The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

..and gives others something to say when they really have nothing to add to the discussion.

You've made multiple posts on the need to ban automatic weapons and only used the term "assault weapons" when called out. That's kind of like trying to discuss Gay Rights and saying thespians should be allowed to marry. Like I said, it's almost impossible to rationally discuss an issue so filled with emotion and ignorance. Excuse me, it's time to go masticate

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Permit me to ask a question. Has outlawing murder stopped murders from occuring?

That's actually an interesting question. If there was no criminal consequences for committing murder, what would the outcome be. It seems pretty clear that passing a law that forbids murder prevents pretty widespread mayhem.

And that's my whole point.

You forbid people from murdering others, you forbid people from possessing bombs or other instruments of mass death like chemicals or the like, because those laws have a real impact. We're talking about hundreds or thousands of deaths at a time.

But it's silly to sit here and have some debate about whether we should allow assault rifles with clips containing 20, or 30 or 50 cartridges in the clip (because other than appearance, that's the only thing different between an assault rifle and your standard deer hunting rifle), when the impact of limiting clip sizes from 50 to 3, or some other arbitrary number is absolutely minimal on society as a whole. It might be measured in single digit deaths per decade.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

That's actually an interesting question. If there was no criminal consequences for committing murder, what would the outcome be. It seems pretty clear that passing a law that forbids murder prevents pretty widespread mayhem.

And that's my whole point.

You forbid people from murdering others, you forbid people from possessing bombs or other instruments of mass death like chemicals or the like, because those laws have a real impact. We're talking about hundreds or thousands of deaths at a time.

But it's silly to sit here and have some debate about whether we should allow assault rifles with clips containing 20, or 30 or 50 cartridges in the clip (because other than appearance, that's the only thing different between an assault rifle and your standard deer hunting rifle), when the impact of limiting clip sizes from 50 to 3, or some other arbitrary number is absolutely minimal on society as a whole. It might be measured in single digit deaths per decade.

Stop it. You're being rational here. There will be no more of that.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

That's actually an interesting question. If there was no criminal consequences for committing murder, what would the outcome be. It seems pretty clear that passing a law that forbids murder prevents pretty widespread mayhem.

And that's my whole point.

You forbid people from murdering others, you forbid people from possessing bombs or other instruments of mass death like chemicals or the like, because those laws have a real impact. We're talking about hundreds or thousands of deaths at a time.

But it's silly to sit here and have some debate about whether we should allow assault rifles with clips containing 20, or 30 or 50 cartridges in the clip (because other than appearance, that's the only thing different between an assault rifle and your standard deer hunting rifle), when the impact of limiting clip sizes from 50 to 3, or some other arbitrary number is absolutely minimal on society as a whole. It might be measured in single digit deaths per decade.

Voice of reason, as usual, Hovey. And that is why gun and any other legislation should be passed only if supported by reasonably reliable facts and statistics and not in knee-jerk response to an event, however awful or offensive.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

That's actually an interesting question. If there was no criminal consequences for committing murder, what would the outcome be. It seems pretty clear that passing a law that forbids murder prevents pretty widespread mayhem.

And that's my whole point.

You forbid people from murdering others, you forbid people from possessing bombs or other instruments of mass death like chemicals or the like, because those laws have a real impact. We're talking about hundreds or thousands of deaths at a time.

But it's silly to sit here and have some debate about whether we should allow assault rifles with clips containing 20, or 30 or 50 cartridges in the clip (because other than appearance, that's the only thing different between an assault rifle and your standard deer hunting rifle), when the impact of limiting clip sizes from 50 to 3, or some other arbitrary number is absolutely minimal on society as a whole. It might be measured in single digit deaths per decade.

Actually, many deer rifles are more powerful than a great number of the assault rifles out there. The AR-15 is essentially an M-16, and the M-16 fires .227 caliber bullets, a fairly small caliber round. Meanwhile you have something like a 30-06, and you can put a big whole through person's or deer's chest with some of the ammo variants available. Then you get to shotguns, and a gun with a 10-round capacity can unload more lead than an Uzzi firing on full automatic.

It's amazing what a guy who doesn't use firearms, like me, can learn from having friends that hunt and brothers in the military all talking shop.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If you believe the statistics, almost ten times more people are killed each year by texting while driving than by rifles. Would society not be better served by banning this?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If you believe the statistics, almost ten times more people are killed each year by texting while driving than by rifles. Would society not be better served by banning this?

Yep, and given statistics we shouldn't have been hunting for WMD's in Iraq or doing fullbody scans at the airport.

What's your point?

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Yep, and given statistics we shouldn't have been hunting for WMD's in Iraq or doing fullbody scans at the airport.

What's your point?

Simple. Given limited resources, shouldn't we attempt to utilize them for the best return? If disease X kills ten times more than disease Y, shouldn't we put more research $$ into X? If outlawing Assault rifles saves 300/yr but outlawing texting saves 3K/yr, which is a better choice? Why not put the effort into doing something that makes a difference rather than just giving us a warm fuzzy feeling that we did something?

The assault weapons ban if kind of like me giving the homeless guy a buck. He'll probably just buy a bottle of MD 20/20 and it really doesn't cause a hardship to my 6 figure income. But, I feel better about myself that I tried even though nothing was really accomplished or changed. Gun violence stats didn't show a whole lot of difference when the ban was in place, wouldn't it be a better choice to use political capital to try something different?

ETA: The TSA is probably the best example of doing "something" for the sake of doing something with little return on investment.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

More "thinning of the herd" at a school today.

The NRA requests a cease to discussion about guns and gun control in light of this national tragedy.

 

[unofan]

If you believe the statistics, almost ten times more people are killed each year by texting while driving than by rifles. Would society not be better served by banning this?

Many states already do.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I believe the answer to that is yes, as I have been with someone who was arrested for carrying a knife with too long a blade and being sheethed upside down.

Try taking one onto an airplane and let me know how that goes.

But, can they go into your home and take them away from you? Apparently the State of NY can, based on firearms registration, confiscate your weapon because it has a large magazine or some other property that the legislature has deemed "unsafe".

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

But, can they go into your home and take them away from you?

I believe it is illegal to simply possess a switchblade in many states, so sure, if they had a warrant they could come in and confiscate that.

The point which you're willfully ignoring, is that there are plenty of laws regulating knives and other weapons besides guns out there.

If you're seriously going to take this line of questioning all the way and are really asking about kitchen knives, that's a hypothetical that would probably be ruled upon much like gun control laws. Realistically it would have no chance in hell of ever passing, but from a technical legal standpoint, it'd be up to SCOTUS to decide how much regulation of knives violates the 2nd amendment.

 

[XYZ]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You've made multiple posts on the need to ban automatic weapons and only used the term "assault weapons" when called out. That's kind of like trying to discuss Gay Rights and saying thespians should be allowed to marry. Like I said, it's almost impossible to rationally discuss an issue so filled with emotion and ignorance. Excuse me, it's time to go masticate

You're making the mistake of assuming he has any idea what he's talking about.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

That's actually an interesting question. If there was no criminal consequences for committing murder, what would the outcome be. It seems pretty clear that passing a law that forbids murder prevents pretty widespread mayhem.

And that's my whole point.

Really? God help me if I ever live in a state where laws proscribing murder are the main thing preventing widespread murder.

If there's nothing in society pulling people to comply with laws -- if the only thing preventing lawbreaking is fear of being caught -- it's time to move. Unless you're a Russian mobster, I guess.

Among other things, law sometimes expresses a moral judgment. Some people want to express disapproval of guns and gun culture. Others find that notion appalling.

I think Rover was more right than you're giving him credit for -- though he's still half wrong. Effectiveness should be a consideration, but whether a law succeeds is not its primary justification. So laws against murder don't become right-er or wrong-er based on variation in national murder rates. That said, gun rights folks are right to point out that most proposed gun control simply satisfies the "do something" urge, where that "doing something" has more to do with reformers' own conscience than preventing whatever crisis triggered (I know, I know -- couldn't resist) the call for reform.

Gun control debates are pointless, other than to rally one's own side. There's no middle ground there. No convincing. If you have the votes, you win. If you don't, you don't.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Gun control debates are pointless, other than to rally one's own side. There's no middle ground there.

Except for that whole 90-something percent of the population which supports expanded background checks. That seems like a pretty big middle ground.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Sure, but only a vanishingly small minority hold that as a burning issue. To get to 90%, you have to include a whole lot of people who hold it as a weak preference.

People have all sorts of weak preferences, but weak preferences don't drive elections. Otherwise, the NRA wouldn't be as successful as it is. There'd be a much better chance of gun control passing if it had only 40% support, but those 40% were prepared to be single-issue voters.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Sure, but only a vanishingly small minority hold that as a burning issue. To get to 90%, you have to include a whole lot of people who hold it as a weak preference.

People have all sorts of weak preferences, but weak preferences don't drive elections. Otherwise, the NRA wouldn't be as successful as it is. There'd be a much better chance of gun control passing if it had only 40% support, but those 40% were prepared to be single-issue voters.

Nearly 3/4ths of the NRA membership supported expanding background checks. It's fairly well known that there is a significant divide between members and leadership with the NRA.

Good try with your semantics argument over how you can decided what a "weak" preference is and that it somehow means less.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Yep, and for 3/4ths of NRA membership, expanded background checks are a weak preference.

The concept of a weak preference should be blindingly obvious to anyone even passingly familiar with the concept of priorities.

edit:

Why is it that expanded background checks aren't in place in every state that allows referendum voting? Because the number of opponents > the number of supporters who can be arsed to get up and vote.

The Democratic party by and large has sacrificed gun control in an attempt to maximize national electoral prospects. If gun control advocates want to win, they'd be better off in the short term trying to make it as much of an issue in their party as it is for Republicans.

The following isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a statement of fact. If you passionately support gun control and you vote for Democratic candidates who aren't motivated to pass gun control, you're the problem -- not the NRA.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Really? God help me if I ever live in a state where laws proscribing murder are the main thing preventing widespread murder.

If there's nothing in society pulling people to comply with laws -- if the only thing preventing lawbreaking is fear of being caught -- it's time to move. Unless you're a Russian mobster, I guess.

Among other things, law sometimes expresses a moral judgment. Some people want to express disapproval of guns and gun culture. Others find that notion appalling.

I think Rover was more right than you're giving him credit for -- though he's still half wrong. Effectiveness should be a consideration, but whether a law succeeds is not its primary justification. So laws against murder don't become right-er or wrong-er based on variation in national murder rates. That said, gun rights folks are right to point out that most proposed gun control simply satisfies the "do something" urge, where that "doing something" has more to do with reformers' own conscience than preventing whatever crisis triggered (I know, I know -- couldn't resist) the call for reform.

Gun control debates are pointless, other than to rally one's own side. There's no middle ground there. No convincing. If you have the votes, you win. If you don't, you don't.

It sounds like you are talking about the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum, amherstbb, not that I want to put words in your mouth.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Burd, when writing that, I *did* get the distinct feeling that I could have said it much quicker if my D were of the Juris variety.