School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Nessie]

It is utterly mind blowing that the jury acquitted an act that was blatant murder (that he was only charged with manslaughter is itself a disgrace). That it's apparently okay to murder someone just for knocking on your door is sickening. People with such fundamentally bad judgement aren't mature enough to own any sort of weapon.

Sadly it is not the only example of such. Further debate here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245495

and the spurious reasons for shooting that are used. The USA's gun control laws, or lack of decent ones means that kind of incident goes on. The Harvard School of Public Health have studied claims of self defence, as have others and find many are dubious if not down right criminal.

 

[GeeMack]

Your own argument here

"As an alternative argument that also fails, mostly because it says nothing whatsoever about your claim. Ironically enough it does indicate a willful ignorance of what I've been writing, it demonstrates a possible lack of comprehension of what I've been writing, and it is a juvenile argument which further demonstrates that you have no desire to participate in an honest discussion."

applies to your posts. Come at me with evidence or I will come back at you with your style of argument.

It is not other people's responsibility to support your claim. Your abject dishonesty in demanding that they do is again noted. The fact is, you are unable to support it. And your juvenile echoing of my analysis of your flawed argument is another non sequitur.

Re gun owners not in the NRA supporting gun rights over gun controls

Gun rights and gun controls are not mutually exclusive. Gun owners who aren't members of the NRA support both gun rights and gun controls.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/

National gun registry - 60% against
Ban on large magazines - 56% against
Ban semi autos - 64% against
Limit on handguns - 82% against
Police permit system - 80% against
Ban handguns - 95% against.

Yet despite that you say there is no evidence gun owners not in the NRA are a force against gun controls. That is why you resort to your style of argument as it is all you have, bleating.

Gun rights and gun controls are not mutually exclusive. Gun owners who aren't members of the NRA support both gun rights and gun controls. Whether it is a result of sloppy verbiage, intentional dishonesty, or willful ignorance on your part, you are failing to support your claim.

But let's try it this way: Provide some objective evidence that US citizens who aren't members of the NRA are, in general, anti-gun control.

 

[Nessie]

.......

Gun rights and gun controls are not mutually exclusive. Gun owners who aren't members of the NRA support both gun rights and gun controls.

Gun rights and gun controls are not mutually exclusive. Gun owners who aren't members of the NRA support both gun rights and gun controls. Whether it is a result of sloppy verbiage, intentional dishonesty, or willful ignorance on your part, you are failing to support your claim.

I understand that, you can support gun rights and gun controls at the same time.

The issue is where they clash, which one wins out? My claim is that the rights win over the controls and a reason for that is because the majority of gun owners not in the NRA support gun rights over gun controls. That is backed up by the survey linked to.

But let's try it this way: Provide some objective evidence that US citizens who aren't members of the NRA are, in general, anti-gun control.

Why do you want me to do that? If you have a point to make, make it and show your evidence.

 

[Dcdrac]

nessie has provided links to back up what they say it is up to us to read them

 

[GeeMack]

I understand that, you can support gun rights and gun controls at the same time.

Indeed you can. And virtually every gun owner does. It took you long enough to get it.

The issue is where they clash, which one wins out?

Oops. I spoke too soon. Looks like you still don't get it.

My claim is that the rights win over the controls and a reason for that is because the majority of gun owners not in the NRA support gun rights over gun controls.

That's quite different from the claim you made before. And a bizarrely irrational claim I might add.

That is backed up by the survey linked to.

No, it's not. You're ignoring the fact that gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive. One does not have to win over the other, and in fact, there's no evidence of any sort to indicate such an irrational outcome may ever occur.

Why do you want me to do that?

Because that would be required for you to support this claim, of course...

But the non NRA gun owners are still a force which is anti-gun control.

But if you've abandoned that claim, fine. I think we can all agree that it was unsupportable anyway.

If you have a point to make, make it and show your evidence.

I'm not making a claim. My point has been that your claim has gone unsupported, your willful ignorance notwithstanding. But like I said, since it appears you've abandoned that claim, we can move on to this claim...

My claim is that the rights win over the controls and a reason for that is because the majority of gun owners not in the NRA support gun rights over gun controls.

... which not only remains unsupported, but given that gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive, it appears to be an irrational claim and wholly unsupportable. But it's somewhat amusing watching the desperate fallacies, flawed logic, and otherwise ridiculous arguments you offer in lieu of honestly admitting your failure. So why don't you give it a shot?

 

[Nessie]

Indeed you can. And virtually every gun owner does. It took you long enough to get it.




Oops. I spoke too soon. Looks like you still don't get it.

Right - self defence, gun control - ban handguns. Mutually exclusive.

Now see what happens if you say to a gun owner, your hand gun is being banned, you must hand it in.

That's quite different from the claim you made before. And a bizarrely irrational claim I might add.




No, it's not. You're ignoring the fact that gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive. One does not have to win over the other, and in fact, there's no evidence of any sort to indicate such an irrational outcome may ever occur.




Because that would be required for you to support this claim, of course...

​

But if you've abandoned that claim, fine. I think we can all agree that it was unsupportable anyway.

Evidence you cannot have read or you do not understand to make the above comments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/

http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/20/after-newtown-modest-change-in-opinion-about-gun-control/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Here is another one for you not to read with a question about the influence of the NRA.

I'm not making a claim. My point has been that your claim has gone unsupported, your willful ignorance notwithstanding. But like I said, since it appears you've abandoned that claim, we can move on to this claim...

​

... which not only remains unsupported, but given that gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive, it appears to be an irrational claim and wholly unsupportable. But it's somewhat amusing watching the desperate fallacies, flawed logic, and otherwise ridiculous arguments you offer in lieu of honestly admitting your failure. So why don't you give it a shot?

I present evidence you either don't read it, don't understand it or you resort to your thats wrong without saying why tactic, ad nauseam.

 

[GeeMack]

Right - self defence, gun control - ban handguns. Mutually exclusive.

That is, by definition, gibberish.

Now see what happens if you say to a gun owner, your hand gun is being banned, you must hand it in.

That is wholly irrelevant to your claim. But being as your claim is not reasonable, and given your history of offering nonsense and irrelevancies instead of supporting your claims, it's not surprising that you'd take the tack of trying to change the subject.

Evidence you cannot have read or you do not understand to make the above comments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/

That poll shows that everyone surveyed supports gun control.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/20/after-newtown-modest-change-in-opinion-about-gun-control/

That poll is going with the same dishonest crap you've been trying to get away with. Gun control and gun rights are not mutually exclusive.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

And that poll doesn't indicate that any of the respondents are anti-gun control.

Here is another one for you not to read with a question about the influence of the NRA.

Avoiding your responsibility to objectively support your claim is dishonest. Is it, as I previously surmised, a cultural artifact of living in the UK that makes it so difficult, maybe impossible, to be honest when in a discussion about guns?

I present evidence you either don't read it, don't understand it [...]

I read them. I understand them. And the objective results of all the sources? Your claims...

But the non NRA gun owners are still a force which is anti-gun control.

My claim is that the rights win over the controls and a reason for that is because the majority of gun owners not in the NRA support gun rights over gun controls.

... remain unsupported.

[...] or you resort to your thats wrong without saying why tactic, ad nauseam.

I have explained many, many times why your arguments have failed. I will explain it again. First, you have not shown with any of your alleged evidence that anyone is anti-gun control. Quite the contrary in fact. Your references consistently and clearly show that pretty much everyone supports gun control. Second, your arguments are irrational because they revolve around the mistaken notion gun control and gun rights are mutually exclusive, or that supporting one somehow means opposing the other. Until you can be honest and rational, you will continue to fail.

There. Explained again. Did you understand it this time, or will you willfully ignore it again and persist in the lie that I haven't explained it?

 

[zooterkin]

Actually, the statistics I've seen say that somewhere between slightly over half to slightly under half of all Americans own a gun. I would not use the phrase "very much a minority pastime" to describe that. I'm not sure I even understand how owning a gun is a pastime - I own a car, but I don't consider it a pastime.

Anyhow, I'm not fond enough of the JREF to read through an entire thread here, but I just stopped in to point out that Newtown is the first time America has toppped Britain and Germany for numbers killed in a school shooting. I wonder if we will ever top Norway for numbers killed in a mass shooting? Europe sure is dangerous, even with all that gun control.

Well, you might at least have read the post I was replying to, and which I quoted. You'd have realised that I was talking about the UK, not the USA.

I also think you're wrong about the percentage of Americans owning a gun, based on statistics from earlier in the thread.

 

[DavidJames]

Anyhow, I'm not fond enough of the JREF to read through an entire thread here, but I just stopped in to point out that Newtown is the first time America has toppped Britain and Germany for numbers killed in a school shooting. I wonder if we will ever top Norway for numbers killed in a mass shooting? Europe sure is dangerous, even with all that gun control.

This thinking reminds me of my kids when they were younger. They often tried to minimize their mistakes by pointing out how others did worse things.

I didn't accept it then and still don't. Especially when it comes to murder. I would like to think a mentally healthy society would not look at 26 murdered at a school and say, meh, it's ok, at least it wasn't as bad as the one in Norway.

 

[Information Analyst]

Avoiding your responsibility to objectively support your claim is dishonest. Is it, as I previously surmised, a cultural artifact of living in the UK that makes it so difficult, maybe impossible, to be honest when in a discussion about guns?

One could seek to be equally offensive and dismissive by suggesting that a cultural artefact of living in the United States makes it so difficult, maybe impossible, to be truly objective when discussing guns.

 

[Nessie]

I am nothing if not persistent in trying to get my point over, but I am beginning to think you are at it and just playing semantic games and trolling me.

Another try.

That is, by definition, gibberish.


That is wholly irrelevant to your claim. But being as your claim is not reasonable, and given your history of offering nonsense and irrelevancies instead of supporting your claims, it's not surprising that you'd take the tack of trying to change the subject.

Mutually exclusive, if one event happens the other cannot. You can get gun control with gun rights, they are not mutually exclusive. But, the issue is not as simple as that.

The issue is the balance between rights and control. If you say the gun owners who have bought a handgun for self defence that gun control means they have to give up that handgun, gun owners then say, that is against my right.

That poll shows that everyone surveyed supports gun control.

That is way too simplistic as it fails to acknowledge level of support. The poll shows support for different forms of gun control varies depending on whether the person is in the NRA, has a gun, lives in a house with a gun or has no gun.

That poll is going with the same dishonest crap you've been trying to get away with. Gun control and gun rights are not mutually exclusive.

That poll shows again that there are different levels of support for gun control, but like the above poll, it shows that gun owners are more in favour of gun rights and are less inclined to support gun control.

And that poll doesn't indicate that any of the respondents are anti-gun control.

I can only think you are playing semantics. The second graph of poll results shows the various percentages of people who want less strict gun controls, are happy with the status quo and who want more strict gun controls.

I think you may be defining anti-gun control as in against all forms of gun control whatsoever. I am defining anti-gun control as anyone who wants to reduce or maintain gun control laws and their enforcement as they are now.

Avoiding your responsibility to objectively support your claim is dishonest. Is it, as I previously surmised, a cultural artifact of living in the UK that makes it so difficult, maybe impossible, to be honest when in a discussion about guns?

Surely you must acknowledge I have been presenting objective support by way of polls to back up my claims. To say I have been avoiding that responsibility is dishonest as it suggests I have done nothing to back up my claims. Just because you disagree with the evidence I present does not mean it is not evidence.

Your jibes about honesty and nationality are beneath contempt.

I read them. I understand them. And the objective results of all the sources? Your claims...

​

... remain unsupported.

I can see why you say that after the way you interpret the poll results. I say you are wrong.

I have explained many, many times why your arguments have failed. I will explain it again. First, you have not shown with any of your alleged evidence that anyone is anti-gun control.

I have show a whole host of evidence where people are against various if not all gun control proposals. I am sure this must be a semantics issue where you thing anti-gun control means anti all forms of gun control.

Quite the contrary in fact. Your references consistently and clearly show that pretty much everyone supports gun control.

So not everyone then, and the level of support varies from not at all to fully behind with a whole host of positions in between. The important part being the gun owners are against the majority of proposed gun control measures.

Second, your arguments are irrational because they revolve around the mistaken notion gun control and gun rights are mutually exclusive, or that supporting one somehow means opposing the other. Until you can be honest and rational, you will continue to fail.

That just goes back to what I said above about the issue is more complex than you think it is.

There. Explained again. Did you understand it this time, or will you willfully ignore it again and persist in the lie that I haven't explained it?

At least now you are explaining what you mean and are not just saying it is wrong ad nauseam.

 

[Nessie]

This thinking reminds me of my kids when they were younger. They often tried to minimize their mistakes by pointing out how others did worse things.

I didn't accept it then and still don't. Especially when it comes to murder. I would like to think a mentally healthy society would not look at 26 murdered at a school and say, meh, it's ok, at least it wasn't as bad as the one in Norway.

Not just Norway, but road and swimming pool deaths as well.

 

[rwguinn]

Not just Norway, but road and swimming pool deaths as well.

Comparison to European/UK events is legitimate when attempting to show how much "better" European or UK laws are...

 

[DC]

Comparison to European/UK events is legitimate when attempting to show how much "better" European or UK laws are...

its one thing to use statistics to show effectiveness of laws and another thing to cherry pick one event.

 

[rwguinn]

its one thing to use statistics to show effectiveness of laws and another thing to cherry pick one event.

Why?
That's what the artifact haters are doing.

 

[DC]

Why?
That's what the artifact haters are doing.

you don't see the problem? really?
i wrongly assumed you were a skeptic, sorry, my fault.

 

[Sabretooth]

I understand that, you can support gun rights and gun controls at the same time.

The issue is where they clash, which one wins out?

For me, they don't clash. There are piles and piles of "gun laws" on the books, but no effort is made to ensure the people can't get them don't get them.

The laws in NY are top 3 tightest in the country. No matter what type of gun you buy (long gun or hand gun), you are required to go through an FBI background check prior to purchase. You can't even sniff a handgun unless you have gone through the months long background check to obtain a permit. There are restrictions on the number of rounds the firearm can hold (max 10 rounds, max 5 for hunting).

And yet, here we have some lunatic in upstate NY shooting up my fellow firefighters. Each weapon he had on his person was illegally possessed.

How would making more laws prevent this reject from getting those weapons? IMO, they don't. It's not unreasonable to speculate that more laws wouldn't hurt a criminal's chances of obtaining illegal weapons...it would only further impair the law-abiding folks.

As I mentioned way back in this very thread, my suggests to get a handle on the illegal gun possession issue:

- Use a more extensive follow up on criminal checks. Including surprise check ups on those paroled or forbidden to have possession of firearms.

- Issue ridiculous jail time for even possessing an unregistered firearm.

- Issue ridiculous jail time for purchasing (or making available) a firearm for an individual who cannot legally possess a firearm.

- Have Federal Marshals heavily policing gun shows everywhere. (They're already present at NY gun shows.) There can even be a mix of uniformed and plain-clothes officers. If a dealer sells to anyone along the lines of the two items above, you lose your FFL and an automatic year in jail.

We don't need more control of guns, we need more control of the individuals getting the guns when they are not allowed to have them.

 

[GeeMack]

I am nothing if not persistent in trying to get my point over, but I am beginning to think you are at it and just playing semantic games and trolling me.

Another try.

Mutually exclusive, if one event happens the other cannot. You can get gun control with gun rights, they are not mutually exclusive. But, the issue is not as simple as that.

The issue is the balance between rights and control. If you say the gun owners who have bought a handgun for self defence that gun control means they have to give up that handgun, gun owners then say, that is against my right.

Sure, and if you tell a home owner he has to pay a fee to vote, he'll say that's against his rights, too. Your comment is equally irrelevant.

That is way too simplistic as it fails to acknowledge level of support. The poll shows support for different forms of gun control varies depending on whether the person is in the NRA, has a gun, lives in a house with a gun or has no gun.

The poll doesn't show that anyone is anti-gun control.

That poll shows again that there are different levels of support for gun control, but like the above poll, it shows that gun owners are more in favour of gun rights and are less inclined to support gun control.

The poll doesn't show that anyone is anti-gun control. Also, gun rights and gun control are not opposite ends of some sliding balance where less of one means more of the other or vice versa. (Hint: Your misunderstanding of that concept is causing you to fail time after time. Read what I just wrote again. To avoid continued failure, don't make stupid arguments based on that mistake again.)

I can only think you are playing semantics. The second graph of poll results shows the various percentages of people who want less strict gun controls, are happy with the status quo and who want more strict gun controls.

I think you may be defining anti-gun control as in against all forms of gun control whatsoever. I am defining anti-gun control as anyone who wants to reduce or maintain gun control laws and their enforcement as they are now.

Then you're using an unreasonable definition for anti-gun control. I mentioned before that your sloppy verbiage may be causing you problems. Apparently you weren't paying attention. Learn to use the language the same way other people do and you might avoid that repeated failure.

Surely you must acknowledge I have been presenting objective support by way of polls to back up my claims. To say I have been avoiding that responsibility is dishonest as it suggests I have done nothing to back up my claims. Just because you disagree with the evidence I present does not mean it is not evidence.

When the alleged evidence you present does not support your claim, it doesn't matter how objective or how well sourced it is. Nothing you have offered yet suggests that anyone is anti-gun control, you know, using the real life definition of the term.

Your jibes about honesty and nationality are beneath contempt.

Considering your dishonest arguments may be the result of a cultural artifact was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you want to acknowledge that it's just you, that works for me.

I can see why you say that after the way you interpret the poll results. I say you are wrong.

Yes, you would say that. But objectively none of your alleged evidence supports your claims that anyone is anti-gun control. So this claim...

But the non NRA gun owners are still a force which is anti-gun control.

... remains unsupported.

And since one's level of supporting gun control and one's level of supporting gun rights do not work on some kind of scale where when one rises the other falls, this claim...

My claim is that the rights win over the controls and a reason for that is because the majority of gun owners not in the NRA support gun rights over gun controls.

... remains unsupported, too.

I have show a whole host of evidence where people are against various if not all gun control proposals. I am sure this must be a semantics issue where you thing anti-gun control means anti all forms of gun control.

Gun control does mean all forms of gun control. Anti-gun control would mean opposing gun control. It would be dishonest or crappy communication to use it another way.

So not everyone then, [...]

Yes, for all practical purposes, everyone who owns a gun supports gun control, and most particularly gun owners who aren't NRA members, those folks you mistakenly believe "are still a force which is anti-gun control".

[...] and the level of support varies from not at all [...]

No, nothing you've shown so far indicates anyone is anti-gun control.

[...] to fully behind with a whole host of positions in between. The important part being the gun owners are against the majority of proposed gun control measures.

The majority of proposed gun control measures are already being implemented.

That just goes back to what I said above about the issue is more complex than you think it is.

Yet I'm not the one of the two of us who sees gun control and gun rights as being two ends of a spectrum. I am a gun owner living in a state with some of the more complicated regulations. I understand them pretty thoroughly and comply with them fully. I am also pretty thoroughly aware of gun regulations through much of the rest of the country because I have done a fair amount of traveling. Perhaps your mistake is in not understanding that the issue is more complex than you think it is.

At least now you are explaining what you mean and are not just saying it is wrong ad nauseam.

I've been explaining it the whole time. Please don't blame me for your failure to notice.

 

[Nessie]

Comparison to European/UK events is legitimate when attempting to show how much "better" European or UK laws are...

I know, since the UK and Norway also have fewer road deaths and drownings per 100,000.

You should move

 

[Nessie]

For me, they don't clash. There are piles and piles of "gun laws" on the books, but no effort is made to ensure the people can't get them don't get them.

The laws in NY are top 3 tightest in the country. No matter what type of gun you buy (long gun or hand gun), you are required to go through an FBI background check prior to purchase. You can't even sniff a handgun unless you have gone through the months long background check to obtain a permit. There are restrictions on the number of rounds the firearm can hold (max 10 rounds, max 5 for hunting).

And yet, here we have some lunatic in upstate NY shooting up my fellow firefighters. Each weapon he had on his person was illegally possessed.

How would making more laws prevent this reject from getting those weapons? IMO, they don't. It's not unreasonable to speculate that more laws wouldn't hurt a criminal's chances of obtaining illegal weapons...it would only further impair the law-abiding folks.

As I mentioned way back in this very thread, my suggests to get a handle on the illegal gun possession issue:

- Use a more extensive follow up on criminal checks. Including surprise check ups on those paroled or forbidden to have possession of firearms.

- Issue ridiculous jail time for even possessing an unregistered firearm.

- Issue ridiculous jail time for purchasing (or making available) a firearm for an individual who cannot legally possess a firearm.

- Have Federal Marshals heavily policing gun shows everywhere. (They're already present at NY gun shows.) There can even be a mix of uniformed and plain-clothes officers. If a dealer sells to anyone along the lines of the two items above, you lose your FFL and an automatic year in jail.

We don't need more control of guns, we need more control of the individuals getting the guns when they are not allowed to have them.

That issue has been missed in all the polls and many of the articles I have read, is it a case of no more laws needed? Just standardise and enforce the existing ones?

Enforcement I see as straight forward. Standardising not so as some states allow open carry, others do not and some states ban certain guns (or did) and others do not.