Oh by the way, someone shot and killed an 8 year old (of course it's USA)

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Next question.  If such regulation works to control gun violence would further controls still be necessary?

Let's find out! Please!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I agree that incremental change is the only way to go. Near as I can tell, we haven't managed to move the needle on that though. That's when people start to get dramatic.

See above as to why I think local action is a more politically practical way of moving forward.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Let's find out! Please!

I would really like to.

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Okay, perhaps an attempt was made, but NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENED. On the back of what was in my mind the most horrific gun crime in the history of this country. So I simply can't agree with your bullshit pronouncement here. I'm not going to go so far as to blame Obama, but do you really feel like he used this moment to its' fullest effect? It seems to me the White House could've done a lot more than it did. You could've made a DEVASTATING PSA on the back of that event. Did you ever see one? I didn't. I agree with you in terms of blame that you could point to Congress and the Senate and the Gun Lobby first, but I think it's fair to say that any effort on the Left side of the aisle was lackluster, given the disastrous nature of the event. This was a formative moment. And it was largely wasted, IMHO.

 

 

Fair enough.

 Also, I agree with @Swordfish that domestic violence (and I go further and say male violence) is inextricably linked to the gun issue.

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Mentioning the dead 8 year old was a retort to your statement that "I don't see how this case can be held up as an example for pro gun control". 8 year old killed by a firearm is how it can be held up as an example for gun control. That throttles the conversation how? You make some good counterpoints as to how this story is not a good example, I'll give you that., 

 

 

I explained why this is a bad example for gun control advocates to use.  If you are simply going to ignore the facts here. there isn't much more to say.  

I think 'please think of the children' would be an entirely rational argument here if the discussion was about domestic violence.  but for some reason, that isn't the conversation here.

 

Quote

If you want to tell me that a dead 8 year old killed by a firearm isn't an appropriate counter

An appropriate counter to what?

Gun control short of ban and sieze would not have mattered in this situation.  I've already laid out the facts that make that a true statement.  Simply appealing to the spectre of the dead kid and ignoring the facts of the incident... Well, that is what it is.

 

Perhaps it would help if you can help me understand why your argument here is something that does not boil down to: 'Gun regulation would not have helped this kid, but this is an example of why we need gun control'?

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Fair enough.

 Also, I agree with @Swordfish that domestic violence (and I go further and say male violence) is inextricably linked to the gun issue.

Agree on that point as well. They are all part and parcel, but guns are also a part of that equation. that's my main point.   

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Agree on that point as well. They are all part and parcel, but guns are also a part of that equation. that's my main point.   

gortcha.  And I was certainly overzealous in my initial assessment , apologies to both you and swordfish for that.  Yes, guns are the issue.  Just frustrated, as you both obviously are as well, that there has been no antidote, but even more so that there is such resistance to rectify gin violence.

 

***Gun violence, not gin violence

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

gortcha.  And I was certainly overzealous in my initial assessment , apologies to both you and swordfish for that.  Yes, guns are the issue.  Just frustrated, as you both obviously are as well, that there has been no antidote, but even more so that there is such resistance to rectify gin violence.

 

***Gun violence, not gin violence

No apologies necessary. I get it. I'm not entirely rational when it comes to this issue either, as Swordfish underlined above. At this point I think I'm more frustrated by the fact that the Pro Gun side is so better represented politically, and seems to have a much better grasp as to how this game is played. 

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

gortcha.  And I was certainly overzealous in my initial assessment , apologies to both you and swordfish for that.  Yes, guns are the issue.  Just frustrated, as you both obviously are as well, that there has been no antidote, but even more so that there is such resistance to rectify gin violence.

 

***Gun violence, not gin violence

So tired of gin getting blamed for gin violence. It's just lazy, lumping it all under gin when 'gin and tonics', 'gin and gingers', 'gin and cokes', 'gin and orange', 'gin and squash, 'gin on the rocks' etc. lead to violence. Where's the ice control protests? Why is no one trying to resolve the tonic issues? And I'm not just saying this because the US has by far the most gins in the world, and the gin lobby is one of the strongest on the planet.

[James Arryn]

Scot, I do not agree, at all, that no gun control and the kind of gun control laws the vast majority of industrialized world has are opposing 'extremes'. Assuming that 'normal' is equidistance between 2 points assumes both have equal validity. If one of those points is in line with international norms and the other very much isn't, assuming they're equal is a flawed foundation for arriving at real solutions. Especially when the problem you're trying to solve is also at an international extreme. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

25 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Scot, I do not agree, at all, that no gun control and the kind of gun control laws the vast majority of industrialized world has are opposing 'extremes'. Assuming that 'normal' is equidistance between 2 points assumes both have equal validity. If one of those points is in line with international norms and the other very much isn't, assuming they're equal is a flawed foundation for arriving at real solutions. Especially when the problem you're trying to solve is also at an international extreme. 

James,

You are entitled to your opinion.  Nevertheless what do you think will happen if the US suddenly shifts to "international norms" on gun control and demands private firearms owners comply with those norms in one fell swoop without efforts in advance to win people over to those changes?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

31 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So tired of gin getting blamed for gin violence. It's just lazy, lumping it all under gin when 'gin and tonics', 'gin and gingers', 'gin and cokes', 'gin and orange', 'gin and squash, 'gin on the rocks' etc. lead to violence. Where's the ice control protests? Why is no one trying to resolve the tonic issues? And I'm not just saying this because the US has by far the most gins in the world, and the gin lobby is one of the strongest on the planet.

And don't even get me started on the gin and juice. Throw in a car and some Indo, and you've got a recipe for a rap video of epic proportions...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWCZse1iwE0

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

James,

You are entitled to your opinion.  Nevertheless what do you think will happen if the US suddenly shifts to "international norms" on gun control and demands private firearms owners comply with those norms in one fell swoop without efforts in advance to win people over to those changes?

Hopefully not as extreme a reaction to another US correction to international standards, ie slavery. But why 'sudden' when current Democrat proposals for gun control are mirrored by former Republican plans? It's been an ongoing debate for a long time, but the intransigence of the extreme has been rewarded, to the point where actually talking about gun control is an extremist position within the U.S. And it works that way along the exact lines you are proposing, ie some people will be pissed. The exact same hedging and practicality kept the U.S. behind the ball on slavery, too...and the same specious arguments about how the US was uniquely built around slavery or how the argument ought not be about slavery but freedom and tyrany and the founding fathers and all that crap was used to avoid that issue too. And in the end the extremists still wouldn't budge without being forced to.

So if you buy into the idea of waiting for a compromise that works for the extremists, you're just buying into waiting, which is good enough for them. That's why many say Sandy Hook was the end of real debate, because it moved them not 1 iota on their position. So what ever will? What 'effort to win over' people unmoved by dead children are you waiting on, Scot? Why should they change when the status quo gets them exactly what they want? Why should they ever give up their slaves so long as we're depending on their willingness to do so before actually doing anything about it?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

49 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Hopefully not as extreme a reaction to another US correction to international standards, ie slavery. But why 'sudden' when current Democrat proposals for gun control are mirrored by former Republican plans? It's been an ongoing debate for a long time, but the intransigence of the extreme has been rewarded, to the point where actually talking about gun control is an extremist position within the U.S. And it works that way along the exact lines you are proposing, ie some people will be pissed. The exact same hedging and practicality kept the U.S. behind the ball on slavery, too...and the same specious arguments about how the US was uniquely built around slavery or how the argument ought not be about slavery but freedom and tyrany and the founding fathers and all that crap was used to avoid that issue too. And in the end the extremists still wouldn't budge without being forced to.

So if you buy into the idea of waiting for a compromise that works for the extremists, you're just buying into waiting, which is good enough for them. That's why many say Sandy Hook was the end of real debate, because it moved them not 1 iota on their position. So what ever will? What 'effort to win over' people unmoved by dead children are you waiting on, Scot? Why should they change when the status quo gets them exactly what they want? Why should they ever give up their slaves so long as we're depending on their willingness to do so before actually doing anything about it?

James,

Gun rights activists will oppose any change.  That is well established.  What I propose is moving on the local level to show that safety regulations can be put into place without it being "the government coming to take their guns".  

It disarms the argument that the true purpose is to take away all private arms.  It gets people accustomed to "reasonable" regulation and allows legal testing of the limits of "reasonable" regulation without the risk of all existing regulations being overturned in one go.

I, for one, do not want to see the crazies joined by more reasonable people who fear firearm confiscation.  If a concerted push to shift to "international norms" were made in the US would that not necessitate firearm confiscation?  Or are you suggesting something else?

[The guy from the Vale]

Scot,

but local regulation can't possibly work if people have to, at most, take a half-hour drive to avoid that regulation. There are no border custom controls between US counties or states, after all. Indiana's lax gun regulation makes any and all attempts at gun regulation in Chicago ineffective.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Scot,

but local regulation can't possibly work if people have to, at most, take a half-hour drive to avoid that regulation. There are no border custom controls between US counties or states, after all. Indiana's lax gun regulation makes any and all attempts at gun regulation in Chicago ineffective.

tgftv,

With restrictions on purchases I see your point.  

With regulations regarding storage, use, and licensure, local regulations will work just fine.  What needs to happen, in my opinion, is more regulation on the local level of the type that work on the local level as those are also the most trickly to test, because, depending upon the severity of those regulations they could be considered de facto bans.  Additionally, local regulations on licensure, storage, and use of firearms allows that type of regulation to be tested piecemeal without the entire natiknal egulatory scheme being invalidated by court review in one fell swoop.  As we see what the SCOTUS will consider "reasonsable" in this context localities can modify and adjust their local regulations on licensure, storage, and use of firearms.

I also support waiting periods and background checks nationally those are the regulations that need a nationwide aspect.  So long as those are not being used as backdoor bans (in other words they are "reasonable") they should be upheld.

 

[TerraPrime]

On 4/15/2017 at 2:27 PM, Swordfish said:

I explained why this is a bad example for gun control advocates to use.  If you are simply going to ignore the facts here. there isn't much more to say.  

I think 'please think of the children' would be an entirely rational argument here if the discussion was about domestic violence.  but for some reason, that isn't the conversation here.

 

An appropriate counter to what?

Gun control short of ban and sieze would not have mattered in this situation.  I've already laid out the facts that make that a true statement.  Simply appealing to the spectre of the dead kid and ignoring the facts of the incident... Well, that is what it is.

 

Perhaps it would help if you can help me understand why your argument here is something that does not boil down to: 'Gun regulation would not have helped this kid, but this is an example of why we need gun control'?

 

Guns are tools. 

There's always a reason other than "I want to shoot people with guns" behind these violent acts. 

To say that gun regulation doesn't solve these problems is both correct and also deflecting. 

It is also false premise to state that only complete seizure and ban would have prevented this incident. If, for example, gun ownership is the rare exception, then there would have been more attention on this one person owning guns, we would have more tracking in place, etc., all things that gun advocates oppose. And this tragedy may have been avoided. 

But. 

The discussion on gun control is effectively over in the U.S. We will continue to live with gun-enabled violence in this country, and we will like it.

[Altherion]

On 4/15/2017 at 8:50 PM, James Arryn said:

So if you buy into the idea of waiting for a compromise that works for the extremists, you're just buying into waiting, which is good enough for them. That's why many say Sandy Hook was the end of real debate, because it moved them not 1 iota on their position. So what ever will?

You would have to change society to a state wherein the overwhelming majority agrees that guns are unnecessary. For an extreme example, consider the Earth of Star Trek's universe. If crime is practically unheard of and almost everyone holds the government in good regard, guns not used for hunting or sport will go away on their own and you will eventually be able to codify this in law to deal with the irrational stragglers. In fact, even a much less extreme version of this would do the trick, but, unfortunately, we are very, very far away from anything of the sort.

[Swordfish]

On 4/15/2017 at 6:47 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

James,

Gun rights activists will oppose any change.  That is well established.  What I propose is moving on the local level to show that safety regulations can be put into place without it being "the government coming to take their guns".  

It disarms the argument that the true purpose is to take away all private arms.  It gets people accustomed to "reasonable" regulation and allows legal testing of the limits of "reasonable" regulation without the risk of all existing regulations being overturned in one go.

I, for one, do not want to see the crazies joined by more reasonable people who fear firearm confiscation.  If a concerted push to shift to "international norms" were made in the US would that not necessitate firearm confiscation?  Or are you suggesting something else?

The problem you have, Scot, is that reasonable gun owners acknowledge and uinderstand what many gun control advocates either do not, or are unwilling to acknowledge.  Namely, that proposals for new and more restrictive gun controls up to and including outrright bans are going to continue to be demanded.

If you get, for example registration (and I can't believe in light of the discussions around Muslim registration that people are still proposing this) the next time there's a mass shooting, then what? Are gun control advocates going to say 'Well, we tried registration, nothing more we can do here in terms of gun control'?  Or do you think it's more likely they will demand more?

When you couple that reality with the fact that none of the proposed 'reasonable' gun regulations move the needle at all really in terms of prevention, there is no logical reason for gun owners to compromise, because compromise is incremental capitulation, with essentially no benefit.

 

 

16 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

Guns are tools. 

There's always a reason other than "I want to shoot people with guns" behind these violent acts. 

To say that gun regulation doesn't solve these problems is both correct and also deflecting. 

It is also false premise to state that only complete seizure and ban would have prevented this incident. If, for example, gun ownership is the rare exception, then there would have been more attention on this one person owning guns, we would have more tracking in place, etc., all things that gun advocates oppose. And this tragedy may have been avoided. 

A distinction without much meaning.  How do you propose we get to 'gun ownership is a rare exception'?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Swordfish,

I do understand your point.  However, given that the most fundamental right citizens of the US have, voting, is keyed to a registration of voters I do not believe a registration of gun owners, without more, will qualify as a violation of the 2nd amendment.  It is a prime example of the "Slippery Slope" fallacy.