Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 6:05 AM
38 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   for the record (re: guns thread)
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 241 of 305 (400258)
05-11-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by One_Charred_Wing
05-11-2007 12:36 AM


Re: Clarification
the gun can much more easily reach such a massive potential a lot faster. Jon? ICANT? Am I right on this?

Yes

Grenades and plastic even more massive potential.

Our forefathers fought (and many of them died) for freedom from government oppression, and because of that they put the 2nd amendment in the constitution.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

It does not say the Militia has the right. It says the People have the right.

The problem is how do you limit what arms a person is able to own without infringing on the rights of the people. The only legal way is to amend the constitution, which has to be ratified by 2/3 rds of the states.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 05-11-2007 12:36 AM One_Charred_Wing has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2007 7:24 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 242 of 305 (400260)
05-11-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by ICANT
05-11-2007 7:16 PM


freedom from oppression
Our forefathers fought (and many of them died) for freedom from government oppression, and because of that they put the 2nd amendment in the constitution.

What government is that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by ICANT, posted 05-11-2007 7:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Jon, posted 05-11-2007 7:32 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 305 (400261)
05-11-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by NosyNed
05-11-2007 7:24 PM


Re: freedom from oppression
What government is that?

The monarchy of the King of England. Unless he means religious dogma :P


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2007 7:24 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by ICANT, posted 05-11-2007 7:56 PM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 252 by nator, posted 05-11-2007 10:10 PM Jon has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 244 of 305 (400263)
05-11-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Vacate
05-11-2007 5:41 PM


Re: Second Amendment
The second amendment may protect the possesion of firearms,

It does protect the possesion of arms. The only way to change it is a constitutional amendment. Requiring radification by 2/3 rd's of the states.

My weapon of choice is a bolt action springfield. You can get it in the mud, water, whatever. I can clean it in less than 2 minutes blindfolded. It is accurate at 500 yds to the point I can put 10 holes in a target at rapid fire that you can cover with your hand.

I would dare say there are hundreds of thousands of trained x military that can do the same. So don't sell the American People Short.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Vacate, posted 05-11-2007 5:41 PM Vacate has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 245 of 305 (400264)
05-11-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Jon
05-11-2007 7:32 PM


Re: freedom from oppression
The monarchy of the King of England. Unless he means religious dogma

I thought the church and state was the same then.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Jon, posted 05-11-2007 7:32 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 246 of 305 (400265)
05-11-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by jar
05-11-2007 6:03 PM


Re: Clarification
jar writes:

Fully automatic weapons are already restricted in the US and have been for many, many decades.

What is a stockpile of weapons?

What is armor piercing rounds?

1- Are they restricted enough? If people cannot get a hold of them then what is this thread about? :)

2- A large quantity of weapons. Aka - more than anyone could claim is needed to defend their homes from criminals.

3- Since they have a name for them, I assume that normal ammunition cannot pierce armor. I have never seen them so I am not sure what the difference could be. (These guys had them - Bank Robbers)

***Its interesting that they also mentioned the Symbionese Liberation Army gunfight in 1974. Part of the reason for L.A. creating the S.W.A.T. team was because more and more often the criminals had better weapons than the police. (modern marvels tv episode about swat teams)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 05-11-2007 6:03 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 05-11-2007 9:11 PM Vacate has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 247 of 305 (400274)
05-11-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Vacate
05-11-2007 8:27 PM


Re: Clarification
1- Are they restricted enough? If people cannot get a hold of them then what is this thread about?

Sure. It is neither easy or inexpensive to get a fully automatic rifle. The thread is mostly an emotional opportunity for folk to vent their personal misconceptions. Fully automatic rifles are simply not much of an issue.

2- A large quantity of weapons. Aka - more than anyone could claim is needed to defend their homes from criminals.

Again, while protection might be one reason to carry a firearm, there are also many other reasons. I personally know collectors that have hundreds of guns.

3- Since they have a name for them, I assume that normal ammunition cannot pierce armor. I have never seen them so I am not sure what the difference could be. (These guys had them - Bank Robbers)

Again, that is mostly media hype. There is such a thing as "Armor piercing ammo", but it is only seen in things like tanks and anti-tank weapons. What I think you are talking about is ammo that would pierce some body armor. That includes almost all rifle ammo.

Body armor comes in many levels of protection. The lowest level is intended to stop most handgun rounds. As you add weight and exotic materials like ceramics you can step the level up to where it will stop most military rifle rounds such as from an AK-47 and M-16. But even that level of armor will not stand up to the average hunting round.

Also, the report on the LA Bank robbery is, as is so often the case, simply wrong. They did not have armor piercing rounds. And yes, they kinda had the police out gunned from a technological perspective, but that was mostly because there had been a political decision to limit the arms available to the police. Had the police had a 100 year old deer rifle, the stand off would have been short lived.

The problem was that the police were several decades behind in technology. It is still an issue in that most police get way too little firearms training. It's not the police' fault, but rather the fault of society and politics.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Vacate, posted 05-11-2007 8:27 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Vacate, posted 05-11-2007 9:35 PM jar has responded
 Message 250 by nator, posted 05-11-2007 9:36 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 256 by working out eating chips, posted 05-12-2007 2:07 PM jar has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 248 of 305 (400275)
05-11-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Jon
05-11-2007 4:58 PM


Setting the record straight, again.
quote:
First, let me just thank you for your cool, calm, and non-hostile reply to my arguments. It's very much appreciated when one can debate his/her points without worry of being insulted and/or viciously verbally attacked

I hope you weren't referring to my posts, Jon.

I've been direct. I've been blunt.

I have not, however, engaged in any ad hominem.

I repeatedly tried to stop Nuggin from attacking you, if you recall.

quote:
Landmines are not a right guaranteed to us by the 2nd Amendment.

Why not?

They are "arms", aren't they?

quote:
Unless you can show me that landmines and guns are both equally "necessary to the security of a free state," then your argument is sunk.

Actually, landmines would be a great deal more useful to repelling a military force than handguns.

quote:
Because landmines would be destructive to the U.S. if detonated on an invading force, I believe the same logic applies here as to nukes, that is, they are more detrimental to the security of a free state than they are necessary.

But that's the argument about civilian ownership of handguns.

Are they "more detrimental to the decurity of a free state than they are neccessary"?

All of the statistics I have found indicate that they kill far more people than they keep secure through homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Jon, posted 05-11-2007 4:58 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 249 of 305 (400280)
05-11-2007 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by jar
05-11-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Clarification
Jar writes:

What I think you are talking about is ammo that would pierce some body armor

That was what I was taking about. I blame the media, thanks for some clarity on that. :)

It's not the police' fault, but rather the fault of society and politics.

That is very true, but another way to look at it is that the criminals generally are better armed than the police. With the introduction of Swat teams however police now can get the upper hand with better training and technology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 05-11-2007 9:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by jar, posted 05-11-2007 9:40 PM Vacate has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 250 of 305 (400281)
05-11-2007 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by jar
05-11-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Clarification
quote:
The thread is mostly an emotional opportunity for folk to vent their personal misconceptions.

So, is the yearly deaths of 30,000 people from guns (which includes homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings merely a misconception?

What sort of misconception? What facts are incorrect?

Is the fact that the lethal violence rate in the US is so much higher than that of comparative nations a misconception, too?

What sort of misconception? What facts are incorrect?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 05-11-2007 9:11 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by ICANT, posted 05-12-2007 9:25 PM nator has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 251 of 305 (400282)
05-11-2007 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Vacate
05-11-2007 9:35 PM


Re: Clarification
With the introduction of Swat teams however police now can get the upper hand with better training and technology.

Not really.

SWAT teams can be of use in some limited situations, but they too are mostly "the low cost politically correct" substitute for actually addressing the problems.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Vacate, posted 05-11-2007 9:35 PM Vacate has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 252 of 305 (400288)
05-11-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Jon
05-11-2007 7:32 PM


lifted from moderation thread to answer a question
quote:
Modulous and I went through this, and I explained that even though the quote said violence, it was MEANT IN THE CONTEXT OF MURDER. Modulous accepted this 'correction' so why the hell can't everyone else?

Modulous may believe you but I sure as hell don't.

Please do not play games, Jon.

I caught you in the error of repeatedly "strawmanning" my position.

The OP of this thread documents this.

You repeated and repeated and repeated your strawman, which is why I had to correct it at least seven times in the original Guns thread.

You never once, in several hundred posts and despite seven seperate, nearly identical corrections, clarified your definition of violence to mean murder only.

Now, several hunderd more posts later in another thread, you are trying to pass off some malarkey that you meant "murder" when you were saying "violence". If you had meant "murder", you would have said "murder", wouldn't you? Particularly since I kept correcting you?

I may be a lot of things, but gullible ain't one of 'em.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Jon, posted 05-11-2007 7:32 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Modulous, posted 05-12-2007 5:04 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 253 of 305 (400313)
05-12-2007 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by nator
05-11-2007 10:10 PM


strawmen are bad
Modulous may believe you but I sure as hell don't.

The proof is in the pudding. Jon said moments later in that post

quote:
I've brought up racial oppression as an explanation for increased violence in the United States. Using statistics of crime and gun ownership broken into race—this post focuses on AfroAmerican and EuroAmerican—³, I will show that increased violence does not relate to increased gun ownership.

So he is going to use stats to show that violence and gun ownership are not related (sounds like contrary to the position that gun ownership reduces violent crime but hey).

quote:
Next, let us look at the murder offenders by race:

After which he concludes:

quote:
No way! You mean the population with a higher murder rate owns FEWER guns? Yes. These statistics show that there is no correlation between murder rates and gun ownership.

There you go - he was talking about violence in the context of murder. Sure - the writing is sloppy as all hell - but the intent is quite clear.

Why would he mention the violence/guns scenario and then go on to discuss murder rates.

I caught you in the error of repeatedly "strawmanning" my position.

The OP of this thread documents this.

Message 174 was not addressed to Jon, so that is not documenting you correcting Jon strawmanning your position. Message 156 is in reply to Jon talking about how murder has always happened - he is not saying that you are saying violence will stop with gun restrictions.

Message 154 is you replying to Jon, where he says that oppression causes violence not guns - specifically referring to murder rates of an oppressed group.

Message 220 is not a reply to Jon, so is hardly documentation of you correcting a strawman. The same goes for Message 233.

The OP does not document Jon repeatedly strawmanning your position.

You never once, in several hundred posts and despite seven seperate, nearly identical corrections, clarified your definition of violence to mean murder only.

It seems that at least twice he demonstrated his violence assertion using murder rates with regard to oppressed racial groups to show that oppression is a bigger contributing factor than gun ownership. He has now taken the time in this thread, upon being specifically asked to clarify this position to do so.

Now, several hunderd more posts later in another thread, you are trying to pass off some malarkey that you meant "murder" when you were saying "violence". If you had meant "murder", you would have said "murder", wouldn't you? Particularly since I kept correcting you?

As we can see - he did say murder. It was sloppy to use the terms so loosely given his opponents position, but now that is cleared up why can't we just drop it?

I may be a lot of things, but gullible ain't one of 'em.

Hopefully the ability to understand your opponents point of view without the need to strawman it yourself is important? Whether you agree with his stats, or what he says they imply - why not just accept his position as he states it? That is to say - gun ownership does not lead to higher murder rates. Low gun ownership and high oppression can lead to much higher murder rates, so let's deal with the oppression.

It's actually not a difficult position to understand, even if you choose to disbelieve it. That Jon has not been completely clear at all times, is problematic, but why focus on the ambiguities. His position has now been clarfified. Now that this is the case, you may attempt to refute his actual position rather than a strawman that he admittdely is partially responsible for building. Now he his trying to dismantle the strawman you seem to be desperately trying to keep in built so that you can continue attacking it.

The strawman is dead. Jon meant murder rates. Attack that position if you must attack any at all - it is after all - your opponent's position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by nator, posted 05-11-2007 10:10 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Jon, posted 05-12-2007 11:57 AM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 268 by Nuggin, posted 05-13-2007 1:29 AM Modulous has responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 305 (400335)
05-12-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Vacate
05-11-2007 5:41 PM


Re: Clarification
We can easily assume that a 3 year old does not have the knowledge to stay safe, as a result persons of higher (more stable?) brain development steps in to ensure his or her safety. Your example works for both sides of this issue - as I propose to also limit what less stable people should be able to possess.

Do you take away a person's steak knife before they stab someone with it? We cannot predict what people will do with every possible thing they have, and it's certainly not fair to punish someone before they do something wrong.

To make things clear on my side, I don't think that people should be disarmed of hunting rifles; and due to crime rates in the U.S. I can also grudgingly accept the need for handguns. All that I wish to put down on the table is the banning of fully automatic weapons, stockpiles of weapons, and use of armor piercing rounds.

Now, I know what you're thinking; "but what could someone possibly want with a gun like one of those ak-47s except to shoot people with." Well, you'd be partially right and partially wrong in saying this. To understand why, we must go back to the 2nd Amendment, and review why it was written. Fortunately, the clue we need for this endeavour is not hidden in some mystical meaning; in fact, it's spelled right out for us: "necessary to the security of a free state." Now, let's examine this other bit you said here.

I cant directly show you, I can however assure you that if every citizen of the United States possessed 10 ak-47's, 2 apache helicopters, and 4 cruise missles they would still not have the power to overthrow the U.S. military. As an example I point to Afganistan, where the Taliban has had little success in overthrowing the U.S.

The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the citizens of the U.S. are armed enough in the event of an invasion. So, will rifles and handguns have any effect against the Canadian automatic weapons and armour-piercing rounds? Not really. To assure that they do, the people must be armed with comparable weaponry.

I think we need to bring these weapons back.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Vacate, posted 05-11-2007 5:41 PM Vacate has not yet responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 305 (400337)
05-12-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Modulous
05-12-2007 5:04 AM


Re: strawmen are bad
(sounds like contrary to the position that gun ownership reduces violent crime but hey).

I never argued this.

Edited by Jon, : Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Modulous, posted 05-12-2007 5:04 AM Modulous has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019