Another mass shooting...

[JerryBaumchen 1,333]

Hi Derek,

Quote

And then what? Year 2, 3, 10?

I suggest that you quit nitpicking; it really belittles you.

Jerry Baumchen

[Hooknswoop 19]

This is why I do not believe it when people says, "It's almost comical that the right wingies instantly assume gun confiscation is the goal."

I ask for the goal and cannot get a definitive answer. 'They' want less shooting deaths and believe more gun restrictions will give them the result 'they' want Then they will want more, and then, eventually, the only restriction left will be confiscation of all guns.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Sorry, was doing it to make a point. Trying to explain why I believe the goal is gun confiscation.

Derek V

[billvon 2,881]

Quote

I ask for the goal and cannot get a definitive answer. 'They' want less shooting deaths and believe more gun restrictions will give them the result 'they' want Then they will want more, and then, eventually, the only restriction left will be confiscation of all guns.

So is it safe to assume the same motivation applies to you? That your desire to see tougher standards for AFF candidates - without being able to state a goal for the new restrictions - means you want to shut down AFF training entirely?

[normiss 756]

While busying yourself with ignoring the answers.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So is it safe to assume the same motivation applies to you? That your desire to see tougher standards for AFF candidates - without being able to state a goal for the new restrictions - means you want to shut down AFF training entirely?

Since you insist on the AFFI analogy, I'll explain.

in 2001 there was an AFFI instructor shortage. I believe this was because of several factors. The rating was expensive and difficult to get. Using the rating is a lot of work and you can make a lot more doing tandems, which is a cheaper and easier rating to get. AFFI's stopped renewing their ratings and less jumpers sought the rating out.

Instead of DZO's increasing the pay for AFFI's, USPA lowered the standards to get the rating. The measurable change would be AFFI pay going up with inflation.

The point I am trying to make is not to debate what the shooting-death goal(s) should be, or what restrictions would achieve that/those goal(s), but why I do not believe the goal is not gun confiscation.

I didn't believe that before, but now I do. I am trying to determine when that changed.

Derek V

[billvon 2,881]

>The measurable change would be AFFI pay going up with inflation.

How much? If inflation went up 1.2% a year and AFF-I pay went up 1.1% a year instead of .5% a year, would that mean your plan failed?

>Since you insist on the AFFI analogy, I'll explain.

OK. You explained why you have a personal, financial reason for making it tougher for people to pass the AFF JCC. That's fine. There are other people out there who think no one should skydive, because it's too dangerous/noisy/annoying. I am sure you can recall several examples. Also fine (for them.)

You have decided that people who propose additional restrictions intended to improve safety want to "confiscate all guns" because you found one example of such an attitude. With a bit of searching I am sure you could find a few more.

Conversely, I can (with just as much justification) claim that you want to ban all AFF training, because you want to make it a little harder to get a rating, and there are examples of other people who want no skydiving at all. Therefore, your goal is to ban AFF training, using the same rationale you have used above. "You" want tougher AFF standards and believe tougher standards will give you the result 'you' want. Then you will want more, and then, eventually, the only restriction left will be banning all AFF training. You will financially benefit from this, so of course you want it. And since it affects "other people" rather than you, you will see no reason to not ban it entirely.

If you are going to claim that you don't really want to ban all AFF instructor training - just make it a LITTLE harder, for a goal you can't quite quantify - you might have to admit that other people have similarly nuanced takes on regulation.

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

Sorry, was doing it to make a point. Trying to explain why I believe the goal is gun confiscation.

Derek V

It's a cost / benefit analysis.


Look at it this way - some (hypothetical) initial law is introduced that reduces the deaths by 50%, but there is some sort of cost to the ownership of guns. There is some sort of legislation that puts some sort of restriction in place, but both sides agree to it in order to get the large benefit of the 50% reduction.

A few years later another piece of legislation is proposed that would further reduce the death rate by another 20%, at the cost of further restrictions. This one is a lot harder to pass, but does eventually after much gnashing and wailing of teeth. Maybe the bill gets altered to make it less effective, but still producing a smaller decrease while not having so many restrictions...

A few years later a third piece of legislation is proposed that shows the death rate could be reduced by a further 5% if we introduce just a few more restrictions - at this point everyone pushes back and says 'No! We have a balance between the ownership of guns, and the price of owning them that we're comfortable with'.

It's an ongoing process with an undefined end, but one that is not zero gun ownership.


Banning all guns will never happen - It just won't. Get that out of your head as a target because it's blinding you to the possibility of ANY compromise.
If you see every alteration as inevitably meeting the fictional end result of banning all weapons then of course any suggested alteration is unacceptable. But your basic premise is (I believe) faulty.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You will financially benefit from this, so of course you want it.

Not really. Maybe $50-$100/year depending how much it changed. Not enough to change how often I go to the DZ/Jump/do AFF, etc. The whole issue is more about USPA serving DZO's instead of it's individual members than the money.

Quote

you might have to admit that other people have similarly nuanced takes on regulation.

Agreed. I suspect you are in that camp. But looking at anti-gun side, I believe there is a large percentage that says they do not want to ban all guns, but either actually do, or will when their initial restrictions do not do enough. There is also a percentage, which I believe you are in, that would be satisfied with a bit of restrictions for some return and would not eventually be for gun confiscation.

Not all pro-gun people are the same. Not all anti-gun people are the same. I get that.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

It's a cost / benefit analysis.

I agree completely. And I believe we are already at the; "at this point everyone pushes back and says 'No! We have a balance between the ownership of guns, and the price of owning them that we're comfortable with'." point.

Quote

It's an ongoing process with an undefined end, but one that is not zero gun ownership.


Banning all guns will never happen - It just won't. Get that out of your head as a target because it's blinding you to the possibility of ANY compromise.
If you see every alteration as inevitably meeting the fictional end result of banning all weapons then of course any suggested alteration is unacceptable. But your basic premise is (I believe) faulty.

I read all the proposals for gun restrictions and the easy ones, the ones I would not vote again (and might even vote for), won't do much, if anything. Then the "we must do something crowd" gets going again and then more restrictions.

Quote

Get that out of your head as a target because it's blinding you to the possibility of ANY compromise.

I keep reading this and have no choice but to consider the possibility you are right.

Derek V

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

Quote

It's a cost / benefit analysis.

I agree completely. And I believe we are already at the; "at this point everyone pushes back and says 'No! We have a balance between the ownership of guns, and the price of owning them that we're comfortable with'."

That's the bit I don't get.

I guess I can't understand how you can be comfortable with your country on average having a mass murder every single day that is on a par with third world dictatorships, and say 'yup. That's seems worth it.'
I don't understand how you can't WANT to do better - even if we don't see how yet.

I can understand how we can't agree on an acceptable target figure for reduction, but the concept that we should be trying to get some sort of reduction I would think should be part of human nature - striving to do better than we are.

Hooknswoop

I read all the proposals for gun restrictions and the easy ones, the ones I would not vote again (and might even vote for), won't do much, if anything.

I agree - we need to be leery of political legislation that has no tangible benefit. I made a post a while ago about the legislative crowd rushing through laws like this and using up the tiny amount of negotiation available on achieving basically nothing. The next time a law gets suggested the gun rights proponents can rightfully say 'but look, we compromised on x and on y! enough!'

Both sides are at fault. The NRA knows this tactic very well - give up stuff that isn't that important and keep it as political capital. The left need to be more responsible in looking for root causes instead of band-aids.

[SkyDekker 1,398]

Quote

I guess I can't understand how you can be comfortable with your country on average having a mass murder every single day that is on a par with third world dictatorships, and say 'yup. That's seems worth it.'
I don't understand how you can't WANT to do better - even if we don't see how yet.

Because he hasn't personally been affected. And any restriction would personally affect him. All dressed up in some asinine "freedom, fuck yeah" argument.

Remember the US is the land where mass murder a day is freedom and health care a privilege. Basic human decency is not part of the picture.

[normiss 756]

Then we're all facing forced acceptance of the fact that someone we know and/or love, WILL die for no reason from being shot by some gun nutter.
America, fuck no.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

That's the bit I don't get.

I guess I can't understand how you can be comfortable with your country on average having a mass murder every single day that is on a par with third world dictatorships, and say 'yup. That's seems worth it.'
I don't understand how you can't WANT to do better - even if we don't see how yet.

I can understand how we can't agree on an acceptable target figure for reduction, but the concept that we should be trying to get some sort of reduction I would think should be part of human nature - striving to do better than we are.

I absolutely do want to do better. I am not a monster. I just do not want any more gun restrictions. I would vote yes for increased penalties for firearm related offenses. I would vote yes for ensuring the background NICs list is accurate and up to date. I would vote yes for making the sales of bump stock or similar items illegal (I suppose that is a restriction). I would even consider voting yes for a 24 hour waiting period to purchase a firearm.

Quote

Both sides are at fault. The NRA knows this tactic very well - give up stuff that isn't that important and keep it as political capital. The left need to be more responsible in looking for root causes instead of band-aids.

Agreed. I am not and would not be an NRA member.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Because he hasn't personally been affected

You know this how?

Derek V

[SkyDekker 1,398]

I don't, it is an educated guess based on your postings. You are obviously free to now lie about all the loved ones that were murdered in mass shootings and how thankful you are they died for your "freedom".

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I don't, it is an educated guess based on your postings. You are obviously free to now lie about all the loved ones that were murdered in mass shootings and how thankful you are they died for your "freedom".

Good talk.

Derek V

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

I would vote yes for increased penalties for firearm related offenses. I would vote yes for ensuring the background NICs list is accurate and up to date. I would vote yes for making the sales of bump stock or similar items illegal (I suppose that is a restriction). I would even consider voting yes for a 24 hour waiting period to purchase a firearm.

Out of interest, would you vote yes for a requirement for insurance to be carried for each firearm, and for the owner of the firearm to be held financially but not necessarily criminally liable for any crime committed with it?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Out of interest, would you vote yes for a requirement for insurance to be carried for each firearm, and for the owner of the firearm to be held financially but not necessarily criminally liable for any crime committed with it?

No. For the same reason I would not vote yes for a requirement for insurance for free speech or require the speaker to pay for security on a public college.

Derek V

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Out of interest, would you vote yes for a requirement for insurance to be carried for each firearm, and for the owner of the firearm to be held financially but not necessarily criminally liable for any crime committed with it?

No. For the same reason I would not vote yes for a requirement for insurance for free speech or require the speaker to pay for security on a public college.

Derek V

The two aren't exactly equivalent, so constraining them together is unrealistic. I can't murder you if I say something nasty to you no matter how much it may hurt.

And if a speaker at a public event was doing something that may well cause damage I'd say that the institution would be absolutely right to ask for insurance.

You have the right to say what you want. NOT to be devoid of the consequences of what you say. If you incite a riot, you don't get to say 'I was only talking. Nothing to do with me..'

The consequences for immediate actions with a firearm can be many times more serious than for freedom of speech (in an individual capacity). I made the point earlier that holding all the amendments in the bill of rights to the same level of importance seems like nonsense to me - how do you hold the right to not being charged exorbitant bail amounts to the same level of importance as freedom of speech (or even to own guns, for that matter).

I think you should look at each right individually - they each have different consequences and complexities. I would also make the argument that they were written as separate amendments for just that reason - if they were all equal they'd be written as points in a single amendment.

[normiss 756]

Much like the Supreme Court deciding the Second also comes with additional constitutional regulations.

[RonD1120 60]

jakee

***Why? That was as far as I thought about it. Paddock is a total mystery.

The positives, from the progressive left POV, are that society would be so freaked out they would demand gun confiscation. The economy would suffer and Soros would make $Ms more on currency exchanges.

It is not better than the reality. It is just as far as I rationalized it. Then I went back to my morning devotionals.

If it is not better than reality, what do you mean when you say it is your 'best' fantasy?

Do you mean you think it is the most likely explanation?

No, it was the best fantasy I could come up with on the spur of the moment that early in the morning.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The two aren't exactly equivalent, so constraining them together is unrealistic. I can't murder you if I say something nasty to you no matter how much it may hurt.

You could yell fire in a crowded room....

Quote

And if a speaker at a public event was doing something that may well cause damage I'd say that the institution would be absolutely right to ask for insurance.

The supreme court disagrees.

Quote

You have the right to say what you want. NOT to be devoid of the consequences of what you say. If you incite a riot, you don't get to say 'I was only talking. Nothing to do with me..'

Right, so should you have to carry insurance in case you start a riot?

Quote

I think you should look at each right individually - they each have different consequences and complexities. I would also make the argument that they were written as separate amendments for just that reason - if they were all equal they'd be written as points in a single amendment.

I'll think about that as well.

Derek V

[jakee 1,429]

RonD1120

******Why? That was as far as I thought about it. Paddock is a total mystery.

The positives, from the progressive left POV, are that society would be so freaked out they would demand gun confiscation. The economy would suffer and Soros would make $Ms more on currency exchanges.

It is not better than the reality. It is just as far as I rationalized it. Then I went back to my morning devotionals.

If it is not better than reality, what do you mean when you say it is your 'best' fantasy?

Do you mean you think it is the most likely explanation?

No

So a best fantasy isn't the thing you want to be true. A best fantasy isn't the thing you imagine is most likely to be true.

What is the meaning of the term best fantasy?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,881]

>What is the meaning of the term best fantasy?

Whatever explanation is even marginally believable _and_ will get Ron out of the hole he's just dug for himself.