Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[creaker]

It's almost certainly not the cause, too many other good theories of why violent crime has dropped. But then neither is guns being around the reason the crazy mass shootings have increased.

As many people have said a gun is a tool - I would venture to say if people have an impulse to do a woodworking project, it's a lot more likely to happen if they already have woodworking tools in the home.

[Spartana]

You mean you have a "practice" version of California, where people who are identical to "our" Californians live without such laws, and you can provide detailed evidence comparing these two Californias? Let's go visit this practice California you apparently have and verify your data. /s/

I didn't think so. So we're back to your decision to interpret the data the way that serves your preference and reasonable people who disagree with you interpreting the data in a completely different way.

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this comment. I was merely stating that the legal codes in the state of Calif require things like background checks, waiting periods, safety classes, etc... to purchase many firearms, and that it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm or to purchase certain types of semi-auto rifles and high capacity magazines yet that we still have one of the highest death by firearms rates in the country. I have no problem with anyone agreeing or disagreeing with me on this, or any other subject, and have never said anyone who disagrees with my personal beliefs as "unreasonable". I happen to support gun laws and restrictions similair to those in Calif - as most of the long term posters here know - however I do not support the proposed semi-auto ban.

[bae]

And of course, Spartana, there exists before-and-after data in California speaking to the effectiveness of the various recent-ish California laws, which really started in the 1980s. And that data shows pretty much zero effectiveness, significant cost, reduction of freedoms of law-abiding citizens, and so on.

But data and reasoning aren't the order of the day. Childish sophistry from a sock-puppet is.

[Midwest]

Gun supporters just stating their conclusions doesn't contribute much. Gun supporters are frustrated, no doubt, by the fact that they cannot come up with a set of ideas to change things to address the concerns that gun control advocates have raised. Gun supporters practically throw up their hands, effectively telling others to just live with the ramifications of the gun supporters' personal preference. Gun supporters dodge and weave the moral issues raised, marginalize the risks, and even ridicule the perspectives of reasonable people who disagree with them.

It would be idiocy to give anyone who opposes gun control a promotion to inquisitor. Gun control opponents obviously will want to have the "discussion" on their terms and their terms only. -- "Request denied." -- If anyone is to be promoted to inquisitor in this context (and I believe that neither side should be, but if there is to be such a promotion) then let it be those who want the tragedies to be addressed, allowing us to start quizzing you on the moral underpinnings of your advocacy. Ridiculous? No more so than the suggestion that gun control opponent should rightfully be able to demand control over the discussion.

Gun control opponents have yet to prove - definitively - so that gun control advocates agree with them - that doing what the gun control opponents want results in fewer deaths than doing what the gun control opponents, like the Brady Campaign, suggest. That is the threshold for advocacy that is reasonably imposed on the comments of gun control opponents by those concerned about gun violence. This directly parallels the threshold for advocacy that gun control opponents try to impose on the comments of people who disagree with them. Fair is fair.

Gun control opponents have a vested interest in, and work very hard to maintain the fiction of, their insistence on denying the fact that gun control advocates have not ignored the facts gun control opponents tout but rather have determined the facts as inadequate. See above for the threshold of advocacy that gun control opponents would need to meet in order to have their perspective considered worthy by many folks who take a more moral and socially-conscious view of this issue: They have to actually propose solutions to the problems that have been raised. Just whining about the proposals others are making, without proving that the have proposals of their will actually result in significantly fewer tragedies, will invariably be considered an attempt to assert their personal preference.

Bicker - Is the the framework you are referencing?

A few observations:

1) It seems that you already feel that you automatically have the moral high ground in this issue and are the judge and jury of the facts. If you don't agree or are unswayed with a set of facts they are irrelevant and no further discussion is needed. You also seem take on an air that other positions are immoral because you (as the inquisitor) don't agree.

2) Your position is one of imposing restrictions on a portion of society. It seems reasonable to request you support this postion with facts and not just pontificate on the moral superiority of your position.

3) Some of those opposing your position, do in fact agree that some changes need to be made. They just don't agree with your solutions after weighing the pluses and minuses.

4) Lastly, I took the liberty of replacing "gun supporters" with "gun control supporters" and "gun control supporters" with "gun rights advocates" in the above. I didn't post it, but it is an interesting excerise as it sounds just as arrogant coming from the gun rights side. The point is, both sides need to listen and find solutions not laws for the sake of laws.

I'm all for a discussion of the facts. Sometimes my mind is even changed when that happens.

[Alan]

Just so we are clear, what is that criteria? I looked back but I don't see what you are talking about.

With respect, I cannot see how you could have read my earlier comments without having read that. With respect, go back and read my replies, and get the answer to your question that way.

I've looked back over the entire thread and I would suppose the criteria you mention are the following list:
Criminal Background checks
Ban semi-automatic weapons
ban high capacity magazines
Prohibit Carrying concealed weapons
Regulate the sale of bullets

I, and others, have attempted to engage you in a discussion about these various items, without response. I will try again.

I believe most of us have agreed on the criminal background checks on all gun purchases.

On the ban of semi-automatic weapons, I'm curious about the rationale for that one. Is it because you consider a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to be more dangerous?

High capacity magazines, I addressed a question regarding this earlier and several others have as well, what do you consider high capacity and what do you hope to achieve by banning them given the knowledge that lower capacity magazines can be changed out so quickly that there is practically no distinction between the two.

I, and several others, have asked about the prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons, can you provide a response?

The final item you mentioned was the regulation of the sale of bullets and I've previously asked what that would entail. Would it be a limit on the number or a limit on specific ammunition characteristics? In each case, would it be a daily limit, weekly limit, monthly limit, annual limit or perhaps lifetime limit?

[bae]

The final item you mentioned was the regulation of the sale of bullets and I've previously asked what that would entail. Would it be a limit on the number or a limit on specific ammunition characteristics? In each case, would it be a daily limit, weekly limit, monthly limit, annual limit or perhaps lifetime limit?

I'm not sure what the point of these ammunition-oriented restrictions is, other than perhaps to make life more difficult for law-abiding citizens. Seems criminals don't *use* that many cartridges, nor do they seem to practice much.

For context though, I run through 500-1000 rounds of handgun ammunition a week, 100-200 rounds of rifle ammunition, and 200-250 rounds of shotgun shells. I sometimes purchase a year or more supply of a given sort of ammunition, to take advantage of sales and volume shipping discounts to my remote location. My small local gun club purchases entire tractor-trailer deliveries of 12 gauge shotgun ammunition - trap, skeet, and sporting clays shooters go through ammunition like you wouldn't believe.

My suspicion is that people advocating ammunition controls don't understand the issue. Well, that's my charitable suspicion.

I think they also don't understand reloading. Most of the shooters I know do a lot of reloading, either to keep costs down or to produce a higher quality product than they can purchase. The typical reloading machine they use can easily produce 500 rounds/hour and an initial investment of about $500. For pennies a cartridge. The machine I use produces 1200 rounds/hour.

[Yossarian]

Bicker - Is the the framework you are referencing?

I'm still looking for the criteria by which one can judge an argument. The way I read it it just says "prove definitively to bicker's satisfaction"

[Gregg]

I think opponents of gun control are their own worst enemies when they try to justify their positions with self-serving defenses in the context of self-defined criteria.

The logical question would be to ask you how my criterion was self serving? The experiment was unbiased. It was only self defined in the sense that the person conducting an experiment must necessarily set the parameters for it. Since that particular experiment was designed to prove or disprove a very specific theory it was not difficult to define the boundaries. The outcome proved a singular hypothesis to be correct and a conclusion was drawn from that evidence.

There are plenty of intelligent, thoughtful, articulate people here who believe that various levels of bans on different types of equipment or other restrictions would be beneficial. They are able to state their case, listen (read) other, often opposing, opinions and formulate logical responses from them. Compromise is usually a goal even if it is not always a result. They are people who realize that protecting individuals from harm while at the same time preserving liberty is often a fine balancing act. They can usually see the value of entering into discussions to try to find the point at which the scales don't tip too far either way. Washington could learn a lot from this group. Your posts on this topic have not evolved to show any type of consideration for ideas beyond those you arrived with. No attempts to identify the actual cause of any problem or reasonable questions attempting to separate rumor and urban myth from truth. No effort to present evidence, empirical or otherwise, to validate any claim. Personally, I have reached the point of diminishing return and so choose to concentrate my efforts communicating with others who genuinely wish to make progress.

Good day.

[bae]

I'm still looking for the criteria by which one can judge an argument. The way I read it it just says "prove definitively to bicker's satisfaction"

I recommend a study of: Chagrov, A, and Zakharyaschev, M., 1997. Modal Logic. Oxford University Press.

[decemberlov]

All I know is that I'm going to get my permit before shit hits the fan! Criminals don't follow the rules so I don't know how a ban on guns will help anything. However I do know they may think twice if they knew most people had a concealed weapon.