Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Just provide one of the studies you say supports the view that Australia's gun laws have not decreased gun violence, please.

Sure, here is one. I do not endorse this or any other, as argument from authority is silly and irrational. This finds that the drop is due to other factors and begins long before the ban: https://web.archive.org/web/20090611...tandi269t.html


I should make it a signature at this point as it's getting old typing it out. An appeal to authority is not a logical argument, nor is it persuasive (as many other kinds of illogical arguments are). Another expert or study will always be found that concludes something a different; a claim is true or untrue or an opinion/value statement that is neither false nor true on the merits of itself and its supporting evidence, not the authority or claim of any person or group.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sure, here is one. I do not endorse this or any other, as argument from authority is silly and irrational. This finds that the drop is due to other factors and begins long before the ban: https://web.archive.org/web/20090611...tandi269t.html


I should make it a signature at this point as it's getting old typing it out. An appeal to authority is not a logical argument, nor is it persuasive (as many other kinds of illogical arguments are). Another expert or study will always be found that concludes something a different; a claim is true or untrue or an opinion/value statement that is neither false nor true on the merits of itself and its supporting evidence, not the authority or claim of any person or group.

I appreciate you providing a link re: Australia gun violence. But I don't see where in the article it supports your view that the laws enacted in 1996 did not decrease gun violence. You chose an article from 2003, and from what I am reading in the article, it acknowledges that gun violence decreased in Australia but it might have been too early to attribute it to the laws. Further study was needed. That further study has since occurred, and the studies indicate that the laws led to a substantial decrease in gun violence.

At the end of the day, are you okay with the current levels of gun violence in the US? If not, what do you think should change?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I appreciate you providing a link re: Australia gun violence. But I don't see where in the article it supports your view that the laws enacted in 1996 did not decrease gun violence. You chose an article from 2003, and from what I am reading in the article, it acknowledges that gun violence decreased in Australia but it might have been too early to attribute it to the laws. Further study was needed. That further study has since occurred, and the studies indicate that the laws led to a substantial decrease in gun violence.

At the end of the day, are you okay with the current levels of gun violence in the US? If not, what do you think should change?

Again, argument by authority is not rational. I do not endorse it. A competing authority is always available. The massacre data does not suggest they are any less common after than before.

Am I okay with the levels of gun violence in the US? This is, frankly, the kind of rhetorical crap that gets tiring. Why do you only care about gun violence? Why is a shooting more tragic than a stabbing, besides that one has been politicized as a tool? People who do not agree with the gun control push do not support homicides. For the one hundredth time: I am against homicide. We all are. Nobody is okay with these events. I am against shootings. I am against stabbings. I am against it. Can we debate in basic good faith?


I do not see how criminalizing tens of millions of peaceful Americans exercising their constitutional rights makes any sense or accomplishes anything besides the benefit to one side of criminalizing the other side. A psycho who wants to murder a room of children does not care if the tool he uses is legal or illegal. I am against the left trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently, I am against the right trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently. I do not blame millions of people for the actions of a single psycho. I do not think you can practically legislate away sin and evil (thousands of years of trying have produced no result still). I think the law should punish the guilty perpetrator, not half the country. I think we should look at our mental health problems and see what we can do to maybe reduce the number of people who reach this mental place effectively unsupervised (and gave 3 specific possible avenues off the top of my head earlier in this thread). This seems to be the actual problem. If anyone can finally tell me what "strengthening background checks" actually means I might endorse it; NICS already exists and is federal law which most who have brought it up in this thread apparently don't know. I am probably okay with a waiting period for a first firearm purchase. There is no evidence these actually accomplish anything, but it's not a huge deal.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, argument by authority is not rational. I do not endorse it. A competing authority is always available. The massacre data does not suggest they are any less common after than before.

Am I okay with the levels of gun violence in the US? This is, frankly, the kind of rhetorical crap that gets tiring. Why do you only care about gun violence? Why is a shooting more tragic than a stabbing, besides that one has been politicized as a tool? People who do not agree with the gun control push do not support homicides. For the one hundredth time: I am against homicide. We all are. Nobody is okay with these events. I am against shootings. I am against stabbings. I am against it. Can we debate in basic good faith?


I do not see how criminalizing tens of millions of peaceful Americans exercising their constitutional rights makes any sense or accomplishes anything besides the benefit to one side of criminalizing the other side. A psycho who wants to murder a room of children does not care if the tool he uses is legal or illegal. I am against the left trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently, I am against the right trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently. I do not blame millions of people for the actions of a single psycho. I do not think you can practically legislate away sin and evil (thousands of years of trying have produced no result still). I think the law should punish the guilty perpetrator, not half the country. I think we should look at our mental health problems and see what we can do to maybe reduce the number of people who reach this mental place effectively unsupervised (and gave 3 specific possible avenues off the top of my head earlier in this thread). This seems to be the actual problem. If anyone can finally tell me what "strengthening background checks" actually means I might endorse it; NICS already exists and is federal law which most who have brought it up in this thread apparently don't know. I am probably okay with a waiting period for a first firearm purchase. There is no evidence these actually accomplish anything, but it's not a huge deal.

Sounds like you don't endorse any gun reform.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Sounds like you don't endorse any gun reform.

I do not generally endorse continuing to cede constitutional rights and criminalizing normal gun owners or subsets of normal gun owners. Holding the other half of the country liable for a single psycho is a bastardization of law. I’ve said this since page 1. You might want to read the last few sentences though. I might endorse background check changes if anyone can actually tell me what they want to change, specifically (it’s hard to endorse a meaningless proposition that doesn’t specify what would change). If data suggests a waiting period helps, I’d endorse it for a first firearm purchase too.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not generally endorse continuing to cede constitutional rights and criminalizing normal gun owners or subsets of normal gun owners. Holding the other half of the country liable for a single psycho is a bastardization of law. I’ve said this since page 1. You might want to read the last few sentences though. I might endorse background check changes if anyone can actually tell me what they want to change, specifically (it’s hard to endorse a meaningless proposition that doesn’t specify what would change). If data suggests a waiting period helps, I’d endorse it for a first firearm purchase too.

Okay, at least you are considering some sort of reform. But considering that you seem to think data is some form authoritarianism, it doesn't sound like you will seriously listen to data.

You seem to have instead embraced what a lot folks have done--blame mental health. The problem with that stance of course, is that the same folks that blame mental health never want to fund it. There will always be crazy people, and we have made it extremely easy for them to get extremely dangerous guns. No amount of funding of mental health in the world is going to change that.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Okay, at least you are considering some sort of reform. But considering that you seem to think data is some form authoritarianism, it doesn't sound like you will seriously listen to data.

"some form authoritarianism". Mhm. I used a list of massacre events to see if they happened more or less after the event. You used an op-ed from a nutball who needs psychiatrist help with their power fantasies after handling a gun. I believe data is "form authoritarianism", whatever that even means. Mhm. Again, can you even attempt to debate in good faith as decent people who just disagree on an issue?

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You seem to have instead embraced what a lot folks have done--blame mental health. The problem with that stance of course, is that the same folks that blame mental health never want to fund it. There will always be crazy people, and we have made it extremely easy for them to get extremely dangerous guns. No amount of funding of mental health in the world is going to change that.

Yes. I don't see what else we would rationally blame, unless we believe a firearm is sentient and controls itself. When someone hangs themself, we don't blame the rope. When Rwanda's slaughtered a million people we didn't blame machetes. I cannot fathom why we would blame a tool instead.

No law is going to magically solve mental health. And no law will magically solve murders. There will always be crazy people, and we will never be able to control them all. It is a leftist view I have that I think we should spend more dollars on helping them. There will always be guns and bad guys don't give a darn what's legal and not. I notice you've made no proposition yourself at all while being unhappy about mine.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not generally endorse continuing to cede constitutional rights and criminalizing normal gun owners or subsets of normal gun owners. Holding the other half of the country liable for a single psycho is a bastardization of law.

100% agreed.

Originally Posted by G1911

I might endorse background check changes if anyone can actually tell me what they want to change, specifically (it’s hard to endorse a meaningless proposition that doesn’t specify what would change).

So once again, please tell us what you specifically propose as acceptable changes? Instead your posts simply avoid from making suggestions and instead attack what others have proposed.

Originally Posted by G1911

If data suggests a waiting period helps, I’d endorse it for a first firearm purchase too.

I thought you stated that data you have data which suggests waiting times do not help except for crimes of passion?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

100% agreed.



So once again, please tell us what you specifically propose as acceptable changes? Instead your posts simply avoid from making suggestions and instead attack what others have proposed.



I thought you stated that data you have data which suggests waiting times do not help except for crimes of passion?

See 180, 385, 388, 403, and several others in this thread.

I said, and I quote, "I have not been able to find any evidence that a waiting period works to reduce violence, but it is something that might reasonably be expected to maybe have an impact - reducing a moment of hotheaded anger and letting tempers cool. It doesn't seem to have produced results in states that have it, but I see the logic behind it." See post 369.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Sounds like you don't endorse any gun reform.

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'll pretend for a moment it was.

I would propose a compromise:
1. Raise the age limit on firearm purchase to 21 (as is/has been done with things like alcohol and tobacco) and require a proficiency exam that is reasonable to pass (as is done when getting a drivers' licence or permit to drive.)
2. Have 2 or 3 people in every school in this country, with firearm experience and having passed a training test, carrying at all times while in or near the school. Could be teachers, administrators, janitors, whatever.

Compromise because:
1. All agree, some people should not have firearms and maturity and gun safety are reasonable requirements.
2. All should recognize the obvious fact that when these incidents occur, and they always will because we have thousands and thousands of nuts walking around, they end when a good guy with a gun, who knows how to use it, uses it. The sooner the better, and on-site is much faster than phone calls for help, esp. in rural areas.

I'm tired of the gun being blamed. If there is an effort to restrict gun purchases, the compromise is an equal acknowledgement that guns in the right hands save lives.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'll pretend for a moment it was.

I would propose a compromise:
1. Raise the age limit on firearm purchase to 21 (as is/has been done with things like alcohol and tobacco) and require a proficiency exam that is reasonable to pass (as is done when getting a drivers' licence or permit to drive.)
2. Have 2 or 3 people in every school in this country, with firearm experience and having passed a training test, carrying at all times while in or near the school. Could be teachers, administrators, janitors, whatever.

Compromise because:
1. All agree, some people should not have firearms and maturity and gun safety are reasonable requirements.
2. All should recognize the obvious fact that when these incidents occur, and they always will because we have thousands and thousands of nuts walking around, they end when a good guy with a gun, who knows how to use it, uses it. The sooner the better, and on-site is much faster than phone calls for help, esp. in rural areas.

I'm tired of the gun being blamed. If there is an effort to restrict gun purchases, the compromise is an equal acknowledgement that guns in the right hands save lives.

I very much appreciate you trying to find some middle ground. I strongly agree with raising the age limit to 21--could really have an impact on reducing school and other shootings.

But the good guy with a gun theory is tricky. I realize this is just humorous, but I watched it the other night and it really changed my views:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCI4bUk4vuM

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I very much appreciate you trying to find some middle ground. I strongly agree with raising the age limit to 21--could really have an impact on reducing school and other shootings.

But the good with a gun theory is tricky. I realize this is just humorous, but I watched it the other night and it really changed my views:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCI4bUk4vuM

I wasted a minute and a half watching that, but the guy is just being an ass.

Question for you: If good guys with guns isn't the answer, why do people call the police?

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'll pretend for a moment it was.

I would propose a compromise:
1. Raise the age limit on firearm purchase to 21 (as is/has been done with things like alcohol and tobacco) and require a proficiency exam that is reasonable to pass (as is done when getting a drivers' licence or permit to drive.)
2. Have 2 or 3 people in every school in this country, with firearm experience and having passed a training test, carrying at all times while in or near the school. Could be teachers, administrators, janitors, whatever.

Compromise because:
1. All agree, some people should not have firearms and maturity and gun safety are reasonable requirements.
2. All should recognize the obvious fact that when these incidents occur, and they always will because we have thousands and thousands of nuts walking around, they end when a good guy with a gun, who knows how to use it, uses it. The sooner the better, and on-site is much faster than phone calls for help, esp. in rural areas.

I'm tired of the gun being blamed. If there is an effort to restrict gun purchases, the compromise is an equal acknowledgement that guns in the right hands save lives.

I respect your proposals, but I would like to give an opinion about #2. Do you happen to work in a school? I do, and I hate the thought of arming janitors, admin, or, especially, me. I think being ready to use a gun is a huge responsibility, and I do not want it as "another" part of my job. If you are going to want people with guns in the schools, make them people who are only there to have a gun, like police. Also, I think the only way to be a feasible deterrent would be in the gun were always available. Admin can't be expected to run down the hall to their offices to unlock their gun in an emergency situation. So people (like our governor!) want me to be an armed teacher? What, with my gun in my holster all day?? No thank you.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I respect your proposals, but I would like to give an opinion about #2. Do you happen to work in a school? I do, and I hate the thought of arming janitors, admin, or, especially, me. I think being ready to use a gun is a huge responsibility, and I do not want it as "another" part of my job. If you are going to want people with guns in the schools, make them people who are only there to have a gun, like police. Also, I think the only way to be a feasible deterrent would be in the gun were always available. Admin can't be expected to run down the hall to their offices to unlock their gun in an emergency situation. So people (like our governor!) want me to be an armed teacher? What, with my gun in my holster all day?? No thank you.

+1

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I respect your proposals, but I would like to give an opinion about #2. Do you happen to work in a school? I do, and I hate the thought of arming janitors, admin, or, especially, me. I think being ready to use a gun is a huge responsibility, and I do not want it as "another" part of my job. If you are going to want people with guns in the schools, make them people who are only there to have a gun, like police.

What about people who have worked with guns, like ex-military? If someone can become a policeman whom people trust to bring help in the form of gun expertise, why can't someone who's primary job is a teacher, custodian, or administrator go through similar training? In fact, why not specifically look for guys coming out of military service with honorable discharge, and train them to be admins?

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Also, I think the only way to be a feasible deterrent would be in the gun were always available. Admin can't be expected to run down the hall to their offices to unlock their gun in an emergency situation.

I don't care how fat your administrators are, they will still be faster to and from their office than the response time of police.

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

So people (like our governor!) want me to be an armed teacher? What, with my gun in my holster all day?? No thank you.

Obviously, you, and most, teachers wouldn't want to carry. I'm not saying every single adult in a school needs to. Just a few. And some people would put up with a little discomfort in exchange for protecting the kids.