(12-17-2012 07:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 05:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Business leaders' power is not limited to taking money, it's just motivated by that. See lobbying, using political graft, etc...

So your examples are instances where businessmen use money to induce those politicians, and more especially those bureaucrats, whose motives you think are as pure as the driven snow, to do sleazy and immoral and unjustifiable acts. Don't look now, but I think you just proved my point.

I never said anything about the motivation of politicians. That is as varied as the motivation of business people as well.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

Given that your comment was made in the context of a discussion about motives of business persons versus motives of politicians, it's not exactly obvious that you didn't intend that meaning, but I will accept your word that you didn't.

(12-17-2012 06:31 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Your 5 TV sets can't kill a bunch of people in the span of a few minutes.

No, but his motor home could.

Quote:But if sledgehammers were directly involved in 31,000 deaths last year (or whatever the number was), I don't think we as a people would shy away from talking about how to tackle the sledgehammer problem. Again, to quote Chapel Hill, the situation has not reached the point of optimality, at least in my opinion.

...31,224, of which 56% were suicide, and 41% were homicide. If you ban assault rifles, that probably brings down the homicide number some; I doubt it would affect the suicide number much. Even if you ban all firearms -- which nobody is suggesting -- probably both numbers go down, but who knows by how much. Some of the people who do those things would find another way, some would evade the ban.

That same year, there were 33,808 motor vehicle deaths. And yet nobody is proposing to ban big trucks.

The 31,000 are not what brought on this call for new legislation, it was the 20 that made headlines. I don't think emotional knee-jerk reactions are a good way to make policy (see also: "Patriot" Act).

FTR, I favor background checks, I don't see any reason to own an assault rifle, and I generally don't buy slippery-slope arguments. I just think we need to be honest about the benefit of each restriction. And, I think it's appalling that 33,808 motor vehicle deaths are considered routine and not an urgent call to action.

(12-17-2012 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 05:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Business leaders' power is not limited to taking money, it's just motivated by that. See lobbying, using political graft, etc...

So your examples are instances where businessmen use money to induce those politicians, and more especially those bureaucrats, whose motives you think are as pure as the driven snow, to do sleazy and immoral and unjustifiable acts. Don't look now, but I think you just proved my point.

I never said anything about the motivation of politicians. That is as varied as the motivation of business people as well.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

Given that your comment was made in the context of a discussion about motives of business persons versus motives of politicians, it's not exactly obvious that you didn't intend that meaning, but I will accept your word that you didn't.

Thanks.

I was more trying to state that, while businesses can't directly wield power the way politicians can, they still have tools to make sure that their interests are seen to, and that their motives can be just as selfish as politicians'.

There are people with questionable motives/ethics/practices in all areas of society. If there weren't the world would be a much happier place.

(12-17-2012 07:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 06:31 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I see people refer to guns as a tool; I get that argument. But if sledgehammers were directly involved in 31,000 deaths last year (or whatever the number was), I don't think we as a people would shy away from talking about how to tackle the sledgehammer problem.

32,000 deaths last year by car... down from 45k/yr 30 years ago...
25,000 deaths by alcohol... EXCLUDING ACCIDENTS
80,000 deaths in total by alcohol (according to CDC)

Compare the number of people killed by illegal gun owners to illegal driver or illegal drinkers.

WHY are we going after among the smallest contributors to any of these numbers? Why are we going after LEGAL gun owners/holders who account for a small fraction of the offenses rather than ILLEGAL gun owners/holders.

Cars are unquestionably a utilitarian device that are designed precisely *not* to kill people, unlike many guns/ammo. Further, the rate of car accidents has been dropping for years precisely because of government intervention, beginning with the mandating of seat belt inclusion in cars. As for alcohol, we've tried prohibition. It didn't work. And again, no one here is advocating for a gun prohibition. It's worth noting, too, that driving while intoxicated has only become socially unacceptable in the last few decades - because of the tireless work of organizations that weren't seeking to ban alcohol - leading to a further decline in deaths. Gun deaths have been on the decline on the whole, but as part of a larger pattern in a decrease in crime. But what are the pro-gun lobby forces doing to further decrease the deaths.

And finally, to return to your example of cars, most people who die in car accidents are in cars. They've accepted some level of risk by being in that car. I shouldn't have to assume the risk for your gun ownership.

(12-17-2012 09:05 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 06:31 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I see people refer to guns as a tool; I get that argument. But if sledgehammers were directly involved in 31,000 deaths last year (or whatever the number was), I don't think we as a people would shy away from talking about how to tackle the sledgehammer problem.

32,000 deaths last year by car... down from 45k/yr 30 years ago...
25,000 deaths by alcohol... EXCLUDING ACCIDENTS
80,000 deaths in total by alcohol (according to CDC)

Compare the number of people killed by illegal gun owners to illegal driver or illegal drinkers.

WHY are we going after among the smallest contributors to any of these numbers? Why are we going after LEGAL gun owners/holders who account for a small fraction of the offenses rather than ILLEGAL gun owners/holders.

Cars are unquestionably a utilitarian device that are designed precisely *not* to kill people, unlike many guns/ammo. Further, the rate of car accidents has been dropping for years precisely because of government intervention, beginning with the mandating of seat belt inclusion in cars. As for alcohol, we've tried prohibition. It didn't work. And again, no one here is advocating for a gun prohibition. It's worth noting, too, that driving while intoxicated has only become socially unacceptable in the last few decades - because of the tireless work of organizations that weren't seeking to ban alcohol - leading to a further decline in deaths. Gun deaths have been on the decline on the whole, but as part of a larger pattern in a decrease in crime. But what are the pro-gun lobby forces doing to further decrease the deaths.

And finally, to return to your example of cars, most people who die in car accidents are in cars. They've accepted some level of risk by being in that car. I shouldn't have to assume the risk for your gun ownership.

Good point about accepting the risk while driving in the car.

(12-17-2012 07:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  While I haven't read all 90 something posts in their entirety, I'm convinced that as with most debates, we immediately go to the obvious bones of contention and avoid the 90% we agree upon

Certain people shouldn't posess firearms. I think we ALL agree on this. These laws are already on the books but rarely enforced. Why? Because the number of people caught with illegal guns who don't do bad things with them is pretty small, so we ignore them, and for the larger number of people caught with illegal guns who DO bad things with them, the gun punishment is a rounding error to the other crime. In Germany, the sentence is 5 yrs and +/- 100k for having an illegal gun, or allowing someone to use your gun. I imagine most petty criminals would do without them if we enforced such a penalty. I think it would be easy to put in a stepped penalty... 5yrs and 100k for an illegal pistol. 20 years and 500k for an assault rifle. If you owned an assault rifle, and if someone got it, YOU were fined and put in jail, I'm betting you'd sell it or lack that sucker away tight, right? Sure, we would still have the issue of the mentally ill, but there is no perfect solution. Passing a background check should involve some HIPPA protected information. You don't want to sign a waiver so they can look at the records? Fine. No permit.

With that simple enforcement/penalty on existing laws, I think you've solved the vast majority of gun crimes.

For those that think the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, I'd argue the abortion question. Right now, the basic tenant of the right to an abortion hinges on the conflict in rights between the citizen mother and the unborn child. The fulcrum has been determined to be "viability". At THAT point, the rights of the unborn child become a state interest, and the mother no longer has total control over those decisions. Suppose that science created an artificial womb and that ANY fetus past 4 days was now "viable" (making the current definition "antiquated"). Focusing strictly on the requirement of the state to protect the right to life of the unborn and now scientifically viable fetus... would you support allowing the state to take away the mothers right to choose at 4 days?

The bottom line is, there is a level of "need" necessary to pass a law. There is a completely different level of "need" to alter the Constitution. 11,000 deaths is tragic, but it does not warrant taking away the Constitutional rights of 300mm people. If we can make that 11,000 number 1,000 by simply enforcing laws already on the books and stiffening penalties WITHOUT arguing about the Constitution... then we should do that first.

I can't swear this is true, but I read that since 1950, all but ONE shooting (Gabby Giffords) that killed more than 3 people in the US was in a "gun free" zone. Even the Batman killer, there were numerous theaters showing the movie closer, but THIS one was the only one that had a "gun free" sign. I don't say that to argue there shouldn't be gun-free zones. I say it to point out that mass murderers intentionally seek out unarmed people... and our solution is to disarm more people?

Finally, to the "musket" comment being the height of death... Untrue. The Cannon was. It was much less accurate, but generally killed more people per shot. If you ban assaut rifles/high capacity clips, who is to say they won't just create "shrapnel" type proximity bullets? History suggests that is exactly the sort of thing that would happen.

Since 1950... only 1 killing outside of a gun-free zone.

How and why is it a constitutional right to allow people to purchase assault rifles and semi-automatic hand guns with 20/50/100 round clips?

(12-17-2012 09:00 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 06:31 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Your 5 TV sets can't kill a bunch of people in the span of a few minutes.

No, but his motor home could.

Quote:But if sledgehammers were directly involved in 31,000 deaths last year (or whatever the number was), I don't think we as a people would shy away from talking about how to tackle the sledgehammer problem. Again, to quote Chapel Hill, the situation has not reached the point of optimality, at least in my opinion.

...31,224, of which 56% were suicide, and 41% were homicide. If you ban assault rifles, that probably brings down the homicide number some; I doubt it would affect the suicide number much. Even if you ban all firearms -- which nobody is suggesting -- probably both numbers go down, but who knows by how much. Some of the people who do those things would find another way, some would evade the ban.

That same year, there were 33,808 motor vehicle deaths. And yet nobody is proposing to ban big trucks.

The 31,000 are not what brought on this call for new legislation, it was the 20 that made headlines. I don't think emotional knee-jerk reactions are a good way to make policy (see also: "Patriot" Act).

FTR, I favor background checks, I don't see any reason to own an assault rifle, and I generally don't buy slippery-slope arguments. I just think we need to be honest about the benefit of each restriction. And, I think it's appalling that 33,808 motor vehicle deaths are considered routine and not an urgent call to action.

I had thought about clarifying that a significant number of the 31,000 gun deaths were a result of suicide, but I would have gone off on a bit of a tangent. I still think a decrease in the number of suicides could be made if mental health professionals could "yellow flag" certain patients so they could be informed if their patient attempts to purchase a gun. Even if they still attempt suicide, most methods just aren't as effective as guns.

If you look at motor vehicle deaths, and look at motor vehicle deaths per mile over time (the stat to use if you're actually looking at the riskiness of driving over time), it's a very cool graph, and a constantly declining number. This is precisely because of relentless government intervention: mandated seat belt inclusion, air bags, stability controls, antilock breaks, mandated use of seat belts, enforcement of drunk driving laws, graduated license requirements, etc. Granted, it's still a lot of people, but do the math and calculate how many people would be killed each year if we were all driving the same miles in cars from 1960.

(12-17-2012 09:23 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:00 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 06:31 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Your 5 TV sets can't kill a bunch of people in the span of a few minutes.

No, but his motor home could.

Quote:But if sledgehammers were directly involved in 31,000 deaths last year (or whatever the number was), I don't think we as a people would shy away from talking about how to tackle the sledgehammer problem. Again, to quote Chapel Hill, the situation has not reached the point of optimality, at least in my opinion.

...31,224, of which 56% were suicide, and 41% were homicide. If you ban assault rifles, that probably brings down the homicide number some; I doubt it would affect the suicide number much. Even if you ban all firearms -- which nobody is suggesting -- probably both numbers go down, but who knows by how much. Some of the people who do those things would find another way, some would evade the ban.

That same year, there were 33,808 motor vehicle deaths. And yet nobody is proposing to ban big trucks.

The 31,000 are not what brought on this call for new legislation, it was the 20 that made headlines. I don't think emotional knee-jerk reactions are a good way to make policy (see also: "Patriot" Act).

FTR, I favor background checks, I don't see any reason to own an assault rifle, and I generally don't buy slippery-slope arguments. I just think we need to be honest about the benefit of each restriction. And, I think it's appalling that 33,808 motor vehicle deaths are considered routine and not an urgent call to action.

I had thought about clarifying that a significant number of the 31,000 gun deaths were a result of suicide, but I would have gone off on a bit of a tangent. I still think a decrease in the number of suicides could be made if mental health professionals could "yellow flag" certain patients so they could be informed if their patient attempts to purchase a gun. Even if they still attempt suicide, most methods just aren't as effective as guns.

If you look at motor vehicle deaths, and look at motor vehicle deaths per mile over time (the stat to use if you're actually looking at the riskiness of driving over time), it's a very cool graph, and a constantly declining number. This is precisely because of relentless government intervention: mandated seat belt inclusion, air bags, stability controls, antilock breaks, mandated use of seat belts, enforcement of drunk driving laws, graduated license requirements, etc. Granted, it's still a lot of people, but do the math and calculate how many people would be killed each year if we were all driving the same miles in cars from 1960.

I think the "yellow flag" idea by a patient's health care professional is a good idea, but one that would face huge obstacles. Classically, patients with bipolar disorders..typically, off their meds..have a propensity for committing suicide. Males have a tendency to do this with guns. But good luck constructing a law notifying gun sellers across the country that Mr X shouldn't be buying a gun ( because he's crazy).

(12-17-2012 09:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I was more trying to state that, while businesses can't directly wield power the way politicians can, they still have tools to make sure that their interests are seen to, and that their motives can be just as selfish as politicians'.
There are people with questionable motives/ethics/practices in all areas of society. If there weren't the world would be a much happier place.

I was more making the point that politicians--and more especially unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats--have motives that are just as questionable as businesses. Plus powers to hurt me in ways that businesses cannot.

This is where I have a fundamental difference with those on the left. The idea that government is the solution rests necessarily on the proposition that government--politicians and bureaucrats--will put the public good ahead of private gain. Otherwise, they are no better than Enron, only with more power.

(12-17-2012 07:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  While I haven't read all 90 something posts in their entirety, I'm convinced that as with most debates, we immediately go to the obvious bones of contention and avoid the 90% we agree upon

...

I can't swear this is true, but I read that since 1950, all but ONE shooting (Gabby Giffords) that killed more than 3 people in the US was in a "gun free" zone. Even the Batman killer, there were numerous theaters showing the movie closer, but THIS one was the only one that had a "gun free" sign. I don't say that to argue there shouldn't be gun-free zones. I say it to point out that mass murderers intentionally seek out unarmed people... and our solution is to disarm more people?

...

Since 1950... only 1 killing outside of a gun-free zone.

Where's the fun in spending 90% of our time talking about what we agree on?

I do want to tackle your "gun free zone" claims. Technically, it might be mostly true. I think you draw entirely the wrong conclusion, though.

Let's start with the Aurora shooting. I'm familiar with it because I've been to that theater dozens of times in the past few years. Until I moved across town in March, that was the first-run theater my wife and I always went to. There may, and I stress may, have been a closer theater to his apartment that was showing Batman that night, but it would have been in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. But the Century 16 is probably the theater he would have gone to normally anyway. One, it was not that far from where he lived. Two, tix were only $6.50 and refreshments weren't outrageously priced. And it was a really nice theater. As to the "No guns" sign, I never saw it. I'm not saying it wasn't there, but if I never noticed it, I doubt he did either. Finally, what surprised me was that they didn't have police officers in the theater. As soon as I heard the news, I thought, "Well, I'm sure the cops nabbed him quick." Because there are always 2 cops stationed in the theater. It turns out that they're only there on weekends, and that a midnight showing on Thursday night didn't count as a weekend. (This is the source of a lawsuit.) I've been there weeknights, and had never noticed the lack of police (sometimes they're patrolling down the halls, they're not always in the lobby), and had certainly never pieced together their weeknight/weekend schedule. Again, I doubt he did, either. Regardless, even if police had been stationed in the lobby, it probably wouldn't have dissuaded him. It's not like he was going back to his apartment at that point.

As to some other shootings: Ft. Hood was certainly not a "gun free" area. Columbine was, but not because the killers were seeking a gun free area, so much as that was where the people they wanted to kill were. Same with Virginia Tech. The guy that shot the Sikh temple was just a crazy racist, not a strategic planner. I'm not even going to hazard a guess as to why this Lanza guy selected this school.

(12-17-2012 09:54 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  Ft. Hood was certainly not a "gun free" area.

Not the whole fort, for sure. But I believe the specific area where the shootings occurred was designated gun free. And I also believe there had been a recent directive that soldiers not drive around with weapons in their vehicles.

(12-17-2012 09:34 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:23 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:00 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 06:31 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Your 5 TV sets can't kill a bunch of people in the span of a few minutes.

No, but his motor home could.

Quote:But if sledgehammers were directly involved in 31,000 deaths last year (or whatever the number was), I don't think we as a people would shy away from talking about how to tackle the sledgehammer problem. Again, to quote Chapel Hill, the situation has not reached the point of optimality, at least in my opinion.

...31,224, of which 56% were suicide, and 41% were homicide. If you ban assault rifles, that probably brings down the homicide number some; I doubt it would affect the suicide number much. Even if you ban all firearms -- which nobody is suggesting -- probably both numbers go down, but who knows by how much. Some of the people who do those things would find another way, some would evade the ban.

That same year, there were 33,808 motor vehicle deaths. And yet nobody is proposing to ban big trucks.

The 31,000 are not what brought on this call for new legislation, it was the 20 that made headlines. I don't think emotional knee-jerk reactions are a good way to make policy (see also: "Patriot" Act).

FTR, I favor background checks, I don't see any reason to own an assault rifle, and I generally don't buy slippery-slope arguments. I just think we need to be honest about the benefit of each restriction. And, I think it's appalling that 33,808 motor vehicle deaths are considered routine and not an urgent call to action.

I had thought about clarifying that a significant number of the 31,000 gun deaths were a result of suicide, but I would have gone off on a bit of a tangent. I still think a decrease in the number of suicides could be made if mental health professionals could "yellow flag" certain patients so they could be informed if their patient attempts to purchase a gun. Even if they still attempt suicide, most methods just aren't as effective as guns.

If you look at motor vehicle deaths, and look at motor vehicle deaths per mile over time (the stat to use if you're actually looking at the riskiness of driving over time), it's a very cool graph, and a constantly declining number. This is precisely because of relentless government intervention: mandated seat belt inclusion, air bags, stability controls, antilock breaks, mandated use of seat belts, enforcement of drunk driving laws, graduated license requirements, etc. Granted, it's still a lot of people, but do the math and calculate how many people would be killed each year if we were all driving the same miles in cars from 1960.

I think the "yellow flag" idea by a patient's health care professional is a good idea, but one that would face huge obstacles. Classically, patients with bipolar disorders..typically, off their meds..have a propensity for committing suicide. Males have a tendency to do this with guns. But good luck constructing a law notifying gun sellers across the country that Mr X shouldn't be buying a gun ( because he's crazy).

Yeah, it'll never happen, but you can imagine how it might work if there was a waiting period before buying a gun. If I was a psychiatrist and had a patient with bipolar disorder, I would want to know if my patient was trying to buy a gun. I got the idea from Australia or Japan (I forget which one) - to get a permit you have to show up with two acquaintances to vouch for you. Basically, two people to show up and say, "Yeah, this guy is not just pissed at his ex."

(12-17-2012 09:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I was more trying to state that, while businesses can't directly wield power the way politicians can, they still have tools to make sure that their interests are seen to, and that their motives can be just as selfish as politicians'.
There are people with questionable motives/ethics/practices in all areas of society. If there weren't the world would be a much happier place.

I was more making the point that politicians--and more especially unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats--have motives that are just as questionable as businesses. Plus powers to hurt me in ways that businesses cannot.

This is where I have a fundamental difference with those on the left. The idea that government is the solution rests necessarily on the proposition that government--politicians and bureaucrats--will put the public good ahead of private gain. Otherwise, they are no better than Enron, only with more power.

Good points and understandable.

The reason why the right sometimes makes me scratch my head is that they believe the free market solves all. While it works great for a number of things, if it wasn't for some needed gov't oversight rivers might still be catching on fire today.

(12-17-2012 09:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Cars are unquestionably a utilitarian device that are designed precisely *not* to kill people, unlike many guns/ammo. Further, the rate of car accidents has been dropping for years precisely because of government intervention, beginning with the mandating of seat belt inclusion in cars. As for alcohol, we've tried prohibition. It didn't work. And again, no one here is advocating for a gun prohibition. It's worth noting, too, that driving while intoxicated has only become socially unacceptable in the last few decades - because of the tireless work of organizations that weren't seeking to ban alcohol - leading to a further decline in deaths. Gun deaths have been on the decline on the whole, but as part of a larger pattern in a decrease in crime. But what are the pro-gun lobby forces doing to further decrease the deaths.

And finally, to return to your example of cars, most people who die in car accidents are in cars. They've accepted some level of risk by being in that car. I shouldn't have to assume the risk for your gun ownership.

Tautological argument. I'm a safe driver and you run a red light and kill me. Most people who are killed are killed by criminals who should have been denied guns and not by registered and legal owners. You ignored alcohol... AND the fact that cars aren't a Constitutional right, while guns are.

(12-17-2012 09:14 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  How and why is it a constitutional right to allow people to purchase assault rifles and semi-automatic hand guns with 20/50/100 round clips?

It doesn't matter any more than it matters how many abortions someone has... I get your point, but as I said... solve what we agree upon first and penalize someone with a 100 round clip 10yrs and $100,000 if it is misused and see if he doesn't give it up willingly,.

(12-17-2012 09:54 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  Where's the fun in spending 90% of our time talking about what we agree on?

I do want to tackle your "gun free zone" claims. Technically, it might be mostly true. I think you draw entirely the wrong conclusion, though.

Let's start with the Aurora shooting. I'm familiar with it because I've been to that theater dozens of times in the past few years. Until I moved across town in March, that was the first-run theater my wife and I always went to. There may, and I stress may, have been a closer theater to his apartment that was showing Batman that night, but it would have been in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. But the Century 16 is probably the theater he would have gone to normally anyway. One, it was not that far from where he lived. Two, tix were only $6.50 and refreshments weren't outrageously priced. And it was a really nice theater. As to the "No guns" sign, I never saw it. I'm not saying it wasn't there, but if I never noticed it, I doubt he did either. Finally, what surprised me was that they didn't have police officers in the theater. As soon as I heard the news, I thought, "Well, I'm sure the cops nabbed him quick." Because there are always 2 cops stationed in the theater. It turns out that they're only there on weekends, and that a midnight showing on Thursday night didn't count as a weekend. (This is the source of a lawsuit.) I've been there weeknights, and had never noticed the lack of police (sometimes they're patrolling down the halls, they're not always in the lobby), and had certainly never pieced together their weeknight/weekend schedule. Again, I doubt he did, either. Regardless, even if police had been stationed in the lobby, it probably wouldn't have dissuaded him. It's not like he was going back to his apartment at that point.

As to some other shootings: Ft. Hood was certainly not a "gun free" area. Columbine was, but not because the killers were seeking a gun free area, so much as that was where the people they wanted to kill were. Same with Virginia Tech. The guy that shot the Sikh temple was just a crazy racist, not a strategic planner. I'm not even going to hazard a guess as to why this Lanza guy selected this school.

There's no way that every single killing since 1950 of more than 3 people being in a gun-free zone is coincidence.

No way

And absolutely the Ft Hood situation is a perfect example... He could have shot them anywhere on the base, but he chose a target rich and relatively low risk spot. The guy who shot Giffords, Lennon, Reagan/Brady etc etc etc.... did something else. People who want to kill lots of people plan these things out... even if they are "crazy".

(12-17-2012 10:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I was more trying to state that, while businesses can't directly wield power the way politicians can, they still have tools to make sure that their interests are seen to, and that their motives can be just as selfish as politicians'.
There are people with questionable motives/ethics/practices in all areas of society. If there weren't the world would be a much happier place.

I was more making the point that politicians--and more especially unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats--have motives that are just as questionable as businesses. Plus powers to hurt me in ways that businesses cannot.

This is where I have a fundamental difference with those on the left. The idea that government is the solution rests necessarily on the proposition that government--politicians and bureaucrats--will put the public good ahead of private gain. Otherwise, they are no better than Enron, only with more power.

Good points and understandable.

The reason why the right sometimes makes me scratch my head is that they believe the free market solves all. While it works great for a number of things, if it wasn't for some needed gov't oversight rivers might still be catching on fire today.

Nicely put. Capitalism is great stuff and all, but it's just profit maximizing. It doesn't seek solutions that are both profit maximizing and sustainable. Or maximize profits and social benefits.

(12-17-2012 10:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The reason why the right sometimes makes me scratch my head is that they believe the free market solves all.

I'm not sure it is accurate to describe the rightist position as "the free market solves all". It might be more accurate to describe it as a presumption that, for many perceived ills, a governmental cure may well be more dangerous than simply tolerating the ill. Many of our constitutional amendments (notably including the criminal procedure amendments) stem directly from this belief.

Underlying this presumption is the premise that government cannot be relied on to be well-meaning.* Others might say that this premise is unfounded, but I suppose history can be the judge.

Of course, a presumption is not supposed to be a conclusion. It is indeed frustrating when people go from presumption to conclusion, without the usual intervening steps of reason and evidence.

*More properly, no concentration of power can be relied on to be virtuous. If government is uniquely distrusted by rightists, it is because government has certain unique monopolies of power and is distinctly not subject to competition.

(12-17-2012 10:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  There's no way that every single killing since 1950 of more than 3 people being in a gun-free zone is coincidence.

No way

It's also a bogus stat. Just Google "quadruple homicide" and watch the results pile up. Here's one: Quadruple homicide in Durham back in 2005. Four victims shot "execution-style" in a private residence. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8651634/

Edit: I actually found the article you're talking about - it's here: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/conce...1.1121161. The actual claim the author makes is that every public-area shooting that has resulted in three or more deaths has been in a gun-free area. Even so, I'm not convinced it's legit. Here's a quadruple murder of all the employees of a motorcycle shop in South Carolina: http://www.amw.com/features/feature_stor...294&mid=0, with no mention of it being a "gun-free" zone. And here's a quadruple murder in Wichita that took place in a "field" that may have been privately owned, but not by the murderer or his victims. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94688&..._sDbSVi2w. Yeah, sure, technically it's not a "public" place, but it wasn't exactly "private," either, so I'm not sure how it really helps the author's contention.

(12-17-2012 10:56 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  Nicely put. Capitalism is great stuff and all, but it's just profit maximizing. It doesn't seek solutions that are both profit maximizing and sustainable. Or maximize profits and social benefits.

Historically, it is the artificial balkanization of markets that has made populations precarious, and it is command economies that lead the way in human misery.

The liberation of markets has done more to sustain humanity and raise living standards than almost any other force in the history of man.

Of course, it is not the intention of market participants to do so -- that is merely the aggregate result. But then, why judge things by actual results when you can judge them by their officially declared intent?

(12-17-2012 10:56 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  Nicely put. Capitalism is great stuff and all, but it's just profit maximizing. It doesn't seek solutions that are both profit maximizing and sustainable. Or maximize profits and social benefits.

Which, of course, explains why life in the Soviet Union was so much better than life in the United States.

Actually, it's government that doesn't look at solutions that are both utility maximizing and sustainable. For politicians, it's what can we squeeze out of it between now and the next election. And for bureaucrats, it's all about consolidating power, with little or no regard for results.

If you look at the long term instead of the short term, profit maximization requires sustainability.

(12-17-2012 10:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Cars are unquestionably a utilitarian device that are designed precisely *not* to kill people, unlike many guns/ammo. Further, the rate of car accidents has been dropping for years precisely because of government intervention, beginning with the mandating of seat belt inclusion in cars. As for alcohol, we've tried prohibition. It didn't work. And again, no one here is advocating for a gun prohibition. It's worth noting, too, that driving while intoxicated has only become socially unacceptable in the last few decades - because of the tireless work of organizations that weren't seeking to ban alcohol - leading to a further decline in deaths. Gun deaths have been on the decline on the whole, but as part of a larger pattern in a decrease in crime. But what are the pro-gun lobby forces doing to further decrease the deaths.

And finally, to return to your example of cars, most people who die in car accidents are in cars. They've accepted some level of risk by being in that car. I shouldn't have to assume the risk for your gun ownership.

Tautological argument. I'm a safe driver and you run a red light and kill me. Most people who are killed are killed by criminals who should have been denied guns and not by registered and legal owners. You ignored alcohol... AND the fact that cars aren't a Constitutional right, while guns are.

(12-17-2012 09:14 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  How and why is it a constitutional right to allow people to purchase assault rifles and semi-automatic hand guns with 20/50/100 round clips?

It doesn't matter any more than it matters how many abortions someone has... I get your point, but as I said... solve what we agree upon first and penalize someone with a 100 round clip 10yrs and $100,000 if it is misused and see if he doesn't give it up willingly,.

(12-17-2012 09:54 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote:  Where's the fun in spending 90% of our time talking about what we agree on?

I do want to tackle your "gun free zone" claims. Technically, it might be mostly true. I think you draw entirely the wrong conclusion, though.

Let's start with the Aurora shooting. I'm familiar with it because I've been to that theater dozens of times in the past few years. Until I moved across town in March, that was the first-run theater my wife and I always went to. There may, and I stress may, have been a closer theater to his apartment that was showing Batman that night, but it would have been in a pretty sketchy neighborhood. But the Century 16 is probably the theater he would have gone to normally anyway. One, it was not that far from where he lived. Two, tix were only $6.50 and refreshments weren't outrageously priced. And it was a really nice theater. As to the "No guns" sign, I never saw it. I'm not saying it wasn't there, but if I never noticed it, I doubt he did either. Finally, what surprised me was that they didn't have police officers in the theater. As soon as I heard the news, I thought, "Well, I'm sure the cops nabbed him quick." Because there are always 2 cops stationed in the theater. It turns out that they're only there on weekends, and that a midnight showing on Thursday night didn't count as a weekend. (This is the source of a lawsuit.) I've been there weeknights, and had never noticed the lack of police (sometimes they're patrolling down the halls, they're not always in the lobby), and had certainly never pieced together their weeknight/weekend schedule. Again, I doubt he did, either. Regardless, even if police had been stationed in the lobby, it probably wouldn't have dissuaded him. It's not like he was going back to his apartment at that point.

As to some other shootings: Ft. Hood was certainly not a "gun free" area. Columbine was, but not because the killers were seeking a gun free area, so much as that was where the people they wanted to kill were. Same with Virginia Tech. The guy that shot the Sikh temple was just a crazy racist, not a strategic planner. I'm not even going to hazard a guess as to why this Lanza guy selected this school.

There's no way that every single killing since 1950 of more than 3 people being in a gun-free zone is coincidence.

No way

And absolutely the Ft Hood situation is a perfect example... He could have shot them anywhere on the base, but he chose a target rich and relatively low risk spot. The guy who shot Giffords, Lennon, Reagan/Brady etc etc etc.... did something else. People who want to kill lots of people plan these things out... even if they are "crazy".

I'm calling hooey on your original claim of fact. Go look at this map of mass shootings in the last 30 years: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012...otings-map

Numerous workplace shootings are on the map. Unless you have some evidence that these were gun free workplaces, I'd call that claim doubtful. What about the 4 police officers killed in the coffee shop in Seattle? That doesn't meet your criteria. The apartment shooting in Crandon, WI probably doesn't meet it, either. And again, if there was a "no guns" sign at the Century 16 in Aurora (and that is a giant IF, considering a regular attendee (me) never saw it and I've got big doubts as to the info you're getting on this subject), show me some evidence to back this up. Because I've just looked up where the first run theaters are in Denver, and I now know that there weren't closer movie theaters showing Batman that night, because the Century 16 is the only first run theater in that part of town. So we know he didn't bypass other, closer theaters that lacked this sign. If you want to continue with your original claim, fine, but you need to back it up with some evidence. (Also, the red dots labeled spree killings generally don't line up with your criteria, either.)

Also, you didn't address the Sikh temple shooting. Why not? And as for Columbine and VT, I just don't see how these students were thinking that they need to find a gun free area as opposed to thinking that they want to kill their fellow students, and gee, where would they most likely be located? Claiming that Cho didn't venture off-campus is somehow proof of your point is weak.

Finally, as to accepting risk by riding in cars, yes, you do accept a certain level of risk by being in that car. You might be a safe driver. That will reduce your risk. But unless you know the roads you drive on will be free of any other cars, you're accepting the risk that you'll get in an accident caused by someone else. (It's why you carry uninsured driver insurance.) As for the lack of the Constitutional right of driving, WHAT were the Founders thinking when they overlooked that one?

Again, returning to your comments at the top of the post: "Most people who are killed are killed by criminals" - that's kind of the definition what you are when you kill someone. "...and not by registered and legal owners". Return to that map. More than 3/4 of the guns used in the listed attacks were obtained legally.