Blood is on the NRA's hands

[LA Grant]

Again, this is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. You've been asked many questions that were inconvenient to your argument, so you simply dismissed them with a bit of magical handwavium and a sprinkle of ad hom.

 

GG asked you: "Did the NRA supply the pipe bombs?"

 

Your response was that "it's irrelevant", when clearly it is very relevant.

 

Rob's House asked you: "Do you have a solution?"

 

Your response was "The solution is to consider gun control as positive and necessary." That isn't a solution, it's a platitude. Solutions are an actionable list of steps.

 

GG asked you: "Is that why the mass killings you're so concerned about tend to occur in states with extremely severe gun control laws?"

 

You didn't bother to respond.

 

GG asked you: "Does France have tighter gun control laws than the US?"

 

You didn't bother to respond.

 

FireChan asked you: "Then why is that [semantical] the only argument you'll address?"

 

You responded that you already addressed all arguments in your original post. You didn't. There were no answers to arguments because you didn't engage anyone; but rather you hopped up onto a soap box, and issued a string of fiat declarations which you demanded everyone accept as a fact. That's not how honest discussion works, you are not a preacher, and we are not your congregation. Further, you don't get to decide what the "facts" are, especially when your salvo includes flawed data.

 

GG asked you: "I don't recall him saying that the number of shootings is not a problem. I recall him saying that the numbers are fairly static and need to be looked at in the proper context and not sensationalized.

 

If there's a truly troubling pattern on the data that you linked, it's the huge number of "Unkown" alleged shooters. Why not focus attention on that?"

 

You didn't bother to respond.

 

FireChan and Chef Jim Asked you: "How do we "improve" gun control, LA? As an aside, what is your position on marijuana legalization?" and "What is gun control to you?"

 

Your response was in essence, that you weren't going to answer those questions because you thought they would disagree with your answers, and attempted to buttress that with an Appeal to Popularity fallacy.

 

Answer those questions, and then the follow up questions to those questions, and then you'll be having a discussion. You may even learn something along the way. Something tells me that you won't answer though, and that I'm due for another one of your ad hom attacks, and a bit more handwavium.

 

Love the use of "handwavium" and "appeal to popularity fallacy."

 

Anyway, the reason I didn't respond to those is because those are junk questions, frankly. They're lazily stated and read to me as weak "gotcha" attempts. I'm not your father and I don't have infinite patience to answer every stupid thing. The pipe bomb question, the France question, the California question — they don't provide any honest counter-argument toward advocating for gun control and the answer to all three of those would be something I've said a few times — one gun law will not change everything. Gun laws will not eliminate terrorism. But stronger restrictions could prevent the many other cases of domestic terrorism: the Planned Parenthood attack, Aurora, Sandy Hook, and the innumerable other examples of legally purchased weapons used by US citizens with extremist views. The "unknown shooter" question is a bit more honest and interesting. That deserves attention too. But it's not mutually exclusive.

 

Okay now it's your turn. Why should we not insist on additional gun restrictions? What is to be lost from removing access to weaponry for untrained civilians? If you insist this won't work, how can you be so certain it won't improve the current situation? And, same question as FireChan answered — should the NRA have more power, less power, or the same amount of influence? Why or why not?

[FireChan]

 

That is a fairly solid and well-reasoned answer and we have some agreement. I think it is insane to not be skeptical of the NRA — obviously I feel much stronger in that skepticism. They encourage a very dangerous attitude and set of behaviors. They encourage people to be fearful and to stock up on weapons to increase their standing.

 

I'm glad you bring up the Second Amendment because I think whenever gun control is talked about, this is obviously what we're really talking about, isn't it. Here's a key disagreement — you call it timeless and gun-control advocates like myself think it is entirely outdated. Obviously the Founding Fathers were not talking about modern guns when they wrote it, so how could it be timeless? They were talking about state militias, not individuals owning handguns or automatic weapons. Incidentally, it was the NRA who perverted its original meaning for their own gain.

 

Here's some more info on that.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/02/oregon-college-shooting-guns-kill-people-in-us-pervert-second-amendment

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/266272/how-to-argue-gun-control/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172146191

 

I also disagree that the government only fears citizens because they are armed. I think the real problem is money in government. You show some agreement there too, corruption is a big problem. For us, corruption comes in the way of lobbyists. The NRA, as you say, hold a lot influence because they have, well, a lot of money. That directly impedes our representatives working toward solutions. Someone earlier in this thread posted a really cut and dry example, too, of research requested by doctors and scientists being denied by those same influences. So obviously the NRA and their influence are a huge, huge part of the problem.

 

I agree that citizens are responsible for protection. I think identifying the NRA as a negative influence on our government is a responsible move that citizens could make in the interest of our own protection.

 

(To the point that anyone is being "ignored" by me, there have been 4+ replies to this thread since I began typing this!)

Where to begin..

 

The first article says nothing about how the "NRA perverted the Second Amendment" other than that it did. Then it mentioned "gun-sense" regulations without any attempt to explain how they would curtail the episodes of gun violence they referenced. So, no.

 

The second article is titled "How to argue with your NRA-loving drunk uncle." Awesome. Even you can see the bias there, no? Easy to believe you (the general you, not you specifically) are 100% in the right when you demonize somebody as an alcoholic. They make the classic arguments, again with no insight as to what the "tighter regulations" they want, actually are. Keep this in mind, because this is a sticking point with me.

 

The third says that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the individual's right to bear arms in 2008. No link to the NRA was discussed, besides just mentioning it in the article.

 

So, bad examples.

 

Now let's get into your post.

 

Here's a key disagreement — you call it timeless and gun-control advocates like myself think it is entirely outdated. Obviously the Founding Fathers were not talking about modern guns when they wrote it, so how could it be timeless? They were talking about state militias, not individuals owning handguns or automatic weapons. Incidentally, it was the NRA who perverted its original meaning for their own gain.

 

They were talking about the weapons both they and the governments at the time, had. Why that concept would not extend into the 21st century is beyond me. A state militia is filled with the population who bring their own guns. Hard to do that with guns being banned or "very controlled." Furthermore, as you so graciously cited for me above, the interpretation of the Supreme Court is the law of the land. The USSC has interpreted that the Second Amendment guarantees the right for an individual to keep and bear arms, and that it shall not be infringed. That's an interpretation that I share.

 

I also disagree that the government only fears citizens because they are armed.

 

Why? Why else would a government fear its citizens when they have their own standing army? What can the public do?

 

For us, corruption comes in the way of lobbyists. The NRA, as you say, hold a lot influence because they have, well, a lot of money. That directly impedes our representatives working toward solutions.

 

Okay, but we still don't know what those solutions are. This was the sticking point from earlier. None of your articles even come close to discussing solutions. They instead either attack/defend from attacks from the other side. There's no room for discussion or thoughtfulness in any of your articles. Just the same platitudes we've all heard a million times. We have no idea how effective the imagined solutions could be, and there are mountains of evidence to suggest they'd be a gigantic waste of time and resources.

 

And again, the NRA does not hold a monopoly on corruption.

 

I agree that citizens are responsible for protection. I think identifying the NRA as a negative influence on our government is a responsible move that citizens could make in the interest of our own protection.

 

This is a conclusion you've reached through your own opinions, so I won't address it.

 

Let me know if I missed anything you'd like me to respond to.

 

And a question for you. What is your opinion on marijuana legalization and your rationale behind it? Be thorough.

Edited December 3, 2015 by FireChan

[truth on hold]

 

That is a fairly solid and well-reasoned answer and we have some agreement. I think it is insane to not be skeptical of the NRA obviously I feel much stronger in that skepticism. They encourage a very dangerous attitude and set of behaviors. They encourage people to be fearful and to stock up on weapons to increase their standing.

 

I'm glad you bring up the Second Amendment because I think whenever gun control is talked about, this is obviously what we're really talking about, isn't it. Here's a key disagreement you call it timeless and gun-control advocates like myself think it is entirely outdated. Obviously the Founding Fathers were not talking about modern guns when they wrote it, so how could it be timeless? They were talking about state militias, not individuals owning handguns or automatic weapons. Incidentally, it was the NRA who perverted its original meaning for their own gain.

 

Here's some more info on that.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/02/oregon-college-shooting-guns-kill-people-in-us-pervert-second-amendment

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/266272/how-to-argue-gun-control/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172146191

 

I also disagree that the government only fears citizens because they are armed. I think the real problem is money in government. You show some agreement there too, corruption is a big problem. For us, corruption comes in the way of lobbyists. The NRA, as you say, hold a lot influence because they have, well, a lot of money. That directly impedes our representatives working toward solutions. Someone earlier in this thread posted a really cut and dry example, too, of research requested by doctors and scientists being denied by those same influences. So obviously the NRA and their influence are a huge, huge part of the problem.

 

I agree that citizens are responsible for protection. I think identifying the NRA as a negative influence on our government is a responsible move that citizens could make in the interest of our own protection.

 

(To the point that anyone is being "ignored" by me, there have been 4+ replies to this thread since I began typing this!)

Pro gun lobby is basically a combination of those motivated by greed, and the paranoid weak minded types they can get to buy into their propaganda. Guns are no match at all for government weaponry, wildly imagined as an impending assault on its citizenry is in the first place. It's really no different than the defense lobby, who along with crooked politicians feed the paranoid BS about impending threats from foreign countries. "Clear and present danger" was a favorite phrase used to characterize Saddam in the runup to 2003 invasion. Edited December 3, 2015 by JTSP

[Ted Striker]

I have read this entire thread, and one side is clearly embarrassing themself/themselves.

 

Severe shell shock - he thinks he's Ethel Merman.

[LB3]

 

And that would be?=

The side arguing on emotion. I've never felt strongly one way or the other about the NRA or gun control. Reading this thread and seeing random twitter updates about the topic, I'm beginning to think that the NRA is more necessary than ever. Something needs to be there in defense of the 2nd Amendment against hysterics.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

I do think this is a valid point. But it's still harder to get cocaine and heroin than it is a gun. Still, yeah I have always thought it is funny how the liberal/conservative agendas differ on what should and should not be banned. It's just kinda comical. I saw a version of this joke going around:

 

Conservatives be like:

Abortion? BAN IT

Drugs? BAN IT

Gay marriage? BAN IT

Guns? Well, guys, listen, banning things never works.

 

Way to generalize.

[truth on hold]

Classic....

 

A federal law enforcement source told the Los Angeles Times that the guns were bought at Annie's Get Your Gun, a firearms retailer in nearby Corona that advertises itself as a "family-friendly gun store."

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-main-20151203-story.html

[LA Grant]

Where to begin..

 

The first article says nothing about how the "NRA perverted the Second Amendment" other than that it did. Then it mentioned "gun-sense" regulations without any attempt to explain how they would curtail the episodes of gun violence they referenced. So, no.

 

The second article is titled "How to argue with your NRA-loving drunk uncle." Awesome. Even you can see the bias there, no? Easy to believe you (the general you, not you specifically) are 100% in the right when you demonize somebody as an alcoholic. They make the classic arguments, again with no insight as to what the "tighter regulations" they want, actually are. Keep this in mind, because this is a sticking point with me.

 

The third says that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the individual's right to bear arms in 2008. No link to the NRA was discussed, besides just mentioning it in the article.

 

So, bad examples.

 

Now let's get into your post.

 

Here's a key disagreement — you call it timeless and gun-control advocates like myself think it is entirely outdated. Obviously the Founding Fathers were not talking about modern guns when they wrote it, so how could it be timeless? They were talking about state militias, not individuals owning handguns or automatic weapons. Incidentally, it was the NRA who perverted its original meaning for their own gain.

 

They were talking about the weapons both they and the governments at the time, had. Why that concept would not extend into the 21st century is beyond me. A state militia is filled with the population who bring their own guns. Hard to do that with guns being banned or "very controlled." Furthermore, as you so graciously cited for me above, the interpretation of the Supreme Court is the law of the land. The USSC has interpreted that the Second Amendment guarantees the right for an individual to keep and bear arms, and that it shall not be infringed. That's an interpretation that I share.

 

I also disagree that the government only fears citizens because they are armed.

 

Why? Why else would a government fear its citizens when they have their own standing army? What can the public do?

 

For us, corruption comes in the way of lobbyists. The NRA, as you say, hold a lot influence because they have, well, a lot of money. That directly impedes our representatives working toward solutions.

 

Okay, but we still don't know what those solutions are. This was the sticking point from earlier. None of your articles even come close to discussing solutions. They instead either attack/defend from attacks from the other side. There's no room for discussion or thoughtfulness in any of your articles. Just the same platitudes we've all heard a million times. We have no idea how effective the imagined solutions could be, and there are mountains of evidence to suggest they'd be a gigantic waste of time and resources.

 

And again, the NRA does not hold a monopoly on corruption.

 

I agree that citizens are responsible for protection. I think identifying the NRA as a negative influence on our government is a responsible move that citizens could make in the interest of our own protection.

 

This is a conclusion you've reached through your own opinions, so I won't address it.

 

Let me know if I missed anything you'd like me to respond to.

 

And a question for you. What is your opinion on marijuana legalization and your rationale behind it? Be thorough.

 

Yeah, I figured you were going to attack those sources. No argument on the clickbait headlines but I think you're being too quick to dismiss the rest. Here's more reading if you're interested, just things to consider.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/— pretty strong evidence in favor of strong gun restrictions

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0— is this what the Second Amendment protects? The common gun-owner fantasy of battling "the government" in the streets with your weapons is pure delusion, but I don't think I'm going to convince you of that, sounds like a deeply held belief for you.

 

You're very convinced that there are no solutions and that any attempts would be a waste of time. It seems to me from everything I've read the data overwhelmingly supports gun regulation. You could say I'm only reading biased information, I could say you're only reading biased information. I'm the one venturing into enemy territory here, though, so why don't you tell me. What should I read instead? Where's the evidence that any attempts would be a waste of time and resources?

 

I don't think I have the energy or interest to also debate marijuana with you. My general opinion on it is it seems like the wise move. States make money, eliminate a black market industry. I know Colorado has struggled a little with it because they have it as a cash only enterprise, but I also know it's made a lot of money for them in taxes. I haven't seen anything to suggest it somehow makes anything worse. Why, what's your angle and how is it relevant?

Edited December 3, 2015 by LA Grant

[Chef Jim]

When you are not at home, secure the guns. When you are at home, take it out. That's what we did. Big old gun safe that no-one was going to carry out, or would need explosives to crack. At night, when things got scary, the gun was liberated from the safe. Just something else to add to the bedtime routine. Small price to pay.

 

Better idea is if guns were all fitted with thumbprint recognition locks. No matchee, not shootee. That would work for new ones, although if a retrofit WERE possible I would support a government program to pay for it.

 

I guess you responded to my post without reading it. That's what we do. Home? Guns out. Away? Guns in the safe. However that is no guarantee that our guns will not end up in the hand of a criminal committing a crime that I am now punished for. Once again. What is my punishment.

 

And no effing way on the thumbprint technology. I have that on my phone. If that worked anywhere near the way it works on my iphone I'd be dead in three seconds.

[meazza]

 

I guess you responded to my post without reading it. That's what we do. Home? Guns out. Away? Guns in the safe. However that is no guarantee that our guns will not end up in the hand of a criminal committing a crime that I am now punished for. Once again. What is my punishment.

 

And no effing way on the thumbprint technology. I have that on my phone. If that worked anywhere near the way it works on my iphone I'd be dead in three seconds.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Love the use of "handwavium" and "appeal to popularity fallacy."

 

Yes, you've constructed your entire argument on the back of multiple logical fallacies. You should start with a better foundation if you want to be taken seriously.

 

 

Anyway, the reason I didn't respond to those is because those are junk questions, frankly. They're lazily stated and read to me as weak "gotcha" attempts. I'm not your father and I don't have infinite patience to answer every stupid thing.

There you go with your fiat declarations.

 

Again: you don't get to dictate the terms of the discussion, or decide what the facts are, especially when you're doing so from a position of extreme bias and intellectual dishonesty.

 

You want to start the debate from the point of your oppositions concession, them accepting your declarations as facts, or wearing labels soaked in prejudicial language if they pose any disagreement. That's not how honest debate works.

 

The only reason you've dismissed them is because they are damaging to your own argument. If they are nothing more than "gotcha questions" then you should be easily able to negotiate your way through multiple counter arguments and rebuttals; this isn't some faux presidential "debate" in which you only have 30 seconds to respond, and need to do so as a sound bite. There are no "gotcha questions" in this format. Further, I've got news for you: you're asking individuals to surrender their rights and their property, and in the process you're insulting them, assigning them blame, and condescending to them; you, quite frankly, do need to address the questions, else, why would anyone even consider your position, especially given your sophomoric delivery.

 

The pipe bomb question, the France question, the California question — they don't provide any honest counter-argument toward advocating for gun control and the answer to all three of those would be something I've said a few times — one gun law will not change everything.

Wrong, they are all very valid questions, with the obvious intent of leading to a deeper discussions of the various issues surrounding the concept of "gun control", a term, by the way, which you haven't bothered to define. And again, you don't enjoy any special benefits which allow you to marginalize or dismiss the concerns, claims, or questions of others; your assertion that you do lends itself very easily to the conclusion that you aren't interested in discussion, but rather dictation; that you aren't interested in debate, but are rather concerned with preaching.

 

Gun laws will not eliminate terrorism. But stronger restrictions could prevent the many other cases of domestic terrorism: the Planned Parenthood attack, Aurora, Sandy Hook, and the innumerable other examples of legally purchased weapons used by US citizens with extremist views.

Another fiat declaration that you wish to be entered into the ledger as fact. You don't get to do that. No one is obligated to accept your argument on your terms. You say that "stronger restrictions could". Demonstrate this.

 

The "unknown shooter" question is a bit more honest and interesting. That deserves attention too. But it's not mutually exclusive.

Oh, so now you're interested? Oh how grand for the rest of us. Spare me the self-importance, because this isn't about you, and you don't get to pick and choose what concerns others have. You are the person who started this thread, and led with a bevy of personal attacks against posters here, brushing up against many of the issues they are questioning in the process. If you honestly don't believe you have the intellectual responsibility to address their questions, then you're as intellectually bankrupt as you are intellectual dishonest. Quite a feat, that.

 

w it's your turn. Why should we not insist on additional gun restrictions? What is to be lost from removing access to weaponry for untrained civilians? If you insist this won't work, how can you be so certain it won't improve the current situation? And, same question as FireChan answered — should the NRA have more power, less power, or the same amount of influence? Why or why not?

That's not how logic and debate work, junior.

 

You don't get to make positive assertions, demand they be acknowledged as fact, and require that your position be counter argued against, lest it stand.

 

You made an argument. It's up to you to defend it

 

This isn't your community college safe space.

 

Get to work or GTFO.

Edited December 3, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[FireChan]

 

Yeah, I figured you were going to attack those sources. No argument on the clickbait headlines but I think you're being too quick to dismiss the rest. Here's more reading if you're interested, just things to consider.

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment— a clearer example, maybe, than the above links about the NRA

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/— pretty strong evidence in favor of strong gun restrictions

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0— is this what the Second Amendment protects? The common gun-owner fantasy of battling "the government" in the streets with your weapons is pure delusion, but I don't think I'm going to convince you of that, sounds like a deeply held belief for you.

 

You're very convinced that there are no solutions and that any attempts would be a waste of time. It seems to me from everything I've read the data overwhelmingly supports gun regulation. You could say I'm only reading biased information, I could say you're only reading biased information. I'm the one venturing into enemy territory here, though, so why don't you tell me. What should I read instead? Where's the evidence that any attempts would be a waste of time and resources?

 

I don't think I have the energy or interest to also debate marijuana with you. My general opinion on it is it seems like the wise move. States make money, eliminate a black market industry. I know Colorado has struggled a little with it because they have it as a cash only enterprise, but I also know it's made a lot of money for them in taxes. I haven't seen anything to suggest it somehow makes anything worse. Why, what's your angle and how is it relevant?

 

Yeah, I figured you were going to attack those sources. No argument on the clickbait headlines but I think you're being too quick to dismiss the rest. Here's more reading if you're interested, just things to consider.

 

Let me be clear. I did not attack them based on "click-bait" headlines. Click-bait would be "10 Gun Control arguments that will shock you with how brilliant they are" or some other claptrap. There's a very obvious bias in characterizing a supporter of the SA as an alcoholic. This is the second sentence of that article for shitsake. "While arguing with a gun nut ultimately proves to be an exercise in futility, Death and Taxes has pulled together some responses to shoot down your drunk uncle when he starts spouting bull **** on your Facebook page after our country’s next tragic shooting massacre." I'd say that's not conducive to reaching an amicable understanding, to say the least. Would you disagree?

 

As for the rest of my critiques, they were purely content critiques. I find these sorts of articles to have too many buzz words and not enough substance. They are talking points, not any sort of useful, in-depth knowledge. I will read the rest that you linked and get back to you on them.

 

The common gun-owner fantasy of battling "the government" in the streets with your weapons is pure delusion, but I don't think I'm going to convince you of that, sounds like a deeply held belief for you.

 

This is a major leap. Earlier I said,

 

"I also disagree that the government only fears citizens because they are armed.

 

Why? Why else would a government fear its citizens when they have their own standing army? What can the public do?"

 

You didn't answer that one. The reason I asked that question is because I feel it represents a concept that is important to understand. I don't think that I will ever be in a situation where I have to engage with US military in some sort of hostile takeover. However, the population of the US being armed incentivizes the government to not, for lack a better phrase, !@#$ with us. If a government does not fear its citizens, it eventually takes advantage of them. This is true throughout history. And even though I find a US Civil War of dystopian military vs. citizens unthinkable, many other unthinkable things have happened throughout history.

 

It seems to me from everything I've read the data overwhelmingly supports gun regulation. You could say I'm only reading biased information, I could say you're only reading biased information. I'm the one venturing into enemy territory here, though, so why don't you tell me. What should I read instead? Where's the evidence that any attempts would be a waste of time and resources?

 

History. Prohibition was the driving cause of much of the criminal activity in its time period. And folks still drank. Still found ways to acquire alcohol and fund vast criminal enterprises. The War on Drugs. Millions and billions spent on fighting drug use and trafficking in the US. And every single kid in my high school still knew who to ask to get any drug under the sun. (I know that's anecdotal, but I'm pressed for time, I can find sources if you're not satisfied.) Which is a beautiful lead-in to...

 

I don't think I have the energy or interest to also debate marijuana with you. My general opinion on it is it seems like the wise move. States make money, eliminate a black market industry. I know Colorado has struggled a little with it because they have it as a cash only enterprise, but I also know it's made a lot of money for them in taxes. I haven't seen anything to suggest it somehow makes anything worse. Why, what's your angle and how is it relevant?

 

Bingo! Marijuana use was rampant in the US while it was "illegal." A black market was propped up to sell it illegally. Do you think these concepts could be relevant to the gun industry?

[truth on hold]

As is the case with anything the use of which is restricted. The mere existence of a black market then would, in your view, invalidate restrictions on anything. Restrictions don't eliminate something, but they can be effective in dramatically curtailing use. As has been the case in other countries that imposed strict gun laws.

Edited December 3, 2015 by JTSP

[FireChan]

As is the case with anything the use of which is restricted. The mere existence of a black market then would, in your view, invalidate restrictions on anything. Restrictions don't eliminate something, but they can be effective in dramatically curtailing use. As has been the case in other countries that imposed strict gun laws.

Do those countries share an unguardable border with a corrupt window-dressing government controlled by massive criminal enterprises?

 

And yes, I am against restrictions on a lot of things.

Edited December 3, 2015 by FireChan

[4merper4mer]

 

The pipe bomb question, the France question, the California question — they don't provide any honest counter-argument toward advocating for gun control and the answer to all three of those would be something I've said a few times — one gun law will not change everything.

 

 

You know when you'll think the pipe bomb, France and California questions provide an honest counter argument?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When your head is rolling down a flight of stairs, that's when.

[keepthefaith]

As is the case with anything the use of which is restricted. The mere existence of a black market then would, in your view, invalidate restrictions on anything. Restrictions don't eliminate something, but they can be effective in dramatically curtailing use. As has been the case in other countries that imposed strict gun laws.

As I pointed out several pages ago, Chicago had a ban on handguns until 2010. Data before and after 2010 shows no impact on murders up or down. I'm not against reasonable discussion or efforts to make guns and gun use safer. At least in this one big city where controls are still tighter than other areas, restricting guns (or not restricting them) has not had an impact on gun crime.

[Chef Jim]

The side arguing on emotion. I've never felt strongly one way or the other about the NRA or gun control. Reading this thread and seeing random twitter updates about the topic, I'm beginning to think that the NRA is more necessary than ever. Something needs to be there in defense of the 2nd Amendment against hysterics.

 

We don't need no stinking NRA to protect us against hysterics! That's what our !@#$ing guns are for.

[LA Grant]

TakeYouToTasker, as suspected, you have nothing. Just attacks and the adorable phrase "handwavium." I knew I was wasting my time responding to you as I was doing it, "Smartest Man in the Room." If your entire argument is you don't like the way I'm arguing... don't argue with me? I'll make it easier for you because this is the last response you're getting from me. Handwaviuuuum!

 

Okay, one more for FireChan and then I'm done for the afternoon.

 

 

Yeah, I figured you were going to attack those sources. No argument on the clickbait headlines but I think you're being too quick to dismiss the rest. Here's more reading if you're interested, just things to consider.

 

Let me be clear. I did not attack them based on "click-bait" headlines. Click-bait would be "10 Gun Control arguments that will shock you with how brilliant they are" or some other claptrap. There's a very obvious bias in characterizing a supporter of the SA as an alcoholic. This is the second sentence of that article for shitsake. "While arguing with a gun nut ultimately proves to be an exercise in futility, Death and Taxes has pulled together some responses to shoot down your drunk uncle when he starts spouting bull **** on your Facebook page after our country’s next tragic shooting massacre." I'd say that's not conducive to reaching an amicable understanding, to say the least. Would you disagree?

 

As for the rest of my critiques, they were purely content critiques. I find these sorts of articles to have too many buzz words and not enough substance. They are talking points, not any sort of useful, in-depth knowledge. I will read the rest that you linked and get back to you on them.

 

The common gun-owner fantasy of battling "the government" in the streets with your weapons is pure delusion, but I don't think I'm going to convince you of that, sounds like a deeply held belief for you.

 

This is a major leap. Earlier I said,

 

"I also disagree that the government only fears citizens because they are armed.

 

Why? Why else would a government fear its citizens when they have their own standing army? What can the public do?"

 

You didn't answer that one. The reason I asked that question is because I feel it represents a concept that is important to understand. I don't think that I will ever be in a situation where I have to engage with US military in some sort of hostile takeover. However, the population of the US being armed incentivizes the government to not, for lack a better phrase, !@#$ with us. If a government does not fear its citizens, it eventually takes advantage of them. This is true throughout history. And even though I find a US Civil War of dystopian military vs. citizens unthinkable, many other unthinkable things have happened throughout history.

 

It seems to me from everything I've read the data overwhelmingly supports gun regulation. You could say I'm only reading biased information, I could say you're only reading biased information. I'm the one venturing into enemy territory here, though, so why don't you tell me. What should I read instead? Where's the evidence that any attempts would be a waste of time and resources?

 

History. Prohibition was the driving cause of much of the criminal activity in its time period. And folks still drank. Still found ways to acquire alcohol and fund vast criminal enterprises. The War on Drugs. Millions and billions spent on fighting drug use and trafficking in the US. And every single kid in my high school still knew who to ask to get any drug under the sun. (I know that's anecdotal, but I'm pressed for time, I can find sources if you're not satisfied.) Which is a beautiful lead-in to...

 

I don't think I have the energy or interest to also debate marijuana with you. My general opinion on it is it seems like the wise move. States make money, eliminate a black market industry. I know Colorado has struggled a little with it because they have it as a cash only enterprise, but I also know it's made a lot of money for them in taxes. I haven't seen anything to suggest it somehow makes anything worse. Why, what's your angle and how is it relevant?

 

Bingo! Marijuana use was rampant in the US while it was "illegal." A black market was propped up to sell it illegally. Do you think these concepts could be relevant to the gun industry?

 

Well clickbait comes in all sorts of forms. Your objections to the "Drunk Uncle" headline/preamble thing I won't argue with, I concede it's clickbait-y and inflammatory, I was going to give it an asterisk when I put it in the first place , but I think the arguments in there are solid and worth consideration. It's just a condensed version of the circle we've been running ourselves through.

 

As I was typing my response to the marijuana/black market question, JTSP answered it succinctly and perfectly enough. Does the fact that a solution has problems invalidate the entire thing?

 

I also think the drug analogy doesn't really work. Drug and alcohol prohibition — those are things people use to party and have fun. They are harmful only to the user. Guns are used in the context of warfare and are dangerous to anyone within the vicinity. I guess you might argue that a responsible gun owner is the same as a responsible drink or drug user. But even with drunk driving statistics and all the negative consequences of alcohol considered, it still seems like a big leap of a comparison in terms of the amount of danger presented.

[TakeYouToTasker]

TakeYouToTasker, as suspected, you have nothing. Just attacks and the adorable phrase "handwavium." I knew I was wasting my time responding to you as I was doing it, "Smartest Man in the Room." If your entire argument is you don't like the way I'm arguing... don't argue with me? I'll make it easier for you because this is the last response you're getting from me. Handwaviuuuum!

You are a devout intellectual coward.

 

What you've posted is the hallmark of individuals who aren't capable of actually defending an argument. But here's the thing: you aren't arguing insomuch as you are demanding others concede to your fiat declarations. Your presentation doesn't deserve anything more than dismissal accompanied by the admonishment to learn to argue like an adult.

 

If you were capable of self-refection and honesty, you'd admit that the reason you won't engage me, and the reason you argue the way you do, is because you clearly aren't capable of anything more.

 

You are so far out of your league here that it isn't even funny.

 

Pro tip: if you can't stand up to the modest intellectual rigor of making and defending an argument on a pro sports message board, then you probably aren't cut out for the big time. Spend less time listening to your professors, and more time learning how think.

Edited December 3, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Alaska Darin]

 

 

Hahaha, knew this was coming. I would say that it seems like we may agree that not everyone should have a gun. Crazy idea!

So who is going to choose? What criteria will they use? If it's so easy, maybe you can shed some light on it. Keep in mind that there are over 20,000 gun laws already on the books to prevent "everyone" from owning a gun.