Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 40

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
#75 : June 11, 2013, 03:16:35 PM


first let's start with the apples to oranges.  Cars are an integral and undeniable part of American life essential for everyday living in most places.  Assault rifles serve little or no purpose beyond as a hobby and/or entertainment, except for the tiniest sliver of the populace.  Because the UTILITY VALUE is so different it only make sense that assualt rifles have a higher burden to bear to stay in society than cars.


Guns are an undeniable part of American life. You can argue their usefulness or applicability but it does not alter the facts. If you don't like it, change it. That's what amendments are for.

second, the center of gun restrictions is NOT an assault wespons ban. that's laughable. assault weapons are just highly visble weapons of mass murder with, again, very little actual VALUE for most of society

The center piece of the Senate Gun legislation is:

1. Universal background checks
2. Ban Semi automatic rifles (primarily "assault weapons).
3. Ban high capacity magazines for assault weapons.
4. Have a few studies on gun violence and mental illness.

Tell me how THAT is laughable.

third, you are actually hiughlighting the flaw logic of the pro-gun crowd that is why I am repeating it, I will use your own words. Truly banning assault weapons with "adequaltely solve" the problme of people being killed with "assault weapons" because they wouldnt be available.  Could people kill other ways? Sure, just like (using your words) seat belts have "a 100% success rate when worn" we acceot that seatbelts will not save every life, just a certain class of lives (those who wear seat belts) because saving lives is the goal and there is no .  . . . FEAR

It is not a flaw, it's accepting reality. As long as their are guns in society people will be killed by guns. If you want to eliminate the possibility, eliminate guns. The question then becomes is that something you want to condone?


fourth, on the question of FEAR  . . . your words . ."Or, is it more than likely just a case that some people don't like those guns and are just trying to get them banned?"

Back to the herd of Wildebeest.

using just your example, TRULY banning assault weapons would keep people from being killed by assault weapons. Could people still get killed by guns, sure, just like people get killed in cars when they dont wear setabelts and even when they due.  The only people that would be hurt by an assault weapons ban are people who use them for a hobby or entertainment , little social utility, especially wehn compared to a life.

Note sure what your point is here, unless you are saying that it is worth banning anything if it so much as saves one life; which is a can of worms I don't think you want to open. Cars, planes, trees, bikes spring to mind. You can't eliminate all risk and tragedy.

Btw, I long ago offered a way for assualt rifles to stay around and I agree that the banning is almost symbolic (almost), my response was just to point out the flaw in the logic of the argument you advanced. There's a lot of preventable gun violence in the US because there are a lot of gun, one for every person no matter the age, not just because of assault rifles.

My logic is not flawed, it merely demonstrates that the "solution" does not address the so called problem.  If you want to prevent people being killed by cars you don't start by banning Ferraris.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19540
Offline
#76 : June 11, 2013, 03:59:22 PM


first let's start with the apples to oranges.  Cars are an integral and undeniable part of American life essential for everyday living in most places.  Assault rifles serve little or no purpose beyond as a hobby and/or entertainment, except for the tiniest sliver of the populace.  Because the UTILITY VALUE is so different it only make sense that assualt rifles have a higher burden to bear to stay in society than cars.


Guns are an undeniable part of American life. You can argue their usefulness or applicability but it does not alter the facts. If you don't like it, change it. That's what amendments are for.


Spartan, cant have a meaningful discussion without intellectual honesty. . .  so . . .  are assault rifles (not guns, which you switched to, just assault rifles) as much a part of everyday life in America as cars? I cant get to work without my car, cant get my kids to and from school . .


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19540
Offline
#77 : June 11, 2013, 04:04:12 PM

third, you are actually hiughlighting the flaw logic of the pro-gun crowd that is why I am repeating it, I will use your own words. Truly banning assault weapons with "adequaltely solve" the problme of people being killed with "assault weapons" because they wouldnt be available.  Could people kill other ways? Sure, just like (using your words) seat belts have "a 100% success rate when worn" we acceot that seatbelts will not save every life, just a certain class of lives (those who wear seat belts) because saving lives is the goal and there is no .  . . . FEAR

It is not a flaw, it's accepting reality. As long as their are guns in society people will be killed by guns. If you want to eliminate the possibility, eliminate guns. The question then becomes is that something you want to condone?


see the part in bold?  my response is this:  link?   

I have posted and posted about this issue, can you find even a single post where I have claimed the goal was to  "eliminate the possibility" of people being killed by guns?  That's the fear talking, you're putting up a straw man.  I want to REDUCE gun violence in a country with 30,000 gun deaths a year


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
#78 : June 11, 2013, 04:21:45 PM

third, you are actually hiughlighting the flaw logic of the pro-gun crowd that is why I am repeating it, I will use your own words. Truly banning assault weapons with "adequaltely solve" the problme of people being killed with "assault weapons" because they wouldnt be available.  Could people kill other ways? Sure, just like (using your words) seat belts have "a 100% success rate when worn" we acceot that seatbelts will not save every life, just a certain class of lives (those who wear seat belts) because saving lives is the goal and there is no .  . . . FEAR

It is not a flaw, it's accepting reality. As long as their are guns in society people will be killed by guns. If you want to eliminate the possibility, eliminate guns. The question then becomes is that something you want to condone?


see the part in bold?  my response is this:  link?   

I have posted and posted about this issue, can you find even a single post where I have claimed the goal was to  "eliminate the possibility" of people being killed by guns?  That's the fear talking, you're putting up a straw man.  I want to REDUCE gun violence in a country with 30,000 gun deaths a year

I am not saying YOU do, I am saying you as in a royal we.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17081
Offline
#79 : June 11, 2013, 04:38:07 PM

third, you are actually hiughlighting the flaw logic of the pro-gun crowd that is why I am repeating it, I will use your own words. Truly banning assault weapons with "adequaltely solve" the problme of people being killed with "assault weapons" because they wouldnt be available.  Could people kill other ways? Sure, just like (using your words) seat belts have "a 100% success rate when worn" we acceot that seatbelts will not save every life, just a certain class of lives (those who wear seat belts) because saving lives is the goal and there is no .  . . . FEAR

It is not a flaw, it's accepting reality. As long as their are guns in society people will be killed by guns. If you want to eliminate the possibility, eliminate guns. The question then becomes is that something you want to condone?



see the part in bold?  my response is this:  link?   

I have posted and posted about this issue, can you find even a single post where I have claimed the goal was to  "eliminate the possibility" of people being killed by guns?  That's the fear talking, you're putting up a straw man.  I want to REDUCE gun violence in a country with 30,000 gun deaths a year

I am not saying YOU do, I am saying you as in a royal we.

The argument doesn't make sense on Vince's part. I disagree with gun control , but let's forget that part of the debate.  If his premise is true that the number of lives we save will be directly proportional to the amount of guns we take away , then it stands to reason he would want to save the MOST amount  of lives by eliminating ALL  guns.

The " well , I support the constitution also" argument just becomes silly at that point . The constitution can be amended. He is admitting that a certain amount of danger and death from guns is ok , he just wants to arbitrarily decide what that amount is. It's a strange position to take.
: June 11, 2013, 04:40:21 PM Fire Mark Dummynik

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#80 : June 11, 2013, 05:04:22 PM

It makes sense if you factor in what I think Vince's position is, and that is that guns do provide a certain degree of social benefit, i.e. for personal security, or what have you. If he believes that guns do serve a practical purpose, then the question becomes, what level of accessibility is necessary towards achieving that purpose while simultaneously limiting the negative consequences?

To go back to the driving analogy, driving has an undeniable social benefit, but driving does result in death of citizens. So while we accept the fact that people must drive, we reject the logic behind there being no speed limits in school or residential zones, or that drivers need not be registered and their ability and knowledge of the driving laws not be tested, or that Formula 1 cars be allowed to be driven on city streets and highways. We universally accept that such restrictions, if left unregulated, would be reckless and dangerous, and would lead to the benefits being grossly outweighed by the negative consequences.

This is merely what I think his argument is. I'm not voicing my opinion on it, nor and is it my intent to put words in his mouth.
: June 11, 2013, 05:07:02 PM CBWx2


Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#81 : June 11, 2013, 05:30:00 PM

You peeps need to get a life.




Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17081
Offline
#82 : June 11, 2013, 05:42:38 PM

But if no one has a gun,  why would you possibly need one for protection? 

Careful,  this is the part where you nanny-staters come dangerously close to admitting the real bad guys are going to be armed  and dangerous regardless of what law you pass....
: June 11, 2013, 06:12:24 PM Fire Mark Dummynik

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19540
Offline
#83 : June 11, 2013, 06:01:41 PM

third, you are actually hiughlighting the flaw logic of the pro-gun crowd that is why I am repeating it, I will use your own words. Truly banning assault weapons with "adequaltely solve" the problme of people being killed with "assault weapons" because they wouldnt be available.  Could people kill other ways? Sure, just like (using your words) seat belts have "a 100% success rate when worn" we acceot that seatbelts will not save every life, just a certain class of lives (those who wear seat belts) because saving lives is the goal and there is no .  . . . FEAR

It is not a flaw, it's accepting reality. As long as their are guns in society people will be killed by guns. If you want to eliminate the possibility, eliminate guns. The question then becomes is that something you want to condone?



see the part in bold?  my response is this:  link?   

I have posted and posted about this issue, can you find even a single post where I have claimed the goal was to  "eliminate the possibility" of people being killed by guns?  That's the fear talking, you're putting up a straw man.  I want to REDUCE gun violence in a country with 30,000 gun deaths a year

I am not saying YOU do, I am saying you as in a royal we.

The argument doesn't make sense on Vince's part. I disagree with gun control , but let's forget that part of the debate.  If his premise is true that the number of lives we save will be directly proportional to the amount of guns we take away , then it stands to reason he would want to save the MOST amount  of lives by eliminating ALL  guns.

The " well , I support the constitution also" argument just becomes silly at that point . The constitution can be amended. He is admitting that a certain amount of danger and death from guns is ok , he just wants to arbitrarily decide what that amount is. It's a strange position to take.

Best indicator you're on the wrong side of logic: making up argument the other side never said


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17081
Offline
#84 : June 11, 2013, 06:14:22 PM

What didn't you say ? Are you not claiming that the fewer guns there are the fewer violent deaths there will be ?

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19540
Offline
#85 : June 11, 2013, 06:19:10 PM

What didn't you say ? Are you not claiming that the fewer guns there are the fewer violent deaths there will be ?

Lol, c'mon man. This questions is even different than what you said I said in the last comment. Both are wrong. C'mon Dolo ... Are you being sloppy or playing games?


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17081
Offline
#86 : June 11, 2013, 06:21:30 PM

What didn't you say ? Are you not claiming that the fewer guns there are the fewer violent deaths there will be ?

Lol, c'mon man. This questions is even different than what you said I said in the last comment. Both are wrong. C'mon Dolo ... Are you being sloppy or playing games?

No , your stance has me thoroughly confused ...sounds like Spartan is in the same boat.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
#87 : June 11, 2013, 07:11:00 PM

What didn't you say ? Are you not claiming that the fewer guns there are the fewer violent deaths there will be ?

Lol, c'mon man. This questions is even different than what you said I said in the last comment. Both are wrong. C'mon Dolo ... Are you being sloppy or playing games?

So what IS your argument?
: June 11, 2013, 07:20:14 PM spartan

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
#88 : June 11, 2013, 07:19:48 PM


first let's start with the apples to oranges.  Cars are an integral and undeniable part of American life essential for everyday living in most places.  Assault rifles serve little or no purpose beyond as a hobby and/or entertainment, except for the tiniest sliver of the populace.  Because the UTILITY VALUE is so different it only make sense that assualt rifles have a higher burden to bear to stay in society than cars.


Guns are an undeniable part of American life. You can argue their usefulness or applicability but it does not alter the facts. If you don't like it, change it. That's what amendments are for.


Spartan, cant have a meaningful discussion without intellectual honesty. . .  so . . .  are assault rifles (not guns, which you switched to, just assault rifles) as much a part of everyday life in America as cars? I cant get to work without my car, cant get my kids to and from school . .

This goes 2 ways.

Lets play game 1.

No they are not, you go, aha! I go, then why are you trying to ban them if they are such an inconsequential part of American Life?

They are either a major danger to American life and need to be banned, or they or not. Which one is it?

Game 2:

What's your point?

As I have pointed out a number of times the center piece of gun control as it currently stands essentially bans "assault rifles". If they are such an insignificant part of this, why put in all the time and effort? Politics maybe?

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19540
Offline
#89 : June 11, 2013, 08:39:00 PM


first let's start with the apples to oranges.  Cars are an integral and undeniable part of American life essential for everyday living in most places.  Assault rifles serve little or no purpose beyond as a hobby and/or entertainment, except for the tiniest sliver of the populace.  Because the UTILITY VALUE is so different it only make sense that assualt rifles have a higher burden to bear to stay in society than cars.


Guns are an undeniable part of American life. You can argue their usefulness or applicability but it does not alter the facts. If you don't like it, change it. That's what amendments are for.


Spartan, cant have a meaningful discussion without intellectual honesty. . .  so . . .  are assault rifles (not guns, which you switched to, just assault rifles) as much a part of everyday life in America as cars? I cant get to work without my car, cant get my kids to and from school . .

This goes 2 ways.

Lets play game 1.

No they are not, you go, aha! I go, then why are you trying to ban them if they are such an inconsequential part of American Life?

They are either a major danger to American life and need to be banned, or they or not. Which one is it?

Game 2:

What's your point?

As I have pointed out a number of times the center piece of gun control as it currently stands essentially bans "assault rifles". If they are such an insignificant part of this, why put in all the time and effort? Politics maybe?

Wow.  It's really not that complicated. The less utility the product has in society the more likely people will want to get rid of it if it causes death. Assault rifles are used by a small number for entertainment. To most people assault rifles are the weapon of choice for crazy people looking to kill a lot of innocent people. Can you kill a lot of people with a handgun? Yes, but handguns are not the weapons on the news most often for mass murders.


I don't think they have to be banned but you're (royal) against any other reasonable measure to restrict them (eg universal backgrounds etc) so you shouldn't be surprised when they are banned over your objection. What's the expression? Pigs fed, hogs slaughtered?

Page: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 40
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools