Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 01:37am PT
|
Blueblocr,
You have serious reading comprehension problems.
One, I didn't put him down. Reread my post.
Two, in jonnyrig's post he clearly understands that today the expression is used as an insult.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 02:03am PT
|
Since neither one of you seem to have developed the capacity to actually think, let me repeat what should have been obvious from my earlier post:
ROFL! Yeah, me with my Ph.D. in analytical philosophy and all. Yeah, thinking is the one thing I've never developed ANY capacity for! Yeah, they just hand those degrees out to any stupid "pinhead" who requests one. Bwahahahah.
I suggested no "War" on anyone who has a legitimate need and/or lawful use for firearms.
No, you stated a War on GUNS (not people), and you can't seem to make the connection with other (as YOU yourself said) "dismal failures" of other Wars on other desirable products.
You might manage to throw some people in prison, just like the War on Drugs has managed. You might manage to burn through billions of dollars, just like the other "dismal failures." But you WILL NOT keep mass quantities of illegal guns out of the hands of countless criminals who will only have an increased desire to obtain them.
This will be yet another "dismal failure" of the government to keep a desirable product out of the hands of ANYBODY who wants it.
Good luck with that!
People can keep their guns if they use them responsibly.
Oh, you mean "use them as you determine they shall"? You've already said, "No concealed carry," so you've already destroyed your credibility regarding "responsible use," because millions of Americans presently carry concealed and you don't even know it because they DO "use them responsibly" in a way you have stated you would disallow.
My comments were clearly intended to begin a search for a solution to the evil of irresponsible firearm use in the U.S.
You are not "searching for a solution." There are some here that are, but you have given exactly zero evidence that you are among them.
You are hell-bent on "fixing" things in exactly the way they cannot be fixed, with a superficial, draconian approach that has already repeatedly been proven to not work in the USA.
You don't care to do the hard work of figuring out the motivations of violence and racism and seeking nuanced and comprehensive approaches to resolving the causes of these foundations of "gun violence."
and there isn't a word that I'm aware of of posting that doesn't fall squarely in line with laws that (to my knowledge) exist in EVERY other advanced industrialized democracy on planet Earth.
What people like you can't seem to get your mind around is that we are NOT like "every other advanced industrialized democracy on planet Earth!" We were not supposed to be, and even with our long history of falling away from the founding principles, we are still a long way from being the subdued, authority-cowed communitarians that the rest of the "civilized" world is. And what you cannot grasp is that that is a GOOD thing!
Especially the Canadians telling us how great it is to be sheeple in Canada crack me up. I love Canadians! But them telling us how to become a democracy just like them is about as motivating to me as having somebody suggest that I start pounding on my body parts with a crag hammer... pick end, of course.
When you can finally quit comparing us with "EVERY other advanced industrialized democracy on planet Earth," and you finally start talking about real life as it is in the USA, you MAY finally start to think seriously about what solutions are applicable HERE, in accordance with the principles that make us unique and great.
When it comes to responsible use of firearms among these nations, the U.S. comes in last.
That tripe has been endlessly repeated, yet repetition doesn't make it true. Furthermore, we have WAY worse problems in the US than to start another "dismal failure" of some War on some other desirable product!
Everyone goes all glassy-eyed when talking about auto accidents, like "There is no comparison between accidents and intentional murders," but that's ridiculous if your motivation REALLY is to get serious about needless and PREVENTABLE carnage!
According to nhtsa.gov (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812154.pdf), there were 32,719 traffic fatalities in 2013, of which 1,149 were children aged 14 and under! That's some serious carnage!
And that doesn't even hold a candle to the injuries and maiming. 172,000 kids were injured in traffic accidents, many bearing permanent damage.
Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death in ages 15 to 29, according to the World Health Organization.
The major causes of traffic accidents, according to the WHO? Drunk and distracted driving. "Drivers using a mobile phone are approximately four times more likely to be involved in a crash than when a driver does not use a phone."
