Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   for the record (re: guns thread)
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 305 (399899)
05-08-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Modulous
05-08-2007 5:49 PM


Clearing things Up
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.
That we are not blaming guns themselves.
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.
We're debating what is the most powerful weapon we should allow the citizenry to possess. Not what is the most powerful weapon a citizen is allowed to posess.
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.
That is a matter of law and can be looked up without too much problem.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2007 5:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by kuresu, posted 05-08-2007 8:21 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 183 by nator, posted 05-08-2007 10:11 PM Jon has replied
 Message 184 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2007 2:26 AM Jon has replied
 Message 198 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2007 1:15 PM Jon has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 182 of 305 (399904)
05-08-2007 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Jon
05-08-2007 7:43 PM


Re: Clearing things Up
so unless I'm mistaken, you're for allowing arms that are necessary for a free state, right?
based off of this:
The discussion was to focus on what we can or cannot consider an arm "necessary to the security of a free state.
So does this mean you're for restricting those that are not necessary? I'm going to guess yes, since you want to restrict nukes since they are not necessary for the security of a free state.
By the same argument, air guns should be disallowed--they are not necessary for the security of a free state and don't stand a chance against a real gun.
For that matter, handguns should be disallowed, because they are not necessary to the security of a free state. An AK-47 is much more effective at securing a free state than a handgun. Tell me which would win? A rifle or a handgun? Why are wars fought predominantly with rifles?
So I guess handguns can be safely thrown away.
So the point, then, is that you really wouldn't have a problem with banning bottle rockets because they aren't necessary for the security of a free state (and thus handguns, because the same is true) (and both are based on your argument against people having nukes).
Is that really your position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Jon, posted 05-08-2007 7:43 PM Jon has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 305 (399929)
05-08-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Jon
05-08-2007 7:43 PM


Re: Clearing things Up
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Jon, posted 05-08-2007 7:43 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 4:07 AM nator has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 184 of 305 (399938)
05-09-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Jon
05-08-2007 7:43 PM


Re: Clearing things Up
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.
That we are not blaming guns themselves.
Right - the thing being blamed is proliferation. easy access to the weapons.
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.
Policies and laws are not abstractions. We say that certain fiscal policies are causitive factors in debt management issues for instance. Nobody is saying weapon proliferation is the only thing to blame in the crimes comitted. Far from it, people have taken great pains to tell you that other parties are to blame (including of course the criminal). More than party can share some portion of the liability. We cannot rid the world of criminals and violent people. I'm sure there are policies and methods we could enact to reduce them. One solution proposed is to reduce the number of lethal weapons available.
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."
I know what your point is. That is why we bring up nukes and the like. Instead of going after nuclear proliferation we should just try and deter the violent idiots that get hold of nukes with harsh penalties?
Sure - we do that. It is called crime and punishment. However, there are additional things we can do. Like try to reduce the number of nuclear weapons that are out there to begin with.
As stated, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" was a cliché; its meaning was not meant to be technical.
Right - and it also does nothing for this debate since it equally applies to any and all weapons and the issue at hand is where do we draw the line. So bringing it up was completely pointless, neh?
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.
Not true at all. This mindset you have that only one factor can be at fault for the existence of crime, is absurd. We have a responsibility to prevent crime. If we paid police officers 50cents an hour - do you not think we would blame the resulting increase in crime that is sure to follow on the criminals alone? Heck - why have any policies, since they acheive nothing right? We should just blame bad people when they do bad things, shrug our shoulders and say 'ah well'.
Proliferation of weapons is a contributing causitive factor in many US fatalities.
That is all that is being said here. The question at hand is given this statement, should we reduce the number of weapons?
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.
Then don't say 'guns don't kill people...people do'. Since it is an empty and pointless slogan that contains no information. Any object can be substituted for guns in it so where does it get us. You should stick with your argument that they are necessary to the security of a free state. As I said - it actually says something about what you think.
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."
...And at what point does a weapons become a liability, at what point does a weapon become a hamper to the security of a free state. Clearly everyone having nukes would hamper the security of a free state. The question put forward is exactly what is necessary in this age of fast travel?
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?
Which is what I said the debate was about.
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.
It isn't disagreeing with him that gets you called stupid. Its the stupid slogans you bring to the debate. It is statements like this: "A claim that has been made here over and over again is that increased guns = increased violence" - ie misrepresenting your opponents views time and time again. It's the casual way you threaten killing someone for mild inappropriate sexual conduct.
I'm sure if you just argued that the deaths caused by the proliferation of hand guns is outweighed by lives saved by the security of a free state - you'd probably get a lot less flak!
Nuggin isn't without blame for his temper of course - I'm not one for putting blame in just one place. I believe he was chastised by schraff on the issue. You aren't compelled to debate him though - there are plenty of other willing opponents.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : addendum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Jon, posted 05-08-2007 7:43 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 4:02 AM Modulous has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 305 (399940)
05-09-2007 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Modulous
05-09-2007 2:26 AM


Re: Clearing things Up
Right - the thing being blamed is proliferation. easy access to the weapons.
It is statements like this: "A claim that has been made here over and over again is that increased guns = increased violence" - ie misrepresenting your opponents views time and time again.
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?
It's the casual way you threaten killing someone for mild inappropriate sexual conduct.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2007 2:26 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2007 4:26 AM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 305 (399941)
05-09-2007 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by nator
05-08-2007 10:11 PM


Re: Clearing things Up
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.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 05-08-2007 10:11 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by nator, posted 05-09-2007 6:11 PM Jon has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 187 of 305 (399943)
05-09-2007 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Jon
05-09-2007 4:02 AM


Re: Clearing things Up
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?
I'm not actually debating that point here, Jon. That was the subject of the last thread. If you don't agree with it, that is one thing. As long as you accurately represent what your opponents position is, constructive debate can occur.
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?
An interesting debate point. Now that you are actually discussing your opponents position, this point is relevant and on topic. It is a good question to have asked - rather than trying to paint your opponents as idiots who think that guns cause violence.
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;"
Indeed - if easy access did not lead to high levels of proliferation you'd raise a good point. If you want to argue that, then you are free to do so.
What is the effect of "easy access" that Nuggin argues leads to higher casualties?
I believe the answer to that question was given in the prequel thread.
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.
I wasn't using it as evidence against you. I was telling you why your opponents in this debate have had a low opinion of you. You make tasteless jokes about the subject, misrepresent your opponent's position, use irrelevant slogans etc etc. If you are raising yourself above such childish debate tactics - then I consider this 'callout' to have been a success.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 4:02 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 5:04 AM Modulous has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 305 (399946)
05-09-2007 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Modulous
05-09-2007 4:26 AM


Re: Clearing things Up
Now that you are actually discussing your opponents position, this point is relevant and on topic. It is a good question to have asked - rather than trying to paint your opponents as idiots who think that guns cause violence.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2007 4:26 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2007 5:26 AM Jon has replied
 Message 203 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2007 3:44 PM Jon has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 189 of 305 (399947)
05-09-2007 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Jon
05-09-2007 5:04 AM


Re: Clearing things Up
No, that is exactly the point Nuggin has been arguing. He believes easy access leads to more violence.
I thought Nuggin's point was that easy access leads to more lethal 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.
And as I said when you just said that - if you want to argue that easy access does not lead to proliferation you are perfectly entitled to do that. I'd imagine that Nuggin's central point is a little more complex than 'easy access to weapons...' we are simplifying the issue to demonstrate to you how drastically different the argument against you is compared with the argument you were trying to argue against.
The argument Nuggin, schraff and others have put forward as far as I can tell is 'Easy access to weapons leads to proliferation which leads to an increase in the amount of lethal incidents per capita'. Excessive lethal incidents are the problem.
A proposed cause of this is proliferation.
A proximate cause of proliferation is easy and legal accesss.
There are other proximate causes - for example border controls, and certain neighbouring countries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 5:04 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 6:14 AM Modulous has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 305 (399949)
05-09-2007 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Modulous
05-09-2007 5:26 AM


Still Blaming the Noun
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.
The argument Nuggin, schraff and others have put forward as far as I can tell is 'Easy access to weapons leads to proliferation which leads to an increase in the amount of lethal incidents per capita'.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2007 5:26 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2007 6:40 AM Jon has replied
 Message 204 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2007 3:52 PM Jon has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 191 of 305 (399950)
05-09-2007 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Jon
05-09-2007 6:14 AM


Re: Still Blaming the Noun
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.
For ease we like to use accurate phraseology - violence and lethal violence are quite different. Using them synonymously causes problems with equivocation and general confusion. Now that is cleared up...
Ultimately, anti-gunners are still blaming the noun, even according to your interpretation of their argument
No. 'Anti-gunners' point to a number of factors that lead to high lethal violence rates. One of those factors is the prevalence of lethal weapons, a factor aided by certain policy decisions. Another factor is that people are assholes. Another factor is proximity to countries with even laxer gun laws/gun law enforcement. Lots of factors. Some of them easier to control than others. The physical device that is a gun does not kill people - blood loss cause by supersonic projectiles fired from guns kill people.
I'm not sure how you get from 'policy regarding the control of a noun' to 'the noun'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 6:14 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 8:08 AM Modulous has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 305 (399952)
05-09-2007 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Modulous
05-09-2007 6:40 AM


Sir... Step Away from the Goal Posts...
I'm not sure how you get from 'policy regarding the control of a noun' to 'the noun'.
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 = ID
We can remove I, because it is the same on both sides of the equation, and simplify the statement even further:
G=D
So, 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 .
'Anti-gunners' point to a number of factors that lead to high lethal violence rates. One of those factors is the prevalence of lethal weapons, a factor aided by certain policy decisions. Another factor is that people are assholes. Another factor is proximity to countries with even laxer gun laws/gun law enforcement.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2007 6:40 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2007 9:03 AM Jon has replied
 Message 207 by nator, posted 05-09-2007 6:31 PM Jon has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 193 of 305 (399955)
05-09-2007 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Jon
05-09-2007 8:08 AM


Re: Sir... Step Away from the Goal Posts...
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."
If you want the full and complete position Jon, you should simply read the posts that have proceeded this one, esp in the previous thread. I am not setting up any goalposts since I am not debating what leads to fatal violence. As you yourself stated - it started with a reference to the 2nd ammendment and what it means, why it was there and what weapons should be reasonably allowed within the realms of said ammendment.
This is policy. It was a discussion on what policy should be adopted with regards to gun control that would reduce the number of fatal firearms incidents. That is to say, some people think that the current policy is costing more lives than it saves.
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.
I didn't think there was any problem with the definition. That is essentially what I mean by it.
Do you disagree with "lethal incidents per capita" being a synonym for "deaths"?
Death rates specifically. I didn't think this was in dispute, sorry.
We can remove I, because it is the same on both sides of the equation
If we were going to put it into algebra it would be better to not use and equals sign because increase of deaths does not equal an increase in guns.
Thus Increase in guns Increase in death by violence.
Or
frequencygun ownership Deathviolence
The two are not necessarily directly proportional incidentally, and you can't cancel out . This is a rough approximation of the argument.
So, while no one here has specifically said outright that guns increase deaths, it has been implied in their logic all along.
When your maths goes bad you reach erroneous conclusions.
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
I'm assuming you don't think blaming the nuclear proliferation treaty for being unsuited to its stated purpose is the same as blaming nuclear weapons.
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,"
And I agree with Schraff. Schraff is clearly not denying that there are other factors that bear the weight of liability, but she believes that gun policy is easier to change than societies many ills.
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.
It might be better. Noone is saying it isn't better.
It just isn't easy, plausable or likely to ever happen.
Gun policy change is a lot more feasable and more importantly... quicker.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 8:08 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 2:32 PM Modulous has replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 194 of 305 (399971)
05-09-2007 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
05-03-2007 9:21 PM


What I want to know is how the heck can anybody read my posts in that thread and just ignore the SEVEN seperate times I repeated the same simple idea? And then there were the multiple times Nuggin said that same thing...
It wasn't just Jon, either.
Okay, totally missed this thread for awhile.
Look--it took me awhile to keep in mind what your perspective was when Nuggin kept spewing out stuff about inbred rednecks shooting up cars with machine guns, and putting words in my mouth about maniacal gun nuts shooting up the streets once we ban guns.
When I get strawman-associated with that extreme, it's hard to remember that the other side isn't the opposite extreme, because otherwise why would they brand me? I don't think you actually did this, per se, but you jumped on me when I was already trying to get my point across without being branded as a right wing gun nut.
So, sorry if I misinterpreted you for some of the debate. I mentioned in one of my last posts in the old thread that the solution you proposed sits fine by me, permitting you keep the rifle and shotgun age at 18.

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 05-03-2007 9:21 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by nator, posted 05-09-2007 6:33 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 195 of 305 (399972)
05-09-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by jar
05-08-2007 11:14 AM


Re: No - I'm Spartacus
The facts though are that owning and bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected Right in the US.
Jar, you are spirally down. Pull up! Pull up!
You've said that "guns" were protected
We point out that "arms" are protected and correctly indicated that arms includes things like knives, missiles, tanks, nukes, chemical weapons...etc.
You agreed that things like Sarin gas should be restricted
But then you go on to say the above quote implying that you disagree with yourself.
Which is it, Jar? Does the constitution allow Sarin gas or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by jar, posted 05-08-2007 11:14 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 05-09-2007 12:42 PM Nuggin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024