Sandy Hook exposes the logic gap in NRA's opposition to gun control

Dcdrac · 2nd February 2013, 04:35 AM

From the Christian Science monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...icle-promoLink

"Opinion

Sandy Hook exposes the logic gap in NRA's opposition to gun control

After Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, we hear arguments against gun control, chiefly that laws won't keep guns from evil-doers. But no one would argue that homicide laws have no place just because they can’t stop all killings. The point is, gun control will reduce carnage, if not stop it.
"

Magyar · 2nd February 2013, 04:42 AM

but but but insert 2nd amendment masterbation here and who will keep the evil gumbit from making us slaves

Cylinder · 2nd February 2013, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

After Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, we hear arguments against gun control, chiefly that laws won't keep guns from evil-doers. But no one would argue that homicide laws have no place just because they can’t stop all killings. The point is, gun control will reduce carnage, if not stop it.
"

That's the stupidest bit of polemic available in this debate - and that's saying something. Murder is a crime. There's no balance between law-abiding murderers and criminal ones. Murder isn't a proto-crime. Homicide isn't illegal. Conducting a homicide in an illegal manner is.

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said ... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul..."

Cylinder · 2nd February 2013, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Magyar

but but but insert 2nd amendment masterbation here and who will keep the evil gumbit from making us slaves

Yes - governments should be required to follow the rules we give them. A government that is unwilling to do that rule over subjects (in the classic, not ceremonial, sense of the word for all our Kingdom and Commonwealth cousins.) Many of us are particular about following these rules and the government should have less - not more - lattitude. They are the servants. We are the masters.

Upchurch · 2nd February 2013, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

That's the stupidest bit of polemic available in this debate - and that's saying something. Murder is a crime. There's no balance between law-abiding murderers and criminal ones. Murder isn't a proto-crime. Homicide isn't illegal. Conducting a homicide in an illegal manner is.

"Justifiable Homicide"
"Self-Defense"
"War"
"Capital Punishment"

All legal forms of homicide.

mikedenk · 2nd February 2013, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Originally Posted by Magyar

but but but insert 2nd amendment masterbation here and who will keep the evil gumbit from making us slaves

Yes - governments should be required to follow the rules we give them. A government that is unwilling to do that rule over subjects (in the classic, not ceremonial, sense of the word for all our Kingdom and Commonwealth cousins.) Many of us are particular about following these rules and the government should have less - not more - lattitude. They are the servants. We are the masters.

I suspect that Magyar is secretly pulling for the return of a Republican administration.

Then he can finally break out his old "Question Authority" bumper stickers and vigorously renew his support for things like civil rights and constitutional restraints.

marplots · 2nd February 2013, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Sandy Hook exposes the logic gap in NRA's opposition to gun control

After Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, we hear arguments against gun control, chiefly that laws won't keep guns from evil-doers. But no one would argue that homicide laws have no place just because they can’t stop all killings. The point is, gun control will reduce carnage, if not stop it.
"

I think there's a logical gap in that quote. Laws against homicide don't prevent any killings at all. The laws are only applied post killing. Or, is the author stipulating that we would have more homicides if homicide were legal? How much more? Is there a segment of the population who are held back from the crime solely because it's illegal?

My position is that the law codifies something we already agree is wrong. The law is about punishment, not prevention. Interestingly, those who are anti-gun would probably frame gun ownership as "already wrong" as well, in contrast with the pro-gun stance of "already right."

We have a situation where one side says, "Tell me why you should have a gun," and the other side says, "Tell me why I shouldn't." This shows the different axioms underlying the discussion and makes the analogy with homicide laws a poor one. At least, assuming everyone agrees homicide is wrong.

BStrong · 2nd February 2013, 10:40 AM

I fall on the pro-Second Amendment side of the fence in this, but background checks through NICS and requiring all sales to be conducted through an FFL dealer are good ideas, imo.

Most of the other proposals are more wishfull thinking on the part of individuals with -0- knowledge of the subject matter.

theprestige · 2nd February 2013, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

From the Christian Science monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...icle-promoLink

"Opinion

Sandy Hook exposes the logic gap in NRA's opposition to gun control

After Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, we hear arguments against gun control, chiefly that laws won't keep guns from evil-doers. But no one would argue that homicide laws have no place just because they can’t stop all killings. The point is, gun control will reduce carnage, if not stop it.
"

Homicide laws have a place in bringing justice to the criminals who commit homicides.

The CSM's reasoning seems to make sense if we assume a priori that gun ownership, like homicide, is an injustice that needs to be corrected.

The fundamental anti-gun principle is that gun ownership is a pre-crime.

JoeTheJuggler · 2nd February 2013, 12:05 PM

I think the problem with the NRA is that they have kept the debate off the question it should be on, and on a lot of silly stuff (like the mischaracterization of proposals, and portraying the 2nd Amendment individual right as being sacred--and only connected to firearms).

The question that needs to be answered is, "What gun policies are likely to reduce gun violence?"

The 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited. As with all rights, if there's a valid public interest that outweighs it, we can restrict the right.

Instead, we have the NRA successfully lobbying for counterproductive laws such as state "Stand Your Ground Laws", the intent of which seems to be escalate conflicts rather and discouraging de-escalation (walk away).

Further the NRA has successfully framed the issue as one of good guys and bad guys (or criminals and responsible gun owners)--as if the population exists in such stark binary fashion, and ignoring the fact that the majority of gun deaths, suicides, don't fit into that paradigm at all.

JoeTheJuggler · 2nd February 2013, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The fundamental anti-gun principle is that gun ownership is a pre-crime.

Strawman.

I personally make the point that the majority of gun deaths in the U.S. each year are suicides, and that framing the issue as all about crime ignores this fact and is partly to blame for the poor quality of discussion.

NWO Sentryman · 2nd February 2013, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I think the problem with the NRA is that they have kept the debate off the question it should be on, and on a lot of silly stuff (like the mischaracterization of proposals, and portraying the 2nd Amendment individual right as being sacred--and only connected to firearms).

The question that needs to be answered is, "What gun policies are likely to reduce gun violence?"

The 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited. As with all rights, if there's a valid public interest that outweighs it, we can restrict the right.

Instead, we have the NRA successfully lobbying for counterproductive laws such as state "Stand Your Ground Laws", the intent of which seems to be escalate conflicts rather and discouraging de-escalation (walk away).

Further the NRA has successfully framed the issue as one of good guys and bad guys (or criminals and responsible gun owners)--as if the population exists in such stark binary fashion, and ignoring the fact that the majority of gun deaths, suicides, don't fit into that paradigm at all.

Except, suicide is a much more complex issue than a simple matter of gun control. For example, a large percentage of people in the US who commit suicide are from a military background. Another example could be people who have just lost their jobs or are destitute. So I fail to see how suicide is a gun violence issue more than a mental health issue.

NoahFence · 2nd February 2013, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Magyar

but but but insert 2nd amendment masterbation here and who will keep the evil gumbit from making us slaves

BENGHAZI!!!!!!

NoahFence · 2nd February 2013, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by mikedenk

I suspect that Magyar is secretly pulling for the return of a Republican administration.

Then he can finally break out his old "Question Authority" bumper stickers and vigorously renew his support for things like civil rights and constitutional restraints.

And what exactly do today's conservatives know about civil rights?

JoeTheJuggler · 2nd February 2013, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Except, suicide is a much more complex issue than a simple matter of gun control. For example, a large percentage of people in the US who commit suicide are from a military background. Another example could be people who have just lost their jobs or are destitute. So I fail to see how suicide is a gun violence issue more than a mental health issue.

Gun suicides are a subset of gun violence. (I reject any definition of "gun violence" that somehow excludes gun suicides. That is, claiming gun suicides aren't a form of gun violence requires using these words in an unconventional way.) I'm not speaking of any other kind of suicide because I agree those would be outside the scope of a discussion of gun violence.

Similarly heart disease is a more complex problem than cigarette smoking, but that doesn't mean that smoking is not a risk factor for heart disease.

I'm not arguing for any policy in particular. I'm just criticizing any approach to reducing gun deaths that ignores the majority of gun deaths.

I think it makes more sense to have policies aimed at reducing gun suicides than policies that focus on reducing mass shootings at schools--for the simple reason that former is a MUCH greater problem than the latter (that is, it results in a lot more deaths each year).

ETA: And if you exclude gun suicides because there are other types of suicides, then you could exclude all gun violence using the same reasoning.

And who says that something must be either a gun issue or a mental health issue and not both? [ETA again: that's sort of been my point. Saying gun violence is strictly a matter of crime--good guys and bad guys-- and ignoring the mental health aspect of it will result in an incomplete perspective on the problem.] FWIW, a substantial portion of gun crimes are also connected to mental health. Doesn't mean it's not gun violence.

See again my point about heart disease. Identifying other risk factors is not an argument that cigarette smoking isn't a risk factor.

marplots · 2nd February 2013, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Gun suicides are a subset of gun violence. (I reject any definition of "gun violence" that somehow excludes gun suicides. That is, claiming gun suicides aren't a form of gun violence requires using these words in an unconventional way.) I'm not speaking of any other kind of suicide because I agree those would be outside the scope of a discussion of gun violence.

In that case, why are we even calling it "gun violence" instead of the more general, "violence?" Wouldn't lowering the rates of violence necessarily lower the rates of gun violence as well?

If you frame your questions around guns, your answers will necessarily be limited to something about guns. To make your classification relevant, you have to show there is some special attribute that allows you to separate out those incidents involving guns from other, similar incidents which do not. Further, the "guns" part has to be somehow unique to justify the reductionism.

Without those links, any discriminator will do. Some popular choices are: poverty, race, or gender. But anything will do, including attendance at clown college or being right handed.

AlBell · 3rd February 2013, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Strawman.

I personally make the point that the majority of gun deaths in the U.S. each year are suicides, and that framing the issue as all about crime ignores this fact and is partly to blame for the poor quality of discussion.

Not pre-crime then? Just pre-suicide?

Tell us again why suicides are something we need to be concerned about.

monty1 · 3rd February 2013, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

From the Christian Science monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...icle-promoLink

"Opinion

Sandy Hook exposes the logic gap in NRA's opposition to gun control

After Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, we hear arguments against gun control, chiefly that laws won't keep guns from evil-doers. But no one would argue that homicide laws have no place just because they can’t stop all killings. The point is, gun control will reduce carnage, if not stop it.
"

No gun control measures will do the least amount of good and furthermore, none will succeed to be passed into law.

The problem that needs to be fixed is in the heads of the American people. They continue to rationalize violence just as they continue to rationalize war. When people can't understand the fact that bombing a foreign country from 30,000' doesn't save them then they will be just as incapable of rationalizing that it's themselves they are killing with their guns.

The American people's fixation with the assault style says it all. It's not the weapons that are the problem, it's the desire to own one and the desire to put it to itis' intended use. It's the fulfillment in their own minds of the glamoourization of killing and wars. It's even evidenced here if one looks over the avatars of some of the young people. So many of them and way too many of them are intent on glamourizing war and materials of war.

When the wars end so too will the gun violence decline to normal levels.

Elypsis44 · 3rd February 2013, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

BENGHAZI!!!!!!

"Obama's kids have armed protection!!!11!!"

NWO Sentryman · 3rd February 2013, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by monty1

No gun control measures will do the least amount of good and furthermore, none will succeed to be passed into law.

The problem that needs to be fixed is in the heads of the American people. They continue to rationalize violence just as they continue to rationalize war. When people can't understand the fact that bombing a foreign country from 30,000' doesn't save them then they will be just as incapable of rationalizing that it's themselves they are killing with their guns.

The American people's fixation with the assault style says it all. It's not the weapons that are the problem, it's the desire to own one and the desire to put it to itis' intended use. It's the fulfillment in their own minds of the glamoourization of killing and wars. It's even evidenced here if one looks over the avatars of some of the young people. So many of them and way too many of them are intent on glamourizing war and materials of war.

When the wars end so too will the gun violence decline to normal levels.

Except, violent crime in the US has gone down in the past 20 years. Explain that one. And "assault style" weapons are a blip on the radar in terms of violent crime.

Nessie · 3rd February 2013, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by monty1

No gun control measures will do the least amount of good and furthermore, none will succeed to be passed into law.

The problem that needs to be fixed is in the heads of the American people. They continue to rationalize violence just as they continue to rationalize war. When people can't understand the fact that bombing a foreign country from 30,000' doesn't save them then they will be just as incapable of rationalizing that it's themselves they are killing with their guns.

The American people's fixation with the assault style says it all. It's not the weapons that are the problem, it's the desire to own one and the desire to put it to itis' intended use. It's the fulfillment in their own minds of the glamoourization of killing and wars. It's even evidenced here if one looks over the avatars of some of the young people. So many of them and way too many of them are intent on glamourizing war and materials of war.

When the wars end so too will the gun violence decline to normal levels.

It does appear to the case that the high levels of gun violence and high death rates are normal for the USA and people are maybe just immune to the horrors of such more than they are elsewhere. SNAFU.

monty1 · 3rd February 2013, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

It does appear to the case that the high levels of gun violence and high death rates are normal for the USA and people are maybe just immune to the horrors of such more than they are elsewhere. SNAFU.

Yes, that's another way of stating it. I prefer:

Their wars have led to a lowered regard for human life and therefore it's just natural that it carries over to their own. Just discussing some issues with them on this forum can't help but make one think they hate foreigners and see them as not their equals. That translates into hate for each other in their own country. And it just could be one of the factors that is destroying them.

BStrong · 3rd February 2013, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Elypsis44

"Obama's kids have armed protection!!!11!!"

Considering that I know a personal injury attorney who delights in suing individuals and LEO's for use of force issues wrt firearms, has stated to me personally that he believes that nobody should be allowed to even possess a firearm, and insists on hiring off-duty armed law enforcement officers as security/drivers for his own protection, it ain't far off in the elitism sweepstakes.

NWO Sentryman · 3rd February 2013, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by monty1

Yes, that's another way of stating it. I prefer:

Their wars have led to a lowered regard for human life and therefore it's just natural that it carries over to their own. Just discussing some issues with them on this forum can't help but make one think they hate foreigners and see them as not their equals. That translates into hate for each other in their own country. And it just could be one of the factors that is destroying them.

Well, why has violent crime decreased? By your logic, the US should have the mentality of Horned Reapers and violent crime should be going through the roof.

Cain · 3rd February 2013, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

BENGHAZI!!!!!!

Good point.

monty1 · 3rd February 2013, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Well, why has violent crime decreased? By your logic, the US should have the mentality of Horned Reapers and violent crime should be going through the roof.

Well, it could be because of the fact that your wars are becoming smaller at the moment. Or it could be that the statistics have been meddled with by those who are interested in minimizing their impact. However, it's still a lot more than it should be for the size of your country. And your gun violence is so out of proportion it's not even worth talking about anymore.

With a new war will come even more violence, if that's even possible!

Would you even admit that there seems to be a correlation in the war/domestic violence statistics?

BStrong · 3rd February 2013, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by monty1

Well, it could be because of the fact that your wars are becoming smaller at the moment. Or it could be that the statistics have been meddled with by those who are interested in minimizing their impact. However, it's still a lot more than it should be for the size of your country. And your gun violence is so out of proportion it's not even worth talking about anymore.

With a new war will come even more violence, if that's even possible!

Would you even admit that there seems to be a correlation in the war/domestic violence statistics?

Since you're not provided statistics to prove your point, I don't know.

monty1 · 3rd February 2013, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Since you're not provided statistics to prove your point, I don't know.

It may be in your best interests to find out but otherwise I don't care enough to look it up. And in any case, it was NWO who I asked. I wasn't expecting that anyone else would have to reply just to say they didn't know.

NWO Sentryman · 3rd February 2013, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by monty1

Well, it could be because of the fact that your wars are becoming smaller at the moment. Or it could be that the statistics have been meddled with by those who are interested in minimizing their impact. However, it's still a lot more than it should be for the size of your country. And your gun violence is so out of proportion it's not even worth talking about anymore.

With a new war will come even more violence, if that's even possible!

Would you even admit that there seems to be a correlation in the war/domestic violence statistics?

Well, why did violent crime drop from 1990 onwards, through Desert Storm, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?

Nessie · 4th February 2013, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by monty1

Yes, that's another way of stating it. I prefer:

Their wars have led to a lowered regard for human life and therefore it's just natural that it carries over to their own. Just discussing some issues with them on this forum can't help but make one think they hate foreigners and see them as not their equals. That translates into hate for each other in their own country. And it just could be one of the factors that is destroying them.

Their wars have not been fought on their own soil, especially compared to in Europe where civilians have experienced the true horror of war.

The hate foreigners, hate each other for me is the fear that pervades US films, media and culture that in the most secure country in the world, there is a heck of a lot of insecurity.

Nessie · 4th February 2013, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Well, why has violent crime decreased? By your logic, the US should have the mentality of Horned Reapers and violent crime should be going through the roof.

It has decreased for the same reason it has decreased all over the world, the reduction of lead, particularly in petrol.

2nd February 2013, 04:35 AM	#1
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685	Sandy Hook exposes the logic gap in NRA's opposition to gun control From the Christian Science monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...icle-promoLink "Opinion Sandy Hook exposes the logic gap in NRA's opposition to gun control After Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, we hear arguments against gun control, chiefly that laws won't keep guns from evil-doers. But no one would argue that homicide laws have no place just because they can’t stop all killings. The point is, gun control will reduce carnage, if not stop it. "
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685

2nd February 2013, 04:42 AM	#2
Magyar Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: the edge of reason Posts: 1,548	but but but insert 2nd amendment masterbation here and who will keep the evil gumbit from making us slaves
	__________________ "There is no heresy or no philosophy which is so abhorrent to the church as a human being." James Joyce Due to recent cutbacks the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.

2nd February 2013, 06:09 AM	#3
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,874	Originally Posted by Dcdrac After Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, we hear arguments against gun control, chiefly that laws won't keep guns from evil-doers. But no one would argue that homicide laws have no place just because they can’t stop all killings. The point is, gun control will reduce carnage, if not stop it. " That's the stupidest bit of polemic available in this debate - and that's saying something. Murder is a crime. There's no balance between law-abiding murderers and criminal ones. Murder isn't a proto-crime. Homicide isn't illegal. Conducting a homicide in an illegal manner is. "Mr. Madison, what you've just said ... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul..."
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

2nd February 2013, 06:22 AM	#4
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,874	Originally Posted by Magyar but but but insert 2nd amendment masterbation here and who will keep the evil gumbit from making us slaves Yes - governments should be required to follow the rules we give them. A government that is unwilling to do that rule over subjects (in the classic, not ceremonial, sense of the word for all our Kingdom and Commonwealth cousins.) Many of us are particular about following these rules and the government should have less - not more - lattitude. They are the servants. We are the masters.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

2nd February 2013, 10:10 AM	#6
mikedenk Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Midsouth, USA Posts: 793	Originally Posted by Cylinder Originally Posted by Magyar but but but insert 2nd amendment masterbation here and who will keep the evil gumbit from making us slaves Yes - governments should be required to follow the rules we give them. A government that is unwilling to do that rule over subjects (in the classic, not ceremonial, sense of the word for all our Kingdom and Commonwealth cousins.) Many of us are particular about following these rules and the government should have less - not more - lattitude. They are the servants. We are the masters. I suspect that Magyar is secretly pulling for the return of a Republican administration. Then he can finally break out his old "Question Authority" bumper stickers and vigorously renew his support for things like civil rights and constitutional restraints.
	Last edited by mikedenk; 2nd February 2013 at 10:11 AM.

2nd February 2013, 09:10 AM	#5
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,429	Originally Posted by Cylinder That's the stupidest bit of polemic available in this debate - and that's saying something. Murder is a crime. There's no balance between law-abiding murderers and criminal ones. Murder isn't a proto-crime. Homicide isn't illegal. Conducting a homicide in an illegal manner is. "Justifiable Homicide" "Self-Defense" "War" "Capital Punishment" All legal forms of homicide.

2nd February 2013, 10:32 AM	#7
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Originally Posted by Dcdrac Sandy Hook exposes the logic gap in NRA's opposition to gun control After Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, we hear arguments against gun control, chiefly that laws won't keep guns from evil-doers. But no one would argue that homicide laws have no place just because they can’t stop all killings. The point is, gun control will reduce carnage, if not stop it. " I think there's a logical gap in that quote. Laws against homicide don't prevent any killings at all. The laws are only applied post killing. Or, is the author stipulating that we would have more homicides if homicide were legal? How much more? Is there a segment of the population who are held back from the crime solely because it's illegal? My position is that the law codifies something we already agree is wrong. The law is about punishment, not prevention. Interestingly, those who are anti-gun would probably frame gun ownership as "already wrong" as well, in contrast with the pro-gun stance of "already right." We have a situation where one side says, "Tell me why you should have a gun," and the other side says, "Tell me why I shouldn't." This shows the different axioms underlying the discussion and makes the analogy with homicide laws a poor one. At least, assuming everyone agrees homicide is wrong.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420

2nd February 2013, 10:40 AM	#8
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,836	I fall on the pro-Second Amendment side of the fence in this, but background checks through NICS and requiring all sales to be conducted through an FFL dealer are good ideas, imo. Most of the other proposals are more wishfull thinking on the part of individuals with -0- knowledge of the subject matter.

2nd February 2013, 10:48 AM	#9
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,671	Originally Posted by Dcdrac From the Christian Science monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...icle-promoLink "Opinion Sandy Hook exposes the logic gap in NRA's opposition to gun control After Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, we hear arguments against gun control, chiefly that laws won't keep guns from evil-doers. But no one would argue that homicide laws have no place just because they can’t stop all killings. The point is, gun control will reduce carnage, if not stop it. " Homicide laws have a place in bringing justice to the criminals who commit homicides. The CSM's reasoning seems to make sense if we assume a priori that gun ownership, like homicide, is an injustice that needs to be corrected. The fundamental anti-gun principle is that gun ownership is a pre-crime.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,671	Last edited by theprestige; 2nd February 2013 at 10:50 AM.

2nd February 2013, 12:05 PM	#10
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	I think the problem with the NRA is that they have kept the debate off the question it should be on, and on a lot of silly stuff (like the mischaracterization of proposals, and portraying the 2nd Amendment individual right as being sacred--and only connected to firearms). The question that needs to be answered is, "What gun policies are likely to reduce gun violence?" The 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited. As with all rights, if there's a valid public interest that outweighs it, we can restrict the right. Instead, we have the NRA successfully lobbying for counterproductive laws such as state "Stand Your Ground Laws", the intent of which seems to be escalate conflicts rather and discouraging de-escalation (walk away). Further the NRA has successfully framed the issue as one of good guys and bad guys (or criminals and responsible gun owners)--as if the population exists in such stark binary fashion, and ignoring the fact that the majority of gun deaths, suicides, don't fit into that paradigm at all.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

2nd February 2013, 12:07 PM	#11
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by theprestige The fundamental anti-gun principle is that gun ownership is a pre-crime. Strawman. I personally make the point that the majority of gun deaths in the U.S. each year are suicides, and that framing the issue as all about crime ignores this fact and is partly to blame for the poor quality of discussion.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

2nd February 2013, 01:29 PM	#12
NWO Sentryman Proud NWO Gatekeeper Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO Posts: 3,778	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I think the problem with the NRA is that they have kept the debate off the question it should be on, and on a lot of silly stuff (like the mischaracterization of proposals, and portraying the 2nd Amendment individual right as being sacred--and only connected to firearms). The question that needs to be answered is, "What gun policies are likely to reduce gun violence?" The 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited. As with all rights, if there's a valid public interest that outweighs it, we can restrict the right. Instead, we have the NRA successfully lobbying for counterproductive laws such as state "Stand Your Ground Laws", the intent of which seems to be escalate conflicts rather and discouraging de-escalation (walk away). Further the NRA has successfully framed the issue as one of good guys and bad guys (or criminals and responsible gun owners)--as if the population exists in such stark binary fashion, and ignoring the fact that the majority of gun deaths, suicides, don't fit into that paradigm at all. Except, suicide is a much more complex issue than a simple matter of gun control. For example, a large percentage of people in the US who commit suicide are from a military background. Another example could be people who have just lost their jobs or are destitute. So I fail to see how suicide is a gun violence issue more than a mental health issue.
	__________________ If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East

2nd February 2013, 02:21 PM	#13
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,343	Originally Posted by Magyar but but but insert 2nd amendment masterbation here and who will keep the evil gumbit from making us slaves BENGHAZI!!!!!!
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

2nd February 2013, 02:23 PM	#14
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,343	Originally Posted by mikedenk I suspect that Magyar is secretly pulling for the return of a Republican administration. Then he can finally break out his old "Question Authority" bumper stickers and vigorously renew his support for things like civil rights and constitutional restraints. And what exactly do today's conservatives know about civil rights?
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

2nd February 2013, 03:17 PM	#15
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman Except, suicide is a much more complex issue than a simple matter of gun control. For example, a large percentage of people in the US who commit suicide are from a military background. Another example could be people who have just lost their jobs or are destitute. So I fail to see how suicide is a gun violence issue more than a mental health issue. Gun suicides are a subset of gun violence. (I reject any definition of "gun violence" that somehow excludes gun suicides. That is, claiming gun suicides aren't a form of gun violence requires using these words in an unconventional way.) I'm not speaking of any other kind of suicide because I agree those would be outside the scope of a discussion of gun violence. Similarly heart disease is a more complex problem than cigarette smoking, but that doesn't mean that smoking is not a risk factor for heart disease. I'm not arguing for any policy in particular. I'm just criticizing any approach to reducing gun deaths that ignores the majority of gun deaths. I think it makes more sense to have policies aimed at reducing gun suicides than policies that focus on reducing mass shootings at schools--for the simple reason that former is a MUCH greater problem than the latter (that is, it results in a lot more deaths each year). ETA: And if you exclude gun suicides because there are other types of suicides, then you could exclude all gun violence using the same reasoning. And who says that something must be either a gun issue or a mental health issue and not both? [ETA again: that's sort of been my point. Saying gun violence is strictly a matter of crime--good guys and bad guys-- and ignoring the mental health aspect of it will result in an incomplete perspective on the problem.] FWIW, a substantial portion of gun crimes are also connected to mental health. Doesn't mean it's not gun violence. See again my point about heart disease. Identifying other risk factors is not an argument that cigarette smoking isn't a risk factor.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 2nd February 2013 at 03:29 PM.

2nd February 2013, 05:23 PM	#16
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Gun suicides are a subset of gun violence. (I reject any definition of "gun violence" that somehow excludes gun suicides. That is, claiming gun suicides aren't a form of gun violence requires using these words in an unconventional way.) I'm not speaking of any other kind of suicide because I agree those would be outside the scope of a discussion of gun violence. In that case, why are we even calling it "gun violence" instead of the more general, "violence?" Wouldn't lowering the rates of violence necessarily lower the rates of gun violence as well? If you frame your questions around guns, your answers will necessarily be limited to something about guns. To make your classification relevant, you have to show there is some special attribute that allows you to separate out those incidents involving guns from other, similar incidents which do not. Further, the "guns" part has to be somehow unique to justify the reductionism. Without those links, any discriminator will do. Some popular choices are: poverty, race, or gender. But anything will do, including attendance at clown college or being right handed.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Last edited by marplots; 2nd February 2013 at 05:24 PM.

3rd February 2013, 11:20 AM	#17
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,512	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Strawman. I personally make the point that the majority of gun deaths in the U.S. each year are suicides, and that framing the issue as all about crime ignores this fact and is partly to blame for the poor quality of discussion. Not pre-crime then? Just pre-suicide? Tell us again why suicides are something we need to be concerned about.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,512

3rd February 2013, 11:29 AM	#18
monty1 Banned Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 836	Originally Posted by Dcdrac From the Christian Science monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...icle-promoLink "Opinion Sandy Hook exposes the logic gap in NRA's opposition to gun control After Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, we hear arguments against gun control, chiefly that laws won't keep guns from evil-doers. But no one would argue that homicide laws have no place just because they can’t stop all killings. The point is, gun control will reduce carnage, if not stop it. " No gun control measures will do the least amount of good and furthermore, none will succeed to be passed into law. The problem that needs to be fixed is in the heads of the American people. They continue to rationalize violence just as they continue to rationalize war. When people can't understand the fact that bombing a foreign country from 30,000' doesn't save them then they will be just as incapable of rationalizing that it's themselves they are killing with their guns. The American people's fixation with the assault style says it all. It's not the weapons that are the problem, it's the desire to own one and the desire to put it to itis' intended use. It's the fulfillment in their own minds of the glamoourization of killing and wars. It's even evidenced here if one looks over the avatars of some of the young people. So many of them and way too many of them are intent on glamourizing war and materials of war. When the wars end so too will the gun violence decline to normal levels.
monty1 Banned Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 836

3rd February 2013, 11:54 AM	#19
Elypsis44 Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,475	Originally Posted by NoahFence BENGHAZI!!!!!! "Obama's kids have armed protection!!!11!!"
Elypsis44 Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,475

3rd February 2013, 12:38 PM	#20
NWO Sentryman Proud NWO Gatekeeper Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO Posts: 3,778	Originally Posted by monty1 No gun control measures will do the least amount of good and furthermore, none will succeed to be passed into law. The problem that needs to be fixed is in the heads of the American people. They continue to rationalize violence just as they continue to rationalize war. When people can't understand the fact that bombing a foreign country from 30,000' doesn't save them then they will be just as incapable of rationalizing that it's themselves they are killing with their guns. The American people's fixation with the assault style says it all. It's not the weapons that are the problem, it's the desire to own one and the desire to put it to itis' intended use. It's the fulfillment in their own minds of the glamoourization of killing and wars. It's even evidenced here if one looks over the avatars of some of the young people. So many of them and way too many of them are intent on glamourizing war and materials of war. When the wars end so too will the gun violence decline to normal levels. Except, violent crime in the US has gone down in the past 20 years. Explain that one. And "assault style" weapons are a blip on the radar in terms of violent crime.
	__________________ If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East

3rd February 2013, 12:55 PM	#21
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,872	Originally Posted by monty1 No gun control measures will do the least amount of good and furthermore, none will succeed to be passed into law. The problem that needs to be fixed is in the heads of the American people. They continue to rationalize violence just as they continue to rationalize war. When people can't understand the fact that bombing a foreign country from 30,000' doesn't save them then they will be just as incapable of rationalizing that it's themselves they are killing with their guns. The American people's fixation with the assault style says it all. It's not the weapons that are the problem, it's the desire to own one and the desire to put it to itis' intended use. It's the fulfillment in their own minds of the glamoourization of killing and wars. It's even evidenced here if one looks over the avatars of some of the young people. So many of them and way too many of them are intent on glamourizing war and materials of war. When the wars end so too will the gun violence decline to normal levels. It does appear to the case that the high levels of gun violence and high death rates are normal for the USA and people are maybe just immune to the horrors of such more than they are elsewhere. SNAFU.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

3rd February 2013, 01:49 PM	#22
monty1 Banned Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 836	Originally Posted by Nessie It does appear to the case that the high levels of gun violence and high death rates are normal for the USA and people are maybe just immune to the horrors of such more than they are elsewhere. SNAFU. Yes, that's another way of stating it. I prefer: Their wars have led to a lowered regard for human life and therefore it's just natural that it carries over to their own. Just discussing some issues with them on this forum can't help but make one think they hate foreigners and see them as not their equals. That translates into hate for each other in their own country. And it just could be one of the factors that is destroying them.
monty1 Banned Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 836

3rd February 2013, 02:00 PM	#23
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,836	Originally Posted by Elypsis44 "Obama's kids have armed protection!!!11!!" Considering that I know a personal injury attorney who delights in suing individuals and LEO's for use of force issues wrt firearms, has stated to me personally that he believes that nobody should be allowed to even possess a firearm, and insists on hiring off-duty armed law enforcement officers as security/drivers for his own protection, it ain't far off in the elitism sweepstakes.

3rd February 2013, 03:57 PM	#24
NWO Sentryman Proud NWO Gatekeeper Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO Posts: 3,778	Originally Posted by monty1 Yes, that's another way of stating it. I prefer: Their wars have led to a lowered regard for human life and therefore it's just natural that it carries over to their own. Just discussing some issues with them on this forum can't help but make one think they hate foreigners and see them as not their equals. That translates into hate for each other in their own country. And it just could be one of the factors that is destroying them. Well, why has violent crime decreased? By your logic, the US should have the mentality of Horned Reapers and violent crime should be going through the roof.
	__________________ If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East

3rd February 2013, 04:03 PM	#25
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,940	Originally Posted by NoahFence BENGHAZI!!!!!! Good point.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

3rd February 2013, 04:12 PM	#26
monty1 Banned Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 836	Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman Well, why has violent crime decreased? By your logic, the US should have the mentality of Horned Reapers and violent crime should be going through the roof. Well, it could be because of the fact that your wars are becoming smaller at the moment. Or it could be that the statistics have been meddled with by those who are interested in minimizing their impact. However, it's still a lot more than it should be for the size of your country. And your gun violence is so out of proportion it's not even worth talking about anymore. With a new war will come even more violence, if that's even possible! Would you even admit that there seems to be a correlation in the war/domestic violence statistics?
monty1 Banned Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 836

3rd February 2013, 04:16 PM	#27
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,836	Originally Posted by monty1 Well, it could be because of the fact that your wars are becoming smaller at the moment. Or it could be that the statistics have been meddled with by those who are interested in minimizing their impact. However, it's still a lot more than it should be for the size of your country. And your gun violence is so out of proportion it's not even worth talking about anymore. With a new war will come even more violence, if that's even possible! Would you even admit that there seems to be a correlation in the war/domestic violence statistics? Since you're not provided statistics to prove your point, I don't know.

3rd February 2013, 04:37 PM	#28
monty1 Banned Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 836	Originally Posted by BStrong Since you're not provided statistics to prove your point, I don't know. It may be in your best interests to find out but otherwise I don't care enough to look it up. And in any case, it was NWO who I asked. I wasn't expecting that anyone else would have to reply just to say they didn't know.
monty1 Banned Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 836

3rd February 2013, 05:23 PM	#29
NWO Sentryman Proud NWO Gatekeeper Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO Posts: 3,778	Originally Posted by monty1 Well, it could be because of the fact that your wars are becoming smaller at the moment. Or it could be that the statistics have been meddled with by those who are interested in minimizing their impact. However, it's still a lot more than it should be for the size of your country. And your gun violence is so out of proportion it's not even worth talking about anymore. With a new war will come even more violence, if that's even possible! Would you even admit that there seems to be a correlation in the war/domestic violence statistics? Well, why did violent crime drop from 1990 onwards, through Desert Storm, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?
	__________________ If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East

4th February 2013, 04:08 AM	#30
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,872	Originally Posted by monty1 Yes, that's another way of stating it. I prefer: Their wars have led to a lowered regard for human life and therefore it's just natural that it carries over to their own. Just discussing some issues with them on this forum can't help but make one think they hate foreigners and see them as not their equals. That translates into hate for each other in their own country. And it just could be one of the factors that is destroying them. Their wars have not been fought on their own soil, especially compared to in Europe where civilians have experienced the true horror of war. The hate foreigners, hate each other for me is the fear that pervades US films, media and culture that in the most secure country in the world, there is a heck of a lot of insecurity.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

4th February 2013, 04:09 AM	#31
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,872	Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman Well, why has violent crime decreased? By your logic, the US should have the mentality of Horned Reapers and violent crime should be going through the roof. It has decreased for the same reason it has decreased all over the world, the reduction of lead, particularly in petrol.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic