Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Links234

When people talk about gun control, they're not usually suggesting a blanket ban, just have some rules or restrictions so that maybe, just maybe someone who was investigated by the FBI twice couldn't buy an AR-15 and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Conversely, legalizing marijuana is hardly the same thing as blanket legalization of all drugs, some are more dangerous than others!

But hey, you're fairly on the nose about blanket bans not exactly working as intended and having adverse consequences. Sure blows a hole in Trump's immigration brainfarts, blanket ban on immigration ain't gonna work, gotcha. Border wall gonna drive desparate people to enlist the services of coyotes who'll use them as drug mules and it'll fund cartels, gotcha.

recedite

Links234 wrote: »

Sure blows a hole in Trump's immigration brainfarts, blanket ban on immigration* ain't gonna work, gotcha.

*not actually a Trump policy. Just another strawman argument.

Mark Hamill

Sparks wrote: »

Your use of the word "ban" there is sufficiently loose that it's confusing the carp out of me.
We don't normally say that unlicenced firearms are banned; we say it's illegal to possess them. Because bans generally don't have exemptions governed by licence (I can't think of an example where they are).

There are plenty of things banned that have exemptions by licence, plenty of drugs and chemicals are banned for the general population, but obtainable with licence. Even the acts of distribution and prescription of many drugs themselves are banned themselves for the general public, but allowed for pharmacies.

Sparks wrote: »

It's not actually a ban on the ownership of firearms, it's a ban on applying for a firearms licence (yes, they're functionally very similar, but the difference is not trivial from the point of view of the law even if it makes little difference in people's day to day lives).

How is it any different?

Sparks

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There are plenty of things banned that have exemptions by licence

No, there are no such things.
Possession of items can be illegal without a licence, or they can be banned, but it's either/or.

plenty of drugs and chemicals are banned for the general population, but obtainable with licence.

Those aren't banned, they're illegal to possess without a licence.

Even the acts of distribution and prescription of many drugs themselves are banned themselves for the general public, but allowed for pharmacies.

Again, not banned, illegal without a licence.

How is it any different?

The law's written differently, it's enforced differently, and in one case something can still be possessed while in the other case it just can't be.
And I know it sounds like a small detail, but that's what law is like. The details matter. You can't just say "you know what I mean" because that just doesn't work (hell, most of the "law" part of human history before the code of Ur is just a long history of "you know what I mean" not working).

Hell, even when you're careful with language and everything's vetted, stuff still breaks (hence things like this).

Mark Hamill

Sparks wrote: »

No, there are no such things.
Possession of items can be illegal without a licence, or they can be banned, but it's either/or.


Those aren't banned, they're illegal to possess without a licence.


Again, not banned, illegal without a licence.

How can something be "illegal without a licence" if it hasn't been banned to that extent? And bans do not have to be absolute to be a ban, e.g. prisons (and some other places) are exempt from the smoking ban.

Sparks wrote: »

The law's written differently, it's enforced differently, and in one case something can still be possessed while in the other case it just can't be.
And I know it sounds like a small detail, but that's what law is like. The details matter. You can't just say "you know what I mean" because that just doesn't work (hell, most of the "law" part of human history before the code of Ur is just a long history of "you know what I mean" not working).

So you are saying that someone can be banned from applying for a fire-arms licence whilst still being allowed to keep and all firearms they may already possess? Because in the UK, they are just banned from owning guns at all:

(1)[Person with >3 years sentence] shall not at any time have a firearm or ammunition in his possession.

(2)[Person with 3-36month sentence] shall not at any time before the expiration of the period of five years from the date of his release have a firearm or ammunition in his possession.

Ireland is not too different, it does mention firearms licence, but it talks about holding a licence, not applying for one:

(1) The following persons are hereby declared to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate, that is to say:—
{SNIP}
(e) any person who has been sentenced by any court in Saorstát Eireann for any crime to imprisonment for any term of not less than three months which has not expired or has expired within five years previously

Sparks

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How can something be "illegal without a licence" if it hasn't been banned to that extent?

Because the two are seperate concepts in law.

So you are saying that someone can be banned from applying for a fire-arms licence whilst still being allowed to keep and all firearms they may already possess?

No.
If you're disentitled from applying under section eight (which is how it's phrased in Irish law), then you're not able to apply for any kind of firearm certificate. But that is something that applies to you, the individual person; while a ban is something that applies to the item, eg. flamethrowers.

Ireland is not too different, it does mention firearms licence, but it talks about holding a licence, not applying for one:

Technically it talks about certificates rather than licences (yes, that's an important detail, but for reasons to do with stuff outside of this particular question), and no, section eight is the list of grounds on which you can be disentitled to have a licence (you want to read section 4(2)(c) to see that - section 4 is where the conditions for getting a certificate are listed). If you're disentitled under section 8 then the Gardai are not legally permitted to consider your application, they are required by law to deny it.

Also, full disclosure, I'm pretty familiar with Irish firearms legislation because I've been studying it for fifteen years.

Mark Hamill

Sparks wrote: »

Because the two are seperate concepts in law.

That doesn't answer my question. Something is banned, with exemptions for specific licence holders. Therefore it is illegal without a licence.

Sparks wrote: »

No.
If you're disentitled from applying under section eight (which is how it's phrased in Irish law), then you're not able to apply for any kind of firearm certificate. But that is something that applies to you, the individual person; while a ban is something that applies to the item, eg. flamethrowers.

No, the disentitlement applies to a category of person, not an individual, and it refers to holding a licence not applying for one. So it is a ban on owning firearms.

Sparks

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question.

Yes, it rather does. If something is banned, there is no mechanism available to own it legally. In other words, there is no licencing possible (see, for example, flamethrowers). If something is merely illegal to possess without a licence, then a licencing mechanism has to be legislated for (see, for example, olympic air pistols). They are two separate ways of doing things in law.

No, the disentitlement applies to a category of person, not an individual, and it refers to holding a licence not applying for one. So it is a ban on owning firearms.

That's not correct, though I think we're mainly in disagreement because of what we understand by one specific word (in this case, "apply").
If you, as an individual, are disentitled under section eight then yes, technically you can apply, if by "apply" you mean "hand in the form to the garda station". However, if by "apply" you mean "go through the application process" (which is what most of us mean), then no, you can't, because the gardai are not permitted to consider your application. You're disentitled; the application is denied automatically. Even if the Garda looking at the form wanted to, he or she could not decide on your application (by which I mean, they don't even get to decide to refuse it; you never get to the step where they consider your application). The entire process is short circuited in the Firearms Act itself, because section four lists conditions under which the Gardai may consider your application; you don't meet them because you're disentitled; therefore you don't go through the application process the way we would normally think of it. Even if (hypothetically) the Gardai missed your disentitled status somehow, and wrote out a licence for you, that licence would be null and void because they did not have the legal authority to consider your application, let alone grant it.

As to categories of people versus an individual, that's not actually the point - the point is that a ban applies to the item and restrictions on ownership (such as licencing systems) apply to the person.

Yes, we use categories for deciding who is disentitled and who isn't - otherwise we'd have to have a record for every individual in the country that got updated on a daily basis for everyone as they aged, if they were convicted of anything, if they developed or recovered from serious mental health issues and so on; and that would be logistically beyond the abilities of the Gardai (not to mention a ridiculous waste of their time and a massive infringement on civil liberties). But the status of being disentitled or not still applies to an individual - the applicant. So I'm not sure what your point was there.

Mark Hamill

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, it rather does. If something is banned, there is no mechanism available to own it legally. In other words, there is no licencing possible (see, for example, flamethrowers). If something is merely illegal to possess without a licence, then a licencing mechanism has to be legislated for (see, for example, olympic air pistols). They are two separate ways of doing things in law.

:rolleyes: We have gone through this, there are plenty of this that are banned that have exemptions, a ban is not necessarily absolute - see the smoking ban.

Sparks wrote: »

That's not correct, though I think we're mainly in disagreement because of what we understand by one specific word (in this case, "apply").

:rolleyes: "Applies" doesn't even appear in the legislation:

(1) The following persons are hereby declared to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate, that is to say:—
{SNIP}
(e) any person who has been sentenced by any court in Saorstát Eireann for any crime to imprisonment for any term of not less than three months which has not expired or has expired within five years previously

You are badly trying to twist clear language (well, as clear as you are going to get in Irish legislation) to suit yourself.

Sparks wrote: »

So I'm not sure what your point was there.

My point was how is a ban on firearm ownership different from a ban on applying for a firearms licence. You have failed to show that, not least because we don't ban people from applying for firearms licences, we ban people from holding them. You might claim those two positions are equivalent, and I might normally agree, but you have been trying to argue this whole time that such differences are legally significant.

My whole point is that your earlier examples of non-ban answers to gun crime (post #1643) actually rely on a number of firearm restrictions (i.e. bans and partial bans) to be effective.

Sparks

Mark Hamill wrote: »

:rolleyes: We have gone through this, there are plenty of this that are banned that have exemptions, a ban is not necessarily absolute - see the smoking ban.

With firearms, bans _are_ absolute. The things that are not absolute are not bans and aren't referred to as such in the legislation (and yes, that detail does matter, it's law, not nattering over a pint in the bar).

:rolleyes: "Applies" doesn't even appear in the legislation:

You're looking at section eight, not section four.
Section eight isn't where the short-circuiting happens.
(And the fact that "applies" isn't defined in the legislation and we're arguing about what it means should be telling you something)

You are badly trying to twist clear language (well, as clear as you are going to get in Irish legislation) to suit yourself.

I'm really, really not. And honestly, there's not much clear language in the firearms act in the first place.
But it is a good example of why the difference between a ban and something being illegal to possess without a licence is an important one, because it's one Act that defines both (we have a prohibited list in there as well and everything on that list is banned; you can't get licences for them, at all, ever).

You might claim those two positions are equivalent, and I might normally agree, but you have been trying to argue this whole time that such differences are legally significant.

That's because they are.

My whole point is that your earlier examples of non-ban answers to gun crime (post #1643) actually rely on a number of firearm restrictions (i.e. bans and partial bans) to be effective.

But that's not what is actually going on in those examples, and you're taking the data that showed that one kind of measure works, and using it to support a totally different kind of measure, whose data shows it does not work.

This is one of the causes of the screaming fit that passes for social debate on this issue in the US - you cannot take data that supports one kind of measure and call for another kind of measure instead, especially when the data says that alternative doesn't work, and still expect those who would be adversely affected by it to support your argument. All you'll do is create two sides that yell at each other.

recedite

A loon has tried to assasinate The Donald.
Shooting Trump would hardly be consistent an "anti-gun" or "anti-hate" philosophy. But nutters will be nutters.

In a more credible threat, it has has emerged that Islamic fundamentalists may have been "encouraged" to do the deed.

Mark Hamill

Sparks wrote: »

With firearms, bans _are_ absolute. The things that are not absolute are not bans and aren't referred to as such in the legislation (and yes, that detail does matter, it's law, not nattering over a pint in the bar).

Nothing is referred to as a ban in legislation, the terms used are prohibition and restriction. So you are still making up distinctions that aren't there.

Sparks wrote: »

(And the fact that "applies" isn't defined in the legislation and we're arguing about what it means should be telling you something)

Yeah, it tells me that in post 1647, when you claimed legislation was really in terms of applying for a firearms licence that you were talking nonsense.

Sparks wrote: »

(we have a prohibited list in there as well and everything on that list is banned; you can't get licences for them, at all, ever).

But the lists don't refer to them as banned, but prohibited or restricted, so by your empty semantic argument above there isn't a ban at all (and yes, that detail does matter, it's law, not nattering over a pint in the bar:rolleyes:).

Sparks wrote: »

But that's not what is actually going on in those examples, and you're taking the data that showed that one kind of measure works, and using it to support a totally different kind of measure, whose data shows it does not work.

This is one of the causes of the screaming fit that passes for social debate on this issue in the US - you cannot take data that supports one kind of measure and call for another kind of measure instead, especially when the data says that alternative doesn't work, and still expect those who would be adversely affected by it to support your argument. All you'll do is create two sides that yell at each other.

Except a) the measure shown to work (whatever novel police procedures were in the examples) relies on the other measure (banning) for most of its effectiveness and b) the data doesn't say that banning doesn't work (unless you strawman the original claims in support of banning).

Sparks

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nothing is referred to as a ban in legislation, the terms used are prohibition and restriction. So you are still making up distinctions that aren't there.

So you're saying that I'm trying to point out that bans and restricted access are separate things... but I'm wrong and making stuff up because the actual legislation calls them prohibition and restriction?
Even though you have the actual terms incorrect?
Look, I'm starting to think you haven't read the Act here. Or more accurately, haven't read all sixteen of them and the dozens of SIs that stitch them together, or read the explanatory notes, or the EU directives involved, or followed the reasoning behind the legislation by those who framed it, or even read the operational guidelines behind enforcing the Act contained in the Commissioner's Guidelines, let alone read the relevant case law.
(I'm trying to explain here that the Firearms Act isn't a simple document you can just google and argue about, the thing is one of the worst examples of badly drafted law in Ireland, and that the Law Reform Commission and High Court judges alike have said so and called for it to be drafted properly. Seriously, it's a mess, here's a diagram of it. We didn't even have a legal textbook for the thing until last year, and that textbook now has errors in it because they've changed the law twice since it was published).

Yeah, it tells me that in post 1647, when you claimed legislation was really in terms of applying for a firearms licence that you were talking nonsense.

What it *should* have told you is that it's important in law that the terms be defined precisely because what is obvious and self-evidently one thing to one person may not be to everyone else (and there are several examples in the act where bad definitions cause that kind of thing in practice, which has led to literally hundreds of high court cases).
Which is pretty much the problem we've been talking about.

But the lists don't refer to them as banned, but prohibited or restricted, so by your empty semantic argument above there isn't a ban at all (and yes, that detail does matter, it's law, not nattering over a pint in the bar:rolleyes:).

Restricted in the Irish firearms act isn't what you're suggesting it is there. In the act, restricted is in reference to two separate classes of firearm which are governed by two separate licences which have different licencing procedures - you can have an unrestricted firearms certificate, for something like a smallbore rifle, say; and you can have a restricted firearms certificate, for something like a semiautomatic fullbore rifle (the full list of what kind of firearm is on what list is set out in three SIs). They're called restricted and unrestricted because Minister McDowell was not a very good drafter of legislation. In every other jurisdiction they'd be called different classes of firearm, for example in the EU you'd refer to class A, B, C or D firearms. But we had to be different apparently so we used "restricted" and "unrestricted" even though it's one of the dafter misnomers in the Act (because both classes of firearm are restricted - you can't have one from either category without a licence).

Except a) the measure shown to work (whatever novel police procedures were in the examples) relies on the other measure (banning) for most of its effectiveness

No, it relies on the article being illegal to possess. And, far more pertinently, on the police being directed to enforce that law and funded to do so, but that point appears to have slipped by the wayside here.

and b) the data doesn't say that banning doesn't work (unless you strawman the original claims in support of banning).

No, the data from the cited papers earlier shows that the ban used in Australia did not affect the already-declining rate of overall gun crime, nor did it affect the suicide rates, nor did it prevent the subsequent mass shootings in Monash and Sydney. Data from the UK shows that despite bringing in seperate gun bans twice, the overall gun crime rate went up substantially and they had subsequent mass shootings in Dunblane and Cumbria. I'm hesitant to trust US data, but it does indicate that the bans they tried there were similarly ineffective (but it's the US and their data isn't great so that's a debatable point).

Mark Hamill

Sparks wrote: »

So you're saying that I'm trying to point out that bans and restricted access are separate things... but I'm wrong and making stuff up because the actual legislation calls them prohibition and restriction?

You tried to claim that firearm bans are special bans that are always absolute, and that every other type of ban that has exemptions is not legally called a ban. I have shown that no ban, absolute or otherwise is called a ban, hence your legal semantic has fallen on it's face.

Sparks wrote: »

Restricted in the Irish firearms act isn't what you're suggesting it is there.

I'm suggesting restricted refers to what kind of firearm can be owned and by who, and it looks like I'm right. Even if not, you still haven't addressed the point that "ban" is not used in the legislation anywhere.

Sparks wrote: »

No, it relies on the article being illegal to possess. And, far more pertinently, on the police being directed to enforce that law and funded to do so, but that point appears to have slipped by the wayside here.

Slipped? I'd say more that you have pushed it. To go back to one of my earliest posts on this thread:
The police can only raid criminals and confiscate guns if ownership of those guns have been banned in the first place.

Sparks wrote: »

No, the data from the cited papers earlier shows that the ban used in Australia did not affect the already-declining rate of overall gun crime, nor did it affect the suicide rates, nor did it prevent the subsequent mass shootings in Monash and Sydney. Data from the UK shows that despite bringing in seperate gun bans twice, the overall gun crime rate went up substantially and they had subsequent mass shootings in Dunblane and Cumbria. I'm hesitant to trust US data, but it does indicate that the bans they tried there were similarly ineffective (but it's the US and their data isn't great so that's a debatable point).

Any you are still strawmanning :rolleyes:. The point of the bans is to make mass shootings less likely (because of overall fewer guns in circulation) and less dangerous (because of the guns remaining being smaller and less deadly), either or both of which the data does support. The bans don't address general gun crime because general gun crime is usually committed with illegally held guns anyway.

Sparks

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You tried to claim that firearm bans are special bans that are always absolute, and that every other type of ban that has exemptions is not legally called a ban. I have shown that no ban, absolute or otherwise is called a ban, hence your legal semantic has fallen on it's face.

...are you just taking the mick at this point?
A ban is absolute. That's how our law works. That's how the UK law works. If it's not absolute, it's not a ban, it's a different category of thing in those bodies of law. That's not even a debate, it's an axiom.

I'm suggesting restricted refers to what kind of firearm can be owned and by who, and it looks like I'm right.

No, according to Irish law, the term "restricted firearm" and "unrestricted firearm" both refer to classes of firearm which can be possessed under licence. They do not refer to the common term "restricted" meaning "controlled", because both "restricted firearm" and "unrestricted firearm" are controlled in that sense; the restricted/unrestricted distinction does not impact on the whether or not a firearm can be possessed. I know it's a bad choice of word, I didn't choose it, and we objected to the naming at the time on the grounds that it was confusing but we're stuck with it.

Also, the verb is not "owned" here, but "possessed". You can own damn near anything under Irish firearms law, it's possession which we control. Buy all the fully automatic 20mm cannons you want, have fun; but you can't ever actually have them in your possession.

Even if not, you still haven't addressed the point that "ban" is not used in the legislation anywhere.

The law uses the word "prohibited" and a couple of articles stating that they may not be possessed under any circumstances, rather than using a single word to cover something the framers wanted covered in more detail. I'm sorry they didn't write it so you would understand it, it's a genuine weakness in the law because if a law's not readily understood, that's a flaw; but as the freemen-on-the-land idiots prove on a regular basis, just because you disagree with how a law is worded does not mean the courts will agree.

Slipped? I'd say more that you have pushed it. To go back to one of my earliest posts on this thread:
The police can only raid criminals and confiscate guns if ownership of those guns have been banned in the first place.

And again, this is incorrect. How do I know it's incorrect? Because the police here have in many, many cases raided criminals and confiscated firearms that are legal to possess under licence, but for which they had no licence, making their possession illegal. That's how the law is worded, that's how the law is enforced. Again, this is not a matter of debate, it's an axiom.

Any you are still strawmanning :rolleyes:.

I haven't yet, so "still" is incorrect.

The point of the bans is to make mass shootings less likely (because of overall fewer guns in circulation) and less dangerous (because of the guns remaining being smaller and less deadly), either or both of which the data does support.

No, the entire reason for introducing the bans was to prevent mass shootings. Both in the UK and in Australia. In that, they failed, because subsequent mass shootings occurred. In affecting gun crime, they failed, because the rate of gun crime was not measurably reduced by those bans (and in the UK, the rate actually increased). That's the observed data, not hypothesis or conjecture or semantics. I don't quite understand how you can look at actual observed data and just dismiss it. If you had arguments about collection methods or statistical analysis or methodology, that would at least be something, but you're simply dismissing data because it doesn't fit your preexisting belief of what the answer should be.

Mark Hamill

Sparks wrote: »

...are you just taking the mick at this point?
A ban is absolute. That's how our law works. That's how the UK law works. If it's not absolute, it's not a ban, it's a different category of thing in those bodies of law. That's not even a debate, it's an axiom.


No, according to Irish law, the term "restricted firearm" and "unrestricted firearm" both refer to classes of firearm which can be possessed under licence. They do not refer to the common term "restricted" meaning "controlled", because both "restricted firearm" and "unrestricted firearm" are controlled in that sense; the restricted/unrestricted distinction does not impact on the whether or not a firearm can be possessed. I know it's a bad choice of word, I didn't choose it, and we objected to the naming at the time on the grounds that it was confusing but we're stuck with it.

Also, the verb is not "owned" here, but "possessed". You can own damn near anything under Irish firearms law, it's possession which we control. Buy all the fully automatic 20mm cannons you want, have fun; but you can't ever actually have them in your possession.


The law uses the word "prohibited" and a couple of articles stating that they may not be possessed under any circumstances, rather than using a single word to cover something the framers wanted covered in more detail. I'm sorry they didn't write it so you would understand it, it's a genuine weakness in the law because if a law's not readily understood, that's a flaw; but as the freemen-on-the-land idiots prove on a regular basis, just because you disagree with how a law is worded does not mean the courts will agree.


And again, this is incorrect. How do I know it's incorrect? Because the police here have in many, many cases raided criminals and confiscated firearms that are legal to possess under licence, but for which they had no licence, making their possession illegal. That's how the law is worded, that's how the law is enforced. Again, this is not a matter of debate, it's an axiom.


I haven't yet, so "still" is incorrect.


No, the entire reason for introducing the bans was to prevent mass shootings. Both in the UK and in Australia. In that, they failed, because subsequent mass shootings occurred. In affecting gun crime, they failed, because the rate of gun crime was not measurably reduced by those bans (and in the UK, the rate actually increased). That's the observed data, not hypothesis or conjecture or semantics. I don't quite understand how you can look at actual observed data and just dismiss it. If you had arguments about collection methods or statistical analysis or methodology, that would at least be something, but you're simply dismissing data because it doesn't fit your preexisting belief of what the answer should be.

Your post is just all over the place, hammering irrelevant semantics (in terms of this debate) and repeatedly touching on the same illogical claims and strawmen in multiple places. I couldn't be bothered to respond piecemeal (and repeat myself), so I'll keep it simple:

Bans can be partial or have exemptions (eg the smoking ban)
No ban uses the term "ban" legally - so you can't say the smoking ban isn't a ban because it doesn't say ban.
Restricted firearms and non-restricted firearms have different criteria for their licences - therefore restricted refers to what kind of firearm can be owned and by who. And regardless of what restricted means, it alongside "prohibition" is used in the law, not "ban".

The police can only raid criminals and confiscate guns if ownership possession of those guns have been banned in the first place - which requires a ban (in this on people with a criminal record for possessing guns).

Yes, gun bans are to prevent mass shootings, just like hospitals are for preventing death. But only an idiot would think that hospitals are a failed notion because people will still eventually die. It is strawman, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, to try and claim that the argument is that gun bans will stop all mass shootings. It is another strawman to refer to data on criminal gang gun crime (who generally use illegal guns and don't generally engage in lone suicidal gun man shooting sprees) to contradict the argument for gun bans.

Sparks

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Bans can be partial or have exemptions (eg the smoking ban)

To keep it simple, that's not how firearms bans work. Our law is not written that way, nor is it written that way in the UK.

No ban uses the term "ban" legally - so you can't say the smoking ban isn't a ban because it doesn't say ban.

To keep it simple, that's a freeman-on-the-land level of assertion, it's not how law works.

Restricted firearms and non-restricted firearms have different criteria for their licences - therefore restricted refers to what kind of firearm can be owned and by who.

Again, that's not what "restricted" means in the context of the firearms act.

And regardless of what restricted means, it alongside "prohibition" is used in the law, not "ban".

Again, that's not how law works.

The police can only raid criminals and confiscate guns if ownership possession of those guns have been banned in the first place - which requires a ban (in this on people with a criminal record for possessing guns)

Again, not true, possession of an unlicenced firearm is not an offence that requires that firearm to be banned. You catch someone with a 12-gauge shotgun robbing a post office, they don't get charged with possession of a banned firearm, they get charged (along with many other things) with possession of an unlicenced firearm.

Yes, gun bans are to prevent mass shootings, just like hospitals are for preventing death.

That *is* what gun bans are proposed for; it is *not* what hospitals are for.
(Hospitals are there to treat the sick; not prevent death).

It is strawman, as has been pointed out to you

No, it's not a strawman argument to cite the given reason for introducing gun ban legislation. A strawman argument would be, for example, to say that people think hospitals are there to prevent death and therefore that they are failures -- while the truth is that nobody thinks hospitals exist only to prevent death and are judged on that metric. Saying that gun ban legislation was introduced to prevent further mass shootings is not an argument where you have a hypothesis and supporting logic and data - it is just reporting what actually happened, and what was said at the time by those framing the legislation.

It is another strawman to refer to data on criminal gang gun crime

No, it's a strawman argument to say that that's what is being done (the statistics were not limited in that way in the research). Actually, that might be giving you too much credit, because it is rather implying you read the research and I'm now of the pretty strong belief that you haven't and are just arguing a position because you want it to be right no matter what actual observed data reveals or what the actual existing law says.

And in there is the heart of why there isn't a decent debate on this topic; it takes time and effort to learn what the existing laws are and what the data is on the actual problem; but it's far simpler to simply think up an idea for a solution that sounds truthy and then say that that's the obvious answer and anyone pointing out the inconvenient point that it's not supported by experience or data and ignores the existing law is then made the subject of ad hominem arguments and the data and observations and laws are dismissed without justification.

Do that for not very long at all and you have the state of the "debate" in the US. And you haven't solved the original problem either, so you're still seeing horrific stories on the news regularly, and then the same people who will not put in the time or effort to study the situation pipe up with the same argument that their off-the-cuff-first-thought idea is the obvious solution and round the cycle we go again.

Mark Hamill

Sparks wrote: »

To keep it simple, that's not how firearms bans work. Our law is not written that way, nor is it written that way in the UK.

To keep it simple, that's a freeman-on-the-land level of assertion, it's not how law works.

Again, that's not what "restricted" means in the context of the firearms act.

Again, that's not how law works.

Not once above do you actually present an argument against what I said, you just make baseless assertions around firearm bans being a special kind of ban, different to every other kind of ban.

Sparks wrote: »

Again, not true, possession of an unlicenced firearm is not an offence that requires that firearm to be banned. You catch someone with a 12-gauge shotgun robbing a post office, they don't get charged with possession of a banned firearm, they get charged (along with many other things) with possession of an unlicenced firearm.

Because possession of a firearm is banned without a licence.

Sparks wrote: »

That *is* what gun bans are proposed for; it is *not* what hospitals are for.
(Hospitals are there to treat the sick; not prevent death).

Treat illness to prevent death. More semantic nonsense? Haven't you produced enough?

Sparks wrote: »

No, it's not a strawman argument to cite the given reason for introducing gun ban legislation.

It is when you try and use an absolutist interpretation, which was never intended, to try and say they failed. All legislation is brought in to prevent something - be it drink driving, smoking indoors or possession of certain firearms by certain people. But it is obvious that there will be some people who will do it regardless, hence the legislation details punishments for those who do.

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, that might be giving you too much credit, because it is rather implying you read the research and I'm now of the pretty strong belief that you haven't and are just arguing a position because you want it to be right no matter what actual observed data reveals or what the actual existing law says.

We already went though your research. They all dealt with violent crime in general and both the UK newspaper and the US study reported on the effectiveness of, amongst other actions, being able to take illegal guns off of criminals. So like I said it is a "strawman to refer to data on criminal gang gun crime (who generally use illegal guns and don't generally engage in lone suicidal gun man shooting sprees) to contradict the argument for gun bans."

Not to mention, in all cases there was still some crime regardless of the other measures proposed (reductions were discussed in all sources, not total elimination), therefore going by your other strawman logic, these methods are failures too.

I'm not interested in repeating myself ad nauseum to someone twists everything being said in a condescending and insulting tone.

Hotblack Desiato

Jaysus wept. Get a room lads.

robindch

Sparks wrote: »

Robin, this is not the first time we've talked about this, and [...] I'm not willing to discuss it further with you until you accept the actual observed facts.

I'm wondering if you're unwilling to discuss it with me because last time we did, you ended up receiving a yellow card over in After Hours for personal abuse.

Anyhow, in previous post, you make the following claim about a NAS report, I believe the one entitled "Firearms and Violence", concerning research into gun violence in the USA:

Sparks wrote: »

[...] the National Academy of Sciences pointed out some years ago, there wasn't any trustworthy research in the US on this topic because all of it was highly partisan and usually flawed in some basic way, so the CDC is almost starting from scratch, at least where the last few decades in the US is concerned.

Can you please let us know where exactly the NAS report makes this claim as I can't seem to find it on a quick read through?

silverharp

Swedish Police would like your help to find these people smugglers :pac:


http://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/interpol-ber-om-hjalp-att-hitta-manniskosmugglare

Trent Houseboat

I don't get it. Their faces are blurred and I don't speak Swedish.
I don't know enough about Captain America to know if it's a Hail Hydra reference.

silverharp

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I don't get it. Their faces are blurred and I don't speak Swedish.
I don't know enough about Captain America to know if it's a Hail Hydra reference.

Sweden just being politically correct , the Swedish Police want these people caught but they pixel out there faces so as not to indicate their race

recedite

I'm pretty sure that is Michael Nugent at the top right hand side.

Pherekydes

silverharp wrote: »

Sweden just being politically correct , the Swedish Police want these people caught but they pixel out there faces so as not to indicate their race

I can't find that pic anywhere on the Swedish Police website. Can you link us to it?

Pherekydes

Pherekydes wrote: »

I can't find that pic anywhere on the Swedish Police website. Can you link us to it?

Not the police site, but reverse image search turned up SVT.SE (RTÉ equivalent)
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/interpol-ber-om-hjalp-att-hitta-manniskosmugglare

Which seems bizarre considering the images are available unpixelated elsewhere?!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36605791

Pherekydes

Deleted User wrote: »

Not the police site, but reverse image search turned up SVT.SE (RTÉ equivalent)
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/interpol-ber-om-hjalp-att-hitta-manniskosmugglare

Which seems bizarre considering the images are available unpixelated elsewhere?!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36605791

Yeah, the original image is on the Interpol website, and the Swedish Police link to the Interpol site, so where have the Swedish Police pixelated the pic?

More aimed at Silverharp rather than you...

recedite

Possibly whats happening here is the original image was produced by Interpol.
Then the Swedish national broadcaster, when reporting the story, felt the need to pixelate the faces.
The Swedish police probably haven't reproduced the pic in the original form because of their political restrictions. Or in the pixellated form, because there is no point. Hence its absence from their material, but they would presumably still like to apprehend the fugitives if they turned up in Sweden, hence they must link to the Interpol site where people can see the image in non-pc form.

Apologies to Michael Nugent, its just somebody wearing the same shirt.

silverharp

Pherekydes wrote: »

Yeah, the original image is on the Interpol website, and the Swedish Police link to the Interpol site, so where have the Swedish Police pixelated the pic?

More aimed at Silverharp rather than you...

just me being flippant but on the basis that the police depend on the media they have their hands tied none the less.

robindch

Missed this one last March - the LSE students' union asked women at a womens' issues event not to clap as it clapping was "triggering". And to use Jazz Hands instead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32032291/students-swap-clapping-for-jazz-hands-at-nus-event