A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Jedidiah]

Sure you can hand wave it away, but if there is no way to tell if gun-free zones have worked and we actually have MORE school shooting than before we enacted them, then there was no reason to enact them. The argument for them was flawed.

Just like the arguments to regulate guns more or ban guns. According to you there is no way to know if they work or not since we can't actually compare what it would be like if we didn't regulate guns. That means there is no reason to regulate guns.

And studies will do zero to alter this lack of knowledge.

[Jedidiah]

As I noted in my OP, there are only two things that I believe we can/should do with regards to gun on the basis of the information we have: universalize background checks and implement a national gun registry. Other initiaties, for or against, lack adequate evidence to support or refute - hence the need for impartial, peer-reviewed studies. Given you lack the information to argue against a gun free zone - I don't accept your arguments, for the reasons I cited before. Given someone defending gun free zones lacks the information to justify them, I don't accept their arguments that they are necessary and effective. Neither side knows - both sides are guessing using their "gut" and a lot of correlation without evidence of causation.

IMO, the lack of good information is one of the biggest problems related to gun safety. We DO know that the problem can be significantly reduced - and we know this because other countries have done it. But we cannot even say for sure that their approaches would work in the U.S. The shutdown on funding research into this has been an effective way to leave the discussion open to a lot of dust thrown into the air - which I suspect was th eprimary motivation for it.

Where is all the "good information" supporting universal background checks and a national gun registry? There is none, and yet you support these because it feels right, oh as to other countries that is correlation but you do not have any evidence of causation.

[Terraceth]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26704[/ATTACH]

Okay, but before the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, what percentage of large mass shootings happened in areas that would have been gun free zones had the Act been in effect?

[Mountain Man]

No MM - the translation is exactly what I posted. And I'm going to ask, again, if you cannot remain respectful in your posts - please post in a different thread.

It would behoove you, then, to explicitly clarify what you mean by "respectful"*, because as far as I'm concerned, candidness and honesty are well within the boundaries of what I consider to be respectful.




* To be frank, I'm getting the distinct impression that anything that exposes your arguments for what they really are is deemed "disrespectful" simply to give you an excuse to ignore the rebuttal.

[carpedm9587]

It would behoove you, then, to explicitly clarify what you mean by "respectful"*, because as far as I'm concerned, candidness and honesty are well within the boundaries of what I consider to be respectful.

* To be frank, I'm getting the distinct impression that anything that exposes your arguments for what they really are is deemed "disrespectful" simply to give you an excuse to ignore the rebuttal.

That response was respectful. It is not disrespectful to disagree, or to suggest a person is wrong, or has missed a point of the argument, or even to suggest they may be trying to avoid the argument.

It is disrespectful to mock (your fairly regular use of various laughing emojis to respond to ideas others have put forward), and to use demeaning language (stupid, dumb, insane, dimbulb, etc.). Some of these, of course, you have not done in this thread. Some you have.

I can disagree with you, MM, without having to treat you like you are mentally deficient, which I know you are not. And your impression is clearly not correct given that I have engaged with many here who disagree with me, and who have put forward arguments. Jedidiah and have not agreed on the vast majority of our exchanges. He has made the effort to remain respecful of the exchange, and has even apologized, without prompting, when he felt he had posted outside the sporit of the thread. I find that admirable.

I started this thread to see if it was possible for people of significantly opposing views to exchange those views and discuss and disagree without tearing one another down or factionalizing into warring camps. Although I don't see any signs of anyone's views actually changing, I DO see signs that people CAN have these discussions without the invective that usually goes with them.

In this day and age - that's encouraging.

Most the time, MM, your posts to someone you disagree with ARE disrespectful; it appears to be your nom-de-plume and you have defended it in the past. I'm not going to tell you how to post on FF - it's not my place. But I AM going to enforce what I requested in the OP in THIS thread. If you cannot be civil and respectful, take it elsewhere, please.

[Mountain Man]

Still no answer, huh?

[carpedm9587]

People are allowed to disagree, I think they are wrong. Remind me what the 79% represents and I will remind you that virtually all of the legally owned guns in the US have never been used in any sort of crime.

When there are enough guns in the U.S. to give every man, woman, and achild their own gun, it is a simple matter of statistics that "most guns" have not been used in a crime. When 79% of gun-related crimes are committed by people who do not own the gun they are using, it suggests we might be able to shift that number by securing those guns a little better. Again, that is what the numbers suggest. We won't know a blessed thing until we can study the matter and see if the correlation translates into a causation. That would require knowing exactly who owned those guns and how they came to be in the hands of the criminals. That is why I am not advocating for gun lockers - nor am I advocating for "no gun lockers."

What I read in the newspaper and on line news is based on a feeling? How does that work? You are right I cannot know that all or most believe that, but they never jump on the ones who slip up. If I am wrong about that show me, don't tell me.

No - projecting it across everyone is "based on a feeling." What I see you doing is taking the actions of the few and projecting it across the many - and I suspect it is because that affirms your existing POV about "gun grabbers." I don't know that, of course - only you can know that. But I do know that taking the actions of the few and assuming all, most, or even many others feel the same way is simply not justified. And who is "they?"

I was referring to your "of that age cognitively ready to handle this responsibility." With my background in psych (admittedly out dated) I reject the interpretations of data that this stuff leads to. What you are responding to is:
*Means not of age. I still defer to the parents rather than to some generic psycho babble.

I am not speaking about psychobabble, Jedidiah, I am talking established human physiology. The frontal cortex, the seat of higher decision-making, is not fully developed in the human male until as late as 25 years old. Ergo, young people tend to be more impulsive, and less able to reason to down-the-road consequences. Every parent I know of who has had to deal with having a son with the body of a man (capable of making babies and raging in hormones) but the mind of a child knows this, and has learned to respect/fear it. I also think that society at large (i.e., your fellow citizens) have the right to say, "I don't want a 10 year old driving a car just because their parents feel they are up to it," or "I don't want a 13 year old buying alcohol just because their parents feel they are up to it," or "I don't want a 19 year old buying a gun just because their parents feel they are up to it." Some parents make good decisions. Society has a right to protect itself, and children in general, from the ones that don't.

[carpedm9587]

Still no answer, huh?

I have already answered this in multiple posts, MM. Repeating myself is not going to get us anywhere. See my previous posts.

[Cow Poke]

I have already answered this in multiple posts, MM. Repeating myself is not going to get us anywhere. See my previous posts.

You might could hyperlink to the best example.

[carpedm9587]

You might could hyperlink to the best example.

Yes - I could.

[Cow Poke]

Yes - I could.

Pretty please? Maybe that would help get things back on track.

[Mountain Man]

I have already answered this in multiple posts, MM. Repeating myself is not going to get us anywhere. See my previous posts.

You actually haven't.

What's the meaningful difference between a combat knife and a kitchen knife other than their name, and on what basis do you believe they should be regulated differently? You've used just about every avoidance technique in the book to get out of answering this question.

[carpedm9587]

Pretty please? Maybe that would help get things back on track.

I was not aware they were off track...

My previous response was that there are tools that can be used to do harm, and tools that were designed to do harm. IMO, reasonable care needs to be taken with the former; due diligence with the latter. If I leave my running chain saw in the middle of the back yard with no supervision and someone uses it to do harm, I am liable. If it is stowed in my garage, out of reach of small children, I am not. If I leave my kitchen knife on the grass in the backyard and some uses it to do harm (or hurts themselves on it) I am liable. If it is in my kitchen drawer out of reach of children, I am not. If I have bought a sword, or a stabbing knife (i.e., a tool designed to be a weapon), I should show more due diligence in securing it. The bar is, in other words, higher.

I see nothing odd or inconsistent about this position. As I noted earlier - almost any tool can be used to do harm. I can smother someone with a pillow. That does not mean we should be securing all pillows. I think a tool should be secured on the basis of what it was designed to do. A stabbing knife is designed to kill. A kitchen knife is designed to cook.

[carpedm9587]

You actually haven't.

What's the meaningful difference between a combat knife and a kitchen knife other than their name, and on what basis do you believe they should be regulated differently? You've used just about every avoidance technique in the book to get out of answering this question.

I don't recall saying I thought all killing tools should be registered. If I did - I mispoke and I apologize for the confusion. The reason for registering guns is their ability to do significant harm to multiple persons rapidly and at a distance. A knife does not have that characteristic. Secured - yes. Registered - no.

[Cow Poke]

I was not aware they were off track...

My previous response was that there are tools that can be used to do harm, and tools that were designed to do harm. IMO, reasonable care needs to be taken with the former; due diligence with the latter. If I leave my running chain saw in the middle of the back yard with no supervision and someone uses it to do harm, I am liable. If it is stowed in my garage, out of reach of small children, I am not. If I leave my kitchen knife on the grass in the backyard and some uses it to do harm (or hurts themselves on it) I am liable. If it is in my kitchen drawer out of reach of children, I am not. If I have bought a sword, or a stabbing knife (i.e., a tool designed to be a weapon), I should show more due diligence in securing it. The bar is, in other words, higher.

I see nothing odd or inconsistent about this position. As I noted earlier - almost any tool can be used to do harm. I can smother someone with a pillow. That does not mean we should be securing all pillows. I think a tool should be secured on the basis of what it was designed to do. A stabbing knife is designed to kill. A kitchen knife is designed to cook.

"Liable" is an interesting word. It could mean legally, morally, civilly, ethically.... let's look at the stuff you left in your back yard. What jury would convict you for leaving your running chain saw (naturally, it's going to run out of gas fairly soon) in your own back yard, and somebody else comes in and uses it for evil purposes? Or a kitchen knife. What reasonable person would declare, "oh, boy - you should have locked that up, you're going to jail!"