for the record (re: guns thread)

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

You once again must point out where I said this was okay. I think I asked you to do it earlier, but you still haven't. I also made the point to Nuggin, who seemed to be arguing with the same shoddy logic as what you're using now, but he too has yet to bring up a quote, or even something that would imply I felt that way.Why is what you're arguing a fallacy? Well, I say that it should be okay to own weaponry, firearms. You then try to apply that general principle to a very specific--and insane--case, when you say that based on my logic everyone should own nukes. I mean, we can all agree that murder is generally wrong, no? But what if you were face to face with the SS, wanting to take you off to a death camp? In that specific case, would killing that person still be wrong? Specific cases require specific sets of moral judgements that are different from those used to judge general cases.So, to repeat my question: Where did I ever say it is okay for average civilians to be in posession of nuclear weapons? Until you answer that question, or retract your fallacy, I'm afraid this debate can go no further.Jon

The real issue here, is that you continue to ask a rhetorical question”which began as a statement, mind you”that I actually went through the trouble of addressing. In Message 121 (which no one replied to, by the way), I said:

quote:

---

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.

---

This wasn't the answer you wanted, I know. I have intentionally refused to answer the question because we all know that it's just a silly attempt to side-track the argument. When, in Message 108, I asked for you to show me how going from an M-16 to an H-Bomb was a valid flow of logic, you failed to do so. You made the assertion (Message 159) that "...you cannot special plead for guns." In this, you've made the largest error in your logic. In the United States, the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment; however, there is more to the amendment than just that. The amendment reads (emphasis added), as stated by Nuggin in Message 1:

quote:

---

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

---

I gave an example of how this works, why a militia is important, and what its function is, in Message 33 of the same thread (as a response to Message 10).

quote:

---

Nighttrain (as a definition for 'militia') writes:

​

"the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not"
...
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

​

If the Canadian army decided to attack the United States, and the citizens of Duluth, Minnesota grabbed up their guns, went out of their houses, and started shooting them down as the Canadians came on through... THAT is a militia.

​

A militia such as that is important in defending a country. Imagine how many Canadians those Duluthians can kill off before the government has time to react and send trained soldiers. The government at that timed realized that a militia:

​

1) could be gathered almost immediately. Remember, in the days that law was written, the only way to send messages was on horse, so that invaders would otherwise be able to destroy homes and kill citizens in the time it took the horse to run to wherever the trained soldiers were stationed, wait for the generals there to formulate a plan, send the trained soldiers along with all the supplies needed to sustain them away from the base, etc.

​

2) greatly increases the number of 'fighters' available to the country. Imagine how powerful the country's defence would be against the Canadians if all the able-bodied people grabbed their guns and started plucking off Canadians one-by-one... a lot more powerful than just the military on its own.

​

3) allows people the basic and fundamental 'God-given', as it were, right to defend their own land against invading Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, etc. At this time in the country's history, I do not think many people held the military in very high regard, and I would imagine those hesitant about the revolution were probably concerned with whether or not the military could effectively protect all its citizenry, especially those living far from the main government centres.

​

...

---

This sets us up with the prerequisites about what type of weapons the 2nd Amendment protects. Namely, to be covered under the 2nd Amendment, a weapon must demonstrate that its ownership is "necessary to the security of a free state." In other words, allowing citizens to own only muskets and firecrackers would defeat completely the purpose of the militia. To be effective, the militia has to actually have a chance against possible invading forces. This means the Amendment is flexible. It can include artillery that has been newly invented and which is also required for "the security of a free state."So, according to this Amendment people should be allowed to arm themselves with machine guns, because to arm themselves with anything less would simply make them unprepared, and leave them to be mowed down by the Canadians like so much swamp grass. Now, let's put nuclear weapons to the test. Do they pass? A better question would be: are they "necessary to the security of a free state"? The answer: no. As pointed out by jar in his response to NosyNed,

quote:

---

Jar in Message 170:

​

One of the things about nukes is that they really and truly are things that most likely would not be used in such an attempt. The reason is that their use would destroy what was sought.

---

Personal ownership of nuclear weapons would not be "necessary to the security of a free state." Hell, setting one off on the invading Canadian forces would be downright detrimental to "the security of a free state." As a result, nuclear weapons are not covered by the 2nd Amendment, and so they are completely irrelevant to the issue of things that are covered by the 2nd Amendment”guns. In other words, guns are a special case; they are a case of something which is protected by an Amendment to the Constitution. As has been pointed out before, cars, computers, houses, etc. are not rights. Only arms”and a couple other things”are rights, and so things protected under those rights are special cases.Lest you forget, the entire topic of the gun debate started when Nuggin made his post asking us where the line should be drawn regarding the 2nd Amendment (Message 1).Now, you might say that this is not the Guns topic, but then we'd have to ask, what topic is this? If we go by what Nuggin has said in Message 115, then "the point of the thread is that [I] was being incredibly stupid in the other thread." From this, there are two courses of action. We can either continue this thread as a leave-off from the original Guns thread, and actually try to pull it back onto the topic proposed there; or we can get this thread back on to its own topic, which would just amount to everyone calling me stupid and then one of the Admins would have to get off the couch and trudge down to the damp, dark, cold basement to pull the ol' "Close Topic" lever. Which will it be?As a reminder, Nuggin's original post was”if I'm interpreting it correctly”asking us when a weapon is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state," but is instead detrimental to that security. So, we either pick up that topic and stick with it, or there is really no reason for this thread to be open, and for us all to be here.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

Modulous, as far as I an tell, you and I have no contention. I do want to point out a few things it seems you've overlooked a few things. Now, you might not be blaming guns”I don't think you are”, but Nuggin said in message 1 of the Gun thread, that:

quote:

---

...easy access to guns yields massive casualties.

---

quote:

---

Dictionary.com
yield /yild/
-verb (used with object)
...
7. to cause; give rise to: The play yielded only one good laugh.

---

This was at the heart of the debate in the original Guns thread, especially when we were discussing whether even non-criminals should have access to machine guns and armour-piercing rounds. Now, while I realize he is not placing blame on the gun itself, it appeared to me that Nuggin sought to restrict access to guns, particularly the type just mentioned, as a way to prevent massive casualties. In other words, I felt that he was blaming some abstraction, as opposed to the real responsible party. 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."As stated, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" was a cliché; its meaning was not meant to be technical. The purpose it served was to demonstrate that the ultimate party responsible in any type of gun homicide is the person holding the gun. We cannot say it was because of "Mr. Easy Access in the corner by himself," because it was not his fault that he, as a right, was abused by a criminal. Only the criminal holds fault. Furthermore, I never stated this as my reason why I feel people should be allowed to own guns. In fact, the main reason I think people should be allowed to own guns is because it's "necessary to the security of a free state." Because of this, it's fallacious to replace guns in the cliché with something else and then conclude that from my logic any item should be allowed to be owned by the commoner. In other words (granted my symbols are shoddy ), G = guns. N = nukes. P = people. O = allowed ownership. K = kills.I said, (~GK·PK)/OG, which was mistaken for (~GK·PK)//OG, which allowed the erroneous 'analogy' of (~NK·PK)//ON. It was certainly not my intention to use (~GK·PK) to support the notion of OG. I do not think I made that statement in any of my posts, and if I did, I was mistaken in doing so, and I retract any instance of that occurring. I simply made the statement that people should be allowed to own guns, and (~GK·PK) as two separate statements. The first as what I believe and what the Constitution tells me, and the second as an added effect. Incorrect. Nuggin opened his original post with the 2nd Amendment”he even put it in a quote box . The discussion was to focus on what we can or cannot consider an arm "necessary to the security of a free state." Can we consider a nuke "necessary to the security of a free state"? How about a bottle rocket? At some point in between there is a point where an arm passes the line of being "necessary to the security of a free state," and enters the territory of being a detriment to that security. Where is that line, and what is that arm?Now, believe you me, I'd love for at least the rest of this thread to focus on that point, but as Nuggin has pointed out, anyone who disagrees with him gets called stupid, and so I feel trying to discuss anything of this nature will just lead to a disintegration, and a break down of Nuggin calling everyone stupid. This is why I wanted a topic with restricted access devoted to the subject, but I was warned”and agreed”that even a topic of that nature would break apart. As a side note, not very important, but a constitutional right is different than a law in that the latter is built upon the foundation which the former provides.Perhaps we can all just get this back on to the topic... what was it again?Jon

You are pulling some clever twist-tactics here. Why is "easy access" being blamed? Why is "easy access" so bad? What does "easy access" do? Does it increase or decrease the number of guns in circulation? Remember, Nuggin said:

quote:

---

...easy access to guns yields massive casualties.

---

In other words, if we got rid of "easy access to guns," would we have an increase or a decrease in the total number of guns in circulation? What if you could get a gun at the grocery store for a nickel, but nobody ever bought one? Surely that'd have the same effect as less "easy access;" what is that effect? What is the effect of "easy access" that Nuggin argues leads to higher casualties? Leave this out of the debate. I said it was a joke, and retracted. Because of this, it is no longer my opinion; arguing against it, or using it as evidence against me, only adds hay to your strawman.Jon

Jon

No, that is exactly the point Nuggin has been arguing. He believes easy access leads to more violence. I said earlier: If access was even easier, but NO ONE ever bought a gun, then as Nuggin argues, lethal violence will still remain, because it's easy access”not just gun ownership, according to him”that results in these casualties.Now, and this is at Nuggin, would you ever argue that in a society of completely unrestricted access to guns, we would still have the same lethal violence levels even if no one actually bought them? Or, do people have to actually own those more easily accessed guns as well?Jon

I think this confusion may come from difficulty in agreeing what "more" is meant to modify. If it is meant to modify "lethal", then I would have to ask what is "less lethal"? As far as I know, lethal is lethal, and there aren't varying degrees of it. If "more" is meant to modify "lethal violence" as a whole, then I still think my original interpretation stands. Of course, I think that latter interpretation of the meaning of "more lethal violence" is probably the one that's being used.

quote:

---

Dictionary.com

​

proliferation

​

noun
...
2. a rapid increase in number (especially a rapid increase in the number of deadly weapons); "the proliferation of nuclear weapons"

---

So, in other words, they are arguing that an increase in the number of guns causes an increase in "the amount of lethal incidents per capita," i.e., deaths. While the technical quote you took from me was "that increased guns = increased violence, or G=V," I think you will see that my post was actually directed at murders”lethal violence”, and that the quote you've been using has been removed from its context and so lost its original meaning.Ultimately, anti-gunners are still blaming the noun, even according to your interpretation of their argument. But, this is petty, we should really just ask them to clear the whole thing up for us. Jon

But you didn't say that "policy regarding the control of [guns]" "leads to increase in the amount of lethal incidents per capita." What you said was "proliferation ... leads to an increase in the amount of lethal incidents per capita."I gave a definition of proliferation that meant "increase in number of guns." Do you disagree with my definition? If so, you certainly could've addressed that point in your post. Do you disagree with "lethal incidents per capita" being a synonym for "deaths"? If so, you certainly could've addressed that point in your post. So, since you seem to not disagree in either of those two manners, we shall continue. G = guns; I = increase; D = deaths. So, putting these definitions together, we can take "proliferation ... leads to an increase in the amount of lethal incidents per capita," and simplify it to "increase in guns leads to increase in deaths." Or:IG = IDWe can remove I, because it is the same on both sides of the equation, and simplify the statement even further:G=DSo, while no one here has specifically said outright that guns increase deaths, it has been implied in their logic all along. Now, as for "I'm not sure how you get from 'policy regarding the control of a noun' to 'the noun'", well, that's just you moving goal posts around . Really? Why didn't any of them address these issues until after I brought them up? In fact, Schraf said "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," as well as "...tens of thousands of people DIE every year from guns...."And my argument from the very beginning has been that it's better to fix these underlying social problems to solve the issue of lethal violence, than it is to restrict the freedom”provided as a right under the 2nd Amendment”of gun ownership, and that restricting freedoms, although an easier fix, is only the lazy way out, and still will not get rid of the underlying factors.My argument in that case has still not been addressed, and I'm assuming never will be.Jon

How many people have enough money/resources to effectively guard and protect a nuclear warhead so as to avoid it being taken by an enemy force and then becoming a detriment to the security of a free state?

So... you still didn't answer the question I put forth:You said... "...easy access to guns yields massive casualties."To which I have responded:

quote:

---

Why is "easy access" so bad? What does "easy access" do? Does it increase or decrease the number of guns in circulation?

---

quote:

---

Would you ever argue that in a society of completely unrestricted access to guns, we would still have the same lethal violence levels even if no one actually bought them?

---

Can you answer those questions? In as few "stupids" as possible, too, please . And I'll be willing to wait a couple of days too, as I realize you will probably get a pretty hefty time-out from this little stunt here .Jon

More importantly, actually, is that it is impossible. Unless we change the 2nd Amendment, any gun law is an infringement on the right of the people to bear arms. Nah... I didn't think it would be in dispute either . Ya got me there. Either way, it's been broken down to "increase guns" results in "increase deaths". The cause is still labelled as "increase guns." Again, fixing these other problems does not violate the rights guaranteed to us by an amendment to our Constitution that adding restriction on guns would. I said numerous times that the solution of restricting gun access would be much simpler. The reason we ought not do it is because it's an infringement on a constitutional right. Now, if some people think the Constitution needs amending, well, we can discuss this and why.In my opinion, many gun restriction laws already go too far in to being an infringement on the 2nd Amendment right. Because of this, I do not feel further restrictions would be justified. And, also, fixing the "gun problem" doesn't fix the social problems, instead it just increases the likelihood that they will end up going unnoticed and therefore never be fixed.Would nator's plan involve returning unrestricted gun access back to the public once she fixed those societal ills? If not, and her restrictions are meant to be permanent, then she ought to be proposing a constitutional amendment to reflect that. Perhaps she'll answer that .Jon

Okay, two questions that you haven't answered yet:From Message 200

quote:

---

That was you. It's not my fault you were stupid. It's not my fault you failed to either read or understand the 300 or so posts which came before your statement. The fact that I disagree with you isn't what made you stupid, it's the fact that you were being stupid.

​

So... you still didn't answer the question I put forth:

​

You said... "...easy access to guns yields massive casualties."

​

To which I have responded:

​

quote:

---

Why is "easy access" so bad? What does "easy access" do? Does it increase or decrease the number of guns in circulation?

---

quote:

---

Would you ever argue that in a society of completely unrestricted access to guns, we would still have the same lethal violence levels even if no one actually bought them?

---

---

And:

quote:

---

Why can't a collector want to have a Nuke? Huh? Why? Why can't they? Huh? Why can't a collector validily want something? What's wrong with a collector? Retract! Retract! REtract! Retract! Collectors want things! Retract!

​

How many people have enough money/resources to effectively guard and protect a nuclear warhead so as to avoid it being taken by an enemy force and then becoming a detriment to the security of a free state?

---

Now, PLEASE, answer these questions! You keep dodging every question I throw your way. Pretty soon, one will just have to start assuming that you have no answer; especially since name calling is usually something done by people losing a debate”whether you are or not. But, you wouldn't want people to think either of those, now would you?Jon

As I asked before, prove it. If I am in a bar, and get the notion that I want to fight someone, just because I have a gun on hand doesn't mean I am going to pick it up and shoot them to death. People only use guns when their intent is MURDER! AND, if what they want to do is KILL, then they will do so however they can. Guns are an easy way to do it, but they are by no means the only. I asked this before too. Provide the thorough documentation, or retract your claim that it exists.Jon