Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby bldavis » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:20 pm

Image
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 7347
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:21 pm

And on an entirely different topic

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/ ... ?mobile=nc

Louisiana decided to mess with Texas!! I wish more states would stand up to the crap the Texas education system is.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11024
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:29 pm

Klaudandus wrote:I'd say bi-annual recertification in order to keep your license. Including bi-annual background checks, target practice at the shooting range and other methods to ensure that the gun-owner is not only proficient in the use of the gun, but also up to date with safety measures around gun use.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.


While I don't think it's asking too much, pushing through a bi-annual recert would be tough sledding. Annual Re-Cert would probably be passable.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:36 pm

Shoju wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:I'd say bi-annual recertification in order to keep your license. Including bi-annual background checks, target practice at the shooting range and other methods to ensure that the gun-owner is not only proficient in the use of the gun, but also up to date with safety measures around gun use.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.


While I don't think it's asking too much, pushing through a bi-annual recert would be tough sledding. Annual Re-Cert would probably be passable.


Ok, make it a year. Although the confusion is really my fault, I meant biennial
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11024
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:50 pm

Klaudandus wrote:
Shoju wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:I'd say bi-annual recertification in order to keep your license. Including bi-annual background checks, target practice at the shooting range and other methods to ensure that the gun-owner is not only proficient in the use of the gun, but also up to date with safety measures around gun use.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.


While I don't think it's asking too much, pushing through a bi-annual recert would be tough sledding. Annual Re-Cert would probably be passable.


Ok, make it a year. Although the confusion is really my fault, I meant biennial


Hey biennial would work too, and would surely be easier to pass.

We make kids in ohio have a driver's permit for 6 months (they can get their permit at 15 1/2.)
pass a written test, driving test, and maneuverability test
drive with a parent or guardian until they are 16
drive with someone over the age of 21 after 16
receive 24 hours of in class training
8 hours of instructed driving with a teacher
50 hours with a parent, 10 of which MUST be night driving

All before they are allowed to get their license
Once they have a license, they can't have more than one passenger until they are 17, and can't drive between midnight and 6am.

But, we have no restrictive procedure for owning a gun. You have to complete a hunter's safety course for your hunting permit. But it fails in comparison to the regulations required to drive.

I'm Pro Gun, but I'm not Pro Stupid. If we require someone we believe to be of competent age to operate a motor vehicle to complete a comprehensive training process, why don't we have something similar for firearm safety?

And because it's crossed my mind, I'm also not of the opinion that "Grandfathering" into the old law should be applicable, without stringent guidelines. I.E. CCW license for multiple years (3? 5?) Hunting License continuously held for multiple years, etc...
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:48 pm

I am curious to know how many of those 8775 handgun murders were committed by legally-licensed handgun owners using the gun registered to them, and how many were committed using guns bought off the streets by people with no license/permit/whatever.

I see it as more of a supply issue than a licensing one. I think severely limiting the sale of handguns would do more to begin the process of removing them from the population than adding more license restrictions.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Melathys » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:32 pm

Koatanga wrote:I am curious to know how many of those 8775 handgun murders were committed by legally-licensed handgun owners using the gun registered to them, and how many were committed using guns bought off the streets by people with no license/permit/whatever.

I see it as more of a supply issue than a licensing one. I think severely limiting the sale of handguns would do more to begin the process of removing them from the population than adding more license restrictions.


I think this is why this debate breaks down very quickly. In one single sentence you went from limiting to removing guns. I think any rational person is open to debating licensing or restrictions, but immediately after that debate starts it turns into removing and banning.
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:44 pm

Koatanga wrote:What I am after is to make it less convenient to kill people. Maybe if you had to get up close and personal to someone to knife them to death it would be less convenient than standing several yards away squeezing a trigger. Perhaps that alone is enough to turn 8775 firearms murders into 8774, and a life is saved.


If someone is pissed off enough to kill another person, they're going to use whatever is handy to do so. Whether that be a gun, knife, rock, stick, or rabid badger doesn't really matter. The only difference is in what's handy. I highly doubt that if we completely removed guns as A Thing™ that murder rates would necessarily go down - only murders done by guns (since they no longer exist).

The implement is relevant as to the convenience and "impersonal-ness" of the weapon. People can get squeamish if they have to kill someone with their bare hands, and some are simply not physically up to the task. Weapons make it both easier and less personal. Ranged weapons (and I'll include bombs and poisons here) make it even less personal.


Bombs and poisons require as much forethought as grabbing a gun from a gun safe. The key step in reducing impulse violence is adding a delay mechanism - whether that be unlocking a tumbler safe (for guns), manufacturing (for bombs), or mixing (for poisoning). Reducing the number of guns isn't the issue here - it's reducing the immediate access. If you add a step for people to sit back and think, they will likely change their mind. If they don't, then they were resolved to do the crime anyway, and reducing overall access to the tool isn't going to stop it.

The more difficult and more personal you force a murder to be, the less likely the murder is to take place as the perpetrator may chicken out or be unable to do the crime.


See above.

If murder is as easy as "I was pissed off at him and I had my gun in my pocket so I popped a cap in his ass", then the likelihood of someone doing it in the heat of the moment is far greater than if there was no weapon. With no weapon it maybe turns into an assault instead of a murder.


There is no such thing as "no weapon". You are never out of arm's reach of something that could be used to possibly kill another person - whether that be something obvious like a knife, or not so obvious like a television, there's always an improvised weapon at hand.

Perhaps limiting the ability to "bear" guns would help? I don't see restricting purchases (beyond something simple like "total number of guns owned") being feasible, but we could restrict carrying guns to those who are licensed to carry. The certification/recertification process is already in place in some states - like Florida, where your license to carry a concealed weapon expires every 7 years. Drop that to 2 years (the length of time a CPR license is valid for) and make it mandatory for every gun owner and household member of a gun owner - because let's be serious, I don't think it likely that someone is going to buy a gun without the at least tacit approval of the rest of the people in their home. Separate it into tiers; basic carry permits for open carry (openly visible either in the vehicle or on a person) and concealed carry permits for law enforcement personnel and "special circumstances*" only.

Because I do agree that there's largely no reason to conceal a firearm. Half the job of protecting oneself can be done simply when people see you carrying an iron on your hip - concealing it nullifies that whole "make someone else think twice" thing.

That said, I do have a concealed carry permit. I got it because I live near the border of a reservation where they don't post signs letting you know when you're actually on a reservation. When I got pulled over by the tribal cops on the state highway here (in Arizona) and busted for a weapons charge - illegal carrying on tribal land - I went out and got it. Case was dismissed, since I was on an Arizona highway and had absolutely no reasonable way of knowing exactly where the border was, but still. Concealed carry permits allow you to carry in every state that recognizes those permits, and on all federal land, including tribal reservations.

* By "special circumstances" think taxi drivers, truckers, etc. People who are in the most at-risk professions should have the right to defend themselves in cases where police can't get to them immediately.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:56 pm

Melathys wrote:
Koatanga wrote:I am curious to know how many of those 8775 handgun murders were committed by legally-licensed handgun owners using the gun registered to them, and how many were committed using guns bought off the streets by people with no license/permit/whatever.

I see it as more of a supply issue than a licensing one. I think severely limiting the sale of handguns would do more to begin the process of removing them from the population than adding more license restrictions.


I think this is why this debate breaks down very quickly. In one single sentence you went from limiting to removing guns. I think any rational person is open to debating licensing or restrictions, but immediately after that debate starts it turns into removing and banning.

You misunderstood me. I am talking about severely restricting the sale of handguns so that numbers of handguns will gradually decline by attrition of the existing supply (damage, confiscation in crimes, lost). I am not talking about a door-to-door removal of guns from the population.

I understand you can't force people to give up their guns, and people are not going to want to give up their guns. But if you choke the supply, then it starts the very gradual process of removing handguns. It won't happen overnight, but it means that when Ma Kettle goes to the Wal Mart to buy her some home defense, she buys a shotgun instead of a handgun, and there's one less handgun out there. Repeat for a few generations and maybe at some point the rate of handgun murders declines.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Melathys » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:28 pm

I didn't misunderstand, I chose to interpret it that way to prove a point. Any debate of any variation of gun control eventually devolves into removal and/or banning. As soon as any mention of removal comes into the debate, it has ceased to become a debate and both sides become polarized. It seems that any time anyone tries to bring up any form of gun control, it becomes apparent very quickly that the end game goal is wholesale removal of firearms. Up to that point, there was a positive debate about "responsible gun ownership", which again, any rational person should be willing to discuss.

I was discussing this subject with a buddy, and I told him that maybe some people value their freedom more than their safety. He responded with "That's easy for you to say, you get to carry no matter what." I looked at him until he realized he just proved my point. He was referring to the fact that I'm a federal agent, and carry concealed on and off duty without regard to state laws. (well, not so concealed when I'm on duty, but I could go do Intel sometime.)
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:40 pm

Electing to misinterpret my position doesn't make it my position. You are only proving a point against a strawman argument that you created.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Melathys » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:44 pm

or rather illustrating why debates such as this rarely make any progress.
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:03 pm

Making it harder to get guns is de facto removal of them from circulation. Unless you want the restrictions to not have any effect whatsoever on who has guns, then you're in favour of removing guns (even if just from the mentally ill)...
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6810
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:16 pm

Well, I guess this is what you want then:

Image

Yes, that's right, a large advertisement selling guns on the same page as a story about the Newtown shooting. Because if those students were armed, that gunman might not have survived the first classroom, right?

Don't worry, I'm merely reinterpreting your position to make a point.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Xonia » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:09 pm

ok i rarely ever post here but i want to say this about that newspaper..that's in my hometown, and its a crap local paper that screwed up on the lay out. It was not the intention of that gun store (one i know and friends go 2 for supplies) to have thier add ran like that. someone at the paper either screwed up, was blatently stupid, or (put on tin foil hat) did it to cause drama/make gun stores look bad.
lvl 80 prot pally, Main Tank for Choice
Xonia
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:09 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest