JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 20th January 2013, 04:48 PM   #161
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 27,804
Originally Posted by Irony View Post
Prediction: Within the next few years we will see a spike in accidental gun deaths in school.

Another prediction: The next spree killer at a school will be a guard.
Unlikely. Firstly there are unlikely to be a significant number of armed guards employed. Schools have limited budgets and other things to spend them on. Give it a year and any hired during the current flap will be quietly removed by the accountants.

Secondly I don't recall any shootings caused by mall security (is that what you call them?).
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 05:28 PM   #162
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31,794
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
The topic is supposedly "responsible" and experienced gun owners who go on to do stupid things that endanger others. You held yourself out as an example of people who are "smart like that" and I burst out laughing. Don't introduce yourself as an example if you don't want to be mocked for it.
Now that would be being smart like that.

All gun owners are perfect and if they aren't well sorry 'bout that death.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 05:36 PM   #163
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31,794
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
It's introducing a risk that is more likely to harm the family than defend it.
The best way to defend your home is to get an alarm and improve the lighting around it.

Of course that doesn't allow one the red blooded American Rambo fantasy of standing over your dead enemy with a smoking gun.

(home defenders always win the shootout.)
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 06:03 PM   #164
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 7,639
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
The best way to defend your home is to get an alarm and improve the lighting around it.

Of course that doesn't allow one the red blooded American Rambo fantasy of standing over your dead enemy with a smoking gun.

(home defenders always win the shootout.)
You forgot to say "Yippy ki-yay, ************!"
Unabogie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 07:22 PM   #165
qayak
Philosopher
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9,993
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
It's introducing a risk that is more likely to harm the family than defend it.
WOW! Some folks certainly get some mileage out of misplaced outrage, don't they?

Your assessment of my post is spot on. I just don't get people who claim to be concerned about the murder of 26 people, 20 of them children, by a person with mental issues who used a legally owned gun to do it but will fight tooth and nail against any law that protects people from the misuse of legally owned guns.

In my view, they are not concerned about anything except the lies about governments taking their guns, manufactured by their imagination and fueled by NRA morons.

I am completely in favour of people owning guns . . . until those guns start killing innocent people and gun owners fail to do anything about it. Then I say "piss on them. Restrict, even ban, the guns."

By their inaction they force governments to do something about the problem. It is more important that the problem gets fixed than it is John Wayne wannbees get to keep their guns.

YMMV.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 07:42 PM   #166
marplots
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,510
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
(some snipped)
I am completely in favour of people owning guns . . . until those guns start killing innocent people and gun owners fail to do anything about it. Then I say "piss on them. Restrict, even ban, the guns."

By their inaction they force governments to do something about the problem. It is more important that the problem gets fixed than it is John Wayne wannbees get to keep their guns.

YMMV.
That's where the arguments arise. What exactly is the problem we want to fix? Is it nut cases who kill people and then themselves? Is it the means to do so?

I don't even think we agree on what the problem really is here.

Take the movie shooting guy. It took a while to come out, but did you see all the explosives he'd made and wired up at his apartment? Yes, I agree that getting guns helped him with his mayhem, but I don't see how a ban helps much or at all. As far as I know, explosives are illegal and have been for some time.

What I think is going on is a bit of "we've always had a problem of too many guns and here's a chance to gain momentum."

The framing is all wrong. To get the answer you want requires ignoring too much of the problem, or shaping whatever happens on the news into too narrow a channel.

What really bugs me isn't that good people are looking for solutions but the painting of realists as ignoring the tragedy du jour -- imputing support for evildoers when their criticisms of new laws are brought forward. Don't make laws based on emotional reactions. Tell me what the law is supposed to accomplish, show me how it will accomplish it, and then I'll vote for it.

Last edited by marplots; 20th January 2013 at 07:44 PM.
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 08:01 PM   #167
qayak
Philosopher
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9,993
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
That's where the arguments arise. What exactly is the problem we want to fix? Is it nut cases who kill people and then themselves? Is it the means to do so?

