Anti gun legislation

[Hill Bill E.]

So let me add this, make an argument to convince anyone who was or is affected by an event such as what happened in Tucson and who comes away from such an event with the mindset that something needs to be done about controlling a person's access to firearms. If one can make a convincing argument with people of that mindset, there's hope for fewer laws restricting the ownership of firearms.

Well, first off, let me say that all of us are affected by what happened. Who wouldn't be?

However, the fact remains, that it won't matter to the 'Jared's' of the world, or any other criminal, what restrictions are in place, or what laws are in made.

They don't care, and never will. If they cared about the laws, whether it's a written law, or the 'law of the land', they wouldn't have done what they did.

Could he have been stopped? Possibly.

Did he 'fall through the cracks'? Maybe.

Will something like this happen again? Yes.

Will new laws and restrictions stop it from happening again? No.

Will new laws and restrictions make any difference? No.


The fact is, imposing new laws and restrictions, are only going to affect those people who abide by the law.

Fact is, if they would enforce the laws currently on the books, and enforce the penalties that go with them, then we would be safer as a country.

No, it wouldn't stop all the idiots out there, but it would sure slow things down a lot.

 

[dwh]

So let me add this, make an argument to convince anyone who was or is affected by an event such as what happened in Tucson and who comes away from such an event with the mindset that something needs to be done about controlling a person's access to firearms. If one can make a convincing argument with people of that mindset, there's hope for fewer laws restricting the ownership of firearms.

Does this exercise also require that the argument convince those who are functionally illiterate?

Because if it does, it probably can't be done.

But those people do have the right to vote.


I don't think this exercise is relevant. The percentage of voters who are -directly- affected by such an event is vanishingly small. The rest of the voters are only affected by the event to the extent that they are exposed to and influenced by "the media".

So probably what is needed is not an argument to convince the few who have been directly affected, but rather, a catchy sound bite to counteract the catchy sound bites from the Sarah Bradys. Penn & Teller: Bull****! is probably our best hope there.

But good luck with that one. Even if one did come up with the catchy sound bite, chances are that the media will edit it out before broadcast if it doesn't agree with the "editorial policies" of the company, or actually - the board of directors (in other words, the people who Lee Iaccoca referred to as "corporate gangsters" and who Jefferson knew as "Federalists").

 

[Wyowanderer]

P.S. Quoting Adolph Hitler in a thread revolving around things like gun control is so weak as to be pathetic. If your argument requires the theories of a lunatic to support it, it's probably not a very good argument in the first place. Misquoting the lunatic only makes things worse.

The quotation of the lunatic was simply to underscore the need for firearm freedoms. Take the name away, and it could be confused with the intent of many, lunatic and not so lunatic.

Funny you had to use a pejoritive to make your point. Perhaps there are more than one kind of hard liner in this discussion.

 

[Klierslc]

I'll bite here....

I agree that some of those affected by gun violence will want some kind of change.

I agree that some of those affected by drunk drivers will want some kind of change.

I agree that some of those affected by knife violence will want some kind of change.

My best friend from grade school was beaten to death with a baseball bat in the parking lot of his college apartment. It was already illegal to carry a baseball bat in your car unless you were going to a baseball game (CA) There was no outcry to register baseball bats, limit their length, or ban them. There was an outcry to string up the bastard that commited the crime.

No matter what measures you take, there will still be crime. Consider the Arab countries where they will cut off your hand for stealing something. People STILL steal. (and have their hands merrily cut off as a result)

The only thing that you can do in THIS society with OUR constituion in place is to enforce the laws with stiffer penalties and then severely deal with those who disregard them.

 

[keezer37]

The Psychology of Opinion: Why Even Facts Won't Change Some People's Minds

Posted in Depression by Cyndi Sarnoff-Ross on Sep 15, 2010

I recently read an interesting article about why being given the “facts” about something doesn’t necessarily change a person’s opinion. Recent research has been done to determine why it is that people are often so committed to their point of view as being the right one, despite compelling evidence to the contrary. As a mental health professional I found the results both interesting and unfortunate because they leave little hope for the idea that factual evidence actually matters in many cases.

Nowhere does this play out more than in the realm of politics. As human beings we are naturally drawn to information that supports our beliefs; this is why people form groups, whether around religion or simply shared interests. But what the studies bore out was that when presented with evidence debunking their convictions, people became even more rooted in their original beliefs either as a defense mechanism or as a form of protest.

It seems a bit silly until you really think about what it feels like to be proven wrong and what that may mean for one’s own sense of self. If you have held on to a belief about something for a long time and then you are suddenly forced to change your opinion, what does that say about you and how does that undermine your future credibility. These are all relatively unconscious thoughts which is why they are so incredibly powerful.

Of note was the correlation between a person’s level of self esteem and their willingness to alter their opinion. Those who generally had more self confidence were willing to reconsider their position while those who felt insecure or negatively challenged were less likely to budge. It often takes a long time for people to get comfortable with the phrase, “I don’t know” and even longer for people to cozy up to the idea that maybe they may have been wrong.

This is a difficult problem to tackle and it affects so many areas of people’s lives and interactions. I see this dilemma frequently when working with couples in therapy. Of course this only applies to those things that are actually factual and not those things that are subjective, where reasonable minds can in fact differ. It brings to mind the old adage, “everyone has a right to their own opinion but not to their own facts.”

 

[Wyowanderer]

The Psychology of Opinion: Why Even Facts Won't Change Some People's Minds
Posted in Depression by Cyndi Sarnoff-Ross on Sep 15, 2010

Sounds like we need a law preventing folks from plying the psychiatric trade on the internet.....:wings:

 

[BorregoWrangler]

While it should be clear to any reasonable person that laws restricting the ownership or carrying of firearms are of no consequence to those hell-bent on causing carnage, I've found that its not always possible to get through to folks who are emotionally charged from such events. Their emotions override reason and logic. This may change on down the line, but for the time being, I'll just put the argument or discussion aside and show some sympathy.

In the wake of such horrible incidents, lawmakers have to appear as if they are doing something in response to the tragedy, with the presumption that the only recourse available to society is to pass more laws, as if the thousands already on the books are insufficient. I believe that no amount of legislation will prevent the next mass-murder spree.

 

[xtatik]

While it should be clear to any reasonable person that laws restricting the ownership or carrying of firearms are of no consequence to those hell-bent on causing carnage, I've found that its not always possible to get through to folks who are emotionally charged from such events. Their emotions override reason and logic. This may change on down the line, but for the time being, I'll just put the argument or discussion aside and show some sympathy.

This is an interesting statement. A vain and arrogant attempt at taking higher ground, don't you think. Your first sentence is no more than a rebuttable assumption. That assumption being, that one who presents an argument against your favor couldn't come from a "reasonable person". That is absurd. The rest that follows is just your opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with fact or reason.
It would be no different for someone to say...."the ongoing attempts to implement gun control have made in nearly impossible to get through to pro-gun folks. With each attempt at gun control, their emotions override reason and logic." There, see how that sounds? Worse, it's no more true or false.

This issue is emotionally charged on both ends. The hardline pro-gun crew is no more logical than those swung hard in the anti camp....and it wouldn't matter if the argument were presented months or years after the last incident.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

. The hardline pro-gun crew is no more logical than those swung hard in the anti camp....

On that I have to beg to differ. There are numerous facts showing that implimenting stronger gun control and/or banning guns has no bearing on crimes being committed.

In fact, areas in the US with the strictest 'gun control' measurments, have some of the highest crime rates.

I'd say the 'pro-gun crew' is very logical in thier assertions, becuase the facts back them up.

 

[BorregoWrangler]

A vain and arrogant attempt at taking higher ground, don't you think.

No, I don't think so. I actually find your reply to be very condescending. I'm not trying to be too critical, just an honest observation. However, perhaps I should have worded my previous post differently. What I said deals directly with and is based on my own experiences in talking with others about this issue.

For example, I have a friend who, in his own words, hates guns. One of his best friends from childhood was shot and killed in an armed robbery. He agrees that his own views are based on emotion, that they are not reasonable. He's okay with that and we simply agree to disagree, while respecting each others opinions. Don't assume that just because someone may have a different view or opinion than my own, that I think they are unreasonable.

Although we all may have different views and opinions on a variety of subjects, there can still be an interchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions in a matter that is still respectful and does not offend others. Discussing a subject such as this one with that mindset will enable our points to get across much easier to those who might reasonably or unreasonably disagree with us.

In talking with those who are opposed to firearms, I may not always know what to say but I do know how to say it.

 

[Mr. Leary]

While it should be clear to any reasonable person that laws restricting the ownership or carrying of firearms are of no consequence to those hell-bent on causing carnage, I've found that its not always possible to get through to folks who are emotionally charged from such events. Their emotions override reason and logic. This may change on down the line, but for the time being, I'll just put the argument or discussion aside and show some sympathy.

In the wake of such horrible incidents, lawmakers have to appear as if they are doing something in response to the tragedy, with the presumption that the only recourse available to society is to pass more laws, as if the thousands already on the books are insufficient. I believe that no amount of legislation will prevent the next mass-murder spree.

If you would permit me to re-word the first sentence...

"It should be clear that laws restricting those truly hell-bent on causing carnage
are of no consequence."

If they really mean to hurt someone, they will try to find a way to do so.

In fact, areas in the US with the strictest 'gun control' measurments, have some of the highest crime rates.

I'd say the 'pro-gun crew' is very logical in thier assertions, becuase the facts back them up.

I believed in the NRA "facts" for years before I started examining them more critically. Much of the data collected about violent crime is compiled months or years after the fact. Gun control laws are often implemented shortly after a tragic event or sharp rises in gun related crime. These laws could be passed and then promptly reflect a rise in crime, when the trend was already happening. Big cities tend to have higher crime rates the world over, and gun legislation is more likely to get passed in a violent city as a knee jerk reaction to crime. The point is that whether its the cause or the effect is not always clear. Data collected after the fact could show that crime trended upward after gun legislation was passed, but this data assumes that the lack of guns is what caused the crime. Assumptions are frowned upon in scientific studies. Reports that are not tainted by either side are few and far between.

... it leaves people like me in the middle. Both sides are arguing. Both have some valid points. Neither side is completely right. Neither side is giving ground.

 

[BorregoWrangler]

If you would permit me to re-word the first sentence...

"It should be clear that laws restricting those truly hell-bent on causing carnage
are of no consequence."

If they really mean to hurt someone, they will try to find a way to do so.

That works too.

I wonder how different things would be if Mr Loughner had killed using a vehicle or home made pipe-bomb instead of a firearm?

 

[Mr. Leary]

That works too.

I wonder how different things would be if Mr Loughner had killed using a vehicle or home made pipe-bomb instead of a firearm?

I can only speculate, but probably productive legislation rather then gun banning.

 

[Wyowanderer]

I can only speculate, but probably productive legislation rather then gun banning.

Doubtful. Homocide by motor vehicle or pipe bomb is already unlawful.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

Lets put this spin on the subject:

Lets say he did use a pipe bomb, lets say, there was a rash of pipe bombings going on.

What would be 'reasonable' to prevent it from happening again?

Prevent the sale of pipe?

Limit the diameter of pipe available to the public?

Outlaw the threading of pipe, so caps couldn't be screwed on?

Only allow plumbers and pipefitters, who have been trained and evaluated, to handle/touch/own/use pipes?


Sounds kind of silly, doesn't it?

Yet, pipes, caps, gunpowder, nails, etc. are all available to the general public.

All available without background checks.

Very capable of these items being turned into deadly weapons, with serious mas casualties.

Yet, the idea of 'outlawing pipes' sounds ludicrous.

Why? becuase it is.

Now, substitute the 'pipe' with 'automobile', still sounds kind of far fetched, right? Yet 'cars' kill people everyday, or do they?

Did the car that a drunk driver got into, and then hits a family, killing them all, cuase the deaths?

The car that, the owner purchased legally, took a test to obtain a driver liscense to operate, and had proper insurance on, did that car kill the family?


It's cold out, a young lady starts her car to let it warm up. It gets stolen, by a thief. The thief then gets into a high speed chase fleeing from police. During the chase, he runs over a man jogging on the sidewalk.

Did the 'car' kill the man jogging? A car that was legally purchased, liscensed and insured to be operated on the roads of America, did it kill the man jogging?

Should vehicles only be allowed to be driven by 'chaufers', people who hve passed extensive tests and phsyc evals?

Should we outlaw driving, to protect ourselves from......ourselves?



Now, instead of using a pipe bomb, or an automobile, lets use a gun.


All of a sudden, it's not 'silly' to some people.

I for one, fail to see the difference in any of the scenerios.

The failure, in all scenes, is human.


It's a sad situation, and one that will be repeated time and again, in one form or another.

There is no predicting human behavior, there is no regulating it.

I'm sure we all wish there was a 'Crystal Ball', something we could look into and see what a person will do in the future, and prevent it.

But there is no crystal ball.