I love a story with a happy ending.

Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
My, what a sanctimonious prick we have educating/indoctrinating our youth today.

http://news.yahoo.com/ku-professor-takes-heat-over-172314710.html

A University of Kansas journalism professor was placed on indefinite administrative leave Friday for a tweet he wrote about the Navy Yard shootings which said, "blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters."
Click to expand...
Guth, who on Thursday told The Associated Press in a phone interview that his tweet "got a conversation going — that was exactly what I wanted to do,"
Click to expand...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
So you're saying he is encroaching on their territory?:)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
mudsling3 said:
"Do You Have Any Remorse For Those Killed In Gun Free Zones?" Larry Pratt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S3wJCJ1n1pY
Click to expand...

Weasel argument ... I like that. And it is true. Pratt's entire thing is the same as people saying 'I have a black friend ... I can't be racist', or 'a woman agreed with me on this, it can't be misogynist', or 'I know a guy who didn't get hired but a minority did so EOE needs to go away' and so on ...

Also, I love how he tries to confuse things by conflating legal and illegal guns. It is a nonsense argument, the type only someone with an agenda would make. It isn't something intelligent people would fall for ... but for those who seek to bring bible verses in as science education, it is perfect.

Bottom line - study after study: more legal guns = more gun death. Yet another study recently had the same conclusion. Cherry picking a single place is a great way to pretend you have a 'data backed argument', when in fact you don't.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
I notice that, yet another year, when faced with real world evidence via Chicago and New York, you're strangely silent. Gun control is a nonsense argument, the type only someone with an agenda would make. It isn't something intelligent people would fall for.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
dteowner said:
I notice that, yet another year, when faced with real world evidence via Chicago and New York, you're strangely silent. Gun control is a nonsense argument, the type only someone with an agenda would make. It isn't something intelligent people would fall for.
Click to expand...

Actually if GUNS = DEATH ... which is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and if it is demonstrated again and again that MORE LEGAL GUNS + MORE GUN DEATH, again proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the US has both the highest personal gun ownership AND gun homicide for any 'first world' country ... well, then gun control is pretty much the only logical choice.

As for your two cherry-picked examples where gun death is taken without context of population, and illegal and legal gun usage is not distinguished ... well, it falls pretty much with the same old sensationalist talking-points crap.

No intelligent person says 'gun control is nonsense'. Because the moment there is a killing there is a quick jump on mental health, video games, past history, etc. In other words, even among those who have no problem with rooms full of dead babies due to our rampant gun-nuttiness, there is a thought process of 'THIS person shouldn't have guns'. Guess what THAT is? Gun control.

Just as the First Amendment isn't absolute - we don't have total free speech, we have 'God' on our currency', etc - neither is the second amendment. Because before ANY of those things come into play, we have the 'inalienable right' to be alive. That which clearly interferes with that right is subject to interdiction and control. In other words - my right to be alive trumps your right to own a gun absolutely and unquestionably. And at the point where there is reasonable concern about that, gun control makes sense.

No reasonable person seeks total gun abolition ... and honestly I would bet that there are as many people who would espouse the idea that 'if no gun control means occasionally a school full of little kids get mowed down, so be it' ... they are all extremists. We must work towards the reasonable center, not the unreasonable extreme.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
txa1265 said:
Weasel argument … I like that. And it is true. Pratt's entire thing is the same as people saying 'I have a black friend … I can't be racist', or 'a woman agreed with me on this, it can't be misogynist', or 'I know a guy who didn't get hired but a minority did so EOE needs to go away' and so on …

Also, I love how he tries to confuse things by conflating legal and illegal guns. It is a nonsense argument, the type only someone with an agenda would make. It isn't something intelligent people would fall for … but for those who seek to bring bible verses in as science education, it is perfect.

Bottom line - study after study: more legal guns = more gun death. Yet another study recently had the same conclusion. Cherry picking a single place is a great way to pretend you have a 'data backed argument', when in fact you don't.
Click to expand...

How about coming back down from your Gov worshiping gun free wet dream and consider some realistic violent crime statistics of gun rights zones vs. gun free zones. If guns are outlaw from ordinary people, only GOV/criminals would have guns. I am sure Mao, Hitler, Stalin... all had "legal guns".

Bottom line, why don't you put up a big "gun free zone" sign in your front door if you are such a true believer.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
mudsling3 said:
How about coming back down from your Gov worshiping gun free wet dream and consider some realistic violent crime statistics of gun rights zones vs. gun free zones. If guns are outlaw from ordinary people, only GOV/criminals would have guns. I am sure Mao, Hitler, Stalin… all had "legal guns".

Bottom line, why don't you put up a big "gun free zone" sign in your front door if you are such a true believer.
Click to expand...

Ooh, you invoke Hitler and Stalin, you win the internet!

Actually, I will answer seriously. Aside from specific locations I don't believe in 'gun free zones'. I believe that the second amendment allows citizens to own guns, subject to reasonable restriction and control.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
the Germans sure thought Hilter could be reason with after voting him into office. Just look at wartime behaviors of Lincoln, FDR…to Dubya and Mr. Spare Change…only idiots would put reason and Gov in a sentence together. Are you going to justify restriction on 1st amend beacuse some lunny might scream fire in a crowded theater? "the second amendment allows citizens to own guns" is a nice twist, Why don't you just admit you are just a GOV worshiper, GOV = gods, the LAW grants rights…ha ha, gov grants us 'inalienable rights' , black is white indeed.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
mudsling3 said:
the Germans sure thought Hilter could be reason with after voting him into office. Just look at wartime behaviors of Lincoln, FDR…to Dubya and Mr. Spare Change…only idiots would put reason and Gov in a sentence together. Are you going to justify restriction on 1st amend beacuse some lunny might scream fire in a crowded theater? "the second amendment allows citizens to own guns" is a nice twist, Why don't you just admit you are just a GOV worshiper, GOV = gods, the LAW grants rights…ha ha, gov grants us 'inalienable rights' , black is white indeed.
Click to expand...

Look - using Hitler means you have nothing intelligent to say, I was trying to be gentle. Hitler arguments = desperation and lack of ideas. It means you are not to be taken seriously.

But again I will answer seriously - first off, you point to 'war time' behavior. Why bother? It is much simpler - those in power seek to maintain power. Period. Why else would the GOP and Democrats work against the good of the country when they are not in power? Particularly the GOP - they have actively worked to hurt the economy in order to make Obama look bad (like he needs any help!) and have actively worked to discriminate against their own constituents to ensure that whites have more voting clout in their districts so they can maintain power.

I am not a 'gov worshipper', but certainly there is a place for government. Unless you are an anarchist you would agree. Perhaps you are an anarchist, which is fine - but has never worked in reality. And sadly because of the nature of power grabbing and maintenance (and historical power structures favoring those who are white, male and Christian), government needs to be in place to ensure that the rights of all are maintained. It is all well and good to talk about 'inalienable rights' - but those rights only exist if (a) government gets out of the way and lets them exist and (b) government gets IN the way to prevent someone else from taking them away.

I cite the first amendment simply because it is an example of a freedom that has limitations because of the possibility of encroaching on the core 'life, liberty pursuit of happiness' rights.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
txa1265 said:
As for your two cherry-picked examples where gun death is taken without context of population, and illegal and legal gun usage is not distinguished … well, it falls pretty much with the same old sensationalist talking-points crap.
Click to expand...
There is exactly one and only one source of relevant data in the discussion. We have here American cities with American values and American issues. We have cities with rigorous gun laws and cities without. If it were merely a distortion based on population, then Detroit wouldn't be in the picture and LA would have numbers much closer to those of Chicago. Clearly, the data reflect the amalgamation of the countless factors involved in gun violence. To claim using such data is cherry picking demonstrates with complete clarity that you're not at all interested in facts because you've obviously made an emotional decision and will ignore anything that doesn't fit your chosen narrative. Sad to see, but more power to ya.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
What I was saying is that trying to make the case that gun homocides in cities where gun sales are restricted means gun laws are bad makes no sense. Because when we look at legal ownership, it paints a pretty clear case that where ownership is highest, so are homocides. Again, neither case suggests causality, but whereas one suggests that criminals will get guns anyway, particularly in a country like ours with rampant oversupply of weapons and loopholes everywhere ... The other suggests that perhaps we should be at least talking about the supply.

I support reasonable gun ownership, and also reasonable gun control. After every tragedy pro-gun folks like to take the mental health route, saying someone should have known ... Essentially taking the PC Democrat route of 'blaming the system'. But in order to do that, every gun owner would need to be screened, and anyone with any violence on their record would be disallowed gun ownership and so on ... In other words, what many anti- gun control folks suggest would be much worse than the common sense things of closing loopholes and universal background checks.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
txa1265 said:
What I was saying is that trying to make the case that gun homocides in cities where gun sales are restricted means gun laws are bad makes no sense. Because when we look at legal ownership, it paints a pretty clear case that where ownership is highest, so are homocides.
Click to expand...
See, I don't know how you can even say that. If we look at legal ownership, Chicago and New York have some of the lowest legal ownership numbers due to their stringent controls. Yet, those very same cities have the highest homicide totals. Your claim runs completely counter to the only relevant numerical facts we've got on the issue.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that limiting the number of legal guns has the opposite of the desired effect. That's actually about the only conclusion that can be pulled from those numbers since that's the only factor (among the hundreds of inputs to the problem) where we can reasonably claim to isolate a single input with "all the other stuff, whatever it is, being approximately equal".

Attempting to extrapolate that to illegal guns and the violence from them is completely invalid because passing laws to control illegal guns is absolutely nonsensical by definition.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
LA and Houston kinda put a hole in the "per capita" excuse, though. Can't claim that New York and Chicago are ~50% larger than LA and Houston. Besides, although I'm simply too lazy to collect the other half of the stats and do the division, I'd be willing to bet the important ratio, homicides per capita versus legal guns per capita would actually strengthen the argument rather than weaken it because the denominator shift in the gun control havens would be more significant than the numerator shift from having larger populations.

Further, I'd say that Detroit's position on the list demonstrates that legal gun ownership is not a dominant factor in homicide rate. Taking away every legal gun in Detroit would probably net you a dozen hunting rifles. Can't pass laws to control illegal guns.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
I'll repeat, once again, that it's absolutely nonsensical on every level to attempt to limit illegal guns with laws. Thus, the only guns relevant to the gun control debate are legally owned ones.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom