South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

August 26, 2019, 09:28:43 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Gun control

 (Read 11089 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2012, 11:39:09 AM »

I agree that there will always be nut jobs trying to do things like this.

But there is must be tighter controls as to who is allowed to own a gun.
If it is harder to obtain a driving licence than to own a gun then there is some problem.
There must be some control as to who is fit to own a weapon and how many.


Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2012, 11:44:30 AM »

I agree that there will always be nut jobs trying to do things like this.

But there is must be tighter controls as to who is allowed to own a gun.
If it is harder to obtain a driving licence than to own a gun then there is some problem.
There must be some control as to who is fit to own a weapon and how many.



Who decides?  And what gives them the right to so decide?
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2012, 13:17:43 PM »

As I understand it, the issue hits at the very heart of the American Constitution: freedom vs limited freedom; vs autocracy etc. The US has inadvertently become a state where civil rights are limited, yet they seem to miss this. I can remember how pissed off I was when we were required to wear seatbelts!!! Who the freck is the govt to tell me to protect myself???....now I feel uncomfortable when I don't wear it! Possession of a gun seems to be an expression of liberty in the US and any attempt to restrict that liberty is resisted by very powerful lobbies. Guns are the symptoms; the right to own one/two/three, a constitutional privilege, but a privilege when abused should be withdrawn/restricted. I think unlimited access to weapons of "mass" destruction is evil in itself. 
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1532



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2012, 13:23:42 PM »

As I understand it, the issue hits at the very heart of the American Constitution: freedom vs limited freedom; vs autocracy etc. The US has inadvertently become a state where civil rights are limited, yet they seem to miss this. I can remember how pissed off I was when we were required to wear seatbelts!!! Who the freck is the govt to tell me to protect myself???....now I feel uncomfortable when I don't wear it! Possession of a gun seems to be an expression of liberty in the US and any attempt to restrict that liberty is resisted by very powerful lobbies. Guns are the symptoms; the right to own one/two/three, a constitutional privilege, but a privilege when abused should be withdrawn/restricted. I think unlimited access to weapons of "mass" destruction is evil in itself. 
Agree. They went to war on "Weapons of Mass Destruction". This is mass destruction. 
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2012, 14:27:54 PM »

As I understand it, the issue hits at the very heart of the American Constitution: freedom vs limited freedom; vs autocracy etc.
In a sense every law is a restriction of freedom.  Freedom for one person may imply restriction for another.  A democratically elected government has a mandate to act in the best interests of the population at large.  One of the core duties of government is to provide security for its citizens.  If this calls for regulating the ownership of weapons, then it should be done.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2012, 15:06:21 PM »

Quote from: Tweefo
This is not a self defense weapon

It is if the other guy also has one.

Quote from: Hermes
If this calls for regulating the ownership of weapons, then it should be done.

Know why americans have a right to bear arms? It is because their founding fathers believed that society at large should be capable of rising up against their government should the need arise. If that same government is responsible for limiting people's access to weapons, then the game is over. In that sense, Tweefo's abovementioned weapon IS a weapon of self defense. Just not in the sense you initially think.

I seem to be in the minority here wrt. an individual's right to own arms. Moreover the apparent (to me) insanity of trying to stop insane people from doing insane things by disarming the rest of the (sane) population.

Not every day I hear skeptics go on about what people "should or should not" be 'allowed' to do by their government.
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2012, 15:36:33 PM »

Quote from: Tweefo
This is not a self defense weapon

It is if the other guy also has one.

Quote from: Hermes
If this calls for regulating the ownership of weapons, then it should be done.

Know why americans have a right to bear arms? It is because their founding fathers believed that society at large should be capable of rising up against their government should the need arise. If that same government is responsible for limiting people's access to weapons, then the game is over. In that sense, Tweefo's abovementioned weapon IS a weapon of self defense. Just not in the sense you initially think.

I seem to be in the minority here wrt. an individual's right to own arms. Moreover the apparent (to me) insanity of trying to stop insane people from doing insane things by disarming the rest of the (sane) population.

Not every day I hear skeptics go on about what people "should or should not" be 'allowed' to do by their government.
I think I'm on your side in this debate.  Even though I don't (and won't) own a firearm, I have a deep suspicion of governments presuming to curb individual freedom.  There are already laws against using firearms maliciously; we don't need laws against ownership.  The trick governments never seem to get right is the enforcement of existing laws instead making shiploads of new ones.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2012, 16:17:09 PM »

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/12/17/ctw-how-worldwide-firearms-stackup.cnn

Sigh. "I have this hard evidence for why I'm wrong, but I stand by my statement".
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2012, 16:49:06 PM »

BM is entirely correct about the US’s constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms:  It’s an insurance policy against tyranny by the government, big business or other vested interests.  In a strong sense, the right to bear arms is at the very core of the Declaration of Independence, itself done to shrug off (British) oppression.  To introduce arms controls in the US would be seriously to undermine their Bill of Rights and Constitution.

The essence of the gun control dispute is that one side assumes that almost all other people are as reasonable as they would like to think they themselves are (and so they advocate for little or no control), whereas the other side thinks they themselves are more reasonable and know better (and so they argue in favour of state control).

Both sides are dead wrong.

I don’t know what the answer is, or whether some workable middle ground is even achievable.  Until this quandary is resolved, I would tend to side with a libertarian approach and let Darwin sort out the loonies, as costly and as tragic as that may be to others.

'Luthon64
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2012, 18:06:33 PM »

I don’t know what the answer is…
Hmm, if this were a sci-fi story, the answer would be simple:  Invent a smart firearm capable of accurately and automatically assessing the level of threat presented to the holder by whatever it is aimed at, and correctly adjusting its firepower accordingly, from zero to maximum.  With such a weapon, harming innocents would be rare or impossible.

(If nothing else, the above flight of fancy suggests that, once again, technology may hold the key.)

'Luthon64
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2012, 18:59:16 PM »

To put a different spin on the thread: the tragedy, horrible as it was, got the media hyped up; tragedies against children in the Congo, and some other countries are an almost daily occurrence.When numbers are combined, four countries alone in sub-Sahara Africa have together over 660,000 children with HIV/AIDS and over four million orphans. Then you have the constant perpetration of child slavery, child soldiers (I personally witnessed this) Islamic fervour to beat up children and kill them....but this doesn't always make the headlines unfortunately.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2012, 20:22:20 PM »

Brian, you’re right of course, but it’s a truism that perceived newsworthiness is directly proportional to the time rate of change of a story’s drama plus shock plus proximity values.  Mathematically,

Wp = k×d(Drama + Shock + Proximity)/dt, k > 0

Clearly, if the sum of the drama, shock and proximity values is low (and any one of three can dominate, or none), or it doesn’t change very quickly over time, the story doesn’t make it.  A more heuristic way of saying it is, “If it ain’t in my backyard or it don’t wake the neighbors or it don’t twang my heartstrings, it ain’t happenin’.”

It’s the greater tragedy, really.

'Luthon64
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2012, 21:18:46 PM »

The essence of the gun control dispute is that one side assumes that almost all other people are as reasonable as they would like to think they themselves are (and so they advocate for little or no control)
[...]
Both sides are dead wrong.

Actually I think you misread my position. I don't hold a special fondness for people's morality, but I think it's reasonable to think that given a firefight I'd want the good guys to be equally armed to the bad guys.

I agree totally that a world with 0 violence and 0 crime and 0 weapons of any kind would be great. As would a world where communism works perfectly, nobody needs nukes, etc...

But communism does not work perfectly, we do need countries to have nukes (with an S, one country is not enough, in fact that's my whole point...) and I strongly believe that gun violence is NOT proportionate to gun ownership/availability [citation in video]. As such, I see it as a simple principle of personal liberty to protect oneself. If you have a problem with gun violence, and you bloody well should, treat the causes instead of the symptoms. Even that won't work 100% of the time. NOTHING DOES, but it will be more effective than controlling gun ownership [again: citation in video].

As such I'd like to think my view is a pragmatic one based on evidence, and not quite as idealistic as you paint it to be.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2012, 21:32:42 PM »

No, I don’t believe I’ve misread your position at all.  Perhaps you have misread my précis (which is admittedly simplified) because it says nothing about the reasons for which the two sides defend their respective views, which reasons can be as diverse as people themselves.

'Luthon64
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829



WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2012, 05:18:54 AM »

Someone posted this on Facebook:



It appeals to the emotions, I guess. It would have been very nice if one of the teachers had simply killed the attacker. The problem is that while people may be heavily armed, they are usually not in fact trained, and with enough armed people around, such a shooting will turn into an even greater massacre because everyone will start shooting at everyone else.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.481 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 13, 2019, 10:32:48 AM
Privacy Policy