Gun Control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2013, 03:02 PM
Re: Gun Control
And this is the bit that frustrates me most. You have those that do indeed go out of their way to properly train themselves voluntarily, but to go along with them are those that think simply owning it and shooting it are sufficient.

Training is more than just how to operate something. You don't learn only how to operate a car to get your license, you learn situations and laws. Otherwise, training is equivalent to reading the owners manual.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 04:14 PM
Re: Gun Control
On the road, so no time for a long drawn-out reply (oops, scratch that). I'll be commenting on things you said earlier in this thread as well.

TBD, your arguments are disingenuous and borderline mental. The concerns you raise are often valid. The proposed solutions are often farcical.

Before you said that guns should be regulated and taxed based on intended purpose; sporting, hunting, defense, etc. This has major problems. How do you classify these weapons? Is a pump action shotgun a recreational, hunting, defense, or assault weapon? All four and more by any definition, no modification required. And why should a hunting gun be regulated differently from a recreational gun, and that from a defensive weapon? And what does *any* of this have to do with preventing gun violence?

You argue that firearm owners need to be better trained; then argue for limiting the amount of ammunition one can buy or store. Without practical training all the theoretical training in the world is useless, and you'd deprive people of that. Or have you changed your mind on that--you seem to change your position on a near-weekly basis.

You argue that all you want is to better regulate guns, but your rhetoric demonstrates that you would rather ban them, or get as close as makes no difference. You stated the mere existence of a profitable ammunition industry as reason to regulate ammunition, demonstrating an a priori assumption that those companies and persons are your enemy. You talk about 'assault weapon' bans based on cosmetic and ergonomic features, a mindset developed in the 90s solely for the purpose of banning whatever firearms the anti-gun lobby could get away with at the time, based on perceived trends in the crack epidemic, rather than being based on the objective qualities of the firearm.

Not one solution you have offered so far seems to be geared toward preventing mass shootings, short of simply banning scary black guns with 'dangerous' accoutrements like bayonet lugs and pistol grips. Yet you have stated that this is your primary reason for your stance on this issue.


Your earlier arguments in this thread were also surpassingly obtuse. My whole point was that your arguments for banning guns work equally well--or better!--for banning alcohol, cars, or swimming pools. Those suggestions seem absurd--because they are. Your opposition to guns, rather than to one of the many other issues in our society, is based on emotion and ignorance. You were emotionally shocked by Sandy Hook, so went on the internet and read forums, decided you were anti-gun, then looked for statistics that supported your position. This is not materially different from how many creationists enter the fold; an argument you yourself are keen to use, I might add.

I agree that there needs to be regulation of a sort on guns. I even outlined a plan in a previous thread, which included reasonable training and licensing and putting certain new weapons under NFA regulation, and tightening NFA regs on some items. I also advocated improving mental healthcare nationally, something you've given little more than lip service.

However it is clear that your eventual intent, and the intent of anti-gun lobbies in congress, is to ban guns step-by-step, rather than reach any reasonable compromise. It is this transparently dishonest attitude you take toward gun owners that has radicalized that group and made them unwilling to even consider compromise, as it is suspected of being a trap to lead toward tighter, rather than better, gun law. Because of this people die, because you would rather unilaterally push your intentions rather than reach compromise acceptable to both parties.

Doesn't that just tickle your taint?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
24-06-2013, 04:22 PM
Re: RE: Gun Control
(24-06-2013 04:14 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  On the road, so no time for a long drawn-out reply (oops, scratch that). I'll be commenting on things you said earlier in this thread as well.

TBD, your arguments are disingenuous and borderline mental. The concerns you raise are often valid. The proposed solutions are often farcical.

Before you said that guns should be regulated and taxed based on intended purpose; sporting, hunting, defense, etc. This has major problems. How do you classify these weapons? Is a pump action shotgun a recreational, hunting, defense, or assault weapon? All four and more by any definition, no modification required. And why should a hunting gun be regulated differently from a recreational gun, and that from a defensive weapon? And what does *any* of this have to do with preventing gun violence?

You argue that firearm owners need to be better trained; then argue for limiting the amount of ammunition one can buy or store. Without practical training all the theoretical training in the world is useless, and you'd deprive people of that. Or have you changed your mind on that--you seem to change your position on a near-weekly basis.

You argue that all you want is to better regulate guns, but your rhetoric demonstrates that you would rather ban them, or get as close as makes no difference. You stated the mere existence of a profitable ammunition industry as reason to regulate ammunition, demonstrating an a priori assumption that those companies and persons are your enemy. You talk about 'assault weapon' bans based on cosmetic and ergonomic features, a mindset developed in the 90s solely for the purpose of banning whatever firearms the anti-gun lobby could get away with at the time, based on perceived trends in the crack epidemic, rather than being based on the objective qualities of the firearm.

Not one solution you have offered so far seems to be geared toward preventing mass shootings, short of simply banning scary black guns with 'dangerous' accoutrements like bayonet lugs and pistol grips. Yet you have stated that this is your primary reason for your stance on this issue.


Your earlier arguments in this thread were also surpassingly obtuse. My whole point was that your arguments for banning guns work equally well--or better!--for banning alcohol, cars, or swimming pools. Those suggestions seem absurd--because they are. Your opposition to guns, rather than to one of the many other issues in our society, is based on emotion and ignorance. You were emotionally shocked by Sandy Hook, so went on the internet and read forums, decided you were anti-gun, then looked for statistics that supported your position. This is not materially different from how many creationists enter the fold; an argument you yourself are keen to use, I might add.

I agree that there needs to be regulation of a sort on guns. I even outlined a plan in a previous thread, which included reasonable training and licensing and putting certain new weapons under NFA regulation, and tightening NFA regs on some items. I also advocated improving mental healthcare nationally, something you've given little more than lip service.

However it is clear that your eventual intent, and the intent of anti-gun lobbies in congress, is to ban guns step-by-step, rather than reach any reasonable compromise. It is this transparently dishonest attitude you take toward gun owners that has radicalized that group and made them unwilling to even consider compromise, as it is suspected of being a trap to lead toward tighter, rather than better, gun law. Because of this people die, because you would rather unilaterally push your intentions rather than reach compromise acceptable to both parties.

Doesn't that just tickle your taint?

More strawmen arguments about some supposed agenda by me to want to ban guns. You apparently have some insight into what I'm saying that even I don't posses.

Read those articles I posted. I'm trying to learn better solutions, and this might come as a shock, and that means potentially changing my stance! How odd a thought! How incredibly rational!

And I've never attempted to imply anything I've proposed is bulletproof (snicker), which is why I post it, because if it is faulty then I want to know where and how so I can amend it. If all your going to say is that something I said is fallacious and then hurl insults, the discussion is pointless as I can't get anything out of that one way or the other.

So, take your time replying to my earlier comments. Read those articles. And (most importantly of all) leave your emotional insults at the door if you want to be taken seriously.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 04:26 PM
Re: Gun Control
Also, to address one specific point you raised in your last post. Shooting a bunch of rounds is not equivalent to being properly trained with a weapon. In the same way that driving for hours around a parking lot is not proper training for driving a car in public traffic with others. There must necessarily be more than just firing the weapon a bunch of times in order to learn not only how to use it, but when.

I think I made nearly the same statement in another post of mine but I suppose it was missed.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Gun Control
I'll come at his piecemeal again
"Before you said that guns should be regulated and taxed based on intended purpose; sporting, hunting, defense, etc. This has major problems. How do you classify these weapons? Is a pump action shotgun a recreational, hunting, defense, or assault weapon? All four and more by any definition, no modification required. And why should a hunting gun be regulated differently from a recreational gun, and that from a defensive weapon? And what does *any* of this have to do with preventing gun violence?"

My thoughts on this were as follows, classification is based on the gun and the designated use the owner registers it for. Some restrictions would mean that you couldn't classify a gun optimized for recreational shooting for hunting or self-defense. The classification scheme would be necessary (or helpful) for insurance purposes. Ergo, if you buy a weapon for hunting (like a shotgun or hunting rifle), it would be taxed less than a handgun bought for self-defense.

The insurance bit is about helping promote responsible users owning guns and also for consolation in the event of misuse or accidental death/injury.

"You argue that firearm owners need to be better trained; then argue for limiting the amount of ammunition one can buy or store. Without practical training all the theoretical training in the world is useless, and you'd deprive people of that. Or have you changed your mind on that--you seem to change your position on a near-weekly basis."

I addressed this in the post before.

"You argue that all you want is to better regulate guns, but your rhetoric demonstrates that you would rather ban them, or get as close as makes no difference. You stated the mere existence of a profitable ammunition industry as reason to regulate ammunition, demonstrating an a priori assumption that those companies and persons are your enemy. You talk about 'assault weapon' bans based on cosmetic and ergonomic features, a mindset developed in the 90s solely for the purpose of banning whatever firearms the anti-gun lobby could get away with at the time, based on perceived trends in the crack epidemic, rather than being based on the objective qualities of the firearm. "

I'm not promoting banning guns. If you are just going to dishonestly promote what I say and spin it so that you can breakdown a nonexistent argument, then you are wasting our time.

I don't recall stating that a reason for regulating ammunition is because the industry is profitable. Please show me where I say that, or stop misconstruing what I say.

Those that make a profit are not a priori my enemies. This is not about making enemies. I have never identified anyone in this debate or subject as my enemy. Stop making such absurd claims about what I have and have not said.

The assault weapons ban is not based on cosmetics. It is based on design and function. Extra elements such as pistol grips, may be argued as cosmetic and/or comfort. These features also employ a tactical advantage. I don't think them necessary, unless one wants to classify them as something desired for recreational shooting. In that case, have at it.

You're making so far-reaching arguments about the pro-legislation/restriction lobby and a comparison with crack.

"Not one solution you have offered so far seems to be geared toward preventing mass shootings, short of simply banning scary black guns with 'dangerous' accoutrements (sic) like bayonet lugs and pistol grips. Yet you have stated that this is your primary reason for your stance on this issue."

Then you have not understood anything I have proposed. From insurance, to training (more than just shooting it a bunch of times), better mental healthcare, psych evaluations, etc, etc.

"Your earlier arguments in this thread were also surpassingly (sic) obtuse. My whole point was that your arguments for banning guns work equally well--or better!--for banning alcohol, cars, or swimming pools. Those suggestions seem absurd--because they are. Your opposition to guns, rather than to one of the many other issues in our society, is based on emotion and ignorance. You were emotionally shocked by Sandy Hook, so went on the internet and read forums, decided you were anti-gun, then looked for statistics that supported your position. This is not materially different from how many creationists enter the fold; an argument you yourself are keen to use, I might add."

I've already addressed the alcohol, cars, and swimming pool examples you gave. And they are absurd. At the very least, your arguments don't apply towards deregulating guns, but regulating these things along with guns.

My point is one based emotion and ignorance? My point is to learn about this issue so as to dispel ignorance. It is indeed an emotional subject, but I seek to remove my emotions as best I can from it. Can you say the same?

And I certainly am interested in other issues that face our society today and I am just as passionate about them too. Which is why I have started more threads and engaged in more debates about creation vs. evolution on this forum and why I have also proposed not only an improvement in healthcare, but also the addition of better mental healthcare.

Sandy Hook made me realize I should reconsider my position. I looked at the statistics and found them to be counter to my position on a logical basis, and I changed my stance and continue to change my stance as I learn more. You are making another assumption about how the sequence of events occurred. You are building another strawman here to attack.

You are keen to compare me to creationists, and yet (as you yourself say) the position I advocate for is the one with evidence and statistics to back it up, while someone else's position starts posts using anecdotal evidence to dismiss the statistics and facts. I'd stop throwing around the creationist comparisons if I were you.

"However it is clear that your eventual intent, and the intent of anti-gun lobbies in congress, is to ban guns step-by-step, rather than reach any reasonable compromise. It is this transparently dishonest attitude you take toward gun owners that has radicalized that group and made them unwilling to even consider compromise, as it is suspected of being a trap to lead toward tighter, rather than better, gun law. Because of this people die, because you would rather unilaterally push your intentions rather than reach compromise acceptable to both parties."

A reasonable compromise? I've seen no such suggestions from you or the gun-lobby that hint at any such thing. You still maintain that I am somehow employing some dishonest tactic as part of a conspiracy to ban guns. Sounds a lot like the charge that scientists are engaging in a secret conspiracy to cover up evidence for creationism so as to support evolution. Now, which group is doing that again... Consider

"Doesn't that just tickle your taint?"

Your posts certainly do cause me to make some intriguing observations.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: Gun Control
i don't think insurance or training would help with mass shootings. Mass shooters are psychopaths, and couldn't care less if they had to pay insurance on a gun, or be trained to use it.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
--George Carlin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2013, 02:03 PM
RE: Gun Control
You motherfuckers simply have more stamina than myself. TBD and me argued our positions over several pages. No amount of words is going to make him change his position. Just letting you know, you are wasting your energy typing away is all. And now my theme song and I'm out.




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2013, 04:39 PM
RE: Gun Control
I can't believe how a conversation about Gun Control can go on so long without anythng being resolved - I mean, finding at least some common ground for agreement. I think a large part of the reason why people can't seem to agree upon anything is that they don't even know what self-defense is - and this is what we are really talking about, aren't we. I mean, the "Antis" don't really care about my shotguns or hunting rifles - they don't like my pistols, which are elegantly-designed man-killing machines. I don't own pistols for sport, ya' know. I own them for self defense should I encounter a human predator and not be able to get away before things get really bad. My shotguns and rifles I own for sport.

Anyways, like most responsible people who buy pistols, I learned to shoot them and take care of them really well so that they will reliably fire in a bad situation if I ever need them to do it. However, i was always bothered about a lot of the self-defense aspects of ownership, and the state-mandated concealed-carry course is really a joke where that is concerned for it just covers law and doesn't help you to learn how to get out of bad situations without firing that gun. Because, and let's be truthful, even if you are 100% within the law when you pull that trigger, the cost of pulling that trigger could haunt you for the rest of your life. Seriously, the last thing you ever want to do is shoot someone - that's some really bad stuff.

Anyways, I found a website that is not pistol specific, but contains the finest corpus of self defense literature I have ever seen and is at: http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/. The guy who put this site together masterfully explains the physical, emotional, financial and legal aspects of self defense. This site is not gun specific (he hardly mentions guns), but every bit of it can be applied to gun ownership. After you read and digest most of the material, you will have learned to conquer most self-defense problems without violence and certainly without a weapon. It will change the way you think about self defense, and even the Antis might begin to understand why pistols are sometimes needed.

Here's just one small example of how it affected me. In my state, in order to qualify for a concealed-carry liscence, you have to be able to hit a target accuratly at 15 yards (45 feet). Why is that? Why would I shoot at someone who is 45 feet away? What real danger are they to me at that range when most self-defense shootings happen at bad-breath range? Well...it because cops got to qualify at that range and up to 25 yards (75 feet), and the dumb cops who thought up the qualification requirements just couldn't think their way through any real-life requirements that would be experienced by someone with a pistol who was NOT a cop. Hell...in real life, anyone who not a cop and who shoots someone else who is 45 feet away is most likely going to be considered a murderer and not a practitioner of self defense! See how tricky real self defense can be?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Julius's post
08-07-2013, 08:26 AM
RE: Gun Control
Naturally I am the one (the only one on the, as Julius might say, Antis side) in this thread who is considered unreasonable for not changing my mind.

If you're just going to scamper in to be a prick without reading my preceding posts that disqualify what you just said, then just fuck off. Drinking Beverage

(06-07-2013 02:03 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  You motherfuckers simply have more stamina than myself. TBD and me argued our positions over several pages. No amount of words is going to make him change his position. Just letting you know, you are wasting your energy typing away is all. And now my theme song and I'm out.




Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 08:27 AM
RE: Gun Control
These issues are all part of the 2 articles I posted from Skeptic. They are on the preceding page or perhaps the one before it...

All in all, I agree with most what you say. I just think there is room for improvement on top of training (that, as you point out, means more than just firing the gun a lot).

(06-07-2013 04:39 PM)Julius Wrote:  I can't believe how a conversation about Gun Control can go on so long without anythng being resolved - I mean, finding at least some common ground for agreement. I think a large part of the reason why people can't seem to agree upon anything is that they don't even know what self-defense is - and this is what we are really talking about, aren't we. I mean, the "Antis" don't really care about my shotguns or hunting rifles - they don't like my pistols, which are elegantly-designed man-killing machines. I don't own pistols for sport, ya' know. I own them for self defense should I encounter a human predator and not be able to get away before things get really bad. My shotguns and rifles I own for sport.

Anyways, like most responsible people who buy pistols, I learned to shoot them and take care of them really well so that they will reliably fire in a bad situation if I ever need them to do it. However, i was always bothered about a lot of the self-defense aspects of ownership, and the state-mandated concealed-carry course is really a joke where that is concerned for it just covers law and doesn't help you to learn how to get out of bad situations without firing that gun. Because, and let's be truthful, even if you are 100% within the law when you pull that trigger, the cost of pulling that trigger could haunt you for the rest of your life. Seriously, the last thing you ever want to do is shoot someone - that's some really bad stuff.

Anyways, I found a website that is not pistol specific, but contains the finest corpus of self defense literature I have ever seen and is at: http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/. The guy who put this site together masterfully explains the physical, emotional, financial and legal aspects of self defense. This site is not gun specific (he hardly mentions guns), but every bit of it can be applied to gun ownership. After you read and digest most of the material, you will have learned to conquer most self-defense problems without violence and certainly without a weapon. It will change the way you think about self defense, and even the Antis might begin to understand why pistols are sometimes needed.

Here's just one small example of how it affected me. In my state, in order to qualify for a concealed-carry liscence, you have to be able to hit a target accuratly at 15 yards (45 feet). Why is that? Why would I shoot at someone who is 45 feet away? What real danger are they to me at that range when most self-defense shootings happen at bad-breath range? Well...it because cops got to qualify at that range and up to 25 yards (75 feet), and the dumb cops who thought up the qualification requirements just couldn't think their way through any real-life requirements that would be experienced by someone with a pistol who was NOT a cop. Hell...in real life, anyone who not a cop and who shoots someone else who is 45 feet away is most likely going to be considered a murderer and not a practitioner of self defense! See how tricky real self defense can be?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: