16 Jun 2016

Regulating From the Uninformed Position

,

GunControlCartoon1

Ken White explains why people knowledgeable about firearms have a serious problem with regulatory scheme proposed by people who nothing about guns.

It’s hard to grasp the reaction of someone who understands gun terminology to someone who doesn’t. So imagine we’re going through one of our periodic moral panics over dogs and I’m trying to persuade you that there should be restrictions on, say, Rottweilers.

    Me: I don’t want to take away dog owners’ rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
    You: So what do you propose?
    Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
    You: Wait. What’s an “attack dog?”
    Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
    You: Huh? Rottweilers aren’t military dogs. In fact “military dogs” isn’t a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
    Me: Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody’s trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn’t own fighting dogs.
    You: I have no idea what dogs you’re talking about now.
    Me: You’re being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
    You: What the fuck.
    Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I’m not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don’t need to own.
    You: Can we?

Because I’m just talking out of my ass, the impression I convey is that I want to ban some arbitrary, uninformed category of dogs that I can’t articulate. Are you comfortable that my rule is going to be drawn in a principled, informed, narrow way?

So. If you’d like to persuade people to accept some sort of restrictions on guns, consider educating yourself so you understand the terminology that you’re using. And if you’re reacting to someone suggesting gun restrictions, and they seem to suggest something nonsensical, consider a polite question of clarification about terminology.

StumbleUpon.com
5 Feedbacks on "Regulating From the Uninformed Position"

Regulating from the Uninformed. | AFlaGunBlog



GoneWithTheWind

But, make no mistake, as bumbling as they seem to appear and as poorly they articulate their view of guns, their intent is quite clear and cogent and that is to get the nose in the tent on gun registration and confiscation. We saw gun confiscation in Connecticut, it was put on the back burner with sheriffs vowing to ignore it and guns owners vowing to not register or give up their guns but the law is there and sooner or later it will be enforced. Do not doubt their will and commitment to this cause. Also do not doubt for a second that these kinds of terrorists attacks will get more common. And every time the terrorists attack us with guns the Democratic fascist chorus will stand up and sing from their fascist anti-constitution songbook. And every time they do this another segment of low information voters will swing to their side on this. The ONLY answer to the attack on the 2nd amendment is the next three appointments to the Supreme Court.



JKB

Government Excellence.

Did you know that until President Obama lifted Cuba’s name off the Terrorist Countries list it was illegal to give a lifejacket to a Cuban in the Florida Straits without an export license? It still goes for citizens of other countries still on the terrorist countries list

Export Administration Regulations 8A992
h. Other self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (scuba gear) and related equipment, n.e.s.;

i. Life jackets, inflation cartridges, compasses, wetsuits, masks, fins, weight belts, and dive computers;

Obviously, they meant buoyancy compensators, but the plain language is “life jackets”. Obviously, some Ivy Leaguer 20 something came back from his trip to Aruba where he took a SCUBA class and forgot what the floaty vest thing was called when the were writing up the regulations. Been that way for 10 years that I know of.

So yes, let’s let the uninformed in DC write the laws.



Lee

Lord, that stupid energy bill they shoved down our throats right before Bush left office, was ridiculous. The lighting portion talked about “efficient” light bulbs. There are no such thing. There are efficacious lamps, and there are efficient luminares. An efficacious lamp has high lumen output per watts ; an efficient luminaire is one in which the illuminance is a higher percentage of the li the out put of the lamp(s) inside. But that stupid legislation weren’t on and on and on about “efficient” light bulbs.

They’re idiots, getting their stupid interns to write laws about crap they — both the interns and the legislators — know nothing, and can’t be bothered to research well.



Cactusjack

But I think all reasonable folks would agree that there’s no place in this country for guns that have the shoulder thing that goes up.



Comments

Please Leave a Comment!




Please note: Comments may be moderated. It may take a while for them to show on the page.













Feeds
Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)
Feed Shark