DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on July 29, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
-
http://satwcomic.com/no-pets-allowed
(http://satwcomic.com/art/no-pets-allowed.png)
No pets allowed
When I heard about the "No guns allowed" signs outside of some stores in the US, this was the first thing I thought of.
In Denmark we just have "no freaking beer allowed when will you fucking learn!?" signs.
-
Actually, according to many "experts", a No Guns Allowed sign really means: "if you sare crazy and have a gun, ignore this sign and come in and shoot our customers: just think of them as human skeet.
I really like SATW, it reminds me that I am not alone in my opinion of idiot Republican'ts.
Take this comment by a Finn:
@saskiiaa Simple, republicans just aren't all that smart really. They vote against their own interests with a smile on their faces. I doubt they even understand what socialism is anyway, or that the only reason the US class system now includes a middle class is because of socialist action. And republicans are either racist or just mindless drones whenever they harp on Obama. It's never for any real reason, they just want to insult him because, you know, black.
In short, most republicans are racist idiots so its kind of hard to understand them if you aren't them. They do a lot of confusing things.
Indeed they do, saskiiaa, indeed they do.
-
From Finland he can tell that Democrats are eager busybodys who know better than you do what is good for you?
-
Actually, according to many "experts", a No Guns Allowed sign really means: "if you sare crazy and have a gun, ignore this sign and come in and shoot our customers: just think of them as human skeet.
That's actually pretty accurate, since that "crazy with a gun" fella is likely 99% in illegal possession of that gun, and he knows that the law abiding within, won't have any means of defending themselves or getting himself shot for at least a good 5-10minutes, before police arrive
-
I think that they certainly know better than assholes like Ted Cruz. I agree with the Finn's opinions, and I also have a keen understanding of the nature of the Republican't idiocy.
Finland deserves great admiration, in my opinion. The Finns knew that because they had allied themselves with the Nazis when the USSR invaded them that they would not be rescued from invasion by the Soviets, and they cleverly managed to juggle their relations with the Russians and the West for several decades until the Russians finally decided that Finland was one part of the Tsar's empire that they could not add to their federation.
The Finns know volumes more about US history than most Americans know about Finland.
I once was in a little theater with a Finn named Luukas Eskola who worked as a dock supervisor of longshoremen at the Port of Hoquiam, WA.
His hobby was memorizing national epics. He started with the Kalevala, and proceeded to memorize the Nubilungenlied, and the Chanson de Roland, and was working on El Cantar del Mío Cid when I met him. He asked me to read El Cid aloud (which we did not do in my class in Medieval Lit) so he could get the gist of the rhythm.
No one could cook salmon better. Luckily, he was also good at catching salmon.
Interesting fact: Finnish and Japanese are unrelated languages, but they share the same set of phonemes.
-
The more guns are available, the more ordinary homicidal lunatics will be homicidal armed & dangerous lunatics.
Maybe when sirs goes to that Great Gunrange i the Sky, some homicidal nutcase will obtain one of his self-defense weapons and do what The Voices tell him.
-
The more guns are available, the more ordinary homicidal lunatics will be homicidal armed & dangerous lunatics.
This does not seem true.
How does an unarmed homicidal maniac work?
Seems that as guns get harder to find, it would be the homicidal who would have them more than anyone else.
-
That is not true in any country. There are too goddamned many guns, and that makes them very easy to get.
The more guns they are, the more people are going to get shot. It is simple logic.
-
And the more guns in law abiding citizens hands, the more lives saved than taken by one of those homicidal maniacs. It is simple math
-
And when 100000 law abiding citizens shuffle off this mortal coil, their guns are hardly all going to go to their law abiding heirs. Lots of them will end up in places where they will be owned by homicidal gun nuts, playful children and thieves.
Too many guns will only eventually result in too many people getting shot. It is inevitable.
-
And more guns in law abiding hands, means exponentially more live saved than taken by some homicidal gun nut, who acquired his gun ILLEGALLY.
That is a FACT
More kids are killed drowing in pools than accidentally shot
That is a FACT. Are you on record as advocating the need for pools to be banned? Registered even??
There is no mechanism that the Constitution supports in reducing the ability for the law abiding to legally defend themselves with a firearm
-
NO children should be killed in gun accidents ZERO. There are countries where ZERO is the number. The more guns there are in circulation, the more little Johnies and Little Janies will get their little brains blown out.
Of course, if they are fetuses this will not happen. Fetuses lack the ability to get their teensy hand on guns.
And after they are aborted, they never do, either.
Anbd, oh, yes
FUCK the Second Amendment.
-
No children should die in a pool drowing......ZERO
Where's your outrage that pools aren't being banned or registered?? Your hypocrisy shows no bounds
God Bless our Constitution and Rule of Law. It's what seperates us from 3rd world entities & nomadics
-
FUCK the Second Amendment.
I got a few I'd like to get rid of, too. Loads and loads of federal [and state, and local] laws I disagree with. Unfortunately, ranting and spouting drivel in here isn't the way to get any changes made.
-
Indeed....there's an actual legal & Constitutional process by which the Constitution can be amended, or even have some of the amendments scrapped.
I say we regulate what liberals can say about anything not liberal
-
The purpose os a swimming pool is not to kill people.
That is what a pistol is designed to do.
A swimming pool can have many useful purposes. It is idiotic to compare swimming pools with pistols.
I did not say I was not outrages about fools taking care to keep children out of swimming pools. But swimming pools are not what we were discussing. No moron has ever claimed that the only defense of against a bad person with a swimming pool is a good person with a swimming pool.
======================
What I really, really like about SATW is the respect and tolerance shown by the woman who runs the site for all the minority and subgroups in Scandinavia, The Faroes, Oland, Sami, and so on, each with its own flag and points of view. She talks about each group with respect for their differences and different attitudes. No one is ever blamed for anything, at least not without humor.
-
And the purpose of a firearm, in the hands of the law abiding, to is to defend life or provide food
Accidents happen. They can happen with all forms of equipment. The numer of accidental gun deaths to children is a fraction of a fraction, compared to pool accidents. Point is, no one has a constitutional right to a pool, and although more children die in pool accidents, I have yet to see you clamor for more pool control
So, when you start proclaiming either....
- the need to register pools
- how registering firearms actually prevents someone from getting shot
- how we need to amend the constitution, as it was designed to do
....all your doing is spouting drivel, and have no credible opinion to stand on
-
That is not true in any country. There are too goddamned many guns, and that makes them very easy to get.
The more guns they are, the more people are going to get shot. It is simple logic.
How is it logic at all?
I have been in rooms full of guns, I have been in hunting lodges full of armed men, I have also been in auditoriums and theaters where (in theory) there were no guns.
Why are more people shot in zero gun environments than in Hunting lodges?
I think you need to demonstrate how your logic works , or just quit calling it that.
-
It is already apparent in statistics, The more guns are present in a country, the more people get shot.
In Western Europe there are few guns and few people get shot. In the US there are guns all over the place and many times more people get shot.
In Japan there are almost no guns and almost no one gets shot.
That is the proof.
-
It is already apparent in statistics, The more guns are present in a country, the more people get shot.
In Western Europe there are few guns and few people get shot. In the US there are guns all over the place and many times more people get shot.
In Japan there are almost no guns and almost no one gets shot.
That is the proof.
This is a low quality of proof.
This is an example of Post hoc ergo prompter hoc, a logical fallacy.
It also relates to a Chicken and Egg argument .
Where there is a lot of danger , people tend to buy more guns to get relief.
So which happened first , the danger , or the guns sales in response?
Even where there is both many guns and many shooting injuries, like Chicago,most of the guns are not being used irresponsibly. If 10% of the people are doing most of the shooting , then it should be possible to remove better than 90% of the guns from the situation without reducing the number of people injured at all.
This would require of course that you remove the guns from the responsible people first and leave the 10% that is troublesome armed .
Of course , were it possible to remove the guns from the irresponsible first , then each gun removed would be an improvement.
Unfortunately every gun restriction I have ever heard proposed would have the preponderance of its effect on the Responsible before the irresponsible.
-
It is EXCELLENT proof.
The problem is that there are already way too many guns, and Americans will continue to use them to shoot one another forever. There is no way to confiscate the guns, there are too many imbeciles who vote only based on this issue alone, and the problem will never be solved. More guns will only result in more people being shot with guns. The United States is the laughingstock of the world because of these imbecilic obsessions about guns and a woman's right to her own body. It is rather like Greece, that cannot tax the people who have most of the money, or Saudi Arabia, that insists on prosecuting and executing people for witchcraft and heresy.
-
You have yet to address Plane's point how still more laws would substantially impact the law abiding....nearly exclusively. Nor have you answered how registration of guns prevents some thug maniac from shooting & killing innocents.
Ball in your court
-
It is EXCELLENT proof.
How is it not an example of "Post Hoc, Ergo Prompter Hoc?
http://skepdic.com/posthoc.html
-
I did not say "still more laws" should be passed. The entire block of regulations should be changed, with the goal of reducing the number of homicidal maniacs with guns.
You are asking me to predict the future. That is an irrational request.
As I have said many times, I do not expect any changes to be made. I expect the gun murder rate to increase with the increase of guns in circulation. The gun laws that should have been passed in the 1940's were not passed, and a lunatic Gun Nut Culture has sprung up around the mystique of guns. There is no solution. Just as there is no way to end meth addiction.
But more guns will continue to cause more shootings. We shall continue to have an average of one mass shooting per month, or more. And morons will continue to buy more guns which will not stop gun violence.
All these reports of how some Good Gun Nut saved people from a Bad Gun Nut are simply anecdotes that are used to make gun nuts feel useful, when in fact, they are not and are part of the problem. When they die, their private arsenals will continue to increase the availability of guns and gun shootings. It is inevitable.
If our Congresspeople had been smarter, they could have prevented this long, long ago. But they weren't, and Americans are ever more endangered by gun nuts.
-
I did not say "still more laws" should be passed. The entire block of regulations should be changed, with the goal of reducing the number of homicidal maniacs with guns.
THAT'S A GOAL EVEN THE NRA WOULD SUPPORT. NO ONE WANTS HOMICIDAL MANIACS TO HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS. Whether you add more laws, or change the block of regulations, how does that not impact the law abiding EXPONENTIALLY MORE that the homicidal maniac??
No one is asking you to predict the future. What's being asked is how still more laws would not substantially impact the law abiding....nearly exclusively over the homicidal maniac, since we already have laws against them shooting people, or how registration of guns prevents some homicidal maniac from shooting & killing innocents?
And what you try to poo poo as anecdotes, are FACTS that you can't dismiss, I'm afraid. Exponentially more lives saved, then taken by a gun in this country. But noting your complete disdain for unborn children, it's no wonder how you could callously discard all those other lives that have been saved with a gun
-
I expect the gun murder rate to increase with the increase of guns in circulation.
That is an interesting hypothesis .
How well does it predict the past.
If the number of guns in circulation have more than doubled since the election of Bill Clinton, and the number of deaths by gun have fallen by 10%.
Then the increase is a negative 20%.
As any stockbroker might tell you , the past is no certain predictor of the future, but it is all we have.
-
The people who bought at those guns recently have not yet died, releasing those guns to the world. The drop in crime is because birth control in the 1960'sd and 1970's prevented the birth of unwanted children, who tend to add to the criminal caste, and since they were not born, their children were also not born. I am pretty sure that the rate would have dropped EVEN MORE had not guns become an obsession of a particular segment of the population.
-
And given current trends, with the facts to back it up, I'm confident that areas with more permissive gun laws & CCW's, will continue to see a drop in violent crime, while those locations, that insist on even more regulation and limitations to legal gun use/possession, will continue to see their violent crime go up, since the homicidal maniacs have no intention of following current or new laws bding pushed. That includes the asinine registration tactic
-
I am confident that you are simply wrong, and that time will prove you wrong, but you will not admit it.
-
LOL....and given your track record of being wrong more often then a broken clock, I'm that much more confident thanks to your proclamation 8)
So.....when do we get to see the grand unveiling of how registration prevents gang members & homicidal maniacs from shooting anyone?
-
The people who bought at those guns recently have not yet died, releasing those guns to the world. The drop in crime is because birth control in the 1960'sd and 1970's prevented the birth of unwanted children, who tend to add to the criminal caste, and since they were not born, their children were also not born. I am pretty sure that the rate would have dropped EVEN MORE had not guns become an obsession of a particular segment of the population.
This is a really good try.
I admire such an elegant defense built of such poor raw materiel.
-
Guns are immortal if they are cared for. They have no say in determining who gets to play with them after their previous owner dies.
-
ok....I'll bite....and I'd love H's input on this....let's propose a law that when a person passes away, any firearms he legally owns, gets automatically transferred to the trustee, or next of kin, or POA, or designated person(s) in a will. And if for whatever reason that person is not lawfully allowed to own a firearm, then the weapon must sold to a dealer or another person legally able to own a firearm. And there'd be a time frame for this to occur. Let's say 9months after the person's date of death
Would such a law suffice your concern, Professor? It's not "out there" waiting to be picked up by some homeless person or homicidal maniac
----------------------------------------
And when do we get to see the grand unveiling of how registration prevents gang members & homicidal maniacs from shooting anyone?
-
There is little or no chance of such a law being passed. I am sure the NRA would oppose it. It would be one step in the right direction, but an unlikely one.
Who is going to appear to ruffle through all the deceased's possessions? How are we to know that he even OWNED a gun?
When my father died in 1986, we found a Colt six shooter in his desk drawer. Neither my sister not I knew anything about it, There were no bullets anywhere, other than a couple of ancient shotgun shells that belonged to my great grandfather, who died in 1952.
My sister asked me if I wanted it, I said, "no", and she took it to the city police station. I have no idea where it is now.
-
Of course there is....but that's besides the point, since its simply a question. The law abiding , would comply.....that's what makes them law abiding. And since its not an effort to try and ban or abolish someone's 2nd amendment rights, I don't see what the problem is.
So, let me ask it again, since you seem to find the need to rant about the notion of all these firearms living beyond their years, when their owner dies....Would you support a law that when a person passes away, any firearms he legally owns, gets automatically transferred to the trustee, or next of kin, or Power of Attorney, or designated person(s) in a will?? And if for whatever reason that person is not lawfully allowed to own a firearm, then the weapon must be sold to a dealer or another person legally able to own a firearm. Hell, it could even be donated to the police or sheriff's dept. And there'd be a time frame for this to occur. That's a far more credible & passable law than trying to ban firearms. Would you not support such an effort??
-
......and she took it to the city police station. I have no idea where it is now.
This depends on the local rules at the time , a lot of things like this go to auction.
-
Yeah, sure, I would support it.
If you leave the next tooth that falls out of your face, I support the Tooth Fairy paying you $5 for it as well.
I doubt that the NRA would endorse such a law, as it changes the status quo, and the only status quo they have ever wanted to change involve more people carrying more guns into more places.
================================================
My sister is skittish around guns and cops and she simply left the gun in a bag with the cop on duty at the time.
-
Nice to see your inability to discuss the topic of firearms rationally remains stellar. ::)
-
Only in your lame, twisted mind, little man.
-
Twisted is trying to claim a law about tooth fairies. The legislation I was referencing would be credible & legitimate. Not to mention could be supported by the NRA even, since its not about banning or abolishing access to firearms. But since you can't argue this issue with any rationality, its no wonder you drift off to fairy land
-
Why don't you suggest this to the NRA, then?
They oppose ANYTHING that does not actually make it easier for gun nuts to own a bazillion guns and strut about with pistols on their hips.
-
Because I'm not the one who thinks guns are going to possess someone after their master has died. This type of legislation wouldn't impede anyone from owning "a bazillion guns" or strutting around with pistols on their hips. (not to mention that doesn't occur presently either, but that deflection is largely beside the point) It's specfically addressing one your main issues with guns, that wouldn't actually be contrary to the 2nd amendment. That's what makes it a serious point, vs your fairy-tale version
-
Why would this law be needed?
This seems like it would be more onerous to the poor than to the wealthy or middle class.
When poor people get heirloom guns , it is a bigger deal for them .
-
Why would this law be needed?
I'm trying to appease the professor's "biggest beef", where guns live past their original owners & move to other people, causing those folks to go into some diabolical murderous rage
But to be honest, I don't see it as onerous. If the person in question wants to keep the firearm, they simply go thru a background check. They don't have to pay for the firear(s). If they dont't want the guns or can not lawfully possess them, then they sell them or donate them. their choice
-
If the person in question wants to keep the firearm, they simply go thru a background check. They don't have to pay for the firear(s).
Oh?
Well good , as long as we are not designing a new death tax.
Or a backdoor registration scheme.
-
This would be okay, except it is not going to be passed, or even proposed.
-
Why not?
Neither you nor I are very excited about it, so perhaps it is too reasonable to be useful to demagogues .
I see this proposal as a solution to a very small problem.
Is there evidence to show that there is a significant number of crimes committed with inherited guns?
Probably not ,a responsible gun owner would have a will that left the firearms in responsible hands, would a government program be able to improve on this?
Meh...
Useless mildly irritating law, the chief effect being more civil servants hired , potential union brothers, how could I oppose?
-
I don't think it is useless at all. The more guns are circulating in this country, the more likely that more will be used to shoot people here or perhaps exported to shoot people elsewhere.
Nearly all the illegal guns in Mexico have come from the US
-
I don't think it is useless at all. The more guns are circulating in this country, the more likely that more will be used to shoot people here or perhaps exported to shoot people elsewhere.
Nearly all the illegal guns in Mexico have come from the US
Mexico has much more restrictive gun laws and a much smaller gun per capata rate.
But a pretty bad rate of violent crime .
Your central thesis here "The more guns are circulating in this country, the more likely that more will be used to shoot people.." has a problem in that it is very disconnected from practical experience.
If our gun laws were more restrictive , and our gun availability were more like Mexico, might our violence rates rise to México's level?
Probably not, there is a lot more going on than availability of guns to the public.
If it were impossible for guns to be sold south into Mexico out of the USA, but all else were the same , those narcotic smuggling gangs would still have no trouble at all getting plenty of guns. They are Millionaires , they can get guns from Belgium and China and Brazil
it is the common man in Mexico that suffers from the restriction that they have, and would suffer more if the restriction were tighter.
-
If the person in question wants to keep the firearm, they simply go thru a background check. They don't have to pay for the firear(s).
Oh?
Well good , as long as we are not designing a new death tax.
Or a backdoor registration scheme.
Absolutely not