Another US shooting..

[FourAceDeal]

Regulating guns is too hard.

Instead we should regulate people's state of mind.

Yeah, that sounds much easier.

Are you trying to think? It's cute.

Are you resorting to insults again because you have ran out of argument?

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Regulating guns is too hard.

Instead we should regulate people's state of mind.

Yeah, that sounds much easier.

Are you trying to think? It's cute.

You should try it some time.

The thinking. Not the being cute. You're already cute. 

[Al Swearegen]

Regulating guns is too hard.

Instead we should regulate people's state of mind.

Yeah, that sounds much easier.

Are you trying to think? It's cute.

Are you resorting to insults again because you have ran out of argument?

No, I do that on my time off when I am having a break.

There are a couple of very stupid positions and I am amazed and amused at seeing the lengths to which people will continue to push them

"We think the way to fix X is with Y"
"Okay but you have tried Y and it does not work because of Z"
"But we think the way to fix X is with Y"
"Okay but they have been trying to fix X with Y for years and it does not work because of Z"
"But we think the way to fix X is with Y"
"OKay but as I said because of Z it is not and will not work so maybe consider A and B"
"But we think the way to fix X is with Y"
"OKay but you have been saying that for years and for decades Y has not worked and it will not work for decades to come because of Z. Wanting it to be different is stupid and trying the same failed path is stupid. Why not try A and B?"
"But we think the way to fix X is with Y"

"You think existing laws surrounding the purchase and use of guns by mentally ill and criminals should be enforced? That is crazy-speak. We all know that no connection between gun violence and these people exist. MOst people shooting people are neither criminals nor psychologically disordered."

"Sure? So most gun violence is between law-abiding and same people who just happen to kill someone? That theory sounds very special"

[odeon]

Is there an argument somewhere in there? I can't be bothered to wade through X and Y.

[Jack]

He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

[odeon]

It doesn't help his argument to add an abstraction.

[Al Swearegen]

He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

[FourAceDeal]

I think "Z" is supposed to be banning the mentally ill.  Or bombs.  Or mentally ill bombs.

[Jack]

He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

[odeon]

I think "Z" is supposed to be banning the mentally ill.  Or bombs.  Or mentally ill bombs.

I think that last one is "W".

[odeon]

He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

There was a significant dip in the mid-80s, too, and the rate had started dropping again before the Brady Act.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

Good points. So does this lead us to conclude that the argument that gun control in the US is impossible is bollocks? And that the argument that gun control won't prevent violent crime is also bollocks?

[odeon]

I would hesitate to attribute the 90s drop solely to the Brady Act. I'm not saying it didn't help--fairly sure it did--but if you look at the statistics, there seems to be more to it.

[Al Swearegen]

I think "Z" is supposed to be banning the mentally ill.  Or bombs.  Or mentally ill bombs.

Can't follow a conversation can you Four Ace? Shame.

[Al Swearegen]

He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

Yes and No.

These 1990's Acts (no doubt there was some pushback on both) were at least viable to those with a "from my cold dead hands" view of any gun control on the basis that it did not affect them. "They were not taking their guns away from decent honest law abiding folks who were not at risk", they were taking it from the people they were at most risk from. The people THEY did not want in possession of guns.

Saying that you will stop mentally ill people or criminals from obtaining guns as a measure of gun control is a much easier sell than "Hey there friend, I know you are a decent person who loves their gun collection and considers it your constitutional right to bear those arms but in case YOU turn into a Psycho or a criminal, I am taking that big one off you there and that one over there too. It is for your own good." That sounds to some Americans as the government trying to disarm or reduce their rights.

It is like the gay marriage thing in Australia. Most of us are ambivalent about gay people getting married because it simply does not affect us. A gay person getting married does not hurt me or anyone else, so why would I care? It is completely reasonable for me to agree to this. However, if that means that for instance, the Church going crowd in Australia HAS to include gay friendly services and change the way they practice their religious doctrine to be more gay friendly, I would strongly object.