On my way out the door to work Argent. Thanks for the reply and I’ll respond fully when I get back which given that this is a gun control thread means that my response will be eight pages later. 
I thought you were a member because you re-upped in a fit of pique in order to spite some strangers on the internet.
I’ll be totally upfront with you; if I’d had easy access to a gun up until about 10 years ago, I’d probably have shot at least one person by now.
I’ve been a member for a while - then I re-upped, to spite some strangers on the internet. But hey, I needed to do it anyway. And now I’m set for the next three years.
The extent to which you are required to, let’s be kind, exaggerate - maybe “strawman beyond all recognition” would be more accurate - your opponents’ positions and strip them of all nuance in order to be able to justify yourself speaks volumes.
Why would I need to exaggerate bullshit like that when it’s the poster’s own damn words?
Want to talk about strawmen, what about all this horseshit (especially from Diogenes) about gun owners “lovingly caressing” their guns and “whispering sweet nothings” to them and “compensating for their small penises” and all the other shit that gets thrown around in these debates? What about that? How’s that for totally misrepresenting the positions of gun owners and making them seem like lunatics so it’s easier to mock them?
I don’t see you complaining about any of that. Even though it’s precisely what you’re calling ME out for - “exaggerate - maybe “strawman beyond all recognition” would be more accurate - your opponents’ positions and strip them of all nuance in order to be able to justify yourself”
No I don’t believe that the argument that baning guns will not necessarily cause there to be no guns is a new argument, which is why I brought it up–you don’t see to have considered it.
Let me tell you about two things I’d like never to see again from a gun advocate during a debate.
- “Cars kill more people than guns, so they are therefore more dangerous, but you never talk about getting rid of cars.”
Please, please, for the love of guns, educate yourself about odds ratios or relative risk. When there is a risk factor (say C) that one is exposed to an order of magnitude more frequently than another (say G), the raw number of undesired outcomes for C will be much higher, but that does not make it a more dangerous thing. It is the proportion of undesired outcomes over the number of uses of C or G that is important.
- “These fools don’t even know that the stock of the Verbelfetzer 47 is two inches shorter than the Verbelfetzer 47Q, or that it holds eleventeen rounds and not twentysomeodd.”
Somehow gun advocates seem to think that the intimate knowledge of some apparently trivial differences among types of weapons is a winning argument in these debates. It actually makes you look more like fetishists in the same way that knowing the names of Spock’s parents is not all that impressive to those who are not Trekkers.
All that matters is that in incidents like Saturdays here in Pittsburgh, someone had a weapon that could result in relatively quickly and easily killing three armed police officers and holding all the others at bay for hours, and you support the right of the average person to have such a weapon.
ETA: 3. “I’m tough and you’re a pansy because I like guns.” Nuff said.
This is the perfect place. The OP of this thread says that gun advocates bear responsbility for something. I contend that that is an absolutely contentless statement. Some people assign “moral responsibility” to a person or group to (i) elevate their opinion to the level of objective truth or (ii) argue for a policy position without having to discuss actual real world implications, both of whic are complete bullshit.
Also, I am flabbergasted at you for being flabbergasted at me. All of this talk of “moral obligation” and “morally wrong” and “moral responsibility,” and you are just happy to frolic right along like those words have meaning. You haven’t even thought about it enough to give me a snappy one-sentence response (instead you deflect the question).
Well, I’m glad to know I can simply disregard what you post in regards to anything political, now that you have openly admitted that you are an irrational, unreasonable individual who refuses to participate in reality.
I mean, I deduced that much already from your posting history, but it’s handy to have the words from your own proverbial mouth.
No. This is absolutely not unimportant. The whole ridiculous “assault weapons ban” was instigated by a woman who wanted to ban certain rifles for having certain features but SHE HERSELF DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THOSE FEATURES WERE FOR. How can people not see how ignorant and insane this is? The people making gun control laws (and advocating them) seem to have as much knowledge about guns as the Pope does about gay sex - in both cases, they have no right to make rules about shit that they don’t understand at all.
You joke around with the silly gun names and the ridiculous two-inch difference or whatever, trivializing the fact that it is indeed an important issue. Remember Carolyn McCarthy and the “shoulder thing that goes up?” This woman wanted to ban all guns with barrel shrouds and she didn’t know what a barrel shroud was.
The details matter.
But this post will get steamrolled right over, just like all the others, with more change-the-subject hyperbole instead of logical argument.
Because you just steamrollered right over my point: Do you or do you not support the right of the average individual to own a weapon that can readily kill three armed police officers and hold the remainder of the police at bay for hours?
It doesn’t matter two shits what the specs of the fucking thing are; you support the functionality of it.
When I first joined this board I attempted to engage in a discussion about guns with several people here. I too was pretty much knocked over with the line of reasoning that “you just do not know all the details about guns the way we do”. In the end, what I found out was no matter how much you wanted to concede to the gun supporters, they were not willing to concede anything because they saw themselves as knowledgable while I was ignorant of techinical matters involving firearms.
I remember the argument that they said many people had no intention of using the guns but were only collectors. So I said “fine” and suggested that the gun be displayed but a piece be removed or negated so that it could nto be fired. “OH NO” they replied. Then the gun is not a gun. And so it went.
This is really one of those issues where there seems to be no middle ground at all.
They most certainly are NOT! They are the largest and perhaps the oldest, and thus the only one most journalists and anti-gun people know about. They are also one of the most moderate of them all.
There are about a dozen national organizations that I am aware of, plus ones in each state. I belong to several (in the sense of giving money and reading newsletters, not in being involved in running them), and I was wondering, even before you posted that, how the the people who do run them feel about the NRA getting all the publicity, even if it is negative publicity.
I sure do. Now wha( is the impact of me bearing moral responsibility for this man’s actions? Must I pay a fine or something?
By they way, Spock’s parents were Sarek and T’Pau.
Hopefully, said people wouldn’t be stocking ammo for those guns, which tends to make firing them problematic. Collectors (of any stripe) generally prefer their collection to be in the best shape possible. For firearms–or for a less lethal example, coin banks–this would mean being in working condition.
Not saying you don’t have a right to be concerned, just playing devil’s advocate.
As far as gun specs go, they don’t really matter in the strictest sense, but if a person doesn’t know such things they probably don’t know much else about firearms either. That isn’t the type of person that should be writing laws on the subject.
Yes I do. The risks involved are part of the price of living in a free society, and I am willing to accept them. If you look at the political ramifications of gun banning efforts in the past, it seems that most of my fellow citizens feel the same way. You are looking only at the hazards and not the benefits.
No, you are safer because your neighbors have guns. If you posted a sign on your front door saying “No gun inside” how long would you last? You benefit from the protection of uncertainty. Take away all of your neighbors guns and where are you? They bear the risks and responsibilities of gun ownership for you, and you are a parasite, like those that benefit from other peoples vaccinations without the expense and risk.
It’s already been pointed out to you that the herd immunity model doesn’t apply here. Frankly, it’s stupid to suggest it does. It simply means that criminals will be more likely to arm themselves with as much firepower as they can, and more likely to kill people if confronted.
And I am considering the risks and benefits. The risks outweigh the benefits.