How can we regulate guns ... ?

It seemed irrelevant to his erroneous argument that because I didn't support one particular regulation, then I must support there being no regulation at all. Further, I didn't make the argument that this gun regulation wouldn't work because anti-pirating regulation didn't work, as I explained in Message 571. My point in Message 567 was explicitly stated at the bottom. His response was a total non-sequitor.Its pretty annoying too. Let's say we were discussing the background color of this site and you responded to me saying that you didn't think red was a good color. How would you like the following response to you:"So you don't want there to be any colors on the site at all!?"After multiple occurances of the same bad reasoning, wouldn't you get a little peeved? Wouldn't you think the nonsense was deliberate? Oh, so I should just never post to this site again!? I'm being sarcastic, but do you see what I mean?And ya know, I was just trying to help clarify a misunderstanding by explaining where the equivocation occured.

Yes and no.I think it needs to be addressed for people like this: These young thugs have glorified guns and I do think they should be disabused of that.But for people like this: I don't think her disire to own a gun is something that needs to be addressed.But, I think the desire to own guns is a smaller issue compared to poverty and education and also our mental health program.

You're right. I'm lazily generalizing. I'm honestly not familiar with New York's gun laws. I'm under the assumption that the gun laws in Chicago are similiar to New York's. The FOID card is just a subset of those regulations that I can easily point to.

No. Evidence? I'm not sure. I suspect its because the gun regulations don't do much of anything, but instead it was the huge crack-down on crime in general in New York that lead to the results. No, I think its a waste of time and money that could be better spent addressing the social issues that I believe are at the root of the problem. The research doesn't distinguish between the homicides that were cause by the prevalence of guns or the guns possessions that were caused by the prevalence of homicides. Its of little to no use.

Are NY's gun laws dissimiliar to Chicago's?

I made no mention of restriction. I was saying nothing about where guns were meant to be.I was answering a question about whether the desire to have guns should be addressed by showing that the reason for the desire mattered to if it should be addressed. The desire to have a gun so you can be a cooler thug should be addressed while the desire to have a gun to participate in matched competition should not. You don't know much about me... I listen to heavy metal. But thanks for prejudicing me, jerk.

They're not.

The music piracy analogy had nothing to do with gun control. Its purpose was to contrast the differences in the meaning of the word "regulate". I only chose music piracy to respond to Message 564 to avoid talking about child porn.The point I was making with the music piracy analogy was explicitly stated:

quote:

---

I think you're missing the point because you've equivocated "regulation". There's basically two meanings: one is where you pass a law, the other is where you actually control something.

​

So for pirated music, its been regulated in the sense that there's laws about it, but its not been regulated in the sense that its controlled.

---

I explained it further in Message 571:

quote:

---

Then what is the purpose of your comments about pirated music?

​

To exemplify how something can be regulated with laws but remain out of control and not be "regulated".

​

They asked how we could regulate, i.e. "control", something that could easily be made and you responded that it being easily made doesn't mean we can't regulate it, i.e. "pass laws about it".

​

I was trying to explain how the equivocation lead to your misunderstanding.

---

How could I possibly explain myself any clearer? What is it that you do not understand? What am I doing wrong? I'm at a total loss here...Other's have understood me and even made the exact same point. Why is this not reaching you guys?Please explain this to me. I know some people will purposefully misunderstand others, and I know that some people aren't bright enough to understand. But I don't think either of those things about you. What is it about what I wrote that made it so difficult for you to understand it? I'd rather avoid this kind of stuff in the future but I feel like I've plainly and explicitly explained myself and you still don't seem to understand it. Its concerning. :

quote:

---

You are stating that because their is illegal file sharing we cannot control guns? Excuse me but that argument is asinine.

---

quote:

---

But I guess since people could possibly, conceivably, in some future circumstance produce a magazine that holds 20 rounds in their own homes, we should do nothing to control guns.

---

That's not evidence that the gun regulations had a positive effect on gun crime. That just shows that crime has reduced, there's nothing that suggests a cause for that reduction.

It matters in determining if the regulations caused anything. None of that was evidence for your claim.Simply observing a reduction in crime does not suggest a cause for that reduction. Where have I denied that? Are you trying to tell me that you are not interested in evidenced based conclusions? Why? Because I won't jump on the bandwagon? Because I'm skeptical? Because I won't swallow bad evidence?I'm acting no different than any of you guys on any other topic but because we're talking about guns, now all of the sudden if you ain't with us then your against us. You know when IDists call their opponents atheists for challenging their argument? You're that guy right now. No, you're not correct. States can pass whatever (constitutional) gun laws they want. I don't care. I'm already in the worst state. In Message 693, I posted the result of my own reasearch into this. I manually typed the data into Excel and uploaded screenshots of the plots. It didn't get much response. If anything, you guys are the ones who are afraid of the evidence.

I'm not sure it is. But I do think its different than someone who competes in matched target shooting.What are you getting at? I was answering a direct question and this is now a different context.We have problems with poor uneducated sectors turning towards gangs for survival. They use guns to display power. These are the people who are shooting each other.People talk about the number of guns relating to the number of deaths, but if you go to target shooting competition, there's all kinds of guns there and yet nobody ever gets shot. Its because safety is high priority as opposed to displaying your power. That's why some peoples' desires to own guns needs to be addressed more than others. Depends. Some are aesthetically pleasing, some are useful tools, some provide great recreation.

Do you think the number of pirates has an evidenced effect on the global temperature? . I don't doubt that gun laws could help. New York had a big push to crack down on all crime in general. I don't believe that the gun laws had too much of a significant effect, although I do think its non-zero.I just don't think that spending a bunch of time and money strictly on gun laws is worth it. It'd be better spent elsewhere and I think we'd get better results.The people who think that it is worth it have not proven their case.

Message 576

Yeah!"Fuck 'em"that's what I say...You gotta stop trying to save people. Your not going to change anyone here. They're just making fun of you out on the playground. Don't get yourself so worked up. Disregard 'em.This place is for laying out your position and supporting it with evidence to be criticized. They were kinda right when they said that this, your own personal wisdom and musings, might be better for your blog instead of here. That is, unless you want the reactions.To the rest of you jerks, I think the point she's making is that bringing guns to the situation is capable of increasing safety. Presidents' children are protected by armed guards because its effective. I don't think the claim is that if the Pres' kids are protected like that, then all of them should be.Yeah, yeah, they're highly trained. But it doesn't take a lot of training to remove most of the danger that guns can bring. Gun safety is pretty simple.Ultimately, its wrong to say that guns always make things worse.

Have you considered the interpretation in the Penn and Teller video?The Militia does refer to the State, but its in contrast to the People. To me it would read as:Because a free State is going to have a well regulated Militia, then the People need to be armed too. It assumes the right as a natural one, like the influential English Bill of Rights version, it says not to infringe it.The SCOTUS agrees that the right is an individual one, unconnected to service in the Militia, and also that it doesn't limit it in scope of the People.This works with the other parts of the Constitution that list the powers that the State has over the Militia.Proposal #9 would be toast.