If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boing Boing)   Why is gun violence research so bad? Here comes the science (and conclusive info that whatever opinion you currently hold is not supported by science). Guns   (boingboing.net) divider line 262
    More: Interesting, gun violence, justifiable homicide, Stanford Law School, domestic violence, Lists of people by belief  
•       •       •

2613 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Feb 2013 at 8:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



262 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-01 11:06:54 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Are you actually arguing that the founding fathers didn't have enough historical examples to realize that rates of, and quality of manufacturing increased as time moved on?

Can we please stop pretending these people were only slightly more knowledgeable than cavemen?


Only if you agree we are still only slightly more knowledgeable than cavemen.

Look at how much judges have to struggle with applying current laws to newer technology, as the law has not yet caught up with technological advances.

Is there any law against recording a person's memories from their mind without their consent? I can foresee that being a possibility. How about a drug that speeds up your thinking to superhuman levels, but causes damaging crashes after long-term use? I can foresee that, too, but right now, it either doesn't exist or isn't commercially available, hence there are no laws against it.
 
2013-03-02 12:13:00 AM

Generation_D: Right, because "Freedom" equals being required to participate in a moron arms race with the gun nut down the street, then hoping I shoot them before they shoot me.

The only one holding me hostage is gun nuts. Not the government, not laws that would *gasp* make me register my gun or pass a test before owning it. Not laws trying to take military grade rapid fire clear a room weapons out of the hands of nutjobs.


You sound paranoid and violent.

dittybopper: That's a perfect example of something that shouldn't have passed the smell test, and it's a textbook case of "Correlation != Causation". There was a gun in the home, but if it wasn't used in the homicide, then you can't say it caused an increase in the risk. It likely was there because the owners perceived (rightly) that they were at some risk unrelated to the gun itself.


In a thread about how there's bad gun research with one side saying that there's a ban on research due to the poor quality of data collection and extrapolation the other side is citing badly done research studies... and they think it proves their point?

Witty_Retort: So $3 million out of $30 million is "the largest single source of funds for gun control advocacy in the United States? Source


Where did you get 30 million regarding gun control advocacy? You're comparing separate numbers. Hmmm.. you looking for work cranking out gun control studies?

Witty_Retort: Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?


VPC is the lobbyist group they directly fund. So they pay people to create the research papers that the other side then advocates with.

You're trying to play semantics but you're not doing it elegantly.

Witty_Retort: Other than the complete lack of signs of attack on Martin's body. No busted knuckles. No scrapes. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman.


When you're so wrong on such a documented case you should consider your capability to do research severely lacking and review your entire worldview.

ox45tallboy: The problem is that technology has moved the line of the 2nd Amendment far beyond where it was when the Bill of Rights was signed.


Do you really believe the Founders believed that they were at a technological zenith and nothing better than a flintlock would ever come to exist?

ox45tallboy: We have criminals who regularly use their guns against law-abiding people, as well as each other, with law-abiding people getting caught in the crossfire.


Typically they use designs functionally no different than those from only a few decades after they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

ox45tallboy: Is there any law against recording a person's memories from their mind without their consent?


The basis for the law is already in the existing laws dealing with theft and violation of privacy.

How about a drug that speeds up your thinking to superhuman levels, but causes damaging crashes after long-term use?

How would that imperative be any different than for any other drug?
 
2013-03-02 02:23:32 AM

Mrbogey: Do you really believe the Founders believed that they were at a technological zenith and nothing better than a flintlock would ever come to exist?


Of course not. I believe that they, like modern politicians, legislate for the present. They also (with appreciable forethought) left in ways of changing their own ways of doing things in case something happened that they weren't thinking of. They also left in place a system of government called "elections" that allows people to choose representatives to represent their interests in government.

Mrbogey: Typically they use designs functionally no different than those from only a few decades after they wrote the 2nd Amendment.


That's the equivalent of saying a typical modern computer uses designs functionally no different from UNIVAC in the 1950's. Yet there was no reason to legislate anything regarding computer crimes in the 1950's, so why do so now?

Mrbogey: The basis for the law is already in the existing laws dealing with theft and violation of privacy.


Really? Tell that to those who datamine your web searches. Also, tell that to Google and Apple who keep track of your cell phone's location without fully disclosing they are doing so, and in some cases, telling you they are not. There are still no laws making this sort of practice illegal.

Mrbogey: How would that imperative be any different than for any other drug?


Because we have separate legislative definitions of every drug. This is how companies who manufacture "incense" and "spice" for sale at head shops get away with it - they already have the next few formulas ready to go as soon as the current one is outlawed - i.e., as soon as legislation catches up with technology.
 
2013-03-02 07:27:40 AM

ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You can't say you'd be a prohibitionist, because the public doesn't remotely support prohibition of alcohol, and people will realize your position isn't reasonable, or you'll be shown to be inconsistent in your concern for life.

You can't compare my opinions on two different subjects and call me inconsistent when the subjects are different. Hence the phrase, "apples and oranges". My affinity for and consumption of alcohol is simply irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And, very Karl Rove-like, you accuse me of dodging the question when I won't talk about what you attempted to change the subject to, all the while you have refused to answer the question yourself!


I'm not changing the subject at all.  It's a point about a willingness to restrict the public from access to "unnecessary" items which are directly involved in preventable deaths.   You are apparently unwilling to speak against alcohol, which is solely for entertainment and kills 80,000 people per year, and you're very willing to speak against guns which are for self defense and kill 12,000 people per year.  This demonstrates that your concern for life is secondary to your hatred for guns.

To argue that we cannot compare them because they are "apples and oranges" is asinine, and frankly a tired, traditional fark dodge.  What good would comparisons ever be if we were only permitted to compare identical subjects?

ox45tallboy: Is there any law against recording a person's memories from their mind without their consent? I can foresee that being a possibility. How about a drug that speeds up your thinking to superhuman levels, but causes damaging crashes after long-term use? I can foresee that, too, but right now, it either doesn't exist or isn't commercially available, hence there are no laws against it.


Except guns actually existed at the time, they just exist in a more advanced form now than they did.  We have no form of telepathy on the market at this time, and we have no form of cognitive enhancements available at this time.
 
2013-03-02 03:44:38 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'm not changing the subject at all. It's a point about a willingness to restrict the public from access to "unnecessary" items which are directly involved in preventable deaths. You are apparently unwilling to speak against alcohol, which is solely for entertainment and kills 80,000 people per year, and you're very willing to speak against guns which are for self defense and kill 12,000 people per year. This demonstrates that your concern for life is secondary to your hatred for guns.

To argue that we cannot compare them because they are "apples and oranges" is asinine, and frankly a tired, traditional fark dodge. What good would comparisons ever be if we were only permitted to compare identical subjects?


It's simply not a valid comparison, and irrelevant to the discussion. And it's rather silly for you to accuse me of "dodging the question" when you are the one who still refuses to answer mine.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: and we have no form of cognitive enhancements available at this time.


The manufacturers of Adderall would like a word with you.
 
2013-03-02 05:12:15 PM

ox45tallboy: They also left in place a system of government called "elections" that allows people to choose representatives to represent their interests in government.


Really? You're going to talk down to me when you're the one who is ignorant?

ox45tallboy: That's the equivalent of saying a typical modern computer uses designs functionally no different from UNIVAC in the 1950's. Yet there was no reason to legislate anything regarding computer crimes in the 1950's, so why do so now?


Well either you're ignorant of how computers work or you're ignorant of how guns work. A modern computer using silicon and transistors with a GUI interface is different than a vacuum tube operated computational machine. Meanwhile a revolver built in 2013 functions almost exactly like a revolver built in 1836 with minor refinements for accuracy, ergonomics, and safety. You could literally drop a revolver from 2013 into the hands of a person from 1836 and vice versa and there would be functional confusion.

ox45tallboy: Really? Tell that to those who datamine your web searches. Also, tell that to Google and Apple who keep track of your cell phone's location without fully disclosing they are doing so, and in some cases, telling you they are not. There are still no laws making this sort of practice illegal.


You didn't mention those you mentioned directly pulling information from a person. And all of those other things you just mentioned in your laborious attempt to move the goalposts are all based upon agreements you made or public space activities. Vastly different than taking things from your person.

ox45tallboy: Because we have separate legislative definitions of every drug.


But the legislative basis is still there.

You're just not getting this because you're willfully trying to not educate yourself on the subjects you pontificate upon.
 
2013-03-02 08:55:10 PM

Mrbogey: Really? You're going to talk down to me when you're the one who is ignorant?


No, I'm going to talk down to you when it is you who stooped to calling me ignorant instead of rationally debating the topic.

Mrbogey: Well either you're ignorant of how computers work or you're ignorant of how guns work. A modern computer using silicon and transistors with a GUI interface is different than a vacuum tube operated computational machine. Meanwhile a revolver built in 2013 functions almost exactly like a revolver built in 1836 with minor refinements for accuracy, ergonomics, and safety. You could literally drop a revolver from 2013 into the hands of a person from 1836 and vice versa and there would be functional confusion.


Wow. You just called me ignorant of the way computers work.

Mrbogey: But the legislative basis is still there.

You're just not getting this because you're willfully trying to not educate yourself on the subjects you pontificate upon.


That's interesting. Yes, the legislative basis is there, but it is easily worked around by selling a product as "bath salts" or "spice" and labeling it "not intended for human consumption" even though it is.

Look dude, I'm not in favor of taking up guns from people. Go have that debate with someone who is. I am merely in favor of rational limitations to private ownership of guns - such as banning fully automatic weapons. Any limitation we enact should be done by eliminating only new sales, and letting already existing weapons/magazines gradually decline on their own.
 
2013-03-02 09:41:29 PM

ox45tallboy: No, I'm going to talk down to you when it is you who stooped to calling me ignorant instead of rationally debating the topic.


First, I asked you to consider the notion that it'd be ridiculous to believe that the founders didn't consider technology updates. You then came back with the smarmy "something called an election" prattle.

I want to discuss the issue with rationality. You apparently want to win the argument and you don't care what card you have to deal to "win".

ox45tallboy: Wow. You just called me ignorant of the way computers work.


Actually I posited an OR statement. You made a fallacious comparison which betrays a lack of understanding of one or the other.

ox45tallboy: Yes, the legislative basis is there, but it is easily worked around by selling a product as "bath salts" or "spice" and labeling it "not intended for human consumption" even though it is.


No, it's not. The mislabeling is intended to slow down the regulatory catch but once the feds realize the scam they can put it on a schedule list. State's usually do so first while the feds get around to it. I believe Canada added it to their Schedule listing already.

ox45tallboy: I am merely in favor of rational limitations to private ownership of guns - such as banning fully automatic weapons.


So you think our existing laws are fine because the few FA weapons for sale dwindle each year due to the ban on manufacture. Great, you've gotten your way. It must be why legally sold FA weaponry aren't used in crimes and haven't been for decades.

ox45tallboy: Any limitation we enact should be done by eliminating only new sales, and letting already existing weapons/magazines gradually decline on their own.


In other words, a limitation not to stop crime but to fool gun owners into losing via attrition.

Let me ask you, when you advocate for such a move, do you really think you're having an earnest discussion? You may as well start off every argument with "listen up you mouth breathers. I have no respect for you though since I'm smarter than you, I expect you all to do as I say." The honesty would get you further.
 
2013-03-02 11:47:42 PM

Mrbogey: First, I asked you to consider the notion that it'd be ridiculous to believe that the founders didn't consider technology updates. You then came back with the smarmy "something called an election" prattle.

I want to discuss the issue with rationality. You apparently want to win the argument and you don't care what card you have to deal to "win".


Actually, this isn't about "winning." I'm genuinely curious about other people's opinions. I believe that I have come to my own opinions through rational thought, and I believe that most other people have come to their own conclusions through rational thought. I don't believe that you have convinced me at this point that your opinion has a sound, rational basis, but I am continuing this conversation because I do believe that you might eventually convince me of that.

Mrbogey: Actually I posited an OR statement. You made a fallacious comparison which betrays a lack of understanding of one or the other.


I don't see that as fallacious. I think that my dismissal of your allegation that I do not understand computers is not fair to the debate. The computers did exist, yet computer crime did not.

Mrbogey: ox45tallboy: Yes, the legislative basis is there, but it is easily worked around by selling a product as "bath salts" or "spice" and labeling it "not intended for human consumption" even though it is.

No, it's not. The mislabeling is intended to slow down the regulatory catch but once the feds realize the scam they can put it on a schedule list. State's usually do so first while the feds get around to it. I believe Canada added it to their Schedule listing already.


That doesn't account for the fact that the manufacturers have more formulas ready to go as soon as these are outlawed. That was the point I was trying to make - that technology outpaces legislation.

Mrbogey: So you think our existing laws are fine because the few FA weapons for sale dwindle each year due to the ban on manufacture. Great, you've gotten your way. It must be why legally sold FA weaponry aren't used in crimes and haven't been for decades.


No, that isn't what I said at all, and you know that. However, FA weapons are rarely used in crime nowadays since they simply aren't available.

Mrbogey: Let me ask you, when you advocate for such a move, do you really think you're having an earnest discussion? You may as well start off every argument with "listen up you mouth breathers. I have no respect for you though since I'm smarter than you, I expect you all to do as I say." The honesty would get you further


Whoa, hang on a second. I have NEVER, in any thread, acted in that way towards gun control. Please look back over what I have posted, then Google my username with site:fark.com and look at those posts. I don't believe you can look at my posts (except towards obvious trolls) and come to that conclusion.

I really do believe that I have reached my conclusions based on rational assessment of the facts available. However, I accept that I may not have had all of the available data at hand when I reached those conclusions, and that is why I continue to talk about it. I am accepting of the fact that I may be wrong, but I really do believe I have a rational basis for my conclusions.
 
2013-03-03 01:27:39 AM

ox45tallboy: Mrbogey: So you think our existing laws are fine because the few FA weapons for sale dwindle each year due to the ban on manufacture. Great, you've gotten your way. It must be why legally sold FA weaponry aren't used in crimes and haven't been for decades.

No, that isn't what I said at all, and you know that. However, FA weapons are rarely used in crime nowadays since they simply aren't available.


There are 250K NFA automatic weapons, let alone any other type of weapon governed by the 1934 NFA. There are plenty available for crime but the only one was committed by a cop in Ohio to kill his CI. Do some research before you talk.

ox45tallboy: Mrbogey: Let me ask you, when you advocate for such a move, do you really think you're having an earnest discussion? You may as well start off every argument with "listen up you mouth breathers. I have no respect for you though since I'm smarter than you, I expect you all to do as I say." The honesty would get you further

Whoa, hang on a second. I have NEVER, in any thread, acted in that way towards gun control. Please look back over what I have posted, then Google my username with site:fark.com and look at those posts. I don't believe you can look at my posts (except towards obvious trolls) and come to that conclusion.

I really do believe that I have reached my conclusions based on rational assessment of the facts available. However, I accept that I may not have had all of the available data at hand when I reached those conclusions, and that is why I continue to talk about it. I am accepting of the fact that I may be wrong, but I really do believe I have a rational basis for my conclusions.


That's pretty much what Feinstein and Lautenberg said.
 
2013-03-03 03:22:26 PM

redmid17: There are 250K NFA automatic weapons, let alone any other type of weapon governed by the 1934 NFA. There are plenty available for crime but the only one was committed by a cop in Ohio to kill his CI. Do some research before you talk


You just posted a statistic that proved my point - that FA weapons are rarely used in crimes. The hoops one has to jump through in order to obtain one make it so that very, very few are available to criminals on the black market.

redmid17: That's pretty much what Feinstein and Lautenberg said.


Ummm....okay.
 
2013-03-03 05:24:20 PM

ox45tallboy: redmid17: There are 250K NFA automatic weapons, let alone any other type of weapon governed by the 1934 NFA. There are plenty available for crime but the only one was committed by a cop in Ohio to kill his CI. Do some research before you talk

You just posted a statistic that proved my point - that FA weapons are rarely used in crimes. The hoops one has to jump through in order to obtain one make it so that very, very few are available to criminals on the black market.


I was saying they aren't used in crime, not rarely. The ATF director actually testified that he only knew of ten that had ever occurred and they were almost entirely a result of an NFA weapon owner not filing the paperwork before transporting the gun across state lines. I wasn't trying to undermine your point. Even when the NFA weapon stock was rising before the 86 ban, they were not used in crime.
 
Displayed 12 of 262 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report