|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,485 Year: 3,742/9,624 Month: 613/974 Week: 226/276 Day: 2/64 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: for the record (re: guns thread) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1262 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Bernie Goetz
|
||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, Bernie Goetz is a vegetarian. And, what pray tell does that have to do with the message you are responding to?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
So, is the yearly deaths of 30,000 people from guns (which includes homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings merely a misconception? Actually 32,969 in 2003 last year I can find. nator should we ban auto's?http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test5/ In 2005, 43,443 people died in motor vehicle crashes and an additional 2,699,000 people were injured. May 24, 2005 http://www.consumersunion.org/..._product_safety/002257.html
Three children killed each week in preventable auto-related deaths As shown on this web site (e.g., see Table 1.2 of Death By Government), from 1900 through 1987 governments murdered near 170,000,000 people. With respect to this figure I am often asked how much of this occurred since the end of World War II in 1945. With the conclusion of that war and the discovery of the breadth and depth of the Holocaust, many demanded "Never Again." But our history since has rather been: "Again, again, again, and again." From 1945 and up to 1987, about 76,000,000 people have been murdered in cold blood by one regime or another, You can ban my automobile and take it away from me. But not my right to own and bear arms. There is a lot of misconceptions about what a government can do when the citizens are unarmed. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1262 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but as usual your messages are totally without content or relevance.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1262 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Jar-
Don't be like Bernie Goetz. Edited by -messenjah of one, : Jar-
|
||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
A vegetarian? Unlikely. I do enjoy a nice steak or BBQ.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1262 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Well tell me why does a vigilante man
Tell me why does a vigilante man Carry that sawed off shotgun in his hands To shoot his brothers and sisters down that no good vigilante man
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Alright Jon, since reasoning with you gets us nowhere. Since posting clearly gets us nowhere. Since repeating ourselves gets us nowhere. And since, pointing out your problems aparently gets us banned. I'm going to play your game.
I will answer your questions, then I will ask you questions and you will either answer them, or I'll be forced to assume that you realize that your position is _still_ undefendable.
Why is "easy access" (to guns) so bad? Well, you see, Jon. When you leave a dangerous item like sharp knife or a gun out where a child or a crazy person can get to it, there's a good chance that someone is going to get hurt.
What does "easy access" (to guns) do? Well, when there is a child or a crazy person in the room, and there is a gun on the table, then the child or crazy person has "easy access" to the gun. That is to say, that the can "access" the gun "easily", or in other words, there is not a barrier to their access. There's nothing keeping them from getting their hands on it.
Does it increase or decrease the number of guns in circulation? Does a gun being put in the hands of a crazy person increase the number of guns in existance? no. But it does has an effect on the location of that gun in particular. In this case, that gun would be in the hands of a crazy person.
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? What? I'm gonna have to rephrase this question, because as it is written it doesn't make sense to me. "If no one bought a gun, regardless of society's rules, would there be the same lethal levels of violence?" No. Would there be violence? Yes.Would there be the same number of violent incidents? Probably not, but let's say "yes." Would these incidents still be as lethal? No. Of course not. Now here's some questions for you: 1) Do you believe that every violent act that takes place in the US is premeditated? 2) Do you believe that someone who wishes to do violence may "cool" down over time? 3) Do you believe that when someone who wishes to do violence has access to a handgun, they are able to do more damage than if they didn't have access to a handgun? 4) Do you believe that you need to conceal a weapon in order for it to provide you with "protection"? 5) Do you think a criminal is detered by the presence of a gun in the home?5a) Do you think a criminal is less detered by the presence of a shotgun than the presence of a handgun? 6) Do you STILL think that any of us are arguing that "guns cause violence"? 7) WHY? When we've quoted ourselves to you about 20x do you still continue to put up the same strawman over and over and over again? There, no stupids. Other than that 1 stupid. Oh crap, that's 2!
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Unless we change the 2nd Amendment, any gun law is an infringement on the right of the people to bear arms. If you believe this to be true, then it stands to reason that you believe the same thing for grenades, landmines, etc. As these are all "arms" and you are unwilling to distinguish one type of "arm" from another. Should we repeal existing laws banning personal ownership of landmines, hand grenades, etc? If not, why not?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I am curious why the experience of the Swiss is considered off limits. In the case of the Swiss, the "citizens" are actually about equivalent to our National Guard. They go through training, they are assigned weapons as part of their gear for the roll they play in national defense. No one is saying that the national guard should not have weapons. Hence the Swiss are a poor analogy.
Or are the Swiss somehow superior or more grown up than other societies? Quite possibly. I don't know enough about Swiss culture to tell you one way or another. Do the Swiss have a habit of randomly firing guns into the air when they are excited or drunk?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Landmines are not a right guaranteed to us by the 2nd Amendment. Now you are contradicting yourself. Either the constitution gaurantees the right to own arms or it doesn't. Either landmine and machine guns are in, or they are out. You don't get to say that we can't draw a line between one weapon and another, then turn right around and start drawing your own arbitary lines. Retract!
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Sorry Mod, but you are just wrong.
Jon said:
A claim that has been made here over and over again is that increased guns = increased violence It's in the original post, quoting him from the previous string. This is him making up a quote from us. He's proclaiming that this is our position. As such, he doesn't get to dither about the terms. You can't say "Oh, I meant "murder"" when you are quoting someone else. AND, even if he did mean murder, the quote would then be: "A claim that has been made here over and over again is that increased guns = increased murder" which would STILL be a strawman of our position. As has been said before, and will no be repeated for the 50th? 100th? time - Easy access to guns (particularly those which hold a lot of ammo and can fire repeatedly) causes existing violence to yield more deadly results. That is NOT what Jon is quoting us saying. It IS however what we have had to repeat adnauseum to Jon.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
nator should we ban auto's? You are bringing up old points which have already been addressed. It leads me to believe that you have not completely read all 500+ posts in the combined threads. To save you some time, I'll give you a quick answer. 44,000 deaths from cars. How many Americans use a car? How many hours a day are they in their cars? I'll round down the numbers I'm seeing:300,000,000 Americans - but not all drive, so lets say 200,000,000 (a number which I'm sure we both can agree is outrageously low, more than 2/3 of the US ride in cars.) 500-1000 hours - average amount of time/year an average american spends in their cars. Let's go with the low end and say just 500. so that's 100,000,000,000 manhours of "car time" per year. Out of that time, 44,000 deaths. Now, why don't you go ahead and calculate how many manhours of "gun usage" is going on. Given that it takes a second to pull the trigger, I really don't think you've gonna come up with a ratio anywhere near the deaths/manhour of cars.
There is a lot of misconceptions about what a government can do when the citizens are unarmed. Why is it that you can only repell Government attacks on your person with either a fully automatic pistol or a submachine gun? Why can't you use a shotgun or a hunting rifle? Didn't you post earlier about how good you were with a bolt action?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Nuggin writes: I will answer your questions, then I will ask you questions and you will either answer them, or I'll be forced to assume that you realize that your position is _still_ undefendable. ... "If no one bought a gun, regardless of society's rules, would there be the same lethal levels of violence?" No. So, what you're really saying is that increased easy access isn't necessarily responsible? Instead, it seems as though you are arguing that the guns themselves must be increased, not just the easy access. Would you agree with Modulous' interpretation of your position that "easy access to weapons leads to proliferation which leads to an increase in the amount of lethal incidents per capita"?
1) Do you believe that every violent act that takes place in the US is premeditated? No.
2) Do you believe that someone who wishes to do violence may "cool" down over time? Sure.
3) Do you believe that when someone who wishes to do violence has access to a handgun, they are able to do more damage than if they didn't have access to a handgun? What they are able to do is different than what they want and/or will do. So, while they're certainly able to do so--as much as they're able take a shit behind a gas station--the question we must really ask is, do they actually do more damage simply because of the gun? I've addressed this in a few other posts if you want to go back through them, if not, just let me know and I will summararize it for you.
4) Do you believe that you need to conceal a weapon in order for it to provide you with "protection"? Well, I'd conceal the weapon simply out of concern for your pants, since it's pretty clear that you'd take a shit in them if you saw anyone in public with a visible gun . And yes, hiding it will keep people who like to harrass people just because they are looking for a fight from trying to mess with you and/or harm you just for their thrill. In other words, some people will view the gun as a threat, and so concealing it will keep those (mentally unstable) people from getting "all in your face".
5) Do you think a criminal is detered by the presence of a gun in the home?
Brenna's argument, not mine. I won't address this.
5a) Do you think a criminal is less detered by the presence of a shotgun than the presence of a handgun? See above.
6) Do you STILL think that any of us are arguing that "guns cause violence"?
Never did.
7) WHY? When we've quoted ourselves to you about 20x do you still continue to put up the same strawman over and over and over again?
My strawman only appears as such from your quote mining. Check out this below:
Nuggin writes: Sorry Mod, but you are just wrong. Jon said:
A claim that has been made here over and over again is that increased guns = increased violence You've quote mined me. I addressed this, it was addressed in the Mod Proc. thread, and has been several times here, including Modulous' very well-done summary of where the debate was standing. Care to stop quote mining me?
AND, even if he did mean murder, the quote would then be: "A claim that has been made here over and over again is that increased guns = increased murder" which would STILL be a strawman of our position. Oh?
Nator writes: quote: Actually, this is exactly what I have repeatedly said in this thread and the previous Guns thread Of course, it's the quote mine "increased guns = increased violence" that has led to so much confusion. I meant it in the context of murder, and because of this, I--at that point--was under the impression that you felt an increase in guns led to an increase in deaths. Of course, people kept SHOUTING that my interpretation of the position was wrong, and so I decided to just say, "okay, fine you aren't arguing what I thought you were arguing." Of course, you were. Another problem, is that that quote mine has been posted many times as an example of me misrepresenting my opponets' position so many times. However, if I did it so many times, where the Hell are those examples? Oh? They no existen? Hmmm... ... Consider, if you quoted the Good Book, "He breathed the breath of life into the man" (not sure if that's word-for-word, but close enough). Now, you could sit and argue that it's not God doing the breathing, afterall, it just says "he." But, reading the rest of the story, you see to what "he" that pronoun refers. In similar ways, reading my entire post, i.e., not just stoppping when you think you have a quote you can use against me, you see that the "violence" to which I am referring is "murder." I hope this has made clear your error, and you will STOP using that quote mine, because having to constantly debate that single instance in which I used the word "violence", and even then in reference to "murder", is just going to clog this thread, which could shape up into an okay debate, until we hit message 300. We good there?
Nuggin writes: That is NOT what Jon is quoting us saying. It IS however what we have had to repeat adnauseum to Jon. Clearly, you've gone wrong somewhere. I guess the question of the evening is: Do you understand your position? Jon PS: you didn't answer my questions regarding nuke storage 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024