A fine reason to ban weapons

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as guns are concerned I believe the laws of the US and nearly all its states fall short.



[/ QUOTE ]

I am guessing that you are not from the good old US of A, and your knowledge of America and of the gun situation here comes from the media. Don't believe everything you read or see on the telly.

You say "I believe" with no evidence except anecdotal stories. Tragic as they might be, they are no logical basis for "belief" or policy.

[ QUOTE ]
You presume that the current restrictions are sufficient and that further restrictions will do little to avert future tradegies. I do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, an opinion without facts. The fact is that current restrictions are not being fully obeyed or enforced (as evidenced by anecdotal evidence). My point is that it is irrational to say that these restrictions are insufficient when they are not being complied with. If they are complied with and prove to be insufficient, fine. Otherwise, it is complete speculation.

If you reduce the speed limit to 55 mph to save lives and fuel, and everyone drives 65 mph, you cannot draw any conclusions about whether the 55 mph limit is sufficient to save lives and fuel. Debating the impact of the current gun control laws is an exercise in futility if they are not being complied with. Passing more laws is equally pointless, because there is no reason to believe that they will be obeyed or enforced.

[ QUOTE ]
If your saying that enforcement is a big part of the problem then you are right but that doesn't mean that existing laws are enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it doesn't mean that they aren't enough either. The point is that the current legal structure and mind-set isn't working. Try something else.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
You cannot legislate away stupidity and incompetence. You can't make your house 100% child-safe, and you can't make the world 100% idiot-safe.



So don't try?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try things that have been proven not to work. Our recent noble experiment with the assault weapons ban proved to be less effective than our noble experiment with the prohibition of alcohol.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
You shouldn't try to eliminate stupidity and incompetence through legislation

[/ QUOTE ]

You are joking, right. Is it just luck we all drive on the right? That we stop at a red light? Are the certificates on my doctors wall just decoration? He has to have them to pratice, right? And the thousands of other jobs and activities where legislation has been enacted to protect against incompetance, all just a conspiracy to make lawyers?

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You shouldn't try to eliminate stupidity and incompetence through legislation

[/ QUOTE ]

You are joking, right. Is it just luck we all drive on the right? That we stop at a red light? Are the certificates on my doctors wall just decoration? He has to have them to pratice, right? And the thousands of other jobs and activities where legislation has been enacted to protect against incompetance, all just a conspiracy to make lawyers?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not going to argue the point about driving on the right...I am not an anarcho-capitalist.

However...regarding your statement about doctors and other jobs with legislation and such to protect against incompetence: the free market would just as efficiently weed out the bad apples, and here's why...

Hypothetical Example:
Anyone can practice medicine. No license is required. However, most people feel that their money is better spent with the guy who has eight years of training under his belt. Therefore, the people without licenses fade away, unless they are able to make up the difference some other way. Either way, the system balances out, because people cannot afford to do otherwise.

But...I don't expect you to buy into that theory. I would like to challenge your belief that government legislation breeds competence. No entity on the planet is more incompetent or inefficient than government.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You are joking, right. Is it just luck we all drive on the right? That we stop at a red light?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, without government, traffic accidents would skyrocket.

Please. Private roadowners would set rules for use of their roads, including what side to drive on.

[ QUOTE ]
Are the certificates on my doctors wall just decoration? He has to have them to pratice, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, malpractice still exists. Amazing. I thought government certification would prevent it!?!

[ QUOTE ]
And the thousands of other jobs and activities where legislation has been enacted to protect against incompetance, all just a conspiracy to make lawyers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most legislators are lawyers. Among the biggest contributors to political campaigns (in the US, at least) are (you guessed it) lawyers.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing that you are not from the good old US of A, and your knowledge of America and of the gun situation here comes from the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, I'm from the UK. But in my defense I've been here nearly 6 years albeit in the very liberal city of NY and safe suburbs of CT. My wife was born and raised in Oklahoma and is my main source of information of how guns are obtained and stored and generally thought off in at least that part of the US.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't believe everything you read or see on the telly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your preaching to the converted.

[ QUOTE ]
You say "I believe"

[/ QUOTE ]

Next time I will use 'In my opinion'.

[ QUOTE ]
with no evidence except anecdotal stories

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe AC's linked story is a fabrication?

[ QUOTE ]
Tragic as they might be, they are no logical basis for "belief" or policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I believe, sorry, if my opinion is that a law/set of laws is/are flawed is their some mathmatical formula I can refer to in future to find what logic dictates. Most laws (if not all) have evolved thru the method of discussion and debate. I fail to see why the regulation of gun ownership and useage should be different.

[ QUOTE ]
And it doesn't mean that they aren't enough either. The point is that the current legal structure and mind-set isn't working. Try something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. This is promising. What? Here's what I would do - no gun shall be allowed to be kept at a home residence. Their will be exceptions off course but 'for personal protection' won't be one of them and neither will 'I havn't got any kids'.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
However...regarding your statement about doctors and other jobs with legislation and such to protect against incompetence: the free market would just as efficiently weed out the bad apples,

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why didn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetical Example:
Anyone can practice medicine. No license is required. However, most people feel that their money is better spent with the guy who has eight years of training under his belt. Therefore, the people without licenses fade away, unless they are able to make up the difference some other way. Either way, the system balances out, because people cannot afford to do otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hypothetically, how many of these unlicensed doctors can prescribe drugs or get you a referral to a specialist?

[ QUOTE ]
But...I don't expect you to buy into that theory. I would like to challenge your belief that government legislation breeds competence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Challange away.

[ QUOTE ]
No entity on the planet is more incompetent or inefficient than government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should work where I do [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
with no evidence except anecdotal stories

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe AC's linked story is a fabrication?

[/ QUOTE ]
Emphasis mine.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I would do - no gun shall be allowed to be kept at a home residence. Their will be exceptions off course but 'for personal protection' won't be one of them and neither will 'I havn't got any kids'.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does this idea square with the idea of liberty? Or don't you believe in liberty?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, without government, traffic accidents would skyrocket.

Please. Private roadowners would set rules for use of their roads, including what side to drive on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The owners of the road make the rules not the owner of the car. What the driver does effects his fellow road users which is why he has rules to follow. A gun owner has rules to follow for the same reason. When and where he discharges his weapon, where he keeps it, how he safeguards against its misuse can have consequenses for other people. I am of the opinion that those rules should be more stringent than they are.

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, malpractice still exists. Amazing. I thought government certification would prevent it!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think it is prevented? An interesting experiment - two societies, one with regulation over medical matters and one without - which would be healthier? Where would you rather live?

[ QUOTE ]
Most legislators are lawyers. Among the biggest contributors to political campaigns (in the US, at least) are (you guessed it) lawyers.

[/ QUOTE ]

And from this you deduce that most laws are frivolous?

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, without government, traffic accidents would skyrocket.

Please. Private roadowners would set rules for use of their roads, including what side to drive on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The owners of the road make the rules not the owner of the car. What the driver does effects his fellow road users which is why he has rules to follow. A gun owner has rules to follow for the same reason. When and where he discharges his weapon, where he keeps it, how he safeguards against its misuse can have consequenses for other people. I am of the opinion that those rules should be more stringent than they are.

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, malpractice still exists. Amazing. I thought government certification would prevent it!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think it is prevented? An interesting experiment - two societies, one with regulation over medical matters and one without - which would be healthier? Where would you rather live?

[ QUOTE ]
Most legislators are lawyers. Among the biggest contributors to political campaigns (in the US, at least) are (you guessed it) lawyers.

[/ QUOTE ]

And from this you deduce that most laws are frivolous?

[/ QUOTE ]

Too hard to quote this, so I'll answer each of your sections:

1)Wait a second. You are advocating stricter rules involving the possession of a firearm, not the use. Yet, in this example, you are doing the very opposite. I might be willing to listen to stricter rules regarding improper usage of a firearm(though I'm not sure how much stricter we can get), but your example does nothing to gain support for stricter rules regarding the possession of guns.

2)Well...in a mild version, we have that experiment in place: The USA and the UK. Is there any proof that socialized medicine works better than privatized medicine? I would guess not, I don't know for sure...can someone provide evidence?

3)I would certainly argue that most laws that are preventative in nature are frivolous, and typically, disastrous(prohibition, drug laws).

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
My wife was born and raised in Oklahoma and is my main source of information of how guns are obtained and stored and generally thought off in at least that part of the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are basing your judgement on hear-say information from a single source. Casting no aspersions on your wife, I have relatives who are honest, well-educated, and well-intentioned who are clueless about guns, crime, and the law.

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
with no evidence except anecdotal stories



Do you believe AC's linked story is a fabrication?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no reason to doubt it. Anecdotal evidence means you are using a specific example to prove a general principle. For every example of something bad happening with guns, someone else can find an example of something very good happening. Whoever comes up with the most examples doesn't win.

But as long as we are telling stories, here's one. Some years ago in Florida, there were a large number of robberies of foreign tourists. Police eventually found many of the criminals and they were arrested and jailed. A reporter interviewed several of them after they had been convicted. They told him that one of the reasons they focussed on tourists was that Florida has recently passed laws making it much easier to buy and carry a gun. They knew that foreigners could not have guns, making them much easier to rob.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I would do - no gun shall be allowed to be kept at a home residence.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that this is the system back in Merrie Olde England. I claim no actual knowledge about what is going on over there, but have heard rumors of high levels of home robberies involving violence. Perhaps those with the facts might share them.

Again, your "solution" to the problem is premised on your opinions about guns. While that might or might not be appropriate or effective in England, it is not appropriate here.

First, most people here do not share your opinion.

Second, our system protects the minority against the opinions of the majority. Even if most people here shared your opinion, our founders considered certain things to be natural rights, and our Constitution protects those rights.

Third, in addition to our federal constitution, each state has a constitution. The great majority of those specifically acknowledge the right to own arms, and many of them specifically mention the right to self-defense.