Quantcast

Vince Vaughn on the 2A

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by CLP, Jun 1, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,963
    Location:
    Central PA
    Which isn't very frequently, at all, given how much "potential" for it exists. Surely you wouldn't disagree.

    As they say, 300 million guns in the USA were used to kill NO ONE last year. A relative pittance of the total were. Vast potential, tiny realization of that potential.

    I didn't link them, as strictly in the "more guns = less crime" way, though I believe that to be plausible. Merely pointed out that vastly more weaponry out there "on the street" isn't contributing to more killings, in the only example of a real world test we can look at.

    Or in fact, rising rates of violent crime despite the most draconian gun laws imaginable (e.g. England).

    Of course, but that's not a legislation problem, and it is also a problem vastly in decline. Firearms accidents have fallen just as violent crime has.

    Oh, I understand it, too. It is nonsensical and contemptible and a horrid reason to infringe on the rights of others, but I understand it.

    See, the thing is, I don't really concern myself with "a solution." I see violent crime as a natural consequence of the society we live in and a eternal reality of the human condition, and (since I'm a history buff) I see us as living in an almost abnormally safe and secure time, wherein violence is actually a pretty distant concern for the vast majority of folks living out in American society. (The fact that violence is concentrated in inner city poverty is a social issue that gun laws can't even begin to touch, and makes people look at you like a racist if you dare to discuss.) So, in very real terms, I don't think violence is a pressing social issue requiring further disruptive efforts to quell. It will never be eliminated and we're pretty far into the law of diminishing returns on that count. (As you mentioned, observe the prison population. Yikes.)

    There isn't a solution to violent crime. There is one pretty useful defense against it, and that is the responsibility of each citizen to prepare on their own.

    Agreed, and this well sums up the reasons that I don't make such links myself.

    You've missed the point. I was asking you why you felt these were reasonable and positive things to do if you were troubled by my characterization of gun control as an attempt to fix social issues. Yeah, if you AREN'T trying to make society better/safer then coming out in favor of increased legal millstones around the necks of the citizens looks awful suspicious.

    You've answered, sort of, that you aren't actually proposing anything or supporting anything or being part of any movement so, I gather you see no reason to make an answer to that question. That's fine. I think the majority of those real grass roots ma and pa type folks who lean toward gun control ARE trying to make society safer. I don't think they're totalitarian statists. Of course, no such assumptions are to be made about their political Pied Pipers.

    I have NOT said you sound like a liberal, or called you any such thing. I've made my positions clear and supported. You're dismissing them as ideology. It would be supremely easy for me to make the same claim about your own line of thinking, and claim you simply disguise your statist leanings with a mask of studious political agnosticism, but that's not how I debate issues as I find labeling a poor strategy, weak and self-defeating.

    Holy cow, you think I'd FORCE people to own guns? :scrutiny: Jeez. Not everything is about coercion, man. I said I think the world would be a safer place if people DID own guns, not if they were MADE to own guns. I'm for maximum freedom, not government control -- even seemingly pro-gun government oppression.

    Your question was this, "Or does gun ideology mean that one must take the position that firearms restrictions should exist for schizophrenics and clinical pyschopaths?" Honestly I don't have any idea how to answer because I can't figure the question out. I don't know what "gun ideology" is in your view, and I guess I missed the meeting where they handed out the sheet telling everyone what to believe about restrictions on gun ownership for those people. So, I directed you to the two legal principles that can actually answer the question for you.

    But to be more clear so we can quell any further circling the mulberry bush, "adjudicated mentally defective" means that a person may not possess firearms if they've been found by a jury -- through their Constitutional "due process" to be formally charged and to defend themselves in a court of law -- to be incapable of peaceable and lawful conduct among the free citizens of this country. No other limitations are needed or acceptable.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2015
  2. Lycidas Janwor

    Lycidas Janwor Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Basket of Deplorables
    You're logic is incredible bad. I'll take this one example: A gang member, for example, can't do a drive by knifing.

    First of all, there are two tools here in the above statement--a means of transportation, namely, a car, and a way to stab at people. If I use your logic, I'm going to blame a drive-by "shooting" on a gang member's ability to use a vehicle. So, it's the access to the car that is the problem.

    See, I can use bad logic too.

    Fact is, a criminal is going to be a criminal and use whatever means he has to commit a crime. It's personal responsibility. This is not an issue of guns, or cars, it's an issue of personal choices.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2015
  3. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,846
    Location:
    CAAZ;TX?


    Don't be too sure too quick.

    The 1st starts by saying theres been lots of studies but never comes to a conclusion. It explains 3 theories, presents data that supports 1 (yours) and then lists 5 flaws of their own study that could lead to wrong conclusions. One of the flaws is that it contains zero data for the USA.

    I don't think it really supports you overall. Neutral at best.

    The 2nd says
    Id say that doesn't support you at all, really.

    Did I mention the countries the 1st link studied? Europe... S. America; huh?

    The 3rd is kind of a bust for you too.


    Overall, those sources you cited contradict you more than they support you.
     
  4. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    If you want to call acknowledging that an act can't occur without a specific object "blaming" said object then so be it, but nobody is assigning human agency to the weapon. If i follow your line of reasoning, i suppose it could be said that if i lock my door when i leave the house, i'm blaming my stuff rather than the criminals who might steal it, but such is just as silly as complaining about "blaming" a gun. At the end of the day, my concern is that my stuff isn't stolen so i'm going to take whatever reasonable steps i can to protect it.

    So let's break this down. Why would one do a drive-by shooting to begin with? They could walk up, ring the door bell, shoot the person and then flee on foot, but such puts them at much greater risk of being either shot back or caught by authorities. Instead, the decision to attempt murder is made because from the actor's perspective, shooting from the relative safety of a moving car mitigates risk sufficienty. So yes, the car is a key variable in the decision to perform the act, just as the gun. What you might realize though if you think a little deeper rather than using the same tired "blame the gun mantra", is that while the car can be "blamed" per your usage of the word, very few would argue that the utilitarian value of a car is incalculably greater than the unintended harm that their availability provides.

    I don't know how to make it clearer that the mind does not operate in a vacuum.

    Won't argue there.
    ________________
     
  5. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    You seem to be confusing the review of previous research models and findings with the actual study itself. Survey studies, by their nature, are problematic and generally should be relied on only to offer supportive evidence, not form definitive conclusions, simply because they fail to control for other variables sufficiently as is done a double blind study. Its overall previous research assessment was that when available, criminals will choose a gun when available to commit their crimes over other means which causes more homicides, intentionally or not. Instead of assaulting a victim with their fists, they choose to shoot them, for example. The meta-analysis did not contradict nor confirm that availability of guns leads to murder.

    The study itself did, as explained under "Results": These correlations suggest that gun availability is positively associated with all of the crime indicators, hereby lending support to the weapon facilitation and instrumentality hypotheses." The facilitation hypothesis is that "...increasing gun availability can increase total rates
    of assault and robbery when the availability of a gun provides encouragement to someone considering an attack or to someone who normally would not commit an attack." That is exactly what my premise has been from the start. Neutral? Not at all.

    What are you talking about? It says in absolutely clear terms that when guns are available to criminals they are increase violent crime. Ya know, the first sentence you copy/pasted form the study. It in then goes on to say: "Findings also reveal that illegal guns have little influence on violent crimes committed with a knife. Offenders seem not to be substituting knives or other cutting instruments when illegal firearms become less available." which is in perfect alignment with what i've been saying. It also says, per the sentence you highlighted, that legitimate gun availability, as in not to criminals, does not influence crime rates. Okay? And? My premise, for the umpteenth time, is that when a person desires to kill another, the decision to attempt it is influenced by access to a means which minimized risk and maximizes chance of success, in our society a gun.

    So what? You think the decision making model i've described is unique to americans?

    Guns provide a means when the desire is there. If the desire is not there, then of course availability is not going to cause murder. Unfortunately in countries in which many people do have the desire to commit crime, the availability of guns do in fact affect rates of homicides: "Gun availability made gun homicide more likely in Western developed nations and Latin American nations. In contrast, it exhibited a small negative effect in Eastern European nations."
     
  6. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,952
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    Can someone point me to the discussion about the recent pro-gun comments by Vince Vaugh?

    Because this ain't it.
     
  7. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I hardly see, "it could be much worse" as a valid reason to not be concerned. Especially given that other developed nations are so much lower. We're talking about people losing their lives and suffering grievous injuries, not something trivial. Nuclear weapons have been used against people only twice out of the thousands in existence. Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned about nuclear proliferation either?

    Citation? In spite of the vast array of completely inaccurate pro-gun internet memes out there about england's crime, i've read that crime, including violent, is at record lows.

    Maybe this is our philosophical difference. While i am concerned with gun rights, i'm also concerned for the right of innocent people not to be murdered. You see, i thoroughly enjoy owning and shooting ar15's with 30 round mags, but i personally struggle with ensuring my positions are based on what is right rather than what i want. If i oppose a magazine ban or conclude it would not prevent the murder of more school children, i shoudl ask myself "am i being intellectually honest or just believing what is convenient"? That type of introspection is sorely lacking in the gun community. I say that not because of positions people take, but because the lack of depth the reasoning of so many lacks. Any pro-gun argument is accepted, regardless of validity.

    As we've discussed, eliminating it is not the only reasonable goal. But what level of violent crime would cause you to be concerned? I'm sorry, but that sounds to me like a cop out. You personally don't feel affected by violent crime so, "eh, it is what it is"?

    I'm not opposed to trying to make society better by any stretch. Such is absolutely a noble goal. I do object the term "fix" in this case because the connotation is of a complete, 100% solution, which very few actual think is possible. What i personally have is major doubts about is the potential effectiveness of most offered methods to reduce violent crime via further gun restrictions.

    I never said you did. Clearly i was referring to X-rap.

    Actually, you do support your positions and offer reasoned arguments, which i greatly appreciate, as have i. But ideologues can too. Primarily though, when a person says that the solution is always "x", that to me is a sign of ideological thinking, as i said. The fact that ideologues make conclusions and then find the support for them doesn't mean they don't still have supports of positions to offer. As for me, its highly unlikely that any reasonable argument can be made that i am anything close to an ideologue as my views are way too variable to fit any political model, or otherwise.

    I'm asking your position in a tongue in cheek manner.

    So then you're okay with barring the mentally deficit from owning firearms via due process? Okay, but stop not looking like an ideologue.

    Just Kidding. Seriously though, although we disagree on much, i do appreciate the lively debate, Sam. You sir, are a worthy opponent.

    I tend to stay offline over the weekend so won't be replying during such.
     
  8. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,846
    Location:
    CAAZ;TX?
    That's Theory#1. They went to explain 2 other predominant theories.


    This is laughable. The study was done as spark discussion. You know, the part that's titled "Discussion". It wasn't written to come to a Conclusion.

    The "Results" that you're talking about on page 11 is NOT the results of the study. It was the result of the data that I said they presented that supported you; Theory #1

    THERE IS 13 MORE PAGES!!!! KEEP READING!!!!


    Lets go to the last paragraph of the study you cited.

    Right there they say their own study is the 1st and is weak because of it having 5 major flaws I mentioned before and it being exploratory in nature.

    It doesnt support you. Its neutral at best.





    And that only applies to a segment of the population; The criminal segment. So your theory is that criminals are lazy and will take the easy route. And that they wont find alternative means.

    And that's been proven incorrect by (many many people many times over) Tim McVey. Who, despite having guns, chose to make a bomb. And he went through a lot of effort to make it.

    So while I'll agree that most criminals are lazy, the truly dangerous one are not. And they've been proven to go to great lengths to commit more crimes with out the use of a gun.




    Yes, and if you had actually read the 1st study you linked, you would know that they purposefully and specifically were analyzing that very subject.


    Let me quote it for you.

    And from your quote below:

    So, Yes. Yes, the study is about criminal behavior and the accessibility of gun IN DIFFERENT CITIES/NATIONS.


    Again, had you read your study, you should know that.




    See, you acknowledge it here; the bold part. But you selectively don't acknowledge in your statement above.

    The 3rd link you cited also supports it. I quoted the part that does earlier; but again, you subtly gloss over that as if it isn't there.


    That tells me (everyone?) you're playing the selective reading/quoting game and not debating base on merits.


    I do admit the 1st study has some interesting info that contradicted what I thought.... and that gets me thinking more. Keeps my mind open. I like that.


    And I will, however, change my position. After re-reading the 1st study, I'll say its neutral to positive in regards to supporting him. I'll even say its more positive than neutral.


    But the other 2 contradict your position more than anything else. And to say otherwise is a misrepresentation.




    You're right.

    But its obvious that's he's not reading, or selectively reading, because there is some pretty damning statements and data in the 1st link that he hasn't mentioned.

    (And then later contradicts itself; because it was written to be a discussion, not as to come to a conclusion.)


    .
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2015
  9. Lycidas Janwor

    Lycidas Janwor Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Basket of Deplorables
    lol, dude I used your argument against you and you're example. Oh, btw, last time i checked cars were way more apt to be involved in someone's death than guns. Also, in your above post you say something along the lines of how it's easier and safer for a criminal to do a drive by shooting rather than walking up to someone and killing them that way because the other person can defend themselves easier (especially if that person has a gun, right?). So the reality is that the car is the key component of a drive by shooting. It's ironic that you are basically saying a crime would not occur without the car.
     
  10. Al Thompson

    Al Thompson Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    8,845
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Looks like this one has devolved......
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice