why anyone wants an "assault rifle"

Ah, you're really just jealous!!

Originally Posted by dteowner
I'm confused. Y'all love to crow all day about how our inequality of wealth, with extreme wealth and crushing poverty living side-by-side, shows just how stupid we Americans are. But poverty can't be part of the equation where American gun violence is concerned. Can't really have it both ways.

Don't be silly. You know what I'm talking about. There's poverty and then there's a truly poor country. The USA is a very wealthy country overall, and the crime/murder rates should reflect that.

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of…al)_per_capita

USA: 14
Japan: 17
Philippines: 126

The list is obviously not a completely accurate comparison in terms of wealth, as it does not include distribution of wealth, but Japan makes a far better comparison than a country over 100 places further down the list. In countries that poor, people barely have access to education or food, which will always lead to extremely high crime rates.

Originally Posted by Maylander
Don't be silly. You know what I'm talking about. There's poverty and then there's a truly poor country. The USA is a very wealthy country overall, and the crime/murder rates should reflect that.

Exactly. But than dte tends to effortlessly descend into siliness in support of his arguments…

Originally Posted by Maylander
In countries that poor, people barely have access to education or food, which will always lead to extremely high crime rates.

Hmmm how come that is not the case in a country like Laos then? Factors like religion and political systems also need to be taken into account.

If you could magically take away every single gun in the world and people will still kill each other. Of course the murder rate would drop initially but people will just switch to other means. Explosives can be far more deadly than firearms, better ban fertizilisers while your at it

Originally Posted by bjon045
If you could magically take away every single gun in the world and people will still kill each other. Of course the murder rate would drop initially but people will just switch to other means. Explosives can be far more deadly than firearms, better ban fertizilisers while your at it

Hmmm how come that is not the case in developed countries with tighter gun control than?
Besides, we aren't talking about every single gun but about assault rifles.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
Hmmm how come that is not the case in developed countries with tighter gun control than?
Besides, we aren't talking about every single gun but about assault rifles.

And yet the majority of gun violence comes from hand guns. If you're so set on "saving the world from itself", why would you go after the tip of the iceberg? There's only 2 real answers to that question, you know: either it's pointless activity so y'all can feel good about how you're saving the world while actually not accomplishing much, or it's nothing but an initial step toward broader action, which is exactly what y'all have been accused of and denied for years. So which is it? Participation trophies or blatant liars?

There are no "y'all" on this forum dte. There is no organisation, schism or cabal. I have no idea what others think but, for me, banning of assault rifles would indeed be a first step. And I, for one, have never denied this.
Like blatantninja have said: "The answer is cultural change" Let's get it rolling by dealing with assault weapons.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
There are no "y'all" on this forum dte. There is no organisation, schism or cabal. I have no idea what others think but, for me, banning of assault rifles would indeed be a first step. And I, for one, have never denied this.
Like blatantninja have said: "The answer is cultural change" Let's get it rolling by dealing with assault weapons.

It is the collective unconsciousness/consciousness that believing in taking guns away from law abiding people under the gun points of the governments would somehow easy their imaginary fear of these same inanimate objects. f y'all convoluted logic.

self-defence is my natural right, let me choose what's most effective.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
There are no "y'all" on this forum dte. There is no organisation, schism or cabal. I have no idea what others think but, for me, banning of assault rifles would indeed be a first step. And I, for one, have never denied this.
Like blatantninja have said: "The answer is cultural change" Let's get it rolling by dealing with assault weapons.

Yup, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of automatic weapons that can be accessed by potential criminals (it's key to realise that criminals are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they turn to crime) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Yup, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of automatic weapons that can be accessed by potential criminals (it's key to realise that criminals are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they turn to crime) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

Yup, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of cars that can be accessed by potential drunk drivers (it's key to realise that drunk drivers are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they will drive drunk) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
There are no "y'all" on this forum dte. There is no organisation, schism or cabal. I have no idea what others think but, for me, banning of assault rifles would indeed be a first step. And I, for one, have never denied this.
Like blatantninja have said: "The answer is cultural change" Let's get it rolling by dealing with assault weapons.

I thought I've made it perfectly clear over the years that my standard use of "y'all" is to mean "not (just) you personally, but the people that share the viewpoint you're expressing". It's my way of both depersonalizing the argument and acknowledging that the viewpoint under discussion (whatever that happens to be at the time) goes beyond a single wayward soul.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Yup, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of cars that can be accessed by potential drunk drivers (it's key to realise that drunk drivers are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they will drive drunk) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

You're absolutely correct - your point being?

If you want my support to go from cars to a safe transportation system, you can have it without question.

Do you think it would be a bad idea if we could go from cars to a safe and efficient transportation system? Because we could - if we wanted to.

I'm guessing you'd be against that as well, because owning a car is yet another vital personal freedom - right?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Yup, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of automatic weapons that can be accessed by potential criminals (it's key to realise that criminals are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they turn to crime) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonethless. If we can reduce the amount of internet that can be accessed by potential internet stalkers (it's key to realise that internet stalkers are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they turn to stalking) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonethless. If we can reduce the amount of internet that can be accessed by potential internet stalkers (it's key to realise that internet stalkers are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they turn to stalking) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

Wow, what a pathetic stretch - even for you. If you think you can reasonably compare the damage from "internet stalkers" to violent gun-related crimes or traffic accidents, taking into account the positives of all three - you really need to switch meds.

Have you tried arguing your case instead of inadvertently supporting my point of view? Because that's what you're doing.

Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of air that can be accessed by potential second-hand smoke lung cancer victims (it's key to realise that lung cancer victims are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they breath enough smoke to get cancer) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of food available to potential overeaters (it's key to realise that overeaters are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they'll start overeating) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

I can do this all day long.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of air that can be accessed by potential second-hand smoke lung cancer victims (it's key to realise that lung cancer victims are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they breath enough smoke to get cancer) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

Yep, exactly. I think it's a minor step - but a step nonetheless. If we can reduce the amount of food available to potential overeaters (it's key to realise that overeaters are not born that way - and you don't have magical detectors for when they'll start overeating) - then we're saving lives. Anyone against that is not thinking straight.

I can do this all day long.

You can do what? Not use your brain and not make an effort to create a compelling argument?

That's impressive.

First case makes even less sense (amount of air?!?!) - and the second case will not harm other people, but I'm more than willing to reduce access to unhealthy foods - and have a good look at the causes behind overeating.

If it's such a ridiculous argument, why did you make it? I think you're proving my point, because you're 100% correct- the original argument is completely ridiculous as are all my subsequent ones. Applying the logic to any similar situation just demonstrates how silly it truly is, and claims that the problem of guns is somehow completely unique and sustains such a silly argument simply demonstrates how far the gun control lobby is willing to stretch common logic.

Given all the hubbub about global obesity and the incredible health care costs and human costs associated with it, your cavalier attitude toward it is rather surprising.

Really, your world of no cars and controlled eating sounds even less appealing than any of my black smoke and jackboots structures.

Originally Posted by dteowner
If it's such a ridiculous argument, why did you make it? I think you're proving my point, because you're 100% correct- the original argument is completely ridiculous as are all my subsequent ones. Applying the logic to any similar situation just demonstrates how silly it truly is, and claims that the problem of guns is somehow completely unique and sustains such a silly argument simply demonstrates how far the gun control lobby is willing to stretch common logic.

No, because in the real world everything is not identical and you have to be able to see the distinction - something which is particularly hard for your kind of mindset. My argument was about gun control - nothing else. The ridiculous part was how you thought it was appropriate to use it as support for your position by replacing a few words.

It's like you don't understand how I can be for more than one thing at a time.

Given all the hubbub about global obesity and the incredible health care costs and human costs associated with it, your cavalier attitude toward it is rather surprising.

What cavalier attitude? I'd be willing to support any reasonable initiative to reduce obesity - but that's a separate issue for a separate thread.

So then, as long as we all agree that the problem of guns is completely unique and any logic applied to that problem is completely inappropriate to any other similar problem, then all is good. You're really OK with a structure built on that sort of flim-flam?
——-
There's only one way to truly deal with obesity and that's take the food out of people's hands. So, while your storm troopers are taking all the guns, they can check the cabinets for potato chips. Shit, I thought my draconian benevolent dictatorship was a grey world— you, sir, are downright grim.

Originally Posted by dteowner
So then, as long as we all agree that the problem of guns is completely unique and any logic applied to that problem is completely inappropriate to any other similar problem, then all is good. You're really OK with a structure built on that sort of flim-flam?

Let's try this again. In English - as I don't know what other language to use, really.

Gun control is not IDENTICAL to the other issues you mention. That doesn't mean they can't have similarities. Problem is that you tried to make them IDENTICAL and you failed utterly. Very much like your penis example a few weeks ago.

That said, your car example was pretty similar in key ways - which is exactly why I'm a strong supporter of doing away with cars - if we can make our lives work without them, and I know we can.

If you want to know what I think is appropriate, then we have to go through things on a case by case basis. I can't pre-define everything for you.

There's only one way to truly deal with obesity and that's take the food out of people's hands. So, while your storm troopers are taking all the guns, they can check the cabinets for potato chips. Shit, I thought my draconian benevolent dictatorship was a grey world— you, sir, are downright grim.

There are many ways to deal with most issues. As for obesity - I'd like to save that for a separate thread. Trust me, though, I have several thoughts on the matter.

With guns - there are many aspects to the problem, and one of them is accessibility - and it happens to be one aspect we can change in the short term. That doesn't mean we should ignore all other aspects or, indeed, all other problems. I'm not sure why any rational mind would suggest that.