On the management of risk in a society...

[ballen0351]

I don't know. You and your neighbors elected those folks in MD--you tell me what their reasoning is.

A majority of the state is held hostage by Baltimore City and the 2 counties that are connected to Washington DC that are full of liberal transplants from all over the country that come here to work in DC. I can assure you my neighbors and I didnt vote for this nonsense. Our states so stupid we passed a "Rain Tax" 150 a year in a new tax just to protect the bay from rain run off. Then we DOUBLED our gas tax its goin up .23 over the next 2 years.

I want to start with better background checks,

I agree depending on how its written it need clear and concise set of requirements for what prevents people form being allowed to buy a gun no opened ended statements like "multiple convictions fr crimes involving Alcohol

mandatory education for licensing,

Should not need a license to exercise a constitutional right

and improved safe storage laws/unsafe storage penalties.

How do you check for compliance?

But the answer to your previous post is still that the fact that things are bad now and will remain so for the foreseeable future doesn't mean we shouldn't make any changes--it means that the sooner we make them, the sooner we might see an effect. A 10-year AWB isn't esp. effective as guns have a better than 10 year useful lifespan. After 30 years they'd be rarer--lost, damaged, poorly maintained, confiscated, etc. Prohibition of alcohol didn't eliminate it until what people had in stock was drunk up. Stuff was imported or made here illegally, but it sure made it harder for the average person.

I never said we didnt need to make changes nobody has said that we want real changes that will work. as you said a 10 year ban will do nothing.

 

[arnisador]

The average person isnt the problem

As compared to drug dealers etc., 'average' people account for a lot of gun deaths in senseless arguments, domestic violence, accidents, etc. The guy who kills his kid while cleaning his gun did something wrong but is still Joe Average most likely.

 

[arnisador]

How do you check for compliance?

Let's start with heavy penalties if it turns out post facto that you didn't, or if it's found incidental to something else. I don't foresee inspections--I want heavy penalties and a PR campaign.

I never said we didnt need to make changes nobody has said that we want real changes that will work. as you said a 10 year ban will do nothing.

Ten years isn't enough. You're pretty short on ideas that'd help, though.

 

[Makalakumu]

there is not now has never been and can never be a "free" society. the very nature of a society means there are rules that must be followed. Even cavemen had rules you gotta pee go outside of the cave. Even animals learn not to go to the bathroom in their dens. There will always be people in all societies that will prey on others and that means we will need rules in place to deal with these people. You cant have the perfect society without perfect humans and there are none of them on earth right now

I think you can have a society that has a certain amount of freedom and you can have a society that has a lot more freedom. The freest society would be one without the Law of Rulers, where agreements are voluntary and you are responsible for the effects of those agreements. History can be viewed as a progression where humans increasingly see themselves as equal to one another and ultimately question the premise of having power over another. Societies have made lots of progress with slavery. They've made lots of progress with equal rights for women. This can all be viewed as a slow and steady march to a society that is more equal and more free and more based in reason.

We can reason that black people are human and deserve individual autonomy. We can reason that women are equal to men despite the sexual dimorphism and deserve the same treatment in society. We can also reason that the Divine Right of Kings is not a rational basis for Rulership. When we can enter into voluntary agreements regarding societies rules and form our own groups, we'll be more free to a degree that we don't have now. It's not impossible, it's just something that people could actually work toward in the future.

That said, I think the Founding Fathers made huge strides toward protecting individual liberty with the Constitution. It's not perfect, because I think they still accepted some of the irrational premises of the past, but it's better than most of the founding documents for the various nations of the world. That said, imagine letting states decide some of these issues revolving around risk. If smaller groups of people got to decide how society was going to be ruled (even though the basis for rule is irrational) we'd have a greater degree of freedom.

The exception is Firearms. For Americans, this was considered a fundamental right and risk be damned. "Shall not be infringed" seems clear to me.

 

[Drasken]

Here's a couple of ideas.

1. Focus on education. Our education system is so messed up it isn't even funny anymore. Schools with lower test scores get less money when it's obvious they probably need more help. Every month or so I see them closing more schools, many of them inner city schools, and packing kids in already overcrowded classrooms of other schools. Help our kids. Our national education average is pretty low compared to other countries. We, as a country, have fallen pretty significantly from where we used to be here.

2. It's not all the government's fault.... Yeah.... I'll give you time to pick your jaw up off the ground. That's right, I'm really not all anti government, despite what you may think of me Arni. Parents need to raise their friggin kids. Parents just don't seem to care anymore. On 3 seperate occasions while I worked at a video game store in the mall I had 3 seperate children urinate on my store's floor. The parents didn't care. And I'm talking 5 and 6 year olds that stood there and wet themselves. Then the parents get mad when I hand them a roll of paper towels and tell thm to clean their kid's mess. On top of that, kids that young being bought Grand Theft Auto, and similar games.... Really!? And I can't even count how many times a parent would leave children as young as 4 in my store by themselves as their parents went shopping...
The fault lies not in video games. Not in violent movies. Not in rap music idolizing the "gangsta" It is squarely on the shoulders of negligent parents.

3. Focus on less spending of tax money on stupid crap, and help get our country back on track. I find it infuriating that we can't seem to find the money to support the programs we have now. So what's the plan for gun violence? Set up programs that will cost more money we don't have? SOUNDS GREAT TO ME.

4. Gun safety courses. Great idea. Let's do it.

5. Harsh penalties for negligent parents contributing to injury of a child.

6. Focus more on fixing the friggin unemployment problem. Desperate people will commit crimes. Even you. If you were starving you might not mug someone, but you'd steal food from a store. Guarantee it if you're desperate enough. Now couple that with lack of education and an easy money source (or perceived to be easy) that is glorified in today's society. The drug dealing, gun toting "gangsta" what happens? Lots of stupid kids and young adults slinging dope and carrying guns they bought off some dude in a back alley.

7. Clearly written laws about background checks. I do believe requiring a background check to sell a weapon to a complete stranger at a gun show is not too much to ask. While it IS easy to find guns on the street, and Cartels ARE smuggling in weapons, which will increase if heavier laws mean it IS more profitable for them to sell on the street due to higher demand... Well only an idiot would think criminals don't buy from gun shows if no background checks are run. I'm sure they do.
However we need clear parameters on what will make you fail a check to buy a weapon. Open ended nonsense will screw things up very badly. And NO registry for gun owners. I'm against that as it doesn't help anything dealing with crime or mass shootings.

There are all kinds of things that will help with our violent crime rate. And crime in general. Not all of them are gun legislation either.
Address the real problem not put more restrictions and sweep the issue under the rug.

I do think that doing nothing is unacceptable. But you don't cure a disease by treating a symptom. Our society has issues that LEAD to gun violence. So fix these issues. Guns have been a big part of our society for as long as our country was just a happy idea. Trying to fight against guns here is like trying to ice skate uphill. And our gun ownership hasn't grown, it's actually declined or stayed pretty even for our history. Heck you could get guns mailed to you from magazine's in the past. But something has definitely changed. And with this change has been more gun violence.

But our society wants quick fixes, they don't want true solutions. But quick fixes don't work. Like fad diets you see some small change and then it fizzles out.
We need to admit where we went wrong as a society. Take responsibility. Learn from our mistakes and fix the problem. But we don't think in terms of "Fix what broke" anymore. We just want change. So instead of fixing the issues, we restrict more... And more... And more. Which just causes more and more problems.

We need to think logically, not emotionally too. Pushing crying parents of murdered children in our face is disgusting exploitation to push an agenda based on fear, guilt and raw emotion rather than logical thinking.
Focus on the solution, not the problem...

 

[ballen0351]

As compared to drug dealers etc., 'average' people account for a lot of gun deaths in senseless arguments, domestic violence, accidents, etc. The guy who kills his kid while cleaning his gun did something wrong but is still Joe Average most likely.

No he's an idiot and not an average person. 300 million guns 99.9% never hurt anyone. Every case of accident or murder is an exception to the rule.

 

[ballen0351]

I think you can have a society that has a certain amount of freedom and you can have a society that has a lot more freedom. The freest society would be one without the Law of Rulers, where agreements are voluntary and you are responsible for the effects of those agreements. History can be viewed as a progression where humans increasingly see themselves as equal to one another and ultimately question the premise of having power over another. Societies have made lots of progress with slavery. They've made lots of progress with equal rights for women. This can all be viewed as a slow and steady march to a society that is more equal and more free and more based in reason.

We can reason that black people are human and deserve individual autonomy. We can reason that women are equal to men despite the sexual dimorphism and deserve the same treatment in society. We can also reason that the Divine Right of Kings is not a rational basis for Rulership. When we can enter into voluntary agreements regarding societies rules and form our own groups, we'll be more free to a degree that we don't have now. It's not impossible, it's just something that people could actually work toward in the future.

That said, I think the Founding Fathers made huge strides toward protecting individual liberty with the Constitution. It's not perfect, because I think they still accepted some of the irrational premises of the past, but it's better than most of the founding documents for the various nations of the world. That said, imagine letting states decide some of these issues revolving around risk. If smaller groups of people got to decide how society was going to be ruled (even though the basis for rule is irrational) we'd have a greater degree of freedom.

The exception is Firearms. For Americans, this was considered a fundamental right and risk be damned. "Shall not be infringed" seems clear to me.

What you looking for does not exist my friend. Your best bet is to move to a 3rd world country buy a xrpa load of land and start your own "free" society . you will still see that humans are inherently dangerous and eventually will pretty on others

 

[celtic_crippler]

The concept, in and of itself, is fairly simple: if you’re not causing or threatening bodily injury to another or damage to someone else’s’ property there should be no reason to dictate control over their actions.

Problems with this otherwise simple concept begin to arise when:

• Personal responsibility is overlooked, eliminated, and/or forgotten.
• People over reach in their perspectives about what actions create risk to others and then take it to extremes.
  • Introduce lawyers and legislators into the equation
• Others get it in their heads that it is their duty to protect “me” from “myself” and/or believe they know better what is good for me than I do.
• Government oversteps its responsibility and gets involved in areas it does not belong and thereby creates environments that previously did not exist where there was no risk of “harm to others” and subsequently creates an environment where there is now a perception that an action can indeed create a risk of “harm to others.” Example: Involvement in healthcare (cigarettes, food, beverage restrictions, etc…)

Bigger government always equates to fewer freedoms. You can’t have both. The Founders knew this and that is why they established a LIMITED government; because they valued liberty and freedom. They also knew that personal responsibility was an integral part of that equation.

 

[ballen0351]

Yes the concept is simple. But its not reality. We live in a society and we decide what rules we want and what we don't. If society say we don't want you texting while driving we think is bad then poof it is what it is. The prob with govt is they were given a set of rules to govern by but they have broken the rules

 

[Makalakumu]

What you looking for does not exist my friend. Your best bet is to move to a 3rd world country buy a xrpa load of land and start your own "free" society . you will still see that humans are inherently dangerous and eventually will pretty on others

The only thing I would like is to be more free tomorrow than I am today.

 

[Big Don]

The concept, in and of itself, is fairly simple: if you’re not causing or threatening bodily injury to another or damage to someone else’s’ property there should be no reason to dictate control over their actions.

Problems with this otherwise simple concept begin to arise when:

• Personal responsibility is overlooked, eliminated, and/or forgotten.
• People over reach in their perspectives about what actions create risk to others and then take it to extremes.
  • Introduce lawyers and legislators into the equation
• Others get it in their heads that it is their duty to protect “me” from “myself” and/or believe they know better what is good for me than I do.
• Government oversteps its responsibility and gets involved in areas it does not belong and thereby creates environments that previously did not exist where there was no risk of “harm to others” and subsequently creates an environment where there is now a perception that an action can indeed create a risk of “harm to others.” Example: Involvement in healthcare (cigarettes, food, beverage restrictions, etc&#8230

Bigger government always equates to fewer freedoms. You can’t have both. The Founders knew this and that is why they established a LIMITED government; because they valued liberty and freedom. They also knew that personal responsibility was an integral part of that equation.

Personal responsibility is routinely derided...

 

[arnisador]

Thanks for your detailed answer. I find much to agree with in principle but it's less clear to me how you would, for example, simply fix the parenting problem.

Focus on the solution, not the problem...

Unfortunately, root causes are often hard to address under the best of circumstances...sometimes fighting the symptoms is all we've got. I'd love to see lower unemployment, which would indeed help--as would people not drinking when near guns and not buying drugs, which fuels much violence.

 

[arnisador]

No he's an idiot and not an average person. 300 million guns 99.9% never hurt anyone. Every case of accident or murder is an exception to the rule.

This is a well-known fallacious line of reasoning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

[arnisador]

you will still see that humans are inherently dangerous and eventually will pretty on others

Sorry, I just can't let this one go.

 

[arnisador]

Personal responsibility is routinely derided...

If my neighbor stores gasoline in his garage where he smokes, I'm at risk because of his lack of responsibility. Of course, until an accident happens, everything is fine...or is it?

It doesn't work for me for my safety to rely on your sense of personal responsibility. As George Carlin said: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

 

[ballen0351]

Sorry, I just can't let this one go.

stupid auto correct

 

[ballen0351]

This is a well-known fallacious line of reasoning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Prove me wrong then. They est. between 250 million and 300 million guns in the US vs how many accidents a year? Its just a fact almost every gun made will never be involved in an accident or a crime. the ones that are is a very small %

 

[ballen0351]

If my neighbor stores gasoline in his garage where he smokes, I'm at risk because of his lack of responsibility. Of course, until an accident happens, everything is fine...or is it?

It doesn't work for me for my safety to rely on your sense of personal responsibility. As George Carlin said: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

So we need to now do spot safety inspections on houses because someone on your street might be an idiot

 

[arnisador]

Prove me wrong then. They est. between 250 million and 300 million guns in the US vs how many accidents a year? Its just a fact almost every gun made will never be involved in an accident or a crime. the ones that are is a very small %

Same for Sudafed, lawn darts, and toys with small parts that present choking hazards.

 

[arnisador]

So we need to now do spot safety inspections on houses because someone on your street might be an idiot

Everyone on my street is an idiot--esp. the neighbor behind me. But once again you take an observation and make it a bizarre absolute. Not everything that sucks is a call for Big Brother to institute a totalitarian govt. But I could be hurt because someone else lacks responsibility. Wouldn't you agree that that sucks?