Page 62 of 97 FirstFirst ... 12 52 60 61 62 63 64 72 ... LastLast
Results 1,831 to 1,860 of 2907

Thread: Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

  1. #1831
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    There is a very small chance we could amend the Constitution to at least partially nullify the 2nd amendment.
    Bullshit. Total bullshit.

    First, do you know what is required? http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

    Second, do you know the all-out shitstorm and probable CIVIL WAR that would create?

    I studied Constitutional Law, not gonna waste my time arguing this one.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-07-2015 at 05:03 PM.

  2. #1832
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    is a threshold for a federal system being so shitty that a per-state system is going to allow for something much better. I think our federal system is currently below the bar for it to be made a requirement for all states.
    We need a cross-check system that looks for Orders of Protection in other states. Anybody can use a fake ID in any state, but that's why we need FOID cards and additional ID verification; hell, I think we should apply IN PERSON.

    No system is perfect. That is no excuse to not have a system. A guy with an Order of Protection against him in Illinois who can't buy a gun or ammo (due to the Order of Protection, because his FOID has been revoked) who drives 30 minutes to Indiana and buys a gun and ammo with nothing but a driver's license because Indiana doesn't know about the Order of Protection against him in Illinois and Indiana doesn't require a FOID and then the guy drives home and shoots his estranged wife in the head; that system needs to be fixed in whatever way we can.

    I am not talking about one national system; I'm talking about states with cross-checking abilities and Federal laws in all states (e.g. FOID requirements, firearm owner and safety class requirements, etc,) that are governed by the states. I'm talking about all the states having the same consistent requirements, who cross-report data.

    Nobody is going to prevent criminals from getting guns. That's not what "the system" prevents. The only way to try to reduce that mess is stronger gun convictions, and not letting those with gun convictions back out on the streets so fast.

    The Brady Act drives me nuts. James Brady was shot by a mentally-ill guy who was trying to kill President Reagan in order to get attention from Jodi Foster, and he used a friggin' revolver. Nothing we do short of losing all of our medical privacy can totally prevent insane people from legally obtaining guns, because they are not HONEST on gun applications.

    Are you or have you ever been treated for a mental illness?

    "Hmmmm .... No!"

    The next step would remove health privacy laws by reporting every visit we have to a psychologist or psychiatrist to the Federal Government and include it in a big database, just in case we decide to buy a gun.

    Does that sound like info we all want the Government to have about ALL of us?
    Last edited by allegro; 09-07-2015 at 06:35 PM.

  3. #1833
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax, Canada
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    That's 1 of the 2 things I've been saying. The other point is that the rate of public shootings (aka the risk for an individual becoming a victim) in the USA is on par with "the rest of the world" ... if not lower. So even though "the rest of the world" doesn't believe there is utility in guns and has increased their gun control... it hasn't reduced the risk of public shootings.

    I disagree that utility is diminished enough in guns that you should just start taking them away.
    What utility do guns have in today's society?

    Where are your statistical arguments that the rate of public shootings in the US isn't unusually high? The only reference I could find, going back a few pages, was this post. It links to an unreferenced image of rampage shooting rates, so I can't tell if it's genuine or bullshit.

    Unfortunately we cannot do scientific trials to verify exactly how much firearms influence deaths in the US: we can't create another US and give them placebo guns. So the best we can do is look at countries of a similar size, or state of development, or culture, or some other criteria, and compare results. I've been to Norway, Israel, and Switzerland, and it's pretty ridiculous to compare them to the US on almost any measure: geography, history, and culture, make them very different. But we can only compare what we've got.

    When it comes to these sorts of measures I give weight to neutral bodies like the UN or medical researchers (because guns are, I think, properly thought of as a public health issue). Like this:

    - A 2011 UN report says that while there are some countries (e.g., in Africa and Latin America) where per-capita homicides are higher, the US rates are higher than others of a comparable socio-economic levels (though the rate in the US is dropping).
    - A 2003 medical paper that says that firearm homicides in the US are 19.5 times higher than in other high-income countries.
    - A 2006 medical paper indicating how gun deaths dropped in Australia when gun laws were tightened here.

    We can each cherry-pick stats that appear to support different arguments, but if you pile up all the research for and against the idea that gun deaths in the US are a disproportionate problem, we'll find that the "for" pile is much bigger. That's science.

  4. #1834
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    Bullshit. Total bullshit.

    First, do you know what is required? http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

    Second, do you know the all-out shitstorm and probable CIVIL WAR that would create?

    I studied Constitutional Law, not gonna waste my time arguing this one.
    That was kinda the point :P It was more a comment on the chances of being directly involved in a rampage shooting.

  5. #1835
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Timinator View Post
    What utility do guns have in today's society?

    Where are your statistical arguments that the rate of public shootings in the US isn't unusually high? The only reference I could find, going back a few pages, was this post. It links to an unreferenced image of rampage shooting rates, so I can't tell if it's genuine or bullshit.

    That image is probably the best that exists. It was from a site dedicated to collecting that info. They are now shutdown. I'll try to dig it up. There aren't many groups who think it makes any sense to invest resources to produce statistics on rampage shootings (because they are so rare). The majority of the junk out there tries to avoid per capita analysis because raw per country numbers are much easier to dishonestly shock people with in a very biased way.

    These extremely popular gun control adverts are great examples of that. On top of ignoring per capita rates, they also focus on "gun murders" instead of all forms of murder. For all you know, Finland's super low "gun murder rate" could be due to everyone killing each other with ballpoint pens. :





    Quote Originally Posted by Timinator View Post

    Unfortunately we cannot do scientific trials to verify exactly how much firearms influence deaths in the US: we can't create another US and give them placebo guns. So the best we can do is look at countries of a similar size, or state of development, or culture, or some other criteria, and compare results. I've been to Norway, Israel, and Switzerland, and it's pretty ridiculous to compare them to the US on almost any measure: geography, history, and culture, make them very different. But we can only compare what we've got.

    When it comes to these sorts of measures I give weight to neutral bodies like the UN or medical researchers (because guns are, I think, properly thought of as a public health issue). Like this:

    - A 2011 UN report says that while there are some countries (e.g., in Africa and Latin America) where per-capita homicides are higher, the US rates are higher than others of a comparable socio-economic levels (though the rate in the US is dropping).
    - A 2003 medical paper that says that firearm homicides in the US are 19.5 times higher than in other high-income countries.
    - A 2006 medical paper indicating how gun deaths dropped in Australia when gun laws were tightened here.

    We can each cherry-pick stats that appear to support different arguments, but if you pile up all the research for and against the idea that gun deaths in the US are a disproportionate problem, we'll find that the "for" pile is much bigger. That's science.

    So, the 2006 and 2003 links analyze per capita but they fail the 2nd rule: don't look at just "gun <problem>" and consider it done. (aka cherry picking) Deaths are deaths. Just because "gun deaths" transition to other forms of deaths doesn't give you the right to consider it a win.

    Just as an example, i've frequently heard people talk about "gun suicides" dropping in Australia after they enacted the 1996 gun laws.


    Another demonstration of why the Australia data is cherry picked is the strict scope on timeline. "After X law was implemented, everything got better!" Uhh, yeah but what did the data look like before? Did law X actually have any noticeable impact on the existing trend?
    I don't think I even need to explain it when you look at the data:






    And Australia is usually the best case scenario for any sort of material control scenario. They are surrounded by thousands of miles of water, so it's easier to secure their border. And this shit doesn't even work for them! I'll have to look through the 2011 data set though. I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the US is statistically more violent. Things I will look for is if they averaged the socio-economic data across the whole country though. When looking at homicides, those absolutely stand out in very concentrated spots in the country: low socio-economic areas (aka fix the poverty and education!)
    Last edited by DigitalChaos; 09-07-2015 at 08:34 PM.

  6. #1836
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax, Canada
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    These extremely popular gun control adverts are great examples of that.
    I think they're still useful. If you compare Canada and the US, for instance, two countries which are the most similar in the world, and you normalise for population (the US is roughly 10 times the population of Canada), those absolute numbers of gun murders in the images you embedded are still proportionately very different between those two countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    On top of ignoring per capita rates, they also focus on "gun murders" instead of all forms of murder. For all you know, Finland's super low "gun murder rate" could be due to everyone killing each other with ballpoint pens.

    So, the 2006 and 2003 links analyze per capita but they fail the 2nd rule: don't look at just "gun <problem>" and consider it done. (aka cherry picking) Deaths are deaths. Just because "gun deaths" transition to other forms of deaths doesn't give you the right to consider it a win.
    This goes 'round to the circle of the first point: utility. Pens are immensely useful. So even if, in your straw man, people are killing each other with pens in Finland it's worth having pens.

    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    Just as an example, i've frequently heard people talk about "gun suicides" dropping in Australia after they enacted the 1996 gun laws.
    Another demonstration of why the Australia data is cherry picked is the strict scope on timeline. "After X law was implemented, everything got better!" Uhh, yeah but what did the data look like before? Did law X actually have any noticeable impact on the existing trend?
    I don't think I even need to explain it when you look at the data.
    Well, yes, you do. Just because there are other trends making overall suicides go up doesn't mean that that firearm-suicide component downward trend isn't a good one. If guns hadn't become harder to get then it's reasonable to surmise that total suicide rates would be even higher today.

    And just because gun homicides in Australia have been coming down since the '80s (as they have in the US) doesn't mean that it isn't worth taking steps to increase the rate of decline, or the number of spikes on that graph.

    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the US is statistically more violent. Things I will look for is if they averaged the socio-economic data across the whole country though. When looking at homicides, those absolutely stand out in very concentrated spots in the country: low socio-economic areas (aka fix the poverty and education!)
    We can definitely agree that socio-economic leveling is a good step to take, for lots of reasons.

  7. #1837
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Timinator View Post
    Well, yes, you do. Just because there are other trends making overall suicides go up doesn't mean that that firearm-suicide component downward trend isn't a good one. If guns hadn't become harder to get then it's reasonable to surmise that total suicide rates would be even higher today.
    you completely missed the data then, because there is nothing that demonstrates "other trends." The only thing demonstrated is that people who want to commit suicide will be undeterred by gun control. This is a pattern that exists in most problems that people try to phrase as a "gun problem."





    Quote Originally Posted by Timinator View Post
    This goes 'round to the circle of the first point: utility. Pens are immensely useful. So even if, in your straw man, people are killing each other with pens in Finland it's worth having pens.
    The existence of rights are not connected to their utility, at least not in a free society. This is an authoritarian mindset. Rights are dangerous and a free society accepts this.

  8. #1838
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    GEORGIA - You're fucking welcome
    Posts
    2,822
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)

  9. #1839
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    link is dead. here is new one: http://www.wmur.com/news/toddler-acc...tment/35425672


    "Police have classified the shooting at the Commons Apartments in Lake Placid as an isolated incident. ... Lake Placid police said they believed the shooting was accidental. Officers said they did not believe the public was in danger."
    Oh thank god. I thought the 3 year old had started a new rampage shooting and was still at large. Thanks for clearing that up!


    But seriously, the kid is lucky to be alive. Kids that age do not have the finger strength to fire a gun the "normal" way. The end up pointing it at themselves in an effort to use their thumbs to push against the trigger.

  10. #1840
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax, Canada
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    you completely missed the data then, because there is nothing that demonstrates "other trends." The only thing demonstrated is that people who want to commit suicide will be undeterred by gun control. This is a pattern that exists in most problems that people try to phrase as a "gun problem."
    Read the text. There is lots that suggests other trends: increasing stressors in modern Australian society, for example work and social pressures. An increasing socio-economic divide, especially in the Aboriginal population which experiences higher suicide rates anyway. Are you contending that there are no other factors impacting suicide rates? But it was clear that suicides due to firearms were down. And even if that means that people will be forced to try methods of suicide that are less likely to be fatal, that's an improvement.

    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    The existence of rights are not connected to their utility, at least not in a free society. This is an authoritarian mindset. Rights are dangerous and a free society accepts this.
    It's not all or nothing, "free" or "authoritarian". Every society - the US included - exists along a spectrum between those two ends. What we're talking about is where along that spectrum, and for which things, that balance should be.

  11. #1841
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Timinator View Post
    Read the text. There is lots that suggests other trends: increasing stressors in modern Australian society, for example work and social pressures. An increasing socio-economic divide, especially in the Aboriginal population which experiences higher suicide rates anyway. Are you contending that there are no other factors impacting suicide rates? But it was clear that suicides due to firearms were down. And even if that means that people will be forced to try methods of suicide that are less likely to be fatal, that's an improvement.

    It's not all or nothing, "free" or "authoritarian". Every society - the US included - exists along a spectrum between those two ends. What we're talking about is where along that spectrum, and for which things, that balance should be.
    You're still looking at this in the wrong way for how the USA is built. Rights are not granted by the government. Citizens do not have to prove utility in their rights to retain them. What needs to be proven is the utility in additional power given to the governments that will impede on the rights of citizens.

    I think the slow movement of gun control is proof in itself that there's an insufficient number of citizens who believe in the utility of additional government power here is an acceptable trade-off for the reduction of rights.

    Also the debate on utility is quickly becoming irrelevant. The ability of the government to control this, if they were allowed to, is rapidly diminishing.

  12. #1842
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    The SCOTUS definition of "utility" has been "home security" and its most recent decisions have denied "assault weapons" or high-volume magazine weapons as "home security" or "utility" weapons. The SCOTUS (government) has approved low volume magazine weapons, revolvers, and shotguns as home security (utility) weapons. It continues to reject cases related to "assault weapons" which it finds NOT "necessary" or "utility." [Heller]

    "Utility" according to the 2nd amendment was a well-regulated militia. But it was based on English common law, which meant self-protection, which is why the courts also interpret it as meaning self-protection.

    The government can and will legally regulate and deny the defense of assault (high capacity) weapons and will probably pursue stronger gun background checks and acceptable safety regulations and interconnected state background check databases and consistent national gun laws, which it can legally do under SCOTUS decisions and the 2nd Amendment, all without a slippery slope and all while preserving common law and the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment will never be compromised. Ever.

    And my prayers will be answered if this bankrupts the NRA. Total scam artists milking hillbilly poor people.

    The "slow movement" of gun control is a myth. There has actually been more gun control (state level) than people realize. Lots of it. Tons of it. But it doesn't get any news. And it's fair gun control. Safety class requirements. Waiting and "cool down" periods (most beneficial for women and domestic violence). FOID requirements. Etc.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-24-2015 at 11:37 AM.

  13. #1843
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax, Canada
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    You're still looking at this in the wrong way for how the USA is built. Rights are not granted by the government. Citizens do not have to prove utility in their rights to retain them. What needs to be proven is the utility in additional power given to the governments that will impede on the rights of citizens.

    I think the slow movement of gun control is proof in itself that there's an insufficient number of citizens who believe in the utility of additional government power here is an acceptable trade-off for the reduction of rights.
    Rights may not be granted by the government, but they can be limited or revoked by the government. Commit a crime? Go to jail. Choose to indulge a hobby for blowing things up? Nope, can't do that. Build your own car and drive it, unlicensed and uninsured on the highways? Nope. Assault weapons? Like allegro says, nope. And none of that is balancing utility for an individual versus "power given to governments"; it's balancing utility for individuals versus harm to society.

    Even if we agreed on "how the USA is built" it's a whole other discussion about whether that's sensible or not.

    I think the slow movement of gun control is proof of the power of lobbying. But I agree with you that there are a lot of American citizens who have drunk the freedom kool-aid; who think that having this particular "right", distorted and dangerous as it is, is a good thing. They're clearly bonkers.

  14. #1844
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Timinator View Post
    Rights may not be granted by the government, but they can be limited or revoked by the government. Commit a crime? Go to jail. Choose to indulge a hobby for blowing things up? Nope, can't do that. Build your own car and drive it, unlicensed and uninsured on the highways? Nope. Assault weapons? Like allegro says, nope. And none of that is balancing utility for an individual versus "power given to governments"; it's balancing utility for individuals versus harm to society.

    Even if we agreed on "how the USA is built" it's a whole other discussion about whether that's sensible or not.

    I think the slow movement of gun control is proof of the power of lobbying. But I agree with you that there are a lot of American citizens who have drunk the freedom kool-aid; who think that having this particular "right", distorted and dangerous as it is, is a good thing. They're clearly bonkers.

    Your first paragraph is exactly what my first paragraph said... so uh.. it sounds like you are disagreeing but we agree. You are just stuck trying to phrase it in the sense of individual utility. What you are describing IS the utility of power given to the government.


    as for the "freedom kool aid" bit.. it goes way beyond this. It is now technology that is starting to make the debate on centralized control grow irrelevant. Saying that the government can have any meaningful impact on gun possession/use through prohibitionary tactics will become antiquated. It will be on par with how we now see the reality of the government using prohibition on marijuana. Better get used to freedom
    Last edited by DigitalChaos; 09-24-2015 at 12:34 AM.

  15. #1845
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)

    Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    The SCOTUS definition of "utility" has always been "home security"
    Different use of utility here. use vs value, roughly.

    2nd amendment explicitly protects a specific USE that must not be impeded.

    Timinator was speaking as if any right can just be taken away if it doesn't provide sufficient VALUE to the individual. I'm arguing that it is the inverse of this that is reality. All rights are automatically yours. For the government to impede on any of your rights requires that there is sufficient value in the act of impeding.


    You can't justify the removal of my right to write BANANATITS on my front door just because the act presents no value to me. You need to demonstrate value in impeding my right to do this.
    Last edited by DigitalChaos; 09-24-2015 at 10:19 AM.

  16. #1846
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax, Canada
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    Your first paragraph is exactly what my first paragraph said... so uh.. it sounds like you are disagreeing but we agree. You are just stuck trying to phrase it in the sense of individual utility. What you are describing IS the utility of power given to the government.
    I no longer understand what you're trying to say here, then.

    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    as for the "freedom kool aid" bit.. it goes way beyond this. It is now technology that is starting to make the debate on centralized control grow irrelevant. Saying that the government can have any meaningful impact on gun possession/use through prohibitionary tactics will become antiquated.
    I don't understand what this means, either. It's been done in other countries around the world. You don't think it can be done in the US? I agree there's a culture and lobby that will try to prevent it, but I don't see why it couldn't work mechanically.

    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    Better get used to freedom
    I've got plenty, thanks. And I'm unlikely to want any more, US-style.

    While anecdotes are only that, careful observations over time can have empirical meaning. I have spent a lot of time in the US (mostly California, Texas, Georgia, and NYC). I lived a long time in both rural and urban Canada (I grew up using shotguns for pest control). I lived for several years in the UK, mostly London but also visiting rural relatives (who also had shotguns for pest control). I've lived for several years in Australia. I've visited - for periods of at least several days - over 30 countries around the world. It seems very clear to me that the US has an extremely dysfunctional relationship with guns. The vast majority of the rest of the world is not deluding themselves.

  17. #1847
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    Different use of utility here. use vs value, roughly.

    2nd amendment explicitly protects a specific USE that must not be impeded.

    Timinator was speaking as if any right can just be taken away if it doesn't provide sufficient VALUE to the individual. I'm arguing that it is the inverse of this that is reality. All rights are automatically yours. For the government to impede on any of your rights requires that there is sufficient value in the act of impeding.
    But what I'm saying is that the SCOTUS has already determined that there is no "value" in high capacity (assault) weapons and the Court has, therefore, refused to support or defend high capacity weapons. But the SCOTUS *HAS* however, determined the value (and usefulness) of several other weapons under the 2nd Amendment and therefore continues to defend them under the 2nd Amendment.

    The 2nd Amendment has been defined by SCOTUS caselaw, and the weapon must be of some sufficient value and use to the individual and that CANNOT be taken away, just the opposite; see for instance Heller 2008 (trigger locks or disassembly, and home protection vs. militia).

    But then the SCOTUS refused to hear this case.

    (The gun is still of value and use if it is locked in a case. Although, in 2008 [Heller], it was not if the gun had a trigger lock. Go figure. Hence Thomas' and Scalia's dissent in the SF case rejection.)

    The SCOTUS continues to refuse to hear assault ban cases because other guns (per the SCOTUS: revolvers, low-capacity semi-automatic handguns, shotguns and rifles) provide sufficient value and use for self-protection (and "militia") under 2A.

    Otherwise, yeah, according to U.S. laws and its ironclad Constitution and caselaw, this is a pretty useless argument.

    The U.S. may have a "dysfunctional" relationship with guns, but considering the fact that over 30 million legal guns are already out there, that horse left the barn over 200 years ago and it ain't coming back and the horse is (justifiably) protected by the United States Supreme Court and the Second Amendment. Other countries may not "get" that, but it is what it is. But, other countries (and people in this country) have a total lack of knowledge as to the massive amount of gun control we have in this country, but how we are unable to completely control our huge amount of "free" citizens. Freedom is wonderful, but it often comes with a price. The opposite is living in a police state; and sometimes we are coming very close to that in these modern times.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-24-2015 at 01:52 PM.

  18. #1848
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    @allegro - I didn't even think about that angle. That's a good addition. I was purely harping on the philosophical difference between where rights (all rights, not just gun rights) come from and how they are impeded. I always find it disturbing and outright dangerous when someone starts talking about the value of a right as the foundation for why it would be fine to impede on that right. It's right next to people interpreting the Constitution's securing of specific rights as a universal truth that all our rights are granted by government.

    @Timinator - In addition to what I just said to allegro, I'm not really sure how to say it. But as for the second portion, answer this: Do you believe government prohibitionary controls on marijuana are more or less effective than on guns? Now, WHY do you think that?
    People usually point toward the centralized manufacture of guns as the strength in the govt control over them. (license the manufacturers and sales points and have them impose the prohibitionary rules) Whereas with marijuana, everyone's grandma can grow it, so it's much harder to control. There is very little difference between the two beyond that.


    edit: fucking typos, phrasing, and grammar. shit kills me.
    Last edited by DigitalChaos; 09-24-2015 at 12:30 PM.

  19. #1849
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    2,534
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    I'll just drop this here because it's funny as hell and it illustrates some of @Timinator 's points about the US vs Rest of the World views on gun and gun control.


  20. #1850
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax, Canada
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    @Timinator - In addition to what I just said to allegro, I'm not really sure how to say it. But as for the second portion, answer this: Do you believe government prohibitionary controls on marijuana are more or less effective than on guns? Now, WHY do you think that?
    People usually point toward the centralized manufacture of guns as the strength in the govt control over them. (license the manufacturers and sales points and have them impose the prohibitionary rules) Whereas with marijuana, everyone's grandma can grow it, so it's much harder to control. There is very little difference between the two beyond that.
    I'm not sure what the point of this straw man is. Are you trying to demonstrate that the futility of prohibiting marijuana correlates to an eventual futility of prohibiting certain types of guns? Because clearly other countries around the world do not have this difficulty. Yes, you can get weed in most countries around the world, even though it's illegal most places. I could only speculate about why that's the case: because of easy production, as you said. Because here's immense profit in producing and distributing it. Because it's very small and easy to conceal in typical amounts. Because law enforcement isn't often interested in pursuing it as a crime in typical amounts. Because no one can easily kill themselves with weed, because you can't kill someone else with weed. Maybe there are more reasons.

    Are you saying that widespread use of marijuana in the USA means the government there cannot reduce gun crime?

    Thanks @marodi . It is a comedy routine, but at the end of the day both philosophical and legal arguments on the topic all feel cold and empty. If you reduce it to actual experiences it seems (to me) to be much more compelling.

  21. #1851
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by marodi View Post
    I'll just drop this here
    http://www.echoingthesound.org/commu...045#post249045

  22. #1852
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Timinator View Post
    clearly other countries around the world do not have this difficulty.
    not yet they don't


    Quote Originally Posted by Timinator View Post
    Are you saying that widespread use of marijuana in the USA means the government there cannot reduce gun crime?
    No. I am using it as a comparison point. The functional difference in manufacture & sale between the two is going to continue narrowing. The growing ability for an individual to privately produce a ton of physical goods that used to take an elaborate machine shop. (3D printing, desktop CNC machines, etc) Hell, we are now seeing first amendment challenges connected to the government trying to restrict this. We used to live in a time where it was much easier to control the flow of information due to the centralized nature of the distributors, but that is also long gone for most parts of the world. This is the trend that will continue for just about everything.

