Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Dantriges » Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:04 am

Klaudandus wrote: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.


Followed some links on that site. Seems that California is doing the same.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/ ... textbooks/
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:12 am

Dantriges wrote:
Klaudandus wrote: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.


Followed some links on that site. Seems that California is doing the same.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/ ... textbooks/


Good! More states should do that!
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:28 am

Koatanga wrote: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.


But you have already said, that your goal is to remove handguns. You said that you would ban them outright.

I'm not OK with handguns and assault rifles. No one needs to go semi-automatic against a deer. Those are for people. Handguns, in the general sense, are not sufficiently accurate for hunting and are valued for concealability and close-quarters combat. I don't believe the general population needs guns designed for use against people.


So really, he isn't misunderstanding you. Based on what you have said consistently through this thread, you would be completely in favor of removing handguns.


And just one slight nitpick. Wal-Mart hasn't sold handguns in any of it's continental 48 stores since the mid 1990's, and they are only available in Alaska via Special order. So if Ma Kettle is going to wal mart to buy a home defense piece, she's buying a rifle or shotgun anyway.

And the scenario you outlined only works at reducing the number of legally owned handguns. it does nothing to the handguns that are illegally obtained, smuggled across a border, or even legally obtained Mail Order.

And how do you severely restrict the sale? Are you going to come up with arbitrary reasons why people can't purchase handguns? Because the current rate of declines on background checks for purchases is about 1%. Even if you raise that threshold to 10%, you aren't putting much of a dent in the legally owned handgun market.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6354
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:15 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Brekkie » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:46 pm

Seems like there is a lot of misunderstanding of what "semi-automatic" means, and a misconception that "assault weapons" are somehow fundamentally different from other weapons and can somehow be banned independently.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:28 pm

Brekkie wrote:Seems like there is a lot of misunderstanding of what "semi-automatic" means, and a misconception that "assault weapons" are somehow fundamentally different from other weapons and can somehow be banned independently.


Well, in reference to what I've used the terms as:

Semi-Auto - A weapon, that once loaded, needs charged once, and then each independent pull of the trigger will fire a shot, without need to recharge/cock the weapon.

Assault Weapon - I'm using it in terms of weapons like the Bushmashter .223 (now famous from the aftermath of the Newtown shooting), The Ar-15, weapons modeled on the AK Platform, etc... Obviously, this is a loose term. Do you included a Bull Pup .22 rifle in Assault Weapons? Is a 9mm Carbine Rifle an Assault Weapon? The term assault weapon can be pretty ambiguous, even if you just try and get a definition by using laws in the U.S. Even Wikipedia mentions the ambiguity that can be associated with the term in it's opening paragraph on the "Assault Weapon" page.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6354
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Brekkie » Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:34 pm

Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:50 pm

Personally, I think there's a massive sense of entitlement going on with regard to weapons that is leading to people dying, and I find it disturbing.

For the record, the difference between removing handguns and restricting the sale of them comes down to a property issue.

Removal:

A: You have a handgun. Someone comes and takes it from you. You don't have a handgun.
B: You don't have a handgun. If you did someone would take it from you. You don't have a handgun.

Restriction:

A: You have a handgun. Nobody takes it away, but you can't buy another. You have a handgun.
B: You don't have a handgun. You can't buy a handgun. You don't have a handgun.

Does anyone but me not see a difference between confiscating legally owned property and removing the ability to purchase same?

I am struggling to see how the two are equated.

And where, exactly, in the Constitution are you guaranteed the right to bear any kind of arms you feel like? Because that sounds a lot more like entitlement talking than Constitution.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby bldavis » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:13 pm

it never says what kind of arms you can bear...just you can bear arms
(there is more but i dont remember it off the top of my head...something about militia too)
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: 7361
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 Fivelives » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:56 pm

Second Amendment wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The states ratified a different version, but it's basically the same except a few commas are removed so it reads better.

I'd personally define an "assault" weapon as any semi-automatic weapon that can be converted to fully automatic using an aftermarket conversion kit. Banning something like that would affect the weapons that most people commonly assume are assault weapons (including the AR-15, M-4, AK-47, and a few others that aren't quite as popular in the US), while leaving plinkers, semi-automatic shotguns, competition guns and almost every handgun alone. Seems fair, even if I would have to hand in a few of my guns (I went to a gun show here and bought a Hello Kitty AR-15, among a few others - hilarity ensued).
- 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 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:16 am

Fivelives wrote:The states ratified a different version, but it's basically the same except a few commas are removed so it reads better.

I'd personally define an "assault" weapon as any semi-automatic weapon that can be converted to fully automatic using an aftermarket conversion kit. Banning something like that would affect the weapons that most people commonly assume are assault weapons (including the AR-15, M-4, AK-47, and a few others that aren't quite as popular in the US), while leaving plinkers, semi-automatic shotguns, competition guns and almost every handgun alone. Seems fair, even if I would have to hand in a few of my guns (I went to a gun show here and bought a Hello Kitty AR-15, among a few others - hilarity ensued).

Assault rifles make the headlines, but only a small fraction of the gun murders are committed with them.

But then that's what people do, isn't it? Look at the money that got spent chasing down the culprits of 9/11 which killed around 5000 Americans, vs the money spent fighting HIV, which kills 3 times that many Americans every year. Or mental health - some 40,000 Americans kill themselves each year. Cancer - half a million people every year. Heart disease accounts for another half a million.

Headlines get action. Individual deaths don't. 6000+ people killed by handguns every year and nobody wants to do anything about it. People get livid if you want to reduce the number of handguns in circulation. But for the fraction of the 300 rifle murders that are caused by assault weapons, people are willing to give up Hello Kitty.

How odd we are.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:16 am

Thats because you can never eliminate every single incident, what you can do is try to reduce the amount of incidents and the number of deaths per incident.
Without statistics at t his poit, I'm betting that the average assault weapon incident (I'm not making any specific distinction on AW here) has more deaths than the average handgun incident. Actually I'm betting that handguns only ever kill a few persons per incident - at most the amount of people in a residence, and on average is somewhere between 1 and 2. Making a dent in lethality of incidents with regard to handguns is very hard as long as they are allowed. What you can do is limit the lethality of firearms related incidents by reducing the amout of incidents and the possibility of incidents in the higher average casualty/incident cases.

An now that the 2nd Amd. got brough it, please note the first sentence, which sort of sets the whole reason for the amendment - "A well regulated miltia" - make special note of the word regulated here. Lets look at the second part "being necessary to the security of a free state" - in other words the second amendment isn't about being able to overthrow a tyrant, but to be able to participate in the militia when called up to defend the state - against foreign aggressors - like, say, the king of England invading.

Yeah that sort of also sets the terms of what arms can be and can't be infriged upon - if it isn't needed in the well regulated militia (I'm thinking the closest thing in the US to a milita would be the national guard units), it can be banned - the framers of the constitution and the 2nd amendment had no way of envisioning weapons beyond muskets/rifles and cannons - and cannons wasn't something you had a right to have back then.
A milita has never been expected to be armed as well as a regular unit, so not even arms approaching what regular units have are necessary for a militia - second amendment, read strictly and in context of the time of framing, does not protect the private citize in regards to having weapons unless part of the militia, it does not protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen (though I have yet to hear anyone arguing that hunter should have their weapons banned as well), and it does not provide for defense against the state, but rather of the state - so a central depot where you could have your weapons and get them in case you are called up would be alright in terms of the second amendment.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:32 am

Koatanga wrote:Personally, I think there's a massive sense of entitlement going on with regard to weapons that is leading to people dying, and I find it disturbing.

For the record, the difference between removing handguns and restricting the sale of them comes down to a property issue.

[...]

Restriction:

A: You have a handgun. Nobody takes it away, but you can't buy another. You have a handgun.
B: You don't have a handgun. You can't buy a handgun. You don't have a handgun.

C: You have a handgun. The restrictions on sale of handguns are changed, your license is re-evaluated, and it is found that you should not have been given a handgun. Your handgun is taken away. You don't have a handgun.
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:17 am

The problem with this argument is that it goes nowhere. So it's a safe promise to make: "if you ban my guns, I'll turn my guns in" is like telling someone you'll do something "when hell freezes over".
- 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 Shoju » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:54 am

Brekkie wrote:http://bradtaylorbooks.com/2012/12/a-simple-primer-on-assault-weapons/


Thank you for this link Brekkie. This is what I was clumsily trying to get at, and the author makes the same point that I was trying. Magazine capacity is a really big deal, and it would have made a difference.

I wonder if it would be possible to ban tactical packages? I know. That is sort of splitting hairs to a point, but here is my thought. If we remove the "tactical" weapons from the equation, We could take some of the bite out of the "accessorizing" that you could put into a weapon. Rail Systems, offer the ability to add "Grenade Launcher" type apparatus, Multiple Optical units, Mag Carrying devices, etc... Is it enough on it's own? No. Is it mildly superfluous? Probably, but it will address a few things that could be an issue. Without a tactical Rail system, Extra Magazines aren't within reach.

Limit Magazine capacity, and outright ban drum magazines. My 9mm has a 12 round magazine. My .22 has a 5 round magazine. My dad's 12 gauge has a 5 round internal system. Giving up the 12 round, and going to a 10, or even 8 round capacity magazine on my 9mm, doesn't diminish the use of the gun when I carry it while fishing, or while hunting. The only problem that it gives me, is when I go to the range with friends, I'll be swapping out the mag more often. An acceptable sacrifice. Magazines themselves aren't that expensive, all things considered.

Flash Suppressors, "Silencers", and threaded muzzle Brakes. There is no normal reason that a private citizen needs a flash supressor, or a silencer. I'm unsure how I feel about Muzzle Brakes. A Springfield 9mm that I've been looking at has a self contained muzzle brake, which does increase the ability to stay on target with a weapon by reducing recoil, or "kick". There are other Muzzle Brakes that are attachable (threaded) to weapons. I'd be interested in hearing what Brekkie has to say about them. I've not had much interaction with them, but it seems like it could be another place where you could make a dent into killings.


Koatanga wrote:Personally, I think there's a massive sense of entitlement going on with regard to weapons that is leading to people dying, and I find it disturbing.


The entitlement is not what is leading to people dying. People pointing guns at people and pulling the trigger is what is killing people. Trying to paint it as something else is sort of insulting to those gun owners who actually own a weapon and treat it responsibly, like a deadly weapon, that can, you know, kill people. My "entitlement" to own my weapons hasn't caused the death of anyone. Unless you are trying to say that my "entitlement" to own weapons is responsible for Aurora Colorado, Oregon, or Sandy Hook, at which point, I'll just tell you that you're an idiot.

For the record, the difference between removing handguns and restricting the sale of them comes down to a property issue.
Removal:
A: You have a handgun. Someone comes and takes it from you. You don't have a handgun.
B: You don't have a handgun. If you did someone would take it from you. You don't have a handgun.
Restriction:
A: You have a handgun. Nobody takes it away, but you can't buy another. You have a handgun.
B: You don't have a handgun. You can't buy a handgun. You don't have a handgun.
Does anyone but me not see a difference between confiscating legally owned property and removing the ability to purchase same?
I am struggling to see how the two are equated.
And where, exactly, in the Constitution are you guaranteed the right to bear any kind of arms you feel like? Because that sounds a lot more like entitlement talking than Constitution.


Well, let me see if I can make some sense out of the thoughts running through my mind. By restricting the sale, and not completely banning, you are in fact, making the hand gun a more desired item. The Black Market for the gun will increase. The crime related to GETTING the handgun will increase. Whatever gains that you make in crime by removing "New Guns" from the market, will have to be weighed against the crimes that are taking place now to get the Old Handguns that are already in circulation. I don't think that it's a good idea to replace one type of crime with another type of crime, especially when we can't be sure that the new type of crime that is introduced will be less bloody or deadly.

I'm also not 100% convinced that the majority of Gun Crime in the United States is committed by a person who goes to the gun store and purchases a weapon through normal legal means.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6354
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 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
?php } else { ?