for the record (re: guns thread)

So? If you stole my car, got a bunch of friends in the back seat, and then drove it into the lake just so you could kill yourself along with all your friends”or Hell, even just on ACCIDENT”, should I be held responsible because I didn't keep my car keys locked away in a safe made of 32-inch-thick, impenetrable steel walls? The kids are still responsible for what they did, and not only then should such kids be charged with the murders, but also with the theft of the guns. I mean, you wouldn't honestly blame a police officer if someone got his gun from him, i.e., stole it, and then killed someone, would you?Once again, you are just making another argument to shift blame from the real problem”people who kill other people”to something/someone else.And once the number of guns in circulation is extremely low, and the new most popular weapons are paring knives, will you seek to put restrictions on those as well? Indeed, there will always be a weapon of some sort at the top of the list, and targeting that weapon will only get it replaced with another. As I've said before, do you not think it is about time you address the real problem? And I know, if any cliché were to sum up the general argument here it is thus: guns don't kill people; people kill people. God, I hated that I actually had to repeat it.Jon

Actually - you could be sued, so yes. That is one of the reasons there is compulsary motor insurance in many countries. I'd argue that there was a good chance he should accept at least partial liability for the incident, yes. So...hand grenades are fine? Its not like banning them would prevent people from killing each other indiscriminately. I could drown a shopping mall full of people, kill the police with my shoes and start an extended ATF type siege with a ring binder - so why the need for hand grenades?Nobody is saying that the murderers are not culpable. However - we are stating that liability isn't just at the feet of the murderers. If a police officer handcuffed a dangerous suspect, leaving the keys in it - would we not blame the officer for being an idiot when the suspect escapes? Sure - the suspect is at fault for escaping, but the police officer was at fault too.That several parties can share some of the liability should not be a complicated idea. The thing being blamed is not the gun! It is the proliferation of certain types of weapons which is being held partially liable here. If you don't agree - that is one thing, but at least understand what is being being blamed and for what. Agreed - and that is the actual debate at question! What should be at the top? Nukes? Gatling Guns? AK-47s, Grenade Launchers? Pistols? Shotguns? Right and nukes don't kill people, people kill people. so everyone should have nukes. The point is, the real problem is that people are assholes. The question is - what is the most powerful weaponry that we want average assholes to have?Sure some asshole will get hold of a nuke. We want as few assholes to have powerful weapons as possible.I always find it difficult to understand it when every defence in the world is put out there for gun proliferation. On the one hand someone says 'cars are deadlier than guns' but they want a gun to defend their home, not a car.Then they suggest that it is people that kill people, not weapons. That argument falls over because it doesn't justify drawing the line at any particular place. Do we draw the line at grenades? Chemical weapons? Anti aircraft weapons? After all, anti aircraft weapons don't kill airplane passengers - people do.

Show me this as a valid flow of logic, and I'll accept your point. Otherwise, all you are doing is substituting fallacious reasoning for good logic. You're missing the point, in technical terms . You want the restrictions, how about you tell us where you want that line to be drawn, and we can debate from there.Jon

If that woman carried the bathtub around campus in her pocket and managed to drown 32 healthy adults with it in the course of about 15 mins, they HELL YES I would say we should take a second look at who would be allowed to own bathtubs.Can help but notice that you STILL havent address the point of the thread (ie your inability to read other people's posts)

No we aren't. That is a side issue off the main topic which is, basically, "Why can't Jon et al read?"Here's the quote from post 1: The point is that Nator and I, repeatedly had to make the same point over and over and over and over and over and over and over (note that's 7 "overs") again and yet Jon et al could not seem to hear it.What gives?

Why? This is the same issue as the dick swinging science posts.Petro said there were no school shootings reported.
Kur said "Here's a list of some"You aren't disproving the entire list, therefore you aren't falsifying Kur's statement.You just want to chime in and say "there's too much pepper". Go cook your own soup if you don't like what Kur is making. His point still stands as valid.

So are you saying that your real gripe is political? The issue is legislation. The problem with legislation is that it effects everyone. Its like a Cancer drug. The drug kills off the cancer cells and also kills many of the healthy cells. Do we really want to give society a shot of chemotherapy that hurts all of our freedoms in order to attempt to limit a few bad apples? One more point that Sowell makes: My point, aside from jumping into an argument that I am no expert on, is to ask why the focus needs to be on the guns and not on the mental condition of people who abuse them?Edited by Phat, : visual appearance

Sigh.Jon, don't you ever get tired of being this far off point? I mean, seriously, in a thread about how you have trouble reading you continue to demonstrate you complete inability to understand a post.There ought to be some sort of pity rule where people step in and say. "Enough, stop picking on Jon, he can't help it."Here I'll explain the point. I'd use crayons but they just don't seem to work well over the internet.You said: "Guns aren't the problem it's crazy people who have guns. We should stop crazy people from having guns."As if that were some sort of profound statement.I pointed out that your "plan" doesn't consider the REAL LIFE point that the crazy people don't need to own the gun right now for them to do bad things with it tomorrow.The Columbine kids did NOT own the guns they used to kill.Your "plan" of let everyone have guns and have the crazy people be on the honor code not to use them, is about the dumbest thing I have EVER heard on these boards - creationists included.How do YOU propose to keep the guns out of the hands of crazy people if you are COMPLETELY WILLING to let EVERYONE have ANY GUN they want?Do you even have an answer?Perhaps I need to obscure the question down to your level...Good boys are allowed to have "lakes", bad boys are not. But sometimes bad boys will steal a good boy's lake. Uh oh. That's a no no. Who get's the spanking?

In the last thread, I asked for a repeat of the position. I think nator gave us all one, but you did not, and kuresu”in essence”told me to go piss off for not wanting to search through 11 pages of posts to find the needle in the hay stack.So, if you would be so kind, what is your position? How will you control gun violence, keeping in mind that most gun owners don't kill; that most people who do kill are unlikely”as Phat as pointed out”to obey gun laws to begin with; and that we Americans have a freedom in the Constitution to bear our arms. So, please, for the eighth time... JonEdited by Jon, : S p a c e s

I'd like to point out before I begin, that this is ABSOLUTELY on topic.The point of the thread is that Jon was being incredibly stupid in the other thread.So siting Jon making the EXACT SAME mistakes here is dead on for what we should be posting. Jon, as we said in POST 1 of this thread, the issue is not stopping all violence, it's stopping the ability of the few to enact violence on a grand scale.If Cho had a paring knife he would not have killed 32 people. It is not easy to kill people with a paring knife.I'd also like to point out that it was you one who bitched and moaned for something like 10 posts about how wrong I was for overlooking a museum's desire to own a machine gun for display purposes.Meanwhile, here on post 106, you've somehow completely missed the original issue of this post - that you're either full of crap or woefully stupid.Care to clear it up? Care to explain how you missed the 15 or so posts in the previous thread in which we made it VERY CLEAR what our position was?Full of Crap? Woefully stupid? Which is it?

Nuggin, may I call your attention to the subtitle? May I also call your attention to this? Finally, I wanted to show you something you have read before:
Forum GuidelinesLets stay civil to one another.Edited by AdminPhat, : spelling

---

---

Jon, this is YOUR point. You explain your logic.You say that it's okay for a murdering psycho to have access to a machine gun because if he didn't have access to a machine gun, he'd just use a knife.We're saying, Where do you draw the line?For you it's okay for the murderer to have a knife, it's okay from him to have a pistol, it's okay for him to have a machine gun, where is the cut off?Would it be okay for Cho to have had a Nuke? If not, WHY NOT?After all, "Nukes don't kill people, people with nukes kill people.""God, I hated that I had to repeat myself."

No, I'm drawing an analogy to another group of people who are following a clearly failed policy right into the ground. Which medical conditions would you like to focus on? And what do you propose we do about them?The Criminally Insane?
The Abusive Husband?
The Drunken Idiot?
The Angry Fired Co-Worker?
The Accident Prone Kid?Do you have a method by which we can systematically keep these people from getting their hands of firearms (including those firearms which belong to neighbors or relatives)?

Woefully stupid it is then.There, as here, the position was laid out for you in the FIRST POST.If you are going to continue to post on a thread, you might be BOTHERED to go and look at what the damn thread is about.The issue here, unlike the last thread, is not my position on guns. It's YOUR inability to read.Requesting that I post a position for you in a thread about how you don't read posts is a little futile, don't you agree?Oh, of course you can't agree because that would imply that you READ the post in the first place, which as we've pointed out in this thread - you don't do a particularly good job of doing.

**sigh** This is getting boring.If the topic is indeed about inability to read, then you are demonstrating that inability in spades. The list of "some" is wrong.The topic being (directly or indirectly) about guns and the forum being Coffee House is not an excuse to park your brain at the door and present sloppy thinking - especially if you are trying to underline another poster's sloppy thinking.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC