[creativecoding]

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

creativecoding, on 16 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Except knives are a common tool that we sorta have to use every day... Guns aren't.

So...the functionality isn't the issue but the frequency of use of the object is?

Yes, as well as the frequency of what they're used for. You shooting paper targets is nice and all, but it's not required. However a butcher using his knife to cut a carcass in such a way so that none of the meat is wasted, and then using the meat he cuts to feed thousands, that's an entirely different story.

Please stop comparing things that are simply not the same.

[Sho Ke]

farrell2k, on 17 December 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

Why? Because you said so?

Partly, but mostly because they're not equivalent...

Care to explain?


edit:fixed quote

This post has been edited by Sho Ke: 16 December 2012 - 08:50 PM

[KYA]

[Craig328]

jon.kiparsky, on 16 December 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

Quote

Your suggestion then is that registration, licensing and restricting will reduce the problem. In other words, more laws will reduce the problem (because those sanctions and requirement will only exist through new laws). That's not debatable so if you choose to try and skew that summary, we'll go ahead and part company. And just so we're both clear here: this is YOU suggesting that MORE laws would work rather than some cockeyed, fool argument that somehow equate to ME saying that LESS laws are what's needed (for whatever idiot reason you attribute to your own idea that you'd like to pin on me).

Craig, I have no idea what arguments you think you're making, or what you think you're responding to, because what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever.

There's so much complete failure in your last few effusions, it's utterly pointless to continue with this. I can't even tell if you're trying to retract your anarchist position or doubling down on it, since you end up doing both in this passage here.

If you ever figure out what it is you think or what you mean to say, and can hold to it for more than one post in a row, maybe we can try this again. For now, I just don't have time for you.

That's fine. I expressed myself clearly and without aspersion. You came back claiming I was suggesting something I clearly wasn't, I restated what you said (which seems like something you should be able to understand), I restated my core question to it...and you just can't understand it.

I too think it's about time you bowed out of the discussion. If you want to claim befuddlement, believe me, I can totally buy that. However, once again, you're trying to claim some quality of what I have said that simply isn't the case. From past experience I knew to expect this (along with the backhand digs) when you found yourself in a position you can't truly defend and I appreciate you not taking it further in this case.

It is getting late and I will be turning this off as well but in a genuine effort to unmuddle your confusion I'll (again) pose my question to your suggestion that what's needed is more regulation, restriction and so on:

Quote

What is it about yet another law do you think will finally capture the respect and attention of all those people who have been breaking the laws all along when they use "guns in the commission of crime"?

One sentence. I'll apologize in advance that I lack the capacity to state the query any more simply than that.

[farrell2k]

KYA, on 17 December 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Do you guys understand the fallacy of false equivalence???

The marijuana example nails it.

Sho Ke, on 17 December 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

farrell2k, on 17 December 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

Why? Because you said so?

Partly, but mostly because they're not equivalent...

Care to explain?


edit:fixed quote

I shouldn't have to. It should be common sense, but I did anyway.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 16 December 2012 - 09:06 PM

[Craig328]

creativecoding, on 16 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

creativecoding, on 16 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Except knives are a common tool that we sorta have to use every day... Guns aren't.

So...the functionality isn't the issue but the frequency of use of the object is?

Yes, as well as the frequency of what they're used for. You shooting paper targets is nice and all, but it's not required. However a butcher using his knife to cut a carcass in such a way so that none of the meat is wasted, and then using the meat he cuts to feed thousands, that's an entirely different story.

Please stop comparing things that are simply not the same.

In neither example that you just used did someone die. How do you feel you just made a point here? That shooting at a paper target isn't "required"? Is that really how you wanted to express that? I don't want to put words in your mouth but did you mean to convey the concept that that's not the intended use of the gun?

[NecroWinter]

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

creativecoding, on 16 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Except knives are a common tool that we sorta have to use every day... Guns aren't.

So...the functionality isn't the issue but the frequency of use of the object is?

Listen, the truth of the matter is this: this right was especially included in our Constitution...

So every random person with a gun is a well regulated militia? Have you even read the second amendment?

[Craig328]

farrell2k, on 17 December 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

KYA, on 17 December 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Do you guys understand the fallacy of false equivalence???

The marijuana example nails it.

Sho Ke, on 17 December 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

farrell2k, on 17 December 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

Why? Because you said so?

Partly, but mostly because they're not equivalent...

Care to explain?


edit:fixed quote

I shouldn't have to. It should be common sense.

Um...I'm not sure YOU understand what that term means. By the very definition you linked to:

Quote

It should be noted though that d existing in both sets [in this case, people dying] is not required, only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.

I'll go ahead and say that people dying from the misuse of a car is more than a "passing similarity" to people dying from the misuse of a firearm. Seriously, the term you're trying to pull out as you ultimate debating trump isn't what you think it means...considering the entire debate is about reducing deaths through the misuse of a gun.

Just because the stats and the facts don't favor your argument doesn't mean you get to call bullshit on them by claiming they correspond to a debate definition you yourself don't seem to be too solid on so you can therefore ignore them.

NecroWinter, on 17 December 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

creativecoding, on 16 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Except knives are a common tool that we sorta have to use every day... Guns aren't.

So...the functionality isn't the issue but the frequency of use of the object is?

Listen, the truth of the matter is this: this right was especially included in our Constitution...

So every random person with a gun is a well regulated militia? Have you even read the second amendment?

I have. Clearly, you have not. However, have no fear...Penn & Teller have and they explain it in a video about as succinctly as can be explained.

[creativecoding]

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

...

In neither example that you just used did someone die. How do you feel you just made a point here? That shooting at a paper target isn't "required"? Is that really how you wanted to express that? I don't want to put words in your mouth but did you mean to convey the concept that that's not the intended use of the gun?

Sorta hard to explain... But what I'm trying to say is that the risk versus reward of letting knives be legal is completely different than that with guns. For every thousand lives fed with knives, one is killed. For every life saved with a gun, two is taken. These aren't facts nor am I saying they're true, I'm just trying to help you understand my point.

This post has been edited by creativecoding: 16 December 2012 - 09:21 PM

[farrell2k]

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Um...I'm not sure YOU understand what that term means. By the very definition you linked to:

The example is quite clear. I'm sorry you don't get it, as you will continue to be a part of the problem. />

creativecoding, on 17 December 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

Sorta hard to explain... But what I'm trying to say is that the risk versus reward of letting knives be legal is completely different than that with guns. For every thousand lives fed with knives, one is killed. For every life saved with a gun, two is taken. These aren't facts nor am I saying they're true, I'm just trying to help you understand my point.

I don't think you're going to have much luck with him. />

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 16 December 2012 - 09:29 PM

[Craig328]

creativecoding, on 17 December 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

...

In neither example that you just used did someone die. How do you feel you just made a point here? That shooting at a paper target isn't "required"? Is that really how you wanted to express that? I don't want to put words in your mouth but did you mean to convey the concept that that's not the intended use of the gun?

Sorta hard to explain... But what I'm trying to say is that the risk versus reward of letting knives be legal is completely different than that with guns. For every thousand lives fed with knives, one is killed. For every life saved with a gun, two is taken. These aren't facts nor am I saying they're true, I'm just trying to help you understand my point.

Fair enough. One of the problems with gun control is that while we keep detailed records for homicides and how often a gun is used in the commission of a crime, we don't have any kind of reliable way to measure how often a gun deters a crime. We've probably all heard about the guys who stopped the shooter at a law school in Virginia several years back (or not...but it did happen) and while most of you probably aren't old enough to remember the massacre at the Luby's in Killeen Texas, there was a similar event that took place in Anniston, AL about two months after that where 2 guys rushed a Shoney's and were holding 20 some odd people hostage and threatening to kill them. One additional customer hid under a table and when they found him they discovered he was armed. They discovered it because he shot one of the guys several times on the spot and exchanged fire with the other one killing him as well. The Killeen incident got huge press...the Anniston one was literally never reported in the mainstream media.

Point being: non-events don't get headlines. Although it's but anecdotal I can relate that I have avoided two potentially bad incidents by either telling someone I was armed or actually producing a handgun. I have no doubt that had I not been armed during the second incident that I would likely have been in a physical altercation with a guy way larger than me...and I probably wouldn't have come out of it well. As it turned out, he didn't end up punching in the car window, I didn't end up shooting him and we both went home to our respective families that evening.

I mention all this because you said "For every life saved with a gun, two is taken" and I know you said it wasn't a fact but the studies that have been attempted to quantify that concept seem to show that Americans deter way more crimes simply by being in possession or having access to a gun than die each year. That study is now about 20 years old and the author readily admits the core data isn't pristine. But even discounting it by as much as 80%...it still means that many crimes simply never happen because the potential victim says "I have a gun" or actually produces one.

[JonPM]

Would like to point out that at some point this discussion in this thread will stop, this thread will fall off the map and get buried, and no ones views will have changed... I'm just saying

[Craig328]

farrell2k, on 17 December 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

The example is quite clear. I'm sorry you don't get it, as you will continue to be a part of the problem. />/>

I get it just fine sport. One of us has an issue with reading comprehension and one of us gets it just fine.

As for "part of the problem" I own 4 guns, carry one fairly regularly (via permit) and yet have never managed to murder someone or even have anyone notice or discover by accident when I'm out and about and carrying. I shoot far more often than my local law enforcement deputies are required to in order to retain their police licenses and have taught both my 12 year old daughter and my 10 year old son how to shoot responsibly and how and what to do and not do around guns. That is: I'm a responsible gun owner.

What's your story?

[farrell2k]

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

Although it's but anecdotal I can relate that I have avoided two potentially bad incidents by either telling someone I was armed or actually producing a handgun. I have no doubt that had I not been armed during the second incident that I would likely have been in a physical altercation with a guy way larger than me...and I probably wouldn't have come out of it well.

If you did this in Georgia, what you did was likely highly illegal. It's a very serious crime. You may not brandish your weapon in any manner unless you can prove that your life is in danger, or you are stopping a felony in progress. I believe brandishing a weapon is a felony in GA.

[CTphpnwb]

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 12:57 AM, said:

As for "part of the problem" I own 4 guns, carry one fairly regularly (via permit) and yet have never managed to murder someone or even have anyone notice or discover by accident when I'm out and about and carrying. I shoot far more often than my local law enforcement deputies are required to in order to retain their police licenses and have taught both my 12 year old daughter and my 10 year old son how to shoot responsibly and how and what to do and not do around guns. That is: I'm a responsible gun owner.

How does that translate into anything meaning that a serious effort to come up with regulations to prevent/limit nut jobs from gaining access to guns is a bad thing? We have regulations that allow us to take their drivers licenses or even prevent them from getting one at all, so what makes guns special?