Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

[93henfan]

An interesting way to look at the gun control debate.

...underlying this parley is the inevitable conflict of the rights of the collective and the rights on the individual...

...as gun control measures are submitted to the American people, it is necessary to have a method to evaluate them, one that will avoid the emotionalism that animates rhetoric on both sides of this debate...

...doing this as a two-step process means that we would recognize that there should not be any restriction on an individual right unless there is compelling empirical evidence for another right to restrict it...

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/03/2 ... ng-orders/

Of course, our emotional types here are going to attack the source before even reading the article.

[Chizzang]

An interesting way to look at the gun control debate.

...underlying this parley is the inevitable conflict of the rights of the collective and the rights on the individual...

...as gun control measures are submitted to the American people, it is necessary to have a method to evaluate them, one that will avoid the emotionalism that animates rhetoric on both sides of this debate...

...doing this as a two-step process means that we would recognize that there should not be any restriction on an individual right unless there is compelling empirical evidence for another right to restrict it...

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/03/2 ... ng-orders/

Of course, our emotional types here are going to attack the source before even reading the article.

For those who wish to restrict gun rights the situation is complicated...
as they are forced to delicately maneuver around existing freedoms

For those who do not with to restrict rights it is simple

This debate:
Is like any pro-choice movement
Don't like guns... don't buy one (The end)

[ASUG8]

For those who wish to restrict gun rights the situation is complicated...
as they are forced to delicately maneuver around existing freedoms

For those who do not with to restrict rights it is simple

This debate:
Is like any pro-choice movement
Don't like guns... don't buy one (The end)

Utopia to the extreme anti-gun group would be total abolition of gun rights, while pro-gun would let you pick them up at a convenience store. The pendulum swings back and forth favoring one side vs. the other, but I'd argue that things are (and have been) on the anti-gun side for a while - background checks, fingerprinting, waiting periods, no full auto, no bump stocks, etc. are all items the anti-gun lobby has worked toward to keep the hardcore pro-gun folks in check. I don't really think the current anti-gun position is to "delicately maneuver" around anything. Expiration of the AWB in 2004 and failure to renew it was viewed as something of a victory for the pro-gun folks.

IMO most responsible gun owners don't mind background checks as it seems like (in principle) a method to be sure that the states have signed off on a prospective gun owner as a non-felon although we all know that a large proportion of gun murders happen outside the lines of legality.

[93henfan]

IMO most responsible gun owners don't mind background checks as it seems like (in principle) a method to be sure that the states have signed off on a prospective gun owner as a non-felon although we all know that a large proportion of gun murders happen outside the lines of legality.

If we could sign an irrevocable treatise with the liberals that stated:

1. The gunshow loophole is closed. All sales/transfers must be accompanied by a background check in the US, regardless of circumstances.
2. Bump stocks are banned and owners will be fully compensated for turn-in.
3. Certified crazy people can't buy/own guns.
4. Upon signature, gun control will not be discussed further in this country.

I think 95% (including myself) of gun rights advocates would bless it.

But you know liberals will never go for that.

Why?

Confiscation is, and always has been, their ultimate goal.

[Chizzang]

IMO most responsible gun owners don't mind background checks as it seems like (in principle) a method to be sure that the states have signed off on a prospective gun owner as a non-felon although we all know that a large proportion of gun murders happen outside the lines of legality.

If we could sign an irrevocable treatise with the liberals that stated:

1. The gunshow loophole is closed. All sales/transfers must be accompanied by a background check in the US, regardless of circumstances.
2. Bump stocks are banned and owners will be fully compensated for turn-in.
3. Certified crazy people can't buy/own guns.
4. Upon signature, gun control will not be discussed further in this country.

I think 95% (including myself) of gun rights advocates would bless it.

But you know liberals will never go for that.

Why?

Confiscation is, and always has been, their ultimate goal.

[kalm]

IMO most responsible gun owners don't mind background checks as it seems like (in principle) a method to be sure that the states have signed off on a prospective gun owner as a non-felon although we all know that a large proportion of gun murders happen outside the lines of legality.

If we could sign an irrevocable treatise with the liberals that stated:

1. The gunshow loophole is closed. All sales/transfers must be accompanied by a background check in the US, regardless of circumstances.
2. Bump stocks are banned and owners will be fully compensated for turn-in.
3. Certified crazy people can't buy/own guns.
4. Upon signature, gun control will not be discussed further in this country.

I think 95% (including myself) of gun rights advocates would bless it.

But you know liberals will never go for that.

Why?

Confiscation is, and always has been, their ultimate goal.

So it took you 4 posts to go emotional and unempirical?

[AZGrizFan]

IMO most responsible gun owners don't mind background checks as it seems like (in principle) a method to be sure that the states have signed off on a prospective gun owner as a non-felon although we all know that a large proportion of gun murders happen outside the lines of legality.

If you could assure me with 100% confidence that that's ALL a background check was ever used for then I MIGHT be able to agree (in principle)....but knowing our benevolent government, if the pendulum DOES start swinging too far to the anti-gun crowd, I fear the background checks will just become a checklist of houses for the newly formed Fire Arms Removal Team (or FART) to visit and confiscate weapons.

[Chizzang]

IMO most responsible gun owners don't mind background checks as it seems like (in principle) a method to be sure that the states have signed off on a prospective gun owner as a non-felon although we all know that a large proportion of gun murders happen outside the lines of legality.

If you could assure me with 100% confidence that that's ALL a background check was ever used for then I MIGHT be able to agree (in principle)....but knowing our benevolent government, if the pendulum DOES start swinging too far to the anti-gun crowd, I fear the background checks will just become a checklist of houses for the newly formed Fire Arms Removal Team (or FART) to visit and confiscate weapons.

You and I will be long since dead by the time anything like F.A.R.T. rolls out

[Ibanez]

IMO most responsible gun owners don't mind background checks as it seems like (in principle) a method to be sure that the states have signed off on a prospective gun owner as a non-felon although we all know that a large proportion of gun murders happen outside the lines of legality.

If you could assure me with 100% confidence that that's ALL a background check was ever used for then I MIGHT be able to agree (in principle)....but knowing our benevolent government, if the pendulum DOES start swinging too far to the anti-gun crowd, I fear the background checks will just become a checklist of houses for the newly formed Fire Arms Removal Team (or FART) to visit and confiscate weapons.

What makes you think the government doesn’t have a record of you now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

If we could sign an irrevocable treatise with the liberals that stated:

1. The gunshow loophole is closed. All sales/transfers must be accompanied by a background check in the US, regardless of circumstances.
2. Bump stocks are banned and owners will be fully compensated for turn-in.
3. Certified crazy people can't buy/own guns.
4. Upon signature, gun control will not be discussed further in this country.

I think 95% (including myself) of gun rights advocates would bless it.

But you know liberals will never go for that.

Why?

Confiscation is, and always has been, their ultimate goal.

So it took you 4 posts to go emotional and unempirical?

How are facts emotional and unempirical?

[Col Hogan]

If you could assure me with 100% confidence that that's ALL a background check was ever used for then I MIGHT be able to agree (in principle)....but knowing our benevolent government, if the pendulum DOES start swinging too far to the anti-gun crowd, I fear the background checks will just become a checklist of houses for the newly formed Fire Arms Removal Team (or FART) to visit and confiscate weapons.

What makes you think the government doesn’t have a record of you now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, if they do they have done one of two things:

1, they have broken the law and electronically captured every 4473 check i’ve undergone for purchases...

2. They have very quietly (and most likely illegally) gotten their hands on the paper copy 4473s that I filled out at numerous gun stores...

Either way, i’m trusting that the ATF is following the law...I have friends who say I’m very naive for taking this position...

[CID1990]

What makes you think the government doesn’t have a record of you now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Either way, i’m trusting that the ATF is following the law...I have friends who say I’m very naive for taking this position...

Your friends are correct.

The only agency more out of control than ATF is the DEA.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

So it took you 4 posts to go emotional and unempirical?

How are facts emotional and unempirical?

I’m a liberal and I know a number of other liberals who would agree with your treatise and don’t want to confiscate your shit. :thumb

[Chizzang]

How are facts emotional and unempirical?

I’m a liberal and I know a number of other liberals who would agree with your treatise and don’t want to confiscate your shit.

I think that most East Coasters don't really know much about North West liberals
Spokane and Seattle are jam packed with Liberals that own guns
As well as Most of Oregon outside of Portland
and Most of Idaho and Montana

[kalm]

I’m a liberal and I know a number of other liberals who would agree with your treatise and don’t want to confiscate your shit.

I think that most East Coasters don't really know much about North West liberals
Spokane and Seattle are jam packed with Liberals that own guns
As well as Most of Oregon outside of Portland
and Most of Idaho and Montana

Ahh...this makes sense and perhaps on other issues as well?

Thanks, Chizzy and Sorry, 93.

[JohnStOnge]

It'll never happen but if one is to close the loop one needs to determine what acceptable risk is in terms of an actual probability. And I think that acceptable risk should be expressed in terms of the average risk to individuals. I do not believe in the concept of "the collective" having rights. Each individual member of the collective does.

Anyway the bottom line is that if we were to look at it in terms of the risk that a randomly selected individual is going to die within some time period...let's say a year...and how much that risk would change if we outlawed what gun control people are calling "assault rifle" it would be so small a change that there is no way I'd say telling people they can't own "assault rifles" is justified. Or telling people they can't buy rifles until they are 21.

I know the knee jerk reaction is "it will save lives and if even ONE life is saved it's worth it."

It would also "save lives" in terms of reducing deaths from traffic accidents if we raised the cost of gasoline to $10 per gallon; thereby reducing "exposure" in terms of miles driven. In fact it'd probably "save" more lives from a specific cause than outlawing "assault weapons" or raising the age for buying rifles to 21.

The "it will save lives" argument isn't really a good one.

[Chizzang]

The "it will save lives" argument isn't really a good one.

Said the anti abortion rights activist...

[JohnStOnge]

The "it will save lives" argument isn't really a good one.

Said the anti abortion rights activist...

The difference is that abortion is a direct, intentional fatal attack upon another individual. What I'm talking about is using the "it will save lives" thing when speaking about adjustments to small risks. One I've written about a lot is the DUI thing. Lowering the BAC that'll get you popped form 0.10 to 0.08 is justified because "it will save lives." Never mind that in the overwhelming majority of instances a person driving with a 0.10 BAC does not intend to hurt anybody and in fact does not hurt anybody. We throw them in jail because the extremely small probability that they will hurt somebody is somewhat larger than the extremely small probability that will hurt somebody if they drive at BAC 0.05 or 0 or whatever.

If you do an abortion there is a 1.0 probability...a 100% chance...that you will kill a member of our species. And you'll be doing it with the intent of killing a member of our species. On purpose.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW Chiz this is how the thinking I'm talking about works with respect to fun violence. What is the probability that a randomlly selected sale of a rifle to someone younger than 21 will result in the death of a human being that otherwise would not have occurred at the time it occurred? How many millions of sales of rifles to people younger than 21 are there? I think you would expect, without trying to look it up, that the probability is very low. So why are we saying that someone who is 19 can't go out and buy a semi-automatic 22 with a scope so they can go squirrel hunting with it?

But if someone buys a rifle then intentionally kills someone with it they are engaging in an intentional act that obviously SHOULD be illegal. If you have a rifle and you are TRYING to kill someone with it the probability that a death will result obviously becomes fairly high. And, again, there is an intentional attack on another individual.

That doesn't mean Bobby Joe shouldn't be able to buy his 22 when all he wants to do is go squirrel hunting.

[css75]

IMO most responsible gun owners don't mind background checks as it seems like (in principle) a method to be sure that the states have signed off on a prospective gun owner as a non-felon although we all know that a large proportion of gun murders happen outside the lines of legality.

If we could sign an irrevocable treatise with the liberals that stated:

1. The gunshow loophole is closed. All sales/transfers must be accompanied by a background check in the US, regardless of circumstances.
2. Bump stocks are banned and owners will be fully compensated for turn-in.
3. Certified crazy people can't buy/own guns.
4. Upon signature, gun control will not be discussed further in this country.

I think 95% (including myself) of gun rights advocates would bless it.

But you know liberals will never go for that.

Why?

Confiscation is, and always has been, their ultimate goal.

This, they want control of all the guns, and they will not cease till they get it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

BTW Chiz this is how the thinking I'm talking about works with respect to fun violence. What is the probability that a randomlly selected sale of a rifle to someone younger than 21 will result in the death of a human being that otherwise would not have occurred at the time it occurred? How many millions of sales of rifles to people younger than 21 are there? I think you would expect, without trying to look it up, that the probability is very low. So why are we saying that someone who is 19 can't go out and buy a semi-automatic 22 with a scope so they can go squirrel hunting with it?

But if someone buys a rifle then intentionally kills someone with it they are engaging in an intentional act that obviously SHOULD be illegal. If you have a rifle and you are TRYING to kill someone with it the probability that a death will result obviously becomes fairly high. And, again, there is an intentional attack on another individual.

That doesn't mean Bobby Joe shouldn't be able to buy his 22 when all he wants to do is go squirrel hunting.

John
I'm aware of the sliding scale of morality that gets applied to life and death
Which is why I am NOT in the business of crawling into other peoples rights

There is no inconsistency in my view on rights like you struggle with

I think
guns should be legal and fairly easy to get
I think
women should be allowed to consult their doctor
without sanctimonious cunts like you inserting themselves in the middle
I think
voting should require as much proof of identity as boarding a international flight
I think
Freedom of speech is more important than hurting peoples feelings

[css75]

BTW Chiz this is how the thinking I'm talking about works with respect to fun violence. What is the probability that a randomlly selected sale of a rifle to someone younger than 21 will result in the death of a human being that otherwise would not have occurred at the time it occurred? How many millions of sales of rifles to people younger than 21 are there? I think you would expect, without trying to look it up, that the probability is very low. So why are we saying that someone who is 19 can't go out and buy a semi-automatic 22 with a scope so they can go squirrel hunting with it?

But if someone buys a rifle then intentionally kills someone with it they are engaging in an intentional act that obviously SHOULD be illegal. If you have a rifle and you are TRYING to kill someone with it the probability that a death will result obviously becomes fairly high. And, again, there is an intentional attack on another individual.

That doesn't mean Bobby Joe shouldn't be able to buy his 22 when all he wants to do is go squirrel hunting.

John
I'm aware of the sliding scale of morality that gets applied to life and death
Which is why I am NOT in the business of crawling into other peoples rights

There is no inconsistency in my view on rights like you struggle with

I think
guns should be legal and fairly easy to get
I think
women should be allowed to consult their doctor
without sanctimonious cunts like you inserting themselves in the middle
I think
voting should require as much proof of identity as boarding a international flight
I think
Freedom of speech is more important than hurting peoples feelings

You are 75% correct Chiz.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

John
I'm aware of the sliding scale of morality that gets applied to life and death
Which is why I am NOT in the business of crawling into other peoples rights

There is no inconsistency in my view on rights like you struggle with

I think
guns should be legal and fairly easy to get
I think
women should be allowed to consult their doctor
without sanctimonious cunts like you inserting themselves in the middle
I think
voting should require as much proof of identity as boarding a international flight
I think
Freedom of speech is more important than hurting peoples feelings

You are 75% correct Chiz.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What do you have a problem with? Women doing what they want their bodies? Proof of ID at a voting station?

[Chizzang]

You are 75% correct Chiz.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What do you have a problem with? Women doing what they want their bodies? Proof of ID at a voting station?

I can tell you immediately:
The sliding scale of morality is the classic Conservative conundrum

[Ibanez]

What do you have a problem with? Women doing what they want their bodies? Proof of ID at a voting station?

I can tell you immediately:
The sliding scale of morality is the classic Conservative conundrum

Personal freedom and accountability stops at the uterus....apparently.