# Gun control post mortem debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2013, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126 "2013-05-12T03:57:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/101 "2013-05-18T21:58:11Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > So, for the record, this thread is now just general gun-control debate? There are a few folks desperately insisting that Newtown is the only gun atrocity that is relevant to any gun discussion, apparently since it’s the only one that has ever _happened_. But, since only general gun control would have prevented it, which is the only criterion they are willing to allow to matter, then yes, the topic remains general gun control, as it has always been. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/102 "2013-05-18T22:32:14Z")
> [@ChickenLegs](#): > > And never will, even if they or their families are the victims of violent crime. Those that can, do. Those that can’t cower in the corner and let others defend them. Yes. Guns make you a superhero. In your mind. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/103 "2013-05-18T23:23:20Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Yes. Guns make you a superhero. In your mind. Guns don’t make me a superhero. They just give me an approximately even chance to defend myself and my loved ones against violence. I’m not even a superhero at all, just a typical adult American male. Or what used to be typical, before the relinquishment of personal responsibility and the dependence upon others for one’s own well-being became, rather than a philosophy worthy of scorn, the norm. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/104 "2013-05-18T23:27:32Z")
Can we have your autograph, Mr. Norris? ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/105 "2013-05-18T23:32:38Z")
How come every time a normal person suggests that’s it’s expected behavior to defend himself and his family against violence, you guys try to play this “superhero” card? Defending yourself isn’t superheroism. (Well, maybe compared to cowering in a corner and saying “but, but, but, you’re more likely to shoot yorself, Mr. Intruder”, it is). It’s normal, expected behavior. Do I accuse you guys of “supercowardice”? Well, yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Man up, boys, Your well-being is your own responsibility. Nobody will blame you if you try and fail. That’s not your fault, it’s the bad guy’s fault. We only blame you if you lack the fortitude to even try. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/106 "2013-05-18T23:34:08Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Can we have your autograph, Mr. Norris? Can I have your autograph, Mr. Milquetoast? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/107 "2013-05-19T01:09:27Z")
Well, speaking on behalf of wimps everywhere, has it occurred to you that the tactics of your scenario are not that promising? You are under threat of lethal violence, or your loved ones, amounts to the same thing. How does this situation come about? I’ve been robbed at gunpoint twice, in neither situation did I have the remotest chance to pull a weapon and bring it to bear. If I had been armed, they would have had my money and a nice new gun. Maybe panic and kill me as well. So, they are going to alert you? No, not likely, is it? So you have to be alert, don’t you? Heightened situational awareness, is that it? How about him, that guy over there. Or that kid next to him, who dresses all gangsta? At what point, do you think, such situational awareness drifts into paranoia. Fear, in simple terms. But you’re not afraid, so you don’t have the advantage offered by such heightened awareness, the adrenaline. You know, that might not be such a bad thing. Just sayin’, is all. Civilization requires some degree of shared risk. That’s why we defer our right to lethal force in self defense to soldiers and policemen. We know there are crazy people, we know there are evil people. We choose…_choose_, mind you!..not to carry that violence with us, not to act as though that fear of the stranger is a rational thing, a matter of reason. It is not, it is fear, it can only be fear. Scratch big hairy nuts all you want, its still fear. Now, perhaps you cannot choose whether to be afraid or not, a man without any fear is nuts, nine times out of ten. But you can choose whether to behave as though you were not. Its the courage of the civilized man. Noticeably lacking in glory, one must admit. Pity. (Sheesh, testosterone poisoning. Maybe we oughta just give it up and the ladies will run things. We don’t seem to be very well equipped…) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/108 "2013-05-19T01:59:32Z")
Geez, for a second there, I thought all my chest hair had fallen off! But I checked, and they’re both still there. What a relief! ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/109 "2013-05-20T17:26:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I realize that the only way you, and others like you, can deal with the dissonance between what you stand for and what consequences it has is by trying desperately to dismiss the latest of many such events as an isolated anomaly. \*\*Problem is, it ain’t. \*\*And you _do_ have to come to grips with that dissonance, somehow, some way. Invective-spewing won’t do it. This is your argument, saying effectively, ‘nuh uh’? Newtown was an isolated anomaly. 26 people were killed. This represents less than 1/2 of 1% of the gun murders for the year. Please let me know in what way your measuring that Newtown was not an anomaly. Dissonance - right. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It happens I do favor rbilepeal of the 2nd, due to its ability to be misread as requiring more than the existence and armament of the National Guard. Unless one is ignorant of Heller, the 2nd can no longer be misread in the way you describe, unless intentionally. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > There are a few folks desperately insisting that Newtown is the only gun atrocity that is relevant to any gun discussion, apparently since it’s the only one that has ever _happened_. But, since only general gun control would have prevented it, which is the only criterion they are willing to allow to matter, then yes, the topic remains general gun control, as it has always been. No one has asserted that Newtown is the only gun atrocity that is relevant to any gun discussion. Are you making things up again? This thread however was about the post mortem of gun control in the wake of Newtown. It’s right there in the OP. Up until around post #70 - #79, that’s exactly what it was about. You know, the talk of what various elected officials would have voted for in January, the implications of shifting the discussion to an AWB, talk about dead kids, etc. That was when you got confused and started blathering about people having to take responsibility and deal with it, whatever that’s supposed to mean. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/110 "2013-05-20T19:47:11Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > And rope. And cars. And bridges. And trains. Well, my point is that you don’t reduce suicides (not even gun suicides) by banning assault weapons so using suicide as a data point for defending the retarded push for an AWB is silly. I mean, seriosuly, how many people committed suicide with an assault weeapon in the last 10 years? The last 100 years? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The narrow-minded focus on “gun deaths” (as if those types of deaths are worse than crowbar deaths or knife deaths) is almost as silly as the left’s obsession with “assault weapons”. I think the notion is that absent guns, a lot of those deaths would never occur. And there is some truth to this because a lot of gang violence in the total absense of guns would result in a lot of stab wounds. I don’t see how an AWb will convince gangs to give up all their guns but apparently disarming law abiding citizens is a good first step to disarming the criminals. 😕 then profit? > [@](#): > > I hate seeing people killed. I find the murder of young children particularly sad and tragic, but your side didn’t come up with a solution to the problem. They just brought back the same warmed-over proposals that they’ve been making for 20 years. I think we’ve already established that most of the board thinks that an AWB is a bad idea or at least that it is a waste of political capital that can better be spent on more effective things. What keeps the AWB alive is largely political calculus combined with ignorance. > [@Bone](#): > > And you know this how? Your position is that if assault weapons were banned, then Lanza would not have killed his mother, stole her other guns, and killed a bunch of kindergarten students and teachers? I thought that Connecticut already had an AWB in place. > [@](#): > > Cite that arming teachers will lead to more school shootings? > > From [Campus Carry](http://www.campuscarry.com/supporting-facts-arguments/): > > This is at colleges, so not a perfect example, but given your assertion that more guns on campus would lead to more shootings, I’d say so far, the facts are not on your side. Every time a state went shall issue, gun control advocates claimed it would lead to more gun violence. This has been proven false in every state that it has happened. Wow, I’m actually a little bit surprised considering the age and gender of the most likely campus CCWs. On the other hand, I wonder if girls with guns get date raped as much as girls with pepper spray. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Been there before, don’t be cute. You have no support for your position. Even if you decide to ignore every study on the prevalence of defensive gun use as being too fuzzy and uncertain (you sure you’re not a Republican? Or are you just reverting to Republican habits of denying inconvenient truths?), your position is hard to sustain. So we know that there are about 700 accidental/negligent gun homocides per year. We also know that there are about 300 justifiable homocides with guns by civilians per year. We know that defensive gun uses are orders of magnitude more prevalent than justifiable homocides. I don’t know where you get the notion that we can’t muster evidence of 700 saved lives from guns. In any event an AWb is retarded. > [@](#): > > The invective in this thread, including words such as “hysterical”, comes from your side, including your own damn self. The fact that you have to resort to that merely illustrates the barrenness of your position. Wasn’t your side effectively calling our side indifferent to the muerder of children? You sure, you want to follow the logic that the worse the inveective, the worse the argument you must have? > [@](#): > > See above. You’re smart enough to get the point, however inconvenient you may find it. Hmm. Maybe I’m not smart enough to see what youa re saying. I’m saying that the newtown shooter could just as easily have killed those kids with any kind of gun. You seem to think “nuh uhh” An assault weapon was not a necessary part of the Newtown massacre any more than a particular brand of pressure cooker was a necessary part of the Boston marathon bombing. > [@](#): > > Great. So what do they propose to do about it? I think their proposals are already out there. I don’t think you’ll like them. > [@](#): > > What do you propose? And what constitutional rights are you willing to violate to implement it? No more ducking, time to take responsibility here. I’m sorry if I haven’t made my support of licensing and registration clear enough. I am not willing to violate any constitutional rights. Why are you so eager to do so? In what way have I been ducking? Criticizing an AWB isn’t the same thing as ducking the issue. > [@](#): > > “Always”? :dubious: This from somebody upset about being caricatured? There are many, many possible approaches to reducing the murder rate problem. It happens I do favor rbilepeal of the 2nd, due to its ability to be misread as requiring more than the existence and armament of the National Guard. You will note, I hope, that virtually no other country calling itself civilized has anything like it, and they are not jackbooted tyrannies either. You realize that the supreme court has already “misread” the second amendment to mean a lot more than what you think it means. It is not caricature to claim that your side constantly (I think distinguishing this from the use of the word “always” is semantic nitpicking) claims that they don’t want to repeal the second amendment and they have a reverence for hunting and shit like that. They only want to regulate the REALLY dangerous guns, like assault weapons that have bayonet lugs and pistol grips. > [@](#): > > For fuck’s sake. :rolleyes: You do realize, I hope, that you’re merely illustrating my point that your side opposes doing anything to help prevent mass murders of innocents. You do realize that you only making sense in your own mind right? In what way would an AWB have prevented mass murder (IIRC connecticut already had an AWB during Newtown). For extra points try to give an answer that doesn’t use our bloodthirstiness for the lives of little children as the basis of your argument. > [@](#): > > More of your typical strawmanning. You seem fond of the argument that if you can’t do everything, you should do nothing. I’ve made it clear enough to anyone with good faith that \*reducing \*needless, tragic deaths is my goal. You insist on mischaracterizing that, for reasons that perhaps you might explain to us. So how many suicides do you think would be prevented by banning assault weapons? I am pretty sure that I have proposed other ideas in the stead of retarded ideas like an AWB. Hell even the NRA ideas make more sense than an AWB. This most recent gun debate was a battle of stupid ideas and the NRA won because the AWB idea from your side was the stupidest one. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Unfortunately the data is against your belief. What data? You keep thinking the facts are on your side because you are used to having them on your side but in this case, they are not. > [@](#): > > The fact that you people have successfully thwarted those efforts does not reflect on their merits, especially given the absence of offering constructive alternatives. Don’t kid yourself. The defeat of the AWB was entirely on the merits. The defeat of the background check was entirely politics. It was the NRA flexing the muscle that your side gave them by pursuing something as retarded as an AWB. And don’t kid yourself about the manchin Toomey bill. The background check at gun shows and internet sales was a fig leaf. Very few guns used in crime come from gun shows or craigslist type advertisements. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Wrong. You are less safe to others, and you’re even less safe to yourself. cite? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Or maybe they seen reports of pro-gun people shooting themselves, lacking the adult-level competence to avoid accidentally shooting themselves or others. Maybe they know of pro-gun people that were foolish enough to leave to leave a loaded gun where children can find it. Maybe they know of pro-gun people that shot someone in a fit of rage. > Maybe their fears have a factual basis. Everyone is a good driver until theya re not. Everyone is a good pilot until they are not. If your analysis of guns is “how much does it cost society” instead of a cost/benefit analysis then you are applying a standard to guns that you do not apply to things that have no constitutional protection. A better question is how many accidental/negligent deaths/injury do they cause versus how much good do they do. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Exactly. That insult posing as a line of argument is something that Kable was trying to run before, but as you note, it makes no sense. All of the boneheads shooting themselves in airports or shooting 9 year olds through the wall while practicing their quickdraw or having their five year old shoot their two year old or shooting their kid while putting him in his carseat or becoming despondent and killing their family and or themselves ARE GUN OWNERS. The fact that something can be dangerous and lead to accidents doesn’t mean you can ignore all the good that it does. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > So, for the record, this thread is now just general gun-control debate? I think that when the anti-gun folks realized that they were losing the argument about whether or not the AWB was so stupid that it hurt their case on much less stupid ideas. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > There are a few folks desperately insisting that Newtown is the only gun atrocity that is relevant to any gun discussion, apparently since it’s the only one that has ever _happened_. But, since only general gun control would have prevented it, which is the only criterion they are willing to allow to matter, then yes, the topic remains general gun control, as it has always been. I think Newtown is the driving force behind the most recent push for gun control. I didn’t think this was controversial. No form of gun control (that I can think of ) short of confiscation would have prevented Newtown so your side decided to pursue an AWB. Even at this stage of the game, there are too many on your side that still think an AWB makes sense. And THATS why your side is going to keep losing this debate. So what do YOU think would have prevented Newtown (other than an AWB, which Connecticut already had)? > [@ChickenLegs](#): > > Guns don’t make me a superhero. They just give me an approximately even chance to defend myself and my loved ones against violence. It doesn’t give you an even chance, it just gives you a fighting chance. The question is whether you think your chances are better curled up in a corner or with a gun. There is some evidence that being curled up ina corner might be safer. > [@elucidator](#): > > Well, speaking on behalf of wimps everywhere, has it occurred to you that the tactics of your scenario are not that promising? You are under threat of lethal violence, or your loved ones, amounts to the same thing. How does this situation come about? I’ve been robbed at gunpoint twice, in neither situation did I have the remotest chance to pull a weapon and bring it to bear. If I had been armed, they would have had my money and a nice new gun. Maybe panic and kill me as well. Its hard to outdraw someone that has the drop on you. This obviously means that guns can never be used defensively. > [@](#): > > So, they are going to alert you? No, not likely, is it? So you have to be alert, don’t you? Heightened situational awareness, is that it? How about him, that guy over there. Or that kid next to him, who dresses all gangsta? At what point, do you think, such situational awareness drifts into paranoia. Fear, in simple terms. How do cops and soldiers do it? How do thjey manage to defend the public without being all paranoid? I mean, they are CCW in many places, even after they retire. > [@](#): > > Civilization requires some degree of shared risk. That’s why we defer our right to lethal force in self defense to soldiers and policemen. I don’t know what part of Texas you are from but in my part of Virginia, we are allowed to exercise lethal force in self defense. > [@](#): > > We know there are crazy people, we know there are evil people. We choose…_choose_, mind you!..not to carry that violence with us, not to act as though that fear of the stranger is a rational thing, a matter of reason. It is not, it is fear, it can only be fear. Scratch big hairy nuts all you want, its still fear. There is a difference between being prepared and being scared. Having a gun to insure against situations where having a gun would be helpful is being prepared. Attacking guns out of ignorance is just being scared. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/111 "2013-05-21T00:28:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t see how an AWb will convince gangs to give up all their guns but apparently disarming law abiding citizens is a good first step to disarming the criminals. 😕 then profit? Weren’t nearly 100 percent of guns in the hands of criminals originally in the hands of the law-abiding? Now I don’t think forcible disarmanent is a good idea in the US, because of the hotheads who would fight back. And, except for [colorful ones that look like toys](http://modernsurvivalblog.com/security/modern-sporting-rifles-are-not-assault-weapons/), I think handguns are more of a negative than the assault-style rifles. But when the guns used by criminals wear out or are discarded after use, the criminals have to get them from the vast number of guns originally owned by people who manufactured them, or, more likely, purchased them, legally. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/112 "2013-05-21T04:39:52Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Weren’t nearly 100 percent of guns in the hands of criminals originally in the hands of the law-abiding? Nope. A lot of them are sold to straw purchasers, I don’t consider straw purchasers “law abiding” > [@](#): > > I think handguns are more of a negative than the assault-style rifles. Well, yes, handguns are the most frequently used firearms for suicide, crime, kids accidentally killing themselves, etc. They are also convenient for self defense, they also seem to be constitutionally protected. > [@](#): > > But when the guns used by criminals wear out or are discarded after use, the criminals have to get them from the vast number of guns originally owned by people who manufactured them, or, more likely, purchased them, legally. So rather than try to keep track of legally owned guns to restrict the flow of guns to criminals, you think its better to just take them away from civilians so you only have to deal with armed criminals as long as the guns don’t wear down? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/113 "2013-05-21T06:11:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Civilization requires some degree of shared risk. That’s why we defer our right to lethal force in self defense to soldiers and policemen. We know there are crazy people, we know there are evil people. We choose…_choose_, mind you!..not to carry that violence with us, not to act as though that fear of the stranger is a rational thing, a matter of reason. It is not, it is fear, it can only be fear. Scratch big hairy nuts all you want, its still fear. No “we” don’t. Many states have some version of the Castle Doctrine, and a smaller number have enacted various versions of a “Stand Your Ground” law. These laws explicitly authorize the use of deadly force for self defense in appropriate situations. My state has both. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/114 "2013-05-21T14:45:12Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Newtown was an isolated anomaly. 26 people were killed. This represents less than 1/2 of 1% of the gun murders for the year. Please let me know in what way your measuring that Newtown was not an anomaly. The insistence that only Newtown matters comes from your side, not mine. Your own statement right here shows the opposite, that the gun murder problem is much larger and continuing. So why are you arguing the point? > [@](#): > > Unless one is ignorant of Heller, the 2nd can no longer be misread in the way you describe, unless intentionally. You seem to confused over the difference between correctness and authoritativeness. The \*Heller \*ruling was wrong, and its overturning of \*Miller \*and all of the subsequent jurisprudence that was based on it(especially given that Scalia & Co. didn’t have the integrity to say so) was wrong. Yes, it’s now the law anyway, and congratulations on your having stayed awake in middle-school Civics class. > [@](#): > > No one has asserted that Newtown is the only gun atrocity that is relevant to any gun discussion. Are you making things up again? Again, you should ask those who wish to discuss it only. You could scroll up and refresh yourself on who they are. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/115 "2013-05-21T15:36:30Z")
Elvis, I know you have trouble keeping up with simple things, so let’s make this more explicit for you. We can go to the way back machine, er post #88: > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I realize that the only way you, and others like you, can deal with the dissonance between what you stand for and what consequences it has is by trying desperately to dismiss the latest of many such events as an isolated anomaly. **Problem is, it ain’t**. And you _do_ have to come to grips with that dissonance, somehow, some way. Invective-spewing won’t do it. Here you assert that Newtown was not an isolated anomaly. Still following along? Then me, post #109: > [@Bone](#): > > Newtown was an isolated anomaly. 26 people were killed. This represents less than 1/2 of 1% of the gun murders for the year. Please let me know in what way your measuring that Newtown was not an anomaly. By a demonstration of a difficult concept, arithmetic, it’s clear that Newtown was, while in no way diminishing the magnitude of the tragedy, an anomaly. Your response? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The insistence that only Newtown matters comes from your side, not mine. Your own statement right here shows the opposite, that the gun murder problem is much larger and continuing. So why are you arguing the point? You could rebut the statement by somehow demonstrating what you asserted, that Newtown was not an anomaly. Can you support your assertion in any way? See, here is where I think your problem is. Reading for comprehension. No one insisted that only Newtown matters. You made that part up. This doesn’t dismiss the fact that gun violence continues to be an issue, but that’s not what anyone but you is talking about. Well, up until you tried to hijack the thread around post #70-79. This thread was about the aftermath of Newtown, so obviously we’re talking about how things went down after Newtown. If you want to talk about the larger issue of gun violence, rather than you know, what this thread is about…well I can’t stop you. Again, from the way back machine, post #88: > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It happens I do favor rbilepeal of the 2nd, due to its ability to be misread as requiring more than the existence and armament of the National Guard. You are asserting that the 2nd can be misread in some fashion. My response: > [@Bone](#): > > Unless one is ignorant of Heller, the 2nd can no longer be misread in the way you describe, unless intentionally. The 2nd can \*\*not \*\*be misread. Heller made it perfectly clear. And your completely unrelated reply: > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You seem to confused over the difference between correctness and authoritativeness. The Heller ruling was wrong, and its overturning of Miller and all of the subsequent jurisprudence that was based on it(especially given that Scalia & Co. didn’t have the integrity to say so) was wrong. Yes, it’s now the law anyway, and congratulations on your having stayed awake in middle-school Civics class. So your response to the fact that you were wrong about Heller being able to be misread is actually that Heller was wrong. It’s perfectly clear, but since you disagree with it, it’s wrong. Got it. So when you said that it can be misread, you really meant that it can be read very clearly, but what it says you do not agree with. Then there’s this brilliant gem, pretty much made up out of whole cloth: > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > There are a few folks desperately insisting that Newtown is the only gun atrocity that is relevant to any gun discussion, apparently since it’s the only one that has ever _happened_. But, since only general gun control would have prevented it, which is the only criterion they are willing to allow to matter, then yes, the topic remains general gun control, as it has always been. To which I respond: > [@](#): > > No one has asserted that Newtown is the only gun atrocity that is relevant to any gun discussion. Are you making things up again? In other words, cite that someone has asserted that Newtown is the only gun atrocity that is relevant to any gun discussion. But you can’t, because you make shit up. I know it sounds good in your mind, but reality is not on your side. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/116 "2013-05-21T17:01:00Z")
I do sympathize with the pain that your realization of all this cognitive dissonance is causing you, I really do. But you do have to work through it yourself somehow, because nobody else can do it for you. Now: If that point is all that’s left holding you back, incoherent and nonsensical as it is, then our work here is done. The rest is up to you and you alone. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/117 "2013-05-21T22:46:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I do sympathize with the pain that your realization of all this cognitive dissonance is causing you, I really do. But you do have to work through it yourself somehow, because nobody else can do it for you. > > Now: If that point is all that’s left holding you back, incoherent and nonsensical as it is, then our work here is done. The rest is up to you and you alone. I think you are confusing your lack of reading comprehension or ability to understand complex or nuanced idea with other people’s cognitive dissonance. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/118 "2013-05-21T23:27:08Z")
The reason gun control fails has little to do with the evil NRA and much to do with the fact that the only people who place the gun issue as a high priority are people that are against gun control. Nobody cares about gun control. [Few in U.S. See Guns, Immigration as Nation's Top Problems](http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/119 "2013-05-21T23:52:50Z")
Well, there’s the 90 percent who support universal background checks. For starters. **Damuri** , thanks for demonstrating that you have nothing but primal screams to offer here. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126/120 "2013-05-21T23:54:48Z")
When are you two lovebirds going to stab and make up? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-post-mortem-debate/658126.md?page=7)