for the record (re: guns thread)

Show me. Show me where I made the point that everyone in the world should have nukes? Remember, Modulous wrote: "Right and nukes don't kill people, people kill people. so everyone should have nukes." Did I write that anywhere? Oh? Did I?

quote:

---

Jon in Message 98

​

I am as much for keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, as I am for restricting people from driving near lakes who have a habit of crashing their cars into them

---

And then, I also said... "I am for restricting people from driving near lakes who have a habit of crashing their cars into them " People who have problems doing dangerous things should not be put in a position”e.g., by giving them a weapon, car, etc.”in which they frequently do dangerous things. I mean, after so many traffic tickets, you lose your licence. If you can show me that nukes have recreational use as much as guns do, and that they are good to protect individual A from the attacking individual B without also killing off innocent bystanders C,D,E, and the 10,000 F's, then you can continue to set the two equal. Until then, you are simply 'arguing an accident,' in technical terms .Jon

Phat, it's the point of the thread.You can't expect people to participate in a thread about how Jon is being stupid without calling Jon stupid.If you disagree that there should be a thread of this nature, then you should shut it down.Or better yet, you should have intervened in the previous thread to prevent Jon from getting himself into this mess in the first place.

There is a point at which correcting someone else's post stops being about fixing an oversite and starts being self congradulatory about how gosh darn clever you can be.Yes, Kent is an example of a shooting which took place at a school in which it was not a student shooting a memeber of that school.It was still a shooting at a school which Petro should have heard about in the news.Is it the BEST example of a school shooting? No.
Was it the ONLY example given? No.Does you're pointing out that it's not quite as good as some other one give you some sort of gold star? No.Kur was not being intellectually dishonest in his post. You aren't correcting a blatant falsehood.I'm sorry if it's "getting boring" for you. I might suggest either bringing up a point or kindly moving on. Riding in to snipe doesn't really score you the points you think it does. It's just annoying.

Kuresu was gracious enough to acknowledge and correct his error.That's the way it should be done. All I'm trying to say.

---

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

Frankly, most of the thread has been pretty boring.First, we are discussing US policy.In the US, ownership of guns is Constitutionally protected, a RIGHT. The Second Amendment is pretty clear, with even less wiggle room then the Biblical Christians have, but as we know, they can make up many interpretations. Those pushing for gun restrictions show their similarity when they too try to make up their personal interpretations of what is actually, pretty clear language.While those who wish to limit gun ownership can debate what the purpose of the first part of the Second Amendment refers to, the second half is absolutely clear, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."So in the US, every citizen has the RIGHT to bear Arms.Some have suggested that laws and restrictions can be passed at lower than the Federal level, and in fact, that is what has happened. States and even Cities have have passed local regulations imposing various limitations.Those laws and regulations eventually, as intended under our system, get tested in the courts. Just recently, the local regulations in the District of Columbia were reviewed at the Supreme Court level and over turned.Eventually the Supreme Court will hand down some clarification on just how the Second Amendment to the Constitution will be interpreted.There were already many, many laws in place that prohibited what happened at VT. So the issue is "Given that gun ownership is a RIGHT, not a privilege such as driving, how do you prevent those who would misuse that right from having access to guns without infringing on the basic RIGHT for others?"One way is by having some central database of information about each and every citizen in the US that will include near realtime information including health and mental health records as well as job evaluation information, that will be available in near realtime basis to those selling guns, police, educational facilities, employers and governments at all levels.The questions that need to be asked, are: "are we willing to allow such information gathering, how can we make sure it is accurate, who should have access to it, and how can we limit how such information is used?"Edited by jar, : my spall chiker failed me

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for posting something with perspective and points.Now, to why I disagree with you Yes, but like the right to free speech, it does not apply in all situations. Much like "shouting fire in a crowded theater", the right does not extend when doing so would cause harm to others.So, in the case of the 2nd amendment, when are people "shouting fire"? Maybe initially, but people can lose their right to bare arms, much like they lose their right to vote. However, while it is fairly easy to check if someone is voting, it's very very hard to make sure that someone who's lost the right to bare arms is infact not armed.And finally, once again, the question still comes down to "what is an arm"?Citizens have the "right to bare arms" but is a .22 rifle an arm? Is a .357? Is a machine gun? A rocket launcher? A surface to air missile?Surely we all agree that a line must be drawn somewhere. Where do you draw the line?

quote:

---

If that is ironic then it must be ironic that the loudest proponents of guns always blame other inanimate objects for the high firearm related death rate in the US. Rock n roll, Hip Hop, Leisure suit Larry, Doom, Grand Theft Auto, Black Sabbath....you name it - they have been vociferously attacked by the loudest of the gun proponents.

​

God forbid that anyone should question the prevalence of easily accessible lethal weapons.

---

TV doesn't shoot people. People with guns shoot people.

Oh, I didn't realize that lakes were specifically designed to have cars driven in to them.

quote:

---

Reducing the number of guns will definitely reduce the amount of gun violence, no doubt, but it's just another case of people who aren't willing to put the blame where it really lies: themselves, and the problems that their ignorance brings to society.

---

Excuse me?Are you seriously suggesting that any of us advocating for better gun control do not also advocate for all the actions that would lead to a better society, such as human and civil rights, sound economic policy and economic fairness for all, healthcare for all, a social safety net, a good education for all, a decent place to live for all, etc. etc. etc.?

quote:

---

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?

---

A few bad apples?Phat, 30,000 people die from guns every year, pretty close behind automobile deaths.That's not a few bad apples. That's a good portion of the orchard that's diseased.

quote:

---

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?

---

You don't give a can of gasoline to someone who is on fire.

Dude, I appreciate that between the two of us, I'm the one that gets to be the good cop in this thread, as it so rarely happens, but please, stop calling Jon names.It's lazy and undiciplined.Do it as much as you want in your head or out loud at your computer screen, but stop writing it down.You are fucking up my thread.

Back this up. Also, Phat is talking about people who intentionally kill others with guns. You need the stats that should that 30,000 people intentionally kill with a gun. Your number, 30,000, is of the total who die from guns”remember, Cho was one bad apple, but killed 32 people. My guess, is that there are many fewer bad apples than 30,000. No one on this thread is advocating that we do such.Jon

Yeah. I'll try to reign it back. But it's not like it's having any effect on him. He doesn't read the posts anyway.

No, what I'm saying is that if you fixed all of those things, guns would no longer be an issue. It's a long list, granted, but going after guns doesn't fix these problems, and going after these problems does fix the gun problem. So, where do you think society's focus should really lie? Don't let laziness and ignorance lead you to the simplest solution.Are you ready to tell us how you would fix these problems? Because fixing these problems would:i. reduce gun violence significantly, the primary”at least outwardly”goal of anti-gunners.
ii. allow people to own guns for recreational/protection purposes in accordance to the second amendment of the Constitution, the primary goal of pro-gunners.Wouldn't it be better for us to fix these problems instead of arguing over such superficial crap as gun control?Jon

quote:

---

Yeah. I'll try to reign it back. But it's not like it's having any effect on him. He doesn't read the posts anyway.

---

Some advice to you from someone who's been slogging away in this forum for a long time...Don't try to convince a stubborn or disingenuous opponent specifically.Remember that there are many lurkers who never post, and you are really speaking to them.THEY read the posts, even if your opponent doesn't appear to be.Being abusive to others never, ever looks good.

Wanna email that notion to the family members of the people that died at VT?I'm sure they don't consider gun control superficial crap.