Gun Control

[commonsense]

So you can be quite sure they're not actually serious about solving gun violence: once again, they're just virtue signalling.

Really? Do you understand the meaning of the word, “serious”?

[Skepdick]

Australia has a mass shooting at the end of the last century.
They introduced laws which restricted people who "had a good reason" to own guns, they made sure that each gun was registered to an owner, and offered a free amnesty to turn in any illegal guns.

They have not had any more mass shootings, since then, yet people still are allowed to own guns but criminal find it hard to get them and if caught with them cannot plea any out-of-date amendment.

Holy crap! That's such bad logic. What happend at Port Arthur was the first event of its kind in at least 100 years - it's so rare an event that you can't even estimate its frequency. To insist that the laws have had any effect after only 25 years of observation is idiotic.

And then there is the fact that their number of massacres continues unaffected.

You really seem to dumb to comprehend that reduction in a single observable doesn't automatically translate to an increase in safety.

Only NRA morons resists gun registration and licencing. Which would link a crime to an owner who would have to account for the use of the weapon.
It seems to me that only a criminal or a person wishing to get away with a gun crime would resist gun registration and licencing.

Wouldn't you know it? Canada already tried the gun registry thing! It was ridiculously expensive and had absolutely no measurable effect on prosecutions or crime reduction.

I think Hollywood sold you on the idea that bullets can be linked to guns. In reality though balistic fingerprinting doesn't work.

[Sculptor]

Australia has a mass shooting at the end of the last century.
They introduced laws which restricted people who "had a good reason" to own guns, they made sure that each gun was registered to an owner, and offered a free amnesty to turn in any illegal guns.

They have not had any more mass shootings, since then, yet people still are allowed to own guns but criminal find it hard to get them and if caught with them cannot plea any out-of-date amendment.

Holy crap! That's such bad logic. What happend at Port Arthur was the first event of its kind in at least 100 years - it's so rare an event that you can't even estimate its frequency. To insist that the laws have had any effect after only 25 years of observation is idiotic.

And then there is the fact that their number of massacres continues unaffected.

There is a reason you are called skepDICK.
Obviously you can't count.
IF you add up the killings minus the Perpetrator, and do not count the "Massacres" where the perp only shot 1 fucking person, you get around140 dead,. So its less that five a year for the whole period in average.
FIVE.
Idiot!
Please compare that with the deaths last week in the US.

You really seem to dumb to comprehend that reduction in a single observable doesn't automatically translate to an increase in safety.

Only NRA morons resists gun registration and licencing. Which would link a crime to an owner who would have to account for the use of the weapon.
It seems to me that only a criminal or a person wishing to get away with a gun crime would resist gun registration and licencing.

Wouldn't you know it? Canada already tried the gun registry thing! It was ridiculously expensive and had absolutely no measurable effect on prosecutions or crime reduction.

I think Hollywood sold you on the idea that bullets can be linked to guns. In reality though balistic fingerprinting doesn't work.

I hope you get shot. You deserve it.

[Skepdick]

There is a reason you are called skepDICK.
Obviously you can't count.
IF you add up the killings minus the Perpetrator, and do not count the "Massacres" where the perp only shot 1 fucking person, you get around140 dead,. So its less that five a year for the whole period in average.
FIVE.
Idiot!
Please compare that with the deaths last week in the US.

Why are you cherry-picking a particular circumstance of death? Nobody prefers dying from a heart attack; or COVID to dying in a mass shooting! Everyone prefers NOT dying prematurely whatever the cause - when you are dead you are dead. Game over!

Being a lesser shithole than USA doesn't in any way tell you how to prevent Australians from dying.

The only thing that matters is whether any particular change introduced in Australia made a positive effect on the overall safety of Australians, and the simple fact is that you don't actually know. Because there's no evidence to support the idea that introducing strict gun control improves safety.

There are such things as ineffective controls.

I hope you get shot. You deserve it.

See! Being a dick to idiots doesn't actually preclude me from being a decent human being.

I wish you a long prosperous and healthy life free from suffering and despair, you dumb cunt.

[Sculptor]

There is a reason you are called skepDICK.
Obviously you can't count.
IF you add up the killings minus the Perpetrator, and do not count the "Massacres" where the perp only shot 1 fucking person, you get around140 dead,. So its less that five a year for the whole period in average.
FIVE.
Idiot!
Please compare that with the deaths last week in the US.

Why are you cherry-picking a particular circumstance of death? Nobody prefers dying from a heart attack; or COVID to dying in a mass shooting! Everyone prefers NOT dying prematurely whatever the cause - when you are dead you are dead. Game over!
.

Um why am I "cherry picking" gun deaths on a thread about "gun control"???

Are you on fucking drugs?
Fuck off, back on ignore.

[Skepdick]

Um why am I "cherry picking" gun deaths on a thread about "gun control"???

Yes. Precisely!

Why are you using the phrase "gun death" to imply that if the gun wasn't in the equation the death wouldn't have happened?
Why isn't it an "arm death"? If the shooter didn't have arms the death wouldn't have happen either.

Have you, perhaps confused correlation with causation?

The reason nobody takes "gun control" idiots seriously is because none of the proposed "controls" ever deliver on their promises. They are expensive knee-jerk responses that have no measurable positive effect on society.

That's what happens when you confuse correlation with causation - you waste your efforts controlling the wrong variable.

That's what incompetence to identify; and solve problems looks like in practice.

Are you on fucking drugs?
Fuck off, back on ignore.

This forum would be so much better if you just ignored everyone.

[henry quirk]

none of the proposed "controls" ever deliver on their promises

But is that really the measure we wanna use, how well control works?

Does successful control of those who do, or would do, wrong justify controllin'' all those who don't, or wouldn't, do wrong?

[Sculptor]

none of the proposed "controls" ever deliver on their promises

But is that really the measure we wanna use, how well control works?

Does successful control of those who do, or would do, wrong justify controllin'' all those who don't, or wouldn't, do wrong?

Are there countries in the world with more gun control than the US?
Yes
And do those countries enjoy fewer killings, and mass shootings?
Yes.
This is a place to start.
Only a criminal or a person who intends criminal activity would think gun licencing and registration was a bad idea.
I cannot see how a law abiding citizen could have any objections to this, after all is said and done people register their cars and bear licenses to drive those cars.
Maybe criminals would not comply with licencing and registration, But failure would be criminalised meaning that the police can arrest them, now they cannot.
A person found to be mentally unstable could have their licence revoked, and be unable to buy a gun from Walmart.

Do you personally have any objections to this? I can't see it being more expensive than car registration. Why would you object?

I think the arguments for some progress get bound up with money interests.
At some point Americans have to decide who is in control, the people or corporations.

[Skepdick]

But is that really the measure we wanna use, how well control works?

It's certinly one of the considerations.

If you want to control things, best you make sure your controls actually control.
In much the same way that if you want to shoot things, best you make sure your shooter shoots.

If it doesn't do what it's meant to do - it's either useless; or you are using it wrong.

Does successful control of those who do, or would do, wrong justify controllin'' all those who don't, or wouldn't, do wrong?

This is a stupid question. Control is an instrument like a guns are an instrument.

If you accept that guns are not inherently good or bad - they are just tools; the exact same applies to control. It's just a tool.
Any argument you make for; or against the use of one tool applies equally to the other tool.

The screeching anti-gun lefties are as idiotic as the screeching anti-control righties. They both hate tools they don't understand; or know how to use.

[henry quirk]

skep,

Are you sayin' it's justified to control all becuz some do wrong?

[Skepdick]

skep,

Are you sayin' it's justified to control all becuz some do wrong?

What I am saying is that it's perfectly justifiable to have laws, rules and regulations even if most people won't do anything wrong.

I don't even understand what you are squirming about. The four golden rules of firearm safety "control all" (who practice them).

You don't practice those rules because you have; or you will do something wrong - you practice those rules so that you don't become somebody who does something wrong.

That's how control works! You follow good rules so as to avoid bad things from happening! It's the epitome of self-discipline and self-control.

And if you already subscribe to a particular discipline/self-control routine (such as the four golden rules, regular practice/training, keeping your shooting skills fresh) then you should have absolutely no problem seeing those regulations enshrined as actual law to make sure other people strive to be as responsible in the use of firearms as you are.

Good rules/laws are good hygiene.

[henry quirk]

What I am saying is that it's perfectly justifiable to have murder laws even though most people won't commit murder.

Sure, we have laws that say if you murder, you'll be punished.

This, of course, is not the same as becuz some do wrong, everyone will be punished.

The four golden rules of firearm safety "control everyone".

B2992095-EF16-424E-A205-F00B284A19C1.jpeg (54.61 KiB) Viewed 784 times

Ain't seein' nuthin' here that prevents a person from ownin' property or hobbles them in the use of their property.

[Skepdick]

This, of course, is not the same as becuz some do wrong, everyone will be punished.

Which part of having laws and exercising control implies punishment for those who don't do anything wrong?

Ain't seein' nuthin' here that prevents a person from ownin' property or hobbles them in the use of their property.

Surely you must be blind?

Rule two hobbles you in the use of your property - don't point your property at other people (unless you are going to shoot them).

[henry quirk]

From up-thread...

The right to one's life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent. The right to defend one's life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent. Natural rights are not granted, only recognized.

It does not seem sensible to me, becuz some misuse their property, or misuse a machine, to hurt or kill themselves or others, that everyone ought be penalized in their ownership and use of similar properties or machines.

No, the reasons offered by controllers all fall short of justifying intrusions into the lives of those who don't deprive others of life, liberty, and property. And, I reckon controllers know this.

So: why call for control? Becuz the control they seek really isn't of a property or machine, but is, instead, control of the owners of properties and machines.

It's not what you own or how you use it that's on the table.

You are on the table.

[Skepdick]

It does not seem sensible to me, becuz some misuse their property, or misuse a machine, to hurt or kill themselves or others, that everyone ought be penalized in their ownership and use of similar properties or machines.

So should I take it then that you reject the four golden rules?

Just because some people mistook loaded guns for unloaded guns - don't tell ME what to do!
Just because some people aimed their guns at their neighbors (while also breaking rule 1) - don't tell ME what to do!
Just because some people accidentally pulled the trigger on their gun (while also breaking rule 1 and 2)- don't tell ME what to do!
Just because some people accidentally shot a granny behind their main target - don't tell ME what to do!