Another Poor Gun Victim of Violent Spree

[KAWDUP]

sorry zyxt. sometimes I get an inspiration to pose as someone else. whether its funny or adds anything to the conversation,, I dunno. guessing u.and kawdup would say no.

uh . . . what?!?

Pose as whoever the hell you want - it doubt it would affect my opinion of this conversation one way or the other.

I'm guessing you need a repeat of my position on this, especially when you're constantly lumping me with anyone who happens to argue with you.

I have no qualms with the gun ban laws that have been proposed. If they actually do anything useful, more power to the backers of such laws. My argument always has been that those laws will not do very much at all to curb violent crime - but you go girl, you're on a roll.

 

[redandguilty]

Well, we need to ban something. They're going to allow knives on planes again!
http://www.boston.com/travel/destin...lubs-planes/dXm9iEUaBvHdTKhha6MNYP/story.html

 

[tinselwolverine]

uh . . . what?!?

Pose as whoever the hell you want - it doubt it would affect my opinion of this conversation one way or the other.

I'm guessing you need a repeat of my position on this, especially when you're constantly lumping me with anyone who happens to argue with you.

I have no qualms with the gun ban laws that have been proposed. If they actually do anything useful, more power to the backers of such laws. My argument always has been that those laws will not do very much at all to curb violent crime - but you go girl, you're on a roll.

What if it doesn't do much?

What if, over the next 10 years, it prevents, however it does it; by making it undoable for a potential assailant to obtain a gun in time before he's commited for mental illness, or gets a nanochip or a microchip implanted into his brain, or however it prevents it - what if it prevents only one tragedy?

Wouldn't it be worth it?

 

[Thumb]

And therein lies the problem, people just use the old phrase "It won't do much good" so let's just forget the whole thing and do nothing at all, after all, isn't that the simplest solution?

 

[redandguilty]

And therein lies the problem, people just use the old phrase "It won't do much good" so let's just forget the whole thing and do nothing at all, after all, isn't that the simplest solution?

That's one end of the problem and Tinsel just laid out the other end. Either argument suggests the conversation has drifted far from anything practical. Both are ways of saying "dial it back a bit"

 

[zyxt9]

And therein lies the problem, people just use the old phrase "It won't do much good" so let's just forget the whole thing and do nothing at all, after all, isn't that the simplest solution?

No, I once more will say to go ahead with the laws, but since you admit it will not rnd the violence completely, what is the next step?

Yes Tinsel, every person it saves is potentially a good thing. However, it is impossible to know what a person will do for good or for evil in their future, so keep in mind there could be some small percentage of evil that the laws will save as well. Again, feel free to create the laws, but with the understanding there is a chance someone saved might be capable of mass destruction. How to we work to make sure that person is held in check? Might save the hundreds of Nobel Peace Prize winners, true...but might also save the next genocide extremist, though it is far more likely such a person would not be an American.

All I'm saying is there are potential future solutions capable of doing far more saving of lives and some of those would actually remove the genocide extremist element from the issue.

Maybe that solution lies with computer chip implants or other technology we are not even aware of yet. Whether it wpresents itself within 5, 50 or 500 years remains to be seen, but pushing to make that a reality moves the timeframe closer to today than dismissing it outright which pushes it out further from today.

Maybe the solution is a genetic manipulation of all fetuses that prevents the mental imstabilities? That is another possible solution. Maybe both gene therapy and chip implants will happen.

Till then, go ahead and try to create the laws, just please don't stop with that. Work on fixing the mental issues with something far more effective than pills.

 

[KAWDUP]

What if it doesn't do much?

What if, over the next 10 years, it prevents, however it does it; by making it undoable for a potential assailant to obtain a gun in time before he's commited for mental illness, or gets a nanochip or a microchip implanted into his brain, or however it prevents it - what if it prevents only one tragedy?

Wouldn't it be worth it?

Well "worth it" is a nebulous term. In terms of human life, in my opinion, of course, it is worth it. How much is a life worth? Ask an abortionist, a priest, Dr Kervorkian, or Champ and you will get a different answer from each.

My opinion is that it is worth whatever its success rate is in saving lives. Could and should be priceless, right?

. . . but here is where we could differ. We don't have infinite resources to put towards solving this problem. Would you agree on that? If we are talking about some idyllic world, where we do have infinite resources, then I say do it all.

If you have limited resources to put toward helping to curb violence, and implementing some relatively easy things will provide a much greater success rate than the X billions of dollars it will take draft, lobby for, pass, and enforce a ban, you tell me - is it worth it? . . . or would it be better to get the most "bang for your buck"? This is a decision that is made all the time in Congress, and unfortunately one that can not be avoided if we are talking reality here.

From what you have said, though, your expectation for the number of saved lives for your X billion dollars that you spent may be very different than mine, and if that is the source of our disagreement, then I guess the argument will continue.

. . . but if human considerations are all you have to go on - you are damn straight it is worth every penny and more.

In reality, that isn't the case we have here is it?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I don't know why it would take billions and billions of dollars; it didn't seem to when the same restrictions were enacted under Bill Clinton.

 

[Thumb]

I don't know why it would take billions and billions of dollars; it didn't seem to when the same restrictions were enacted under Bill Clinton.

Oh my god! Will you STOP using LOGIC!!!

 

[Michchamp]

It will take billions and billions of dollars just to enact gun control regulations to save one (1) measly life?

okay, fuhgettaboutit.

 

[KAWDUP]

It will take billions and billions of dollars just to enact gun control regulations to save one (1) measly life?

okay, fuhgettaboutit.

Once again you completely missed the boat.

What you are saying is not the case here is it? It isn't even really part of the debate. It isn't all or nothing to save one life. Quit making stupid comments.

. . . and it isn't gun control (which is actually a good thing and will do some good), it is gun bans which won't have much of an affect.

You can keep mis-stating it all you want, it doesn't do or mean anything more than the last 5 times you said it either.

Is the sky blue in your world?

 

[KAWDUP]

Oh my god! Will you STOP using LOGIC!!!

Look - I said X billions because I didn't go look up how much it costs to do all the things I said needed to be done for a piece of legislation.

The logic of my post is fine. Are you really saying you don't get it?

I'll be happy to go look it up and report back. Would saying more money than you or I will make in a lifetime be a better value to actually grasp what I was saying?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Look - I said X billions because I didn't go look up how much it costs to do all the things I said needed to be done for a piece of legislation.

The logic of my post is fine. Are you really saying you don't get it?

I'll be happy to go look it up and report back. Would saying more money than you or I will make in a lifetime be a better value to actually grasp what I was saying?

I don't know why it would cost any more money than the current operations of the Bureau of the ATF cost now.

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't know why it would take billions and billions of dollars; it didn't seem to when the same restrictions were enacted under Bill Clinton.

Do your really not understand what "X" billions means? How you turn that into me making a definitve statement that it will take billions and billions, I will never know. Do you really think the cost down to the exact amount of money was the issue here, or just trying to find something to argue about?

For crying out loud, at least deal with the real argument. I answered your question as good as I know how. Do we have limited resources for this or not?

 

[zyxt9]

You're still talking about forced modification of a human body. I mean hey, Hitler only wanted to give out a few million tattoos....

Seriously, you must smoke some awesome dope.

I don't do illegal drugs, never have, never will. Only take legal drugs when necessary, like when I was on pain meds after throwing my back out. Even then, I stopped taking them sooner than the doc said. And I don't drink to get drunk anymore either, maybe one drink 3 days a week on average...maybe.

Please stop with the strawman Hitler arguement before you proove yourself a fool. For starters, there would be zero difference compared to the psych drugs currently forced upon people by Shrinks today, with the exception of being more effective. The Big Brother Boogeyman argument is ridiculous as well, considering how much Big Brother is already looking at everything that flies across the internet and phones. You are still using those right? And has Big Brother knocked down your door yet???? Didn't think so. On top of that, I've already provided ample evidence as to why people will be "forced" more by society than the government, which is essentially the same as volunteering in order to keep up with everyone else. Proof of that lies simply with Facebook, LinkedIn, or the internet in general. Sure there are people who still are not online, and I for one don't partake in Facebook nonsense, but I do have an account. I just prefer keeping my life more private than that and even wth the option of letting only "Friends" see things, nothing can stop them from reposting anything I do. In that regard, "Friends" are far worse than Big Brother will ever be.

The only ones who would be "forced" by Big Brother to have a chip implanted would be criminals. Would you prefer spending life behind bars or have a microchip put in that would remove the desire to do criminal acts, like the Shrink Drugs but with far greater success and no need to pop pills that will eventually have side effects, not to mention nothing is stopping you from no longer taking the meds, which is why criminals remain in psych wards instead of being allowed back on the street. How much "help" do drugs that leave one essentially comatose actually provide? The chips would allow you to actually function as a normal member of society.

But go ahead and keep using strawman arguments to try convincing yourself that the chips should never be allowed. Far better to place sole hope in legislation.

 

[tinselwolverine]

For crying out loud, at least deal with the real argument. I answered your question as good as I know how. Do we have limited resources for this or not?

We have limited resources for everything.

I don't know why a change in the law would much effect the cost of running the ATF - again, it didn't seem to before.

Laws that effect operations for government agencies change all the time, without dramatically effecting operational costs.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Do your really not understand what "X" billions means? How you turn that into me making a definitve statement that it will take billions and billions, I will never know.

X billions vs. billions and bilions - yes; they're both figurative statements, and yes, to a rational person, they mean pretty much the same thing.

You calling anybody else "argumentative" is pretty fuckin' funny, too.

 

[KAWDUP]

We have limited resources for everything.

I don't know why a change in the law would much effect the cost of running the ATF - again, it didn't seem to before.

Laws that effect operations for government agencies change all the time, without dramatically effecting operational costs.

So are you saying that the cost of the entire bill including the cost of enforcement will not cost J. Q. taxpayer any additional money whatsoever? That's like saying National Health Care won't cost any more, because we already have Medicare and Medicaid. Is that really your argument now?

 

[redandguilty]

Proof of that lies simply with Facebook, LinkedIn, or the internet in general.

When I call it the Unabomber argument, I'm not saying it's wrong. There's a fair amount of truth to it. Tons of people complain about privacy and facebook or their apple device, but they keep using them. And in some lines of work, companies require employees to use them. When technology gets good enough, it becomes too much of a hindrance to take a stand against it. Nobody is forced to use computers, or cars...but good luck having a career without these things. Only so many people can get away with not doing it; if there was a movement to quit using computers that really caught on, salaries would rise for computer users and drop for non-users. Nobody has to be forced to used them. I think we'll have more luck resisting microchips in the brain than you think...at the very least adaption will take longer than you estimate. It depends on how obvious the advantages are. I think it's fair to compare the idea to the rise of cognitive performance enhancing drugs. It's common in academia, but not dominant. But I think a big part of that it that it's not obvious that the benefits are worth the perceived risk. Now if a microchip in the brain gives you Watson capacity and it's as convenient and as fast natural recollection...maybe people would take it up more quickly, but it won't be like that for some time.

 

[tinselwolverine]

X billions vs. billions and bilions - yes; they're both figurative statements, and yes, to a rational person, they mean pretty much the same thing.

You calling anybody else "argumentative" is pretty fuckin' funny, too.

Ha, ha...this is hysterical...

X billions specifically implies a minimum of 2 billion, while billions and billions specifically implies a minimum of 4 billion.

So really what's the fuckin' difference, in a figurative discussion?