The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5661 - 5680 of total 6144 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Sep 3, 2014 - 06:37pm PT
Madbolter, in your research, did you ever come across the following minor historical figures: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, John F Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan?

This is the problem with "debating" the issue. Every time an "anti-gunner" offers an anti-gun argument and proposes legislation to "solve" the perceived "problem," the "gun nuts" show that the argument isn't persuasive, much less compelling. Then the "anti-gunner" just moves the target.

The picture above, to which I was responding, asked the question: "Does anyone remember Newtown?" The argument underlying that question, which has been touted countless times, is that magazine sizes, etc. are the issues that we should "remember" as we pass legislation to "keep incidents like Newtown from happening again."

The problem is that the legislation arguments to "prevent more Newtowns" cannot have the desired effect. That is demonstrated, as I and others have done.

But, then, people like you just change up the argument!

It's like arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses. It's always a moving target.

There can be no "debate" in such a context.

All were being protected by the best trained and best armed force possible. All were shot, most were killed.

Irrelevant, unless you are (as you CLAIM you are not) trying to eliminate all gun ownership.

A TINY proportion of gun owners will misuse the tool. Just as a TINY proportion of car owners, cell phone owners, knife owners, etc. will misuse their tools.

The POINT is that the MASS murders that prompts cartoons like the "remember Newtown" one above are ALL committed against soft targets in gun-free zones. "Gun free zones" are only gun free until the nut job shows up! Your response is irrelevant to THAT point.

As for the High Capacity /Assault rifle issue, I agree that it's a red herring and far from the most serious issue in this debate, but it doesn't make it a minor issue.

It's an irrelevant issue. It doesn't even get so far as to qualify as "minor." Magazine sizes have no, nada, ZERO effect on the efficacy of victimization once a nut job decides to rampage. We have tons of statistical evidence to demonstrate that fact.

As argued above, TIME and "gun-free" combine to make these soft-target zones appealing to nut jobs. Weapon type and magazine size are literally irrelevant in the statistics of death that follow.

Your own examples show that weapon type and magazine type are irrelevant even in those sorts of cases.

Your wonderful report carefully parses its words to exclude the most common type of mass shootings,

Sorry, but now YOU are the one "parsing" the verbiage to twist the clear meanings. The sorts of shootings you are referring to are NOT "mass shootings." They are individual-on-individual shootings... nothing MASS about them.

There are many hundreds of those every year, don't they count unless they suit your hypothesis?

You seem VERY confused about what my "hypothesis" actually is, despite the fact that it is very clearly and cogently argued.

MY hypothesis is that proposed gun control laws DO not and WILL not keep more Newtowns from happening. Period. Don't change up my focused argument.

If you want to CHANGE the subject and switch up the "hypothesis," then at least be clear about what you are doing. Otherwise, you are simply arguing past me.

If you want to talk about the "epidemic of gun violence," then you seem to be arguing numbers. There is some point in your mind beyond which it is "too much."

Then we're back to the "reduce" argument that we've argued all before. And I will sum up the same way: In a nation of 1/3 of a billion people from all over the planet, THE mixed salad of nations, and a nation that enjoys unprecedented individual freedoms, there literally IS NO "epidemic of gun violence." And as a nation, with limited resources to engage in various "wars on..." this or that perceived "problem," we MUST allocate our resources where they will have the most effect relative to the magnitude of the "problem" we are trying to prevent. And we should employ the data that we do have to determine what sorts of responses will actually be efficacious.

You don't prevent more Newtowns, which are employed (as in the cartoon above) to motivate all sorts of legislative efforts that can and will have demonstrably ZERO effect on the very sorts of incidents that are employed to justify the legislation. THAT is my point, and don't try to change it up into something else.

YOU (and some others) somehow (and I honestly don't know why) are fixated on this "gun violence problem," which is in fact literally a drop in the bucket compared to other FAR more pressing problems (including ones that cause truly MASSIVE amounts of suffering and unnecessary death). So, if you are playing a numbers game, then the numbers are not persuasive, much less compelling.

There is something about the fact that it's "intentional murder" that has your panties in a bunch. But, again, we can't go after everything that causes needless trauma and death. So, rather than to fixate on what is statistically-speaking a non-issue, it is far better to devote our resources where they can actually solve a statistically-significant problem.

People with guns kill other people. People with knives kill other people. People texting while driving kill other people. Drunk drivers kill other people. People that smoke around their kids kill them. People that make their kids morbidly obese before they are teenagers kill them. It goes on and on.

It is all KILLING... not just passive "dying." YOU want to impose certain rules on everybody to solve a statistically-insignificant "problem," but MANY others simply do not agree that there IS this "problem of gun violence" at current rates, certainly not to the level demanding federal legislation. If you want to legislate away as much needless KILLING as possible, then you are fixated on entirely the wrong issue.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:05pm PT
Your claim is supported by the following:

with just one single exception (the attack on congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson in 2011) every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

Firstly, it conveniently omits the most common type of mass murders.
Secondly, it omits mass murders in inconvenient places like military bases and police stations.
Lastly, it's simply not true, unless the spin on the word "public" is to exclude the very example of Sandy Hook Elementary.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/

I've even excluded the examples that occurred in schools, universities, peoples home or places of work (where weapons may have been permitted).

23 killed - October 16, 1991 - In Killeen, Texas, 35-year-old George Hennard crashes his pickup truck through the wall of a Lubys Cafeteria. After exiting the truck, Hennard shoots and kills 23 people.

21 killed - July 18, 1984 - In San Ysidro, California, 41-year-old James Huberty, armed with a long-barreled Uzi, a pump-action shotgun and a handgun shoots and kills 21 adults and children at a local McDonalds.

13 killed - September 5, 1949 - In Camden, New Jersey, 28-year-old Howard Unruh, a veteran of World War II, shoots and kills 13 people as he walks down Camden's 32nd Street. His weapon of choice is a German-crafted Luger pistol.

8 killed - December 5, 2007 - In Omaha, Nebraska, 19-year-old Robert Hawkins goes to an area mall and kills eight shoppers before killing himself.

Facts - you don't get to make them up.

MY hypothesis is that proposed gun control laws DO not and WILL not keep more Newtowns from happening.

Proposed gun control laws cannot possibly stop more Newtons until they become law, so I will accept the first point, proposed laws DO NOT stop anything.

If your second point is that proposed laws have to stop ALL mass murders from ever happening, then I will accept that point too, but no law of any type has ever been required to meet that standard.

If your hypothesis is that enactment of proposed laws will not prevent some future mass shooting from happening, it's absurd. Universal Background checks will prevent some madman from buying a gun, it won't prevent them all.

TE
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:16pm PT
Good going Chief,, id grab any handgun you want soon. Those nice lil semi autos are going the way of the do-do bird in Cal.


And heres a funny thing, the Kahr is made is Massa-two-shyts. Home of liberal looneys gone mad...
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:23pm PT
madbolter posted
No, but let's get clear about what has really happened in these mass shootings since about 1950 and honestly assess if ANY of the proposed gun-control laws would have had any effect.

The "proposed gun laws" are proposed because that's what people think can get passed by congress. Then they get watered down to sh#t and made fun of for being ineffective by the same people who watered them down. They are the Bradley Fighting Vehicle of regulations.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:35pm PT
"The "proposed gun laws" are proposed because that's what people think can get passed by congress."



And you wonder why they aren't so popular.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:49pm PT
Yuuuuuuuuuup RON!



And my .45 Sig P220R is imported/distributed by Sig Sauer USA which is located right next door in another of the nations top ten Liberal states, New Hampshire.


HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 4, 2014 - 05:42am PT
There is something about the fact that it's "intentional murder" that has your panties in a bunch. But, again, we can't go after everything that causes needless trauma and death. So, rather than to fixate on what is statistically-speaking a non-issue, it is far better to devote our resources where they can actually solve a statistically-significant problem.

Since I'm bored again today, can you name any of those other issues where death or injury could be reduced by legislation, or one where you'd be happy to pay the corresponding tax increase to pay for the remediation of the problem? We can't regulate disease out of existence, so let's limit the challenge to mechanisms of death or injury for people under 40, which kill 1000 and injure 10,000 people each year, yet are less regulated than guns in their design, sale, use or disposal and where the manufacturers are immune from product liability lawsuits?

TE
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 4, 2014 - 06:25am PT
The gov't should ban all vehicles as well.


Compared to guns of any/all kind, those things kill tens times more people in this country per annum.

Next item after vehicles, cigarettes.

Next item....
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 4, 2014 - 07:49am PT
The gov't should ban all vehicles as well.

Compared to guns of any/all kind, those things kill tens times more people in this country per annum.

Next item after vehicles, cigarettes.

Next item....

If we include suicides, guns kill more people than cars each year, if we exclude suicide, which aren't my concern, cars kill less than three times as many people as guns. However, almost half of all car deaths are the driver responsible, and 94% are other persons voluntarily engaged in the same dangerous activity. If 94% of gun deaths occurred at shooting ranges, this thread wouldn't exist.

The design, sale and public use of cars are regulated far more than guns, and are not protected from product liability lawsuits.

Cigarettes, like suicide, not my concern, but second hand smoke is regulated so you can't smoke where your smoke endangers the health of others.

Junk food? Not my problem.

Pharmaceuticals? Regulated to the sky, and not protected from product liability lawsuits.

Next...

TE
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Sep 4, 2014 - 08:11am PT
The simple fact is the government is not here to help us.... once you grasp that fact it becomes a lot more clear that even more absurd legislation is not the answer to our ills...
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Sep 4, 2014 - 08:19am PT
Getting desperate are ya TE? Suicides?? Are you now blaming those on guns?

Seems that a gun is the very best option for a quick and merciful exit.

Anyhow,, while your typing your desires for gun controls here, the rest of America, to the tune of nearly 30 million new shooters in the last three years has decided otherwise. And crime incidents have gone down in general in many places in this country at the same time.

Crime has dropped off to nothing in my immediate area- including the gang that WAS attempting to label my area, as their turf. They wont even use my streets around me as a private race course for their small cars any more after i parked my rig across the road blocking them one night, and stood there with my side arm holstered, shaking my head at them.

The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 4, 2014 - 08:28am PT
If we include suicides, guns kill more people than cars each year..

Please do post a ref to validate that claim. Be specific as to suicide by a gun.


Here is what I come up with...

In 2010 in the U.S., 19,392 people committed suicide with guns
http://www.vocativ.com/usa/guns/suicide-statistics/#!bPFn4l

2010, 32,999 were killed in auto accidents in the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Sep 4, 2014 - 08:46am PT
Cell phones and those addicted to them seem more dangerous to the public than any gun..Hence the rapid legislation in many many states against the use of them while driving. But as per usual, the American peeps will do what they want. And by golly they will text and drive.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 4, 2014 - 08:53am PT
Can't wait to see a post on how "texting" while driving is regulated better than guns in the US.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Sep 4, 2014 - 09:14am PT
No truer words have been spoken here JRig..
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 4, 2014 - 09:48am PT
No truer words have been spoken here JRig..

Plus 1!!!!
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Sep 4, 2014 - 10:21am PT
A few more years of these idiot texter/drivers and you will have more than rear view cameras mandated by legislation in new cars.

It won't take much to make tamper resistant black boxes on cars, and then you will see a lot more personal responsibility come into play.

1984, but in this case I welcome it.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 4, 2014 - 10:35am PT
Having children in the car is more distracting than texting while driving. Can't wait 'til they ban that.

Best idea on this thread yet!

TE
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Sep 4, 2014 - 10:37am PT
Better yet ban bad parenting.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 4, 2014 - 11:05am PT
Chief, take your 19,392 gun suicides, 11,078 gun murders, and 606 accidental gun deaths and you get 31,076 gun deaths in 2010. Your figure of 32,999 motor vehicle deaths is a long way from ten times higher than 31,076, which was your original claim.

Your claim and my counter-claim both said cars, not all motor vehicles so if we exclude deaths caused by motorcycles (4,502), my claim stands, and I could still remove deaths caused by heavy trucks and buses. This validates both of my claims, that guns kill more people than cars, and that even excluding suicides, cars kill less than three times as many as guns.

Feel free to pick a hole in any of that.

TE

Messages 5661 - 5680 of total 6144 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