Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Global Gun Control Threat

global gun control repeal second amendment

  • Please log in to reply
324 replies to this topic

#151    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 26 December 2012 - 02:49 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 December 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:



No, I must admit to having transferred my brother's highly emotional state to yours.  Apologies for that.

Your reasoning, for lack of a better word, is very similar to his, and I erred.

Nonetheless, the substance of your argument is nil, considering the vast numbers of gun control laws and other laws that were broken at both Newtown and upstate New York.  The reality is that gun control laws have little effect on a determined shooter.

It might FEEL good to advocate for a legislative remedy to crazy humans, but it's not too very realistic.

What gun control laws? By the standards of the rest of the western world, you have virtually no gun control.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#152    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 26 December 2012 - 02:51 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 December 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Nonetheless, the substance of your argument is nil, considering the vast numbers of gun control laws and other laws that were broken at both Newtown and upstate New York.  The reality is that gun control laws have little effect on a determined shooter.

It might FEEL good to advocate for a legislative remedy to crazy humans, but it's not too very realistic.

Your argument, "for lack of a better word", is based on a couple terrible presumptions.  First, the measure by which we gauge the efficacy of laws is not whether they are 100% effective at preventing specific crimes, that's absurd; you can't just point and say, look someone else cheated on their taxes, tax laws are worthless and just to make people 'feel good'.  Second is the charge that people are disagreeing with you because of emotional reasons, which is just another evidence-free claim on your part, something that is all-too-not-unusual.  How effective has legislation been in keeping civilians from killing each other with bazookas and hand grenades?  I'd say nearly 100%.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#153    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 December 2012 - 03:32 PM

View PostStellar, on 26 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

I didnt say "could stop", I said "would stop"

Yes but in this particular case, and many many others, it DID NOT STOP the mayhem.

Yes, if a frog had wings, he would fly, and if Barack Obama upheld his oath of office we would not be killing children and goats on the other side of the planet.

You and my brother live in some fairy tale type world.  Sorry.

And in response to your other post, we in the US have many many many gun laws.  And very damn few of them work as advertised.

Of course, we are lacking your and my brother's profound skills in writing proper legislation, eh?

Edited by Babe Ruth, 26 December 2012 - 03:34 PM.


#154    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 December 2012 - 03:44 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 26 December 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Your argument, "for lack of a better word", is based on a couple terrible presumptions.  First, the measure by which we gauge the efficacy of laws is not whether they are 100% effective at preventing specific crimes, that's absurd; you can't just point and say, look someone else cheated on their taxes, tax laws are worthless and just to make people 'feel good'.  Second is the charge that people are disagreeing with you because of emotional reasons, which is just another evidence-free claim on your part, something that is all-too-not-unusual.  How effective has legislation been in keeping civilians from killing each other with bazookas and hand grenades?  I'd say nearly 100%.

If you've ever carried a bazooka, they are a bit cumbersome.  Hand grenades not so much. :tu:

But we are in some measure of agreement.  Reasonable, practical and effective gun control laws are fine by me.  Pre purchase investigations are fine by me.

And I don't hold the emotional reaction against anybody LG.  We are emotional creatures, and I accept that.  The more sensitive amongst us are traumatized by such events, and I understand that.

My position is let's not have the emotional reactions overwhelm the rational process.

If numerous gun control laws were broken during these events, how is passing another law really a rational response?


#155    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 26 December 2012 - 04:08 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 December 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

My position is let's not have the emotional reactions overwhelm the rational process.

My position is don't accuse people of responding out of emotion in order to avoid dealing with their argument or points.  

Quote

If numerous gun control laws were broken during these events, how is passing another law really a rational response?

We've always had laws against drunk driving on the books, and in the last couple decades we've enacted more with harsher penalties.  Drunk driving laws always have been and continue to be broken; was passing more laws a rational response?

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#156    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 26 December 2012 - 08:27 PM

Quote

Yes but in this particular case, and many many others, it DID NOT STOP the mayhem

And yet in many more cases, it does seem to prevent mayhem. No one's claiming it'll eliminate all gun crime.

