Any OP you write is going to be better than the OP that started this thread. I gave you some suggestions of topics you could include in a real debate on this subject, but you don’t want me (or probably anyone else) to write the OP for you…especially not me, since my OPs rarely get more than a few responses.
If you really want to debate the subject of violence in the US and how it relates to guns, you should start out by demonstrating a connection…DOES gun control laws have an effect in the US on gun violence? Does the prevalence and ease of access (or lack there-of) have a measurable impact? Realistically (instead of idealistically or ideologically) what could be done that isn’t being done currently? And what metrics would or could we use to determine if they are working? Can we apply those metrics to our current gun control regulations as well as those 10 years ago (or 20, or 30) to determine how well (or poorly) they have worked over that period of time wrt gun violence?
I think that you could have a debate on this stuff without pro-gun folks heads simply exploding if you laid out rational arguments and asked rational questions…something that wasn’t done in any way, shape or form by the guy who wrote the OP that sparked this one. ANYTHING you do will be better than that.
Thank you. That is what I attempted to do with my “Chicago” thread-I provided a link, got some argument, got opposing links with what seems to be better information, and I learned a few things. The “2nd Amendment is Sacred” vs. “2nd Amendment is Evil” crap did pop up, but not enough to hijack, I think.
And it was proven that he couldn’t, because pro-gun people couldn’t resist either taking shots at him, being overly defensive about the premise, and ignoring the question. Instead of saying “idiotic questions”, maybe replace it with “reasonable questions” and then answer them: “Yes, I as a pro-gun advocate can answer your questions without personal attacks”. And then present your argument.
Or we can go back and forth about how mean the other one’s being, I don’t really care.
Don’t tempt me to respond FOR you guys. I really shouldn’t have to show you how to craft a non-personal attack for a debate :rolleyes:
I wouldn’t say it would be compelling, but it would be a reasonable debate that would move past some of the roadblocks people like you have erected to prevent serious discussion on gun control
No you can’t. You are pretty angry. Just because we want to take away all your guns forever and lock you in a room so you can’t harm anyone is no reason to be upset!
You hit the nail on the head, both “things” are just that THINGS. Things don’t DO a damn thing. If the people who have a problem with guns (rather than their owners) want to have some sort of gun safety in order to own a gun, this is one gun owner telling you that I think that would be a fantastic idea.
However when you start talking about “assault weapons” and handgun bans or other outright limitations on what kinds of guns and where and who, then you are infringing my rights and I won’t stand idly by.
These things always devolve, not into a guns are dangerous issue, but a people who have guns are dangerous, and then the broad brushes come out. Which is flat out the wrong way to go about any change.
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
And it was proven that he couldn’t, because pro-gun people couldn’t resist either taking shots at him, being overly defensive about the premise, and ignoring the question. Instead of saying “idiotic questions”, maybe replace it with “reasonable questions” and then answer them: “Yes, I as a pro-gun advocate can answer your questions without personal attacks”. And then present your argument.
[/QUOTE]
He couldn’t ask a series of questions about whether he could ask some question (that he never actually asked) without people being mean to him. Yeah, THAT’S a debate.
So, the proper response (on THIS message board) should have been ‘Yes, you can ask us a question and we won’t be mean to you. Go ahead now and ask something, we will be gentle’. Yeah, THAT’S going to happen.
No point…with every post you make it more plain that you are completely biased and that the double standard is your proud banner, waving happily, even joyfully in the electronic breeze.
Abatis, I really don’t expect You to read this, so I don’t hold it against You if You don’t respond.
Now I had time to read all of Your previous post, so I did it. It was just that same to the end.
And to Your response. ( This is quite long, so I put it in a spoiler so You all can jump over it easier if You want to ).
[spoiler]
Not sure what You mean. What I mean with ‘swimming pool-argument’ is comparing how much people die in pools compared to those who get shot. They are not comparable.
I believe You did.
I see no problem there unless You’re paranoid or unstable. Show You’re responsible and You’ll get to keep the guns You need. And for the ‘need’, how many and what kind on guns a person really needs? I think most would be fine with just one and no-one needs more than a pistol or two and for hunters also a rifle and a shotgun ( yes, others may disagree saying law-abiding people need none, but IMHO they are wrong ).
Does taking guns away from psychos require more work that taking all guns away from everybody? How come?
What are the rightist ( or Your personal ) remedies and how they have been acted on? Now it just seems that You “solve” it by getting more guns that the psychos have, and I don’t believe You could mean that. Also what is this leftist ‘agenda’ that needs armed lunatics to run amok?
Bolding Mine - that would be great, please. I hate long posts ( like this ) and convoluted solutions.
I’ll grant You that I shouldn’t write My previous post before I had time to read Your whole post. Not that it did change anything.
BTW, how does wanting no more killing sprees make a person a leftist ( which I don’t consider Myself )?
Also being anti-gun violence isn’t the same thing as being anti-gun. I did shoot quite a lot when I was younger and it was fun, still is, but I never Myself owned more than air-rifles and currently an air-pistol 'cause there’s no room for a rifle in My apartment.[/spoiler]
Its relevant because that’s the response anyone gets when initiating a gun debate. He was simply trying to head off the expected automatic retorts first. Though I think he forgot stuff about swimming pools, knives, and cars being banned, its was a good selection of the typical gun arguments. Your refusal to either admit it, or simply move on ties us all to the current stalemate on gun debates, though I suspect you want that since you feel its a victory for your side
More like “Yes, you can ask us a question and we’ll give you our response”. If, in the course of the response, you want to dispel some myths about the OP’s assumptions, go ahead and do that. Tell him you believe pro-gun control people are not anti-liberty, tell him that it is not a universal belief of the pro-gun side to have unrestricted automatic weapons and concealed carry for all. Tell him that you believe people who favor gun control aren’t all trying to take away rights, but are trying to protect the rights and lives of people violated by gun violence. Tell him there is a stance that does not harm the Constitution while at the same time offers reasonable regulations on gun ownership. Tell him that grieving mothers and widows do have a special insight into gun proliferation that someone who only thinks of it in legal terms do not. Can you tell him that? Because a reasonable pro-gun person can. If I have to fake it, I can and will tell him that
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
Its relevant because that’s the response anyone gets when initiating a gun debate. He was simply trying to head off the expected automatic retorts first. Though I think he forgot stuff about swimming pools, knives, and cars being banned, its was a good selection of the typical gun arguments. Your refusal to either admit it, or simply move on ties us all to the current stalemate on gun debates, though I suspect you want that since you feel its a victory for your side
[/QUOTE]
Ok, now you are getting tedious. I posted the entire OP…the whole thing was him ‘simply trying to head off the expected automatic retorts first’. Every single sentence. Without exception. That’s what’s commonly called ‘poisoning the well’, by anyone not so blinded by partisan-ism that they would actually take the time to read the fucking thing.
No, I don’t feel this is a victory, because I never had that much stake in this ridiculous discussion. I feel you’ve made yourself look like a fool for defending such a ridiculous OP, regardless of your stance on the gun issue, but that’s neither here nor there from my perspective.
I can’t tell him a god damned thing except ‘yeah, you can ask a question…NOW FUCKING GET TO ASKING ALREADY INSTEAD OF ALL THIS WEASELING ABOUT, YOU FUCKING DWEEB!’.
I’ll tell you that if you want to debate the issue, I’m more than happy to do so, even if you want to try and trot out appeals to emotion and silly shit like that because you don’t have anything more substantial to bring forth. Feel free to start a thread in GD any time. But if every single sentence you write is basically ‘can we have this discussion? can we talk about this without someone being mean to me’ then I’ll say exactly the same thing I have already said here and in the thread in question.
Some of those are reasonable, some however, are not. And why is it in our best interest to be nice to him( general him) when he clearly is not interested in nice.
You go ahead and tell him you (even if you have to fake it) fighter of the 2nd amendment you!
No, that’s called responding to the argument before its made. I’m afraid I don’t know of any catchy idiom like “poisoning the well” to describe it though.
And again I have to point it out that you guys confirmed everything he said. If none, or a tiny minority of pro-gun people responded badly but most responded with actual debate, then he would have easily been proven wrong and a discussion could be had.
He did ask. Not in the way you would have liked, but reasonable questions were posed.
I doubt it, because then you would have just answered his questions instead of trying to feed me some garbage about poisoning the well. If you, as you claim, are happy to debate EVEN if I trot out appeals to emotion and “silly shit”, then you would have done so already. You have no desire to do that, you and others like you only have a desire to shout down anyone who doesn’t feel that more regulations on guns are bad and not an affront to our rights
Then why don’t you respond to what you see as reasonable and describe why you think his other answers are not? Instead the first reply, and I realize you don’t speak for John Mace but most of the replies were to the effect of some well poisoning accusations.
As for the best interest, I never claimed it was in anyone’s interest to do anything. It would be fun and intellectually stimulating to have an actual gun debate without the sort of hostile accusations that I see coming from the pro-gun side though. If that kind of reasonable debate is of no interest to you, then fine, I guess its not in your best interest to respond nicely. And btw, I disagree, I think he was perfectly nice, he’s just not naive enough to put forth neutral-sounding debate lines and have them trashed on with accusations of the sort he was trying to head off. Why bother if one knows that’s the type of response one will get?
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
Then why don’t you respond to what you see as reasonable and describe why you think his other answers are not? Instead the first reply, and I realize you don’t speak for John Mace but most of the replies were to the effect of some well poisoning accusations.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, by all means…here, let me answer:
Aren’t we already doing so? (Admittedly, this is the ONLY interesting question, but it’s so vague that it’s hard to elaborate without some meat)
Yes, it’s possible. Did you have a question?
Yes, it’s possible…and your question was?
Why yes, we can…and…question…??
Ah, something different. No, it’s not impossible. And that question would be??
Well, that’s good. I’m glad you don’t personally want to snatch away guns. Yes, less violence is certainly nice…sort of like world peace. What do you suggest? Oh, and could I get a pony? An invisible PINK pony? Thanks, in advance.
And, could you get around to a question and perhaps something to debate, since we’ve established that yes, we can have such a debate, and no, it’s not impossible…?
Sigh…back to this. Yes, we CAN have a converstation. No, the only response won’t be to scream about the ‘SECOND AMENDMENT’ (though, it’s a nice touch capitalizing it like that…very dramatic). No, it won’t drown out all those cries of grieving mothers over their poor lost babies, nor the innocent puppies and kittens who might have also been harmed in the creation of this OP.
So, now that we’ve cleared all that up, was there something you wanted to talk about?
Oh, sorry…you mean that the entire (hell, only) meat was in the title? Ah, I gotcha. Yeah, that’s definitely an OP worthy of deep discussion there, YS.
(You still don’t see how you are handwaving and bending over backwards to defend that lame ass OP, do you?)
Considering you haven’t really answered the question, I’m hardly the one handwaving and bending over backwards. You just posted an entire string of responses while claiming you didn’t know the question, then I tell you the question, then you make a snarky comment and ignore answering it. How about you acknowledge that the JS’sLE did ask a reasonable question and you ignored it and attacked him instead?
Since this is the type of behavior I expect in any gun control debate, I don’t bother anymore. Why would I? You can’t even acknowledge you were wrong about a question in the title of the thread!
Us knife collectors who EDC (everyday carry) blades aren’t so far gone only because we haven’t been pitted. And besides, a knife is a basic tool and is therefore more explainable.
I read everything, especially posts directed to me.
I was only going by the words / actions of those on the record regarding gun control. Perhaps those most strident anti’s have reined in their calls for various handgun bans post *Heller *but I feel that if Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, Kerry or Durbin in the Senate and a host of anti’s in the House and yes, even Obama felt there was no political cost to introducing/sponsoring/signing even the most draconian legislation, they wouldn’t remain as inactive as they are now.
Has Biden really altered his position that “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come”? How about Diane Feinstein complaining that, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”???
Truthfully, is it really unreasonable for gun rights supporters to believe the above well known anti-gunners wouldn’t, if held politically immune, jump on the chance to push for laws up to and including completely disarming the general population of the USA? Have those Zebras really changed their stripes?
And this is the crux of the problem and why the divide exists. You have zero understanding of what a RIGHT is.
Thank you so much for your benevolence and for doubling down on demonstrating your ignorance of what a RIGHT is.
Yes, which is why blanket proscriptions are so alluring to the left (especially when such laws mesh with controlling *real *undesirables).
Instead of addressing the specific illegal action, make a rule encompassing everyone and limit everyone’s action. HIPPA laws and other concerns make the mental health prohibition hard to enforce. Those concerns do compromise the database examined in a background check and make it spotty at best. Reluctance of people whose charge it is to raise warnings (we don’t want to huwrt widdle Timmy’s fweelings) has contributed to shootings like Virgina Tech and Aurora and others. Neither Cho or Holmes were legally barred from purchasing firearms and both passed the background checks although it is any layman’s diagnosis that both were batshit crazy.
Likewise, instead of enforcing the laws against straw-buying and funding the man hours needed to actually uncover gunrunning, it is much easier to just enact “One Gun a Month” and VIOLA, politicians have “done something” about gunrunning!!! Of course it is utter bullshit but after the TV lights are turned off and the lawmaker’s self-congratulations are over, whose paying attention? (well, until the next incident with a straw-bought weapon exposes the folly and new calls for more ineffectual gun restrictions are called for)
Well, in large cities the most important reforms need to be made in criminal justice.
Presently, weapons offenses are virtually ignored until someone gets shot and even then many aggravated offenses are bargained away or just pleaded down to simple offenses. So, before they even get to court the weapons offenses that would have identified them a violent offenders and tagged them, once they are released, as prohibited persons in a background check just disappear. Also needed is to reform the rules of procedure for felon in possession.
St. Louis Chief Dan Isom explains what he’s up against with these problems:
[INDENT][ul]
[li]“(I)n St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased. So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them.”[/li]
Page 11, Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground By Focusing on the Local Impact, Police Executive Research Forum, 2010 - LINK (2.34MB pdf)[/ul] [/INDENT]
To answer your question, as starting points I would recommend:
Force DA’s for truth in charging, reduce if not eliminate the bargaining away of weapons offenses, especially when a firearm is discharged.
Establish gun courts to expedite cases and fully fund forensic units to have necessary evidence ready at time of trial.
Truth in sentencing, reduce if not eliminate the seemingly automatic early release for violent weapon offenders, years away from their supposed release date.
Reform parole and probation with a real attempt made at supervising those out on the streets.
BUILD MORE PRISONS
Larger scope; decriminalize personal drug use, revisit drug cases /sentences now being served establish qualifications for early release of non-violent offenders.
See Chief Isom’s comments above. Soft justice does nothing but make hardened criminals. We already know who the bad guys are and we know that the vast majority of those killed and the killers are already criminals and known to authorities. Focus on those who have shown a disdain for society and the rules before you focus on those least likely to commit a crime. Of course that would force politicians to stop trying to convince suburban soccer moms that little Brice and Dakota have the same chance of getting gunned down on their cul-de-sac as Hakim and Jeaquaan have, slinging shit down in the hood.
I realize the maintenance of Liberty is tough, that’s why your side has abdicated it and why Constitutionalists will always be your enemy.
The proposed responses to bad acts is what exposes leftist tendencies. I already covered my thoughts on this.
Correct. Again, misplaced focus in response to gun violence is what makes one anti-gun. I am anti-gun violence but I am anti-violent criminal.
Chuck Schumer has also fired a gun. That does not afford him or you special powers of perception or understanding on the subject.
[QUOTE=Freakenstein]
And for the ‘need’, how many and what kind on guns a person really needs?
[/QUOTE]
As mentioned earlier, this is not a question the government gets to ask. Just as it is not appropriate for the government to ask “how many articles criticizing the President does a person need to write?”
The answer being, “As many as I want”. Unless and until the government can produce probable cause to show that my articles or my guns are actually hurting someone.
Note that this needs proof of actual harm - not the suspicion that someone might get hurt later, so we need to prevent it today. That is like closing down a newspaper because they might libel someone next week.
Abatis
That was indeed a fine post, much better that I expected it to be and I understand what You are saying in general.
If only You would have less vitriol and paranoia You might be quite convincing.
You’re probably going to jump on Me for this, but I am not American ( or even a ‘snaggletooth’ ). That must be the reason I really don’t understand why this is ( or should be ) so leftie-rightie issue. Also to a European the American concept of individual rights seems some sort of anarchy, it’s every man for himself ( and everything else is communism… ). It just doesn’t sound a safe place to live and it seems that You are thinking the same. But it doesn’t seem to bother You much as long You have Your guns - and this is what I can’t understand. I don’t see guns as a solution or ‘a right’, but a factor that loosely treated is contributing to a problem.
I hope You understand what I am saying in general.
Now I think I have said what I can and We have to accept that neither convinced the other ( not that anyone expected that ).
I probably won’t write here no more, it have actually been quite unpleasant reading all these hateful writings. I hope this post and Your latest show that gun discussion indeed can be much more civil than it has been in this thread.
And to everybody:
My take on that ‘poisoning the well’.
If that OP would’ve been just one of few gun threads here, it would’ve definitely been well poisoning, no doubt about that.
However, there have been countless gun discussions that have turned into train wrecks, so I understand the OP’s desperate and frustrated attempt to exclude the well known snags ( what I don’t understand, is how he ever thought it would work ).
