User Tag List

First 125260616263 Last

Results 611 to 620 of 623

  1. #611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Especially when those restrictions are unlikely to diminish the deaths caused by mass shootings.
    Agreed. The idea of stricter gun control makes me feel about as much safer as the TSA does. Which is about zero.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  2. #612
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    Agreed. The idea of stricter gun control makes me feel about as much safer as the TSA does. Which is about zero.
    What's even more funny is that these restrictions are rendered almost completely moot by including a grandfather clause.

    It doesn't reduce the number of weapons. It just slows down the increase of weapons (mostly irrelevant weapons, but the point being that the restriction doesn't fail just once, but twice)

  3. #613
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    It doesn't reduce the number of weapons. It just slows down the increase of weapons (mostly irrelevant weapons, but the point being that the restriction doesn't fail just once, but twice)
    It depends on how it is done. Would it work in the States? Never. Did it work elsewhere? Many times.

    The US is stuck in an equilibrium in which you have too many weapons, so everyone else needs weapons, which means that reducing weapons only victimizes those that turns them in. It's a worse equilibrium than most of the rest of the world, but it's very very difficult to jump from one equilibrium to the other.

    As for making me feel safer, solving the problems, etc. It's a severity problem primarily.

  4. #614
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    It depends on how it is done. Would it work in the States? Never. Did it work elsewhere? Many times.

    The US is stuck in an equilibrium in which you have too many weapons, so everyone else needs weapons, which means that reducing weapons only victimizes those that turns them in. It's a worse equilibrium than most of the rest of the world, but it's very very difficult to jump from one equilibrium to the other.

    As for making me feel safer, solving the problems, etc. It's a severity problem primarily.
    The key point there being the grandfather clause. This means if you already have it, you keep it. Therefore existing weapons do not significantly decrease.

    So it really doesn't depend because I'm speaking of that specifically. Yes, it depends if you don't have that, but then it's also a different story too.

  5. #615
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    The key point there being the grandfather clause. This means if you already have it, you keep it. Therefore existing weapons do not significantly decrease.

    So it really doesn't depend because I'm speaking of that specifically. Yes, it depends if you don't have that, but then it's also a different story too.
    Well, the more limits you put on it, the worse it'll be. GF clauses are bill specific, AFAIK? It's not a given that gun control bills would have one (although I believe the last one GFed people in some time in the 90s, so there would be a degree of it even now). Anyway, I agree with you over the clause. It would have a small difference on ownership immediately, and a progressively larger one as time went on.

    The central problem isn't ownership though, it's availability. Any location that has widely available firearms (by any means) settles into the equilibrium of everyone needing firearms. It's not even a question of legality. An otherwise draconian gun control bill that GF all legal arms would have significant improvements relatively quickly - so long as the influx of arms was cut off and the seizing of illegal arms (specifically not GFed through licences) could occur, it'd likely be pretty successful. As times go on, and availability goes down, the requirement for everyone to arm themselves would also decrease, and you'd be settling into the new equilibrium.

  6. #616
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @ptgatsby

    I'm referring to specific bills, so yeah.

    Edit:
    Also there's 270 million guns in the US. We're saturated already, and the 1994 ban kind of shows that the decrease over time theory does not work with the bill that Feinstein is trying to put through again (she was responsible for the last one that did not work)

  7. #617
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    @ptgatsby

    I'm referring to specific bills, so yeah.

    Edit:
    Also there's 270 million guns in the US. We're saturated already, and the 1994 ban kind of shows that the decrease over time theory does not work with the bill that Feinstein is trying to put through again (she was responsible for the last one that did not work)
    Oh, no disagreement then, at all. Gun control in the US is "feasible", as in possible, but not feasible in the political and social environment that exists. The effort required would be too costly; removing the sheer amount of guns per person is a mammoth undertaking. Better to live with the current non-ideal equilibrium and focus on something else.

    The "real" fifty year plan would be to cut off the influx of guns, dropping down the aggregate availability (manufacturing/imports + cost driven up on ownership) over several decades, followed by a couple of decades of stronger specific gun control. Seems unlikely at this point though.

  8. #618
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Oh, no disagreement then, at all. Gun control in the US is "feasible", as in possible, but not feasible in the political and social environment that exists. The effort required would be too costly; removing the sheer amount of guns per person is a mammoth undertaking. Better to live with the current non-ideal equilibrium and focus on something else.

    The "real" fifty year plan would be to cut off the influx of guns, dropping down the aggregate availability (manufacturing/imports + cost driven up on ownership) over several decades, followed by a couple of decades of stronger specific gun control. Seems unlikely at this point though.
    What I think might be effective is if we enact a safety and shoot-to-qualify test for each gun type that you own. Every 6 months for pistol class, and once a year for longarm class. I think that would make for more responsible ownership, and bring the community together.

    Basically you'd take your weapon of choice to a range, do a safety test, and then shoot at targets for performance (mainly concentrating on awareness and range protocol)

  9. #619
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Basically you'd take your weapon of choice to a range, do a safety test, and then shoot at targets for performance (mainly concentrating on awareness and range protocol)
    I think it would be entirely ineffective as far as gun control goes. Responsible people are responsible. It's the aggregate/social availability that is responsible for the negative side effects.

    Still a good idea though.

  10. #620
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I think it would be entirely ineffective as far as gun control goes. Responsible people are responsible. It's the aggregate/social availability that is responsible for the negative side effects.

    Still a good idea though.
    It would cut down on that too by making it less appealing to own one. There would probably be a lot of turn-ins from people who aren't willing to jump through hoops.

Similar Threads

  1. Yet Another Shooting
    By MacGuffin in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 08:55 AM
  2. Another shooting, seven dead
    By MacGuffin in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 06:45 PM
  3. Yet ANOTHER police shooting on New Years eve
    By kendoiwan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:16 PM
  4. Another INTJ, woohoo!
    By Metamorphosis in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-10-2007, 08:19 PM
  5. Another Forum?
    By "?" in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-02-2007, 11:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO