Obama prepares order on guns

[The Fool]

I'll ask you directly, then:
Is it, or is it not, your position that less guns=less bullet holes?

Is it, or is it not, your position that less guns=more bullet holes.

See that's the problem when complex issues are attempted to be addressed by slogan chanting.

It is my opinion that a reduction in the number of firearms in your society from crazy arse astronomical to some lower level is a necessary step in addressing the large number of bullet holes appearing in Americans each year.

I wish there was a simple answer or an ideal approach. Good luck with proclaiming you have it.

 

[The Fool]

If they are a dealer they have to have an FFL.

Non-FFL holders do not have access to the NICS background check system. If background checks are the goal why not devise a mechanism for that? IMHO the reason the Dems don't is because they really want registration for later confiscation once they get enough votes to outlaw whatever guns they declare are inherently evil. That's how it worked in Australia, right?

No, it's not how it worked in Australia. Nothing declared evil. No gun confiscations.

As an example.. Every single gun you own you could still own if you were Australian. Every last one of them. You would actually have to obtain licences and jump through hoops and satisfy annoying government requirements. Cry me a river.

The NRA has a particular strategy in their goal to prevent any and all gun restrictions. one of them is spreading fear uncertainty and doubt regarding Australian law.

 

[The Fool]

That's already the law.

I know but Chuck appeared to be unfamiliar with what a dealer is because he asked me

 

[Metullus]

No, it's not how it worked in Australia. Nothing declared evil. No gun confiscations.

As an example.. Every single gun you own you could still own if you were Australian. Every last one of them. You would actually have to obtain licences and jump through hoops and satisfy annoying government requirements. Cry me a river.

The NRA has a particular strategy in their goal to prevent any and all gun restrictions. one of them is spreading fear uncertainty and doubt regarding Australian law.

Would those hoops include a requirement that one convince the authorities that a justifiable need exists to own each gun? And, if so, who would that authority be and what justification would be deemed acceptable? And what happens to the weapon if the authorities do not deem the justification presented as acceptable?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Is it, or is it not, your position that less guns=more bullet holes.

No, it is my position that until such time as you can establish a link between the two that goes further than correlation=causation the munber of guns is not relevant.

See that's the problem when complex issues are attempted to be addressed by slogan chanting.

You mean addressing this:

And what is the ultimate destination for these small steps?

like this?

Less gunshot wounds

It is my opinion that a reduction in the number of firearms in your society from crazy arse astronomical to some lower level is a necessary step in addressing the large number of bullet holes appearing in Americans each year.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion, if not correlation= causation?

I wish there was a simple answer or an ideal approach. Good luck with proclaiming you have it.

No one has made such a proclamation. It is a complicated problem and will probably require a complicated solution.
You are the one offering a simplistic answer, to wit: less guns =less bullet holes.

 

[WildCat]

No, it's not how it worked in Australia. Nothing declared evil. No gun confiscations.

Oh right, it was a "voluntary" buyback, with criminal penalties if you didn't comply.

As an example.. Every single gun you own you could still own if you were Australian. Every last one of them. You would actually have to obtain licences and jump through hoops and satisfy annoying government requirements. Cry me a river.

Yeah, all you would have to do is get a job as a hunter or armed security guard or buy a ranch... otherwise no license is available.

The NRA has a particular strategy in their goal to prevent any and all gun restrictions. one of them is spreading fear uncertainty and doubt regarding Australian law.

No, not even close. And someone is lying about Australian law, and it's not the NRA. Or maybe "voluntary" means something else in Oz?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Oh right, it was a "voluntary" buyback, with criminal penalties if you didn't comply.


Yeah, all you would have to do is get a job as a hunter or armed security guard or buy a ranch... otherwise no license is available.


No, not even close. And someone is lying about Australian law, and it's not the NRA. Or maybe "voluntary" means something else in Oz?

Why would any of this matter unless TF can show where the Australian NFA had any significant impact on reducing the levels of violence in his country?

 

[a_unique_person]

And what is the ultimate destination for these small steps?

Communists take over the world. Woot.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why would any of this matter unless TF can show where the Australian NFA had any significant impact on reducing the levels of violence in his country?

It matters because the anti gun side is arguing the claim it wasn't a confiscation scheme in Australia. They can't turn around and say that fact doesn't matter when they are wrong.

 

[BadBoy]

We've been down this road before, and the last time your reply was found lacking. Do you really expect to do better this time?
More guns = more bullet holes, less guns =less bullet holes, isn't that how it goes?
Your theory hinges upon an unproven assumption, however:
Correlation = causation.
And we're still waiting on your evidence to prove that assumption.

Ya, the cigaret/smokers lobby tried to say that it's not proven that smokes cause cancer - correlation != causation. But the health stats make it very clear they do. Only a moron would dispute it.

Looks like from the polling however that most people are for tighter controls, so the gun nuts may eventually just have to just suck it up. Reminds me of the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. Eventually the bigots were made to suck it up.

I think the USA has a violence problem/culture in general (relatively speaking) which should be addressed. Mean time probably better to have very tight federal gun control laws if you have a violent society. Makes sense to me.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Ya, the cigaret/smokers lobby tried to say that it's not proven that smokes cause cancer - correlation != causation. But the health stats make it very clear they do. Only a moron would dispute it.

Looks like from the polling however that most people are for tighter controls, so the gun nuts may eventually just have to just suck it up. Reminds me of the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. Eventually the bigots were made to suck it up.

I think the USA has a violence problem/culture in general (relatively speaking) which should be addressed. Mean time probably better to have very tight federal gun control laws if you have a violent society. Makes sense to me.

Then you shouldn't have a problem backing up the assertion that gun increased levels of lawful possession=increased levels of violent use.
So far, no one has even been able to establish that very tight gun control laws will decrease the violent crime rate.
The ball is in your court. Maybe you can do better than TF.

 

[BadBoy]

Then you shouldn't have a problem backing up the assertion that gun increased levels of lawful possession=increased levels of violent use.
So far, no one has even been able to establish that very tight gun control laws will decrease the violent crime rate.
The ball is in your court. Maybe you can do better than TF.

Well, as we all know the issue is more complex than that. Cultural values and I would think levels of poverty come into play, and probably other things too.

Maybe the way to find out is to try it and see. I don't believe for one second the reason yourself and Wildcat are against stronger gun control laws is because you don't think they will work. I'm betting the real reason is that you would rather keep things the way they are, albeit including high levels of gun violence and regular shooting sprees, rather than risk having the state say you can no longer own a gun, or own certain types of guns etc. Of course I can't prove that. All I do know is that many countries in the world have either far less guns or stricter controls and have far much less homicide. USA is in top 15. Many European countries are at least an order of magnitude less.

But the numbers can be argued and cherry picked constantly. What I find more disturbing is that there seems to be a complete lack of willingness to even acknowledge there is a problem, or to suggest alternative approaches, by the Gun nuts on this board. They will not give an inch if it means moving towards an era where there hobby could become restricted.

I would have thought that a conscientious and responsible Gun owner would understand and want to ensure only certain types of people (like themselves) should be allowed to own a gun and that all guns were controlled and tracked.

The issue is too polarized and there needs to be a sensible debate about how to improve things. But knee jerk reactionaries rush to their guns and shout "my cold dead hands". That I perceive is your real problem.

 

[BadBoy]

Then you shouldn't have a problem backing up the assertion that gun increased levels of lawful possession=increased levels of violent use.
So far, no one has even been able to establish that very tight gun control laws will decrease the violent crime rate.
The ball is in your court. Maybe you can do better than TF.

correlation isn't necessarily causation in the sense its not a proof, but like with the smoking lobby a correlation can be used to determine a cause if some sensible analysis is performed to rule out other possible factors.

I have said it before, perhaps the first step is that the government should commission some scientific research into finding the most likely cause(s) first. Then act accordingly.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'." (xkcd)

 

[quadraginta]

Well, as we all know the issue is more complex than that. Cultural values and I would think levels of poverty come into play, and probably other things too.

Maybe the way to find out is to try it and see. I don't believe for one second the reason yourself and Wildcat are against stronger gun control laws is because you don't think they will work. I'm betting the real reason is that you would rather keep things the way they are, albeit including high levels of gun violence and regular shooting sprees, rather than risk having the state say you can no longer own a gun, or own certain types of guns etc.

<snip.

It's a slippery slope.

First there is regulation. Then there is registration.

Then the Feds come bursting through your door in the middle of the night, raping all the women, eating all the children, and herding the survivors into FEMA death camps in the middle of the desert, where the lizard people will use them for obscene medical experiments.

Without anesthesia.

Didn't you get the memo?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, as we all know the issue is more complex than that. Cultural values and I would think levels of poverty come into play, and probably other things too.

Maybe the way to find out is to try it and see. I don't believe for one second the reason yourself and Wildcat are against stronger gun control laws is because you don't think they will work. I'm betting the real reason is that you would rather keep things the way they are, albeit including high levels of gun violence and regular shooting sprees, rather than risk having the state say you can no longer own a gun, or own certain types of guns etc. Of course I can't prove that. All I do know is that many countries in the world have either far less guns or stricter controls and have far much less homicide. USA is in top 15. Many European countries are at least an order of magnitude less.

But the numbers can be argued and cherry picked constantly. What I find more disturbing is that there seems to be a complete lack of willingness to even acknowledge there is a problem, or to suggest alternative approaches, by the Gun nuts on this board. They will not give an inch if it means moving towards an era where there hobby could become restricted.

I would have thought that a conscientious and responsible Gun owner would understand and want to ensure only certain types of people (like themselves) should be allowed to own a gun and that all guns were controlled and tracked.

The issue is too polarized and there needs to be a sensible debate about how to improve things. But knee jerk reactionaries rush to their guns and shout "my cold dead hands". That I perceive is your real problem.

Rights are inviolate. I will no sooner permit someone to pass laws allowing them to take the firearms you desire for self defense than I would laws allowing them to enslave you.

 

[DavidJames]

Rights are inviolate. I will no sooner permit someone to pass laws allowing them to take the firearms you desire for self defense than I would laws allowing them to enslave you.

Yet your cavalier attitude over gun ownership is enabling the deaths of thousands every year making your "enslave" argument laughingly self serving and ignorant.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yet your cavalier attitude over gun ownership is enabling the deaths of thousands every year making your "enslave" argument laughingly self serving and ignorant.

I assure you I take it extremely serious. It is extremely difficult to stand up for the minority (one i am not part of and would benefit in their oppression) from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[WildCat]

It's a slippery slope.

First there is regulation. Then there is registration.

Then there is the strawman...

Then the Feds come bursting through your door in the middle of the night, raping all the women, eating all the children, and herding the survivors into FEMA death camps in the middle of the desert, where the lizard people will use them for obscene medical experiments.

Without anesthesia.

Didn't you get the memo?

On a critical thinking forum!

 

[WildCat]

Yet your cavalier attitude over gun ownership is enabling the deaths of thousands every year making your "enslave" argument laughingly self serving and ignorant.

Careful David, quadraginta is busy trying to convince everyone that it's crazy to think the gun control people want to ban guns and then you come along and ruin all his hard work.