for the record (re: guns thread)

... Now, now my legume friend. I addressed this one in pretty good detail. Well, technically I addressed it in regards to nukes, and then stated that the same logic applies to landmines. Remember, the PURPOSE of the amendment is to allow arms "necessary to the security of a free state." Consider this: With an ak-47, you pluk off one Canadian, two Canadian, three Canadian... protecting your country all the while doing so, i.e., you help protect the security of the free state. Well, if you blow up chunks of land everywhere trying to get rid of the Canadians, you start destroying some of that that state. Destroying the state, of course, is not protecting it; it's not "necessary to the security of a free state," in fact, it's detrimental to that security. So, this such as nukes and landmines, which destroy the very state they are supposed to be protecting, are not coverd by the 2nd Amendment.Read more of my posts for clarification, but that should pretty much sum it up. Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

Can you actually provide me with something specific I was wrong about? I've not stated that Jon has got your position right - I'm stating that Schraff has got his position about your position wrong. Read my post again nuggin - Jon said that he was talking about the context of murder: Schraff said she didn't believe him, and insisted he was talking just about violence. I documented the context, clearly showing it to be about murder. That is all I was stating. There are two possibilities: Either Jon was talking about violence in the context of murder OR he wasn't.I think it is clear that he was, simply by reading his posts with a clear mind (I went back and read the whole thread again, and Jon's posts make a lot more sense when you know his position first...a sign of poor communication obviously, but the written word can do that - especially in the informal setting of an internet forum). I know it can be difficult to accept that you misunderstood a situation, I certainly did, and was happily corrected by Jon. I still disagree with some of the specific things he says, but at least I'm actually disagreeing with his position, not a misunderstood one My last 2 sentences really sums this up: Jon meant murder rates. Attack that position if you must attack any at all - it is after all - your opponent's position.So fine - he was talking about murder rates, and that isn't really your position, its about lethal incidents and ease of access. Argue that! Don't argue that your opponent was saying something he wasn't, on the basis of a quote mine.

quote:

---

I addressed this one in pretty good detail. Well, technically I addressed it in regards to nukes, and then stated that the same logic applies to landmines.

---

When you make comments like this, it is wise and helpful to new readers if you provide links back to where you started discussing nukes. Doing so also keeps everyone on the same page or link as it were.

quote:

---

Destroying the state, of course, is not protecting it; it's not "necessary to the security of a free state," in fact, it's detrimental to that security. So, this such as nukes and landmines, which destroy the very state they are supposed to be protecting, are not coverd by the 2nd Amendment.

---

You would also be wise to use less absolute statements. Since you were not around (I assume) during the writing of the 2nd Amendment you are speculating the limits.A little homework would show landmines were used in the civil war. So speculating that the 2nd Amendment writers were concerned with keeping the actual ground safe from destruction doesn't seem reasonable. You would need to show that people would be concerned about the ground while being overrun by an enemy.I haven't researched, but I don't recall a war that was fought while being concerned that ground not be destroyed.BTW, I'm not talking about nukes; only landmines.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Thanks for the input. I have to admit, I was pondering this one as well. A landmine may make a big hole in the ground, but hey, if it kills off 56 invading Canadians whilst so doing, then perhaps it is moreso an aid in protecting the security of a free state than it is a detriment. From this, I think it is quite possible that landmines actually are protected under the 2nd Amendment. If this argument could be well-made”and I just might be the one who will want to make it”then perhaps it is such that landmines should be made legal. I would fully agree with such logic.Anyhow, I'm just thinking outloud here. Thanks for bringing this up.Jon

At this point, it is obvious to me that you are incapable of getting out of your own way.Since you continue to spew these lies despite the fact that you are in a thread dedicated to the lies you are spewing, I see no point in continuing this conversation.You need to get help.

I am completely unconcerned with what Jon meant in his posts.What I am concerned about is what he claims we were saying. His obviously false statements to that effect are very clearly on the record despite repeated attempts to correct him.He does not get to say "I meant murder" when he's attributing a quote to someone else. That's not how quoting works.The fact of the matter is - the simple point that weapons which are more lethal yield more casualties when used in violent acts remains unassailable.Jon can't have that, so he lies about what our original position is, then attacks the lie. That's a strawman.You don't get to retroactively go back and claims you meant something else when you lied.If he got the content wrong but the intention right, then none of his strawmen attacks would make sense in context. But since they do make sense in context, he was clearly lying in the first place.

Neither was he quoting. He was paraphrasing. And yes, you get to do that when you are paraphrasing. Especially when the sentences that rebut the paraphrase (that follow straight afterwards) discuss murder although the paraphrase only spoke of violence. Jon has clearly stated that he wasn't characterising your position (or that of others) as being about violence. He knows that is not your position. He 'gets to' clarify his paraphrasing of his opponents position. I didn't see where he attacked the 'lie', in the way you are saying he did.Jon said: The claim is that increased gun ownership leads to increased violence.Jon attacked: The claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased murder rates.Now if you want to say that Jon was attacking a straw man, that is fine - but make sure you know what strawman he was actually attacking. It is a sturdier model than the one you claim he is attacking. I wonder if you could explain this a little? Perhaps with examples? From what I can tell, Jon's attacks don't make sense in context. Murder is not the same as violence. He is attacking the murder claim but stating that the claim is about just violence? That makes no sense at all unless when he said 'violence' he was thinking murderous violence.

Jon as I remember landmines weren't that good at taking out human targets. It was ok for tanks and other vehicles.A 30 cal or 60 cal machine gun would be much better to take out human targets.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

My weapon of choice to fight with is a Springfield 30 cal. bolt action military rifle. I like it because of it's accuracy and the environment it can withstand and still be operational.But everyone is not qualified expert marksman with one of these weapons. But with an m16 they would be just as lethal because of the extra round capability.I notice you didn't mention the 170,000,000 people killed in the 87 years from 1900-1987 by their own governments. That comes to about 1 every 16.17 seconds.This is the reason I said you can ban my automobile even take it away from me. But to get my guns there would only be one way like I posted in an earlier post. Message 223

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Mod - I don't understand what you think you're defending.I don't see it as contentious to suggest that participants in a discussion should strive for clarity above all else, and especially should refrain as much as possible from putting words in other people's mouths. And while it's sometimes necessary to "unpack" language that's really being used to conceal an unpleasant truth, there's a fuzzy line between that and simply presenting a strawman of your opponents position.These discussions about what you "can" and "can't" do proceed from no explicit rules; just our own subjective experiences about what is fair play and what is dirty pool. Nobody is talking about doing anything to Jon but simply saying "sorry, but I find your conduct dishonest." That you may not find it appropriate to say so isn't a reason to jump to a logic-chopping defense. And it's fairly disingenuous on your part to construe yourself as an impartial referee following an invisible rulebook.The question is whether or not Jon's remarks transgress the forum guidelines. If they do, substantively, then he should probably get sanctioned for it. But while simply being disingenuous, or using some conversational slight of hand to conceal a retreat from an over-reached position, may not be against the rules, neither is it above reproach or comment.This isn't the first time you've risen to someone's defense with these astoundingly obtuse interpretations, and in my experience they drive struggling threads even further off-topic. If Jon is being disingenuous then he deserves criticism for it, as part of the regular course of argumentation. If unclear writing has been mistaken for deceit, then Jon needs to learn to be clearer, and understanding how others interpret his remarks - without bending over backwards to be charitable, as you keep doing - will help him do that.But I don't see that these defenses of yours, continued in post after post, add anything to the discussion. They just drive us into the desert of "talking about what words mean", which is the most worthless conversation it's possible to have.

Agreed. Agreed - the idea of what one 'gets to do' is absurd. That's why I used scare quotes. Never said otherwise. I am pointing out that Jon is not being dishonest - at least not in the way people are making out he is. He was quite clearly talking about murder when he said 'violence'. All you have to do is read his post in its entirety, and the other posts he made to discover what Jon is arguing against is not the 'violence' argument.To suggest that Jon created a strawman with the 'violence' situation is erroneous since Jon never actually rebutted the 'violence argument'. Agreed. I don't think that such a retreat is in effect. Jon never attacked the strawman that people say he set up. Yes, he would demand reproach. I have myself argued against him in this very thread. However, just because I don't agree with Jon doesn't mean I agree with his opponents. They are wrong in their interpretation and I'm more than happy to explain why. So far, nobody has demonstrated how I am wrong, they've just listed all the reasons why they think Jon is being dishonest.I've laid my reasoning down, feel free to criticize it.Incidentally - the topic is in fact about Jon and whether he can understand his opponents. By arguing that he can at least partially understand his opponents, I am being very much on topic. If you feel it worthless, don't participate. That is the entire premise of the thread. I feel that Jon's quote in the OP is indeed a quote mine and I've explained why.

See, that's the logic-chopping that I'm talking about. If he's both misrepresented his opponents position and failed to defend his rebuttals with argumentation, that's two strikes against him - not two wrongs that make a right.He doesn't get a pass on arguing against a strawman just because he wasn't even able to argue against his own strawman. Incompetence is no defense. If he doesn't know how to make arguments for or against positions, he needs the help to learn. Defending him in his ignorance does him no favors. This post, then, should be more than sufficient. Again, his inability to demolish the strawman he erected is not evidence that it was never supposed to be a strawman in the first place. Call it "attempted strawman", if you will. And you don't see how rising to his defense against charges of misrepresenting the positions of others undermines your explanation?

As I asked Crashfrog:

quote:

---

I am puzzled by what is meant by this statement. Are you saying that there are 100,000 instances of manslaughter in the US in 2001 due to firearms? Are these prosecutions successful or just filed? What is your direct source in the BJS as they are online and linking to this source should not prove too formidable a task.

---

I asked for your source, do you have it yet?

That's enough. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

quote:

---

He does not get to say "I meant murder" when he's attributing a quote to someone else. That's not how quoting works.

---

Quoting means to repeat or reproduce the exact words of another. When doing that here at EvC we usually use the quote boxes, but some use the quotation marks. Message 292, by Jon, is not a reply to any specific post and the statement in question is not in quote boxes or quotation marks and is not attributed to anyone specific. Having read through that thread I saw several posts that could lead Jon to paraphrase as he did. Only one of them was yours.In Message 143 of that same thread you suggested: I think that is what he was doing in message 292, but you chose to ignore that part of the post.This thread is almost done and I strongly suggest that you and all participants let go of the misunderstandings and address actual positions as they have been recently clarified.If you can't, I will close the thread early since the original intent of the thread has actually been resolved.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

It took me an hour of skimming through literally every report on the BJS under the "Guns and Crime" heading (in plain text format, because it takes too long to open a PDF) to find even a mention of it, and I didn't save the link.I gave the source; the source is the Bureau of Justice Statistics webpage, like I said. I don't have time to find it again. If you come across different or better numbers, I'd appreciate knowing what they are.