Guns gave us a civilized society

[PaulS1950]

The reason that the assault weapon ban stopped and will always stop at future purchases is because military, police and civilian target competitions use these guns. 300 and 600 and 1000 meter target competitions are fired using military style semi-auto rifles. The USA does pretty good in these competitions world wide - it is a good propaganda source for the USA.
You see even "assault weapons" have other uses (like target competition and hunting) than killing people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Facts and would be (that's an in the future thing) are different animals.

Might be? Sure. So maybe this time close the back doors, and see if it works. If not, we can always course correct.

Wouldn't it be smarter to do something which empirical evidence exist to demonstrate efficacy?

Not when trying new things. If we waited for everything to be a proven winner before doing anything, human progress would come to a halt.

Noodle on that; it'll come to you.

That is why I used the term empirical evidence. I have a proposal that I can prove works because it has been tried before, and actually made a difference. The best you have is to demand we do something that didn't make a difference before in the vague hope it will work in the future. Which one do you think will result in actual progress?

 

[Koios]

Wouldn't it be smarter to do something which empirical evidence exist to demonstrate efficacy?

Not when trying new things. If we waited for everything to be a proven winner before doing anything, human progress would come to a halt.

Noodle on that; it'll come to you.

That is why I used the term empirical evidence. I have a proposal that I can prove works because it has been tried before, and actually made a difference. The best you have is to demand we do something that didn't make a difference before in the vague hope it will work in the future. Which one do you think will result in actual progress?

Is there any other kind?

 

[CandySlice]

There is nothing sadder in the human condition than it's propensity to make reactionary, knee-jerk (and usually BAD) decisions in the heat of the moment. I could have won a great deal of money that morning had I had anyone to bet with that , yep, right on cue, Obama's going after the guns.
It's the kind of shameless, self-lauditory grandstanding he has become famous for.
Couldn't be bothered with Joe Hammer (or Joe Citizen for that matter) but WHAM! What a photo-op this will be. It'll keep the weak-minded in line and scare the hell out of anybody with a thimble full of sense.
I say lets start taking a closer look at the nut cases in our society.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not when trying new things. If we waited for everything to be a proven winner before doing anything, human progress would come to a halt.

Noodle on that; it'll come to you.

That is why I used the term empirical evidence. I have a proposal that I can prove works because it has been tried before, and actually made a difference. The best you have is to demand we do something that didn't make a difference before in the vague hope it will work in the future. Which one do you think will result in actual progress?

Is there any other kind?

Any other kind of what?

 

[Flopper]

There is nothing sadder in the human condition than it's propensity to make reactionary, knee-jerk (and usually BAD) decisions in the heat of the moment. I could have won a great deal of money that morning had I had anyone to bet with that , yep, right on cue, Obama's going after the guns.
It's the kind of shameless, self-lauditory grandstanding he has become famous for.
Couldn't be bothered with Joe Hammer (or Joe Citizen for that matter) but WHAM! What a photo-op this will be. It'll keep the weak-minded in line and scare the hell out of anybody with a thimble full of sense.
I say lets start taking a closer look at the nut cases in our society.

We've been looking at the nut cases for years and believe it or not as a society we are doing a lot to prevent the kind of tragedy we saw in Connecticut. However, intervention will always be a hit and miss proposition.

As long as we allow firearms to fall into the hands of kids and the mentally disturbed, we're going see more Sandy Hooks, Virginia Techs, and Columbines. However, there are really very few shooting in our schools. Of the nearly 100 millions students in 100,000 schools in the US, there were less than 50 students killed due to gun violence this year.

I believe we're going to see stricter gun control laws. If not due to this massacre, then the next or the next. Although, I would love to see less guns on the streets, I have my doubts about the effectiveness of laws that would be passed.

 

[FA_Q2]

Facts and would be (that's an in the future thing) are different animals.

Might be? Sure. So maybe this time close the back doors, and see if it works. If not, we can always course correct.

Wouldn't it be smarter to do something which empirical evidence exist to demonstrate efficacy?

Not when trying new things. If we waited for everything to be a proven winner before doing anything, human progress would come to a halt.

Noodle on that; it'll come to you.

Wow....

The problem (as QW pointed out to you) is that you are NOT trying something new. You are trying things that have already been done and been proven failures. That is not what makes progress. In fact it is the opposite of progress. We make a mistake and rather than using that to progress onto real solutions, you want to repeat those mistakes.

As someone really intelligent once said:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


Maybe this time it will work. I don't know why. It has not worked before. I have no evidence that it will work this time but by golly, we aren't progressing if we don't do the same things over again....

 

[Koios]

That is why I used the term empirical evidence. I have a proposal that I can prove works because it has been tried before, and actually made a difference. The best you have is to demand we do something that didn't make a difference before in the vague hope it will work in the future. Which one do you think will result in actual progress?

Is there any other kind?

Any other kind of what?

Evidence, which like facts are kinda the same whether factual / evidentiary or really, really factual / evidentiary.

 

[Koios]

Wouldn't it be smarter to do something which empirical evidence exist to demonstrate efficacy?

Not when trying new things. If we waited for everything to be a proven winner before doing anything, human progress would come to a halt.

Noodle on that; it'll come to you.

Wow....

The problem (as QW pointed out to you) is that you are NOT trying something new. You are trying things that have already been done and been proven failures. That is not what makes progress. In fact it is the opposite of progress. We make a mistake and rather than using that to progress onto real solutions, you want to repeat those mistakes.

As someone really intelligent once said:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


Maybe this time it will work. I don't know why. It has not worked before. I have no evidence that it will work this time but by golly, we aren't progressing if we don't do the same things over again....

It failed because the original assault weapons ban was riddled with holes, and thus the ban did little to mitigate the flow of assault weapons.

So yeah it was tried, but a ban that actually bans the sale of more assault weapons would be highly novel.

 

[PaulS1950]

There are already laws that are supposed to keep guns out of the hands of kids and crazy people, so what new law is going to make that happen when the 1000 gun laws already on the books are not enforced?
The prosecution of gun violence is at an all time low so we can pass more laws that won't be enforced too?
Why punish legal gun owners for the problems that criminals cause?
I think we will have to limit all cars to a speed limit of 20 mph because it is a well known fact that everyone speeds and that most accidents involve excessive speed. Drivers kill 1000s of times the number of people - including kids - that gun owners do. I don't hear anyone trying to limit the use of cars or banning them.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not when trying new things. If we waited for everything to be a proven winner before doing anything, human progress would come to a halt.

Noodle on that; it'll come to you.

Wow....

The problem (as QW pointed out to you) is that you are NOT trying something new. You are trying things that have already been done and been proven failures. That is not what makes progress. In fact it is the opposite of progress. We make a mistake and rather than using that to progress onto real solutions, you want to repeat those mistakes.

As someone really intelligent once said:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


Maybe this time it will work. I don't know why. It has not worked before. I have no evidence that it will work this time but by golly, we aren't progressing if we don't do the same things over again....

It failed because the original assault weapons ban was riddled with holes, and thus the ban did little to mitigate the flow of assault weapons.

So yeah it was tried, but a ban that actually bans the sale of more assault weapons would be highly novel.

Like the bans in Britton? Or the ones in Australia? Or the city bans that were even more strict than the national ones? Perhaps the state bans that were strict?

I posted many examples with strengthening AND relaxing weapons regulations. NONE worked. You are taking a single example out of the sea that is available to you and even that one does not support your claim. I guess you could make blanket claims that your very specific idea has not been tried but the facts are that a wide variety of gun control has been tried all over the world as well as in the states and the vast majority of them are coming up with little to no evidence supporting any change whatsoever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is there any other kind?

Any other kind of what?

Evidence, which like facts are kinda the same whether factual / evidentiary or really, really factual / evidentiary.

Empirical, statistical, experimental, anecdotal, analogical, factual, and testimonial. I am not saying this is a complete list, but it certainly covers the spectrum.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not when trying new things. If we waited for everything to be a proven winner before doing anything, human progress would come to a halt.

Noodle on that; it'll come to you.

Wow....

The problem (as QW pointed out to you) is that you are NOT trying something new. You are trying things that have already been done and been proven failures. That is not what makes progress. In fact it is the opposite of progress. We make a mistake and rather than using that to progress onto real solutions, you want to repeat those mistakes.

As someone really intelligent once said:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


Maybe this time it will work. I don't know why. It has not worked before. I have no evidence that it will work this time but by golly, we aren't progressing if we don't do the same things over again....

It failed because the original assault weapons ban was riddled with holes, and thus the ban did little to mitigate the flow of assault weapons.

So yeah it was tried, but a ban that actually bans the sale of more assault weapons would be highly novel.

It failed because assault weapons are defined by cosmetics, not function. As for the imaginary holes you think riddled the original law, how do you plan to fix them?

 

[midcan5]

No civilized society would allow the hateful, the crazy, or the cowardly weapons of mass destruction except America. In America it is considered by many as a right. The question then is, is America a civilized nation? It would seem not.

'Civilized societies regulate guns' Jerry Zodin, Las Vegas

"No other civilized country in the world comes close to the number of violent gun deaths that occur in this country in a year. Of course, no laws can guarantee there will never be anymore gun violence, but maybe they at least cut down on this senseless slaughter."

Civilized societies regulate guns - Las Vegas Sun News

"Late in 1997, Eric took notice of school shooters. "Every day news broadcasts stories of students shooting students, or going on killing sprees," he wrote. He researched the possibilities for an English paper. Guns were cheap and readily available. Gun Digest said you could get a Saturday night special for $69. And schools were easy targets. "It is just as easy to bring a loaded handgun to school as it is to bring a calculator," Eric wrote... "Ouch!" his teacher responded in the margin. Overall, he rated it "thorough & logical. Nice job." 'Columbine' p199 http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...y-son-but-he-terrifies-me-11.html#post6541781

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So many logical fallacies and lies in a single post.

No civilized society would allow the hateful, the crazy, or the cowardly weapons of mass destruction except America. In America it is considered by many as a right. The question then is, is America a civilized nation? It would seem not.

Weapons of mass destruction are, by definition, weapons that can kill large numbers of humans and other life forms. Even the largest guns on a battleship are not WMDs.

'Civilized societies regulate guns' Jerry Zodin, Las Vegas

"No other civilized country in the world comes close to the number of violent gun deaths that occur in this country in a year. Of course, no laws can guarantee there will never be anymore gun violence, but maybe they at least cut down on this senseless slaughter."

Civilized societies regulate guns - Las Vegas Sun News

"Late in 1997, Eric took notice of school shooters. "Every day news broadcasts stories of students shooting students, or going on killing sprees," he wrote. He researched the possibilities for an English paper. Guns were cheap and readily available. Gun Digest said you could get a Saturday night special for $69. And schools were easy targets. "It is just as easy to bring a loaded handgun to school as it is to bring a calculator," Eric wrote... "Ouch!" his teacher responded in the margin. Overall, he rated it "thorough & logical. Nice job." 'Columbine' p199 http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...y-son-but-he-terrifies-me-11.html#post6541781

Why do you think quotes count as debate?

 

[Koios]

Wow....

The problem (as QW pointed out to you) is that you are NOT trying something new. You are trying things that have already been done and been proven failures. That is not what makes progress. In fact it is the opposite of progress. We make a mistake and rather than using that to progress onto real solutions, you want to repeat those mistakes.

As someone really intelligent once said:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


Maybe this time it will work. I don't know why. It has not worked before. I have no evidence that it will work this time but by golly, we aren't progressing if we don't do the same things over again....

It failed because the original assault weapons ban was riddled with holes, and thus the ban did little to mitigate the flow of assault weapons.

So yeah it was tried, but a ban that actually bans the sale of more assault weapons would be highly novel.

Like the bans in Britton? Or the ones in Australia? Or the city bans that were even more strict than the national ones? Perhaps the state bans that were strict?

I posted many examples with strengthening AND relaxing weapons regulations. NONE worked. You are taking a single example out of the sea that is available to you and even that one does not support your claim. I guess you could make blanket claims that your very specific idea has not been tried but the facts are that a wide variety of gun control has been tried all over the world as well as in the states and the vast majority of them are coming up with little to no evidence supporting any change whatsoever.

No. The USA is unique in its treatment of gun ownership, due to both the 2nd Amendment and the gun lobby, principally the NRA.

So we need to do our own experiments and not rely on those in environments very unlike ours.

 

[Koios]

Wow....

The problem (as QW pointed out to you) is that you are NOT trying something new. You are trying things that have already been done and been proven failures. That is not what makes progress. In fact it is the opposite of progress. We make a mistake and rather than using that to progress onto real solutions, you want to repeat those mistakes.

As someone really intelligent once said:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


Maybe this time it will work. I don't know why. It has not worked before. I have no evidence that it will work this time but by golly, we aren't progressing if we don't do the same things over again....

It failed because the original assault weapons ban was riddled with holes, and thus the ban did little to mitigate the flow of assault weapons.

So yeah it was tried, but a ban that actually bans the sale of more assault weapons would be highly novel.

It failed because assault weapons are defined by cosmetics, not function. As for the imaginary holes you think riddled the original law, how do you plan to fix them?

Read the ban as signed by Clinton. You'll see that the NRA's characterization, which you parrot, is false.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It failed because the original assault weapons ban was riddled with holes, and thus the ban did little to mitigate the flow of assault weapons.

So yeah it was tried, but a ban that actually bans the sale of more assault weapons would be highly novel.

Like the bans in Britton? Or the ones in Australia? Or the city bans that were even more strict than the national ones? Perhaps the state bans that were strict?

I posted many examples with strengthening AND relaxing weapons regulations. NONE worked. You are taking a single example out of the sea that is available to you and even that one does not support your claim. I guess you could make blanket claims that your very specific idea has not been tried but the facts are that a wide variety of gun control has been tried all over the world as well as in the states and the vast majority of them are coming up with little to no evidence supporting any change whatsoever.

No. The USA is unique in its treatment of gun ownership, due to both the 2nd Amendment and the gun lobby, principally the NRA.

So we need to do our own experiments and not rely on those in environments very unlike ours.

The only thing unique about the US is that the government has never succumbed to the temptation to turn massive numbers of citizens into outlaws simply to control something they can't control. Ever look at what happened in countries that outlawed guns and compare the number of guns registered/collected to the number of guns estimated to exist? In Germany it ran at less than 10%, which is about typical for European countries, and actually gives me hope that the world isn't as bad as I thought.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It failed because the original assault weapons ban was riddled with holes, and thus the ban did little to mitigate the flow of assault weapons.

So yeah it was tried, but a ban that actually bans the sale of more assault weapons would be highly novel.

It failed because assault weapons are defined by cosmetics, not function. As for the imaginary holes you think riddled the original law, how do you plan to fix them?

Read the ban as signed by Clinton. You'll see that the NRA's characterization, which you parrot, is false.

I have read it multiple times, the only thing on it that even comes close to being a functional attribute is the bayonet lug. Unless you can make a reasonable argument that a bayonet somehow means the damn thing can shoot more people, it is a cosmetic item.

 

[Koios]

Like the bans in Britton? Or the ones in Australia? Or the city bans that were even more strict than the national ones? Perhaps the state bans that were strict?

I posted many examples with strengthening AND relaxing weapons regulations. NONE worked. You are taking a single example out of the sea that is available to you and even that one does not support your claim. I guess you could make blanket claims that your very specific idea has not been tried but the facts are that a wide variety of gun control has been tried all over the world as well as in the states and the vast majority of them are coming up with little to no evidence supporting any change whatsoever.

No. The USA is unique in its treatment of gun ownership, due to both the 2nd Amendment and the gun lobby, principally the NRA.

So we need to do our own experiments and not rely on those in environments very unlike ours.

The only thing unique about the US is that the government has never succumbed to the temptation to turn massive numbers of citizens into outlaws simply to control something they can't control. Ever look at what happened in countries that outlawed guns and compare the number of guns registered/collected to the number of guns estimated to exist? In Germany it ran at less than 10%, which is about typical for European countries, and actually gives me hope that the world isn't as bad as I thought.

Nor did the previous ban do that. It had a grandfather provision.