Guns, mass shootings, and related.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: That "on" was supposed to an "only" Rob.

and I didn't say "only" - if money is an obstacle (and not the only obstacle) then there is little for me to discuss as I do not know how anyone can evaluate the cost-benefits.

That "on" was supposed to an "only" Rob.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: If your concern is the fiscal cost then there is little for me to discuss. This is why I asked if is it possible to support gun control without libertarian idealism crumbling at your fingertips? I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Are we supposed to discuss any policy without regards to cost (I don't remember mentioning on fiscal)?

Before you get into a four hour tirade, you did in fact mention the word "money."

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Yes. Because regulations cost money to enforce.

I learn from experience. 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Exactly how many crimes are committed using stolen firearms? Is this relevant? You said bans would not keep guns out of the hands of abusers, I gave an example of how they could - since you do not have strict gun controls the number of crimes committed using stolen firearms is irrelevant. Yes. Because regulations cost money to enforce. They cost time in the case of innocent people. From a philosophical standpoint, its antithetical to our conception of government. You can't look at an intended result without analyzing the costs compared to benefits. Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: No. I wouldn't. Nor would I consider banning a drug or anything really until a very cogent argument is made for doing so. Then there is no confusion. "You" don't want to change. Sure I do. I want to prevent things like this from happening again.

If your concern is the fiscal cost then there is little for me to discuss. This is why I asked if is it possible to support gun control without libertarian idealism crumbling at your fingertips?

Is ISN'T physically possible. 

Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Exactly how many crimes are committed using stolen firearms? Is this relevant? You said bans would not keep guns out of the hands of abusers, I gave an example of how they could - since you do not have strict gun controls the number of crimes committed using stolen firearms is irrelevant.

Yes. Because regulations cost money to enforce. They cost time in the case of innocent people. From a philosophical standpoint, its antithetical to our conception of government. You can't look at an intended result without analyzing the costs compared to benefits.

timothy leary wrote: It is not guns it is killing. We need to stop sensationalizing it.

It is not guns it is killing. We need to stop sensationalizing it.

CPicard wrote: So, this new massacre is supposed to be big news in the USA? I thought the American were used to this kind of things now.

Very sadly, we are indeed used to this. There are several every year. This one does seem to have a little extra resonance, maybe due to how young the victims were. Even the NRA, which usually only pauses for a day or two, fell completely silent for a few days. Like "oh hell, even we better just lay low for a bit after this one"

Needless to say, extremely tragic, every time it happens.


Guns? Oh boy oh boy, an amazingly sticky wicket here in the states.
This is all I can say:
Personally never owned a gun, fired a gun, I don't see the appeal (and I mean the fun, not protection aspect) I don't think anyone needs more than 2...a handgun and rifle (I guess I can see 4 or 5 if you want different styles, or own a small business and want to have one in multiple areas). I think people who "vote solely on guns" are loony, I hate rednecks who cry 2nd amendment but probably don't really care, just wanna make love to the barrel.

All that being said, I've never seen much need for gun control.
Sensible gun laws are fine and there does need to be more stringent psychological checks in place, but the huge majority of crimes are committed with illegal guns. So just, well gun laws can't really impact that.
As the Prez said, most people are sane, responsible people...they are not the target of gun laws. It's about trying to stop crime, but they will just use illegal guns. So barring some dystopian nightmare, I think sadly gun laws can't do a whole lot about crime. 
Which is another point. Ideal as it may be the whole "I want a country with no guns" or "ban all guns" is just that...ideal. It physically can't be done unless some drastic moves are made. And in that case is it worth it?

It's all about environment anyway. More affluent = less crime. More people in an area = more crime. Statistically. So crime will naturally cluster in cities and poorer areas, and will be lesser in spacious/affluent areas.




End


Edited by JJLehto - December 19 2012 at 18:44

Exactly how many crimes are committed using stolen firearms?

No. I wouldn't. Nor would I consider banning a drug or anything really until a very cogent argument is made for doing so.