for the record (re: guns thread)

quote:

---

Back this up.

---

Jon, IIRC, I have posted that statistic twice already. Once in this thread (in a link to the article about the Harvard researcher's work), and once in text form in the Guns thread.I am sick and tired of being the only one doing research on this subject, or even taking the time to post and repost sources.You've participated in both threads, so unless you are not reading my posts, you should have gotten that information twice already. Go look it up.

quote:

---

Also, Phat is talking about people who intentionally kill others with guns.

---

I don't think he is.In any case, nothing he wrote indicated such. Only he can clear that up.

quote:

---

No one on this thread is advocating that we do such.

---

Phat wrote:

quote:

---

...why the focus needs to be on the guns and not on the mental condition of people who abuse them?

---

My point was, if society's "mental condition" is so obviously unstable that it is likely to be a danger to itself (it is "on fire"), you don't want to make it ridiculously easy for the populace to get weapons that makes killing many people quick and effortless (that would be analogous to pouring gasoline on the person on fire).The fire/gasoline analogy was much more elegant than the labored, clunky explanation, but there you go.

Present their opinions, else retract. Just because someone has had tragedy befall them does not mean that they will suddenly toss out all sense of reasonableness. I have yet to hear of anyone blaming cars when they lose loved ones in DUI accidents. They blame either the shitty legal system that let the drunk driver have his licence after the 5 DWI, or they blame the drunken driver himself, and in most cases, probably both.I have a feeling that these people are more upset with Cho and the school that did nothing after the first shooting than they are about guns. And it would make more sense for them to be so, after all, it's pretty hard to sue a gun .

Since Schraf and Nuggin have brought this thread into the degrading and humiliating realm of cheap Creationist-like ad hominem, I will be withdrawing. I have better things to do that to make laborious posts all day only to be called stupid for doing so with no substance of a rebuttal.If they clean up their act, and start posting replies of actual intellectually derived substance, I may return. Until then, g'day, everyone, and I'll see you around. JonEdited by Jon, : Cool
Beans

ADMINNEMOOSEUS IS WATCHING THIS TOPIC.

​

BEHAVE YOURSELVES.Maybe a topic closing coming.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Update "signature" content.

---

Source

so what's wrong with a multi-pronged attack? the problems needing to be fixed to make guns no longer a concern will take some time to fix. why not limit the guns while fixing the root problem?(and yeah, you're saying that wackos shouldn't get guns. But as others have said on this board--the columbine killers didn't own any of their own guns. wackos still got guns)

quote:

---

No, what I'm saying is that if you fixed all of those things, guns would no longer be an issue.

---

No kidding.Where is it written that we can't work on all of them at once?Excuse me, but tens of thousands of people DIE every year from guns, mostly handguns.Yes, social ills like poverty, racism and misogyny create tensions between people.Yes, tensions between people sometimes lead to violence.Wouldn't it be better, as we work on solutions to these problems of poverty, racism, and misogyny, for less of this inevitable violence to be lethal?We can prevent many of those tens of thousands of deaths a LOT more quickly through intelligent gun laws and actual enforcement than we can through the long, difficult process of societal change.The latter takes generations; the former takes the stroke of a pen.Shouldn't we NOT throw gasoline on the fire?

quote:

---

If they clean up their act, and start posting replies of actual intellectually derived substance, I may return.

---

Yeah, right, Jon.------------------------See Nuggin? When he is backed into a corner, he can use the excuse of your poor treatment of him to run away.This is (almost) entirely your doing.

I don't think you understand what the word "retract" means.I don't need to retract that "I am sure that..." because I know for a fact that "I am sure."But more importantly, you honestly believe that the family's of the victims at VT think that gun control is "superficial crap"? Honestly? That's what you believe? Those people, grieving the senseless deaths of their loved ones are picking up the newsweek about gun violence and saying, "Jesus! What a bunch of superficial crap. Guns are AOK in my book."Wow. Just wow.

Well, if you recall Nator, he ran away in the last thread too. Post 155 was his "this debate is over post"Of course that didn't stop him from coming back and posting several more times, including message 292, the one that lead to the creation of this very thread.

So if we banned guns in the USA that would solve our problem.If so why did the reports in Britain show the 40% increase in crimes with guns in 4 years after handgun's were banned in 1997?Page not found | National Review

---

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

Icant, did you read the first post? The one about how we are not suggesting ban all guns and yet everyone keeps saying things like: Additionally, while the "National Review" online is well known for being oh so balanced, I'd like to point out that the article you linked says that there was an increase of 40% but doesn't give us any numbers about the numbers.A jump from 10 crimes to 14 crimes is 40%. But I'd hardly call 4 crimes a crime wave.While, obviously we aren't talking about numbers that low, it'd be nice to know exactly what the numbers are

quote:

---

Well, if you recall Nator, he ran away in the last thread too. Post 155 was his "this debate is over post"

---

Yes, I know, and doesn't he look foolish for doing so, particularly since he accused me of an ad hominen but I explained in another post that it wasn't one?If he runs away with no valid reason to do so, that means we win.However, if you descend to ad hominem, he does have a valid reason to ignore you and withdraw from the debate, no matter how poorly he is doing. We don't want to give him that out.

quote:

---

Of course that didn't stop him from coming back and posting several more times, including message 292, the one that lead to the creation of this very thread.

---

Yes, and all the people who are following this debate got to read both my and your damning documentation of his performance in the previous thread.Remember, we aren't actually trying to get him to change, because he's just dug in his heels at this point.We are really speaking to the lurkers.

quote:

---

So if we banned guns in the USA that would solve our problem.

---

We aren't suggesting that guns be banned in the US.

Seems you were right about owning guns, jar. I take back that particiular assertion

Thanks, Mod. That prety much concurs with what my copper friend told me, too.Shows how much I know