VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Inane ramblings (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=16736)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob
No...

---

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
Yes, but the key difference is that I actually know a bit about guns and what they can and can't do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dick-richardson
Okay. Now, an insanely large percentage of terrorists to America have been Arabian. Should we temporarily relocate Arabs in America for the greater good?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
I thought so too. Too bad the logic isn't consistent.

---

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

(oops...double-post)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob
Fine. But there are definitely some people who are very knowledgeable about guns who also support gun control laws that include banning of certain weapons.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure that those who know the most about guns are the only people who should decide though.

---

quote:

---

They need to educate the policy makers and politicians, as well as the citizens who put them in office so they can make informed decisions about how different types of guns should be classified and restricted, if at all.

---

quote:

---

(and by education, I don't mean just imparting their opinion, but their knowledge and understanding and experience about the relative uses and power and risks of different weapons)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob
Nope. You always have to balance the costs and the benefits. Even if an insanely large percentage of terrorists in America have been Arabs, the percentage of Arab-Americans that are terrorists is miniscule. The costs of depriving a million innocent people of their freedom of movement, association, etc. far outweighs whatever benefit you get if a couple of those actually turn out to be terrorists.

---

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dick-richardson
Actually, it's only a few thousand - and if just one of those Arabs has the ability to kill more than we "relocate," isn't it better to make 100 people uncomfortable vs. potentially killing 101? They're not going to beaten or anything, they'll live very comfortably with all their rights intact - in designated areas. "Since [we] don't know in advance which people may become violent or criminal, that's all [we] can do."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
Name them. Sarah Brady and 'police' that have never been out from behind a desk don't count.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
http://users.mwci.net/~chuckbri/amazingthings.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dick-richardson
Let's talk about something controversial. How about hunting? God knows we've beaten Jesus to death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob
if so, just blame it on Josh who started this whole thing (as usual)

---

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dick-richardson

Actually, it's only a few thousand - and if just one of those Arabs has the ability to kill more than we "relocate," isn't it better to make 100 people uncomfortable vs. potentially killing 101? They're not going to beaten or anything, they'll live very comfortably with all their rights intact - in designated areas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob
The restriction that they have to remain 'in designated areas' is a far greater restriction than someone not being able to own an AK-47...

---

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

quote:

---

posted by gunman.
That's because you've convinced yourself into a false dichotomy.

---

quote:

---

There are at least four options (there are actually about 6 billion): 1) Likely to kill without means of implementation, 2) Likely to kill with means of implementation, 3) Unlikely to kill without means of implementation, 4) Unlikely to kill with means of implementation.

---

quote:

---

Having a gun doesn't make one more likely to kill any more than having a pair of fishnet stockings makes a woman more likely to become a prostitute. If somebody wants to kill a person/people, they'll find a way to do it.

---

quote:

---

Actually, they require it.

---

quote:

---

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wo...000/1566715.stm
But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated. Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.
It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation. Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility. From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.

---

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Browser got smarpy. here's my little matrix.

odd, it's not letting me attach.

oh well.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Though I understand the humor and the argument behind the references to Arabs, I don't find them tasteful. Arabs are not killing machines, unlike guns, which are literally killing machines.

also, I find it ironic that the humor is coming from pro-gun folk, whose extremist pro-gun compatriots would take the jokes literally.

sigh. good thing I like you all. Hopefully you'll still talk to me after that last post (though not about guns, i'd wager...)

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

quote:

---

Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Though I understand the humor and the argument behind the references to Arabs, I don't find them tasteful. Arabs are not killing machines, unlike guns, which are literally killing machines.

also, I find it ironic that the humor is coming from pro-gun folk, whose extremist pro-gun compatriots would take the jokes literally.

sigh. good thing I like you all. Hopefully you'll still talk to me after that last post (though not about guns, i'd wager...)

---

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

quote:

---

Originally posted by the hopeless hoplophobe
I never said that the two options I was presenting were the only two.

---

quote:

---

Now, what percentage of Americans own guns?

---

quote:

---

Knowing this, we can estimate that about .76% of gun owners end up becoming murderers, compared with .33% of non-gun owners. My numbers are squishy, of course, but so long as guns account for a majority of the murders and a minority of the population owns them, you have a situation like this.

---

quote:

---

And what better way than a gun?

---

quote:

---

Guns have one purpose, to kill.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, referring to banning cars, suburbs, urban areas, houses, and computer moniters is just distraction. These things have other purposes. Guns don't.

---

quote:

---

What non-murderous function of guns can't be accomplished without assault rifles?

---

quote:

---

I don't understand why I need to lay out this much apparatus just to prove a simple point: owning a gun increases your likelihood of killing.

---

quote:

---

If a situation arises in which a person would kill, if that person doesn't own a gun, she must go through extra effort compared to the gun owner in order to kill. That extra effort makes it less likely she will kill.

---

quote:

---

Thanks for the link, I was looking for quotable evidence that Switzerland does not equal America: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wo...000/1566715.stm
But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated. Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

---

quote:

---

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

---

quote:

---

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

---

quote:

---

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Though I understand the humor and the argument behind the references to Arabs, I don't find them tasteful.

---

quote:

---

Arabs are not killing machines, unlike guns, which are literally killing machines.

---

quote:

---

also, I find it ironic that the humor is coming from pro-gun folk, whose extremist pro-gun compatriots would take the jokes literally.

---

I think I've posted some of Carlton Vogt's stuff in this thread previously, but as a seque from guns to a related concept, here's his latest column...

quote:

---

NATIONAL ID CARDS STILL A BAD IDEA

Posted Jan 15, 2002 10:08 Pacific Time


When I first raised the issue of national ID cards in the wake of Sept. 11 (see here), I laid out some practical concerns with the idea. Despite the fact that many people agree, the notion still hasn't gone away and continues to surface from time to time.

Most people who responded to my column agreed that it was a bad idea, but many others, as could be expected from a technical audience, wrote in to tell me technological solutions could get around any problems we might encounter.

I can't disagree that this might be the case. We can probably build a technological solution for just about anything. But if failure analysis has taught us anything, it's that the more complex any system is, the more likely it is to fail. When it passes a certain point of complexity, failure becomes not probable, but inevitable. The question is not whether it will fail, but when and how.

Technological feasibility, however, is a red herring. Even if we could construct a technologically reliable system, the question remains whether it's something we ought to do in the first place.

The main objection to a national ID card system is that, although it is intended to protect one very important interest we have -- national and personal security -- it invades or compromises another interest that is just as important -- privacy. This sort of trade-off isn't unusual. We often find ourselves subordinating one important interest to another. And when we do, we often use a set of criteria, whether or not we articulate it in a systematic way, to decide whether the trade-off between competing interests is warranted and worthwhile.

One method that I find useful considers various factors including efficacy, reasonableness, and a balance of benefit and burdens. This has been developed by ethicists for other situations, and I've adapted it to this one.

First, we would need to determine whether the situation was serious enough to warrant even considering an invasion of an important interest. After all, to set back one interest, the threat to another interest would have to be credible, serious, and significant. To compromise something as important as liberty or privacy should not be something that's undertaken frivolously or for a threat that's not likely to happen.

Next, we should be sure that what we're proposing has a reasonable chance of success. If it doesn't, then we stand the chance of setting back two interests instead of one -- the original threat would still exist and we'd have lost something else significant in the process. Here we need to determine what the likely outcome is, not just the desired outcome. If we look solely to the desired outcome, we end up in the same position as those poor souls who invest their entire life savings in tickets for the big lottery prize. They may want to win the $100 million, but the likely outcome is that they'll be disappointed.

Another critical criterion is that the infringement should be the least amount necessary to bring about the desired result. Otherwise, we embark on an unnecessarily heavy-handed solution that in the case of basic and important interests can be dangerous overkill.

Finally, we have to see some proportionality between the burden caused by infringing one interest and the expected benefit to the other. Again, it's important to consider the likely outcome, not simply the desired one. It would be a serious mistake either to overstate the probable outcome or to understate the probable burden.

So let's apply this schema to the case of national ID cards. We can stipulate that the situation is serious. There is a terrorist threat. We know terrorist cells are operating in the country. And all indications are that they will try again -- although not necessarily on as horrific a scale as Sept. 11. So, we pass the first hurdle.

Where the idea begins to stumble is on the question of probable success. Anyone defending a national ID system would need to show that this system would prevent future attacks. I'm not sure we can be that certain. The ID system might make life a little more difficult for potential terrorists, but it doesn't seem to be more than a stumbling block that can be overcome -- especially for dedicated people with significant resources.

In the past, terrorists have taken advantage of an immigration system that didn't do a very good job of keeping track of such things as expired visas and students not enrolling in classes for which they had received permission to enter the country. A national ID system could put an end to that, but as long as we freely allow people into the country for many different reasons, potential terrorists would simply make sure that their "papers" were in order. They became lazy and sloppy about their immigration status because we had become lazy and sloppy. If we become more stringent, I think it's safe to assume they'll be more careful. These are dedicated and tenacious people.

There's no question that a national ID system represents a serious compromise of our liberty and privacy. Many people who responded to my original column on the subject argued that we already have some type of ID in driver's licenses or passports. The quick answer to that is, while it's true, those who accept these forms of ID do so willingly, and, more important, not having one (unless of course you're driving) isn't a crime and doesn't constitute probable cause.

Under a national ID system, a police officer could ask you for your ID at any time and if you were unable to produce one, you automatically would be suspected of a crime and could conceivably be taken into custody on the basis of that alone. So we need to ask whether such a system is the least infringement of our interests necessary to bring about the result.

Key to answering that question is exactly what we're trying to do. Is it necessary that we track 95-year-old Aunt Tillie as she moves from the senior center to her apartment and to church on Sunday? Or are we trying to tighten up our borders and intercept possible terrorists at critical points, such as airports? If it's the latter, then perhaps we ought to design a system that does that without placing a burden on the millions of people who neither fly frequently nor cross international borders with any regularity.

That brings us to the final criterion in our schema -- whether the burden of such a system would be justified by the probable benefit. A national ID system not only takes away some essential rights we have to privacy and liberty, it would create yet another layer of government bureaucracy -- with all that this entails.

But the dangers for the individual go beyond this. We will come to rely increasingly on these cards for all sorts of identification -- from the convenience store to the bank -- in addition to its intended use. Those without an ID -- in addition to being a suspect -- will also become a nonperson, at least until they get a replacement. This leaves the way open for unscrupulous police officers or rogue judges to render someone invisible merely by confiscating, however temporarily, their ID.

The system also would create a giant centralized database, and you don't need to be a security expert to know that this represents a big, fat target for anyone who wants to indulge in serious mischief -- including terrorists. Under the guise of increasing security, we would simply create another area where we were vulnerable -- an example of self-defeating behavior.

So, comparing the probable benefits, which are slight at best and uncertain at worst, against the burdens, which on one hand are serious and on the other are dangerous, such an ID system just doesn't measure up. It was a bad idea before -- and it's still a bad idea.

---

Banning automatic weapons won't prevent criminals or 'psychos' from using them. It takes relatively little smithing to make a semi-automatic rifle fully automatic. Automatic weapons actually are less effective at killing many in a little time as a semi-automatic. As a Marine I was trained to use three round bursts as one is able to control the weapon much easier that way. Weapons used on full auto are almost uncontrollable (unless they're mounted on a tripod, vehicle, etc.) Unless your plan is just to make people feel better you're better off doing something else.

Automatic weapons are scary, no doubt about it. They should be heavily regulated (Federal Firearms License). The Anti-gun lobby uses them (Full-Autos) as a big club to threaten the security of the voting public, and unfortunately instead of addressing that, the NRA has resorted to bombast in kind.

I do take exception to removing cars from 'the list'. They are inherently much more dangerous than guns. They may not be 'designed to kill', but they manage to kill and maim far more people than firearms have in this country. If your goal is to save lives, invest your time and energy on reducing vehicular injuries and deaths.
What needs to be addressed is accountibility and responsibility.

As an example of what gun laws can inadverdently cause, I don't know how many of you remember what happened when Montgomery Co., MD (outside) banned handguns a few years ago. British criminals took advantage of the ban to stage a rash of brutal (people were beaten severely) daytime robberies in affluent neighborhoods around Potomac, Md. They had been doing the same thing in England and were encouraged by the lack of civilians able to carry guns in their own homes. Other counties in the areas which didn't have the bans suffered no such outrages.

Outlawing particular guns doesn't seem to decrease the murder rates (neither does the threat of prison, nor the death penalty).
Instead it seems to just affect the ratio of criminals and citizens killed.

just a few more thoughts....

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."