Gun Control

[jdshock]

As the crickets chirp from the gun control crowd, I will pass along another study. This one from a little school named Harvard. The intent of the study was to prove gun control worked, the conclusion was quite the opposite. It is a very long pdf, best if you skip to the conclusion beginning on page 693. With unintended results, the study was still published, but buried.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

As the crickets chirp? Maybe it's because you're wholly uninterested in having an actual discussion.

Me: Tell me the burden of banning assault rifles.
You: There's no benefit.
Me: Assume the smallest benefit possible, what's the burden?
You: There's no benefit.
Me: But what's the burden?
You: Here's a link to a thousand studies that have nothing to with anything and all suggest no benefit.

You don't get it. Widget 1 has limitless utility to society but kills thousands. Widget 2 kills dozens but has zero utility. When people suggest banning widget 2, you can't just point out widget 1 kills more people. No one actually wants to ban widget 1.

If you're going to close your eyes and cover your ears to any real discussion, the debate is not fun or productive for me.

[ShockdaWorld]

Check Post #201 from rrshock. The unarming of law abiding citizens always starts somewhere. The "assault rifle" is simply the easiest place to start, because it "looks scary" so they can get the the fear mongers on board without much convincing.

[wufan]

As the crickets chirp? Maybe it's because you're wholly uninterested in having an actual discussion.

Me: Tell me the burden of banning assault rifles.
You: There's no benefit.
Me: Assume the smallest benefit possible, what's the burden?
You: There's no benefit.
Me: But what's the burden?
You: Here's a link to a thousand studies that have nothing to with anything and all suggest no benefit.

You don't get it. Widget 1 has limitless utility to society but kills thousands. Widget 2 kills dozens but has zero utility. When people suggest banning widget 2, you can't just point out widget 1 kills more people. No one actually wants to ban widget 1.

If you're going to close your eyes and cover your ears to any real discussion, the debate is not fun or productive for me.

The burden is on the reduction of rights and further creeping of the government into our lives. You don't buy that argument, but gun proponents do. Several legit responses have been given, but you've dismissed them.

[jdshock]

The burden is on the reduction of rights and further creeping of the government into our lives. You don't buy that argument, but gun proponents do. Several legit responses have been given, but you've dismissed them.

I was calling out MVJ for acting like no one was debating him because he made such great points, but it's because he wasn't engaging in the actual discussion. I actually mentioned you as someone who did engage in the debate.

That said, the rights argument isn't really a "burden." If it's lawful to be nude and the legislature is considering a law outlawing public nudity, you can't just say "it's taking away our right." Sure, it's First Amendment "speech" but you have to say why it's bad to lose the ability to be nude in public. So there are two possibilities: 1. My burden vs benefit approach is dumb, and constitutional rights should never be infringed or 2. The specific burdens are bad.

I'll reiterate my stance: self defense is wholly resolved by other handguns or weapons, assault rifles aren't any more effective at taking down a tyrannical government that has fighter jets than a handgun would be, and recreation isn't an acceptable burden for any other law.

The government creep argument is another interesting argument that I'll have to think about.

[Kung Wu]

Me: Tell me the burden of banning assault rifles.

While the initial outlay can be a bit pricey, many assault rifles such as the AR-15 are highly modular with a healthy dose of after market products that allow you to affordably reconfigure your firearm so that you can hunt at night, swap calibers for different prey, add scopes/laser sights, etc at a considerably better price point than it would be to own multiple non-modular firearms to achieve the same range of functionality and effectiveness.

So one burden on society would be economic and pragmatic. You would be punishing the 5 to 10 million AR-15 owners with an economic inefficiency, as well as financially harming the manufacturers and the employees that make those firearms, as well as financially harming the gun shops that sell and service those 7.5 millionish firearms -- all due to the actions of a few people per year.

And for all of that economic cost to society, you will have gained nothing at all because those same nutcases will still forget to take their meds or get recruited by ISIS and perform the same horrific act using a different method. Economic and pragmatic damage to society with near zero positive results from passing the law.

[Kung Wu]

Homework: Compare Hillary's and Trump's stances on gun control.

[wufan]

I was calling out MVJ for acting like no one was debating him because he made such great points, but it's because he wasn't engaging in the actual discussion. I actually mentioned you as someone who did engage in the debate.

That said, the rights argument isn't really a "burden." If it's lawful to be nude and the legislature is considering a law outlawing public nudity, you can't just say "it's taking away our right." Sure, it's First Amendment "speech" but you have to say why it's bad to lose the ability to be nude in public. So there are two possibilities: 1. My burden vs benefit approach is dumb, and constitutional rights should never be infringed or 2. The specific burdens are bad.

I'll reiterate my stance: self defense is wholly resolved by other handguns or weapons, assault rifles aren't any more effective at taking down a tyrannical government that has fighter jets than a handgun would be, and recreation isn't an acceptable burden for any other law.

The government creep argument is another interesting argument that I'll have to think about.

It's a fundamental difference of principles. You have different principles so the argument is nonsensical to you. It's there, it's obvious, it's been made numerous times. You disagree, and that's okay. There are many great things that can be accomplished by a socialist leaning government.

[MoValley John]

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151526930/korean-store-owner-on-arming-himself-for-riots

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DtgCiC6qTtjs&ved=0ahUKEwi5w6205_rNAhVo2IMKHeCuBlQQtwIIGzAA&usg=AFQjCNFjU_xJPE2x3V20OoiqgikjmKGEVQ

There is your ****ing burden. Right the **** there. These store owners used sbotguns, rifles, handguns and yes, AR 15's. The burden is you want to deny these businessmen their right to defend themselves, their livelihoods and their property. All because guns scare you. Well guns are supposed to be scary, that's why these guys didn't get looted!

And you think we are beyond this? Remember Ferguson? Remember Dallas? Where is the next riot? Wichita or Omaha? If so, I want to be UNBURDENED enough to defend myself and my family as effectively as possible.

Did I show burden, or again are you going to dismiss? I have answered ever question you have asked. And no, this isn't fun for me, some of the sarcastic stuff is, but this is a dead serious issue that isn't fun.

We are giving up rights all because of a bunch of fearful *******. It's a huge burden.

[jdshock]

And no, this isn't fun for me, some of the sarcastic stuff is, but this is a dead serious issue that isn't fun.

We are giving up rights all because of a bunch of fearful *******. It's a huge burden.

If it's such a serious topic to you, don't mix the sarcasm and insults in with your beliefs. Debating online is fun for me. No one gets hurt and it doesn't affect anything. If you can't argue without the emotional aspect taking over, then let's not debate it.

[jdshock]

It's a fundamental difference of principles. You have different principles so the argument is nonsensical to you. It's there, it's obvious, it's been made numerous times. You disagree, and that's okay. There are many great things that can be accomplished by a socialist leaning government.

We haven't gotten there yet. This is ultimately the point, though. Your side's issue is with the burden vs benefit analysis, I think. Your stance might be, laws shouldn't infringe our rights, period (or close to period). Even if the actual right isn't particularly important (e.g., I have a right to guns and I like them) it's important not to infringe that right.

If true, both sides are internally consistent. This is why I hopped in in the first place. People were calling gun control defenders idiots and saying their arguments made no sense. They do make sense, they just have a different viewpoint. It's not contradictory to support a ban on assault rifles and think that trucks shouldn't be banned.

[jdshock]

Homework: Compare Hillary's and Trump's stances on gun control.

Are we talking 90's Hillary opposed to guns, 08 Hillary that was pro guns or the newest version opposed again?

[MoValley John]

If it's such a serious topic to you, don't mix the sarcasm and insults in with your beliefs. Debating online is fun for me. No one gets hurt and it doesn't affect anything. If you can't argue without the emotional aspect taking over, then let's not debate it.

Debating is fun. Having rights taken away is not. Sometimes the only way to point out the idiocy of an idea is to make equally idiotic points. I didn't start the namecalling.

Maybe you need to look back at your demands and recognize that I have answered every one of your requests.

I've shown burden.
I've shown statistics.
I've shown academic study.

You've now brought up public nudity? Which, by the way, I'm all for! Unless we're talking that fat chicken in yoga pants.

[MoValley John]

It's not contradictory to support a ban on assault rifles and think that trucks shouldn't be banned.

But...... why can't I buy anhydrous? Large quantities of potassium? Certain insecticides? Certain fertilizers? None of these items have the intended purpose of killing people, but since these items have been used for drug production and bombmaking, I can't get them. Trucks have now been used to intentionally kill, so...........

Albeit asinine, this is a line of thinking that has been applied in the past. Look no further than TSA screenings and taking off your shoes.

[jdshock]

Debating is fun. Having rights taken away is not. Sometimes the only way to point out the idiocy of an idea is to make equally idiotic points. I didn't start the namecalling.

Maybe you need to look back at your demands and recognize that I have answered every one of your requests.

I've shown burden.
I've shown statistics.
I've shown academic study.

You've now brought up public nudity? Which, by the way, I'm all for! Unless we're talking that fat chicken in yoga pants.

I apologize if I said anything you viewed as name calling.

The first time you mentioned a burden was in your post about shop owners. Why are assault rifles uniquely better than handguns at defending a store? How frequently are they used for defense purposes vs recreational?

Your statistics and academic studies were not on point. They were all about guns in general. I'm not arguing about guns in general. All of the academic studies I read about the assault weapons ban saw that assault weapon use declined and (grandfathered in) high capacity magazine use increased. But it was still too short of a time period to know what that meant. Studies are tough because of correlation vs causation. That's why control groups are important.

I'm fully opposed to public nudity. I believe maybe 1% of the population looks better without clothes.

[jdshock]

But...... why can't I buy anhydrous? Large quantities of potassium? Certain insecticides? Certain fertilizers? None of these items have the intended purpose of killing people, but since these items have been used for drug production and bombmaking, I can't get them. Trucks have now been used to intentionally kill, so...........

Albeit asinine, this is a line of thinking that has been applied in the past. Look no further than TSA screenings and taking off your shoes.

I know people on my side of the debate have used the intended purpose argument. I don't like it. The intended purpose is only helpful to the extent it informs the burden of banning the item. Medications that have the intended purpose of helping people recover from sickness are still utilized for bad purposes, sometimes. Despite the positive intent, it's still regulated.