Gunder Bait

[ameerat42]

(It'll become apparent.)

I just caught some snippets of the tortured talk* about limiting gun accessibility in the US.

The underlying (il)logic is that "Guns don't kill people".

So does this mean some consideration about limiting their numbers, restrictions on who can get them?
- You "NO" the answer. Instead, the NRA - the default governing group - is backing measures to identify
students in schools who are likely risks to... [blah, blah, blah]

So, look out if you look weird:eek:

Etc. etc...

*Hence, not a "gun debate".

[Liney]

Strictly speaking, and bear with me on this, firearms don't kill people. From the perspective of an engineer, a firearm is a machine. The machine has a function which in this case is to cause the primer on a cartridge to ignite, which in turns ignites the propellant which in turn generates gas. This generation of gas in a confined space presses against the round or bullet, forcing it in the direction of least resistance which is along the barrel of the firearm.

In order to do that, the firearm itself has design features built in to ensure that this function only happens when the trigger is pulled (or whatever mechanism it uses). If it didn't have these design features then the chances of the firearm discharging at random intervals increases.

To go back to the original question, a firearm does not kill people. The person holding the firearm is responsible for using it a safe manner, and it is the person who holds the firearm that points it and pulls the trigger. Therefore it is the person with the firearm that kills people.

Society trusts people with cars, bikes, aircraft, and lots of other things with the hope that they don't use them to kill people. The thing that society in general has to work out, is how to spot the situations which could lead to persons using firearms (or cars, or bikes, or aircraft...) in a way that will kill people. Restricting access to firearms for these people is one way (either by removing the firearm or removing the person), another way is ensuring that these persons do not have the urge to pick up a firearm and kill someone. That is harder.

We now return you to your usual program......

[ameerat42]

Quite so, Liney. 100% agree about the responsibility of people.
Where it has been demonstrated ad infinitum that something
is amiss and that the very something is the questionable responsibility
of some people, the powers-that-be - and the default plutocrats -
come up with nothing cogent to address it. - Arm teachers! is a recent
catch-cry. If it was shown that armed law enforcement officers were
inept at their job on the day, what hope is there in armed teachers.

That's just an example. I wonder how much weight the "authorities" there
can expect the tenuous idea of "personal responsibility" to carry in the face
of all that has happened?

Ta for replying, btw.

[bobt]

Personally, I find the "guns don't kill people" argument to be one of the sillier arguments I have heard on any major issue! Of course they don't kill people unaided, but then you could apply that argument to legalise all manner of things which society regulates. Drugs don't kill people either, but do we resent the fact that Governments regulate heroine and cocaine? Of course not, because we recognise that people en masse are not collectively going to exercise restraint or common sense without some boundaries. People kill people with guns, and guns are designed for one purpose, and that is to kill.

Anyone who seriously believes that guns are not a problem really needs to look closely at the relationship between easy gun access and the mortality rate from gunshot wounds.

I am personally in favour of being able to use a gun for sporting purposes, provided that there are sufficient checks and balances to make it unlikely that I will shoot people instead of paper targets.

Guns should not be banned, but regualted in the same way that we regulate all manner of potentially dangerous things such as drugs, speeding, abuse of our fellow man and a zillion other restraints that we readily accept in pursuit of a safer society.

Oh .... one more thing. Killing for sport should be banned. Killing is not a sport. Duck shooting should be banned - end of story.

[Liney]

Bobt

Thanks for the response, although I would point out that you won't be charged with taking drugs, you will however be charged with being in possession of, or being under the influence of, drugs. The drugs in this case are "banned substances". Although you don't have to go too far back in history to find that cocaine was permitted in all sorts of products (original Coke a cola recipe anyone?)

Hunting goes back to the days of foraging for food, we started hunting for stuff which was slower than us, then we used bows and arrows to hunt stuff that was faster than us or didn't let us get close enough to hit it with a club. Firearms came after that and followed the tradition. Not every society that has guns has a mass killing problem, the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland have a high number of firearms per capita, but they also have a society where using them in a bad way is not acceptable.

The problem as always comes down to people, and more importantly people that can't be trusted not to mess it up.

[bobt]

The problem as always comes down to people, and more importantly people that can't be trusted not to mess it up.

Exactly. However, that is the universal problem which embraces everything we do as a society. I agree that it is possible to have a society in which guns and humans co-exist, just as it is possible to have a society in which drugs are responsibly managed and where human interaction largely happens without undue fuss. Nevertheless, what we have to deal with is reality, and it is self-evident that a society such as America is now totally out of control, and that there are too many free range loonies in possession of guns.

So ..... how does a nation like that reverse the situation? We can wander around saying that people shouldn't shoot other people, but that's clearly not a successful strategy. It's no different to saying that people should drive at sensible speeds, because we already know that without speed limits that won't happen either. So we introduce laws prohibiting people from either driving too quickly or shooting people, but still there are those who ignore those rules. So we place conditions on who can drive and we place conditions on who can have a gun. As we introduce increasingly restrictive laws we save more lives, albeit at the cost of some freedoms for the rest of us, but at least the rest of us are safer.

Neither guns nor cars kill people, but controlling the people who use those things to kill makes sense. That's where America fails miserably, because it fails to control the people who hold guns, and it fails to recognise that guns (unlike cars) have one primary purpose which is to kill. We are not allowed to drive racing cars on the roads, why should we be allowed to shoot weapons of war in peacetime? Do "sporting" shooters need AK47s ? Is there a reason civilians are not allowed to make bombs? All of this boils down to your statement "The problem as always comes down to people, and more importantly people that can't be trusted not to mess it up." We can't remove those people so we need to protect the rest of us from them instead.

[John King]

Bob, talking about regulations and the nanny state ...

Amongst all my other health problems, I have moderate osteoarthritis. It wouldn't trouble me much except that I have it in my lumbar spine, specifically in my lumbar facet joints. Treatment of choice is anti-inflammatories.

Now, I will be taking Warfarin for the rest of my life for a mechanical mitral valve replacement and the atrial fibrillation this periodically causes.

ALL anti-inflammatories are prohibited if taking Warfarin. They will kill a significant percentage of people who take any of them with Warfarin.

This leaves opiate based painkillers e.g. Panadeine, in its various forms. In order to protect the tiny number of people who are negatively impacted by these, our nanny state has implemented stupid and draconian laws "protecting" the millions of people who use these responsibly, and/or with no other choices. My doctor cannot even write out prescriptions for Panadeine, Panadeine Extra and Panadeine Forte on the same day!! Some bloody clerk in Canberra is overriding my qualified medical practitioner!!

This extremely simple example typifies many things that are simply not warranted or appropriate on the part of government.

The "nannies" who insist that "pain can be controlled" 1) prevent ordinary people from having access to minor painkillers; and 2) have almost certainly never suffered from chronic pain; and 3) are vehemently opposed to the whole idea of personal choice and ethics e.g. the personal right to access voluntary euthanasia.

State control of everything is not wise. It destroys any need to take personal responsibility for our actions. It leads to ever more authoritarian governments. It encourages the snowflake generation ... I will leave it there.

[ameerat42]

Bob, talking about regulations and the nanny state ...

...

The "nannies" who ...are vehemently opposed to the whole idea of personal choice and ethics...

State control of everything is not wise. It destroys any need to take personal responsibility for our actions. It leads to ever more authoritarian governments. It encourages the snowflake generation ... I will leave it there.

---Priddy powerful agents these nanni-particles!:eek::eek:

[bobt]

Bob, talking about regulations and the nanny state ...

The "nannies" who insist that "pain can be controlled" 1) prevent ordinary people from having access to minor painkillers; and 2) have almost certainly never suffered from chronic pain; and 3) are vehemently opposed to the whole idea of personal choice and ethics e.g. the personal right to access voluntary euthanasia.

State control of everything is not wise. It destroys any need to take personal responsibility for our actions. It leads to ever more authoritarian governments. It encourages the snowflake generation ... I will leave it there.

No argument from me on any of that! I have been an active advocate of dying with dignity for many, many years and I too have pain control issues and medical problems that necessitate jumping through government imposed hoops.

I agree that there is far too much regulation, and that the majority often suffer due to protection from the few. BUT ....... (there is always a "but")

Gun control in America is simply not on a similar or parallel plain. There is a huge difference between a "nanny state" and one which does absolutely nothing to control rampant and out of control gun ownership. The US could, and should, introduce some basic reform to at least control some of the most basic flaws in their system. Not having competency checks is a must; not having access to military killing machines is a must: and not allowing the proliferation of guns that exists is a must.

The are laws which are over controlling and patronising, but there is a huge gap between sensible gun control and open season on all guns. The USA has absolutely nothing to protect its citizens and the sheer number of deaths illustrates the need for stronger controls.

[Liney]

A very interesting debate, but if I can answer a couple of points:

Bobt

It's no different to saying that people should drive at sensible speeds, because we already know that without speed limits that won't happen either. So we introduce laws prohibiting people from either driving too quickly or shooting people, but still there are those who ignore those rules. So we place conditions on who can drive and we place conditions on who can have a gun. As we introduce increasingly restrictive laws we save more lives, albeit at the cost of some freedoms for the rest of us, but at least the rest of us are safer.

I've seen research papers where people in the UK were asked to drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable at (on a test track) and the speedometer was covered up. The majority of people who had been driving for a good few years settled at a speed very close to the speed limit for a motorway (70 mph), and that was with no visual cues other than the world passing by the windows. While we have speed limits there is a body of thought that younger drivers who have grown up with seat belts, power steering, ABS (or whatever your car calls it) and airbags drive faster because they have a belief in their own skills and also a belief that they will walk away from a crash because the car will protect them. This disregard for speed limits "because I know best" could then lead to a disregard for other laws. In short, they have no respect for the law or the consequences of breaking the law.

John

I am sorry that you are suffering so much from the pain. I agree with you regarding the control over pain killers (mind you, when I was young and used to get cough medicine with codeine in it my dad used to have to sign the poisons book before the pharmacist would hand it over), however again there are a minority who take these codeine based pharmaceuticals and misuse them. Instead of educating this minority, or restricting them from obtaining them, the "easiest" way is to restrict everyone.

To go back to the original question, and to extend the analogy of codeine based pain killers, here we have another product that is being misused by a minority. The product could be argued to be essential to some, there are those such as farmers who use firearms as tools to control vermin and are probably very responsible in their use and handling (I'll leave hunters out of this to avoid annoying Bobt). But again there are some who abuse their responsiblity and cause problems which re linked back to the product not the person misusing it.

The problem with the US in this regard is history. Through the misinterpretation of a legal document there is the perception that they have a right to own the product. And this "right" will be vigorously defended, which stirs up a whole separate argument. While school shootings and other mass killings get the medias attention, the day-to-day single deaths get lost in the noise and have almost become the norm.

How do we control the guns? Unless you want to see more death and bloodshed (even a civil war) I don't think there is the political backbone and legal authority to define and implement (bearing in mind legal challenges to any law) a workable solution that significantly reduces to a manageable number the number of legally held firearms (the only way to reduce the number of illegally held firearms is another matter, if you don't know they are there how can you control them).

Someone did suggest that the aim should not be to reduce the number of firearms, but reduce the amount of ammunition. It was said almost in jest, but it has some credibility. Of course there won't be much of an impact for a while until current stocks dwindle, there will always be those who can find a way around the issue, but as time progresses once the last round has been fired it won't matter how many guns you have when the only thing you can do with them is hit people with them.

[John King]

Liney, that minority who are abusing codeine based painkillers are importing it by the kilogram! Why I have the three different strengths is to limit my intake of the really dangerous component of them - the paracetamol! My GP has offered to prescribe straight codeine, but the combination with some paracetamol does seem to work better for me. I only take them at night so that I get pain and spasm free rest. I have had Tramadol in the past, but it doesn't really work for me.

If I take them during the day, my brain feels even softer and furrier than usual. Ugly ...

[ricktas]

In all this (US stuff), the one thing that stood out to me was the repealing of a law that meant people with severe mental illness could not get a firearm licence.

Yep. congress repealed it! Their reason.. it was discriminatory against people with severe mental illness.



President Donald Trump and Congress enacted a law that blocked a last-minute regulation from former President Barack Obama’s administration that required the Social Security Administration to disclose to the FBI information about people who are getting disability benefits due to severe mental illness. The rule was meant to make it a bit easier for the FBI to flag those with severe mental illness while doing a background check on a firearm purchase.

But the National Rifle Association (NRA) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), backed predominantly by Republicans in the House and Senate, argued that the rule violated the Second Amendment rights of people with mental illness without adequate due process.

So Congress voted to repeal the rule. And with the Congressional Review Act, the House and Senate only needed a simple majority, along with the president’s approval, to undo the recently enacted regulation.

So here is the US going through all these mass shootings and at the same time, letting people with severe mental illness gain firearms licences..

As an aside (and related to above posts), I do not have an issue with hunters going duck shooting, roo shooting etc. A hunter and a sports shooter are two different things in my opinion. I quite enjoy a feed of wild duck, roo, etc. But I am against shooting them and just leaving them dead in the field. Any respectable hunter would not do that.