Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
 

Post 18 Jan 2011, 2:01 pm

What law or control (short of outlawing a weapon or magazine) would have prevented Dawson College or the Tuscon tragedy? Do you believe it would prevent shootings like this?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 2:02 pm

No straw man in the least, it is a fair comparison.
Alcohol is intended to get you drunk, it makes you do stupid things. It is controlled and restricted but not illegal (much like guns). Making it illegal did nothing to stop the consumption. You don't want guns illegal? Funny, nothing you say about hand guns fits with that statement. Kind of like your other post about not reversing but reducing ...to zero. Same here, I guess you want them legal with such tight controls, nobody can have one? (yes I am putting words in your mouth, but please, how do they not fit your already all too clear position?)

and that Dawson example was just a PERFECT comparison as well wasn't it? We have a nutjob who went crazy, his health insurance had nothing to do with the situation, strict gun laws didn't stop anything, complaints about death metal???
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 2:23 pm

Green Arrow wrote:What law or control (short of outlawing a weapon or magazine) would have prevented Dawson College or the Tuscon tragedy? Do you believe it would prevent shootings like this?
There are, of course, no guarantees. But perhaps a stricter evaluation of the mental state of someone when they apply for a licence? Regular re-application?
 

Post 18 Jan 2011, 2:43 pm

What other portions of the life that have no guarantees do you wish to legislate?

Perhaps people over 200 lbs would not be allowed to buy candy, thus requiring mandatory weighing at the grocery? Maybe applying for the right to vote, and requiring civic testing every 10 years to show proficiency in the electoral process? These would definitely incorporate some stricter "guarantees"

Curious, though; what kinds of weapons do you wish to legislate?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 3:06 pm

Green Arrow wrote:Perhaps people over 200 lbs would not be allowed to buy candy, thus requiring mandatory weighing at the grocery? Maybe applying for the right to vote, and requiring civic testing every 10 years to show proficiency in the electoral process? These would definitely incorporate some stricter "guarantees"
Do any of these constitute a direct threat to other people? No. Fat people who get fatter endanger themselves. Idiots voting get what they vote for. Insane people with guns kill people. Do you see the difference?

By the way, by 'no guarantees', I meant that there's no way to prevent all such events. But that's not an excuse for not trying to reduce their frequency.

Curious, though; what kinds of weapons do you wish to legislate?
Well, auto's, semi-autos, handguns would seem to be good candidates for better controls. Hunting rifles and shotguns would need little control.
 

Post 18 Jan 2011, 4:01 pm

Fat people endanger the economy, or so says RickyP. That is why there needs to be legislation on what we eat. Otherwise we will have the costs attributed to obesity inflicted on everyone. [sarcasm] Thus we "MUST" have the Health care bill [/sarcasm]

Idiots who vote bring a less qualified candidate to power. Do we not deserve the most qualified candidate? If some in the public are voting based upon the looks of a certain candidate, and cannot espouse a view in a cogent manner, perhaps their vote does more harm than good to a wider population than a lone shooter in Tuscon.

So no, I do not see a difference. Just a variable impact.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 4:20 pm

I have to forgive Danivon for laughing out loud at his recent post. Maybe over in Merry Olde England they have bright, intelligent part time psychiatrists working for the department of motor vehicles? Over here it's, well let's just say it's the opposite. Can anyone imagine a DMV worker evaluating your mental health? ...especially after waiting on line for several hours?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 4:52 pm

danivon wrote:There are, of course, no guarantees. But perhaps a stricter evaluation of the mental state of someone when they apply for a licence? Regular re-application?


Given that Mr. Loughner appears to have violated existing laws against the possession of narcotics, what in the world makes you think he would have complied with prohibitions against his owning a firearm?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 4:55 pm

danivon wrote:Do any of these constitute a direct threat to other people? No. Fat people who get fatter endanger themselves.


Actually, now that I (and my fellow taxpayers) are paying the fat guy's health care costs, his behavior does constitute a direct threat to my material well-being. Ditto all sorts of risky sexual behavior that Bible-thumpers have been unsuccessful in banning of late due to a lack of a compelling state interest in doing so. For them, Obamacare is a gift from heaven in that it once again allows the government to intrude into the bedroom (and anywhere else, for that matter).
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Jan 2011, 2:28 am

Green Arrow wrote:Fat people endanger the economy, or so says RickyP. That is why there needs to be legislation on what we eat. Otherwise we will have the costs attributed to obesity inflicted on everyone. [sarcasm] Thus we "MUST" have the Health care bill [/sarcasm]
The threat is not direct, it is indirect.

Idiots who vote bring a less qualified candidate to power. Do we not deserve the most qualified candidate? If some in the public are voting based upon the looks of a certain candidate, and cannot espouse a view in a cogent manner, perhaps their vote does more harm than good to a wider population than a lone shooter in Tuscon.
If idiots are the majority, then you have more problems than how elections go. The electorate 'deserve' the candidate they vote for. If it was about who was best qualified, why have elections, just have a board of experts decide who is the most able? Again the threat is indirect, not direct.

So no, I do not see a difference. Just a variable impact.
The difference is in the directness of the threat to the lives and health of others. You just don't want to see it, because firing a machine-gun makes you feel good, or something.

GMTom wrote:I have to forgive Danivon for laughing out loud at his recent post. Maybe over in Merry Olde England they have bright, intelligent part time psychiatrists working for the department of motor vehicles? Over here it's, well let's just say it's the opposite. Can anyone imagine a DMV worker evaluating your mental health? ...especially after waiting on line for several hours?
Well, whatever floats your boat, Tommy. I was talking about mental state evaluations for firearms, not for cars.

We don't have such tests for drivers, although a doctor can sign you off of driving for various conditions, meaning you have to surrender your licence.

Machiavelli wrote:Given that Mr. Loughner appears to have violated existing laws against the possession of narcotics, what in the world makes you think he would have complied with prohibitions against his owning a firearm?
I don't know. All I do know is that it wasn't a problem for him to buy one legally.

Actually, now that I (and my fellow taxpayers) are paying the fat guy's health care costs, his behavior does constitute a direct threat to my material well-being. Ditto all sorts of risky sexual behavior that Bible-thumpers have been unsuccessful in banning of late due to a lack of a compelling state interest in doing so. For them, Obamacare is a gift from heaven in that it once again allows the government to intrude into the bedroom (and anywhere else, for that matter).
I don't think you understand what 'direct threat' means. And your material well being being slightly more hampered by notional taxes is not the same kind of risk as your life being cut short by someone firing a gun.

(odd how we on the left have been accused of 'dragging our pet beliefs' into the debate, when it takes very little for righties to drag theirs in)
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 19 Jan 2011, 6:24 am

And your material well being being slightly more hampered by notional taxes is not the same kind of risk as your life being cut short by someone firing a gun.


Indeed. The former is a threat to my liberty, for which my forefathers were more than willing to undertake a minor risk like being shot. You Brits didn't understand why "notional taxes" were so odious back in 1775 and it appears you still don't.


All I do know is that it wasn't a problem for him to buy one legally.


I'm disappointed, Dan--I expect you to think more than a move ahead. You seem to be suggesting that if only what Mr. Loughner had done were illegal, five innocent people would be alive today. I've got news for you, my friend: even in wild west Arizona, it's already illegal to step down to the grocery and shoot a couple dozen of your neighbors. Despite that illegality, Mr. Loughner appears to have done just that. Had the gun control legislation you hold so dear been in place, the only difference would be that we'd have one more charge to add to the long list of infractions that will send Mr. Loughner to the gurnery.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Jan 2011, 9:20 am

mach
Given that Mr. Loughner appears to have violated existing laws against the possession of narcotics, what in the world makes you think he would have complied with prohibitions against his owning a firearm?


The regulations are intended to compell those who sell fire arms to ensure they have done everything they can to screen out unlawful purchases.
In the same way that underage drinking laws are there to compell licensed establihments to screen for underage drinkers.
Laws are not magic. You can't pass a law and everyone honors the law automatically. They need to be enforced. The most appropriate form of enforcement of gun laws is at the point where people buy guns or ammo....
Consider your arguement with any other law and you'll find that it is ludicrous. It was illegal for Loughren to shoot people as well....
It seems from tis thread that When one discusse prevention with conservatives, the law of 100% comes into force. They believe that any effort to improve a situation is moot unless it guarantees 100% success. Based on that line of reasoning why bother attempting to interdict illegal aliens sneaking acros the border?
Some of you have pointed to Dawson College. The major difference between Gill and Loughren was that Loughren was identified as dangerous by his school. Gill was not. (It was also not his school) The authorities were not provided a heads up the way Loughren was clearly identified as a risk.
Pointing to a failure in a different jurisdiction with different gun laws and mental health resources doesn't in any way contradict the arguement that better metal health resources and better gun control would reduce shootings like Tucson or Dawson college. I claimed that thse improvements would reduce the crimes, not eliminate them completely.
On the day Gil shot and killed the young lady at Dawson college, there were no other gun deaths with in Canada. On a average day there would have been 1 other.
Thats not perfect.
If the Tucson shooting was an average day in the US Gills 6 victims would have been joined by 44 others somewhere else in the US.
Which is better?
Today Mark Kelly said that hiswife was worried about being shot, and even said so 10 minues before she was.... ... Is that the situation politicians should have to face? Should they isolate themselvs entirely from their consituents in order to protect themselves? Is that healthy for democracy? At what point does the obsession with an outdated constitutional amendment infringe on other freedoms gauranted?
The use of vague threats of violence in political rhetoric is oppressive abuse of on freedom to chill the practice of others like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. How many Americans will now avoid political events out of fear that some other Loughrn is there ...carrying.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 19 Jan 2011, 10:34 am

The regulations are intended to compell [sic] those who sell fire arms [sic] to ensure they have done everything they can to screen out unlawful purchases.


Alas, there's a great distance between "are intended to" and "do". On the other hand, there are only a few miles (and, thanks to your fellow "progressives," an almost entirely porous border) between Tuscon and Mexico, where your well-intentioned regulations have no effect.

Based on that line of reasoning why bother attempting to interdict illegal aliens sneaking acros [sic] the border?


I've been making that point for years! As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is willing to obey the law and support himself should be welcome! It should be noted, however, that the apt analogy is not interdicting illegal aliens sneaking across the border, but rather interdicting EVERYONE from crossing the border. I'm all in favor of gun control laws that only burden lunatic murderers.

How many Americans will now avoid political events out of fear that some other Loughrn [sic] is there ...carrying..


"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin.
Last edited by Machiavelli on 19 Jan 2011, 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 19 Jan 2011, 10:38 am

Just like how Canadian strict gun laws stopped that incident posted earlier I suppose?
and thank you for pointing out just how out of the ordinary this event was, so kind of you to show it is very limited ...just like it is in Canada?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Jan 2011, 12:51 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
And your material well being being slightly more hampered by notional taxes is not the same kind of risk as your life being cut short by someone firing a gun.


Indeed. The former is a threat to my liberty, for which my forefathers were more than willing to undertake a minor risk like being shot. You Brits didn't understand why "notional taxes" were so odious back in 1775 and it appears you still don't.
There was much more to it than taxes, as the 1776 Declaration makes clear. Some of it (the Tea thing) was about pushing lower price goods into the US market, undercutting existing suppliers - bad for some, but lower prices for others. Those taxes were increased in the 1760s in large part to defray the costs of defending the colonies from French and Indian enemies in the recent wars up there - in other words, defending your liberties. The main issue was the crass way in which the taxes were enforced.

Besides, it didn't seem to bother you before Obamacare that you were paying about as much per capita towards public healthcare as we are (yet paying about the same again in insurance and private costs), it's only since then that the idea of taxpayer's money going to healthcare is so horrific.

All I do know is that it wasn't a problem for him to buy one legally.
I'm disappointed, Dan--I expect you to think more than a move ahead. You seem to be suggesting that if only what Mr. Loughner had done were illegal, five innocent people would be alive today. I've got news for you, my friend: even in wild west Arizona, it's already illegal to step down to the grocery and shoot a couple dozen of your neighbors. Despite that illegality, Mr. Loughner appears to have done just that. Had the gun control legislation you hold so dear been in place, the only difference would be that we'd have one more charge to add to the long list of infractions that will send Mr. Loughner to the gurnery.
It's about relative risk, Mach. You want to deal in absolutes, fine, but that's not as realistic as you would like to think. If it were illegal for Loughner to get a gun, there are points at which the risk of him being caught ahead of time are greater than if it were legal. I am hoping that law enforcement in Arizona is not completely absent. He may have been picked up having tried to get a gun/licence and been rejected as a risk. He may have been noticed as he tried to find an illegal dealer. He may have been unlucky enough to try and get a gun from someone being monitored by the police. He may have been stopped for a routine and random check for illegal immigrants and been found to hold an unlicensed weapon. He may have been noticed practising with the gun.

As it was, he didn't have to run any of those risks in the two months since buying the gun and using it.

I said 'no guarantees'. You seem to think that if there's a possibility he doesn't get caught that there's no way he could be. I'm saying we can reduce the risks with some greater control that doesn't really reduce the freedoms of sane people. A slight delay at the point of applying for a license or buying a gun? A few extra times that people are checked for a valid licence than before. They can still own a gun, and thus still use it for their defence.

Again, a small loss of freedom you see as equivalent to a total loss. A small increase in taxation you see as a terrible imposition. Insane people killing six innocent people and injuring another 14 is just a price worth paying, however much you can deplore the act (and hope that a man is killed for it, even if it turns out he was insane).