|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ok.. you are utterly twisting and misrepresenting everything i say, I barely have time to look at this every few days, and have no interest in going round and round while you are clearly reading something other that what is written. If you truely believe that I am condoning the crime at the expense of the victim you have some very basic reading comprehension issues. I'll leave you to it. Its all your fault. If you don't have time to write coherantly and mean what you say and say what you mean, then maybe you should wait until you do have the time to do so. I mean, look how long it took you to realize your error and admit that your original argument about the capacity to be lethal really didn't have anything to do with the "capacity". I can't help it that you write things that you don't mean. If you don't mean capacity, then don't write about capacity. I can only go by what I see written from you. And you also aren't considering the logical extensions of your arguments. If you're not condoning the crime at the expense of the victim, then you could easily answer my question: How do you grant a criminal the right to due process after breaking into a home without removing the right of the victim to defend themself against the intrusion? Further, some decent reading comprehension on your side would help as well. Your response to me saying that if someone broke into a home then we know they've committed a crime is to list a bunch of questionable home shootings. But none of them address what I've said: If you've broken into someone's home, then you have committed a crime. It doesn't matter if it was a joke, or if you thought you were at a different place, or you're retarded, breaking and entering is a crime regardless. Now, that doesn't mean its right to start shooting, but I haven't said that either. It does get cloudier when you have teenagers who are "breaking", or sneaking, into the houses that they live in. I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess that they either are not "breaking in" or if they actually are, then it is still illegal. But I don't know. So for each of the "examples" that you listed, you need to address one question to each one of them to get to my point: Did they break into the house or not? You do know what "breaking and entering" is, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I've been making a very straight forward point, again and again and you've been dancing around it right from the get go What is your point?
I have shown that your average Joe/Joanne with a gun in their hand is not a reliable judge of whether a crime has actually been committed or not and they are not a reliable judge as to whether lethal force is required or not. The corpses back this up. I've attempted to make this point again and again and you've willfully misrepresented me and avoided responding to the point I was making. legal or illegal, intentional or unintentional, these people have died, and had there not been a gun available most if not all of them would not have been killed.with out a gun there would have been time to identify themselves and the error/mistake would have been apparent. But because guns were readily available, these people are now dead. Is that all you are saying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well its certainly been dumb!
But even after all your ramblings, it still all seems rather pointless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I would find it interesting, for someone in Congress to introduce a bill defining "Arms" (per the 2nd Amendment) as being weaponry as it existed in 1791. Would you also find it interesting to introduce a bill defining "Speech" as being communication that existed at time?
How could such be unconstitutional? At the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted, that's what "arms" were. Yeah, just written and spoken words, no free speech in broadcasting or on the internet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I did find an interesting study (The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981—2010) that appeared in the American Journal of Public Health. It found that "for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%." Did you see the other part?
quote: That's over five times the correlation for gun ownership - a five-to-one relationship. How come you're not pointing out that more blacks means more gun deaths? Or is that not vapid enough for you? ABE: Look how different your argument looks if you swap in the equally justified claim:
quote: Doesn't look so good, does it? Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Now, I think that the authors of the 2nd Amendment were unconcerned about defining "arms" or in anyway limiting the possession of "arms" because all "arms" of the time were acceptable to them. Well you're wrong. Artillery existed at that time. Arms were meant to be a firearm that a single individual could use.
Does not the 2nd Amendment allow a citizen to have their own personal H-bomb? Ah, the ol' Godwin's Law of guns... As an online discussion on the 2nd amendment grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving individuals owning nuclear weapons approaches 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Second, you claim that the distinction between good guys and bad guys is useless because we can't tell who is who. But you are completely missing the point by making it a matter of identifying individuals as the one or the other. The point is a statistical point. If you lump high crime areas with low crime areas to get a picture of gun deaths in the entire nation you are getting a false picture, and if you propose gun reforms based on such statistics you will be penalizing the good guys for the crimes of the bad guys. Its called the Ecological fallacy:
quote: For an example they use:
quote: In the above situation, the more Protestants you have the more suicides you have, but being a Protestant doesn't necessarily cause people to commit suicide. You can keep repeating it: "But the more Protestants you have the more suicides you have!" and your still not going to convince anybody because it is vapid and/or vacuous. The parallel to guns is that having a lot of gun deaths in an area causes people to go out and buy guns. So the more guns you have the more gun deaths you are going to have, but buying a gun doesn't necessarily cause people to create gun deaths. .
Allowing crime statistics to skew the definition of the safety of gun ownership across the nation is a misuse of statistics. I exemplified this with divorce, from Message 1303:
quote: .
Third, related to this, you accuse me of avoiding statistics because they don't say what I want them to say, but the problem for me is that the statistical analyses you've provided here don't distinguish between relevant categories, such as between high crime and low crime areas, or in other words "the good guys and the bad guys." This is particularly apparent in my home state, Illinois.
quote: As I said:
quote: You can keep repeating all day: "But more guns means more gun deaths", and it still doesn't address the argument. .
Fifth, you insist that I need to produce statistics to support my arguments. If the available data doesn't make the necessary distinctions I'm talking about here, where am I going to get such statistics? With things like the deterrent effect, where people don't commit a crime because they suspect a gun might be present, you cannot capture that with statistics because if they don't commit a crime then there is nothing to report. You can't use statistics on non-events so this stuff doesn't get considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, I'm evidence driven. Speaking just for me personally, if the evidence said I and my family and friends were safer with a gun then I'd own a gun, because I'd want to maximize all our chances for a long and happy life. But the evidence says I and my family and friends are safer without a gun, so to maximize all our chances for a long and happy life I do not own a gun. How strong do you stand by this? Do you avoid black people because the evidence you have says that they increase gun deaths by 5 times the amount that guns do? If not, why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Whatever post from Cat Sci you're thinking of, it wasn't addressed to me. The quotes from my post to Faith were taken from Message 1303, which was a post to you. That thread ended with you acknowledging my last reply to you that explained how you missed the point, Message 1307. Granted, that was a year ago. There's been a lot of different points being made and its getting pretty confusing. The stuff from the above posts was in reply to you saying that just being in the vicinity of a gun makes you less safe. It wasn't an argument about the correlation between guns and gun deaths.
Cat Sci's idea that gun deaths cause increased gun purchases and thereby skew the statistics we've cited makes no sense, so I didn't reply. More guns but same number of gun deaths would decrease the correlation, not increase it, so the effect he cites, if true, would mean those statistics understate the problem. That's where the Ecological fallacy comes into play. I'm talking about individuals and you're bringing in statistics from the aggregate. On the individual level, if your neighbor gets shot, you may go and get yourself a gun. If there's an increase in gun deaths on the other side of the state, then its going to look like your increase in the number of guns caused the number of gun deaths to go up. But that's impossible if your gun has never shot anybody. But there will still be the correlation of an increase in the number of guns and the increase of the number of gun deaths even no there was no causation. Simply looking at the aggregate data doesn't tell this aspect of the story. Too, look at it this way. The US is, by far, the number one country in terms of the amount of guns. Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia We are getting close to double that of second place. But, when it comes to the number of gun deaths, we're only in 12th place. List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia If the number of gun deaths were simply caused by the number of guns, then the U.S. would have to be way out in front on the number of gun deaths, and be like almost twice second place. Why don't you think that is the case? Its pretty obvious that one man who owns 100 guns cannot use them all at the same time, or even in any appreciable percetage where that number of guns is going to cause any appreciable increase in the number of gun deaths.
he had addressed only two very brief posts to me, mostly asking about my attitude toward blacks The point wasn't about your actual attitude towards blacks. It was to show how vapid your argument is. That's why I asked if it wasn't vapid enough for you to actually make the argument. Face it, the evidence speaks for itself: The more blacks, the more gun deaths. Wow, what an amazing argument
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There wasn't much to reply to.
Artillery is run by a crew not an individual. And the 2nd amendment doesn't "allow" for anything. It just says to not infringe on the Peoples' right to have guns. Other laws are what disallow people from having grenade launchers. Google "destructive device".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"Arms", not "guns". And "arms" is not defined to mean guns. It means weapons. Guns are weapons. And its a right that a person has. They're talking about personal weapons. It stems back to the English Bill of Rights:
quote: I find that definition, although it's not in the Constitution, to be acceptable. But I don't see that that definition excludes such things as rocket powered grenade launchers. It doesn't. Its not exclusionary at all.
What do you think is the limit of the type of "arms" a citizen is Constitutionally allowed to "keep and bear"? None. The type of arms a citizen is allowed to keep and bear is not limited by the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't even "allow" the citizens to have arms in the first place. It identifies the existence of the right, and then says to not infringe it.
50 caliber seems pretty arbitrary. Why not limit it to 22 caliber? Well for one, some states have wildlife that can survive a 22.
What do YOU think is the limit of the type of "arms" a citizen is Constitutionally allowed to "keep and bear"? Honestly, the question is just nonsensical. The Constitution doesn't allow citizens to bear arms and it place no limits it the right. You should be asking the other way: what's the limitation on civilian arms that becomes unconstitutional... That really isn't clear now, is it? My opinion is that the metric for the limitation of civilian arms should be the police. The police are civilians too. Anything they are allowed to have, I should be allowed to have. And if you want to limit me from having it, then you should limit the police from having it as well. That should create a decent balance of interest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What about body armour? It's not an "arm", technically, but it would be handy to protect me from the police. What about it? I've never thought about it. Is it not commercially available?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You guys probably don't sell a lot of beach towels either...
I'm not sure I'm getting the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
NoNukes writes:
The problem is that the criminal that you're trying to defend yourself from can probably shoot just as fast as a three-year-old. And as has been pointed out, it is absolutely reckless to have a round in the chamber anyhow. Or maybe not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I thought automatics were illegal. Not at the federal level. You have to pay a $200 tax and fill out a bunch of paperwork. I've shot, iirc, three different fully automatic rifles. One was an M-16, I think, and the other was a Mac-11, for sure. That stupid thing bounced all over the place. I don't recall what the third one was. It was all 100% legal. We were in Missouri.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024