Gun Control

[Dave Stalwart]

How long until we find out it was Islamic terrorism? Seems like it always is. What a tragedy.

[jdshock]

It's not a strawman just because someone destroys your argument. You yourself were just trying to make the case after Orlando that if you did away with "assault rifles" this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

That's true... oh wait, no that's not at all what I said: (from my very first post on the topic)

I'm not going to try to change your mind re:guns. Hopefully, I can change your mind about this argument because this makes no sense, and I hear it all the time. First, it isn't logical to say "we shouldn't ban X bad thing because Y bad thing also exists." If I said "heroine should be legal since people can get drunk with alcohol anyway," I would hope you're not persuaded.

My proposal was that we consider the burden vs the benefit. How beneficial would a law be vs how burdensome would it be. For example, in the case of big trucks, there is a huge burden because of the importance of shipping and delivery needs. The benefit is relatively small because there aren't that many deaths via truck per year. Even if the benefit of banning assault rifles is even smaller, if there is no burden, the ban would still be a good idea (under my proposed calculation). Only @wufan: was willing to engage in my viewpoint, but I think that's because he has the horrible trait of being "objective" about things sometimes. Either argue that the burden vs benefit analysis is a bad way to look at laws or argue that there is a huge burden from banning assault rifles.

The existence of deaths via a truck is a straw man, though.

P.S. - I will admit that way more people died via an intentional attack with a truck than I would have anticipated.

[MoValley John]

That's true... oh wait, no that's not at all what I said: (from my very first post on the topic)



My proposal was that we consider the burden vs the benefit. How beneficial would a law be vs how burdensome would it be. For example, in the case of big trucks, there is a huge burden because of the importance of shipping and delivery needs. The benefit is relatively small because there aren't that many deaths via truck per year. Even if the benefit of banning assault rifles is even smaller, if there is no burden, the ban would still be a good idea (under my proposed calculation). Only @wufan: was willing to engage in my viewpoint, but I think that's because he has the horrible trait of being "objective" about things sometimes. Either argue that the burden vs benefit analysis is a bad way to look at laws or argue that there is a huge burden from banning assault rifles.

The existence of deaths via a truck is a straw man, though.

P.S. - I will admit that way more people died via an intentional attack with a truck than I would have anticipated.

How many deaths via truck per year?

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812279.pdf

This is only heavy trucks, not light or medium trucks. Trucks kill thousands every year. We could eliminate the use of trucks simply by shifting to a rail and hub system. These killer trucks are not necessary.


We can eliminate trucks,and if it would stop just one incident, wouldn't it be worth it?

[MoValley John]

Also, terrorists don't continually come up with new ways to kill. Only when it becomes difficult to kill by method A, do they come up with method B. Now that they know that they can kill large numbers of people with trucks, they will continue to do so until we find a way to stop it. The only way to stop it is to eliminate large public gatherings. Or........ ban the truck.

[MoValley John]

id_m915_700_04.jpg

Doesn't it bother anyone else, that these trucks, designed for military use, are modified to run legally on public roads? These things are killing machines! There is very little difference between the military truck pictured above, and the truck we see daily on the Interstate Highway System. We see the three pack a day smoker drivin his Peterbilt and think nothing! Trucks should be restricted to the military!

[MoValley John]

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2016/07/15/schall-nice-trucks/87128946/

[pinstripers]

I would be fine with a truck that could only run over one person at a time.

[Kung Wu]

If there had been a ton of automatic weapons on the streets of France, couldn't this truck potentially had been stopped or at least slowed to a crawl much, much earlier?

[MoValley John]

If there had been a ton of automatic weapons on the streets of France, couldn't this truck potentially had been stopped or at least slowed to a crawl much, much earlier?

No. He would have simply driven over and crushed the automatic weapons that had been carelessly strewn all over the streets. Now had there Been a dozen or so automatic weapons in the hands of trained responsible gun owners, the outcome could have been much different.

[Kung Wu]

No. He would have simply driven over and crushed the automatic weapons that had been carelessly strewn all over the streets. Now had there Been a dozen or so automatic weapons in the hands of trained responsible gun owners, the outcome could have been much different.

Wait a minute, are you one of those right-wing nutjobs insinuating it's not the gun, it's the person holding it that is responsible?

[MoValley John]

Wait a minute, are you one of those right-wing nutjobs insinuating it's not the gun, it's the person holding it that is responsible?

Trucks don't kill people, toothless truck drivers with a three pack a day habit kill people.

[MoValley John]

Did I stereotype enough?

[ShockdaWorld]

Come on now MoVal, not all truck drivers are from Omaha. :) Some are from Missouri, and your stereotype just doesn't....oh, nevermind.

[jdshock]

We can eliminate trucks,and if it would stop just one incident, wouldn't it be worth it?

I suspect you're just trolling because you prefer the political subforum to be one big circlejerk where no one disagrees. On the off chance you truly don't understand:

Why would that be true? Why would one incident be worth it? It's the benefit vs the burden (under my proposed analytical framework). The benefit of trucks is huge. Switching our infrastructure would cost billions of dollars. Who knows how many jobs would be lost. The impact on the economy would be devastating, to say the least. Trucks are really good at their job. As long as there aren't hundreds of thousands of deaths, the benefit massively outweighs the burden.

With assault rifles, the proposed burdens were 1. self defense, 2. tyrannical government, and 3. recreation. Recreation is a non-starter for me. People having fun is basically never an acceptable burden to prevent a law from going into place (e.g., speeding in a car, drug use, etc.). Self-defense, to me, seems completely wiped out by available alternatives. There are other weapons available to allow a person adequate self-defense. No one proposed good numbers for how many assault rifles are used in self-defense yearly. I'd love to see more data on that. The tyrannical government isn't a big concern to me because I don't think it's a valid reason to have a weapon. I don't think that's the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, and I don't think we have a right to drones, nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, etc. And I'm not sure an assault rifle does anything against a military jet. I'm open to the idea that I'm undervaluing that "burden" of banning assault weapons, though.

So under those three burdens, the collective burden is tiny. Therefore, a tiny benefit outweighs the burden.

Quit making my argument out to be something it's not. If you want to argue about gun control, do either of the following: (1) propose a different analytical framework or (2) explain that the burden of banning the weapons is much greater than I'm making it out to be. Everyone just kept arguing that there's zero benefit. I asked everyone to make the assumption that one death would be prevented, because it seems really likely that some assault weapons ban would not be 100% effective and that over an extended period of time it wouldn't be exactly 0% effective. I granted that the benefit was small and asked people why that wouldn't be worth it.

[MoValley John]

I suspect you're just trolling because you prefer the political subforum to be one big circlejerk where no one disagrees. On the off chance you truly don't understand:

Why would that be true? Why would one incident be worth it? It's the benefit vs the burden (under my proposed analytical framework). The benefit of trucks is huge. Switching our infrastructure would cost billions of dollars. Who knows how many jobs would be lost. The impact on the economy would be devastating, to say the least. Trucks are really good at their job. As long as there aren't hundreds of thousands of deaths, the benefit massively outweighs the burden.

With assault rifles, the proposed burdens were 1. self defense, 2. tyrannical government, and 3. recreation. Recreation is a non-starter for me. People having fun is basically never an acceptable burden to prevent a law from going into place (e.g., speeding in a car, drug use, etc.). Self-defense, to me, seems completely wiped out by available alternatives. There are other weapons available to allow a person adequate self-defense. No one proposed good numbers for how many assault rifles are used in self-defense yearly. I'd love to see more data on that. The tyrannical government isn't a big concern to me because I don't think it's a valid reason to have a weapon. I don't think that's the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, and I don't think we have a right to drones, nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, etc. And I'm not sure an assault rifle does anything against a military jet. I'm open to the idea that I'm undervaluing that "burden" of banning assault weapons, though.

So under those three burdens, the collective burden is tiny. Therefore, a tiny benefit outweighs the burden.

Quit making my argument out to be something it's not. If you want to argue about gun control, do either of the following: (1) propose a different analytical framework or (2) explain that the burden of banning the weapons is much greater than I'm making it out to be. Everyone just kept arguing that there's zero benefit. I asked everyone to make the assumption that one death would be prevented, because it seems really likely that some assault weapons ban would not be 100% effective and that over an extended period of time it wouldn't be exactly 0% effective. I granted that the benefit was small and asked people why that wouldn't be worth it.

No, I'm pointing out the idiocy of the gun control argument with equal doses of idiocy.

We are told that if we banned these so called assault rifles, gun violence would drop dramatically. But when statistics point out that these so called assault rifles account for very few deaths, then the rationale morphs to if we could stop just one or two mass shootings, the ban would be worth it. Well, no, it wouldn't. Because the violence didn't drop when there was a ban on these guns, and the violence won't slow if a ban is reenacted. France has a complete ban on these weapons, yet these shootings continue to occur. How can that be?

Furthermore, if we melt down every freaking gun, even find and and melt down every gun illegally posessed, you won't stop mass killings. Jihadists already use hydrogen peroxide, slow cookers, pipe bombs, poison and now semi trucks. Violent people will find a way to kill. Period.

I get the notion about banning these weapons, it makes you feel good, like you did something constructive. But all it does is gives you a false sense of security, all the while forfeiting rights.

What will you do when these weapons are banned and the mass killings continue? Ban 9 volt batteries, steel wool, aluminum powder and iron oxide?

Where do you stop?