I don't even think we agree on what the problem really is here.

Take the movie shooting guy. It took a while to come out, but did you see all the explosives he'd made and wired up at his apartment? Yes, I agree that getting guns helped him with his mayhem, but I don't see how a ban helps much or at all. As far as I know, explosives are illegal and have been for some time.

What I think is going on is a bit of "we've always had a problem of too many guns and here's a chance to gain momentum."

The framing is all wrong. To get the answer you want requires ignoring too much of the problem, or shaping whatever happens on the news into too narrow a channel.

What really bugs me isn't that good people are looking for solutions but the painting of realists as ignoring the tragedy du jour -- imputing support for evildoers when their criticisms of new laws are brought forward. Don't make laws based on emotional reactions. Tell me what the law is supposed to accomplish, show me how it will accomplish it, and then I'll vote for it.
If an organization, and gun owners themselves, make it possible for these acts to occur, which they do, then governments must step in.

If that organization, and gun owners, will not sit down and discuss what can be done, then government MUST take the initiative and, if necessary, impose laws that feel will work.

The NRA response of putting more guns into the situation has been the only method consistently used for hundreds of years. It hasn't worked. Time to try something new whether the NRA agrees or not. The definition of insanity and all that.

You don't think it will work, so what? Based on the evidence, it does work. If the only way we can know for sure is if we try it, then it's time to try it.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2013, 08:37 PM   #168
marplots
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,510
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
If an organization, and gun owners themselves, make it possible for these acts to occur, which they do, then governments must step in.
But do they? What would have to disappear for the acts not to occur? The NRA? Gun owners? I'm not convinced there is a proximate cause linked to any legislation suggested. Rather, it's presented as more of a vaccination-style prevention, based on reducing the extant materials used in these crimes.

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
If that organization, and gun owners, will not sit down and discuss what can be done, then government MUST take the initiative and, if necessary, impose laws that feel will work.
Polarization is one difficulty, I'll admit, but just as much is a feeling of "I must do something." There seems to be a fundamental difference in perceptions here and I still haven't seen the problem framed in a way that matches the solutions offered.

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
The NRA response of putting more guns into the situation has been the only method consistently used for hundreds of years. It hasn't worked. Time to try something new whether the NRA agrees or not. The definition of insanity and all that.
The NRA is a lobbying group doing what lobbying groups do. They stand out front and make noises and try to please their membership. But behind that front, there are actual people. Some of these people have kids. I'm not sure how relevant the NRA policies are to what the average Joe Blow gun owner thinks. It's not like there's another national organization advocating a moderate position around. It's much like a conservative trapped under the label of Republican, even when some Repub spouts nonsense about rape.

Here's an alternate definition of insanity: Running around, doing things without a clear purpose or defined objective.

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
You don't think it will work, so what? Based on the evidence, it does work. If the only way we can know for sure is if we try it, then it's time to try it.
Isn't that a rationale to try anything different though? I mean, couldn't someone object that arming teachers (and janitors and lunchroom staff) hasn't been tried so we shouldn't dismiss it either? If I proposed such a thing, I imagine you'd like me to connect my idea of a solution to the problem and show how one addresses the other. That's all the pro-gun people are saying when they criticize new legislation. It's a fair skeptical stance: show me what you propose, tell me how it's supposed to work and where possible, justify the details. And sky hooks won't do.

But be brave and don't back off. If the only viable solution is to get rid of guns, then, by gosh, come up with a way to get all the ones you don't think ought to be around. If that means house-to-house, then so be it. If tax credits for turning in a gun would do, suggest that. Make it practical, even if distasteful. The only thing we shouldn't be able to do (on either side) is wish away the current situation with our magical legislative powers.

So far, I am not impressed with anything from the zealots on either side of the issue. I said it before: Tell me what you want to do, what it is supposed to accomplish, and justify it -- then I'll vote for it. Honest, I will.

Last edited by marplots; 20th January 2013 at 08:41 PM.
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.