tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post3963109106467471419..comments2024-03-05T08:25:01.029-05:00Comments on Poker Grump: A response to Michael Shermer (no poker content)Rakewellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15873391354585352712noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-25820393112382762182013-05-07T08:44:27.662-04:002013-05-07T08:44:27.662-04:00Rakewell,
I'm a little confused as to how you...Rakewell,<br /><br />I'm a little confused as to how your left reaches its position as well. But I think your slippery slope theory requires a tin foil hat.<br /><br />The position I'm suggesting is the common sense end goal, and you will get there with or without regulation. Self selection will do the trick, it's currently working and will continue to do so. But it will take centuries and cost literally millions of lives. A few simple laws would speed up the process. Constitutional change would work even faster, if it could be achieved.<br /><br />But you can't compare my views to your left, as I wrote in my article. The lefties in the US appear to be right wing extremists to most of the 1st world. These people own and use guns themselves, they are definitely not coming for yours. When Biden suggested firing shot guns from your front door as a deterrent, the entire world was in shock, then they realised he was actually the voice of the left and almost had a heart attack.<br /><br />But, even if they went as far as my suggestions, what's wrong with them?<br /><br />They reinforce personal responsibility, maintain the perceived deterrent effect, and allow you to partake in recreational shooting (hunting or targets) or even defend your home. Are all these not completely compatible with libertarian ideals and the claimed benefits of gun ownership?<br /><br />I think if I were to ask "why do you want guns?" And just continually ask "why?" to your response you would eventually have to face the fact that you have no good reason to oppose my ideas.Stevenhttps://www.facebook.com/notes/steven-williamson/debunking-dr-shermer/10151463875214822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-751973636926603572013-05-06T11:44:37.237-04:002013-05-06T11:44:37.237-04:00Steven:
Though I disagree vehemently with both y...Steven: <br /><br />Though I disagree vehemently with both your ends and means, I appreciate that you explicitly tie them together. Most gun-control groups in the U.S. bend over backwards denying that they have any intention of ever trying to repeal the second amendment, or taking away guns from law-abiding citizens. No, they say--we just want these small, incremental, "common-sense" changes. <br /><br />Those of us who believe that guns are a net good in society, despite their misuse by a tiny minority, always suspect that those denials are lies told by dishonest partisans unwilling to be frank about their true aspirations, and that their current proposals are just the first steps intended to lead to eventual prohibition. <br /><br />It's refreshing to come across somebody who is willing to be blunt in admitting that that is indeed his aim. It's good to be reminded that the slippery slope is not only real, but is being deliberately constructed and slathered with oil. <br />Rakewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15873391354585352712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-24141126902441886422013-05-06T07:39:58.880-04:002013-05-06T07:39:58.880-04:00Hi Grump.
Thanks for your comment on my article. ...Hi Grump.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment on my article. I see your point of view, and understand many of your complaints regarding the complexities of actually identifying the problems, finding (and implementing) the solutions, but I disagree with the conclusion.<br /><br />Firstly, the second amendment is outdated and has been proven unnecessary by every modern nation on the planet. The government hasn't taken over Germany, Japan, or Australia, etc. nor have they been invaded by an enemy looking for an easy target. I think any defence which uses this argument is bordering on a paranoid delusion.<br /><br />Secondly, I think you are overly nit-picky regarding terminology. It's much like when Sam Harris rejected "leftists" outright for mispronouncing or misidentifying a particular firearm. Such arguments are weak and petty. I submit to you that there is a difference between "errors of fact" and just plain pedantry.<br /><br />I am with you on arbitrary lines. What to ban? What not to ban? How to classify it? What loopholes would they find? It's an impossible task.<br /><br />To me these complaints amount to "It sounds hard, let's not try."<br /><br />We found a way to solve ambiguity problem in Australia. We had a particularly terrible mass shooting and so, we did <i>do something.</i><br /><br />The solution? Ban automatic, semi-automatic, and any multiple-shot guns. In fact, the only legal guns are single-shot long guns. There is no ambiguity over such a line. It's easy to put into law, and impossible to find a loophole. Small enough to be concealable? Banned. Fires multiple shots without reloading? Banned. Hunters, farmers and target shooters still have their tools of the trade, but the risk of mass shootings is almost gone.<br /><br />It included buy backs and tougher licensing.<br /><br />The results? Zero mass shootings in 17 years. Less gun deaths. Less gun crime in general. Or in other words, it worked.<br /><br />Our gun deaths are about 2% of yours on a per capita rate (and non-gun deaths are almost half - so it's not one compensating for the other). The point of difference is that we never had "self defence" as a valid justification for owning a gun. Nobody owned guns, and therefore nobody got shot. That is the first step, but I accept it's politically impossible to just <i>do it</i>.<br /><br />The problem then becomes one of "how"?<br /><br />The easiest path is to enact laws that will encourage people to "self select" out of gun ownership.<br /><br />This is already happening as people become more aware of the dangers. Despite the flood of guns, you actually have a decreasing rate of gun ownership. More collectors, hobbyists and - dare I say it - nuts, but less average citizens partaking. This trend coincides with a gradual decrease in gun deaths, as expected.<br /><br />Licensing, training, a registry, buy backs, increased taxes on guns/bullets, sentence loading for carrying a gun while committing a crime, even if it isn't used (I like this idea, and it's been achieving results) etc. would all help to expedite this "self selection" process. Punishing owners for their gun being used in a crime, even if not by them, would discourage ownership or at least encourage responsible storage. Reaching the goal will be slower than a direct law, but easier to enact.<br /><br />The benefit of this method, over a blanket ban, is that the deterrent effect remains, as do people's freedoms.<br /><br />The stakes are around 30,000 lives a year, it's not as <i>insignificant</i> as the odd mass shooting, they are merely the ones that grab the headlines. The real tragedy is that the worst mass shooting you've ever had produced less deaths than your tally by lunch on an average day.<br /><br />Most of these are suicide. And when you consider gun suicides are fatal, but up to 70% of non-gun suicide attempts are not fatal (and also probably less tempting - although that hard to measure and produce stats), that is well over 10,000 lives a year that could be saved by getting help after the first failed attempt. And that's before you even get to homicides.Stevenhttps://www.facebook.com/notes/steven-williamson/debunking-dr-shermer/10151463875214822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-41651429567733221042012-08-17T19:48:11.070-04:002012-08-17T19:48:11.070-04:00And yet, even with our supposed horrific gun death...And yet, even with our supposed horrific gun deaths that just have to be stopped!, the violent crime rate has dropped every year for the last 10 years and is roughly half of what it was in the 70s. Sort of goes hand in hand with 24 hour media coverage and the need for police to get more money (gotta have a predator drone you know.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-17506700141178567452012-08-03T01:31:23.417-04:002012-08-03T01:31:23.417-04:00I find it funny that "Mr. Free Speech" h...I find it funny that "Mr. Free Speech" had to write in as Anonymous... "I can say whatever I want, so long as I don't have to take responsibility for it!". Besides, free speech never killed anyone. Some ears may have bled, but that's about it. I'm digressing here. Let's get back to the issue of guns....<br /><br />We, as a society, need to reduce, or ideally eliminate, gun violence in the USA. Do those who are arguing with me on the mechanics of gun control disagree on that fundamental point? If so, please be clear about that in your response.<br /><br />Now, if you agree with me that gun violence needs to be eliminated, then it's time to stop arguing semantics. Start thinking about what matters most to you as both a gun owner and as someone who doesn't want to get shot at a random public event.<br /><br />And of course we are not going to solve anything in Grump's blog, but if one or two gun owners can start to see the light and then pay it forward, we might see a cultural change that could save thousands of lives in the US.Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07894508369148783870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-59372646186352342922012-08-02T20:19:22.590-04:002012-08-02T20:19:22.590-04:00I still want a BAR for christmas.I still want a BAR for christmas.Big-Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09694663647642834751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-38562019785723697692012-08-02T18:05:27.400-04:002012-08-02T18:05:27.400-04:00Eddie: " All of this, without limiting one...Eddie: " All of this, without limiting one's right to bear arms, just making sure s/he has to go through a few extra steps to do so." Lets just replace "to bear arms" with "free speech" or that pesky "5th amendment." Yeah, I thought not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-86007725814862742512012-08-02T16:44:57.373-04:002012-08-02T16:44:57.373-04:00I never said anything about banning one type of fi...I never said anything about banning one type of firearm or another. I put out, as an example, a registration based solution that could potentially make it more difficult for people who have not owned guns in the past from acquiring a gun, and thereby making it more difficult for one who has, maybe only temporarily, developed a desire to hurt someone or multiple people. All of this, without limiting one's right to bear arms, just making sure s/he has to go through a few extra steps to do so.<br /><br />The reason I ask Grump to find a solution is that the solution has to come from the passionate gun enthusiasts. In most gun control debates I've seen, the gun enthusiasts don't give a rat's ass about what the non-gun enthusiast thinks. Therefore, any proposed solution has to come from a gun enthusiast, and he is the one I'm currently having the discussion with.<br /><br />It's pretty simple gun owners: You know what you don't want to give up with respect to owning weapons, now is the time to figure out what you can do so as not to be constricted and yet make the public spaces of America safer.Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07894508369148783870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-34743766958276294352012-08-02T10:45:15.442-04:002012-08-02T10:45:15.442-04:00Without having read the link to the extended compa...Without having read the link to the extended comparison and contrast between gun laws and car laws, I'm reasonably certain that it is pointed out therein that while bearing arms is an absolute right guaranteed by the US Constitution, driving on public roads is considered a privilege, not guaranteed by anything except the possession of a very revokable driver's license, and therefore, at its very core, is an invalid argument for or against gun control.<br /><br />And Rakewell's points concering other atrocities like this are well-made. The fact that a mass-murder was committed with a Ruger 10/22 should serve graphic proof that one cannot fix this problem by banning guns that are menacing or threatening; the 10/22 shoots the smallest generally-available round on the market today and is the single most popular rifle sold. There are literally millions of them in law-abiding hands, many of whom are attached to youngsters for whom it is their first firearm.<br /><br />Also his comparison between the Mini-14 and the various AR15 models is similarly enlightening; the main difference between them is simply that one looks menacing, and one does not. Is that a basis for banning anything with a clear conscience?<br /><br />Nobody wants something like what happened in Colorado to happen again. But let's have a common-sense based conversation about it, that doesn't start or end with arbitrarily banning one kind of firearm or another.craftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12092073053793715234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-12179815923197126282012-08-02T10:08:26.687-04:002012-08-02T10:08:26.687-04:00Hey Grump,
I have to agree with Eddie on this one...Hey Grump,<br /><br />I have to agree with Eddie on this one. Me thinks the Grump doth protest too much. Gun control isn’t a big issue to me. I shoot, but get sort of rankled with the argument that any regulation is wrongheaded and doomed to fail. It really doesn’t past the basic sniff test. <br /><br />It’s easy to hide behind the 2nd amendment too. We constitutionally have the right to keep and bear arms. We surely do. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea that we should have unfettered access to all sorts of weapons, that we can’t do anything in the way of regulation that makes sense in preventing another gun tragedy, or that any attempts at regulation is only going to have negative effects. The constitution has been changed 27 times in our nation’s history. Not to say it should be over this issue, but it’s easy to hide behind it in discussions of what’s the best way to handle something like this. We are a nation of weapons exporters. A lot of big money has been spent pushing the notion that equates gun ownership with freedom. <br /><br />Look at a worldwide map of shooting deaths per country in the last 50 years. This is just a side effect of our “freedom”? I just don’t believe that this is just a necessary price to pay for it. I think having an honest discussion on the topic would be a first step to working toward some sort of solution. Normally you seem fairly reasonable (except for your deuce four of clubs thing ) but on this issue you seem strident, dogmatic , and just a little defensive. <br /><br />My two cents,<br />M.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-11062065722705997292012-08-02T00:09:24.667-04:002012-08-02T00:09:24.667-04:00@Eddie
While I disagree with grump's overall ...@Eddie<br /><br />While I disagree with grump's overall argument, I think you're jumping the gun a bit by suggesting he should be finding a solution to the 'problem.'<br /><br />The fact of the matter is there are billions of people in this world. The death of dozens, even hundreds, is sad. But it just isn't a very big deal. If it wasn't in the papers, it would never affect your life.<br /><br />Frankly, I think people overreact to incidents like Aurora. Could gun control reduce such tragedies? Maybe. Could such gun control lead to worse unintended consequences? That's at least arguable.<br /><br />But one thing seems clear: Aurora and other incidents like it simply aren't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.<br /><br />Certainly in terms of reducing death or promoting your own general well-being and chances at living a long life it makes little sense to spend effort promote gun control rather than, say, environmental regulation. Or the NIH research budget.<br /><br />Long story short, the problem doesn't demand a solution, so even in the context of a simple policy argument, it's perfectly reasonable for Grump to not offer one. Though again, I'm not saying gun control wouldn't be one.MisterFrednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-80375476179462153512012-08-01T23:14:41.193-04:002012-08-01T23:14:41.193-04:00Grump,
Loved your blog on this issue. I couldn&#...Grump,<br /><br />Loved your blog on this issue. I couldn't agree more!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-74866615538397855312012-08-01T15:15:08.947-04:002012-08-01T15:15:08.947-04:00Everyone who would have an opinion about mass kill...Everyone who would have an opinion about mass killings in America should read "Mass Murder in the United States: A History," by Grant Duwe, Ph.D. http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Murder-United-States-History/dp/0786431504Eclectic Breakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09767654149969639962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-23566504669965288892012-08-01T12:57:52.362-04:002012-08-01T12:57:52.362-04:00Again, you aren't trying to find a solution, j...Again, you aren't trying to find a solution, just shooting down (pun intended) any proposed solution. I'm about halfway through the link above and the argument that you'd have to repeal all sorts of other laws to enable this registry is BS. Many supercars that are available in Europe are not street legal in the US. There are still all sorts of limitations of what vehicles can be sold and used legally on the roads in the US. The same thing can be applied to weapons.Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07894508369148783870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-8530350297265868142012-08-01T12:51:46.818-04:002012-08-01T12:51:46.818-04:00Eddie:
For an extended consideration of how laws...Eddie: <br /><br />For an extended consideration of how laws would have to change if we were to actually treat gun laws like car laws, see here: <br /><br />http://t.co/6OedZbUiRakewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15873391354585352712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-56728287444000373472012-08-01T12:12:59.065-04:002012-08-01T12:12:59.065-04:00Grump, I appreciate your writing, but you seem ove...Grump, I appreciate your writing, but you seem overly stubborn about gun control. You seem like a guy who doesn't want to see any more mayhem like what happened in Aurora, but are writing like one who could care less because it might limit his freedoms. I think if you spent some time thinking about it, you could think of ways to make it more difficult for those with mental illness to obtain weaponry without it limiting or preventing you and others from owning such weapons for your sporting interests.<br /><br />You use the automobile as a reference several time, and let's see if we can find parallels to which we can apply to gun control:<br /><br />1) Every person who wishes to own a car must have a license and their name in a registry.<br /><br />2) If you want to drive different classes of vehicles, you need different types of licenses (trucks, motorcycles, etc...)<br /><br />3) Every vehicle purchased must be registered to an owner.<br /><br />4) Those with the proper licenses can use their cars, or modified (read MUCH MORE POWERFUL) versions of vehicles for non-general use / sporting purposes.<br /><br />Seems to me that if you required that gun owners be licensed, require multiple licenses for various classes of guns, and were required to provide proof of such licenses before you could purchase guns and ammo, you are providing some barriers to entry that could help prevent crimes like Aurora.<br /><br />This won't prevent future crimes or tragedies, but the key is to keep driving the probability down to reduce their frequency.Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07894508369148783870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-78995896061562406702012-08-01T09:33:35.411-04:002012-08-01T09:33:35.411-04:00Gun control is not a big issue to me. Nor am I com...Gun control is not a big issue to me. Nor am I coming out in favor of any particular level of regulation or lack thereof.<br /><br />But I always find arguments based on the Second Amendment rather specious. The reason being that it seems to me EVERYONE in the United States prefers that the government violate the Second Amendment.<br /><br />The Second Amendment, after all, guarantees the right to bear arms. Which in that context refers to weapons of war. Not just guns. Yet there are whole categories of weapons of war that we ban citizens (and even our government) from possessing.<br /><br />You can get arrested for bearing, say, a surface-to-air rocket launcher. And I'm pretty sure tanks aren't street legal. To say nothing of chemical weapons or a dirty bomb.<br /><br />All of which should be legal under a generous reading of the Second Amendment.<br /><br />So it's irrational to throw the Second Amendment about willy-nilly as a reason the government cannot regulate automatic rifles. Virtually everyone in the United States agrees in some form of weapons control.<br /><br />Quibbling about where the line should be drawn is all well and good. But it is no great philosophical divide, nor is it some huge constitutional crisis.MisterFrednoreply@blogger.com