Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A quick scan at your poll results seems to indicate about 57% view gun-control laws as either okay or not quite strong enough. About 43% think gun laws should be loosened or done away with altogether.
I am surprised the former count is so high, because I've got the distinct impression that gun enthusiasts flock to these threads in far greater number than those not so interested in guns. Or maybe even as gun-enthusiasts are counted, the majority feel gun-control laws are either okay or can be improved.
I didn't cast my vote, because none really describes my position just right, but if I did vote, it would be choice C (except that better enforcement is not the only thing needed).
I never said it was either/or. We have limited resources to attack these preventable deaths, so someone that is interested in saving lives first and foremost would prioritize. It is by necessity.
You have chosen not to prioritize, so by definition, your agenda here is not about saving lives. That much is indisputable. It might be an afterthought at best.
I hope people don't see this as you painting yourself into a corner. Your goal doesn't have to be about saving lives. If that's not it though, what is your agenda here?
And in fairness, my agenda is firearm education, and scrutiny of firearm law to determine which laws I'm for or against. Your turn.
Your assumptions, your premise, is not correct. You can most certainly prioritize based on any number of criteria, including available resources, but none of us need assume there are not the available resources to do what we can that makes sense across the board. If you had any sort of proof or evidence that a law intending to prevent a gun-related injury or death comes at the expense of NOT preventing another type of injury or death, by all means please bring forward the evidence of this you are so badly wanting to base your position.
If you CAN prove the need for that sort of choice, then I will pick as that proof requires, but you can't.
That's why I've been trying to explain to you, what our government representatives do with regard to public policy does not work the way you think it does. Can't think of any more ways I can make this any more clear.
A quick scan at your poll results seems to indicate about 57% view gun-control laws as either okay or not quite strong enough. About 43% think gun laws should be loosened or done away with altogether.
I am surprised the former count is so high, because I've got the distinct impression that gun enthusiasts flock to these threads in far greater number than those not so interested in guns. Or maybe even as gun-enthusiasts are counted, the majority feel gun-control laws are either okay or can be improved.
I didn't cast my vote, because none really describes my position just right, but if I did vote, it would be choice C (except that better enforcement is not the only thing needed).
A quick scan at your poll results seems to indicate about 57% view gun-control laws as either okay or not quite strong enough. About 43% think gun laws should be loosened or done away with altogether.
I am surprised the former count is so high, because I've got the distinct impression that gun enthusiasts flock to these threads in far greater number than those not so interested in guns. Or maybe even as gun-enthusiasts are counted, the majority feel gun-control laws are either okay or can be improved.
I didn't cast my vote, because none really describes my position just right, but if I did vote, it would be choice C (except that better enforcement is not the only thing needed).
You must be looking at a different poll or something because I'm seeing under 20 percent for the first two answers (in favor of stricter laws) and the other 80+ percent in the other categories (either leave the laws alone or make them less strict). The poll doesn't support the gun control activists in the least. You can't lump the responses of option 3 with those of the first two.
You must be looking at a different poll or something because I'm seeing under 20 percent for the first two answers (in favor of stricter laws) and the other 80+ percent in the other categories (either leave the laws alone or make them less strict). The poll doesn't support the gun control activists in the least. You can't lump the responses of option 3 with those of the first two.
That's the way I see it too.
This is surprising, since the Pew/Gallup polls show almost a 50/50 split between preserving gun rights vs gun control.
Your assumptions, your premise, is not correct. You can most certainly prioritize based on any number of criteria, including available resources, but none of us need assume there are not the available resources to do what we can that makes sense across the board. If you had any sort of proof or evidence that a law intending to prevent a gun-related injury or death comes at the expense of NOT preventing another type of injury or death, by all means please bring forward the evidence of this you are so badly wanting to base your position.
If you CAN prove the need for that sort of choice, then I will pick as that proof requires, but you can't.
That's why I've been trying to explain to you, what our government representatives do with regard to public policy does not work the way you think it does. Can't think of any more ways I can make this any more clear.
A good evening to you...
I brought into question your analysis on "what makes sense across the board". It can't be based off saving lives, we've already established that. What IS the board? Can you define your criteria? That's what I'm trying to get you to look into.
Until you can substitute some other reasons, you're bootstrapping. Your logic is incomplete. Your frustration in your posts is cognitive dissonance. Until you can reconcile your beliefs, you'll continue to struggle with questions like these. It's normal though. I did on topics in the past too.
Your assumptions, your premise, is not correct. You can most certainly prioritize based on any number of criteria, including available resources, but none of us need assume there are not the available resources to do what we can that makes sense across the board.
You can't make the converse assumption either. Here's the truth, either you have infinite resources (and you can't) or you're resource constrained.
So if you're resource constrained you have to determine what you prioritize based on what criteria. I'm a math guy (I'm sure people have noticed), and it's all about the numbers. My personal interest is in reducing harm, and still respecting peoples rights. That's why my gears grind when people talk about guns as a big issue, they're not. As #5 states, if the intention is to reduce harm, then the sole interest is in the numbers relating to particular harm inducing pursuits. As a country we continue on our merry way thinking driving is a low risk, we consider it safe to get in our cars and drive. But you are 25 times more likely to be injured in an accident and three times more likely to be killed in an RTA than be victim of a murder. I agree that driving isn't as high risk as some pursuits, like intravenous drug use, but it's not low risk either. This is why in the grand scheme of things I view RTA's and motor vehicles as a higher risk that firearms (not to mention that RTA's are the tip of the iceberg in relation to "preventable deaths" caused by motor vehicles), because the figures tell me that is the case, if you think they don't you might want to reconsider your calling as a "numbers guy".
Now prioritization, it's pretty simple, if you have to complete a set of tasks serially, which tasks do you complete in which order. If you can do tasks in parallel that's fine, but it does not change the priority of the tasks, we have a very small piece of pie in preventable deaths (and that's debateable whether they are or not) that is associated with guns, it's not a Pri 3 task, and the rule of thumb is all pri 1's complete, some pri 2's complete if it's pri 3 forget about it, and gun violence in preventable deaths isn't even a pri 3, it may be a feature request for the next version.
Now how you prioritize is your personal choice, but if you think guns are an issue, it's not because of numbers and stats, because the numbers and stats are quite frankly not in your favor without applying some personal weighting to those stats. As yet you haven't presented that weighting, or what you consider to be the priorities, just "we need to do something about guns, because the injury and death stats are not acceptable", yet rejecting evidence that we do accept injury and death at higher scales from other pursuits (cars, tobacco, alcohol), so why the discrepancy.
If you want to reduce harm, before we start trampling on peoples rights, perhaps we should address larger causes of harm than smaller causes of harm requiring rights trampling.
You can't make the converse assumption either. Here's the truth, either you have infinite resources (and you can't) or you're resource constrained.
So if you're resource constrained you have to determine what you prioritize based on what criteria. I'm a math guy (I'm sure people have noticed), and it's all about the numbers. My personal interest is in reducing harm, and still respecting peoples rights. That's why my gears grind when people talk about guns as a big issue, they're not. As #5 states, if the intention is to reduce harm, then the sole interest is in the numbers relating to particular harm inducing pursuits. As a country we continue on our merry way thinking driving is a low risk, we consider it safe to get in our cars and drive. But you are 25 times more likely to be injured in an accident and three times more likely to be killed in an RTA than be victim of a murder. I agree that driving isn't as high risk as some pursuits, like intravenous drug use, but it's not low risk either. This is why in the grand scheme of things I view RTA's and motor vehicles as a higher risk that firearms (not to mention that RTA's are the tip of the iceberg in relation to "preventable deaths" caused by motor vehicles), because the figures tell me that is the case, if you think they don't you might want to reconsider your calling as a "numbers guy".
Now prioritization, it's pretty simple, if you have to complete a set of tasks serially, which tasks do you complete in which order. If you can do tasks in parallel that's fine, but it does not change the priority of the tasks, we have a very small piece of pie in preventable deaths (and that's debateable whether they are or not) that is associated with guns, it's not a Pri 3 task, and the rule of thumb is all pri 1's complete, some pri 2's complete if it's pri 3 forget about it, and gun violence in preventable deaths isn't even a pri 3, it may be a feature request for the next version.
Now how you prioritize is your personal choice, but if you think guns are an issue, it's not because of numbers and stats, because the numbers and stats are quite frankly not in your favor without applying some personal weighting to those stats. As yet you haven't presented that weighting, or what you consider to be the priorities, just "we need to do something about guns, because the injury and death stats are not acceptable", yet rejecting evidence that we do accept injury and death at higher scales from other pursuits (cars, tobacco, alcohol), so why the discrepancy.
If you want to reduce harm, before we start trampling on peoples rights, perhaps we should address larger causes of harm than smaller causes of harm requiring rights trampling.
I am not making assumptions. I am explaining how and why public policy is not a function of assigning our resources in triage fashion. If I were wrong about this and any of you were right, that we somehow must prioritize -- pick and choose -- due to limited resources, we would be seeing news headlines reading, "Due to limited resources, all further introduction of new legislation to Congress is stopped until further notice." I am a little surprised I need to explain this and that the apparent need to continue explaining goes on, and on..., and on...
You must be looking at a different poll or something because I'm seeing under 20 percent for the first two answers (in favor of stricter laws) and the other 80+ percent in the other categories (either leave the laws alone or make them less strict). The poll doesn't support the gun control activists in the least. You can't lump the responses of option 3 with those of the first two.
Doesn't take a math wizard to see we're looking at the same numbers:
The first three choices are what generally seem the ones that anti-gun control folks don't find acceptable. The third, middle choice reads "... gun laws are fine, we just need better enforcement."
I know from reading lots of comments in these threads that a good number of anti-gun control folks do not believe that gun laws are fine. They believe they are unconstitutional.
So..., I consider choices A, B and C the more moderate pro-gun control choices and only choices D & C the more likely choices for the more anti-gun control group.
I think my other observations about this are not too far off either, but yes of course not everyone votes (like I didn't), and yes of course we're all going to interpret these results as our bias may over-ride. Hate when that happens...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've got to be moving on...
