Obama calling for more gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
strawman

strawman

Dave said:
Kinda like the argument that the more places have nukes the safer we'll be as a world. Just doesn't cut the mustard of a logical mind.
Click to expand...
So you agree that as long as there's one country with nukes, then we should be similarly armed? Or are you suggesting we get rid of our nukes, regardless of the status of nukes elsewhere?

I guess it does make logical sense. As long as there are criminals out there with guns, then I should be able to similarly arm myself if I so choose.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
stienman said:
It's a convenient placeholder for the concept that you can't compare two nations in a vacuum.

I could probably find relevant differences between the US and any other nation you might point to where gun control is "working" that might account for the difference, but the biggest in any case is cultural. The US was founded and grown differently from nearly any other nation. The entertainment alone is enough to point to the fact that we're so different that we could account for almost anything, violence especially.

At any rate, I don't think arguments saying, "The US should do X because it works in nation A" are any more valid than the reverse.
Click to expand...
That's one of the most unscientific things I have ever heard from you. Can you control for all variables? Of course not, but you can recognize the obvious ones and still try to do a fair analysis. Clearly there is far more in common with Germany and the US than there is with the US and Somalia.

It's the same thing with psychology or polling. You can't account for every variable in the different people you are asking questions to, but you try to properly account for obvious demographics. Otherwise you could have a gun-control poll that just asked 5 year olds and victims of gun violence and excuse it by throwing up your hands and saying "WE CANT CONTROL VARIABLES"!

Edit: As for looking at other countries as a way to think about our own policies I don't see the problem with it as long as you don't just look at it in a vacuum (like using Somalia as an example of anything). It's really the only data we have about other possible systems. It would be foolish NOT to consider them if we were evaluating our own systems.

You are suggesting that it's as easy to smuggle a gun or a crate of guns into Germany as it is to do so in the US.
Click to expand...
To be honest I'm not exactly sure what I'm suggesting, I have to think about it more. I think it's easier to smuggle a crate of guns into Baltimore than it is to get them into Germany, and Baltimore has a smaller border, so if we're thinking purely in terms of border then you can see the problem with your justification of the differences in gun violence based purely on border size.

But if you take into account to border/area ratio of Baltimore it's much clearer why it's easier to get guns in (large border relative to size). My point is that it's not fair to just look at border size, you have to take into account the area, and I think you would have to consider population (demand) and police (deterrent) as well, but I'm not certain.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
stienman said:
So you agree that as long as there's one country with nukes, then we should be similarly armed? Or are you suggesting we get rid of our nukes, regardless of the status of nukes elsewhere?

I guess it does make logical sense. As long as there are criminals out there with guns, then I should be able to similarly arm myself if I so choose.
Click to expand...
I think it's already been shown that the whole nuclear proliferation thing is bad. Which is why countries are taking steps to rid themselves of these weapons and making sure others don't get them. So the analogy is apt.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
I said it in the other thread, and I'll say it in this one - the real problem here is we've raised a generation of people incapable of personal responsibility or dealing with failure. Nothing is their fault, and they should be given a prize even if they don't win. How is someone of limited mental stability going to react when the real world charges in, where there are really mean people who will hurt you every day, and there are no prizes for participation?

I have vivid personal memories of this problem rising, even in my own childhood. A certain year, my elementary school had a field day with competitive events. There were blue ribbons for first place in these events, red ribbons for second, yellow for 3rd, and white ribbons for everything below. It was a lot of fun.

The next year's field day... everybody got blue ribbons no matter the outcome of the event. Even at that age we all could plainly see what was going on, and agreed it was absolutely stupid.

When a child who has been given metaphorical blue ribbons for everything he ever has done (or failed to do) becomes an adult, where results matter and everything has consequences, is it really so surprising that he is absolutely incapable of dealing with the shattering of his comfortable world?
 
Espy

Espy

Necronic said:
Wait isn't that like the intro to Walking Dead?
Click to expand...
This man's mind is so weakened by all those video games and movies that he enjoys that he can't even tell the difference between reality and a tv show.

Where the hell is Tipper Gore to fix all of this mess?
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
GasBandit said:
I said it in the other thread, and I'll say it in this one - the real problem here is we've raised a generation of people incapable of personal responsibility or dealing with failure. Nothing is their fault, and they should be given a prize even if they don't win. How is someone of limited mental stability going to react when the real world charges in, where there are really mean people who will hurt you every day, and there are no prizes for participation?

I have vivid personal memories of this problem rising, even in my own childhood. A certain year, my elementary school had a field day with competitive events. There were blue ribbons for first place in these events, red ribbons for second, yellow for 3rd, and white ribbons for everything below. It was a lot of fun.

The next year's field day... everybody got blue ribbons no matter the outcome of the event. Even at that age we all could plainly see what was going on, and agreed it was absolutely stupid.

When a child who has been given metaphorical blue ribbons for everything he ever has done (or failed to do) becomes an adult, where results matter and everything has consequences, is it really so surprising that he is absolutely incapable of dealing with the shattering of his comfortable world?
Click to expand...
wtf does this have to do with anything being said in this thread? If anything it supports the pro-gun control argument because you're saying that there is a generation of people out there with zero sense of responsibility that are going to be running around wtih guns.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
What he means is that we need a multi-faceted approach that includes mental health and gun control. Right, Gas?

*crickets*
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
As a person who likes guns and would like to be able to own an AR-15 for no other reason than they are awesome, I am curious what other pro-gun folks think about increasing regulations on guns as well as on ammunition? I hate the false dichotomy of either being pro-tons of regulations or pro-zero regulation/current regulations/

Personally I support the following regulations:

- All guns should be registered and you should have to get a license for any gun ownership, not just a concealed carry.
- All gun sales should be through a registered dealer, no more of the person to person nonsense (at least not without a registered dealer involved as a 3rd party).
- Ammunition sales should be registered and require a license.

Beyond that I believe that
-Machineguns should be legal to manufacture and sell with an advanced/high end licensing certification

I mean lets be real, the damage that can be done with a gun is negligible compared what can be done with clearance to classified data, something that people get regularly after extensive background checks.
 
strawman

strawman

My main problem with such reasonable gun control is basically a slippery slope argument. Once you've got licensing and registration in place, it's not going to stop mass murders such as we've seen in recent years. The assailants, most of them anyway, would have obtained a gun or several guns and ammo even under the proposed licensing and registration.

What it does accomplish is make it easier to place additional minor restrictions and regulations over and on top of the licensing at both the state and federal level, and these all add up. If you thought the tax code was complex...

Right now if you are convicted of a misdemeanor in Michigan of reckless driving, you aren't allowed a concealed carry permit. Eventually, even though it isn't a felony, they might decide you can't get a gun license at all.

Regardless, the Supreme Court has already ruled in ways that show that such licensing would require an amendment to the US constitution. This isn't just a question of legislation any longer, but changing the second amendment.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Well, like I said before, mass murders are pretty much irrelevant to the conversation. Since teh shooting in Newtown there have already been over 100 gun deaths

And I don't really buy the slippery slope argument. That's another "let's throw up our hands and quit because nothing works" argument. If reasonable legislation could be passed (yes I appreciate the irony) that isn't the patched together crap that the congress usually puts out due to its complete inability to agree on anything, we could see a clear/concise system of laws that control/regulate gun ownership.

As for the Supreme court argument, I don't get it (although you're right it may take an ammendment). Concealed Carry requires a license. How is that not against the right to bear arms? For that matter, removing someones right to concealed carry is pretty meaningless since almost anyone can just open carry legally.
 
Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

I'm not going to entertain Gas' nonsense anymore but holy shit, did anyone see that NRA press conference? I don't know how anyone with a conscience can rally behind the NRA at this point.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Armed guards in every school and it's because of the VIDJA GAMES!!! EVIL VIDJA GAMES!!
 
papachronos

papachronos

I don't see what's so wrong with ensuring that a person has the knowledge, physical and mental capability, and personal and social responsibility to understand the consequences of their choices before they are allowed to do something that could cause massive disaster and destruction, like own a gun, drive a car, fly a plane, or vote in a federal election.

This is not a drive-by troll, either - I really don't understand why those who thump their chests and scream "RIGHTS" are so opposed to enforcing "RESPONSIBILITY" - whether the rights in question be gun ownership or voting. Liberty without personal responsibility is anarchy, after all. As I see it, a lot of the personal rights guaranteed in the Constitution are irrelevant today, because I don't think that the Founders could foresee the phenomenon of people clinging to their rights when it suits them but wanting someone else to deal with the consequences.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with GB here - but I'm willing to apply it equally to both sides of the aisle. We shouldn't have a proliferation of guns anymore - not because society has progressed past the need, but because society has regressed past the ability to handle it maturely.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Necronic said:
wtf does this have to do with anything being said in this thread? If anything it supports the pro-gun control argument because you're saying that there is a generation of people out there with zero sense of responsibility that are going to be running around wtih guns.
Click to expand...
I said, people are blaming guns instead of people. And now I'm saying the people who made the people to blame the way they are are the ones blaming guns instead.[DOUBLEPOST=1356120282][/DOUBLEPOST]
papachronos said:
So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with GB here - but I'm willing to apply it equally to both sides of the aisle. We shouldn't have a proliferation of guns anymore - not because society has progressed past the need, but because society has regressed past the ability to handle it maturely.
Click to expand...
You have a point there about maturity... do you agree with me that manditory gun safety courses in high school curriculum would be a good idea?
 
papachronos

papachronos

GasBandit said:
You have a point there about maturity... do you agree with me that manditory gun safety courses in high school curriculum would be a good idea?
Click to expand...
We have mandatory drivers education, and nobody demonizes cars. I would say that gun safety classes in high school would go a long way towards restoring firearms to the status of a tool, rather than the objects of demonization AND glorification that they currently are.
 
Azurephoenix

Azurephoenix

Necronic said:
- All guns should be registered and you should have to get a license for any gun ownership, not just a concealed carry.
- All gun sales should be through a registered dealer, no more of the person to person nonsense (at least not without a registered dealer involved as a 3rd party).
- Ammunition sales should be registered and require a license.
Click to expand...

This is extremely close to what it's like in Canada with a few minor differences (non-restricted weapons don't need to be registered anymore, civilians can not obtain concealed carry authorization).
 
papachronos

papachronos

The problem lies in "mandatory" though. Driver's ed classes are mandatory because you basically have to know how to drive a car in order to make a living nowadays. Nobody is forced to own a gun. However, those who choose not to learn about gun safety and use, and then choose not to own a firearm, should have the personal responsibilityto know that they cannot contribute meaningfully to a conversation regarding gun regulation.

Edit: I'm never fast enough to do the "autocombine post" thing - I always get ninja'd. Lrn2type?
 
strawman

strawman

If you use your vehicle, airplane, etc on your property, you are not required to be licensed or educated. Licensing is only required for use in public spaces. You can transport them, sell, buy, disassemble, destroy, or modify them, and as long as you aren't on the road or us airspace you can use them without any sort of license or certification.

Complicating things is that in law your body is considered your property, and items you are carrying cannot be taken from you without court order or by law enforcement u nder certain circumstances. You simply can't treat guns the way you treat cars.
 
papachronos

papachronos

stienman said:
If you use your vehicle, airplane, etc on your property, you are not required to be licensed or educated. Licensing is only required for use in public spaces. You can transport them, sell, buy, disassemble, destroy, or modify them, and as long as you aren't on the road or us airspace you can use them without any sort of license or certification.

Complicating things is that in law your body is considered your property, and items you are carrying cannot be taken from you without court order or by law enforcement u nder certain circumstances. You simply can't treat guns the way you treat cars.
Click to expand...
I understand this, but my point was more to illustrate the point that education is the antidote to fear than to draw a direct correlation between cars and guns.
 
Zappit

Zappit

Staff member
Let's take a look at what these things do.

Video games: Playthings that do indeed create a fantasy world, but it is roughly understood that the actions in games are not to be replicated in real life. Hence no mass turtle-stompings.

Guns: A tool literally designed for nothing else than killing living things, with no secondary function such as playing MP3s.

Now in the hands of an angry person, the gamer is more apt to troll in online games or yell moronic things into his/her headset. An angry person with a gun is more likely to MURDER people in real life.

Let's just let the NRA keep going, until they are completely irrelevant to the conversation here, because this blame-everybody-but-us stance is really going to work out well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top