Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Baseball player killed because teenagers were "Bored" « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Offline
#75 : August 22, 2013, 12:45:54 PM


Having to resort to that argument is essentially an admission that there isnt much one can credibly say to confront the fact that we have way too many guns in this country (one for every man, woman, child, baby, incompetent and senior citizen) and we dont have them because of a Constitutional issue, we have them because of a profit motive. . . .  plain and simple.  You and other might have LEGITIMATE constituional concerns about the right to bear arms BUT you are all used as pawns by an entity who respresewnts manufacturers.


If you really want to have a sensible conversation on the subject, starting it off with the assertion that you don't understand because you're an ignorant fool is not normally a successful strategy.

right . . .  am I am "ignorant fool" because I dont believe the Obama Adminstration is presenttly having a meeting about invading my home, or am I am "ignorant fool" because I think there are too many guns in this country? Or, am I an "ignorant fool" because I said that the NRA actually represnets gun manufacturers more than contituional concerns?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#76 : August 22, 2013, 01:00:19 PM

Btw, that "illegal" gun used by those law breaking teens . . .  it started out legal, right? 

Yes, just like the machete used to decapitate that British soldier or the Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer that Tim McVeigh used or the nails in the Olympic Park bombing or the pressure cookers used in Boston.

JG?  that is a response I would expect from somone of lesser intelligence.

 It is true that those things all started out as legal items BUT all of those things serve regular and legitimate non-violent purposes AND were legal while possessed, but more imrtantly it is not a defense to a gun problem to say "well, we have a problem with fertilizer too," unless that lessen we all learned from our parents, "two wrongs dont make a right," was nonsense.

Having to resort to that argument is essentially an admission that there isnt much one can credibly say to confront the fact that we have way too many guns in this country (one for every man, woman, child, baby, incompetent and senior citizen) and we dont have them because of a Constitutional issue, we have them because of a profit motive. . . .  plain and simple.  You and other might have LEGITIMATE constituional concerns about the right to bear arms BUT you are all used as pawns by an entity who respresewnts manufacturers.

Motivated people will find ways to kills, whether by machete (happened while I was there, incidentally) or by making a bomb, but that doesnt mean we should make things easy for killers.  Right now there are not 300 million machetes in the UK or the US, even though they serve a non-violent purpose, and there are not 300 million bombs sitting around in the US . .  .. that is why the teens used a gun . .  guns are easy to get in this country . .  . very easy . . .too easy . .  and because of that there are too many . . .   THAT'S THE OBVIOUS, UNDENIABLE POINT.


Ok, if I accept that 300 million guns is too many, then what? New laws restricting guns sales won't put the genie back in the bottle, the guns are already out there.

You say getting rid of the guns is easier than solving the psychological and social problems of all these murders. I say it would be just as difficult, or even more difficult. No one will argue against a plan to reduce criminal behavior (provided it is cost effective) but a very sizable group will oppose a plan to take their guns. So politically, reducing the # of guns is more difficult just to get started. Then you have the practical and logistical problem of collecting and disposing of hundreds of millions of guns. And I would bet some of those gun's owners are going to be fully cooperative.

Let's say you do manage to reduce gun ownership by 90% which is equivalent to Columbia. Will our homicide rate drop to that of Columbia? Oh wait, Columbia's homicide rate is 9 times that of the US. How can a country with very low gun ownership levels (Columbia at 5.9 guns/100 citizens) have a gun related homicide rate of 27.1 (per 100,000 people) and the US with a ownership rate of 94+/100 only have a gun-homicide rate of 3.6/100,000? If guns are 16 times harder to find in Columbia, shouldn't their murder rate be lower than ours????

You are blaming an inanimate object (a gun) for bad human behavior. Gun crime is merely a symptom of a much more complex disease. We need to treat the disease, not just hide one of the symptoms.


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Offline
#77 : August 22, 2013, 01:04:51 PM

Vin, you can't make the argument that guns are different from those other items because they have legitimate uses, until you successfully prove that guns don't have legitimate uses. You've never been able to make that argument, and likely never will. So instead, you just skip that step and pretend that it has already been established. But you're not fooling anyone.

Yes, I know, now comes the part where you try to shift the burden of establishing legitimacy onto gun owners. We've been through this many times, and you are nothing if not predictable.

Lol, let me think about that as I go plant my 9mm under my vegetable garden because . .  you know . . .  that's why those manufacturers are really selling all those guns.  .  . guns are actual fertilizer that some people use to bad ends . .   :-[

Now, back to reality . . . Spartan, a gun owner and advocate, and JG?(I believe), pointed out that the teens used the gun or possessed the gun illegally. That may be true, but the reason those teens chose a gun over building a bomb from nitrate, as na example, is because the gun is easy to use, effective and ubiquitous and, UNLIKE those other things, when it was sold LEGALLY (i.e. first entered society) it was very likely sold INITIALLY for the same purpose that it was used most recently, which is to kill or injure humans.  Now, you can try to "refine" the purpose (re: salve your conscience) by claiming its purpose might have been "self-defense," BUT the ONLY reason it is effective for that purpose is because it is specifically designed to EASILY OPERATE TO KILL HUMANS.

Shicking news here . . .  but it turns out you are more likely to run into a tree in a forest then in a desert . . . who knew? Certainly not gun owners who claim the fact there are 300 million or so guns has nothing to do with the number of gun deaths in this country.  lmao at the insanity

Btw, who is shifting the burden? The burden is APPROPRIATELY on you -- the people who resist all gun restrictions -- to explain why you value gun maker profits (the real reason there are so many guns) over life.  That's not an easy position to explain . . .  which explains why you post so much nonsense instead. Most of you guys are completely motivated by fear (fear of the government, fear of a loss of rights or freedome etc) and so you put up a whole laundry list of bs argument (often taimes NRA talking points) and you do it across the board.  The BURDEN IS ON YOU. . .  as it should be . . .  not my fault that bothers you.


Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Offline
#78 : August 22, 2013, 01:08:08 PM

Btw, that "illegal" gun used by those law breaking teens . . .  it started out legal, right? 

Yes, just like the machete used to decapitate that British soldier or the Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer that Tim McVeigh used or the nails in the Olympic Park bombing or the pressure cookers used in Boston.

JG?  that is a response I would expect from somone of lesser intelligence.

 It is true that those things all started out as legal items BUT all of those things serve regular and legitimate non-violent purposes AND were legal while possessed, but more imrtantly it is not a defense to a gun problem to say "well, we have a problem with fertilizer too," unless that lessen we all learned from our parents, "two wrongs dont make a right," was nonsense.

Having to resort to that argument is essentially an admission that there isnt much one can credibly say to confront the fact that we have way too many guns in this country (one for every man, woman, child, baby, incompetent and senior citizen) and we dont have them because of a Constitutional issue, we have them because of a profit motive. . . .  plain and simple.  You and other might have LEGITIMATE constituional concerns about the right to bear arms BUT you are all used as pawns by an entity who respresewnts manufacturers.

Motivated people will find ways to kills, whether by machete (happened while I was there, incidentally) or by making a bomb, but that doesnt mean we should make things easy for killers.  Right now there are not 300 million machetes in the UK or the US, even though they serve a non-violent purpose, and there are not 300 million bombs sitting around in the US . .  .. that is why the teens used a gun . .  guns are easy to get in this country . .  . very easy . . .too easy . .  and because of that there are too many . . .   THAT'S THE OBVIOUS, UNDENIABLE POINT.


Ok, if I accept that 300 million guns is too many.

I will respond to the rest for sure, but here's a simple intellectual honesty test for many here.  Who "accepts that 300 million guns is too many?"   Just quote this and post your acceptance if you do.  My guess is that fear will keep most of the very ardent gun supporters from posting their acceptance of that fact JG?, but you can start, if you want? Do you accept as fact that "300 million guns is too many?"

Looking forward to the responses. Illuminator? Spartan? Buggsy (although someone may need to help him)?

(cue the evasive  "there arent 300 million guns" type responses . . to a very simple question.)
: August 22, 2013, 01:10:52 PM VinBucFan

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#79 : August 22, 2013, 01:40:38 PM

Btw, that "illegal" gun used by those law breaking teens . . .  it started out legal, right? 

Yes, just like the machete used to decapitate that British soldier or the Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer that Tim McVeigh used or the nails in the Olympic Park bombing or the pressure cookers used in Boston.

JG?  that is a response I would expect from somone of lesser intelligence.

 It is true that those things all started out as legal items BUT all of those things serve regular and legitimate non-violent purposes AND were legal while possessed, but more imrtantly it is not a defense to a gun problem to say "well, we have a problem with fertilizer too," unless that lessen we all learned from our parents, "two wrongs dont make a right," was nonsense.

Having to resort to that argument is essentially an admission that there isnt much one can credibly say to confront the fact that we have way too many guns in this country (one for every man, woman, child, baby, incompetent and senior citizen) and we dont have them because of a Constitutional issue, we have them because of a profit motive. . . .  plain and simple.  You and other might have LEGITIMATE constituional concerns about the right to bear arms BUT you are all used as pawns by an entity who respresewnts manufacturers.

Motivated people will find ways to kills, whether by machete (happened while I was there, incidentally) or by making a bomb, but that doesnt mean we should make things easy for killers.  Right now there are not 300 million machetes in the UK or the US, even though they serve a non-violent purpose, and there are not 300 million bombs sitting around in the US . .  .. that is why the teens used a gun . .  guns are easy to get in this country . .  . very easy . . .too easy . .  and because of that there are too many . . .   THAT'S THE OBVIOUS, UNDENIABLE POINT.


Ok, if I accept that 300 million guns is too many.

I will respond to the rest for sure, but here's a simple intellectual honesty test for many here.  Who "accepts that 300 million guns is too many?"   Just quote this and post your acceptance if you do.  My guess is that fear will keep most of the very ardent gun supporters from posting their acceptance of that fact JG?, but you can start, if you want? Do you accept as fact that "300 million guns is too many?"

Looking forward to the responses. Illuminator? Spartan? Buggsy (although someone may need to help him)?

(cue the evasive  "there arent 300 million guns" type responses . . to a very simple question.)

Is 300 million too many?, It might "seem" so but things are not always as they appear.

Quote
In 2012, the share of American households with guns was 34 percent, according to survey results released on Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


If ONLY 34% of households own a gun, and there are 300 million guns, then I'd say somebody has far more guns than they practically need. If 34 million households own guns and most probably only have 1 or 2, then there must be some out there with ridiculously large arsenals (300-400-500+)

So maybe some people have way too many guns, but the fact is the vast majority (66%) of American households don't have ANY guns.

Therefore, I will say we need to reduce the number from 300 million to 150 million and evenly distribute those among the 64 million households that are gunless.

Or I could say your "300 million" number is pretty much moot
.
: August 22, 2013, 01:42:23 PM John Galt?


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#80 : August 22, 2013, 01:46:38 PM

I'd go back and find the dozens of times you were challenged to state how many would be an acceptable number, but you're not worth the effort. Still trying to shift the burden of proof.

Second amendment states that I already have the right to own a gun. If you wish to countermand that, burden is on you.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#81 : August 22, 2013, 02:01:43 PM

So my question is:

Is 34% of US households owning a gun enough or too much?


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Offline
#82 : August 22, 2013, 02:06:24 PM

Interesting you chose that article (even though I indicated that this would be the type of response) because that article is not a favorite of the NRA, who want gun ownership to be perceived as  wide-ranging so that it can maintain political clout.  Note this comment from the NRA:

"Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said he was skeptical that there had been a decline in household ownership. He pointed to reports of increased gun sales, to long waits for gun safety training classes and to the growing number of background checks, which have surged since the late 1990s, as evidence that ownership is rising. Im sure there are a lot of people who would love to make the case that there are fewer gun owners in this country, but the stories weve been hearing and the data weve been seeing simply dont support that, he said.

It's also interesting, because that survey suggest somethiung I have been posting over and over, which is that gun opwners are a distinct minority (by household) who risk their current gun freedom by taking such hard line stances on all gun regulations. Eventually the overreaching of minorities results in a backlash. Think unions as an example.

That said -- the article itself uses the 300 million number AND my comment was guns not HOUSEHOLDS ---- so the question still stands, although I doubt few will actually answer beyond a response like yours JG?  It's not that challenging a question really,  so there's no reason to be evasive. Let me refarame it in even simpler terms (still weill not get many honest responses):

Are there too many guns in the US currently, yes or no?
: August 22, 2013, 02:11:43 PM VinBucFan

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Offline
#83 : August 22, 2013, 02:10:14 PM

I'd go back and find the dozens of times you were challenged to state how many would be an acceptable number, but you're not worth the effort. Still trying to shift the burden of proof.

Second amendment states that I already have the right to own a gun. If you wish to countermand that, burden is on you.

You might want to read a little.  The Second Amendent says you have a right to bear arms and the MOST CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court in recent history only recently specifically stated that the 2nd Amendment does NOT prohibit anything other than an outright ban.  Stated differently, the 2nd Amendment has little or nothing to do with my question, which was on the number of guns . . .  and which you avoided by doing what you do . . . . as I predicted

Amazing how a simple question causes you so much angst . . .  wonder why?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#84 : August 22, 2013, 02:13:20 PM

After watching World War Z, I'd say NO, there aren't enough


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Offline
#85 : August 22, 2013, 02:14:27 PM

After watching World War Z, I'd say NO, there aren't enough

Thanks for the serious response.  ;)  It's a tough question, I know.



Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Offline
#86 : August 22, 2013, 02:22:34 PM

Btw, the reason that Illuminator is trying so hard to avoid answering the simple question is the same reason most pro-gun people will not actually answer the simple question and that is that the actual cause of their disagreement with gun restrictions is not some noble constitutional issue (see Illuminator raising the 2nd Amendment), but rather fear . . .  fear of the "slippery slope" . . . .  a fearful story that Wayne uses all the time:

"Closing the federal loophole that allows Americans to buy guns in private transactions without having gone through a background check would be a slippery slope, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre said today, suggesting that President Obama and his administration would insist on taking it a step further.
 
With a so-called "universal background check," LaPierre said on "Fox News Sunday," "I think that they'll do is they'll turn this universal check on the law-abiding into a universal registry on law-abiding people. 'Obamacare' wasn't a tax until they needed it to be a tax. I don't think you can trust these people."



LOL . . . . fear is a powerful motivator. Maybe instead of hoping for less guns I should hope for stronger minds.

(cue the angry "we're saving you from yourself" type arguments)
: August 22, 2013, 02:24:25 PM VinBucFan

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#87 : August 22, 2013, 02:28:44 PM

No, it is a pointless question. 300 million legally owned and properly stored guns is not too many.

Now one person with 50-100-200+ guns might be too many, unless he owns a gun shop or a museum. And any number of illegally acquired guns is too many.

So the number 300 million is irrelevant. The relevant number is the number of illegal weapons in circulation. And since by definition, illegal guns are already illegal, we don't need more laws to make them even more illegal, we need more and better enforcement of the existing laws.


Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23256
Offline
#88 : August 22, 2013, 02:39:26 PM

Is this guy for real? 


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Offline
#89 : August 22, 2013, 02:45:55 PM

No, it is a pointless question. 300 million legally owned and properly stored guns is not too many.

Now one person with 50-100-200+ guns might be too many, unless he owns a gun shop or a museum. And any number of illegally acquired guns is too many.

So the number 300 million is irrelevant. The relevant number is the number of illegal weapons in circulation. And since by definition, illegal guns are already illegal, we don't need more laws to make them even more illegal, we need more and better enforcement of the existing laws.

LOL . . .  the irony . . .  its obviously not a pointless question or you wouldnt be working so hard to parse the question out. It's actually a simple question, since restated in an even simpler fashion: are there currently too many guns in America?  Should only take an unqualified yes or no, but you are struggling to respond PRECISELY BECAUSE the question has a point . . .  a point you do not want to concede . . ..  note your focs on "300 million" as "irrelevant" (in bold) while still gnashing your teeth on the number  . . .  lol . . . there's a reason for that.

are there currently too many guns in America?
: August 22, 2013, 02:49:01 PM VinBucFan

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center
Page: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Baseball player killed because teenagers were "Bored" « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools