Yay, GUNS!

[waitforufo]

What specifically does the "President's law" do? Please be specific.

Its a law like any other law except it is an edict of the president. Who needs congress? Why waste all that time on debating bills and passing them to put on the president's desk? Just tell the president your good intentions are being blocked by a lobbying group, or obstructed by elected congress members, and if that makes the president cry perhaps you will get the law you want.

 

The first of those not only demonstrates your paranoia, it's a logical fallacy- usually referred to as the " slippery slope" argument.

So that's clearly nonsense.

Do you understand that it's logically invalid?

John, if you are not willing to follow the rules of the constitution then anything goes. First the second amendment, then pick another.

 

And the second is nonsense too. Once again, it's a logical fallacy because you have misrepresented what I said.

Here's what I actually said

" one is that for the most part, if the other guy doesn't have a gun, you don't need one."

No, John It's the other way around. For the most part the person who intends to do you harm needs a gun because you just might have one. Because in a free state you you are allowed to have one. Without one, criminals would simply beat you to death.

 

Your point about "The strong can easily overcome the weak." would be a valid point if only nice people were allowed guns- but you can't do that. The only way to stop bad people having guns is to stop everyone having them.

At best, giving everyone a gun gives the clear upper hand to the bad guy. He knows he is up to no good so he can shoot first.

Why do you think that is a good idea?

No John, criminals will have guns even if they are illegal. What part of criminal don't you understand. Criminals avoid those they suspect have guns thereby reducing attacks. If criminals are so good at shooting first, why do 75% percent or more of homicide victims have long criminal records?

 

Just to help things along; please don't cite anything to do with interpretation of the US constitution. The constitution can be changed if it is agreed that what it says -however interpreted- no longer applies

Forgot this one in my last post. It's not that the constitution can be changed to get what you want John, the constitution must be changed. Good luck with that. The only reason interpretations are discussed is because those that wan't gun control know the second amendment won't be changed.

 

Please explain then why people are more likely to be shot by their own gun than shoot a "bad guy?"

Well because there are far more good people with guns than bad people. Take the guns away from the good people and more good people will be shot, and if not shot beaten to death or victimized in other ways.

 

I enjoy how you've just implicitly suggested that the NRA is no more worrisome than a local Girl Scout troop, no more powerful than the members of a rural rotary club or elk lodge.

I didn't implicitly suggest, I directly stated this fact because it's true. They lobby but no one has to listen to them. Please explain to me there power to "block" that you keep mentioning. What is the source of this power? How is it enforced or assured?

 

See how that keeps happening? We were talking about ensuring all dealers do background checks, maybe invest some money in mental health resources and smart gun tech. Now, like 3 or 4 posts later, we're once again back to arguing about oppression and tyrants and combatting strawmen about the removal of all guns from all people. Fancy.

Maybe you haven't been reading John Cuthber's posts. All he talks about is taking guns away from everyone. The new Presidential law makes every gun owner a gun dealer. What law gave him the right to do that? Why should my tax dollars go to smart gun tech? When did congress use it's power over the purse to allocate money for this research?

Edited January 12, 2016 by waitforufo

[iNow]

The new Presidential law makes every gun owner a gun dealer.

 

Nope.

 

As I already shared with you just 3 short days ago in post 918: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67895-yay-guns/?p=900013

 

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

 

Under federal law, a person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms is a person who devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.

 

Under federal law, conducting business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection.

 

Consistent with this approach, federal law explicitly exempts persons who make occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.

In case you missed it, it's the last paragraph that's most relevant. (FYI - There's more in the link along similar lines if you care to update your position so as to align it somewhat with actual reality).

[Ten oz]

 

Its a law like any other law except it is an edict of the president. Who needs congress? Why waste all that time on debating bills and passing them to put on the president's desk? Just tell the president your good intentions are being blocked by a lobbying group, or obstructed by elected congress members, and if that makes the president cry perhaps you will get the law you want.

This is not an answer to my question. You are complaining about the process you nelieve the president used to short cut the constitution in this post. I asked you what the law (which you insist the president has ordered) does. Please explain that and be specific.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

John, if you are not willing to follow the rules of the constitution then anything goes. First the second amendment, then pick another.

 

 

It's not me that's unwilling to follow the constitution; it's Americans.

That's why it has been amended.

But that hasn't led to them abolishing it, or amending it every day/

So in the real world, a change to the constitution doesn't lead to anarchy as you are trying to pretend.

As I said, you are relying on fallacy.

[overtone]

"Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina has relatively liberal weapon laws compared to the rest of Europe. Weapons are regulated by "Weapons and Ammunition Law"

Why yes. That's a fairly common response to such history as they have experienced. (Notice the historical background of the US Constitution and subsequent legislation in this arena).

 

The Berlin wall didn't fall because the populous had ready access to guns.

You don't need guns to overthrow an oppressive government.

 

Agreed, as always when you post things like that. What's the point?

 

In case you missed it, it's the last paragraph that's most relevant. (FYI - There's more in the link along similar lines if you care to update your position so as to align it somewhat with actual reality).

One of the side issues illustrated there is the fact that Congress cannot mandate a background check for private gun sales because it would impose an undue burden on the seller. This is not a property of the universe, but an incapability of current US governance. If it were easy and cheap and quick to run a gun-purchase background check on anyone buying a gun, which it could be, it could be mandated without violating the US Constitution.

Edited January 12, 2016 by overtone

[dimreepr]

One of the side issues illustrated there is the fact that Congress cannot mandate a background check for private gun sales because it would impose an undue burden on the seller. This is not a property of the universe, but an incapability of current US governance. If it were easy and cheap and quick to run a gun-purchase background check on anyone buying a gun, which it could be, it could be mandated without violating the US Constitution.

 

 

Since the cost of a human life is between 7 and 9 million dollars and given that you suggest it could be “mandated without violating the US Constitution” I fail to see your objection, other than simple gainsay.

 

 

Agreed, as always when you post things like that. What's the point?

 

 

 

Guns are unnecessary.

Edited January 12, 2016 by dimreepr

[Willie71]

Why yes. That's a fairly common response to such history as they have experienced. (Notice the historical background of the US Constitution and subsequent legislation in this arena).

 

 

 

Agreed, as always when you post things like that. What's the point?

 

 

One of the side issues illustrated there is the fact that Congress cannot mandate a background check for private gun sales because it would impose an undue burden on the seller. This is not a property of the universe, but an incapability of current US governance. If it were easy and cheap and quick to run a gun-purchase background check on anyone buying a gun, which it could be, it could be mandated without violating the US Constitution.

 

An undue burden on the seller? Not really. Put the responsibility on the government. Cars are licensed, and when I sell a car, I cancel my registration, and let the registration office know the car has been sold. I keep a copy of the bill of sale. This protects me from liability which could have happened last spring. A car I sold was stolen that evening, and was involved in a dangerous driving incident. The new owner hadn't registered the car yet. I had a copy of the bill of sale, the new owner was tracked down, and the car was returned to the new owner. If the new owner doesn't register the vehicle, he is breaking the law by operating it. Same thing could work for guns.

[John Cuthber]

 

No, John It's the other way around. For the most part the person who intends to do you harm needs a gun because you just might have one. Because in a free state you you are allowed to have one. Without one, criminals would simply beat you to death.

 

No John, criminals will have guns even if they are illegal. What part of criminal don't you understand. Criminals avoid those they suspect have guns thereby reducing attacks. If criminals are so good at shooting first, why do 75% percent or more of homicide victims have long criminal records?

 

Forgot this one in my last post. It's not that the constitution can be changed to get what you want John, the constitution must be changed. Good luck with that. The only reason interpretations are discussed is because those that wan't gun control know the second amendment won't be changed.

 

Well because there are far more good people with guns than bad people. Take the guns away from the good people and more good people will be shot, and if not shot beaten to death or victimized in other ways.

 

I didn't implicitly suggest, I directly stated this fact because it's true. They lobby but no one has to listen to them. Please explain to me there power to "block" that you keep mentioning. What is the source of this power? How is it enforced or assured?

 

Maybe you haven't been reading John Cuthber's posts. All he talks about is taking guns away from everyone. The new Presidential law makes every gun owner a gun dealer. What law gave him the right to do that? Why should my tax dollars go to smart gun tech? When did congress use it's power over the purse to allocate money for this research?

 

"No, John It's the other way around. For the most part the person who intends to do you harm needs a gun because you just might have one. "

A lot of arguments about "cause and effect" can be resolved by looking at how they phenomenon must have started.

According to your belief someone must have invented the gun to defend himself against a threat from a man who had a gun that didn't exist.

Would you like to think that through again?

 

 

Re the "criminals will have guns, even if they are illegal"

Yep, that's pretty close to what we have here so, if the public report that someone has a gun they call the police. the police turn up and either arrest them or shoot them. Both options suit me just fine.

"Criminals avoid those they suspect have guns thereby reducing attacks."

Anyone who could reliably make that judgement would be able to get a much better job. Seriously, how you you imagine they know?

Do you think all criminals are psychic or something?

"If criminals are so good at shooting first, why do 75% percent or more of homicide victims have long criminal records?"

Because they hang out with the wrong sort of people.

So what?

Also, you forget that, in almost all of those cases the "man with a criminal record who got shot" was shot by someone who shot first and was a criminal.

Almost all those cases prove my point.

Are you not reading through what you write before you post it?

 

 

"Forgot this one in my last post. It's not that the constitution can be changed to get what you want John, the constitution must be changed. Good luck with that."

Yep, I'd need luck.

Or maybe I just need people to stop coming up with total bollocks like the stuff you have in a desperate attempt to keep their toys to defend their paranoia.

 

"Take the guns away from the good people and more good people will be shot, and if not shot beaten to death or victimized in other ways."

That's a strawman (again) since nobody is suggesting that we only take guns from good people. (Yeah- we all know the kneejerk reaction is that criminals won't obey the gun control laws. Those of us who have been paying attention will also know that it's not true)

 

"Maybe you haven't been reading John Cuthber's posts. All he talks about is taking guns away from everyone. "

Plainly a lie

 

"The new Presidential law makes every gun owner a gun dealer. "

Plainly a lie

 

So, once again, the pro-gun lobby is proving iNow's point; all they can do is spout bollocks.

[Ten oz]

Man allowed his fear of criminals lead to something terrible:

 

"CINCINNATI (AP) — An armed man who believed he was confronting an intruder in the basement of his home Tuesday morning instead fatally shot his 14-year-old son, who was supposed to be on his way to school, police said.

Police said the teen had headed to the bus stop but apparently came back home through a back door. The man said he heard a noise in the basement. Police said when the father opened a door within the basement, the boy appeared.

"He scared me!" the distraught father said in his 911 call shortly before 6:30 a.m. "I thought he was in school. I heard noise, so I went downstairs looking and he jumped out at me. .... Oh, God. Get here quick!"

http://news.yahoo.com/police-ohio-man-mistakes-teen-son-intruder-kills-143957261.html

[Willie71]

Man allowed his fear of criminals lead to something terrible:

 

"CINCINNATI (AP) — An armed man who believed he was confronting an intruder in the basement of his home Tuesday morning instead fatally shot his 14-year-old son, who was supposed to be on his way to school, police said.

 

 

 

 

 

Police said the teen had headed to the bus stop but apparently came back home through a back door. The man said he heard a noise in the basement. Police said when the father opened a door within the basement, the boy appeared.

"He scared me!" the distraught father said in his 911 call shortly before 6:30 a.m. "I thought he was in school. I heard noise, so I went downstairs looking and he jumped out at me. .... Oh, God. Get here quick!"

http://news.yahoo.com/police-ohio-man-mistakes-teen-son-intruder-kills-143957261.html

Another example of the typical gun owner confronting an intruder. The stats on how this occurs much more often than getting a 'bad guy." (I love the schoolyard good guys/bad guys delineation as its so childish and absurd) should be sobering for ammosexuals. It's like refusing to wear your seatbelt because it might lock in a car fire, possibly killing you, ignoring the prevention of death and many injuries in countless other scenarios. The risk of not using it far outweighs the risk of malfunction.

As Jim Jeffries says, the only real argument is 'Fuck off, I like my guns!" The rest is BS when measured statistically. Time to start being honest about it.

[Ten oz]

@ Willie71, saddest thing about that story to me is that here in the United States that man killing his own son is considered an honest mistake. Just a random accident where no one is to blame. The fact that the man shot to kill a person prior to having a clue about what was happening raises no red flags. That is the extent of our "freedom" and "liberty" in this country. We empower ourselves with the right to kill each other if we feel threatened with no requirement to quantify the legitimacy of that threat. Better several innocent people die by mistake than one "bad guy" gets the drop on someone because they took and extra second to turn on a light to ensure they weren't about to kill their own child. That is how tyranny starts: first they (evil govt) won't let you kill anyone who frightens you and then the next thing you know it is Nazi Germany.......smh

[overtone]

Since the cost of a human life is between 7 and 9 million dollars and given that you suggest it could be “mandated without violating the US Constitution” I fail to see your objection, other than simple gainsay.

