Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2015, 08:18 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 08:03 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 08:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  You keep attributing to me claims I never made. You sound like the fundie here.

I'm asking you to assert with evidence or studies or falsifiable explanation, support for your claims.

And yet, you keep misrepresenting what I have said.

Quote:And you keep giving me anecdotes while claiming that pepper spray (or mace) isn't as effective

And yet, I never made that claim.

Quote:and that someone shot with a gun would be stopped.

And yet, I never made that claim.

Quote:Despite the fact that this seems to be based more on movie physics instead of reality.

Not really an issue since I never made that claim.

Quote:You know those scenes in movies where the bad guy takes a slug to the chest and goes flying backwards? You know that's not real, right?

I do know what the capabilities of a firearm are - probably far better than you do.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-04-2015, 08:27 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 08:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 08:03 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I'm asking you to assert with evidence or studies or falsifiable explanation, support for your claims.

And yet, you keep misrepresenting what I have said.

Quote:And you keep giving me anecdotes while claiming that pepper spray (or mace) isn't as effective

And yet, I never made that claim.

Quote:and that someone shot with a gun would be stopped.

And yet, I never made that claim.

Quote:Despite the fact that this seems to be based more on movie physics instead of reality.

Not really an issue since I never made that claim.

Quote:You know those scenes in movies where the bad guy takes a slug to the chest and goes flying backwards? You know that's not real, right?

I do know what the capabilities of a firearm are - probably far better than you do.

Your posts are on this thread. I've tried to simply take what you've said at face value. So, when I point out pepper spray and you say that it "must be sprayed directly in the face" and then imply that a gun would be more effective since you could shoot a person anywhere, I'm interpreting that as you saying that this is somehow supports your claim that guns are better for self-defense.

I'm not mischaracterizing your arguments, I'm taking them as you present them.

Like I said, when you come back with something more than anecdotes, the discussion will be more meaningful than the dick-wagging contest you are determined to have as you back-peddle around the phrases "I didn't claim that" and "fuck off".

Also, your knowledge of firearms, is no way relevant to this discussion. Unless you can provide something substantial, or some evidence, or studies, or falsifiable arguments that support your positions.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 09:29 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 08:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 08:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  And yet, you keep misrepresenting what I have said.


And yet, I never made that claim.


And yet, I never made that claim.


Not really an issue since I never made that claim.


I do know what the capabilities of a firearm are - probably far better than you do.

Your posts are on this thread. I've tried to simply take what you've said at face value. So, when I point out pepper spray and you say that it "must be sprayed directly in the face" and then imply that a gun would be more effective since you could shoot a person anywhere, I'm interpreting that as you saying that this is somehow supports your claim that guns are better for self-defense.

It is self-evident that it is easier to hit a larger target (body vs. face) with a potentially lethal weapon vs. a possibly disabling weapon that the conclusion is that the firearm is more effective. More effective = better.

Quote:I'm not mischaracterizing your arguments, I'm taking them as you present them.

You are presenting your interpretations of what I said as my claims, not what I said.

Quote:Like I said, when you come back with something more than anecdotes, the discussion will be more meaningful than the dick-wagging contest you are determined to have as you back-peddle around the phrases "I didn't claim that" and "fuck off".

You are presenting your misinterpretations of what I said as my claims. I am not back-pedaling, I am telling you that you are misrepresenting what I have said.

Quote:Also, your knowledge of firearms, is no way relevant to this discussion. Unless you can provide something substantial, or some evidence, or studies, or falsifiable arguments that support your positions.

Your lack of knowledge of the use and effectiveness of not only firearms but pepper spray makes it unlikely that you can make a sound judgement on comparing what is effective under various circumstances.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 10:51 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 02:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Matter of opinion, and my opinion is that your response displayed a pervasive childishness and was an immature and fallacious response.

The same criticism could be leveled at many, many of your posts in this thread.

Physician, heal thyself.

You continually wave away counterpoints without supporting your rejections. Your polemics are sometimes apt, and just as often baseless. You seem to be trolling your own thread.

Here's a question: how many guns have you owned in your life?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 10:54 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 02:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  ... Ya know, I think ol' Beardy's being pretty reasonable here. You guys are getting super heated about even the tiniest idea that perhaps guns aren't that great for society. Why can't you discuss objectively?

I've tried to discuss it objectively with him, but it doesn't seem to be a productive exercise. While some of his ideas are indeed reasonable, his hot-headed posting undermines the value of his ideas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
29-04-2015, 11:10 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 03:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The point is that people use the excuse of personal safety and self defense, but it is an excuse.

... until it is your ass on the line. At that point, you will use whatever weapon available to secure your continued habit of breathing.

You may not have ever been in a fight for your life. I have. I didn't have a gun. I escaped, after having had part of my ear bit off in a toe-to-toe. The guy would have killed me if he had been able, no doubt; at one point as I lay stunned on the ground, he was spearing me in the chest with a piece of copper conduit, insane with rage.

I hope you never experience that sort of thing. But if you do, I hope you have a good weapon ... be it a stick, a gun, or a prayer.

Or at least a good life insurance policy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
29-04-2015, 11:56 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 10:54 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 02:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  ... Ya know, I think ol' Beardy's being pretty reasonable here. You guys are getting super heated about even the tiniest idea that perhaps guns aren't that great for society. Why can't you discuss objectively?

I've tried to discuss it objectively with him, but it doesn't seem to be a productive exercise. While some of his ideas are indeed reasonable, his hot-headed posting undermines the value of his ideas.

My post was more directed at KUSA and OnlineBiker who were implying that he must be some kinda scaredy-cat weiner to want to discuss gun laws, and generally being helluva unhelpful in moving the discussion forward... Dodgy

In regard to title of the thread: I believe most individuals are definitely capable of safely handling guns and those who are trained properly I see no problem for them to have one. E.g. for Chas, totally makes sense to have a gun. But guns for the general population? If anything, humans have repeatedly shown that they're mostly a bunch of fuckwits. Why anyone would think a bunch of fuckwits with guns was a good idea I can't imagine. Therefore strict licensing, illegality of weapons with large magazines or rapid rates of fire - these things seem to be good ideas. As I understand it many states already have such laws in place?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
30-04-2015, 12:00 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 03:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For instance, what are the odds of any one of these home invasions? What are my odds of being mugged or attacked by multiple assailants?

If you're ever in the position of being mugged by multiple dumbasses, remember to point out to them the fact that your odds of being mugged are so low that you need not concern yourself with the possibility.

I'm sure they'll gather your point and move on to other, more fecund fields, like data processing or farming dental floss.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
30-04-2015, 12:16 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 11:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 10:54 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I've tried to discuss it objectively with him, but it doesn't seem to be a productive exercise. While some of his ideas are indeed reasonable, his hot-headed posting undermines the value of his ideas.

My post was more directed at KUSA and OnlineBiker who were implying that he must be some kinda scaredy-cat weiner to want to discuss gun laws, and generally being helluva unhelpful in moving the discussion forward... Dodgy

My apologies for misreading you, then ... after a few days' absence in this thread, I clearly got turned around.

I don't think he's helped move the conversation forward, to be honest, even as I don't think ad homeneim attacks on him are fair game.

Sorry for having poked into something not in my purview.

(29-04-2015 11:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  In regard to title of the thread: I believe most individuals are definitely capable of safely handling guns and those who are trained properly I see no problem for them to have one. E.g. for Chas, totally makes sense to have a gun. But guns for the general population? If anything, humans have repeatedly shown that they're mostly a bunch of fuckwits. Why anyone would think a bunch of fuckwits with guns was a good idea I can't imagine. Therefore strict licensing, illegality of weapons with large magazines or rapid rates of fire - these things seem to be good ideas. As I understand it many states already have such laws in place?

I have no problem with licensing handguns. Restricting magazine size doesn't seem to be anything more than a palliative, to me. Rapid rates of fire are already regulated at the Federal level, so I'm unsure why you have any complaint there.

So there's no misunderstanding: I think background checks are perfectly appropriate for prospective purchasers. I think that HIPAA restrictions on mental-health privacy should be waived for gun background checks: the larger society has every right to know that a gun buyer is mentally sound, and that societal right supercedes the right to health privacy, in my view. In short: if you have a felonious background, or if you are on medication for mental disorders, you should not be able to buy a handgun.

But a person who can pass such an investigation ought to be able to buy a handgun.

As for long arms, I don't think the strictures should be so tight.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
30-04-2015, 12:38 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 12:16 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  My apologies for misreading you, then ... after a few days' absence in this thread, I clearly got turned around.

I don't think he's helped move the conversation forward, to be honest, even as I don't think ad homeneim attacks on him are fair game.

Sorry for having poked into something not in my purview.
Nah, your comment was fair - I haven't read the whole thread myself. Long strings of "No *you're* making a strawman" make me grumpy. You wouldn't like me when I'm grumpy Tongue

Quote:I have no problem with licensing handguns. Restricting magazine size doesn't seem to be anything more than a palliative, to me. Rapid rates of fire are already regulated at the Federal level, so I'm unsure why you have any complaint there.
To be clear, I'm not a gun user nor do I live in the US Wink My knowledge of your laws is limited. I'm just commenting 'cos I can Tongue The idea of restricting magazine size does seem to come up fairly often though, and IIRC there are some states that have implemented such laws? Is there any obvious effect?

Quote:So there's no misunderstanding: I think background checks are perfectly appropriate for prospective purchasers. I think that HIPAA restrictions on mental-health privacy should be waived for gun background checks: the larger society has every right to know that a gun buyer is mentally sound, and that societal right supercedes the right to health privacy, in my view. In short: if you have a felonious background, or if you are on medication for mental disorders, you should not be able to buy a handgun.

But a person who can pass such an investigation ought to be able to buy a handgun.
That makes sense. Background checks would be important, mental health too.

What about requiring the buyer to present a license in the same vein as a driver's license? Something for which e.g. there would be a written exam on gun laws and an authorized instructor could confirm that they know how to operate a gun safely with a test down at the range?

That's one aspect of it - making sure the *user* is OK. The other aspect would be regulating the actual weapons - again, by analogy to car ownership. Every car has a license number and can be traced (with some effort)... Of course, criminals put illegal plates on cars and do other such things, but it does make their lives more difficult.

Are these proposals unrealistically onerous?

Quote:As for long arms, I don't think the strictures should be so tight.
Um... why not? Are handguns inherently more dangerous? Easier to conceal - I can see that...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: