<abbr title="Yet Another <abbr title="Gun Wars 2">GW2</abbr> Topic">YAGT</abbr>
-
I don't think they can talk.
Number speak for themselves.
I'm going to stop you right there. What the people were doing was, in at least some of those cases, illegal. So...we already have that amount of control.
Except you don't, because people are being given guns without ensuring they won't handle them that moronically illegally. And you have no way of monitoring it. It's a system of trust with no enforcement. Can you imagine what the highways would look like if there were no written tests to get a license, no driver's courses required, and no patrols because "that's government controlling you"?
This is just so much, "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN‽"
TOTC is only bad when it's used as a scapegoat or a justification for personal gain, even when it has nothing to do with children. I'm asking people to stop and think about the literal actual dead children being murdered by guns. Talking about car seats isn't "think of the children". Talking about window safety to prevent infant death isn't "think of the children". Asking for ways to prevent innocent children from being murdered by instruments of death that they have no control over the handling of-- is not THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
I suppose FrostCat will call me a strawman now.
What's the logical fallacy for when you misuse logical fallacies?
You've certainly stated a lot about your stance on guns. That's what I've been talking about.
I've been arguing facts, numbers, and trying to find out-- given those numbers and the fact that people still want guns:
- determine what an adequate amount of control is?
- determine what an acceptable amount of gun death is?
- Admit that 1 & 2 are in an inverse relationship, and to accept the responsibility for those choices.
-
No, they aren't. The four rules are all about properly handling a firearm to avoid damaging something or injuring someone you did not intend to. They are not intended to tell you how to store it or keep it away from others. I already explained this, so stop being thick.
Then clearly there should be at least one more rule to cover that.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
What's the logical fallacy for when you misuse logical fallacies?
I think that counts as a straw man.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Number speak for themselves.
Could you let the rest of us know what the number stations were on about then?
@Lorne_Kates said:
I'm asking people to stop and think about the literal actual dead children being murdered by guns.
Yes. And nothing else.
@Lorne_Kates said:
What's the logical fallacy for when you misuse logical fallacies?
bra fox
@Lorne_Kates said:
I've been arguing facts, numbers, and trying to find out-- given those numbers and the fact that people still want guns:
Not really. You refuse to accept that people were already breaking the law, but think there should be another law for them to break. Parents letting their children come to harm is always a tragedy whether it's from guns or anything else. That doesn't mean the correct response is another law, no matter how much it will soothe your conscience.
Emotional knee jerk laws are bad things, whether it's warrantless wiretaps or restrictions on guns.
-
That doesn't mean the correct response is another law, no matter how much it will soothe your conscience.
So you think a law requiring gun owners to know how to properly prevent children from getting their hands on firearms is unreasonable?
-
That's kinda my point. @FrostCat said that as long as those rules are followed, no one gets hurt.
No, he said that if you follow those rules you will not shoot someone on accident. Good try at twisting words, though.
@Lorne_Kates said:
holster snap or trigger cover
A holster snap does not negate the need for a trigger cover. And there are plenty of holsters (typically with a molded shell) that can keep a gun secure without a snap. My holster requires several pounds of pull to draw my firearm and can retain it when hanging upside down.[1] In short: trigger guard is a must, snap is up to personal preference.
[1] In fact, I prefer holsters that don't use a snap because those with a snap are generally made with soft leather that can lose its shape over time. If you aren't very careful when bolstering with a soft leather holster, there is a possibility that the holster could snag the trigger and cause a negligent discharge. This is significantly less likely with a molded holster.
-
So you think a law requiring gun owners to know how to properly prevent children from getting their hands on firearms is unreasonable?
What's this law going to be? Do you really think it's going to affect the sort of person who wanders around with a gun in her purse? Yes, I think laws like this will end up with people getting a flyer or something with some instructions that won't amount to much. People do stupid and unsafe things all the time, not always because they don't know better.
-
I think it would at least be reasonable to require anyone purchasing a firearm to take a brief written quiz on how to properly store and secure said firearm, with the seller providing detailed feedback on any missed questions on said quiz.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
So we were talking about guns being dangerous and need extreme care while handling, because of the way people have mishandled their guns. For all intensive porpises, not controlling your weapon & letting it fall into dangerous hands is mishandling it. We were talking about dangerous household chemicals in that context-- that if not handled and stored properly, kids get a hold of them and die.
This all ignores that @FrostCat stated exactly what the rules are for:
Four simple rules will absolutely protect you from shooting someone.
Sure, the conversational context means something, but it gets trumped by the immediate context of the post itself.
@Lorne_Kates said:
And suggesting that people be TAUGHT The Four Rules and pass tests on The Four Rules and be licensed on The Four Rules is "gun control" and bad.
Yes, it would be bad. If anyone had actually suggested that. Better check your shoulders for aliens.
@Lorne_Kates said:
e Four Rules are more "four good suggestions that people should know before handling a gun, but fuck it. Dead kids is ok."
How about The Four Firearm Handling Rules. Because they should be treated as rules, and they pertain to handling firearms.
-
How the fuck did you get that from my post?
-
The only explanation I have is "Discourse". I've been doing a bunch of select quotes, so I don't know how that happened.
-
Maybe we can't agree on gun control, but at least we can all agree that Discourse is more full of bugs than
uh
a thing with a lot of bugs in it.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Is 1 death/year acceptable, yes/no? Is 2-- is 4-- is 8-- and so on until you binary search to an acceptable number
That's not a binary search.
-
It's a binary search being read in the opposite order it was done. Obviously we started by asking if 9223372036854775808 people dying per year was ok.
-
You know what, let's do a binary search poll.
POLL 1 OF 64: HOW MANY PEOPLE DYING OF GUN VIOLENCE IS TOO MANY IN ONE YEAR?
[poll]
- 9223372036854775808 or more
- less than 9223372036854775808
[/poll]
-
I'm gonna go with
C. All of the above
Final answer.
-
Please, create a category for "stupid USAmericans flamewars" or "green go home". We in civilized parts of the world don't want to read your Wild Wild West biased opinions.
-
I keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars. They don't really mean that, of course. What they mean is they want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to keep and bear arms.
I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. Let's start:
-
I was hoping that would have an NFA analogy, too. If anyone really wants to read some retarded laws, look up NFA restrictions on short-barreled rifles.
Ha, they even have the silly "imported item count" parts.
Imported sports cars will be prohibited. You may purchase other items from foreign manufacturers, but your automobile is in a special class of prohibition due to its inherently evil and sinister nature. The frames may be imported, cut into three pieces, and reassembled with US made engines and suspensions, as long as 60% of the parts are American.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
The Four Rules don't cover making sure to lock up / holster your gun.
That was the point I was making with the dog shooting the guy stuff that FrostCat seemed to not at all get or understand.
-
But that number would also take out all 12 people that live there
Actually, the current population of Canada is estimated at 35,749,600. Stop taking your facts from Fox News
-
Yeah, @Polygeekery, only @TimeBandit can commit hyperbole, not you!!! Duh!
-
Yes, I actually thought that only 12 people lived in Canada. I believed that to be factual, and was not at all an attempt at satire. I really believed that...
But seriously, 35M people? Are you sure they did not mix some elk in on that census?
Also, despite being a gun owner, I am also a person who hates Fox News. Not all people fit neatly in to your little boxes.
-
Not all people fit neatly in to your little boxes.
Don't tell that to FrostCat, his brain'll explode.
-
Just so you know, I also own a firearm, so I am not totally against it.
-
So you get your facts from Fox News?
-
No, I get them from here
-
But the dog didn't own the gun, the man did.
Did you stop reading after the first two sentences?
@Lorne_Kates said:
That is completely equivalent to toddlers grabbing a gun.
Let me post an alternate alternate question to you: if I set a gun down on a table in front of a two-year-old and said "don't touch it", how long until you realize you're an idiot?
I'm not sure I understand. You're obviously older than two. Are you saying that you're as intelligent as a toddler?
So you think a law requiring gun owners to know how to properly prevent children from getting their hands on firearms is unreasonable?
We have millions of laws here. How do you know that preventing children from getting their hands on firearms isn't already covered under at least one of them?
-
-
A holster snap does not negate the need for a trigger cover. And there are plenty of holsters (typically with a molded shell) that can keep a gun secure without a snap. My holster requires several pounds of pull to draw my firearm and can retain it when hanging upside down.[1] In short: trigger guard is a must, snap is up to personal preference.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.
What's this law going to be?
If only there were other examples of knowledge-based licensing we could build a template from. Too bad we don't require education, time and hands-on experience to demonstrate the safe operation of say, a car or an airplane, to go off of.
Do you really think it's going to affect the sort of person who wanders around with a gun in her purse?
Yes. If there is a requirement to go through education about proper gun handling and storage, and mandatory, effective testing to prove that knowledge, then it will increase the safe handling of guns. I can't say if 100% this idiot would have obliged (purse woman). But there is currently no requirements in Idaho that would have tested if she even knew carrying a loaded gun in her purse was illegal and a bad idea.
Can you just assume that a driver knows what a blind spot is, or do you make them learn about it? Do you teach them what a blind spot is and WHY it exists on cars, and then make them take a written test to prove their knowledge, then go through an in-car exam and check to make sure they check blindspots appropriately-- and even then offer products like blind-spot mirrors and blind-spot detection features on cars? Or just say "some idiots will drive bad, we have a law saying you need to check your blindspot, good enough".
If this woman had proven she knew the concealed carry laws, and could demonstrate she could own, operate, transport and store a gun safely, then more power to her-- she can have a gun. But instead, she's dead. And it could just as easily have been some innocent person behind her who was shopping, and had no control over the situation. When other people's bad decisions can have a deadly consequence on others, then fucking yes you need to have laws and systems in place to control who has access to those deadly weapons.
How about The Four Firearm Handling Rules. Because they should be treated as rules, and they pertain to handling firearms.
I can agree to that (and yes, I know what their intent is), as long as other people can agree that they are not all encompassing, and that you still need to treat guns with extreme caution in terms of handling, storing, and transporting them-- because they are deadly weapons with deadly consequences for yourself and others. They aren't safe
That's not a binary search.
You know what I mean. A tree search, whatever the fuck. 8? Too small. 16? Too large. 16 - ((16-8) / 2) = 12. 12? Too large. 12 - ((12-8) / 2). 10? 10 is to small. Then 11. 11 is the acceptable number of deaths.
things you can just throw into your purse.
-
Why do people always take the short path. Solve the problem at the start and have restrictions on who is allowed to have kids. If you are to stupid, no kids for you. There, problem solved.
-
That would solve the world over-population problem at the same time.
Brilliant !
-
That sounds potentially inefficient. They should be burned immediately.
-
Why do people always take the short path. Solve the problem at the start and have restrictions on who is allowed to have kids. If you are to stupid, no kids for you. There, problem solved.
But if we reduce the number of dumb people, we'll be short on food.
-
Why would we be short on food?
-
Why would we be short on food?
Just a proposal I had modestly put forth before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Filed under: I wonder what will happen with Onebox and <small>?
edit Seriously, Discourse, I can't escape angled brackets? fuck you.
-
Now, as to the situations where a woman has a gun in her purse and her child reaches in and manages to set off the firearm, in every case I've read the firearm was not being properly concealed.
Mom has a duty to teach her sprogs not to dig around in her purse, too. If the kid's not old enough to be allowed to handle the gun unloaded, to remove the temptation of going looking for it, then mom has a duty NOT to carry the gun in her purse, too. She can wear a gun burkha, or carry IWB or whatever, like everyone else.
@Lorne_Kates is the guy who would say "we need to solve the problem of drunk drivers by taking cars away from people who don't drive drunk" and...oh, wait, he actually said that.
Lorne, you've been in an awfully pissy mood ever since you came back to TDWTF. I say this without anger o r malice: perhaps you don't fit in here any longer, given how much Discurse enrages you. I don't remember you acting mentally unbalanced on the old forums.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
extreme care
yes, because if you think guns require "EXTREEEEM CAAAARREE WHAAARGRBL!!!!11!11one!" then you are simply in the category of "not even wrong". They don't require EXTEEEEM CAAIR. Reasonable precautions. You apparently are unable, or more likely unwilling, to acknowledge there's any space between "left the gun on the floor with a couple of pacifiers on it" and "disassembled into component parts and stored in a locked safe that requires a ten-digit combination, a retina scan, and a fingerprint to open", and I've already comprehensively showed you are wrong.
You don't really have much of value left to add to this conversation.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
edit Seriously, Discourse, I can't escape angled brackets? fuck you.
<!-- It works! -->
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
So we were talking about guns being dangerous and need extreme care while handling, because of the way people have mishandled their guns.
Yes, and you are a disingenuous fucking liar, because you even quoted me and then ignored what I wrote. "Leaving a gun in a purse a baby can get into" isn't covered by the four rules.
You have no meaningful arguments, just waving the bloody shirt. I found a video of you doing the same thing somewhere else, this morning:
-
Yes, it would be bad. If anyone had actually suggested that. Better check your shoulders for aliens.
Lorne probably thinks you need an $800, 16-hour class with a 72-question comprehensive test afterwards. It's four fucking sentences. It can be--and routinely is, all over the country, by concealed-carry instructors--every damn day.
-
Lorne, you've been in an awfully pissy mood ever since you came back to TDWTF. I say this without anger o r malice: perhaps you don't fit in here any longer, given how much Discurse enrages you. I don't remember you acting mentally unbalanced on the old forums.
Seconded.
-
I'm going to just leave this right here:
Some interesting facts about murder rates and defensive use of firearms in America
Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year.
So, to add to your question(s) @Lorne_Kates:
- Would these new "sensible" regulations positively or negatively affect this statistic?
- If positively then we can move on to other questions
- If negatively how many maulings, robberies, rapes, and murders are we willing to allow in order to save the children
?
To clarify my own position, I am not against regulation (note we have quite a lot of it already), but I think that doing it at the state or local level is the way to go. Different needs for different communities. Dodge City circa 1881 needs different rules than NYC circa 2020, which in turn needs different rules than the Venusian Swamp District circa 2281.
- Would these new "sensible" regulations positively or negatively affect this statistic?
-
@Lorne_Kates is the guy who would say "we need to solve the problem of drunk drivers by taking cars away from people who don't drive drunk" and...oh, wait, he actually said that.
In an argument for mandatory automated driving cars. But you keep on misquoting.
Lorne, you've been in an awfully pissy mood ever since you came back to TDWTF
And there's the strawman argument you love.
They don't require EXTEEEEM CAAIR. Reasonable precautions.
And only a True Scotsman would not use Reasonable Precautions. Gotcha.
You apparently are unable, or more likely unwilling, to acknowledge there's any space between
Except for all the times I have been, and have made suggestions. But rewriting the past. Gotcha.
Yes, and you are a disingenuous fucking liar,
Is it still a strawman if all you do is swear and froth at the mouth and insult? I'm not sure. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just, as you put it, "pissy" and unreasonable.
Lorne probably thinks you need an $800, 16-hour class with a 72-question comprehensive test afterwards. It's four fucking sentences. It can be--and routinely is, all over the country, by concealed-carry instructors--every damn day.
Not in Idaho. Where the incident in question occurred. Because they don't have mandatory classes to get a concealed carry. Which, if they did, might have saved this woman's life. But you're okay with dead kids, so that's ok.
Given the cost of a gun, and that it's a lifetime investment, $800, 16-hour class and a comprehensive test afterwards isn't actually unreasonable. It's pretty much on par with what you'd get from a driving course and driving deaths are on par with gun deaths in your country. A smaller written test but a longer practical test would be more appropriate. Have an instructor run someone through from assembling the gun, demonstrating safe handling, loading, firing, unloading and putting it away.
FFS, I have to spend more than that in terms of money, time and knowledge demonstration to be certified in fucking VB.Net.
Seconded
Go fuck yourself.
Some interesting facts about murder rates and defensive use of firearms in America
Facts sourced from a pro-gun website-- from mostly a single-author-- from data 20 years old.
But the site has a quote by Ron Paul on it, so
And hey, look at that. The actual Department of Justice did their own research, specifically because of that scare-tactic 2.5 million claim: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
Some interesting finds on Kleck's work
- It was done on a self-reporting phone survey of only ~200 people.
- It didn't control for false positives very well. Respondents weren't asked if they ACTUALLY stopped a crime or even saw a perpetrator. So if you THOUGHT you heard someone outside, and touched your gun-- that counts towards the magic 2.5 million figure
- It didn't control for exaggerated claims or other outliers. One woman claimed to have stopped 52 crimes (DGU-- defensive gun usages).
And when conducting the same study in a more controlled manner, it's an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE difference in false positives.
False positives. Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small frac- tion of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's criteria
So I reject your anecdote since it isn't actual, confirmed data. It's hypotheoretical exaggeration. Here, let me point out the difference:
- I bring up the actual number of gun deaths, and ask how many of them are acceptable. The maximum is 100%, which is limited to the number of dead bodies on the ground
- You bring up a theoretical number, which is unprovable and non-falsifiable. There totally COULD have been millions upon millions of rapes and deaths all over the place if it weren't for the brave folks with guns.
I'll take the high road and NOT say "Well, there could theoretically be millions of dead children when school shootings keep going up and up IN THEORY".
If negatively how many maulings, robberies, rapes, and murders are we willing to allow in order to save the children
- Give me an actual number of how many rapes, robberies, maulings and murders would have been prevented if the victim had a gun. We'll have to factor in how many injuries and murders they'll CAUSE by having the gun.
- As pointed out in other threads, "Think of the Children" is not a logical fallacy when you are literally talking about preventing actual, quantifiable child deaths.
but I think that doing it at the state or local level is the way to go. Different needs for different communities.
Which there is an insufficient amount of, given the number of gun deaths per capita. There should be a nation-wide agreed upon MINIMUM requirement, since most states with concealed-carry have reciprocal agreements with other states.
-
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Go fuck yourself.
QED
That's the only reply worthy of your elegant "me too" post. How's AOL these days?
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
That's the only reply worthy of your elegant "me too" post. How's AOL these days?
You're still just providing more support for @frostcat's point.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
That's the only reply worthy of your elegant "me too" post. How's AOL these days?
You're still just providing more support for @frostcat's point.
Sorry, dear, but the adults are trying to have a discussion about facts.
-
Would these new "sensible" regulations positively or negatively affect this statistic?
Remember you're dealing with a person who, as I already observed, is willing to take the cars away from everyone to stop drunk drivers. I bet he wouldn't see any limit as too far.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
In an argument for mandatory automated driving cars. But you keep on misquoting.
It's the same argument, though.
Look, I've had this argument with lots and lots of ill-informed American liberals--and others--over the years. You're the classic guy unwilling to be moved from his position that guns're bad mmkay and keeps on shouting his talking points, just like that video I linked, no matter what the other side says.
I know you. I used to be you on this. I grew up a Massachusetts liberal who came close to calling the police on my upstairs neighbor for owning a shotgun. And then I grew up and started paying attention to the actual facts, and let my worldview be modified by them instead of endlessly repeating the same talking points.
You're not worth arguing with further on this.
