Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Hey M.B., is it your entire argument that all we need is education campaigns for guns? What would that look like- safe handling classes? Like hunter safety? Like what they require in CA now for pistols? Obviously, you wouldnt make those mandatory, which means by your own logic they would be completely useless, considering you see no way for even mandatory programs to have positive effects.
So in one post you acknowledge you think some form of control is coming down the pipe, and in most others you fight tooth and nail against any and all forms of control, stating all will fail and good law abiding citizens, yourself included, will voluntarily become criminals rimply because its your opinion that the law miit violate your rights. Indicates a complete and utter diregard for law and due process, dont you think? How is that different from, say, a deeply religious person failing to perform their duties due to their beliefs? Or outright violating the law becuse it conflicts with their religion?
See, in your case, its just your opinion, without vetting it through a court process to prove that it is, in fact, unconstitutional. And if thats your position, i have to wonder what other laws would you willingly ignore?
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2015 - 09:41am PT
|
What would be wrong with that?
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
Works for me...as long as the insurance were affordable, maybe provided by the NRA since they care so much. Given insurance companies and their f u c k e d up ways I have no faith there.
Edit;
Good question. Probably a "from here forward" type of thing. Maybe increased enforcement at shooting ranges and areas? "Show me ze papers!"
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
Since I own an unregistered handgun (legal in my state), what motivation do I have to register it, pay insurance and pay for training?
Not saying it is bad idea, I'm being the devil's advocate.
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
Insurance companies would be more than happy to cover liability on firearms. But they would claim exemption from compensating victims because the shootings were
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
an act of God.
Seriously, I think liability insurance on firearms is an interesting idea.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Insurance and registration requirements would no doubt disproportionately harm minorities, the same as voter ID requirements have been proven to do.
I can afford to pay all the fees and buy all the insurance. It won't affect me. But what chance does a single woman of color living in a shitty neighborhood have to be able to cover all that extra expense? She's the one who needs protection on hand. Not me, a fit white male living in a very quiet neighborhood.
This issue - should the Democrats choose to push it - will have the Dems' coming off looking like Republicans and their *voter ID* nonsense.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Yes, more laws and more insurance requirements. That always helps.
Well, it helps politicians, lawyers, and insurance companies anyway.
Seek root causes, the solutions lie there, not downstream.
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
Root causes like humans being genetically disposed to violence?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
The moral outrage comes from the fact that there are thousands of people who die from a completely preventable cause that we are choosing to do nothing about.
Really? If murder is completely preventable, please share with us how we do that. While you're at it, don't our laws against murder and the use and possession of firearms by certain people constistute "doing something?" If not, how are more laws different?
Too many arguments on this subject claim extreme, unsupportable positions. Gun violence is not completely preventable, but neither is gun control completely ineffective. As healeyje points out, (perhaps indirectly but unmistakably), the more guns in circulation, the easier it is for a criminal to obtain one. Logically, one would expect that fact to have some deterrent effect.
The analogy to automobiles strikes me as specious, since nothing in the Bill of Rights makes keeping and using automobiles a right of the people. Maybe if we had a debate based on realistic proposals in contemporary America, the country might find an acceptable solution. Instead we have a clash of two opposing quasi-religious beliefs, that produces nothing but noise.
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
John posted Really? If murder is completely preventable, please share with us how we do that. While you're at it, don't our laws against murder and the use and possession of firearms by certain people consistute "doing something?" If not, how are more laws different?
Too many arguments on this subject claim extreme, unsupportable positions. Gun violence is not completely preventable, but neither is gun control completely ineffective.
I never made the claim that all gun deaths were completely preventable, so please don't straw man my point.
Maybe if we had a debate based on realistic proposals in contemporary America, the country might find an acceptable solution. Instead we have a clash of two opposing quasi-religious beliefs, that produces nothing but noise.
That has been my point repeatedly and several of us have suggested places to start. It would be far more helpful if you engaged with those ideas lest one think you are focusing on the extremes as an easy way of avoiding it.
Chaz posted Insurance and registration requirements would no doubt disproportionately harm minorities, the same as voter ID requirements have been proven to do.
I can afford to pay all the fees and buy all the insurance. It won't affect me. But what chance does a single woman of color living in a shitty neighborhood have to be able to cover all that extra expense? She's the one who needs protection on hand. Not me, a fit white male living in a very quiet neighborhood.
I'm glad to hear that you:
1. Are acknowledging that voter discrimination exists
2. Are acknowledging that wealth inequality is a problem
3. Are acknowledging that institutional racism exists
It was just this morning that you were saying horribly racist things. Did you get Scrooged or something? What a difference a day makes!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
HDDJ, Please forgive me if I misread your argument. I took your use of "completely preventable" to mean something different from "some of which are preventable." This seems a more logical meaning to me, particularly when you add the phrase "that we are choosing to do nothing about." "Completely" and "nothing" constitute descriptions of extreme cases. I therefore concluded that you were propounding an extreme case.
My post obviously acknowledges that some gun laws have some of the desired effects. I'm trying to get people away from "all," "every," "absolute," "total," etc. in this debate, to try to focus on what might actually help.
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Well if we really want to get semantic, they ARE "completely preventable." We just would have no interest in living in that world. Gun violence is a preventable illness no different than heart disease and diabetes. We may never reach 0 but that does not mean we shouldn't try.
Glad to see you're again picking the argument of convenience instead of engaging with the policy options, John. ;-)
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
I have been trying to understand why the perpetrators first went back to Redlands and then, of all places, came back to the site of the original attack. If you will remember the middle east has often experienced second attacks at the same site as an earlier attack; the point being to kill concentrations of emergency personnel. The most embarrassing situation conceivable.
Assume they intended this but needed something back at the house, such as more ammo or a replacement firearm. Their early exit from the first attack supports such a strategic plan. To have a second attack they needed to get away from the first immediately. Which they did.
Assuming all of this is true what can we learn? It would seem our first responders were quicker and more powerful than had been the experience in the M/E or even in the Boston bombing. The second attack failed completely. Hiding in place for an extended period of time at this site kept the streets clear of civilians and out of potential fields of fire.
At the Boston bombing, the crowds formed a linear grouping on the open streets, it seems there was no plan to get people moving away from that grouping as fast as possible and using every exit available.
Tactics are going to depend critically on the site and the exposures involved.
Training will become key. For everyone.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
MB1 pretty much destroys you guys debate-wise. The only one close is Healye.
HDDJ does pretty good too, just my opinion, of course. Here
Not if you fall for his false equivalencies (or as I called them, smoke and mirrors).
1) A law that simply makes bears illegal will have ZERO effect upon the bear population. Shockingly, bears don't give a rat's tail-junction about what laws get passed
Although it made for one long page of funny stuff, he missed his mark. No one here is talking about the "bear", the laws are made to condone how YOU, a person may interact with a bear. There are plenty of laws out there that curtail what a human came do with regards of possessing a bear. Same way the laws against guns are designed to curtail what interaction a human can have with them. They're not simply outlawing the existence of a gun, duh.
Other then that he is consistant on his stance. He doesn't trust government and no laws that don't go along with his laundry list of hurdles shall be passed against guns. I rarely read his entire rants any more as they're just a trip down a rabbit hole, and thats to bad because when he does write things worth reading, they're more than likely to be filled with cheap shots demeaning his opponents and his insight is quicky lost.
Anyone that doesn't think the tide against guns isn't slowly turning has there head in the sand. We can fight it and lose a lot or we can start taking a realistic position that may ease the all or nothing mentality.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Well if we really want to get semantic, they ARE "completely preventable." We just would have no interest in living in that world. Gun violence is a preventable illness no different than heart disease and diabetes. We may never reach 0 but that does not mean we shouldn't try.
Point taken and accepted, HDDJ. I'm not sure heart disease is truly preventable in every instance, any more than cancer is preventable in every instance. All we can do is decrease the odds of being a victim. Your explanation, quoted above, tells me that you and I are searching for the same thing: laws that reduce our danger of being victims of gun violence without creating a society in which we don't want to live.
With that thought in mind, and with the rather stark polarity of opinions on this issue, I think the most likely areas for progress now would be expanded background checks and, eventually (sooner rather than later in my preference) some form of firearm registration.
I realize background checks probably would not have prevented the San Bernardino massacre, but I would hope that they would reduce some of the incidents of shootings, particularly those of the "mental illness" variety. Just because a measure is imperfect doesnt mean it's useless.
In the registration context, the main argument I read is that registration makes confiscation easier. True, but irrelevant. If confiscation ever gets enacted, it will require a change in the Second Amendment (or a Supreme Court whose justices hold the view of words' meanings that Humpty-Dumpty held in Alice in Wonderland (or was it Through the Looking Glasss?) If that large a proportion of the population supports that extreme a position of gun control, the weapons will be confiscated anyway - at least of the law-abiding citizens. I think that would be a tragedy, but that's beside the point. As long as there are 300+ million guns in circulation, any government would think twice about involuntarily removing them.
If, however, we had a firearm registry, we could trace how perpetrators obtained their weapons. This would help us close loopholes, and prosecute those who helped obtain firearms for those prohibited from their possession.
Beyond that, I think we kid ourselves. We aren't Australia or Europe, that lacks a long history of armed citizenry. We need to look at the possibilities realistically, rather than theoretically.
John
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You people a dumber then sh!t.
You'll eventually eliminate guns.
then they'll kill you with bio terrorism.
There's no escape for you stoopid modern people .....
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
There's no escape for you stoopid modern people .....
Not even Hawkman's Escape?
Rilly?
First, you get yourself Absolutely Free. Then, you sneak away on Hawkman's Escape.
Crank-A-Loons go to Paradise City, where the rock is steep and the girls are pretty.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2015 - 05:35pm PT
|
I M A G I N E
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Crank-A-Loons go to Paradise City, where the rock is steep and the girls are pretty.
LMAO +1
|
|
The Chief
climber
Down the hill & across the Valley from......
|
|
Philo,
Do I need to compare your number above to the amount of Americans that died in Traffic Accidents during the same time frame?
BTW, there are more legally owned "guns" than there are privately owned vehicles in the United States.
Maybe we should start thinking about banning all modes of privately owned vehicular transportation in this country before we do, guns.
Right Philo?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!