| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/26/2015 04:23:04 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Pretty much a bitch no matter how you slice it. |
Are you "OK" with the current level of gun violence in the US? |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 04:23:26 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Law abiding citizens do not murder people. Period. Ever. |
News flash: every single murderer, without exception, was a law abiding citizen until they committed a crime. Can you explain how this particular shooter was NOT a law abiding citizen if shopping for a gun last month? |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 04:46:04 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Cory:
You must have missed the part where I questioned American exceptionalism. |
No offense, but that just makes you look stupid. You must have missed the part only three posts back where I pointed out the correlation between lax gun laws and gun violence holds true even in THIS country. Are you suggesting that the less violent Americans coincidentally migrate to areas with tougher gun laws?
Oh, and cry me a river over your so-called "rights." Automatic weapons were banned, and how often do you hear of mass murders with automatic weapons or people bemoaning their lost "right" to an Uzi? As amply demonstrated by smoking bans, explosives bans, and seat belt laws, public safety trumps personal desire, and you're only a Scalia heart attack away from having a literate Supreme Court justice read the 2nd amendment's single sentence as an acknowlegement of 18th century national defense like every other SCOTUS and reverse the 2008 decision that makes daily headlines for killing Americans. Fighting gun control in an era of unprecedented gun violence is a battle against gravity. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 05:23:41 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
You must have missed the part where I questioned American exceptionalism. |
No offense, but that just makes you look stupid. You must have missed the part only three posts back where I pointed out the correlation between lax gun laws and gun violence holds true even in THIS country. Are you suggesting that the less violent Americans coincidentally migrate to areas with tougher gun laws?
Oh, and cry me a river over your so-called "rights." Automatic weapons were banned, and how often do you hear of mass murders with automatic weapons or people bemoaning their lost "right" to an Uzi? As amply demonstrated by smoking bans, explosives bans, and seat belt laws, public safety trumps personal desire, and you're only a Scalia heart attack away from having a literate Supreme Court justice read the 2nd amendment's single sentence as an acknowlegement of 18th century national defense like every other SCOTUS and reverse the 2008 decision that makes daily headlines for killing Americans. Fighting gun control in an era of unprecedented gun violence is a battle against gravity. |
Chicago. Strict gun laws, and a gun homicide about twice an hour. I question your assertion.
Interestingly enough, this was apparently done in revenge for the Charleston shooting, which makes this more of a race issue than a gun issue doesn't it? I mean, if this was a white guy who'd shot two black reporters we'd be hearing it from all quarters, but since it was a black guy who shot two white people, clearly it's a gun crime, not a hate crime. Baffles me how that one works.
It's my opinion that you're both being led by emotion instead of logic. The way to prove me wrong is to lay out what laws would have prevented this from happening. However, since you and the POTUS are clearly on the war path here, tell me, what common sense restrictions would have prevented this.
Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming cars for drunk driving deaths.
The one thing you're absolutely right about is that this is like fighting gravity, it's basically inevitable that freedom will be the loser here.
Message edited by author 2015-08-26 17:38:33. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 06:28:51 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Chicago. Strict gun laws, and a gun homicide about twice an hour. I question your assertion. |
Most Chicago guns come from surrounding areas with lax gun laws. You're proving my point, not yours.
Originally posted by Cory:
Alright, since you and the POTUS are clearly on the war path here, tell me, what common sense restrictions would have prevented this. |
Right back to dismissing gun control if it doesn't prevent 100% of homicides, eh? You're arguing against the very straw man you said was stupid. Statement from the White House today: "while there is no piece of legislation that will end all violence in this country, there are some common sense things that only Congress can do that we know would have a tangible impact in reducing gun violence in this country." Such measures are hardly a secret: universal background checks, banning large capacity magazines, increased scrutiny of people with a history of domestic violence or mental illness, etc.
These steps would certainly make a difference in reducing gun violence, and yet you question how it would stop this particular incident as a way of dismissing their value. Instead, you favor the notion of citizens being armed for self defense. Would THAT have stopped this particular incident? Nope, but that's fine with you (cue special pleading) because "10% is a hell of a lot better than 0%." Hypocrite. Like I said before, gun control is proven far more effective at reducing your odds of being shot. Incidents of defensive use don't come anywhere near the number of guns stolen or used in suicides, so ownership just stokes the odds in favor of being shot.
You're fighting gravity not because "freedom will be the loser"(U.S. history arcs toward freedom), but because your positions are untenable and unsupported. In short, you're just wrong. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 06:41:45 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Pretty much a bitch no matter how you slice it. |
Are you "OK" with the current level of gun violence in the US? |
|
|
|
|
08/26/2015 07:08:32 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Pretty much a bitch no matter how you slice it. |
Are you "OK" with the current level of gun violence in the US? |
|
I'm not OK with the level of violence in this country, nor the world at large. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 07:15:30 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Pretty much a bitch no matter how you slice it. |
Are you "OK" with the current level of gun violence in the US? |
|
I'm not OK with the level of violence in this country, nor the world at large. |
That is not a direct answer -- that would require only either three or two letters ...
Oh, a second question, do you play tennis?
Message edited by author 2015-08-26 19:16:08. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 07:20:58 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Pretty much a bitch no matter how you slice it. |
Are you "OK" with the current level of gun violence in the US? |
|
I'm not OK with the level of violence in this country, nor the world at large. |
That is not a direct answer -- that would require only either three or two letters ...
Oh, a second question, do you play tennis? |
The problem is that you asked about GUN violence. I have never thought the guns were the problem.
So, if you're asking "Do we have a gun problem" Then my answer is NO
If you're asking "Do we have a violence problem" my answer is a resounding YES
Because of that, your question wasn't answerable with a simple yes or no. Sorry to make things so complex, but reality is rarely as simple as rhetoric wants to make it.
ETA: I like tennis, but it destroys me, I'm old enough I have no business playing sports like that, I prefer kayaking.
Message edited by author 2015-08-26 19:26:19. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 07:25:23 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
Chicago. Strict gun laws, and a gun homicide about twice an hour. I question your assertion. |
Most Chicago guns come from surrounding areas with lax gun laws. You're proving my point, not yours.
Originally posted by Cory:
Alright, since you and the POTUS are clearly on the war path here, tell me, what common sense restrictions would have prevented this. |
Right back to dismissing gun control if it doesn't prevent 100% of homicides, eh? You're arguing against the very straw man you said was stupid. Statement from the White House today: "while there is no piece of legislation that will end all violence in this country, there are some common sense things that only Congress can do that we know would have a tangible impact in reducing gun violence in this country." Such measures are hardly a secret: universal background checks, banning large capacity magazines, increased scrutiny of people with a history of domestic violence or mental illness, etc.
These steps would certainly make a difference in reducing gun violence, and yet you question how it would stop this particular incident as a way of dismissing their value. Instead, you favor the notion of citizens being armed for self defense. Would THAT have stopped this particular incident? Nope, but that's fine with you (cue special pleading) because "10% is a hell of a lot better than 0%." Hypocrite. Like I said before, gun control is proven far more effective at reducing your odds of being shot. Incidents of defensive use don't come anywhere near the number of guns stolen or used in suicides, so ownership just stokes the odds in favor of being shot.
You're fighting gravity not because "freedom will be the loser"(U.S. history arcs toward freedom), but because your positions are untenable and unsupported. In short, you're just wrong. |
Ah! I see what you mean now.
The thing you're not recognizing is that I'm talking about the fact that this discussion gets brought up on a national level mostly through events that couldn't have been prevented with anything but the most draconian legislation.
You're absolutely right that there will be huge improvements, no argument from me, it's just that it won't stop the vast majority of events which always get the media attention.
And as I've said before, if we want to go down this road we really need to ban tobacco (there is absolutely no argument in it's favor), Alcohol (few arguments in it's favor) human-driven automobiles (we suck at driving), fast food (again, very few arguments for this), and a few other things I'm sure I'm forgetting. After all, by your argument, the right to life trumps all other rights. Frankly, I'd even support at least two of those, probably three. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 07:26:28 PM · #36 |
It is that simple -- are you ethically/morally/psychologically comfortable with the number of Americans who die each year from gunshots?
All of those other considerations about the "ultimate source" (as if there could be such a thing) of the problem are irrelevant unless your answer is "no", since if so there is no "problem" by definition ...
And the second question can be answered by "yes", "no", or "not well" ... |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 07:30:17 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It is that simple -- are you ethically/morally/psychologically comfortable with the number of Americans who die each year from gunshots?
All of those other considerations about the "ultimate source" (as if there could be such a thing) of the problem are irrelevant unless your answer is "no", since if so there is no "problem" by definition ...
And the second question can be answered by "yes", "no", or "not well" ... |
I almost always refuse to answer any question where a person wants a yes or no answer without context.
Here's an example, extremely crude, but effective in demonstrating the problem:
Paul, do you enjoy it when you have sex with children?
If you answer yes, then, well, my gawd. If you answer no, then it's obvious that you're just having sex with children out of pure spite. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 07:35:45 PM · #38 |
Yours is a classic trick question and is "not allowed" in rational debate, much like dividing by zero -- while it can easily be performed in any arithmetic equation -- yields an irrational answer and is simply disqualified from participation.
I don't believe my question suffers from the same syntactic defect, though you are welcome to try and explain how it does ... |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 07:48:48 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Yours is a classic trick question and is "not allowed" in rational debate, much like dividing by zero -- while it can easily be performed in any arithmetic equation -- yields an irrational answer and is simply disqualified from participation.
I don't believe my question suffers from the same syntactic defect, though you are welcome to try and explain how it does ... |
Ah, but it does, although the reason why is a little more complex.
Essentially, you're asking me if I'm ok with the level of gun violence in this country. The obvious answer is no, I very much dislike it, and for multiple reasons, the first is obvious, loss of innocent life just sucks dude. The second is that it will eventually lead to my guns becoming illegal. The third is that the world loses a potential great discovery or hero everytime someone is killed. The final reason that immediately comes to mind is the effect this shit has on our image throughout the world. Crappy, all the way around.
The problem is that, in effect, your question is a trick question in the sense that you're accusing guns of causing violence as an inherent part of your argument - so I can either say yes, where I'm basically saying that I'm totally fine with the violence, making me look like a horrible person, or I can say no and admit that I have a problem with gun violence, implicitly admitting that I think guns are a problem. So, while the REAL answer to your question is no, if I answer in that way it leaves the door open to huge misinterpretation of what I'm saying because of the implication built into the question.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2015 09:24:25 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Cory:
The thing you're not recognizing is that I'm talking about the fact that this discussion gets brought up on a national level mostly through events that couldn't have been prevented with anything but the most draconian legislation... |
Actually many of them involve background check failures, straw purchases, large capacity magazines, huge anonymous ammo purchases, etc.– any of which could be addressed through modest legislation. We also have far more restrictions on who, where, when and how you can use tobacco, automobiles and alcohol. An unlicensed person can legally sell a long gun and ammunition to a 14 year old with no ID or background check. Can you do that with a beer or pack of cigarettes? In many states you can carry a gun into a restaurant, but you can't smoke there, and auto restrictions abound: licensing, safety training, tests, age limits, driving restrictions and so on.
Originally posted by Cory:
10% is a hell of a lot better than 0%. |
^Defensive carry has merit.
Originally posted by Cory:
You're absolutely right that there will be huge improvements, no argument from me |
^Gun control is useless.
Make up your mind.
Message edited by author 2015-08-26 21:28:00. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 09:31:25 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
The thing you're not recognizing is that I'm talking about the fact that this discussion gets brought up on a national level mostly through events that couldn't have been prevented with anything but the most draconian legislation... |
Actually many of them involve background check failures, straw purchases, large capacity magazines, huge anonymous ammo purchases, etc.– any of which could be addressed through modest legislation. We also have far more restrictions on who, where, when and how you can use tobacco, automobiles and alcohol. An unlicensed person can legally sell a long gun and ammunition to a 14 year old with no ID or background check. Can you do that with a beer or pack of cigarettes? In many states you can carry a gun into a restaurant, but you can't smoke there, and auto restrictions abound: licensing, safety training, tests, age limits, driving restrictions and so on. |
Large capacity magazines? Yeah, I like those. Don't think you should have to register to buy ammo either.
Otherwise, what you propose there is fine. Wouldn't mind people needing a training certificate to own guns, but you know that the system would be corrupted before it even began, or perhaps you don't, but I'm pretty confident that it would. I dunno, I guess I just think people suck and they're going to continue to suck, and you can't stop them from sucking. And I figure legislators suck too, harder than most usually in fact, and it pretty much looks like the writing's on the wall anyway. I guess at least I'm positive enough to enjoy watching the mess should it come to that. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 09:32:26 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
The thing you're not recognizing is that I'm talking about the fact that this discussion gets brought up on a national level mostly through events that couldn't have been prevented with anything but the most draconian legislation... |
Actually many of them involve background check failures, straw purchases, large capacity magazines, huge anonymous ammo purchases, etc.– any of which could be addressed through modest legislation. We also have far more restrictions on who, where, when and how you can use tobacco, automobiles and alcohol. An unlicensed person can legally sell a long gun and ammunition to a 14 year old with no ID or background check. Can you do that with a beer or pack of cigarettes? In many states you can carry a gun into a restaurant, but you can't smoke there, and auto restrictions abound: licensing, safety training, tests, age limits, driving restrictions and so on.
Originally posted by Cory:
10% is a hell of a lot better than 0%. |
^Defensive carry has merit.
Originally posted by Cory:
You're absolutely right that there will be huge improvements, no argument from me |
^Gun control is useless.
Make up your mind. |
Sometimes you remind me of the folks who edited the Planned Parenthood videos. ;-) Context dude. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 09:47:55 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Sometimes you remind me of the folks who edited the Planned Parenthood videos. ;-) Context dude. |
Don't be so disingenuous– I provided the context. You said even a 10% chance of saving your life with defensive gun use is worth it, but "huge improvements" in reducing gun violence is not worth it because attacks will still occur. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 10:15:11 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
Sometimes you remind me of the folks who edited the Planned Parenthood videos. ;-) Context dude. |
Don't be so disingenuous– I provided the context. You said even a 10% chance of saving your life with defensive gun use is worth it, but "huge improvements" in reducing gun violence is not worth it because attacks will still occur. |
And I pointed out that you can't (easily) reverse a law. Context. |
|
|
|
08/26/2015 10:38:54 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Cory:
And I pointed out that you can't (easily) reverse a law. Context. |
The relative difficulty of changing a law against people driving main battle tanks on the interstate is not an argument against such a law. You're predicating reluctance on a false premise that proven steps like universal background checks, secure storage requirements and banning large capacity magazines won't significantly reduce gun violence, and it's still much easier to change a law than bring thousands of people a year back to life. |
|
|
|
08/27/2015 06:44:46 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Just another law abiding citizen exercising his constitutional right because defending the country miltia government tyranny word salad. |
No offense, but that just makes you look stupid.
Law abiding citizens do not murder people. Period. Ever. |
One could argue that this one was "law abiding" until he "illegally" acquired a gun and then proceeded to kill those poor people.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/27/2015 06:51:42 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Cory:
...So, if you're asking "Do we have a gun problem" Then my answer is NO
If you're asking "Do we have a violence problem" my answer is a resounding YES
|
Have you ever considered the possibility that the easy access to guns might very well be in itself a problem which in turn exacerbates what is perceived as a "gun problem".
Violence with a hockey stick or a baseball bat does not result in the carnage we often witness when firearms are involved.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/27/2015 07:55:16 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
...So, if you're asking "Do we have a gun problem" Then my answer is NO
If you're asking "Do we have a violence problem" my answer is a resounding YES
|
Have you ever considered the possibility that the easy access to guns might very well be in itself a problem which in turn exacerbates what is perceived as a "gun problem".
Violence with a hockey stick or a baseball bat does not result in the carnage we often witness when firearms are involved.
Ray |
Of course I have. And its probably right. Thing is, I object to the 'Someone couldn't control themselves with a gun, so now no-one gets guns anymore' approach. |
|
|
|
08/27/2015 07:58:15 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Thing is, I object to the 'Someone couldn't control themselves with a gun, so now no-one gets guns anymore' approach. |
And yet the only ones to propose such a "solution" seem to be the gun-rights defenders. |
|
|
|
08/27/2015 08:01:53 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Thing is, I object to the 'Someone couldn't control themselves with a gun, so now no-one gets guns anymore' approach. |
And yet the only ones to propose such a "solution" seem to be the gun-rights defenders. |
Logical conclusion. I'm pretty sure that it will start with "small, common sense restrictions" and in twenty years what seemed crazy will be heralded as common sense. |
|
