Read the next sentence:
You are the one who made the claim that an increase in gun ownership causes more crime.
What?
Goddammit, this is why I don’t argue with you guys. I *never *said that gun ownership causes crime.
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
No, this literally happens every single time when gun bans or confiscation is debated. It will always happen because, credit to your side, you have a winning argument that keeps political power on your side. But it is not a logical argument.
[/QUOTE]
And yet it was you who went nuclear first. Ironic, don’t you think? I mean, seriously…THINK about it.
I’ve actually answered this in prior threads so feel free to slog through to verify if you like. As I’m on record as saying, our system is set up to be able to change as attitudes change. It’s really one of our strengths. If, going through our system as it’s meant to be, with a majority of citizens on board, my fellow citizens decide to repeal the 2nd and then put in massive gun control and banning I’ll go along because the majority will have spoken and the system will have been modified as it was intended to be.
Of course, a few caveats are in order. First off, contrary to what you seem to believe, I don’t actually own a gun. I don’t feel the need to own one in my own home. What I fight for is the right to chose for myself whether I wish to have a gun or not. Secondly, the reason folks are so rancorous about this on the pro-gun side is because YOUR freaking side doesn’t abide by the above…instead, in the past, they have done everything they can in the most underhanded and slimiest ways possible. They have tried for decades to circumvent the 2nd Amendment and basically interpret it out of existence or otherwise nullify it. They have gone against the majority opinion on this. And they have used every means possible to get their way, regardless of how our system actually works or is supposed to work. So…I’m good with change if it comes. Ironically, I doubt you can say the same about the status quo, at least not honestly. I don’t consider folks on your side to be ‘cowards’, though I do consider some of the tactics by SOME of the folks on your side to be slimy and scummy…but I don’t paint everyone on the other side with a ridiculous broad brush. And finally, I’m actually pretty much in the middle on this issue…I’m NOT a rabid pro-gun fanatic. I honestly don’t have issues with some reasonable gun control as long as it’s not part of a slippery slope leading to fiat gun control and banning that flies in the face of the 2nd. I’m cool with registration, I’m cool with waiting periods and background checks, by and large, though the devil is in the details on all of those things.
I dinna thin’ that word, i.e. ‘coward’ means what you thin’ it means, kimo’sabe. And, frankly, the pro-gun side has some merit to their paranoia about what your side has done in the past. Personally, I think they need to ramp that paranoia down some and ease off a bit, but I can totally see WHY they feel as they do. It’s the classic example in the past of give an inch and the other side takes a mile then asks for more, and does so in bad faith, since their attitude is to achieve their end goal by any means possible, regardless of the Constitution or the will of the people.
If it happens through our system as it was intended to be changed I’d be unhappy but would honor the will of the majority in this. There is historical precedence for how it’s SUPPOSED to be changed and modified as times change. The converse question to you and those on your side is, will you actually bother to use those mechanisms to get your way, and honor the outcome, or will, having failed to do it the right way, revert to doing it the way you guys tried to do it for the last 3 or 4 decades?
What does “makes things worse” here mean besides “causes more crime”?
Its connected. Its not that much of a stretch to say that there are multiple reasons why I think owning guns is a bad idea. I’d lay all of them out at once but that would be pages and pages.
“You don’t need it”, that’s one
“Its dangerous”, that’s another
Feel free to debate it separately or together but I’d rather you not assume I was hiding one or moving the goalposts, thanks.
You think it doesn’t have anything to do with cowardice, I do. And my argument is not as superficial as what the items are made of so please don’t go around claiming that.
And there’s no “so what if guns can cause harm”. That’s a HUGE issue that cannot be handwaved await because it doesn’t concern you. I’ve done this before, would you consider a bomb to be proper self defense? Why or why wouldn’t you support someone walking around with a vest of dynamite, ready to blow if anyone messes with him?
I called most gun owners cowards because they overestimate their vulnerability in our relatively safe country. Danger is not hidden around every corner, there aren’t roving death squads out to get you after dark. You are pretty safe if you live in America. Most of us will never need a weapon to defend ourselves in our lifetime. Therefore people who are afraid and spend enormous time trying to be safe by arming themselves are cowardly to me. Lose the fear, we don’t have that much to be afraid of in this country
Are you joking? If you want to discuss my arrogance, fine. I’m arrogant. If you actually want to tackle why or why not a person may be cowardly given they don’t live in a place like Somalia and still feel the need to own firearms, then we have something to talk about. Yes, I made a sweeping pronouncement, but it was to the point of the topic, which is guns. My arrogance has nothing to do with anything
The point is you cannot answer a simple question on guns because I think you don’t want to have to either lie, or confess to a truth that you don’t feel comfortable saying out loud.
Like I explained, it is not such an outrageous fantasy given we’ve had gun control that has passed in the last 20 years, major ones. A reasonable person can easily imagine a scenario where it happens again with slight changes in our feelings towards guns. I didn’t concoct it to test whether you have a good imagination, I did it to see how you would react to our government after a gun ban. You refused to answer the question, which points me not to a lack of imagination on your part, but a desperate attempt to hide your true feelings on the matter. That’s what point I’ve proven.
It could mean making the existing levels more severe.
The Supreme Court avoided the Embarrassing Second Amendment for decades before finally being forced by D.C.'s flat-out ban on handguns to concede in Heller and McDonald that the 2nd Amendment isn’t a dead letter. Since then they’ve tried desperately to avoid bringing those rulings to their logical conclusion: that almost all laws that categorically forbid citizens from owning firearms are probably unconstitutional. The pro-gun legal forces are slowly but surely working to back those laws into a corner.
It’s because your question is nonsensical. But here you change the scenario. Originally you said nothing else changes. Now you say that there would be slight changes in our feelings towards guns. Do you really think the 2nd amendment can be repealed without significant change in the feeling towards guns? Like I asked already, can you craft a scenario where that can happen? Here is where you can add any criteria to the hypothetical.
What major gun controls occurred in the last 20 years (plural)? Are you talking about the federal assault weapon ban that passed 21 years ago? And you’re comparing a ban on features to a ban and confiscation of all firearms? That’s also not based in reality.
OK, let’s debate it separately. Starting with the first point: You think people shouldn’t own guns because they’re unlikely to need them. Do you feel the same way about seat belts, fire extinguishers, or insurance? Or is wearing your seat belt still a logical choice even though your chances of being involved in a car accident that day are quite slim?
Having fire extinguishers doesn’t cause more fires. If it did, the smart thing would be to not have so many. That’s why the argument works for guns and not fire extinguishers.
Prove it. We know police go out to get better guns because criminals have better ones, why wouldn’t it work the other way around?
You’re probably a gun owner, but at the very least a gun supporter. So you would probably say that its smarter to go on offense then stick to defense. But if you want an apology, sure, I’m sorry I said it first. I expect it to happen and I figured it’s better to get that out of the way beforehand. Now if nobody accuses me of being fascist for the rest of this thread, I owe you a Coke 
Fair enough. Now the second part of the question: Would you consider America still the land of the free, or about as free as it was before? Or would you consider it descending into a horrible spiral of doom?
I suspect we’ll not agree on this. I don’t consider the anti-gun side to be slimy. I think interpretation and re-litigation is a standard part of our evolving civilization. Just because some farmers thought one thing about manually loaded muskets 200+ years ago is no reason the law should remain the same. The pro-gun side doesn’t like to admit that often, if ever, because its one more argument they can use, but there is absolutely nothing slimy, underhanded, or illegal about reinterpreting the law. Laws are changed all the time, even Amendments are amended or expanded. Hell, we had an Amendment that repealed another one! So whatever the courts do when gun rights are litigated, it is not understand by itself.
Also majority opinion isn’t an argument, see Loving v. Virginia. Sometimes it supports you, sometimes it doesn’t. In this case, I think guns are contributing to violence and harm, and I’m perfectly fine going against public opinion to protect them.
Sure, I do paint a large number of gun owners like that. I think the behavior is cowardly. But I think the only valid response to that is not accusing me of broadly speaking, but to convince me such a behavior either doesn’t exist or is not cowardly. Because so what if I paint people with a broad brush? If they deserve it, then they deserve it. So convince me they don’t deserve it, because I’m perfectly fine generalizing since I consider it factual.
I explained why its apt. When you exaggerate your vulnerability and feel unsafe when you’re not armed, when you’re pretty safe already, then that’s either delusion or cowardice. If a regular adult was swimming in 3 feet of water and insisted on wearing life preservers and having a life guard present, I’d call him a coward who was afraid of water too. Tell me how I’m using it wrong
Hold on a second, we are NOT talking about the actions of people who are in favor of gun control. That is absolutely not the cowardice I was referring to and you know that. The cowardice comes from the fear of being vulnerable to attack. Not the actions of the anti-gun side.
[/QUOTE]
Personally, I think they need to ramp that paranoia down some and ease off a bit, but I can totally see WHY they feel as they do. It’s the classic example in the past of give an inch and the other side takes a mile then asks for more, and does so in bad faith, since their attitude is to achieve their end goal by any means possible, regardless of the Constitution or the will of the people.
[/QUOTE]
Which do you consider in bad faith? With regards to some recent laws proposed or litigated, I’m for ammo restrictions, banning certain types of guns, banning modifications, banning them in places like church or school or restaurants. Are you talking about those?
[/QUOTE]
If it happens through our system as it was intended to be changed I’d be unhappy but would honor the will of the majority in this. There is historical precedence for how it’s SUPPOSED to be changed and modified as times change. The converse question to you and those on your side is, will you actually bother to use those mechanisms to get your way, and honor the outcome, or will, having failed to do it the right way, revert to doing it the way you guys tried to do it for the last 3 or 4 decades?
[/QUOTE]
First, thank you for answering the question. I do think you’re a bit one-sided in terms of thinking who does the slimy, underhanded stuff but whatever. Second, how is is supposed to be changed in your mind? Surely you’re not simply talking about an Amendment and the whole ratification process? Are you saying its either repeal the 2nd or we cannot make any gun restrictions? Because people who say that are insane. The 2nd makes mention of “well-regulated militia” that NRA types never seem to hear. “You, as an individual, are not part of a militia, you shouldn’t own guns.”; that is not a radical thing to say. Neither is “regulation includes restrictions on carry and usage and types”. Last, what laws passed in the last 3 or 4 decades do you consider to have been done in the wrong way?
I’ve purposefully refrained from calling you out on the Constitutionality of the things I feel you’re supporting. If a law is passed, its Constitutional; it might be wrong but I’m not going to quibble over whether it was legal since it passed, so don’t go telling me that we’re doing things the “wrong” way. If it passed, then it was done correctly. Maybe not morally right or logically sound, but there is nothing Unconstitutional about a law that passed. Therefore no laws or restrictions, even ones later overturned, is really Unconstitutional.
None of which matters to my question and Bone’s refusal to answer it.
Really? You’re going to take my “slight changes in feelings towards guns” as the reason why you can’t answer that question? You know what, I won’t even call you out on that. Let’s just put it into the original scenario: If guns were banned due to some small changes in our national conscience towards guns, how would you react and would you think America was still free? There’s nothing nonsensical about the question nor was my adding that line a significant backpedal, but you are free to answer whichever version you feel passes your muster. Or don’t answer it and I’ll probably correctly assume the answer anyway
So because it doesn’t come close enough in your personal comparison of the real and fictional laws, you refuse to answer. I guess I shouldn’t have expected much more from someone who feels they cannot imagine a fictional scenario. :rolleyes:
I mentioned insurance people. The analogy is not apt because you cannot offensively use those to kill people. A closer analogy would be body armor or a shield. So no, I don’t feel the same way about those things because I think those are terrible comparisons.
I doubt I can “prove” intent or motivations of criminals, but they certainly don’t use them on police very often if that was their reason for getting them.
In 2013, criminals murdered 8,454 people with guns. That includes 31 police officers. Police shot and killed 458 criminals that same year.
Wouldn’t it be strange if criminals got their guns to fight police, but use them to murder 271 private citizens for every cop they kill? It’s almost as if they got their guns to aid in the commission of crimes against private citizens, and only occasionally end up in gunfights with the police.
Criminals aren’t murdering private citizens in revenge, they get guns to protect them from cops. Of all the things I’ve heard that’s silly in this debate, the fact that you’d assume that criminals are 1) a homogeneous entity that avenges on behalf of other criminals, and 2) that they kill random people for revenge instead of the police, is mind-boggling.
Just say you can’t prove it. And admit its silly to think that there isn’t an arms race when it comes to getting better weapons. 
missed the edit window, but I’d also add that private citizens shot and killed 223 criminals as well.
Go reread the first line of #92. If there’s an arms race, I don’t believe it’s with the police. It’s far more likely to be with the rival gang or drug dealer on the next block. That’s who they’re usually getting in gunfights with. They usually get guns to protect them from other criminals, or to intimidate the people they want to rob into submitting to their show of force, or sometimes to kill someone they’re mad at, not to “protect themselves from cops”. You can probably count on your fingers and toes the number of criminals that win gunfights with police in a given year.
You’re not going to call me out on your goal post moving and ridiculous hypotheticals that are not based in reality? Gee thanks!
One of the problems is, you’re being vague about the magnitude of what you are talking about. You say, many, some, lots, all sorts of things that really have no meaning. Occasionally you say most, which at a minimum, means greater than 50%. So when you say that most gun owners are cowards, at least there is a way to quantify the bluster - near 40 million if the assumption there are 80 million gun owners.
Previously, your hypothetical said no other changes to society, except banning guns. That’s pretty clear also - it means none. And since that is clear, it’s easy to reject as absurd and delusional. But now you introduce another unquantifiable variable. You say that your hypothetical can include slight changes in feelings towards guns. So how to answer when that can mean anything really, because who knows what mental gymnastics can be done with the word “slight”. So let’s go with that for a moment, just to indulge you. If guns were banned as a result of a constitutional amendment, then I would continue to obey the law as I have always done. America would still be reasonably free, though less so.
If you would then indulge me, what set of circumstances do you think could happen that would fall under your description of slight changes in feelings towards guns that would result in guns being banned? I’m trying to demonstrate your hypothetical is absurd and you can defeat this by crafting something that fits your own fact pattern that exists in the realm of reality.
This whole post however:
This post is again disconnected from reality. I’m trying to figure out how you can read post #92 to which you are responding and still have this make sense. You’ve so poorly interpreted the post you’re responding to it’s mind boggling. And to end with a call to admit that something can’t be proven - when the post you are states as its first sentence, “I doubt I can prove…”. It’s very strange.
So let’s say that’s true. The solution is not to make guns harder to get, but to make it easier? How motivated do you think a criminal will be to getting a gun than a regular citizen. Because, unless I’m living in my liberal dream world, guns are legal in America. Why do we still have shootings? Why aren’t every street shooting instantly stopped by 20 armed citizens with guns?
Of course not, I’m a reasonable person. It wasn’t moving the goal post and it wasn’t a ridiculous hypothetical. Others I’ve been arguing with have answered it, so either there’s something wrong with you, or them. Because I’m starting to care less and less about this topic the more you keep stonewalling reasonable debate. But I guess that was your plan all along
If I say most, it means more than 50%. Many could be more than 50%, a plurality, or a way of emphasis. You’ll have to tell me the exact sentence before I can tell you which one it is
I’ll take your answer, thanks for finally addressing it. No, your nitpicking is still silly and a way of trying to deflect the question, but I guess you were backed into a corner or something and couldn’t get out without looking, dare I say it, cowardly 
Suppose people didn’t go nuts after Sandy Hook and Connecticut passed a strong gun restriction law. Maybe photos of the crime scene leaked out and there were only a handful of extremists that could have denied that it actually happened. And soon after, another Sandy Hook-like event happened and/or extremists angry at Republican caving on gun control shot up a GOP event. Its not unprecedented, Yitzak Rabin was killed by a Jew who thought he was giving the Palestinians Jewish land. After the law is upheld, it is expanded by the federal government to the rest of the nation as quickly as 9/11 hastened the passing of the Patriot Act…
Wait wait wait!
Before you reply to that, let me pre-empt your response: You are free to call that scenario shit and offer up whatever reasons you think it won’t work, but I firmly believe its not unreasonable. No, this isn’t a comprehensive, state-by-state, vote-by-vote novel of what will happen, so details are not going to be there, you’ll just have to assume its there. And no, lack of such details does not invalidate the whole thing. I don’t have to write a novel to prove such a thing can happen, I’ve given a rough outline satisfying your request. Don’t go assuming I should have put something there which you didn’t ask for, THIS scenario is plausible, that’s all.
You are free to think what you want, I don’t really care :rolleyes:
Cite? You assert that as if it were fact, but have offered no documentation.
Because only a relatively small percentage of Americans choose to get concealed carry permits (maybe 10 million, just spit-ballin’), and an even smaller percentage actually carries on a regular basis, and even some of those that are carrying are going to choose to run around the corner rather than insert themselves in someone else’s gunfight.
ETA: in other words, most street shootings don’t even have a single armed citizen nearby, let alone 20. What does that have to do with whether those people should be free to choose whether to protect themselves with a gun or not?
No solution was offered, merely laying out an accurate picture of the facts. So why isn’t every street shooting stopped instantly…well because that’s not how things work in reality. I sense a theme. Not all crime can be stopped, not all crime scenario is resolved with a gun. In addition, there are roughly only 11M people with concealed carry permits (states that do not require a permit notwithstanding). Of those people, they probably aren’t carrying everyday. The number of people with carry permits is not sufficient to see the circumstance you describe. But it does happen occasionally. Like in Chicago with the Uber driver.
Of course you are. In the same way that the Brady Campaign wants reasonable restrictions. I’m reasonable too. I want reasonable gun laws. Because they’re reasonable, and I am too.
So here’s your hypothetical:
Mass tragedy, victim exploitation, overturning SCOTUS precedent, and hastily passing laws like the Patriot Act was. This is what you consider *slight *changes in people’s sentiment towards guns. At least this gives a data point on your idea of what “slight” changes would look like.
I will say you’ve made a habit in this thread providing instruction to others on how to respond and engage with you. All of these are from different posts:
It’s like a reverse strawman, but less effective.
Well, what I’d really like is for you to keep pushing gun control and confiscation. It’s doing wonders for your cause.