Skip to main content

View Diary: Firearm Registration (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you know how to do a Force Field Analysis? (5+ / 0-)

    That is also sometimes referred to as a cost/effectiveness analysis.  The cost of doing something has to be weighed against several factors.  First of all, is it doable?  Can it be accomplished?  An unenforceable law is just that.  Unenforceable.  The 18th amendment was unenforceable.  Most of our current drug laws are unenforceable.  

    When there is a problem, all options must be weighed.  My favorite statistic for this kind of problem is the multiple regression, but in order to feed the data into the equation, one must have data that are both valid and reliable.  That is not currently available.  When you are flailing away at a problem without a good idea what might or might not work, it is a waste of time, energy and money.  Kind of like the cowboy who got on his horse and rode off in all directions at once.

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:57:11 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's a dodge (0+ / 0-)

      When the "problem" is stated in a way that is impossible to solve, any remedy will fall short.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:11:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Solution? I can wait. n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, rockhound, PavePusher

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:12:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  To your logic? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, oldpunk, Glacial Erratic

          Come up with a more realistic definition for a successful outcome.  The elimination of killing is not realistic.

          The second problem is whether banning or registering guns will keep criminals and mentally ill people from killing other people.
          Perhaps something like "The second problem is whether banning or registering guns will keep criminals and mentally ill people from killing as many other people as they would under current law."

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:26:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fair enough, and that could be a working (8+ / 0-)

            hypothesis.  Now let's assume we can put a study together to come up with some numbers.  At that point, the decision makers have to come back to the larger question of, 1) is it legal, and 2) is it doable?

            Traffic engineers and other safety experts have to grapple with this problem all the time.  So do leaders of military operations.  I grew up during WW-II and the operant question was how many casualties are acceptable for any project or operation.  In wartime, more casualties are acceptable than would ever be acceptable in peacetime.  

            How much do we have to spend on highways to make them safer, before you reach the point of diminishing returns? There is an old joke about airplanes.  It is possible to make a crash proof airplane; it is called a Tank.  

            The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

            by Otteray Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:38:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you (4+ / 0-)

              That's been my point all along, its a matter of degree.

              The two main proposals that I've seen that make sense are limiting magazine size and closing the gunshow loophole, which address two different kinds of questions, one narrow, one more broad.

              So, will limiting the size of magazines make it more difficult for someone to kill more than, say, six people before someone can intervene?

              And will closing the gunshow loophole reduce the amount of guns available to criminals?

              The benefits of allowing high capacity magazines and loose rules around gun shows must also be taken into account.

              There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

              by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:58:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've been to two mass homicides. (4+ / 0-)

                One used a 5 shot .38 special revolver. One partner assassinated his 4 business partners.
                Five shots, four dead inside of a chinese restaurant.

                Two: A plastic container filled with a gallon gasoline.
                87 dead.

                Not a single high capacity magazine used.

                Otteray Scribe's point:

                19 children under age 6, killed by a bomb, at the Murrah Federal Building.

                38 children killed by explosives in Bath Township, MN ~ 1927.

                Not a single high capacity magazine used.

                •  That's anecdotal (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk, Glacial Erratic

                  Not really gonna sway me.  Explosives are another issue.  Stick to the point.

                  There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                  by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:01:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, mass homicide and attacks on school children (4+ / 0-)

                    are the issue.

                    If not, then be genuine and come out with what's on your mind.
                    Others have done so, you can too, then this dance can end.

                    BAN THE FUCKING GUNS - ALL OF THEM.  NOW.
                    Either that, or let's address the issue of mass homicide by all methods, and the easily obtained materials and formulas for doing so.

                    Or, we can just settle for the moral victory:

                    At least we enacted a ban on the fucking guns. Sadly nothing really improved.
                     
                    Regardless, we banned the fucking guns.  Which really stuck-it to the Blue Dogs, Rethugs and Teahadists.
                    The real motivation for many here.
                    •  I'm reading your diary (0+ / 0-)

                      In the meantime, don't cast aspersions on my fucking motives.  I don't have a secret fucking agenda.

                      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                      by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:07:15 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I like the proposals in your diary (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      oldpunk, mahakali overdrive

                      Those seem like constructive ways to deal with the issue at hand.

                      The issue here is not mass homicide and attacks on school children.

                      In this case, the supposed problem is that criminals and a few mentally ill people have used firearms to kill people.
                      From the start of the thread.  So it is about guns.  I'm not saying I have the solution, but I'm glad you have well thought out ideas drawn from experience, so I welcome them.  I am a pragmatist.

                      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                      by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:19:06 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site