Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[Romans 13:3]

The problem with the data above, from what I can tell, is that they relied on participant response.  That is unless someone knows about the methodologies, admittedly  I did not read the underlying studies.   

[dairygirl4u2c]

im not so sure gangs are the main culprit, over just tempermental man having a gun in his house.

 

but even if it were true.... that doesmt we dont try reducing it to zero on that point, as even u seem to be admitting we can do. if we can why dont we?

 

also im not sure ya can ban tempermental man altogether... but that dont mean we cant ban them from violent prone or past criminals even if they arent habitual etc

 

also it;s mot too much to assume that tempermental folks who kill themself and loved ones also commit crimes to others sometimes too. as much as implied by the studies.

 

EDIT: i giuess if 50% are habitual offenders..... u are prob right it's more from professional criminals than tempermental folks (gang might not be what you were necessarily getting at

Edited February 20, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Romans 13:3]

Allow me to highlight the matter with absurdity:

 

We can mostly agree that out-of wedlock births are problematic for our society.  Why not equip all unmarried persons with chastity devices?  Isn't that an example of government action to solve a problem?

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's not a very good example. out of wedlock births only affect the parents (one might argue it affects the kid too.... but they are being done a favor being born instead of not regardless of the situation, and it's more of a family issue) and not innocent other people, nonfamly non anythng that should be affected. guns affect everyone.

to counter an often cited one. why not ban cars cause of drunk divers? we do.... we ban from drunks and those who abuse it. just like we ban gun from violent and those who abuse it. but no we dont ban cars like we dont ban guns either

[Romans 13:3]

The out of wedlock birth effect society as a whole from draws on the tax base to all the assorted statistical analysis showing the various problems that come from it.  And the people you mentioned, too.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i see the point, but id say it hits the parents more directly (and they arent all welfare drawers etc either-- and we dont have to provide for them if we dont want to, thats just our choice as a society), and i still say it's ,ore of a family issue. it affects those who are responsinle for it.... the parents. gun victims arent in any way responsible or tied to it. at least with out of wedlock births people arent dying.... esp innocents

id still say your example is too strained. wed have to just agree to disagree if ya dont agree with this

 

also people shold be free to have kids exercise that freedom. gun abuserers shpuldnt have rights.

Edited February 20, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's more like, society wants to run a background check on all car owners... see if they are past drunk drivers or abusers etc. why dont you guys get up and arns about that? isnt driving a right as much as guns are (i realize conventonal wisdom says driiving is a prvlege and guns a right but they seem the same to me

[Romans 13:3]

Yes, driving is a privilege, as you said.  Right to arms is a guaranteed by the Constitution.  Fact is, felons can't have guns but they do.  Drivers with suspended licences can't drive, but they do.  Might want to see if you can find number of death attributed to impaired drivers...  I don't have it handy.

[Winchester]

Yes, driving is a privilege, as you said.  Right to arms is a guaranteed by the Constitution.  Fact is, felons can't have guns but they do.  Drivers with suspended licences can't drive, but they do.  Might want to see if you can find number of death attributed to impaired drivers...  I don't have it handy.

 

The Second merely forbids the Federal government from abridging the (pre-existing) right to keep and bear arms. Thus, the ATF is an unconstitutional organization, and none of its acts are lawful. This also means the Heller decision was asinine. A perpetuation of the incorporation myth. Local and state powers are free (from a constitutional standpoint) to violate the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Driving is a right, too. On your property, you're free to drive. Because the government owns the roads, it sets the rules for permission to use them. Of course, the rhetoric is that roads are "public" property. Obviously, they aren't.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Winchester

[4588686]

So how do you suggest we deal with climate change. Not how would Austrian economics have magically never had any problem with negative externalities but right now, if we could abolish government, reinstate gold, decide to protect millionaires and billionaires from inflation at all costs to working people et cetera how would we deal with corporate externalities?

[Winchester]

Oh dear, someone appears to have broken Hasan.

[dairygirl4u2c]

can see the privlege v right idea but id say its at east a better analogy than the wedlock thing.
win touched on it...  roads etc are sorta all ours

 

itd help too if i could better wrap my mind around whats so objectionable about background checks? or if ARs are just fancy pistols and they took away ARs i m ean they sholudnt but ud stull have pistols etc. or licenses for pistols aint much different than for cars etc. why are tehse such big deals?

i can see if they wanted ti take ya guns but hardly no one does.

my guess is most feel objectionable to it out of duty to party.... cookie cutter conservatives who must also be conservative jere too.

aint about ideokgy to me.... practical weighing of rights etcetc

[4588686]

Oh dear, someone appears to have broken Hasan.

 

Winchester appears to be avoiding difficult questions.  

[Winchester]

Winchester appears to be avoiding difficult questions.  

 

They weren't really questions. They were bizarre assumptions based on the typical Statist delusion in Utopia. You assume that anyone questioning the status quo is proposing some other Utopia. I'm not. I've repeatedly explained to you that I've taken a normative position. This is alien to you, because you're utilitarian. It will never make sense, to you. It's different from your worldview.

[4588686]

They weren't really questions. They were bizarre assumptions based on the typical Statist delusion in Utopia. You assume that anyone questioning the status quo is proposing some other Utopia. I'm not. I've repeatedly explained to you that I've taken a normative position. This is alien to you, because you're utilitarian. It will never make sense, to you. It's different from your worldview.

 

 

You can take a normative position and still work to get a society as asymptotically close to that vision as possible.  If you don't do that then what's the point of having any normative position at all?