Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Gun Thread
Author Message
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #41
RE: The Gun Thread
The danger is a de-facto ban in the long run as opposed to actually taking the required explicit steps to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

No offense, but progressives are absolute professionals at deep sixing explicit laws and Constitutional provisions bit by bit and through ways other than actually as spelled out within the law.

Its for the kids, you know.....

Quote:considering that we have a LONG way to go before that happens, compared to every other country’s gun laws.

When you actually come to the understanding that the Brady Bill was nothing more than an 'it looks nasty' bill with zero thought as to the functionality of the banned firearms, you might reconsider that statement.
02-16-2018 10:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #42
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 10:33 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Can you all clarify what you mean by “confiscate”? I’m assuming you don’t mean that the US would outlaw guns before any country, considering that we have a LONG way to go before that happens, compared to every other country’s gun laws.


I foresee it as a gradual tightening of restrictions on buying, s Ellinger, owning, and using guns. I foresee penalties for private citizens using guns for defense. When it is finally a torture instead of a delight to have a gun, they will announce. A buyback a la Australia, after which even more draconian restrictions on owning, using, buying, and selling guns will go into force.

At least that is the way I would it if I were an anti gun liberal. Take an inch wherever and whenever I could, never giving it back.
02-16-2018 11:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #43
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 09:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 09:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 09:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 07:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 07:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think of it as a slippery slope - more as an inevitable progression. probably sometime in your lifetime (there I go making assumptions about your age again) you will see the repeal of the second amendment and/or the complete outlawing of guns for the private citizen. If not your lifetime, the lifetime of your grandchildren(another assumption). The population wants to be protected from each other, and they will get what they want.
I really doubt that. Our country is far too rural, and hunting and self protection are far too engrained in our being for there to be a complete repeal of the second amendment, which results in the loss of all abilities for someone to own a gun legally.
And one persons "inevitable progression" is another's "slipper slope." Both lead to the suggestion that nothing should be implemented because of the inevitable outcome.
I think of it as a staircase, in which steps up can happen, but steps back never happen. Say we get a 7 day waiting period. Which do you think the next step will be - 10 days or 3 days.
We are on a one way track. Whether we slip down it or climb up it is irrelevant. Call it the Super escalator for all I care.
Sometimes I wonder if Daniel Boone, Ben. Franklin, or anybody else were suddenly transported to today, if there would be anything they like other than air conditioning.

Here’s the way I see it going. At some point we will pass something—say, gun registration. It will be a huge hassle, and some people will decide that keeping their guns is not worth the hassle, but it won’t have any effect on gun violence, because gun registration has never had a significant impact on gun violence. So in a few years the anti-gun crowd will come back with the next step. And again it will have little or no impact except to make gun ownership even more of a hassle. Step by step, we will get to total confiscation. God help us when we reach that point.

Yep. And when we have confiscated the guns, they will turn to another liberty that cannot be tolerated. My money is on Freedom of Speech.

Your argument is literally the slippery slope argument.
02-17-2018 12:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #44
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 10:33 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Can you all clarify what you mean by “confiscate”? I’m assuming you don’t mean that the US would outlaw guns before any country, considering that we have a LONG way to go before that happens, compared to every other country’s gun laws.


I foresee it as a gradual tightening of restrictions on buying, s Ellinger, owning, and using guns. I foresee penalties for private citizens using guns for defense. When it is finally a torture instead of a delight to have a gun, they will announce. A buyback a la Australia, after which even more draconian restrictions on owning, using, buying, and selling guns will go into force.

At least that is the way I would it if I were an anti gun liberal. Take an inch wherever and whenever I could, never giving it back.

An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?
02-17-2018 12:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #45
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 12:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 10:33 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Can you all clarify what you mean by “confiscate”? I’m assuming you don’t mean that the US would outlaw guns before any country, considering that we have a LONG way to go before that happens, compared to every other country’s gun laws.


I foresee it as a gradual tightening of restrictions on buying, s Ellinger, owning, and using guns. I foresee penalties for private citizens using guns for defense. When it is finally a torture instead of a delight to have a gun, they will announce. A buyback a la Australia, after which even more draconian restrictions on owning, using, buying, and selling guns will go into force.

At least that is the way I would it if I were an anti gun liberal. Take an inch wherever and whenever I could, never giving it back.

An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?

