Australians need gun control! - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/06/2014 01:05:45 PM · #151

Originally posted by Cory:

I asked you to propose laws that would have stopped this.

Stop "this" ? Why the fixation on the rare, unpredictable, maniacal shooting which may, in fact, not be preventable, while ignoring the thousands of deaths from guns (by suicide, accident, "crime of passion" homicide, etc.) which it is proven can be prevented by reasonable restrictions? In your risk/benefit analysis you are ignoring about 99% of the "benefit" side of the equation.

06/06/2014 01:17:48 PM · #152

Originally posted by scalvert:

Already then. Thanks for taking the time to criticize the gun control measures you said I chose not to bring up.

Originally posted by Cory:
1. Already in place in CA. Did not stop shootings.

1. That was Connecticut, not California, and several of these gunmen WERE stopped (and/or potential victims escaped) when they had to reload. The Aurora shooter used a gun and high-capacity magazine that had both been previously unavailable under the expired assault weapons ban.
2. Already in place in other countries, and simply being able to REPORT mental illness for the purpose of background checks would be a step up from the current watered-down laws
3. You discount an obvious solution on this one by dodging to unrelated situations
4-6. More obvious solutions that you won't bother with because you're too invested in paranoid fallacies to recognize that they've already been proven elsewhere.

Originally posted by Cory:
it's much more "If we can only prevent law abiding citizens from owning weapons, then the harm from such a law would be immense." ...Let's face the facts, each one these guys would have gotten their hands on a weapon or weapons

And you're right back to the "it's a plot to take our guns away" and "bad guys will find another way" nonsense that's been debunked to death.

1. Now you're just confused dude. Aurora was in Colorado, not Connecticut, and I was referring to the Eliott Rodgers shooting, which was in California, which does have some of the heaviest restrictions in this nation on guns.

2. This isn't "other countries", and as previously noted, even in countries with very similar rates of gun ownership we still have TONS more violence and homicides. You're delusional if you think a gun-ban will somehow magically make us like these "other countries".. Nice thought, but absolutely delusional.

Furthermore on this point, Eliott Rodgers was seeing a therapist (several?), and was reported to the police very shortly before the attack. Tell me again why you think this should work?

3. How in the f*&k do you even begin to call this out as being referential to "unrelated situations" - I was talking about three scenarios, two of which directly contradict your point here, and the third questionably does so to (by your own admission, you're the one who posted the link stating that the guns actually weren't stolen dude!)d

4. Pfft. Way to try to 'win' here, call me paranoid and call my clear presentation of fact out as fallacies, while completely dancing around the issues I've raised by trying to cast aspersions upon my state of mind. ROFL - completely and totally expected, but a very sad commentary on your position.

--

As for your last point - what the hell is wrong with you? All we have to do is look at the 'war on drugs' and the previous 'prohibition' to see direct evidence of just how effective bans are in this country. To claim, as you do, that this has been 'debunked' is pure unadulterated bullshit, and I'm surprised you can stand the smell - standing, as you are, in the middle of so high a pile of it.

I've usually had at least some respect for you ability to think and your ability to apply logic, but frankly, this conversation indicates to me that you are no longer processing this through rational thought nor are you being logical, instead you appear to be standing on flawed assumptions and screaming your fool head off about the need for new restrictions and laws, all the while ignoring precedent and fact in favor of theory and fantasy.

Seriously - reexamine your position on this.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/06/2014 01:24:20 PM · #153

Note that in the shooting (yesterday) in Washington, bystanders were able to subdue the shooter when he had to stop and reload -- perhaps a case where having a limited-capacity firearm reduced the carnage ...

BTW: I notice that all of the recent examples of massacres have been perpetrated by humans of the male persuasion ... maybe we need to ban men, not guns ...

06/06/2014 01:24:26 PM · #154

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
I asked you to propose laws that would have stopped this.

Stop "this" ? Why the fixation on the rare, unpredictable, maniacal shooting which may, in fact, not be preventable, while ignoring the thousands of deaths from guns (by suicide, accident, "crime of passion" homicide, etc.) which it is proven can be prevented by reasonable restrictions? In your risk/benefit analysis you are ignoring about 99% of the "benefit" side of the equation.

Because the 'rare, unpredictable, maniacal shooting' is always what spurs legislators to attempt new regulations, therefore they are a valid point of focus.

Proven? I don't think you know what the work proven means. The situation in this country is sufficiently different from any other country that you cannot cite those nations gun control measures and results as proof of anything within the borders of this nation.

Again, as already stated, even countries with similar rates of firearm ownership have significantly lower homicide rates - my strong suspicion is that this trend wouldn't change a great deal no matter what firearms regulations are passed, and I have yet to see anyone suggest strong evidence to the contrary.

06/06/2014 01:27:32 PM · #155

Originally posted by GeneralE:

First, you are absolutely correct in that assessment, although, there's nothing saying that someone cannot buy multiple weapons...

As for banning males - hell, we're already well down the path of the war on boys in this country, so I suppose that's a logical next step. Good news though - Time has just announced the transgender tipping point, featuring the new 'acceptable' male form on their cover. ;)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/06/2014 01:33:09 PM · #156

"Proven" = "poke in the eye" = get a rise out of you (to "proof" is also a baking term meaning to allow a dough to leaven) ... nothing that isn't straight mathematics can ever be "proven" ... though I notice you bolster your argument with your own "strong suspicion" as compared to any actual evidence, flawed or not ...

How about ... it has been shown to a statistically-significant degree that there is a causal relationship between reasonable restrictions/limitations on gun availability and a reduction in deaths from suicide and accident.

06/06/2014 01:37:39 PM · #157

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Sure. Why not. Although, I do have a hard time believing that people aren't clever enough to off themselves without a gun handy. (plus I actually support the right to do so..)

Accidents? We shouldn't be in the business of creating laws to prevent occasional accidents. I do not want to live my life in a NERF world, thank you sir, and I'm abhorred that you do.

06/06/2014 01:41:57 PM · #158

The joke is that I would support a full ban, whatever you want. As long as you'd agree to a set of metrics which need to reflect your premises of significant reductions in crime and homicides. If those metrics were not met within a five or ten year period, then the agreement would be to redact all laws passed to this end, and to NEVER attempt such a foolish measure in the future.

The only way we'll ever know just how wrong you are is to try it. The problem with trying this is that there's no expectation of a way to restore the previous 'normal' and that any rights given up would be lost permanently, no matter how poor the results of said legislation.

Message edited by author 2014-06-06 13:42:40.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/06/2014 01:47:47 PM · #159

There's a difference between requiring trigger locks or gun safes and wanting to live in a NERF world ... perhaps you should avoid ascribing extremist views to others merely because you hold them yourself.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/06/2014 01:52:09 PM · #160

Originally posted by Cory:

The only way we'll ever know just how wrong you are is to try it ...

Well, we've been trying "your way" since the 1780s ... how's that working out?

06/06/2014 02:04:55 PM · #161

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
The only way we'll ever know just how wrong you are is to try it ...

Well, we've been trying "your way" since the 1780s ... how's that working out?

Still free. Still have liberty. Working pretty well I'd say, or do you really think the rest of the world has it better Paul?

06/06/2014 02:16:24 PM · #162

Originally posted by Cory:

I'm not the one who's confused. Your #1 was Adam Lanza� a shooting that took place in the town two blocks from my house, so I know damn well where it was. You attempted (poorly) to deflect the solution with a reference to California, which means bupkiss in CT, and I countered by pointing out that the Aurora shooter used weapons that had ALREADY been made unavailable until the gun laws were relaxed.

Originally posted by Cory:

2. This isn't "other countries"...

Another point that John Oliver lampooned. Try watching the video so you don't repeat the same stuff that made that guy look like an idiot. You're also still conflating ownership with gun control as if they're somehow mutually exclusive. Other countries can have the same rates of ownership while requiring registration, background checks and other measures.

Originally posted by Cory:

Eliott Rodgers was seeing a therapist (several?), and was reported to the police very shortly before the attack.

Thanks to the NRA, merely reporting mental illness to the police is not enough to affect gun ownership.

Originally posted by Cory:

How in the f*&k do you even begin to call this out as being referential to "unrelated situations"

Simple. If the gun had been stolen, then smart gun technology is one way that could have prevented its use. It wasn't, and the ATF has been stripped of its ability to crack down on crooked gun dealers like this (read the article).

Originally posted by Cory:

Call me paranoid and call my clear presentation of fact out as fallacies, while completely dancing around the issues I've raised by trying to cast aspersions upon my state of mind.

The fallacies are clear. Your state of mind, not so much.

Originally posted by Cory:

All we have to do is look at the 'war on drugs' and the previous 'prohibition' to see direct evidence of just how effective bans are in this country.

Aaand back to another point that John Oliver poked as lunacy. Even the guy he was interviewing blushed and stammered at the stupidity of that one.

Ultimately, you lose. Gun control is inevitable.

06/06/2014 02:16:43 PM · #163

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Dude. My views are not extremist, they're realist. There's a difference.

Require trigger locks AND gun safes - go ahead - there's no reason to think this will prevent any significant number of events. It'll stop the kids, and that's all well and good. But I have no kids, they're not allowed on my property, so why should I be subject to these laws?

Aside from that, how, EXACTLY would you propose to enforce such a law?

06/06/2014 02:21:26 PM · #164

Originally posted by Cory:

Still free. Still have liberty. Working pretty well I'd say, or do you really think the rest of the world has it better Paul?

30,000+ dead people per year have neither, and the rest of the civilized world has it MUCH better than that.

06/06/2014 02:24:07 PM · #165

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
1. Now you're just confused dude. Aurora was in Colorado, not Connecticut, and I was referring to the Eliott Rodgers shooting, which was in California, which does have some of the heaviest restrictions in this nation on guns.

I'm not the one who's confused. Your #1 was Adam Lanza� a shooting that took place in the town two blocks from my house, so I know damn well where it was. You attempted (poorly) to deflect the solution with a reference to California, which means bupkiss in CT, and I countered by pointing out that the Aurora shooter used weapons that had ALREADY been made unavailable until the gun laws were relaxed.

Originally posted by Cory:
2. This isn't "other countries"...

Another point that John Oliver lampooned. Try watching the video so you don't repeat the same stuff that made that guy look like an idiot. You're also still conflating ownership with gun control as if they're somehow mutually exclusive. Other countries can have the same rates of ownership while requiring registration, background checks and other measures.

Originally posted by Cory:
Eliott Rodgers was seeing a therapist (several?), and was reported to the police very shortly before the attack.

Thanks to the NRA, merely reporting mental illness to the police is not enough to affect gun ownership.

Originally posted by Cory:
How in the f*&k do you even begin to call this out as being referential to "unrelated situations"

Simple. If the gun had been stolen, then smart gun technology is one way that could have prevented its use. It wasn't, and the ATF has been stripped of its ability to crack down on crooked gun dealers like this (read the article).

Originally posted by Cory:
Call me paranoid and call my clear presentation of fact out as fallacies, while completely dancing around the issues I've raised by trying to cast aspersions upon my state of mind.

The fallacies are clear. Your state of mind, not so much.

Originally posted by Cory:
All we have to do is look at the 'war on drugs' and the previous 'prohibition' to see direct evidence of just how effective bans are in this country.

Aaand back to another point that John Oliver poked as lunacy. Even the guy he was interviewing blushed and stammered at the stupidity of that one.

Ultimately, you lose. Gun control is inevitable.

Jesus, It's like I'm talking right past you. The #1 here shifted when you mentioned a law that you thought would work - I was responding to your #1, not continuing with my #1, I guess yours was supposed to be a response to mine, but I'll be damned if that was overly-apparent. Even assuming we had been on the same page - Do you really think lower capacity magazines would have made a huge difference here? Didn't sound like he was under a lot of pressure during the actual incident.

-
Maybe it's not, but it is a reason to bar purchases, did he tell the truth on his application to the ATF? If so, I'd be surprised, it is my understanding that affirming mental illness, drug use, felony convictions, or any of several other conditions will result in a rejection of the application and a refusal to sell. Correct me if I am wrong here, as I may be.

Tell me what smart technology could have prevented it's use. Chances are that any 'prevention' device would be stored in near proximity to the weapon, that is, unless you're proposing something like an RFID implant. (which I'm sure would work... snicker)

And you're ACTUALLY claiming the war on drugs has worked? Holy shit... I don't even know how to respond to that.

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

06/06/2014 02:38:47 PM · #166

Moving on to today's shooting incident...

Bombs are illegal last time I checked. Didn't seem to prevent this guy from having a few.

He almost certainly would have succeeded if not for an immediate armed response. Granted, this was from an officer, but there's no reason to suppose a citizen couldn't have (or wouldn't have) done the same.

Again, I wonder how this would have looked had he not been able to procure a firearm? My guess is that he would have gone about his attack in a more intelligent and subtle way, instead of Rambo'ing in like he was the star of some twisted movie, and (happily!) attracting the gunfire of the deputy before gaining access to the courthouse.

Could we argue that this uniquely American fascination with guns actually SAVES lives? I dunno, it's a hard sell, but I'm willing to make that argument occasionally, and this is definitely one of those times. I strongly believe that those with a will, WILL find a way.

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

06/06/2014 03:08:38 PM · #167

Cory, I will tell you exactly who is responsible for all these crazed and demented and incomprehensible shootings. You are. Every 'responsible gun owner' is exactly that: responsible.

If there were no 'responsible gun owners' then none of this madness would happen. You make it possible. In fact, you make it inevitable.

06/06/2014 03:27:27 PM · #168

Originally posted by ubique:

To even suggest such a thing is ludicrous and is clearly intended only to be inflammatory.

--

I wish you hadn't felt the need to interject yourself into a conversation in which you really have very little part, and very little relevant input to give. And to interject yourself in such a needlessly inflammatory way is really beyond the pale dude.

I've responded to you via PM, let's keep this one between us in private shall we Paul, since your irrational hatred toward Americans really doesn't have shit to do with this issue.

Message edited by author 2014-06-06 16:07:28.

06/06/2014 04:44:52 PM · #169

Originally posted by Cory:

Do you really think lower capacity magazines would have made a huge difference here?

Considering the number of gunman who have been stopped while reloading, the number of victims who have escaped while reloading, and the number of incidents ended when the gunman ran out of bullets, that would be a factual YES.

Originally posted by Cory:

it is my understanding that affirming mental illness, drug use, felony convictions, or any of several other conditions will result in a rejection of the application and a refusal to sell. Correct me if I am wrong here, as I may be.

Argument from incredulity fallacy. The majority of guns used in violent crimes (something like 60%) come from a tiny minority of firearms retailers who routinely flout Federal laws on background checks and other eligibility requirements. Thanks to NRA-sponsored restrictions on the ATF, those retailers generally risk only misdemeanor fines and can be inspected no more than once a year. Furthermore, gun show and straw purchase loopholes make such applications laughable to circumvent, as was the case in Kansas City.

Originally posted by Cory:

Tell me what smart technology could have prevented it's use. Chances are that any 'prevention' device would be stored in near proximity to the weapon

False dilemma fallacy. There is no reason for a retailer to store prevention devices together with the weapons. Retailers routinely place empty packages or less valuable components on the shelf while keeping the key parts locked up.

Originally posted by Cory:

And you're ACTUALLY claiming the war on drugs has worked? Holy shit... I don't even know how to respond to that.

Perfect solution fallacy. You could respond by watching the video to see how comical your position is.

06/06/2014 04:59:09 PM · #170

Originally posted by Cory:

Bombs are illegal last time I checked. Didn't seem to prevent this guy from having a few.

Thanks to gun nuts, bomb PARTS are readily available from the same sources as firearms (as was the case in Aurora), and you're spouting a perfect solution fallacy again. Anthrax is illegal, but one guy got it, therefore there's no use to having any restrictions on anthrax.

Originally posted by Cory:

He almost certainly would have succeeded if not for an immediate armed response. Granted, this was from an officer, but there's no reason to suppose a citizen couldn't have (or wouldn't have) done the same.

Actually, there's one very good reason and another.

Originally posted by Cory:

I strongly believe that those with a will, WILL find a way.

Reality has no regard for your belief (see Australia).

06/06/2014 05:01:30 PM · #171

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Do you really think lower capacity magazines would have made a huge difference here?

Considering the number of gunman who have been stopped while reloading, the number of victims who have escaped while reloading, and the number of incidents ended when the gunman ran out of bullets, that would be a factual YES.

Originally posted by Cory:
it is my understanding that affirming mental illness, drug use, felony convictions, or any of several other conditions will result in a rejection of the application and a refusal to sell. Correct me if I am wrong here, as I may be.

Argument from incredulity fallacy. The majority of guns used in violent crimes (something like 60%) come from a tiny minority of firearms retailers who routinely flout Federal laws on background checks and other eligibility requirements. Thanks to NRA-sponsored restrictions on the ATF, those retailers generally risk only misdemeanor fines and can be inspected no more than once a year. Furthermore, gun show and straw purchase loopholes make such applications laughable to circumvent, as was the case in Kansas City.

Originally posted by Cory:
Tell me what smart technology could have prevented it's use. Chances are that any 'prevention' device would be stored in near proximity to the weapon

False dilemma fallacy. There is no reason for a retailer to store prevention devices together with the weapons. Retailers routinely place empty packages or less valuable components on the shelf while keeping the key parts locked up.

Originally posted by Cory:
And you're ACTUALLY claiming the war on drugs has worked? Holy shit... I don't even know how to respond to that.

Perfect solution fallacy. You could respond by watching the video to see how comical your position is.

Hold your horses there, on the first point, I'm talking solely about Lanza - you think someone would have stopped him if only he had to reload more often? I don't know about that - he didn't meet much resistance of any sort for the initial part of the assault.

I agree with what you've said on the second point, but those loopholes weren't actually even utilized for the purchases of the weapon in question, so essentially a moot point anyway, since the 'regulated' process was, in fact, followed in at least 2 of the 3 real life scenarios mentioned at the beginning of this (Lanza, Rodgers, ~~Muhammad~~).

I do think retailers might keep any prevention devices in a separate secured location... But that's not where most guns are stolen from, and I don't expect owners to be as diligent as the retailers might be. (and I don't honestly expect too much of the retailers either)

Dude, the war on drugs has been a total disaster, probably encouraging MORE drug use, filling up our prisons, and creating a list of powerful cartels, resulting in untold suffering, uncountable deaths, and innumerable wasted lives. To say that I'm engaging in a perfect solution fallacy is silly, the damned thing has been nothing short of an atrocity. I don't need to watch a video to know these facts, and I'm stunned that you think it has been anything even close to successful.

06/06/2014 05:11:44 PM · #172

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Bombs are illegal last time I checked. Didn't seem to prevent this guy from having a few.

Thanks to gun nuts, bomb PARTS are readily available from the same sources as firearms (as was the case in Aurora), and you're spouting a perfect solution fallacy again. Anthrax is illegal, but one guy got it, therefore there's no use to having any restrictions on anthrax.

Originally posted by Cory:
He almost certainly would have succeeded if not for an immediate armed response. Granted, this was from an officer, but there's no reason to suppose a citizen couldn't have (or wouldn't have) done the same.

Actually, there's one very good reason and another.

Originally posted by Cory:
I strongly believe that those with a will, WILL find a way.

Reality has no regard for your belief (see Australia).

That video is laughable.

So you take a kid who's played airsoft, is given a gun, told to keep it under his shirt in a way that makes it nearly impossible to draw, and then fails a setup attack is not a surprise to me. None of those were surprising. Now give all five guns, let's see how it goes.

The ringer would be an armed bystander who survives the first seconds of the attack and has a moment to think things through.

Even so, I'm not arguing that Avg. Joe will stop these things, I'll even go so far as to agree with your premise that armed citizens make no difference (for the duration of this particular discussion)..

My argument is simply that taking away the guns will not stop those who wish to do these atrocious things, and I have no fricken clue where you got the idea that you need gun parts to make bombs, that's just silly. As for it working in Australia - brother, that's half a world away, and a completely different culture, I see that as an apples to oranges comparison. Ever tried to make an orange-pie? You certainly can't do it like you make an apple pie, as each fruit has it's own unique character which must be respected and understood when making a pie.

Message edited by author 2014-06-06 17:13:02.

06/06/2014 05:17:00 PM · #173

Originally posted by Cory:

I'm talking solely about Lanza - you think someone would have stopped him if only he had to reload more often?

Eleven children were able to escape in one classroom when Adam Lanza stopped to reload.

Originally posted by Cory:

those loopholes weren't actually even utilized for the purchases of the weapon in question

Muhammad's gun was purchased through a store with a long history of ignoring Federal laws and was reported "stolen" several weeks later.

Originally posted by Cory:

I do think retailers might keep any prevention devices in a separate secured location... But that's not where most guns are stolen from, and I don't expect owners to be as diligent as the retailers might be. (and I don't honestly expect too much of the retailers either)

Require it. Many, if not all, of those "similar rate of ownership" countries you mentioned earlier have very strict storage requirements.

Originally posted by Cory:

Dude, the war on drugs has been a total disaster, probably encouraging MORE drug use...

Therefore laws against drugs are pointless and they might as well be sold in the candy aisle? You are using the poster child for the perfect solution fallacy.

06/06/2014 05:23:45 PM · #174

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
I'm talking solely about Lanza - you think someone would have stopped him if only he had to reload more often?

Eleven children were able to escape in one classroom when Adam Lanza stopped to reload.

Originally posted by Cory:
those loopholes weren't actually even utilized for the purchases of the weapon in question

Muhammad's gun was purchased through a store with a long history of ignoring Federal laws and was reported "stolen" several weeks later.

Originally posted by Cory:
I do think retailers might keep any prevention devices in a separate secured location... But that's not where most guns are stolen from, and I don't expect owners to be as diligent as the retailers might be. (and I don't honestly expect too much of the retailers either)

Require it. Many, if not all, of those "similar rate of ownership" countries you mentioned earlier have very strict storage requirements.

Originally posted by Cory:
Dude, the war on drugs has been a total disaster, probably encouraging MORE drug use...

Therefore laws against drugs are pointless and they might as well be sold in the candy aisle? You are using the poster child for the perfect solution fallacy.

In your first point, you're failing to recognize that those 11 were able to escape, but once he had reloaded, he continued on as though nothing had happened. He was slightly slowed down by reloading... Not a huge advantage, but admittedly, it doesn't at all hurt, and any small opportunity is a good thing - I just don't know that I think this is a really solid justification for restricting the sale of new magazines, since there are a TON of these in circulation already which can be had at a reasonable price.

On the second point, did you actually read what I wrote? I specially excluded the Muhammad case.

Ok, let's just imagine that you do now have a requirement for the conditions of storage and a regulated safety procedure that is required - do you now also support random police inspections of our homes, or just arranged police inspections? Gotta get rid of that silly 4th amendment too huh?

Yes, laws against drugs are pretty much pointless. I'd think the candy isle is a bad place to sell them, but regulating them like alcohol or prescription medications, or at least like tobacco would be a sufficient measure. Educate the people on the honest effects (not the lies that were spread by D.A.R.E. when I was a kid), and they'll often make the choice to remain drug free all on their own. You know, just like so many people choose to not smoke now, since they've been educated as to the real consequences?

To call the war on drugs out as your poster child of efficiency is just worrying. All I know for sure is that we don't need a new and innovative form of repressive prohibition in this country - it's like we get out from one and can't wait to start the next.. (alcohol, drugs, guns?)

Message edited by author 2014-06-06 17:27:05.