Gun Control is ridiculous

[CFLarsen]

This is inaccurate

Nope. In post #1006, you pointed to the different levels of availability of guns in the US and the UK.

If you are incapable of understanding what "default position" means, a concept grasped perfectly easily by everybody else in this thread, that is your problem not mine.

I disagree that a default position can change depending on availability. That's not the default position, that's the current position.

Have I disputed this point?

Have I said you did?

A pedantic point, and you know it.

No, it's spot on: Then, slaves didn't have freedom, so they couldn't have it taken away. They never had it in the first place.

Of course I do. Slavery is no longer the default in society.

Look at my response to Jaggy Bunnet: That's the current position, not the default.

I trust that I'm safe enough to not be involved in one of these accidents. However, you're still more likely to end up injured than you are to end up dead in an accident.

That doesn't answer the queston. Don't you see the difference between being injured by a scissor and being injured by a bullet??

I think the waiting period depends on what state you're in, I don't think it's a federal law... but I may be wrong on that.

Irrelevant.

But guns are not something that is "new" to society. We've had them available since the revolutionary war, and all we've done is make a few changes. Important changes, but nonetheless changes.

That is one of the major problems. You have only had them since the revolutionary war (the odd 225 years is nothing), but the weapons then is a far cry from the much more powerful guns you can get today. With just one powerful rifle today, you could take out scores of Redcoats. Yet, your legislation hasn't changed all that much.

They did. Eventually, they lost. An argument has two sides, not one; you are trying to redefine "default position" until you convince us that we cannot argue with you, and hence your viewpoint is automatically correct. This is not how skepticism should work.

Skepticism isn't "I'm OK, you're OK". It isn't (merely) about argument, it is about looking at the evidence and then forming an argument based on that.

Slavery was a position that was difficult to defend in a free society. It took time and effort, but eventually slavery was overthrown.

Again, see above.

What "new" product? Seriously, what do you mean "new"? The Colt 1911, for instance, has been around since WWII, and even before that. Revolvers have been around since the mid-1800s. There is nothing "new".

Again, the firepower of today is far above what your Forefathers could ever dream of having. Things have changed.

But guns are not slavery.

Guns are a product. Not a holy relic.

And you missed the point about how it would be practically impossible to ban firearms within the United States.

No, it wouldn't. You make any law you want.

Okay, seriously. Why don't we ban McDonald's food, or any unhealthy fast food? You can even say that it was made with intent to kill, just like you make the same point of firearms; if you eat too much of it, your lifespan is increased dramatically, just like cigarettes and booze. So, ban them; it's the only solution.

Nonsense. How much can a bullet penetrate your brain before you die?

Personally, I don't want to live in a society that treats me like an irresponsible child. But maybe that's just me.

Don't give me that phony frontier mentality. You don't live in a cabin in the wild woods, you live in a modern society that cannot possibly function without strict legislation on just about every aspect of your life.

The funny thing about this thread is how the the pro-gun group start out by demanding stats and when stats are presented they're either ignored or groundlessly dismissed.

Amongst others we've had the firearm murder rate stats. Shanek refuses to acknowledge these at all, hiding behind the irrelevant concept of "regression analysis". Quixotecoyote calculates the risk of death or injury by firearm as 0.05% and states that it's acceptable. When he's proved wrong and the chances are shown to be 10X higher he starts discussing something else and thinks we'll all forget.

Thus, we know the skeptic from the woo.

So I'm now calling for stats to be posted to prove that guns do not need further control. And I promise I won't ignore them.

You won't get'em. You'll get political propaganda instead.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I disagree that a default position can change depending on availability. That's not the default position, that's the current position.

I thought that tax protestors were good at ignoring information, but they could take lessons from you.

 

[CFLarsen]

I thought that tax protestors were good at ignoring information, but they could take lessons from you.

What is the difference between the default position and the current position?

Did you not, in post #1006, point to the different levels of availability of guns in the US and the UK?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What is the difference between the default position and the current position?

Did you not, in post #1006, point to the different levels of availability of guns in the US and the UK?

I thought that tax protestors were good at ignoring information, but they could take lessons from you.

 

[CFLarsen]

I thought that tax protestors were good at ignoring information, but they could take lessons from you.

What "information" am I ignoring?

Is "information" the same as a rational argument?

 

[Lonewulf]

Have I said you did?

Then why bring it up?

No, it's spot on: Then, slaves didn't have freedom, so they couldn't have it taken away. They never had it in the first place.

Except for those that were captured and sold as slaves, shipped to here from Africa. They had it taken away.

Or do you not know your history?
.

Look at my response to Jaggy Bunnet: That's the current position, not the default.

The default position of a person when they are born is wet, naked, and screaming. Pardon me if I don't find that a pleasurable ideal.

That doesn't answer the queston. Don't you see the difference between being injured by a scissor and being injured by a bullet??

Of course I do.

Do you see the difference between being injured with a .22 LR round and heavy machinery, however?

Irrelevant.

Maybe.

That is one of the major problems. You have only had them since the revolutionary war (the odd 225 years is nothing), but the weapons then is a far cry from the much more powerful guns you can get today. With just one powerful rifle today, you could take out scores of Redcoats. Yet, your legislation hasn't changed all that much.

One powerful rifle? What kinds of rifles do you think the average citizen can actually buy? Or do you mean in possession of the military?

Skepticism isn't "I'm OK, you're OK". It isn't (merely) about argument, it is about looking at the evidence and then forming an argument based on that.

Well, d'uh.

Again, the firepower of today is far above what your Forefathers could ever dream of having. Things have changed.

The handguns available to the common citizen are either civilian issue semi-automatics similar to the M1911 Colt .45., or revolvers. There may be very rare exceptions, but don't expect to get your hands on them in California or New York.

Guns are a product. Not a holy relic.

So is alcohol. Or tobacco. Yet they cannot be taken out of society easily, and further the citizens in that society like to have the choice to imbibe or smoke as they choose.

No, it wouldn't. You make any law you want.

!!!!!!!

I'd go on from here, but it's obvious how short-sighted and ignorant you really are... if you think that you can pass "any law you want" in the U.S. government, and further keep it passed, then you are not only severely mistaken, but you need to take a course in U.S. Government. Until you have even the most basic knowledge of how the U.S. government actually works, your proposal is dead in the water.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What "information" am I ignoring?

Is "information" the same as a rational argument?

Several different people have explained to you several times that you are incorrect in arguing that the default position always means no guns.

You do not have the right to define terms to suit yourself. Language is about communication - if you use a term to mean something different to everyone else it hinders communication. When you then use your meaning to interpret other people's statements it means you draw incorrect conclusions.

I know you are bright enough to understand this, but I fear you are too stubborn to admit it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Then why bring it up?

It was a comment. Does everything have to be disputed?

Except for those that were captured and sold as slaves, shipped to here from Africa. They had it taken away.

Now you are saying that the then current position in the US also applied to Africa.

Rubbish. Hogwash. Nonsense. Bull.

Or do you not know your history?

I know my history very well.

The default position of a person when they are born is wet, naked, and screaming. Pardon me if I don't find that a pleasurable ideal.

Who said anything about the default position being ideal?

Of course I do.

Do you see the difference between being injured with a .22 LR round and heavy machinery, however?

Of course. Which is why I asked you how much a bullet can penetrate your brain before you die. You kinda...skipped that.

One powerful rifle? What kinds of rifles do you think the average citizen can actually buy? Or do you mean in possession of the military?

No, I mean average citizens. The weapons you can buy today are far more powerful than the one-bullet-at-a-time flintlock muskets of the Revolutionary war.

Well, d'uh.

But that's clearly not what you are doing. You are rejecting evidence if it collides with your beliefs.

The handguns available to the common citizen are either civilian issue semi-automatics similar to the M1911 Colt .45., or revolvers. There may be very rare exceptions, but don't expect to get your hands on them in California or New York.

Are you seriously claiming that there hasn't been a huge increase in firepower since the American Revolution?

So is alcohol. Or tobacco. Yet they cannot be taken out of society easily,

Who said anything about it being easy?

and further the citizens in that society like to have the choice to imbibe or smoke as they choose.

But you can't drink or smoke as you choose. The moment your drinking and smoking involves a risk to others, there are restrictions and even bans.

!!!!!!!

I'd go on from here, but it's obvious how short-sighted and ignorant you really are... if you think that you can pass "any law you want" in the U.S. government, and further keep it passed, then you are not only severely mistaken, but you need to take a course in U.S. Government. Until you have even the most basic knowledge of how the U.S. government actually works, your proposal is dead in the water.

Rubbish. You treat your laws - and especially your constitution - as if they are holy scripture. If you can abolish slavery, then you can abolish guns.

Several different people have explained to you several times that you are incorrect in arguing that the default position always means no guns.

You do not have the right to define terms to suit yourself. Language is about communication - if you use a term to mean something different to everyone else it hinders communication. When you then use your meaning to interpret other people's statements it means you draw incorrect conclusions.

I know you are bright enough to understand this, but I fear you are too stubborn to admit it.

If you mean the current situation, say that. But the current situation is not the default situation.

Is the default situation that God exists?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If you mean the current situation, say that. But the current situation is not the default situation.

Is the default situation that God exists?

Claus - your argument about this point is just silly, it does not progress any discussion on the topic in hand and is in fact preventing meaningful discussion about the thread topic as you waste other Members' time over a trivial point of semantics.

It does not effect any argument to use the word "default" as native English writers such as Jaggy Bunett and I have. Especially since we have explained how we use the word so any uncertainty or incorrect assumptions you may have had have been corrected.

If I continue to participate in this thread I will continue to state that the default position in the USA today is to have widely available guns since that is correct usage of the word "default" in English. (And therefore anyone wishing to affect a change in that society must be the one to argue against that default position and provide the reasons and facts why that change should happen.)

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If you mean the current situation, say that. But the current situation is not the default situation.

No, I mean the default position. The fact that you wish default to mean something different from what it actually means is not my problem.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus - your argument about this point is just silly, it does not progress any discussion on the topic in hand and is in fact preventing meaningful discussion about the thread topic as you waste other Members' time over a trivial point of semantics.

It does not effect any argument to use the word "default" as native English writers such as Jaggy Bunett and I have. Especially since we have explained how we use the word so any uncertainty or incorrect assumptions you may have had have been corrected.

If I continue to participate in this thread I will continue to state that the default position in the USA today is to have widely available guns since that is correct usage of the word "default" in English. (And therefore anyone wishing to affect a change in that society must be the one to argue against that default position and provide the reasons and facts why that change should happen.)

Let's try Webster:

5 a : a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative <remained the club's president by default>
b : a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence of a choice made by the user
- in default of : in the absence of

Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God

...almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that "human beings were created directly by God."
...
At the same time, approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution) and 10 percent subscribe to the theory that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" (intelligent design). Moreover, a majority (55%) believe that all three of these theories should be taught in public schools, while 23 percent support teaching creationism only, 12 percent evolution only, and four percent intelligent design only.
...
* A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.
...
* Again divided, 46 percent of adults agree that "Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries," while 48 percent disagree.

Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.
CBS

The default position is therefore that evolutionists must be the ones to argue against that default position and provide the reasons and facts why that change should happen.

What's wrong with this picture?

No, I mean the default position. The fact that you wish default to mean something different from what it actually means is not my problem.

Let's go with that, then. For the moment.

Is the default situation that God exists?

 

[Darat]

Let's try Webster:

As I said you are wasting your time and mine on a matter of no bearing or significance on the topic of this thread. This thread is meant to be about discussing gun control not your or mine understanding of the English language.

I have made it very clear what I mean when I use the term "default position" in this thread.

What do you not understand about how I use the term?

 

[burnvictim77]

Good lord, I was hoping to get in on this discussion and I've just read 20 post of people arguing over the meaning of default.

Who is on what side now?

 

[burnvictim77]

Even in this country, if the military was used against the citizens there's ****-all we could do about it at this point. You can go after them with your handguns, but if there's a coup in progress it'd already be a no holds barred situation and I imagine we'd find ourselves hopelessly outmatched, so I don't see leaving them with the guns changes much.

Yes, look how easily the people of Iraq have succumbed to the might of the military. I'm sure a war on the populace of your own country would be a zillion times more successful. Because there is nothing a young soldier loves to do more than to kill his own people.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Is the default situation that God exists?

No, the default position is that people BELIEVE God exists and was involved in creating/evolving humans.

After all your quote stated NOTHING about whether God exists, only about people's beliefs.

 

[baron]

The funny thing about this thread is how the the pro-gun group start out by demanding stats and when stats are presented they're either ignored or groundlessly dismissed.

Amongst others we've had the firearm murder rate stats. Shanek refuses to acknowledge these at all, hiding behind the irrelevant concept of "regression analysis". Quixotecoyote calculates the risk of death or injury by firearm as 0.05% and states that it's acceptable. When he's proved wrong and the chances are shown to be 10X higher he starts discussing something else and thinks we'll all forget.

The firearms death rate for children was also posted, showing the US having about 50X the casualty rate of the UK (from memory). How was this explained? It wasn't.

We also have seriously damning stats from Oklahoma State Department for Health. Lonewulf was the only one to attempt to address these, although his comments that they're not representative of the US is no argument because that factor has already been dealt with and quantified (they are 8% higher than the average for the US - reduce the figures by 8% and they're still horrific). Everyone else is content to have these figures slip by.

So I'm now calling for stats to be posted to prove that guns do not need further control. And I promise I won't ignore them.

I will take the deafening silence (notwithstanding the lone person protesting they can find nothing to discuss) as meaning gun proponents have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that gun ownership in the US is not in need of significant additional control.

I thank you, and goodnight.

 

[CFLarsen]

As I said you are wasting your time and mine on a matter of no bearing or significance on the topic of this thread. This thread is meant to be about discussing gun control not your or mine understanding of the English language.

I have made it very clear what I mean when I use the term "default position" in this thread.

What do you not understand about how I use the term?

I understand how you use the term. I just disagree.

Good lord, I was hoping to get in on this discussion and I've just read 20 post of people arguing over the meaning of default.

Not the meaning of default, but what the default position means.

No, the default position is that people BELIEVE God exists and was involved in creating/evolving humans.

After all your quote stated NOTHING about whether God exists, only about people's beliefs.

Naturally, it is their beliefs. Precisely the same way people believe that there should be an availability of guns. So, if the latter makes that the default position, then the default position is that God exists.

Or, if you like, the default position is that people believe God exists. Therefore, it should be up to us to argue that he doesn't. Likewise, since the default position is that God created humans, it should be up to us to argue that it isn't.

That's a problem.

I will take the deafening silence (notwithstanding the lone person protesting they can find nothing to discuss) as meaning gun proponents have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that gun ownership in the US is not in need of significant additional control.

I thank you, and goodnight.

Told you so.

 

[burnvictim77]

Not the meaning of default, but what the default position means.

Ah, well by all means. Another 50 posts about it, if you please.

ETA: A default position for Gov't policy (which is what I believe most all of us are discussing) is no Gov't policy. I don't see how that can be disputed.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Naturally, it is their beliefs. Precisely the same way people believe that there should be an availability of guns.

Belief or not is irrelevant. The FACT is that guns are widely available in the US - whether you or anyone else believes that to be a good thing or not is irrelevant.

 

[shanek]

ETA: A default position for Gov't policy (which is what I believe most all of us are discussing) is no Gov't policy. I don't see how that can be disputed.

It can't, because if you're going to come into my home by force and tell me how to live my life, you'd better be able to back it up with some pretty good evidence. Otherwise, you're just a busybody at best, a tyrant at worst.