An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2018 12:46 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
02-17-2018 12:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #46
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 10:33 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Can you all clarify what you mean by “confiscate”? I’m assuming you don’t mean that the US would outlaw guns before any country, considering that we have a LONG way to go before that happens, compared to every other country’s gun laws.


I foresee it as a gradual tightening of restrictions on buying, s Ellinger, owning, and using guns. I foresee penalties for private citizens using guns for defense. When it is finally a torture instead of a delight to have a gun, they will announce. A buyback a la Australia, after which even more draconian restrictions on owning, using, buying, and selling guns will go into force.

At least that is the way I would it if I were an anti gun liberal. Take an inch wherever and whenever I could, never giving it back.

An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?

An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...
02-17-2018 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #47
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 10:33 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Can you all clarify what you mean by “confiscate”? I’m assuming you don’t mean that the US would outlaw guns before any country, considering that we have a LONG way to go before that happens, compared to every other country’s gun laws.


I foresee it as a gradual tightening of restrictions on buying, s Ellinger, owning, and using guns. I foresee penalties for private citizens using guns for defense. When it is finally a torture instead of a delight to have a gun, they will announce. A buyback a la Australia, after which even more draconian restrictions on owning, using, buying, and selling guns will go into force.

At least that is the way I would it if I were an anti gun liberal. Take an inch wherever and whenever I could, never giving it back.

An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?

An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...

Do you seriously doubt that the ultimate goal of gun control activists is to confiscate all legal guns? If you do doubt that, then what is their ultimate goal? If you say that the goal is something like “reasonable restrictions” then what happens when those “reasonable restrictions” have no material impact on reducing gun violence? And what if those “reasonable restrictions” prove to have such draconian impacts on legal gun owners that they decide, one by one, to get rid of their guns to avoid the hassle?
02-17-2018 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #48
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 09:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I foresee it as a gradual tightening of restrictions on buying, s Ellinger, owning, and using guns. I foresee penalties for private citizens using guns for defense. When it is finally a torture instead of a delight to have a gun, they will announce. A buyback a la Australia, after which even more draconian restrictions on owning, using, buying, and selling guns will go into force.

At least that is the way I would it if I were an anti gun liberal. Take an inch wherever and whenever I could, never giving it back.

An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?

An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...

Do you seriously doubt that the ultimate goal of gun control activists is to confiscate all legal guns? If you do doubt that, then what is their ultimate goal? If you say that the goal is something like “reasonable restrictions” then what happens when those “reasonable restrictions” have no material impact on reducing gun violence? And what if those “reasonable restrictions” prove to have such draconian impacts on legal gun owners that they decide, one by one, to get rid of their guns to avoid the hassle?

I do seriously doubt that ascension. You’re jumping to rather large conclusions in your assumptions there about the efficacy of regulations, and I would prefer to not do that.
02-17-2018 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #49
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?

An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...

Do you seriously doubt that the ultimate goal of gun control activists is to confiscate all legal guns? If you do doubt that, then what is their ultimate goal? If you say that the goal is something like “reasonable restrictions” then what happens when those “reasonable restrictions” have no material impact on reducing gun violence? And what if those “reasonable restrictions” prove to have such draconian impacts on legal gun owners that they decide, one by one, to get rid of their guns to avoid the hassle?

I do seriously doubt that ascension. You’re jumping to rather large conclusions in your assumptions there about the efficacy of regulations, and I would prefer to not do that.

Not large conclusions at all Lad.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/16/gun-co...d-by-exper

Wash, rinse, repeat for almost all of the near recent rush of proposals for almost every shooting incident. To an almost near perfect record, almost every proposal would have a singular negligible effect, yet these are almost always the proposals that come forth.

And, considering we underwent 10 years of the Brady Bill which was nothing more than a "these look mean' (purely cosmetics), yes, in my experience through the Brady Bill that the proposals actually enacted at a national scale that have had the most profound national impact are indeed and in fact have had a huge and absolutely massive amount of non-efficacy attached to them; in fact an integral feature of them to be specific.

As for 'ascension', I suggest you Google the comments of many of the movers behind the Brady and most of the supporters as how the Brady Bill was nothing more than a good start. Seems to me almost an equivalent of a confession as to intent of wanting and urging more.... and 'seems to be' is being flippant about those comments......

But I guess you were 8 when that happened so it really didnt make a mark with you to the level that it might have with some of us who actually went through that regulation.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2018 10:57 AM by tanqtonic.)
02-17-2018 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #50
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 10:33 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Can you all clarify what you mean by “confiscate”? I’m assuming you don’t mean that the US would outlaw guns before any country, considering that we have a LONG way to go before that happens, compared to every other country’s gun laws.


I foresee it as a gradual tightening of restrictions on buying, s Ellinger, owning, and using guns. I foresee penalties for private citizens using guns for defense. When it is finally a torture instead of a delight to have a gun, they will announce. A buyback a la Australia, after which even more draconian restrictions on owning, using, buying, and selling guns will go into force.

At least that is the way I would it if I were an anti gun liberal. Take an inch wherever and whenever I could, never giving it back.

An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?

An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...

Since the population you want defined is anti-gun, perhaps you will be willing to to proffer a leading libertarian or leading (otherwise) conservative who would be anti-gun.

Sorry Lad, the *vast* majority of the population of anti-gun folks (probably more than 99 per cent) seems to be almost exclusively encamped on liberal side. I dont see how you can argue this point.

Much like most anti-abortion people are rightfully labeled 'right to life' conservatives (or, 'anti-abortion' conservatives).

Moniker fits in both cases.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2018 10:50 AM by tanqtonic.)
02-17-2018 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #51
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?

An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...

Do you seriously doubt that the ultimate goal of gun control activists is to confiscate all legal guns? If you do doubt that, then what is their ultimate goal? If you say that the goal is something like “reasonable restrictions” then what happens when those “reasonable restrictions” have no material impact on reducing gun violence? And what if those “reasonable restrictions” prove to have such draconian impacts on legal gun owners that they decide, one by one, to get rid of their guns to avoid the hassle?

I do seriously doubt that ascension. You’re jumping to rather large conclusions in your assumptions there about the efficacy of regulations, and I would prefer to not do that.

Actually, the conclusions to which I am “jumping” are well supported by empirical data. There is no case where gun registration has accomplished a major reduction in gun violence. As for “assault weapons,” they account for fought you 100 deaths or less per year, so there is no way that even a 100% effective ban could accomplish a meaningful reduction in gun deaths. So to go to my second question, that you failed to address. What do you believe is the objective of the anti-gun activists? Express it in objective and measurable terms, please. Feeling better doesn’t count.
02-17-2018 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #52
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 10:33 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Can you all clarify what you mean by “confiscate”? I’m assuming you don’t mean that the US would outlaw guns before any country, considering that we have a LONG way to go before that happens, compared to every other country’s gun laws.


I foresee it as a gradual tightening of restrictions on buying, s Ellinger, owning, and using guns. I foresee penalties for private citizens using guns for defense. When it is finally a torture instead of a delight to have a gun, they will announce. A buyback a la Australia, after which even more draconian restrictions on owning, using, buying, and selling guns will go into force.

At least that is the way I would it if I were an anti gun liberal. Take an inch wherever and whenever I could, never giving it back.

An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?

An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...


Not all liberals are anti gun, but nearly all anti gun people lean to the left of the political spectrum. Other than joe Manchin, how many Democrats in the Congress could be labeled pro gun? And Joe is hardly a liberal, is he?

I don’t think your point is that anti gun people are randomly distributed over liberal and conservative. Why not just admit the distribution?

Glad to hear you are a pro gun liberal, though.
02-17-2018 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #53
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 10:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...

Do you seriously doubt that the ultimate goal of gun control activists is to confiscate all legal guns? If you do doubt that, then what is their ultimate goal? If you say that the goal is something like “reasonable restrictions” then what happens when those “reasonable restrictions” have no material impact on reducing gun violence? And what if those “reasonable restrictions” prove to have such draconian impacts on legal gun owners that they decide, one by one, to get rid of their guns to avoid the hassle?

I do seriously doubt that ascension. You’re jumping to rather large conclusions in your assumptions there about the efficacy of regulations, and I would prefer to not do that.

Not large conclusions at all Lad.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/16/gun-co...d-by-exper

Wash, rinse, repeat for almost all of the near recent rush of proposals for almost every shooting incident. To an almost near perfect record, almost every proposal would have a singular negligible effect, yet these are almost always the proposals that come forth.

And, considering we underwent 10 years of the Brady Bill which was nothing more than a "these look mean' (purely cosmetics), yes, in my experience through the Brady Bill that the proposals actually enacted at a national scale that have had the most profound national impact are indeed and in fact have had a huge and absolutely massive amount of non-efficacy attached to them; in fact an integral feature of them to be specific.

As for 'ascension', I suggest you Google the comments of many of the movers behind the Brady and most of the supporters as how the Brady Bill was nothing more than a good start. Seems to me almost an equivalent of a confession as to intent of wanting and urging more.... and 'seems to be' is being flippant about those comments......

But I guess you were 8 when that happened so it really didnt make a mark with you to the level that it might have with some of us who actually went through that regulation.

Your link only references this past event, and ignores the affect any of those proposals it references could have had on other shootings in the past, or future.

As I mentioned earlier, any change in regulation shouldn't be looked at as a panacea, but perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good. I don't find the argument that those proposals wouldn't specifically have stopped this one event to be a very compelling argument against looking at and enacting stricter gun control laws.

For example, you could increase the legal age to buy a gun to 21, which would have required the shooter to have bought a gun illegally and risk getting caught doing that. For Vegas (as I referenced earlier), a regulating the amount of ammunition purchased (either a hard cap or flagging someone for investigation) could have potentially affected the outcome there.

I agree that a lot of the proposals are boogie men (like how people single out the AR-15), but I see no reason to completely table gun control because of a few boogie men.
02-17-2018 01:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #54
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...

Do you seriously doubt that the ultimate goal of gun control activists is to confiscate all legal guns? If you do doubt that, then what is their ultimate goal? If you say that the goal is something like “reasonable restrictions” then what happens when those “reasonable restrictions” have no material impact on reducing gun violence? And what if those “reasonable restrictions” prove to have such draconian impacts on legal gun owners that they decide, one by one, to get rid of their guns to avoid the hassle?

I do seriously doubt that ascension. You’re jumping to rather large conclusions in your assumptions there about the efficacy of regulations, and I would prefer to not do that.

Actually, the conclusions to which I am “jumping” are well supported by empirical data. There is no case where gun registration has accomplished a major reduction in gun violence. As for “assault weapons,” they account for fought you 100 deaths or less per year, so there is no way that even a 100% effective ban could accomplish a meaningful reduction in gun deaths. So to go to my second question, that you failed to address. What do you believe is the objective of the anti-gun activists? Express it in objective and measurable terms, please. Feeling better doesn’t count.

I feel that the objective of anti-gun activists is to reduce gun violence by controlling who can legally own a gun. I don't think the vast majority want to completely outlaw all guns - that to me is a construct of the right wing media. There certainly are some out there who want to see a complete gun ban, but I doubt there are more of those than there are of people who want to see no extra gun regulation.

And when you starting talking about research into whether gun control does/doesn't reduce crime, it becomes pretty easy to cherry pick research that supports either side of the debate. It is not clear cut that gun control does or doesn't reduce violent crimes or mass murders, and because it isn't clear cut, I advocate that we attempt to change our current gun laws.

As I said earlier, we shouldn't make it easier for someone to own and operate a gun than it is to own and operate a car. But we must make sure to not get to a point where a responsible person can't own guns for protection, hunting, sport, etc.
02-17-2018 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #55
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 11:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I foresee it as a gradual tightening of restrictions on buying, s Ellinger, owning, and using guns. I foresee penalties for private citizens using guns for defense. When it is finally a torture instead of a delight to have a gun, they will announce. A buyback a la Australia, after which even more draconian restrictions on owning, using, buying, and selling guns will go into force.

At least that is the way I would it if I were an anti gun liberal. Take an inch wherever and whenever I could, never giving it back.

An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?

An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...


Not all liberals are anti gun, but nearly all anti gun people lean to the left of the political spectrum. Other than joe Manchin, how many Democrats in the Congress could be labeled pro gun? And Joe is hardly a liberal, is he?

I don’t think your point is that anti gun people are randomly distributed over liberal and conservative. Why not just admit the distribution?

Glad to hear you are a pro gun liberal, though.

My comment wasn't suggesting there was an even distribution. My comment was more about how trying to label pin the label to one side or the other makes it a tribal issue, and thus one that can't be broached effectively.

Even the idea of labeling someone as pro- and anti-gun does that. There is a middle ground, where nuance, and frankly most Americans, lives. Instead, you are basically trying to sort people into two camps, which are both on the extreme end of the spectrum.

I wouldn't label myself as pro-gun, as I don't really advocate for gun ownership. But I grew up hunting and was taught how to handle a gun properly and give it the respect it deserves. I know how responsible many gun owners are, and I think that we must encourage those people to be the ones who legally obtain firearms. And if it makes it more difficult for them do so, so be it - I have little sympathy for the frustration many have when they complain that further regulation would make it more difficult, but not impossible, to own again.

But like I've said before, an increase in focus on cracking down on illegal gun sales, or whatever future legislation would do, would be paramount.
02-17-2018 01:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #56
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 10:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I foresee it as a gradual tightening of restrictions on buying, s Ellinger, owning, and using guns. I foresee penalties for private citizens using guns for defense. When it is finally a torture instead of a delight to have a gun, they will announce. A buyback a la Australia, after which even more draconian restrictions on owning, using, buying, and selling guns will go into force.

At least that is the way I would it if I were an anti gun liberal. Take an inch wherever and whenever I could, never giving it back.

An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?

An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...

Since the p,opulation you want defined is anti-gun, perhaps you will be willing to to proffer a leading libertarian or leading (otherwise) conservative who would be anti-gun.

Sorry Lad, the *vast* majority of the population of anti-gun folks (probably more than 99 per cent) seems to be almost exclusively encamped on liberal side. I dont see how you can argue this point.

Much like most anti-abortion people are rightfully labeled 'right to life' conservatives (or, 'anti-abortion' conservatives).

Moniker fits in both cases.

David Jolly, a former Republican Congressman, had an interesting take: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dav...4f31d1f615

But see my post to OO about my comment - I wasn't suggesting that the vast majority of people who support more strict gun control fall on the left, I had issue with what framing the conversation like that does. I was not trying to argue the point you thought I was.
02-17-2018 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #57
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And if it makes it more difficult for them do so, so be it - I have little sympathy for the frustration many have when they complain that further regulation would make it more difficult, but not impossible, to own again.

Exactly the attitude the antigun people want to encourage. As soon as we can get a majority of voters who don't care about the minority, we are off down the SS, or up the staircase, or whatever you want to call it.
02-17-2018 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #58
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 10:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...

Do you seriously doubt that the ultimate goal of gun control activists is to confiscate all legal guns? If you do doubt that, then what is their ultimate goal? If you say that the goal is something like “reasonable restrictions” then what happens when those “reasonable restrictions” have no material impact on reducing gun violence? And what if those “reasonable restrictions” prove to have such draconian impacts on legal gun owners that they decide, one by one, to get rid of their guns to avoid the hassle?

I do seriously doubt that ascension. You’re jumping to rather large conclusions in your assumptions there about the efficacy of regulations, and I would prefer to not do that.

Not large conclusions at all Lad.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/16/gun-co...d-by-exper

Wash, rinse, repeat for almost all of the near recent rush of proposals for almost every shooting incident. To an almost near perfect record, almost every proposal would have a singular negligible effect, yet these are almost always the proposals that come forth.

And, considering we underwent 10 years of the Brady Bill which was nothing more than a "these look mean' (purely cosmetics), yes, in my experience through the Brady Bill that the proposals actually enacted at a national scale that have had the most profound national impact are indeed and in fact have had a huge and absolutely massive amount of non-efficacy attached to them; in fact an integral feature of them to be specific.

As for 'ascension', I suggest you Google the comments of many of the movers behind the Brady and most of the supporters as how the Brady Bill was nothing more than a good start. Seems to me almost an equivalent of a confession as to intent of wanting and urging more.... and 'seems to be' is being flippant about those comments......

But I guess you were 8 when that happened so it really didnt make a mark with you to the level that it might have with some of us who actually went through that regulation.

Your link only references this past event, and ignores the affect any of those proposals it references could have had on other shootings in the past, or future.

As I mentioned earlier, any change in regulation shouldn't be looked at as a panacea, but perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good. I don't find the argument that those proposals wouldn't specifically have stopped this one event to be a very compelling argument against looking at and enacting stricter gun control laws.

For example, you could increase the legal age to buy a gun to 21, which would have required the shooter to have bought a gun illegally and risk getting caught doing that. For Vegas (as I referenced earlier), a regulating the amount of ammunition purchased (either a hard cap or flagging someone for investigation) could have potentially affected the outcome there.

I agree that a lot of the proposals are boogie men (like how people single out the AR-15), but I see no reason to completely table gun control because of a few boogie men.

My problem with the vast majority of gun control proposals as not the case of "perfect being the enemy of good" but as a litany of items that have no fing outcome on the issues (or so marginally effective as to be useless).

And the litany is not isolated to the one Reason article, it is proffered as what it typically offered as 'common sense' but in the wake of whatever episode, would have no fing outcome on the episode. I suggest you go back and Google the litany of proposals that followed just about every single occurrence then apply the proposed solution(s) to the occurrence. The stunningly vast majority almost never apply to the occurrence (except that is, the implicit call to just get rid of firearms).

As noted, I have a healthy respect for the people who advocate for the express limitation of firearms to the armed services/ law enforcement (i.e. banners). There are express ways to accomplish that. That proposal would actually affect just about any occurrence. I have come to have zero tolerance for people who thrash about meaningless middle ground 'solutions' that do not bear on any situation. In short, they wish for a ban, but are too chicken to actually advocate for that.

Just for ***** and giggles, compare the Reason 'proposals' to any past shooting occurrence, instead of complaining that Reason only 'compared it to this one'. You went to and graduated Rice, use that grey matter to do that. I do that all the time. It is not that great of a mental leap to do.....

Or I suggest you complain to Reason and force them to do that homework for you in tabular form for your benefit.

As for the proposal of 'raising the age to buy to 21' -- no problem from this quarter. How would this affect Las Vegas, Miami, Bakersfield, etc? No offense, but that proposal would seemingly not even affect Columbine or Sandy Hook. So the proposal wouldnt really have that much of an effect, would it? Granted the impact of 2nd Amendment Rights would also be small, so it might balance out.
02-17-2018 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #59
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 11:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 09:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-17-2018 12:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  An anti-gun liberal. Are you describing all liberals as “anti-gun” or describing a select group of liberals as “anti-gun?”

Again, how is your opinion not based on the idea of a slippery slope?

An anti gun liberal is a liberal who is anti gun. Duh.

Call it slippery slope, or karma, or fate, the end is predetermined.

Do

Why not say just anti-gun then? Your point about the slippery slope of gun restrictions equally applies to anyone who happens to be “anti-gun.” I don’t think there are really that many liberals who fall into that category. The years of NRA campaigning, Republican campaigning, and right wing media reports have resulted in people thinking that the left as a whole hate guns and want to take them away, when that is not at all their position. Just look to how people spoke about Obama or Clinton and how they were going to take your guns...


Not all liberals are anti gun, but nearly all anti gun people lean to the left of the political spectrum. Other than joe Manchin, how many Democrats in the Congress could be labeled pro gun? And Joe is hardly a liberal, is he?

I don’t think your point is that anti gun people are randomly distributed over liberal and conservative. Why not just admit the distribution?

Glad to hear you are a pro gun liberal, though.

My comment wasn't suggesting there was an even distribution. My comment was more about how trying to label pin the label to one side or the other makes it a tribal issue, and thus one that can't be broached effectively.

Even the idea of labeling someone as pro- and anti-gun does that. There is a middle ground, where nuance, and frankly most Americans, lives. Instead, you are basically trying to sort people into two camps, which are both on the extreme end of the spectrum.

I wouldn't label myself as pro-gun, as I don't really advocate for gun ownership. But I grew up hunting and was taught how to handle a gun properly and give it the respect it deserves. I know how responsible many gun owners are, and I think that we must encourage those people to be the ones who legally obtain firearms. And if it makes it more difficult for them do so, so be it - I have little sympathy for the frustration many have when they complain that further regulation would make it more difficult, but not impossible, to own again.

But like I've said before, an increase in focus on cracking down on illegal gun sales, or whatever future legislation would do, would be paramount.

Hate to tellyou Lad, but this *is* a tribal issue, for better or for worse. Not unhealthy to label it as such when it fits.

On your second paragraph, I am all for a Singapore style of intolerance when it comes to violations of gun laws. But, interestingly enough, I have been labeled 'racist' by some for that due to disparate impacts. In that respect it truly is a rock and a hard place, eh?
02-17-2018 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #60
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-17-2018 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For example, you could increase the legal age to buy a gun to 2

Personally, I would rather take the voting age back to 21...or beyond.
02-17-2018 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.