Summations Only

quote:

---

Attitudes will change gradually

---

These gun restrictions are only going to cause people to get arrested for violating gun laws. I havn't seen any evidence that they reduce crime at all.It did reduce the amount of Democrats elected to congress starting in 1994.Democrats won the house in 2006 and 2008 ONLY after the national part made it clear to voters that gun control was off the table. Obama ran in 2008 as an opponent of the Assault Weapons Ban, and then in December 2012 - after safely re-elected - did an about face.As a result, the House of Representatives is fundamentally Republican FYI.Yes, I said fundamentally. The Republicans have a better chance at electing a governor in California than Democrats have a chance at controlling the U.S. House.Even an anti-GOP wave election wouldn't produce a Democratic majority (218 seats).What is the end result of "gun-control"?That's the long and short of it.

People might go crazy with knives, bats, vehicles or any other object that is potentially lethal as well.It seems obvious to me that your main goal is to ban guns from being privately owned. If that is not the goal, then what other measures would you like to see in place?

This has been addressed numerous times. How about you do something else rather than just constantly rinse and repeat? You keep bringing up this strawman and are being constantly told you are building a strawman. That you are constantly using this tactic seems to show you have no argument. In order to constructively participate in a thread you have to read what people actually write not what you want them to have written. Your question has been addressed numerous times. How about you read the thread and address the measures that have been presented numerous times?When you have no argument maybe you should look at why you have no argument.

Hi, Hyroglyphx. Percy's specific proposal (in the post you just responded to) was to end the practice of falsely claiming that guns make people safe, and stick to the statistically-supported narrative that guns are more likely to harm than protect.This should reduce gun ownership enough to have an impact on the death rate while not interfering with people's Constitutional rights.

This point has been raised and disposed of before. It's primary fallacy is that it ignores lethality, but anyway, I didn't just say crazy. I said people become "angry or depressed or careless." It would be for the greater good if the country moved in directions that make death less likely when something like that happens. Well, then you're wrong again. Your approach so far has mostly been, "The 'reduce gun deaths' side would be so much easier to refute if they held extreme or illogical positions, so I will assign them such positions and try to make them defend them." This makes little sense. I don't think I've proposed any specific "measures." If I have a main argument it's the certainty that fewer households with guns would mean fewer households experiencing gun deaths. Buying a gun for defense in reaction to news of the latest gun violence is a wholly understandable reaction, but we need to promote a better understanding of the reality that this actually increases the danger of gun violence.If I have a secondary argument it's about the ease of acquiring guns. The lethality of guns argues that gun ownership be better managed, perhaps requirements somewhat similar to motor vehicles.--Percy

Well, for starters, I wasn't talking to you. I addressed Percy. Secondly, the only counter-argument that I've seen made is that those other items hold some kind of utility that makes it too important to ban. Well, guns have a utility too important to ban as well. You seem to disagree. Around and around we go in circles until we get bored of trying to change the viewpoint of the other. It's the EvC way.

Well, Theodoric is all kinds of pissy because apparently specific measures have been addressed multiple times. I haven't seen any specifics either. The thrust has been, as you allude, that too many people die by guns therefore we should restrict them more. That's great and all, but that doesn't really advance the discussion without some kind of specific measures. I think we could all agree that certain people shouldn't have access to guns. Even the most diehard, card-carrying member of the NRA agrees that some measure of gun control is advisable. I certainly don't want innocent people to die and I certainly know there are some people who cannot be trusted with a weapon either out of neglect or a penchant for violence. The tricky part is trying to figure out who those people are in a simple and effective way.I will say this: I looked at the measures Obama put in place and I, to my genuine surprise, agreed with them. I thought they were sensible, realistic, appear like they would be effective, and would not harm law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves.The NRA right now is grandstanding because ANY concession with Obama would make them appear weak to their constituents. This is idiotic and prideful. If Obama does something sensible then they should back him up. Anyway, that's how lobbying and politics work, unfortunately.

And here it goes. I am extremely disappointed in the way you are framing things. You know how things go here. There is no one on one unless it is specifically requested. If someone pot something people don't agree with they will comment. Do you want me to research all the responses you have had to posts that were not directed at you? Either your reading skills are not that good or you are selectively reading posts. Not worth a response.

Pissy? Thin skin much?
Personal attacks? Still?
Specific measures have been proposed on this thread. Here I will even do the reading and research for you.
Message 4585
This isn't the first and only specific proposals presented.

It doesn't make it any less true. I addressed the issue similarly in my reply. I know that others have been making arguments like this, but I consider them off-target. The pro-gun side has advanced the argument that if gun ownership should be restricted because of gun deaths then ownership of other common items that also cause deaths like motor vehicles and ladders should also be restricted. The argument that the utility of these items outweighs their danger is true but not quite the right point.What I feel is the more relevant argument would bring to attention the underlying flaw in the pro-gun argument: all human endeavor involves risk. There is not a single 100% safe activity. Whether you're driving or climbing a ladder or defending your home, risk is involved.Motor vehicles are purchased to provide transportation, a task they perform admirably. Ladders are purchased to provide access to high places, a task they also perform admirably. But guns are purchased to provide additional safety, a task they perform woefully. They do the opposite, placing one at greater risk of gun injury and death.A side note: Motor vehicles are regulated far more strictly than guns, and relative to their degree of lethality ladders are regulated far more strictly at the federal level than guns.--Percy

Agreement about the problem's nature is necessary before discussion of specific measures. Most pro-gun people do not agree that a gun in the household brings greater danger, not greater safety. As a general rule most people believe they're above average, and the gun-specific corollary of this rule is that most gun owners believe they have the necessary qualities to make themselves safer with a gun than without. This is a fallacy. There's no tricky part about it. No one is always calm and always sane and always careful and always secure, and it's been shown statistically that guns increase danger, not safety. Until gun owners recognize this it will be difficult to reach agreement on effective gun control measures. Glad to hear this. Here is a breakdown and interpretation of the federal regulations that Obama is proposing to enforce more strictly: Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guides. I'm not proposing discussing this, it's very long, very detailed, very repetitive, but it's relevant to the discussion, so I'm providing the link. Glad to hear this, too. Yes, which is one reason I'm reluctant to discuss specific measures. It can quickly become merely political, and anyway, just getting agreement on the nature of the problem is difficult enough.--Percy

Alright, you scum-sucking alien impostor, what have you done with Hyroglyphx?

The headline screams, "Local resident murdered by burglar." With the burglar still at large, local gun shops experience a dramatic increase in sales.The specifics differ but the story is always the same. Whether it's in a home or at a business or at a school or in a public place or somewhere else, whether the perpetrators are criminals or terrorists or friends or family, the reaction of many is to arm themselves so they can make themselves safer. It's a simple knee-jerk reaction: "If I buy a gun, then I'll be safer."This reaction is far too simplistic, causing many to make a very poor and dangerous decision to purchase a gun. Much more accurate reasoning would go something like this: "If I get gun training, and if I stay trained, and if I keep the gun in a safe place where it can't be discovered by children or stolen, and if I find a way to also keep it available for defense, and if I maintain the gun, and if I'm never careless, and if I never become depressed or suffer from some other mental illness, and if I never become angry, then I and those around me will be safer."Until the common perception of guns includes an understanding that it requires a considerable investment in planning and effort before the "safer" parts kicks in, there will never be a realistic dialog about gun control.--Percy

ABC News reports Woman Shot in Washington State Movie Theater, Man Arrested.After the shooting the man called 911 from home to report that he had dropped his gun and it went off. The woman is now in stable condition.--Percy

Now is he a "good guy" that the pro-gun lobby advocates carrying a gun everywhere or a "bad guy" that should have been gunned down on the spot like a rabid dog?He's such a responsible, stand-up kind of guy that not only is he playing with a loaded gun in a public venue WHILE DRUNK, he goes all the way home instead of waiting for the police like an adult.