Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 02:23pm PT
|
Apparently a lot less "danger" than there used to be,
But you have to ask yourself WHY and does that number go back up if we start disarming the average citizen?
I would bet any amount of money the answer is yes.
EDIT: VVVVVV Well, you know why you don't win. But you can't help yourself.... lol
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 02:23pm PT
|
Apparently a lot less "danger" than there used to be, if you go by facts rather than Fox New boogeymen under the bed.
Ironically, the number of both gun and gun owners (as well as those carrying in public) has skyrocketed during the same crime-reduction years.
More guns (and legal gun owners and legal gun carriers) has correlated with less crime, not more.
Would you like to live in a society with the violent crime rate of, say, the UK? Not me.
The problem will all statistics ("damned lies," in the words of Mark Twain) is that deriving cause from "correlation" is essentially impossible. Our best stabs at it fall far short of "ideal," and when you throw partisan perspectives and wishful thinking into the mix, statistics (and the charts derived from them) are basically useless.
That's why I prefer to talk only about inalienable rights and their implications. I don't care how things "appear" to anybody at any given moment in the heat of that moment. I care only about what makes a government (and its policies) philosophically defensible and legitimate.
To my mind, that leaves open the door to "some" (carefully principled) gun control. That does not, however, to my mind, leave open the door to knee-jerk-reaction, politically-expedient "gun control" that is entirely causally disconnected from the sorts of events that are used to justify its adoption.
And the "we have to do something" whining is a non-starter. "Doing something" because you "have to" is a recipe for unprincipled policy with terrible unintended side-effects.
Edit: Esco, dang it, knock that off! (I've gotta win one of these posting races.)
;-)
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 02:39pm PT
|
Ironically, the number of both gun and gun owners (as well as those carrying in public) has skyrocketed during the same crime-reduction years.
actually more guns, but less households with guns.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 02:41pm PT
|
Aaaaaaaand they're off!
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 02:50pm PT
|
Lead exposure. Yep. We aren't too far apart after all....
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 02:57pm PT
|
Escopeta wrote:
But you have to ask yourself WHY and does that number go back up if we start disarming the average citizen?
I would bet any amount of money the answer is yes.
Since 1994 the household gun ownership rate has dropped a fair amount during the period covered by the chart Coach37 posted.
1973 is also the year of Roe v. Wade. 21 years later the crime rates start to drop. While there's a definite correlation, research has yet to show causation.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 03:04pm PT
|
Madbolter1 wrote:
To my mind, that leaves open the door to "some" (carefully principled) gun control. That does not, however, to my mind, leave open the door to knee-jerk-reaction, politically-expedient "gun control" that is entirely causally disconnected from the sorts of events that are used to justify its adoption.
Do you consider universal background checks do be reasonable? How about some form of link or merge of state and federal databases?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 03:32pm PT
|
Do you consider universal background checks do be reasonable? How about some form of link or merge of state and federal databases?
I'm not casting you this way, but most people asking a question like that live in a "modern world" in which outright suspicion of the federal government seems "quaint" and even unreasonable. We're a long way from the founders and their profound distrust of central government (yes, even the federalists).
I harbor a profound distrust for the federal government, particular since Roberts recently established that the federal government can "legally" do anything, as long as what it does can in any oblique way be cast (or recast) as a "tax."
I have to provide that background for my answer, because otherwise it just seems like "dividing the baby."
I am in favor of universal background checks, provided that the records of that check having been performed are rapidly destroyed (a month, perhaps; no more than a year). When you start talking about "merging databases," you are probably talking about exactly the sort of "lists" that I think that neither state nor federal government have any business keeping.
The immediate response will be: "Yes, but we register cars in perpetuity."
There are all sorts of reasonable responses to that statement. Lest I be accused of another WOT, I can't develop those responses.
As just one example, however, there is no precedent nor motivation for the feds to use car registrations to forcibly deprive Americans en mass of their right to own (and drive) their cars. There's lots of historical precedent (and even posters on SuperTopo) to indicate that Americans are always in danger of the feds depriving Americans of their right to own (and "bear") their guns.
Regarding lists, the no-fly and "terrorist" lists are maintained with not even a nod toward due process of law. So it does not follow that "people that aren't allowed to fly shouldn't be allowed to own a gun"! Americans not convicted of any crime should not be deprived of even the slightest and tiniest of their rights. I would think that this sentiment would be universally shared among Americans, and it is honestly shocking to me that it is not.
At any rate, such lists are not "sound" in any meaningful sense, and until they are, they have no business being the basis of any deprivation of rights. And, the minute you ensure that only genuine (due process of law) criminals are on such lists, you suddenly find that you have no need of such lists. There are already state and federal criminal records. Those are the only lists you need to employ in background checks.
If you're talking about merging these state and federal crime records, sure. More power to you. Make the background-check process as quick and accurate as possible.
But there doesn't need to be any lasting record of who submitted to such a background check, nor what the result of that check turned out to be.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 03:47pm PT
|
I believe that a whack job wanting to do something their brain comes up with is hard to stop and the police get full marks for the ones they do stop before mayhem ensues.
I sure agree!
What if there was a cost-effective way to double (triple, quadruple, more?) the number of cops, so that they could be stationed all over the place: in clubs, theaters, schools, and all those "gun free" places that attract the whack jobs? What if there had been two, three, or even more off-duty cops at Pulse when the latest whack job showed up? Wouldn't more cops already inside be a better scenario than a whole pile outside trying to figure out when and the best way to breach?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 04:10pm PT
|
Because that would end the debate about whether the free world is a police state or not, my libertarian.
You miss my point. A "police state" is not about number of cops; it's about the nature of the laws they are enforcing. As it is, we have far, far too many laws, such that most people are "criminals" without even knowing it. "Equal protection" is literally impossible at this point. Thus, we are already in a "police state" regardless of number of cops.
My classical liberalism is not in the slightest threatened by quadruple the number of cops we presently have.
So, I'll ask again: Wouldn't it have been better to have four cops in Pulse instead of just one when the whack job (I'll never use the names of these human-shaped piles of excrement) showed up?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 04:56pm PT
|
Every one loves to go on about statistics they like without regard for other statistics that may influence their opinion.
Not me. I think that the most "objective" of statistics are nigh unto useless in this sort of context. Interpretation is everything, and there's zero objectivity to that.
I prefer to talk about principles of governance.
In this context I've asked a very, very simple question that you are now clearly dodging: "Wouldn't it have been better to have four (or more) trained cops in Pulse instead of one when the latest whack job showed up?"
If you can't answer this simple, entirely straightforward question, then your personal interpretation of some subset of statistics is pretty irrelevant. I mean, if we can't agree on the most basic thing, which is that the obvious answer to my question is "yes," then we live in such divergent realities that we're never going to make the slightest progress in finding common ground on the basis of statistical interpretation!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 05:25pm PT
|
Lists are surely only an inanimate tool with the mere potential to be used to deprive us of rights.
Does anyone fear that needing to register our birth is plot to deprive us of our lives? Does anyone fear that registering our property is a plot to deprive us of our lands? Does anyone fear that registering our marriage is a plot to deprive us of our spouses? Does anyone fear that registering to vote is a plot to deprive us of representation? These registrations act to defend our rights against fraud and force.
What precedent has there ever been for a single gun to have been taken from a law-abiding US citizen? Have courts ever upheld a law that would deprive a law-abiding US citizen of a reasonable means of self defense?
TE
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 05:41pm PT
|
Asked and answered, (obviously) by you.
I mean, if we can't agree on the most basic thing, which is that the obvious answer to my question is "yes,"
Anyone who thought about it, would answer "possibly".
Would quadrupling the number of armed security personnel at the airport in Turkey be better? I'm guessing that you mean in terms of reducing loss of life.
Again, possibly, but in the second case not likely.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 06:24pm PT
|
What precedent has there ever been for a single gun to have been taken from a law-abiding US citizen? Have courts ever upheld a law that would deprive a law-abiding US citizen of a reasonable means of self defense?
If you can ask that question, you are not seriously following the "successes" of many localized gun laws, with people like Diane Feinstein attempting that very thing and on record repeatedly as saying that she wants gun registration so that laws can be passed to disarm the everyday citizen.
The rest of your comparisons are specious. Just as with cars, your other examples are not ones that cause us worry about widespread confiscation. Furthermore, as I said, I cannot fully defend the point that this was one example of. You are among the many who have said you won't read WOT posts. So, you have me right where you want me. I cannot adequately respond without a systematic (lengthy) "WOT." But then you try to pick at out-of-context points.
Sweet (sophistic) "argumentation."
Bottom line is this: You and your ilk will continue to get no traction legislatively as long as you don't take seriously the legitimate concerns that people have about proposed gun-control laws. On this one point, as long as you scoff at concerns about confiscation, you will find no common ground with legitimately concerned gun owners. And that's sad, because scoffing doesn't convince, and it would be easy to find compromise on most of these ideas.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 06:32pm PT
|
Anyone who thought about it, would answer "possibly".
Forget about security in Turkey. Let's stay on point here.
If by "possibly" you mean "almost certainly" or "certainly," then I'm with you. Otherwise, I'm baffled, and your perspective seems self-refuting.
What ultimately ended the hostage situation and death toll at Pulse? Was it "the same number of onsite cops"? Was it "cops on the outside who wished they had a clean way to the inside"?
You cannot sustain the claim that "the same number" or "fewer" cops would have diffused the situation. In fact, in every case without exception, these whack-job situations are diffused in exactly the same way: MORE cops show up and eventually (emphasize passage of time) storm the location in force to overwhelm the perp (usually killing him).
There is not one of these situation in which ANYBODY is thinking, "Hey, I sure wish that the perp could be confronted by half the number of cops that are there now. I wish the cops could take longer to work their way inside. I wish that the perp could be given even more time with fewer cops to confront."
So, quit dancing around the obvious point: More cops INSIDE at the start of an incident is obviously better than fewer or no cops inside at the start of an incident. And this point is PROVED by the fact that the incidents are only ended BY more cops getting inside, which demonstrates the undeniable value of having more cops inside in the first place, shortening the time period the perp has to kill innocent, unarmed people.
Forget "possibly," unless that's double-speak for "certainly."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 06:59pm PT
|
Nothing says Party! like a gay bar with cops equaling the patrons...
Nothing says Party! like a gay bar pouring with blood from whack-job bullet holes....
And who said "equaling"?
It's now clear to me from you libs' dancing around the facts that you really don't care about them. You just want to have the whole world be some fantasy "gun-free" zone, and you'll "deal" with murderous rampages by calling the cops, waiting hours for them to figure out to how deal with the situation, and they ultimately kill the perp so they can count the bodies. Then, you'll blame "guns" again (somehow, the evil always manage to get their hands on them, or bombs, or fire, or something) and wring your hands: "What's society coming to?"
I was going to suggest what I thought was a possibly mutually-satisfactory approach to "common sense" gun control, but this latest exchange has convinced me that you libs cannot discuss this on the basis of ANY common ground. If you can't even admit that it would obviously be better to have four cops instead of one inside Pulse that night, then there is no "common sense" for me to build upon. So, whatever you think you mean by "common sense gun laws," we're never going to agree about what "sense" you think should be so common.
Fortunately for "my side," at present the tide is strongly my way. I think I'll actually join the NRA and help it combat your "common sense," since you simply won't work with me AT ALL to try to find what "common" ground there could be. Eternal vigilance (and supporting organizations that will fight for it) is the price of freedom.
For the future, the next time you want to bag on "gun nuts," just remember this exchange in which I could not find ONE of you libs willing to accept the obvious FACT that four cops inside Pulse would have been better than the one that was there. How nutty is that?
|
|
F
climber
away from the ground
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 07:34pm PT
|
For the future, the next time you want to bag on "gun nuts," just remember this exchange in which I could not find ONE of you libs willing to accept the obvious FACT that four cops inside Pulse would have been better than the one that was there. How nutty is that? One LIBTARd agrees!
Common sense isn't limited to ten gallon Tards.
Eternal vigilance (and supporting organizations that will fight for it) is the price of freedom.
^^^^
That is complete and utter I drank a double serving of FREEDUM!!! brand Patriot Kookaid with my biscuits and crazy this morning.
At what point are there enough cops in the gay bar watching the queer and happy rage to Maddona?
When you say so?
When the crowd starts to get creeped out by all of the Big Macs in there staring at them while waiting for a Mexican Muslim to come through the door with guns a blazin?
At what point are you violating there FREEDUM! to have a good time without a police force surrounding them?
|
|
splitter
Trad climber
HighwayToHell
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 07:35pm PT
|
Because he holds fast to me in love, I will deliver him; I will protect him, because he knows my name. ~ Psalm 91:14
There is no fear in love, for perfect love casts out fear. ~ 1 John 4:18
Fear not, for I am with you always, saith the Lord.
He whom is in you, is stronger than he who is in the world.
....
Love tells me I don't need a gun.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 08:06pm PT
|
"Freedom kool-aid"?
I haven't heard that one before!
So, I'll turn your question around....
When the crowd starts to get creeped out by all of the Big Macs in there staring at them while waiting for a Mexican....
On the same note, how much freedom is enough?
In answer to your question, the ideal would be that the cops would be plainclothes and not "staring at them" but instead dancing with them. Are there not enough gay cops to go around for this sort of duty?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!