And most states have made this practice illegal, yet I see it constantly as I'm driving. Constantly. My estimate in Colorado is at least 70% of drivers are talking on the phone or texting while they drive. It's like bumper-cars out there, and these drivers don't give a rip about the law on this subject.
Two good friends of mine are permanently brain-damaged thanks to a drunk driver who it now appears will not even go to jail! But, there was no "fatality," so it's no big deal compared to the (gasp!) "epidemic of GUN violence!"
Look, you want to wring your hands and go after an epidemic, one about which you can REALLY address some sickening statistics? Go after drunk and distracted drivers! Reduce the carnage by hundreds of thousands per year, and you still won't be down near the "epidemic of gun violence."
Yeah, it's SO much better to be killed or brain damaged in an auto "accident" (really CAUSED by intentional negligence) than to be shot! SO much better.
But, wait! It's ALREADY illegal to drive drunk and/or distracted. So HOW are these hundreds of thousands of terrible accidents happening EVERY year?
According to NHTSA again (http://www.rmiia.org/auto/traffic_safety/Cost_of_crashes.asp), "U.S. motor vehicle crashes in 2010 cost almost $1 trillion in loss of productivity and loss of life. "
"In 2012 there were 5,419,000 police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes." (Yes, that's OVER 5-MILLION crashes!) These accidents resulted in 2.36 MILLION injuries significant enough to require medical attention.
And those numbers do not differentiate between "minor" injuries that will heal and severe injuries (like my friends') that are lifelong but that don't count toward the (apparently) all-important DEATH TOLL!
So, while you're wringing your hands about the "epidemic of gun violence" and how we need to stomp all over the rights of responsible citizens, why don't you get worked up over the REAL carnage taking place every day in this nation?
Oh, right, because the "causes" are already covered by laws, so there's nothing we can do. Yeah right.
The same can be said about guns!
People like you are NOT motivated BY the carnage. You have a fixation on a particular object that you find odious, and "something has to be done about that!" You have no similar fixation on cars, so orders of magnitude MORE CARNAGE is just fine with you, as long as a negligent driver in a CAR is the cause of it. But let a GUN (oh, gasp!) appear in the mix, and it's a national crisis!!!
Look, I GET that when a sicko kills nine people with a gun, that's a terrible, terrible tragedy; and when it's racially motivated, it's downright disgusting! No debate there.
But you are NOT going to solve that sort of problem. And the use of the GUN just is not the issue in the case!
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people just like my friends are getting permanently injured or killed by drunks and INTENTIONALLY negligent drivers, and THAT apparently doesn't fill you with ANY horror nor motivation to "do something" about it.
On the other hand, the U.S. leads in the way it abuses visible minorities and the poor in general.
Oh, gag! Please stop with the bleeding-heart, liberal garbage! The USA spends more money to "address the plight" of the "poor and downtrodden" than many other comparable nations combined! It is SO easy to get free education and free opportunities in this nation! ANYBODY who really wants to make it in this nation can. Period. The era of "poor, downtrodden minorities" has been long-over, and I am sick to death of hearing the endless excuse of how we have to (somehow) even MORE "level the playing field."
Yes, there is still racism in this country. There is "reverse racism" as well. Lots of it! And we have "compensated" until it's become ridiculous. Another social program is NOT the answer!
Perhaps if you pinheads
And THERE is your typical stock in trade: When you can't convince with your lame and superficial "arguments," you resort to insulting your opponent's intelligence.
would agree that a few more social programs for the needy might be a good idea, then those gangs in L.A. and elsewhere might not be as quick on the trigger.
Really? Are you serious? I mean, REALLY???
As a nation and as individual states we have POURED vast, VAST amounts of money into EXACTLY the "programs" you are suggesting. I was born and raised in the VERY poverty you talk about (without understanding), and I was born into the era in which my (terrible) whiteness PRECLUDED ME from getting the helping hand that my neighbors of color could get.
