The Sum of the Gun Control Debate

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

You mean, as opposed to all the evidence you've provided to the contrary, which consists solely of your misguided opinion that gun banners are motivated by some deeper purpose?  Relatively speaking, I have the preponderance of evidence on my side ... by a wide margin.

This... this is evidence? You’re the one with the positive claim, . I’m not asserting that a majority of gun control advocates have any specific purpose, you are. I’ve presented evidence that at least some legislation supporting gun control uses functional differences as a basis for implementing a gun ban, and while the reasoning for that may be misguided, it’s solely been your assertion that their actual reason for banning specific guns is entirely cosmetic. In fact, practically all of your “evidence” has just been a series of declarative statements asserting that that is the reality for most gun control advocates. This is the first time you’ve gone beyond your own interpretation of why gun control advocates have supported certain bans, and this video does nothing to support your point beyond show that these two guys could find people walking by them on the street with opinions based largely on cosmetic appearance. That’s no more proof than any anecdote.

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

I’ve presented evidence that at least some legislation supporting gun control uses functional differences as a basis for implementing a gun ban

You have?!?  In this thread?!?  Where???  You mentioned cosmetics like hand grips and flash hiders, but their is NO functional difference whatsoever between a rifle equipped with a hand grip and/or a flash hider and one not so equipped.  They wouldn't look the same, one may look scarier, but they function identically.

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

You have?!?  In this thread?!?  Where???  You mentioned cosmetics like hand grips and flash hiders, but their is NO functional difference whatsoever between a rifle equipped with a hand grip and/or a flash hider and one not so equipped.  They wouldn't look the same, one may look scarier, but they function identically.

I'll repeat myself from where I responded to that exact statement previously:

"I've already stated that I have no interest in debating the merits of the actual policy. You conveniently ignored the magazine aspect of that bill, but even if we set that aside, it's not clear to me what the support is for your argument. I'm aware of what a pistol grip and flash suppressor look like, and they do not dramatically modify the appearance of a gun. It's your argument that the major reason they've selected those two features is because they change the cosmetics of the gun to a substantial degree. Maybe those two parts of the gun are just things that gun control supporters hone in on, but I have a hard time thinking that the end of the gun barrel and the grip alone are really all they care about. It's much more likely that they perceive some functionality from these two features. I'm not saying that that functionality is actually integral to the success of a mass shooter, so that functionality may be a terrible choice, but it seems more likely that they view any functionality that potentially improves rate of fire or stealth as inherently dangerous."

You ignored that back when I posted it, so I've posted it again. I'm not stating that there's a fundamental difference in functionality. I'm stating that even a perceived difference in functionality can be a basis for supporting a ban. Perception alone without any empirical differences in functionality is a terrible reason to support a ban on weapons that bear these features, but its your assertion that the only reason they selected these features was because of how they alter the appearance of the weapon. Again, all you're doing is declaring that the cosmetic differences must be the reason they're pursuing this ban. That's your assertion. It's not my assertion that they're doing this based on reasoned evidence regarding the functionality of these attachments. I'm merely arguing that cosmetics alone do not comprise the vast majority of the reasoning behind why they are pursuing the ban, and that the impetus of perceived functionality plays a substantial role.

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

I'll repeat myself from where I responded to that exact statement previously:

"I've already stated that I have no interest in debating the merits of the actual policy. You conveniently ignored the magazine aspect of that bill, but even if we set that aside, it's not clear to me what the support is for your argument. I'm aware of what a pistol grip and flash suppressor look like, and they do not dramatically modify the appearance of a gun. It's your argument that the major reason they've selected those two features is because they change the cosmetics of the gun to a substantial degree. Maybe those two parts of the gun are just things that gun control supporters hone in on, but I have a hard time thinking that the end of the gun barrel and the grip alone are really all they care about. It's much more likely that they perceive some functionality from these two features. I'm not saying that that functionality is actually integral to the success of a mass shooter, so that functionality may be a terrible choice, but it seems more likely that they view any functionality that potentially improves rate of fire or stealth as inherently dangerous."

You ignored that back when I posted it, so I've posted it again. I'm not stating that there's a fundamental difference in functionality. I'm stating that even a perceived difference in functionality can be a basis for supporting a ban. Perception alone without any empirical differences in functionality is a terrible reason to support a ban on weapons that bear these features, but its your assertion that the only reason they selected these features was because of how they alter the appearance of the weapon. Again, all you're doing is declaring that the cosmetic differences must be the reason they're pursuing this ban. That's your assertion. It's not my assertion that they're doing this based on reasoned evidence regarding the functionality of these attachments. I'm merely arguing that cosmetics alone do not comprise the vast majority of the reasoning behind why they are pursuing the ban, and that the impetus of perceived functionality plays a substantial role.

So far, all your argument has boiled down to is that it's illogical to support such a ban based on functionality, yet your whole point is that it's similarly illogical to support such a ban based on cosmetics. Why is the latter more likely than the former? Explain that to me.

You're saying guns with such features are perceived as being functionally different from guns without those features.  I'm saying guns with such features are misperceived as being functionally different from guns without those features.  The only way for you to demonstrate that this is not a misperception is to demonstrate the functional difference between a gun with such features and a gun without such features.  You've never posted anything but your belief that there just has to be something more to the issue than looks.  You've never posted any evidence that such a ban is based on more than looks, nothing, not a single shred, but you still believe it.

My stance is that it's illogical to support a ban on functionality, it's just plain to support a ban based on cosmetics.

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

You're saying guns with such features are perceived as being functionally different from guns without those features.  I'm saying guns with such features are misperceived as being functionally different from guns without those features.  The only way for you to demonstrate that this is not a misperception is to demonstrate the functional difference between a gun with such features and a gun without such features.  You've never posted anything but your belief that there just has to be something more to the issue than looks.  You've never posted any evidence that such a ban is based on more than looks, nothing, not a single shred, but you still believe it.

My stance is that it's illogical to support a ban on functionality, it's just plain to support a ban based on cosmetics.

I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot. I have now stated, multiple times, that I have no interest in defending the choice of these features. Hell, if you want, treat this as a concession: they are misperceived as being functionally different, and thus basing the decision to ban them on the basis of those functional differences is illogical.

Alright? Now that that's settled, let's get back to the issue we are debating.

Assuming it's a misperception based in the mentality that there's a functional difference based on these features, that's still a perception, i.e. the basis for the decision to pursue such a ban is functional in nature. They decided that these features have functional implications for these weapons, and though they are wrong (remember the concession), they still believe that that's the basis for such a ban.

Now, your argument is that these people are supporting a ban chiefly or solely because of the altered cosmetic appearance. Let's put aside the fact that these two features only modify small portions of the gun (namely, the barrel and the grip), which means that they only encompass a minor portion of the gun's overall cosmetic appearance. Let's just focus on your argument, which is that these people aren't just illogical in their views, they're outright . And, as far as I can tell, the only support you've furnished for that is those two guys stopping random people on the street.

So, again, let's go back to a previous post of mine. But first, note that I have never intended nor tried to provide evidence that there is a single guiding principle behind supporting any type of gun ban. You keep trying to put that onus on me, yet time and again, I keep stating that it's not only not my goal, but it is clearly yours. So, let's go back to that point I made early on in response to you:

"I don't think either of us can definitively prove that the majority of people who are supporting what is called an assault weapons ban base their decision chiefly on aesthetics or functionality, mainly because the detailed opinions on the matter only represent a small subset, and there's no clear polls I've found that have attempted to determine this. However, both you and Vaulk have claimed to know that aesthetics are the chief reason. Would either of you care to support that?"

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot. I have now stated, multiple times, that I have no interest in defending the choice of these features. Hell, if you want, treat this as a concession: they are misperceived as being functionally different, and thus basing the decision to ban them on the basis of those functional differences is illogical.

Alright? Now that that's settled, let's get back to the issue we are debating.

Assuming it's a misperception based in the mentality that there's a functional difference based on these features, that's still a perception, i.e. the basis for the decision to pursue such a ban is functional in nature. They decided that these features have functional implications for these weapons, and though they are wrong (remember the concession), they still believe that that's the basis for such a ban.

Now, your argument is that these people are supporting a ban chiefly or solely because of the altered cosmetic appearance. Let's put aside the fact that these two features only modify small portions of the gun (namely, the barrel and the grip), which means that they only encompass a minor portion of the gun's overall cosmetic appearance. Let's just focus on your argument, which is that these people aren't just illogical in their views, they're outright . And, as far as I can tell, the only support you've furnished for that is those two guys stopping random people on the street.

So, again, let's go back to a previous post of mine. But first, note that I have never intended nor tried to provide evidence that there is a single guiding principle behind supporting any type of gun ban. You keep trying to put that onus on me, yet time and again, I keep stating that it's not only not my goal, but it is clearly yours. So, let's go back to that point I made early on in response to you:

"I don't think either of us can definitively prove that the majority of people who are supporting what is called an assault weapons ban base their decision chiefly on aesthetics or functionality, mainly because the detailed opinions on the matter only represent a small subset, and there's no clear polls I've found that have attempted to determine this. However, both you and Vaulk have claimed to know that aesthetics are the chief reason. Would either of you care to support that?"

Yes, I would.  It is because THERE IS NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GUN EQUIPPED WITH SUCH FEATURES AND ONE THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH SUCH FEATURES.  The only difference is in the firearms' looks.

To your other point, there are those that perceive the earth is flat, the sun is only 3000 miles away and that NASA has been lying to us since it's inception.  Is it wise to act on those perceptions?  Should we defund and disband NASA?  Or should we take a more rational approach; denote the shallowness of the banners' arguments and react accordingly?

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

Yes, I would.  It is because THERE IS NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GUN EQUIPPED WITH SUCH FEATURES AND ONE THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH SUCH FEATURES.  The only difference is in the firearms' looks.

To your other point, there are those that perceive the earth is flat, the sun is only 3000 miles away and that NASA has been lying to us since it's inception.  Is it wise to act on those perceptions?  Should we defund and disband NASA?  Or should we take a more rational approach; denote the shallowness of the banners' arguments and react accordingly?

You perceive a difference between supporting a ban based on functionality vs supporting a ban based on cosmetics. If someone supports such a ban because of perceived functional differences, they're illogical because there is fundamentally no difference is functionality. If someone supports such a ban because of cosmetic differences, then they're . In both cases, there can be no actual functional difference because both are based on perception, you're just perceiving different things. In the first case, you're perceiving additional and potentially deadly functionality when there isn't any. In the second, you're merely perceiving a difference that sets off mental alarm bells that tell you that weapon is more dangerous. I'd say those two are different mentalities, as you appear to agree, yet the same explanation you're giving here applies to both. So, how do you know it's the latter and not the former?

As for your latter questions, you just seem to be returning to previous issues over and over again. How many times do I have to say this? FOR THE SAKE OF THIS ARGUMENT, I AM CONCEDING THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG. Whether that wrongness is based in the perception of functional differences, the perception of cosmetic differences, or any other perception, I will make no effort to defend the policy, as it comes from a flawed perception regardless. So, at long last, can we please drop this part of the argument? 

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

You perceive a difference between supporting a ban based on functionality vs supporting a ban based on cosmetics. If someone supports such a ban because of perceived functional differences, they're illogical because there is fundamentally no difference is functionality. If someone supports such a ban because of cosmetic differences, then they're . In both cases, there can be no actual functional difference because both are based on perception, you're just perceiving different things. In the first case, you're perceiving additional and potentially deadly functionality when there isn't any. In the second, you're merely perceiving a difference that sets off mental alarm bells that tell you that weapon is more dangerous. I'd say those two are different mentalities, as you appear to agree, yet the same explanation you're giving here applies to both. So, how do you know it's the latter and not the former?

As for your latter questions, you just seem to be returning to previous issues over and over again. How many times do I have to say this? FOR THE SAKE OF THIS ARGUMENT, I AM CONCEDING THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG. Whether that wrongness is based in the perception of functional differences, the perception of cosmetic differences, or any other perception, I will make no effort to defend the policy, as it comes from a flawed perception regardless. So, at long last, can we please drop this part of the argument? 

Whether the people supporting such a ban are doing so out of stupidity or out of ignorance is, to me, a distinction without a difference. 

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

Whether the people supporting such a ban are doing so out of stupidity or out of ignorance is, to me, a distinction without a difference. 

I'd disagree. A knee-jerk response to the appearance of a weapon is rather different than selecting characteristics of that weapon that, at the very least, have some relevance to the function of that weapon. Whether those functional characteristics actually matter within the context of a shooting is important, but at least the latter is trying to discern a meaningful way to restrict guns that isn't completely arbitrary. It also provides a basis for some decent discussion that moves beyond the emotional impact of appearance alone. We can talk about individual traits and determine how they affect functionality of the overall weapon. If someone's so upset with the appearance of a gun alone, they're not likely to engage with arguments about its actual functionality.

Vaulk

I'm not sure where the hangup is here.  

May I suggest some clarification:

The pistol grip on a firearm (Forward or rear) has no functional impact on the weapon's performance.  Firearms that are manufactured without a pistol grip and instead utilize the traditional hunting style stock are no more or less functional than their counterparts that are manufactured with pistol grips.  Pistol grips do not make rounds fly faster, don't make fingers pull faster and doesn't make ammunition more accurate.

The barrel shroud does not affect the ammunition coming out of the firearm...at all...ever.  The barrel shroud is designed to do one thing only: To provide a degree of visual concealment of the flash coming from the barrel during the firing of each round.  It helps so that the shooter's vision is less affected by the flash and in some cases (Depending on the type of ammunition being fired) can assist in keeping the flash from being seen by anyone on the receiving end of the firearm.  The barrel shroud is NOT a silencer (We won't even get into the wrongness of that word), it's not a suppressor, it doesn't make the shooter invisible, there's still a BIG flash when the firearm shoots a round it's just smaller than before.

Arguing that a weapon needs to be banned based on the two above listed features is an arbitrary argument based on the principle of misunderstanding and ignorance.  Anyone who does make the argument that weapons with pistol grips or barrel shrouds should be banned is making a statement from ignorance and should be dismissed as uneducated in the matter that he/she is discussing.  They have better words and phrases for people who open their mouth on subjects they don't have any real knowledge of but we'll save those for later.


I honestly think that people are basing these arguments from fear.  Remember how people generally feel that the bigger a snake or other venomous creature is...the more deadly it is?  That's kind of what's happening here, people see the AR-15 as this horrible nasty thing and assume that it's somehow more dangerous than other weapons...when it's really not.  

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

I'd disagree. A knee-jerk response to the appearance of a weapon is rather different than selecting characteristics of that weapon that, at the very least, have some relevance to the function of that weapon. Whether those functional characteristics actually matter within the context of a shooting is important, but at least the latter is trying to discern a meaningful way to restrict guns that isn't completely arbitrary. It also provides a basis for some decent discussion that moves beyond the emotional impact of appearance alone. We can talk about individual traits and determine how they affect functionality of the overall weapon. If someone's so upset with the appearance of a gun alone, they're not likely to engage with arguments about its actual functionality.

Nah; whether people are fools and know that the ban features are arbitrary or whether they are being fooled into thinking there is some added functionality when the slightest bit of research would show that there is no functional difference whatsoever between gun on the ban list and guns not on the ban list makes no difference.  Whether they are aware of it or not, whether they would admit it (even to themselves) or not, they are being swayed by appearance and hype and are not making a rational judgement.

CYDdharta

Vaulk said:

I'm not sure where the hangup is here.  

May I suggest some clarification:

The pistol grip on a firearm (Forward or rear) has no functional impact on the weapon's performance.  Firearms that are manufactured without a pistol grip and instead utilize the traditional hunting style stock are no more or less functional than their counterparts that are manufactured with pistol grips.  Pistol grips do not make rounds fly faster, don't make fingers pull faster and doesn't make ammunition more accurate.

The barrel shroud does not affect the ammunition coming out of the firearm...at all...ever.  The barrel shroud is designed to do one thing only: To provide a degree of visual concealment of the flash coming from the barrel during the firing of each round.  It helps so that the shooter's vision is less affected by the flash and in some cases (Depending on the type of ammunition being fired) can assist in keeping the flash from being seen by anyone on the receiving end of the firearm.  The barrel shroud is NOT a silencer (We won't even get into the wrongness of that word), it's not a suppressor, it doesn't make the shooter invisible, there's still a BIG flash when the firearm shoots a round it's just smaller than before.

Arguing that a weapon needs to be banned based on the two above listed features is an arbitrary argument based on the principle of misunderstanding and ignorance.  Anyone who does make the argument that weapons with pistol grips or barrel shrouds should be banned is making a statement from ignorance and should be dismissed as uneducated in the matter that he/she is discussing.  They have better words and phrases for people who open their mouth on subjects they don't have any real knowledge of but we'll save those for later.


I honestly think that people are basing these arguments from fear.  Remember how people generally feel that the bigger a snake or other venomous creature is...the more deadly it is?  That's kind of what's happening here, people see the AR-15 as this horrible nasty thing and assume that it's somehow more dangerous than other weapons...when it's really not.  

You mean flash hider, not barrel shroud.  A barrel shroud is just a covering to keep your hands from touching a hot barrel.

Vaulk

CYDdharta said:

You mean flash hider, not barrel shroud.  A barrel shroud is just a covering to keep your hands from touching a hot barrel.

AARRGH you got me!  Going to go give myself 20 lashings for that one.  Indeed I meant to say flash hider however, the barrel shroud has come under fire in previous gun control arguments by government and political leaders.

CYDdharta

Vaulk said:

AARRGH you got me!  Going to go give myself 20 lashings for that one.  Indeed I meant to say flash hider however, the barrel shroud has come under fire in previous gun control arguments by government and political leaders.

LOL.  Of course barrel shrouds are another cosmetic that gun banners want to ban, they make the gun look nastier.

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

Vaulk said:

AARRGH you got me!  Going to go give myself 20 lashings for that one.  Indeed I meant to say flash hider however, the barrel shroud has come under fire in previous gun control arguments by government and political leaders.

LOL.  Of course barrel shrouds are another cosmetic that gun banners want to ban, they make the gun look nastier.

Barrel shrouds are used to make sure you don't burn yourself on a hot barrel as you yourself have admitted - therefore they aren't cosmetic because they serve a function. The logic would seem to me to be that ordinary gun owners wouldn't normally be expected to shoot so much in self defence that their barrel becomes dangerously hot while a person engaged in a mass shooting would and that it is good to ban items which disproportionately aid mass-murderers.

whiteflame

@Vaulk ;

The issue here is whether that faulty reasoning is based chiefly on a faulty visual perception (i.e. "that gun is more dangerous because it looks more dangerous") or a faulty functional perception (i.e. "that gun is more dangerous as a result of its distinguishing parts"). I don't disagree with you that fear is at least part of the reason why pro-gun ban individuals support what are often arbitrary views regarding which guns should be banned. My issue is with the view that these people are solely or chiefly making this decision based on visual stigmatization. When that is the perspective of how these people think, it treats fear as pretty much all that goes into their decision-making, effectively making them out to be entirely non-rational actors.

Suffice it to say that I feel it's exceedingly dismissive of the pro-gun ban movement's arguments to treat the entirety of them as nothing more than a strong fear response to visuals. Why bother treating any of them seriously if their views are motivated by emotion alone? I've seen a lot of debates where two opposing sides on the gun control issue treat each other as entirely irrational, and, much like the general debate over gun control, leads to no agreement and no changes. I think we've largely proven through our discussion that there is a great deal of agreement to be had, and maybe I'm misunderstanding where the divide is that makes such discussion impossible for most people who feel strongly on either side of this issue, but I don't think discussion is helped by dismissing one side's argument so readily.

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

CYDdharta said:

Vaulk said:

AARRGH you got me!  Going to go give myself 20 lashings for that one.  Indeed I meant to say flash hider however, the barrel shroud has come under fire in previous gun control arguments by government and political leaders.

LOL.  Of course barrel shrouds are another cosmetic that gun banners want to ban, they make the gun look nastier.

Barrel shrouds are used to make sure you don't burn yourself on a hot barrel as you yourself have admitted - therefore they aren't cosmetic because they serve a function. The logic would seem to me to be that ordinary gun owners wouldn't normally be expected to shoot so much in self defence that their barrel becomes dangerously hot while a person engaged in a mass shooting would and that it is good to ban items which disproportionately aid mass-murderers.

It is cosmetic, because the only place where you might shoot a gun enough to make the barrel too hot to handle is at a shooting range, and a sturdy work glove will do just as good a job.

Vaulk

@Ampersand ;

The reason that the barrel shroud (Which all firearms have) is being classified as a cosmetic argument is because the pro-gun ban activists are singling out firearms with certain types of barrel shrouds and leaving other firearms alone.  In this case, pro-gun ban activists are using the typical AR-15 barrel shroud in some arguments as the example of what needs to be banned.  But they're leaving out the Mini-14...which is functionally identical to the AR-15 but has a different body style to include the barrel shroud. 

To clarify, when I say all weapons have a barrel shroud, what I mean is that there's not a firearm on the market that's designed to be held by the barrel.  There's either a portion of the stock that extends down the lower part of the barrel where you rest your non-firing hand or there's an entire shroud around the barrel.  I'd also like to clarify that depending on the composition of the barrel (Material) and the type of ammunition used...it can take less than 5 rounds to heat up the barrel of a firearm to the point that it's capable of burning the skin or making it too hot to comfortably touch.  To say that a firearm that heats up to the point that a barrel shroud of some sort is needed should be banned is ridiculous on its face.  Firearms are not designed to be held by the barrel while shooting...one because it heats up and can damage your hand and two because of something called barrel harmonics, holding the barrel while firing can affect the round while its spinning inside the barrel on its way out and subsequently cause diminished accuracy.  All types of shoulder-fired rifles have some sort of shroud or guard to prevent you from touching it with your hand while firing it.

@whiteflame ;

Well I suppose at some point it's important to understand the basis of someone's ignorance...but I can't honestly get on board in thinking that it's so important that I should put in due diligence to fully grasp how or why someone is just being ignorant of the facts.  It's one thing for someone to develop a commonly misunderstood stance on something that could be an easy mistake for anyone to make...it's an entirely different matter for a professional politician in possession of a college degree to make wildly ignorant statements about something they know virtually nothing about.  It's actually understandable that kids are joining in on the gun-ban bandwagon...but I can't find any rationale in that these kids are getting their ideology from grow- adults in positions of political leadership who's LITERAL job is to know what they're talking about when it comes to political agendas.

"I'm a politician, it's my job to speak on behalf of my constituents in conveying the ideologies and widely held beliefs regarding multiple political agendas that affect every-day American citizens"  "It's my job to understand the views and ideologies of my political party and to be able to intelligently articulate these ideas to not only my fellow party members but also to opposing members of other political parties in order to make critical contributions to policy-making in the United States",

Now take the statements above and please, try to explain how you can be a responsible political figure AND take the position that certain guns are dangerous because they look dangerous.

Ampersand

As you two are on the same side, can you argue amongst yourselves until you have a consistent position and then I'll respond to that. Despite claiming previously that barrel shrouds have a function, @CYDdharta now claims they are cosmetic and that "the only place where you might shoot a gun enough to make the barrel too hot to handle is at a shooting range". Meanwhile @Vaulk is stating that "it can take less than 5 rounds to heat up the barrel of a firearm to the point that it's capable of burning the skin". Those are mutually exclusive positions so at least one of you is completely wrong.

whiteflame

@Vaulk

Well I suppose at some point it's important to understand the basis of someone's ignorance...but I can't honestly get on board in thinking that it's so important that I should put in due diligence to fully grasp how or why someone is just being ignorant of the facts.  It's one thing for someone to develop a commonly misunderstood stance on something that could be an easy mistake for anyone to make...it's an entirely different matter for a professional politician in possession of a college degree to make wildly ignorant statements about something they know virtually nothing about.  It's actually understandable that kids are joining in on the gun-ban bandwagon...but I can't find any rationale in that these kids are getting their ideology from grow- adults in positions of political leadership who's LITERAL job is to know what they're talking about when it comes to political agendas.

"I'm a politician, it's my job to speak on behalf of my constituents in conveying the ideologies and widely held beliefs regarding multiple political agendas that affect every-day American citizens"  "It's my job to understand the views and ideologies of my political party and to be able to intelligently articulate these ideas to not only my fellow party members but also to opposing members of other political parties in order to make critical contributions to policy-making in the United States",

Now take the statements above and please, try to explain how you can be a responsible political figure AND take the position that certain guns are dangerous because they look dangerous.

I must be doing a truly awful job getting my point across. I never said that you should do any due diligence. I didn't ask you to try to understand the basis for someone's ignorance. All I said was that you shouldn't automatically conclude what that basis is based on nothing more than your own perspective of what you think is likely the case. Just because many people bring what you view as a clearly incorrect assessment of the problem doesn't mean you sh automatically assume that everyone who holds that opinion essentially just idiots functioning solely or chiefly based on their emotional state.

As for the rest of this... I'm really just lost. I don't know what you think my stance is on the politics of gun control, but it is not that anyone supporting gun control is responsible, regardless of what they support and why they support it. If a politician comes out saying that certain guns are more dangerous because they look more dangerous, they are wrong, and should be rightly shamed. They are public figures, and their opinions on these issues can direct very important policies. Hell, I can list a litany of issues where professional politicians who are supposed to represent educated Americans have made absolutely baffling statements about issues on which there is a clear and proven answer, and this doesn't even crack the top 10 for me. A lot of politicians are wrong on a lot of issues. I don't know why you're trying to push me to explain why this is a responsible position to take because I haven't defended that position for any length of time.

Vaulk

whiteflame said:

@Vaulk ;

The issue here is whether that faulty reasoning is based chiefly on a faulty visual perception (i.e. "that gun is more dangerous because it looks more dangerous") or a faulty functional perception (i.e. "that gun is more dangerous as a result of its distinguishing parts").

It's mostly from this.  I honestly don't think you're necessarily defending these people, but generally what I took from this statement is that you believe "The issue" is differentiating between different types of faulty perception (Visual Vs Functional).  My chief complaint, if you will, is that I don't particularly find it important to determine what type of faulty perception these people have...faulty is faulty and when the fundamental basis of your argument is a faulty understanding (Whether visual or functional) then the argument becomes confusing and outright wrong.

Now I understand that your position:

"My issue is with the view that these people are solely or chiefly making this decision based on visual stigmatization".

I completely understand that it's not really fair to paint with a broad brush when it comes to debating political agendas however, it truly does seem to be the case that each argument for Gun control circles right back to an argument against cosmetic features.  At this point I'll give you the floor, toss an argument up against a certain weapon and with the exception of a rare few...I can show you why it's actually an argument against cosmetic features.  

Now I'll concede completely that any argument for the improvement of the already established background check system is based on sound logic and reasoning as long as it doesn't include a provision for mental health.  I know this is going to rub some people the wrong way but try for a moment to just hear it out before you make the judgement for yourself.  If our Government had never been responsible for creating a program that arbitrarily selected U.S. citizens, placed them under undue scrutiny and systematically created unnecessary hardship for tens of thousands of American Citizens then it's possible...just maybe...we might have the nerve to trust that our Government wouldn't misuse a mental health background check to control who can and can't purchase a Firearm.  The Terrorist Watchlist system is the black eye of black eyes when it comes to pointing out that our Government isn't to be trusted.  Handing control over to the Government to run a Mental Health check on U.S. citizens with the possibility of denial of authorization to buy a Gun by the same organization that our right to guns is supposed to afford us protection from....sounds backwards doesn't it?  That's because it is.  Our right to keep and bear arms is unequivocally designed to prevent tyranny from our Government first and foremost...to turn over that right to the same Government and gift to them the ability to deny us the right to bear arms is...well it's certainly counterproductive to the ideology of the right to keep and bear arms.  I don't personally trust the Government to do much of anything and that includes running a mental health check system.  There's already considerations for barring veterans with PTSD from owning firearms at several local levels, if that ever became Federal law then you'd see the largest population of the highest qualified firearm operators banned from owning a firearm.  I'm generally opposed to seeing this type of check introduced.  If you've never been committed...then you're obviously trusted to take care of yourself, if you can take care of yourself...you can own a firearm.

whiteflame

Vaulk said:

whiteflame said:

@Vaulk ;

The issue here is whether that faulty reasoning is based chiefly on a faulty visual perception (i.e. "that gun is more dangerous because it looks more dangerous") or a faulty functional perception (i.e. "that gun is more dangerous as a result of its distinguishing parts").

It's mostly from this.  I honestly don't think you're necessarily defending these people, but generally what I took from this statement is that you believe "The issue" is differentiating between different types of faulty perception (Visual Vs Functional).  My chief complaint, if you will, is that I don't particularly find it important to determine what type of faulty perception these people have...faulty is faulty and when the fundamental basis of your argument is a faulty understanding (Whether visual or functional) then the argument becomes confusing and outright wrong.

Now I understand that your position:

"My issue is with the view that these people are solely or chiefly making this decision based on visual stigmatization".

I completely understand that it's not really fair to paint with a broad brush when it comes to debating political agendas however, it truly does seem to be the case that each argument for Gun control circles right back to an argument against cosmetic features.  At this point I'll give you the floor, toss an argument up against a certain weapon and with the exception of a rare few...I can show you why it's actually an argument against cosmetic features.  

It's fine if you feel faulty is faulty, regardless of the context, though I'll reiterate that my issue is that the means by which they've arrived at their faulty narrative alters how receptive they are to certain arguments. If someone arrives at that narrative based solely on perceptual fear from seeing a weapon, then they're not exactly inclined to discuss the issue rationally. If someone arrives at that narrative based on what they've heard about certain features and how they might enhance a shooter's capacity to do harm, then at the very least they're trying to follow a rational approach to discerning whether or not a ban would actually diminish a shooter's ability to do harm. I'd say that at the point when you're characterizing the entirety of the pro-gun ban argument as being the former, you're effectively treating anyone who came to the perspective via non-visual means as incapable of engaging in a decent debate over the matter because they're chiefly driven by fear. I'm not saying that fear is not a factor from either one of these perspectives, but I don't make a point to villifying the opposing perspective on an issue because I know that they've arrived at what is logically the wrong conclusion. Doing that pushes people away from rational discussion.

As for giving me the floor, I'll politely decline. There are certain features that do affect a weapon's ability to do substantial harm, but I've already conceded that a lot of the features that are commonly treated as dangerous do not fundamentally add to a shooter's capacity to do harm, at least not in a way that can't be addressed by the use of other simple tools that are available. We could go through the few that I have in mind, but that doesn't further this conversation. Maybe a lot of this perspective links back to some visual cue in the minds of gun ban proponents, but I think we can agree that painting with such a broad brush, as you've put it, does not help the discussion.

Vaulk said:

Now I'll concede completely that any argument for the improvement of the already established background check system is based on sound logic and reasoning as long as it doesn't include a provision for mental health.  I know this is going to rub some people the wrong way but try for a moment to just hear it out before you make the judgement for yourself.  If our Government had never been responsible for creating a program that arbitrarily selected U.S. citizens, placed them under undue scrutiny and systematically created unnecessary hardship for tens of thousands of American Citizens then it's possible...just maybe...we might have the nerve to trust that our Government wouldn't misuse a mental health background check to control who can and can't purchase a Firearm.  The Terrorist Watchlist system is the black eye of black eyes when it comes to pointing out that our Government isn't to be trusted.  Handing control over to the Government to run a Mental Health check on U.S. citizens with the possibility of denial of authorization to buy a Gun by the same organization that our right to guns is supposed to afford us protection from....sounds backwards doesn't it?  That's because it is.  Our right to keep and bear arms is unequivocally designed to prevent tyranny from our Government first and foremost...to turn over that right to the same Government and gift to them the ability to deny us the right to bear arms is...well it's certainly counterproductive to the ideology of the right to keep and bear arms.  I don't personally trust the Government to do much of anything and that includes running a mental health check system.  There's already considerations for barring veterans with PTSD from owning firearms at several local levels, if that ever became Federal law then you'd see the largest population of the highest qualified firearm operators banned from owning a firearm.  I'm generally opposed to seeing this type of check introduced.  If you've never been committed...then you're obviously trusted to take care of yourself, if you can take care of yourself...you can own a firearm.

I kind of get this, but not completely. A general mistrust of governmental policies is a fine reason to be opposed to certain policies, I suppose, but it's also rather non-unique to this situation. On that basis, why support any policy that could potentially abridge the rights of individuals? I'm not sure why the mental health provision of background checks, in particular, is such a sensitive issue. I'm also not sure how you'd institute any system aimed at helping people with mental health problems without running into the exact same wall, mainly because not everyone with mental health issues will willingly submit themselves to be helped. If the issue is that the government is making these decisions without a clear idea of what suffices as a clear mental health problem that should bar someone from getting a gun, then what, exactly, is the alternative? To nix mental health issues as a reason for obtaining a weapon? I don't think that's a reasonable alternative. Some people are clearly dangers to themselves and others and should not be able to obtain a weapon legally. We could instead set the bar higher for barring someone from legally obtaining a gun and improve the collection of mental illness reports for a state or federal database (as people like Seung-Hui Cho were able to exploit that lack), but then we're getting into where to draw the line rather than whether or not we should draw it at all. Your last line actually indicates that you would draw the line somewhere, presumably at the point that you're committed to a mental institution. How long do you have to be held for? What about people who voluntarily commit themselves? Is there a length of time after being committed at which they get their right to bear arms back? Discerning these limits still requires some trust in the government.

That being said, I do fundamentally see an issue with this viewpoint, because I don't really get the idea that, as you've said, "Our right to keep and bear arms is unequivocally designed to prevent tyranny from our Government first and foremost." I understand that that was the view at the time, and that a lot of gun rights proponents tout it as an integral reason to maintain those rights, but it's always sounded a little naive to me. This isn't 1791; the government has more than enough capacity to enforce its views if it ever really wanted to become tyrannical. I don't think the guns we have are going to cut it against military hardware. I understand that there's a certain ideology that we somehow need to check back the government with a threat of force, but I have a hard time believing that their capacity to engage in tyranny is severely impeded by the right to own guns.

Erfisflat

whiteflame said:

Vaulk said:

whiteflame said:

@Vaulk ;

The issue here is whether that faulty reasoning is based chiefly on a faulty visual perception (i.e. "that gun is more dangerous because it looks more dangerous") or a faulty functional perception (i.e. "that gun is more dangerous as a result of its distinguishing parts").

It's mostly from this.  I honestly don't think you're necessarily defending these people, but generally what I took from this statement is that you believe "The issue" is differentiating between different types of faulty perception (Visual Vs Functional).  My chief complaint, if you will, is that I don't particularly find it important to determine what type of faulty perception these people have...faulty is faulty and when the fundamental basis of your argument is a faulty understanding (Whether visual or functional) then the argument becomes confusing and outright wrong.

Now I understand that your position:

"My issue is with the view that these people are solely or chiefly making this decision based on visual stigmatization".

I completely understand that it's not really fair to paint with a broad brush when it comes to debating political agendas however, it truly does seem to be the case that each argument for Gun control circles right back to an argument against cosmetic features.  At this point I'll give you the floor, toss an argument up against a certain weapon and with the exception of a rare few...I can show you why it's actually an argument against cosmetic features.  

It's fine if you feel faulty is faulty, regardless of the context, though I'll reiterate that my issue is that the means by which they've arrived at their faulty narrative alters how receptive they are to certain arguments. If someone arrives at that narrative based solely on perceptual fear from seeing a weapon, then they're not exactly inclined to discuss the issue rationally. If someone arrives at that narrative based on what they've heard about certain features and how they might enhance a shooter's capacity to do harm, then at the very least they're trying to follow a rational approach to discerning whether or not a ban would actually diminish a shooter's ability to do harm. I'd say that at the point when you're characterizing the entirety of the pro-gun ban argument as being the former, you're effectively treating anyone who came to the perspective via non-visual means as incapable of engaging in a decent debate over the matter because they're chiefly driven by fear. I'm not saying that fear is not a factor from either one of these perspectives, but I don't make a point to villifying the opposing perspective on an issue because I know that they've arrived at what is logically the wrong conclusion. Doing that pushes people away from rational discussion.

As for giving me the floor, I'll politely decline. There are certain features that do affect a weapon's ability to do substantial harm, but I've already conceded that a lot of the features that are commonly treated as dangerous do not fundamentally add to a shooter's capacity to do harm, at least not in a way that can't be addressed by the use of other simple tools that are available. We could go through the few that I have in mind, but that doesn't further this conversation. Maybe a lot of this perspective links back to some visual cue in the minds of gun ban proponents, but I think we can agree that painting with such a broad brush, as you've put it, does not help the discussion.

Vaulk said:

Now I'll concede completely that any argument for the improvement of the already established background check system is based on sound logic and reasoning as long as it doesn't include a provision for mental health.  I know this is going to rub some people the wrong way but try for a moment to just hear it out before you make the judgement for yourself.  If our Government had never been responsible for creating a program that arbitrarily selected U.S. citizens, placed them under undue scrutiny and systematically created unnecessary hardship for tens of thousands of American Citizens then it's possible...just maybe...we might have the nerve to trust that our Government wouldn't misuse a mental health background check to control who can and can't purchase a Firearm.  The Terrorist Watchlist system is the black eye of black eyes when it comes to pointing out that our Government isn't to be trusted.  Handing control over to the Government to run a Mental Health check on U.S. citizens with the possibility of denial of authorization to buy a Gun by the same organization that our right to guns is supposed to afford us protection from....sounds backwards doesn't it?  That's because it is.  Our right to keep and bear arms is unequivocally designed to prevent tyranny from our Government first and foremost...to turn over that right to the same Government and gift to them the ability to deny us the right to bear arms is...well it's certainly counterproductive to the ideology of the right to keep and bear arms.  I don't personally trust the Government to do much of anything and that includes running a mental health check system.  There's already considerations for barring veterans with PTSD from owning firearms at several local levels, if that ever became Federal law then you'd see the largest population of the highest qualified firearm operators banned from owning a firearm.  I'm generally opposed to seeing this type of check introduced.  If you've never been committed...then you're obviously trusted to take care of yourself, if you can take care of yourself...you can own a firearm.

I kind of get this, but not completely. A general mistrust of governmental policies is a fine reason to be opposed to certain policies, I suppose, but it's also rather non-unique to this situation. On that basis, why support any policy that could potentially abridge the rights of individuals? I'm not sure why the mental health provision of background checks, in particular, is such a sensitive issue. I'm also not sure how you'd institute any system aimed at helping people with mental health problems without running into the exact same wall, mainly because not everyone with mental health issues will willingly submit themselves to be helped. If the issue is that the government is making these decisions without a clear idea of what suffices as a clear mental health problem that should bar someone from getting a gun, then what, exactly, is the alternative? To nix mental health issues as a reason for obtaining a weapon? I don't think that's a reasonable alternative. Some people are clearly dangers to themselves and others and should not be able to obtain a weapon legally. We could instead set the bar higher for barring someone from legally obtaining a gun and improve the collection of mental illness reports for a state or federal database (as people like Seung-Hui Cho were able to exploit that lack), but then we're getting into where to draw the line rather than whether or not we should draw it at all. Your last line actually indicates that you would draw the line somewhere, presumably at the point that you're committed to a mental institution. How long do you have to be held for? What about people who voluntarily commit themselves? Is there a length of time after being committed at which they get their right to bear arms back? Discerning these limits still requires some trust in the government.

That being said, I do fundamentally see an issue with this viewpoint, because I don't really get the idea that, as you've said, "Our right to keep and bear arms is unequivocally designed to prevent tyranny from our Government first and foremost." I understand that that was the view at the time, and that a lot of gun rights proponents tout it as an integral reason to maintain those rights, but it's always sounded a little naive to me. This isn't 1791; the government has more than enough capacity to enforce its views if it ever really wanted to become tyrannical. I don't think the guns we have are going to cut it against military hardware. I understand that there's a certain ideology that we somehow need to check back the government with a threat of force, but I have a hard time believing that their capacity to engage in tyranny is severely impeded by the right to own guns.

Would you say that If someone knew the earth was flat, that this was enough reason to say I have "mental health issues", and this sole facts should deter me from owning a gun?

whiteflame

Erfisflat said:

Would you say that If someone knew the earth was flat, that this was enough reason to say I have "mental health issues", and this sole facts should deter me from owning a gun?

Probably not, as you wouldn't be a danger to yourself or others solely because of that belief.

MayCaesar

I do not think the claimed correlation (let alone causation) between the strictness of gun laws and the amount of gun violence is supported by evidence. While it can be a factor indeed, it is very difficult to separate it from other factors.

Israel and Switzerland have very lax gun possession regulations (weaker than in some of the US states), and gun violence there is nearly unheard of. Russia has extremely strict gun laws, and in Russia, while mass shootings are relatively uncommon, individual gun violence is pretty widespread. In Australia, gun law restrictions significantly reduced gun violence rates - but in some of the US states it had the opposite effect.

There is obviously many more factors at play, and the clean gun laws - to - gun violence connection might be nearly impossible to confirm. Rather than debating whether stricter or weaker gun laws lead to lower crime rates, I think the discussions should be more focused on which approach is more aligned with the American values, as well as on the eternal ideological war between freedom and security.