58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

[Town Heretic]

I've offered specific things we can do to deal with gangs, black markets, and broken homes.

Not to me you haven't. You've repeatedly noted you believe them to be serious problems. I've noted more than once that they're problems we've been addressing for some time. I've asked you for specifics.

I'll happily apologize and read them if somehow they got by me as finals and other irons got in my way. What posts contained them? If you don't want to link just give me a number and I'll go back to them. If you want to set out one or two particular ideas again that would be great too.

And with these areas being so highly correlated to homicide while gun ownership rates are not

I'm not trying to make fewer gun owners. I'm trying to make safer users and to limit the type of guns through rational, universal gun laws of the sort found in most Western democracies, democracies where you're far less likely to die or be injured by a firearm.

But gangs, black markets, and broken homes are even more tightly wed, and they have solutions that work every time those solutions are tried... unlike the vague solutions to poverty.

What specific solutions?

And Who offered "vague solutions" to the problem of poverty? I haven't. I only noted the serious linkage between violence and poverty, especially in concentration.

It would probably lower gun violence, but bans/restrictions on guns do not translate to lower homicide rates.

So you really think the thousands of people who died from mass shootings would have been killed anyway, by some other means? Because you literally have to believe that to make your statement true.

On less important squabbling...and I really like how what follows followed a quote of mine without at any point actually addressing any of it. Normally you have to attend a presidential debate for that sort of thing.

Every link I made had a point.

I noted some of them.

You ignored every one with a weak excuse.

You need to pick an idea. They aren't very compatible. I guess you wanted to say I ignored your points, but you also were determined to judge the quality of my responses that you weren't crediting when you said I ignored you. It came out funny anyway. So that's something.

At least I read yours and have good reasons against them.

No one is contesting your good opinion of your opinion.

But one should be wary of academic proposals when experience disputes their findings.

Rather, the anecdotal experience will frequently mislead where the scientific method not only doesn't tend to, but insists on broad repetition and scrutiny.

Mainstream academics are famous for promoting tyranny.

lain: I'm just not interested in a paranoid sidebar. I can't unscrew that bulb because there's not enough light to see it by.

In fact, without even knowing anything more about him than his biased and flawed studies, I'll bet he cannot define what a fascist is.

I have the utmost confidence in the consistency of your estimations of any contrary view.

We'll agree you might affect shootings with gun bans/restrictions,

You can't agree with a proffer that hasn't been made. I never said anything like "might". I noted, objectively, that every Western democracy with universal tough gun laws (and that's every other Western democracy) does a dramatically better job of protecting their citizens from gun violence and death. I also stated that mandatory gun safety courses would impact accidental shootings and deaths.

but there will be more death and violence because of the same.

Anyone who believes that banning weapons most useful for creating mass shootings will make things worse deserves the government we have.

 

[Yorzhik]

We've had a death in the family, so I won't be able to take much time on this.

I've addressed the problems with how highly correlated problems have been dealt with in the US so far. I'll go over it again in a later post.

There are problems with your solution. In short, the bad consequences of removing more-than-one-shot guns from society, and putting up barriers in the form of licensing and registration are large. And so far, you've shown such a great bias against discussing any other point of view than your own that it makes you appear tyrannical if given the chance, arrogant, condescending, and elitist.

Further, there are stats that support both sides of this issue with the greater amount and more robust landing on the side of freedom - which opposes your view - and which you dismiss without proper argument.

Not to me you haven't. You've repeatedly noted you believe them to be serious problems. I've noted more than once that they're problems we've been addressing for some time. I've asked you for specifics.

I'll happily apologize and read them if somehow they got by me as finals and other irons got in my way. What posts contained them? If you don't want to link just give me a number and I'll go back to them. If you want to set out one or two particular ideas again that would be great too.

I'm not trying to make fewer gun owners. I'm trying to make safer users and to limit the type of guns through rational, universal gun laws of the sort found in most Western democracies, democracies where you're far less likely to die or be injured by a firearm.

What specific solutions?

And Who offered "vague solutions" to the problem of poverty? I haven't. I only noted the serious linkage between violence and poverty, especially in concentration.

So you really think the thousands of people who died from mass shootings would have been killed anyway, by some other means? Because you literally have to believe that to make your statement true.

On less important squabbling...and I really like how what follows followed a quote of mine without at any point actually addressing any of it. Normally you have to attend a presidential debate for that sort of thing.

I noted some of them.

You need to pick an idea. They aren't very compatible. I guess you wanted to say I ignored your points, but you also were determined to judge the quality of my responses that you weren't crediting when you said I ignored you. It came out funny anyway. So that's something.

No one is contesting your good opinion of your opinion.

Rather, the anecdotal experience will frequently mislead where the scientific method not only doesn't tend to, but insists on broad repetition and scrutiny.

lain: I'm just not interested in a paranoid sidebar. I can't unscrew that bulb because there's not enough light to see it by.

I have the utmost confidence in the consistency of your estimations of any contrary view.

You can't agree with a proffer that hasn't been made. I never said anything like "might". I noted, objectively, that every Western democracy with universal tough gun laws (and that's every other Western democracy) does a dramatically better job of protecting their citizens from gun violence and death. I also stated that mandatory gun safety courses would impact accidental shootings and deaths.

Anyone who believes that banning weapons most useful for creating mass shootings will make things worse deserves the government we have.

 

[Town Heretic]

We've had a death in the family, so I won't be able to take much time on this.

Sorry to hear it, Yor. God bless you and your family.

I've addressed the problems with how highly correlated problems have been dealt with in the US so far.

I didn't ask you to tell me that you don't like what we're doing. I asked you where those specific proposals were to address gangs, black markets, and broken homes. Again, one or two ideas, a link, anything really.

There are problems with your solution.

Mostly for the gun lobby.

In short, the bad consequences of removing more-than-one-shot guns from society, and putting up barriers in the form of licensing and registration are large.

I haven't objected to over/under or double barrelled weapons, for the record. The bad consequences you don't name? I'm sure there are some, but given the alternative is much worse than inconvenience or the odd hypothetical that will rarely arise, set against the reality of what has and continues to...And registration is only a barrier if you're illiterate. It's just not complicated.

And so far, you've shown such a great bias against discussing any other point of view than your own that it makes you appear tyrannical if given the chance, arrogant, condescending, and elitist.

Nah. I had a decent difference/discussion/ and some agreement with Kat, by way of. The problem is that most of the people chiming in have either been wasting time peppering me with vague objections and a want of alternatives or worse, moving toward more guns and fewer restrictions. Not much conversation/discussion in the offering then.

And I only appear tyrannical to someone with a bad dictionary or a penchant for propaganda. Like anyone with a good idea, or in my case an appreciation for other people's good ideas that demonstrably accomplish the aim here, I believe in the change I advocate. The law, viewed by anyone who opposes it, is a tyrant. So... Arrogant, condescending and elitist? Well, at least I got you off of the emotional appeal business. You're wrong on this charge too. I'll leave the first two as subjective valuations go. How you choose to see me is your business. Elitist I'll tackle because it's one of those goofy banners that's frequently used as an attempt to taint education or rationality where argument won't.

In short, if believing in universal, strong law relating to the safe possession and ownership of firearms, the sort of laws which see Europe and our own states that approach them doing a remarkably better job of limiting gun violence and mass shootings/murder, if that makes me elitist then I'll brass the word and hang it over my doorway. And if the alternative is ill-informed, populist notion of virtue that invites needless suffering and preventable carnage, God save us from the hoi polloi, to offer a similarly weighted term.

Further, there are stats that support both sides of this issue with the greater amount and more robust landing on the side of freedom - which opposes your view - and which you dismiss without proper argument.

Let's deal with the "freedom" business first. Again, I'm not doing away with the 2nd Amendment any more than you are by opposing bazookas. The rest is reasoning where the line should be, what is permissible and what isn't reasonably.

As to arguments and outcomes here's an indisputable, empirical and objective truth: states with tougher gun laws have impressively lower rates of gun violence than those without them, and every other Western democracy with universal and tougher gun laws does a dramatically better job of keeping their citizens safe from the senseless outcome our disjointed efforts have produced. However some with a vested interest attempt to myopically focus in an attempt to ignore that, it remains the best defense against their efforts.

As to discussions, beyond advancing an appeal to examine and utilize obviously working models aimed at the end of reducing violence, which only a couple of people have taken me up on, Kat especially--another advance I've made more than once that no one on the other side wants to speak to is the essential change in this nation since the right was framed, both in terms of the pragmatic foundation for the right and the nature of the weapons and their potential, how that alteration forces us to be more particular with the line of allowance that every sane person believes in.

To sum, when the right was framed a great many people earned their livelihood and/or survived using long rifles. They defended homes against warring parties, provided food for sustenance and barter, pelts for clothing and introduction into the stream of commerce. Those weapons were also valued as the means by which citizen soldiers could come to the aid of their country, which lacked a standing army. And the rifle your neighbor possessed wouldn't allow him to slaughter half the souls in a small village if he went off his nut. Times have changed. The practical need is essentially done with (and the hunting rifle I support, or shotgun, is a better weapon for any legitimate purpose than the weapons available for the founders) and the lethality in terms of scope is staggering. It's time to redraw the line and protect people from irresponsible weapons and the men who wrap them in the flag of public virtue.

 

[Yorzhik]

Sorry to hear it, Yor. God bless you and your family.

Thanks.

I didn't ask you to tell me that you don't like what we're doing. I asked you where those specific proposals were to address gangs, black markets, and broken homes. Again, one or two ideas, a link, anything really.

You should have recognized that these points were the heart of the matter.

That you ignored discussing them should cause you pause that you might be engaged in confirmation bias.

And you have asked me to tell you about what I don't like concerning what we are doing against "poverty" by defending the idea that we didn't have to worry about "poverty" because we already have programs for it. While at the same time you are blaming "poverty" on why people shoot each other and *then* proposing we simply take away guns from everyone else because they use similar guns to shoot each other - instead of finding solutions to fix the "poverty".

But that's the point. The solutions for "poverty" aren't working. And they are mainly a single hammer - wealth transfers of some kind.

I'm offering solutions to problems that are more closely linked to homicide. And they aren't hard to implement like the pie-in-the-sky throw-money-at-the-problem hope-things-get-better-even-though-wealth-transfers-haven't-worked-the-last-50-plus-years-we've-tried-it nebulous vague unquantifiable programs of the New Deal and Great Society and all the other money-throwing-mentality programs.

The nice thing about the following solutions is that improvement is seen every time even part is implemented. This is different from wealth transfer solutions that don't show any improvement because "it wasn't enough". So here are the solutions targeted at problems highly correlated to homicide. Again:

For black markets, you make the items legal. This would be true of anything banned (or highly regulated) you don't want to have a black market in. Perhaps markets like drugs or guns that shoot more than one round.

For gangs you remove regulation so young men can get gainful employment. You stop giving public money to schools because whatever they've been teaching those boys it's not helping.

For broken families, you've already identified that the problem is almost entirely single mothers. Therefore, you don't give mother's money to have fatherless kids. And all family courts switch from de facto giving the mother custody to de facto giving the father custody. Also, accusations of domestic violence will require more evidence than the word of a single person.

Mostly for the gun lobby.

Seriously? The gun lobby averages about 10 million dollars a year. And somehow you think that puts politicians in their pockets when the lobbying industry as a whole is tossing over 2 billion dollars around in an off year and over 3 billion otherwise. Even if the gun lobby stopped doing anything with money, it wouldn't be noticed in Washington DC; There wouldn't be any politician looking for a pocket.

The reason the gun lobby looks so strong is because it's not the gun lobby, it's the people. Thus, when you say there will be problems for the gun lobby, you really mean there will be problems for the people.

The bad consequences you don't name? I'm sure there are some, but given the alternative is much worse than inconvenience or the odd hypothetical that will rarely arise, set against the reality of what has and continues to...And registration is only a barrier if you're illiterate. It's just not complicated.

Bad consequences like creating a new black market. Or blaming people, and punishing them, for something that isn't their fault. Or having innocent people die because homicide rates always go up after a gun ban on the scale you are talking about. Or setting a further precedent that the government can take your stuff even if you've done nothing wrong. Or leaving illiterate people unable to defend themselves, which is very elitist of you.

And don't forget innocent people dieing because registration always becomes political at some point. Do you think because there is only one example of a democracy using the gun registration tool as a club on a certain segment of people that it won't happen again? Why invite that kind of slaughter?

or worse, moving toward more guns and fewer restrictions. Not much conversation/discussion in the offering then.

Why? Just because you don't like the facts that likely show more guns equals less crime?

the sort of laws which see Europe and our own states that approach them doing a remarkably better job of limiting gun violence and mass shootings/murder

You limit your violence to 'gun violence' because you are an elitist playing law games with the little people. In the same way you limit homicide to mass shootings only to dictate laws that affect all homicide in a bad way. There has never, ever, been a gun ban on the scale you are are proposing where homicide rates didn't go up shortly afterward.

Let's deal with the "freedom" business first. Again, I'm not doing away with the 2nd Amendment any more than you are by opposing bazookas. The rest is reasoning where the line should be, what is permissible and what isn't reasonably.

This is a good question. I've answered where the line should be in a reasonable way, which you have not only failed to refute, but offer little support in your alternative.

As to arguments and outcomes here's an indisputable, empirical and objective truth: states with tougher gun laws have impressively lower rates of gun violence than those without them,

Here's an indisputable, empirical and objective truth: Counties with much higher gun ownership rates have impressively lower homicide rates than those with gun restrictions/bans.

Here's another indisputable, empirical and objective truth: If it were not for big city homicide, where guns are banned and restricted, and even certain areas inside those big cities, the homicide rate in the US would be similar to rates seen in other developed countries.

and every other Western democracy with universal and tougher gun laws does a dramatically better job of keeping their citizens safe from the senseless outcome our disjointed efforts have produced.

That's not true, unless homicide is defined by the weapon used.

And, BTW, I'm glad you can admit that our wealth transfer mentality to combat "poverty" is a senseless disjointed effort.

However some with a vested interest attempt to myopically focus in an attempt to ignore that, it remains the best defense against their efforts.

What is the vested interest? The only power the gun lobby has is that it's not the gun lobby that is powerful, but the people that don't get anything except a perception of security. Perhaps their perception is correct seeing as it has more facts to back it up, especially over time, than your alternative.

To sum, when the right was framed

It doesn't matter how the right is framed. All humans have the right to defend themselves no matter what the law says. And guns are the great equalizer that puts any small woman on the same level as the biggest man even with training that is no more than what she can get at the counter of a gun store.

 

[Town Heretic]

You should have recognized that these points were the heart of the matter.

I noted you thought so, offered that as a society any number of approaches were and had been made on them and wondered, repeatedly, what you'd do differently about them. Absent some new idea that could actually be applied I summed your position as supportive of the status quo.

That you ignored discussing them should cause you pause that you might be engaged in confirmation bias.

Not true at all, supra. But you'd have to give me something specific to consider in addition to what I noted.

And you have asked me to tell you about what I don't like concerning what we are doing against "poverty" by defending the idea that we didn't have to worry about "poverty" because we already have programs for it.

I never took that position. What I've said about poverty is that where you find it you find, disproportionately, crime and suffering. You've dismissed poverty as a consideration. No idea why.

While at the same time you are blaming "poverty" on why people shoot each other and *then* proposing we simply take away guns from everyone else because they use similar guns to shoot each other - instead of finding solutions to fix the "poverty".

Well, no. I've noted that states with stronger gun laws, like countries with stronger gun laws, experience a great deal less gun violence and mass murder from those weapons, weapons uniquely positioned to mete it out. And I've noted that as with your three concerns (black markets, gangs, broken homes) it isn't an either/or. By all means address broken homes (well, we are, but with whatever new ideas you come up with) but understand we've been trying to do that for a long time and still are, while the problem of gun violence and mass shootings increased. It's not an either/or situation.

But that's the point. The solutions for "poverty" aren't working. And they are mainly a single hammer - wealth transfers of some kind.

That's not true. We've restricted welfare funding times, created jobs programs and approached the problem a number of ways. I'm absolutely open to more ideas if you or anyone has them, in particular.

For black markets, you make the items legal. This would be true of anything banned (or highly regulated) you don't want to have a black market in. Perhaps markets like drugs or guns that shoot more than one round.

To begin with, much of what is sold on the black market isn't illegal as a thing, but is merely stolen goods, from prescription drugs to guns.

Of what's left...Prostitution, heroin, machine guns? That's your idea? Well, okay, it's an idea. I think it's a horrible one, but it's an idea. We have more guns than anyone else on earth and more gun violence by far than any Western democracy. Increasing the access and destructive power of what's on hand would be more of the same that wasn't working, though I'd agree it would rob organized crime of a profitable outlet.

For gangs you remove regulation so young men can get gainful employment.

What regulation? Child labor laws? Because no one is barred from working who wants to work.

You stop giving public money to schools because whatever they've been teaching those boys it's not helping.

Yeah, the problem is giving those who can't afford it on their own an education. That will really pull people out of poverty. Or maybe education without outlet is the problem. Maybe we need more industry and more trade schools?

For broken families, you've already identified that the problem is almost entirely single mothers.

Leaving off that you're wrong...no, let's not. You're blaming the mothers and leaving off irresponsible fathers? In point of fact there's enough blame to go around. Irresponsible kids having kids. I'm not going to lay the blame on the one who is actually trying to rear the children and provide some stability for them. Neither should you. So what's your solution?

Therefore, you don't give mother's money to have fatherless kids.

We don't. We provide for children who otherwise wouldn't have proper healthcare or nutrition. You want to cut off that funding?

And all family courts switch from de facto giving the mother custody to de facto giving the father custody.

The tender years presumption that a child was better off with the mother has been off the books for a very long time. Courts place children with the party who appears to be in the best possible position to provide for the child, emotionally and otherwist. Fathers can and have won the role of primary custodian. And many have joint custody.

Also, accusations of domestic violence will require more evidence than the word of a single person.

It's actually rare that you only have that little and past emergency measures you have to stand before a jaded judge and make your case. And as the only one of us with real experience in the system relating to that, I can tell you that most domestic violence comes with bruises and police reports. A lot of them with medical histories too.

Seriously? The gun lobby averages about 10 million dollars a year. And somehow you think that puts politicians in their pockets when the lobbying industry as a whole is tossing over 2 billion dollars around in an off year and over 3 billion otherwise. Even if the gun lobby stopped doing anything with money, it wouldn't be noticed in Washington DC; There wouldn't be any politician looking for a pocket.

The reason the gun lobby looks so strong is because it's not the gun lobby, it's the people. Thus, when you say there will be problems for the gun lobby, you really mean there will be problems for the people.

Yeah, that's wrong. The NRA alone, over the past 20 years, has spent over 144 million dollars beyond the 13 million it pushed into gun friendly campaigns directly, on indirect pro gun copy and get the opposition ads. See: Politico

And that's just the NRA.

On the consequences of strong gun law:

Bad consequences like creating a new black market.

Hey, you want abortion mills? Because if you shut them down you'll send some women into the arms of criminals. Is that really an argument against closing abortion mills? :nono:

Or blaming people, and punishing them, for something that isn't their fault.

If you break the law it actually is your fault. But you mean penalize people who would own an Uzi responsibly. Well, in the sense that not being able to own an Uzi is a penalty, okay. And some race car drivers could and would drive safely at higher speeds but they aren't allowed to because most of us can't manage it. Is that fair to them? Literally no, but that's life in a social compact, where it's impractical to micromanage the law in a way that would permit it.

Or having innocent people die because homicide rates always go up after a gun ban on the scale you are talking about.

Since we know about extinction events, we can and should plan accordingly. It's not an inevitability, just an understandable statistical upswing that, understanding it, we can now act to minimize while that larger good begins to work.

Or setting a further precedent that the government can take your stuff even if you've done nothing wrong.

By which you mean outlaw something that wasn't prior, like cocaine. Yes, we can do that and will continue to do that where there's a compelling case. Or were you talking about slaves?

Or leaving illiterate people unable to defend themselves, which is very elitist of you.

I never said we couldn't have oral examinations or help filling out forms. Your assumption is the culprit. I'm glad you're thinking about the illiterate though, given how your position on public education will likely swell their ranks.

And don't forget innocent people dieing because registration always becomes political at some point. Do you think because there is only one example of a democracy using the gun registration tool as a club on a certain segment of people that it won't happen again? Why invite that kind of slaughter?

I think that when you have to indulge in a paranoid Hitler fantasy without foundation in our compact's history to make your point you make a point you don't mean to.

Why? Just because you don't like the facts that likely show more guns equals less crime?

They don't. In fact, they show the opposite, supra.

That said, again I'm not trying talking about lowering the number, only eliminating certain types of weapons. You can own as many breech loading shotguns and single shot rifles as you like. It's your dime. But good luck trying to kill fifty people at a go with that. No, you'll be much more in the position of the man the Founders were thinking of, and your neighbor will be too.

You limit your violence to 'gun violence' because you are an elitist playing law games with the little people.

Rather, when I'm talking about cancer I talk about cancer, not cancer and heart disease and diabetes and dental problems. And you try to couch the elitist angle because reason won't serve you, so you lay on the rhetoric of the paranoid and emotional to drive your advance.

In the same way you limit homicide to mass shootings only to dictate laws that affect all homicide in a bad way.

Rather, I've spoken to gun violence and mass shootings, though my emphasis and the point of the thread was focused on the latter. I do that because we have models all around us in literally every other Western democracy, that show us a better way to go about things if the goal is to minimize the loss of life and human suffering.

This is a good question. I've answered where the line should be in a reasonable way, which you have not only failed to refute, but offer little support in your alternative.

Untrue on all counts.

Here's an indisputable, empirical and objective truth: Counties with much higher gun ownership rates have impressively lower homicide rates than those with gun restrictions/bans.

Objectively, demonstrably untrue. We have more guns per citizen than any nation on earth. We're dramatically less safe from gun violence than any Western Democracy in existence.

Here's another indisputable, empirical and objective truth: If it were not for big city homicide, where guns are banned and restricted, and even certain areas inside those big cities, the homicide rate in the US would be similar to rates seen in other developed countries.

Those other countries have big cities too. And they don't have our homicide rates and mass shooting incidents. What they do have, is tough, universal gun laws.

Also true: in our own states with tougher gun laws we have dramatically fewer incidents of gun violence. It's not a coincidence.

That's not true, unless homicide is defined by the weapon used.

What's tragically funny about that?

So I note that countries and states with tougher gun laws have dramatically reduced gun violence and Yor says that's only true because I'm talking about guns. lain:

What is the vested interest?

It's more than one thing. For those involved in the industry its money. For many it's a largely unexamined principle. The idea that a right is under siege and that uncoupled with the consideration of the right itself and both what it meant to the founders who framed it and how it functioned, how that's changed. I've noted that in particular, from the practical aspects of livelihood and frontier protection to the need for a national defense before we had a standing army, to the vast difference in what a man had and used in that and what has become of it in modern terms, how all that demands a different accounting and how irresponsible it is to see the Framer's act without considering the context and how that context is altered in our present. Why that makes a new line of demarcation both right and necessary.

It doesn't matter how the right is framed. All humans have the right to defend themselves no matter what the law says.

No one, least of all me, is disputing the right of anyone to defend themselves, just as no one is suggesting that right should allow me to carry a bazooka on my person to discourage potential criminals.

And guns are the great equalizer that puts any small woman on the same level as the biggest man even with training that is no more than what she can get at the counter of a gun store.

No, a gun doesn't do that at all. Like suggesting a paintbrush puts everyone on the same artistic level. In point of fact, if you don't know how to use a tool or aren't prepared to use it then the person who is will always have the advantage. In most cases, relating to guns, that favors the criminal.

 

[Town Heretic]

Meanwhile...the best month of the year on topic.

12 dead
64 wounded from mass shootings in a comparatively calm December.

On the year:

577 killed
1,964 wounded

 

[Nihilo]

You have less control and precision when you shoot auto. You want to quickly hit multiple targets a bump stock isn't the way to go. That's why soldiers rarely use auto and why the M16A2 went from auto to a three round burst.

"Went from auto to a three round burst" is incorrect.

The truth is that the M16 went from selective fire, to selective fire with a new selection. Where originally it was "Auto," "Semi," and "Safe," "Burst" was added. This was conceptually a very trivial innovation (adding between one, and infinite, three, wrt rounds fired per trigger pull), and has proven to be a good addition. Civilians ought to have access to such weapons, but they are denied this access.

More is mostly for suppressive fire, which is fine when all the good guys are beside or behind you and all the bad guys are across the way. Keep people's heads down. Maybe inadvertently kill a few people you aren't particularly aiming at. If you're shooting more than one round per squeeze you're losing a lot that matters outside of room sweeping and close quarter combat.

Nobody in a time of need would choose to not have both Burst and full Auto selections, on their selective fire rifle or carbine. Nobody.

 

[Town Heretic]

"Went from auto to a three round burst" is incorrect.

I don't own one, but that's the information I received from someone who shot it.

Went to find another source: "[FONT=&quot]The M16A2 semiautomatic rifle is the standard by which all military rifles of the future will be judged. This variant of the M16 fires a three-round burst in semiautomatic operation." Military Analysis Network. (link)[/FONT]

The truth is that the M16 went from selective fire, to selective fire with a new selection. Where originally it was "Auto," "Semi," and "Safe," "Burst" was added. This was conceptually a very trivial innovation (adding between one, and infinite, three, wrt rounds fired per trigger pull), and has proven to be a good addition.

Soldiers agree.

Civilians ought to have access to such weapons, but they are denied this access.

We fundamentally disagree, as you would fundamentally disagree with someone who believes he should have a bazooka.

Nobody in a time of need would choose to not have both Burst and full Auto selections, on their selective fire rifle or carbine. Nobody.

Certainly no one using it for its designed purpose, war. As a last resort, being overrun, you absolutely want the auto function. Sure. And it absolutely has no place on the streets of our Republic.

And to repost the more recent information on mass shootings here:

12 dead in December
64 wounded from mass shootings.

On the year so far there have been: 577 people murdered by mass shooters and 1,964 wounded.

 

[Nihilo]

I don't own one, but that's the information I received from someone who shot it.

You were right.

We fundamentally disagree, as you would fundamentally disagree with someone who believes he should have a bazooka.

No, I'm not sure why anybody should have the right to have a destructive device like a bazooka, or a nuclear bomb, but obviously we do, because militaries do.

Certainly no one using it for its designed purpose, war.

War is self defense writ large.

. . . it absolutely has no place on the streets of our Republic.

Declarative.

And to repost the more recent information on mass shootings here:

12 dead in December
64 wounded from mass shootings.

On the year so far there have been: 577 people murdered by mass shooters and 1,964 wounded.

2,541 people who could have used a selective fire rifle or carbine, to defend themselves against a murderer.

 

[Town Heretic]

You were right.

It happens.

No, I'm not sure why anybody should have the right to have a destructive device like a bazooka, or a nuclear bomb, but obviously we do, because militaries do.

Yeah, we disagree that citizens should have the same capacity for violence as an army. That only made sense when we lacked a standing army and when soldiers and the average citizen carried the same single shot rifle.

War is self defense writ large.

It can be, but frequently isn't, at least by half.

Declarative.

More a sum of a position set out prior and exhaustively in parts.

2,541 people who could have used a selective fire rifle or carbine, to defend themselves against a murderer.

Anyone who honestly believes that the people in Las Vegas, by way of example, would have saved lives if everyone had a high powered rifle with a bump stock either doesn't understand the logistics, or has never been under fire.

If more guns made you safe we'd be the leader in that particular instead of the tail trying to wag the dog.

 

[jgarden]

58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

The question remains as to how Canada, with which America shares 5250 miles of open border, and every other modern democracy in the world has managed to retain their democracies, while still implementing relatively strict gun control - by US standards?

If Windsor, in Canada, can go 27 months without a homicide, while Detroit, just across the river, averages at least one gun related homicide daily, that has to bring into question as to what purpose the proliferation of handguns and semi-automatic weapons serves!

 

[Nihilo]

It happens.

I admit it when it does.

Yeah, we disagree that citizens should have the same capacity for violence as an army.

Armies consist entirely of citizens here and in all western democracies.

It can be, but frequently isn't, at least by half.

You mean the bad guys. The bad people who wage unjust, hostile, and aggressive warfare. Yeah, those are the murderers, writ large, and defensive, just war, is self defense, writ large.

More a sum of a position set out prior and exhaustively in parts.

It was a (as in your) sum of a (as in your) position. And it was declarative.

Anyone who honestly believes

'You think I'm dishonest, like Jgarden here, who keeps trotting out the same tired example, already now the third or fourth time, and each time prior it's been roundly crushed for the silliness that it is? Or is this just your rhetoric.

the people in Las Vegas, by way of example, would have saved lives if everyone had a high powered rifle with a bump stock either doesn't understand the logistics, or has never been under fire.

Who said anything about a bump stock. Have you been under fire?

If more guns made you safe we'd be the leader in that particular instead of the tail trying to wag the dog.

If more guns made you safe, we'd have tons of them in our militaries. Check.

 

[Town Heretic]

I admit it when it does.

When you have no objective choice, you mean.

Armies consist entirely of citizens here and in all western democracies.

Now you're just playing with words. I'm not going to engage that except to point out nothing in it addresses any point I raised about distinctions in play when the founders addressed the right.

You mean the bad guys. The bad people who wage unjust, hostile, and aggressive warfare. Yeah, those are the murderers, writ large, and defensive, just war, is self defense, writ large.

I mean that at best war is defensive by half. Sometimes not even by that much.

It was a (as in your) sum of a (as in your) position. And it was declarative.

Then it's not much of a complaint. That is, any position stated firmly is a declaration. Some people declare facts. Some purely subjective opinion and most a mixture thereof.

'You think I'm dishonest, like Jgarden here, who keeps trotting out the same tired example, already now the third or fourth time, and each time prior it's been roundly crushed for the silliness that it is? Or is this just your rhetoric.

Do you need to create an insult for some reason? No, I'm pointing out the absurdity of a position irrespective of whether you hold it.

Who said anything about a bump stock.

I did. The weapons you'd allow wouldn't need them, of course.

Have you been under fire?

I have, but it doesn't matter that I have. The point remains.

If more guns made you safe, we'd have tons of them in our militaries. Check.

No, guns don't make militaries safe, they make them more efficient at killing, maiming, and destroying things.

 

[Nihilo]

When you have no objective choice, you mean.

I could have ignored your post, or ignored just that part of your post. Or some other option. Objectively. I did what I did.

Now you're just playing with words.

Prove it. Declarative. And libelous.

I'm not going to engage that except to point out nothing in it addresses any point I raised about distinctions in play when the founders addressed the right.

The founders support the notion of civilians having free access to standard issue military weaponry. They also deny the notion that there should ever be a class distinction between elite citizens who can possess and carry standard issue military weaponry (selective fire carbines), and the vast majority of people whose right to possess and carry such is infringed, and I know that because it's right in the amendment.

I mean that at best war is defensive by half. Sometimes not even by that much.

I don't know what you mean. You're either waging war justly, in which case it's 100% defensive, or you're a hostile, and illegitimate aggressor, and you're a murderer or an attempted murderer, all together with your comrades at arms. You're fighting against the good guys, if you're the belligerent aggressor, by definition.

Then it's not much of a complaint. That is, any position stated firmly is a declaration. Some people declare facts. Some purely subjective opinion and most a mixture thereof.

Well it worked.

Do you need to create an insult for some reason? No, I'm pointing out the absurdity of a position irrespective of whether you hold it.

Declaratively, like you just did here.

I did. The weapons you'd allow wouldn't need them, of course.

Right. Because of you, I now understand fully that I'm not primarily talking about a selector with four settings, but with three modes: Safe/Safety engaged, Semi-auto (one fire per trigger pull), and Auto (gun will fire until the magazine empties if you hold the trigger down), or, Safe, Semi, and Burst (gun fires three quick shots with one trigger pull, and then stops firing until trigger is pulled again).

I have, but it doesn't matter that I have. The point remains.

So having been under fire yourself, your story here is that you'd have not been better off, with a selective fire carbine in that situation? I'm incredulous.

No, guns don't make militaries safe, they make them more efficient at killing, maiming, and destroying things.

Yes, that's what I meant. That's exactly what you need when you're defending yourself from murderers, and that is what makes them safe. And what a problem when murderers are in the military! And how do you stop that?

 

[Town Heretic]

I could have ignored your post, or ignored just that part of your post. Or some other option. Objectively. I did what I did.

I'm not knocking it, only putting it in perspective.

Prove it. Declarative. And libelous.

Nothing of the sort. See: why the police have special equipment and cars and you don't.

The founders support the notion of civilians having free access to standard issue military weaponry.

No, they supported it in their time, but in their time the people would have had access to and used weapons that were even less dangerous than the ones I'm talking about keeping.

I don't know what you mean. You're either waging war justly, in which case it's 100% defensive, or you're a hostile, and illegitimate aggressor, and you're a murderer or an attempted murderer, all together with your comrades at arms. You're fighting against the good guys, if you're the belligerent aggressor, by definition.

To illustrate it a little more, sometimes we have an aggressor without cause on one side and a defender in the right on the other. That's the best case. Sometimes we have two aggressors fighting over a third thing, from land to principle.

Well it worked.

Thank you.

Declaratively, like you just did here.

Again, it's not really a complaint unless you mean to be misleading, by inferring that all I've done on a point is declare it. By way of example, I'd set out the support for that summation prior. So I'm not just declaring a thing, I'm summing a position advanced and defended prior by argument.

So having been under fire yourself, your story here is that you'd have not been better off, with a selective fire carbine in that situation?

What I'd say is that without serious skill and training, and an understanding of how the body behaves in that sort of situation it's foolish to believe a weapon with an automatic function will make you (and especially innocent others) safer.

I'm incredulous.

It comes through.

Yes, that's what I meant.

It isn't what you said, which is why your check attempt failed. I'd said if more guns made you safer our nation would be the safest instead of the least safe among Western democracies. You tried the rebuttal of echoing form: "If more guns made you safe, we'd have tons of them in our militaries. Check."

I noted that tons of guns don't make soldiers safer, they make them more efficient at killing and breaking things.

That's exactly what you need when you're defending yourself from murderers, and that is what makes them safe.

Except that it doesn't and hasn't which is why living here among the most guns per person in the world you're less safe than you would be in any other Western democracy.

And what a problem when murderers are in the military! And how do you stop that?

A separate question, but one that begins with armed MPs, I'd suppose.

 

[Town Heretic]

Meanwhile, December is closing with 74 injuries and 16 dead from mass shootings in the most quiet and peaceful month of the year, so far.

 

[Yorzhik]

I noted you thought so, offered that as a society any number of approaches were and had been made on them and wondered, repeatedly, what you'd do differently about them. Absent some new idea that could actually be applied I summed your position as supportive of the status quo.

Since all these ideas have been applied in the past, and since they are ideas that have worked every time they've been tried, I'd say your objection is either poorly thought out or that you are an elitist.

At least admit the ideas would work if they were applied.

You've dismissed poverty as a consideration. No idea why.

I have. But because you don't consider the ideas of people that don't agree with you you think I haven't. I have discussed "poverty" and at least I understand your side of the argument.

Well, no. I've noted that states with stronger gun laws, like countries with stronger gun laws, experience a great deal less gun violence and mass murder from those weapons, weapons uniquely positioned to mete it out.

Your data is horribly broad and that leads you to a bad conclusion. There is much better data that pinpoints more accurately what is happening within states. It clearly shows guns aren't the problem, but the reason you won't discuss the more accurate data is because it goes against your conclusion.

And I've noted that as with your three concerns (black markets, gangs, broken homes) it isn't an either/or.

Right. But as you've learned, my ideas will save a great deal more lives than yours, and mine don't introduce new problems like yours do.

View attachment 26087

By all means address broken homes but understand we've been trying to do that for a long time and still are, while the problem of gun violence and mass shootings increased. It's not an either/or situation.

We've been trying to fix these problems for a long time by doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over - chiefly money transfers.

It never worked, it makes things worse every time it's tried. And the other gifts, like money transferred directly to education facilities or housing facilities for the same people has a similar, if not worse, effect as direct money transfers. It sometimes has a worse effect because the people the money actually goes to - the schools, the housing owners, the food providers - tend to become either corrupt and/or mean themselves.

That's not true. We've restricted welfare funding times, created jobs programs and approached the problem a number of ways. I'm absolutely open to more ideas if you or anyone has them, in particular.

The New Deal and Great Society and programs of similar mentality has transferred many trillions of dollars to low income people. Has the poverty rate improved? At best, not much, and probably the problem has gotten worse.

Since I already gave you good ideas, you should not just be open to them, but support them.

To begin with, much of what is sold on the black market isn't illegal as a thing, but is merely stolen goods, from prescription drugs to guns.

Of what's left...Prostitution, heroin, machine guns? That's your idea? Well, okay, it's an idea. I think it's a horrible one, but it's an idea.

At least you should count the cost of which is worse before you say it's a horrible idea. The drug war has been very costly in terms of money and lives. Semi-automatic guns have not in places where their ownership is the highest.

We have more guns than anyone else on earth and more gun violence by far than any Western democracy. Increasing the access and destructive power of what's on hand would be more of the same that wasn't working, though I'd agree it would rob organized crime of a profitable outlet.

Not only were there zero murders in more than half the counties in the US (and that includes murder by any means, not just guns), but these are counties with higher gun ownership rates than the other less than half of the counties.

It's absolutely wrong to say we have more guns than anyone else on earth and more gun violence by far than any Western democracy without figuring out why big cities drive up the homicide rates of the country when guns are restricted/banned.

And another thing to note, the firepower of guns hasn't changed a great deal in the last ~75 years. It's not the guns that changed.

What regulation? Child labor laws? Because no one is barred from working who wants to work.

Minimum wage is a big one, and it's just the tip of the regulation iceberg. Child labor laws are another big one. Just start a business, no matter how innocent (like a lemonade stand), without dealing with the government. You'll find out quickly the tiniest regulation will not just shut you down, but punish you in proportion that will stop you from thinking about trying that again. Especially in the inner cities.

Yeah, the problem is giving those who can't afford it on their own an education. That will really pull people out of poverty. Or maybe education without outlet is the problem. Maybe we need more industry and more trade schools?

Unschooling and Sudbury Schools have a much better literacy rate than government schools. But that isn't why they are better.

So, yeah, giving those who can't afford it on their own the government education we are giving them is harming them - obviously.

Leaving off that you're wrong...no, let's not. You're blaming the mothers and leaving off irresponsible fathers? In point of fact there's enough blame to go around. Irresponsible kids having kids. I'm not going to lay the blame on the one who is actually trying to rear the children and provide some stability for them. Neither should you. So what's your solution?

I'm not blaming single mothers. I didn't even infer that. In fact, you should go back and re-read what I did say because I said directly that fathers are the solution.

We don't. We provide for children who otherwise wouldn't have proper healthcare or nutrition. You want to cut off that funding?

And it hasn't worked. The rate of children with improper health care and nutrition has either barely gotten better, or more likely gotten worse depending on what study you look at. At least my solutions have made things better whenever they are tried.

The tender years presumption that a child was better off with the mother has been off the books for a very long time. Courts place children with the party who appears to be in the best possible position to provide for the child, emotionally and otherwist. Fathers can and have won the role of primary custodian. And many have joint custody.

50-50 joint custody is a mistake even though it is rarer that other joint custody. Most joint custody is father getting kids for the weekend at best. However, the rate that mothers get custody hasn't changed much at roughly 80%. And of the remaining, the biggest reasons they don't get custody is because they are either criminals or absent. So, no, the de facto custody always goes to the mom to this day. To fix things, this trend needs to be reversed.

It's actually rare that you only have that little and past emergency measures you have to stand before a jaded judge and make your case. And as the only one of us with real experience in the system relating to that, I can tell you that most domestic violence comes with bruises and police reports. A lot of them with medical histories too.

Neither bruises nor police reports add evidence in and of themselves. If a female you live with has bruises, even self inflicted, and she calls the cops on you... you will go to jail in most places in the US.

Yeah, that's wrong. The NRA alone, over the past 20 years, has spent over 144 million dollars beyond the 13 million it pushed into gun friendly campaigns directly, on indirect pro gun copy and get the opposition ads. See: Politico

Oh, I'm sorry. I was wrong in that I over-estimated the amount of money the NRA uses to put politicians in their pockets. Thanks for proving my point.

And that's just the NRA.

In the gun advocacy lobbying game, they are the 80000 lb. gorilla. That you have to shriek and point to other negligible groups shows desperation and further proves my point.

On the consequences of strong gun law:

Hey, you want abortion mills? Because if you shut them down you'll send some women into the arms of criminals. Is that really an argument against closing abortion mills? :nono:

So your response that some black markets, like the black market for murdering babies, means that we should keep some black markets? I think you're on to something :sarcasm:

And we have a great way to figure out what black markets we should keep and which we should stop. To figure out if you are evening listening to the other side, let's test to find out if you know the answer to how to figure out which black markets we should stop and which we should keep.

If you break the law it actually is your fault.

No. In areas where gun ownership rates are high the violence and homicide rate is very low. If there are cities that have high homicide rates, that's not the fault of the people with low homicide rates.

Since we know about extinction events, we can and should plan accordingly. It's not an inevitability, just an understandable statistical upswing that, understanding it, we can now act to minimize while that larger good begins to work.

The larger good never comes to fruition. The trend line just goes back to where it was before a gun ban/restriction.

By which you mean outlaw something that wasn't prior, like cocaine. Yes, we can do that and will continue to do that where there's a compelling case. Or were you talking about slaves?

Yes, like cocaine. Did you know that owning another person as a chattel slave would be wrong even it if were legal?

The more we go on with this discussion the more it seems the general consensus that lawyers lose their understanding of what is right and wrong is true.

I never said we couldn't have oral examinations or help filling out forms. Your assumption is the culprit. I'm glad you're thinking about the illiterate though, given how your position on public education will likely swell their ranks.

It was you who said the illiterate wouldn't be able to get guns because of restrictions. I'm glad you realize what you said was absurd.

But, please note, if my position on government education were applied, we'd have a higher literacy rate.

I think that when you have to indulge in a paranoid Hitler fantasy without foundation in our compact's history to make your point you make a point you don't mean to.

To be sure, anytime one mentions what happened in Germany a lot of eyes roll. But that doesn't mean the lessons should be ignored.

And further, all leading nations die from within. You tell me, how close are we to that normal fate?

They don't. In fact, they show the opposite, supra.

They do. You just ignore the facts that don't suit you. It's a habit of yours that you've demonstrated throughout this discussion.

That said, again I'm not trying talking about lowering the number, only eliminating certain types of weapons. You can own as many breech loading shotguns and single shot rifles as you like. It's your dime. But good luck trying to kill fifty people at a go with that. No, you'll be much more in the position of the man the Founders were thinking of, and your neighbor will be too.

The mass killers will either procure guns, bombs, or use other methods. The stats won't change much.

Rather, when I'm talking about cancer I talk about cancer, not cancer and heart disease and diabetes and dental problems. And you try to couch the elitist angle because reason won't serve you, so you lay on the rhetoric of the paranoid and emotional to drive your advance.

Your analogy is off. To be more accurate you would have to say that in discussion about cancer, we should only talk about leukemia. And then proffer solutions that not only reduce leukemia in a small way, but creates other cancers.

And then you get all mad at me because I say we should fund advancements in research that have been shown to help almost all cancers at the expense of your solution.

Rather, I've spoken to gun violence and mass shootings, though my emphasis and the point of the thread was focused on the latter. I do that because we have models all around us in literally every other Western democracy, that show us a better way to go about things if the goal is to minimize the loss of life and human suffering.

I'm curious where your mass shooting stats come from.

Untrue on all counts.

And, again, you neither refute my position or support your own. Your biggest contribution was saying "The legal definition." without further comment.

Here's an indisputable, empirical and objective truth: Counties with much higher gun ownership rates have impressively lower homicide rates than those with gun restrictions/bans.

Objectively, demonstrably untrue. We have more guns per citizen than any nation on earth. We're dramatically less safe from gun violence than any Western Democracy in existence.

Then let's see your county data that shows otherwise.

Here's another indisputable, empirical and objective truth: If it were not for big city homicide, where guns are banned and restricted, and even certain areas inside those big cities, the homicide rate in the US would be similar to rates seen in other developed countries.

Those other countries have big cities too. And they don't have our homicide rates and mass shooting incidents. What they do have, is tough, universal gun laws.

But that doesn't answer why where gun ownership rates are highest, homicide rates are similar to other western democracies.

It's not the guns. It's something else.

What's tragically funny about that?

So I note that countries and states with tougher gun laws have dramatically reduced gun violence and Yor says that's only true because I'm talking about guns. lain:

It's not funny. Homicide goes up shortly after a ban/restriction on guns, and then falls to previous trends. Even if you stop people from using guns for violence, they demonstrably don't care about that method used to hurt people.

It's more than one thing. For those involved in the industry its money. For many it's a largely unexamined principle. The idea that a right is under siege and that uncoupled with the consideration of the right itself and both what it meant to the founders who framed it and how it functioned, how that's changed. I've noted that in particular, from the practical aspects of livelihood and frontier protection to the need for a national defense before we had a standing army, to the vast difference in what a man had and used in that and what has become of it in modern terms, how all that demands a different accounting and how irresponsible it is to see the Framer's act without considering the context and how that context is altered in our present. Why that makes a new line of demarcation both right and necessary.

It's examined principle based on sound reason and data that leads us to the policy I advocate.

The contrary is based on emotion that works hard to ignore reason and data.

No one, least of all me, is disputing the right of anyone to defend themselves, just as no one is suggesting that right should allow me to carry a bazooka on my person to discourage potential criminals.

But you are. Are you suggesting that security personnel only be allowed to carry single shot guns? Which ones should be allowed to carry more than single shot guns?

And guns are the great equalizer that puts any small woman on the same level as the biggest man even with training that is no more than what she can get at the counter of a gun store.

No, a gun doesn't do that at all. Like suggesting a paintbrush puts everyone on the same artistic level. In point of fact, if you don't know how to use a tool or aren't prepared to use it then the person who is will always have the advantage. In most cases, relating to guns, that favors the criminal.

Yes it does. Even if in most cases a newly acquired gun with only at-the-counter training favors the criminal, that's more than the contra. And further, I'd be willing to bet that criminal will have to take new measures from then on if he has to keep running into said type of female, reducing his crimes. That's what the concealed carry laws have been doing quite clearly.

 

[Nihilo]

I'm not knocking it, only putting it in perspective.

There was nothing to knock.

Nothing of the sort. See: why the police have special equipment and cars and you don't.

My contention stands. Prove that I'm "just playing with words."

No, they supported it in their time, but in their time the people would have had access to and used weapons that were even less dangerous than the ones I'm talking about keeping.

Every military on earth rejects the weapons that you talk about keeping, as inferior for their lowest ranks, and on up. Times change, so the fleshing out of the inherent civil right, to keep and bear arms, changes also. "In common use" precludes sawed-off shotguns and mouse guns, and includes service rifles and carbines.

To illustrate it a little more, sometimes we have an aggressor without cause on one side and a defender in the right on the other. That's the best case. Sometimes we have two aggressors fighting over a third thing, from land to principle.

I don't think anything that either of us is saying bears on the latter case at all. We're discussing what the good guys should be carrying, and the divide is between standard issue rifles and carbines on my side, and presumably on your side, bolt guns, which last saw action as service rifles 100 years ago.

Thank you.


Again, it's not really a complaint unless you mean to be misleading, by inferring that all I've done on a point is declare it. By way of example, I'd set out the support for that summation prior. So I'm not just declaring a thing, I'm summing a position advanced and defended prior by argument.

You declare your conclusion, and you declare the evidence you submitted supports your conclusion. It's declarative from start to finish.

So having been under fire yourself, your story here is that you'd have not been better off, with a selective fire carbine in that situation? I'm incredulous.

What I'd say is that without serious skill and training, and an understanding of how the body behaves in that sort of situation it's foolish to believe a weapon with an automatic function will make you (and especially innocent others) safer.

So yes or no?

It comes through.

I hope you understand why. If someone's life is in immediate peril, then it makes sense to be armed with what all the militaries of the world equip their lowest ranks, i.e. selective fire carbines and rifles, because that's why all the world's militaries do that, because they are excellent for when someone's life is in immediate peril.

It isn't what you said, which is why your check attempt failed. I'd said if more guns made you safer our nation would be the safest instead of the least safe among Western democracies. You tried the rebuttal of echoing form: "If more guns made you safe, we'd have tons of them in our militaries. Check."

I noted that tons of guns don't make soldiers safer, they make them more efficient at killing and breaking things.

That's why they are safer, for us. With less guns, they'd be more dangerous, because they wouldn't be able to to efficiently kill murderers and break murderers' things.

Except that it doesn't and hasn't which is why living here among the most guns per person in the world you're less safe than you would be in any other Western democracy.

No, "except that" our problem here is not guns, not even tons of guns, but murderers living among us, especially, apparently, in big cities.

A separate question, but one that begins with armed MPs, I'd suppose.

It makes sense to be well armed, and well armed has been defined for us all too, by all the world's militaries; service rifles and carbines with selector switches.

 

[Town Heretic]

Inadvertently erased the rest... :mmph:

You declare your conclusion, and you declare the evidence you submitted supports your conclusion. It's declarative from start to finish.So yes or no?

You're making the use of the word fairly meaningless. Typically we use declaration to note an absence of support. Otherwise it's pointless to use it unless you're distinguishing a speaker in a narrative, as in, "Tom declared X."

 

[Town Heretic]

Since all these ideas have been applied in the past, and since they are ideas that have worked every time they've been tried, I'd say your objection is either poorly thought out or that you are an elitist.

I don't believe a single thing in that is actually true. I'm not sure what you mean by elitist, so I hold out part of it could be true. Holding a doctorate, by way of example, puts me in an academic elite. If you mean that I believe society should be led by an elite, I'd say that's true. People of superior virtue and wisdom, by way of example, would make better leaders than people with less of either.

you don't consider the ideas of people that don't agree with you

Well that's not true unless you confuse consideration with agreement. I've tackled any number of arguments contrary to my own from a number of people I've spoken to during the course of this thread. I'll do more of that in this post.

Your data is horribly broad and that leads you to a bad conclusion.

Rather, my data is objectively observable and repeatable. It's true for nations and states.

There is much better data that pinpoints more accurately what is happening within states. It clearly shows guns aren't the problem, but the reason you won't discuss the more accurate data is because it goes against your conclusion.

I think you can focus narrowly enough, cherry pick enough to support all sorts of contentions. But the fact remains that as with nations, so states. It's not an amazing coincidence. And it occurs even in different cultures that share the same sort of law.

But as you've learned, my ideas will save a great deal more lives than yours

Complete nonsense for any number of reasons offered prior including, to paraphrase, "We can't reasonably suggest that the foundation of law be scrapped for 3 guiding principles" or when I noted your plan for smashing black markets (legalizing the illegal) was problematic on two fronts: first, much of black market transactions aren't really about producing illegal goods, but selling illegally procured but otherwise legal goods and, second, that beyond that the principle invites legalizing most vice to eliminate the profit of vice by a relatively small number of people. One could and I would argue that the greater harm would be found in the impact of that legalization.

Those examples rebut both your premise above and your claim that I don't consider different opinions.

and mine don't introduce new problems like yours do.

My workable solutions, tried and produced without destroying any of the Western democracies that employ them (by which I mean all of them) dramatically less gun related violence and death.

We've been trying to fix these problems for a long time by doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over - chiefly money transfers.

You said that before. I rebutted the presumption. I won't repeat the rebuttal.

Since I already gave you good ideas, you should not just be open to them, but support them.

Your opinion of your ideas was never in question. My opinion of them is in print and in particular prior.

It's absolutely wrong to say we have more guns than anyone else on earth and more gun violence by far than any Western democracy without figuring out why big cities drive up the homicide rates of the country when guns are restricted/banned.

I've spoken to the problems of concentrated populations, especially where there are concentrations of poor. I also noted New York state and city on the point in relation to law and effect.

And another thing to note, the firepower of guns hasn't changed a great deal in the last ~75 years. It's not the guns that changed.

That's a curious focus, given the founders wrote the right into our Constitution a smidge earlier and I've spoken to why and what has fundamentally changed since then.

Child labor laws are another big one.

Arguing against child labor laws doesn't really require a rebuttal. I just wanted you on the record.

Unschooling and Sudbury Schools have a much better literacy rate than government schools.

True of almost any alternative given public schools must take any student who is enrolled. The less selective your process the lower the mean. And if you have a hospital that refuses trauma victims you're going to have a much better survival rate, comparatively, to those who take them in.

So, yeah, giving those who can't afford it on their own the government education we are giving them is harming them - obviously.

Anyone who believes that education harms someone is in need of additional education.

I'm not blaming single mothers. I didn't even infer that.

You literally wrote: "For broken families, you've already identified that the problem is almost entirely single mothers."

So I agree that you didn't infer it.

In fact, you should go back and re-read what I did say because I said directly that fathers are the solution.

No, you misstated the present reality, a long vanquished tender years presumption in favor of the mother and suggested that same legal mistake should be vested in the fathers, which underscores your blaming mothers, by the way.

On health and nutrition programs for poor children.

And it hasn't worked.

It actually has worked. Every time. Providing proper nutrition and healthcare for poor children does precisely what it is aimed at doing. It isn't meant to do else.

50-50 joint custody is a mistake even though it is rarer that other joint custody.

Absent a compelling reason relating to the safety and well being of the child joint custody, which isn't rare at all, is a sensible solution.

Most joint custody is father getting kids for the weekend at best.

That's not true. The standard visitation order in most states, even without joint custody, is better than that. And most visitation is worked out between parties without court mandate at all, but I'll come back to that. Primary physical custodianship is in the child's best interest, providing a stable base and the standard order relating to visitation can be arranged as suits the parties, with an eye to respecting that stability, especially during school months. It works well when both parents cooperate and focus on the kids instead of themselves.

However, the rate that mothers get custody hasn't changed much at roughly 80%.

Actually it varies, though mothers do tend to be the primary custodian more often than not. Overwhelmingly by choice and agreement of both parents. A Pew study in 2012 looked at it and found mothers spending twice as much time, prior to divorce, in direct roles with the children of divorce. That same study noted that a great many fathers don't use the time allotted them. And 27% have no contact with their children post divorce.

DivorcePeers looked at the problem and noted that only around 9% of custody arrangements are actually imposed by the court system.

Now back onto our regularly scheduled topic.

So, no, the de facto custody always goes to the mom to this day. To fix things, this trend needs to be reversed.

Your foundational assumptions are simply wrong. Your remedy is as wrong as reverse discrimination.

Neither bruises nor police reports add evidence in and of themselves.

Sure they do. And most of that sort carry histories. By the time I was involved as a VAWA lawyer in the process the chances were good that I could find a laundry list of police involvement with the parties and frequently a litany of hospital visits. I always spoke with the police first, then a family doctor or admitting physician about the sorts of wounds inflicted and what they had witnessed or could reasonably, professionally infer. Most of the time it was clear enough.

If a female you live with has bruises, even self inflicted, and she calls the cops on you... you will go to jail in most places in the US.

Sure. Because most women are just evil liars who beat themselves then call the cops so they can send the other person they moved in with or married to jail. That makes sense as a rule...if you're nuts. Or, as a rule, people who claim to have been beaten by someone and who have the marks to demonstrate it aren't crazy, lying, or attempting to manipulate the system. I've caught people trying to do that, but they were the exception to a sad, tragic rule.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was wrong in that I over-estimated the amount of money the NRA uses to put politicians in their pockets. Thanks for proving my point.

That's just not true, so I'll leave the reader to go back and read what I actually set out.

That you have to shriek

Which apparently means to note facts contradicting your presumptions.

and point to other negligible groups shows desperation and further proves my point.

I actually didn't, only noted that the enormous amount of indirect capital poured into the political realm by the NRA was substantive before you got to any of the industry players and other groups with a vested interest and their own direct and indirect contributions.

So your response that some black markets, like the black market for murdering babies, means that we should keep some black markets? I think you're on to something :sarcasm:

I noted two things. First, you don't appear to realize that most of the black market activity is about stolen goods and secondly that if you applied your logic on how to pull the teeth of criminal gain (by legalizing the activity) you'd end up with a worse problem.

Did you know that owning another person as a chattel slave would be wrong even it if were legal?

Sure. Doesn't impact the point even a little though.

The more we go on with this discussion the more it seems the general consensus that lawyers lose their understanding of what is right and wrong is true.

Nah. That's just another attempt to appeal to emotion and create/interject a point of bias unsustained by reason.

It was you who said the illiterate wouldn't be able to get guns because of restrictions.

Where did I write that again? By which I mean you should quote that one.

But, please note, if my position on government education were applied, we'd have a higher literacy rate.

Eliminating public education would raise the literacy rate? Do tell.

To be sure, anytime one mentions what happened in Germany a lot of eyes roll. But that doesn't mean the lessons should be ignored.

The lessons need to be applicable to the consideration. This one wasn't a decent parallel, as I noted long ago and in particular when it was first used by another poster before you tried to reform it.

The mass killers will either procure guns, bombs, or use other methods. The stats won't change much.

I'm guessing that you're playing again, because you understand mass shooters are a statistically small portion of homicides and that eliminating them entirely wouldn't greatly alter the statistical trend overall, even though it would have a great impact on the hundreds of victims, wounded and killed otherwise, and in terms of the ripples those deaths and maimings cause.

Your analogy is off. To be more accurate you would have to say that in discussion about cancer, we should only talk about leukemia. And then proffer solutions that not only reduce leukemia in a small way, but creates other cancers.

No, I'm saying that where the discussion is gun violence and mass shootings, talking about deaths by other means is off topic.

And then you get all mad at me

I've simply rejected your advanced. This is a tactic of yours that lacks traction, as it did when you accused me of emotional appeals without citing anything in support and I responded by actually quoting you doing precisely what you charged me with.

I'm curious where your mass shooting stats come from.

Of course you are. When you can't reject it, attempt to taint it, by inference where possible. I've looked at a number of sources, but I prefer using the Mass Shooter Tracker, because it breaks each incident down into date, the injured, and the murdered while citing to sources through links that allow for a closer look into reporting on each incident and because it uses the FBI definition of mass shooting as its litmus.

Then let's see your county data that shows otherwise.

I haven't said anything about counties beyond noting that the larger data pool is superior and that states with stronger gun laws (states which have rather large cities in them, like New York) have appreciably fewer deaths from gun violence than states with looser laws, something that we also observe in nations. I use states and nations because the greater populations are more reliable for statistical analysis.

Even if you stop people from using guns for violence, they demonstrably don't care about that method used to hurt people.

It doesn't matter if they care. It matters that they find the means. It's easy to procure and use a gun to accomplish that end. It's much harder to find a viable alternative.

Are you suggesting that security personnel only be allowed to carry single shot guns? Which ones should be allowed to carry more than single shot guns?

What do you mean by security personnel? The police, certainly. A mall cop? No.