SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: A gun control hypothesis< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19505
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 1:41 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

My son got a Pro Bass Shops gift certificate for Christmas, so we went there over the weekend to buy some ammo.

Shelves were nearly bare.  I asked the man behind the counter if they had any 7.62x39 and he informed me that they just can't keep it on the shelves anymore.  As soon as they get a shipment, it sells out immediately...and that this has been going on for several weeks.

The conclusion I come to is that the mere threat of passing any kind of gun control or restriction is dramatically increasing the number of deadly weapons owned by the general public.

In short, this legislation is causing just the opposite of the intended effect.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6647
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 2:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ Jan. 28 2013, 12:41 pm)
QUOTE
My son got a Pro Bass Shops gift certificate for Christmas, so we went there over the weekend to buy some ammo.

Shelves were nearly bare.  I asked the man behind the counter if they had any 7.62x39 and he informed me that they just can't keep it on the shelves anymore.  As soon as they get a shipment, it sells out immediately...and that this has been going on for several weeks.

The conclusion I come to is that the mere threat of passing any kind of gun control or restriction is dramatically increasing the number of deadly weapons owned by the general public.

In short, this legislation is causing just the opposite of the intended effect.

The intended effect of the proposed legislation is, among other things, to keep deradly weapons out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

The premise of your hypothesis (if it is intended as an argument against that legislation) is that legal purchases over the counter results in guns falling into the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

If that is so, then our system of background checks definitely needs upgrading (which is what the president is trying to accomplish with his executive orders).

Also, if all types of guns are disappearing from shelves -- including those that don't fall under AWB -- then this shows how misinformed and paranoid are the people buying those guns.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7313
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 2:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ Jan. 28 2013, 11:41 am)
QUOTE
..In short, this legislation is causing just the opposite of the intended effect.

Gun sales were going down until Obama was initially elected, so not sure the proposed legislation (which will be lucky to just be watered down) is really to blame as that is recent.

Interestingly, news coverage of a Georgia gun show yesterday had interviewees comment it costs about 50-60 cents per round to fire an assault rifle due to ammo shortages -- so no more cheap ammo.  Gun and ammo companies are making out like bandits ...   The price of weapons and ammo may just plummet in a year or 2 when everyone realizes nobody is coming for their M-16 replicas.  Should be fun.

Figure, even if (hypothetically) Boehner and the rest of the Republicans tearfully switched parties tomorrow, admitting all their wrongs, and passed legislation banning all guns, the government would just initiate a "Crimestopper-like" program anyways.  Skeeter, the bud at the shooting range,  (who hasn't had a regular job since 1978) will turning in fellow shooters for the almighty dollar.  With rural Democrats leaning against gun control, I just don't see anything happening.  

Drama queens, all.


--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19505
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 2:21 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Jan. 28 2013, 12:07 pm)
QUOTE

(Lamebeaver @ Jan. 28 2013, 12:41 pm)
QUOTE
My son got a Pro Bass Shops gift certificate for Christmas, so we went there over the weekend to buy some ammo.

Shelves were nearly bare.  I asked the man behind the counter if they had any 7.62x39 and he informed me that they just can't keep it on the shelves anymore.  As soon as they get a shipment, it sells out immediately...and that this has been going on for several weeks.

The conclusion I come to is that the mere threat of passing any kind of gun control or restriction is dramatically increasing the number of deadly weapons owned by the general public.

In short, this legislation is causing just the opposite of the intended effect.

The intended effect of the proposed legislation is, among other things, to keep deradly weapons out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

The premise of your hypothesis (if it is intended as an argument against that legislation) is that legal purchases over the counter results in guns falling into the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

If that is so, then our system of background checks definitely needs upgrading (which is what the president is trying to accomplish with his executive orders).

Also, if all types of guns are disappearing from shelves -- including those that don't fall under AWB -- then this shows how misinformed and paranoid are the people buying those guns.

My hypothesis is that the overall effect of the legislation will be to increase the number of firearms, especially "assault weapons" in public.

The net result will be that there will be more of these weapons available to be stolen, illegally sold, etc.

In other words, the net effect will be just the opposite of what the laws were intended to do.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Panhandler Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 424
Joined: Aug. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 3:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

No, no, you don't understand! THEY are coming to take ALL your guns! The same guy that told me on Friday that more people are murdered by hammers than with handguns told me today that THEY are banning shotguns and handguns. Jeesh, don't you people pay attention?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 3:55 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

My hypothesis is that paranoia and fear benefits the firearm and ammo manufacturers every time.

I hope all those running in fear to the stores and gun shows are enjoying being fleeced by the sellers.  
I know I get a kick out of watching it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 3:55 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

No! No! No! They are not trying to take away our guns!

The President is a STRONG advocate of the 2nd amendment, and apparently an avid skeet shooter too. He would never advocate taking away our guns. He just wants some common sense anti VIOLENCE legislation.

See, if he says that he supports the 2nd amendment, says that he shoots skeet all the time, deems it common sense, and calls it anti violence legislation….Then maybe, the dumb hillbillies in middle America that no longer really matter to the federal government anyway will not notice that he is in fact, taking away their guns.

I would suggest that they further alter the language to substitute the word ‘ban’ for:
bar (those hillbillies love their shine), or maybe interdiction (a couple syllables beyond their comprehension).
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 4:03 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ Jan. 28 2013, 12:55 pm)
QUOTE
My hypothesis is that paranoia and fear benefits the firearm and ammo manufacturers every time.

I hope all those running in fear to the stores and gun shows are enjoying being fleeced by the sellers.  
I know I get a kick out of watching it.

"There are no deals, the price of ammunition has doubled"
:-D
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Marmotstew Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9381
Joined: May 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 4:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

As the population becomes increasingly dumber from fluorescent lighting, cow hormones, glutens or cell phones they are more apt to believing zombie threats, gun grabbing presidents, Mayan asteroids, alien probing, Manti Teos Internet girlfriend. All these situations create hysteria, paranoia and small package syndrome which results in more gun and ammo purchases.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6647
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 10:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ Jan. 28 2013, 1:21 pm)
QUOTE

(Drift Woody @ Jan. 28 2013, 12:07 pm)
QUOTE

(Lamebeaver @ Jan. 28 2013, 12:41 pm)
QUOTE
My son got a Pro Bass Shops gift certificate for Christmas, so we went there over the weekend to buy some ammo.

Shelves were nearly bare.  I asked the man behind the counter if they had any 7.62x39 and he informed me that they just can't keep it on the shelves anymore.  As soon as they get a shipment, it sells out immediately...and that this has been going on for several weeks.

The conclusion I come to is that the mere threat of passing any kind of gun control or restriction is dramatically increasing the number of deadly weapons owned by the general public.

In short, this legislation is causing just the opposite of the intended effect.

The intended effect of the proposed legislation is, among other things, to keep deradly weapons out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

The premise of your hypothesis (if it is intended as an argument against that legislation) is that legal purchases over the counter results in guns falling into the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

If that is so, then our system of background checks definitely needs upgrading (which is what the president is trying to accomplish with his executive orders).

Also, if all types of guns are disappearing from shelves -- including those that don't fall under AWB -- then this shows how misinformed and paranoid are the people buying those guns.

My hypothesis is that the overall effect of the legislation will be to increase the number of firearms, especially "assault weapons" in public.

The net result will be that there will be more of these weapons available to be stolen, illegally sold, etc.

In other words, the net effect will be just the opposite of what the laws were intended to do.

So then, your argument is that banning the sales of AWs will increase the number of AWs in circulation?

That's pretty close to the most illogical argument I've ever heard. Sure, the nuts will rush to buy AWs if they think future sales will be prohibited.

I have a question for you:
If there was no current AWB legislation being proposed, would the manufacturers of AWs stop production?

Now that may seem like a strange question, but consider this:

Manufacturers would not continue producing AWs if they thought the market was already flooded and they would not be able to sell them. What this means is that if the gun industry plans to keep producing AWs it's because all the AWs already produced and available for sale will be sold, and they will also sell AWs not yet manufactured.

Get where I'm going with this?

If the gun nuts rush out and buy every AW already manufactured before the AWB legislation goes into effect, the total number of AWs in circulation will eventually be less than it would under business as usual, because business as usual consists of selling every AW already manufactured plus all the AWs they will produce in 2013, and 2014, and 2015, and 2016, and ... well, maybe you get the point by now.

The moment AWs can no longer be sold, a finite limit is set. All the AWs that would have subsequently been manufactured will NOT go into circulation, and in the long run (not all that long) there will be fewer AWs out there than would have otherwise.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3974
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 5:53 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

LB,

Drift Woody makes the case that the proponents of control are pushing and he is indeed correct that banning further production will eventually lead to fewer of these guns being in circulation as attrition takes it's toll.  Many of these laws ban transfer, so it means that when the current owner dies, the weapon can not be passed on to their heirs.

You must also keep in mind that some of our posters have written about the Australian model and many others in the blogoshpere have suggested it as a blueprint.  We know that Sen Feinstein herself favored a total removal of "assault weapons" from private hands as DW mentions from her "60 Minutes" interview.  I suspect that they feel that it's no big deal if they get sold now because their dream is an Australian style ownership prohibition eventually.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6647
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 7:15 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Jan. 29 2013, 4:53 am)
QUOTE
You must also keep in mind that some of our posters have written about the Australian model and many others in the blogoshpere have suggested it as a blueprint.  We know that Sen Feinstein herself favored a total removal of "assault weapons" from private hands as DW mentions from her "60 Minutes" interview.  I suspect that they feel that it's no big deal if they get sold now because their dream is an Australian style ownership prohibition eventually.

Let me see if I understand you correctly:
Since folks in the blogosphere have pointed to the Austrailian model to prove their point that gun control can be effective in reducing gun mortality, the logical conclusion is that Congress will pass legislation modeled after Austrailian law ... even though that's not what's being proposed now?

Also, if you recall that 60 Minutes interview with a single US Senator 19 years ago, Feinstein said she wished Americans would turn in all their AWs, and she did not call for confiscation.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3974
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 7:24 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Jan. 29 2013, 7:15 am)
QUOTE
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
Since folks in the blogosphere have pointed to the Austrailian model to prove their point that gun control can be effective in reducing gun mortality, the logical conclusion is that Congress will pass legislation modeled after Austrailian law ... even though that's not what's being proposed now?

Also, if you recall that 60 Minutes interview with a single US Senator 19 years ago, Feinstein said she wished Americans would turn in all their AWs, and she did not call for confiscation.

No Sir.  I never said that "Congress will pass legislation modeled after Austrailian law".  I said "I suspect that they feel that it's no big deal if they get sold now because their dream is an Australian style ownership prohibition eventually."

You and I disagree on this point.  I think that you do honestly believe that there is nobody in the leadership of the gun control movement that seeks to eventually ban ownership of "assault weapons".  I believe that those people do exist and if they had the votes they would do it.  

As to your point about her comment from 60 Minutes, my question to you is that if they don't "turn them in", then what?  What did the Australians do?  I know that the Brits outlawed possesion but offered buybacks.  When the buyback money ran out however they were told to simply turn them in or become felons.  They didn't kick in doors to my knowledge, but you get the point.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 7:56 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Jan. 28 2013, 2:07 pm)
QUOTE

(Lamebeaver @ Jan. 28 2013, 12:41 pm)
QUOTE
My son got a Pro Bass Shops gift certificate for Christmas, so we went there over the weekend to buy some ammo.

Shelves were nearly bare.  I asked the man behind the counter if they had any 7.62x39 and he informed me that they just can't keep it on the shelves anymore.  As soon as they get a shipment, it sells out immediately...and that this has been going on for several weeks.

The conclusion I come to is that the mere threat of passing any kind of gun control or restriction is dramatically increasing the number of deadly weapons owned by the general public.

In short, this legislation is causing just the opposite of the intended effect.

The intended effect of the proposed legislation is, among other things, to keep deradly weapons out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

The premise of your hypothesis (if it is intended as an argument against that legislation) is that legal purchases over the counter results in guns falling into the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

If that is so, then our system of background checks definitely needs upgrading (which is what the president is trying to accomplish with his executive orders).

Also, if all types of guns are disappearing from shelves -- including those that don't fall under AWB -- then this shows how misinformed and paranoid are the people buying those guns.

No. What it shows is civil liberty minded Americans and their distrust of lying politicians. Yes DW, they do that. People always have bought more arms and more ammo when they feel their second amendment rights are being threatened.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 7:58 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Jan. 29 2013, 7:24 am)
QUOTE

(Drift Woody @ Jan. 29 2013, 7:15 am)
QUOTE
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
Since folks in the blogosphere have pointed to the Austrailian model to prove their point that gun control can be effective in reducing gun mortality, the logical conclusion is that Congress will pass legislation modeled after Austrailian law ... even though that's not what's being proposed now?

Also, if you recall that 60 Minutes interview with a single US Senator 19 years ago, Feinstein said she wished Americans would turn in all their AWs, and she did not call for confiscation.

No Sir.  I never said that "Congress will pass legislation modeled after Austrailian law".  I said "I suspect that they feel that it's no big deal if they get sold now because their dream is an Australian style ownership prohibition eventually."

You and I disagree on this point.  I think that you do honestly believe that there is nobody in the leadership of the gun control movement that seeks to eventually ban ownership of "assault weapons".  I believe that those people do exist and if they had the votes they would do it.  

As to your point about her comment from 60 Minutes, my question to you is that if they don't "turn them in", then what?  What did the Australians do?  I know that the Brits outlawed possesion but offered buybacks.  When the buyback money ran out however they were told to simply turn them in or become felons.  They didn't kick in doors to my knowledge, but you get the point.

I get your point and agree with it.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 8:53 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Lamebeaver
QUOTE
My hypothesis is that the overall effect of the legislation will be to increase the number of firearms, especially "assault weapons" in public.

The net result will be that there will be more of these weapons available to be stolen, illegally sold, etc.

In other words, the net effect will be just the opposite of what the laws were intended to do.


There is a parallel in history that refutes your view. In 1919 the US government passed prohibition of liquor. Like liquor, guns are part of the
American tradition - and many in 1919 predicted that liquor consumption would go up as a "forbidden fruit" rather than go down. It is true that people initially purchased and stocked up on liquor prior to the law taking effect - just as they are currently stocking up on guns and bullets. But according to Wikipedia Prohibition: "The consumption of alcohol overall went down by half in the 1920s; and it remained below pre-Prohibition levels until the 1940s."

So the alcohol prohibition law actually did what it was intended to do - decrease the consumption of alcohol. Unfortunately, the US government at the time was a fraction of the size that it is now. So enforcement was a problem and the act was repealed in 1933.

Government is much bigger and much more powerful now. So a gun prohibition is much more likely to be successful. And a gun prohibition, despite gun smuggling and homemade guns, will likely DECREASE the number of guns available.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19505
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 9:53 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Bass @ Jan. 29 2013, 6:53 am)
QUOTE
Unfortunately, the US government at the time was a fraction of the size that it is now. So enforcement was a problem and the act was repealed in 1933.

I would not classify a smaller government as "unfortunate"
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 6:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

SW Mtn backpacker
QUOTE
With rural Democrats leaning against gun control, I just don't see anything happening.  

Drama queens, all.


The media has made it their mission to make sure that guns and gunowners are viewed as evil - and that gun control is a must in order to prevent mass murders like the recent mass shootings and the Oklahoma bombing in 1994.

For over a month now, I have been bombarded with messages that gun control must be increased every time I turned on the TV, read an online news article, or opened a local newspaper. Piers Morgan cites all kinds of "facts" every night showing how thousands of lives would be saved if the US would only ban guns.

After hearing and reading all the gun control messages and "facts" over and over, it starts to sink in and sway the thinking of the average person. The same message over and over is a powerful way to persuade. After all, it is all "common sense" and "rational" that these assault rifles, sniper rifles, big bore shotguns, handguns capable of holding and shooting shooting multiple bullets are not necessary for hunting and self-defense. A single shot breech loading musket is all that is needed for hunting. Scatterguns and guns that shoot more than one bullet are not very sporting. It only takes ONE bullet to kill a deer.

So I disagree. The media is hanging on to gun control like a bulldog. Politicians see the gun control issue as something that diverts attention from budget problems and the need to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. This is a perfect storm for more gun controls.

More gun control measures are on the way. This will bring us closer to the gun-free society that I advocate. It is a big task. One small step at a time - each small step brings us a little closer.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 6:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Lamebeaver
QUOTE
I would not classify a smaller government as "unfortunate".


Not only was the government much smaller then, but law enforcement was hobbled by regulations back then that made their jobs much more difficult. Technology, such as police radios has improved much since then too.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6647
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 29 2013, 10:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Jan. 29 2013, 6:24 am)
QUOTE

(Drift Woody @ Jan. 29 2013, 7:15 am)
QUOTE
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
Since folks in the blogosphere have pointed to the Austrailian model to prove their point that gun control can be effective in reducing gun mortality, the logical conclusion is that Congress will pass legislation modeled after Austrailian law ... even though that's not what's being proposed now?

Also, if you recall that 60 Minutes interview with a single US Senator 19 years ago, Feinstein said she wished Americans would turn in all their AWs, and she did not call for confiscation.

No Sir.  I never said that "Congress will pass legislation modeled after Austrailian law".  I said "I suspect that they feel that it's no big deal if they get sold now because their dream is an Australian style ownership prohibition eventually."

You and I disagree on this point.  I think that you do honestly believe that there is nobody in the leadership of the gun control movement that seeks to eventually ban ownership of "assault weapons".  I believe that those people do exist and if they had the votes they would do it.  

As to your point about her comment from 60 Minutes, my question to you is that if they don't "turn them in", then what?  What did the Australians do?  I know that the Brits outlawed possesion but offered buybacks.  When the buyback money ran out however they were told to simply turn them in or become felons.  They didn't kick in doors to my knowledge, but you get the point.

Your response starts out by saying you never stated that Congress will pass legislation modeled after Australia, but by the end of your post you are suggesting exactly that. This makes it difficult to decipher what you actually think Congress will or will not do.

Also, I want to make clear exactly what I think, and it's not what you think I think, re: "I think that you do honestly believe that there is nobody in the leadership of the gun control movement that seeks to eventually ban ownership of assault weapons."

No, that's not what I think. I was countering Montecresto's ridiculous assertions that current efforts at gun control amount to taking away all of Mr. & Mrs. Americas guns."

I also think there is a huge difference between what some leaders in the gun control movement dream about and what actually has a chance of passing the United States Congress into the forseeable future.

Those who believe in the "slippery slope" theory tend to latch onto a statement by the most extreme gun control advocates (even when the statement was misrepresented by taking it out of context like Feinstein circa 1995) and jumping to illogical conclusions about what can and what can't possibly pass Congress. Then they apply this to the sensible gun control measures that actually have much broader support.

Such erroneous conclusions are thrown up as roadblocks against any and all legislation, including plugging the leaks in background checks to ensure that criminals and psychopaths can't legally purchase guns.

It's one thing to think that nothing whatsoever can or should be done to stem the proliferation of the most dangerous weapons in our society. I disagree strongly with that position. But what I find even more objectionable are arguments that nothing can or should be done based on the slippery slope theory that any measures whatsover will lead inevitably to a comprehensive ban and confiscation.

I don't think that's realistic at all, and it's a losing argument that hurts more than helps their cause.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10262
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 8:08 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Two-thirds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun ban:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog....acebook


--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6647
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 8:32 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(WalksWithBlackflies @ Jan. 30 2013, 7:08 am)
QUOTE
Two-thirds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun ban:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog....acebook

In another poll, nine-tenths of teapartiers said they would defy orders to report to Obama's re-education camps. The other 10% see it as an upgrade over their trailer.

--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10262
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 8:53 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Jan. 30 2013, 8:32 am)
QUOTE

(WalksWithBlackflies @ Jan. 30 2013, 7:08 am)
QUOTE
Two-thirds of U.S. weapons owners would 'defy' a federal gun ban:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog....acebook

In another poll, nine-tenths of teapartiers said they would defy orders to report to Obama's re-education camps. The other 10% see it as an upgrade over their trailer.

Bigotry is funny!

--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Old Frank Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 9:41 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Hardly anybody is proposing a gun ban.

Not sure why this keeps being raised.

In the long run, this straw man will diminish the credibility of those who keep tossing it out, and ultimately harm the position of folks like me who own guns and who want to keep them.

Total gun-banners sometime  portray us gun-owners as uncomprehending trigger-happy hicks.

Unfortunately, this straw man helps make their case.


--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3974
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 10:08 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Edited...

Again, it's not worth it.  Sorry for breaking up the flow of the thread.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 10:45 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Slippery slope or Straw Man…….

It is a fairly well established method of estimating the vector, and ultimately the termination point of future events, by tracking past and current events.

When applying this to proposed gun control measures, the only logical conclusion would be that it would terminate at banning of all guns. That is, proposed gun control measures have progressively restricted more guns; and therefore, the vector is directed towards fewer legal guns, and the ultimate point of termination would be the abolition of all guns.

Two cosmetic military features -> One cosmetic military feature -> Future?

Now, gun control measures are not a unique event (evidenced by the fact that they have occurred previously), and it would only be logical to assume that there would be future occurrences. Clearly, given the data available, the trend is further restrictions on private gun ownership, and the termination point would be a ban on all guns.

I’m not saying that the banning of all guns is a logical conclusion to the current proposed gun control legislation, or that would currently be a political possibility, but that conclusion would not be a logical fallacy. In fact, that conclusion would be more logical, based on the available data, than the converse conclusion. Concluding that the current proposed gun control measures are not leading toward a ban on all guns cannot be concluded from the available data.

Further, a conclusion based solely on the reports from individuals that in fact want to further restrict private gun ownership is hardly strong evidence.

The president suddenly becoming an avid skeet shooter
Biden owning a shotgun
Everyone claiming to support the 2nd Amendment
Calling their proposal violence control rather than gun control
Claiming that they don’t want to “take away our guns”

None of these claims offer stronger evidence to base a conclusion, than the evidence provided by following the trend of past and current gun control proposals.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
Ginseng Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Guests
Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2013
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 10:47 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I tell you what folks, I have been reading a lot and doing considerable research on the net about attitudes, opinions etc about gun control and MANY people, wether seroius or not are using very strong language concerning this issue.

IMO, many non-native born people who are now calling themselves Americans as well as others who have lead sheltered pampered lives of comfort either have never realized, or have never beent taught, that America was founded by WAR caused by unjust POLITICS and TAXATION.

There are a GREAT number in this country right now who have not forgotten, we use to be a nation of WARRIORS, Strong Brave Men, willing to die for beliefs (freedom) We CONQUERED THE WORLD and spead democracy all over the globe.
History teaches us that all great political powers eventually fall, Britain, Russia, France, Italy, to name afew,all were world powers in thier day.

America as it was, and what it is becoming, will not last. It is just how the world is.

The cool thing is, all seems OK until the LAST MINUTE WHEN ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE! i.e. Remember Pearl Harbor?


--------------
Walking since 1962
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Ginseng Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Guests
Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2013
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 11:09 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Oh yeah, if I can find it, there was a great article about the past few mass murders, the one in conn was a registered lib dem, anti gun, how odd.

--------------
Walking since 1962
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 11:16 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The US government will collapse, as will the sun, and ultimately the universe.

Although it makes a great bumper sticker, I don’t think that there will be a lot of instances where it will be required to pry the gun out of cold dead hands (at least no more common than say mass shootings that involve a rifle). Americans are fairly complacent (cheeseburgers, beer, and all). As long as their liberties are eroded slowly enough, there should not be too much trouble.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 30 2013, 1:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(markinOhio @ Jan. 30 2013, 10:45 am)
QUOTE
Slippery slope or Straw Man…….

It is a fairly well established method of estimating the vector, and ultimately the termination point of future events, by tracking past and current events.

When applying this to proposed gun control measures, the only logical conclusion would be that it would terminate at banning of all guns. That is, proposed gun control measures have progressively restricted more guns; and therefore, the vector is directed towards fewer legal guns, and the ultimate point of termination would be the abolition of all guns.

Two cosmetic military features -> One cosmetic military feature -> Future?

Now, gun control measures are not a unique event (evidenced by the fact that they have occurred previously), and it would only be logical to assume that there would be future occurrences. Clearly, given the data available, the trend is further restrictions on private gun ownership, and the termination point would be a ban on all guns.

I’m not saying that the banning of all guns is a logical conclusion to the current proposed gun control legislation, or that would currently be a political possibility, but that conclusion would not be a logical fallacy. In fact, that conclusion would be more logical, based on the available data, than the converse conclusion. Concluding that the current proposed gun control measures are not leading toward a ban on all guns cannot be concluded from the available data.

Further, a conclusion based solely on the reports from individuals that in fact want to further restrict private gun ownership is hardly strong evidence.

The president suddenly becoming an avid skeet shooter
Biden owning a shotgun
Everyone claiming to support the 2nd Amendment
Calling their proposal violence control rather than gun control
Claiming that they don’t want to “take away our guns”

None of these claims offer stronger evidence to base a conclusion, than the evidence provided by following the trend of past and current gun control proposals.

All good points Mark.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
39 replies since Jan. 28 2013, 1:41 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply A gun control hypothesis
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions