Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 376 of 409 (131298)
08-07-2004 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by xavier999
08-07-2004 3:48 AM


Re: Misconception about the Constitution and Bill of Rights
quote:
Making a low cost product in and of itself isn't bad. I shop at Wal-Mart all the time.
Making a product that is low in cost because of unsafe and faulty design is bad, and that is what these companies are being allowed to do.
The idea is that if US gun manufacturers were required to meet quality and safety standards, just like the manufacturers of teddy bears and swing sets, several very profitable guns wouldn't be quite as popular with the criminals because they would be too expensive.
quote:
As to people misusing the product I say it is bad. But again, let's try and fix the root of the problem. Why are people committing crimes in the first place? It's not because they have a gun.
The easy and wide availability of cheap, easily concealed handguns makes the use of a gun in a crime more likely.
quote:
I don't need to list the social problems that are plaguing many of our cities today. Fixing these social problems would cut down on ALL types of crime, including those that are non-gun related.
Completely agreed.
PS. I haven't been in a walmart in over 10 years. Walmart represents so many of the things that are wrong with America today. Walmart puts entire blocks of privately owned shops out of business in the towns it enters, thus taking money out of the community and filling the corporate coffers elsewhere, it is a major part of the homogenization of American culture, it treats it's workers like shit, it treats it's domestic suppliers like shit, it promotes the exportation of manufacturing jobs overseas, etc. ...but that is for another thread.
quote:
I agree with you on this one Schraf. There is no reason a firearm should fail a drop test, especially in this day and age. Making a manufacturor produce a quality product is a very reasonable request.
Then why has the gun lobby resisted every single effort to do so?
quote:
This particular safety standard would not infringe upon the right to own and use a firearm. But before you load up the wagon and go to town on me for saying that this doesn't mean that the government should be able to do anything it wants simply in the name of safety. Safety is a good thing. We should always strive to make all areas of our life safer, but NOT if it comes at the cost of giving up those rights that our nation was founded upon.
I don't mind if you have a musket. You can have all of the muskets you want.
quote:
Like I have said time and time again. Let's start looking at the roots of all these problems and come up with ways to fix them that do not take away ANY of our rights.
I'll even let you have a dueling pistol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by xavier999, posted 08-07-2004 3:48 AM xavier999 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by xavier999, posted 08-09-2004 11:03 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 377 of 409 (131299)
08-07-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by xavier999
08-07-2004 3:55 AM


Re: Misconception about the Constitution and Bill of Rights
quote:
Sorry about that. Your posts kind of fell throught the cracks when contracycle started replying.
No prob. That happens all the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by xavier999, posted 08-07-2004 3:55 AM xavier999 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 378 of 409 (131300)
08-07-2004 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by xavier999
08-07-2004 4:37 AM


Re: Suicide
(covers ears against the bad trumpet sounds)
quote:
Planning and effort to find a tall building?
Well, yes, and please remember that they have to be able to get up to the roof, or be able to get out of a window.
Severly depressed people often don't want to get out of bed, let alone go out of the house and look around for a building and sneak onto the roof.
quote:
Distracted from killing themself?
Well, yeah.
quote:
Let's not forget about bridges, cliffs, water towers, radio towers, and grain elevators (for those in the Midwest). I'm not saying there is no truth to what you said, but just so little that it can't really be used to draw the conclusion you have made
I'll agree that it's not all that strong.
However, ragarding carbon monoxide poisoning, gund are much more popular a method, and that is just true. Something like 60% of elderly suicides are performed with a gun, probably because it takes the least amount of physical effort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by xavier999, posted 08-07-2004 4:37 AM xavier999 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 379 of 409 (131308)
08-07-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by nator
08-05-2004 9:32 AM


Re: Misconception about the Constitution and Bill of Rights
Scraf says:
As such, there are several companies which produce very popular low quality handguns that are used frequently in criminal activity.
Theses guns generally fail the "drop test" in which they often will discharge when dropped.
Here's an example:
But then publishes a report showing the Raven Arms was the number one crime gun.
First, the frequency of being listed in statistics says nothing about it failing the Drop test.
Second, the quote about Raven Arms is also slightly missleading. I happen to be familar with that BATF information and what it is refering to is "Guns recovered at crime scenes".
Guns recovered really has no relationship to guns used or even total crimes. While the very cheap guns from the Davis/Jennings family are the most commonly recovered guns at a crime scene for decades, the reason has nothing to do with safety, it's because they are cheap. They are the kind of gun that the criminal doesn't mind loosing or droping. They are also pretty unreliable.
But in those same studies of recovered firearms, there are also major difference based on age. Not surprisingly, the younger criminals choose cheaper guns by far. Since those in the under 25 category make up a very large percentage of the total crime population, it is also not surprising that cheaper guns are more common.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by nator, posted 08-05-2004 9:32 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by contracycle, posted 08-09-2004 11:45 AM jar has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 380 of 409 (131840)
08-09-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by joz
08-06-2004 1:42 PM


Re: Misconception about the Constitution and Bill of Rights
quote:
Do these people by any chance also own kitchen knives? Or a hammer? Or a screwdriver? Or a......
Well IF these were AS EFFECTIVE as guns in killing people nobody would buy them... but guns are much more effective, and much more likely to kill accidentally and at a distance.
This subtopic has been covered in some depth.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-09-2004 09:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by joz, posted 08-06-2004 1:42 PM joz has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 381 of 409 (131845)
08-09-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Silent H
08-06-2004 1:44 PM


quote:
YOU would not need tanks, artillery, fighter bombers, etc etc... Only if you had enough people to form an ARMY would you need this. And then you would not get them on a black market, but rather from friends within the military that are taking sides in your civil war.
Yes.
[qupote] The size struggle we have been discussing is individual size which is guns and basic explosives.[/quote]
No, we have not been - if that is an assumption you have been working on, its the first time you mentioned it. you asked me why bI d8idnt support personal weapons in the name of resistance to the state - and as you accept, that is becuase I need a whole army to fight the state, or to co-opt the states army. In either case, my posession of a 9 mil peashooter makes no difference.
quote:
I take it these are safer in home use than US guns, sold on the white market?
Of course not. But, I would only have one under conditions of war, in which case I alrady face substantial risks.
quote:
And the tools of this will be safer in the home, how?
The tools of what, the mass strike? That makes no sense I'm afraid.
quote:
You just can't have it all ways contra. But this is what it seems, you want a strong government that protects the people from themselves by making sure they stay disarmed, yet people should be arming themselves with explosive devices to overthrow that same government.
Huh? I never said anything about a strong state - I regard tyhe state as the oppression of the citizenry. But I say - either I'm living the life of a citizen, or I'm up in arms. If the former, I don;lt need private violence, and if the latter, I need private violence on a much, much larger scale thatn purchasing a pistol allows.
There's no contradiction in this position at all. The constradiction lies in the hubris of those who DO own guns based on the second amendment, knowing full well those guns would never, ever, allow them to resist the state any more than Randy Weaver or David Koresh could achieve.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-09-2004 10:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Silent H, posted 08-06-2004 1:44 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2004 12:09 PM contracycle has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 382 of 409 (131855)
08-09-2004 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by xavier999
08-06-2004 1:44 PM


Re: Misconception about the Constitution and Bill of Rights
UK, but previously I lived in South Africa, which also had prevalent private firearms ownership, although apparently not on the same principles that appare to operate in the US.
quote:
Oh, so all families have the same likelyhood of killing each other if a gun is in a house? All people are alike. Just carbon copies of each other. Nobody has different personalities. Nobody is more responsible than anyone else when it come to evil firearms. When we get a gun in our hands we all turn into homicidal maniacs. I see your point so clearly now. Nice job of dodging my question, though.
Your special circumstances - if all your family members hapopen to be saints - in no way make a general case. I am addressing the genereal case. And furthermore, I am simply not going to accept an argument that you advance based on the self-reporting of your own responsibility and competence. You would say that, wouldn't you.
quote:
No, the fact that you think everyone with a gun might blow you away on a whim is what makes you paranoid (reference my earlier post). People who aren't armed are physically capable of killing you too.
Duh. But, while I can have a good idea who is close enoigh to me to present a physical threat, if firearms are known to be in the region then that envelope of potential threat must be extended to at least 20m. And it will apply through walls and doors and curtains.
And I note you still resort to primitive character assasination, that of "paranoia". I didnl;t say anything about proabability or intent, only power. And if a gun had not given them that power, why did they want it?
quote:
Why do you ASSUME a person with a gun won't try to make an escape first too?
I didn't ASSUME that, I said I'd be more likely to survive by running than by escalating. If I'm going to run, then why have a gun?
This makes no assumption about what a notional gun owner would do, and is not dependant on assuming they are "cowboys". You are over-extending my argument and putting words in my mouth.
quote:
Yeah, you definately have been watching too much television. A device for homicide? Please.
Really? What else does it do? I mean, it must have some other function, becasue only a drama queen would describe it according to its prupose. Maybe you use yours for gardening? Soil aeration, giving those lil' earthworms a helping hand? I knew a guy who used his pistol to make crushed ice once, is it something like they do for you?
quote:
I can tell you are so afraid of guns that nothing that ANYONE says is going to change your mind. You obviously have a preconditioned fear response that you will probably never overcome.
Can you tell that? I wasn't aware you had a mind-reading machine. And if you do have a mind-reading machine, I can't see why you ewould also want a gun; after all you'd be able to tell who all the bad people are and avoid them.
Even the many other people in this post who are anti-gun at least approach it with rationality and I can respect that. You have your fears and your catch phrases.
quote:
They are all in safes. Yes, the ones I keep my firearms in. In the safes. I await your meaningful response.
Thats good. Where is the ammunition stored?
I note you have not specifically reported where your weapons are stored at night.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-09-2004 10:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by xavier999, posted 08-06-2004 1:44 PM xavier999 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by xavier999, posted 08-09-2004 10:06 PM contracycle has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 383 of 409 (131858)
08-09-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by xavier999
08-07-2004 3:48 AM


Re: Misconception about the Constitution and Bill of Rights
quote:
Making a low cost product in and of itself isn't bad. I shop at Wal-Mart all the time. As to people misusing the product I say it is bad. But again, let's try and fix the root of the problem. Why are people committing crimes in the first place? It's not because they have a gun. I don't need to list the social problems that are plaguing many of our cities today. Fixing these social problems would cut down on ALL types of crime, including those that are non-gun related.
Yes, it would. But this is in no way a defence of gun ownership - it is merely an attempt to evade the issue. The prevalence of guns means that many crimes are committed with weapons when it may be that none are needed. It's also a Utopian proposition - yes, we could wait untyil the world was perfect before we tried to solve any problems, or we could simply recognise the world is not perfect and do the best we can.
quote:
Let's start looking at the roots of all these problems and come up with ways to fix them that do not take away ANY of our rights.
And this seems to be a very significant concession on your part - for without the historical accident that is the US constitution, ity would NOT be your right to own a firearm.. Obviously, it applies in no other state - so if the only argument you can advance for gun owneship is so localised, you have conceded the general case.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-09-2004 10:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by xavier999, posted 08-07-2004 3:48 AM xavier999 has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 384 of 409 (131864)
08-09-2004 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by jar
08-07-2004 11:36 AM


Re: Misconception about the Constitution and Bill of Rights
quote:
But in those same studies of recovered firearms, there are also major difference based on age. Not surprisingly, the younger criminals choose cheaper guns by far. Since those in the under 25 category make up a very large percentage of the total crime population, it is also not surprising that cheaper guns are more common.
All of which firmly reinforces Schraf's point: irresponsibile manufacturers are churning ourt cheap guns which appeal to a criminal market and are frequently recovered from crime scenes. This is an excellent demonstration of the total futility of "self-regulation".
I thought you were supposed to be arguing the other side of the case?
This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-09-2004 10:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by jar, posted 08-07-2004 11:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by jar, posted 08-09-2004 12:04 PM contracycle has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 385 of 409 (131872)
08-09-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by contracycle
08-09-2004 11:45 AM


Re: Misconception about the Constitution and Bill of Rights
Not at all. Smoke and mirrors.
Schraf's point was that the Raven failed the drop test yet there was no evidence presented that the Raven in fact did fail the drop test.
Please don't misquote me. I personally belive that the Jennings/Davis/Lorcin/Bryco clan are bad guys. I would love to see them out of business. But that has nothing to do with gun control.
If you check the California Handgun Roster you will find that the Davis/Lorcin/Jenningings/Phoenix Arms/Bryco guns still listed and that they pass the California drop test.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by contracycle, posted 08-09-2004 11:45 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by contracycle, posted 08-10-2004 6:33 AM jar has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 386 of 409 (131875)
08-09-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by contracycle
08-09-2004 11:07 AM


There's no contradiction in this position at all.
Yes, yes there is. Here is your point...
The constradiction lies in the hubris of those who DO own guns based on the second amendment, knowing full well those guns would never, ever, allow them to resist the state any more than Randy Weaver or David Koresh could achieve.
This coming from the guy who says in another thread that one should be engaged in violent struggles even if there is no hope for military success beyond getting a "warhead" in the direction of the enemy.
You say sometimes it is most important to keep fighting just for pride, then that that is pointless and so one should give up tools of that kind of struggle.
Thus you go back and forth. Pick a side of the fence my friend.
BTW, rifles and handguns are useful in engagements against occupying forces and military forces. All I have ever argued is that one tank is not, one plane is not, etc etc... thus there is no reason for allowing certain division level weapons to be in the hands of citizens on a day to day basis.
While large bombs are increasingly making ground forces useless when not protected by aircover, on the ground a rifle and a handgun makes every fighter stronger and it seems bizarre to say otherwise.
The Vietnamese and many S American resistance groups did wonders with rifles and handguns.
Your reference to Weaver and Koresh is even forced. Both were caught before being able to employ their weapons in any fighting situation. Starting a war tightly surrounded is essentially suicide. And in the case of Weaver, those killed were in some cases not even fighting at all.
Before I go any further with you, I want a well detailed and coherent position. I also would appreciate you also read up on the subjects you reference.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by contracycle, posted 08-09-2004 11:07 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by contracycle, posted 08-09-2004 12:30 PM Silent H has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 387 of 409 (131888)
08-09-2004 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Silent H
08-09-2004 12:09 PM


Holmes, you must stop this reflex exaggeration of the argument of everyone you disagree with.
quote:
This coming from the guy who says in another thread that one should be engaged in violent struggles even if there is no hope for military success beyond getting a "warhead" in the direction of the enemy.
NO. I said I understand, and do not condemn, them in their situation. IF you in turn were reduced to fighting the state with your privately owne popgun, I wpould understand your circumstances as well.
But there is no realistic prospect that owenrship of smallarms by private citizens is going to defeat a formal army. And the maintenance of a "right to bear arms" on that notional basis is essentially an exercise in self-delusion.
quote:
Thus you go back and forth. Pick a side of the fence my friend.
It only appears to go back and forth becuase you keep extending my argument to an abstract, a priori Principle, when in fact that is not workable. ALL my arguments are dependant on the actual material conditions. In the actual circumstance of the private citizen in a western state, there is no need to have private arms. Where there is a desire to do so out of romanticism, perhaps, but no need. And where there is a need for arms, they need REAL arms, not just civil smallarms.
[qupte] Your reference to Weaver and Koresh is even forced. Both were caught before being able to employ their weapons in any fighting situation. Starting a war tightly surrounded is essentially suicide. And in the case of Weaver, those killed were in some cases not even fighting at all.[/quote]
I'm well aware of this, but this demonstrates exactly the futility of private arms. IF you were to rise up against your state, as you yourself pointed out, you would be looking at equipping an army. Your civil arms will not suffice for that purpose; you need much more. All private arms get you is the ability to individually resist the state when it kicks in your door - and that is not usually a winnable battle. I mean think about it: in both these cases, the only thing stopping the state from going in with Apaches right from the outset was the need to appear not to be intent to kill their own citizens. The state did NOT deploy its full force, and didn't need to.
Back in the day when the dominant battlefield weapon was the musket, private muskets and a militia who could assmeble and thereby constitute a state-of-the-art fighting force made sense. In the modern context, where the dominant weapons are fighter bombers and main battle tanks, a citizens militia out can assemble into an even competent army is nonsensical. Its a joke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2004 12:09 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2004 2:41 PM contracycle has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 388 of 409 (131964)
08-09-2004 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by contracycle
08-09-2004 12:30 PM


I said I understand, and do not condemn, them in their situation.
That is my position as well. I simply critiqued current methods and strategy certain groups within their ranks were using. It was your exaggeration of my position which made you think otherwise.
IF you in turn were reduced to fighting the state with your privately owne popgun, I wpould understand your circumstances as well.
And this is where the contradiction comes in. You were not only not condemning, but actively promoting open conflict in the US. I think I even remember you were for use of "guns", and giving "guns" to Palestinians, as part of this.
Clearly anyone starting an open conflict in the US today would be reduced to fighting with privately owned weapons.
And of course its nice to note the irony of you calling it a popgun when you want to paint it as something other than an instrument of violence you maintain other times.
But there is no realistic prospect that owenrship of smallarms by private citizens is going to defeat a formal army. And the maintenance of a "right to bear arms" on that notional basis is essentially an exercise in self-delusion.
Actually it could, as I have already pointed out examples.
There are certain weapons which do not ADD any extra benefits, and might as well be picked up through alliances in the military, rather than having citizens own them before any conflict. Those I consider keeping restricted.
But a rifle and handgun are effective in hitting targets and taking them down. Appropriate guerrila tactics can make them useful for protracted engagements. Of course I wouldn't suggest starting a war against the US unless you know a LOT of people are on your side.
ALL my arguments are dependant on the actual material conditions.
Except when addressing the Palestinian issue, as well as the Koresh and Weaver examples. We'll get to the latter two in a sec, but I have been waiting quite a while for you to show ANY real assessment of the material conditions of the Palestinians.
In the actual circumstance of the private citizen in a western state, there is no need to have private arms. Where there is a desire to do so out of romanticism, perhaps, but no need. And where there is a need for arms, they need REAL arms, not just civil smallarms.
I agree that there is little need. There are people who do need them in remote areas for protection (I have relatives whose lives have been saved by firearms against snake and bear attacks... yeah attacks). They can also arguably help a person fend off human attacks in rural and urban areas, but this is not an everyday affair.
So little need.
I disagree with your assessment that "civil small arms" are useless against an armed force. Urban warfare and dense wilderness environments remove all practical value of those REAL arms you are talking about. Observation of our own activities within such regions show our troops routinely go back to those "civil small arms" you denigrate.
I mean think about it: in both these cases, the only thing stopping the state from going in with Apaches right from the outset was the need to appear not to be intent to kill their own citizens.
Again, your skills at situational analysis seem paralyzed. NEITHER case was a group beginning an attack on the US. BOTH had the government come to take them away in surprise maneuvers, which left them completely surrounded.
The Koresh case was a bit more complicated in that they had some time to prepare for the larger forces, but they had NO WAY to get beyond a surrounded situation.
Thus both had lost the "war", which neither started, well before it began. The situation would have been vastly different if they had begun a war and acted as if they were in war conditions, before they had already lost.
I'm still interested how you went on and on about the effectiveness of S American resistance fighters, and then talk here about apaches just going in and blowing everyone away. It doesn't work down there does it? Neither does it work in urban centers.
In the modern context, where the dominant weapons are fighter bombers and main battle tanks, a citizens militia out can assemble into an even competent army is nonsensical. Its a joke.
In open battle, like a battlefield, it would be suicide. It would be a joke. Tell me what good fighter bombers and tanks are in a city, if a good population of that city stands against them with small arms?
Unless the goal is total annihilation of the city, the citizens would win... though a seige situation might be able to bring it to its knees over time.
I think your assessments are bizarre when you try to pass handguns and rifles off as useless. Sure it would be great to have better arms, but that does not make them a joke.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by contracycle, posted 08-09-2004 12:30 PM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by contracycle, posted 08-10-2004 6:01 AM Silent H has replied

xavier999
Inactive Member


Message 389 of 409 (132149)
08-09-2004 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by contracycle
08-09-2004 11:33 AM


Re: Misconception about the Constitution and Bill of Rights
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your special circumstances - if all your family members hapopen to be saints - in no way make a general case. I am addressing the genereal case. And furthermore, I am simply not going to accept an argument that you advance based on the self-reporting of your own responsibility and competence. You would say that, wouldn't you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't making a general case. YOU made an accusation specifically about MY family (go read your previous post) so I was simply showing you that you were wrong in your assumption. And you would READILY accept my self-reporting if I said that I was irresponsible with guns because it would support your case. You do not accept it because you do not want to hear anything that contradicts what you are asserting.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I note you still resort to primitive character assasination, that of "paranoia".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do recall you saying I was "arguing to the paranoia" or something along those lines. And my assessment still stands in light of reading your posts.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnl;t say anything about proabability or intent, only power. And if a gun had not given them that power, why did they want it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if people do not have the intent and the probability is low then it really doesn't matter if they have the power. So all you are really saying is that guns are able to kill people. Yes, they are. That was never an argument so let's get back on subject.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't ASSUME that, I said I'd be more likely to survive by running than by escalating. If I'm going to run, then why have a gun?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You were trying to imply that people with guns would use the guns when they could run. Your direct quote was that people shoudl run instead of "seeking to escalate the conflict." SEEKING to escalate the conflict. And there are always situations where running is not an option. That is what the gun is for.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no assumption about what a notional gun owner would do, and is not dependant on assuming they are "cowboys". You are over-extending my argument and putting words in my mouth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You were SO trying to say that a person with a gun would use it when they could flee instead. In fact let's look at that quote one more time: "seeking to escalate the conflict." You can play all the word games you want but that was clearly your intent.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? What else does it do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It can be used for self-defense up to and including killing someone. Of course, it can be used for defense and never even be drawn. This one lady told me how she was in a parking lot and three men surrounded her. She simply lifted up the edge of her shirt to show the handle of the pistol concealed in her waist and the men suddenly decided that surrounding her wasn't such a good idea and fled. It's also good for hunting and other recreation. You were focusing solely on the killing part trying to make it seem like that's all people do with it. You were playing to your argument in order to overDRAMAtize your point. More rounds are put into targets and empty cans than into people.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, it must have some other function, becasue only a drama queen
would describe it according to its prupose.
Maybe you use yours for gardening? Soil aeration, giving those lil' earthworms a helping hand? I knew a guy who used his pistol to make crushed ice once, is it something like they do for you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soil aeration? Now there's an idea!! Those worms are overworked.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell that? I wasn't aware you had a mind-reading machine. And if you do have a mind-reading machine, I can't see why you ewould also want a gun; after all you'd be able to tell who all the bad people are and avoid them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or I could sell my mind reading maching on ebay and make a fortune! But it's actually your whole "nobody should have guns for any reason and all guns are evil" argument that shows me that.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats good. Where is the ammunition stored?
I note you have not specifically reported where your weapons are stored at night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry about missing that last quesiton. A small oversight. My ammo is stored in my closet. My guns are kept in a safe at night. Even if they weren't, so what? One purpose of my gun is for self defense and if I could not get to it quickly in my safe I would not keep it there at night. But after reading your argument earlier about how my "special cirucumstances" would not make a general case why do you ask? I think someone is trying to defame my character by primitive character assasination. How? You know that if I do show to be a responsible gun owner (which I am) then you can write it off as only "one instance" and not proving the general case. If I turn out to be irresponsible then you can write off EVERY argument I've made not only to yourself but to everyone else. It's just a win-win situation for you. That is indeed a crafty plot and I must say I am impressed.
This message has been edited by xavier999, 08-09-2004 09:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by contracycle, posted 08-09-2004 11:33 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by contracycle, posted 08-10-2004 6:25 AM xavier999 has not replied

xavier999
Inactive Member


Message 390 of 409 (132165)
08-09-2004 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by nator
08-07-2004 10:13 AM


Re: Misconception about the Constitution and Bill of Rights
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making a product that is low in cost because of unsafe and faulty design is bad, and that is what these companies are being allowed to do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that certain quality control measures in the manufacturing process would be a good thing. Anything that does not interfere with the individual right to own and use a firearm is fine.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea is that if US gun manufacturers were required to meet quality and safety standards, just like the manufacturers of teddy bears and swing sets, several very profitable guns wouldn't be quite as popular with the criminals because they would be too expensive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I agree with your argument but not your conclusion. I am for making guns safer, but not just to drive up the cost (though it certainly would) so hopefully criminals couldn't buy them. There are ways to make society safer that do not take away the rights of the citizens.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS. I haven't been in a walmart in over 10 years. Walmart represents so many of the things that are wrong with America today. Walmart puts entire blocks of privately owned shops out of business in the towns it enters, thus taking money out of the community and filling the corporate coffers elsewhere, it is a major part of the homogenization of American culture, it treats it's workers like s***, it treats it's domestic suppliers like s***, it promotes the exportation of manufacturing jobs overseas, etc. ...but that is for another thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The price of convience is high indeed. But I do commend you for sticking to your principles.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then why has the gun lobby resisted every single effort to do so?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they know that this is more of a launching point for the antis who want stricter gun control overall than out of merely wanting safer guns and nothing more. Our freedom to own guns has been attacked everywhere from the individual to the manufacturor (I'm not talking quality control here). It isn't smashed all together, but slowly chipped away a little bit at a time. So in this particular case the gun lobby is wrong. There is no reason that a gun should not be able to withstand a drop test, but they have been so use to having small things taken away one at a time that it is probably more of just a "they are for it so we HAVE to be against it" kind of thing.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mind if you have a musket. You can have all of the muskets you want. I'll even let you have a dueling pistol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can duel with my Glock. I promise to only load one bullet at a time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by nator, posted 08-07-2004 10:13 AM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024