I am opposed to criminals having victims. But most gun restrictions only accomplish disarming everyone that follows the lawI'm opposed to criminals having guns. Are you?Ever notice that anti gun folks tend to sound pro criminal?I love the incredible doublethink.
"We have to protect ourselves from a brutal government gone mad with power!"
"We have to give the government the authority to execute scores of petty criminals!"
I never said one word about protecting ourselves from the government... YOU put those words into my mouth!
What I did say however, was that somehow when someone who is anti-gun makes mention of some slippery slope argument (such as capital punishment), well, that's okay, that isn't paranoia, it's just plain old "common sense" thinking. But when we "gun nutz" say that more legislation will set a precedent for even tighter legislation in the future, well, we're just over-reacting, being paranoid, etc...
In each case, Americans are losing their freedoms piece by piece, but because the anti-gun people tend not to care about the rights of gun owners... "Oh well, sux to be you!" is the general feeling on the matter...
And it's not until a right that is held near and dear to an anti-gun person that gets attacked, does it even begin to matter to them...
Do you see the double standard here??
I don't want to guess. Could you state clearly whether you think criminals should have free and clear access to guns?
|
I am opposed to criminals. I don't particularly care how they commit their crimes so long as the punishment fits the act (which the US is far to soft in this regard even without comtemplateing the death penalty.)
I am of the opinion that we need to reduce the reasons why people become criminals in the first place rather then trying to simply reduce the consequences of each individual. Cure the disease by fixing the cause rather than patching the symptoms.
If you had a fever of 105, would you take a fever reducer?
Because that's treating a symptom. A symptom that can cause brain damage.
I am opposed to criminals. I don't particularly care how they commit their crimes so long as the punishment fits the act (which the US is far to soft in this regard even without comtemplateing the death penalty.)
The United States has punishments that are on par with or harsher than much of the rest of the developed world. We don't need harsher punishment, because that's beneath us. Though I like the tacit admission that you believe harsher punishments lower crime rates.
I am of the opinion that we need to reduce the reasons why people become criminals in the first place rather then trying to simply reduce the consequences of each individual. Cure the disease by fixing the cause rather than patching the symptoms.
So you support substantial increases to public education, welfare, public health access, rehabilitation programs and centers, anti-recidivism efforts, income equality legislation, raises to the minimum wage, public transportation funding, and a host of other programs requiring tax dollars?
Because that's what it would take.
So if you say you want to fix the root cause, you'd better be willing to commit. But unfortunately I don't think your ideology will allow you to.
|
|
If you had a fever of 105, would you take a fever reducer?
Because that's treating a symptom. A symptom that can cause brain damage.
That is a bad example you know. A fever reducer is a temporary symtom treatment to keep you alive while the antibiotics do their work (though I've needed a fever reducer myself, and it took a pinched nerve before I took pain meds and then only to sleep.
Many suggestions are intended to treat symptoms without ever addressing the cause at all, that makes a world of difference.
|
|
I am opposed to criminals. I don't particularly care how they commit their crimes so long as the punishment fits the act (which the US is far to soft in this regard even without comtemplateing the death penalty.)The United States has punishments that are on par with or harsher than much of the rest of the developed world. We don't need harsher punishment, because that's beneath us. Though I like the tacit admission that you believe harsher punishments lower crime rates.
I am of the opinion that we need to reduce the reasons why people become criminals in the first place rather then trying to simply reduce the consequences of each individual. Cure the disease by fixing the cause rather than patching the symptoms.So you support substantial increases to public education, welfare, public health access, rehabilitation programs and centers, anti-recidivism efforts, income equality legislation, raises to the minimum wage, public transportation funding, and a host of other programs requiring tax dollars?
Because that's what it would take.
So if you say you want to fix the root cause, you'd better be willing to commit. But unfortunately I don't think your ideology will allow you to.
First, letting inmates have tv, books, entertainment, etc is not in any fashion harsh, and if your life has been so easy as make it seem harsh to you then you need to realize that you've lived a wonderfully privledged and pampered life. Keeping everyone inisolation except for their work periods and giving them only basic food would be suitable. If they don't come out broken, then the punishment didn't mean much (though I would go a touch easier on first time offenders)
Second, I wouldn't follow your methods, but I am committed and am going to college so I can refine and improve and implement my methods. (Your suggestions imply that we should let people keep living in the same sociocultural situation but it's our sociocultural situation that makes our nation the way it is. If our we acted like the mexicans, the we would have the same results as the mexicans including too many mouths to feed, majority of populace living in places that are worse then slums, not just too much deficitbut to actually be destitute. What we find socially acceptable, how we raise our kids, the education system, how we think about the world we live in, it all affects the problems that arise and how we deal with them.
Currently people mostly want the government to take responsibility for their survival, what we really need is to change some of the basic (and completely artificial) conventions that our economic and sociocultural systems work on (including getting people to desire to take responsibility) so that people don't need the government to take care of them. Of course there's no way the people in power will let that come completely to pass (they make too much money and have too much power because people let them take responsibility, and they won't give it up willingly) but hopefully I can change things enough to improve the basic standard of living.
|
What I said (and what Andrew said from the part you quoted), have nothing to do with MORE gun violence. What we said was that tighter gun restrictions only serve to create criminals from people that broke no law...Except that they HAVE worked when aimed at the manufacture, which is why your typical hoodlum isn't nearly as well armed as your prohibition era gangster.
Tell that to NYC, compton, Chicago. Lots of gun control in those cities, loads of gun crimes.
|
|
I don't want to guess. Could you state clearly whether you think criminals should have free and clear access to guns?I am opposed to criminals having victims. But most gun restrictions only accomplish disarming everyone that follows the lawI'm opposed to criminals having guns. Are you?Ever notice that anti gun folks tend to sound pro criminal?I love the incredible doublethink.
"We have to protect ourselves from a brutal government gone mad with power!"
"We have to give the government the authority to execute scores of petty criminals!"
I never said one word about protecting ourselves from the government... YOU put those words into my mouth!
What I did say however, was that somehow when someone who is anti-gun makes mention of some slippery slope argument (such as capital punishment), well, that's okay, that isn't paranoia, it's just plain old "common sense" thinking. But when we "gun nutz" say that more legislation will set a precedent for even tighter legislation in the future, well, we're just over-reacting, being paranoid, etc...
In each case, Americans are losing their freedoms piece by piece, but because the anti-gun people tend not to care about the rights of gun owners... "Oh well, sux to be you!" is the general feeling on the matter...
And it's not until a right that is held near and dear to an anti-gun person that gets attacked, does it even begin to matter to them...
Do you see the double standard here??
NONE of your god forsaken gun control is stopping them! My way does.
Tell that to NYC, compton, Chicago. Lots of gun control in those cities, loads of gun crimes.What I said (and what Andrew said from the part you quoted), have nothing to do with MORE gun violence. What we said was that tighter gun restrictions only serve to create criminals from people that broke no law...Except that they HAVE worked when aimed at the manufacture, which is why your typical hoodlum isn't nearly as well armed as your prohibition era gangster.
There is no such thing as gun control in a city when you can drive 10 miles and buy elsewhere. That's my entire point.
And yes, things are bad now but that doesn't mean that they're as bad as they used to be. Why does something have to be 100%, black and white for it to register at all with you?
Tell that to NYC, compton, Chicago. Lots of gun control in those cities, loads of gun crimes.What I said (and what Andrew said from the part you quoted), have nothing to do with MORE gun violence. What we said was that tighter gun restrictions only serve to create criminals from people that broke no law...Except that they HAVE worked when aimed at the manufacture, which is why your typical hoodlum isn't nearly as well armed as your prohibition era gangster.
NONE of your god forsaken gun control is stopping them! My way does.I don't want to guess. Could you state clearly whether you think criminals should have free and clear access to guns?I am opposed to criminals having victims. But most gun restrictions only accomplish disarming everyone that follows the lawI'm opposed to criminals having guns. Are you?Ever notice that anti gun folks tend to sound pro criminal?I love the incredible doublethink.
"We have to protect ourselves from a brutal government gone mad with power!"
"We have to give the government the authority to execute scores of petty criminals!"
I never said one word about protecting ourselves from the government... YOU put those words into my mouth!
What I did say however, was that somehow when someone who is anti-gun makes mention of some slippery slope argument (such as capital punishment), well, that's okay, that isn't paranoia, it's just plain old "common sense" thinking. But when we "gun nutz" say that more legislation will set a precedent for even tighter legislation in the future, well, we're just over-reacting, being paranoid, etc...
In each case, Americans are losing their freedoms piece by piece, but because the anti-gun people tend not to care about the rights of gun owners... "Oh well, sux to be you!" is the general feeling on the matter...
And it's not until a right that is held near and dear to an anti-gun person that gets attacked, does it even begin to matter to them...
Do you see the double standard here??
You still didn't answer my question. Do you think criminals should have free and clear access to guns? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Edit: I'm going to ask you this question a lot until I get a clear answer. I'm not asking you if you support my concept of gun control. I'm only asking you what is in that question.
Do you think criminals should have free and clear access to guns?
If you had a fever of 105, would you take a fever reducer?
Because that's treating a symptom. A symptom that can cause brain damage.
That is a bad example you know. A fever reducer is a temporary symtom treatment to keep you alive while the antibiotics do their work (though I've needed a fever reducer myself, and it took a pinched nerve before I took pain meds and then only to sleep.
Many suggestions are intended to treat symptoms without ever addressing the cause at all, that makes a world of difference.
It is an excellent analogy. Sometimes you treat the symptom while also treating the cause.
In this case, the symptoms are resulting in human deaths. While more permanent solutions are being found/implemented, why would we not want to reduce the number of people killed?
Edit: sorry, I forgot, you've probably got statistics in your as of yet unpublished book about the theory of everything that prove me wrong.
Meanwhile, Obama is seizing your phone records.
|
Many developed countries in the world (maybe most) have real stricter gun regulations than those in the USA.
This has not caused a tidal wave of violence and insecurity.
Thus, we can in good faith state that "more guns = less crime" is a fallacy.
What you will find in these countries is far less gun-slaughters than in the USA.
Thus, we can in good faith state that "less guns = less gun-slaughters" is likely true.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, letting inmates have tv, books, entertainment, etc is not in any fashion harsh, and if your life has been so easy as make it seem harsh to you then you need to realize that you've lived a wonderfully privledged and pampered life. Keeping everyone inisolation except for their work periods and giving them only basic food would be suitable. If they don't come out broken, then the punishment didn't mean much (though I would go a touch easier on first time offenders)
If your goal with the prison system is to take criminals in and release broken men and women, you are a barbarian (and not the good kind with class levels). There is no other way to describe you. Maybe you don't know much about the prison system. That's a possibility. But I don't really care - what you've said here is essentially indefensible.
Second, I wouldn't follow your methods, but I am committed and am going to college so I can refine and improve and implement my methods. (Your suggestions imply that we should let people keep living in the same sociocultural situation but it's our sociocultural situation that makes our nation the way it is. If our we acted like the mexicans, the we would have the same results as the mexicans including too many mouths to feed, majority of populace living in places that are worse then slums, not just too much deficitbut to actually be destitute. What we find socially acceptable, how we raise our kids, the education system, how we think about the world we live in, it all affects the problems that arise and how we deal with them.
In what possible way is encouraging substantial increases to public education funding the same as implying that we should let people continue to live in their current socioeconomic situation? The goal of the programs and changes I outlined would be to elevate the socioeconomic position of the marginalized and immobile lower class at the expense of the upper class. If you want progress, that is your best bet.
Currently people mostly want the government to take responsibility for their survival,
No, they don't. You have no idea what people want. You should probably start by figuring out what that is. Or don't, and go ahead and implement your policies as supreme dictator. I'm sure that'll go over well.
NONE of your god forsaken gun control is stopping them! My way does.
Empirical evidence demonstrates that your way does essentially nothing except engender further crime while reducing us to a nation of brutal tyrants.
Empirical evidence demonstrates that gun control can and has been effective in reducing gun violence both within the United States and worldwide.
So there's precious little reason why anyone should entertain your ideas of what is best.
Tell that to NYC, compton, Chicago. Lots of gun control in those cities, loads of gun crimes.What I said (and what Andrew said from the part you quoted), have nothing to do with MORE gun violence. What we said was that tighter gun restrictions only serve to create criminals from people that broke no law...Except that they HAVE worked when aimed at the manufacture, which is why your typical hoodlum isn't nearly as well armed as your prohibition era gangster.
We've explained to you why this is. Many times. We'd do it again, but why should we? You'll ignore it, because you don't care what the reality of the situation is. You have an ideology to push, and you will ignore anything that gets in the way of that ideology. It's not about the evidence. It's not about reality. It's about your wishful thinking, and nothing more.
|
|
NONE of your god forsaken gun control is stopping them! My way does.Empirical evidence demonstrates that your way does essentially nothing except engender further crime while reducing us to a nation of brutal tyrants.
Empirical evidence demonstrates that gun control can and has been effective in reducing gun violence both within the United States and worldwide.
So there's precious little reason why anyone should entertain your ideas of what is best.
Empirical evidence demonstrates that areas with mandatory gun laws also have less crime including less gun violence. Therefore gun laws are not the major factor in gun violence despite being the most visible factor.
Empirical evidence demonstrates that areas with mandatory gun laws also have less crime including less gun violence.
I'm assuming by "mandatory gun laws" you mean laws that mandate gun ownership for all citizens. There are not enough municipalities with such laws to form a statistically relevant sample (and all kinds of problems with passing off the few that exist as evidence for your cause). Furthermore, when controls are applied to the correlation adjusting for levels of violence prior to the introduction of mandatory gun ownership, the correlation will fade into the background.
Therefore gun laws are not the major factor in gun violence despite being the most visible factor.
No. Empirical evidence shows that stricter firearms regulation is positively correlated with reduced levels of both firearm violence and overall violent crime, including when proper control methodology is applied, and that this holds true both within the United States and between developed nations.
What you're doing is trying to take one or two municipalities and hold them up as examples of why we should listen to you. Meanwhile, we're holding up the entire developed world as evidence and wondering why you still seem to think yours matters.
|
|
@Scott
First, making people fear the consequences of an action is the entire point of a punishment. If they don't fear it then it isn't doing it's job as a detterent. You may consider me a barbarian, but truthfully I believe in balance where-as most goody-two-shoes are extremists (in the direction of good true but extremists none-the-less) extreme goodness can be bad too, but most people don't comprehend that concept.
They don't want to believe that anything should be hard, difficult, or unpleasent when it doesn't have to be. But having those aspects makes one strong and breeds appreciation, while the lack breeds weakness and a tendency to take things for granted.
Take any person from a couple or more centuries ago and bring them to todays world and tney would call this place a paradise. So why don't we? Because the people nowadays never had a hard life so they don't appreciate what they have so they look the gift horse in the mouth and complain loudly.
Second, you listed alot more then just education. And while I see education as the single most important aspect to improve, I also realize that our education system is a dirt poor pathetic system that needs t be scrapped and rebuilt from the bottom up and if done right then those other aspects you previously mentioned will not be needed near as much as they are today.
Third, when people keep asking the government to do stuff for them, they are asking the government to take responsibility. People look to the governmet for security (police), food, shelter, (government assistance programs) etc. Frankly if you aren't disabled then you should never ask the government for the neccesities to live.
Fourth, all mldern economics systems run on the convention of being illegal to survive on your own. You either need to work for, or trade with others for money to buy what you need, or own property that others use to give you money, and even if you own property enough to actually live off the land you still need to do the above so you can pay taxes, and how long do you have to workjust so you can afford enough property to survive witout help? That convention is completely artificial, but ithas pervaded our global structure so deeply that for whatever reason many people think of it as a law of nature when it isn't.
|
|
An honest examination of other countries in comparison to the USA needs to look at more than just the number of guns and legality of guns in that country in order to draw conclusions.Many developed countries in the world (maybe most) have real stricter gun regulations than those in the USA.
This has not caused a tidal wave of violence and insecurity.
Thus, we can in good faith state that "more guns = less crime" is a fallacy.
What you will find in these countries is far less gun-slaughters than in the USA.
Thus, we can in good faith state that "less guns = less gun-slaughters" is likely true.
Like what ?
Facts are facts. If there is no gun around, a teen looking to go on a rampage will settle for a knife. It will then be a knife-slaughter rather than a gun-slaughter. Note that the number of victims will likely not be the same.
And because the USA allows a significant amount of immigration from undeveloped countries, you need to take those undeveloped countries' gun statistics into account as well.
Actually, I believe that most developed countries do have a significant amount of immigration from undeveloped countries, so it is not specific to the US.
Honestly, I feel like you are looking for something to justify saying that US is not like the other developed countries, so that "less gun = less gun-slaughters" would hold true in every other developed country but not in the US. Or that "less guns = more violence" would hold true in the US even if it was not the case in any other developed country.
Facts are facts. If there is no gun around, a teen looking to go on a rampage will settle for a knife. It will then be a knife-slaughter rather than a gun-slaughter. Note that the number of victims will likely not be the same.
It should be noted that while they don't get nearly the same amount of coverage, most killings with guns don't involve a large number of people getting killed. Usually it is one or two people due to a crime, accident, or self-infliction. Mass killings whether guns, bombs, or a man running slicing a thousand throats in a single night are a rarity in most civilizations.
@Scott
First, making people fear the consequences of an action is the entire point of a punishment.
No, it's not.
It's one of the points.
There are other points.
Removal from society, for instance.
The institutionalization of community shaming, for instance.
The ability to monitor the actions of offenders, for instance.
If they don't fear it then it isn't doing it's job as a detterent.
We don't have prisons solely for the purpose of deterrence.
You may consider me a barbarian, but truthfully I believe in balance where-as most goody-two-shoes are extremists (in the direction of good true but extremists none-the-less) extreme goodness can be bad too, but most people don't comprehend that concept.
Oh good lord. You're applying D&D druid philosophy to real real and pretending it translates. I'm not sure what I expected.
They don't want to believe that anything should be hard, difficult, or unpleasent when it doesn't have to be. But having those aspects makes one strong and breeds appreciation, while the lack breeds weakness and a tendency to take things for granted.
Take any person from a couple or more centuries ago and bring them to todays world and tney would call this place a paradise. So why don't we? Because the people nowadays never had a hard life so they don't appreciate what they have so they look the gift horse in the mouth and complain loudly.
The fact that the world today is better than the world 200 years ago does not mean that no one today has experienced hardship, and does not mean that no one today has an appreciation for the world they live in.
Second, you listed alot more then just education. And while I see education as the single most important aspect to improve, I also realize that our education system is a dirt poor pathetic system that needs t be scrapped and rebuilt from the bottom up and if done right then those other aspects you previously mentioned will not be needed near as much as they are today.
Our education system is brutally underfunded. It needs reform in a progressive direction. It does not need to be rebuilt from the ground up so that neocons can hijack the education system to pump up charter schools and religious education.
Third, when people keep asking the government to do stuff for them, they are asking the government to take responsibility. People look to the governmet for security (police), food, shelter, (government assistance programs) etc. Frankly if you aren't disabled then you should never ask the government for the neccesities to live.
See, here's where we disagree. Because I'm not a heartless barbarian.
Fourth, all mldern economics systems run on the convention of being illegal to survive on your own. You either need to work for, or trade with others for money to buy what you need, or own property that others use to give you money, and even if you own property enough to actually live off the land you still need to do the above so you can pay taxes, and how long do you have to workjust so you can afford enough property to survive witout help? That convention is completely artificial, but ithas pervaded our global structure so deeply that for whatever reason many people think of it as a law of nature when it isn't.
State of nature sucks.
There are plenty of places in Africa with political climes that are close to a state of nature. I suggest you head out there and gain some appreciation for the benefits you derive from social contract.
Seriously folks, these are nothing new. The tech to feed a set of plans to a computer and get a BAR out the other end exists now, but the full blown computer controlled manufacturing plants are ludicrously expensive and large and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.But, but, somehow the ability to print a sub par zip gun for a thousand times the cost of a traditional one is going to change EVERYTHING!!!
Or something.
The problem isn't the ability to make 1 gun with a 10,000 dollar piece of machinery.
Phase 1 will be when 1 person with a 10,000 dollar machine can make a thousand guns.
Phase 2 will be when everyone already owns a 5,000 dollar machine, so making a gun is the ridiculously small fixed cost of getting more powdered plastic/metal/carbon/whatever the spray works on.
First, letting inmates have tv, books, entertainment, etc is not in any fashion harsh, and if your life has been so easy as make it seem harsh to you then you need to realize that you've lived a wonderfully privledged and pampered life. Keeping everyone inisolation except for their work periods and giving them only basic food would be suitable. If they don't come out broken, then the punishment didn't mean much (though I would go a touch easier on first time offenders)
What exactly do you mean by wanting them to come out "broken"? Far too many people end up in jail because they are already "broken" in one form or another. So your idea is to release people back in to the community in a worse condition than when they first went to jail?
Does "broken" mean so crushed by the soul destroying harshness of your ideal prison system that they will never dare commit a crime again? While being so "broken" that they are probably even less able to function "normally" to have much chance of avoiding making the same poor decisions that got them in to trouble in the first place.
Does the concept of jails helping rehabilitate criminals to make them able to become "normal" members of society have no place in your world view?
|
Except that they HAVE worked when aimed at the manufacture, which is why your typical hoodlum isn't nearly as well armed as your prohibition era gangster.
In 1989, President Bush (senior), banned the importation of Chinese ammunition and non-sporting rifles such as the SKS and civilian AK stylized weapons...
Here it is, nearly a quarter of a century later, with not a single new Chinese SKS or Chinese AK variant entering the country, and you know what? I can still go into almost ANY gun store across The United States and buy either for well under $600 (and no, it's not because there is no demand for them, quite the contrary; the reason I can do this, is because of the sheer numbers of them that were imported into the US)...
I'm not quite sure you or the majority of the other anti-gun posters here truly grasp just how many firearms there are in this country; especially those that are considered "Assault Weapons"...
If you were to make it illegal for manufacturers to sell just AR-15s alone, it would probably take a lot more than 25 years for them to be a rarity along the lines of NFA firearms...
I am sure that you, BNW, would not be willing to wait until you are in your 60s or older for "Assault Weapons" to be a thing of the past.
So my question to you BNW, is: If you think that something should be done about the problem with guns and gun violence in this country, why bother with suggesting something that would take 25 or possibly even 50 years or more to accomplish? I mean, why not just advocate an outright ban of them? Is it because that ever since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban ended in 2004, that every single bill that has proposed a new such ban (even post Sandy Hook) has failed? I'm really curious as to why you would want such a long term fix when there are other much faster ways to accomplish your goal that would have equally as long lasting effects.
If you were to make it illegal for manufacturers to sell just AR-15s alone, it would probably take a lot more than 25 years for them to be a rarity along the lines of NFA firearms...
I am sure that you, BNW, would not be willing to wait until you are in your 60s or older for "Assault Weapons" to be a thing of the past.
I would LIKE to do what australia did, but that's probably not politically viable. I will take waiting 25 years as a consolation prize
So my question to you BNW, is: If you think that something should be done about the problem with guns and gun violence in this country, why bother with suggesting something that would take 25 or possibly even 50 years or more to accomplish? I mean, why not just advocate an outright ban of them?
1) Its not necessarily the fix i want but its more likely the fix i can get
2) It doesn't deprive anyone of anything to stop more manufacture, it does deprive someone of something if i try to take their grandfathers gun and melt it into a girder.
|
|
-Just curious why people think guns make crimes. Reduce crime in general and gun related crimes will go down, reducing guns will not reduce crime regardless of effect on gun related crimes. Why waste time on one when you can do something different to help both?
-@gallo and scott
Unlike what scott believes, I believe the point of punishment is to deter a certain behaviour, but in order for it to work as a deterrent, two things must be true, 1 people must believe that the punishment will be implemented, and 2, people must strongly desire to avoid the punishment. If people aren't broken (aka, scared of it ever happening again and thus somewhat more submissive to the authorities) when they come out, then it isn't likely to be seen as something to avoid (I have in fact met people who almost wanted to be thrown in prison because it would be an upgrade to their lives). As for scott's other points, removing criminals from the society on a merely temporary basis is in of itself pointless, if they are such a problem as to need being removed, then it is unlikely to change that and might as well not watse money on them and just deport or kill them(depending on crime) to be done with it instead of wasteing time, money, and manpower on them. If they need to be watched that closely then the above applies, and finally if they were going to feel shame then they wouldn't have done it to begin with (except maybe the petty criminals acting out of desperation, but then if you prevent those ones from becoming desperate to begin with, then they wouldn't become criminals anyway)
-I wasn't refering to the dirt poor dnd alignment, if you look out at the world, not just humans, then you can see the importance of balance and what happens when that balance is upset.
-Education in the US is based on the prussion education system which was designed specifically to make the general populace easy to mainulate and control. The changes that have been made to the US system generally affected those particular aspects and indeed some that have had an effect have made those aspects more pronounced,such as the No-child-left-behind thing for which teachers now teach the kids to pass a test rather then teaching them to use the knowledge of the subject (the book answers vs the practical answer), and esecially the lack of authority on the teachers part (along with bad parenting[parenting should be a class btw]) results in the teachers spending to much time trying to deal with the kids rather then teach them (biggest complaint of the teachers to anyone not a parent at their school) and the kids never learn respect (which of course probably increases crime since a kid with no respect isn't going to respect the law or police)
-Disagreeing about responsibility doesn't make me a barbarian, it just means we don't agree.
-I said that our economics are all based on artificial constructs which are bad. That does not equate with "state of nature is only other option" If economics are built on artificial constructs then we can make radically different designs for those constructs. Metaphorically speaking, everyone is useing base 10 for math and some have even claimed that it is the nature of math to be base 10. This is false and metaphorically speaking, base 10 is creating problems so I advocate switching to base 12 instead.
|
|
To clarify that last point, metaphorically speaking, capitolism is algebra and socialism is trigonometry and tboth are currenty used in base ten. Me I want to switch to base twelve. This is what I mean by switching some fundemental concepts. Figured I'd clarify since in another thread someone thought something completely different.
The problem isn't the ability to make 1 gun with a 10,000 dollar piece of machinery.
Phase 1 will be when 1 person with a 10,000 dollar machine can make a thousand guns.
Phase 2 will be when everyone already owns a 5,000 dollar machine, so making a gun is the ridiculously small fixed cost of getting more powdered plastic/metal/carbon/whatever the spray works on.
Phase 3 will be profit. Or something.
They'll still be crappy zip guns.
The equipment I was a CNC machine shop. It makes an actual gun by machining solid pieces of metal.
Without a massive, singularity scale, revolution in materials technology these things will always be zip guns.
Plus, you know, ammo.
A massive materials revolution like the one going on right now?
As pointed out upthread, someone has been able to take a $1,400 machine and produce a gun that fired multiple times. 5 years ago that machine would have cost over 10K. This technology is only a few years old, and 10 years ago was primarily wax and sand with $50K machines, or required dedicated rooms with lasers and special plastics. Now we have metal printers, and while they haven't come down to the hobbiest level in price yet, if they follow the price curve they will be in the next 10 years. Even if they don't, we still have been having massive plastic and ceramic advances recently with little evidence that they will be slowing down.
Also, 3D printed shotgun shells are already a thing.
Supposedly, one of their models costs about $695 and fits inside a backpack.
A massive materials revolution like the one going on right now?
As pointed out upthread, someone has been able to take a $1,400 machine and produce a gun that fired multiple times. 5 years ago that machine would have cost over 10K. This technology is only a few years old, and 10 years ago was primarily wax and sand with $50K machines, or required dedicated rooms with lasers and special plastics. Now we have metal printers, and while they haven't come down to the hobbiest level in price yet, if they follow the price curve they will be in the next 10 years. Even if they don't, we still have been having massive plastic and ceramic advances recently with little evidence that they will be slowing down.
Also, 3D printed shotgun shells are already a thing.
No, I mean when someone figures out how to make ,metal parts that are as strong as those produced by subtractive processes. Sintering does not do that.
Plus this isn't new. Additive fabrication will be 30 next year.
Yes, but it has been rediculously expensive until a few years ago. Recent advances in the controls system, motors, and nozzles have brought high accuracy models into something I can fit on my desk for less than the cost of my computer. That is new.
You don't need metal parts that are as strong as subtractive processes. You only need parts that can handle the stresses required by the task. These don't need to be metal. Workable high temperature plastics are getting there, 2 designs have now demonstrated. I expect 3D printed composites to be a major thing in a few years, simultaneously weaving a carbon fiber matrix into a high strength polymer on the fly. We can already weave cloth with 3D printers, so it would just be a matter of combining it with an extra head to lay the polymer. 10-15 years I wouldn't be suprized to see us growing the carbon structures in place on a nanoscale.
Sure, these methods will never be as cheap a many of the things that we currently do for mass production. But these are things that people will be able to set up in their own homes. They will have many legitamet purposes.
-Just curious why people think guns make crimes.
Because it's true.
See, when something is true, it generally behooves us to believe it.
Reduce crime in general and gun related crimes will go down, reducing guns will not reduce crime regardless of effect on gun related crimes. Why waste time on one when you can do something different to help both?
Because you're not wasting time if you're reducing gun crime. We should be doing both, but you're telling us that we can't do one of them because RAH RAH GUNS
-@gallo and scott
Unlike what scott believes, I believe the point of punishment is to deter a certain behaviour,
That's what I believe, too. However, I also believe that there are other purposes behind our penal system. And I believe that because it's true. And I know it's true because this is a field that I'm super familiar with.
As for scott's other points, removing criminals from the society on a merely temporary basis is in of itself pointless,
No, it isn't.
if they are such a problem as to need being removed, then it is unlikely to change that and might as well not watse money on them and just deport or kill them(depending on crime) to be done with it instead of wasteing time, money, and manpower on them.
Ideally, while they are removed from society you are working on rehabilitating them so that when they are released, they can function as contributing members of society.
Of course, I'm sure you and your buddies would call that "pro-criminal" of me.
If they need to be watched that closely then the above applies, and finally if they were going to feel shame then they wouldn't have done it to begin with
Good lord, aren't you the expert on what makes criminals tick?
-I wasn't refering to the dirt poor dnd alignment, if you look out at the world, not just humans, then you can see the importance of balance and what happens when that balance is upset.
You are applying the idea of natural balance to the very human (and very subjective) idea of morality, and pretending that's a valid application. Please don't do that. It's silly.
-Education in the US is based on the prussion education system which was designed specifically to make the general populace easy to mainulate and control. The changes that have been made to the US system generally affected those particular aspects and indeed some that have had an effect have made those aspects more pronounced,such as the No-child-left-behind thing for which teachers now teach the kids to pass a test rather then teaching them to use the knowledge of the subject (the book answers vs the practical answer), and esecially the lack of authority on the teachers part (along with bad parenting[parenting should be a class btw]) results in the teachers spending to much time trying to deal with the kids rather then teach them (biggest complaint of the teachers to anyone not a parent at their school) and the kids never learn respect (which of course probably increases crime since a kid with no respect isn't going to respect the law or police)
The public education system helped make the United States into the superpower that it is. The reason we are seeing a decline now can be attributed in large part due to right wing opposition to the idea of modernizing our public education system. A little funding would go a long way, but conservatives don't like public funding so it won't happen.
It's time for conservatives to either start helping, or to get the hell out of the way.
-Disagreeing about responsibility doesn't make me a barbarian, it just means we don't agree.
No, I'm pretty sure that believing that no one who isn't physically disabled should never need assistance from the government makes you a barbaric person.
-I said that our economics are all based on artificial constructs which are bad.
Right, and that's wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, reduce the criminal problem and then guns won't much of an issue (sure there will always be the rare case of mass murders but those occur with bombs too so...)
How about let's reduce the criminal problem and reduce the gun problem?
Of course, we're already trying to reduce the criminal problem.
So the only change would be trying to reduce the gun problem.
So how about we do that?
The central issue is whether we want the good things that will come of widespread manufacturing technology at an affordable price, and the societal changes that will be made possible by it, or if we are too scared to allow for this disruptive technology because we do not understand that only disruptive technologies can disrupt our current society and allow for improvement.
Yes, some people will make guns. Lots of people get their hands on guns who shouldn't have them. Gun laws are not going to remove that problem, unless you think you can eliminate massive amounts of weapons. If you do manage that, black manufacture will increase, with 3D printers or without. Still, it is a very theoretical issue. Disarming America is a very slow process. Tougher gun laws is not a cureall, the problem is the level of control needed to enforce them. And if that control was implemented... Well, the founding fathers wanted the population to be armed for precisely that reason.
On the other hand... We can today only imagine what good will come of giving the entire population the means to efficient production. Once we are there, we will likely see it as one of the pivotal moments of humanity. If we don't let the fear-mongers deny us the technology.
Sissyl, have you read The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson? It's interesting, but we're not there yet.
No. I thought about it, but the reading list is longer than my arm and constantly expanding. No, we aren't there yet... But more seriously... We never will get a better society if we keep denying progress because of fear.
That just means you aren't reading hard enough!
Speaking seriously, I agree with you on the progress vs fear scale, but reserve the right to decide the difference between the two; YMMV :P
On a related note, there was a campus mass shooting at Santa Monica City College earlier today. This one hits close to home for me - my aunt teaches there. Thankfully she is okay, but half a dozen other people are not.
Interestingly, though not necessarily related, Presidents Obama and Clinton were both visiting Santa Monica today.