Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   for the record (re: guns thread)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 196 of 305 (399975)
05-09-2007 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Nuggin
05-09-2007 12:28 PM


Try yet again
No, I don't think I have agreed that things like sarin should be restricted, but it does seem I have not made myself clear so I will try yet again.
We point out that "arms" are protected and correctly indicated that arms includes things like knives, missiles, tanks, nukes, chemical weapons...etc.
I do not see where you have supported that, but it is irrelevant anyway.
Currently in the US the Supreme Court has not decided or defined the specific limits of what constitutes arms. It has made it clear though that guns are arms.
Sarin seems under current law, to be considered NOT arms. Whether that is a reasonable reinterpretation or not, it appears to be the current law.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2007 12:28 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 197 of 305 (399980)
05-09-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jon
05-08-2007 4:33 PM


What's good for the goose...
Alright Jon,
Time to eat your own words:
show me that nukes have recreational use as much as guns do
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!
Annoying as shit, huh? Welcome to our side of the debate.
Now explain why a collector should be able to have a machine gun and not a nuke or retract retract retract!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 05-08-2007 4:33 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 1:56 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 198 of 305 (399982)
05-09-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Jon
05-08-2007 7:43 PM


stupid!
as Nuggin has pointed out, anyone who disagrees with him gets called stupid,
No, Jon.
The only people who get called stupid are the ones who read 10+ posts containing the exact same sentences then proceed to make a claim like:
A claim that has been made here over and over again is that increased guns = increased violence
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.
I was asked previously on this thread to stop calling you stupid, but unfortunately, you decided to bring my name into your argument with Mod and brought the whole "stupid" thing up yourself.
People can't blame me for explaining to you how you were stupid, can they?
By the way, you have YET to address the original post of this thread and why it is that you were being so stupid in the first place?
Though, I would like to point out that once again you've returned to a thread that you already declared yourself over and done with.

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 200 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 2:11 PM Nuggin has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 305 (399987)
05-09-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Nuggin
05-09-2007 1:09 PM


Re: What's good for the goose...
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2007 1:09 PM Nuggin has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 305 (399991)
05-09-2007 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Nuggin
05-09-2007 1:15 PM


Stupid? Moi? ... Nah
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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2007 1:15 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Nuggin, posted 05-13-2007 12:29 AM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 305 (399994)
05-09-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Modulous
05-09-2007 9:03 AM


Re: Sir... Step Away from the Goal Posts...
Gun policy change is a lot more feasable and more importantly... quicker.
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.
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.
Nah... I didn't think it would be in dispute either .
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.
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."
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2007 9:03 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2007 2:53 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 265 by Nuggin, posted 05-13-2007 12:32 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 202 of 305 (399997)
05-09-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Jon
05-09-2007 2:32 PM


wrapping up....
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.
As you admit later - restriction on 2nd ammendments rights are already a reality - so they are not impossible.
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."
In highly simplified terms. The more complex terms are spread across various threads and require us to delve into the nuances afforded to us by language rather than highly simplified mathematical statements. Certain weapons have been specified as being at issue, specifically weapons which enable multiple kills quickly, weapons which can be concealed etc etc.
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.
Restricting rights with good reason is part of your constitution (notably freedom of speech which comes with a whole host of caveats). The point of the debate is - is there good reason to increase gun restrictions?
Now, if some people think the Constitution needs amending, well, we can discuss this and why.
Indeed - that is the topic at hand. Does the constitution need either ammending or re-interpreting?
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.
Personally I don't think 'because it is current law/constitution' is good reason to do anything on its own. I think there should be seperate justification as to why it is the current law. For instance, I don't think we should have freedom of speech just because it is written in our respective constitutions. I think we should have freedom of speech for much more important and fundamental reasons. I think it should be part of our constitution to make it difficult for one radical leader to change it without a big fight.
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.
Of course it won't solve the social problems. All that was being said was that social problems that lead to violence will tend to lead to lethal violence more often when there is a prevalence of guns.
Whether or not you agree, I'm sure you are coming around to at least understanding your opponents.
For the record - I don't believe in simple solutions. Banning guns in the USA is far too late. I think the only sane solution would be to do as the Swiss do. Highly regulate the weapons, record exactly how much ammo each person has (and limit the amount of ammo each person has), ensure that the weapons are kept locked up and random checks are made to account for all the ammo with severe penalties for undisclosed disappearances of said ammo.
Further, all youths should undergo weapons discipline training, and perhaps even national service. Increase the penalties for misuse of a firearm dramatically.
Or something similar - as far as I am concerned the militia of the
States is anything other than 'well regulated'.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 2:32 PM Jon has not replied

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


Message 203 of 305 (400003)
05-09-2007 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Jon
05-09-2007 5:04 AM


From Stupid to completely Retarded
Jon,
Can you read? Seriously? Have you read the 1st post of this thread? Let me sum it up for you AGAIN.
You said that people were arguing that guns cause violence
We LISTED a LONG LIST of quotes proving that you were completely offbase in your assertation.
You then respond by saying
He believes easy access leads to more violence
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
The admins can come down on me again and again, but so long as you keep posting the same mistake over and over and over, I'm going to have to keep repeating that you are unbelievably stupid.
There's really no other excuse
It is not necessary to say the things you say. This post earns a one day suspension. Forum Guidelines
Edited by AdminPhat, : inappropriate comments

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 5:04 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 204 of 305 (400005)
05-09-2007 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Jon
05-09-2007 6:14 AM


Jon doesn't understand the term "less lethal"
I would have to ask what is "less lethal"?
Wow. Okay, here's a helpful guide to lethality.
A pointy stick is LESS LETHAL than a steak knife which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a .22 which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a .357 which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a gatling gun which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a nuke.
The idea behind "less lethal" is that the item is "less" "lethal" than another item.
You CAN kill someone with a pointy stick. It's harder and takes a great deal more effort than it would be to kill someone with an AK47.
That is why the modern military does NOT use pointy sticks as their primary weapon when going into battle. (Do you need a source on this? I'm sure even Jar would agree)
Is this clear? Or do you really need more information on how to determine if one weapon is more or less lethal than another?
Ultimately, anti-gunners are still blaming the noun,
First, this has been addressed. You lost this point. Nuke is a noun. You can't win this argument.
Second, PEOPLE is a noun. "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" - you are STILL blaming a 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 206 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 6:27 PM Nuggin has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 205 of 305 (400011)
05-09-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Jon
05-09-2007 4:07 AM


Cute, but unresponsive.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 4:07 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 6:36 PM nator has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 305 (400012)
05-09-2007 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Nuggin
05-09-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Jon doesn't understand the term "less lethal"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2007 3:52 PM Nuggin has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 207 of 305 (400013)
05-09-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Jon
05-09-2007 8:08 AM


Re: Sir... Step Away from the Goal Posts...
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.

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 211 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 6:47 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 208 of 305 (400014)
05-09-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by One_Charred_Wing
05-09-2007 12:11 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 05-09-2007 12:11 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 305 (400015)
05-09-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by nator
05-09-2007 6:11 PM


Re: Cute, but unresponsive.
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.
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.
Easy access to guns in the US is hardly a "mystical" idea. It is quite thoroughly documented.
I asked this before too. Provide the thorough documentation, or retract your claim that it exists.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by nator, posted 05-09-2007 6:11 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by kuresu, posted 05-09-2007 6:41 PM Jon has replied
 Message 214 by nator, posted 05-09-2007 7:02 PM Jon has replied

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


Message 210 of 305 (400016)
05-09-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Jon
05-09-2007 6:36 PM


Re: Cute, but unresponsive.
People only use guns when their intent is MURDER!
you know, blanket statements are dangerous. Jar shoots his guns at shooting ranges. He is not using them for murder. Statement falsified.
Lynyrd Skynyrd--Saturday Night Special
"Two feets they come a creepin'
Like a black cat do
And two bodies are lyin' naked
Creeper think he got nothin' to lose
So he creeps into this house, yeah
And unlocks the door
And while a man reaching for his trousers
Shoots him full of .38 holes
(Chorus)
Its a Saturday night special
Got a barrel that's blue and cold
Ain't no good for nothin'
But put a man six feet in a hole
Big Jim's been drinkin' whiskey
And playing poker on a losin' night

Pretty soon, Big Jim starts a thinkin'
Somebody been cheatin' and lyin'
So Big Jim commences to fightin'
I wouldn't tell you no lie
And Big Jim done grab his pistol
Shot his friend right between the eyes
(Chorus)
Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me"
In the bolded section, is this man's purpose murder? No.
Edited by kuresu, : added lyrics from a good song

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 6:36 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Jon, posted 05-09-2007 6:49 PM kuresu has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024