What could possibly go wrong with a brilliant plan like this? — Landru Guide Us

It is a 'Homeopathy Solution' to the problem:

Unlike a vaccination that introduces a diminished (micro) form of the virus itself into the system as to evoke the immune system to better fight off the virus, it is the (confused) notion that what causes similar symptoms of the virus can cure those symptoms of the virus, but completely ignores the root cause of the virus.

The only thing that works in the Homeopathy is that it is a treatment of the patient rather than a treatment of the disease. It is a personal form of treatment; thus the placebo effect of feeling that one is becoming better is simply the result of the feeling that one is being helped.

I don't intend this to be a 'strawman', but rather a direct one to one illustration of this argument, just in medicine rather than in public safety.

The concept used by this sort of argument is one of the (mis)conception of if we introduce more of the symptoms (guns) into a society with the problem of gun violence that the introduction of more guns will cure the symptom of more guns being used for gun violence, yet completely ignores of the actual issue of gun violence in it's root cause; that being the irresponsibility of people.

Is the cure for irresponsibility to introduce even more potentially dangerous responsibility for the irresponsible?

I much prefer the vaccination model of allowing the trained and trusted professionals the duty of doing the jobs they have been trained for and not having a bunch of untrained, trigger happy fearful people taking the law into their own hands...

... then again, the professionals have not been all that professional as of late, but here's a better question... why?

Do they have the ability to do the job they are there to do or have there been so many restrictions placed upon their ability to do their jobs by those who they themselves have never one been trained or had to do those jobs?

SPIN SPIN SPIN...

How many times do we get to hear about these professionals getting it correct in the day and age of 'trial by media'?

(reminds me... I leave for the United States of Whatever in a just 5 days. I love the commercials. If I didn't know better, I'd say the USA is simply made of fat type-2 diabetic balding men who cannot get an erection who are looking for the best means to make a quick buck in a 100% risk free investment.)

I need a (sequitur) non-sequitur song about now:



... back to the rant:

Kind of reminds me of education, where parent who have a couple of kids somehow think they are far better to understand how to educate young people than teachers who have had years of education and preparation to do the specific task, but by virtue of parents having functions secondary sexual organs and the ability to press out a kid or two... well that ability to produce such a 'miracle' (a very common thing and honestly a very piss poor miracle as far as miracles go) they know it all much much better than the professionals... not realizing that their attachment in terms of an empirical study would be considered a bias.

Sorry...

... go 'off-topic'. Well... not really, but for the sake of the debate, let's say it was off topic.;)

Homeopathy is to the gun lobby argument, as conventional medicine is to gun control argument.

more humor:



Meow!

GREG

Statements of this kind from the good Sheriff represent, to me, either an effort on the part of some in law enforcement to cover their asses or an admission that they cannot, or will not, do their jobs.

But, Landru, guns will never be banned in our Great Republic. And if guns are outlawed, only outlaws and Republicans will have guns.

I need a (sequitur) non-sequitur song about now: — Mayor of Simpleton

God help me, but I love that song.

Landru Guide Us,

Since your last comments, many that I agree with, are actually constructive, I'll have to apologize for calling you a troll.

I understand how passionately you think about the issue and, well, after years on the same forum I should know you. To make it clear, I'm actually against the notion of people having guns for self defence. Yes, there is then something wrong with the society when one really would need a gun for one's own defence. And even if crime happens in the most safest places too, having a gun to defend yourself mainly just worsens things. And it really goes the other way around: if criminals (like a burglar) know people won't be armed, why on Earth then have guns that likely will make the sentence more harsh if caught? In an environment where guns are common it's the criminal that first needs a gun. And basically the loaded handgun in the dresser is a very dangerous firearm. It's in my view the reason guns in the US are more deadly than in other places, and the American gun culture has a very negative impact. Yes, I'm not in favour of a total ban, so there we do disagree. I think hunting, sport shooting or military training are understandable hobbies or reasons (with the last one).

That's why the ban on bombs is so effective - the only people who would possible possess a bomb are criminals planning to use it. So the slogan can be changed to if you criminalize explosives only criminals will have explosives. Yep. We did that and it works. — Landru Guide Us

This example actually has more to it in my opinion. Because there is a profession that does handle explosives, who work on construction sites etc. Hence there is the know-how and the ability to make powerfull bombs in the society. Yet this is heavily regulated, and it hasn't been a problem. Here also a lot of reservists that are trained engineers basically know how to assemble a bomb or an "improvised explosive device". Yet here the knowledge is restricted and reservist's backgrounds are checked if they come for example to a voluntary course where explosives are handled... and usually are hand picked reservists. Everybody understands that the knowledge in the wrong hands would be devastating. What is the problem is when the information about making bombs is made public (by referring to free speech) and if the materials are obtainable (parts other than the fertilizer), then there is a problem.

By the way, conservative Republicans called for and got the No Fly list, but don't let facts get in the way of your narrative. — Landru Guide Us

I don't see (R) or (D) when it comes to an infringement on the rights of an American citizen.

Statements of this kind from the good Sheriff represent, to me, either an effort on the part of some in law enforcement to cover their asses or an admission that they cannot, or will not, do their jobs. — Ciceronianus the White

It seems to me that he is of the old school here in the West, where it is believed that an armed society, is a polite society, Just sayin...;)

There is a surge out here in Arizona as I am sure is happening in other states, for weapons used for self protection and classes on the safety in using those firearms have tripled. That tells me two things, one people feel personally threatened by the unknown risk of 'the bad guy' and the lack of trust in our leader as with the swipe of a pen he can control what guns are legal and the ammo necessary for the firearm.

"Local gun dealers are trying to cope with a massive increase in demand for guns, ammunition, accessories and firearms training classes. They say there are two reasons for the surge: a spate of recent terrorist attacks and the president's subsequent speech, during which he made renewed calls for more gun control."
That is a quote from http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20151210/article/151219971?tc=ar

There is call once again for firearms to be allowed in class rooms and how to handle that.
http://azdailysun.com/news/national/university-of-texas-could-allow-concealed-handguns-in-class/article_269557d8-0978-5cae-977c-4f7b4e59c4e8.html

from the linked article "Texas is among eight states with provisions allowing concealed weapons on public postsecondary campuses, along with Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin."

First point: As Erik Fromm observers in his book, The Sane Society, crazy societies invert the definition of sanity. What would be crazy in a sane society becomes sane in a crazy society. Surely allowing concealed guns in classrooms, the library, cafeteria, and the campus chapel for "protection" fulfills the diagnosis of a very, very crazy society.

Second point: In her book, Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America, Jill Leovy quotes a very successful homicide detective in south-central LA to the effect that "the reason the rate of black on black murder is so high is that the police are not doing their job." The same probably applies to Chicago, which is having a festival of blood lately.

Third point: In a civilized society, the state has a monopoly on violence. Why? Because one of the appointed tasks of the state is to protect citizens from enemies within and without. So, "enemies without" is not our concern in this thread; enemies within is. (This doesn't infringe on the Amendment II right to own a gun for hunting or to defend one's humble abode from thieves or worse.)

I feel that the state does a reasonably good job of defending it's citizens from violent attack in places where the citizenry is mostly inclined to behave reasonably civilly. Large swaths of of the civilized world, including large parts of the United States, conform to this pattern. Civilized, sane people behave in a civilized, sane way. If the citizenry is inclined to behave uncivilly, and suffers mass paranoid delusions, manifested in such activities as do-it-yourself-justice, do-it-yourself-peacekeeping, do-it-yourself-border control, grenade launchers in the kitchen, do-it-yourself-wild west mayhem, do-it-with-a-bullet-conflict resolution, and so on, then the task of protecting citizens is more difficult, but not impossible. More guns means more difficulty protecting citizens.

If one happens to live in a crazy society, like the land of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, one would do well to acknowledge the insanity of one's Mea Culpa County.

Arpaio has been accused of
abuse of power
misuse of funds
failure to investigate sex crimes
improper clearance of cases
unlawful enforcement of immigration laws
election law violations
and others.

Sheriff Arpaio has been:
found guilty of racial profiling in federal court
has a court appointed monitor to oversee his office's operations
has jails twice ruled unconstitutional
The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history and filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct.[

As of September 2015, cases involving Arpaio or his office have cost Maricopa County taxpayers $142 million in legal expenses, settlements and court awards.

Starting in 2005, Arpaio took an outspoken stance against illegal immigration, and became a flashpoint for opposition to Arizona's SB1070 anti-illegal immigrant law, which was largely struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Arpaio is also known for his investigation of U.S. President Barack Obama's birth certificate, and his continuing claim that it is forged.

No wonder his immigrant mother died giving birth to him.

The problem with this idea (such as it is) is that those who buy firearms, especially out of fear, are unlikely to take the time or spend the money needed to learn how to use them properly, safely and well. They'll merely lug them about on the chance someone will do something with some other gun, and then try to use them. Or, they'll overreact and try to shoot shoplifters in a crowded parking lot or some other miscreant who presents no immediate danger to anyone, or will get very angry at something and, the gun being handy, make use of it without thinking.

As I think you know, guns must be taken very seriously. Encouraging people to buy guns and form a posse isn't a responsible position to take regarding deadly weapons.

I don't see (R) or (D) when it comes to an infringement on the rights of an American citizen. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's a mistake. That's why so many Republicans get elected and infringe on our rights.

There is call once again for firearms to be allowed in class rooms and how to handle that. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What could possibly go wrong?

. Yes, I'm not in favour of a total ban, so there we do disagree. I think hunting, sport shooting or military training are understandable hobbies or reasons (with the last one). — ssu

I'm using the term loosely: there are many ways to restrict guns that don't involve preventing hunters and sports shooters from practicing their hobbies.

For instance, I believe several Australian states require guns for such uses be locked up after use at a club or some other third-party facility set up for that purpose. Obviously this prevents mentally deranged people from stockpiling weapons for mass murder. So this is not an insuperable problem.

There is a surge out here in Arizona as I am sure is happening in other states, for weapons used for self protection and classes on the safety in using those firearms have tripled. That tells me two things, one people feel personally threatened by the unknown risk of 'the bad guy' and the lack of trust in our leader as with the swipe of a pen he can control what guns are legal and the ammo necessary for the firearm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Because some guys in Arizona are going to protect our democracy like they did during segregation when they rose up against Bull Conner and the unconstitutional segregationist governments of the Southern states and confronted them with firearms to protect the rights of black people.

Wait, they didn't! They supported the authorities and called the civil rights champions communists. Oh for fun.

Anybody who thinks NRA types are going to protect the Constitution are seriously deluded. The only provision of the Constitution they want is the 2nd Amendment. The rest, they stand against.

I'm using the term loosely: there are many ways to restrict guns that don't involve preventing hunters and sports shooters from practicing their hobbies.

For instance, I believe several Australian states require guns for such uses be locked up after use at a club or some other third-party facility set up for that purpose. Obviously this prevents mentally deranged people from stockpiling weapons for mass murder. So this is not an insuperable problem. — Landru Guide Us

It surely isn't.

Here you have to show the police that you properly store your firearms in a safe or a strongbox. Firearms cannot ever be loaded while stored (a totally rational thing), hence those firearms in the safe, possibly in pieces with the ammo somewhere else, simply cannot be a "defence" if a burglar comes into your house. And they aren't meant for that. And those semi-automatic guns that reservist associations use for voluntary military training here are kept usually in Army garrisons, which ought to be safe places to storage firearms.

That mentally deranged people don't get their hands on legal guns can be basically done with a rigorous selection process. Yes, somebody might be treated unfairly, but usually these are very rare cases. If somebody wants to start hunting or sport shooting, it isn't an overwhelming bureaucracy to get over. What truly effects the statistics is that it isn't easy to just buy a gun if you are contemplating suicide.

And those safes have a reason to exist. The real threat is simply that criminals break in for the firearms, once they know someone or someplace has expensive firearms. Hence for example those active reservists I know that own semi-automatic rifles or sniper rifles themselves do typically not want any pictures of them with their rifles as in a country where the circles are small as here, some criminal could identify just who owns the arms and obtain the address of the person.

When the laws and requirements actually take into account the actual use of these kinds of firearms, then it is something that the gun owners can live with ...assuming they aren't Americans who start their opposition of gun control from an ideological point of view.

There are many ways really to get the laws work. But then you need an environment where everybody understands that it is natural that firearms ownership and use has restrictions. In America, the real starting problem is the discoure and culture itself. It really is a philosophical question just where the fear that Americans have about terrorism, crime and whatever comes from that makes them to buy guns. And just how this "Second Amendment" discourse came to be what it is now, this kind of "example" of the "freedoms" Americans have.

Arpaio has been accused of
abuse of power
misuse of funds
failure to investigate sex crimes
improper clearance of cases
unlawful enforcement of immigration laws
election law violations
and others.

Sheriff Arpaio has been:
found guilty of racial profiling in federal court
has a court appointed monitor to oversee his office's operations
has jails twice ruled unconstitutional
The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history and filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct. — Bitter Crank

Fortunately none of the above accusations come as a surprise to me as I have seen evidence, personally witnessed, Joe's abuse of power in 'getting back' at anyone who stands up to show resistance to his unlawful attacks. It bothers me greatly when I see people intimidated, people like ME, who are unwilling to stand up for the person in his crosshairs, for fear of retaliation by the Sheriff.

No one who witnessed a neighbor's civil rights being violated was able (made the choice) to speak out about what had happened, the way in which it happened and how it could have been any one of us he wanted revenge on. What was really intimidating, in fact mind blowing, was that the person who's civil rights were violated, was one of his own. He brought down the force of the law on a woman who had served as an officer, on his force for 30 yrs and had retired on a ranch up the way.

No trust in the man or the department he runs. Period. He runs the most corrupt department in the country. No, really. What he has done to the Latino population in Arizona is embarrassing as well as dysfunctional as they come. His M*A*S*H* unit for animals takes in millions in donations for the care of confiscated animals, yet there is no account for how much money has been donated and where that money has been spent. No accountability for the money gained in the sale of those animals if they are not returned to the citizens. He is the definition of hustle.

I would say that he lines his pockets with the lives of those he exploits but I will let Federal Justice Murray Snow make the final decision on Joe's lawbreaking ways finally being exposed and there is a chance that a great many Phoenicians will feel validated and if not? Go figure, we ARE talking about Joe, ya know?

Please, stop these un-backed-up, irrelevant and ad-homing generalisations.

I have a solution. Please tell me if it fits your needs: Ban guns, allow tasers and other stun weapons. For police also. Homes and people can still be defended by knocking the offender out without killing them. Right?

An ever so slight problem may arise though, if the criminals happen to possess smuggled guns, which would leave the poor police fending them off with tasers.

Civilized societies are polite in spite of the threat of violence not because of a threat of violence.

Perhaps if there was evidence that the more armed a society is the more polite it becomes?

And if guns are outlawed, only outlaws and Republicans will have guns. — Ciceronianus the White

The law of supply and demand works for guns too.

Grenades are outlawed for all but the military and not only outlaws have grenades.

Hmm, that point works against the pro-ban side too I see
are there stun weapons that stun for a long time (e.g days) until an antidote?
The effectiveness of this depends on how long police/criminal tension usually lasts (in all democratic countries please, don't assume everywhere is the states)

You can always have a dedicated armed response unit for those occasions. You don't need the entire police force to be armed. The UK gets by quite well with this model.

I have a solution. Please tell me if it fits your needs: Ban guns, allow tasers and other stun weapons. For police also. Homes and people can still be defended by knocking the offender out without killing them. Right? — Ovaloid

An ever so slight problem may arise though, if the criminals happen to possess smuggled guns, which would leave the poor police fending them off with tasers. — hunterkf5732

I was going to mention what Michael said about a dedicated armed response unit. But my other point was that arming cops with tasers is also not without its problems. Just google "tasered to death by cops".

And that's just the cops...

But my other point was that arming cops with tasers is also not without its problems. Just google "tasered to death by cops". — Sapientia

Yeah, at least a cop won't normally shoot you for resisting. Tasering is just too easy and ends up being overused.

I was going to mention what Michael said about a dedicated armed response unit. — Sapientia

I don't think this would work in the US unless gun ownership was reduced drastically (which, with the 2nd amendment, isn't going to happen). The country is swimming in arms and nobody is going to want to be a cop if they think they're going to be a sitting duck out there.

The expression 'an armed society is a polite society' makes me think of such very polite people as:

- Dr No ('No Mr Bond, I expect you to die')
- Don Vito Corleone, courteously accepting the petitions of wedding guests to have their enemies harmed or sent to sleep with the fishes.
- Hannibal Lecter, and his Olde Worlde courtesy to Jodie Foster's character in Silence of the Lambs
- The courtesy that surrounded the verbal aspect of aristocratic duels to the death in the 15th-19th centuries.

How do we choose between a decrease in manners (assuming for the sake of argument the saying is true) and an increase in schoolyard killings? It's a tough one.

Oh, no wait. My mistake. It isn't.

The obvious problem - well, seems obvious to me - is that the association of guns = freedom is burned in to the American consciousness. So 'taking away guns' = 'taking away freedom', and those who argue in favour of that, are therefore anti-freedom and a threat to the American Way of Life. It sounds crazy, but there it is.

The real problem is that those guns, no matter how much the constitution had in mind a collective defence of the nation by a militia force, are primarily there for personal defence. Not for hunting or sport shooting or actual intended cause (for a militia, which would be closest to reservists and National Guard members). Hence there's a massive amount of loaded guns on the desk drawyer own by people who in other countries wouldn't own them.

And then there is that idea of them as a symbol of individual freedom. And it should be admitted that the gun policies are indeed quite libertarian: that anybody can go to gun store and buy a gun without a long and cumbersome process where an official in the end decides if you are able to have a gun or not, or which kind of you gun you can have and how many.

How do we choose between a decrease in manners (assuming for the sake of argument the saying is true) and an increase in schoolyard killings? It's a tough one.

Oh, no wait. My mistake. It isn't. — andrewk

Also, that an armed society is a polite society (assuming) is not that an unarmed society is an impolite society. Don't deny the antecedent!

Any lynch mob can be polite until they decide not to be.

A polite lynch mob is quite counter-intuitive.

Not necessarily, as there are numerous factors involving politeness. Also, the term may have different definitions.