Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    What is that? GDP/capita roughly? Seems about right for cold calculation of a human life.

    Looks like we could probably bump that up to $75k

    Leave a comment:


  • WisconsinWildcard
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    2.3 million... that should be criminal.
    We are all paying for it. But the interesting thing is that is actually valued appropriately if you take 50,000 as a rule, compared to hundreds of other big budget medications.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Well, of course.

    Suspected Maine gunman Robert Card allegedly targeted a bowling alley and bar he believed were broadcasting messages that he was a pedophile, according to an arrest warrant released Tuesday.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    "All they have done"

    Only 20 states have universal background checks, and if you think doing more is as easy as snapping fingers...

    Leave a comment:


  • SJHovey
    replied
    Originally posted by psych View Post

    My answers are above.

    Again: Your main argument, the opportunity cost, is more legislation isn't passed later because mediocre legislation is currently passed instead? A) Watered down legislation versus B) No legislation passed at all. There isn't a C) The best legislation ever will pass soon if we just wait and not pass watered down legislation, otherwise we'd all choose C. So, we liberals take A. I guess you take B.
    Again, you misrepresent what my position is. I don't object to these "gun control" laws the feds and some states have passed. It's just that I don't believe they are gun control laws.

    When you settle for watered down legislation that will have no impact, you don't solve the problem. It's like spraying Febreze on dirty laundry.

    Here is what annoys me. You blame me, or people like me, for this problem. But right now, in Minnesota, liberals control both houses of the state legislature and the governor's office. They passed a plethora of legislation that their constituents have demanded for decades.

    Yet, when it came to gun control, all your friends could come up with is a background check.

    I have an idea for you. Stop blaming others. When you have control, use it to solve the problem as you deem best. Then we'll judge your efforts.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    2.3 million... that should be criminal.

    Leave a comment:


  • WisconsinWildcard
    replied
    Originally posted by psych View Post
    I will add: I view any gun death as absolutely f-cking unnecessary. Death is final. Nothing worse than that, existential arguments notwithstanding. WisconsinWildcard, or any researcher on here, would agree that a breakthrough medication, like let’s say a new heart medication that reduced heart attacks by 1%, would be worth it to fund and produce on a mass scale, unless the side effect was becoming a vegetable in 50% of cases, or it cost $1,000,000/pill. The opportunity costs there wouldn’t be worth it, unless the medication reduced heart attacks by 50%. Would it be worth it then? So, what are your opportunity costs for gun legislation that is half-measured d/t compromise? Your “nothing more will be done for years because they cheer in public and think they’ve done something when they’ve done little” argument doesn’t hold water when, again, “nothing is done” is the other option in this scenario.
    Would agree with this sentiment. A number that is often used is $50,000 for 1 quality life year. Many meds fail this standard but we use them because they are FDA approved and as an individual doctor, one cannot resource manage to that scale. For example, a medication for a condition called TTR amyloid costs ~$600,000 a year. It works, but the costs are not justified for the benefit. I prescribe it but curse the absolute unethical business practice of the company. A different medication, zolgensma, costs ~2.3M a year. However, this essentially a cure for spinal muscular atrophy, a universally fatal disease by ~2 years. This medication, as far as we know, is priced appropriately for 50,000/QLY.

    I strongly suspect that many gun control measures proposed would have a much lower cost than 50,000/QLY, however our politicians are paid for and we cannot even properly study the question. Clearly, other countries have figured it out but for some reason 1/2 of the US acts like it is an impossible problem. And I say this as a gun owner. I would happily give up any chance to own a firearm to reduce gun violence, honestly at this point any amount.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
    Bringing back the assault weapons ban has been proposed before. We were told it isn't practical because there are a lot more owners of such weapons now, and not every law-abiding gun owner is going to turn in their assault rifles. Which, if such legislation were to be enacted and they chose not to comply with the law, would make them...criminals. And what do we do with suspected criminals? Get a warrant? Oh no, they will show up at the door guns blazing and LEOs might die. Do you want a Ruby Ridge every week in this country? So we can't have that. /sarc
    Yes?

    /s

    Leave a comment:


  • Deutsche Gopher Fan
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

    But everyone here just ridiculed me and said all that would do is let the courts reaffirm bad second amendment law.
    Ridiculed huh? Didn’t you do that anytime anyone dared say that womens rights over their own goddamn bodies were in jeopardy. Hysterical, I believe

    Leave a comment:


  • psych
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

    Look, if some "red flag" law or other measure that the feds or various states may have passed saves even one life, I have no problem agreeing that it's arguably worth it.

    They have saved one life. Probably hundreds. Of course, one or two lives saved is going to be statistical noise when 50,000 people are killed by one particular thing every year. You once argued against patting California on the back for having a 9/1,000 death rate versus Texas having 15.6/1,000 death rate, because of the negligible difference in gun deaths overall. But, you just said "it'd be worth it if these laws saved even one life", which, obviously, they do. Just look at California versus Texas versus Mississippi.

    But here's the thing. Maybe 15 months ago(?) gun control legislation was passed through Congress and signed by Biden, and he stood there and trumpeted the result, claiming "this legislation is real action. When people say "do something," well now we've done something. What we have accomplished here today will save lives."

    What Biden's legislation with Congress will do is save lives. Just, again, not as many as banning guns would.

    Tim Walz said basically the same thing after Minnesota's law was passed this last session.

    My response to them is, "Did ya? Did you really?"

    Yes, they did. Unless, of course, you are arguing that it was negligible, which, kind of goes against your "if it even saves one life, it's worth it" mantra you led off with.

    Everyone here understands that red flag laws and background checks and all the rest, while not terrible ideas at all, aren't the solution. They aren't going to stop the problem or even put any sort of meaningful dent in the problem.

    One life saved is worth it, unless, of course, you didn't actually mean that in your first paragraph.

    But in the meantime, tell me what sort of gun control legislation has worked its way through Congress? None. That campaign promise has its box checked, now on to the next thing.

    Well, duh. Nothing has really passed Congress in the past 12 months or so, especially once the "I don't give a f-ck about governing" party took over the House. But again, Democrats with the trifecta had Manchin/Golden/other Democrats to get on board, which meant watered-down legislation, which I covered already. Again, options are 1) pass watered down legislation that makes small dent in lives saved or 2) do nothing, which doesn't make a dent in lives saved. Democrats worked not only with Manchin/Sinema et al., they managed to pass something with the "I don't give a f-ck about governing" party. That's nothing short of miraculous, which I pointed out earlier.

    I suggested on this Board quite awhile back that the blueprint for gun control advocates was very ably drafted for you by anti-abortion advocates. Pass legislation that will probably get shot down by the courts. But keep pecking away at the edges, and sooner or later you make some headway, or, the make up of the Courts change. But everyone here just ridiculed me and said all that would do is let the courts reaffirm bad second amendment law.

    And they're correct. SCOTUS is about as conservative as its been since when? The 1920s? They're not only willing to overturn stare decisis, they're willing to go a step or two further. Hell, anti-abortion groups could have started their anti-abortion campaign in these courts in 2020 and accomplished the same amount as they did starting after Roe v. Wade.

    Did abortion opponents, every time during the last 50 years that Roe was reaffirmed, throw up their hands, go home and whine about the courts and the public? Don't think so.

    There's another one of your buzz words. "Whine", like soberly discussing the state of affairs can be construed as whining. Quit backslapping yourself for such a novel idea to "use the courts."
    My answers are above.

    Again: Your main argument, the opportunity cost, is more legislation isn't passed later because mediocre legislation is currently passed instead? A) Watered down legislation versus B) No legislation passed at all. There isn't a C) The best legislation ever will pass soon if we just wait and not pass watered down legislation, otherwise we'd all choose C. So, we liberals take A. I guess you take B.
    Last edited by psych; 10-31-2023, 07:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bronconick
    replied
    I saw someone write this out about during an assault weapon discussion and it kind of sticks with me

    A typical hunting rifle has the stock below the barrel, putting the barrel better in-line with eye, but the recoil will force the weapon upward on fire as a result. That prioritization works fine for hunters, who want to take the most accurate shots as possible, while putting as few bullets in their prey as possible.

    AR style weapons have the stock in line with the barrel, so that the recoil goes straight back and the shooter can keep their weapon relatively on target while pouring out as money bullets as possible. A prioritization that only makes sense for hunting people.

    Leave a comment:


  • SJHovey
    replied
    Originally posted by psych View Post
    Your argument has always been the same, though.
    1) Everyone and their mother on here agrees that gun bans and/or making ammunition insanely expensive, among other drastic (by American standards) measures would save the most lives (i.e. most effective).
    2) Everyone agrees there’s no political will, especially by one party, although there are Jared Golden’s and Joe Manchin’s in the party whose influence is as large, if not larger, than the Matt Gaetz and Co. part of the GOP, who are against the most drastic measures. 3) So, you compromise, or you don’t.
    4) No compromise. This is the standard in America. End of exercise.
    5) On the miraculous chance compromise legislation can even be achieved on the lowest hanging fruit subjects when it comes to gun control, it won’t be as effective at controlling gun deaths as the more drastic measures would have been. Still, the legislation will save more people, meaning it’s more effective than doing nothing at all.
    I think you, Hovey, agree with 1-5. Where we diverge after that is
    6) You see the backslapping of the politicians for reducing gun deaths by 2%** with their half-measures versus 10%** with full measures as worse than having done nothing at all, while the liberals on here think the 2% is better than 0% reduction. Because
    7) What is the trade-off, or the negatives, of passing the compromise legislation? You argue one is back-slapping, which leads to
    8) Nothing more done, maybe for years. But, nothing more done is still a 2% reduction, which is better than stopping at 4) in the exercise, which is nothing done at all. So,
    9) What are the other drawbacks of the compromise legislation? I haven’t seen anything yet.
    ** completely subjective numbers, just showing we all agree full measures will be more effective at saving people than half.
    Look, if some "red flag" law or other measure that the feds or various states may have passed saves even one life, I have no problem agreeing that it's arguably worth it.

    But here's the thing. Maybe 15 months ago(?) gun control legislation was passed through Congress and signed by Biden, and he stood there and trumpeted the result, claiming "this legislation is real action. When people say "do something," well now we've done something. What we have accomplished here today will save lives."

    Tim Walz said basically the same thing after Minnesota's law was passed this last session.

    My response to them is, "Did ya? Did you really?"

    Everyone here understands that red flag laws and background checks and all the rest, while not terrible ideas at all, aren't the solution. They aren't going to stop the problem or even put any sort of meaningful dent in the problem.

    But in the meantime, tell me what sort of gun control legislation has worked its way through Congress? None. That campaign promise has its box checked, now on to the next thing.

    I suggested on this Board quite awhile back that the blueprint for gun control advocates was very ably drafted for you by anti-abortion advocates. Pass legislation that will probably get shot down by the courts. But keep pecking away at the edges, and sooner or later you make some headway, or, the make up of the Courts change. But everyone here just ridiculed me and said all that would do is let the courts reaffirm bad second amendment law.

    Did abortion opponents, every time during the last 50 years that Roe was reaffirmed, throw up their hands, go home and whine about the courts and the public? Don't think so.

    Leave a comment:


  • psych
    replied
    I will add: I view any gun death as absolutely f-cking unnecessary. Death is final. Nothing worse than that, existential arguments notwithstanding. WisconsinWildcard, or any researcher on here, would agree that a breakthrough medication, like let’s say a new heart medication that reduced heart attacks by 1%, would be worth it to fund and produce on a mass scale, unless the side effect was becoming a vegetable in 50% of cases, or it cost $1,000,000/pill. The opportunity costs there wouldn’t be worth it, unless the medication reduced heart attacks by 50%. Would it be worth it then? So, what are your opportunity costs for gun legislation that is half-measured d/t compromise? Your “nothing more will be done for years because they cheer in public and think they’ve done something when they’ve done little” argument doesn’t hold water when, again, “nothing is done” is the other option in this scenario.

    Leave a comment:


  • psych
    replied
    Your argument has always been the same, though.
    1) Everyone and their mother on here agrees that gun bans and/or making ammunition insanely expensive, among other drastic (by American standards) measures would save the most lives (i.e. most effective).
    2) Everyone agrees there’s no political will, especially by one party, although there are Jared Golden’s and Joe Manchin’s in the party whose influence is as large, if not larger, than the Matt Gaetz and Co. part of the GOP, who are against the most drastic measures. 3) So, you compromise, or you don’t.
    4) No compromise. This is the standard in America. End of exercise.
    5) On the miraculous chance compromise legislation can even be achieved on the lowest hanging fruit subjects when it comes to gun control, it won’t be as effective at controlling gun deaths as the more drastic measures would have been. Still, the legislation will save more people, meaning it’s more effective than doing nothing at all.
    I think you, Hovey, agree with 1-5. Where we diverge after that is
    6) You see the backslapping of the politicians for reducing gun deaths by 2%** with their half-measures versus 10%** with full measures as worse than having done nothing at all, while the liberals on here think the 2% is better than 0% reduction. Because
    7) What is the trade-off, or the negatives, of passing the compromise legislation? You argue one is back-slapping, which leads to
    8) Nothing more done, maybe for years. But, nothing more done is still a 2% reduction, which is better than stopping at 4) in the exercise, which is nothing done at all. So,
    9) What are the other drawbacks of the compromise legislation? I haven’t seen anything yet.
    ** completely subjective numbers, just showing we all agree full measures will be more effective at saving people than half.

    Leave a comment:


  • SJHovey
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    Porque no los dos?
    You certainly can.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X