Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 452 (522073)
08-31-2009 11:16 PM


It is amazing how a people can become so brainwashed into accepting life without freedom that they will even start to believe that it is the way things ought to be.
So sad.

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 6:45 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 452 (522137)
09-01-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Straggler
09-01-2009 8:50 AM


Re: Facts?
Are you saying that the facts detailed by RAZD in Message 252 are wrong?
LOL. Of course not; they are merely stupid and irrelevant. Telling us that "the more guns we got the more gun deaths there will be" is a ridiculous statement that tells us absolutely nothing we do not already know; what's more, it does not at all support the position that banning guns is necessary anymore than "with more cars there are more car deaths" supports the notion of banning cars.
If the machine in question results in benefits that significantly outweigh the risks (e.g. cars) then I don't think many here would oppose the machine in question on principle alone.
Seriously? You think that getting to work on time is MORE important in the long run than saving a person's life? That's a rather heartless assertion; perhaps the Queen was right to keep your gun
So are you able to make a fact based argument that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages for your position? Or not?
It is simply ridiculous to attempt to compare crime rates between different countries based solely on relative gun ownership figures. There are plainly far too many other factors that affect crime/violence rates. You are looking at a problem with LOADS of variable causes, picking out the variable you most detest, and putting it forth as a sole cause.
The reason no pro-rights folk have posted any statistics and figures is because they all know better than to attempt such a fallacious undertaking. Doing so would make their arguments as flawed as yours. And since they're in it to win it, making flawed arguments just won't cut it Try as you might, they will not sink to your level.
Like I said before... so sad.

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 8:50 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 12:06 PM Jon has replied
 Message 265 by Modulous, posted 09-01-2009 12:09 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 452 (522141)
09-01-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Straggler
09-01-2009 12:06 PM


Re: Facts?
Or is it actually because the facts are against them?
LOL. It simply does not matter. Showing a statistical relationship is not the same as showing a causal one.
Please show that guns cause crime.

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 12:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Theodoric, posted 09-01-2009 12:29 PM Jon has replied
 Message 273 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 2:46 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 452 (522174)
09-01-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Theodoric
09-01-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Facts?
Maybe you might want to research your point and actually provide some evidence.
No, not really. The anti-rightsists argue for stricter gun control, more laws regulating guns, more restrictions on what guns can be bought, sold, etc. ... Such things require the writing of laws, the debating of laws, the passing of laws, the passing of laws again, the approval of laws, and the enforcement of laws, (sometimes the reviewing of laws and the amending of laws, etc). All of those things require money, time, etc.. This money, time, etc. is a cost, a resource cost. It is money, time, etc. that could be spent on many trillions of other things. As someone proposing stricter gun control, it is up to anti-rightsists to show how the expenditure of such resources is a cost worth the end benefit.
The first step is to show that there is a benefit. The next step is to measure the benefit. The third step is to measure the cost. And the final step is to subtract Cost from Benefit and hope that your result is positive , i.e., that there is a net gain in benefit.
Now, this is what the pro-gun-banners must do. All I must do is sit back and show where they are wrong. As the good attorneys always say: the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Well, I burden thee! Present thy proofs or rest thy case! So far, the only evidence presented has been RAZD's mockery of sanity with his reference to firearms deaths. And, as I promised, I showed it was ridiculous, irrelevant, silly, goofy, disingenuous, foolish, and above all unsupporting.
The argument by Legend has been that guns discourage crime. I think that has been totally debunked.
I am not Legend... forget that not.

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Theodoric, posted 09-01-2009 12:29 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by onifre, posted 09-01-2009 3:58 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 328 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2009 7:33 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 452 (522210)
09-01-2009 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Straggler
09-01-2009 5:32 PM


Re: Honestly?
The idea of these people with access to guns (and yes some were students of mine) is frankly fucking terrifying.
LOL. So your justification for people to give up their basic rights is that you are a scardy cat? You will certainly have to come up with a better reason than "I'm 'fwaida dem guns"
And for good measure:

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 5:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 8:00 PM Jon has replied
 Message 297 by Michamus, posted 09-01-2009 8:21 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 452 (522218)
09-01-2009 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Straggler
09-01-2009 8:00 PM


Re: Honestly?
Your reason for not allowing everyone to have their own personal nuclear deterrent is presumably what.......?
Pff... there is another thread here on gun control where nuclear weapon control was brought up. I explained it there, and there you can find it. I have no time to retype everything over and over again. Unlike many members here, I am not content rehashing the same crap
Down scarecrow man... down!

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 8:00 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 452 (522263)
09-02-2009 7:47 AM


LOL. It is funny now how RAZD is trying to pretend like pro-rightsists think he should be packing. I have no guns, want no guns, like no guns. You are do not need to have a gun if you do not want to; I could care less. However, why should you sit here and belch about taking away other folk's rights merely 'cause you see no need for them? Even I am far from sinking so low...
Jon

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024