Jump to content

Python890

Authorized Seller Elite
  • Content Count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    %

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Python890

  • Rank
    ASF Citizen
  • Birthday 11/30/1989

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Madison, WI
  1. I don't think you're reading (or understanding) my posts. It's interesting to me that you dismiss things you don't understand because you're so confident in your intuition. I generally recommend understanding both ideas before proclaiming one as more correct than the other. I'm not that petty. I argue with points that are either poorly supported or wrongfully supported, regardless of the my personal opinion on the matter. It just turns out that you're spectacularly bad at supporting your points (and also at understanding mine).
  2. I don't think you're reading anyone's posts if that's your perception of what people think of you. Why do you think that? This doesn't make any sense at all. What kind of "DB link" is it? The only kind I can think of that could potentially be a problem would be a foreign key constraint, but that wouldn't make any sense for single people. It would also suggest that they're keeping male and female records in separate tables, which makes no sense. And even if they were using foreign keys (which would be dumb to the point where it's downright harmful in this context), you could fairly easily do a dump of the database and rebuild it without that constraint, and then go and re-add marriages however they decide to implement it. But really, nobody would use a name for this sort of thing. Names are terrible database keys; a primary key for a table must be unique - think about just how many "John Smith"s are in the US. If anything, the key (which is what you would "link" on) would be a social security number, and guess what: that's gender free. So really, there is no technical problem. And even if there were- you would not have to sacrifice any of the current marriage records in order to implement this. To put it simply: I think this is a BS excuse someone came up with, and it propagates because most people don't understand how databases work. Terrible question- even for playing devil's advocate, as explained above.
  3. Well said. TacticalAK47, I'm not telling you that your religious beliefs are wrong. My question for you (which I have asked you multiple times and is still unanswered) is the same as I said in this post: "Why do you want to control the legal definition of marriage, when nobody wants to control your religious definition of marriage? Why don't you want to let people do what makes them happy, when it comes at no additional cost to you or anyone else?"
  4. One day I hope you learn to think critically.
  5. I understand that you're only listing arguments others have used, but I would like to say: they are all terrible.
  6. If your reasons are tied to your religion, then you don't have much ground to stand on. Religious views should not dominate the legal system. If you really have no logical or rational reasoning behind your opinion that a subset of the population should be denied rights the rest of the population has, then in no uncertain terms: you are part of the problem.
  7. I don't think you're understanding the concept by any means, so I'm going to put some numbers to it to make this as simple to understand as possible. Let's say that right now, there are 500 guns, relatively evenly distributed among 1000 people. If you're a criminal and you break into 10 houses, you'll be able to acquire 5 guns (on average). You sell these guns, and like a reasonable person, you sell them based on the risk required to get them. Let's say you associate a risk of $100 per house, and you therefore sell the guns at $200 each because you had to break into 2 houses per gun. Your criminal friend has $400 to spend on guns, so he is able to buy 2. Now let's look at the same situation, except there are 200 guns distributed among 1000 people. If you break into 10 houses, you'll be able to acquire 2 guns on average. You still have the same risk for breaking into a house. But at a risk of $100 per house, you had to break into 5 houses per gun. So you sell each gun at $500. Your friend therefore can't even afford 1 gun- he has to really decide if the gun is worth it, and if he does and spends extra money, he is only able to buy 1. This is an insanely simplistic demonstration, but this is how economics works in general. The smaller pool of guns available results in more inconvenience for gun thieves. They need to sell the guns for a higher price to account for the fact that they're harder to get. Yes, your criminals can still get guns- and they may be able to introduce another source. But either way it will drive the price up in the illegal arms market, resulting in fewer guns in that market. The other key point is that all of these stolen guns start out as legally purchased guns- So with less legally purchased guns, you affect the illegal arms market. To those of you not TacticalAK47 (especially Shutaro): You and I know this isn't anywhere near an accurate picture of reality, so please don't bother noting its pitfalls. I'm just trying to relay a very general idea to TacticalAK47 because I think he honestly doesn't understand the economics behind it. This is akin to saying "We shouldn't prevent countries from having nuclear weapons, because it might drive them to create something even more devastating." The problem with that statement is, obviously, that nothing is stopping you from regulating whatever comes next. You could apply the same laws to ray guns as you could to firearms. Also, nobody said the first step has to be drastic. It could be gradual, as it has been over the past century. Prohibition would be a good argument for why you wouldn't want to pass a law tomorrow that says "Nobody can own any guns ever again, and by the way, the ones you own right now are illegal." This isn't really an argument to say that gun control wouldn't work, it's to say that people wouldn't support it. This is a completely different argument. Just because the current political climate in the US doesn't support universal health care doesn't mean that UHC doesn't work based on some overly simplified principle- it does work. There are plenty of countries that show this. Whether or not it's easy to implement in the US is another story altogether. Same with gun control- Europe is ripe with examples of gun control working reasonably well. Gun control isn't inherently flawed because "people will always kill people" or "guns don't kill people" or some other naive reasoning. I completely agree that gun control is impractical, unlikely to pass in an effective form, meets diminishing returns before achieving satisfactory results, and on and on and on. I don't support gun control. But to say "gun control is stupid because people will always kill people and guns are inanimate" is entirely naive, and that's the argument I take issue with.
  8. I'm familiar with the law, but what undesired effects were you talking about? Odd that you say this, because in the next sentence you criticize gun control for only being effective in the long-term. I would say that it is thinking two to three steps ahead. As I said earlier, "It wouldn't work" is a very different claim from "It would take a long time to work." Arguable- combine steeper penalties with gun control, and you get greater incentive to avoid firearms. But regardless- the more guns you take away, the higher the cost of a firearm becomes- both in terms of money and opportunity.
  9. Fixed. Knowledge and skill. But that seems to be enough, since criminals rarely modify firearms to be full auto. And the success barrier for manufacturing an entire firearm is much higher.
  10. The part you're missing is that a corollary of increased demand is increased prices. Case in point, full auto ARs are generally $10k+. You could steal one if you really wanted to, but again, the opportunity cost is high, even for criminals. Sure, it may still be possible to get one- but a lower supply results in less people doing so. If the US banned manufacture and import of pistols tomorrow, over time, the supply would dry up and they would be prohibitively expensive- for both ordinary citizens and for criminals. That's just how it works. I've given a solid example of where the US has implemented successful gun control- the '86 MG ban. What undesired effects are you referring to? This isn't a zero sum game- of the "better tools" you referred to (decreasing poverty, corruption, increasing law enforcement), not one of them would make additional gun control less effective. Gun control would simply be more effective if combined with those other tools. It's nowhere near the same as using your head to pound in a nail. It's not my solution- I am not a gun control advocate. I'm simply making a point that the anti-gun-control rhetoric of "Gun control doesn't work because guns don't kill people!" is incredibly naive and short-sighted. Gun control can work, and the fact that guns are inanimate has no influence on that at all. An argument of "should we tighten gun control?" or "is it legal to tighten gun control?" is independent of my point. As much as I dislike ignorant anti-gun arguments, I tend to dislike ignorant pro-gun arguments even more.
  11. I don't see how that analogy makes sense in regard to what I was saying. If you want to make a nail-pounding analogy to what I'm saying, then it would be more like: You don't build a deck using a single nail in every board- you have to ensure that you're not neglecting the actual plans for the deck and that you're using enough nails in strategic places for it to work.. It's not that the nail is inadequate for the job, it's that the nail has to work in conjunction with other nails in order to achieve its goal. Again, this is an inaccurate analogy for what I was saying. The big assumption you're making: that the manufacturing of ammo (and/or firearms) would be unregulated (or, at least, far less regulated than firearm purchasing). The ammo and firearm market isn't exactly booming in Europe. Sure, I agree. An effective implementation of gun control would be very difficult in the US. Potentially, again assuming you neglect manufacturing. Really, that's where it would have to start (as was the case with the '86 ban). By proxy, they generally do. Straw purchases, theft, and legal purchases account for the vast majority of the illegal guns in the US. The other big player in illegal guns is corrupt FFLs. Very few guns in the US are illegally imported or illegally manufactured. If you make it harder to get legal guns (generally through reducing supply), and you can recognize that an overwhelming majority of illegal guns begin as legal guns, then a corollary is that there will be fewer illegal guns. It's not a complicated concept. But again, if you only enforce at the last level (such as at point-of-sale) and neglect the entire firearm industry this country has, of course your legislation wouldn't work.
  12. *Sigh* Did you read the two sentences before that one? It's disingenuous to judge gun control on a "pass or fail" basis. Just because a criminal can get a gun doesn't mean the opportunity cost is low enough that they would.
  13. "It wouldn't work" is a very different claim from "it would take a long time to work." Laws are rarely repealed these days. Maybe, but that's independent of whether or not gun control can achieve what it sets out to do. So, saying "x doesn't work because Mexico can't make it work" is a bit of a meaningless claim. They can hardly do anything right. Edit- To address your other post: As I said, gun control can be effective depending on its implementation. If all you do is pass a law saying "it's illegal to own guns," of course that won't work- especially if your police are as corrupt as Mexico's. But this doesn't mean the gun control doesn't work, it means that law doesn't work unless you can enforce it- and can do so reasonably. Also, keep in mind how unfair it is to judge gun control based on whether or not "someone can find a way" to get a gun. I don't know any gun control advocates who have that expectation. The goal is to make it harder and/or more costly to acquire guns, resulting in fewer being used. It's not that outlandish.
  14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_testament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-...ory.html#page=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/world/eu...?pagewanted=all I hope I don't need more examples. An education in history (including what Pope Francis has done thus far) should suffice. Of course, there are two ways you can go with this: 1. "God didn't want them to do that!" - in which case, I would ask why they thought what they were doing (in the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc) was right? It's because the church at the time said it was necessary. Now, if the church at their time isn't infallible, what makes you think the churches of our time are? 2. "That was the free will of man, not God!" - okay, so then why would the church's current views not be seen as "free will of man" and not "the word of God"? Again, this subject is a bit off topic, but even the most religious people I know can recognize that things acceptable to religions change as society does. They tend to go with the whole "Bible as a metaphor for everything under the sun" reasoning, but they do at least recognize that the church changes as time goes on, just like everything else does. So, again, this goes back to my post (have you read it?) here. Why do you insist on pressing your religious definition of marriage onto the legal one? Believing in things for no reason other than being told that you should believe in them doesn't stand up to the level of scrutiny I require for opinions I hold. It might for you.
×
×
  • Create New...