for the record (re: guns thread)

Bernie Goetz

Yes, Bernie Goetz is a vegetarian. And, what pray tell does that have to do with the message you are responding to?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually 32,969 in 2003 last year I can find.nator should we ban auto's?
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test5/ May 24, 2005 http://www.consumersunion.org/..._product_safety/002257.html You can ban my automobile and take it away from me. But not my right to own and bear arms.There is a lot of misconceptions about what a government can do when the citizens are unarmed.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Sorry but as usual your messages are totally without content or relevance.

Jar-
Don't be like Bernie Goetz.Edited by -messenjah of one, : Jar-

A vegetarian? Unlikely. I do enjoy a nice steak or BBQ.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well tell me why does a vigilante man
Tell me why does a vigilante man
Carry that sawed off shotgun in his hands
To shoot his brothers and sisters down that no good vigilante man

Alright Jon, since reasoning with you gets us nowhere. Since posting clearly gets us nowhere. Since repeating ourselves gets us nowhere. And since, pointing out your problems aparently gets us banned. I'm going to play your game.I will answer your questions, then I will ask you questions and you will either answer them, or I'll be forced to assume that you realize that your position is _still_ undefendable. Well, you see, Jon. When you leave a dangerous item like sharp knife or a gun out where a child or a crazy person can get to it, there's a good chance that someone is going to get hurt. Well, when there is a child or a crazy person in the room, and there is a gun on the table, then the child or crazy person has "easy access" to the gun. That is to say, that the can "access" the gun "easily", or in other words, there is not a barrier to their access. There's nothing keeping them from getting their hands on it. Does a gun being put in the hands of a crazy person increase the number of guns in existance? no. But it does has an effect on the location of that gun in particular. In this case, that gun would be in the hands of a crazy person. What? I'm gonna have to rephrase this question, because as it is written it doesn't make sense to me."If no one bought a gun, regardless of society's rules, would there be the same lethal levels of violence?"No.Would there be violence? Yes.
Would there be the same number of violent incidents? Probably not, but let's say "yes."
Would these incidents still be as lethal? No. Of course not.Now here's some questions for you:1) Do you believe that every violent act that takes place in the US is premeditated?2) Do you believe that someone who wishes to do violence may "cool" down over time?3) Do you believe that when someone who wishes to do violence has access to a handgun, they are able to do more damage than if they didn't have access to a handgun?4) Do you believe that you need to conceal a weapon in order for it to provide you with "protection"?5) Do you think a criminal is detered by the presence of a gun in the home?
5a) Do you think a criminal is less detered by the presence of a shotgun than the presence of a handgun?6) Do you STILL think that any of us are arguing that "guns cause violence"?7) WHY? When we've quoted ourselves to you about 20x do you still continue to put up the same strawman over and over and over again?There, no stupids. Other than that 1 stupid. Oh crap, that's 2!

If you believe this to be true, then it stands to reason that you believe the same thing for grenades, landmines, etc. As these are all "arms" and you are unwilling to distinguish one type of "arm" from another.Should we repeal existing laws banning personal ownership of landmines, hand grenades, etc?If not, why not?

In the case of the Swiss, the "citizens" are actually about equivalent to our National Guard.They go through training, they are assigned weapons as part of their gear for the roll they play in national defense.No one is saying that the national guard should not have weapons.Hence the Swiss are a poor analogy. Quite possibly. I don't know enough about Swiss culture to tell you one way or another. Do the Swiss have a habit of randomly firing guns into the air when they are excited or drunk?

Now you are contradicting yourself.Either the constitution gaurantees the right to own arms or it doesn't. Either landmine and machine guns are in, or they are out.You don't get to say that we can't draw a line between one weapon and another, then turn right around and start drawing your own arbitary lines.Retract!

Sorry Mod, but you are just wrong.Jon said: It's in the original post, quoting him from the previous string.This is him making up a quote from us. He's proclaiming that this is our position. As such, he doesn't get to dither about the terms.You can't say "Oh, I meant "murder"" when you are quoting someone else.AND, even if he did mean murder, the quote would then be: "A claim that has been made here over and over again is that increased guns = increased murder" which would STILL be a strawman of our position.As has been said before, and will no be repeated for the 50th? 100th? time -Easy access to guns (particularly those which hold a lot of ammo and can fire repeatedly) causes existing violence to yield more deadly results.That is NOT what Jon is quoting us saying. It IS however what we have had to repeat adnauseum to Jon.

You are bringing up old points which have already been addressed. It leads me to believe that you have not completely read all 500+ posts in the combined threads.To save you some time, I'll give you a quick answer.44,000 deaths from cars. How many Americans use a car? How many hours a day are they in their cars?I'll round down the numbers I'm seeing:
300,000,000 Americans - but not all drive, so lets say 200,000,000 (a number which I'm sure we both can agree is outrageously low, more than 2/3 of the US ride in cars.)
500-1000 hours - average amount of time/year an average american spends in their cars. Let's go with the low end and say just 500.so that's 100,000,000,000 manhours of "car time" per year. Out of that time, 44,000 deaths.Now, why don't you go ahead and calculate how many manhours of "gun usage" is going on. Given that it takes a second to pull the trigger, I really don't think you've gonna come up with a ratio anywhere near the deaths/manhour of cars. Why is it that you can only repell Government attacks on your person with either a fully automatic pistol or a submachine gun?Why can't you use a shotgun or a hunting rifle? Didn't you post earlier about how good you were with a bolt action?

So, what you're really saying is that increased easy access isn't necessarily responsible? Instead, it seems as though you are arguing that the guns themselves must be increased, not just the easy access. Would you agree with Modulous' interpretation of your position that "easy access to weapons leads to proliferation which leads to an increase in the amount of lethal incidents per capita"? No. Sure. What they are able to do is different than what they want and/or will do. So, while they're certainly able to do so--as much as they're able take a shit behind a gas station--the question we must really ask is, do they actually do more damage simply because of the gun? I've addressed this in a few other posts if you want to go back through them, if not, just let me know and I will summararize it for you. Well, I'd conceal the weapon simply out of concern for your pants, since it's pretty clear that you'd take a shit in them if you saw anyone in public with a visible gun . And yes, hiding it will keep people who like to harrass people just because they are looking for a fight from trying to mess with you and/or harm you just for their thrill. In other words, some people will view the gun as a threat, and so concealing it will keep those (mentally unstable) people from getting "all in your face". Brenna's argument, not mine. I won't address this. See above. Never did. My strawman only appears as such from your quote mining. Check out this below: You've quote mined me. I addressed this, it was addressed in the Mod Proc. thread, and has been several times here, including Modulous' very well-done summary of where the debate was standing. Care to stop quote mining me? Oh? Of course, it's the quote mine "increased guns = increased violence" that has led to so much confusion. I meant it in the context of murder, and because of this, I--at that point--was under the impression that you felt an increase in guns led to an increase in deaths. Of course, people kept SHOUTING that my interpretation of the position was wrong, and so I decided to just say, "okay, fine you aren't arguing what I thought you were arguing." Of course, you were.Another problem, is that that quote mine has been posted many times as an example of me misrepresenting my opponets' position so many times. However, if I did it so many times, where the Hell are those examples? Oh? They no existen? Hmmm... ...Consider, if you quoted the Good Book, "He breathed the breath of life into the man" (not sure if that's word-for-word, but close enough). Now, you could sit and argue that it's not God doing the breathing, afterall, it just says "he." But, reading the rest of the story, you see to what "he" that pronoun refers. In similar ways, reading my entire post, i.e., not just stoppping when you think you have a quote you can use against me, you see that the "violence" to which I am referring is "murder."I hope this has made clear your error, and you will STOP using that quote mine, because having to constantly debate that single instance in which I used the word "violence", and even then in reference to "murder", is just going to clog this thread, which could shape up into an okay debate, until we hit message 300. We good there? Clearly, you've gone wrong somewhere. I guess the question of the evening is: Do you understand your position?JonPS: you didn't answer my questions regarding nuke storage

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10