More on Gun Control

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Silicon

I do think that's an extreme straw-man to say that gun control advocates believe that all violent crime will be stopped if we eliminate guns.

Then why do it?

Because Liberals hate you, and we're afraid of your lack of ability to reason, or to accept a nuanced argument. We don't want people like you armed.

 

[Kodiak]

Then why do it?

"Symbolism Over Substance"

 

[Kodiak]

No. Not at all. Depending on the virus. For example, the Flu shots I get every year are, IIRC, about 80% effective. But the Flu is a difficult case. Others are more successful, but none are 100% effective.

Flu shots are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

 

[Kodiak]

The most important thing to remember is that guns empower the individual, for good or bad. NRA folks don't like to admit this as it shows them for what they are, a largely pro-criminal organization.

Straw Man Propaganda (unless, of course, you can provide evidence that the NRA is " largely pro-criminal").

You are correct in one regard though. The 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right, and not a collective one.

I am a member and supporter of the NRA, and I can tell you that we are definitely anti-criminal.

Law Enforcement Training

 

[a_unique_person]

"Symbolism Over Substance"

Symbols are what we use to create our society.

 

[Kodiak]

Symbols are what we use to create our society.

Non sequitur.

 

[American]

Gun banners have yet to explain to me how you're gonna shoot someone without a gun.

 

[AlH]

As stated previously, to reduce the homicide rate. Why get innoculations when they can't guarantee you won't get the disease you are being innoculated against?

Then - using the same argument - why not ban alchohol?

From <URL>December 1996 Scientific American article</URL>

Excessive alcohol consumption causes more than 100,000 deaths annually in the United States, and although the number shows little sign of declining, the rate per 100,000 population has trended down since the early 1980s. Accidents, mostly due to drunken driving, accounted for 24 percent of these deaths in 1992. Alcohol-related homicide and suicide accounted for 11 and 8 percent respectively. Certain types of cancer that are partly attributable to alcohol, such as those of the esophagus, larynx, and oral cavity, contributed another 17 percent. About 9 percent is due to alcohol-related stroke. One of the most important contributors to alcohol-related deaths is a group of 12 ailments wholly caused by alcohol, among which alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver and alcohol dependence syndrome are the most important.

I expect to have a greater chance of being injured or killed by a drunk-driver than being shot by a disgruntled postal worker. Thus to improve my safety, I would support a total ban on alcohol as I do not drink and it would not be a hardship on me. Who cares about the people who safely enjoy using alcohol, it is for the greater good, including theirs and their families.

Plus you are (potentially) reducing the number of homicides (~11,000 from above) committed annually.

 

[Tony]

"Symbolism Over Substance"

You don’t know how right you are. The battle cry for leftists world-wide for dealing with any crisis is "we gotta do something", which usually translates into a simplistic “solution” that largely consists of throwing money at the crisis or making something illegal. For leftists, results don’t matter; it is method and intentions that count.

 

[Silicon]

You know,

This whole thread really sums up how bad the arguments are on this issue.

I had a really good discussion on gun control here a little while back, and it forced me to re-think my position, because data I based it on was in error. Now I'm undecided about gun control.


But I still haven't found any really persuasive arguments against gun control, and I'm not likely to with some of the posters here.

The whole argument:

"If gun control can't stop all murders, why do it?"

..has got to be the absolute worst argument I've ever heard on the issue.

The absolutist, preaching to the choir, totally useless persuasive power of that is spectacular. You, sirs, are the Michael Moore of the NRA.


Is there anyone intelligently discussing this subject on these boards? Or is EVERYONE, on BOTH SIDES of this issue merely trotting out their various Michael Moore/G. Gordon Liddy -style arguments?

 

[Crossbow]

Gun banners have yet to explain to me how you're gonna shoot someone without a gun.

I am pro-gun control and I can think of a few ways to launch projectiles at a rather high rate of speed without using gunpowder.

Would you care to volunteer as a target?

 

[Kodiak]

You know,

This whole thread really sums up how bad the arguments are on this issue.

I had a really good discussion on gun control here a little while back, and it forced me to re-think my position, because data I based it on was in error. Now I'm undecided about gun control.


But I still haven't found any really persuasive arguments against gun control, and I'm not likely to with some of the posters here.

The whole argument:

"If gun control can't stop all murders, why do it?"

..has got to be the absolute worst argument I've ever heard on the issue.

The absolutist, preaching to the choir, totally useless persuasive power of that is spectacular. You, sirs, are the Michael Moore of the NRA.


Is there anyone intelligently discussing this subject on these boards? Or is EVERYONE, on BOTH SIDES of this issue merely trotting out their various Michael Moore/G. Gordon Liddy -style arguments?

First, your appraisal of the argument is a straw man.

Second, since you've only been here since June, I won't slam you for your ignorant remark.

The gun control debate has been argued here in dozens, if not scores, of threads since I've been here. A new 2nd Amendment/gun control thread seems to pop up at least monthly. Feel free to do a search (hint, hint) to find out what information, links, statistics, opinions, and research has already been posted by both sides. Hopefully, all of the earliest (and perhaps best, IMO...) are still there or maybe archived elsewhere in this forum.

Start here

 

[shanek]

Symbols are what we use to create our society.

"Symbols are for the symbol-minded." —George Carlin

 

[Silicon]

Feel free to do a search (hint, hint) to find out what information, links, statistics, opinions, and research has already been posted by both sides. Hopefully, all of the earliest (and perhaps best, IMO...) are still there or maybe archived elsewhere in this forum.

Start here

Wow, you're right!

I've been reading some of the threads that popped up on your link.

This place HAS gone downhill!




But you must admit, this thread is just useless baiting and counter-baiting.




Thanks for that link, btw. In all seriousness, that was what I was looking for. Recently there was the thread where I posted my erroneous (pro-gun-control) data, and one person called me on it, and I read around some counter arguments for my factoid and found that I wasn't very secure in my trust of the methods involved.

But trying to discuss that in the middle of that thread was like trying to discuss shakespeare in the middle of a bar-fight.

And another thread after that one was the same way. I was trying to get folks to address the studies and the numbers being discussed, and the whole thing devolved into these Michael Moore vs. G. Gordon Liddy knock-down-drag-outs.

Maybe that's just the state of the current events forum, and it's why it's my least favorite forum here. People would rather post for the benefit of their percieved fan base, rather than to be informational or to consider a point.

I'd like it if this place could come back to that. It is rather rancorous here.

 

[Kodiak]

Wow, you're right!

I've been reading some of the threads that popped up on your link.

This place HAS gone downhill!




But you must admit, this thread is just useless baiting and counter-baiting.




Thanks for that link, btw. In all seriousness, that was what I was looking for. Recently there was the thread where I posted my erroneous (pro-gun-control) data, and one person called me on it, and I read around some counter arguments for my factoid and found that I wasn't very secure in my trust of the methods involved.

But trying to discuss that in the middle of that thread was like trying to discuss shakespeare in the middle of a bar-fight.

And another thread after that one was the same way. I was trying to get folks to address the studies and the numbers being discussed, and the whole thing devolved into these Michael Moore vs. G. Gordon Liddy knock-down-drag-outs.

Maybe that's just the state of the current events forum, and it's why it's my least favorite forum here. People would rather post for the benefit of their percieved fan base, rather than to be informational or to consider a point.

I'd like it if this place could come back to that. It is rather rancorous here.

Feel free to PM or e-mail me with any specific points of curiousity or contention concerning the 2nd Amendment and/or gun control. Others (shanek and Richard G comes to mind off hand) would probably be equally receptive.

Or just start a new thread and set the tone yourself.

I hate rehashing the same stuff over and over for the same people, but genuinely welcome inquiries from posters new to the issue.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Kodiak:

Feel free to PM or e-mail me with any specific points of curiousity or contention concerning the 2nd Amendment and/or gun control. Others (shanek and Richard G comes to mind off hand) would probably be equally receptive.

Yes, Silicon, those three would be excellent sources for a "fair and balanced" viewpoint.

 

[Silicon]

Yes, Silicon, those three would be excellent sources for a "fair and balanced" viewpoint.

Danish,

I'm not looking for a fair and balanced viewpoint. What I'm looking for are people who are willing to argue their position, but be open about where they get their data, and how that data was collected.

And I'd like it to be an open discussion because I am not an expert in research and data-analysis, and I don't know the field. People come out with studies by fierce partisans, and I may not have the education to grasp how they may be data-mining for the answer they hope to reach.

For example, on another thread one person posted a chart recently on iliteracy rates, which purported to show a large rise during the 1940's, but they didn't disclose that 3 different estimating techniques were used during that rise.

Anyway, just because posters might be intellectually honest doesn't mean that the sources they quote are.

 

[Kodiak]

Kodiak:
Yes, Silicon, those three would be excellent sources for a "fair and balanced" viewpoint.

I made no such claim, DD! grrr....

I can only speak for myself and my take on the issue, which I've never hidden or tried to misrepresent.

If you or Claus Larsen wish to volunteer your "skewed" ( ) views on this subject, let Silicon know.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Silicon:

Danish,

I'm not looking for a fair and balanced viewpoint. What I'm looking for are people who are willing to argue their position, but be open about where they get their data, and how that data was collected.

I realize that. I was making something of an "in" joke. I, Kodiak and shanek have been active participants in gun control threads since time began (well, it feels like that anyway).

And I'd like it to be an open discussion because I am not an expert in research and data-analysis, and I don't know the field. People come out with studies by fierce partisans, and I may not have the education to grasp how they may be data-mining for the answer they hope to reach.

No gun control debater here (that I've seen) is an expert on the studies or statistics they cite. Some are, however, faster Googlers than others. The threads in Kodiak's link will presumably attest to this.

For example, on another thread one person posted a chart recently on iliteracy rates, which purported to show a large rise during the 1940's, but they didn't disclose that 3 different estimating techniques were used during that rise.

Indeed. Occasionally such mistakes are innocent mistakes. Mostly, though, one wonders...

Anyway, just because posters might be intellectually honest doesn't mean that the sources they quote are.

Correct. It does however show a degree of intellectual laziness.

Anyway, welcome to the ever-ongoing debate. Personally, I try to stay away from these threads nowadays because they invariably end up discussing the same studies/statistics which have been discussed to death before.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Kodiak:

I made no such claim, DD! grrr....

Agreed. Your choice of "off-hand" sources was quite telling, though.

I can only speak for myself and my take on the issue, which I've never hidden or tried to misrepresent.

Agree.

If you or Claus Larsen wish to volunteer your "skewed" ( ) views on this subject, let Silicon know.

Given that you know my view as well as I do by now, I suggest that Silicon, in the name of efficiency, just contacts your own good self.