Illogical response. I wasn't criticizing Reiver's facts, friend. The other member WAS, and conspicuously devoid of any factual evidence, I might add. If that's the type of logic you wish to hang your hat on, then have a ball.
You made a well thought out response, thanks for taking the time. But yes they can, they can be equally valid in the fact that they are equally null and void, but that's semantics, I get what you're saying. Yes it does, in the case of a citizen following the law and protecting themselves from a criminal, his observation is completely valid if you consider that the person who deserved to get shot is the ne who got shot. This is true, but the point of this thread IMHO is to discuss gun laws that only work for people who actually follow the law, i.e. responsible gun owners. Criminals should be excluded from the equation since they'll break any law that is put on the books. As far as the fact that guns are used improperly by previously law-abiding-citizens should be included is true. However this argument can be used for just about anything, cars, knives, rocks, etc... I'm not hiding from this reality, I live in a state that has CCW laws and I carry whenever and wherever I'm legally allowed to. I take great consideration into the cost/benefits of doing so and know very well the risk I have from carrying and if I would ever have to use it. The costs can be mitigated with responsible, informed ownership and use, the benefits are it might just save my life or a loved one's life one day. I know it's been over used, but a similar argument can be made about cars. There is way more risk of death from driving everyday with a much less benefit from carrying a gun, a car will get you places quickly, but it won't save your life as a gun would. That's your prerogative, but don't try to make it mine or anybody else's That's your prerogative, but don't try to make it mine or anybody else's Regulation yes, outright banning, no. There are many, many regulations in regards to carrying a firearm. Not at all. These may be cliches, but they are true and provoke thought on the subject. Cops will tell you themselves, they are there to respond to crimes and have a very limited capacity in preventing them. A majority of the time, cops get there after the crime has been committed. Having a gun and not using it poses very little risk, whenever I carry, nobody knows I carry and I don't tell anyone. If I were to be threatened with my life and not have a gun to defend myself, then I'll possibly be injured or dead. And your capabilities for clarity are nothing to be desired. How am I supposed to infere that from your signature? The only significance is in the readers interpretation that your signature is mindless.
I truly admire the way y you cut to the chase. You speak their language and apparently have the patience to deal with their deceptive smoke and mirror 'staticalese'* nonsense. Lastly I envy your ability to capsulize your replies to a brief but concise few lines. (I should have included that I am envious of all members that have first language capability command of the English language, which results in articulatory brevity). * staticalease is a made up word of mine. Read is in the same fashion as you would the 'ese' in 'legalese'. I have a feeling I will use it more often as I speak and write about the more silly aspects of gun control. You speak their language and therefore can explain to them in words that they understand why statistical data does not always translate into real world situations. Or I suspect they already know that their ideas are not applicable to all areas of the world, and are using their prattle as salve for the wounds that the gun rights of USA citizens have caused. Rev A
Hi my beloved foes. Danct, Reiver and anyone that trades their god given rights for what they perceive as a little safety. By foe I mean debate foe, personally I kind of like those two. Anyway, I will answer your replies point by point when I return from an espresso run. I didn't have time to properly address them, and that is the reason I answered out of turn. Rev A
Rationality and freedom are on our side. Try and chill out some and stop demanding coercive social costs on us all
You forgot to address the influence of personality. I am no expert in the subject of psychoanalysis or psychiatry or even psychology, however I did take more than my fair share of psychology related courses attending eight years of indoctrinating hell AKA college. Anyway you present classical conditioning by your responses. Yes and no. I have already expounded about that a few replies back. To expand on that reply I would like you to consider the fact that you dont oppose individuals owing some firearms etc. I feel that position rather than advocating for a total firearm ban proves the opposite of what you claim. That early exposure of the good side of firearms may have moderated your extremism. Well I disagree (see above) ~ I feel your objectivity is lessened by your personality. Dont fret or take that as an insult. All of us have similar compromised objectivity, is part of being human. Robots or computers can be strictly objective not people IMO. However that said I would wager you might be envious of computers ability to make emotionless judgments using only the data to provide answers. Well our ideas are so different that you may think that true! So do you mean NRA pro gun or Clinton pro gun ? Anyway, did I define what I meant by local culture? Usually when I use a word or words in an nontraditional manner I give notice and an explanation. French is far different than what one of my teachers called that bastard language i.e. English. Anyway we have covered that, it seems that we disagree with an irreconcilable difference of opinion. I should have said; your nations culture influences your ideas of gun control. Anyway, some education can harm more than help. Especially if indoctrination comes with the reading and writing. But I am fairly pro education. I have no problem 'adopting an evidence-based approach' for some subjects, such as control based experiments. But the interpretation of data in some studies are questionable. To think as such is your right. Again was your home NRA pro gun or Clinton pro gun (who wanted to ban some firearms ). Only if you are misinterpreting what I am saying intentionally or otherwise (as in denial*). No I claimed that what you ideas such as 'coercive relations' are only forced or freedom limited to a certain, limited group of people. Thats why I say in the USA we value, and our laws state that majority rule does not apply. The rights of people trump majority rule. That is freedom, liberty and moral. That is why we have laws to protect minorities etc. There are other larger issues defined in the bill of rights and the Declaration of independence that are exclusive to freedom loving countries and men as well. Do you mean my opinion is at odds with liberty and freedom? Do you think that mandatory gun control for everyone on earth is promoting freedom? What about the millions that would feel enslaved with your ideals in place? What would do if someone ignored your gun control edict? Put them in prison? How is that promoting freedom for all ? Your ideas of freedom are something a person in denial might say. Ha ha. The definitions and ideas of liberty and freedom that gun control advocates hold are strange. Something like the way that BMLA member claims what children want is strange. By that I mean extreme gun control advocates paradigms (the way they understand reality) is so different than mine it makes even asking the right questions difficult, and the answers impossible to answer to everyones satisfaction. So yes, We who are pro firearm can get away with the truth. We as a nation of freer men we have already gotten away with it, just ask the SCOTUS. Maybe you understand truth differently than I, in fact I am sure of it. I do not mind to admit my shortcomings. Nearly all my posts are long winded treatises, not rants, well unless I get on a roll. Nevertheless, I have said numerous times, they are long from an awful application and only a basic understanding of English grammar. I don't enjoy studying any form of English Grammar etc. So when all those things are combined its evident that I have some work to do. I will say something in my defense, there are times I detailed and expanded on every nuance is because I feared you were being obtuse for lack of understanding. Now I see it was not intentional (most of the time, and when you are being sarcastic etc its obvious. That said denial isnt something one can accept or reject. Rev A
When replying to you I'm on autopilot. You don't challenge me in terms of my understanding of the evidence. There is nothing extreme about an evidence-based approach, except of course to the ideological crippled Your stance isn't complex; its referred to vague references to culture in order to indicate some insipid bias. Unfortunately for you my cultural background would actually have encouraged a pro-gun outlook. Of course I don't think an evidence-based approach is anti-gun. Its merely about optimality and treasuring the basic features of freedom. Those coercive relations are social costs; they are forced on the victims by our personal preferences. Without doubt. You support the imposition of social costs and therefore coercion that kicks freedom in the knackers. And that's the ultimate conclusion: you're actually a supporter of authoritarianism (you just don't realise it) Nonsense. Its a mere reference to the market. Supply and demand may be alien concepts to the NRA zombies, but its really basic stuff! The real world ain't chummy with your argument
Ha ha, coercive social costs? (*)(*)(*)(*) now it's coercive social costs. Still the issue is the same, Franklin was right; your ideals and ideas are repugnant to a freedom loving society. You would enslave the world at the behest of YOUR or your peers ideas. I only detest Marxism, a little socialism is alright but just a nanobit. However, detest is too mild a word to describe how I feel about dictators etc. If anything could be 100% eliminated dictatorships would figure prominently on my list of things to liquidate. Rev A
Yep, basic supply & demand! You have no excuse for not understanding it and therefore you're the foot-soldier for authoritarianism
You responded very courteously. Thank you for that as we don't often get that here. Once again, his point CAN be valid while not having any significant merit because the reverse is equally valid. I didn't argue that his observation wasn't valid. Let me put it this way. It's a valid fact that the girl at the corner Pizza Parlor makes me a great pizza, but I cannot use this valid fact to conclude that she loves me romantically can I? She likely makes great pizza for everybody. The point is that valid premises do not always make for valid conclusions. It's how you apply these facts to critical thinking that allows for a valid conclusion. OK? I disagree. I believe you are applying another thought-limiting slogan by the anti-control crowd that states something to the effect that "gun laws only affect the Law-abiding....blah, blah, blah...". When you apply critical thinking to this slogan you see its inherent flaws. The most prominent being that it ignores how criminals get their guns in the first place. The guns are manufactured legally, sold to retailers legally, and usually sold legally to law abiding citizens. It is after this point that the illegal secondary market usually takes place. One cannot ignore this fact. There are some laws designed to limit this secondary black market and more are needed in my opinion. It's a catchy slogan, but in the end, it is not very useful. Exactly. Therefor one cannot say as an absolute that a car is always a safe means of travel because it would not be a valid conclusion to be drawn from the practical use of cars. The same is true of gun ownership. Too often we hear (as we did from the other member who stated; "there are situations wherein someone would not have died if only there's a gun to protect him"), that the assumed result of being armed is exclusively a benefit. This is a false assumption and worthy of being raised here. I commend you. Not necessarily. A car can save your life and be a tremendous benefit to your daily life. On the other hand, a gun can save your life but it also can cause an unexpected tragedy in your life. These are choices that we as free citizens are able to make in this country, but let's be honest and understand the cost/benefit of our choices, eh? This isn't always the case. Straw man fallacy. You had said: "guns are an easier tool to kill people with, all the more reason to have one for protection." My response was: "Or not". The implication being that the very characteristic that makes a gun a useful tool for self defense also makes it a dangerous thing to have around drunk, angry, depressed, despondent or jealous law-abiding family members. To assume only a benefit from gun ownership is to do so at ones own peril. Our prisons and cemeteries are full of those who made this mistake. Different in every State. If they truly provoked thought then there wouldn't be so many of you out there who haven't taken the time to look past the rote slogan to determine its true application. Slogans typically are not designed to promote free thought but rather to hone the listener to a defined objective. They are the very antithesis to provoking free thought. This is why your use of these slogans are referred to as "argument by slogan fallacies". Ah, but that is the purpose, no? When one only looks at slogans that restrict free thought to a prescribed result, then I can understand why it would be difficult for you to see past a seemingly benign variation that would cause an unbiased viewer to pause and actually think.
NOTE TO MOD AND REIVER; I found an error on my reply # 258. Near the last of the reply. Repugnant should be slavery. I cut and pasted the wrong reply from the wksWP. I hope the mistake did not cause anyone grief ~ Rev A
I was defending a member from your YOUR toxic sarcasm. I group you Reiver and others as usual suspects meaning anti firearm, well anti firearm from the perspective of a NRA member or anyone that values their freedom. Its not out of spite etc but rather for brevity. I need all that stuff I can find. However the comparisons etc wasn't that bad was it? You missed my point. If not firearms knives would be used for weapons. Logic connects. I hope I cleared those issues up for you Danct. BTW I have nothing personal against you Reiver or the other Usual Suspects. It's the opinions of the issues US that gives me heartburn, sometimes a near heart attack! Especially when I finally decided that your opinions were true representations of your world. (ie the suspects were not just being argumentative, but passionate about their cause). Rev A
I am so misunderstood! I fear you are so sure of yourself its difficult to see whats right in front of you. I wasn't talking about the Reivers facts but rather excerpt from your reply ; "Originally Posted by Danct ; Low brow response, friend." If you have a study that contradicts his, then post it here so we might look at it. Somehow, I doubt you will. You call him out using a belittling or at least a taunting remark then question his integrity. I meant by my reply i.e. 'the pot calling the skillet black' your response was low brow and taunting. Yep now I am having a ball ! Rev A
Its necessary to state the obvious to some people. However that note was a exercise in CYOA. I like staying on the right side of the forum rules. I like to post the edited reply, sometimes I tone down the things two or three times before posting.. Rev A
Anyone can peck out one line replies. So yes, I am sure you are on auto pilot because your replies are shallow, evasive one liners. I have not receive a precise answer from you about any critical issue pertaining to gun control. The extremity lies in your personality, not in analysis of data etc. which is hard to screw up ie ; two plus two is four. However, without including the human element in the black and white world of data you end up with precisely what I have been trying to tell you from day one. You end up with a dictator, or a machine making decisions for you. If considering our Constitution or laws etc is being ideologically crippled I prefer it over slavery and totalitarianism. I have responded to that error filled reply several times. Your idea of freedom is not my idea of freedom. Evidence based approach works wonderful for social planning and such which is how you were raised. That means you were conditioned to be a number in a system and like it. Oh I do realize what you are saying, I DISAGREE with it. There is a difference eh.Wake up. Your ideas about gun control are vastly more freedom killing than supporting my cultural heritage and exercising our natural rights. You and your peers clearly want to impose your ideas of freedom on millions of people who would equate it with slavery and totalitarianism. We don't need a silly abstract through the back door in the rabbit hole study on social costs to understand that you are selling lies masquerading as science. You are truly in full blown denial. Get used to the fact that your UK ridiculous freedom neutering crap does not float over here. Your and your peers must understand that your idea of freedom is not everyone ideas of freedom. I like the USA, its Constitution its bill of rights, OUR idea of what freedom is. If you like your countries socialistic ideas and your firearm seizing gestapo masters stay there! Do not attempt to export your ideas and your pathetic Orwellian enhanced culture here. That would make both of us happy, you can visit, I would be happy to see you get a breath of freedom, but please do not stay if you intend to retain your ideas of gun control for the world. Rev A
It would be preferable if you referred to the evidence, but I'm not optimistic on that score You follow a libertine doctrine. You might as well be quoting straight from LaVey's bible My ideas are based on methdological individualism and an appreciation that coercion isn't compatible with freedom. You're reliant on nationalism as it means you can hide from individualism and its incompatibility with your authoritarian-based approach
Out of curiosity... Have you ever studied the "endowment effect" (aka: divestiture aversion) hypothesis of behavioral economics? I believe that most firearm owners - myself included - are afflicted with that, as well as a certain amount of status quo bias.
Yep, loss aversion stuff (and potential knock-on effects for welfare economics and the use of augmented utility functions etc etc etc). The problem we have though is that the negative spillover effects are often the result of the secondary gun market (which doesn't fit well with the notion that the gun owner will demand a higher price to sell their gun than they would be willing to pay to buy it)
Yes, and this was a reply to his low brow post where he falsely criticized Reiver of not looking at the research as a whole saying:"Translated, "I prefer to search the available "studies" to find one that fits my pre conceived notion, then I can claim to have a scientific basis for the "study's" conclusions. "" You're easily amused. I didn't accuse the other member of "taunting", so your straw man has no basis in reality. The point you obviously missed in my response to you was that the ONLY way your "pot calling the kettle black" analogy works if I were criticizing Reiver similarly OR if I was somehow using an equally irrational characterization of the other member's efforts. Both options do not fit so your accusation is baseless. Sorry to pop your bubble.
Its not so much about whether you believe if its right or wrong its about the millions of Americans who would refuse any attempt by the government to take their guns. Its something the liberals keep missing, only massive death and destruction to the American people would be the result of any attempt to ban firearms or ammunition. Its a part of the American culture and it is prevalent in every generation to this day. I think thats a good argument. You think those cities with tight gun laws are stopping guns from being distributed among their residents? Look at Chicago with one of the strictest gun laws in the nation. But based on a study that Ludwig and other experts conducted in 2007 on Chicago's underground gun market, he roughly estimated that as many as 100,000 Chicago households could have handguns. "Judging from the available data, there are apparently a lot of people in Chicago who feel strongly enough they need a gun for protection that they're willing to ignore the ban," Ludwig said.http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...06_1_handgun-ban-people-need-guns-jens-ludwig
Would this be the same conservatives who support the pepper spraying of kids sitting on the floor of their collage campus, for civil disobedience?
Can tight gun laws impact on supply and demand conditions and therefore gun prevalence? The answer would have to be 'yes'
