Aldran wrote:
Dox47,
Ive only read about 1/2 of the 6 pages here, I honestly dont have time to read more. You make good points and good arguments. As for your challenge, I give you kudos for going the route you did. Very clever.... I disagree with it on a philosophical level, even if I enjoy it academically, but clever regardless. Probably the most sophisticated bit of trolling (As defined by posting something specifically looking for a targeted response, not necessarily malicious or nefarious in nature) Ive seen in a very long time. *Tips hat*.
I wouldn't say I was looking for a targeted response, more like trying to get some of the people I've been arguing with outside their comfort zones. Too much of the gun argument tends to be emotional, so by setting a purely academic framework I had hoped to minimize that aspect, with mixed success.
I also felt that some of the pro-gun arguments used on the forum were getting a bit tired and stale, so I was hoping to introduce a new angle of attack into the collective arsenal, in this case a challenge to prove effectiveness rather than the usual philosophical arguments. In that regard, I view the thread as a smashing success.
Aldran wrote:
Getting into the meat of the issue, I would however posit that, in regards to your challenge, the U.S. having the unique characteristics that you so eloquently pointed out (And also makes it incomparable to really any other nation by the standards of your challenge), will require a unique solution to its violence issues, gun related or not..... And I agree its a cultural issue, not a Gun issue.
Not to dismiss you here, but if it's not a gun issue, than why focus on the guns at all? Why not address other issues first, and
then address any remaining gun specific problems?
Aldran wrote:
I also agree with Visagrunt in part. I wont say that you're intentionally trying to kill counterargument, I think I see an honest attempt at disarming over-zealous witch-hunting in the name of gun control. But you do seem rather lackluster yourself in ideas, though you do seem to agree that the current situation is not a good or happy one.... We all agree here that less gun violence is a desirable outcome yes? (I in no means mean to suggest that you wish the opposite). I would also agree with him that an inability to trust government (Though I dont agree theres alot of problems within our government) when they're the only ones that are ever going to have enough power to make any kind of effective policy or enforcement, probably wont get us very far either (At this point, all I can say is, make sure you teach your kids to vote responsibly, and if you can, vote for someone that will reinstate Civics classes...).
Well I am the one who issued the challenge, right? My "job" in this thread is mostly to critique people's attempts at the challenge, not so much to put my own ideas forth. I think you're mostly seeing that the only people I've tried to "stifle" have been the ones that didn't seem to have read the OP or at least to comprehend it (a real troll would at this point modify his thesis to "gun control ret*ds reading comprehension"), or people who are being obnoxious. But since you asked for my opinion on reducing violence, I'll flesh it out a bit, though it's mostly contained in my preceding posts.
Basically, my theory is that most violence is committed by desperate people, and so the approach to reducing it should be to reduce desperation. A short list of ways I'd go about that:
- End the drug war.
- Reform the criminal justice system (this is a whole other thread for me)
- End the war on terror
- Reduce barriers to small business entry
I could expand that quite a bit, but a lot of it's fairly unrelated to the topic, and if you know that I'm libertarian leaning than a lot of it's also going to be fairly predictable. I'll explain more if asked.
As to the government, it's a lot harder to be oppressed by a small one than a big one, so I have a lot less trouble trusting a small one. Ours doesn't have a particularly good track record at the moment.
Aldran wrote:
That said, politics, being the means by which we all agree to live together with each other and *hopefully* not kill each other in the process, tends to require compromise. So let me ask you this: If some one, or group, could convince you to partial controls on gun sales, say license for possession on all sales after XXX Date in the future, maybe with a phased program of back dating for owners at gun ranges over the course of XX years, and it could be demonstrated that confiscation would be guarded against, is there any way you could agree to such a scheme? Feel free to modify this example as you see fit to something you would or would not agree to.
Nope, as I don't believe that scheme would be effective, and I can't think of any way that it could be guaranteed against abuse. Why do you think such a system would be helpful?
Aldran wrote:
I could even suggest a rider to the above proposal. One of the only Ideas I ever heard from the gun lobby I actually liked was "Make all guns legal, just charge $1000 in tax for every bullet sold". Why dont we run with that, and reduce price of ammo to Licensed Gun Possessors to normal levels, and rediculous amounts for all non-licensed owners/users? I realize that this will be difficult to enforce (though honestly, if we can require farmers to sign, date, and stamp every purchase of fertalizer at every store/warehouse/outlet for such, regulated and monitored by the FBI, I don't know why the ATF (is it still the ATF? or is that part of Homeland security now? Cant remember) couldn't come up with a way of doing it for bullets even if it isn't perfect), and Im open to input on the idea, again feel free to change/modify anything. In exchange we ask that all gun owners, perspective or otherwise sit through say, 3 1-2 hour classes in gun safety and care, provided free for say, the first 2-3 years of the program, and a nominal, subsidised fee afterwards (Paid at least in part by any revenue generated by the tax on bullets)?
Unenforceable, requires a massive bureaucracy to administer, and it still requires a registry of guns and their owners. Also, still no demonstration that it would reduce violence in any way. What it would do is create a massive black market overnight, as I, a licensed gun owner, could easily buy cheap ammo and sell it on the side at a considerable profit. As to controlling the precursors, think meth. Have all the controls implemented on congestion pills done anything to curb meth production? Ammunition is similar, it's precursors are common and widely used in other industries, and there are trillions of rounds already out there. It's just not a realistic scheme.
Aldran wrote:
I also thought Id point out that cars are actually licensed in addition to drivers. Ever try driving without a "License plate" or in-date tabs? Or go through emissions with a Pass Engine/Exhaust reading but a lit "Check Engine light w/ Trouble Codes? State regulates vehicles as much as it regulates drivers. Drivers just get to pay for the cars instead of cars paying for themselves, depending on your point of view. And that in this line of thinking, a car being *almost* as easy to kill a person with (Though alot more gruesome, and we all know how much our culture hates getting our hands "icky", or washing our cars for that matter if we can avoid it after spending $50,000 on it). I would also point out that we actually make people take a 2 part test including a practical test before we give them a license to operate a vehicle, with more complicated and in depth tests for bigger, or (In theory) less safe vehicles (Motorcycles, CDL's, etc etc).
I'm not following you here. I will take the opportunity to point out that some states make their CCW applicants take a test and practical exam and some don't, and there isn't any measurable difference in outcomes between the two programs, as that seems the closest area to what you're saying..
Aldran wrote:
Finally, Ill add That mostly I agree with alot of what you're saying. Id rather see armed militias then unarmed protesters massacred by police forces. Im not saying I have answers. But we do have alot of guns, alot of gun violence, and maybe if we had *Some* stricter controls, if not directly reducing crime, perhaps they would foster a better culture around guns. Billy bob is more likely to look after his guns so his little red headed Billy Jr doesn't get into his gun closet if every one of those bullets cost him $1000, or he had to take a bunch of classes just to own the guns in the first place I would wager (Though again, this about impossible to prove within your challenge). Just have to keep looking for something new that will fit the US. In the end, probably nobody will be specifically happy, but if we can agree to a compromise, we'll be happier if gun-violence goes down yes?
Aldran
Edited about 10 minutes after post to fix errors and add one sentence.
Like I said, I think the proper time to address any problems intrinsic to guns themselves is after we've addressed the root causes of violence, and until that is done I don't see much point in compromising, especially as the "compromises" being offered have no track record of curbing violence and a proven track record of eroding gun rights. Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful response, there's been too few of those so far.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
29 Aug 2012, 1:22 am
