The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[notdrunk]

I drive places I could not plausibly walk. Driving enables me to see my relatives and aging parents. There is a danger inherent in driving but we accept the fact that modern life is impracticable without it.

On the other hand guns have the sole function of causing harm. When used for their intended purpose they maim and kill. Their utility is limited to the rarest of circumstances and is greatly outweighed by the destruction they wreak. I can't imagine what would compel you to compare modern transportation to devices whose utility can only be defined in terms of how well they threaten, maim, or kill.

My point again is stop blowing gun violence out of proportion.

Gun ownership is a right that can't simply be taking away. With this right, there comes risks. These risks can be mitigated through actions by the government through legislation. However, there wouldn't be a de jure ban or de facto ban. You take away this right, other rights are fair game.

[Prospero]

Pathetic and ludicrous comparisons between cars and guns are utterly pointless as Notdrunk surely knows. Owning an automatic weapon has really only one purpose - and the end result if used is death.

So Sandy point and a gig pileup on the freeway are the same?

[notdrunk]

Pathetic and ludicrous comparisons between cars and guns are utterly pointless as Notdrunk surely knows. Owning an automatic weapon has really only one purpose - and the end result if used is death.

So Sandy point and a gig pileup on the freeway are the same?

Again, I am saying people are blowing gun violence out of proportion. I objected to the use of slaughter. I pointed to an activity that has killed and injured more people than firearms in the United States every year. However, do people think of slaughter on road? No.

A lot of people do see ownership of a firearm as a benefit with the benefits outweighing the risks. There are enough firearms in this country to almost arm everybody. Yet, the streets of the US aren't the streets of the Mogadishu.

[Prospero]

And yet the lawlessness we see in Nevada right now - with an armed militia defending a racist thief - suggests that serious gun violence of an organised kind can and does happen, Notdunk. Or are you fine with right wing militias confronting the Government?

You are vocal in defending the right of Americans to bear arms.

Now what do you feel if instead of right wing peope, like the militias deciding to confront the government, it was American citizens who adhere to extreme radical islamic beleifs and decided to confront the lawmen of Nevada - or new york, or California or wherever. Adherents of the same creed as the Jihadists who flew planes into the World Trade Centre. Are you happy with those who also question the right of the US government to exist as do the folks in Necada to have the sort of deadly arsenals which ordinary american folk can own. And if they take issue over a law of the land, to line up and confront the Government with semi automatic weapons etc....

Maybe you are okay with people armed with guns who are strongly anti-abortion to threaten doctors?

And are you saying that the killing of all those children at Sandy Point was not a slaughter? C'mon now Notdrunk... get real. or do you not care - and see them as necessary sacrifices in defence of the right to be armed to the teeth. Do you seriously equate a motor accident with murder?

[broncofan]

However, do people think of slaughter on road? No.

One reason for the difference is the word you chose to object to. People think of slaughter as an intentional act. People slaughter animals with knives, and humans are slaughtered in a more figurative sense with weapons. It's a stretch to say someone hitting a pothole and swerving into another car has slaughtered someone.

I think we should think of all public health problems in basically the same way. What harm are we preventing and how much harm can we prevent? What utility does the thing we are regulating have? How much do the regulations of that activity diminish its utility? How does that compare to the harm foregone?

[broncofan]

Another thing to point out is that guns have not been singled out for harsh treatment but have been treated like a sacred cow. We are not advocating that guns be given special scrutiny because when they cause death those deaths are conspicuous. Instead, guns should be subject to the same analysis as any other article or activity that could be regulated.

In terms of their utility, I also think we can be generous in designating the value they have to some people. Much of that value is psychic, but they can protect people's homes and give them less of a sense of helplessness against potential tyranny. But we also have to assign reasonable probabilities for these values and this cuts against their widespread distribution.

Finally, they can be regulated without being outlawed. For cars, we have a department of transportation to monitor risks and propose safety measures. For drugs we have the FDA that does the same thing and at great expense. We should put in the same effort when it comes to gun safety. What kinds of guns? Who should own them? What sorts of records of ownership should we keep? Unbiased and regulated data collection when guns are involved in injury? What about licensure? Again, there are a lot of people who know better the ways in which guns can be regulated; the important thing is that they not be treated like sacred articles.

[notdrunk]

And yet the lawlessness we see in Nevada right now - with an armed militia defending a racist thief - suggests that serious gun violence of an organised kind can and does happen, Notdunk. Or are you fine with right wing militias confronting the Government?

You are vocal in defending the right of Americans to bear arms.

Now what do you feel if instead of right wing peope, like the militias deciding to confront the government, it was American citizens who adhere to extreme radical islamic beleifs and decided to confront the lawmen of Nevada - or new york, or California or wherever. Adherents of the same creed as the Jihadists who flew planes into the World Trade Centre. Are you happy with those who also question the right of the US government to exist as do the folks in Necada to have the sort of deadly arsenals which ordinary american folk can own. And if they take issue over a law of the land, to line up and confront the Government with semi automatic weapons etc....

Maybe you are okay with people armed with guns who are strongly anti-abortion to threaten doctors?

And are you saying that the killing of all those children at Sandy Point was not a slaughter? C'mon now Notdrunk... get real. or do you not care - and see them as necessary sacrifices in defence of the right to be armed to the teeth. Do you seriously equate a motor accident with murder?

I have no problems if they aren't violating the law. If you didn't know the FBI are going after the people in Nevada that were seen pointing weapons at LEOs. I don't have an issue with them going after those people that violated the law. Anyway, most people knew that those militia people were trying to bait LEOs into starting stuff first. Would I feel sorry for those militia people if one of them decided to shoot at those LEOs? Nope, they get whatever comes towards them.

Yes, it was a slaughter at Sandy Hook; however, I don't believe in all the knee-jerk reactions.

[trish]

If a man brought a firearm to a political discussion that was bound to be heated, I would regard it as an act of intimidation and would consequently seriously doubt his rationality and self-control. I would definitely regard him as a threat to my life and a threat to the lives of those present. Should I stand my ground and kill him?

[notdrunk]

If a man brought a firearm to a political discussion that was bound to be heated, I would regard it as an act of intimidation and would consequently seriously doubt his rationality and self-control. I would definitely regard him as a threat to my life and a threat to the lives of those present. Should I stand my ground and kill him?

No, it depends on his actions. The person might believe in open carry.

[trish]

Belief is an action?

SYG seems to depend on whether the shooter "feels" threatened. A man who brings a gun gun to a heated argument is making no other point than, "Disagree with me at your own peril." SYG says you can shoot him, right?