for the record (re: guns thread)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

Laws covering the inappropriate use of either free speech or guns already exist.

---

Laws covering the inappropriate sale of guns are not so common, and are generally opposed by the gun lobbies.For example, the gun show and private sale loopholes.Laws covering the inappropriate storage of firearms are also not so common.All those rules that you listed about how you use and secure your firearms are great, so why shouldn't we legislate them as a requirement for ownership of firearms?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

What about surface-to-air missiles?

quote:

---

My response was that the way to prevent massive casualties with as little rights-smashing as possible is to go after the people who commit the crimes”and, perhaps, the reasons why they do it”as opposed to any mystical entity such as "easy access."

---

It doesn't do much to prevent gun death if you go after the people after they've killed someone.For the millionth time...The violence would still happen and would be just as common.But instead of someone getting shot to death in an instant in a bar fight, they would only be punched or hit with a bottle, both unpleasant to experience but quite survivable. Like, they probably won't even have to go to the hospital.Easily-obtainable guns make the violence that is going to happen anyway much more lethal.Easy access to guns in the US is hardly a "mystical" idea. It is quite thoroughly documented.

Try again, please.This time, addressing the issues would be preferred.

quote:

---

My response was that the way to prevent massive casualties with as little rights-smashing as possible is to go after the people who commit the crimes”and, perhaps, the reasons why they do it”as opposed to any mystical entity such as "easy access."

---

It doesn't do much to prevent gun death if you go after the people after they've killed someone.For the millionth time...The violence would still happen and would be just as common.But instead of someone getting shot to death in an instant in a bar fight, they would only be punched or hit with a bottle, both unpleasant to experience but quite survivable. Like, they probably won't even have to go to the hospital.Easily-obtainable guns make the violence that is going to happen anyway much more lethal.Easy access to guns in the US is hardly a "mystical" idea. It is quite thoroughly documented.

quote:

---

So, while no one here has specifically said outright that guns increase deaths

---

Actually, this is exactly what I have repeatedly said in this thread and the previous Guns thread.All together now...Violence is going to happen.Guns make this inevitable violence much more likely to result in deaths through shootings.Guns do, in fact, increase deaths.Do I really need to reference my Harvard public health researcher again?To bring us back on topic, I simply cannot fathom why you are having such incredible difficulty with understanding my position, and get it repeatedly and profoundly wrong. This, despite many, many, many corrections. With a whole thread devoted to those corrections.Utterly mystifying.

Lovely, OCW.We're good. And, sorry for jumping on you. It wasn't my intent but that doesn't mean it doesan't sometimes happen.Edited by nator, : No reason given.