Gun Control: Shiny Toy Guns

[Fartsniffage]

But it does give you the right to an opinion that should be listened to on the issue.

Why? Why is that right any greater than the average Joe who was never in a shooting?

Because when they talk about experiencing a shooting they know what they're talking about. How is that a difficult concept?

[Ors Might]

My General Thought on what the MSM is doing with the shooting.

(Image)

But it does give you the right to an opinion that should be listened to on the issue.

But does it carry much weight when time to make policy? People who are victims of a crime might not have the most rational heads on how to tackle it.

[Kernen]

Why? Why is that right any greater than the average Joe who was never in a shooting?

Because when they talk about experiencing a shooting they know what they're talking about. How is that a difficult concept?

Being shot at doesn't give you any kind of understanding of the weapons, the law surrounding them, or the feasibility of suggested policies. No more so than victims of gang violence automatically understand how to combat gangs.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

My view on this issue is admittedly extreme, but, hey, I am an extremist.

In my ideal world (obviously imaginary), no one — except for hunters and some farmers — should own guns. Perhaps the one population I am most concerned about is the police. Given their horrible record in treating people of color, they should be absolutely prohibited from carrying firearms.

Then, when (or if) the communist revolution comes — there are no guarantees in communism — revolutionaries will need to find some way of obtaining munitions.

Now, that is what I believe, but, although I am a left-wing radical, I am not crazy. I know that my proposal is not going to be implemented anytime soon.

[Fartsniffage]

But it does give you the right to an opinion that should be listened to on the issue.

But does it carry much weight when time to make policy? People who are victims of a crime might not have the most rational heads on how to tackle it.

Some will and some won't. I experienced a bombing but still supported the NI peace process and don't care that the people who did it were never caught as there are now no more bombings. Not everyone will react in the same way.

In this case there are some loud people demanding that guns are banned, I imagine there are others demanding that all teachers be armed and sent through SEAL training to protect the next class. Listen to them all then come to a policy decision.

[Telconi]

Because when they talk about experiencing a shooting they know what they're talking about. How is that a difficult concept?

Being shot at doesn't give you any kind of understanding of the weapons, the law surrounding them, or the feasibility of suggested policies. No more so than victims of gang violence automatically understand how to combat gangs.

Basically this, a proposal should be based upon it's merits, not upon some magical credibility assigned to a victim of an incident.

[Kernen]

Being shot at doesn't give you any kind of understanding of the weapons, the law surrounding them, or the feasibility of suggested policies. No more so than victims of gang violence automatically understand how to combat gangs.

Basically this, a proposal should be based upon it's merits, not upon some magical credibility assigned to a victim of an incident.

This is why I'm becoming increasingly less democratic. Policy should be decided by experts, not laypeople. Laypeople are less than useless.

[Ors Might]

But does it carry much weight when time to make policy? People who are victims of a crime might not have the most rational heads on how to tackle it.

Some will and some won't. I experienced a bombing but still supported the NI peace process and don't care that the people who did it were never caught as there are now no more bombings. Not everyone will react in the same way.

In this case there are some loud people demanding that guns are banned, I imagine there are others demanding that all teachers be armed and sent through SEAL training to protect the next class. Listen to them all then come to a policy decision.

But almost none, if any at all, have any experience in making policy. We don’t let victims of illegal immigrants set immigration policies for a reason.

[Telconi]

Basically this, a proposal should be based upon it's merits, not upon some magical credibility assigned to a victim of an incident.

This is why I'm becoming increasingly less democratic. Policy should be decided by experts, not laypeople. Laypeople are less than useless.

"The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

[Fartsniffage]

This is why I'm becoming increasingly less democratic. Policy should be decided by experts, not laypeople. Laypeople are less than useless.

"The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

"We should gas the Arabs"

[Phoenix2012]

Because when they talk about experiencing a shooting they know what they're talking about. How is that a difficult concept?

Being shot at doesn't give you any kind of understanding of the weapons, the law surrounding them, or the feasibility of suggested policies. No more so than victims of gang violence automatically understand how to combat gangs.

Hardly. Experience is irreplaceable. Would you trust a surgeon who has never performed surgery? How about a pilot with zero flight time? There's a reason why witnesses are called in courts, because experience is vital to a fuller understanding.

[Fartsniffage]

Some will and some won't. I experienced a bombing but still supported the NI peace process and don't care that the people who did it were never caught as there are now no more bombings. Not everyone will react in the same way.

In this case there are some loud people demanding that guns are banned, I imagine there are others demanding that all teachers be armed and sent through SEAL training to protect the next class. Listen to them all then come to a policy decision.

But almost none, if any at all, have any experience in making policy. We don’t let victims of illegal immigrants set immigration policies for a reason.

The vast majority of people have no experience making policy. Should law makers simply ignore all phone calls and letters from their constituents?

[Ors Might]

Being shot at doesn't give you any kind of understanding of the weapons, the law surrounding them, or the feasibility of suggested policies. No more so than victims of gang violence automatically understand how to combat gangs.

Hardly. Experience is irreplaceable. Would you trust a surgeon who has never performed surgery? How about a pilot with zero flight time? There's a reason why witnesses are called in courts, because experience is vital to a fuller understanding.

But if all you have is a witness then you have a shit case.

[Kernen]

Being shot at doesn't give you any kind of understanding of the weapons, the law surrounding them, or the feasibility of suggested policies. No more so than victims of gang violence automatically understand how to combat gangs.

Hardly. Experience is irreplaceable. Would you trust a surgeon who has never performed surgery? How about a pilot with zero flight time? There's a reason why witnesses are called in courts, because experience is vital to a fuller understanding.

Eyewitness accounts are the least persuasive evidence in courts. Juries listen to expert witnesses and direct evidence way more.

Your analogy to a surgeon is faulty. The analogous situation to your surgeon would be a policy expert, not a victim. That's like arguing that I'm qualified to perform an appendectomy because I had one performed on me.

[Ors Might]

But almost none, if any at all, have any experience in making policy. We don’t let victims of illegal immigrants set immigration policies for a reason.

The vast majority of people have no experience making policy. Should law makers simply ignore all phone calls and letters from their constituents?

There’s a marked difference in writing to your representative and actually bring that representative. One is simply voicing your concerns. The other is a position of authority.

[Fartsniffage]

The vast majority of people have no experience making policy. Should law makers simply ignore all phone calls and letters from their constituents?

There’s a marked difference in writing to your representative and actually bring that representative. One is simply voicing your concerns. The other is a position of authority.

Okay.... What does that have to do with lawmakers listening to all the people involved in a mass shooting?

[Hurdergaryp]

Basically this, a proposal should be based upon it's merits, not upon some magical credibility assigned to a victim of an incident.

This is why I'm becoming increasingly less democratic. Policy should be decided by experts, not laypeople. Laypeople are less than useless.

Technocracy is a good thing, but it's going to take real hard work to get rid of the bloated ticks who managed to network their way into influential positions and replace them with intelligent rationalists. You would have to put an end to all lobbyism, corruption and powerful organizations based upon mythological concepts, pseudoscience and other caustic nonsense.

[Telconi]

"The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

"We should gas the Arabs"

See, now that's a terrible policy proposal...

[Ors Might]

There’s a marked difference in writing to your representative and actually bring that representative. One is simply voicing your concerns. The other is a position of authority.

Okay.... What does that have to do with lawmakers listening to all the people involved in a mass shooting?

The fact that people are arguing that these people for some reason are authorities on gun control policy because they just so happened to be in a building where bullets were fired?

[Telconi]

This is why I'm becoming increasingly less democratic. Policy should be decided by experts, not laypeople. Laypeople are less than useless.

Technocracy is a good thing, but it's going to take real hard work to get rid of the bloated ticks who managed to network their way into influential positions and replace them with intelligent rationalists. You would have to put an end to all lobbyism, corruption and powerful organizations based upon mythological concepts, pseudoscience and other caustic nonsense.

Politics is in essence a pseudoscience...

[Fartsniffage]

Okay.... What does that have to do with lawmakers listening to all the people involved in a mass shooting?

The fact that people are arguing that these people for some reason are authorities on gun control policy because they just so happened to be in a building where bullets were fired?

I'm not. I just said they should be listened to.

[Telconi]

The fact that people are arguing that these people for some reason are authorities on gun control policy because they just so happened to be in a building where bullets were fired?

I'm not. I just said they should be listened to.

-shrug- an idea is only worth listening to if it has merit, by and large victim ideas do not have any merit.

[Phoenix2012]

Hardly. Experience is irreplaceable. Would you trust a surgeon who has never performed surgery? How about a pilot with zero flight time? There's a reason why witnesses are called in courts, because experience is vital to a fuller understanding.

Eyewitness accounts are the least persuasive evidence in courts. Juries listen to expert witnesses and direct evidence way more.

Your analogy to a surgeon is faulty. The analogous situation to your surgeon would be a policy expert, not a victim. That's like arguing that I'm qualified to perform an appendectomy because I had one performed on me.

So you're saying that because the victims have to be knowledgeable in gun design and gun policies in order for their thoughts to be worth consideration?

[Fartsniffage]

I'm not. I just said they should be listened to.

-shrug- an idea is only worth listening to if it has merit, by and large victim ideas do not have any merit.

How do you know that until you've listened to them?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Eyewitness accounts are the least persuasive evidence in courts. Juries listen to expert witnesses and direct evidence way more.

Your analogy to a surgeon is faulty. The analogous situation to your surgeon would be a policy expert, not a victim. That's like arguing that I'm qualified to perform an appendectomy because I had one performed on me.

So you're saying that because the victims have to be knowledgeable in gun design and gun policies in order for their thoughts to be worth consideration?

No, that's not what they're all saying. And that's not what I would say either, although I agree with them.

The problem is that victims do want to be listened to, and that's normal, and we should, but listening to them, and thinking they are experts in implementing policy just because they are victims are two entirely different things.

We need to acknowledge that this, in fact, happens. The problem is, when we try to implement policy based on feelings, it tends to backfire hard. Because retaliation hardly makes for a lasting peace.