Quote

You and my brother live in some fairy tale type world.  Sorry

Well, I don't know about your brother, but I live in a world where I don't have to walk around with a gun on my hip to keep me safe... I guess I've been under the mistaken impression that most human beings would like to live in a world like that as well...

Quote

And in response to your other post, we in the US have many many many gun laws.  And very damn few of them work as advertised.

You have "many gun laws"? Perhaps you do have many gun "laws", but you do not have strict gun control by the standards of the rest of the west.

Quote

Of course, we are lacking your and my brother's profound skills in writing proper legislation, eh?

The fact of the matter is, the rest of the west has strict gun control and it works for them. Gun crimes are significantly lower than in the US.

Thats the fact.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#157    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 December 2012 - 08:40 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 26 December 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

My position is don't accuse people of responding out of emotion in order to avoid dealing with their argument or points.  



We've always had laws against drunk driving on the books, and in the last couple decades we've enacted more with harsher penalties.  Drunk driving laws always have been and continue to be broken; was passing more laws a rational response?

I'm not sure that excessive drunk driving laws serve a good purpose.  Yes, they provide business opportunities for many, but whether they are a rational response is questionable.

Ditto for the gun laws.

As an example, if 10 'gun control' laws were broken by the events in Newtown and upstate New York, how is it a rational claim to say that an eleventh law, yet to be written, would have prevented either or both of those events?  Please explain that to me LG.


#158    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 December 2012 - 08:50 PM

View PostStellar, on 26 December 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

And yet in many more cases, it does seem to prevent mayhem. No one's claiming it'll eliminate all gun crime.



Well, I don't know about your brother, but I live in a world where I don't have to walk around with a gun on my hip to keep me safe... I guess I've been under the mistaken impression that most human beings would like to live in a world like that as well...



You have "many gun laws"? Perhaps you do have many gun "laws", but you do not have strict gun control by the standards of the rest of the west.



The fact of the matter is, the rest of the west has strict gun control and it works for them. Gun crimes are significantly lower than in the US.

Thats the fact.

I too live in a world where I don't have to carry a gun around.  Yes, I like it.  What's your point?

Yes, the fact is that the rest of the world is not the US.  What's your point?

As I've stated already, Utopia is not an option.  I never claimed that everybody carrying would eliminate gun violence, and I understand full well that gun control advocates do not claim to stop all gun violence.  I would just like to hear some specifics as to how the various gun control laws might be fine tuned to prevent such accidents.

So far, I've heard nothing in that regard.  Not a word.  But I have read posts that suggest some measure of anger (an emotion), disgust (an emotion), calling of names (an emotion), etc.  So, perhaps you can understand why I am perceiving more of an emotional reaction than a rational action.  Just saying over and over again "I don't want it to be this way" is hardly a rational act.  We all agree on that point, but it's not any sort of reasonable and constructive criticism.


#159    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 26 December 2012 - 09:12 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 December 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

As an example, if 10 'gun control' laws were broken by the events in Newtown and upstate New York, how is it a rational claim to say that an eleventh law, yet to be written, would have prevented either or both of those events?  Please explain that to me LG.

I can't, but I haven't made the claim that enacting more laws would absolutely have prevented any specific incident, maybe you're referring to someone else's argument.  I'm objecting to your argument as I see it, which is if it can't be guaranteed that any new legislation would have definitely prevented Newtown, then it's worthless and 'emotional'.  There are multiple strategies and goals that can be pursued.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#160    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 December 2012 - 09:31 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 26 December 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

I can't, but I haven't made the claim that enacting more laws would absolutely have prevented any specific incident, maybe you're referring to someone else's argument.  I'm objecting to your argument as I see it, which is if it can't be guaranteed that any new legislation would have definitely prevented Newtown, then it's worthless and 'emotional'.  There are multiple strategies and goals that can be pursued.

Thanks for making your position clear--you do not claim that 'gun control', however that may be defined, would prevent any specific incident.

However, your position here seems to imply that.  You and Stellar, and my brother, imply that there is some proper combination of language to form a law that will somehow or other stop such senseless murders.  That's how it comes across, intended or not.

Or, you guys are sliding down the slippery slope to a banning of all guns?

We're just posting back and forth, and nobody is angry, but we're right back where we started--have you guys any specific points that are not already addressed in current gun laws that would have prevented either of these tragedies?  No, is the apparent answer.

So, my point that more ineffective gun control laws added to the pile of other ineffective gun control laws will likely bring no change, is right on.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 26 December 2012 - 09:33 PM.


#161    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 27 December 2012 - 02:28 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 December 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Thanks for making your position clear--you do not claim that 'gun control', however that may be defined, would prevent any specific incident.

However, your position here seems to imply that.  You and Stellar, and my brother, imply that there is some proper combination of language to form a law that will somehow or other stop such senseless murders.  That's how it comes across, intended or not.

Or, you guys are sliding down the slippery slope to a banning of all guns?

We're just posting back and forth, and nobody is angry, but we're right back where we started--have you guys any specific points that are not already addressed in current gun laws that would have prevented either of these tragedies?  No, is the apparent answer.

So, my point that more ineffective gun control laws added to the pile of other ineffective gun control laws will likely bring no change, is right on.

Well, of course more 'ineffective gun control laws' will be ineffective, by definition.  Perhaps we need more effective gun control laws?  When I refer to specific incidents I'm referring more to the fact that no matter what, there will always be some gun crimes, and there will always be mass killings, but that doesn't mean you can't do things to reduce overall gun crimes statistically.  If people really wanted it, I do think there could be rather drastic legislation put in place that over the course of decades would result in a decline in gun deaths.  Everyone understands full well why we don't allow flame throwers to be owned by civilians, I don't know what the biggie is if we draw that 'too dangerous' line at a different spot.  There's no reason to make the perfect the enemy of the good or even the mediocre or even a tiny bit better;  a tiny bit better in relation to guns translates to saving someone's life usually.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#162    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:48 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 December 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Good points all, but the fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, the US has the Second Amendment, for better or worse, and at the moment, the US has more guns per capita than it does automobiles, in all probability.  I'm not trying to make a statistically accurate point there, but we have alot of guns.  Besides passing yet another futile gun law, have you any practical suggestions as how those little factoids might be dealt with?
Just as cars are dangerous, but you can reduce the death-rate enormously with laws specifying safety features, so with guns.  Look at what other countries do so effectively.  The Second Amendment does not need to be a complete block on progress.  Others here have pointed out that "arms" at the time of the Second Amendment were nothing like the guns available today.  Why not amend the Second Amendment to define arms as single-shot weapons?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#163    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Ntwadumela- He who greets with fire

  • Member
  • 12,665 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:in the depths of my mind

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:25 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 27 December 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Just as cars are dangerous, but you can reduce the death-rate enormously with laws specifying safety features, so with guns.  Look at what other countries do so effectively.  The Second Amendment does not need to be a complete block on progress.  Others here have pointed out that "arms" at the time of the Second Amendment were nothing like the guns available today.  Why not amend the Second Amendment to define arms as single-shot weapons?

The spirit of the second amendment is to stop government tyranny as a last resort. To define arms as a single shot weapon would destroy any chance to do that. Besides the second amendment cant be altered. It is out lined in the Bill of Rights. There is no political process to change the Bill of Rights.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#164    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 27 December 2012 - 12:04 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 27 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

The spirit of the second amendment is to stop government tyranny as a last resort. To define arms as a single shot weapon would destroy any chance to do that. Besides the second amendment cant be altered. It is out lined in the Bill of Rights. There is no political process to change the Bill of Rights.
That sounds defeatist.  I'm sure the combined efforts of the legal profession could find a way to clarify the definition of a word in an existing unalterable document without altering the document itself.  Look at the way the understanding of exactly whose rights they were has changed over the years.

Edited by flyingswan, 27 December 2012 - 12:08 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#165    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,620 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 27 December 2012 - 12:31 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 27 December 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

That sounds defeatist.  I'm sure the combined efforts of the legal profession could find a way to clarify the definition of a word in an existing unalterable document without altering the document itself.  Look at the way the understanding of exactly whose rights they were has changed over the years.

Well, they were able to successfully clarify the definition of the word "is" and the phrase "sexual relations", so one would think that clarifying the word "arms" would be a comparative walk in the park... ;)






Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users