PDA

View Full Version : Reasonableness isn't reasonable


DrDavid
01-06-2013, 12:38 AM
I've been watching the way the anti's frame the argument for gun control. They keep talking about 'reasonable' restrictions. Things like: a felon shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, or, people with mental disorders should be banned from owning a gun.

Yet, when they write legislation, they don't write reasonable bills. It's stuff that either 1) doesn't accomplish what they claim to be targeting, or 2) way, way, way more broad than they claimed.

They'll say, "let's ban 100 round magazines". Sure, that sounds reasonable... But, the bills the introduce ban 11 round magazines.

Why do they do it? Because then they have some bargaining power. It's no longer "no control" vs "some control", it's "lots of control" vs "a little bit less, but still lots of control".

The anti's coin terms like "hi-capacity magazines" to describe standard capacity magazines. "Assault Rifles" to describe centerfire semi-automatic rifles that shoot just one round per pull of the trigger. They invent hyperbole and add it to their bills. DiFi's latest bill makes 'Rocket Launchers which are mounted to an AR' illegal. Who the hell mounts a rocket launcher to their AR?

Here's my suggestion. We go completely and thoroughly the opposite direction. Literally, stand up for the 2nd, as written. "Shall not be infringed".

But, OMG! The felons will get guns!!!

Yes, they will. Legally or illegally, they will obtain guns. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Write a law, a criminal will ignore it. So, what's the point of laws? To set a punishment for a behavior we want to prevent.

So, let's first start by defining what we actually want to prevent: murder, muggings, assaults, etc.. Basically, violent crime with a gun. Great, turns out we have laws banning all those behaviors already!

So, you commit a crime with a gun that causes harm to someone else? You go to jail. This makes sense. You use a gun in self-defense? You don't go to jail. That also makes sense.

Likewise, cars are dangerous if used improperly. We would never think of banning sports cars that can be driven at 3-times the legal speed limit. We wouldn't dare add an ignition interlock to check Blood Alcohol content before the car will start. Yet, a car, and your right to drive one, is NOT a right in the Bill of Rights. Cars are dangerous, but apart from banning certain actions that you can do with a car, we don't actually regulate the car itself (i.e. the max speed it can go, how fast it can go from 0-60, etc..)

Guns kill fewer people than cars each year, but have more restrictions. We ban both the bad act as well as how a piece of metal can look. We ban the murder, but we also ban the number of bullets in a single magazine. This is inconsistent with how we deal with almost anything else that's dangerous.

Here's my proposal. We lobby for the absolute elimination of ALL gun laws. Want to own a fully automatic gun with laser sights, bayonet attachment, pistol grip, barrel shroud (you know, the shoulder thing that goes up), front pistol grip, etc.. Go for it. Let's assume that felons have a right to self-defense, and if they've been released from prison, they're probably not dangerous any more (if they're still dangerous, why the hell have they been released?). Mentally ill people? They should know that in a society where everyone carries a gun, if they choose to attempt to kill another human, their own life-expectancy might be a tad low.

Being "reasonable" hasn't helped our cause lately.. Maybe being "unreasonable" will work better. Just a thought.

Moonshine
01-06-2013, 2:08 AM
I'm still cracking up about the rocket launcher! Is she referring to duct taping a model rocket to your rail system and launching it in the heat of battle LOL?!!?

chuckdc
01-06-2013, 7:10 AM
to counter what you said about felons, they CAN be prevented from owning guns. They LOSE their rights by due process of law. Were that not true, we couldn't put them in prison, execute them, disallow them from voting, take their money or property (fines) etc. That one is a BS argument.

Jason_2111
01-06-2013, 7:16 AM
The flaw, is trying to use logic against their emotion.

It doesn't matter if they are factually correct or not... it's how it all makes them "feel". Will passing stupid laws that have no effect make them "feel" safer? Sure will... so they'll do it. Will it stop anything? Heck no, it'll make things worse.

I agree though... being reasonable has gotten us nowhere.

Demand that our elected officials lead by example, and have the capitol in Washington DC declared a Gun-Free Zone! ;)

dieselpower
01-06-2013, 7:27 AM
to counter what you said about felons, they CAN be prevented from owning guns. They LOSE their rights by due process of law. Were that not true, we couldn't put them in prison, execute them, disallow them from voting, take their money or property (fines) etc. That one is a BS argument.

This is what 99% of liberal don't understand. This is what 99% of liberal Representatives use to trick the 99% of liberals they represent.

There will be less murder if we make a new law against it.

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 7:34 AM
I'm still cracking up about the rocket launcher! Is she referring to duct taping a model rocket to your rail system and launching it in the heat of battle LOL?!!?

must be the "shoulder thing that goes up"

jtyner
01-06-2013, 8:58 AM
The problem with "reasonable" is that it is not an objective standard.

tcrpe
01-06-2013, 9:01 AM
I'm still cracking up about the rocket launcher! Is she referring to duct taping a model rocket to your rail system and launching it in the heat of battle LOL?!!?

ospNRk2uM3U

EM2
01-06-2013, 9:09 AM
to counter what you said about felons, they CAN be prevented from owning guns. They LOSE their rights by due process of law. Were that not true, we couldn't put them in prison, execute them, disallow them from voting, take their money or property (fines) etc. That one is a BS argument.


See, you are doing it right now.
You framed the argument to your advantage.

DrDavid said nothing about felons "owning" guns he said "Legally or illegally, they will obtain guns. Criminals, by definition, break laws.".
This is a whole different discussion.

speedrrracer
01-06-2013, 9:23 AM
I

They'll say, "let's ban 100 round magazines". Sure, that sounds reasonable...

Agree with lots of what you're saying as well as your general premise, but this statement is flawed. Answer the questions: "Why is banning 100 (make it 10,000 if you want) round magazines reasonable?" What science do you have to support the premise that banning magazines of whatever capacity will save a single human from harm, not to mention save more humans than will die because they ran out of ammo while trying to defend themselves?

You are committing a common logical fallacy. Follow the reduction: We ban 100-rd mags 'coz it's "reasonable" in your opinion. Let's even assume the ban is magical, and immediately all banned items vanish from the face of the Earth. Connecticut tragedy still happens again in the future, 'coz it didn't need 100 rd mags. We then ban >29 rd mags. Happens again with 20 rd mags. >10 rd mags are banned. Happens again like Virginia Tech with 10-rd mags. We go to single-shot flintlocks. Happens again with a duffel bag full of flintlocks. We ban flintlocks. Happens with knives and axes, like in China. Ban sharp objects. Happens with rocks. Ban rocks. Happens with crowbars, then lead pipes, then hammers, then every other damn thing in Home Depot.

Get it? Weapons aren't the issue, if we're honest. "But guns make it easier!" Even if we grant that, these psychos pull the trigger on cute, innocent little 6 year-old girls. Does that sound easy to you? Does murdering your mother, destroying computer evidence and then murdering a pile of little kids seem like the act of a lazy person? "No, a knife would be too much work -- I'm not going to murder anyone." Really? If you can show me science supporting that, I'll buy it, but not one minute before.


We wouldn't dare add an ignition interlock to check Blood Alcohol content before the car will start.

It must be that you are not communicating what you intend to communicate, because I'm guessing you know we would dare such a thing. In fact, it's law here in CA:

If driving on a suspended license due to a DUI conviction, legally the court must impose an ignition interlock device requirement for up to a maximum of three years from the date of conviction. As of July 1, 2010 interlocks are required upon a DUI conviction in four counties; Los Angeles, Alameda, Sacramento and Tulare. -AB 91 creates a pilot program for select counties, such as Los Angeles County, that will require all drivers convicted of a DUI offense to install IIDs in their vehicles as a condition to receive restricted driving privileges. -SB 598 shortens the amount of time certain repeat DUI offenders will have to wait before becoming eligible to apply for restricted California driving privileges. To receive the restricted license though, these drivers will be required to meet certain criteria, such as the installation of an IID in their vehicles.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device#California

Pardueski
01-06-2013, 9:41 AM
I think the ignition interlock argument is that we don't implement them on the majority of drivers who don't have a DUI. In the same fashion, it's irrational to implement gun restrictions on gun owners who wish to be free and law abiding.

My thought process is that it's pretty clear that the anti-gun lobbies are so obsessed with eliminating something that they find objectionable they ignore the fact that there are much easier ways to prevent the death of innocents (ostensibly their goal).

Regulus
01-06-2013, 9:52 AM
It's all about public opinion.

“In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.” - Abraham Lincoln

They will say anything to get public opinion in their favor. Whatever they legislate may have little or nothing to do with what they say.

It's as true today as it was in that age.

fizux
01-06-2013, 10:13 AM
I think the ignition interlock argument is that we don't implement them on the majority of drivers who don't have a DUI. In the same fashion, it's irrational to implement gun restrictions on gun owners who wish to be free and law abiding.

Frequently, the ignition interlock device promotes the drunkard to bring his/her kid to be the designated blower.

Don't worry, this is extremely safe for the kid.

donw
01-06-2013, 10:25 AM
i agree...but...the most obvious problem we face when dealing with legislators is this...pure and simple:

by and large, legislators tend to be irrational people trying to solve irrational problems with irrational responses.

logic has little, or nothing, to do with their actions.
it IS that simple...

donw
01-06-2013, 10:25 AM
i agree...but...the most obvious problem we face when dealing with legislators is this...pure and simple:

by and large, legislators tend to be irrational people trying to solve irrational problems with irrational responses.

logic has little, or nothing, to do with their actions; trying to use logic when dealing with irrational legislators is very difficult

it IS that simple...

DrDavid
01-06-2013, 10:31 AM
What science do you have to support the premise that banning magazines of whatever capacity will save a single human from harm, not to mention save more humans than will die because they ran out of ammo while trying to defend themselves?

Sorry, wasn't actually suggesting we should ban 100 round magazines. In fact, they were probably the reason the Aurora Batman shooter didn't kill more; they jammed. I was using the example as a way to show what being "reasonable" (whatever the hell that is) gets us. Not to advocate for a ban.


Get it? Weapons aren't the issue, if we're honest. "But guns make it easier!" Even if we grant that, these psychos pull the trigger on cute, innocent little 6 year-old girls. Does that sound easy to you? Does murdering your mother, destroying computer evidence and then murdering a pile of little kids seem like the act of a lazy person? "No, a knife would be too much work -- I'm not going to murder anyone." Really? If you can show me science supporting that, I'll buy it, but not one minute before.

I agree with you here too. "I can't possibly kill this person.. Using a knife is just too hard!" - said no murderer, ever.

Guns are, however, easier to use to kill someone -- accidentally. Which is why I actually think we should be offering gun classes to kids (and promoting them as necessary), in the same way we offer swimming lessons to kids. Education == safety. It's the same reason why most reasonable parents teach their kids about drinking, drugs, and all sorts of other bad things. It keeps them safer.

And, regarding interlocks...

It must be that you are not communicating what you intend to communicate, because I'm guessing you know we would dare such a thing. In fact, it's law here in CA:

True; but, did your new cherry-red 638 horse-power Corvette ZR1 (a.k.a. death-machine) with Z rated tires (rated for OVER 150mph) come with an ignition interlock installed at the factory? Of course it didn't. That car goes 0-60 in 3.4 seconds, and tops out at 205mph... That car, at full speed would destroy anything it was directed towards. But, that car is perfectly A-OK. There is NO place in the entire US (that I know of, apart from a race track) that would allow you to drive at 205mph. In fact, it's probably illegal to accelerate from 0-60 in 3.4 seconds (stunting? dangerous driving?). No amount of safety devices will save you from a crash at 205mph; the deceleration forces would be just too strong. Your organs would turn to mush... And, before anyone says it, "OMG! Who would destroy a $112,600 (MSRP) car?" probably the same person who'd steal a gun and shoot at little kids. Criminals.

But, I bet your new AR comes with a bullet button to slow you down... That's the point.

Law abiding citizens will not race their new Corvette at 205mph; they'll drive the speed limit. Law abiding gun owners will not shoot little kids; they'll shoot at paper on safe ranges.

Murder, stunting, dangerous driving, etc are already illegal. Passing even more gun control laws do nothing but make it illegaler. To be honest, I don't know the difference between illegal and illegaler, but I suspect it's double-talk for tyranny.

donw
01-06-2013, 10:56 AM
they can talk about 100 round magazines all they want...i have carried ammo for machine guns...IT IS HEAVY!

i read one report about a test involving a MSR & a 100 rd mag...he said the weight of the fully loaded mag would over-ride the mag latch and it would drop out of the rifle.

IIRC..the 100 rd mags were, originally, intended for static defense positions, and were more to be intended in a crew served capacity.

again...logic defies legislators...weight, conceal-ability, maneuverability and even operating ability on the operators part, should be plain enough to see they're not practical for much of anything other than a static military defense application, in reality...

speedrrracer
01-06-2013, 11:04 AM
But, I bet your new AR comes with a bullet button to slow you down... That's the point.


Thanks for the explanation -- now I gotcha.

IVC
01-06-2013, 11:48 AM
...promotes the drunkard to bring his/her kid to be the designated blower.

Kinky.

Don't worry, this is extremely safe for the kid.

Kinkier.

IVC
01-06-2013, 11:51 AM
My thought process is that it's pretty clear that the anti-gun lobbies are so obsessed with eliminating something that they find objectionable they ignore the fact that there are much easier ways to prevent the death of innocents (ostensibly their goal).

And whence lies their bane in the court of law.

Cos
01-06-2013, 12:02 PM
You are committing a common logical fallacy. Follow the reduction:

+1 thank you!

ccmc
01-06-2013, 12:53 PM
I've been watching the way the anti's frame the argument for gun control. They keep talking about 'reasonable' restrictions. Things like: a felon shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, or, people with mental disorders should be banned from owning a gun.

Yet, when they write legislation, they don't write reasonable bills. It's stuff that either 1) doesn't accomplish what they claim to be targeting, or 2) way, way, way more broad than they claimed.

They'll say, "let's ban 100 round magazines". Sure, that sounds reasonable... But, the bills the introduce ban 11 round magazines.

Why do they do it? Because then they have some bargaining power. It's no longer "no control" vs "some control", it's "lots of control" vs "a little bit less, but still lots of control".

The anti's coin terms like "hi-capacity magazines" to describe standard capacity magazines. "Assault Rifles" to describe centerfire semi-automatic rifles that shoot just one round per pull of the trigger. They invent hyperbole and add it to their bills. DiFi's latest bill makes 'Rocket Launchers which are mounted to an AR' illegal. Who the hell mounts a rocket launcher to their AR?

Here's my suggestion. We go completely and thoroughly the opposite direction. Literally, stand up for the 2nd, as written. "Shall not be infringed".

But, OMG! The felons will get guns!!!

Yes, they will. Legally or illegally, they will obtain guns. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Write a law, a criminal will ignore it. So, what's the point of laws? To set a punishment for a behavior we want to prevent.

So, let's first start by defining what we actually want to prevent: murder, muggings, assaults, etc.. Basically, violent crime with a gun. Great, turns out we have laws banning all those behaviors already!

So, you commit a crime with a gun that causes harm to someone else? You go to jail. This makes sense. You use a gun in self-defense? You don't go to jail. That also makes sense.

Likewise, cars are dangerous if used improperly. We would never think of banning sports cars that can be driven at 3-times the legal speed limit. We wouldn't dare add an ignition interlock to check Blood Alcohol content before the car will start. Yet, a car, and your right to drive one, is NOT a right in the Bill of Rights. Cars are dangerous, but apart from banning certain actions that you can do with a car, we don't actually regulate the car itself (i.e. the max speed it can go, how fast it can go from 0-60, etc..)

Guns kill fewer people than cars each year, but have more restrictions. We ban both the bad act as well as how a piece of metal can look. We ban the murder, but we also ban the number of bullets in a single magazine. This is inconsistent with how we deal with almost anything else that's dangerous.

Here's my proposal. We lobby for the absolute elimination of ALL gun laws. Want to own a fully automatic gun with laser sights, bayonet attachment, pistol grip, barrel shroud (you know, the shoulder thing that goes up), front pistol grip, etc.. Go for it. Let's assume that felons have a right to self-defense, and if they've been released from prison, they're probably not dangerous any more (if they're still dangerous, why the hell have they been released?). Mentally ill people? They should know that in a society where everyone carries a gun, if they choose to attempt to kill another human, their own life-expectancy might be a tad low.

Being "reasonable" hasn't helped our cause lately.. Maybe being "unreasonable" will work better. Just a thought.

I like the way you think - great post, great idea!

wjc
01-06-2013, 1:19 PM
I agree.

I think it's reasonable for me to have a tank (Leopard or Merkava). But the anti version of reasonable is far different than mine.

One key, to their "reasonable" is their voluntary surrender of their rights and responsibilities for the sake of safety. I'd rather take my chances...all I need is a level playing field.

Pardueski
01-06-2013, 1:54 PM
Frequently, the ignition interlock device promotes the drunkard to bring his/her kid to be the designated blower.

Don't worry, this is extremely safe for the kid.

I actually heard a story about this when I was in a high school. It ended badly for all parties involved. I think that's the point we're all making though. As a proponent of small government, my thought process is that additional legislation only serves to limit the freedoms of all. We know that laws don't deter criminals but many politicians would be out of work if they acknowledged that I suppose.