Summations Only

If you want me to respond to anything you say, here is what I would need you to do;I see that no one else here is going to show you, so you need to do it yourself. Go to any number of websites that list "logical fallacies". You should be able to find a favorite, most of them are very liberal. Find a definition of "straw man" there, and c/p it, in your next post. Then look at my message 3671, and pay special attention to the word "parasite" that was addressed to something I said. THEN, admit that you learned something about what "straw man" means.If you're too proud to do that, then you can keep amusing yourself and your friends by addressing what I say, but I won't be responding to it.

No one can speculate about the future, without sounding pretty crazy. Anyone who speculated what was going to happen on 9-11-01, a few days before that, would have sounded completely crazy. I don't really think there's much chance the U.S. military will pick a fight with the rest of the citizenry, any more than Al Gore actually believed that the north pole would be completely melted by 2013. I can do that, so please don't go. A lot of foreigners here, (with agreement from some liberal U.S. citizens) claim that so many U.S. citizens are really unusual when compared to the rest of the world, they way they continue to love their guns, in spite of all the murder and carnage this love causes.What I'd like to speculate on now is how a total ban on private ownership of guns would look like in the U.S. I know some here claim that's not the goal, they just want more background checks and limits on magazine capacities etc, and they'll let everyone know what the next step is when the next mass shooting happens. But it's obvious what most all gun control advocates actually want.Another peculiar thing about the U.S. citizenry, that they've demonstrated in the past on two occasions now, is how un-cooperative and stubborn they are when the federal government passes a law that they don't like, that they weren't asked their opinion on. One was prohibition in the 1930's, and the other was the national 55 mph speed limit in the 1970's. The public reacted in ways that the government didn't dream of, and they both ended up getting repealed. I wasn't around in the 30's and don't know much detail about it, but the 55 mph speed limit farce did damage to our society that lives on to this day.But enough of all that, how would a total gun ban be implemented? If it was implemented basically the same as the 55 mph speed limit - "Congress voted on this, and this is how things are". A few months grace period for everyone to turn their guns in, before arrests and imprisonment started? What percentage of gun owners would turn their gun in? I suspect it would be VERY low. An unregistered gun would become a novelty, their value would go way up. The government would realize this - how would they react? How intense would their searches for guns be? Could this gun ban be repealed?Out of time tonight, I'll might respond to some more of this love in the coming days.

I enter Bizarro World reluctantly and with trepidation, but I have a question. Mass killings have also increased with the increasing prevalence of atheism in the scientific community. This Oregon shooting, and the recent church shooting were hate crimes against Christians. Noble prize winner Steven Weinberg claimed that a significant accomplishment for the scientific community would be to "weaken the hold of religion". What better way to weaken the hold of religion in the U.S. than to kill Christians! No one in the news media seems to question what role a secular organization that sometimes opposes traditional Christian morals might have in crimes against Christian people. If there are more attacks on Christians in the coming months or years, do you think the scientific community should have it's activities more closely monitored by government? Eliminate the heroin, and you'll eliminate the heroin deaths?The more automobiles, the more automobile deaths. The more kitchen knives, the more kitchen knife deaths. The more baseball bats, the more baseball bat deaths.Back in Message 3728, I asked this question of you, and got no response from you, or anyone.

quote:

---

But enough of all that, how would a total gun ban be implemented? If it was implemented basically the same as the 55 mph speed limit - "Congress voted on this, and this is how things are". A few months grace period for everyone to turn their guns in, before arrests and imprisonment started? What percentage of gun owners would turn their gun in? I suspect it would be VERY low. An unregistered gun would become a novelty, their value would go way up. The government would realize this - how would they react? How intense would their searches for guns be? Could this gun ban be repealed?

---

All I got was a "straw man" accusation in the next message, I assume that is supposed to mean that gun control advocates claim to NOT be in favor of a total gun ban. Yet their rhetoric makes it clear that they are. It's one of many reasons gun control isn't more successful in the U.S.Do you have any proposals for how gun control could be more successful than heroin control? This entire thread is very low on specifics on just what control advocates want to do. It leads logical people to believe that they don't really know, they just trust the government, the Democrat party, to make those decisions. Obama's latest rants don't even contain specifics. He just wants you to trust him. Do you?

Yes. Yes. Yes and yes. (now I know how Ted Cruz feels as he's being grilled by Katie Couric) Yes I do, I actually think it's already started happening. This latest shooting, as most of the recent past shootings, have obviously been COPYCAT shootings, largely brought on by our sensationalizing news media. I haven't had a chance to watch a lot of news lately, but I've seen some, and there seems to be somewhat less of it. This shooters name and picture don't seem to be splashed all over the news reports quite as much as past shooters were. It's no surprise, it's so obvious to so many that ratings-seeking sensationalism inspires disturbed, attention seeking nuts to go for their hour of big attention. Not really, I'm not a fan of knee-jerk, feel good solutions. I don't have a solution for 40,000 or so traffic deaths per year either. I don't believe the government is the solution to every problem. I knew it!!! The Katie Couric "gotcha" question is here!! And the answer; nah, Cheney didn't kill anyone, as I recall, no one was even injured too badly. It was an accident. But I do think irresponsible liberals like Al Gore, who raised a lot of money from his "earth in the balance" book sales, should be required to donate a percentage of his profits to mental health research, since his prediction of polar ice caps being completely melted by 2013 was much worse than an accident, it was a blatent lie, told mainly to upset and scare people, particularly children, and mental health patients who might choose to go on killing sprees that target Christians, since Christians are linked to conservatism, and conservatives are linked to productivity that is associated with global warming.

The idea is simply that one, or two school officials, be it a teacher, a principal, or assistant principle, custodian, etc. that takes an interest in guns, to have one within fairly easy reach of his/her usual work area. Doesn't seem that bizzarre to me, when the alternative is a crazy person having plenty of time to casually walk around killing people with no fear of anyone else around being armed.

I'm basing it on what I saw 42 years ago in the reaction of people to the national 55mph speed limit. The government was not prepared to deal with how the people reacted. Speed limits are largely a joke in the U.S. even today because of it. OH NO, OF COURSE HE DIDN'T. He just asked people if they were Christians, then shot them when they said they were! I read your link. It's amazing to see the dances. They serve to make those on the far left feel good, but they're not very convincing to normal people. Not all at once, but they know their only chance is by incrementalism. Some of them try to imply that they don't support a total gun ban, as if they'd oppose the final step to a total ban. It's not honest.

I specified in the scientific community. Science and atheism have been seamlessly blended only over the past few decades. Young people and many mentally unstable people could tell the difference much easier during the 1970's than they can today. Today, the scientific community, often indirectly, opposes morals, opposes conservatives, on subjects that further stir the emotions of unstable people, largely those who have been terrified by the global warming hoax. Most of them, no. They like to hunt, they like to target shoot. And they know something about American history, and world history. How history can repeat itself if nothing is learned from it. Or it will decline when the things that make them snap declines. Guns were just as available in the 1960's and 1970's as they are today, with the exception of today's background checks, gun free zones etc. that obviously aren't working at all. RAZD recently put this c/p up in one of his previous messages;

quote:

---

I grew up with guns. Country guns. Shotguns. .45s and .38s and beer cans on fence posts. That was back before public gun violence became a daily routine. If somebody got shot, it was a drug deal or domestic violence. There were guns all around me, practically under my pillow, and nobody got hurt. No one I know ever threatened another person with a gun. The few violent men I knew fought with their fists. Pulling a gun to settle a score wouldn't be worth the shame. Guns were for targets and critters. It seems like some kind of mythical world now.

---

To be fair, this may be somewhat of an exaggeration. But there were plenty of water guns, some of them pretty real looking, when I was in middle school in the late 1960's. No one raised an eyebrow then. Society has changed a lot more since then than has gun availability. 200+ years ago, John Adams said this;

quote:

---

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

---

We're seeing the proof. If mentally unstable people didn't see global warming scare tactics just about every time they turn on the news, maybe they wouldn't build up their hatred for conservatives/Christians. They probably don't see it near as much in the UK, because the U.K. isn't accused of causing it like the U.S. is. "Gun owners" fall into three distinct groups. Two of them are never involved in gun control in any way. One is the government, the police and military, and all that follows from that. Sounds at first like a small percentage of gun owners, but it's not. In addition to police and military, there has to be security for the president, his wife and children. There's congressmen, senators, in at least some cases, their wives and children. State politicians, governors. All the related government employees, some need armed security. The dept of homeland security, they recently received their billions of hollow point rounds. Then armed security branches out into the private sector, bank security, security for other private corporations. Limbaugh and Hannity get their lives threatened hundreds of times per year by Democrats, does anybody think they're not going to be able to get the armed security they desire?Group number two, criminals. Gun control only begins and ends with group number three, the law abiding public. Considering most gunfire in the U.S. is between the first two groups, claims that any more gun control is going to make much difference in gun violence doesn't appear to be honest to a lot of people. It would depend on the COST. Disarming only one of three groups of gun owners in the U.S. could have costs. Loss of liberty by people who are used to it has costs. Have you ever thought about how today's new car costs compare to new car costs of the 1970's? The average car cost in the 1970's was about $3500 to $4000. The median income then was about $9000 to $10,000. So a new car was about half the median income, and lots of people could afford them. Today the average new car costs about $30,000 to $35,000. That's about what the median income is today. So car costs have doubled, and lots of people who could afford them in the 70's can't afford them today. Could that be some of the frustration that RAZD blames free markets for? Government meddling can create frustration as well. A lot of people don't want all the frills on cars today. But they're forced to buy them, or do without completely. This is back to basics, it's been the subject of this really long thread. But my point here is to think about the societal changes that make people increasingly likely to use guns improperly. There has been practically no changes in the availability of guns since back when gun deaths weren't much of a problem in the U.S.

Not much time tonight - I'll try to get to more of your points and some of the others in the coming evenings, though there's really not much new substance there, and I'm thinking this thread could be closed by then. But I have another bit of nuttery for you that I'd like to see you and a few dozen others here get excited about;I realize this thread isn't about the 55 mph speed limit, so I'll keep my comments about that very brief, but I think it's important to compare it to what a future repeal of the second amendment could do. As I've mentioned here and in other threads, the (unconstitutional) 55 mph speed limit had unforseen consequences. Hollywood was all too happy to satisfy the public's brand new desire to see policemen portrayed as idiots in countless movies and televisions shows. Radar detector sales and CB radio sales went through the roof in the 1970's. Many people of all political persuasions didn't feel these were good things for a society. So what unforseen consequences could arise as a result of a second amendment repeal? Try this one on for size;"Silencers" for guns have long been around, most of us have seem them depicted in movies, used by the bad guys. They don't completely silence the gun of course, but they seem to muffle the sound quite a bit. They don't seem very desired or popular in real life, most people on either side of the gun control issue today don't seem to mind the bang. Gun nuts, they just like bangs because they're simple like that I guess, and control advocates like it because it's a pretty good indicator that bullets are flying, take cover, arrest that shooter, etc. All the people that currently enjoy target shooting and hunting know that the U.S. is loaded with wide open country where they suspect they could continue to enjoy their guns without getting caught. But what's the spoiler? THE BANG. That's what would bring the authorities down on them, it would pinpoint the time and location of their activities.What would make them happier than a 1975 Dukes of Hazard episode did for speeders of that era? New silencer technology. Finding new ways to make guns almost completely silent would become an overnight goldmine. A whole new world for shooters to break the law right under the noses of those passionate to stop them. Just think of the possibilities!You could be standing at a fuel island gassing up your car, or in a grocery parking lot putting your stuff in your trunk, and suddenly the person 10 feet away from you falls and starts kicking. As you and others check on him and learn that he's been shot, you didn't hear a thing. If you're still alive when the police show up 15 or 20 minutes later, you couldn't give them much information, could you?Think of the brand new possibilities there would be for insane people to invent new shooting galleries. Do you think guns that couldn't be heard more than, say 50 feet away, yet could kill within a half mile, are a technical impossibility? No matter how much money and effort is poured into the idea?If the second amendment is repealed, and something similar to this became a reality, who would be to blame?

Hello agian So we should have "snow driving laws"? Those with messy divorces, vicious managers, or angry guys have NO BUSINESS driving in snow. In order to keep them off the roads and keep us all safe, sorry but YOU have to stay home when it snows as well.What's the difference? Why the lopsided applications? If you're not interested in guns, and advocate the loss of rights for those who are, how can you complain when someone comes after rights that you are interested in? If the alternative is to stay home, and go hungry, some of us still like to make our own choices. Societies based on liberty don't claim to always be a heaven on earth. History and current events tell us that societies based on dictatorships and massive governments aren't either.

I only asked a question about HIS analogy, and didn't get an answer, from him or you. If I "really" have trouble, it seems like you could have explained it easily and briefly. But I'll be glad to explain myself further, to make it easier for you.Let's have a look at how the word "analogy" is defined, then we'll take a more detailed look at Percy's analogy.From dictionary.com;

quote:

---

Analogy; a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based:

---

The features of the two things of his analogy are;Good snow drivers feeling threatened by unqualified snow drivers, versus good gun owners (or non gun owners) feeling threatened by unqualified gun owners. Let's quote some of it, so you're absolutely clear on it so far. "IT'S THE SAME WITH GUNS". Did you get that part doctor? If you're afraid of incompetent drivers, you "keep your eyes open and your wits about you". In other words, it's YOUR job to avoid the danger you perceive. If it were the same with guns, it would also be YOUR job to avoid the danger you perceive, like getting your own gun and learning how to use it, or move to a safe place that has lots of gun control, like Chicago. But he didn't say that, lets look at what he followed that up with; Own guns? Ownership? What did he say about the ownership of cars? The features of the analogy aren't the same, are they doctor? Are you still with me, or have I lost you? Just like the easier it is to own and drive cars in the snow makes it more possible that the other guy coming toward you down the street is someone who by all judgment should not be driving that car? No, he didn't say that! Most in the U.S. logically believe that the best comparison to "keeping your wits about you as you go about your daily business" concerning a fear of crazies with guns, means owning your own gun and learning how to use it. But he followed it up with something completely different; Increasing and strengthening government control has nothing to do with personally "keeping your wits about you", or looking out for yourself, as his analogy suggests. So there's little, if any similarity of the features of the two things, as the official definition of the word "analogy" states. No one seriously believes that more gun control is going to magically eliminate the need to be wary of a crazy with a gun, anymore than current recreational drug laws eliminate the need to be wary of a dope head driving in the snow. But his post didn't address the possibility of more government action concerning snow driving, and my question about that went unanswered. So I have no evidence that that was a good analogy.So that's my trouble with analogies, doctor. When they're poorly presented, too briefly presented, and questions about them aren't answered. Now you can display YOUR trouble with analogies, and we'll compare.