All Things Second Amendment

[Stripe]

I'm a moderator at another forum. When an opening came up there I nominated fool for the slot. His view on God is fundamentally opposed to my own. We can't agree on the point, but I respect his character and the quality of his thinking, even so.

Blatant equivocation. It is irrelevant how you treat fellow human beings. The issue is that when presented with an opposing idea, you do not engage with it, preferring long-winded discussions over who said what and when, while weaving your assumptions into the discourse as if they were to be accepted without question.

For example, you've been told plenty of times that "respect" has numerous definitions and which one I use in situations like this, but you ignore that and start spouting about an irrelevancy using language that shows you have spent no time considering my opinion.

I would agree that you have an uncommon grasp of simple statistics.

But you won't present specifics.

Meanwhile, you have had specific errors you have made pointed out numerous times by multiple people.

Also meanwhile, a potentially useful conversation gets buried.

 

[Town Heretic]

Blatant equivocation.

Gesundheit.

It is irrelevant how you treat fellow human beings.

That's a declaration wanting an argument. Here's a rebuttal with one. Not if you're demonstrating respect for people holding contrary positions. I don't know how it is in your country, or Canada, unless you're Canadian, but in mine if we're ill mannered in relation to and short on considering someone's point, we don't tend to form friendships apart from that effort. So respect between people tends to support the understanding that the people involved feel they are met respectfully, and given that meeting in a forum setting is entirely rhetorical, argumentative, and conversational, it makes a fairly solid case that your assumption, declared as more, is in fact a pile of horse hockey.

The issue is that when presented with an opposing idea, you do not engage with it

No, that wasn't your most immediate complaint. What you actually wrote and I quoted directly was, "Meanwhile, you have no idea how to respect an opposing view." I've noted that isn't the case at all in my remarks above. And I noted both the popular and less popular usage above.

I weighted my remarks to the notion of regard because it was the only use that had anything like legs. The very post you block quoted that I proffered to another poster, the one you met with "Nope" was prima facie rebuttal to any attempt to use the idea of respect as consideration.

preferring long-winded discussions over who said what and when, while weaving your assumptions into the discourse as if they were to be accepted without question

That sentence could have been much shorter and less assumptive, supra.

But you won't present specifics.

All evidence to the contrary, as a perusal of my posts to people interested in actually engaging the point and spending time discussing it instead of me illustrates.

Meanwhile, you have had specific errors you have made pointed out numerous times by multiple people.

Not that you've quoted in support. I suspect you'll conflate what you assert with a lesser proffer, like when a couple of posters repeated the mistake made about cities and I pointed out, again, the fact that when the EC was created we were overwhelmingly agrarian and there was no reasonable or articulated fear relating to an imbalance favoring cities. That sort of thing.

A few people without facts saying, "No," in the face of them isn't an indication of error...well, not as you focus it at any rate.

Also meanwhile, a potentially useful conversation gets buried.

Horsefeathers. :e4e: And you don't give two figs about the conversation, which is why after I stepped around your nonsense to engage others you interjected this gem into the stream after a lengthy block quote to that other poster:

Nope.

 

[Stripe]

Gesundheit.

Nope.

That's a declaration wanting an argument.

Nope.

Here's a rebuttal with one.

Nope.

Not if you're demonstrating respect for people holding contrary positions.

Is reading your second language? It. Is. Irrelevant. How you treat people. I'm talking about how you treat opposing ideas. For instance, I say you're equivocating over respect for people and respect for ideas and you say they can be the same thing.

I don't know how it is in your country, or Canada, unless you're Canadian, but in mine if we're ill mannered in relation to and short on considering someone's point, we don't tend to form friendships apart from that effort. So respect between people tends to support the understanding that the people involved feel they are met respectfully, and given that meeting in a forum setting is entirely rhetorical, argumentative, and conversational, it makes a fairly solid case that your assumption, declared as more, is in fact a pile of horse hockey.

Nope.

I weighted my remarks to the notion of regard because it was the only use that had anything like legs. The very post you block quoted that I proffered to another poster, the one you met with "Nope" was prima facie rebuttal to any attempt to use the idea of respect as consideration.

Nope.

That sentence could have been much shorter and less assumptive, supra.

Nope.

All evidence to the contrary, as a perusal of my posts to people interested in actually engaging the point and spending time discussing it instead of me illustrates.

This thread was about something until your thin skin made it about you.

Not that you've quoted in support. I suspect you'll conflate what you assert with a lesser proffer, like when a couple of posters repeated the mistake made about cities and I pointed out, again, the fact that when the EC was created we were overwhelmingly agrarian and there was no reasonable or articulated fear relating to an imbalance favoring cities. That sort of thing.

Nope.

A few people without facts saying, "No," in the face of them isn't an indication of error...well, not as you focus it at any rate.

Nope.

Horsefeathers. :e4e: And you don't give two figs about the conversation, which is why after I stepped around your nonsense to engage others you interjected this gem into the stream after a lengthy block quote to that other poster:

Nope.

I care a great deal about the conversation, which is why I've waded through your impenetrable diatribe to try and offer some clarity.

Learn to respect the conversation and admit the shortcomings of the statistics you present.

Pretty simple. :up:

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

See, when that's all you do there's no real point in doing it. It's indistinguishable from emoting.

It. Is. Irrelevant. How you treat people.

It depends on which meaning of respect you use. I spoke to both esteem and to consideration in my last.

I'm talking about how you treat opposing ideas.

By giving them consideration or do you mean having a foundational regard for any opinion however framed? I noted the former and even spoke to the latter, on the odd chance you were going there.

This thread was about something until your thin skin made it about you.

Actually, the thread was created by Idolater to pull a conversation he was having with me into a separated discussion. He quoted a good bit of our earlier bit as a set up and I responded in the second post. It went along, in starts and stops, covering some pretty interesting ground.

Then, without my having said a word to you:

PUT THOSE STATISTICS DOWN BEFORE YOU HURT SOMEONE!!!!

How many times does this mean moron have to be shown a complete Muppet with simple numbers before he will stop throwing them?

...Now, slow down. Put your Google away. Leave the stats to the grownups...

That's your thin skin, your interruption of an actual and ongoing discussion with insult and nonsense.

Learn to respect the conversation

Funniest post by you so far.

 

[Stripe]

That's all you do.

Nope.

It depends on which meaning of respect you use. I spoke to both esteem and to consideration in my last.By giving them consideration or do you mean having a foundational regard for any opinion however framed? I noted the former and even spoke to the latter, on the odd chance you were going there.

:yawn:

 

[ok doser]

meanwhile, still unanswered:

 

[Stripe]

meanwhile, still unanswered:

Yeah, that video picks from a single source to debunk a specific claim that is so common it's unbelievable how utterly wrong it is. Gun haters need to pull together multiple sources upon disconcordant axes to paint a picture they want. Statistics must be used wisely and kept to a minimum. Generally speaking, they are always malleable — dependent heavily on the narrative that is being shared and almost impossible to counter without great insight into how they were collected.

This is why when there is a long post full of great statistics-based claims, it's the agenda that is accessible and debatable, not the numbers. They are almost certainly irrelevant at best.

 

[Town Heretic]

Let me know, Idol, if when or if you want to get back to it. :cheers:

 

[Stripe]

Let me know, Idol, if when or if you want to get back to it. :cheers:

Let us know when you're willing to engage sensibly.

 

[The Barbarian]

I can mostly only hear one side of the conversation, but it's hilariously funny.

 

[Stripe]

I can mostly only hear one side of the conversation.

You only want to hear one side.

Meanwhile, self defense is a God-given right. Those who want to dictate — at the point of a gun — what tools we have at our disposal are on a short path to where most of the world outside the US is: Near blanket bans.

 

[Town Heretic]

I can mostly only hear one side of the conversation, but it's hilariously funny.

:think: So--how long have I been on your ignore list?

 

[The Barbarian]

:think: So--how long have I been on your ignore list?

:chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Laugh it up, fuzzball.

 

[Yorzhik]

The last time we talked about this issue, Town's entire argument rested on two points. One was that we should penalize 310 million people for the sins of a handful of mentally unstable people. And by a handful he means less than 10 crazies per year, and by mentally unstable he means thinking in a way that those penalized don't think.

His second point is that states with more gun control have lower gun violence rates. Counter to that stat is a great body of work that shows that more guns equal less crime at best, or more guns has little effect on violence rates at worst.

You'll notice that these two points are related but one does not flow from the other. If one wants to stop crazy people from killing as many innocent people as they can then one should focus on the crazy, not the tool they use. But even further, Town justifies punishing everyone that isn't crazy because it will supposedly lower violence rates in general when the problem he is looking for a solution to are death rates by crazy people. The justification for punishing the sane isn't even to stop the crazy!

One may accuse me of loading the argument by using the word "punish" when Town would say that downgrading weapons from semi-auto to single shot isn't punishment at all. But he would be wrong by his own evidence. When asked what defense experts would proscribe a single shot gun over a semi-auto, Town linked to an article that talked about what to do when a single shot gun is all you have. Of course he ignored his error.

And, also ignored, were calls to look at the violence data. It shows that areas with very high gun ownership rates and little gun control are very safe, and places that aren't safe have low gun ownership rates and a lot of gun control laws. The most striking data shows places with a lot of gang activity make the rest of the country look violent on average.

Solutions for stopping gangs are well known, proven to work, and would lower violence rates in those areas that have the problem while leaving innocent sane people not in those areas alone. That would seem more sensible, but I think Town is too smart for that. He knows the argument I just presented is correct, but perhaps unconsciously he pines to punish the little people for the sin of not being one of the elite like himself. There has to be a reason Town won't acknowledge a sensible solution.

But, perhaps a sensible person might ask what my solution to crazy people would be. And that would be harder than confiscating guns. Not because changing laws to support families instead of tearing them apart or minimizing gang activity is hard, but because the political will to do so is virtually gone in America which is a consequence of the Republic System. Perhaps Town realizes this and figures politically burning the country to the ground is the best option; Certainly he wouldn't want effective guns in the hands of sane people if that's the case.

Depends on the size of the clip. A thing I've spoken to when the subject was brought up early on. I'm against bump stocks, speed loaders, and large capacity magazines.


Not really. The thing about ARs is they're built to spit out rounds at a remarkable clip. With bump stocks they were virtual machine guns. Add a large capacity clip to a semi-automatic weapon and it's easy to do what it would take a great deal of skill and practice to approach with another weapon.


You stand a much better chance of doing it than you would with a bolt action, revolver, etc. Which is why in countries without those aids and weapons existing in the stream of commerce you don't tend to see the sort of killing fields that you have here, where they can be had.


It's easy to aim a car at a group of people who will likely only realize your intent when a number of them are already dead and those in proximity are fairly easy prey.


There are any number of ways to kill people, to be sure. And yet, when the weapons I object to are not part of the stream of commerce you don't have other forms of murder, let alone mass murder, moving in to take up the slack. In fact, as I noted and linked to a while back, the overall murder rates are lower.


Not at all.

Meanwhile, in Australia, a nation where guns are yet found but the sorts I'm speaking to are not legally attainable, they had 13 mass shootings before the Port Arthur massacre, within a span of 18 years. In the 22 years since they made the means illegal? None.


I didn't say it would stop all crime. But it did stop the crime it was aimed at stopping, mass killings. Because the assault rifle is designed to kill, and uniquely so to take a large number of lives.


All evidence to the contrary, though it's an easy sort of bet given we aren't going to scrap our system of justice. What you can do is look to the rule among states with stricter gun laws. You'll find they're much safer on average than those with weaker laws and greater allowance. The same is true, but in a more dramatic fashion, comparing us with our Western European cousins.

 

[Town Heretic]

The last time we talked about this issue, Town's entire argument rested on two points. One was that we should penalize 310 million people for the sins of a handful of mentally unstable people.

No, that's your mischaracterization of a point that's still not mine. Now if and when you're serious about advancing an argument, the way to begin it isn't that.

His second point is that states with more gun control have lower gun violence rates

What I've actually set out is that nations with stronger gun laws have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide rates in general, comparatively. Similarly, states with stronger gun laws follow the same pattern as a rule, though to a lesser degree than nations. I've set out the data for both.

You'll notice that these two points are related but one does not flow from the other. If one wants to stop crazy people from killing as many innocent people as they can then one should focus on the crazy, not the tool they use.'

Crazy or evil, it's easier to remove the weapons of choice for those we might miss AS we do our best to be aware of people in mental distress. And the great news on point is that when we do that we will make the slaughter of large groups of people in moments much less likely even as we preserve the right to use and possess weapons and aids that don't pose that clear and present danger.

But even further, Town justifies punishing everyone

Not being allowed to drive 70 in a school zone isn't punishment. Punishment is what happens when you do it anyway.

Town would say that downgrading weapons from semi-auto to single shot isn't punishment at all.

No, you aren't downgrading, unless you believe the proper function or elevated function of a weapon is to fire as many rounds as possible as quickly as possible, in which case I think you have a peculiar working definition.

But he would be wrong by his own evidence. When asked what defense experts would proscribe a single shot gun over a semi-auto, Town linked to an article that talked about what to do when a single shot gun is all you have. Of course he ignored his error.

I recall once linking to a Guns and Ammo article where the argument was for the shotgun over the AR. But that was only answering a point of some who peculiarly believed an AR was a better means of home defense.

And, also ignored, were calls to look at the violence data. It shows that areas with very high gun ownership rates and little gun control are very safe, and places that aren't safe have low gun ownership rates and a lot of gun control laws. The most striking data shows places with a lot of gang activity make the rest of the country look violent on average.

I've also refused to look at ties to violence and weather. I don't care how many guns you own (though they should be registered) but I do care about the kind of guns that are in the stream of commerce.

Solutions for stopping gangs are well known, proven to work, and would lower violence rates in those areas that have the problem while leaving innocent sane people not in those areas alone.

I'm sure the police are doing the best they can to combat gang violence. Nothing they do in that regard would have helped the victims I noted in schoolyards, at concerts, in churches and in mosques, but I'm all for a reduction of gang violence.

 

[Stripe]

Nations with stronger gun laws have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide rates in general, comparatively. Similarly, states with stronger gun laws follow the same pattern as a rule.

When you ban cars, traffic fatalities fall.

 

[Town Heretic]

When you ban cars, traffic fatalities fall.

And if you ban cars without seatbelts you lower them as well.

Or, there are any number of ways to make the roads safer, from the extreme and unreasonable to the pragmatic and workable.

 

[JudgeRightly]

pragmatic and workable.

Such as implementing the death penalty for capital negligence and murder (life for life), restitution for damage to property, and corporal punishment as in eye for eye, hand for hand, foot for foot?

That would solve both the "banning cars" and "banning guns" issues without having to ban either.

The solution is right in front of you. Why not promote it?

 

[Stripe]

And if you ban cars without seatbelts you lower them as well.

Except the proof you present to back up your claims is that nations with strict gun rules have fewer gun deaths.

Your statistics never support your claims.