littleangels        English Nanny
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 90

Thread: 29 dead i na -Walmart - shooting rampage in the USA...

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    8,059
    Thanked: 957
    The phenomenon we see today is a real change from forty years ago. There has always been murder, there has been the very occasional mass murder; we know that, no one denies it. But the mass shootings of today, in frequency and scope, simply did not happen on such a scale, in spite of nations like America being loaded with firearms; in America in particular people walked around armed, guns carried in pickup trucks, etc, and nobody, generally speaking, shot anybody. For decades and centuries. The shooting of any one man was news.

    It’s not the existence of guns, people. It is a real change in the human soul. It points ineluctably to a cause that some here don’t want to admit, the undeniable fact that Europe and America were formed for centuries by a particular religion, that not all accepted or bought into, but which was broadly accepted, either nominally or more sincerely, by the general mass of the populations and whose assumptions of the basis of morality became the basis of law and order. In short, nations that had been largely Christian have publicly repudiated that religion, and that coincides fairly directly (with a one-generation lag, as children began to grow up in an environment touting increasingly non-Christian assumptions and values) with the rise of modern intolerance, and of the insanity (unhealthiness of the soul) that leads people to commit such wickedness.

    I could even talk about how the public abandonment of Christian faith in Russia was followed by unprecedented violence of Russian against Russian on a massive scale for over two decades, notably the Civil War and the Terror, ended only by a war which literally decimated (in the one-out-of-ten sense) the population (and ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union). China, by contrast, was never Christian to begin with. But I think it’s enough to say that the facts about America are unquestionably true.

    I’d expect flat-out denials, or silence, from the atheist wing here, but no effective refutation of the coincidence of those facts.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rusmeister For This Useful Post:

    nicklcool (17-08-2019), TheInterocitor (21-08-2019)

  3. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,735
    Thanked: 703
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    in America in particular people walked around armed, guns carried in pickup trucks, etc, and nobody, generally speaking, shot anybody. For decades and centuries. The shooting of any one man was news.
    ...
    I’d expect flat-out denials, or silence, from the atheist wing here, but no effective refutation of the coincidence of those facts.
    I'd be happy to refute your facts, but apart from this claim that 'nobody generally speaking shot anybody', I don't see any facts or claims based upon facts that could be tested or proven/disproven.

    If you have time to state your claim in a form that could be compared to actual data, fine, otherwise your argument is basic motivated reasoning (there is this thing that I don't like and is obviously causing this other thing I don't like). It's a hallmark of motivated reasoning that those exercising it rarely ever actually check whether the claims correspond to actual facts.

    Some specificity of time period and which measure (e.g. intentional homicides, mass murders, what exactly?).

    A few small points for consideration:
    -as far as I'm aware, homicide rates have fallen in most "Western" countries over 20-40 year time frames.
    -gun availability by type and what I'd call lethality has changed over time. While guns may have been pretty common before, the mix of weapons (handguns, 'assault-type' rifles, more simple hunting rifles etc) available, purchased, larger magazines, etc has changed in the USA. Prices also matter, and more deadly stuff has gotten cheaper. Another development is the types of ammunition available - much more deadly ammo. That is to say, the 'everyone had guns' back in whatever year the speaker is referring to may be true, but the guns and ammo are different; there's also a question of how many guns owned by whom (there are some studies that the increase in # of guns is largely due to a small number of households with lots of them, rather than more widespread ownership - but I don't know).

    I could speculate about how these tie into homicide rates and/or mass shooting fatalities, but I honestly don't know, and there are other factors at work. I suspect that the 'largest mass shootings' - even if they get big headlines - actually don't change overall homicide rates that much. (As an example, the Breivik murders in Norway, despite being horrific, only roughly doubled the homicide rate in that year there - and that's for a small country with a low homicide rate; in USA, just due to size, it washes out in the large numbers).

    As a side note to a separate discussion here, the comparison to motor vehicles. I think for many 'gun control advocates', regulation of gun use/ownership/licensing/storage/training analogous to what is done for motor vehicles is exactly what they would like (not all are advocating for outright bans).

    If I remember correctly, the USA moved quickly to regulate a common pastime - lawn darts - and even banned metal-tipped ones when there was a small number of unfortunate deaths. It's not like the USA doesn't regulate anything at all for safety reasons. Civilians also can't buy grenades (I think). Heck, buying cold medicine (pseudoephedrine) in many states is a bloody hassle (I've experienced this personally).

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Armoured For This Useful Post:

    nicklcool (17-08-2019)

  5. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ALWAYS in trouble.....
    Posts
    19,117
    Thanked: 5910
    Quote Originally Posted by TheInterocitor View Post
    The largest terrorist attack in US history was not done by a gun or an "assault weapon" it was done by civilian airliners, full of innocent passengers.

    The second largest terrorist attack in US history was not by a gun or an "assault weapon" it was done by a man with a truck, in Oklahoma City.

    The third largest terrorist attack in US history was not by a gun or an "assault weapon" it was done by a US Army troops driving tanks into a farmhouse and "accidentally" setting the place on fire, in Waco, Texas.

    There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of cases of people every year, in just the USA, of people purposefully hitting their spouse, or running over innocent people while driving drunk. This is not to count the thousands who die by vehicular suicide or accidentally kill themselves and others while driving not-drunk.

    (hey Armour-all, get out your Mattell toy magnifying glass and nitpick Wiki for that one).

    The biggest media shitstorm of the decade was about a guy, beaten and attacked by an Antifa mob, getting into his car and running over one of the Antifa (the violent fascists who call themselves "anti-fascists) in Charlottesville, Virginia.

    In Europe, there have been numerous mass-murder attacks by criminals-terrorists using motor vehicles.

    In fact, the weapon of choice of the Islamo-fascist terrorists in Europe is a motor vehicle - trucks, buses, cars.

    So yes, motor vehicles are assault weapons and should be banned to prevent this carnage, 60,000 a year in Russia and the USA, a human toll far greater than that caused by guns.
    Why are you referencing 'terrorist attacks'? These mass shooters are crazy US of A citizens who have become angry for some reason - For example, how many terrorists attacked US of A schools killing scores of children?

    None!

    If you want to reference terrorist attacks, aQ killed less than 3,000 people on 9/11, but in the same year there were nearly 9,000 gun homicides (not suicides or shooting accidents), but murders involving firearms in the US of A.
    Если враг в пределах досягаемости, то и вы тоже!


  6. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Moscow Orange Line, oh Yeah, I'm movin' on up!
    Posts
    1,403
    Thanked: 933
    Quote Originally Posted by Armoured View Post
    As a side note to a separate discussion here, the comparison to motor vehicles. I think for many 'gun control advocates', regulation of gun use/ownership/licensing/storage/training analogous to what is done for motor vehicles is exactly what they would like (not all are advocating for outright bans).
    The thing is, armored, firearms already ARE heavily regulated in the USA, so what blows the minds of 2A advocates is that "gun-control advocates" think ever more regulations are needed and will somehow prevent or reduce gun deaths.

    In fact, this statement right here is really what the whole argument boils down to.

    BTW, there's another motor vehicle metaphor that works here. In the United States, up until the early nineties, the maximum speed limit throughout the country was 55mph. The fed'l gov't achieved that feat despite States' rights, as it always does, by tying fed'l funding to this rule (sure, you can increase your speed limits, little autonomous state, but don't expect to keep getting XX fed'l funding from us!). Well, eventually, that regulation was dropped, and the speed limit was raised to 65mph everywhere. This predictably led to increased automobile fatalities, but the regulation wasn't brought back, because those increased motor vehicle fatalities were seen as an acceptable/tolerable, albeit unfortunate, side effect of the increased efficiency of being able to get around faster.

    BTW, Tolko, I neglected to respond to your other post, and I see you're a little anxious to respond to all of my excellent commentary, anyway , but in spite of your picture of the scary AR-15, your statements were still false: Tiny little handguns are the ones that commit most of the mass shootings/firearms deaths in the USA.
    I am fascinated by Russia, this country with frigid weather, hard souls, and hot girls!

  7. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,735
    Thanked: 703
    Quote Originally Posted by TolkoRaz View Post
    Why are you referencing 'terrorist attacks'?
    I don't understand the 9/11 reference either in that almost 3000 people were murdered in an awful terrorist attack and ... the US government and agencies instigated massive extra regulations to avoid airplanes being used to kill people. (Also a war or two was started, but separate subject)

    Las Vegas concert shooting? Trump bans 'bump stocks.' El Paso / Dayton attacks? Proposals for more serious regulations to deal with mentally ill people getting access to firearms.

    So let's face it: when bad things happen, governments sometimes (often) come up with regulations to protect public safety. Even most GOP politicians / administrations recognise the concept, although may disagree on details.

    Almost all "Western" countries allow some form of gun ownership/usage - esp for hunting but usually also firearms ranges - etc, although they differ significantly in the regulations that apply thereto.

    So I do not understand the hysteria in the USA about this - regulations are accepted, the arguments are only about the degree.

    My own answer is that the NRA is an extremist organisation that whips up fear about any form of regulation as if it meant all guns would be confiscated tomorrow.

    Of course, until the 70s roughly, the NRA was quite supportive of regulation and much less partisan-political. It was taken over by ideologues.

    (My favourite proposal for regulation in the USA would be a requirement for gun ownership/usage that the owner/user has a minimum level of third-party liability insurance. Every state in the USA has this requirement for cars. Severe penalties for not having gun insurance.)

  8. #51
    Judge's Avatar
    Judge is offline kiss my shiny metal ........
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    19,651
    Thanked: 3617
    Quote Originally Posted by TheInterocitor View Post
    Yes/no, would a ban on cars reduce deaths (28000 last year) in Russia?

    Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44.
    In theory yes, if cars were banned then yes less deaths on Russian roads, but of course a ban on cars is out of the question, what they could do here is enforce the laws better, like big fines for dangerous driving, no talking or texting on phones, plus end the chance of buying a driving licence.

  9. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,735
    Thanked: 703
    Quote Originally Posted by nicklcool View Post
    The thing is, armored, firearms already ARE heavily regulated in the USA, so what blows the minds of 2A advocates is that "gun-control advocates" think ever more regulations are needed and will somehow prevent or reduce gun deaths.

    In fact, this statement right here is really what the whole argument boils down to.
    Objectively the regulations are 'lighter' than in most other advanced countries. But, if you wish to contend that they are 'heavily regulated', clearly they are poorly/inefficiently regulated and it's not unreasonable to suggest improving the regulations (and enforcement, etc).

    As an example: there is a law that prevents the responsible agency from collecting computerised records of gun purchases and sales. The agency literally has to do everything on paper, and only on paper. It's both more expensive and slow because of this silly requirement.

    There are also specific bans on some government agencies (CDC for example) from studying firearms and the relation to public safety - including better regulation (leaving aside for the moment 'more or less' regulation).

    Absurd.

    BTW, there's another motor vehicle metaphor that works here. In the United States, up until the early nineties, the maximum speed limit throughout the country was 55mph. The fed'l gov't achieved that feat despite States' rights, as it always does, by tying fed'l funding to this rule (sure, you can increase your speed limits, little autonomous state, but don't expect to keep getting XX fed'l funding from us!). Well, eventually, that regulation was dropped, and the speed limit was raised to 65mph everywhere. This predictably led to increased automobile fatalities, but the regulation wasn't brought back, because those increased motor vehicle fatalities were seen as an acceptable/tolerable, albeit unfortunate, side effect of the increased efficiency of being able to get around faster.
    Sure, whoever claimed that regulations don't represent some trade-off and it makes sense to revisit them?

    But I'd note that over the time period involved (and somewhat after) the US enacted massive amounts of additional safety regulations on cars: seatbelts, airbags, removing lead from gasoline, as well as a mass of other safety standards for cars, drunk driving laws, etc., etc. (That's before getting into, by the way, improvements in road standards - yet more regulations - and some non-regulatory improvements, i.e. not all safety improvements were driven by regulations but sometimes by cooperation with insurance industry and government/private research as well).

    I'd personally be in agreement that the 55mph national speed limit represented a relatively poor trade-off in terms of lives saved vs cost. But note that nationally, overall maximum speeds dropped considerably - partly (I would guess) as a result of the awareness of the link between speed and fatalities. So in my view it's wrong to say that the national speed limit rollback to [whatever exactly it is now, a mix I guess] indicates an outright failure - the public policy options to lower road deaths changed, part of the gains from lower speeds were kept, and different trade-offs made. (There are really complex questions like for example: data is pretty clear that the newer somewhat lower limits like 65 are still violated frequently, but that the number of 'crazy speeders' e.g. more than 20 mph over the limit has dropped massively; it's possible that some of the improvements in safety were from either that change alone or from more cars being roughly at the same speed range, i.e. that there is a separate danger factor for cars travelling at large speed differentials on the same road).

    Oh, by the way: claiming that the national speed limit was a safety measure is incorrect (I'm not saying you explicitly did this). The law when adopted was entirely about energy conservation. As indicated clearly both by the name of the legislation (emergency highway energy conservation act) and the timing (1973, peak of the oil crisis). You can check the text here, there's not a word about safety in the relevant section:
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...-87-Pg1046.pdf

    It was probably mostly a failure in terms of impact on fuel consumption, other approaches (again regulation!) have been much more effective.

    The interpretation of the national speed limit as a safety measure was largely after-the-fact, as indeed it seemed to have a significant impact on highway deaths. But that wasn't its genesis.

    Again, reasonable people can disagree about the trade-offs for this and different types of firearms regulation, but clearly it's not a religious war about whether all regulation is 'bad.' Both sides (parties) and the public overall clearly accept regulation of firearms, and (mostly) more than there are now (or at least better regs/enforcement).

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Armoured For This Useful Post:

    nicklcool (17-08-2019)

  11. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    8,059
    Thanked: 957
    Quote Originally Posted by Armoured View Post
    I'd be happy to refute your facts, but apart from this claim that 'nobody generally speaking shot anybody', I don't see any facts or claims based upon facts that could be tested or proven/disproven.

    If you have time to state your claim in a form that could be compared to actual data, fine, otherwise your argument is basic motivated reasoning (there is this thing that I don't like and is obviously causing this other thing I don't like). It's a hallmark of motivated reasoning that those exercising it rarely ever actually check whether the claims correspond to actual facts.

    Some specificity of time period and which measure (e.g. intentional homicides, mass murders, what exactly?).

    A few small points for consideration:
    -as far as I'm aware, homicide rates have fallen in most "Western" countries over 20-40 year time frames.
    -gun availability by type and what I'd call lethality has changed over time. While guns may have been pretty common before, the mix of weapons (handguns, 'assault-type' rifles, more simple hunting rifles etc) available, purchased, larger magazines, etc has changed in the USA. Prices also matter, and more deadly stuff has gotten cheaper. Another development is the types of ammunition available - much more deadly ammo. That is to say, the 'everyone had guns' back in whatever year the speaker is referring to may be true, but the guns and ammo are different; there's also a question of how many guns owned by whom (there are some studies that the increase in # of guns is largely due to a small number of households with lots of them, rather than more widespread ownership - but I don't know).

    I could speculate about how these tie into homicide rates and/or mass shooting fatalities, but I honestly don't know, and there are other factors at work. I suspect that the 'largest mass shootings' - even if they get big headlines - actually don't change overall homicide rates that much. (As an example, the Breivik murders in Norway, despite being horrific, only roughly doubled the homicide rate in that year there - and that's for a small country with a low homicide rate; in USA, just due to size, it washes out in the large numbers).

    As a side note to a separate discussion here, the comparison to motor vehicles. I think for many 'gun control advocates', regulation of gun use/ownership/licensing/storage/training analogous to what is done for motor vehicles is exactly what they would like (not all are advocating for outright bans).

    If I remember correctly, the USA moved quickly to regulate a common pastime - lawn darts - and even banned metal-tipped ones when there was a small number of unfortunate deaths. It's not like the USA doesn't regulate anything at all for safety reasons. Civilians also can't buy grenades (I think). Heck, buying cold medicine (pseudoephedrine) in many states is a bloody hassle (I've experienced this personally).
    You don’t seem to know what a generalization is. I’m not here to write books on this forum, citing statistics, data, etc. I made a general statement that mass shootings ON THE SCALE WE SEE TODAY are a new phenomenon in American history (focusing on the US, to avoid a host of distracting differences with other countries). THAT is a fact, which requires no extensive data to acknowledge. The closest you can come to this scale would be the gangster shootings of the Prohibition era, and even they don’t match up. In addition, semi-automatic weapons have been in widespread use for at least a century; the ability to repeatedly pull a trigger without reloading has been available to all for at least that long.

    You can throw all the talk about homicide rates you want, but it doesn’t change that extremely general and basic truth: this scale of mass murder is new, and so, is news. You haven’t refuted it.
    And you certainly haven’t refuted the fact that America has, over the past fifty years, increasingly publicly rejected its Christian heritage. Those two co-incident facts are no mere coincidence, but cause and effect.

    Don’t make the mistake of appealing to exceptions in the attempt to deny the rule. It’s also called “not seeing the forest for the trees”. The trees may be slightly interesting and vary, and even be of different types. But don’t deny that there’s a forest there in the process.

  12. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,735
    Thanked: 703
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    You don’t seem to know what a generalization is. I’m not here to write books on this forum, citing statistics, data, etc. I made a general statement that mass shootings ON THE SCALE WE SEE TODAY are a new phenomenon in American history (focusing on the US, to avoid a host of distracting differences with other countries).
    Why exclude other countries? If your argument is that socieities that "irejected their Christian heritage" end up with such mass shootings, and that this is the cause, then such mass shootings should be more common in countries that have more thoroughly rejected their Christian heritage.

    You're wilfully ignoring the obvious: the big difference between USA (more such shootings) and other countries (fewer) is the availability of guns. Many more 'godless' countries have minimal such problems.

    This is just excluding any information you do not like.

    In addition, semi-automatic weapons have been in widespread use for at least a century; the ability to repeatedly pull a trigger without reloading has been available to all for at least that long.
    Ummm, it's been 'available', but not readily so or widely owned. Given that the weapons most frequently involved in such mass shootings weren't introduced, mass produced and made cheaper until the 1960s, it's simply not true. See also info about types of ammunition, etc.

    At any rate, surely as a man of good faith, you would look into whether the facts actually support this contention, rather than simply stating 'they were widely available'?

    Those two co-incident facts are no mere coincidence, but cause and effect.
    You have determined this only by dint of your pre-existing beliefs - this is bad and that is bad and therefore this causes that - without any analysis whatsoever. Helped along by simply not defining what you mean as it is all 'self-evident.'

  13. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    8,059
    Thanked: 957
    Quote Originally Posted by Armoured View Post
    Why exclude other countries? If your argument is that socieities that "irejected their Christian heritage" end up with such mass shootings, and that this is the cause, then such mass shootings should be more common in countries that have more thoroughly rejected their Christian heritage.

    You're wilfully ignoring the obvious: the big difference between USA (more such shootings) and other countries (fewer) is the availability of guns. Many more 'godless' countries have minimal such problems.

    This is just excluding any information you do not like.



    Ummm, it's been 'available', but not readily so or widely owned. Given that the weapons most frequently involved in such mass shootings weren't introduced, mass produced and made cheaper until the 1960s, it's simply not true. See also info about types of ammunition, etc.

    At any rate, surely as a man of good faith, you would look into whether the facts actually support this contention, rather than simply stating 'they were widely available'?



    You have determined this only by dint of your pre-existing beliefs - this is bad and that is bad and therefore this causes that - without any analysis whatsoever. Helped along by simply not defining what you mean as it is all 'self-evident.'
    I don’t mind answering honest objections, provided that they’re honest. At a certain point, if it turns out they are not, and just seek to debunk at all costs, then I wouldn’t allow good argument to turn into useless quarreling.

    Including different situations when every point is under contention allows the debunker to shift ground when he starts losing on one front. Yes, there are details specific to different countries. And yes, the availability of guns has something to do with it. But it is not the cause; only the existing environment. The ultimate point is the rise of observable and admitted evil. Not statistics, which Mark Twain rightfully called doubt on, but what we see in front of our eyes, the loss of public civility, of simple politeness and respect, of abandoning traditions like honorifics, last name basis, and chivalry, and the rise of “road rage”, to name a few. But to keep things narrow and to a point, I’ll stick to the US for now, and establish that it is true about that nation (my own) before looking at how it s been playing out in, say, Ireland.

    Your assertion that the normal modern semi-automatic was not generally available and affordable until the 1960’s is manifestly false. Anyone with any actual knowledge of American culture, its literature, and everything that pointed to the ubiquitousness of guns in what was heavily a pioneer society until the 20th century belies the claim. Just read any book, or watch any old TV show, say, Lassie, (1950’s) or anything which takes for GRANTED that homeowners had a gun on the wall or under the bed. You can quibble about how many of them were semiautomatic, but given that even a shotgun (in which I am formally qualified and familiar with) reloads fast enough to make it pretty much a moot point (never mind that the shotgun is already an area effect weapon). I have learned that even such fictional records, when they depict what the society at large takes for granted, have a ton of truth in them (thus my greater respect in recent years for myths, legends and fairy tales, which only a fool thinks of as mere lies). It is often the little things that no one bats an eye at and hardly notices, as it is like the air we breathe, because it is so normal and natural, and NOT a radical exception, that prove that point.

    So you can make your assertions. Mine are based on a lifetime of observation and knowledge, both personal and literary (ie, the knowledge of others) and not merely running to see what numbers a statistician has compiled, and then draw conclusions, right or wrongly (very often the latter).

    But then it becomes a simple and silly “Yes, it is!” “No, it isn’t!”.

    Conclusion: Americans have in fact always been able to kill significant numbers of people rather quickly, and as a general rule have not, until our time, called at one time “going postal” precisely because it was new and peculiar to postal workers, then Columbine. The fact that it is a new phenomenon that Americans were always capable of, but never generally did, stands. It is NOT the mere availability of guns, or even semi-automatics.

    The abandonment of Christian faith is even easier to demonstrate and prove, so I don’t guess you’ll deny that one.

    I’m NOT trying to “beat you”, only to convince you that the idea you have now is weaker than you have supposed, and should be reconsidered. Try something besides statistics.

    I don’t think it a coincidence that Ryazanov chose a statistics department as the location for “Служебный роман”, a major center for Soviet self-deception.

    Solzhenitsyn said himself, that these things happen because we forget/exclude (the Christian) God. I’m not the only one to see this.

  14. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,735
    Thanked: 703
    Quote Originally Posted by rusmeister View Post
    I don’t mind answering honest objections, provided that they’re honest. At a certain point, if it turns out they are not, and just seek to debunk at all costs, then I wouldn’t allow good argument to turn into useless quarreling.
    You seem to be implying that I'm being dishonest.

    Including different situations when every point is under contention allows the debunker to shift ground when he starts losing on one front.
    So basically, you exclude any information that disagrees with your thesis, on the grounds that "it's complicated."

    Please, when I'm asking you to define your terms in some form that can be subject to confirmation, it's precisely because I don't wish to have the ground shift every time.

    The ultimate point is the rise of observable and admitted evil.
    Please define.

    Your assertion that the normal modern semi-automatic was not generally available and affordable until the 1960’s is manifestly false. Anyone with any actual knowledge of American culture, its literature, and everything that pointed to the ubiquitousness of guns in what was heavily a pioneer society until the 20th century belies the claim. Just read any book, or watch any old TV show, say, Lassie, (1950’s) or anything which takes for GRANTED that homeowners had a gun on the wall or under the bed. You can quibble about how many of them were semiautomatic, but given that even a shotgun (in which I am formally qualified and familiar with) reloads fast enough to make it pretty much a moot point (never mind that the shotgun is already an area effect weapon).
    Here's an example: first you claimed that 'semi-automatics' were widely available, and now you've changed to any weapon that can be deadly enough to make the distinction a moot point.

    (Your manifestly false assertion is also nonsense, because again, you've refused to define terms. I've pointed out that the 'modern semi-automatic' rifle wasn't even introduced in civilian version until about 1960, not widely adopted in the US military [in the military version] until during/towards the end of the vietnam war, and that civilian sales have greatly increased over time and particularly since about 2004. Those are facts.)

    So you can make your assertions. Mine are based on a lifetime of observation and knowledge, both personal and literary (ie, the knowledge of others) and not merely running to see what numbers a statistician has compiled, and then draw conclusions, right or wrongly (very often the latter).

    But then it becomes a simple and silly “Yes, it is!” “No, it isn’t!”.
    Your statements and assertions, because not backed by definitions, cannot be proven or disproven. So your 'lifetime of observation and knowledge' is superior to others because ... well, why exactly?

    I’m NOT trying to “beat you”, only to convince you that the idea you have now is weaker than you have supposed, and should be reconsidered. Try something besides statistics.
    You have not, sir, convinced me of much more than that it's generally not worth engaging with you; you refuse to put forth your point in a form that could be considered. I remain open to hearing real arguments, but yours do not meet basic qualifications for being testable arguments.

    Your 'statistics' whingeing is quite discouraging. I haven't put forward any 'statistics' points (in the mathematical/analytical sense of that term), only a request for actual numbers or facts or definitions that would allow one to even consider your point.

  15. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Moscow Orange Line, oh Yeah, I'm movin' on up!
    Posts
    1,403
    Thanked: 933
    Quote Originally Posted by Armoured View Post
    Objectively the regulations are 'lighter' than in most other advanced countries. But, if you wish to contend that they are 'heavily regulated', clearly they are poorly/inefficiently regulated and it's not unreasonable to suggest improving the regulations (and enforcement, etc).

    As an example: there is a law that prevents the responsible agency from collecting computerised records of gun purchases and sales. The agency literally has to do everything on paper, and only on paper. It's both more expensive and slow because of this silly requirement.

    There are also specific bans on some government agencies (CDC for example) from studying firearms and the relation to public safety - including better regulation (leaving aside for the moment 'more or less' regulation).

    Absurd.



    Sure, whoever claimed that regulations don't represent some trade-off and it makes sense to revisit them?

    But I'd note that over the time period involved (and somewhat after) the US enacted massive amounts of additional safety regulations on cars: seatbelts, airbags, removing lead from gasoline, as well as a mass of other safety standards for cars, drunk driving laws, etc., etc. (That's before getting into, by the way, improvements in road standards - yet more regulations - and some non-regulatory improvements, i.e. not all safety improvements were driven by regulations but sometimes by cooperation with insurance industry and government/private research as well).

    I'd personally be in agreement that the 55mph national speed limit represented a relatively poor trade-off in terms of lives saved vs cost. But note that nationally, overall maximum speeds dropped considerably - partly (I would guess) as a result of the awareness of the link between speed and fatalities. So in my view it's wrong to say that the national speed limit rollback to [whatever exactly it is now, a mix I guess] indicates an outright failure - the public policy options to lower road deaths changed, part of the gains from lower speeds were kept, and different trade-offs made. (There are really complex questions like for example: data is pretty clear that the newer somewhat lower limits like 65 are still violated frequently, but that the number of 'crazy speeders' e.g. more than 20 mph over the limit has dropped massively; it's possible that some of the improvements in safety were from either that change alone or from more cars being roughly at the same speed range, i.e. that there is a separate danger factor for cars travelling at large speed differentials on the same road).

    Oh, by the way: claiming that the national speed limit was a safety measure is incorrect (I'm not saying you explicitly did this). The law when adopted was entirely about energy conservation. As indicated clearly both by the name of the legislation (emergency highway energy conservation act) and the timing (1973, peak of the oil crisis). You can check the text here, there's not a word about safety in the relevant section:
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...-87-Pg1046.pdf

    It was probably mostly a failure in terms of impact on fuel consumption, other approaches (again regulation!) have been much more effective.

    The interpretation of the national speed limit as a safety measure was largely after-the-fact, as indeed it seemed to have a significant impact on highway deaths. But that wasn't its genesis.

    Again, reasonable people can disagree about the trade-offs for this and different types of firearms regulation, but clearly it's not a religious war about whether all regulation is 'bad.' Both sides (parties) and the public overall clearly accept regulation of firearms, and (mostly) more than there are now (or at least better regs/enforcement).
    Armoured, you make some excellent points, and thank you for your detailed, respectful reply!

    One of the first points of contention that I'll respond to is that although you're probably right that NO regulation is BAD for a civilized society, under what logic can we assume that INCREASED regulation will automatically create GOOD (or even desired) outcomes?

    I still don't think anyone has shown that increasing the already good enough firearms regulations will create "good" public policy outcomes, and most of the pushes we see today for "more" regulation are a visceral reaction to wanting to do SOMETHING in light of the horrific mass shootings (in fact, there's lots of dishonesty here where the "gun control" crowd just says it wants "regulations," not "more," implying that they do not exist or are to loose as they stand now.)

    (There's a great book called "trying hard is not good enough"by Mark Friedman from 2005 that I think pins down where the gun control crowd is going wrong here; they just see a big number of firearms deaths per year and think SOMETHING, ANYTHING, must be done regarding those stats, without thinking about the stories behind the numbers.)

    I also find it ironic that we're all Westerners living here in Russia, a VERY under-regulated country, and enjoying all the fruits of that approach to governing, and then calling for MORE regulation back home!

    For sure there will be unintended consequences to the policy solution armored, tolko, and hans prescribe, of increasing firearms regulations. It will be harder for law-abiding citizens to get firearms and CCW permits, and for the non-law-abiding crowd it will be only slightly more difficult to illegally buy and carry firearms on their person. There are already 300k defensive firearms uses annually according to the CDC (likely underreported because often just brandishing a firearm is enough to stop the criminal), and Obama's CDC firearms safety study already determined that the absence of "gun-free" zones strongly dissuaded mass shooters, so how many more people will be put in harm's way if more firearms regulations are successfully implemented??

    The big correlative factors that rusmeister is missing in his religious explanation are mental health meds, lack of involuntary commitment of our crazies, and lenient or non-existent immigration laws (look it up; many of these mass shootings are committed by first and second-generation immigrants). So, tighten up the immigration laws (a moratorium would be nice), start under-prescribing SSDIs and the like, and allow our crazies to start being involuntarily committed once more, and you'll save quite a few lives, all without violating our Constitution!

    And, last 2 points on this short Sunday post (I know I haven't addressed all of your ideas yet, armored):

    HANDGUNS, not "assault rifles," are most often used in mass shootings. And, very advanced, "assault" weapons existed, even when our 2A was passed! So it wasn't just about Muskets!

    Here's a humorous take on that common "gun control advocate" lie
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s

    So please stop posting this AR-15s used in mass shootings lie, tolko and armoured.
    I am fascinated by Russia, this country with frigid weather, hard souls, and hot girls!

  16. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,735
    Thanked: 703
    Quote Originally Posted by nicklcool View Post
    Armoured, you make some excellent points, and thank you for your detailed, respectful reply!
    Likewise.

    One of the first points of contention that I'll respond to is that although you're probably right that NO regulation is BAD for a civilized society, under what logic can we assume that INCREASED regulation will automatically create GOOD (or even desired) outcomes?
    Where did I assume that? Regulations, as with many other things, should be considered from time to time. If they don't work, or have negative outcomes, change them.

    I know this will be a crazy-making statement: but likewise with most legal norms, including constitutional. Sure, they shouldn't be changed whimsically, but they're also not sacred.

    Did you know that the first US constitution was thrown out because it was entirely workable? Rhetorical - I'm sure you did; but this seems to be ignored all the time. Not to mention that the second amendment was ... an amendment.

    I still don't think anyone has shown that increasing the already good enough firearms regulations will create "good" public policy outcomes, and most of the pushes we see today for "more" regulation are a visceral reaction to wanting to do SOMETHING in light of the horrific mass shootings (in fact, there's lots of dishonesty here where the "gun control" crowd just says it wants "regulations," not "more," implying that they do not exist or are to loose as they stand now.)
    I think one can only compare good enough regulations / good enough outcomes with some baseline.

    US firearms death rates are far higher than comparable western countries. I'd say that's not 'good enough.' It also seems easily demonstrated that these regulations in other jurisdictions demonstrably get better results. So sure, you can be skeptical whether they'll get good results, but to be honest, you should also consider evidence that the results are not doomed to 'failure' just because you're generally opposed to regulations or whatever.

    I don't really see the dishonesty you're referring to in your characterisation of the gun control crowd. I'm not aware they claim there's no regulation, simply that it's minimal compared to comparable countries. At most it's a shorthand for 'very little.' At any rate this is at most a minor point, and you can afford to be generous and not attribute dishonesty.

    (There's a great book called "trying hard is not good enough"by Mark Friedman from 2005 that I think pins down where the gun control crowd is going wrong here; they just see a big number of firearms deaths per year and think SOMETHING, ANYTHING, must be done regarding those stats, without thinking about the stories behind the numbers.)

    I also find it ironic that we're all Westerners living here in Russia, a VERY under-regulated country, and enjoying all the fruits of that approach to governing, and then calling for MORE regulation back home!
    Who says Russia in under-regulated?

    For sure there will be unintended consequences to the policy solution armored, tolko, and hans prescribe, of increasing firearms regulations. It will be harder for law-abiding citizens to get firearms and CCW permits, and for the non-law-abiding crowd it will be only slightly more difficult to illegally buy and carry firearms on their person. There are already 300k defensive firearms uses annually according to the CDC (likely underreported because often just brandishing a firearm is enough to stop the criminal), and Obama's CDC firearms safety study already determined that the absence of "gun-free" zones strongly dissuaded mass shooters, so how many more people will be put in harm's way if more firearms regulations are successfully implemented??
    The core point is that more firearms means more firearms deaths. Most of the supposed benefits you cite are massively outweighed by the negatives. This is a question that can be answered with data.

    The big correlative factors that rusmeister is missing in his religious explanation are mental health meds, lack of involuntary commitment of our crazies, and lenient or non-existent immigration laws (look it up; many of these mass shootings are committed by first and second-generation immigrants). So, tighten up the immigration laws (a moratorium would be nice), start under-prescribing SSDIs and the like, and allow our crazies to start being involuntarily committed once more, and you'll save quite a few lives, all without violating our Constitution!
    Two points on this:
    1) I don't see any gun rights advocates seriously advocating for and being willing to pay for improved health care. Until I do, I am going to continue to assume that this point is irrelevant.
    2) Although other jurisdictions have had more success with mental health care (mostly by spending more money on it - see above), I'm not aware of any place that has come up with a magic bullet in this area. Mental health care is hard. The most successful overall approaches to the mental health/firearms deaths link have been by limiting access to firearms.

    HANDGUNS, not "assault rifles," are most often used in mass shootings. And, very advanced, "assault" weapons existed, even when our 2A was passed! So it wasn't just about Muskets!
    So please stop posting this AR-15s used in mass shootings lie, tolko and armoured.
    [/QUOTE]

    Okay. Make access to handguns harder, too. And no, assault weapons did not exist in the sense of a term, which dates to world war II.

    And AR-15 and their type have been used in a very large number of mass shootings - depending on your definition of mass shooting. A quick check of the top 10 in the last 20 years or so confirms this.

    Here's a humorous take on that common "gun control advocate" lie
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s
    I generally don't watch such things as they're generally idiotic and a waste of time.

    But in this case, I decided to. I gave up when the argument was made that ship cannons were an example of revolutionary period approach to the right to bear arms - as evidenced by a letter of marque giving the right to have cannons on a ship.

    A letter of marque is specific government permission in a naval context (or a commission if you prefer) - roughly equivalent to a warrant (not sure if USA uses this term - UK police do, for example). My military friends can drive almost any vehicle without a license if they have a warrant, because that warrant IS the license. So complete idiocy - the video shows as an example of complete freedom to bear (any) arms by using a document that demonstrates that one needed a specific military commission to do so.

    So sorry, but no time for the rest of that vid.

  17. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    8,059
    Thanked: 957
    Quote Originally Posted by Armoured View Post
    You seem to be implying that I'm being dishonest.



    So basically, you exclude any information that disagrees with your thesis, on the grounds that "it's complicated."

    Please, when I'm asking you to define your terms in some form that can be subject to confirmation, it's precisely because I don't wish to have the ground shift every time.



    Please define.



    Here's an example: first you claimed that 'semi-automatics' were widely available, and now you've changed to any weapon that can be deadly enough to make the distinction a moot point.

    (Your manifestly false assertion is also nonsense, because again, you've refused to define terms. I've pointed out that the 'modern semi-automatic' rifle wasn't even introduced in civilian version until about 1960, not widely adopted in the US military [in the military version] until during/towards the end of the vietnam war, and that civilian sales have greatly increased over time and particularly since about 2004. Those are facts.)



    Your statements and assertions, because not backed by definitions, cannot be proven or disproven. So your 'lifetime of observation and knowledge' is superior to others because ... well, why exactly?



    You have not, sir, convinced me of much more than that it's generally not worth engaging with you; you refuse to put forth your point in a form that could be considered. I remain open to hearing real arguments, but yours do not meet basic qualifications for being testable arguments.

    Your 'statistics' whingeing is quite discouraging. I haven't put forward any 'statistics' points (in the mathematical/analytical sense of that term), only a request for actual numbers or facts or definitions that would allow one to even consider your point.
    Hi!
    Regarding honesty, I'm just not sure (about your own ultimate attitude). And what I would mean by "dishonest", I don't mean "disagree", but a beforehand determination to dismiss any objections out of hand.
    And, no, saying that information or ideas that disagree with my thesis are dismissed because "it's complicated" is false; not at all what I'm saying. I am not saying that statistics, for example, are complicated, but rather, that they falsify, and so, are unreliable. I reject an argument based on mathematical statistics because it ignores a thousand human realities.

    Define "the rise of observable evil"? How about the number of mass shootings over the past twenty years, dwarfing all previous incidents? That is observable and evil. Do you deny that? How about the rise of road rage? How about public incivility and rudeness and profanity, things that tear down, rather than build civilization? Those are among the evils I am talking about, things that were small or rare problems in the recent past, that are now daily news.

    Regarding "semi-automatic, I am talking about any weapon that can fire repeatedly merely by pulling the trigger. Pistols and other guns have been available since the turn of the century. But the important point there is NOT merely whether a weapon is semi-automatic, but whether one can kill a lot of people fairly quickly, in the space of minutes, and so it is not even necessary that a weapon be technically semi-automatic. It feels like you are trying to evade this like a Philadelphia lawyer.

    You speak about facts; my objection is that you choose facts that I suppose or grant ARE facts, but happen to be unimportant facts to the matter at hand.

    What definitions do you need? "Evil"? You say, I "refuse to define". No, I don't. You ask me to define something, and I define it. I feel like it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Well, anyway, if you acknowledge anything in anything I say, maybe there will be a point to this. If not, then I guess not. The thesis remains, reeling, but erect. It's not about semi-automatics, but about a large number of mass killings not previously committed on such a scale, however they are accomplished. In America, that tends to be via firearms, whatever those firearms may have been. There. Has. Been. a. Real. Change.

  18. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    here,since many years
    Posts
    20,448
    Thanked: 4503
    Quote Originally Posted by Judge View Post
    In theory yes, if cars were banned then yes less deaths on Russian roads, but of course a ban on cars is out of the question, what they could do here is enforce the laws better, like big fines for dangerous driving, no talking or texting on phones, plus end the chance of buying a driving licence.
    it would or could be done very simple. FINES must be so heavy that it really hurts the pocket. that is the only way people will understand and learn. Unfortunately there are, special here , to many ways to sort out things - personally-. and no -protokol- is being made. meaning, a bribe is offered, and taken. and that will stay her for a long time to come... The next thing that i am afraid will happen, these electro scooters. ( a BIG thing of discontent already in the -West-). No helmet,no law, dring like crazy on pavements,roads, swerving in and out, coming from nowhere and before one can proper see them, they are gone...
    There is no greater treasure then pleasure....

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •