Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
24 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,674 Year: 18,710/19,786 Month: 1,130/1,705 Week: 382/518 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 782 of 834 (852727)
05-16-2019 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 779 by Theodoric
05-16-2019 11:31 AM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
No. Wrong. That is not a correction. That is a different and irrelevant, to Percy's statement, data point. Cars are likely to never be involved in a major accident, but we still legislate safety controls in case they are.
which is why being in the insurance business is profitable. But it sure is nice to have when its needed.

The point Percy is trying to ultimately make is that guns are too dangerous to have. He states that it is more likely that they be used maliciously against a family member or one involved in an accidental shooting versus being used to defend a home/person. I actually agree that it is more likely given the statistics. But there's another statistic, and that is far more likely that a gun never hurts anyone ever. And we can know this rather definitively by noting that there are more guns in the United States than there are citizens. He's rather selective by using an outlier and pretending that its a norm.

But we can not require gun owners to have liability insurance? Kind of hurting your own argument with that statement.

I think you misunderstand my premise. The gun itself is the insurance policy, safeguarding against people that would try to hurt them. Its like insurance in the sense that you hope to god you never have to use it, but are glad its there in the event you do.

That your argument has no validity is shown by the continuing trotting out of this widely debunked and discredited argument. The gun laws in IL are not prohibitively restrictive. State lines do not stop guns. WI and IN have very lax gun laws. Comparing Chicago to New Hampshire is never a legitimate argument.
https://www.npr.org/...hicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

I appreciate you making the point for me... that gun laws have no impact on criminals or criminality that use them. That's exactly right, state lines do not prevent guns. The only ones it hurts are the very people you'd want to be armed and not the intended target, which are people that would use them maliciously.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 779 by Theodoric, posted 05-16-2019 11:31 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 786 by Theodoric, posted 05-16-2019 1:10 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 793 by Percy, posted 05-16-2019 2:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 783 of 834 (852728)
05-16-2019 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 780 by PaulK
05-16-2019 11:35 AM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
No, it certainly isn’t obvious that that was your point. You know I was willing to believe you didn’t read Percy’s post carefully and simply assumed that he was talking hypothetically. And apologising for that mistake would have been a good response. This is just digging yourself deeper.

Do you honestly believe I've never heard of a story where a kid shoots himself with a gun? You're missing the entire point... which is by that fact, alone, should it dictate the fate of gun ownership. That's Percy's ENTIRE premise, is it not? Do I need to pull up a random article of someone using a gun to kill an intruder in order to justify the logic of it? That's an incredibly cowardly way to debate, Paul... instead of attacking the substance of an argument, you set off looking for strawmen to set on fire. Oh, its not a hypothetical, its a real story!!! Uh, yeah, I am aware, just as some people who aren't armed are murdered have real stories attached to a theoretical philosophy stemming from it. The underlying argument based on that story IS hypothetical. Because of this happening, that ought to happen in response.

what benefits does gun ownership offer society to offset the cost. I don’t see that we lost anything worth having here.

Why don't you ask the military that question. A law or a fundamental right without any teeth is useless. At some point force will have to be applied some of the time. that's just the way life is.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2019 11:35 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 789 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2019 1:25 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 798 by Percy, posted 05-16-2019 3:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 784 of 834 (852729)
05-16-2019 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 781 by ringo
05-16-2019 11:43 AM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
The flaw in that analogy being that insurance is less likely to kill your children.

I'm not sure what your argument is, can you expound?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 781 by ringo, posted 05-16-2019 11:43 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 785 by ringo, posted 05-16-2019 12:55 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17423
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 785 of 834 (852731)
05-16-2019 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 784 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 12:36 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Hyroglyphx writes:

ringo writes:

The flaw in that analogy being that insurance is less likely to kill your children.


I'm not sure what your argument is, can you expound?

It's the same as the argument against, "Cars kill more people than guns."

A car is useful, maybe necessary; a gun is not. Insurance is useful, maybe necessary; a gun is not.

To quote you again: "But then, insurance is more likely to never be used at all... which is why being in the insurance business is profitable. But it sure is nice to have when its needed." A gun is never "needed". More often than not, it is a detriment rather than an asset.


Welcome back, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 784 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 12:36 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 787 by Theodoric, posted 05-16-2019 1:14 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 791 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 2:05 PM ringo has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6671
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 786 of 834 (852734)
05-16-2019 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 782 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 12:17 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
But there's another statistic, and that is far more likely that a gun never hurts anyone ever.

As I said that statistic is irrelevant. Using this argument we should give every person even children guns and not regulate them at all because statistically even less of a % will be used to hurt anyone. The old canard that guns don't hurt anyone people do. Logically it is a stupid argument.
I think you misunderstand my premise.

It is a stupid premise. An insurance policy does not protect your from things happening. It reimburses you for the financial cost. In no way is that similar to using a gun.

I appreciate you making the point for me... that gun laws have no impact on criminals or criminality that use them.

No I did not make that argument. It takes some severe manipulation of facts and reality to get to that conclusion.
Here are two articles filled with original source material that I am sure you will not even bother to consider.
http://www.armedwithreason.com/...gument-against-gun-control
http://www.armedwithreason.com/...als-respond-to-gun-control

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 782 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 12:17 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 792 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 2:15 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6671
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 787 of 834 (852735)
05-16-2019 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 785 by ringo
05-16-2019 12:55 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Very good point. For the majority of people insurance has an extreme cost. The cost of insurance though, is not death. It is just financial. If the cost of using a gun was just financial people would not have a problem with it. Alas, the potential cost of a gun is death, most of the time that cost is paid by the user or a family member.
That gun ownership = insurance is a ridiculous argument. There is nothing analogous about them at all.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by ringo, posted 05-16-2019 12:55 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 788 of 834 (852740)
05-16-2019 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 777 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 10:40 AM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Hyroglyphx writes:

My point, which was "quite obvious" if you read it, was that any good argument has a counter-argument.

I guess you have to believe that given your position. Obviously some people will argue for anything, no matter how absurd.

And we can "what-if" something to death.

The only person "what-if-ing" in this discussion is you.

The fundamental question is should an idiot's actions get to dictate mine? The answer is no.

But Mr. McFarland isn't an idiot - he's you, just 40 years older. He's Mr. Average Gun Owner.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 777 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 10:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15440
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 789 of 834 (852741)
05-16-2019 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 783 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 12:34 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
quote:

Do you honestly believe I've never heard of a story where a kid shoots himself with a gun? You're missing the entire point... which is by that fact, alone, should it dictate the fate of gun ownership. That's Percy's ENTIRE premise, is it not?

Even if it was - and it isn’t - responding with a self-serving “hypothetical scenario” is still a lousy answer. Playing “what-if” games is no way to deal with facts.

quote:

Do I need to pull up a random article of someone using a gun to kill an intruder in order to justify the logic of it?

That would be better but still poor. Percy’s point is these events are inevitable given widespread gun ownership and they don’t all happen to involve “idiots”.

quote:

Paul... instead of attacking the substance of an argument, you set off looking for strawmen to set on fire. Oh, its not a hypothetical, its a real story!!

But that isn’t a strawman. You really did dismiss Percy’s point as a “hypothetical scenario” which could be countered by inventing your own. That is the “substance”.

quote:

The underlying argument based on that story IS hypothetical. Because of this happening, that ought to happen in response.

That doesn’t even make sense.

quote:

Why don't you ask the military that question. A law or a fundamental right without any teeth is useless. At some point force will have to be applied some of the time. that's just the way life is.

And you still make no sense. Why would the military have any special insight ? The fact that I am living in a country with highly restrictive firearms laws and no signs of any serious ill-effects from that surely speaks louder than anything the military could say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 783 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 12:34 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 795 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 2:34 PM PaulK has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 790 of 834 (852754)
05-16-2019 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 778 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 10:59 AM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Hyroglyphx writes:

I'm sure this is a great comfort to the family of the critically injured mother.

Laws on murder are little consolation to family members affected by it. Seems like you just want a world where bad things never happen. A wonderful ideal, yes, but plausible? No.

You seem to prefer responding to arguments you make up yourself instead of arguments actually made.

The reality is that I would like a world where fewer bad things happen. That is well within our power.

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, guns are more likely to be used against family, friends and others nearby than against criminals.

Correction. Guns are more likely to NEVER be used at all. But then, insurance is more likely to never be used at all... which is why being in the insurance business is profitable. But it sure is nice to have when its needed.

That's not correction, it's evasion. You can't escape the fact that guns place one in more danger, not less.

That a mother was critically injured by her son with a gun hidden under the seat of a vintage World War II jeep is not hypothetical. Here's the news story again: 8-year-old boy accidentally shoots mother at baseball game, gun owner charged

The hypothetical I'm referring to is the argument you're posing as a result of your real-world example. Because of X, Y happened as a result. Therefore get rid of X so that Y cannot happen. And I'm saying get rid of X and P becomes the new variable.

Now you're making no sense, which is made obvious by replacing your variables with the facts:

"Because the loaded gun was placed under the seat of the jeep, a boy found it and critically wounded his mother. Therefore get rid of the gun under the seat so that the boy shooting his mother cannot happen."

There is no "variable P."

The point being that your real enemy is the human itself with a mind for malice. That's always been and always will be the actual issue that needs to be addressed. You think that changing externalities will change internalities. I don't.

We agree that people are the real threat, and the better lethally armed the person the more mayhem. That's why we don't allow people to have tanks and bazookas, and why we shouldn't let them have guns, either.

Guns are designed to be lethal so, yeah, go figure that the aim is to increase their lethality.

Why? So someone's more likely to be killed if there's an accident with your gun? So that more people can be killed more quickly in a mass shooting?

Cars are not designed to be dangerous and there is an incentive to make them less dangerous... but they still are dangerous, is the point. Its one giant argument of utility. Is the risk worth the reward?

You're arguing against yourself. Many things in life are dangerous, but except for guns we try to increase their safety. And except in certain circumstances (rare except for hunting), guns have no utility. Cars have high utilit but are especially dangerous, but look one more time at what all the effort on car safety has accomplished. Again, it is the red line:

I do find it ironic that you choose to live in a state that probably sets the gold standard for gun ownership rights.

Not only does New Hampshire have lax gun laws, people aren't often held responsible for gun accidents. I've told the story before of the man cleaning his rifle at the kitchen table of his 2nd floor apartment when it went off, killing a man sleeping on his sofa in the apartment above. The New Hampshire Attorney General declined to press charges, deeming it an unfortunate accident.

I think maybe you should move to Illinois which is heavily restrictive... its obvious their laws are working. New Hampshire is just too dangerous with all of their lax gun laws. I hear Chicago is lovely, especially this time of year.

This false argument has already been made in this thread (or perhaps one of the predecessor threads). Adjacent regions have much more lax gun laws, rendering the laws in Chicago and Illinois ineffectual.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 778 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 10:59 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 797 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 2:56 PM Percy has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 791 of 834 (852756)
05-16-2019 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 785 by ringo
05-16-2019 12:55 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
It's the same as the argument against, "Cars kill more people than guns." A car is useful, maybe necessary; a gun is not. Insurance is useful, maybe necessary; a gun is not.

Haha, yeah, okay... So a gun has no use? I imagine the efficacy of an army armed with only flower power.

To quote you again: "But then, insurance is more likely to never be used at all... which is why being in the insurance business is profitable. But it sure is nice to have when its needed." A gun is never "needed". More often than not, it is a detriment rather than an asset.

Never needed.... except when it is. I'm thinking it is needed when people are trying to kill you. What exactly is your plan if you face such a scenario? Read them passages from Gandhi about the philosophy of pacifism and hope they have a sudden change of heart?


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by ringo, posted 05-16-2019 12:55 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 794 by ringo, posted 05-16-2019 2:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 799 by Percy, posted 05-17-2019 8:13 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 792 of 834 (852757)
05-16-2019 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 786 by Theodoric
05-16-2019 1:10 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
As I said that statistic is irrelevant. Using this argument we should give every person even children guns and not regulate them at all because statistically even less of a % will be used to hurt anyone.

I never said I disagreed with gun legislation or even gun control. There are certain government safety standards for many things and I am for that, within reason.

The old canard that guns don't hurt anyone people do. Logically it is a stupid argument.

That's actually a fact. A gun has never willed itself to kill anyone.

It is a stupid premise.

Thank you.

An insurance policy does not protect your from things happening. It reimburses you for the financial cost. In no way is that similar to using a gun.
I appreciate you making the point for me... that gun laws have no impact on criminals or criminality that use them.

If you don't like that analogy, then use a seatbelt which doesn't reimburse you either. We wear seatbelts thousands of times when it wasn't necessary to do so in hindsight. But we still wear them because we cannot predict the exact moment we would need them.

No I did not make that argument.

Not intentionally, I would agree that, but inadvertently you did... and I thank you for it.

Here are two articles filled with original source material that I am sure you will not even bother to consider.

You're not reinventing the wheel and neither is the website. I have a retort for all of them. And its not that you or the website don't raise interesting questions, its just that when its all said and done, there is no response as to how you would curb violence directed to you without them to even the playing field.

Your alternative is.... death.... or serious bodily injury. Make that decision for you, not the rest of us.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by Theodoric, posted 05-16-2019 1:10 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 793 of 834 (852758)
05-16-2019 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 782 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 12:17 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Hyroglyphx writes:

The point Percy is trying to ultimately make is that guns are too dangerous to have.

Yes, that's the point, or most of it anyway. More precisely, most people do not have the necessary skills and discipline to own guns. The few who do do not possess the inhuman determination and motivation required to maintain those skills and discipline over a lifetime. Gradually the skills and discipline diminish and dissipate. Almost no one should own guns. Eventually everyone becomes a menace.

He states that it is more likely that they be used maliciously against a family member or one involved in an accidental shooting versus being used to defend a home/person.

Yes, that's correct.

I actually agree that it is more likely given the statistics.

That's gratifying to hear, but over time it's become clear that you don't understand statistics, and you emphasize this by what you say next:

But there's another statistic, and that is far more likely that a gun never hurts anyone ever. And we can know this rather definitively by noting that there are more guns in the United States than there are citizens. He's rather selective by using an outlier and pretending that its a norm.

The statistics on firearm deaths are not about outlier events.

Just as it is very likely that a gun will never hurt anyone, it is also very likely that a car will never hurt anyone, or that a riding mower will never hurt anyone, or that electric wiring will never hurt anyone. Yet we still have air bags and seat belts and anti-lock brakes for cars, and we still have cut-offs for riding mowers, and we still have circuit breakers and ground wires for electric circuits. The conclusion you desire doesn't follow from your argument.

But we can not require gun owners to have liability insurance? Kind of hurting your own argument with that statement.

I think you misunderstand my premise. The gun itself is the insurance policy, safeguarding against people that would try to hurt them. Its like insurance in the sense that you hope to god you never have to use it, but are glad its there in the event you do.

You're again revealing your lack of understanding of statistics, the very ones you just said you accepted. Guns are more likely to be used against yourself, family, friends, or others nearby than against criminals. A gun makes you less safe, not more. It isn't much of an insurance policy, even as an analogy, that increases the risk of injury or death.

That your argument has no validity is shown by the continuing trotting out of this widely debunked and discredited argument. The gun laws in IL are not prohibitively restrictive. State lines do not stop guns. WI and IN have very lax gun laws. Comparing Chicago to New Hampshire is never a legitimate argument.
https://www.npr.org/...hicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

I appreciate you making the point for me... that gun laws have no impact on criminals or criminality that use them.

The actual point is that gun laws need to be national, not state or local.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 782 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 12:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17423
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 794 of 834 (852759)
05-16-2019 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 791 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 2:05 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Hyroglyphx writes:

So a gun has no use?


For the vast majority of people, that is correct, no useful purpose. There are misuses for guns and counter-productive purposes.

I imagine the efficacy of an army armed with only flower power.

Let's leave the goalposts in one place, shall we? This thread is about civilian ownership of guns.

I'm thinking it is needed when people are trying to kill you.

Nope. I've survived 66 years without ever needing a gun to prevent anybody from killing me. (And if I had had a gun, what would have prevented myself from killing me?)

What exactly is your plan if you face such a scenario? Read them passages from Gandhi about the philosophy of pacifism and hope they have a sudden change of heart?

Step 1. Live in a society where every bozo on the street doesn't have the hardware to kill me quickly and easily. If he wants to kill me with a nail clipper or a pencil, let him have at it and I'll take my chances.

To tell the truth, I don't think I would want to kill somebody just to save myself.


Welcome back, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 2:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 795 of 834 (852761)
05-16-2019 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 789 by PaulK
05-16-2019 1:25 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
Even if it was - and it isn’t - responding with a self-serving “hypothetical scenario” is still a lousy answer. Playing “what-if” games is no way to deal with facts.

Ah, so, if I implant a SINGLE murder story that could have been avoided if they were armed, I suddenly validate the whole premise of gun ownership based on that single example? We use examples to defend or a elucidate a deeper philosophical point... which is what Percy was trying to do and which is perfectly fine to do. But what you're suggesting is that I must now only discuss that particular case. I wonder if the same logic will apply if I give a real-world scenario of a murder case.

That would be better but still poor. Percy’s point is these events are inevitable given widespread gun ownership and they don’t all happen to involve “idiots”.

Yeah, and murder is inevitable too but we still pass legislation against it... I mean, seriously... what is your point?

You really did dismiss Percy’s point as a “hypothetical scenario” which could be countered by inventing your own. That is the “substance”.

The story is real, the moral behind it is hypothetical and debatable.

quote:
The underlying argument based on that story IS hypothetical. Because of this happening, that ought to happen in response.

That doesn’t even make sense.

The purpose of Percy sharing that story serves as an illustration of why people should not privately own weapons. A child can't shoot themselves without the gun, ergo if you introduce the gun you are responsible for the outcome... ergo guns should not be privately owned. How's that?

And you still make no sense. Why would the military have any special insight ? The fact that I am living in a country with highly restrictive firearms laws and no signs of any serious ill-effects from that surely speaks louder than anything the military could say.

You seem to believe that guns have zero utility.... I'm asking how that would work for an unarmed military force. Obviously guns do have a place in society, for however unfortunate that reality may be. As to your country, the one that has headlines about its "knife epidemic," only serves to prove that in the absence of guns people find other ways to kill people... which brings it all back to my central point that the true underlying issue is why people feel compelled to kill in the first place.

Edited by Admin, : Fix first quote.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 789 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2019 1:25 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 796 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2019 2:50 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 800 by Percy, posted 05-17-2019 10:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15440
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 796 of 834 (852763)
05-16-2019 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 795 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2019 2:34 PM


Re: Is a lifetime of due diligence even possible?
quote:

Ah, so, if I implant a SINGLE murder story that could have been avoided if they were armed, I suddenly validate the whole premise of gun ownership based on that single example?

You really do jump to irrational conclusions. The point is that a real example is better than a purely invented one. Do you really not understand that ?

quote:

But what you're suggesting is that I must now only discuss that particular case

Nope. I’m suggesting that simply inventing scenarios is not an adequate answer to a real example.

quote:

Yeah, and murder is inevitable too but we still pass legislation against it... I mean, seriously... what is your point?

So legislation against wide-spread gun ownership would be a good idea ?

quote:

The story is real, the moral behind it is hypothetical and debatable

You are going to have to do better than throwing the word “hypothetical” around without any clear point.

quote:

The purpose of Percy sharing that story serves as an illustration of why people should not privately own weapons. A child can't shoot themselves without the gun, ergo if you introduce the gun you are responsible for the outcome... ergo guns should not be privately owned. How's that?

Are you suggesting that the gun owner shouldn’t be held responsible? After calling him an “idiot” ?

Percy’s point is that people will make mistakes, and widespread ownership of guns means that people will make mistakes with guns.
Curbing gun ownership - and public carrying of firearms - will obviously reduce the occurrence of those mistakes.

quote:

You seem to believe that guns have zero utility....

No, I believe that very little utility has been lost by the restrictions we have here.

quote:

Obviously guns do have a place in society, for however unfortunate that reality may be. As to your country, the one that has headlines about its "knife epidemic," only serves to prove that in the absence of guns people find other ways to kill people... which brings it all back to my central point that the true underlying issue is why people feel compelled to kill in the first place

But it also argues for restricting the more effective means of killing. The mosque shooter in New Zealand went there precisely because New Zealand has less restrictive gun laws than Australia, which nicely illustrates the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 795 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2019 2:34 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 807 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-21-2019 2:13 PM PaulK has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019