The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5141 - 5160 of total 5967 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 06:48pm PT
Woh! Holy strawman batman. I specifically mentioned we can't ban criminals from having guns, we should just take steps to reduce the number easily available to them. But it seems you don't want to debate that. Instead you need to spin my arguments into unreasonable conclusions that you CAN refute.

Well, actually, you blow hot and cold on this point. You do indeed often talk about "reducing," but you ALSO use verbiage that can only reasonably be taken as "ban." To whit:

Aug. 15, 2012
The whole point of course is keeping very dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and insane folks.

Now, looking further in that passage, you do mitigate the above by saying: "the harder you make them to obtain and the less of them that are out there, the less the likelihood they will end up in the wrong hands, and the less people will die." But when you juxtapose that mitigation against the initial statement, the IDEAL would be, of course, to KEEP guns out of the hands of criminals and insane folks.

Moving on....

Jan. 18, 2013
IT'S NOT ABOUT NO GUNS IT'S ABOUT NO GUNS THAT CAN KILL DOZENS OF PEOPLE IN A FEW MINUTES.

Okay, this looks "reasonable," because you are acknowledging that we can't "ban" all guns. But this sure looks like an OUTRIGHT BAN of at least certain sorts of guns.

June 12, 2014
They won't even agree to us doing what it takes to help try to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies.

Completely unmitigated ban. KEEP the OUT of the hands of the crazies. Of course, "all we can do is try." But what is the goal? KEEP them away from crazies.

In short, you use language that is at best subject to interpretation. If you SAY that you ONLY intend to "reduce" access, well fine. But what you have actually SAID repeatedly sure looks like an effort to "ban" guns (certainly at least some sorts) from "criminals and crazy folks." No straw man here. If I've misinterpreted your (various) statements, it was unintentional. In the future I'll refer strictly to "reduce."

You outright told me upthread that citizens would have no need of a gun if criminals could be kept from getting guns.

What?! LOL. Show me where I said that.

My bad on this one. I conflated several people's statements and coupled them with you saying this: "There have been maybe 2 or 3 times I would have felt safer with a gun after taking a wrong turn and ending up in a dangerous neighborhood.... I have never felt unsafe in Mexico because I stay out of the wrong areas and don't act stupid."

I think that you IMPLY what I said you "outright told me," but that implication feels stronger to me in the context of other people's claims on this thread. So I more strongly attributed this to you than I should have. I sincerely apologize for that. I am typically more careful.

How about we go back to the really pressing question, which is: What proposed gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of criminal?

Which I answered, but in my first post I stated you would not accept the answer, and in my second post I said you would attempt to refute with fallacies (which you have done, see the strawman argument above.

Nope, this one I continue to deny. And even your "answer" based on the idea of "reduce" falls to a similar line of argumentation to what I used above.

You continue to assert that I just "won't" get it. But it's not "won't." It's that you have simply failed to convince because your idea is laden with the same problems as an actual ban.

The appeal to legislating "reductions" in gun access by criminals rests on two suppositions: 1) an actual reduction is possible; 2) a reduction will have a measurable and/or significant corollary in a reduction of gun-related homicides. And both of these rest on the common intuition: "If can save even 1 life, then isn't that a good thing?"

The issue is not so simple or "intuitively accurate," however. First, the slate of laws already in place are quite impressive. California is a great example.

Second, the only way to argue from California (or Chicago) that these laws have had the desired effect is to look at the continued rash of gun violence and say (in completely question-begging fashion): "Well, things would obviously be a LOT worse without all the gun laws that we DO have!"

The response to those points will typically be, "Okay, sure, maybe we don't know for sure, or it isn't measurable, but surely at least one life has been saved by a delay in access or a lower-quality weapon that jammed, or other such things. Obviously 'making it harder' for criminals to get high-quality guns has saved SOME lives! And isn't even ONE life saved worth it?"

And my answer to THAT question would be a resounding NO!

All human life is precious, and it is indeed a great shame when somebody unnecessarily dies, particularly in violent fashion. However, that said, we don't go to ANY lengths to "reduce" unnecessary death! We don't even go to CONVENIENT lengths!

Clearly we value people's right to smoke FAR more than we value "even one life," including the lives of the (many hundreds of) kids who die each year from second-hand smoke (WHO statistics can follow, if you desire).

There are countless examples in this society of valuing convenience and sheer hedonism over life. And we count it as a violation of some right (who knows which one?) to make smoking outright illegal. Doing so would demonstrably save far more than one life! But we won't go there.

By contrast with smoking, the rights of self defense and of revolution are inalienable rights, both protected by our Constitution. And our founders were crystal clear on both this fact and on the fact that individual gun ownership/carry derives from these rights. Forget about the second amendment! What I'm talking about is crystal clear according to the founders, by whose lights we can best interpret the Constitution.

So, the "balance" is to "reduce" criminal access to guns, while having zero effect upon the access law-abiding citizens have to them. CAN'T be done!

Thus, the problems even your "reduction" idea have include: 1) it cannot be demonstrated to have any significant effect, even in places where it has had an excellent shot at a noticeable effect; 2) the more "rigorous" the efforts are to have an effect, the more invasive these efforts are in the lives of people whose inalienable right must not be infringed; 3) "reduce" at a certain threshold (who knows what it is?) and the "effect" is negligible, leading to the doomed "save even one life" flail; and 4) the "war on" mentality is really not different at all whether the goal is "ban" or "reduce," because you are only talking about an (undefined) quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one.

To YOU, your perspective seems all obvious and intuitive. But, again, the very fact that there is such debate indicates that your perspective is NOT sweepingly obvious nor intuitive to many people (most in Colorado!).

And your response to THAT fact indeed HAS been to reduce your rhetoric to epithets and insults (happy to provide many quotes to sustain that claim, if desired).

When you talk about better mental health care, jobs and education programs for inner city youth, and so on, you've got my ear! But universal background checks, in the minds of many people, will not even "reduce" the problem, while they ARE offensive to many because of the resounding "Big Brother" implications. Not all such people are justifiably entitled to your epithets and insults.
Binks

climber
Uranus
Jul 8, 2014 - 06:52pm PT
82 people were shot in Chicago over the 4th, 17 died so far.

Gun nuts are evil. The NRA is evil

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-chicago-shot-weekend-violence-20140707-story.html

Revoke the 2nd Amendment
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jul 8, 2014 - 06:58pm PT
Yah like it was NRA members shooting up Chicago...Cheezus & Rice there is no cure for STUPID.
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:00pm PT
Yes, 'revoking' the 2nd Amendment would certainly fix the rampant poverty and gang violence in Chicago.

When the media tells you to jump, how do you know how high to go?
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:27pm PT
Yes, 'revoking' the 2nd Amendment would certainly fix the rampant poverty and gang violence in Chicago.

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. As long as the rich are given free reign to run this entire nation for their, and only their benefit, there will be poverty, and with poverty comes crime. Who here would watch their children slowly wither away from malnutrition?

The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.
- Voltaire

Meanwhile, still waiting for the "legalize drugs" crowd to explain which, and how that's going to be a good thing.

Because it reduces crime and deaths. But don't take my word for it. Consumer Reports laid it all out 40 years ago.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:55pm PT
Read Licit and Illicit Drugs and then get back to me about prohibiting drugs.

When a mad man bursts into a school room and starts injecting children with overdoses of heroin, then maybe we can equate easy access to guns with legal drugs.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:06pm PT

jonnyrig

climber

Jul 8, 2014 - 07:39pm PT
Brilliant. Ban guns, legalize drugs. F*#k this place.

Prohibition failed once and is failing again. Alcohol is a drug. A very dangerous one, in fact. Durp.

I don't advocate legalization of every drug, but the war against drugs has failed the masses miserably. Mandatory minimum sentences for non violent drug charges only fatten prison guards and their industry, rob families of their loved ones, and create hardened repeat offenders. We have stigmatized and penalized drug addicts and torn this society apart while profiting the scum on either side of the bars. Wise the hell up before you blather your accusatory gun sensitive drama.

Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:08pm PT
Think it through, jonnyrig. Back in my bakery days I couldn't buy a beer after 2 am, but cocaine, loads, weed was all readily available. In high school it was a lot easier to get LSD than alcohol.

Make it legal and you eliminate crime. Read the book, or maybe ignorance makes you feel better about your views?
moosedrool

climber
lost, far away from Poland
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:09pm PT
+1 Jebus

Andrzej
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:10pm PT
Can't make him drink, I guess ;).

I smoke nothing, bra! Nor do I drink, snort, slam, or huff it. Treatment, education, and stop moaning about your freedom to murder, thanks.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:18pm PT
What are you so angry about?

Maybe it's time for another vacation from the forum for you?

Edit: in response to j rig's now deted "fuk you!"
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:25pm PT
Gun trivia:



Just for you whining libs that hate all guns..


Did you know that by the end of this year there will be around 30 million new gun owners in the USA since Sandy Hook?


And a little 22 caliber 30 to 40 grain bullet has enough foot pounds of energy to kill a human at 450 yards or better..And the average store runs out of ammo after shipments within hours of opening the door-- all the way across America?


Did you know the stock piles of Ammo by private citizens equals all the ammo used in Viet Nam?



Did you know that concealed weapon classes are at an all time high in amount of those putting them on as well as attendees?


Did you know the most common phrase at gun shops across America is "Obama is the gun salesman of the century"?




You CAn shoot a 9mm in a .40 caliber gun!



You CAN also shoot a 223 round in a 9mm, but it wont have enough energy to make it very far.

The M1 Carbine was the most manufactured weapon in WW11,, NOT the M1 Garande as one would suspect.!


The M 1 carbine with 90 grain hollow points have 2460 fps at the muzzle. And 110 grain FMJs average 1940 to 1990 FPS. Nice ballistics for a smaller .30 cal round eh...
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:39pm PT
Wow!
7SacredPools

Trad climber
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:41pm PT
Well then Ron, I suppose your murder rate should drop with all those new guns protecting you. Let's see how it goes.

Right now the US has 3 times the murder rate that Canada has, and 5 times the gun related murder rate. Here in the Great White North we do most of our killin' old school.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:45pm PT
Yeah, when I have time I'll read through the link. It's a lot of info. I don't have time right now.

Cool, you'll find it very interesting.



I actually prefer to learn what I can when I can, whether I agree with the point of view or not. Maybe you could refrain from calling me ignorant. But if it makes you feel better...

My apologies. I never thought of you as the stick your head in the sand type.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:45pm PT
And strictly for example, cough cough,, the 90 grain CoreBond hollow point round would turn a human head - to mist.. MIST.. Not chunks,, but MIST.. Like,, the blow away in a gentle breeze mist.. The foggy Portland morning mist.. Mist is what im getting at here.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:46pm PT
Here in the Great White North we do most of our killin' old school.

Yeah! That makes it MUCH better!

Actually, contrary to what most Americans presently believe, the US was never designed to be a SAFE nation, or "less violent," or "more civilized" than other nations. It was designed to be the most free nation. When "give me liberty or give me death" rings in your ears and the ears of your family and friends, then you will have a totally different perspective on the non-"epidemic of gun violence" in this country.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:47pm PT
Hear a lot ringing in your ears, huh? Well, at least that explains it!

"Give me liberty" he intones as we jail ever increasing percentages of our fellow Americans. Rich!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:47pm PT
Mist is what im getting at here.

ROFL

Okay, I guess that if you intend to shoot someone, you intend to kill that person. So why not pink mist? Certainly an effective way to ensure that the job is, uhhh... shall we say... DONE.
7SacredPools

Trad climber
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:52pm PT
Statistically speaking, there will be a good chance the person I shoot will be a mistake. I'd rather my mistakes didn't die.
Messages 5141 - 5160 of total 5967 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews