MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Wednesday, December 24, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 35.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby wack wack » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:34 am

Sandi wrote:Interesting that you appear more concerned for the accuracy of the title than the welfare of the woman.


Are you suggesting that you are concerned about the well-being of the woman? Comical.

The things you expect others to believe about you get more absurd by the day.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3192
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby fisticuffs » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:38 am

I'm not worried about ex marine's carrying I'm worried about frightened dip shits with zero training and respect for the weapon carrying.

Wouldn't "gun grabbing" require grabbing guns? Is that what liberals have proposed? Seems they even passed something through committee today.

Sandi,
Is it the first step towards a Nazi-like police state as warned about by the NRA?
Does it repeal the second amendment?
Does it "grab" any guns at all?
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby TheBookPolice » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:45 am

Let's pretend the title of this thread is grammatically sound.

wack wack wrote:
Sandi wrote:Interesting that you appear more concerned for the accuracy of the title than the welfare of the woman.

Are you suggesting that you are concerned about the well-being of the woman? Comical..

This nails it. Conversation over. Sandi, you could have titled this thread (again, assuming you brushed up your subject/verb agreement chops) "Woman saved by handgun-carrying ex-Marine." The fact that the handgun is the Thing of Primary Importance in the way you crafted your title is telling.

(Just don't title it "Woman saved from being beaten by an ex-Marine with a gun," or else we'd all have a laugh all the same.)
TheBookPolice
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8413
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby rabble » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:22 am

I'm trying to figure out the standard operating procedure here. The basic steps seem to be
1. Find a story that appears to support a conservative talking point.
2. Post it to the forum.
3. Get mad when bad grammar or spelling errors are laughed at.
4 Call everyone a bunch of fucking name calling idiots.
5. Ignore any logical arguments that disprove the main theory.
5a. Repeat "Google is your friend." over and over.
6 Leave.
7. Find a story that appears to support a conservative talking point.

Steps 3, 4, and 5 can change order or repeat a few times.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6551
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby fennel » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:27 am

rabble wrote: ...
Steps 3, 4, and 5 can change order or repeat a few times.

Which step is "Profit!"?
fennel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3242
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby jjoyce » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:35 am

Sandi wrote:you fucking idiots


Repeated for posterity.
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby gargantua » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:44 am

Sandi wrote:you fucking idiots would derail it into a name calling bash.


A more complete quote to highlight the internal contradiction.
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby massimo » Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:02 am

Sandi wrote:you fucking idiots would derail it into a name calling bash.

Well, for the record, I was trying to derail it into a discussion about banana grabbers, but you fucking idiots apparently don't care.
massimo
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby lukpac » Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:18 am

massimo wrote:
Sandi wrote:you fucking idiots would derail it into a name calling bash.

Well, for the record, I was trying to derail it into a discussion about banana grabbers, but you fucking idiots apparently don't care.


I would have done the same, but you beat me to it.

Image
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby kurt_w » Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:30 am

ArturoBandini wrote:
pjbogart wrote:That's a great point, Arturo, and it nicely segues into an important point about politics overall: If you can't guarantee that a law will solve a problem or if it may take time to solve the problem, it's better to simply do nothing.
It's not an issue of "guaranteed to work" or not - there is good evidence that gun control laws will not be even remotely as effective at accomplishing their goals as their backers claim. Additionally, such laws may backfire in unpredicted ways and cause more harm than good. It's not a matter of a few cases slipping through the cracks, but the creation of a law that is practically unenforceable, or worse, selectively enforceable at the whim of whoever holds power at the moment.

And I'm not saying that gun violence is insolvable. But it's probably not solvable with laws alone. I think it's probably better to spend political capital on something else.


Arturo, I'm curious. Is there anything in your response there that couldn't equally well be applied to, say, drunk driving laws?

Obviously, there are differences outside of the scope of your argument here (in particular, the 2nd amendment and its interpretation by the courts give gun control laws certain hurdles to cross that anti-drunk-driving laws don't have to face).

But the kind of argument you're citing here looks pretty non-persuasive to me. We don't normally require laws to be 100% effective, or perfectly enforceable, or capable of solving social problems entirely on their own rather than in combination with other forms of social action.

People still do drive drunk. And part of the reduction in drunk driving has come from non-governmental action (social pressure, basically). But ... does that mean laws against drunk driving aren't useful?

We don't have to choose only one single way to reduce gun violence. Better gun control laws might only solve part of the problem, but the same is true of all the alternatives that conservatives have been promoting in the aftermath of Sandy Hook (better identification and treatment of mental illness, reducing gratuitous violence in media and entertainment, better security in public places, etc.)

None of those would solve the problem on its own. But so what? We can walk and chew gum at the same time, right?
kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby ArturoBandini » Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:03 pm

kurt_w wrote:Arturo, I'm curious. Is there anything in your response there that couldn't equally well be applied to, say, drunk driving laws?

Obviously, there are differences outside of the scope of your argument here (in particular, the 2nd amendment and its interpretation by the courts give gun control laws certain hurdles to cross that anti-drunk-driving laws don't have to face).
You've already found where the drunk driving and gun laws are distinctly different - one is dealing with an incursion into an activity explicitly protected by a Constitutional right, where the other (drunk driving) is not specifically mentioned as a right of the people. There is overlap between the two arguments though, but I don't want to turn this into a conversation about drunk driving laws necessarily.
kurt_w wrote:But the kind of argument you're citing here looks pretty non-persuasive to me. We don't normally require laws to be 100% effective, or perfectly enforceable, or capable of solving social problems entirely on their own rather than in combination with other forms of social action.
Sure, laws may not be 100% effective. But if we could rate the effectiveness of laws in quantitative terms (for instance, if the goal is to reduce gun deaths, we can count gun deaths), we'd find that some laws are not only poorly effective, but have negative effectiveness (e.g. gun deaths increase after gun control laws). We should work to avoid this sort of law or program.

My suspicion is that gun control laws that could actually work would be extremely authoritarian and harsh, as in, if you aren't a police officer and are caught with any gun, you are imprisoned or flogged. This would probably need to be accompanied by outright confiscation of existing firearms. I'm not advocating such a program, indeed I am offended by the idea of such a program, but I think that's mechanically how gun control would need to function in order to be effective. Partial/half measures may have positive effectiveness, or maybe negative, I'm not sure. I prefer freedom accompanied by risk.
kurt_w wrote:People still do drive drunk. And part of the reduction in drunk driving has come from non-governmental action (social pressure, basically). But ... does that mean laws against drunk driving aren't useful?
The other factors that have helped reduce drunk driving do not mean that dd laws aren't useful. They are (effectively) unrelated factors. I'm not informed well enough to isolate and measure the impact of drunk driving laws in relation to other drunk driving trends.
kurt_w wrote:We don't have to choose only one single way to reduce gun violence. Better gun control laws might only solve part of the problem, but the same is true of all the alternatives that conservatives have been promoting in the aftermath of Sandy Hook (better identification and treatment of mental illness, reducing gratuitous violence in media and entertainment, better security in public places, etc.)

None of those would solve the problem on its own. But so what? We can walk and chew gum at the same time, right?
Sure, but we can also chew gum and play in traffic at the same time. It doesn't matter how many actions are taken, but whether some or all of those actions are more harmful than inaction. I don't think that any of the proposed causes or solutions are going to have much effect, if any, including most of the lame-ass proposals by conservatives. It will be hard to measure both the costs and benefits of the laws. I tend to adopt an attitude something akin to the precautionary principle when it comes to new laws of uncertain efficacy. There are too many ways for things to go wrong, especially when you are dealing with police powers granted to humans to be wielded over other humans. I see no evidence that actions taken on the basis of an attitude like, "well, we have to do something," will not turn out worse on net than doing nothing at all.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:20 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:My suspicion is that gun control laws that could actually work would be extremely authoritarian and harsh, as in, if you aren't a police officer and are caught with any gun, you are imprisoned or flogged.


That philosophy could be applied to ANY law if you wanted to. Then again, I know you're not too keen on laws anyways.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby ouroborus4 » Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:35 pm

Yes, these two points:

ArturoBandini wrote:
I prefer freedom accompanied by risk.

There are too many ways for things to go wrong, especially when you are dealing with police powers granted to humans to be wielded over other humans.
ouroborus4
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:01 am

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:43 pm

Maybe Sandi forgot the comma, as in:

"Handgun, stop a woman from being beaten." It makes total sense that someone would talk to their handgun in such a manner. I guarantee Dman does.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby kurt_w » Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:51 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:
kurt_w wrote:Arturo, I'm curious. Is there anything in your response there that couldn't equally well be applied to, say, drunk driving laws?

Obviously, there are differences outside of the scope of your argument here (in particular, the 2nd amendment and its interpretation by the courts give gun control laws certain hurdles to cross that anti-drunk-driving laws don't have to face).
You've already found where the drunk driving and gun laws are distinctly different - one is dealing with an incursion into an activity explicitly protected by a Constitutional right, where the other (drunk driving) is not specifically mentioned as a right of the people.


Yes, I already made that point. I was specifically not saying that "gun control laws are the same as drunk driving laws". I was addressing only one particular type of argument against gun control laws; the type you were making in your comment to which I replied.

Sure, laws may not be 100% effective. But if we could rate the effectiveness of laws in quantitative terms (for instance, if the goal is to reduce gun deaths, we can count gun deaths), we'd find that some laws are not only poorly effective, but have negative effectiveness [...] We should work to avoid this sort of law or program.


OK. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

My suspicion is that gun control laws that could actually work would be extremely authoritarian and harsh, as in, if you aren't a police officer and are caught with any gun, you are imprisoned or flogged.


"Flogging"? Sorry, but that is the kind of hyperbole that makes people who aren't gun nuts roll their eyes. That really doesn't help your case.

We don't have to choose only one single way to reduce gun violence. Better gun control laws might only solve part of the problem, but the same is true of all the alternatives that conservatives have been promoting in the aftermath of Sandy Hook (better identification and treatment of mental illness, reducing gratuitous violence in media and entertainment, better security in public places, etc.)

None of those would solve the problem on its own. But so what? We can walk and chew gum at the same time, right?
Sure, but we can also chew gum and play in traffic at the same time. It doesn't matter how many actions are taken, but whether some or all of those actions are more harmful than inaction.


OK, I get that you assume that gun laws will make things worse rather than better. That really is the crux of the argument. No one wants to pass laws that have negative effectiveness, they just disagree with you about whether the effects of proposed laws are on balance positive or negative.

But you said more than that in your original comment. Specifically, you ended it with this: "And I'm not saying that gun violence is insolvable. But it's probably not solvable with laws alone. "

That's the point I was responding to. Who cares if a given problem can't be solved "with laws alone". We don't use that criterion in any other circumstance; why use it now?

We try to reduce theft by (a) laws against theft, and (b) other social mechanisms such as training children to think that theft is morally wrong.

We try to reduce pollution by (a) laws against pollution, and (b) socially stigmatizing companies that pollute.

And so on. There might be (actually, there are) other reasons why we might not want to pursue gun control laws. But "the problem of gun violence can't be solved solely by gun control laws" is a profoundly illogical argument against gun control.
kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar