Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 161: Elephants On Parade

(+) Yeah! (+)

foolm0r0n posted...

But you literally listed 2 regulations that don't help at all for their problems, as examples of what we need to do with gun regulations. Explain how your gun regulations will be less useless (and in fact harmful) to the original problem than your examples, and then we can talk.

Are you saying seat belts and speed limits don't limit fatalities in automobile accidents? Or DUI checkpoints don't help limit fatalities from drunk driving accidents?

These regulations aren't useless. Seat Belts have saved an estimated 255,000 lives since 1975. (Source; CDC https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html) And seat belt use is on the rise thanks to laws and regulations.

15 states made it illegal to text while driving. Do you really think that hasn't helped? (I'm honestly surprised it's not all 50)

Keep in mind that automobile fatalities are mostly non-malicious, and unplanned. While most mass shootings are planned, and all are malicious. Not to mention that people deal with automobiles way more than guns (which is the same reason vending machines kill more people than sharks. But I'd be willing to bet given the choice between swimming in shark infested waters and buying a candy bar, you'd take your chances with the candy bar).

I think it should be harder to get guns. At least harder than it is to buy Sudafed. Honestly at least as hard as it is to get behind the wheel of a car. Like I said, with cars -- most accidents are just that. (And there are accidents that should be prevented with guns. Too many times have I heard of some kid accidentally shooting another kid. A 3 year old shooting and killing his sister. What kind of idiot lets their 3 year old near their loaded gun?)

Honestly I know it's all in vain. We're never going to see any legislation making it harder to buy guns. It's just not going to happen. If it didn't happen after Sandy Hook, it's never going to happen. If someone can go in and kill 20 elementary school aged children, and our politicians do nothing about it, then they're never going to do anything. All they're going to do is send their thoughts and prayers so they can sleep easier at night. But I think it's silly to pretend that it's useless to even try to do something because people are afraid of government. Especially when those same people gladly let that same government have more money for the military than the next 13 countries combined.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Back to this, what's your reasoning behind this?

There will still be shootings after the ban. Nowhere has been able to completely get rid of them. So what will you want to do about it then?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

A more mature answer than I expected

new sig
---

foolm0r0n posted...

There will still be shootings after the ban. Nowhere has been able to completely get rid of them. So what will you want to do about it then?

Ahh yes, the anachro-libertarian approach. "All laws are useless if they don't completely get rid of the problem!" The whole idea behind "We don't need laws!"
---

Ashethan posted...

Are you saying seat belts and speed limits don't limit fatalities in automobile accidents?

No, seat belts help, statistically/scientifically. Speed limits, DUI checkpoints, drunk driving laws, taking shoes off your shoes and throwing away your shampoo bottles, getting xrayed - these do not and often they make the problem worse.

Notice how you didn't mention seat belts in your original post. You had to go and find an example of a regulation that DID actually help because you realized the ones you picked were worthless. (I could mention how seat belts were becoming more popular due to their safety far before any regulations but whatever.)

Imagine which other regulations you attribute to the betterment of society are actually useless and even doing more harm than good? Is it possible that your gun regulations might fall into this category, sounding nice but making the problem worse?

If you get your dream gun control in place, and more kids end up getting shot, what will you do? It's important, because it WILL happen. That's what my question in 389 is all about.
---

Ashethan posted...

Ahh yes, the anachro-libertarian approach. "All laws are useless if they don't completely get rid of the problem!" The whole idea behind "We don't need laws!"

Ah yes, the statist approach. "This causes a measured increase in death and destruction but hey, it's better than doing nothing right???"
---

"Sorry I killed you but I had good intentions so you should thank me!"
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

It's kind of annoying that Europeans act all high and mighty on the issue of gun violence when they have probably caused these parts of the world to be this way.

yeah, it's extremely annoying that europeans act this way when their ancestors did stuff several centuries ago.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Umbreon posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Umbreon posted...

Sure doesn't feel like the problem is declining.

Good news doesn't get clicks

This has been true for decades. I don't see how that's totally relevant. Mass shootings such as these appear to be increasing. Unless your argument is "Across the country, less people are being shot overall". In which case... there are still far too many of these instances happening for us to just shurg off.

What difference is there between "regular" shootings and mass shootings if the number of homicides is decreasing every year? I know it's hard to remove emotion from it, but people (and politicians) need to look at the statistics objectively if anything is to be done.

This would be great, if the NRA and republicans weren't actively trying to prevent studies on guns to be conducted.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Umbreon posted...

Though I feel foolmo is using the Perfect Solution fallacy.

There's a difference between an imperfect solution and something that literally has no effect at best and actually correlates with worse results at worse. Are you saying that you DO care about a solution that actually helps? Not just one that makes you feel better?

Yes, I care about a solution that actually helps.

Granted I do agree that an outright ban on all guns would be highly impractical at best, it would still probably beat the current strategy of "do absolutely nothing".

As for what I'd personally do...

Any and all guns purchased by you will be registered to your name. If a crime happens with a gun under your name, it's on your head to explain.

Mandatory training. Too many idiots killing other people in accidental shootings, very few of which would happen if people knew what they were doing. People will be required to retake training once per year. Those who don't will have their licence revoked.

Limits on how many guns an owner can have, as well as ammo they can purchase. No man needs 20 guns. If you're buying enough ammo to take down a small army, that should be a red flag.

No loopholes on background checks. There's currently something about a "Three business days" rule that allows sellers to give someone a gun if their background check isn't complete by then? That makes no sense to me. Why have the background check at all if you're just going to ignore it if it "takes too long". It should take as long as it needs to take.

Additionally you would be required to have a licence to sell a gun to someone.

I'm sure there are flaws to these suggestions I'm not looking at, and I'm not certain if all of them are constitutional.

There's also the "never happening" possibility of amending the 2nd amendment.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Speed limits, DUI checkpoints, drunk driving laws, taking shoes off your shoes and throwing away your shampoo bottles, getting xrayed - these do not and often they make the problem worse.

Could you explain how those make things worse? I'm legit curious.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Speed limits

This is not true at all. Can't speak about DUI stuff though.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Ah yes, the statist approach. "This causes a measured increase in death and destruction but hey, it's better than doing nothing right???"

From what I've personally researched, most of studies done that I've seen come to the conclusion that stricter gun regulations save lives. Considering the NRA's continuous anti-gun-regulation push, I find that pretty noteworthy.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

From what I've personally researched, most of studies done that I've seen come to the conclusion that stricter gun regulations save lives.

I can't find the study, but there is one interesting paper that showed that the only legislation that has ever reduced the incidence of mass shootings in the US have been concealed carry permit laws.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

KamikazePotato posted...

From what I've personally researched, most of studies done that I've seen come to the conclusion that stricter gun regulations save lives.

I can't find the study, but there is one interesting paper that showed that the only legislation that has ever reduced the incidence of mass shootings in the US have been concealed carry permit laws.

Id really like to see the methods for that conclusion.
---

What do gun advocates generally prefer, concealed carry or open carry?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

What do gun advocates generally prefer, concealed carry or open carry?

Concealed. Brandishing weapons is uncouth.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

What do gun advocates generally prefer, concealed carry or open carry?

Concealed. Brandishing weapons is uncouth.

but i thought an armed society is a polite society ???????/
---

I never got the appeal of open carry personally.

Are people supposed to just assume you're a "good guy" when you're strolling into Walmart or some place with a rifle on your back?
---

trdl23 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

KamikazePotato posted...

From what I've personally researched, most of studies done that I've seen come to the conclusion that stricter gun regulations save lives.

I can't find the study, but there is one interesting paper that showed that the only legislation that has ever reduced the incidence of mass shootings in the US have been concealed carry permit laws.

Id really like to see the methods for that conclusion.

Found it: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don%27t-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do

Here is the actual study: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=law_and_economics
---

I think it also depends on whether you're taking about in violence in general or mass shootings specifically

Like iirc waiting periods are very effective in reducing gun suicides
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Could you explain how those make things worse? I'm legit curious.

I remember a study a while ago about higher speed limits reducing crashes overall since it made people more cautious, and in general people drove whatever speed they felt safe with anyways. And then for lower speed limits, the deciding factor was stuff like consistency so if it's going from 35 to 45 to 35 etc (i.e. speed traps) that caused a lot more accidents than a plain higher limit.

For drunk driving stuff, it punishes being caught while drunk driving, which encourages reckless behavior to avoid being caught. The checkpoints are shoes-off-at-airport style security theater.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

For drunk driving stuff, it punishes being caught while drunk driving, which encourages reckless behavior to avoid being caught.

This kind of sounds like "Why have laws when criminals aren't going to follow them?"...
---

KamikazePotato posted...

From what I've personally researched, most of studies done that I've seen come to the conclusion that stricter gun regulations save lives

Most that I've seen say it goes either way. Data is fungible like that. I haven't researched it deeply enough myself to be confident in the truth.

But if we ARE talking about a serious, data-based, scientific solution to gun violence in the US, then cool. When I entered this topic, and every other topic the last few years after a shooting, that was absolutely not the case. It's always just impulsive anti-data nonsense that has no regard for the undeniable value of the 2nd amendment, which is not only unacceptable but can't even be implemented IRL, so it's literally just blowing hot air online.

Let's get to an actually effective scientific solution that is compatible with the 2nd amendment (yes it's possible, I described one possible solution earlier).
---

Dark Young Link posted...

This kind of sounds like "Why have laws when criminals aren't going to follow them?"...

Yes, which is an important question you need to have an answer to or else you're just writing shit down on a paper (that the cops go out and point guns at people for using millions of your dollars) so you can sleep better at night
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Let's get to an actually effective scientific solution that is compatible with the 2nd amendment (yes it's possible, I described one possible solution earlier).

Disarming the police and dismantling the active military is not a realistic solution lmfao

The reality that progressives literally cannot fathom without crying is that some problems are never going to be solved. Children are going to get murdered at a higher rate in the US than other developed nations because we have a constitutional right and cultural predilection for guns here. To have it any other way will mean changing the fabric of the United States.

If it matters that much to not live in a society like this, you are better off leaving than trying to "fix" it.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

KamikazePotato posted...

From what I've personally researched, most of studies done that I've seen come to the conclusion that stricter gun regulations save lives

Most that I've seen say it goes either way. Data is fungible like that. I haven't researched it deeply enough myself to be confident in the truth.

But if we ARE talking about a serious, data-based, scientific solution to gun violence in the US, then cool. When I entered this topic, and every other topic the last few years after a shooting, that was absolutely not the case. It's always just impulsive anti-data nonsense that has no regard for the undeniable value of the 2nd amendment, which is not only unacceptable but can't even be implemented IRL, so it's literally just blowing hot air online.

Let's get to an actually effective scientific solution that is compatible with the 2nd amendment (yes it's possible, I described one possible solution earlier).

Im on board with this as long as the NRA, etc. stop blocking research on this topic!

Thanks for the link to the study proper, Seph. I will try to go through it after work.
---

I'm curious what "reckless behavior" associated with avoiding being caught for DWI is more dangerous than DWI itself. You'd think the non-reckless solutions to it like designated drivers, taking taxis, etc would be the more commonly seen ways to avoid being caught.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

This kind of sounds like "Why have laws when criminals aren't going to follow them?"...

Yes, which is an important question you need to have an answer to or else you're just writing shit down on a paper (that the cops go out and point guns at people for using millions of your dollars) so you can sleep better at night

Well the problem with drunk driving is that you can't really stop anyone from doing it(Unless you somehow made it so cars stopped working if there is a hint of booze on you, but that would come with it's own issues). So by design it's a problem we can only react to after something bad has happened, isnt' it?

But "do nothing" is absolutely pointless. Even if there's no perfect solution(and few things have perfect solutions), doing nothing is one step below "Actively supporting it". Well I suppose "Can do nothing" and "Won't do nothing" matters in that case...

I personally wouldn't mind if drunk driving gave you a lifetime sentence on your first offense, but that still doesn't create a preventive solution.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

I personally wouldn't mind if drunk driving gave you a lifetime sentence on your first offense,

Jesus
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

Let's get to an actually effective scientific solution that is compatible with the 2nd amendment (yes it's possible, I described one possible solution earlier).

Disarming the police and dismantling the active military is not a realistic solution lmfao

The reality that progressives literally cannot fathom without crying is that some problems are never going to be solved. Children are going to get murdered at a higher rate in the US than other developed nations because we have a constitutional right and cultural predilection for guns here. To have it any other way will mean changing the fabric of the United States.

If it matters that much to not live in a society like this, you are better off leaving than trying to "fix" it.

Leaving doesnt fix the fact that kids are dying though. Is the fabric of the United States worth their lives if we could change that?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

Let's get to an actually effective scientific solution that is compatible with the 2nd amendment (yes it's possible, I described one possible solution earlier).

Disarming the police and dismantling the active military is not a realistic solution lmfao

The reality that progressives literally cannot fathom without crying is that some problems are never going to be solved. Children are going to get murdered at a higher rate in the US than other developed nations because we have a constitutional right and cultural predilection for guns here. To have it any other way will mean changing the fabric of the United States.

If it matters that much to not live in a society like this, you are better off leaving than trying to "fix" it.

Leaving doesnt fix the fact that kids are dying though. Is the fabric of the United States worth their lives if we could change that?

A liberal (in the classical meaning) and free United States is the pinnacle achievement of human civilization, so yes.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

To have it any other way will mean changing the fabric of the United States.

Bonus!
---

Arent you trying to fix the United States almost every time you vote?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

A liberal (in the classical meaning) and free United States is the pinnacle achievement of human civilization, so yes.

Thats really sad for humans then
---

Also I dont think weve ever had a free United States

Look at me invoking libertarian talking points.
---

Lopen posted...

I'm curious what "reckless behavior" associated with avoiding being caught for DWI is more dangerous than DWI itself. You'd think the non-reckless solutions to it like designated drivers, taking taxis, etc would be the more commonly seen ways to avoid being caught.

This. I dont think the more reckless logic is very sound. Thats like going Well, if the police try to stop somebody from murdering people, they may get reckless, so we should just never interfere.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

This kind of sounds like "Why have laws when criminals aren't going to follow them?"...

Yes, which is an important question you need to have an answer to or else you're just writing shit down on a paper (that the cops go out and point guns at people for using millions of your dollars) so you can sleep better at night

the answer is "because it will make people who don't want to be criminals not do the thing"

Is there actual evidence to suggest the danger of drunk people being more reckless to avoid DUI check points is significant compared to the amount of people the law is discouraging from driving drunk?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

I personally wouldn't mind if drunk driving gave you a lifetime sentence on your first offense,

Jesus

Oh I know something like that would never happen, because holy shit if it did.(Pretty much e

But that's how I feel. I just don't see the value in people who drive while drunk. I have no sympathy for people who have no consideration for the lives of other people like that.

My viewpoint is far from "PC", but it's how I see things.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

If it matters that much to not live in a society like this, you are better off leaving than trying to "fix" it.

for fuck's sake
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Disarming the police and dismantling the active military is not a realistic solution lmfao

Sure but making steps in that direction is totally doable and it's already a reasonably popular idea
---

Isnt the point of DUI checkpoints to scare people to not drink and drive. I know theyve done polls of people in neighboring counties, where one had random checkpoints and one didnt, and both counties had a majority say they would be less likely to drink if they had to drive through that county. Which obviously isnt perfect, but...
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I dunno, it seems pretty clear to me that it means These are the only rules we are taking out of the hands of the states; if you want to restrict any others you need an Amendment.

I'm no scholar, but I understand it to mean that Congress can make federal laws, and anything not under federal law defaults to the states. Your interpretation would imply that Congress is essentially not needed.

Seriously go read about the Nullification crisis - this was hotly debated at one time.

But to back sephg up a bit the 14th amendment was designed to end this debate.
---

Eddv posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I dunno, it seems pretty clear to me that it means These are the only rules we are taking out of the hands of the states; if you want to restrict any others you need an Amendment.

I'm no scholar, but I understand it to mean that Congress can make federal laws, and anything not under federal law defaults to the states. Your interpretation would imply that Congress is essentially not needed.

Seriously go read about the Nullification crisis - this was hotly debated at one time.

But to back sephg up a bit the 14th amendment was designed to end this debate.

Just realized your history topic purged and I am saddened
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Is there actual evidence to suggest the danger of drunk people being more reckless to avoid DUI check points is significant compared to the amount of people the law is discouraging from driving drunk?

http://blog.driversed.com/driving-under-the-influence-do-strict-dui-laws-really-work/

Looks like DUI strictness can kinda be correlated with fewer drunk accidents, but also not really, and also there are other factors that play bigger roles in the analysis.

Anyways the point is that something so basic and obvious as a law against drunk driving isn't as clear cut as it might seem, when the goal is to actually prevent car accidents. The law is never and should never be the end goal.
---

Drunk driving is an issue we will solve with driverless cars anyway. 200 years from now itll be gone.

Unless AI learns how to get drunk
---

Next topic is up BTW
---

Then the obvious solution here is shooterless guns
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Then the obvious solution here is shooterless guns

Well, the saying is that guns don't kill people

Flawless logic, problem solved. We did it, guys!
---