| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sam
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8881
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
uh
not to get in the middle of this charmingly useless shitsling fest BUT
the fact that you can't get chemically addicted to guns is actually front n' center as to why legislating guns is not like legislating drugs. saying you can't legislate guns because you can't legislate <insert> is pretty much dead end logic especially when wellllp there's plenty of modern nations abound that quite sufficiently contain gun ownership to productive ends
so |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Canopus
Joined: 13 Sep 2010
Posts: 623
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Personally I'm convinced Monkey is high on something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikewee777
Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 467
Location: 0_0
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Monkey Mcdermott wrote: | | Guns don't get people high. |
It depends on whether or not the gun is old. Lead poisoning is a serious thing that have forced many famous celebrities in the past to spiral out of control. To pretend that consuming this heavy metal doesn't hurt people is silly.
There are several pages on this. Texas isn't the only state to deal with gun owners who have lost their mind from the contamination.
http://www.utexas.edu/safety/ehs/msds/lead.
| Quote: | | To paraphrase Monkey Mcdermott: Expensive weapons are totally a thing we have control over, as opposed to the existence, number, and access to humans, which we have no control over at all. Humans are so unpredictable. Their self-controlled discipline could be increased. Extra emphasis on the obese New Yorkers who insist on opening a speakeasy where they can drink from extra-large carbonated beverages that are laden with salt,caffeine and syrup. |
Wow, I totally agree with this sock-puppet straw-man that is wanking me right now.
Feels good man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Him
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 4002
Location: Strange planet
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Monkey Mcdermott wrote: | | Guns don't get people high. |
Give me a bowl and a break-action shotgun and I'll prove you wrong. It can pack quite a payload.
_________________
"Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice. " - Thomas Paine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShadowCell
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 5381
Location: California
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| it's almost as if the pro-gun crowd treats gun violence as some kind of unstoppable force of nature, like earthquakes, and asking after ways of reducing gun violence is like asking that kung fu panda bear in Mists of Pandaria not to fight and all we can do is pile up our own guns and unwittingly help increase gun violence |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2783
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ShadowCell wrote: | | it's almost as if the pro-gun crowd treats gun violence as some kind of unstoppable force of nature, like earthquakes, and asking after ways of reducing gun violence is like asking that kung fu panda bear in Mists of Pandaria not to fight and all we can do is pile up our own guns and unwittingly help increase gun violence |
Its almost as though I'm unbelievably tired of "because free will" being used to justify intellectually bankrupt positions in the same way I'm tired of "because free speech" being used to justify creepy privacy invading photos and child porn.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snorri
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10714
Location: hiding the decline.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mindslicer wrote: | | Monkey Mcdermott wrote: | | Because free will is totally a thing we have control over, as opposed to the existence, number, and access to firearms, which we have no control over at all. |
Correct, you have no control over the latter at all.
 |
I don't understand this. Doesn't this chart show you can actually control access to firearms?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mindslicer
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1568
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam wrote: | | the fact that you can't get chemically addicted to guns is actually front n' center as to why legislating guns is not like legislating drugs. |
Not really. All you need is
1 - A number of people with a strong enough desire to obtain a gun to be indifferent to the wishes of some faceless distant government official, and
2 - a number of people who want to make money from the first group.
Feel free to look at places with 'strong' gun laws and yet vast numbers of unregistered weapons and think otherwise though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mindslicer
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1568
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Snorri wrote: | | Mindslicer wrote: | | Monkey Mcdermott wrote: | | Because free will is totally a thing we have control over, as opposed to the existence, number, and access to firearms, which we have no control over at all. |
Correct, you have no control over the latter at all.
|
I don't understand this. Doesn't this chart show you can actually control access to firearms? |
Does the existence of at least 5 times the number of unregistered vs. registered guns in France mean the French government has control over who has them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snorri
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10714
Location: hiding the decline.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mindslicer wrote: |
Does the existence of at least 5 times the number of unregistered vs. registered guns in France mean the French government has control over who has them? |
No of course not. It in fact doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean the French government has no control over firearms access. For such a bold claim just that number isn't enough. And not solely because it's a single number and doesn't tell you what way it is going, but also because it doesn't tell you anything about the particular circumstances in which gun-policy is being enacted.
But even disregarding all that, putting in the Netherlands instead of France, thus asking whether 2 times as many registered guns as unregistered ones means the Dutch government has control over access, would naturally lead you to conclude that you can in fact have control over gun-availability.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mindslicer
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1568
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Snorri wrote: | | Mindslicer wrote: |
Does the existence of at least 5 times the number of unregistered vs. registered guns in France mean the French government has control over who has them? |
No of course not. It in fact doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean the French government has no control over firearms access. For such a bold claim just that number isn't enough. And not solely because it's a single number and doesn't tell you what way it is going, but also because it doesn't tell you anything about the particular circumstances in which gun-policy is being enacted.
But even disregarding all that, putting in the Netherlands instead of France, thus asking whether 2 times as many registered guns as unregistered ones means the Dutch government has control over access, would naturally lead you to conclude that you can in fact have control over gun-availability. |
I would conclude instead that 'having control' over gun availability does not directly nor solely correlate to having words on a page that grant some organization control over gun availability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snorri
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10714
Location: hiding the decline.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mindslicer wrote: | | Snorri wrote: | | Mindslicer wrote: |
Does the existence of at least 5 times the number of unregistered vs. registered guns in France mean the French government has control over who has them? |
No of course not. It in fact doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean the French government has no control over firearms access. For such a bold claim just that number isn't enough. And not solely because it's a single number and doesn't tell you what way it is going, but also because it doesn't tell you anything about the particular circumstances in which gun-policy is being enacted.
But even disregarding all that, putting in the Netherlands instead of France, thus asking whether 2 times as many registered guns as unregistered ones means the Dutch government has control over access, would naturally lead you to conclude that you can in fact have control over gun-availability. |
I would conclude instead that 'having control' over gun availability does not directly nor solely correlate to having words on a page that grant some organization control over gun availability. |
Indeed it doesn't, which is why pointing towards this list and France particular is stupid if you don't have the slightest idea how the French government goes about enforcing it's laws.
Because if at least a part of the 'unregistered' guns number is guns held by rural people that haven't bothered to register their simple hunting rifles then it would be absurd to claim the French government is unable to control guns.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darqcyde
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 9129
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Willem
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
i didn't really follow this discussion, but re:that chart and belgium
that was all in 2002 pre-racist rampage in antwerp by that one dude who shot those people with that gun. afterwards, they clamped down on guns because our laws were pretty casual beforehand
of course, guns in belgium are mainly old hunting rifles and other things farmers may carry. not used a lot, either. lots of heirlooms too. those are actually included in the statistics, even if they're functionally useless plenty of times.
either way, they destroyed a bunch of those afterwards
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mindslicer
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1568
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Snorri wrote: | | Mindslicer wrote: | | Snorri wrote: | | Mindslicer wrote: |
Does the existence of at least 5 times the number of unregistered vs. registered guns in France mean the French government has control over who has them? |
No of course not. It in fact doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean the French government has no control over firearms access. For such a bold claim just that number isn't enough. And not solely because it's a single number and doesn't tell you what way it is going, but also because it doesn't tell you anything about the particular circumstances in which gun-policy is being enacted.
But even disregarding all that, putting in the Netherlands instead of France, thus asking whether 2 times as many registered guns as unregistered ones means the Dutch government has control over access, would naturally lead you to conclude that you can in fact have control over gun-availability. |
I would conclude instead that 'having control' over gun availability does not directly nor solely correlate to having words on a page that grant some organization control over gun availability. |
Indeed it doesn't, |
Glad we agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
