for the record (re: guns thread)

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. 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. 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. I believe the answer to that question was given in the prequel thread. 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.

I thought Nuggin's point was that easy access leads to more lethal violence. 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.

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... 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'.

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 didn't think there was any problem with the definition. That is essentially what I mean by it. Death rates specifically. I didn't think this was in dispute, sorry. 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.Orfrequency_{gun ownership} Death_violenceThe two are not necessarily directly proportional incidentally, and you can't cancel out . This is a rough approximation of the argument. When your maths goes bad you reach erroneous conclusions. 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. 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. 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.

As you admit later - restriction on 2nd ammendments rights are already a reality - so they are not impossible. 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. 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? Indeed - that is the topic at hand. Does the constitution need either ammending or re-interpreting? 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. 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.

Which represents a threefold decrease in murder rates if memory serves. Wouldn't that be great? I doubt you want a sociology lesson or even a short essay. Needless to say, it is nobody's position that the only factor that goes into murder rates is gun ownership. Economic considerations, age distribution and so on and so forth obviously play an important role as well. And of course invasion by foriegn entities. Did you think that this was under dispute? Is this relevant to the point that rights have restrictions placed upon them? Indeed - weapons can be used to facilitate hunting, target shooting, celebration, suicide, murder, robbery, rape, self defense, war, opening locked doors, as a pointing device, paper weight...The dispute is whether the prevalence of guns in civillian hands actually costs more lives than it saves. The dispute in this thread is trying to get both sides to understand what the dispute is. If you want to try catching up to where the debate is at, you're going to need to do a little bit of reading I'm afraid. Your post sounds like you missed Acts I and II, but we recorded them for your viewing pleasure.

The proof is in the pudding. Jon said moments later in that post

quote:

---

I've brought up racial oppression as an explanation for increased violence in the United States. Using statistics of crime and gun ownership broken into race”this post focuses on AfroAmerican and EuroAmerican”, I will show that increased violence does not relate to increased gun ownership.

---

So he is going to use stats to show that violence and gun ownership are not related (sounds like contrary to the position that gun ownership reduces violent crime but hey).

quote:

---

Next, let us look at the murder offenders by race:

---

After which he concludes:

quote:

---

No way! You mean the population with a higher murder rate owns FEWER guns? Yes. These statistics show that there is no correlation between murder rates and gun ownership.

---

There you go - he was talking about violence in the context of murder. Sure - the writing is sloppy as all hell - but the intent is quite clear.Why would he mention the violence/guns scenario and then go on to discuss murder rates. Message 174 was not addressed to Jon, so that is not documenting you correcting Jon strawmanning your position. Message 156 is in reply to Jon talking about how murder has always happened - he is not saying that you are saying violence will stop with gun restrictions. Message 154 is you replying to Jon, where he says that oppression causes violence not guns - specifically referring to murder rates of an oppressed group. Message 220 is not a reply to Jon, so is hardly documentation of you correcting a strawman. The same goes for Message 233.The OP does not document Jon repeatedly strawmanning your position. It seems that at least twice he demonstrated his violence assertion using murder rates with regard to oppressed racial groups to show that oppression is a bigger contributing factor than gun ownership. He has now taken the time in this thread, upon being specifically asked to clarify this position to do so. As we can see - he did say murder. It was sloppy to use the terms so loosely given his opponents position, but now that is cleared up why can't we just drop it? Hopefully the ability to understand your opponents point of view without the need to strawman it yourself is important? Whether you agree with his stats, or what he says they imply - why not just accept his position as he states it? That is to say - gun ownership does not lead to higher murder rates. Low gun ownership and high oppression can lead to much higher murder rates, so let's deal with the oppression.It's actually not a difficult position to understand, even if you choose to disbelieve it. That Jon has not been completely clear at all times, is problematic, but why focus on the ambiguities. His position has now been clarfified. Now that this is the case, you may attempt to refute his actual position rather than a strawman that he admittdely is partially responsible for building. Now he his trying to dismantle the strawman you seem to be desperately trying to keep in built so that you can continue attacking it.The strawman is dead. Jon meant murder rates. Attack that position if you must attack any at all - it is after all - your opponent's position.

Can you actually provide me with something specific I was wrong about? I've not stated that Jon has got your position right - I'm stating that Schraff has got his position about your position wrong. Read my post again nuggin - Jon said that he was talking about the context of murder: Schraff said she didn't believe him, and insisted he was talking just about violence. I documented the context, clearly showing it to be about murder. That is all I was stating. There are two possibilities: Either Jon was talking about violence in the context of murder OR he wasn't.I think it is clear that he was, simply by reading his posts with a clear mind (I went back and read the whole thread again, and Jon's posts make a lot more sense when you know his position first...a sign of poor communication obviously, but the written word can do that - especially in the informal setting of an internet forum). I know it can be difficult to accept that you misunderstood a situation, I certainly did, and was happily corrected by Jon. I still disagree with some of the specific things he says, but at least I'm actually disagreeing with his position, not a misunderstood one My last 2 sentences really sums this up: Jon meant murder rates. Attack that position if you must attack any at all - it is after all - your opponent's position.So fine - he was talking about murder rates, and that isn't really your position, its about lethal incidents and ease of access. Argue that! Don't argue that your opponent was saying something he wasn't, on the basis of a quote mine.

Neither was he quoting. He was paraphrasing. And yes, you get to do that when you are paraphrasing. Especially when the sentences that rebut the paraphrase (that follow straight afterwards) discuss murder although the paraphrase only spoke of violence. Jon has clearly stated that he wasn't characterising your position (or that of others) as being about violence. He knows that is not your position. He 'gets to' clarify his paraphrasing of his opponents position. I didn't see where he attacked the 'lie', in the way you are saying he did.Jon said: The claim is that increased gun ownership leads to increased violence.Jon attacked: The claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased murder rates.Now if you want to say that Jon was attacking a straw man, that is fine - but make sure you know what strawman he was actually attacking. It is a sturdier model than the one you claim he is attacking. I wonder if you could explain this a little? Perhaps with examples? From what I can tell, Jon's attacks don't make sense in context. Murder is not the same as violence. He is attacking the murder claim but stating that the claim is about just violence? That makes no sense at all unless when he said 'violence' he was thinking murderous violence.

Agreed. Agreed - the idea of what one 'gets to do' is absurd. That's why I used scare quotes. Never said otherwise. I am pointing out that Jon is not being dishonest - at least not in the way people are making out he is. He was quite clearly talking about murder when he said 'violence'. All you have to do is read his post in its entirety, and the other posts he made to discover what Jon is arguing against is not the 'violence' argument.To suggest that Jon created a strawman with the 'violence' situation is erroneous since Jon never actually rebutted the 'violence argument'. Agreed. I don't think that such a retreat is in effect. Jon never attacked the strawman that people say he set up. Yes, he would demand reproach. I have myself argued against him in this very thread. However, just because I don't agree with Jon doesn't mean I agree with his opponents. They are wrong in their interpretation and I'm more than happy to explain why. So far, nobody has demonstrated how I am wrong, they've just listed all the reasons why they think Jon is being dishonest.I've laid my reasoning down, feel free to criticize it.Incidentally - the topic is in fact about Jon and whether he can understand his opponents. By arguing that he can at least partially understand his opponents, I am being very much on topic. If you feel it worthless, don't participate. That is the entire premise of the thread. I feel that Jon's quote in the OP is indeed a quote mine and I've explained why.

OR there has been a misunderstanding. You can hardly attack someone for building a strawman if he never attacks it can you? Yes you do. Simply because the very idea of constructing a strawman is to show how easy it is to knock down! It is constructing a weak argument to make it look like you defeated your opponent. The truth is that Jon was attacking a much stronger position. He attacked a position regarding a specific type of violence, viz murder. No it isn't. Again you'd have to show that it was incompetence and not poor communication. Seems to me like the latter. My version certainly seems more consistent. Well he certainly argued against a position. Have you read the post in question? He pulls out a bunch of statistics about gun ownership and murder rates and procedes to show why he does not believe they are related. What ignorance? You still haven't demonstrated how I am wrong. Do you honestly think that Jon really meant that his opponents were arguing that guns lead to increased violence? Do you think he tried to present that as their argument to make it easier to defeat his opponent?Why did he never rebut or debate that position?Because it was not a strawman and nobody has been able to show it without quote mining. Sure - you can pull one sentence out of a huge post and make it look like in that brief sentence in which he misses out a key word (lethal) - he is creating a strawman. I'd rather read the whole post and see what Jon is arguing against to get a sense of what he believes his opponents position is. Explaining how someone has not misrepresented his opponents undermines my explanation? What on earth does that even mean crash? I would have thought my calling Jon out for his poor communication skills and debate tactics and rebutting his positions would strengthen my position. I guess if you really want to believe Jon is creating strawmen for no reason and ignore his actual rebuttals perhaps it is you that needs help with making arguments against positions?

I have done. Twice. Can somebody provide an example of Jon arguing against the position increased guns=increased violence - I don't fancy wading through all those posts a third time. In case you missed it - I spent a long time arguing against Jon on this position. It is not what I am talking about. I am talking about violence and murder not object causation versus object influencing.

Well go right on ahead. I'd rather get down to debating people's actual opinions than discuss a lone quote mine of theirs. Can you demonstrate that Jon was incapable of attacking his own weak misrepresentation? Since Jon rebutted a much stronger position than just 'violence' I'd imagine it would be trivial of him to rebut the 'violence' claim. I've laid down my position as to why I do not believe that Jon created and attacked the guns->violence position. You have simply asserted that I've got it all wrong and repeated the position in the OP. If you think that is adequate in demonstrating me wrong, then so be it. I'm not debating what words mean though, not in the sense you are implying. I am debating what the context of Jon's rebuttals were, and why it was clear he knew that the position he was arguing against wasn't simply 'guns->violence'. The evidence of that is in the fact that he never argued against that position. All you have to do is show that the context of a debate is irrelevant, or that Jon was arguing against the violence strawman and that it wasn't an error in communication. At least provide some reason and rationale. Some argument of some kind. Right. I thought that at first, but I took a step back and realized that Jon isn't as deranged as some of his one liners make him out. Of course they are. I did. Tthen he clarified. I pointed out it was sloppy communication. Actually I am defending him according to what he says, not what others says he says. I read his posts and came to the conclusion that his explanation was consistent with all the evidence, and that the idea that he is completely misrepresenting his opponents, that he repeatedly ignored the guns->violence point...does not gel with what I read at all. I made a post explaining this position, I used quotes from the same post of Jon's quoted in the OP that the contention was about. I demonstrated the full context and how Jon's statement that he was referring to murder when he wrote violence is clearly indicated by plainly reading what he wrote. I'm basing my view of my opponent based on my opponents words. a) I find stretching words to the minimally charitable interpretation absolutely abhorent. I prefer benefit of the doubt. I am prepared to admit when I was wrong about someone, and I am always prepared to give the benefit of any doubt. I find it useful to conducting civil discourse.b) The most obvious and reasonable interpretation is not that Jon created a strawman that he never attacked. That would require Jon to be deluded, insane, or stupid betyond belief. The reasonable interpretation is not that he ignored his opponents time and again. It is that he slipped up what he was saying, as evidenced how in all the following references to his opponents position he replaces the word 'violence' with 'murder'. Is there any reason for the arbitrary 50 posts number? I have discussed with Jon and debated him and berated him several times on this thread. The topic specifically is regards to his supposed repeated misrepresentations viz violence vs murder. I discussed it with Jon, examined the evidence he presented with a truly open mind and realized that I had been wrong. As far as Jon and I, I believe we have basically come to the end of our debate on the issue and it happened more than 50 posts ago.I still disagree with many of Jon's points, but none of those points are on topic, so there is no need to keep debating Jon here. Do I have to oppose my opponents constantly on all things just to retain credibility as a person with an open mind?However, as close as I can get it, I give you Message 277 where I said:

quote:

---

Now if you want to say that Jon was attacking a straw man, that is fine - but make sure you know what strawman he was actually attacking. It is a sturdier model than the one you claim he is attacking.

---

or perhaps Message 253 where I said:

quote:

---

As we can see - he did say murder. It was sloppy to use the terms so loosely given his opponents position, but now that is cleared up why can't we just drop it?

---

We have to go back about 100 posts to get to the end of the debate between Jon and I. Message 202