Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Brandon,
You're assuming a woman sick enough to kill her own kid would be somehow cured within the time frame of a "waiting period". Because she's just going to end up with her gun anyway after waiting out any theoretical *cooling off* period.
Try it, to see if it works? We're trying it here! How's California's crime stats stack up against somewhere like Colorado?
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
the gun lobby is strong enough to repeal any changes. You know that.
The gun lobby is also terrified that a mandatory waiting period will reduce the number of guns sold in this country. So they will just use their power to resist waiting periods and keep the $$ rolling in. It is a far better option (for them) than considering any compromise.
You're assuming a woman sick enough to kill her own kid would be somehow cured within the time frame of a "waiting period".
Jesus fuking christ. NOBODY thinks that... NOBODY.
Because she's just going to end up with her gun anyway after waiting out any theoretical *cooling off* period.
And you know this how? Oh, right, you are just making sh#t up that fits what you want to believe and pretending it is fact... as usual.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Chaz, have you ever experienced 'blind rage'? First or secondhand?
I've encountered it, and seen it pass every time. Nobody ever just stayed homicidal until the endgame. They cooled down. Sure, it happens, but if it's drawn out, it's not 'blind rage', it's premeditated murder. That's what I'm referring to.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
There is no slippery slope. If it doesn't work, the gun lobby is strong enough to repeal any changes. You know that.
I, living in Colorado, know no such thing. Colorado has recently adopted some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. And that over the state being a battleground state for the NRA in its efforts to keep these very laws from passing. But pass they did, and over the objections of (55 to 7) of our sheriffs who say they will not enforce these laws.
What do the sheriffs cite (and you would think that law enforcement officers would know a thing or two about the subject)? They say that an armed citizenry is the strongest deterrent against all forms of violent crime, and they don't want their jobs made any harder than they already are.
Now, if a 55 to 7 ratio of sheriffs WANTED all these gun control measures, the gun control side would be TOUTING this fact as evidence that "those in the know, that have to deal with violent crime every day, want gun control!"
But the opposite is the case.
The slippery slope does exist, and it must be resisted each and every day by citizens that do NOT want to trade ANY of their rights for even a TINY bit of "additional security" (as if such could be had in the first place).'
You see, there is one, single, fundamental divide in this country: those that deeply distrust government and want as little of it as is NECESSARY to uphold their God-given and inalienable rights vs. those that think that Big Brother is fundamentally good and benevolent and that His values should be everybody's values, such that legislation of those values will be "good" for all.
I am strongly in the former camp. Try to trade even a LITTLE rights for even a LITTLE "security," and you will soon have neither. That ratchet pulls only one way, and history proves it.
You want slippery slope? Just look at how the Patriot Act has become continual NSA violation of the Fourth Amendment, with very, very little outrage on the part of the people that all should know better!
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
Unless you really really need to use it RIGHT THEN, it shouldn't even be an issue.
Again, where is the problem?
I don't think there's anything "wrong" with a waiting period for background checks.
...or anything particularly unjust about reasonable "cool down of passions" intervals. But waiting periods have NOT lowered gun homicide rates, where they exist now.
I'd rather see more FOCUS on the sickness in the soul of Americana that drives these tragedies than the incessant palavering about more feeble, ineffective regulatory enactments...
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Brandon,
If a waiting period for firearm purchases would cut down on that, then the stats should bear that out.
California already has a mandated ten-day wait on the transfer of all firearms - even transfers within the family. California should show a noticeable difference in the incidence of the rage killings you describe if a waiting period were in any way effective.
So, if you think a waiting period is a good idea - or that maybe you could benefit from one - come to California. ( real estate's like half-price now )
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"California used to have a mandatory cooling off period for getting married too."
And it takes 6 months for a divorce to finalize in Cali, too.
Go feckin' figure.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I don't think there's anything "wrong" with a waiting period for background checks.... But waiting periods have NOT lowered gun homicide rates, where they exist now.
Jennie, prepare for the onslaught of vitriol. You see, your problem is that you're trying to ask questions about the "facts" that should be "obvious" unless you are a "fvctard" or "mindlessly stupid."
Just ASK whether or not this approach even makes sense, i.e.: CAN accomplish what the Pate's claim it is "obvious" it can accomplish, and you are instantly a "mindless fvctard."
Now, you may get only a mitigated response, because you did say that there's nothing wrong with waiting periods. So, I guess that you're only a little stupid that you don't see how "obvious" it is that waiting periods would be the cure-all for stories like Pate's. Probably you can cope with being "stupid," as long as you're not a "stupid fvctard."
:-)
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
But waiting periods have NOT lowered gun homicide rates, where they exist now.
This is an unsupported claim.
According to the Community Guide criteria,
**the evidence is insufficient to determine the
effectiveness of waiting periods** for the prevention of
suicide, homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, rape,
and unintentional firearm-related injury death, be-
cause of the small number of available studies, limita-
tions in the design and execution of available studies,
and effects that are inconsistent in direction or fail to
reach statistical significance.
Hahn et al, 2005
We will NEVER have sufficient data if idiots refuse to compromise. Not a single person opposed to waiting periods has offered a single reason they are unwilling to compromise, other than mild inconvenience. Pathetic.
I still know idiots who think wearing a seat belt does nothing to reduce the risk of dying in a car accident. They are also rightwing nutjobs who worry that any gun regulation will result in the government coming for their guns.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-slow-firearm-death-without-banning-all-guns
As a result of those [FEDERAL] studies [on automobile safety]—and [FEDERAL] policies based on their findings—the death rate per mile traveled has fallen 80 percent since 1966. If present trends hold, in two years car crashes will no longer constitute the number-one cause of violent death in the U.S. That dubious honor will go to gunshot wounds.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Not a single person opposed to waiting periods has offered a single reason (other than mild inconvenience) they are unwilling to compromise. Pathetic.
Apparently only reasons you refuse to hear, acknowledge, or debate. Your assumption that it is "obviously" the right thing to do is what's pathetic.
I've asked a "compromise" question, and you dismiss it: How LONG of a waiting period is sufficient?
Then I would just expect you to stick with it! So, if you say "ten days," and you GET ten days, then when Pate's story is told again and again in the years following you getting what you want, THEN you need to remember this conversation and STICK with it. Because there ARE reasons why this should not be done:
1) NO "compromise" waiting period (short of infinite, or, in other words, gun prohibition) will "reduce" stories like Pate's "enough" that there won't be pressure to lengthen that waiting period even more.
2) Nothing about this whole direction of thought addresses our fundamental right of self defense. To wit....
If I come onto this planet from another planet, a person like I am now, I BRING WITH ME a right to life and a corresponding right to self defense. My citizenship is off-world; I don't get that right from any Earthly government, nor can any Earthly government take it away from me! And that right brings with it the right to possess ANY and ALL forms of weaponry that I can reasonably think might be employed to threaten my own well-being.
So, as an off-worldly visitor to this planet, I look around and see what persons are using to threaten and kill other persons. My ONLY consideration in terms of my RIGHTS is: what is my OWN determination of what I can most conveniently pack around to protect myself from the threats I see?
If everybody on planet Earth is threatening and killing each other with big sticks, then it is reasonable for me to want to pack around my own big stick. If people are routinely threatening each other with nukes, then I really want off this planet in a hurry, rather than to have my own nuke. But if people are routinely threatening each other with automatic weapons, then I want one of my own. This is a simple principle of self defense deriving from RIGHTS that I do not GET, nor that can be taken away from me, by ANY government.
Our founders recognized this basic principle, which is why they referred to our most basic rights as "inalienable."
Now, if no government can either give or TAKE these rights, then they cannot "infringe" them either. NO government can tell me, "You do have the right of self defense. We acknowledge it and have no intention of taking it away from you. However, you do NOT have the right to purchase the MEANS of your own self defense 'on a whim.' You MUST WAIT ten days before you can arm yourself to actually exercise the right we agree that you have."
The point is that the RIGHT is continual and uninfringeable. The principle is that JUST AS SOON as it enters my mind that I need this or that means of self defense, I have the corresponding RIGHT to avail myself of it. As an off-worldly being, well aware of my rights and the corresponding RIGHT I have to the means by which to protect those rights, I would literally laugh in the face of any government with the temerity to presume that IT had the right to tell me any such thing!
3) The fact that people abuse their rights does NOT provide either a logical or principled reason to infringe the rights of those that are not abusing their rights. There is NO logically sound move to go from the fact that some people drink too much sugary soda in a sitting to the LAW precluding ME from having more than 16oz in a sitting.
4) ALL such laws are by nature arbitrary, drawing "helpful" (so they say) but utterly arbitrary lines. In the case of NY sodas, you could not have more than 16oz in one drink, but you could purchase more than one. Go figure! So, what the "pro" people here presume is that a "compromise" position must be reached that will be "helpful," and people not willing to "compromise" are labeled "fvctards" and "insane." But what these people call "compromise," I call arbitrary! And I refuse to be bound by arbitrary laws, particularly those that violate my basic rights of personhood (see 2 above).
And, contrary to what was claimed, the list could go on and on! There are many, many GOOD and reasonable reasons why somebody could be vehemently opposed to waiting periods. And it is "pathetic" to claim that no such reasons exist or have been put forward.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
What are you talking about ? You asked, I answered
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Without doubt one of, if not the most, incomprehensible rants I've ever read on this site.
Would you prefer that I quote the Federalist Papers to you? Most of my students find them even more incomprehensible. It's a sad commentary on you and the likes of "thinkers" like you that you can find abstract explanations "incomprehensible." Yet, back in the day, the Federalist Papers were newspaper articles. Different quality of thinker back then!
Of course, back then we didn't elect our presidents on sound bites. People could actually parse complex sentences and abstract ideas, and they expected them. And, people actually THOUGHT about many sides of a position, rather than finding "incomprehensible" any position that wasn't their own.
What's incomprehensible to me is how we got to the point in this society where in a "debate" like this such reasoning could be "incomprehensible" to anybody. That's both saddening and discouraging.
I guess, go watch "V For Vendetta" and see if you can get the point from that mode of delivery. More your speed.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Guess you never engaged in a thought experiment or derived the point from a movie.
The point is that rights inhere in persons not governments. Persons don't get their rights FROM governments. And legitimate governments exist SOLELY to uphold the rights of persons. Thus, governments have no legitimacy in infringing on the inalienable rights of persons, among them the right to life (and its defense).
Oh, why do I bother?
Hopefully at least some lurkers have found some value. I don't write for the likes of you, Hedge. I learned that a long time and many threads ago.
Edit: since you're editing after posting, I'll at least note than I am in response. You yourself should get help... educational help. Learn to think outside of your own narrow little box.
And I DO read about people like you in the news all the time. It really saddens me.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
madbolter1--I appreciate your comments and I'm confident that others do too. Keep up the good work, and I'm glad you're not dissuaded from posting by hostility from the ST loony-left crowd.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
How LONG of a waiting period is sufficient?
And I have answered that twice. Here is the third time:
Nobody knows. Somewhere between zero to infinity days.
I'll come down from infinity days to 10 days (a compromise of infinity days) if you come up from zero (a compromise of only 10 days).
I never said a federal waiting period was the right thing to do. I said it was worth trying. There is no data showing it is not worth trying. Why not try it? You can't stand the thought of waiting 10 days for your penis extension?
NO "compromise" waiting period (short of infinite, or, in other words, gun prohibition) will "reduce" stories like Pate's "enough" that there won't be pressure to lengthen that waiting period even more.
Completely unsupported by all the available evidence. You have no idea how much a waiting period will reduce gun violence because it hasn't been tried long enough and consistently enough.
Did you read that article about car safety? Can you imagine people being stupid enough to think car design and seat belts would not reduce deaths from automobile accidents? What a bunch of idiots!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
The point is that rights inhere in persons not governments. Persons don't get their rights FROM governments. And legitimate governments exist SOLELY to uphold the rights of persons. Thus, governments have no legitimacy in infringing on the inalienable rights of persons, among them the right to life (and its defense).
Abstract concepts are all nice and pleasant, but in reality there are no inherent rights. Rights may exist without government, but without the consent of society, be it a tribal village or the United States, rights cannot be asserted, so may as well not bother to exist.
So what about that son and husband's rights, are those less important that yours?
What inalienable right would you lose if you had to wait 7 days to buy a handgun?
What inalienable right would you lose if you were prohibited from selling a gun to a total stranger?
What inalienable right would you lose if you had to show ID to buy ammunition?
What inalienable tight would you lose if you had to keep guns locked away when not in use, and report their theft to police?
What inalienable right would you lose if you had to take a training class to carry a gun outside of your own home?
TE
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 12:01am PT
|
I explained why: You agree with Pate in this debate. His argument included the claim that "mental instability" was not a factor here. Your argument claims that she was an "obvious danger to the community."
dont re-word my statement asshat. NOT A FACTOR is not what i said. typical.
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 12:07am PT
|
i love these threads because the as#@&%es are so easily outed.
a nice long list of them participating here.
|
|
Pate
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 12:15am PT
|
it's really easy to be cold and analytical when you are detached and lack personal experience isn't it? what if it was your son? your neighbor? your community? your life?
what would you say to asher? what would you say to his friends? what would you say at his memorial?
we said nothing. we listened to sobbing.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
The librarians son would still be alive if school kids were allowed to carry guns..But the crazy anti-gun liberals won't allow this...The New town massacre wouldn't have happened if all the students were packing...Hitler gave guns to his youth to fight off the communist...Berlin would have fallen sooner if not for the pistol packin Hitler youth...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!