Shooting of the Week

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:39 pm

Biased against?
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Michael on Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:30 pm

Steve James wrote:
. I got this from Tucker Carlson in the past few days, haven't checked it myself, but he said there was a so-called assault weapons ban for 10 years from '94-04 that was studied by the DoJ and it concluded there was no change in gun crime, so that's on example of a common sense gun law reform that had no effect.


That logic is flawed. There have been an increasing number of mass shootings with assault weapons Since the assault ban was lifted. You would have to argue that the increase was not due to lifting the ban.

The logical equivalent to Tucker's argument is that reinstating the assault weapons ban now would not decrease gun crime --because it didn't change anything when was instated from 94-04. However, that's fatalism. It proposes that we must live with the current crime rate. At any rate, there's no way to know the effect reinstating the ban would have. At worst, there would be no change. At best, there would be a reduction --no matter how small.

The other argument implied is that the current gun laws are sufficient. Ok, but does that mean they're successful? Which one of the recent shooters got his weapons illegally?

The logic isn't flawed; here's how it works: proposed laws are based on future predictability of outcome, which is based on data from past events. If a previous ban had X results, this is a stronger predictor than proposed legislation based on nothing.

The biggest variable in this question about whether or not we can predict that the results of a new assault weapons ban would have the same results as the recent one from 94-04 is exactly what you have mentioned: has something changed since 2004 in relation to mass shootings? However, you are sidestepping the content of that part of the argument and jumping to an implication that there is no harm in new gun control legislation and that the only possible outcome would be a reduction in crime, most likely meaning mass shootings, since that's the main topic. Therefore, you seem to be saying why not go ahead and have new legislation because to not do it is fatalistic, and it can only have a good outcome in any case since it wouldn't increase harm to my physical body and decreasing people's "rights" is not relevant in your estimation.

This is the second fault with your argument, which I think is based on the premised revealed by your previous posts, that laws are not rights because they can be changed or selectively enforced, and you believe the only true right is in regard to harm to your physical person. I surmise that your underlying idea in saying that new gun control (or other/any?) legislation could not be harmful because you do not believe infringing on someone's rights is harmful unless it is physically harmful to their body, the preservation of which is their only truly inalienable right. If that's your premise, it stands to reason why you are saying you are not anti-gun, but don't think gun rights trump child safety, which is generally a reasonable position to me when taken by itself, but I disagree for other reasons than where you've put the focus, I think incorrectly.

That's a very convenient position whenever someone wants to propose new legislation, that if the new law doesn't draw blood, it's good. It's completely contrary to the basis of law, rights, etc., although there could be a pragmatic, nuanced and very complex discussion about how rights and laws actually work in the field; it's just very difficult to invoke it ad hoc.

The other problem is that proposed legislation to reduce mass shootings or gun crimes could harm people in their ability to defend themselves, which is often done without firing a weapon, but just having or brandishing it.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11868
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Michael on Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:32 pm

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
I got this from Tucker Carlson


???

Sure, I'm giving my source for one data point I don't feel the need to check myself. If you have a problem with it, then you can google and see.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11868
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:42 pm

I've very clearly explained the regulations I would impose. Offer your own.

I don't think I've ever suggested that new laws would stop school shootings. If you think or agree that arming teachers would be a solution, then say so. I think it would put more teachers in danger. I'd opt for installing fortified doors for every classroom over arming the nation's teachers.

Afa the "assault rifle" ban between 94 and 2004, whatever the theory, there have been more school shootings since it was lifted. That doesn't mean it was the cause. But, it doesn't show that it might not prevent a shooting.

The other problem is that proposed legislation to reduce mass shootings or gun crimes could harm people in their ability to defend themselves, which is often done without firing a weapon, but just having or brandishing it.


Fine. What proposed legislation do you mean? What's been proposed in what legislature? The problem is that it's impossible in some states to even discuss new legislation. Well, now that Trump says he'd "consider" supporting age and mental health restrictions. Though, the mentally ill also have the right to defend themselves, too. In fact, the mentally ill and their supporters make that exact claim. They are law-abiding citizens.

Yeah, that thing about "rights." Inalienable aren't they. Complete bullshit. But, don't bother explaining why it's a right that Americans have but not everyone else. It's nothing to do with God. It's not universal. If you're in China, do you have it there? Yes, a rhetorical question, but I really don't know. I think that you'd have to come back to the States for that "right" to appear.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Michael on Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:11 am

Steve James wrote:I've very clearly explained the regulations I would impose. Offer your own.

I don't think so.

If you're in China, do you have it there? Yes, a rhetorical question, but I really don't know.


Private gun ownership in China is heavily restricted and extremely rare outside of some rural weapons for protecting livestock, except in regions where social conditions are disharmonious. Shooting clubs in the cities are legal, but extremely unpopular; they're used to be one close to me that no one seemed to know about.

Yeah, that thing about "rights." Inalienable aren't they. Complete bullshit. But, don't bother explaining why it's a right that Americans have but not everyone else. It's nothing to do with God. It's not universal.

From what you said, Steve, you are choosing, at least for the purposes of this conversation, to totally ignore laws, rights and jurisdictions, so maybe you want to change the topic to something related, but I can't follow your current tack. :-\
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11868
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:24 am

Okay, four armed men were at the shooting but didn't go in. I'm not going to blame them. But they were paid to put their lives on the line. In any case, their guns didn't make a difference.

Afa everything else, your position is that it's ok as it is and that no changes to gun laws are necessary.
And you have no right to a firearm in China. Is that correct.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Michael on Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:43 am

No, I just asked Ian what specific changes he suggests.

Did I overlook your post about what regulations you would impose? What are those?

The stuff about China is just trivia to satisfy your curiosity because you asked me. As far as this topic, it's a non sequitur and we've been through it before once, I think in 2012 during the Sandy Hook discussions here, and I did the China gotcha line once again recently with Trick, though no in regard to guns. It's totally irrelevant unless you can tell me how.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11868
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:06 am

If you haven't been reading what I wrote, it's not up to me to repeat myself. I've stated several times which regulations I would support.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:54 am

Michael wrote:No, I just asked Ian what specific changes he suggests.

Did I overlook your post about what regulations you would impose? What are those?

The stuff about China is just trivia to satisfy your curiosity because you asked me. As far as this topic, it's a non sequitur and we've been through it before once, I think in 2012 during the Sandy Hook discussions here, and I did the China gotcha line once again recently with Trick, though no in regard to guns. It's totally irrelevant unless you can tell me how.


Did you? I missed that post. I only saw this:

Sure, I'm giving my source for one data point I don't feel the need to check myself. If you have a problem with it, then you can google and see.


Oh, I see it. Sorry. Well, it ain't easy, like I said. I don't think a ban is feasible given the Constitution, but I already said that.

So, a comprehensive approach including but perhaps not limited to, universally enforced gun regulation (common sense stuff like training, screening, and licensing), universal health care including mental health care, working to lessen the stigma of mental illness, and putting more resources into education.

Also, curtailing jingoism and negative othering.

That's where I'd start.
Last edited by Ian C. Kuzushi on Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Michael on Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:59 am

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
Michael wrote:No, I just asked Ian what specific changes he suggests.

Did I overlook your post about what regulations you would impose? What are those?

The stuff about China is just trivia to satisfy your curiosity because you asked me. As far as this topic, it's a non sequitur and we've been through it before once, I think in 2012 during the Sandy Hook discussions here, and I did the China gotcha line once again recently with Trick, though no in regard to guns. It's totally irrelevant unless you can tell me how.


Did you? I missed that post. I only saw this:

Sure, I'm giving my source for one data point I don't feel the need to check myself. If you have a problem with it, then you can google and see.

Back on page 35

Michael wrote:You brought up "uniform common sense gun law reform". The usual response to this is to ask for specifics because there are already a large number of regulations and restrictions. I got this from Tucker Carlson in the past few days, haven't checked it myself, but he said there was a so-called assault weapons ban for 10 years from '94-04 that was studied by the DoJ and it concluded there was no change in gun crime, so that's on example of a common sense gun law reform that had no effect.

You said, "Come to think of it, gun laws in most industrial nations are also very effective when they are strict and strictly enforced." This seems to be part of the premise for people reacting to mass shootings in America, but there are still mass shootings in other industrialized countries by crazy people, including one in Russia in the past week.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11868
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:00 am

Sorry, I missed it the first time around and edited above. Sorry for the out of order post.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Michael on Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:02 am

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Well, it ain't easy, like I said. I don't think a ban is feasible given the Constitution, but I already said that.

So, a comprehensive approach including but perhaps not limited to, universally enforced gun regulation (common sense stuff like training, screening, and licensing), universal health care including mental health care, working to lessen the stigma of mental illness, and putting more resources into education.

Also, curtailing jingoism and negative othering.

That's where I'd start.

A different kind of screening than what we have now, something other than the NCIS background check?

If the 2nd amendment means you can't ban guns, how does the 1st amendment come into play with your suggestion to curtail jingoism and negative othering?
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11868
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Michael on Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:03 am

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Sorry, I missed it the first time around and edited above. Sorry for the out of order post.

No worries. Cross posting now.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11868
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:30 am

I don't think jingoism or much of anything else should be banned as in made illegal. But, I think good education and other social infrastructure made available to everyone will make a big dent in that.

As for background checks: yes, they are insufficient. Also, you can still in some cases get guns without them. And, the uneven application of laws is a major problem (most guns used in Chicago come from across state lines, etc...).

Honestly, I don't have a hard opinion on this issue. It's clearly very complex and needs to be approached with nuance. I'm still listening and thinking about it a lot.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby windwalker on Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:19 pm

In the semiconductor industry they have what are called "Hazmat teams, personnel specially trained to handle dangerous goods, which include materials that are radioactive, flammable, explosive, corrosive, oxidizing, asphyxiating, biohazardous, toxic, pathogenic, or allergenic."

Why not have some type of specialty for teachers that identify and qualify them to be on a team that reacts to active shooters in a school as well as other
threats not yet identified. There could be a pay incentive to go along with the additional training and responsibilities. Of course this team like the hazmat teams would have to undergo training, testing and continued training to keep their certification as do the hazmat teams.

The gun issue is in part a states right issue as to how the laws used and type of enforcement, which is why each state may have different approaches regarding fire arms. No state can ban firearms but they can make it harder to own them legally.

For those calling for more back ground checks ect.

In CA

"Before buying firearms in California, fill out and submit a Personal Firearms Eligibility Check request form to see if you're eligible. If you are, take the test to receive your Firearm Safety Certificate. Once you pass the test, visit a gun dealer, choose the firearm you'd like to purchase, and fill out an application. Wait up to 10 days for your application to get approved and then pick up your new firearm. For tips on preparing for your Firearm Safety Certificate test, scroll down!" https://www.wikihow.com/Buy-Firearms-in-California

If one needs a proof of ID to buy a gun, 2nd amendment right,,,would this deny that right to those with no ID

they can still vote, also a right out lined in the constitution.

"In most cases, California voters are not required to show identification before they cast ballots. Non-photographic forms of ID allowed at polling places as of 2013. Non-photographic forms of ID allowed at polling places. ... Photo ID was required to vote in the 2012 elections."
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6955
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest