Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

My actual view on the issue is that we need federally funded, unrestricted scientific research on all aspects--how criminals acquire guns, characteristics of mass shooters, medical aspects of the issue, etc.  I think existing research is wholly inadequate and tends to be cherry-picked by both sides without proper scrutiny of methodology.  We need peer-reviewed scientific, medical and social science research on all aspects of the problem, so that policy-makers can make informed decisions using the best data available.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

So why does that not play out in the UK for example.

 

It does. Maybe to a slightly lesser degree than in the US, but you can't compare numbers unless both countries report and classify crimes the same way. It's a literal apples to oranges comparison. If it didn't play out in the UK, then why, after banning guns has the government felt it necessary to launch anti-knife campaigns and ban public carry of knives? It's precisely because people didn't magically stop being violent when the guns were restricted -- they just changed tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sydney stabbing suspect Mert Ney faces murder charge after CBD rampage

 

"The 20-year-old jumped on cars and yelled at bystanders to “shoot me in the ****ing head” before being restrained by members of the public – later lauded as “heroes” by police – who used cafe chairs and a milk crate to pin him down."

Quote censored for language. Original language in linked article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Also, I do not consider access to high powered weaponry a fundamental right

 

I'm not going to get into the technical aspects of weapons, but if by "high powered weaponry" you mean civilian semi-auto rifles like the AR-15, then we're not talking high powered. Efficient at killing would be a better term. But when you start calling 5.56mm NATO a high-powered caliber, you're ignoring the design characteristics that make it a wholly appropriate round for self defense purposes. And since you're replying to me, I stated that self-defense is a fundamental right. Because of this, I'm of the opinion that we must be careful in any efforts to limit access to the tools of self defense. The AR, as a weapon, is one of the better options for self defense tools for weaker or smaller-statured people.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Old Man said:

I would apply this to handgun calibers as well simply because handguns kill twice as many people in mass shootings as assault rifles. 

 

Handguns are terrible at stopping an attack, so I don't think we should limit them to single digit capacities without looking at other issues first, such as police tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

There is a credible argument that reducing access to firearms reduces the homicide rate.  

 

I've never seen that argument made in a credible way. If you've found someone that's done so, I'd be more than happy to consider changing my opinion on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that defensive use of a firearm is a statistically-significant reason for firearms to be accessible to the public, and firearm possession by common citizens makes them safer, fascinates me. It's an argument I haven't heard used in any other developed country. Here in Canada the only citizen protection issue ever raised in relation to guns is the use of long guns in rural areas where encounters with dangerous animals are possible. In urban environments for encounters between people, I can't remember the last time anyone publicly even brought up the subject for discussion. We haven't yet felt the necessity for an arms race between citizens and criminals.

 

I wonder if this says more about the unique American relationship to guns, that it does about their actual safety benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read in the past that the UK only reports convictions in its crime statistics. For example, the US murder rate would be reported based on the number of victims, vs. the UK reported based on the number of murder convictions. Which seems like an entirely improbable situation. So, I tried to look it up, and came across this article:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/25/homicides-in-england-and-wales-hit-highest-level-in-a-decade

 

So, violent crime is currently on an uptick. This goes back to the argument about underlying causes needing to be prioritized over a tools-first approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I've never seen that argument made in a credible way. If you've found someone that's done so, I'd be more than happy to consider changing my opinion on it.

You do know that the homicide rate dropped steadily after the passage of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

It's almost as if different countries have different issues. ;)

 

Respectfully, that's a facile answer over being unique in such a detrimental area. Like me saying that maybe other countries don't have as many gun-nuts. 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

I feel like this is a straw man argument. We're not trying to reduce the homicide rate to 0.  We're trying to reduce it below its current rate.  There is a credible argument that reducing access to firearms reduces the homicide rate.  

Why not try to reduce it to zero? There are more suicides with guns than homicides including the mass shootings we're talking about in America. Why not try to reduce all of that to zero?

CES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

My actual view on the issue is that we need federally funded, unrestricted scientific research on all aspects--how criminals acquire guns, characteristics of mass shooters, medical aspects of the issue, etc.  I think existing research is wholly inadequate and tends to be cherry-picked by both sides without proper scrutiny of methodology.  We need peer-reviewed scientific, medical and social science research on all aspects of the problem, so that policy-makers can make informed decisions using the best data available.  

I think both PG and I have said something like this. When ViCap became a thing, police departments were given a checklist to see if the mo of offenders could be matched nationwide. I don't see why the same type paperwork could not be placed for gun crimes.

CES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

You do know that the homicide rate dropped steadily after the passage of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban, right?

 

You seem to be missing some data there. Those had nothing to do with the crime trend, it was already on a downward trend that continued after the AWB sunsetted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Respectfully, that's a facile answer over being unique in such a detrimental area.

 

Sorry, I'm just getting tired of repeating myself. Because I've repeatedly pointed out the differences that are unique to the US situation in this thread, over the last couple of days, and I keep getting repeatedly asked the same question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, archer said:

 

To be clear, they had one-shot handguns.

 

The Founding Fathers, I believe, would be considering muzzle loading, and breach-loading, one-shot firearms.  In the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, General Wolf (who famously ordered the British troops " Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" some years before Bunker Hill; the concept dates back into the 17th century, though, as noted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bunker_Hill )also ordered his men to load two, rather than one, bullet, making their opening salvo twice as effective.  Those firearms required a cartridge, with a bit of powder priming the shot (breech loaded), and the rest, including the shot, poured down the barrel and pushed down with a rod.  A cap was then used at the breech to strike a spark.  In a demonstration talking through the process, it took about a minute to ready and fire, but British soldiers were drilled, and expected to be able to fire three times a minute.

 

So what if gun control permitted unrestricted ownership of anything that was available when the Second Amendment was passed?  That would seem to be very consistent with the issues the Founding Fathers would have considered.  Would that include a cannon firing 6 lb cannonballs, or were there limits on military hardware ownership by private citizens, even back in the 18th century?

 

The Founding Fathers also did not need to factor in barrel rifling, which only became common in the 19th century and ended the utility of stone fortifications.

 

There's an interesting discussion on the link between the right to bear arms and the "well regulated militia" at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment .  A 1939 SCOTUS decision definitely did not support the right of each individual to have unregulated access to firearms.

 

10 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Handguns are terrible at stopping an attack, so I don't think we should limit them to single digit capacities without looking at other issues first, such as police tactics.

 

So, your position is that we should not restrict firearms due to their defensive uses, but we should not limit handguns which you say are terrible at stopping an attack.  I'm not sure I understand your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I don't see a big cultural divide (which differentiates us from, say, India or South America). 

 

Read up on India.  It is wildly different than North America in ways that will shock and awe you.

 

My female employees in India - in a large metropolitan, upscale area - were not allowed to work the noon to 9pm shift for safety reasons and had to be bused too and from the work site for their own protection.

 

And India is so massive and the less developed areas are like trips into actual Fantasy HERO settings.

 

I've literally seen guys from India talking to each other in broken English because they didn't share a common language from India due to the areas they came from.

 

My employees from India, like anywhere else, have ranged from awesome to awful, but here's a brief summary of a conversation (dulled by memory) I had with one of them one day:

Me:  Do they still have a caste system where some people are just forced to be dirt poor?

Ramesh:  Yes.

Me:  Like no electricity poor?

Ramesh:  Yes, but their lives are less stressful since they don't have to worry about having possessions?

Me:  Like food??

Ramesh:  ~chuckle~

 

This is not a condemnation of of India, either.  They are making remarkable progress.  But, they are still developing and  have a wildly different set of cultures.

 

Respectfully, and I mean it, if you don't see a big cultural divide you haven't looked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So what if gun control permitted unrestricted ownership of anything that was available when the Second Amendment was passed?  That would seem to be very consistent with the issues the Founding Fathers would have considered.  Would that include a cannon firing 6 lb cannonballs, or were there limits on military hardware ownership by private citizens, even back in the 18th century?

 

The most reasonable limitation, imo, is to cap the individual off at the level of infantryman.  That is the role that fighting age men served in the militia and each guy was expected to have a firearm and personal weapons (knife, cutlass, hatchet, whatever).

 

You can't time period bind the equipment any more than you could say freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet, telephones or any other medium that wasn't invented at the time of the founding.

Would you limit the 4th amendment in this way?  Well, see, they didn't have thermal imaging that would let us watch you through the walls of your house day & night without a warrant back then so your constitutional protections don't extend to this new technology...

 

So I would say a semi-automatic rifle, sidearm and some sort of melee weapon should be fine.  Howitzers, drone mounted missiles, etc., would not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I'm not sure I understand your position.

 

I'm not sure if you want to. If you really want me to lay it out again (for the umpteenth time), then I will. Otherwise, I'll spare the rest of the forum from the repetitiveness. Also, you've misstated my opinion, which I've reiterated many times on this board. I really think you're falling asleep in class here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

The most reasonable limitation, imo, is to cap the individual off at the level of infantryman.  That is the role that fighting age men served in the militia and each guy was expected to have a firearm and personal weapons (knife, cutlass, hatchet, whatever).

 

Well, at least when I was in, the infantry had grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, wire-guided missiles, machine guns up to at least .50 caliber, and hand grenades. Plus their rifle, possible sidearm and possible knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I'm not sure if you want to. If you really want me to lay it out again (for the umpteenth time), then I will. Otherwise, I'll spare the rest of the forum from the repetitiveness.

 

To clarify, I specifically indicated:

 

Quote

So, your position is that we should not restrict firearms due to their defensive uses, but we should not limit handguns which you say are terrible at stopping an attack.  I'm not sure I understand your position.

 

If your rationale is that firearms should  not be restricted due to their defensive uses, and handguns are not useful defensively, why should there be no restrictions on handguns?  Surely not to encourage a false sense of security in owning one. 

 

32 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

The most reasonable limitation, imo, is to cap the individual off at the level of infantryman.  That is the role that fighting age men served in the militia and each guy was expected to have a firearm and personal weapons (knife, cutlass, hatchet, whatever).

 

If the purpose is to maintain a well-prepared militia, would you also concur that those owning (or even permitted to own) these arms should also be subject to activation as part of a state or Federal militia?  It's funny how we consider the rights, but not the responsibilities, that those who penned these documents had in mind.  The phrasing of the Second Amendment seems pretty clear that the right to bear arms was not viewed as existing in a vacuum, but rather was directly linked to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Well, at least when I was in, the infantry had grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, wire-guided missiles, machine guns up to at least .50 caliber, and hand grenades. Plus their rifle, possible sidearm and possible knife.

 

Look, when I play with my little green army men they mostly only have rifles.  You can't use the fancy bazooka guy as your standard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...