THEY could get an absolutely FREE ride through school, if they could be bothered to TAKE it! They couldn't be bothered, yet I PAID my way through school and went into debt because I valued it.
I was then repeatedly denied jobs and opportunities for which I had PAID to become qualified... again because of my great and terrible whiteness.
While still in college, I begged my friends (both of and not of color) to come with me to the financial aid office and get into school, but it was always another night of partying and always another excuse why they just couldn't get around to it. So, pop out another kid or two, increase the welfare check, and then moan and snivel about how "downtrodden" they were!
I've BEEN there. I've SEEN it first-hand, and NOBODY is going to convince me that ANOTHER social program is "the answer." Give it a rest. It's been done in spades and then some. At some point, people CHOOSE their level based upon their WILL and character, and all the helping hands in the world are not going to raise them beyond that level they have CHOSEN.
Yeah, I know, there will be howls of outrage about me "blaming the victim" yet again. Don't bother. It rolls off of me like water off a duck's back. I've LIVED it. This is not theory for me. I've been IN education almost my whole life, and I know first-hand how the "social program" game works. So, don't waste your time trying to "shame" me into ignoring the vast evidence I've seen my entire life.
MOST of these "downtrodden" people are NOT victims! With RARE exception, there ALREADY IS some social program that would GIVE them a leg up that I could never get due to my abominable white maleness. MOST of these people are living out their OWN choices and priorities.
Maybe, maybe not - but I suspect a significant percentage would consider a generous cash reward for surrendering their guns to be an attractive prospect.
Oh
my
goodness!
Oh, wow. I'm speechless!
If I WAS going to suggest a declaration of war on any group of people, the suppliers of illegal firearms would be at the top of the list, and the jail terms would be draconian.
You mean like the War on the "big fish" of the drug trade?
Yeah, the jury's IN on these Wars on "the suppliers." Good luck with another War. Just don't ask me to pay for it.
Tax the rich fairly if you need more money. Once upon a time those parasites actually paid a relatively fair share of their income.
Wait! Somebody is a "parasite" just because they are "rich" (whatever is that threshold in YOUR mind)?
And the "fair share" would be EXACTLY what (in your mind)?
And by what PRINCIPLE would you determine that "fairness"?
If you want a FAIR approach to taxation, go back to what our founders thought of when they referred to "taxes and tariffs." They had something like what we now think of as sales taxes in mind, NEVER income taxes! And there are principled reasons for that distinction that were abandoned in 1913.
You want a FAIR approach to taxation, get OUT of the income tax business! Instead, have a national sales tax, with exemptions for basic needs, luxury taxes on luxury items, and special taxes on vice items. That way the truly poor are not taxed AT ALL, while the rich pay heavily to enjoy their luxurious lifestyle. If you can afford a $1-million yacht, you can afford to pay $500,000 more in luxury tax. The details of such a plan would not be hard to hash out to be truly fair to everybody, and then you'd have a tax plan in place that would encourage economic growth, savings, and investment.
Meanwhile, get OUT of the business of the government actually owning all property, because with property taxes they can tax you out of a house that you otherwise own outright (it's literally happening broadcast in the Chicago area). When you DO own something, you OWN it. End of story. The government should have NO means to take it away from you apart from a lawful seizure due to your property-related criminal activity. That is a basic constitutional principle that we now take for GRANTED does not exist anymore. Absurd!
But nooooo! You won't advocate for anything truly fair. Let's keep the bloated and above-the-law IRS, and let's keep arbitrarily taxing "the rich" (that threshold is ridiculously low!) while treating the whole game as flat-out "wealth redistribution." Let's keep Americans struggling with thousands of pages of inconsistent and indecipherable tax codes that require us to spend hundreds of billions every year to have a HOPE of being legal and perhaps surviving an audit.
If you want REAL solutions, you are barking up entirely the wrong trees.
But don't listen to ME! I'm just a "pinhead" after all.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 09:59am PT
|
OK I'm back! I don't understand what your intention is that I learn? I've spent atleast 1 day a month in all my daughters classes from K-3 watching and helping the teachers. And I'm pretty sure JTree is amongst the poorest towns not just of Cali, but the whole US? As for bike paths Pffft, we can't even afford sidewalks! Grass for kids to run on. None!
Workbooks for the kids, naw, photocopies from the teachers. Music class, none. Art supplies, parents supply the crayons. PE is twice a week for 30mins. No balls, no sport equip. I actually supplied the only ball for my daughters class.
It should be apparent to you that your children are not getting the opportunities for education that others are getting in richer neighborhoods. I'm of the opinion that funding should be based on student count vs property tax. What better way to deny education in poor communities than that? Education should be equal opportunity.
If you (generalization) don't think so, then STFU about gangs, drugs, and poor communities, 'cause you're helping to keep them right there, by keeping them stupid.
A generous buy back program shall be implemented to buy back handguns and any legally owned automatic weapons from their owners.
Buyback programs have successfully removed quite a number of both legal and illegal weapons from the street. If you're opposed to such programs, consider that many of these could have been the very weapons you would otherwise be concerned about their possible criminal use.
I can buy an unregistered gun faster then you can buy a registered one. How you gonna curtail the black market?
This is the central problem for all gun control. Law-abiding citizens end up enduring the scrutiny of the law, while criminals do whatever the hell they want, and money talks. Same as drugs. If there's a market, there will be a supplier. Come down hard on the violators (dealers specifically), and combine it with incentive programs like the no-questions-asked buybacks to entice voluntary removal of illicit weapons from the streets.
there's lots of exvet militaristic rebels out there who have been buying guns and grinding off the numbers to sell for profit. And those stockpiles will last for a long time. Why bother with felony alteration of a serial number? Idiots. Did you know it's entirely legal to purchase a complete firearm via mail-order? Some machine work necessary. It's called an 80%. The serialized portion is not completed, and you have to finish it yourself. In some jurisdictions, you are not even required to serialize the weapon. You can buy it on the web, along with every other non-serialized part, and the ammo, and have it all shipped to your door without an FFL ever being involved. Legal even in the great restrictive state of California. I bet that's gonna change! Fortunately, this tends to be the stomping grounds of the hobbyist, and not the criminal. Most criminals don't have the wherewithal to do that kind of crap; because... well... they're generally poor and uneducated, right???
I suggested no "War" on anyone who has a legitimate need and/or lawful use for firearms. People can keep their guns if they use them responsibly.
Except that you advocate for the removal of entire classes of currently legal firearms. Kinda contradictory to this statement, don't ya think?
really? When I read his story about having to change professions, I didn't recognize his use as an insult. No biggie. But if he's becoming a teacher why put it down
It's generally used as an insult, and my use of it was to point out that people think teachers are incapable of doing their jobs. There are some bad educators out there, and there are some truly dedicated individuals who are trying to positively influence the world. We need more of the latter; but my point is that most people can make a hell of a lot more money by working in the field they know than by teaching others to do the same, so we're not attracting the ones best suited to teach. The incentive isn't there, besides wanting to give back. Ever here the old adage "you get what you pay for"? Well, we don't pay teachers much.
Oh, gag! Please stop with the bleeding-heart, liberal garbage! The USA spends more money to "address the plight" of the "poor and downtrodden" than many other comparable nations combined! It is SO easy to get free education and free opportunities in this nation! ANYBODY who really wants to make it in this nation can. Period. The era of "poor, downtrodden minorities" has been long-over, and I am sick to death of hearing the endless excuse of how we have to (somehow) even MORE "level the playing field."
That's your impression, and you point to many of the people as making the CHOICE to be there. Look, education starts at preschool, right? So, are you blaming children for "choosing to be there" or are you blaming their parents? Don't you think we could do better for the kids by improving their opportunity for education? Cause if you're saying they have the same opportunities as a rich white suburban kid, you're full of sh#t.
As a nation and as individual states we have POURED vast, VAST amounts of money into EXACTLY the "programs" you are suggesting. I was born and raised in the VERY poverty you talk about (without understanding), and I was born into the era in which my (terrible) whiteness PRECLUDED ME from getting the helping hand that my neighbors of color could get.
THEY could get an absolutely FREE ride through school, if they could be bothered to TAKE it! They couldn't be bothered, yet I PAID my way through school and went into debt because I valued it.
I was then repeatedly denied jobs and opportunities for which I had PAID to become qualified... again because of my great and terrible whiteness.
While still in college, I begged my friends (both of and not of color) to come with me to the financial aid office and get into school, but it was always another night of partying and always another excuse why they just couldn't get around to it. So, pop out another kid or two, increase the welfare check, and then moan and snivel about how "downtrodden" they were!
I've BEEN there. I've SEEN it first-hand, and NOBODY is going to convince me that ANOTHER social program is "the answer." Give it a rest. It's been done in spades and then some. At some point, people CHOOSE their level based upon their WILL and character, and all the helping hands in the world are not going to raise them beyond that level they have CHOSEN.
Yeah, I know, there will be howls of outrage about me "blaming the victim" yet again. Don't bother. It rolls off of me like water off a duck's back. I've LIVED it. This is not theory for me. I've been IN education almost my whole life, and I know first-hand how the "social program" game works. So, don't waste your time trying to "shame" me into ignoring the vast evidence I've seen my entire life.
MOST of these "downtrodden" people are NOT victims! With RARE exception, there ALREADY IS some social program that would GIVE them a leg up that I could never get due to my abominable white maleness. MOST of these people are living out their OWN choices and priorities.
Maybe, maybe not - but I suspect a significant percentage would consider a generous cash reward for surrendering their guns to be an attractive prospect.
Oh
my
goodness!
Oh, wow. I'm speechless!
Again, buyback programs have removed a lot of guns off the street. Maybe you could explain your opposition?
As to education, I'll grant you there are plenty of people that make bad choices, but to say everyone has equal opportunity, or an equal degree of education available to them simply isn't true. Yes, there's financial aid available, and yes, it's more available to not-the-average-white-male; but I believe we're losing students long before they ever even reach post-secondary education. I paid my own way through college too, being an average white male and all that. Just didn't go as far as you did. Kudos to you. Sorry your experience has led you to believe that our social programs are a waste. There are probably changes we could make to alleviate some of the abuse, and maybe provide better incentives to getting some skills and getting off the assistance; but I honestly haven't given it enough research to make a valid proposal there. I do, however, recognize the need to alter the status quo. Your taxation proposal seems intriguing.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 10:13am PT
|
150 years later we are still fighting the Civil War.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 10:26am PT
|
I love the Canadians' quaint, folksy accent!
(This oughta get my ass kicked. ;-) )
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 11:33am PT
|
Again, buyback programs have removed a lot of guns off the street. Maybe you could explain your opposition?
First, buyback programs typically pay a small fraction of the gun's original purchase price. You couldn't pay me $500 for my $1,200 gun, even if I had some vague inclination to get rid of it, so such a program isn't motivating the average person to "unload" their guns.
Second, the "lot of guns" you refer to can be summed up by this article (and there are countless others just like it): https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/02/12/success-gun-buyback-program-debated/PsITjPCyPkrG9C7fFr979O/story.html. Quote: "But the episode is a stark illustration of what specialists say is now a widely accepted failing of buyback programs: Even when they bring in impressive stockpiles of firearms, they rarely get the ones most sought by law enforcement."
And, "'Unfortunately, there is no compelling evidence that gun buyback programs are an effective crime-fighting tool or that they reduce the rates of crime,' said Jon Vernick, co-director of Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research."
Finally, the guns criminals are using are not obtained through the same "channels" as the are the guns the minority of citizens are turning in during buyback programs. So it's a VERY vaguely true adage that buybacks are "getting guns off of the streets." Really, they are not. They are getting (a relatively tiny few) guns off of the highest, dusty bookshelf or some such place where they had basically been forgotten about.
It's just another "great idea" that has people feeling all warm and fuzzy but that doesn't have any demonstrable effect on the actual problem.
As to education, I'll grant you there are plenty of people that make bad choices, but to say everyone has equal opportunity, or an equal degree of education available to them simply isn't true.
The notion of "opportunity" is an impossibly moving target! And social programs that are traditionally very blunt weapons wielded against subtle and vastly complicated combinations of causes have been recognized as quite ineffective. Here is just one example:
As http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853053/ says, "Parental educational level is an important predictor of children’s educational and behavioral outcomes." Research consistently shows that when parents are educated and/OR encourage their kids to value education, those children are motivated to get educated and tend to succeed.
You can't just throw money at financial aid, headstart programs, no child left behind, and so on and so on! "Programs" do NOT offset entrenched perspectives or cultural norms.
Just thinking off the top of my head, if you want to have another "program" or pour more money into "education" (writ large), perhaps a few billion could be spent on endlessly blanketing the media with a genuine educational campaign about the values of education itself. Show kids of all races and classes succeeding.
Not just "academically" but in trades as well. So-called "blue color" trades are extremely honorable and incredibly necessary! These should receive ongoing public recognition and outright honor. I'd love to see a 60-second spot on the plumber that just fixed my hot water heater. The breadth and depth of what that guy KNEW was amazing to me. There was nothing simple or straightforward about diagnosing and then fixing the problem. Snippets of our conversation could be very motivational to some young person who's thinking about potential trades.
In general, our media glorifies sports figures and criminals. I won't even say the NAME of this latest sicko, because I won't contribute in ANY tiny way to his name coming up in search results. The media should offer the barest of reports about the incident and then relegate this whack job to the dustbin of obscurity, rather than to give him the fame and glory he actually was seeking.
Every moment spent glorifying this sicko could instead by bought up and used to glorify the average working Jane and Joe, magnifying their contributions to their communities and the value of their work.
Just a thought off the top of my head, but I do think that a different perspective needs to be offered to and instilled in cultures and communities that traditionally do not value education. Until the families themselves can be touched and motivated, the cycle of uneducation will continue.
Yes, there's financial aid available, and yes, it's more available to not-the-average-white-male; but I believe we're losing students long before they ever even reach post-secondary education.
POINT!
See above, and perhaps we can actually talk about how to address this critical and subtle underlying cause of violence!
Sorry your experience has led you to believe that our social programs are a waste.
I didn't mean to give that impression. I'm not saying they are all a "waste." What I'm saying is that they are not sufficient conditions for solving the problems they seek to solve. They are heavy-handed, blunt instrument approaches to extremely subtle and multi-layered problems.
And I'm not even suggesting utterly disbanding them! I'm suggesting that we need to be much more penetrating and sensitive in our analysis of the contributing causes of culture and perspective, and we need to get serious about educating people on the vast value of being educated.
As my own experience with my many friends shows, you can't JUST grease the skids! You have to break a cycle of lack of motivation, so that people actually find the end-point motivating enough to get on the track in the first place.
And all that said, you are STILL only going to reach a subset of the available population. I'm thinking of my closest friend during those years, and I am now (decades of thinking about him later) convinced that absolutely nothing can offset the draw of partying and irresponsible sexual behavior. This guy chose "sex, drugs, and rock and roll (listening)" over every other personal value. Continually wasted, perpetually with some new chick, popping out kids right and left, and always just "hanging around" with nothing to do but fire up another doob, this guy had CHOSEN to devote himself to a purely hedonistic, instant-gratification lifestyle.
That instant-gratification mindset is a very, very deep pit; and it's mighty hard to climb out of it once you're in there! People love their instant-gratification to varying degrees, but success and accomplishment require literally the opposite choices and values.
How are such long-term-perspective values taught? Ahh, there's the rub and the catch-22. And THAT is why the brute-force approach social programs tend to take is not a panacea.
You've gotta somehow change a whole subculture and perspective. That means infusing communities with genuine hope, and that does not mean hope in another handout or greased skid. It means hope and non-cynical belief in a path to a genuinely better life. HOW does the GOVERNMENT teach that?
I don't know, and I don't believe that anybody does. I don't believe that the research has even been done to offer comprehensive suggestions. Articles like the one I cited above just show what a catch-22 the problem is!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 12:01pm PT
|
MB I hope you view this post as constructive criticism, but honestly, your posts are way too long. I don't have time to read all that, even though I often think you have interesting things to say.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 12:02pm PT
|
I didn't mean to give that impression. I'm not saying they are all a "waste." What I'm saying is that they are not sufficient conditions for solving the problems they seek to solve. They are heavy-handed, blunt instrument approaches to extremely subtle and multi-layered problems.
And I'm not even suggesting utterly disbanding them! I'm suggesting that we need to be much more penetrating and sensitive in our analysis of the contributing causes of culture and perspective, and we need to get serious about educating people on the vast value of being educated.
As my own experience with my many friends shows, you can't JUST grease the skids! You have to break a cycle of lack of motivation, so that people actually find the end-point motivating enough to get on the track in the first place.
Thanks for the clarification. I'd say we're in agreement then.
I don't know, and I don't believe that anybody does. I don't believe that the research has even been done to offer comprehensive suggestions. Articles like the one I cited above just show what a catch-22 the problem is!
Maybe some research would be a good start.
Re: buybacks. I saw that article awhile back. Basically, inconclusive. So, your point is it's a waste of time and money. And yet, you wouldn't mind, and would possibly even support expansion of background checks... which effectively have only about a 0.6% denial rate?
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2011-operations-report/operations-report-2011
I don't know, man. Seems like spending a little money on a buyback program is better than weapons bans. As far as which guns it takes in, I'm not at all bothered that maybe these are guns just sitting around houses unused. Maybe that alone helps reduce the number of accidents, which are nearly as oft quoted by the anti-gun crowd as the violent crimes. It makes sense that the truly violent offenders are least likely to dump their weapons, so I wouldn't much expect those to be showing up anyway. Never made that claim, just pointing out that it does, in fact, reduce the number of firearms by a small percentage. Exactly what the anti-gun lobby is hoping for. At zero impact to the law-abiding citizen besides maybe a little tax money. Seems like a pretty fair trade. Feel free to oppose it, though, if you think there's no benefit to it. If, per Rdog, some 60% are operational, I'll take that. Even 40%. A saturday night special will kill you just as dead as thousand dollar Kahr.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 12:23pm PT
|
"In Australia we had guns, right up until 1996. In 1996 Australia had the biggest massacre on earth. Still hasn't been beaten," Jefferies says. "Now after that they banned guns. Now in the 10 years before Port Arthur, there were 10 massacres. Since the gun ban in 1996, there hasn't been a single massacre since. I don't know how or why this happened. Maybe it was a coincidence."
yes indeed
this was just a coincidence
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 12:31pm PT
|
MB I hope you view this post as constructive criticism, but honestly, your posts are way too long. I don't have time to read all that, even though I often think you have interesting things to say.
yes, I make it a point to read every post on threads that interest me
but I have to just skip some people who go on and on, in the interest of time and boredom
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 12:45pm PT
|
At zero impact to the law-abiding citizen besides maybe a little tax money. Seems like a pretty fair trade. Feel free to oppose it, though, if you think there's no benefit to it.
I'm totally with you.
I'm in no way opposed to programs that even cost a bit of money, even believing that they don't do much to even point in the right general direction much less actually accomplish anything of significance, as long as it makes the anti-gunners feel like they're doing some good.
Meanwhile the actual problem has virtually nothing to do with guns per se, and if we're gonna get serious that there IS a problem and do something substantive about it, all the frothy hand-waving about gun control is barking entirely up the wrong tree. Rather than divisive "debates" about gun control, we really need to get serious about the causes of culturally-entrenched violence.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 01:03pm PT
|
we really need to get serious about the causes of culturally-entrenched violence.
I have offered some solutions to the mass murder in America issue
I would like to hear your own, sorry I can't remember reading them
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 01:06pm PT
|
MB I hope you view this post as constructive criticism, but honestly, your posts are way too long. I don't have time to read all that, even though I often think you have interesting things to say.
Point taken. It's a struggle. I try to break things up into clearly-defined sections. Ultimately, if you find any value, enjoy. Skip the rest with my compliments. :-)
Thanks!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 01:13pm PT
|
I have offered some solutions to the mass murder in America issue
Indeed you have, Norton, and I greatly appreciate your thoughts and general tone on this thread. I know you aren't asking me, but I think a central database of prohibited purchasers or possessors of firearms, and a requirement that any seller or transferror (including donors) of firearms check that database prior to delivery, would go a long way toward removing firearms from the sorts of massacres we suffered in Sandy Hook or Charleston. At the very least, knowing the certainty of prosectution for delivery of a firearm to an unlawful recipient who uses the firearm would deter lawful firearms owners from transferring ownership to someone on the prohibited list.
John
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 01:24pm PT
|
Funny that on the gun debate thread when someone would come up with an article that was an accident that got someone killed with a gun, the cry from pro-gun people was that it doesn't count, it was an accident and you can't legislate away stupidity. But accidents with cars do count?
A couple distinct differences with regards to comparing cars to guns.
First off, car deaths are almost all accidents. There is a big difference between accidents and premeditated murder, both in the eyes of the courts and the eyes of the public. Dont believe me, the public still chooses to participate in driving!
To be fair drunk driving is terribly irresponsible! But there are more and more laws against it and harsher penalties yearly, and they are doing some good. Luckily the cars they drive are registered and reregistered each time they are passed on to the next person. Makes tracking the owner down pretty easy. No where to hide, we know who that car belongs to.
Now, when these assassins start using cars as there weapon of choice to mass murder people on a regular basis, you'll get as much of an uproar against cars as there is now against guns.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 01:28pm PT
|
Then why do we let people without licenses own cars?
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 01:34pm PT
|
I know you aren't asking me, but I think a central database of prohibited purchasers or possessors of firearms, and a requirement that any seller or transferror (including donors) of firearms check that database prior to delivery, would go a long way toward removing firearms from the sorts of massacres we suffered in Sandy Hook or Charleston. At the very least, knowing the certainty of prosectution for delivery of a firearm to an unlawful recipient who uses the firearm would deter lawful firearms owners from transferring ownership to someone on the prohibited list.
I agree John. Like you say, it won't stop everyone every time, but we need to get off this idea that it won't work because not everyone will follow the law.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 01:38pm PT
|
Then why do we let people without licenses own cars?
There not supposed to be driving.
Oh gee, ya got me with that everyo e won't follow the law.
Why have a constitution if everybody won't follow it?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 02:00pm PT
|
Locker, you can start the database by having all the states and the feds give a list of convicted criminals who are prohibited from owning firearms to the authority maintaing the list. Then require any pharmacist that fills a prescription for a drug indicating mental instability to notify the central database. Pharmacists already have duties in dealing with certain prescriptions, so I don't think this requirement would be particularly costly or burdensome.
The list won't be perfect, but I think both Roof and Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook shooter) would be on the list.
On a completely different subject, the "define moron" subthread reminds me of a conversation I overheard on my high school track team. One of my teammates said to another that had been annoying him, "You're an a##hole." To which the recipient of the insult replied "Define 'a##hole.'" I'm sure you're not surprise to learn that the insulter replied "You're the definition of one." Both went on to get college degrees. One earned a Ph.D. Who said lowbrow exchanges can't emerge from high-powered minds?
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!