Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 37 38 39 40

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Offline
#570 : July 03, 2013, 01:55:27 PM

Illegal Gun users often start their life as LEGAL GUNS babies . . .  thus . . .the more legal guns babies the more chance they become illegal gun users . . . and the more chance that  legal guns babies cause other harm and death  . .  . accidents, suicides etc.


I did not change the logical structure of your post, but merely switched 2 nouns. If it now seems absurd and illogical, it is because of the original unchanged structure of your argument.

a baby = a gun?  .. .  everyone stay away from the loaded baby!!


I didn't say baby = gun. Learn to read.

What I posted is a common logic exercise to test the validity of the structure of an argument. If the structure is sound, then exchanging 1 term (gun) for another (baby) will still make sense. If it doesn't then the structure is illogical.

That you didn't get that is not at all surprising.


playing along . .  . we take many steps in society to try and keep "LEGAL babies" from becoming "illegal gun users."  Why? Because there is a real societal cost to "illegal gun users" and having a person become a "illegal gun user" is in some measure preventable, even if not ABSOLUTELY so.

applying "gun logic" we should do nothing to prevent "legal babies" from becoming "illegal gun users" because there will always be "illegal gun users" . . .



Who here has used your so-called "gun logic"? You are the only here that repeatedly takes an argument and extends it to the absurd. Who here has said " we should do nothing"???

Nearly every pro-gun person in these threads, either directly or indirectly


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#571 : July 03, 2013, 02:50:20 PM

Illegal Gun users often start their life as LEGAL GUNS babies . . .  thus . . .the more legal guns babies the more chance they become illegal gun users . . . and the more chance that  legal guns babies cause other harm and death  . .  . accidents, suicides etc.


I did not change the logical structure of your post, but merely switched 2 nouns. If it now seems absurd and illogical, it is because of the original unchanged structure of your argument.

a baby = a gun?  .. .  everyone stay away from the loaded baby!!


I didn't say baby = gun. Learn to read.

What I posted is a common logic exercise to test the validity of the structure of an argument. If the structure is sound, then exchanging 1 term (gun) for another (baby) will still make sense. If it doesn't then the structure is illogical.

That you didn't get that is not at all surprising.


playing along . .  . we take many steps in society to try and keep "LEGAL babies" from becoming "illegal gun users."  Why? Because there is a real societal cost to "illegal gun users" and having a person become a "illegal gun user" is in some measure preventable, even if not ABSOLUTELY so.

applying "gun logic" we should do nothing to prevent "legal babies" from becoming "illegal gun users" because there will always be "illegal gun users" . . .



Who here has used your so-called "gun logic"? You are the only here that repeatedly takes an argument and extends it to the absurd. Who here has said " we should do nothing"???

Nearly every pro-gun person in these threads, either directly or indirectly


Nearly every?????

I said "more enforcement, fewer but better laws, and increased mandatory sentencing for violators"  Is that "nothing"?

Von Mise said "address mental illness, address societal issues, etc."  Is that "nothing"?

olafberserker disagreed with some of your background check ideas and your Australia example but didn't offer any solutions. But Is that "do nothing"?

Spartan said "How about improved anonymous background checks?" In fact he went on with you for several pages debating how background checks should be improved. Is that "do nothing"?

Doloris just repeatedly questioned your motive and agenda. But is that "do nothing"?

Biggs and Java don't count as posters, just annoying distractions.

CBW is not on the pro gun side.

So that is everyone who posted in this thread. Please explain how ZERO posters = "Nearly every pro-gun person in these threads"

Not one single poster in 38+ pages said directly "do nothing" and yet you think "nearly every" person did. HUH?????

Now several have implied "do nothing stupid" or "do nothing ineffective" or " do nothing knee-jerk" but that is no where near proposing we "do nothing".

If "nearly every" poster said "do nothing" then you should have no problem using the quote feature to quote JUST 2 people saying or implying "do nothing"


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Offline
#572 : July 03, 2013, 11:03:50 PM

These thread have been going on since Newtown, Spartan will discuss gun control measures (to his credit) but really would not accept any meaningful law that would inconvenience a gun owner. You are accepting of some measures, much closer to my views than most. Nearly ever pro-gun person on here reject gun control measures because if the "slippery slope" argument. The rejection comes on many forms, some are addressing mental illness BEFORE looking at gun control, willing to accept background checks but not universally etc.   some claim acceptance but when details are discussed its clear they favor the status quo. So, yes "nearly every"  but if its quotes you want just ask people to post whether they accept this one measure:

Universal background checks - mandatory on ALL sales - dealer, private, gun show - and all weapons

Let see who supports that basic measure
: July 03, 2013, 11:08:20 PM VinBucFan


olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
#573 : July 03, 2013, 11:09:45 PM

Partial correction JG, olaf has said he doesn't care if we close some of the background check "loop holes" or even if some AR's are banned.   Olaf doesn't believe that either of these will significantly make innocent people safer.  You are correct JG in that I can not recall one person in this discussion say "do nothing".   

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Offline
#574 : July 03, 2013, 11:24:41 PM

obviously no one types the words " do nothing". LOL who would? It's implied in the responses. Besides, you can see many examples of the very narrow (some might say meaningless) "acceptance" of gun control. I just asked who would accept UNIVERSAL background checks. The very next post says accept closing SOME ...some .., loopholes.  That is close to meaningless because a net either has holes or it doesn't.

We can all play games and feign "acceptance" but I return to the question I just posted is there even a single pro-gun person here that would accept TRUE universal background checks?


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#575 : July 04, 2013, 11:43:06 AM

obviously no one types the words " do nothing". LOL who would? It's implied in the responses.

No, it is not "implied" in every response. You are the one falsely implying it because the implication helps you dismiss any objection to your opinions.

"Any gun law is unacceptable" implies "do nothing. But "no I wouldn't accept a partial ban on shot guns" implies that some changes would be acceptable, just not that specific one. But you would lump that in with "do nothing"


Besides, you can see many examples of the very narrow (some might say meaningless) "acceptance" of gun control.

Wait. You just said "nearly every pro-gun person in this thread" wants to "do nothing" but now you say there are "many examples" of acceptance of some change?????????

Which is it??? Many examples of A or Nearly every poster is Anti-A??


I just asked who would accept UNIVERSAL background checks. The very next post says accept closing SOME ...some .., loopholes.  That is close to meaningless because a net either has holes or it doesn't.

So because IN YOUR OPINION another poster's partial acceptance (or compromise) is "close to meaningless", you stop negotiating the debate and declare his partial acceptance as equivalent to "do nothing".

Everything is black or white, no shades of grey allowed. It is my way or the highway. Is that your position?


We can all play games and feign "acceptance" but I return to the question I just posted is there even a single pro-gun person here that would accept TRUE universal background checks?


To answer your question with a question. How do you define "true" universal background checks?

I would accept anonymous background checks where the person/dealer entering the info for the check is not told "why" a fail is issued, just "accepted" or "rejected".

And the background checks must include:

1. criminal history
2. residence status (ie citizen, legal resident alien, or illegal alien= FAIL)
3. any certified mental incapacity
4. any recent prescriptions (maybe last 90 days) for psychotropic or mind altering drugs

And there must be a system where a person who fails can find out why he was flagged, and can appeal the flag if he feels it is unjust (ie, identity theft, drug scripts from years ago, arrest/conviction that was overturned due to new evidence/false conviction, etc. )

And the background check system and database must be subject to regular independent review for data security and proper documented data entry procedures

I'm sure there are some other caveats needed, but those wouldn't be "loopholes" like who gets checked (you said "universal" so that means everyone).


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Offline
#576 : July 04, 2013, 11:46:17 AM

obviously no one types the words " do nothing". LOL who would? It's implied in the responses.

No, it is not "implied" in every response. You are the one falsely implying it because the implication helps you dismiss any objection to your opinions.

"Any gun law is unacceptable" implies "do nothing. But "no I wouldn't accept a partial ban on shot guns" implies that some changes would be acceptable, just not that specific one. But you would lump that in with "do nothing"


Besides, you can see many examples of the very narrow (some might say meaningless) "acceptance" of gun control.

Wait. You just said "nearly every pro-gun person in this thread" wants to "do nothing" but now you say there are "many examples" of acceptance of some change?????????

Which is it??? Many examples of A or Nearly every poster is Anti-A??


I just asked who would accept UNIVERSAL background checks. The very next post says accept closing SOME ...some .., loopholes.  That is close to meaningless because a net either has holes or it doesn't.

So because IN YOUR OPINION another poster's partial acceptance (or compromise) is "close to meaningless", you stop negotiating the debate and declare his partial acceptance as equivalent to "do nothing".

Everything is black or white, no shades of grey allowed. It is my way or the highway. Is that your position?


We can all play games and feign "acceptance" but I return to the question I just posted is there even a single pro-gun person here that would accept TRUE universal background checks?


To answer your question with a question. How do you define "true" universal background checks?

I would accept anonymous background checks where the person/dealer entering the info for the check is not told "why" a fail is issued, just "accepted" or "rejected".

And the background checks must include:

1. criminal history
2. residence status (ie citizen, legal resident alien, or illegal alien= FAIL)
3. any certified mental incapacity
4. any recent prescriptions (maybe last 90 days) for psychotropic or mind altering drugs

And there must be a system where a person who fails can find out why he was flagged, and can appeal the flag if he feels it is unjust (ie, identity theft, drug scripts from years ago, arrest/conviction that was overturned due to new evidence/false conviction, etc. )

And the background check system and database must be subject to regular independent review for data security and proper documented data entry procedures

I'm sure there are some other caveats needed, but those wouldn't be "loopholes" like who gets checked (you said "universal" so that means everyone).

Just because I am not going to play on your terms and go and dig up conversations going back months doesn't mean my comment is not accurate. I don't bear any burden of proof to you. I asked a question that would also illustrate my point, so lets see who responds.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Offline
#577 : July 04, 2013, 11:47:47 AM

Btw, what's the reason for insisting on anonymous background checks?


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#578 : July 04, 2013, 11:59:45 AM

Btw, what's the reason for insisting on anonymous background checks?


Privacy rights.

By anonymous I mean the FFL dealer doing the background check just gets a pass or fail and does not know why the potential purchaser was turned down.

It is the same reason a lender just gets a numeric credit score. The lender isn't told why the borrower is too low. The borrower and ONLY the borrower can get that info from the credit bureau.

Also, the background check info (database) must be secure and not open to the public. IOW you can't google someone's firearm database info and post it on Facebook. Can't allow random libel or defamation.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#579 : July 04, 2013, 12:09:21 PM


Just because I am not going to play on your terms and go and dig up conversations going back months doesn't mean my comment is not accurate.

Nor does it mean that it is accurate.

But your refusal to provide evidence to back up your claim is certainly indicative that you may know (maybe subconsciously) that your claim is invalid. It doesn't prove it, but it points that way.



I don't bear any burden of proof to you.

To me? no.

But in an intellectually honest debate, the party making a claim does bear the burden of supporting that claim.



I asked a question that would also illustrate my point, so lets see who responds.

I already did, in the affirmative but with caveats.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Offline
#580 : July 05, 2013, 10:04:57 AM


Just because I am not going to play on your terms and go and dig up conversations going back months doesn't mean my comment is not accurate.

Nor does it mean that it is accurate.

But your refusal to provide evidence to back up your claim is certainly indicative that you may know (maybe subconsciously) that your claim is invalid. It doesn't prove it, but it points that way.



I don't bear any burden of proof to you.

To me? no.

But in an intellectually honest debate, the party making a claim does bear the burden of supporting that claim.



I asked a question that would also illustrate my point, so lets see who responds.

I already did, in the affirmative but with caveats.

My "refusal to provide evidence". Lol. You're trying to hard. The evidence is there on numerous threads. Because I am not going to try to use a broken search function from my phone just to make you happy means something about the accuracy if my point? Oh boy... A new bottom on the Cove.  Lmao.

You responded, with caveats, anyone else? All those pro-gun people that want to do something ... With caveats :-)


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Offline
#581 : July 05, 2013, 10:28:15 AM

Btw, when does a "yes with caveats" become a "no"? 

"I am for universal background checks .....but only on the fifth Sunday of the month and just in Indiana".

JG? - my guess is there will be very few if any unqualified responses agreeing to universal background checks. You can be the arbiter of when the caveats make the "affirmative" response and "negstive" response. ;-)


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7035
Offline
#582 : July 05, 2013, 11:25:14 AM

Btw, when does a "yes with caveats" become a "no"? 

"I am for universal background checks .....but only on the fifth Sunday of the month and just in Indiana".

JG? - my guess is there will be very few if any unqualified responses agreeing to universal background checks. You can be the arbiter of when the caveats make the "affirmative" response and "negstive" response. ;-)

Every time I try to answer it by all accounts.

And FWIW, my idea of anonymous background checks is that no record is kept of the check, who the check was made on and no audit trail.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19490
Offline
#583 : July 05, 2013, 01:54:47 PM

Btw, when does a "yes with caveats" become a "no"? 

"I am for universal background checks .....but only on the fifth Sunday of the month and just in Indiana".

JG? - my guess is there will be very few if any unqualified responses agreeing to universal background checks. You can be the arbiter of when the caveats make the "affirmative" response and "negstive" response. ;-)

Every time I try to answer it by all accounts.

And FWIW, my idea of anonymous background checks is that no record is kept of the check, who the check was made on and no audit trail.

On anonymous background checks, I get JG?s points but yours - which I still don't understand - seem to undercut the purpose, in part

That is the same issue with many of your caveats, they essentially undercut the purpose, sometime just to save inconvenience to a gun owner. That said, I have already agreed with some of your caveats


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7035
Offline
#584 : July 05, 2013, 04:49:14 PM

Btw, when does a "yes with caveats" become a "no"? 

"I am for universal background checks .....but only on the fifth Sunday of the month and just in Indiana".

JG? - my guess is there will be very few if any unqualified responses agreeing to universal background checks. You can be the arbiter of when the caveats make the "affirmative" response and "negstive" response. ;-)

Every time I try to answer it by all accounts.

And FWIW, my idea of anonymous background checks is that no record is kept of the check, who the check was made on and no audit trail.

On anonymous background checks, I get JG?s points but yours - which I still don't understand - seem to undercut the purpose, in part

That is the same issue with many of your caveats, they essentially undercut the purpose, sometime just to save inconvenience to a gun owner. That said, I have already agreed with some of your caveats

You provide your name, dob, ssn or whatever, they run it through and say yay or nay on buying a gun.

If you pas (or fail for that matter), a record is not kept that the check was run. This way the authorities don't have a record of how many guns I have bought and send someone around to my house based on some kind of profile that I bought an "unusually large" number of guns, ammo etc under some pretext of public safety.

You might laugh and send me a silver hat, but the Govt's record on data use and abuse  isn't exactly top notch recently.
Page: 1 ... 37 38 39 40
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools