How can we regulate guns ... ?

Are guns unable to be reloaded? Sure - here are the characteristics and their ratios:
Gunshot wounds result in a higher mortality rate than knife wounds.
Gunshot wounds can be made at a faster rate than knife wounds.
Gunshot wounds can be made at a larger range of distances than knife wounds.
{abe} We are comparing guns to knives, so I am taking your request for me to "distinguish two firearms" as a typo.Try this:
Efficiency - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Efficiency in general describes the extent to which time, effort or cost is well used for the intended task or purpose. It is often used with the specific purpose of relaying the capability of a specific application of effort to produce a specific outcome effectively with a minimum amount or quantity of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.

---

The capability of killing people is greater with guns than knives.
Guns are more efficient than knives at killing people.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Do you have to reload a knife? Those aren't ratios. Why are we comparing guns to knives? That's not what I asked. I didn't make a "typo", I asked for a definition of "kill efficiency" that would allow me to distinguish between two firearms. Efficiency isn't defined as "capability." It's defined as "capability per a minimum amount of "expense, waste, or unnecessary effort." In other words, efficiency implies a ratio. Maybe that's not what you mean, but was "more dangerous than a knife" what Straggler meant? If so, why didn't he just say so?

No.
Are guns unable to be reloaded? Yes they are.
One is greater than the other. Well....that is what the discussion was about.Straggler listed different weapons:
"Well if I wanted to walk into a school and massacre a large number of people and I had the following choice of weapons which of the following would I be best served arming myself with in order to achieve my stated aim"
You asked for clarification on how those weapons are judged more (or less) efficient:
"I asked you to define your term "kill efficiency." ... I'm just wondering what the terms of your ratio are."
I selected 2 weapons to compare and listed how their efficiency was judged:
"Let's compare guns to knives then"
And you addressed that comparison:
"Guns can only be fired a limited number of times before becoming completely ineffective; a knife can do harm indefinitely."I am unsure how you got lost in such a short number of messages. Ok...The capability of killing people per a minimum amount of unnecessary effort is greater with guns than knives. What he said was synonymous to "more dangerous than a knife".Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

That's not what "ratio" means.Look, if someone would like to make an earnest effort to address an earnest question, I promise to give it due consideration. But giving Panda any further consideration at this point really would mean I was crazy. A request for moderator attention will be forthcoming.

Yes it is:
Ratio - definition of ratio by The Free Dictionary

quote:

---

1. Relation in degree or number between two similar things.

---

And that is you ducking out of a losing position. That is ok by me.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Does your statement appear to you to address my position, because it seems to me that your statement doesn't address anything I've said? Since I don't believe that the 2nd amendment tells Congress to arm the militia and had expressly denied that position before you made any posts accusing me of having that position, then it doesn't make sense to ask me the question above which yet again attributes that position to me.Short answer: Not disarming is not the same as arming.One provision authorizes Congress to arm the militia and the President to command the militia. The second amendment expressly removes the authority of the federal government to disarm the militia. My position is that the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd amendment in that way prior to DC v. Heller.Edited by NoNukes, : Change 'arm Congress' to 'arm militia'

It seems to me, reading this post and a series of others that you've had with Percy lately and me earlier, that the heart of everyone's impatience with you and your subsequent feelings of paranoia, is your refusal to back down and stop arguing when you're obviously in the wrong.Now you're going to say that you're not in the wrong here - of course - you think that you're being completely reasonable asking for increasing levels of definitions but to the rest of us, the position is absurd because it's simply a truism that guns are more efficient at killing than knives (or fists.)This is not something that needs a scientific definition, nor continuous discussion. It's something we should all be able to nod in agreement on as entirely self evident and pass on to the main issue. To find ourselves arguing, at length over pedantry is extremely frustrating.And you do it on every damn subject, once you have a position you are impervious to evidence against it and feel that you must argue impossible positions regardless of the damage it does you.Don't you see that if you're not prepared to accept the self-evident fact that guns are efficient ways of killing a lot of people quickly without moving into equivocation and prove it mode, there just isn't going to be a way of having a rational discussion at all?Look it must be possible to have a reasoned discussion with you, you're an intelligent guy, I just think you're actually in the 'stand your ground' mode at all times and shooting from the hip spraying points everywhere. If you took a bit more time to consider answers and produce more data, less posts and less words, you'd make more progress.Just a thought. We could all be wrong about you, but doesn't it seem unlikely?

No need, I'm here.Crash, please keep the focus of all future messages strictly on topic. In particular, please avoid all reference to any offenses you think others are committing against you, and in fact avoid all reference, direct or indirect, to other participants. Once your 9.0 on the Richter scale quiets it should prove possible to tell if disruptions to this thread are coming from any other sources.Let me provide an example based upon a post from the Gun Control Again thread of what is required of you. Let's say someone says this: You should not reply like this: You must instead reply like this: This message constitutes the first warning. Failures to follow this request will draw short suspensions whose length will increase over time.I'll add a bit of moderation. What Panda called ratios don't strike me as ratios either, but the noun Panda chose to refer to his comparisons between guns and knives doesn't matter to the discussion. By focusing on the comparisons rather than quibbling over irrelevant nomenclature you'll move the discussion constructively forward.Please, no replies to this message.

Because the greater lethality of guns over knives is self-evident, and because it isn't the topic of this thread, and to help discussion move constructively forward, discussion on this point should cease. Future discussion may assume that guns are more lethal than knives.A thread to discuss gun versus knife lethality may be proposed over at Proposed New Topics.

They are actually the same, which you'll see if you think about it for a moment, but regardless of that why would Congress disarm their own militia? Again, that makes no sense. And it's inconsistent with history, and all the times Congress has dissolved militias and armed forces without anyone thinking that's not a power they have consistent with their Article One authority over the military. Your position is unevidenced and in error.

That's clearly not a reasonable request. Merely as a function of language, I'm not going to be able to respond to any communication put forward to me without an occasional reference to the author of it; "you said this", "earlier you made this argument", "another participant made this argument, do you agree" etc. Those are legitimate parts of any discussion and I certainly can't be expected to proceed without making references to other participants.I'm happy to comply with any reasonable request but asking me to treat messages as not having authors is an unreasonable restriction and certain to result in confusion. I'm simply not going to be able to comply. If you believe that's going to pose an issue with the board, then you'll have to take whatever next steps you see fit. I'm not going to be able to treat posts as not reflecting the views and actions of individual participants.

quote:

---

Again, no, I don't believe that more guns will reduce gun deaths, because again - and please stop misrepresenting me on this point..

---

This message includes no reference directly or indirectly to any participant, so I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me to do. Moderation must surely proceed from factual accuracy. "Ratio" was not the noun Panda chose to refer to his comparisons; "ratio" was the noun I asked for evidence of. And accepting that Panda's ratios aren't ratios, to me, lends support to my contention that your conclusion that I have some kind of "pattern" isn't actually the result of anything I'm doing. It's time for you to start accepting the possibility that you've been completely wrong about me. I'm prepared to supply whatever evidence you request, but if your reply is that you're not prepared to consider any of it, then you need to explain to me how you can be so sure you're in the right, here.

But that's not true. When Theodoric pointed out that I was wrong about the population of the United States, my assent was immediate. I didn't do what you're accusing me of - dig in my heels, refuse to see sense.I immediately agreed I was wrong. But when have you admitted to me that you were wrong, Tangle? Give me even a single example.It's really easy to make the accusation you're making, Tangle, but the reason that I know that it's wrong is because of all the times I admit error when it's actually demonstrated. What you're expecting me to do is admit error when a bunch of people all agree I'm wrong but crowds can be wrong, too, Tangle; Argumentum Ad Populum is still a fallacy. I've given you everything you need in this thread and the other to prove that I'm wrong. I've outlined exactly the evidence I would find convincing. I always do that because I think it's the least I can do to move the discussion forward. Have you ever done it, Tangle? Even once? But I'm not arguing about that, Tangle. I'm trying to get at the meaning of "kill efficiency" that would allow me to compare two firearms, since that's the issue, here. There's just no question that guns are lethal in more situations than knives; that's why people's kitchens typically have a dozen knives and exactly zero guns.So when you insist that I'm taking a position that I'm not taking, I have to stop you and ask you to reply only to the positions I'm actually taking. And the position that knives are not more lethal than guns is manifestly not one of them. "More lethal" is simply truism. Does "kill efficiency" mean "more lethal"? If that's the case, I'd like to hear it from Straggler. But it seems like a misapplication of terms, in the way that "gas efficiency" and "cargo capacity" don't refer to the same characteristics of automobiles. Sure. You just have to reply to the positions I actually take, instead of inventing strawmen to reply to. I don't see what's so hard about that, and I don't see how after all of this it can be ascribed to communications problems on my part. That just can't be true - I'm an award-winning technical communicator with a reputation for making technical concepts easy to understand, I've been writing in a professional capacity since I was 14 years old. It beggars belief to suggest that I come here and lose all ability to communicate in written English, but only when I'm talking to you guys. Sure. If I didn't have mountains and mountains of evidence for my view that you guys won't even look at, I wouldn't believe it. Isn't it possible, though, that you guys could all be the ones who are wrong?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Hi Crashfrog,The message you replied to stated, "Please, no replies to this message." You just replied.See you tomorrow.

Hi Crashfrog ... and others Try this: the topic is about how we can regulate guns, not about anything else. Comments not directed at how we can regulate guns are off topic and should be pursued elsewhere.

quote:

---

Message 1: I'd like to shift the focus to ways to regulate guns:

​

1. so that legitimate users can fulfill their needs
   1. hunters
   2. collectors
   3. self defense proponents
   4. security people
   5. police
2. so that a well regulated state militias can be maintained (per the constitution)
   1. National Guard
   2. constitutional militia organizations
   3. gun club militia organizations⁽¹⁾
   4. general population
3. so that non-legitimate use can be reduced from
   1. criminals
   2. irrational/delusional/unstable people
   3. people under the influence of drugs, alcohol, rage

​

For the sake of argument on this thread, it is taken as given that fewer unregulated guns in the hands of fewer untrained people will result in fewer deaths (accidental and intentional), so the purpose is to achieve that end.

---

And for reference I quoted the sections of the constitution relevant to militias and the bearing of arms:

quote:

---

⁽¹⁾ - "gun club militias" would be all those groups that do not fit the constitional definition of militia -- ie as detailed here:

​

http://congressionalconstitutioncaucus-garr.../...nstitution

​

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

​

Article I Section 8 - The Congress shall have Power ...

​

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

​

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

​

Article II Section 2 - The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, ...

​

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

---

---

Gun Club Militia Organizations

You will note that I have introduced a "gun club militia organization" to cover those ad hoc organizations that have cropped up in various parts of the country.Again, I don't see the founding fathers thinking that the right to bear arms included private individuals owning the most lethal warfare arms available, but that such weapons would be under the control and care of local militia units: town militias could own a canon for instance (my town has an active revolutionary reenactor militia and they have two working brass canons).Then too, I look at the National Guard to observe how a well regulated militia would be expected to be organized, armed, trained and disciplined.We could probably look into statistics of how many killing rampages and gun murders were committed by National Guard members and what weapons were used and compare them to the general population. My gut feeling is that there would be a very small number of incidents involving National Guard armament, that the incidents that have occurred involved privately owned guns.The National Guard can serve as a model for how military grade weapons are regulated and controlled within the local populations.Clearly a town could have a "gun club militia organization" with similar regulations and controls on the use of weapons, and that such an organization could provide a safer, better controlled access to weapons of military grade than private homes.Local police units could also be models for such organizations.This would allow individuals to own weapons appropriate for personal use -- hunting, collecting, self defense -- while those who want to own\operate rapid fire large ammo capacity weapons could keep them at such an organization, protected by security systems and regulated on where and when such weapons can be used.Enjoy

Hi Crashfrog,I'll address your concerns, but there's to be no reply to this message, and there's to be no further discussion with moderators in this thread. Given your rejection of all attempts to hold up a mirror for you to see what others see I won't make any further attempts at helpful feedback. Statements like "you said this" will not be a problem unless the full statement runs something like "you said this back when you contradicted yourself...etc...", just for example. The accusations have to stop. In the future you might consider giving a careful look to any sentence you write that contains words like "you" or "your" or a member's name. The request to "stop misrepresenting me" is obviously directed at the person you're replying to. You've just accused them of misrepresenting you. This is something you do frequently, sometimes you'll even call it willful misrepresentation and in the past you've been prone to accusing people of lying about you. It has to stop. This isn't a discussion. I've made moderator decisions. You can abide by them or be suspended. Please stop quibbling over the definition of ratio and address the substance of the argument, or just don't reply at all.Please, no replies to this message.