The 2nd Amendment

[Chief Joseph]

 "No penalty will prevent 100% of a particular crime from occurring. There are always those who simply don't give a crap about themselves or others."
 " The propensity of an individual to break the law doesn't lie in whether or not it will only affect himself or others, it lies in the consequences of breaking such a law."

Having some trouble deciding which story to go with? Just use whichever supports your view at the time. Contradictions aren't the sort of thing that bothers you.

[dalbuc]

If I used my shirt for the sole purpose of stopping burglars from killing my family, I'd only need one. Since my shirt can't be used by a drug dealer in Chicago to shoot at a rival drug dealer, or by a kid with a personality disorder to shoot up an elementary school, then I'd say owning 2 is pretty harmless. Now if you can show me a Buccaneers shirt being used in either of those fashions, then I'd gladly get rid of one of them, or even both if necessary. I don't value owning a Buccaneers shirt more than I do the safety of my society.

With all due respect, that is a stupid answer. Sometimes trying to be too clever backfires. You know what my point was and you tried to sidestep it, likewise with the other question.

For the sake of posterity, I'll answer both. Since the US averages about 20 mass shootings a year, and let's say an average of 10 people are killed per shooting, if a ban would guarantee zero a year, than the 50 more people a year being killed by home invaders would be more than offset by the number of people not killed in a mass shootings. So yes, I would still support the ban. Thankfully, since you made up that scenario where more people get killed by home invasions as the result of an assault weapons ban, and there is no realistic basis in which this scenario plays out, I don't have to sacrifice those 50 people in order to save the 200.

And there is no logistical difference in the use or potential use of a Buccaneer shirt from that of an Old Navy shirt, or any other T-shirt. Can the same blanket statement be made about all firearms? I can also think of a myriad of reasons why a person might need to own more than one shirt in our society without having to say "because it's his right" once. Can you do the same with firearms?

Sure. I might own a .22 pistol for target shooting, a .357 revolver for self defense, a .306 rifle for deer hunting, a 12 gauge shotgun for quail hunting. 

[CBWx2]

 "No penalty will prevent 100% of a particular crime from occurring. There are always those who simply don't give a crap about themselves or others."
 " The propensity of an individual to break the law doesn't lie in whether or not it will only affect himself or others, it lies in the consequences of breaking such a law."

Having some trouble deciding which story to go with? Just use whichever supports your view at the time. Contradictions aren't the sort of thing that bothers you.

 

The phrase, "The propensity of an individual" is referring to the individual in the generalized sense, not 100% of all people. It is a common literary device. Surely you are aware of this, but playing the semantics game when you have no legitimate argument isn't the sort of thing that bothers you.

[CBWx2]

If I used my shirt for the sole purpose of stopping burglars from killing my family, I'd only need one. Since my shirt can't be used by a drug dealer in Chicago to shoot at a rival drug dealer, or by a kid with a personality disorder to shoot up an elementary school, then I'd say owning 2 is pretty harmless. Now if you can show me a Buccaneers shirt being used in either of those fashions, then I'd gladly get rid of one of them, or even both if necessary. I don't value owning a Buccaneers shirt more than I do the safety of my society.

With all due respect, that is a stupid answer. Sometimes trying to be too clever backfires. You know what my point was and you tried to sidestep it, likewise with the other question.

For the sake of posterity, I'll answer both. Since the US averages about 20 mass shootings a year, and let's say an average of 10 people are killed per shooting, if a ban would guarantee zero a year, than the 50 more people a year being killed by home invaders would be more than offset by the number of people not killed in a mass shootings. So yes, I would still support the ban. Thankfully, since you made up that scenario where more people get killed by home invasions as the result of an assault weapons ban, and there is no realistic basis in which this scenario plays out, I don't have to sacrifice those 50 people in order to save the 200.

And there is no logistical difference in the use or potential use of a Buccaneer shirt from that of an Old Navy shirt, or any other T-shirt. Can the same blanket statement be made about all firearms? I can also think of a myriad of reasons why a person might need to own more than one shirt in our society without having to say "because it's his right" once. Can you do the same with firearms?

Sure. I might own a .22 pistol for target shooting, a .357 revolver for self defense, a .306 rifle for deer hunting, a 12 gauge shotgun for quail hunting.

Is that because you choose to use each of those weapons in that capacity, or is it because that is their only purposeful use?

[Chief Joseph]

Oh, I understand exactly what you're saying, CBW - draconian firearms laws would work, except for the very people we want them to work on. But I also know that you will never admit this, and I don't waste my time trying to get an honest response out of you.

[Durango 95]

CBW said....."Just because you are too much of a dullard to understand clear and concise arguments doesn't mean that I haven't presented one".

You haven't presented one, plain and simple.

In truth, I'm embarrassed for you.

I secretly keep hoping that you eventually will. But watching you, as you thrash around, swinging at air, while ignoring studies, creating straw man arguments, misrepresenting others opinions and pursuing pointless interpretations has signaled to just about everyone here that not only have you not presented a clear and concise argument the chances of that happening are slim to none.

I spent more than half my life being an anti-gun person and I could do a better job even today presenting your side of the gun control argument just doing it for the sport.

What you've done is adapt a Piers Morgan type attitude on the subject. I got news for you, it's not working.

[spartan]

Sure. I might own a .22 pistol for target shooting, a .357 revolver for self defense, a .306 rifle for deer hunting, a 12 gauge shotgun for quail hunting.

Is that because you choose to use each of those weapons in that capacity, or is it because that is their only purposeful use?

Oh that is so fricking funny. What's even funnier is that you don't know why it is funny.

[CBWx2]

Oh, I understand exactly what you're saying, CBW - draconian firearms laws would work, except for the very people we want them to work on. But I also know that you will never admit this, and I don't waste my time trying to get an honest response out of you.

That's not what I'm saying. That's what you're saying. It's the bread and butter argument for people on your side of the issue. It's the same argument that provides the basis for "Let's arm the teachers!!!"  and other such idiocy.

What I'm saying is that you cannot control everyone's actions or intentions, but you can control a finite material such as a particular firearm, from aiding them in their pursuit of malice. By implementing "draconian" firearm laws on the law abiding, you are in essence controling the number of accessible firearms circulating freely throughout society for the non-law abiding to gain access to. Every firearm used by a criminal in the US was legally owned by someone at some point in time.

It is true that a semi-auto assault weapons ban won't keep those guns out of your hands if you are Pablo Escobar, but they almost certainly will if you are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or your average, run of the mill street thug. Just ask nearly every single country that has such draconian laws in place.

[Chief Joseph]

Can I ask Timothy McVeigh?

[CBWx2]

CBW said....."Just because you are too much of a dullard to understand clear and concise arguments doesn't mean that I haven't presented one".

You haven't presented one, plain and simple.

In truth, I'm embarrassed for you.

I secretly keep hoping that you eventually will. But watching you, as you thrash around, swinging at air, while ignoring studies, creating straw man arguments, misrepresenting others opinions and pursuing pointless interpretations has signaled to just about everyone here that not only have you not presented a clear and concise argument the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Dude, give me a f-ing break. You've accused me of shifting positions, exploiting a tragedy, and have misrepresented my opinions in every single post that you've directed at me.

And the studies that you've put forward have not proven in any sense that stricter gun control laws would not result in less gun violence in the United States. You've put forward every argument that you can muster of how guns don't kill people, people kill people, yet in none of them have you been able to sever the correlation between the US's incredibly high rate of firearms in circulation, and the US's incredibly high rate of firearm violence in it's society. You may think you have, and thoroughly patted yourself on the back for it, but you have proven nothing, other than your inclination to cherry pick statistics that cater to your own sensibilities, and rationalize your position by trotting out any and every politically manufactured argument that you can get your grubby little hands on.

For example, your argument about the murder rate in Switzerland being less than in England and Wales despite a much higher rate of gun ownership. So what to make of that statistic? Is it because the Swiss have solved the Rubik's Cube on how to safely have a high rate of gun ownership? Or perhaps does the fact that England has a much greater number of metropolitan areas where crime is more prevalent due to the closer proximity of individuals, a far more diverse populace, and a much, much larger working class population than Switzerland, which is one of the richest countries in the world and home to some of the most affluent households in all of Europe, factor into that equation.

You see, England can't turn itself into Switzerland. It doesn't have the demographic makeup or resources to do so. So "fixing the person" isn't an option for them. That leads me to wonder, if England, with all of it's cultural and demographic differences from Switzerland was to have the same rate of gun ownership as Switzerland, what would their murder rate be then? If it were to have the same rate of gun ownership as the United States, which is twice the level of ownership that Switzerland has, I wonder if that might have an even more adverse affect towards the murder rate?

I spent more than half my life being an anti-gun person and I could do a better job even today presenting your side of the gun control argument just doing it for the sport.

Well, provided the piss poor way in which you have chosen to present your actual position, I'd be interested in seeing exactly how that would even be remotely possible.

[CBWx2]

Can I ask Timothy McVeigh?

How many Oklahoma City style massacre's have taken place in our nation's history? Compare it to the number of mass killings perpetrated with semi-automatic weaponry. If you come up with a similar set of numbers, then perhaps you'll be onto something.

[CBWx2]

For the sake of posterity, I'll answer both. Since the US averages about 20 mass shootings a year, and let's say an average of 10 people are killed per shooting,

You can stop right there. FBI stats show there are about 20 mass KILLINGS per year. A mass killing being where 4 or more people are killed. Between 1980 and 2008, 4,685 people died in 965 mass-murders, which is 5 per incident. That plucked from Huffp and USA Today.

Using your statistics, that 28 year period yielded an average of 34 mass killings a year. At 5 victims per killing, that still puts us at about 170 victims a year. I still wasn't that far off.

Read this, don't skim, read. You will be surprised at the content and it pretty much sums up my viewpoint:

http://rangelmd.com/2012/07/mass-shootings-dont-make-good-gun-control-examples/

I will when I have a bit more time. You have my word.

Oh, and about the shirt, my point which you seemed to ignore is that at some point you get a newer and better one, and, when you do, you don't always throw the old one(s) away. With guns it is even harder cos you can't just toss them in the trash can.

My bad. I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

[Chief Joseph]

 " It is true that a semi-auto assault weapons ban won't keep those guns out of your hands if you are Pablo Escobar, but they almost certainly will if you are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or your average, run of the mill street thug."

Tell me something, Captain Nitwit, were you even aware that James Holmes had his entire apartment rigged with explosives? Any proposal that he wouldn't have been able to carry out his plan if he had been denied firearms is totally devoid of merit. Ironically, that makes it a fairly typical CBW argument.
 

[CBWx2]

 " It is true that a semi-auto assault weapons ban won't keep those guns out of your hands if you are Pablo Escobar, but they almost certainly will if you are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or your average, run of the mill street thug."

Tell me something, Captain Nitwit, were you even aware that James Holmes had his entire apartment rigged with explosives? Any proposal that he wouldn't have been able to carry out his plan if he had been denied firearms is totally devoid of merit. Ironically, that makes it a fairly typical CBW argument.

The firearms were his plan, Leutinant Moron. If his plan were to blow up his building, what stopped him from doing it? His plan was to shoot up a movie theater. The rigged apartment was created to set a diversion to give him more time to shoot up the movie theater. Turned out, he didn't need it. To suggest that because he wired his own apartment with explosives means that he could just as easily wired the movie theater with explosives is about the dumbest thing you've typed to date. Congrats for raising the bar.

[Chief Joseph]

Well, I suppose that propping open the back door and going out to his vehicle to get the explosives, just like he did with his firearms, is virtually impossible.

Right? Lol