Gun Control Legislation

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9209
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1201

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon May 21, 2018 9:51 am

Roadie-I wholeheartedly agree.
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment: Helen Keller supported women’s suffrage and was a co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8177
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1202

Post by RVInit » Mon May 21, 2018 10:24 am

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 9:51 am
Roadie-I wholeheartedly agree.
:thumbs:
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1203

Post by neeneko » Mon May 21, 2018 11:09 am

RoadScholar wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 8:53 pm
Here’s the goal: make it harder for criminals and mentally unstable people to get and use a gun. AND we should do nothing to deprive law-abiding mentally-stable Americans of gun ownership and use.
This is a good example of why I want the CDC really digging into the problem. Even such simple decliration lend themselves to 'is this the right goal?'

Do we want to reduce mass shootings? Do we want to reduce domestic escalation? Do we want to reduce guns used in the commision of other crimes? Do we want to reduce suicide? Do we want to reduce accidents? Do we want to reduce fear/anxiety? Who's fear/anxiety matters?

All of these overlap, but do not necessarily have the same solutions. Starting with criminals and mentally unstable people touches on some of them, but might conflict with others, and how much do criminals and the mentally unstable actually contribute? And how well distributed should these 'sacrifices' be? People like pointing at cars as a model to follow, but we already have problems with poor people (esp redlined types) getting and keeping cars, and we can see the effectiveness of, if bureaucratic steps are needed, making it easier or harder for people from various groups to get to and from required services. Things like insurance, registration, mandatory fancy features, and other cost-centric barriers sound great till you consider who tends to have the time and resources to brush these off vs who would struggle to meet them. Same with looping in law enforcement to decide who can and can not own them.. police and judges seem oddly less concerned about some groups of people than others and you really see how that plays out when it come to ownership of automatic weapons and destructive devices.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8096
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1204

Post by RoadScholar » Mon May 21, 2018 11:13 am

Fine, just as long as objections to the difficulty in finding a solution don't result in the decision to do nothing.

Doing nothing is unacceptable.

We already do a pretty good job of deciding who should and shouldn't be driving a car or truck. Perfect? No. But "pretty good" would be 100% better than what we're doing now.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1205

Post by Mikedunford » Mon May 21, 2018 11:16 am

neeneko wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 11:09 am
RoadScholar wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 8:53 pm
Here’s the goal: make it harder for criminals and mentally unstable people to get and use a gun. AND we should do nothing to deprive law-abiding mentally-stable Americans of gun ownership and use.
This is a good example of why I want the CDC really digging into the problem. Even such simple decliration lend themselves to 'is this the right goal?'

Do we want to reduce mass shootings? Do we want to reduce domestic escalation? Do we want to reduce guns used in the commision of other crimes? Do we want to reduce suicide? Do we want to reduce accidents? Do we want to reduce fear/anxiety? Who's fear/anxiety matters?

All of these overlap, but do not necessarily have the same solutions. Starting with criminals and mentally unstable people touches on some of them, but might conflict with others, and how much do criminals and the mentally unstable actually contribute? And how well distributed should these 'sacrifices' be? People like pointing at cars as a model to follow, but we already have problems with poor people (esp redlined types) getting and keeping cars, and we can see the effectiveness of, if bureaucratic steps are needed, making it easier or harder for people from various groups to get to and from required services. Things like insurance, registration, mandatory fancy features, and other cost-centric barriers sound great till you consider who tends to have the time and resources to brush these off vs who would struggle to meet them. Same with looping in law enforcement to decide who can and can not own them.. police and judges seem oddly less concerned about some groups of people than others and you really see how that plays out when it come to ownership of automatic weapons and destructive devices.
Yes, increasing the cost of gun ownership will require people to make careful and considered cost-benefit decisions. In my view, that's a feature, not a bug.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16900
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1206

Post by Suranis » Mon May 21, 2018 11:17 am

Indeed. Especially sonce you lot are doing everything other than looking at the Elephent that's sitting on the patients chest "Gee hes suffocating? Hmm. Ok we need to open the window more as moving the Elephant is impossible" "HE MENTIONED THE ELEPHANT! Smash!"

Yes, opening the window or supplying a bit of oxygen to his nose is the only thing that can be done to save the patient with the Elephant on his chest.

Also, most people with Mental illness are not violent, at least not to other people. Even the famous split personality patients are not violent. There has never been a case of a "Alter" attacking anyone else other than the host.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1207

Post by neeneko » Mon May 21, 2018 11:25 am

RoadScholar wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 11:13 am
Doing nothing is unacceptable.
I agree, but doing something that does nothing useful and makes things worse is also unacceptable. Otherwise we might as just well as go with 'get rid of all the brown people' since plenty of people believe that would reduce gun violence.
We already do a pretty good job of deciding who should and shouldn't be driving a car or truck. Perfect? No. But "pretty good" would be 100% better than what we're doing now.
Do we? Getting away from sovcit sillyness, our current system is often talked about in terms of being part of the cycle of poverty in the US, so we mostly 'do a good job' in that it does not inconvenience any important voting blocks.

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1208

Post by neeneko » Mon May 21, 2018 11:34 am

Mikedunford wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 11:16 am
Yes, increasing the cost of gun ownership will require people to make careful and considered cost-benefit decisions. In my view, that's a feature, not a bug.
I question how much that would actually happen though. Someone in the middle class might have to make a cost-benefit decision about how many guns or how fancy of a gun they want to get, but it just makes them less accessible in general to poor people, who already have fewer options to weigh in the first place.

It is a great feature if one's anxiety is about too many other people having them and it is an option weigh against other peace of mind or luxury goods, it is a bug if your anxiety is about too many people having them and you can't afford one or have to weigh the cost of compliance (or even worse, insurance, which is not being discussed here but often is) against necessities.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8096
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1209

Post by RoadScholar » Mon May 21, 2018 11:44 am

Right. So you advocate doing nothing. Got it.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Judge Roy Bean
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:26 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Occupation: Isn't it obvious?

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1210

Post by Judge Roy Bean » Mon May 21, 2018 11:53 am

Mikedunford wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 11:16 am
:snippity:
Yes, increasing the cost of gun ownership will require people to make careful and considered cost-benefit decisions. In my view, that's a feature, not a bug.
As opposed to impulsive and no-cost decisions (as in, theft) by those who are motivated by fear, avarice or malice.
“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
Walter Lippmann

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 23490
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1211

Post by Volkonski » Mon May 21, 2018 12:09 pm

Our Lt. Governor is desperate to blame anything and everything for school shootings except the easy availability of guns.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick blames video games, advocates arming teachers after Santa Fe shooting

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/h ... ium=social
First he blamed doors, then he blamed video games.

On Sunday, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick went on ABC's "This Week" to advocate for arming teachers, condemn video games and decry a culture that has "devalued life."


"We cannot sit back and say it's the gun; it's us as a nation," he told host George Stephanopoulos. "But George, we take the guns out of society -- if you or anyone else thinks that that makes us safer, then -- then -- then I'm sad to say that you're mistaken."

:snippity:

"We have devalued life, whether it's through abortion, whether it's the breakup of families, through violent movies, and particularly violent video games, which now outsell movies and music," he said, before citing statistics about the prevalence of gaming among teens.
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15695
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1212

Post by kate520 » Mon May 21, 2018 12:13 pm

Alrighty, we know the Republican Party line on school shootings now: Ritalin and violent video games! At least until the debunking starts. They’ve always preferred “common sense” to empirical evidence in their facile, bandaid solutions to complex problems.
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1213

Post by Mikedunford » Mon May 21, 2018 1:09 pm

neeneko wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 11:34 am
Mikedunford wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 11:16 am
Yes, increasing the cost of gun ownership will require people to make careful and considered cost-benefit decisions. In my view, that's a feature, not a bug.
I question how much that would actually happen though. Someone in the middle class might have to make a cost-benefit decision about how many guns or how fancy of a gun they want to get, but it just makes them less accessible in general to poor people, who already have fewer options to weigh in the first place.

It is a great feature if one's anxiety is about too many other people having them and it is an option weigh against other peace of mind or luxury goods, it is a bug if your anxiety is about too many people having them and you can't afford one or have to weigh the cost of compliance (or even worse, insurance, which is not being discussed here but often is) against necessities.
I take insurance as a given in any discussion of the gun=car model.

And, to be blunt, I'm not sympathetic to cost-of-compliance arguments. If you are going to own or operate anything that carries with it an innate risk that an act of simple negligence can lead to death or life-changing harm for another, I think you have a moral duty to ensure that you will be able to compensate them for the damage you cause.

I also seriously question the extent to which a gun is a true necessity for the vast majority of the population.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8096
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1214

Post by RoadScholar » Mon May 21, 2018 1:42 pm

In my scenario I anticipated the cost argument: Perhaps there could be very little in the way of costs and restrictions on law-abiding stable-minded Americans to own guns that never leave their property, just like with cars. (Licenses, tags and insurance are not required, for instance, for farm vehicles that never go out on public roads.) Just a registered title, and guns could be handled the same way.

The solutions will not be simple and easy, but we've got a lot of smart people in this country and we cannot keep answering the problem with flippin' thoughts and prayers.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8177
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1215

Post by RVInit » Mon May 21, 2018 2:21 pm

RoadScholar wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 1:42 pm
In my scenario I anticipated the cost argument: Perhaps there could be very little in the way of costs and restrictions on law-abiding stable-minded Americans to own guns that never leave their property, just like with cars. (Licenses, tags and insurance are not required, for instance, for farm vehicles that never go out on public roads.) Just a registered title, and guns could be handled the same way.

The solutions will not be simple and easy, but we've got a lot of smart people in this country and we cannot keep answering the problem with flippin' thoughts and prayers.
I always find it so interesting that the people who claim moral authority on the issue of being "the" true patriotic Americans are the same ones that lack any ideas about how to solve this problem. It's pretty much the same old story - the seemingly "only solution" is one we will not tolerate, so therefore there can be no discussion at all. Isn't that the exact opposite of what it is to be a real American? America is nothing if not a country full of problem solvers, invention, and creativity. I think they are actually the ones in the room that are decidedly NOT real Americans.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16900
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1216

Post by Suranis » Mon May 21, 2018 2:24 pm

You want to change things? you have to get as organised as the opposition. You want to know the real reason nothing changes? Because the opposition is willing to sit on the phones every day. The NRA is a tiny minority of gun owners, but when anything about gun control comes up the NRA people flood the phones. I read recently that congressmen that Death lovers outnumber life lovers on the phones by 200 to 1. They are willing to fill internet forums with the same lying bullshit that JRB spouts via multiple accounts and all the other tricks of the trade.

A Small highly organised movement will beat a large disorganised movement every single time, even if the truth is on the large movements side. That is the absolute central issue here. Are you willing to drop everything and call 50 congressmen day after day after day once you get an alert? Are you willing to lie like they do for this single issue?

And if you are not, you better figure out a way to not get divided by the same Berniebro bullshit, otherwise they will beat you and keep beating you. They don't have the Law on their side and they sure as all hell don't have the Facts on their side, so they will pound the table till it breaks and they will pound on you till you break.

All so they can squirt a big expensive penis that they have no need for.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Till Eulenspiegel
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:55 am
Location: France
Occupation: Lawyer (retired )

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1217

Post by Till Eulenspiegel » Mon May 21, 2018 2:31 pm

Sorry, but you will not solve this problem in the foreseeable future. The American system of electing lawmakers and making laws is too flawed.
„Er aber, sag’s ihm, er kann mich im Arsche lecken!“ - J.W. Goethe - Götz von Berlichingen

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16900
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1218

Post by Suranis » Mon May 21, 2018 2:33 pm

Carl von Ossietsky wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 2:31 pm
Sorry, but you will not solve this problem in the foreseeable future. The American system of electing lawmakers and making laws is too flawed.
Probably not, but They didn't get here overnight either. It took the other side decades of dedicated chipping at the mountain. So you gotta start chipping at the mountain yourselves.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1219

Post by Danraft » Mon May 21, 2018 8:33 pm

I'm sorry, as i know it may not be popular here, but, yes, violence on TV, games and media devalues life and makes killing nonchalant.
Hollywood etc has made killing just part of a storyline for little pay off of storyline.
It is insane to the point we barely even notice it. TV shows with "kill" numbers per episode that rival days of the Korean or Vietnam Wars and don't advance the storyline at all.
From Netflix to Hulu etc spy shows have kill rates that are ridiculous and be beyond the pale if they actually ever happened.
The Las Vegas killing would be normal in our lives.
For What? Entertainment value?
No one would join the FBI or CIA if these "realistic" events depicted happened in real life.
There's just no point to it.
Maybe it's free speech and therefore protected, but jeez, could we limit the death count to 5 per half hour?
Would that end the entertainment value?

We are born empty vessels filled with what societal norms are in our society-- and, they're pretty plastic.
I just don't think it should be skipped over as not affecting our youth.
I almost shudder to think what stupid crap would have happened in my youth if this was so "normalized" then.
I know most see it as a cop-out to blame games and media... it is to some amount.
Violent games, movies, and shows exist in other countries (maybe still mostly American in origin") but it should not be glossed over.
We live in one of the safest times ever... not likely to die a violent death.
Which brings me to a point, a question I didn't anticipate asking, but here I am.

Is this blood lust, this desire to see death, a la Roman Gladiators etc, being satiated or inflamed by this non-chalant "entertainment" killing saturating entire genres?
Apparently young men want to get dressed up in assault gear and be killing machines...
IMHO, it isn't happening in isolation.
The Mercury Project

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8096
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1220

Post by RoadScholar » Mon May 21, 2018 9:07 pm

I have my suspicions about bad psycho-physiological effects of super-realistic gory first-person shooter video games. Seeing images of people exploding at the end of bullets you are firing, looking down the barrel? Thousands of times?

I’m not saying they should be banned, but maybe they’re not harmless either.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1221

Post by TollandRCR » Mon May 21, 2018 10:32 pm

danraft and RoadScholar, I share your concern. There is something wrong in a society that requires such violence in its “entertainment.” We need more creativity in games and movies, not the highly repetitive gore. The problem is not to exercise crnsirship; it is to be creative in positive ways.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1222

Post by Danraft » Tue May 22, 2018 12:10 am

Silly question. But is was pondering... it is a male thing predominantly. Generally not the most popular young men. The majority (?) seem to get into the combat weapons, fatigues etc. They rarely seem into team sports.
What stuck out to me was that while they romanticize battle gear, etc., none seem to be really into it. I mean to say that I haven't notice ROTC types- am I wrong about that?
And, there are plenty of Paintgun groups to do fake battle with, even Laser Tag.
But, they don't seem inclined to that either.
Seems to be a non-sequitor?
Loneliness? Feeling wronged?
The Mercury Project

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6895
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1223

Post by pipistrelle » Tue May 22, 2018 6:57 am

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:30 pm
And p.s. Your statement that "anyone and everyone" involved in drug trafficking is armed to the teeth isn't accurate. Arrests of drug traffickers traveling with massive amounts of drugs between TX and FL are made frequently on our I-20 pipeline, and they very rarely, if ever, caught with weapons. The weapons traffickers, on the other hand, are often caught with drugs.
This makes sense. For drug traffickers, weapons might draw attention to the drugs.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10416
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1224

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Tue May 22, 2018 8:59 am

pipistrelle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 6:57 am
Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:30 pm
And p.s. Your statement that "anyone and everyone" involved in drug trafficking is armed to the teeth isn't accurate. Arrests of drug traffickers traveling with massive amounts of drugs between TX and FL are made frequently on our I-20 pipeline, and they very rarely, if ever, caught with weapons. The weapons traffickers, on the other hand, are often caught with drugs.
This makes sense. For drug traffickers, weapons might draw attention to the drugs.
It's also a pretty serious sentence enhancement.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9209
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Gun Control Legislation

#1225

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Tue May 22, 2018 9:57 am

Danraft wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 12:10 am
Silly question. But is was pondering... it is a male thing predominantly. Generally not the most popular young men. The majority (?) seem to get into the combat weapons, fatigues etc. They rarely seem into team sports.
What stuck out to me was that while they romanticize battle gear, etc., none seem to be really into it. I mean to say that I haven't notice ROTC types- am I wrong about that?
And, there are plenty of Paintgun groups to do fake battle with, even Laser Tag.
But, they don't seem inclined to that either.
Seems to be a non-sequitor?
Loneliness? Feeling wronged?
Pinpoint examples, Dan, and thought-provoking questions.
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment: Helen Keller supported women’s suffrage and was a co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Post Reply

Return to “Congress”