 

 

 

An undue burden on the seller? Not really. Put the responsibility on the government.

 

In other words, exactly what I recommended is presented as an objection to my posting.

 

Another illustration of where the reasonable folks, 80 - 90% of whom (as I) favor sane and well-considered gun control measures in the US, get their mistrust of gun control advocacy, and dig in their heels when asked to hand power to irrational people with ill-considered and bogus arguments for authoritarian governmental impositions.

 

 

 

As Jim Jeffries says, the only real argument is 'Fuck off, I like my guns!" The rest is BS when measured statistically

No, it isn't. Your stats are bs, your arguments are deadlocks between polarized extremes of irrational vendetta, and the ideological basis of your recommendations is dangerously authoritarian.

 

Statistically, other people's guns are not a significant threat to ordinary citizens in the US. Start there.

Edited January 13, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

 

 

 

Statistically, other people's guns are not a significant threat to ordinary citizens in the US. Start there.

WASHINGTON – About 1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This number represents an estimated average of 232,400 firearms stolen each year— about 172,000 stolen during burglaries and 60,300 stolen during other property crimes.

These estimates are based on data from the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which has collected information from victims of crime since 1973. Of the guns stolen each year during burglaries and other property crimes, at least 80 percent, or an annual average of 186,800 firearms, had not been recovered up to six months after being stolen.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm

[Willie71]

In other words, exactly what I recommended is presented as an objection to my posting.

 

Another illustration of where the reasonable folks, 80 - 90% of whom (as I) favor sane and well-considered gun control measures in the US, get their mistrust of gun control advocacy, and dig in their heels when asked to hand power to irrational people with ill-considered and bogus arguments for authoritarian governmental impositions.

 

No, it isn't. Your stats are bs, your arguments are deadlocks between polarized extremes of irrational vendetta, and the ideological basis of your recommendations is dangerously authoritarian.

 

Statistically, other people's guns are not a significant threat to ordinary citizens in the US. Start there.

How do we have a discussion, if facts are optional? There is legitimate research showing guns have a much greater risk than benefit to a family. If we can't agree on reality, the rest is nonsense. You don't believe the research? Am I getting that right?

[overtone]

 

 

How do we have a discussion, if facts are optional? There is legitimate research showing guns have a much greater risk than benefit to a family. If we can't agree on reality, the rest is nonsense. You don't believe the research? Am I getting that right?

No, I believe solid research - the stuff that is carefully done and not obviously wrongfooted. And nothing I've posted here - much less the post you quoted - conflicts with any research at all. Nor does it conflict with any reality, or physical fact.

 

Which brings up the point that you think it does. Which makes no sense.

 

Which is yet another addition to my increasingly voluminous compilation of pieces of evidence for my thesis: this issue in the US is - uniquely, unlike almost any other issue - currently a deadlock of irrational and emotional extremists on both sides, and that's why we can't get nice things like reasonable gun control.

[Willie71]

No, I believe solid research - the stuff that is carefully done and not obviously wrongfooted. And nothing I've posted here - much less the post you quoted - conflicts with any research at all. Nor does it conflict with any reality, or physical fact.

 

Which brings up the point that you think it does. Which makes no sense.

 

Which is yet another addition to my increasingly voluminous compilation of pieces of evidence for my thesis: this issue in the US is - uniquely, unlike almost any other issue - currently a deadlock of irrational and emotional extremists on both sides, and that's why we can't get nice things like reasonable gun control.

You said the stats are BS. The stats come from peer reviewed research in respected journals by respected scientists.

[dimreepr]

Which is yet another addition to my increasingly voluminous compilation of pieces of evidence for my thesis: this issue in the US is - uniquely, unlike almost any other issue - currently a deadlock of irrational and emotional extremists on both sides, and that's why we can't get nice things like reasonable gun control.

 

 

 

So give up, after all, it’s so much easier than solving the problem. The emotional response doesn’t equal an irrational one.

[John Cuthber]

 

Another illustration of where the reasonable folks, 80 - 90% of whom (as I) favor sane and well-considered gun control measures in the US, get their mistrust of gun control advocacy, and dig in their heels when asked to hand power to irrational people with ill-considered and bogus arguments for authoritarian governmental impositions.

 

So, you agree that (for some reason) "sane well considered gun control" is favoured by 80 or 90% of the population,

It must be being opposed by someone or it would already have happened.

So the people opposing gun control are not sane.

 

Remind me again, which side of the fence are you on?

[overtone]

It must be being opposed by someone or it would already have happened.

Invalid reasoning, contradicted by observation. Sane and reasonable regulation of firearms, including such aspects as background checks (including mental health and restraining orders etc) on all purchasers, restrictions on transport and display, protection of children from accident, and various licensing requirements for concealed carrying, are in fact supported by 80 - 90% of all Americans.

 

And they haven't "happened". \

 

 

 

So the people opposing gun control are not sane

Probably. There aren't very many of them, though.

 

Gun control itself is not what people oppose.

 

 

You said the stats are BS. The stats come from peer reviewed research in respected journals by respected scientists

I know where "the stats" came from. Do you know why I said "your stats" are bs?

 

Statistics are just facts, more or less reliable as they are more or less carefully compiled. People draw conclusions from them, and that's where the trouble starts. When people draw bogus conclusions in the course of attempting to refute something they've misread in the first place, the validity of the stats themselves isn't even involved.

 

Here's the assertion again: "Statistically, other people's guns are not a significant threat to ordinary citizens in the US. Start there. "

Edited January 14, 2016 by overtone

[Willie71]

Invalid reasoning, contradicted by observation. Sane and reasonable regulation of firearms, including such aspects as background checks (including mental health and restraining orders etc) on all purchasers, restrictions on transport and display, protection of children from accident, and various licensing requirements for concealed carrying, are in fact supported by 80 - 90% of all Americans.

 

And they haven't "happened". \

 

 

 

 

Probably. There aren't very many of them, though.

 

Gun control itself is not what people oppose.

 

 

 

I know where "the stats" came from. Do you know why I said "your stats" are bs?

 

Statistics are just facts, more or less reliable as they are more or less carefully compiled. People draw conclusions from them, and that's where the trouble starts. When people draw bogus conclusions in the course of attempting to refute something they've misread in the first place, the validity of the stats themselves isn't even involved.

 

Here's the assertion again: "Statistically, other people's guns are not a significant threat to ordinary citizens in the US. Start there. "

Where do you think the guns in the hands of your so called bad guys came from? They were purchased legally at some point, then either sold to bad guys or stolen. This ends that discussion. Next.

[overtone]

 

 

Where do you think the guns in the hands of your so called bad guys came from?

No post of mine "so calls" bad guys, or good guys.

 

They were purchased legally at some point, then either sold to bad guys or stolen. This ends that discussion. Next.

I'm sure you think you were making a point there, but it isn't visible. You quoted the whole post, then went rambling off somewhere - what are you talking about?

[dimreepr]

Come on ‘overtone’ ambiguity is your specialty, surely you can see through another’s attempt?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Gun control itself is not what people oppose.

 

Well, in this thread we had Waitforufo opposing Obama's decision to actually enforce the gun control legislation that already existed.

[overtone]

Come on ‘overtone’ ambiguity is your specialty, surely you can see through another’s attempt?

 

 

Well, in this thread we had Waitforufo opposing Obama's decision to actually enforce the gun control legislation that already existed

Round three, off and running.

 

The only thing visible "through" all this bullshit is that entire matter is a polarized deadlock of irrational and emotional extremists who can't be trusted with governmental power. And that's been my thesis, as well as (apparently) the general public's perception, throughout.

 

Fortunately, it's not an emergency. Drug dealers and suicides can continue their mayhem without greatly risking the regular citizenry, we can reduce the gun violence in the US via a few long-overdue improvements in matters such as lead poisoning and drug laws and police enforcement behaviors that don't have the "gun control" label dragging them sideways, and after things cool off we can get some reasonable regulation of firearms in this country.

 

The important thing is to take it off the table. It has killed the candidacies of more good politicians than almost any other issue I know, and it wasn't worth a single one of them. If we end up with a Cruz presidency on this issue, as we (arguably) did a W disaster, then that's a damn tragedy.

Edited January 14, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

Drug dealers and suicides can continue their mayhem without greatly risking the regular citizenry,

 

That's remarkable.

You seem to put yourself forwards as the "voice of reason" and then say that something of the order of hundreds of dead children, and thousands of injured children don't constitute evidence of "greatly risking the regular citizenry".

I assume you accept that the children are not generally criminals.

 

No doubt you will now choose to blame me for the refusal of "gun nuts" to look at idea of controls.