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.
Tags Florida incidents , school incidents , school shootings , shooting incidents

Reply
Old 20th April 2018, 06:45 PM   #241
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,827
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Show some sympathy, they've planned all year for the big day and then at the last minute these teenagers decide on a demonstration that clashes with their event!
The 420ers won't care. Or remember.

I also imagine there may be some crossover there.

(On a serious note The people of Columbine prefer to commemorate this date as a day of service to the community, not a day of protest. So, in that sense, the walkout kids may conflict with that.

I think eventually it will all level out to be Peace Day, or something.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 09:31 AM   #242
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,238
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Here's why it would work. First, some preliminaries. In the paragraph above, you say "reduce or eliminate". It's important to understand that very few people, and no one here at ISF, believes that banning or restricting assault rifles will eliminate mass shootings. It won't even eliminate mass shootings that use assault rifles. Therefore, you shouldn't say "reduce or eliminate" because the "eliminate" isn't even part of the discussion. (Introducing it is perilously close to a straw man.)
You're probably right that nobody here thinks that banning or restricting assault rifles is going to eliminate mass shootings. Obviously, that's absurd. But I don't think anybody here wants more gun control merely to reduce the number of mass shootings that involve assault rifles to a certain level and then call it a day.

If I'm wrong and all we want is to do is to reduce--not eliminate-- mass shootings, then everybody must think there is a certain number of mass shootings over a certain time period that they find acceptable. If we reduced the number of mass shootings in the United States to, say, ten per year, is that enough for us to declare that gun control has done its job and that we don't need try to reduce mass shootings any further?

No, of course not. We don't judge any gun control measures as a failure if it doesn't eliminate mass shootings. But reducing the number to zero is the ultimate goal. We just need to figure out the best way to achieve the greatest impact.


Quote:
With that in mind, we now go on to the type of gun that is "rarely used in mass shootings". Now, if we follow typical ISF patterns, we could argue about what constitutes "rare", but I don't want to do that.
Why not? If you want to solve a problem it's very helpful to know what rarely causes the problem and what frequently causes the problem. That way we can focus on the most expedient way of achieving our goals. ISF people argue about what an "assault rifle" is and what it isn't but the concept of "rare" isn't contentious.

Quote:
We know that they are used in some mass shootings, and we know that if we reduce gun deaths in mass shootings by one, we have reduced gun deaths in mass shootings. The exact degree by which they will be reduced could be refined by analysis of the statistics, but a reduction of one is a reduction. That's what we're talking about, right? All agreed so far?
Yes you are right. According to the WaPo, we've had 66 mass shootings in 2018. If we had had only 65 mass shootings in 2018, the number of mass shootings would be "reduced." But it's obviously absurd to believe we would be satisfied by legislation that reduced mass shootings by only one. But for the sake of argument, we'll all play along...our goal is to reduce mass shootings in the United States by one.

Quote:
So, now we move on to whether the banning of sales of assault rifles will reduce deaths from mass shootings. The NRA sometimes claims that even though those weapons are illegal, that will not prevent them from being used by criminals, specifically by mass shooters. We call B.S. Of course it will. Nick Cruz could not have obtained an illegal AR-15. Adam Lanza used his mother's perfectly legal gun. She, being a law abiding citizen, would not have had one had it been illegal. Of course it would reduce the number of assault rifles available to would-be mass shooters.
I don't know what NRA claim you're referring to but I don't think the NRA claims that making a weapon illegal won't prevent it from being used by criminals. If a person is using an illegal weapon, that makes them a criminal by definition. Maybe you're thinking of "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" I don't know.

I think your point is that if AR-15s and other "assault rifles" were illegal, Nick Cruz and Adam Lanza wouldn't have been able to get the weapons they used and therefore the shootings would not have happened. But I'm not sure.

But so far we all agree with you: a) You want to reduce mass shootings by one and b) making "assault rifles" illegal will do this.

Quote:
Your post focuses on the fact that a lot of mass shooters use other sorts of guns.
Well, sort of. My post focuses on the fact that a lot of mass shooters don't use "assault rifles."

Quote:
It seems to suggest that a would-be mass shooter would just use a different sort of gun, the way his "peers" do, so the number of mass shootings would not be reduced by getting rid of the less popular form of gun. They would just turn to other guns that were still legal.
Yes. Obviously, that's the most likely scenario.

Quote:
This is not so absurd that it deserves to be called B.S. but it's still wrong.
OK, this should be good. Explain why the most sensible way to reduce mass shootings is to ban the type of gun mass shooters don't use very often while leaving the mass shooter's weapon of choice legal.

Quote:
For one thing, having such a powerful weapon makes these insecure, weak, people feel powerful. These people are compensating. You can see it all over Cruz' writings. The message is "I have a big gun! Fear me!" Some of them literally want to make sure that people remember them, and, let's be real, 2 dead and 2 wounded will make you a "mass shooter", but strictly from the bush leagues. Who wants to go out as a second rate mass shooter? When it comes to people that do use the AR-15 or other similar weapons, some of them wouldn't do it without the combination of confidence and lethality inspired by having a very powerful weapon. They would not turn to a simple pistol or shotgun. They might just stay home and grow out of it.
You seem to have great insight into the mind of the mass shooter. Unfortunately it sounds like some sort of Freudian psychobabble and you have no evidence to prove that. I'd like to see some sort of psychological experiment that gives you reason to believe that somebody thinking about a career as a mass shooter would be dissuaded from that line of work if "assault rifles" weren't available. Why do you think a mass shooter would stay home and outgrow the urge to kill lots of people if "assault rifles" weren't available when about half the mass shooter wannabes--who currently have a choice of "assault rifles" or pistols--choose pistols exclusively and the vast majority of those who choose to use "assault rifles" also choose to use pistols?

Quote:
Second, among those who are determined to kill as many as they can on their way out, and would content themselves with low capacity magazines or slow fire weapons, the body count would be lowered. You say that assault rifles are not used by the majority of mass shooters, but when you get into the double digit killings, they become a lot more prominent.
Not really.

Quote:
They exist for a reason. They are purchased because of their high rates of fire and fast reload capability. They work. If you want a high body count, an AR-15 is a better weapon than a revolver or a double barreled shotgun. If you lower the rate of fire, you lower the body count. The killer still achieves a mass shooting, but those 2 dead and 2 wounded are a lot less than 17 dead and 15 wounded.

So, if you outlaw or severely restrict assault rifles, some mass shootings would not happen at all, and other mass shootings would have a lower body count. Both mechanisms would result in a reduction in deaths from mass shootings.
Your argument sounds good in an academic sense but the facts on the ground don't bear them out. Pistols are the one type of gun that just about every mass shooter has used. They are the ONLY type of gun used in about half the mass shootings in the United States, including the 2007 Viriginia Tech shooting that killed 32 people. Even Adam Lanza with his mommy's manly arsenal of "assault rifles" could only manage 26.

Why not try to reduce mass shootings by more than one and go after the most dangerous weapons? Because when you ban "assault rifles" you're really talking about banning all semi-automatic rifles. What do you do when you've taken away millions of guns from millions of people and you still have hundreds of mass shootings every year?

But I will reluctantly concede your point: effectively disarming America might result in one less mass shooting. But that's not a sure thing. If it did, is it worth the effort to ban or restrict something that millions of Americans of use without causing any problems to stop the one person who does?
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 22nd April 2018, 11:25 AM   #243
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,006
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
If I'm wrong and all we want is to do is to reduce--not eliminate-- mass shootings, then everybody must think there is a certain number of mass shootings over a certain time period that they find acceptable.
Is one mass shooting, or one murder of any sort, "acceptable"? We're into semantics. There will always be murder, so there's nothing we can do to eliminate murder. We should try to reduce the numbers, but at each step, we have to look at costs and benefits.

Quote:
Why not? If you want to solve a problem it's very helpful to know what rarely causes the problem and what frequently causes the problem. That way we can focus on the most expedient way of achieving our goals. ISF people argue about what an "assault rifle" is and what it isn't but the concept of "rare" isn't contentious.
Well if the concept of "rare" isn't contentious, there's no need to spend time defining it, is there?

I don't know about you, but I don't expect to "solve" any problem of gun violence by talking about it at ISF. I use these discussions to help focus my own thoughts and arguments on issues I find interesting and/or significant. If I happen to persuade someone else, that's a bonus, but people are stubborn, so that rarely happens. When it comes to discussions about what constitutes "rare", I've gotten into such before, and I've seen it happen numerous times from others. They always devolve into meaningless chatter.

Fortunately, there's no need for it, because it isn't contentious anyway.
Quote:
our goal is to reduce mass shootings in the United States by one.
Correction. At least one. But you knew that.

Quote:
Yes. Obviously, that's the most likely scenario.
This, on the other hand, is a contentious issue. In some cases, the most likely scenario is no mass shooting at all. It varies with the psychology of the individual shooter.


Quote:
OK, this should be good. Explain why the most sensible way to reduce mass shootings is to ban the type of gun mass shooters don't use very often while leaving the mass shooter's weapon of choice legal.
Each mass shooter chooses a different weapon. For those who choose an assault rifle, they would have to make a different choice, either in the weapon, or in how to obtain the weapon. In some cases, deprived of his weapon of choice, he will choose to not commit the mass shooting at all. Also, you might be just simplifying my words, but you frequently refer to "reducing mass shootings", whereas I frequently refer to "reducing deaths in mass shootings." In this case, the distinction is significant.




Quote:
You seem to have great insight into the mind of the mass shooter.
My knowledge of the subject is limited to reading about individual articles describing perpetrators and their motives and behavior that are published about specific mass shooters, or an occasional magazine article (mostly web-published) discussing the subject. I cannot claim to have researched the area thoroughly or perused academic research on it. Nevertheless, I feel at least somewhat confident in my insights, and I don't feel compelled to do the sort of research that might be able to bolster my opinions.

To be perfectly honest, if I did so, I think you would dismiss that research anyway, so there's not a lot of point to doing it. However, I will make you a promise that if you were to present some better documented findings that contradict my insights, I would read it, consider it, and comment upon it.



Quote:
They are the ONLY type of gun used in about half the mass shootings in the United States, including the 2007 Viriginia Tech shooting that killed 32 people. Even Adam Lanza with his mommy's manly arsenal of "assault rifles" could only manage 26.
I've been using the term "assault rifle", but that's less accurate than the other term I sometimes use, which is "guns that can fire lots of bullets very fast." Is that what Cho used? I think he had lots of magazines, which could hold a lot of bullets, and be changed rapidly. Seems like a bad idea. Maybe those should be banned. I'll leave the specific details to legislative staffs.


Quote:
Why not try to reduce mass shootings by more than one and go after the most dangerous weapons?
Again with the same question. The constitution prohibits a ban on all guns. It's a non-starter.

There might be other reasons as well, but because of the constitutional restriction, such a proposal isn't even on the table. It's not part of the discussion except by real fringe players (like one retired Supreme Court justice.)


Quote:
But I will reluctantly concede your point: effectively disarming America might result in one less mass shooting. But that's not a sure thing. If it did, is it worth the effort to ban or restrict something that millions of Americans of use without causing any problems to stop the one person who does?
You're getting into straw territory here. Banning assault weapons would not "effectively disarm" America. None of the proposals being seriously considered in the wake of the Parkland murders would effectively disarm America.

Do "millions of Americans" actually use assault weapons?

When it comes to the actual number of Americans affected, and the actual manner in which they are affected, and the possibility that there would be considerably more than one mass shooting prevented, is it worth it? I think so.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 22nd April 2018 at 11:28 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 11:53 AM   #244
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,006
And today's mass shooting is brought to you by AR-15 and Waffle House.

Four dead, two wounded. Not a very impressive take, but it doesn't say how many total shots were fired. Reports say he was "having trouble with the gun", and an alert patron jumped him and seized the weapon. The most I could fire with any of my guns before having to pause for a long time would be six. Four dead and two wounded would be pretty tough with any of my guns.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:08 PM   #245
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
But would you be naked - that might help.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:11 PM   #246
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,631
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
If I'm wrong and all we want is to do is to reduce--not eliminate-- mass shootings, then everybody must think there is a certain number of mass shootings over a certain time period that they find acceptable. If we reduced the number of mass shootings in the United States to, say, ten per year, is that enough for us to declare that gun control has done its job and that we don't need try to reduce mass shootings any further?
No, this is not necessarily true.

I used to be a rugby referee. My intention at the beginning of every match was to make NO mistakes. It never happened in the 25+ years before I retired from the game; all referees make mistakes, we all know that, but that fact should never prevent us from going onto the field with the intention of making no mistakes. This is called "striving for perfection".

The same applies to reducing the number of gun murders, or the number of traffic deaths or the number of drownings etc. We know that we can never eliminate all of them, but that is the goal we should be aiming for... you never accept a "number of deaths" as low enough. If there a 120 road deaths in one year, you investigate ways of making it a lower number next year, and even lower the next year, and the next. You will likely never achieve zero, but you should not let that stop you from trying.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!

Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd April 2018 at 01:13 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:37 PM   #247
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,631
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
And today's mass shooting is brought to you by AR-15 and Waffle House.

Four dead, two wounded. Not a very impressive take, but it doesn't say how many total shots were fired. Reports say he was "having trouble with the gun", and an alert patron jumped him and seized the weapon. The most I could fire with any of my guns before having to pause for a long time would be six. Four dead and two wounded would be pretty tough with any of my guns.
That would that be five in the clip and one up the spout?
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:42 PM   #248
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,006
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
That would that be five in the clip and one up the spout?
It's a six shot revolver.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 02:36 PM   #249
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,661
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
No, this is not necessarily true.

I used to be a rugby referee. My intention at the beginning of every match was to make NO mistakes. It never happened in the 25+ years before I retired from the game; all referees make mistakes, we all know that, but that fact should never prevent us from going onto the field with the intention of making no mistakes. This is called "striving for perfection".

The same applies to reducing the number of gun murders, or the number of traffic deaths or the number of drownings etc. We know that we can never eliminate all of them, but that is the goal we should be aiming for... you never accept a "number of deaths" as low enough. If there a 120 road deaths in one year, you investigate ways of making it a lower number next year, and even lower the next year, and the next. You will likely never achieve zero, but you should not let that stop you from trying.
Indeed - I have had some exposure to our company's approach to health and safety, just from our mandatory training courses.

We have "incidents" and "accidents". An incident is where something went wrong, but was stopped before any injury (or even damage) occurred, whilst an accident involves actual harm. We have a running total of the time between incidents - every incident is investigated as a near-miss. One can't predict the incidents in advance, but as soon as the issue is identified (by a near-miss) one can take action to prevent another failure mechanism.

Perfection is impossible, but being very good is not.

With the latest mass shooting, like this one it's obvious that many of the "near-misses" were not acted on.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 22nd April 2018, 07:45 PM   #250
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,631
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Indeed - I have had some exposure to our company's approach to health and safety, just from our mandatory training courses.

We have "incidents" and "accidents". An incident is where something went wrong, but was stopped before any injury (or even damage) occurred, whilst an accident involves actual harm. We have a running total of the time between incidents - every incident is investigated as a near-miss. One can't predict the incidents in advance, but as soon as the issue is identified (by a near-miss) one can take action to prevent another failure mechanism.

Perfection is impossible, but being very good is not.

With the latest mass shooting, like this one it's obvious that many of the "near-misses" were not acted on.
Some years ago, I was in a discussion on a message board at "The Straight Dope", where we were talking about the Columbia disaster, and one of the participants, a poster called "Stranger on a Train" posted something that always struck me as profound. I usually only quote the the first and last part (emphasized here) but this time, I'll quote the whole thing...

THE VALUE OF FAILURE is that you almost always learn something new about what your system can or cannot tolerate, plus you are forced to look at all of the potential failure modes as part of a disciplined failure review process. It is unfortunate that the failure that led to the destruction of Columbia took so long to occur (presuming that it had to occur at all) because it brought to light literally hundreds of problems with the basic design of the Shuttle that were known from the time of the Challenger Accident Investigation Board and even from the early days of the first four operational flight tests. Had we been forced to learn that information before, it may have driven design changes in the STS system that would have moved toward a more functional and reliable system. Every time you succeed, all you learn is that you were some combination of good and lucky, and you never really know the ratio of one to the other. When you fail, you generally have a good idea of just how unlucky you were that day, and how to improve your odds tomorrow.

It does not take much word substitution to apply this to the problem of gun control. Every school and mass shooting is a failure of gun control in that it is a failure to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not be allowed to have them. Each time it happens, we find holes in the system and those holes need to be plugged. In other countries (my best examples are New Zealand and Australia) gun laws were reviewed and tightened in the wake of a major gun crime - the Kōwhitirangi Incident in October 1941 results in gun registration where there had been none before, the Aramoana Incident in November 1990 resulted in the introduction of firearms licensing and the banning of MSSAs (Military Style Semi Automatics). In Australia, the Port Arthur massacre in April 1996, resulted in massive changes to their gun laws and a buy back of over 640,000 guns. These countries, and to be fair, the UK after Dunblane, learned the value of failure and resolved to try to plug the holes that led to those failures. The USA has not only been unable to learn the value of their failures, they seem to be uninterested in plugging the holes.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!

Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd April 2018 at 07:47 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 10:14 PM   #251
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,025
Costs and benefits. I'm wondering what the benefit is of having the general public armed with semi-automatic rifles and hand guns.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 11:35 PM   #252
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,661
Employment for medics, lawyers and gun manufacturers?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 23rd April 2018, 12:33 AM   #253
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,076
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Costs and benefits. I'm wondering what the benefit is of having the general public armed with semi-automatic rifles and hand guns.
Hand guns are good for self-defense in some circumstances, both passively and actively. That's certainly a benefit, and one that is quite worth remembering, in part because it's one of the few actually good arguments in the NRA's arsenal. Whether it's worth the costs is rather debatable, but, as Meadmaker has repeatedly pointed out, the question of whether to ban handguns is rather moot. Handguns can certainly be restricted, though, and are, to a limited extent.


Going back a little, though -

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
I don't know what NRA claim you're referring to but I don't think the NRA claims that making a weapon illegal won't prevent it from being used by criminals. If a person is using an illegal weapon, that makes them a criminal by definition. Maybe you're thinking of "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" I don't know.
???

I'm just going to assume that you're playing stupid, but just because it wasn't addressed, as a reminder, it's a fairly common line of argument used by the anti-regulation crowd that making a kind of gun illegal or less accessible will not remove it from circulation immediately and entirely and that line of argument is commonly used to try to counter the various claims that doing something (anything, really) to try to reduce legal accessibility of particular types of weapons so that dangerous people will not be able to get their hands on them will have an actual effect.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 23rd April 2018 at 12:38 AM.
Aridas 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 23rd April 2018, 12:51 AM   #254
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,025
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Hand guns are good for self-defense in some circumstances, both passively and actively...
That is certainly a benefit, but I don't think it outweighs the costs.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 02:17 AM   #255
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Hand guns are good for self-defense in some circumstances, both passively and actively. That's certainly a benefit, and one that is quite worth remembering, in part because it's one of the few actually good arguments in the NRA's arsenal.
However it is a benefit which is required in part because of the associated costs.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 09:00 AM   #256
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,076
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
That is certainly a benefit, but I don't think it outweighs the costs.
Understandable. As I said, whether the benefits outweigh the costs is certainly debatable. Of course, that should lead to questions of what measures could theoretically and/or practically be taken to reduce the costs while preserving the benefits. Identifying groups and situations where there's a better cost/benefit ratio, for example, and identifying groups and situations where there's a much worse cost/benefit ratio would be an entirely logical, if difficult to actually act on step.

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
However it is a benefit which is required in part because of the associated costs.
Only partially, though, at best, and in a somewhat limited fashion even then. A much more notable cost is to be found in the increased ease and general success rates of suicide for those that have them easily available.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 23rd April 2018, 10:30 AM   #257
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,552
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That's an obviously absurd statement. If the aim is reducing the death toll from mass shootings, then taking away "assault rifles" by whatever definition you're using (to avoid the obvious bait-and-switch gotcha attempts) would be expected to achieve that aim, because a shooter with an assault rifle can fire more shots at longer range and thus kill more people than a person with a handgun. The result is that the death toll is reduced, even if it isn't eliminated.

Dave
I think death toll has much more to do with target selection and the shooter's plan than it does with the weapon. In many of these school shootings, the shooter(s) are largely unopposed and killing targets at random among those who weren't able to flee. In the Columbine shooting, the shooters basically prowled around killing until they got tired of it and offed themselves. Virginia Tech shooter entered a few rooms, eventually found the rest barricaded, then killed himself. While a semi auto rifle and/or pistol is likely the most effective weapons for committing these atrocious acts, I don't see how these shootings would have been meaningfully different if the shooters had pump action shotguns, lever action rifles, or single action revolvers.

What the most deadly shootings have in common is the shooter having free reign and a willingness to go on a suicide mission.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 03:19 PM   #258
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,006
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
, I don't see how these shootings would have been meaningfully different if the shooters had pump action shotguns, lever action rifles, or single action revolvers.
So why do you suppose they chose the weapon they did?

The AR-15 is specifically designed to shoot lots of bullets, very fast. Pretty much as many bullets as it can, as fast as the law allows. That's a marketing strategy. When would you need that ability?

You are right that in some of the mass shootings the high death count could be achieved by trapping many people in a confined space, in which case the choice of weapon is not as important, but in many cases, that high rate of fire was key to killing large numbers before they could flee.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 10:45 AM   #259
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,552
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So why do you suppose they chose the weapon they did?

The AR-15 is specifically designed to shoot lots of bullets, very fast. Pretty much as many bullets as it can, as fast as the law allows. That's a marketing strategy. When would you need that ability?

You are right that in some of the mass shootings the high death count could be achieved by trapping many people in a confined space, in which case the choice of weapon is not as important, but in many cases, that high rate of fire was key to killing large numbers before they could flee.
I think they choose the AR's or other rifles like it because it's the best for their chosen mission. But I don't think that it is essential.

AR's dont shoot any more rapid than any other semi auto rifle, many of which wouldn't be affected by any assault weapon ban. The mini-14 is a commonly cited example. Same caliber as the AR, fed from a box mag. But since it's a classic rifle stock as opposed to pistol grip, it's not an "assault weapon".

Passing an AWB would certainly negatively affect gun owners who have lawful intentions for owning these firearms, but would, at best, insignificantly reduce the lethality of mass shooters, who themselves are a tiny source for gun deaths in this country. And while many Americans may see these "assault weapons" as unworthy of protection, more expansive gun bans would meet resistance of all the American casual gun owners who see their types of firearms as reasonable and worth protecting.

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 24th April 2018 at 10:54 AM. Reason: Additional content
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 10:55 AM   #260
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,661
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think they choose the AR's or other rifles like it because it's the best for their chosen mission. But I don't think that it is essential.

AR's dont shoot any more rapid than any other semi auto rifle, many of which wouldn't be affected by any assault weapon ban. The mini-14 is a commonly cited example. Same caliber as the AR, fed from a box mag. But since it's a classic rifle stock as opposed to pistol grip, it's not an "assault weapon".
School shootings would involve highly emotionally-charged individuals, and it's not a stretch to think that a "mean looking" weapon will be more attractive to such a person.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 26th April 2018, 07:05 AM   #261
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,000
From Salon: A new frontier in gun control: Can online sites be stopped from selling guns to criminals?

Quote:
Last week a new front opened up in this legal terrain: A Wisconsin appeals court ruled that a lawsuit filed by the Brady Campaign against the site Armslist, on behalf of a murder victim's daughter, could go forward. If the Brady Campaign prevails in this case, it could make become significantly more difficult for people who can't pass background checks to use the internet to circumvent the law and acquire guns.
Quote:
As Kris Brown, the co-president of the Brady Campaign, explained to Salon, Haughton then went on Armslist and found "a private seller that offered a semiautomatic handgun and three high capacity magazines." He arranged "to buy the firearm and ammunition in an all-cash transaction in a fast food restaurant parking lot," Brown said. The next day, Haughton went on his murderous rampage.

The reason it was so easy for Haughton to find a seller willing to participate in such a shady transaction, Brown said, is because Armslist "has basically designed and operated the website in a manner that allows people to circumvent the law."

The site has a search function that allows a potential buyer to search for private dealers only, knowing that such dealers, at least in some states, are not required to run background checks. Armslist also has no registration requirements, making it easy for people eager to skirt the law to set up a transaction without creating any record of the sale. In addition, while the site allows users to flag posts for removal for all sorts of reasons, it does not permit users to report posts that appear to encourage illegal conduct.

The Salon article references a study, summarized here:

NEW STUDY FINDS 1 IN 5 US GUN OWNERS OBTAINED FIREARM WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECK
Quote:
One in five U.S. gun owners who obtained a firearm in the past two years did so without a background check, according to a new national survey conducted by researchers at Northeastern University and Harvard University.

The study also found the share of gun owners who acquired firearms via private sale without background checks was significantly larger (57 percent) in states without laws regulating such purchases than in states with legislative regulations (26 percent).

The research paper itself:
Firearm Acquisition Without Background Checks: Results of a National Survey
crescent 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 26th April 2018, 08:04 AM   #262
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,552
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Armslist isn't a gun seller. It's like craigslist. It allows people to list classifieds for local sales. In the pre internet age, someone may have sold a gun by buying space in the classifieds section in the local newspaper. That doesn't make the paper a gun dealer.

The argument that armslist is set up to allow people to circumvent the law is specious at best. Private sales are legal. People have legitimate reasons for not wanting to go through a dealer. Buying second hand from a private owner is often a good way to find a better bargain.

If a state thinks there is a problem with private sales, they can pass laws like others have requiring their own paperwork and checks be run for all sales within the state. It's not a loophole, its full compliance with local laws. I don't see why people shouldn't be able to sell their own personal firearms. FFL's use their license power as rent-seekers, often charging high rates for the privilege of receiving a package and picking up the phone.

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 26th April 2018 at 08:09 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2018, 11:18 AM   #263
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,363
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
School shootings would involve highly emotionally-charged individuals, and it's not a stretch to think that a "mean looking" weapon will be more attractive to such a person.
I've posted about this before, but it seems relevant at this point. I'm involved at the moment with trying to get a relative in my wife's family into full time care as his parents can no longer cope with his needs and behaviour. Things came to a head the first time because he threatened, in front of witnesses, to kill someone (he has an on going and almost entirely imaginary feud with the next door neighbour) but he then went on line and started looking for combat knives rather than going down stairs and grabbing a kitchen knife (or planning to, since in fairness I don't think he's likely to go through with anything), the violent fantasies which fuel these events aren't based on reality, they are about emulating popular culture and looking the part, the cool weapon is part of that.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer 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 26th April 2018, 11:25 AM   #264
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,401
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Hand guns are good for self-defense in some circumstances, both passively and actively. That's certainly a benefit, and one that is quite worth remembering, in part because it's one of the few actually good arguments in the NRA's arsenal. Whether it's worth the costs is rather debatable, but, as Meadmaker has repeatedly pointed out, the question of whether to ban handguns is rather moot. Handguns can certainly be restricted, though, and are, to a limited extent.
But does having them make you safer? There are certainly good reasons not to wear your seat belt and it is an advantage in some situations. But it doesn't make one safer.

How about getting guns covered by basic consumer safety regulations so that the government can mandate a recall on a defective gun?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...-t-be-recalled
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 26th April 2018, 01:26 PM   #265
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,000
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Armslist isn't a gun seller. It's like craigslist. It allows people to list classifieds for local sales. In the pre internet age, someone may have sold a gun by buying space in the classifieds section in the local newspaper. That doesn't make the paper a gun dealer.
Salon's headline is misleading, you're right about that.

Reuters has an article that better breaks down the legal argument being made:

A how-to guide for suing websites that allow private gun deals
Quote:
The Wisconsin case, unlike the many gun liability suits that have examined the scope of state and federal laws shielding licensed gun makers and sellers from liability for shootings, turned on the court’s interpretation of the Communications Decency Act.

As you’re no doubt aware, a crucial section of that law says websites cannot be held liable for publishing content provided by users. The protection can shield sites like Yelp, for instance, from libel suits when a reviewer posts defamatory comments or YouTube from copyright liability when a user uploads copyrighted content.
Quote:
The Wisconsin appellate panel acknowledged the weight of that precedent – but it said case law is not as uniform as Armslist asserted.

....

The complaint, filed by lawyers from The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Manatt Phelps & Phillips and Cannon & Dunphy, alleges that Armslist is designed to allow gun sales to people who can’t buy weapons legally. (Among the site’s supposedly enabling features: Prospective buyers don’t have to register to use the site; the site uses the phrase “premium vendor” to signal which sellers are licensed and must therefore conduct background checks; and Armslist does not allow users to flag purportedly illegal content.) “Armslist knew that because of the design content it created, persons prohibited from possessing firearms would - and did - quickly, easily, anonymously, and illegally obtain guns, no questions asked,” Daniel’s lawyers said.
crescent 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 26th April 2018, 09:40 PM   #266
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,076
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But does having them make you safer?
In some ways, yes. They can and do act as a deterrent and defense against most people with violently ill intentions, as an easy example. In some ways, no. If one makes a small mistake, they can certainly harm themselves or engage in significantly riskier behavior that puts them in a much less safe situation.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
There are certainly good reasons not to wear your seat belt and it is an advantage in some situations. But it doesn't make one safer.
It sounds like you're trying to compare apples and oranges here. Safety being one and various other considerations being another. Once again, though, I'll refer back to the "in some circumstances" that I qualified my statement with. In some circumstances, it does make one safer, which is why the self-defense argument is viable in the first place. In some cases it doesn't, but that tends to have much more to do with user error, which tends to make for a rather weak basis for an argument. Of more note is how it affects the safety of other people, really, if you want to try to find something safety related to make an argument against out of.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
How about getting guns covered by basic consumer safety regulations so that the government can mandate a recall on a defective gun?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...-t-be-recalled
And that's an entirely different bag of worms from the self-defense argument, really. As a general matter, though, I'm supportive of regulations that get defective products out of circulation.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 26th April 2018 at 10:37 PM.
Aridas 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 27th April 2018, 03:50 AM   #267
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,006
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think they choose the AR's or other rifles like it because it's the best for their chosen mission. But I don't think that it is essential.

AR's dont shoot any more rapid than any other semi auto rifle, many of which wouldn't be affected by any assault weapon ban. The mini-14 is a commonly cited example. Same caliber as the AR, fed from a box mag. But since it's a classic rifle stock as opposed to pistol grip, it's not an "assault weapon".

Passing an AWB would certainly negatively affect gun owners who have lawful intentions for owning these firearms, but would, at best, insignificantly reduce the lethality of mass shooters, who themselves are a tiny source for gun deaths in this country. And while many Americans may see these "assault weapons" as unworthy of protection, more expansive gun bans would meet resistance of all the American casual gun owners who see their types of firearms as reasonable and worth protecting.
I think this post assumes that an assault weapons ban would be identical to the legislation passed in the Clinton era. There's no need for that to be the case. Can the mini-14 fire just as many bullets just as fast as an AR-15? Well then, ban it too. If it was not banned last time that doesn't mean we need to repeat that mistake.

I want to ban the weapons that are best for these mass killers' chosen mission. Would the reduction in lethality be insignificant? I suppose that might depend on whether your daughter was the 17th person killed at Parkland. Reducing that lethality might seem pretty significant in that case.

Of course, benefits have to be weighed against costs because even though the above rhetorical point is true, we really do have to treat deaths as statistics when considering legislation, and if the stats don't change much, then imposing a high cost would seem unreasonable. However, here's my opinion. Banning AR-15s and any weapon that can provide sustained fire at the same rate as an AR-15 would have basically zero cost to society. Some people who think they are cool to play with wouldn't be able to buy new toys. Some people who make their living selling them would have to find new work. Some crazy people who think they will use their AR-15 to fight off the tyrannical government that is poised to overthrow the United States might suffer increased anxiety. I don't count any of those as significant costs. Therefore, ban the cursed things.

And if that meets resistance from casual gun owners? Oh, well. That's politics for you. I want them banned. Others don't. We try to persuade people to change their minds and vote for people who will agree with us. I'm hoping that, for the first time in a while, the NRA agenda of more guns everywhere meets some resistance from casual parents who don't want their kids included in future statistics on mass killings.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 27th April 2018 at 03:53 AM.
Meadmaker 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 27th April 2018, 04:44 AM   #268
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,552
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Salon's headline is misleading, you're right about that.

Reuters has an article that better breaks down the legal argument being made:

A how-to guide for suing websites that allow private gun deals
I would take any legal claims made by Brady with a large grain of salt. Some of the prior legal actions they have taken were borderline frivolous. An example is when they were ordered to pay the legal costs of an online ammo seller that supplied the Aurora shooter. In addition to ordering Brady to pay legal costs for the defendant, the judge said:
Quote:
It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order which counsel should have known would be outside the authority of this court."
Brady likes to make large, splashy PR statements with their legal filings. Few ever result in anything other than harassment of defendants via the legal system.

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 27th April 2018 at 04:59 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2018, 04:55 AM   #269
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,552
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I want to ban the weapons that are best for these mass killers' chosen mission. Would the reduction in lethality be insignificant? I suppose that might depend on whether your daughter was the 17th person killed at Parkland. Reducing that lethality might seem pretty significant in that case.
Making law based on the perspective of a victims angst is a terrible idea in general. All sorts of bad policy could be justified based on the emotional extremes of a victim. I am very sympathetic to these parents, but we shouldn't abdicate reason in responding to the problem.

Quote:
Of course, benefits have to be weighed against costs because even though the above rhetorical point is true, we really do have to treat deaths as statistics when considering legislation, and if the stats don't change much, then imposing a high cost would seem unreasonable. However, here's my opinion. Banning AR-15s and any weapon that can provide sustained fire at the same rate as an AR-15 would have basically zero cost to society. Some people who think they are cool to play with wouldn't be able to buy new toys. Some people who make their living selling them would have to find new work. Some crazy people who think they will use their AR-15 to fight off the tyrannical government that is poised to overthrow the United States might suffer increased anxiety. I don't count any of those as significant costs. Therefore, ban the cursed things.

And if that meets resistance from casual gun owners? Oh, well. That's politics for you. I want them banned. Others don't. We try to persuade people to change their minds and vote for people who will agree with us. I'm hoping that, for the first time in a while, the NRA agenda of more guns everywhere meets some resistance from casual parents who don't want their kids included in future statistics on mass killings.
The politics is the issue here. The assault weapon ban was largely successful in becoming law because it was narrowly focused on "scary" guns. There are a lot of gun owners in America and a wide spectrum of feelings about gun legality in this country. The AWB was successful because it narrowly focused on those guns that even many gun owners didn't care about.

To actually do anything about lethality of available weapons, law would have to address more intrinsic features than the AWB ever did. Realistically, a ban would have to address all semi-automatic rifles or pistols, magazine limits, and/or caliber restrictions, with no grandfather clauses. This would likely make otherwise cooperative gun owners in this country reject the measures.

The only gun control that could garner enough public support in this country is the neutered kind that don't really do much to address gun violence.

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 27th April 2018 at 04:56 AM. Reason: Improperly formatted.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2018, 07:02 AM   #270
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,298
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
To actually do anything about lethality of available weapons, law would have to address more intrinsic features than the AWB ever did. Realistically, a ban would have to address all semi-automatic rifles or pistols, magazine limits, and/or caliber restrictions, with no grandfather clauses.
False, it's very simple logic that applies to all things. The lower the number of something, the lower the incidence of effects from that thing. Certainly partial bans, in this case stop adding a subset to the existing inventory, won't help as much as removing the entire inventory but it's absolutely false to say it won't help at all.

Examples:

Reducing the amount of poison people absorb reduces the amount of people severely harmed by poison.

Reducing the population of an invasive species reduces the impacts of the invasive species.

Reducing the number of people who refuse vaccinations reduces the spread of the target diseases.

In all those cases a full elimination is obviously better but the partial reduction is also obviously better than no reduction and is far better than allowing an increase in prevalence.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2018, 07:47 AM   #271
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,552
Originally Posted by paulhutch View Post
False, it's very simple logic that applies to all things. The lower the number of something, the lower the incidence of effects from that thing. Certainly partial bans, in this case stop adding a subset to the existing inventory, won't help as much as removing the entire inventory but it's absolutely false to say it won't help at all.

Examples:

Reducing the amount of poison people absorb reduces the amount of people severely harmed by poison.

Reducing the population of an invasive species reduces the impacts of the invasive species.

Reducing the number of people who refuse vaccinations reduces the spread of the target diseases.

In all those cases a full elimination is obviously better but the partial reduction is also obviously better than no reduction and is far better than allowing an increase in prevalence.
My point is about equivalent substitutes. The AWB was meaningless because equivalent substitutes were available, like the mini-14 or AWB compliant AR's.

For example, instead of alcohol prohibition, imagine they just prohibited vodka. It would reduce vodka consumption, but I doubt very much that total alcohol consumption would be impacted. Vodka drinkers would just switch to some other liquor. Vodka drinkers might grumble, but life would go on and the incentive for smuggled vodka would be insignificant. Most would not risk breaking the law when other very similar liquors were still available. Total alcohol prohibition, however, is a different story altogether. A vibrant, violent black market would arise to meet a population of scofflaws who want to drink.

Gun buyers just bought compliant rifles during the ban. A whole market of AWB compliant rifles sprang up to meet the demand. Similar markets exist now in states with restrictions. Gun enthusiasts grumble, but life goes on as suitable substitutes are still available. A more comprehensive ban with no suitable substitutes, say like a ban on all semi-auto or repeating firearms, would be a different scenario.

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 27th April 2018 at 07:53 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2018, 03:59 PM   #272
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,667
The brother of the shooter has been arrested again. This time for a parole thing because he was driving without a license and was near a school. But now his attorney is suing for...

Originally Posted by Daily Mail
"horrific constitutional abuses"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...officials.html
__________________
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 7th May 2018, 12:15 PM   #273
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 20,646
New NRA President is Oliver North


Dana Loesch tweets

"Thrilled about the Oliver North news. A total warrior for freedom, this is the last person that anti-gun advocates would want as the new President of the NRA board."


That's the same Oliver North that illegally sold weapons to Iran.
Captain_Swoop 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 7th May 2018, 12:18 PM   #274
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,661
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
New NRA President is Oliver North


Dana Loesch tweets

"Thrilled about the Oliver North news. A total warrior for freedom, this is the last person that anti-gun advocates would want as the new President of the NRA board."


That's the same Oliver North that illegally sold weapons to Iran.
He's so keen on people having guns that he was willing to sell them to America's enemies.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob 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 7th May 2018, 02:51 PM   #275
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 23,454
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
New NRA President is Oliver North


Dana Loesch tweets

"Thrilled about the Oliver North news. A total warrior for freedom, this is the last person that anti-gun advocates would want as the new President of the NRA board."


That's the same Oliver North that illegally sold weapons to Iran.
He's so keen on people having guns that he was willing to sell them to America's enemies.

He wasn't selling guns to America's enemies. He was selling them TOW anti-tank missiles and Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. And parts.

It isn't like he was selling guns.

...

...

He was giving the guns away.

Which makes it okay, I suppose.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

Last edited by quadraginta; 7th May 2018 at 02:52 PM.
quadraginta 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 7th May 2018, 06:11 PM   #276
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,631
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
New NRA President is Oliver North


Dana Loesch tweets

"Thrilled about the Oliver North news. A total warrior for freedom, this is the last person that anti-gun advocates would want as the new President of the NRA board."


That's the same Oliver North that illegally sold weapons to Iran.
Oh, a traitor and drug dealing criminal as President of the NRA... its an excellent fit!
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!

Last edited by smartcooky; 7th May 2018 at 06:17 PM.
smartcooky 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 7th May 2018, 09:30 PM   #277
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,023
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Oh, a traitor and drug dealing criminal as President of the NRA... its an excellent fit!
True, but giving guns to our enemies is proof that he really believes in a level playing field! The NRA needs a real sportsman at the helm and by golly Olly sure is that.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto 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 5th June 2018, 02:14 PM   #278
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,667
David Hogg's home has been "SWATted".

Originally Posted by BBC News
Student gun-control activist David Hogg has been the victim of a prank call that saw armed police raid his Florida home.

Broward Sheriff's office said officers were sent to the 17-year-old's parents' home after a report of a hostage situation on Tuesday morning.

David, who is out of the state, called the incident "a distraction".

It comes a day after he and other students activists announced a nationwide tour...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44373028
__________________
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 16th July 2018, 12:55 AM   #279
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,076
This is somewhat tangential, but... arming 3 year olds is a great idea, right?

Sacha Baron Cohen and a bunch of Republicans, including Congresspeople, talk on the subject.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 16th July 2018 at 12:58 AM.
Aridas 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 16th July 2018, 03:08 AM   #280
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,815
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
This is somewhat tangential, but... arming 3 year olds is a great idea, right?

Sacha Baron Cohen and a bunch of Republicans, including Congresspeople, talk on the subject.
The ease at which those people agree it is a good idea to arm children, is more evidence that too many Americans really do think the gun is the answer, not the problem.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 11:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.