ownership of military equivalent guns has become so normalized in society. I hate that preparing for war with our government is seen as a normal and acceptable thing to do in an increasingly large segment of society.

And I blame those people for what happened in Vegas. I don't think that's hyperbole. He acquired nearly 40 guns, and equipment to functionally convert them them to full auto - and a great part of our current society would have encouraged that and accepted it as normal - right until he started shooting. They would have considered him a normal and upstanding citizen, better than average even. Forum members who see nothing wrong with have dozens of military style rifles with extendable magazines and bump stocks - I really do blame you and people like you. I am not apologetic about that (admittedly, I did come down pretty hard on BStrong, who does not appear to hold those opinions [sorry]).

This is not Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. I lived in one country that devolved into civil war, I don't want to live in another. This is not the wild west any more. If you are coming down in favor of ownership of dozens of military style rifles with extended magazine and bump stocks, then you are part of the problem. If you are throwing up your hands and saying that nothing can be done, then you are part of the problem. If you are suggesting that any solution that is imperfect should not be tried, then you are part of the problem.
crescent 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 4th October 2017, 02:08 PM   #159
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I think the people who want to be armed for that refer to the situation as WTSHTF. It's when the feces hit the fan. I've seen that acronym used somewhat regularly when I've peeked at Patriot Movement and Survivalist sites.

Their idea is that something apocalyptic is coming by way of race war or civil war or government seizing all guns by force or armed Muslims invading the land or other things like those. When lots of armed people come for you and your family you want to have maximum firepower and ammo and peanut butter.
The irony is that pretty much everywhere else in the world, such people would be considered paranoid and thus high risk and banned from owning guns. In the US they get to create entire arsenals!
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf 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 4th October 2017, 02:12 PM   #160
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,772
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Oh please. Registration has been used to enable confiscation (whether rightfully or wrongfully) in California, New York, Australia...
From the article you cite:

New York:
Quote:
the city law has been on the books for years,
They confiscated guns that were illegal before registration was required.

Quote:
Armed Prohibited Persons System, teams of state agents confiscate thousands of guns from Californians who have been disqualified after the fact from ownership because of "maybe a felony conviction, mental health commitment, they received a restraining order, domestic violence restraining order
They confiscate guns from people who did not have the legal right to own them.

Are you suggesting illegal guns should never be confiscated, even if they were illegal before registration became a requirement? Are you suggesting that people who don't have the legal right to own guns should be able to keep them anyway, because the alternative is confiscation? Because that's what your article cites.


So, okay, I'll qualify what I said about registration/confiscation. Registration does not equal confiscation of guns - except for those guns that were already illegal at the time of registration, or for people who have lost the right to own firearms. Registration does not equal confiscation of legally held firearms.

Last edited by crescent; 4th October 2017 at 03:06 PM.
crescent 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

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 09:37 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.