Obama prepares order on guns

[Chuck Guiteau]

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.

Be careful, you're skirting very close to the edge here. An admission that something other than the mere presence of legally owned firearms in the US can get you lumped into the "crazy gun nutters" group.

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.

We have tried it, over and over, in ever increasingly strict manner. NFA, GCA,Brady Bill, AWB, etc. That none of these have achieved the desired effect may have something to do with targeting legal ownership vs criminal possession would lead a reasonable person to conclude that an alternative proposal might be in order.

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.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I have posted such alternatives many times. I'm not alone on this. The problem isn't that gun owners will not budge or acknowledge the problem, it's that gun control advocates refuse to discuss any alternative but reducing the number of legally owned firearms.

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.

They do, but there are already laws on the books that deal with this issue. The problem here is the governments lackadaisical approach to enforcing them. As example, please note that the President is concentrating on additional controls ( to the point of issuing an EO) while at the same time hasn't uttered a peep in the direction of an EO commanding the DOJ to strictly enforce the provisions of the Brady Bill regarding felons attempting to purchase firearms. Do you have any idea how many felons have tried to do this in the years since the bill was passed versus how many have been prosecuted?
As to the highlighted, there's little evidence that this would do anything to reduce the violence. There is evidence that it can be used as a database for confiscation.

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.

I would welcome a sensible debate, but every time someone tries, it quickly devolves into chaos, not because of "the cold dead hands" faction but the gun control faction.
Look at this thread. Count the number of "gun nutters" making insulting drive by posts, then count the same for the other side.
I counted 5 on this page alone, and that's only counting drive by sarcasm.
I found 0 for the "gun nutters" side (using the same scale).

 

[logger]

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.

Lol

 

[The Fool]

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

It was not gun confiscation. That is a chant you like to employ. When shown it is not you simply go quiet for a short time before chanting it again. Nobody has proposed the confiscation of your guns...

Buyback was one of the options you had if you chose not to meet the increased requirements for licensing.

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.

This is a good one...did you get it from the NRA?

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?

Do you use the term Someone to avoid a request for evidence?

I think we all use the term voluntary to mean the same thing. However you seem to be able to use the term confiscation where nothing is confiscated.

 

[casebro]

It was not gun confiscation. That is a chant you like to employ. When shown it is not you simply go quiet for a short time before chanting it again. Nobody has proposed the confiscation of your guns...

Buyback was one of the options you had if you chose not to meet the increased requirements for licensing.

...

Did they pay Fair Market Value? TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars for some guns? Or was it a minimal amount, the excess value was 'confiscated'?

 

[BobTheCoward]

It was not gun confiscation. That is a chant you like to employ. When shown it is not you simply go quiet for a short time before chanting it again. Nobody has proposed the confiscation of your guns...

Buyback was one of the options you had if you chose not to meet the increased requirements for licensing.



This is a good one...did you get it from the NRA?



Do you use the term Someone to avoid a request for evidence?

I think we all use the term voluntary to mean the same thing. However you seem to be able to use the term confiscation where nothing is confiscated.

Buyback does not make it no longer confiscation. Giving someone money for raping them does not make it prostitution.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Did they pay Fair Market Value? TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars for some guns? Or was it a minimal amount, the excess value was 'confiscated'?

"Just compensation", as required by their constitution.¹

It secured the surrender of about 640 000 prohibited firearms nationwide. The Commonwealth funded the scheme through a one-off 0.2 per cent increase in the Medicare levy to raise about $500 million. The total cost of compensation to owners was about $304 million. The total cost of compensation payments to firearms dealers for loss of business will not be certain until all claims have been processed. However, by the end of the scheme, a total of 480 claims had been submitted.²

A$304,000,000 ÷ 640,000 = A$475 per firearm on average ("...long guns, mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles"¹)


1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia
2. http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf

 

[Hercules56]

He didn't make an EO.

he simply instructed the ATF to more strictly enforce the 1968 Gun Control Act., in regards to private gun sellers acting like dealers.

 

[tyr_13]

It was not gun confiscation. That is a chant you like to employ. When shown it is not you simply go quiet for a short time before chanting it again. Nobody has proposed the confiscation of your guns...

Buyback was one of the options you had if you chose not to meet the increased requirements for licensing.

This is extremely disingenuous and I honestly don't know why some gun control proponents insist on claiming that registration isn't useful for confiscation. One can acknowledge that it could be (because it obviously is), but still want one and be against confiscation.

More specifically, while not all aspects of the Australian gun buy back was confiscation, it did include what is for all practical purposes and intent gun confiscation. That is to say, for some people it was voluntary, for some it was technically voluntary with very strong incentives to do so, and for another set it was not a real choice at all.

Did some chose not to comply with new regulation requirements? Yes, they could have but it wasn't important enough to them and they took the money instead. The money was incentive to comply of course. Others had no practical way to comply with new requirements, for instance they travel for work and could not possibly attend twelve (twelve!) shooting competitions a year or the like.

Others had weapons that would now be illegal anyway such as a centerfire semi-automatic rifle holding more than five rounds. For them the choices were to turn it in for money, turn it in not for money, or become criminals. For this group, it was absolutely confiscation. That was (part of) the intent of the buyback of course. It was to increase compliance with the new bans. It worked on that level and it baffles me why anyone wants to claim it wasn't part of the confiscation of weapons that decreased the available weapon supply.

I don't agree with bob on most gun issues generally, but I do like his analogy. The success of the confiscation of firearms in Australia had in large part to do with widespread compliance with it, in part due to the buyback. 'Confiscation' as a label isn't inaccurate or inherently bad from that point of view, so own it.

Incidentally, the fact that in all likelihood would Americans not comply at anywhere near the rate of Australians did (and the kind of escalation of non-compliance that would likely happen!) remains one of my primary arguments against Australian style restrictions and methods being used in the US. It would cost more money, blood, and be less successful in compliance, thus reducing the benefit overall substantially. The label 'confiscation' doesn't enter into it.

 

[The Fool]

Buyback does not make it no longer confiscation. Giving someone money for raping them does not make it prostitution.

Well done Bob. Best yet...

It's actually the lack of confiscation that makes it not confiscation.

 

[The Fool]

This is extremely disingenuous and I honestly don't know why some gun control proponents insist on claiming that registration isn't useful for confiscation. One can acknowledge that it could be (because it obviously is), but still want one and be against confiscation.

Please indicate who you are talking about when you attribute claims to people as it makes it difficult to ask for examples.

Also...everyone who posts here is as far as I can see a gun control proponent so who are you talking about??

More specifically, while not all aspects of the Australian gun buy back was confiscation, it did include what is for all practical purposes and intent gun confiscation. That is to say, for some people it was voluntary, for some it was technically voluntary with very strong incentives to do so, and for another set it was not a real choice at all.

Did some chose not to comply with new regulation requirements? Yes, they could have but it wasn't important enough to them and they took the money instead. The money was incentive to comply of course. Others had no practical way to comply with new requirements, for instance they travel for work and could not possibly attend twelve (twelve!) shooting competitions a year or the like.

I complied with some and for others I got rid of the guns. If you say you own a rifle for hunting but dammit life's commitments just don't allow you to hunt anymore then it's tough but possibly not as bad as being sexually penetrated as bob would suggest.

Hey.. If you can only get away once a year for a hunt use a club rifle

Others had weapons that would now be illegal anyway such as a centerfire semi-automatic rifle holding more than five rounds. For them the choices were to turn it in for money, turn it in not for money, or become criminals. For this group, it was absolutely confiscation. That was (part of) the intent of the buyback of course. It was to increase compliance with the new bans. It worked on that level and it baffles me why anyone wants to claim it wasn't part of the confiscation of weapons that decreased the available weapon supply.

I don't agree with bob on most gun issues generally, but I do like his analogy. The success of the confiscation of firearms in Australia had in large part to do with widespread compliance with it, in part due to the buyback. 'Confiscation' as a label isn't inaccurate or inherently bad from that point of view, so own it.

Incidentally, the fact that in all likelihood would Americans not comply at anywhere near the rate of Australians did (and the kind of escalation of non-compliance that would likely happen!) remains one of my primary arguments against Australian style restrictions and methods being used in the US. It would cost more money, blood, and be less successful in compliance, thus reducing the benefit overall substantially. The label 'confiscation' doesn't enter into it.

Of course the term confiscation enters into it. It is the preferred scare term of those who don,t want anything to change. Sometimes the facts have to me looked at creatively an word definitions massaged but I,m sure it's use will continue in chants and placards

 

[WildCat]

Well done Bob. Best yet...

It's actually the lack of confiscation that makes it not confiscation.

Except for the bit where the government ends up with your guns somehow...

 

[The Fool]

Except for the bit where the government ends up with your guns somehow...

It's not my fault it's not confiscation, you may have to get another scare word. On second thoughts why bother? I have little doubt you will continue to use it. Maybe you could create a new term rather than twist the definition of an existing term.

Can I suggest "coldhandydeadgrab"

 

[tyr_13]

Please indicate who you are talking about when you attribute claims to people as it makes it difficult to ask for examples.

Also...everyone who posts here is as far as I can see a gun control proponent so who are you talking about??

First, to what end? Second, you (as well as several others in several places in this never advancing debate). You answered Wildcat's fear of a slippery slope about registration being continually added to bills to facilitate future confiscation by saying there wasn't any gun confiscation in Australia. This sidesteps his main concern, address a side point, while appearing as if it addressed the actual point. In short; a red herring defending registration against the accusation of wanting to use it for confiscation.

You could have actually addressed his 'how it happened in Australia' point and the main point by saying something like, 'the registry was not used for confiscation in Australia/ there was no registry in Australia before the heavier restrictions', but instead you went with saying there was no confiscation. Even if you believe that to be true, you could have addressed the main point while expressing the same opinion.

And what is the use of the registration if not to know what guns to take from people (confiscate) who no longer qualify to have the gun for whatever reason? The one most often put forward is to solve shootings, but in practice that happened something like twice in New York with our registry. As it turns out, the people who comply with the registry also rarely use their guns in crimes, at least in such a way that knowing who owns a gun legally locally is of any use whatsoever. 'We know he was shot with a 9mm bullet with modern nitro based propellant, which narrows it down to 100 people who legally own in twenty miles OR someone who illegally owns.'

In practice it simply isn't that useful for anything besides confiscation or showing how overwhelming law abiding legal owners are.

I complied with some and for others I got rid of the guns. If you say you own a rifle for hunting but dammit life's commitments just don't allow you to hunt anymore then it's tough but possibly not as bad as being sexually penetrated as bob would suggest.

His analogy does not suggest they are 'as bad' but that it doesn't change the descriptor. If you want a less extreme analogy, just because they use eminent domain and pay you money to take your house, doesn't mean the government didn't take your house. Just because they pay you money when they confiscate your gun, doesn't mean they didn't confiscate your gun.

Hey.. If you can only get away once a year for a hunt use a club rifle

And your gun gets confiscated! I'm not saying that's inherently an unacceptable thing, but that is what the words mean.

I want the government to confiscate guns from people who are ineligible to lawfully own them. That's just enforcing the law. I also don't find an action acceptable just because it isn't confiscation. In New York, newly illegal 'assault weapons' were not confiscated, you just were forced to sell them out of state. This I consider a wholly stupid consequence of having a handle the wrong angle on a firearm.

Of course the term confiscation enters into it. It is the preferred scare term of those who don,t want anything to change. Sometimes the facts have to me looked at creatively an word definitions massaged but I,m sure it's use will continue in chants and placards

I should have made clear that the last paragraph applied to my main opposition to Australian style restrictions being applied in the US, not to the discourse as a whole.

Also that anyone characterizing Australia's gun buyback or heavy restrictions as only confiscation or just bans is also being disingenuous.

 

[The Fool]

First, to what end? Second, you (as well as several others in several places in this never advancing debate). You answered Wildcat's fear of a slippery slope about registration being continually added to bills to facilitate future confiscation by saying there wasn't any gun confiscation in Australia. This sidesteps his main concern, address a side point, while appearing as if it addressed the actual point. In short; a red herring defending registration against the accusation of wanting to use it for confiscation.

You could have actually addressed his 'how it happened in Australia' point and the main point by saying something like, 'the registry was not used for confiscation in Australia/ there was no registry in Australia before the heavier restrictions', but instead you went with saying there was no confiscation. Even if you believe that to be true, you could have addressed the main point while expressing the same opinion.

And what is the use of the registration if not to know what guns to take from people (confiscate) who no longer qualify to have the gun for whatever reason? The one most often put forward is to solve shootings, but in practice that happened something like twice in New York with our registry. As it turns out, the people who comply with the registry also rarely use their guns in crimes, at least in such a way that knowing who owns a gun legally locally is of any use whatsoever. 'We know he was shot with a 9mm bullet with modern nitro based propellant, which narrows it down to 100 people who legally own in twenty miles OR someone who illegally owns.'

In practice it simply isn't that useful for anything besides confiscation or showing how overwhelming law abiding legal owners are.




His analogy does not suggest they are 'as bad' but that it doesn't change the descriptor. If you want a less extreme analogy, just because they use eminent domain and pay you money to take your house, doesn't mean the government didn't take your house. Just because they pay you money when they confiscate your gun, doesn't mean they didn't confiscate your gun.



And your gun gets confiscated! I'm not saying that's inherently an unacceptable thing, but that is what the words mean.

I want the government to confiscate guns from people who are ineligible to lawfully own them. That's just enforcing the law. I also don't find an action acceptable just because it isn't confiscation. In New York, newly illegal 'assault weapons' were not confiscated, you just were forced to sell them out of state. This I consider a wholly stupid consequence of having a handle the wrong angle on a firearm.





I should have made clear that the last paragraph applied to my main opposition to Australian style restrictions being applied in the US, not to the discourse as a whole.

Also that anyone characterizing Australia's gun buyback or heavy restrictions as only confiscation or just bans is also being disingenuous.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that you are referring to me. Can you find an example of me doing what you claim? When people use the slippery slope fallacy I point it out. When people misrepresent things that I lived through I point it out but I certainly don,t need to change the subject in the face of a slippery slope fallacy. No help needed in debunking a clear fallacy

 

[tyr_13]

Ok, thanks for clarifying that you are referring to me. Can you find an example of me doing what you claim? When people use the slippery slope fallacy I point it out. When people misrepresent things that I lived through I point it out but I certainly don,t need to change the subject in the face of a slippery slope fallacy. No help needed in debunking a clear fallacy

I already cited where and how you did that. Wildcat didn't employ the slippery slope fallacy, where a minor change must lead to an extreme outcome, but argued that the motivation to include registration was to facilitate larger change. I should note that I don't even agree with him on that point, but I don't feel the need to misrepresent what he said, employ red herrings, or try to handwave it.

This also dodges all the salient points. You don't want to defend your points (or gun registration), that is your choice, but it's not a well-supported counter argument.

 

[theprestige]

"Just compensation", as required by their constitution.

I consider it confiscation any time I do not have the option of keeping my possessions free of penalty.

I like my car. I want to keep my car. If the government offered to buy my car for its listed Blue Book value, I would decline their offer. If the government forced me to accept their offer, or criminalized me if I refused, I would call it confiscation. It's not the compensation or the amnesty that's the issue. It's the taking away of the option not to sell.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Buyback does not make it no longer confiscation. Giving someone money for raping them does not make it prostitution.

Nooo... Person A offering Person B money for sex, prior to the sex taking place, makes it prostitution (provided Person B consents to the proposition). You'd do better by focusing on the "billing Person B if they refuse" aspect.

 

[The Fool]

I already cited where and how you did that. Wildcat didn't employ the slippery slope fallacy, where a minor change must lead to an extreme outcome, but argued that the motivation to include registration was to facilitate larger change. I should note that I don't even agree with him on that point, but I don't feel the need to misrepresent what he said, employ red herrings, or try to handwave it.

This also dodges all the salient points. You don't want to defend your points (or gun registration), that is your choice, but it's not a well-supported counter argument.

You have claimed I posted something and when I ask you to quote me you fail to do it, you just claim you have.

Here is an example of a slippery slope fallacy..

"Because the only purpose of registration is to make it easier for confiscation or banning later on."

Do your best to redefine the term if you wish

 

[The Fool]

I consider it confiscation any time I do not have the option of keeping my possessions free of penalty.

I like my car. I want to keep my car. If the government offered to buy my car for its listed Blue Book value, I would decline their offer. If the government forced me to accept their offer, or criminalized me if I refused, I would call it confiscation. It's not the compensation or the amnesty that's the issue. It's the taking away of the option not to sell.

What you consider confiscation doesn't,t really matter. The word confiscation is usefull because it is scary. That's why I suggest the NRA could use the term "deadhandygrab" which is also scary but doesn't require redefining an existing word.

If one of your options was to keep your car would you still be welded to the term "confiscation"?

 

[theprestige]

What you consider confiscation doesn't,t really matter. The word confiscation is usefull because it is scary. That's why I suggest the NRA could use the term "deadhandygrab" which is also scary but doesn't require redefining an existing word.

If one of your options was to keep your car would you still be welded to the term "confiscation"?

Wedded.

And no, of course not. That's the point: If I have the option to keep my stuff, then it isn't confiscation.

Why? Is that what you're proposing? I have the option to sell what I want to sell, and keep what I want to keep? And if I choose not to sell, the government isn't going to come and, say, confiscate it?

Because if that's what you're proposing, then I don't see any risk of confiscation. On the other hand, if you're proposing to take my stuff and give me money in exchange, then my response is, "no sale". Keep your money, and I'll keep my stuff. And what happens then, in your proposal? Do you keep your money? Do I keep my stuff? Or do you take it anyway?