    Eventually, this gun control discussion will become as futile as debating whether the government should try and prohibit the communications of dissenters, the trade of marijuana, or the possession of forks. This futility will grow faster than the progress of gun control in the US.

    And it's not a strawman. I'm not using it to shut down the discussion. I added it as an additional point for what the future will hold. You can't constantly look into the past when trying to change the future.

  23. #1853
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax, Canada
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    OK, so I think I get your point: technology will eclipse any effort to control guns, in the US and eventually elsewhere. So everyone will soon have guns. It's more of a defeatist attitude to gun ownership?

    I don't buy that, though. The psychological need to own guns will eventually, slowly in some places, die out, as is the need for organised religion. It's a ludicrous construct based on outdated premises, and it will wither and die. I will continue to live in countries where they've reached that point.

  24. #1854
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Timinator View Post
    OK, so I think I get your point: technology will eclipse any effort to control guns, in the US and eventually elsewhere. So everyone will soon have guns. It's more of a defeatist attitude to gun ownership?

    I don't buy that, though. The psychological need to own guns will eventually, slowly in some places, die out, as is the need for organised religion. It's a ludicrous construct based on outdated premises, and it will wither and die. I will continue to live in countries where they've reached that point.
    So, if this can be addressed from a psychological/social perspective, then that sure sounds like a much better approach than through force.

    And my point about technology eclipsing prohibitionary control is only defeatist if your only approach is forced gun control. I've mentioned before that a focus on fixing poverty and education will do HUGE things for anything typically listed as a "gun problem." And you are now talking about social perspectives. None of these other approaches are defeated by things like 3D printing and desktop CNCs.

  25. #1855
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    On the topic of 3D printing and the unique changes it is bringing, there is this really interesting situation where the first amendment is being used to defend the distribution of files needed for printing weapons. Historically, this seems like a first. @allegro may correct me though.

    http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-pri...l-free-speech/


    The only thing that almost got to this point was the cryptography battles of the 90's. Crypto was classified as a munition. The government tried to block "international export" over the internet through the ITAR regulations, just like is happening with the 3D print files now. People started trying to circumvent this by printing crypto source code in books, on tshirts, etc. Eventually, Clinton had crypto removed from ITAR regulations... so we never got to see the 1st/2nd amendment hybrid play out. But, it's back again! I fucking love technology.



    ...
    Wilson’s lawsuit, two decades later, is taking another shot at ITAR with that same first amendment argument. Only this time the fight isn’t over code erroneously labeled as a weapon. The code in question actually is a weapon.

    ...


    Phil Zimmermann himself, who was threatened with prosecution for ITAR violations in 1993, says he supports Defense Distributed’s lawsuit and believes the free speech argument he made then should apply just as much to gun code as it did to crypto code. “I see this as very similar to the PGP situation,” he says. “I’m not a gun nut. I don’t own a gun. But publishing a blueprint for a gun should not be illegal.”
    ...
    Last edited by DigitalChaos; 09-24-2015 at 11:08 PM.

  26. #1856
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,187
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Timinator View Post
    OK, so I think I get your point: technology will eclipse any effort to control guns, in the US and eventually elsewhere.
    Oh boy, I'm so looking forward to this.
    New shiny homemade guns readily available in cultures that traditionally don't handle those. We're so backwards we're still using old machine guns smuggled from the Balkans. Imagine that !
    Given the current climate in Europe, and projecting that situation a dozen years down the line, this is going to make things so much more interesting !

  27. #1857
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Marx always wanted the people to be in control of the means of production. It's like a perfect love-child of socialism and capitalism.

  28. #1858
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,187
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    oh goody, Scylla and Charybdis had a lovechild, how could that go wrong.

  29. #1859
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Hey, we are just having fun here. This is actually an interesting exchange about guns for once. Normally it's the circular "ban it vs don't ban it" exchange that is never going anywhere.

  30. #1860
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    8,884
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    15 dead in Oregon community college. lol at the garbage united states.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions