It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Fran – gun advocates are generally fighting for the right to conceal weapons not to display them. A concealed weapon causes less offence to those that are gun phobic, provides greater general deference to criminals as they don’t know which potential victim is armed. Brandishing a weapon is generally regarded as an intimidating act and concealment ensures no misunderstanding. For you to claim that gun advocates champaign for the right to openly carry weapons is a bit of a mischaracterisation. It is in general gun control advocates that insist that guns should be on display (and then banned).
I suspect that criminals would be able to remove or disable RFIDs pretty quickly so it would be mostly law abiding citizens and police advertising their firearm status. Perfect for bad guys who want to ensure a power unbalance before they pounce. Openly advertising RFIDs also reveal those who probably aren’t armed.
I don’t have any argument with the notion that police should lift their standards regarding storage. This is low hanging fruit which the executive can pursue without new laws. Why don’t they?
@Michael
What a wonderful description of ‘life’ you have just made: doesn’t live up to expectations, is often over budget (Credit Card debt, anyone ?) and can lead to unintended consequences.
@Michael
I doubt that “often” is a testable claim here. Typically, when people make such claims they make them because what happens most of the time doesn’t happen on a specific occasion when it causes a nuisance. Yesterday, I tried to set up our end of Connected Classroom video conference. Unlike all the other weeks it has worked, there was a glitch. It was damned annoying, but as it turned out, we’d been supplied some wrong data for the phone hook up. It happens.
IT, like every other innovation developed by civilisation, creates new opportunities and unanticipated problems. Every solution creates a problem, and every problem focuses people on solutions. Yet at the end of each cycle, we stand better than at the end of the last. This is how progress happens.
That’s not to say technology shouldn’t be tried, your ideas have merit, just that you can expect problems and cost over-runs getting it to work. This is why I raised the cost-benefit argument of regulating dangerous activities earlier. I also agree on your comments regarding the insulation scheme. IMHO the solution to bad government isn’t less government, it’s better government.
@Michael
What a wonderful description of ‘life’ you have just made: doesn’t live up to expectations, is often over budget (Credit Card debt, anyone ?) and can lead to unintended consequences.
I guess we’d better just reject it on that basis, eh ?
@Fran Barlow
Ever used Access Grid? I should have phrased it better – some technology “rarely” lives up to expectations, is never finished, just continually developed and is rarely used (but often demo’d).
@Michael
What Rumsfeld might have called an unknown unkown … When you brerak new ground i.e. when you engage in “discontinuous improvement” processes, you must justify it on the high risk high return basis. You have a budget in time and cost that is as close as informed guesswork allows and you hope that you are right. You do pilot work to see if your guesses have been close. The you scale to a wider project and see if you are still in the ball park. You allow your time schedule to reflect the downside risk of not doing anything or doing something less radical.
@Fran Barlow
Although Queensland is probably one of the few places where Access Grid is successfully used.
The argument over big government versus small government is separate to the non argument over good government versus bad government. Nobody argues for bad government except on some occasions when defending big government.
Terje
While the evidence on the effects of stricter gun control in Australia is inconclusive (eg fewer gun suicides, but the trend was down before the laws), the main point is that guns are more lethal than most other weapons, and most deaths (and most homicides) arise not from calculation but from accident, stupidity, carelessness and immediate emotional reaction. So more guns (absent countervailing factors) means more accidental deaths. Eg, in the US more children die annually in gun accidents than murder victims.
They knew this in the West. Dodge City had strict gun control laws – the innocent drinkers in the saloon were in more danger if guns were allowed than the bandits.
I wonder what RFID proximity detectors will sell for once your policy is in place Fran.
No they just don’t bother trying to achieve good government – see the G.W.Bush presidency
Peter – the Howard reforms did not attempt to reduce the number of guns in society and as far as I can tell it didn’t. What it did aim to do was to displace semi-automatic weapons. Any claim that suicide is easier with a semi-automatic weapon kind of overlooks some basic physics an physiology. A single bullet will do and a second bullet is generally hard to achieve.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
About what they sell for now, at a guess. Why would a large number of people want one?
Just because you can do stuff, doesn’t mean you will do stuff. I suppose the occasional tin foil hat type might generate some business for Jaycar but I don’t see this as a serious business opportunity.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Actually, nearly the opposite is the case. Arguing for bad government is generally arguing the case for less government. In Somalia, there has been nothing much like government for a generation, and hasn’t that worked out well?
The real issue is not big versus small government but whether the area which is the target for government policy is an area in which the kind of collective action problem that exists is one that government in a broad sense is best equipped to resolve, and is serious enough to warrant resolution, bearing in mind the likely social costs of action, the probability of success etc …
Rightwing populist slogans about “big government” amount to little more than vacuous handwaving.
Fran – perhaps if I was a bank robber I might use it to scan the area for devices known to be associate with the police before deciding on whether to proceed. Being able to keep tabs on the number of cops in any given area could be handy.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
I see. So you’re worried that there will be a technologically-driven surge in bank robberies based on RFIDs in guns? Amazing. Don’t you think that these days what they might discover is that banks have security guards in them? Cameras in the bank? Can you really be claiming that knowledge of where the police are in the minutes before a robbery is the threshhold data point for bank robberies?
I think you need to stop watching hollywood action movies. They are fantasies you know.
I gasp at the magnitude of the nonsense you are willing to utter to vent your cultural preferences.
So you don’t think the proximity of police acts as a crime deterent? Ever heard of radar detectors?
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Threshhold data reasoning flaw: Belief that one is in an area covered by effectuive policing is salient because to anyone tempted to speed is likely to regard the data value as decisive one way or the other.
Knowledge that there are no police in the immediate area is not of benefit to putative bankrobbers because
a) the area for which the data could be true would be very limited and too small to be of value given the likely window of opportunity necessary to rob a bank. Of course, believing that your wireless scanner is 100% accurate would be minimally necessary, and if there were even a 10% chance of error, the device would be of little value. And what does one do if one finds there are police locally? Wait until they go? Pick another bank?
b) other security measures (e.g security windows, staining, security guards, cameras) are likely to be more salient and are unaffected by the value of (a) above
Fran – bank robbery was meant to provide the general idea not as a specific suggestion. But if you were about to rob a bank then knowing that police were in the proximity would be reasonable grounds for deferal. Criminals do plan things. The major deterent associated with police or armed citizens is the uncertainty. It is why the police advertise in regards to drink driving that they will be there when you least expect it. They are playing with peoples sence of risk. They don’t tell you that they will be on Main Street on Fridays and Back Street on Tuesdays and too busy with paperwork on Mondays to care.
p.s. The reasoning behind radio silence in combat situations also comes to mind.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Ah … like your mascot, you’re a thought bubble guy. So what you’re saying is that notionally it might pose problems, but you can’t think of any way in practice that it might?
So the one part of your analogy that is right undermines your broader claim — purchasing these things could deter bank robbery — without the reverse being even claimed by you — that knowing they weren’t handy — would urge them onwards. Ludicrous!
Actually they would still be uncertain as false negatives are possible and even if right, the fact that they may not be within 100 metres is hardly enough.
Well the better ones do, but this is where your suggestion is weakest. A little bit of planning makes you realise that knowing (if you do) that the cops are at least 100 metres away isn’t close to being a sufficient condition for a bank robbery.
What are you on about? Radio silence in combat has nothing to do with the data supplied by RFIDs about police weaponry. If you can’t stay on the same page at least explain why you want to turn the page to something new.
i have pondered as this strange argument has flip flopped along what it is that i find unsettling about people that demand the right to shoot things,
in a nut shell i find a person who kills animals for sport or pleasure a bit of a worry,
i think it was different 30, 50 years ago, all perspectives were different,
just take a few seconds to ponder holding the rifle in your hand and lining up the sights on a deers head or wherever, and pulling the trigger … for sport, or pleasure
quite sad and sickening.
another thing that struck me whilst reading is how amusing it is that you terje, crap on about freedoms but tell us all how to say your name everytime a post comes up, over and over again,
i respectfully reserve the right to say your name however i choose
And why is it exactly that our modern day free market economic “libertarians”
* support torture of civilians and combatants by national govenments
* celebrate and advocate the destruction of flora and fauna
* want guns and whatever else it takes to do the above should the state fall short?
Smiths – I’m not denying you the freedom to say my name however you please. You are also free to call me rude names however it wouldn’t be a good way to maintain a positive vibe.
Fran – yes I have thought bubbles. I’m here for dialogue not for winning formal debates. Some ideas are thought through some are off the cuff. Sorry if that disappoints. I must say though that the RFID idea isn’t that convincing. Perhaps once I turn it over in my head for longer my thought bubbles will condense into some more considered thoughts.
Alicia – for the record.
1. I oppose torture. Always have.
2. I think we should protect out native flora and forna. You can shoot the feral cats however.
3. The primary reason for owning guns which remains prohibited in Australia is self defence. You can already get a gun for control of pests.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
I have no problem with thought bubbles … but I wonder about the gas that inflates them sometimes …
I could say the same.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Why do you need a gun for self defence except against a lawless society Terje and the means to enforce the law…..called the police.
They have been doing a mostly good job here, except for the occasional patch of corruption….Id rather have the government do that job with my taxes, with controls over corruption, than own a gun and wonder whether to shoot.
You can stick that gun argument you know where Terje. More guns in the hands of the public and less guns in the hands of the police, means more guns in the hands of the mentally ill.
Id take my chances with the police anyday over some lunatic in possession of a gun. I dont want to go for shooting lessons unless the government keeps getting rid of police stations like they have been doing. Im an old lady. I dont want to shoot a gun ever. I dont my kid shooting a gun ever (not even pig shooting – Im a city dweller). I dont want to have to rely on my old man’s eyesight and a gun. I dont want to have to worry where I store it so the grandkids cant find the damn ugly thing. Unless there is a civil war on – a gun is a very ugly thing. I dont need that kind of stress in my life, so you can have your libertarian gun slinging freedom desires somewhere else (like the shooters party – except they dont have much of a following do they?).
Ill take majority views on that – not minority views like yours Terje.
You need to get mainstream conservative on this one Terje….which usually you are. For you, this is way off track.
even the commercial open market manufacture of guns is something i find problematic,
as Bounty Killer and Morgan Heritage rightly said in their ragga track ‘Guns in the ghetto’
not that i expect any of you to be familiar with this particular tune
Guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people.
Given that Libertarians claim that they respect the rights of others, it amuses me how many of them wish to have guns with the clear interest of infringing on the most basic rights of others. But then hypocrisy seems an essential ingredient in the make up of the average Libertarian.
@Alice
Ah you’re a tonic Alice truly, such bog obvious female common sense, fabulously expressed, from the heart. Love it. It’s why I named myself after you.
And hats off too to: Freelander, Paul Walter, Jim Birch, Donald Oats, smiths, Fran Barlow (with the exception of nukes issue) JQ of course, and the many other voluble bright spark regular others who make this site such a joy to read and so wildly instructive.
Alicia – your comments are noted. I’m figuring you don’t want a response given where you want me to stick things. Right now I’m content to leave you to your bigotry. You obviously carry some prejudices that I’m unlikely to dent.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Nothing wrong with Alicia’s views Terje….as for bigotry; you may want to, in a quiet moment do some navel gazing on the freedom to carry guns view.
You are clearly outnumbered here.
Alice,
Being outnumbered does not make you wrong.
.
Freelander,
People with knives, wires, scissors, bows and arrows, poisons, bare hands and many other things also kill people. What, if anything, was your point?
@Andrew Reynolds
And you claim to have a sense of humour.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
It’s funny how people who consider themselves to be “open minded” are so extremely closed-minded, and yes I agree, downright bigoted when it comes to the issue of guns.
People fear what they don’t understand, it’s as simple as that.
Take Alice and Freelander as a prime examples: bigotry plus the urge to comform to the “mainstream” makes it almost impossible to have a rational argument on the matter.
Are the Greens a real alternative?
Environmentalists might expect Green MLA Greg Barber, to back another environmentalist, Kelvin Thomson, rather than supply quotes that could make him out unfairly to be racist. Wedge Politics we don’t need from Mr Barber MLA who represents the Northern Metropolitan Region of Melbourne in the Legislative Council at State level, which Kelvin Thomson represents in the Lower House at the Federal level. What’s going on? Are the Greens for real?
Daggett said
“Are the Greens for real?”
No they are red.
When there’s a policeman small enough to carry on my waist I’ll think there’s a good reason not to be armed.
The police do not provide any kind of defence against crimes. The majority of police action is merely punitive action against crimes already committed.
I used to be part of the anti-gun crew until I did some reading. I’m now convinced that on the balance, gun ownership has little impact on crime, and that a gun wielding target is less likely to become a victim than an unarmed target. If the rate of criminals being shot increases, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
@Shem Bennett
I agree with you. I should be allowed to carry a gun and nobody else should be allowed to. That’s what would make me safe.
people (quite reasonably) fear they may be maimed or killed by the people with guns who are in the same physical space as they are. And actually people (including children) are indeed maimed and killed by guns.
And every year, people are raped by homosexuals, ripped off by Jews, and beaten by African Americans.
Therefore we should punish all those people for things that possibly could happen, right?
police weapons are also lost and stolen. Would they have RFIDs also?
Why not?
Because then any criminal organisation with the resources to afford it would be able to track the movement of every armed policeman in the country at all times? And therefore would be at massive tactical advantage since their own guns would not have trackers in them. The police would in fact be sitting ducks.
Really, give it a couple of seconds thought before posting.
When there’s a policeman small enough to carry on my waist I’ll think there’s a good reason not to be armed.
And coincidentally that’s exactly what a lot of gun control advocates do. General Populace having guns? No sirree.
Celebrity gun-control advocates like Rosie O’Donnell and politicians employing mercenaries with guns as bodyguards? Well if you’re rich enough, why not?
If they don’t see having guns for protections as necessary, why do they take bodyguards with them everywhere they go? A bodyguard, even one without a gun, is far more personal protection than is afforded to any normal person.
@Shem Bennett
The pity is that the statistics say that the reverse is true. Those possessing guns tend to get shot more often. That’s probably a statistical anomaly since it probably includes criminals carrying guns and criminals are more likely top carry guns than the populace at large, but it does make a separate interesting point.
People are also highly likely to be shot by their own weapons. In the US, use of guns in domestic violence cases is common. Use of such weapons in domestic violence situations by policemen, prison officers and security guards is also statistically higher.
@Yobbo
Why would they do that when significant criminal organisations find it much more organisationally feasible to collude with the police to commit crimes? Technical feasibility of such a thing would also be very low. Read the discussion with Terje. I suggest you should take a little of your own advice about thinking before posting.
Why would they do that when significant criminal organisations find it much more organisationally feasible to collude with the police to commit crimes?
Because they can’t bribe every last police officer. Criminal organisations also use radio scanners to monitor police movements. Being able to track their weapons would make it even easier.
@Yobbo
[sigh] they don’t have to bribe or taint every last police officer — just enough to get the stuff done they want to get done.
I’m going to pretend you’re one of my students (but depart from the usual child protection constraints) and write you an HSC-style question.
In order to better control the movement and storgae of weapons the State of Callathumpia has decided to install RFID devices in all weapons capable of propelling a projectile through explosion more than ten metres, and the ammunition.
You are in charge of a criminal network operating within Callathumpia, the cash turnover of which derives from robbery and trade in contraband and controlled substances.
1. Assess the technical feasibility of intercepting the data streams and the marginal organisational value of the resultant information one could derive from the data stream …
In your answer specify the financial, operational, schedule and technical feasibility issues to be considered and the assumptions you have made to attach values to them.
2. What other solutions might better facilitate your organisations goals?
3. What constraints would the system have on your own organisation’s activities.
Can anyone point out the flaws in the arguments put in this 4’30” Brasscheck TV video The truth about “gun control”? The statistics show absolutely no evidence that, in the US, laws against gun ownership reduce the rate of crime.
Some months ago, a US leading gun control advocate was exposed as possessing his own hand gun. For politicians who have their own guns and/or enjoy 24/7 police protection to deny to ordinary citizens, including elderly ladies, the same right is the utmost hypocrisy.
On Gun Control
based on the folowing three assumptions
1. It is unlikley gun availability and use will ever be ellimiated,
2. Gun control laws will have minimal impact on the behaviour of criminals, albeit the laws provide a mechanism to prosecute these gun wielding crminals once they break the law. Of course a law that issues the death penalty for gun wielding criminal may change how much the criminals “care”. But I would oppose the death penalty.
3. The likelihood that police will arrive just in time to thwart a gun crime is small.
It makes a lot of sense to familiarise yourself with responsible use of guns and perhaps under certain circumstances equip yourself with a weapon in the event of a percieved threat.
Of course in a perfect world we don’t need guns and I would be all for that as well. But is that a real possibility ?