Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I know.
You called me that recently, but hey I can live with that risk


Easily and frequently demonstrated.
On the one extreme you have the "its the guns".
You can drag them to reality where they agree its some guns, some people, those people, not those people, not those guns, not that situation.
Then they get frightened and fall back to "its the guns"
On the other extreme you have the "no restrictions"
Likewise you can drag them to reality where they agree to these restrictions, those restrictions, these people, those people, those situations.
Then they get frightened and fall back to "no restrictions".

Both extremes manage to destroy their own arguements, but still run away to try and cling to them again and again.



Not really since the two extremes are shooting so far beyond their targets the flak the middle gets is just harmless noise.

Quite a comical process really isn't it.

Finally agree, two extremes, but the fact is the pro gun people have given in numerous times to hundreds of restrictions. The problem is every study shows they don't work.

The problem is every study shows they don't work.

To show that you would need at least two identical samples to work from.
Since there are none that match due to the huge amount of variables studies cannot have shown that.
They may portray it as shown, but they have not shown it.

Steve

No, I said I couldn't tell where you stood.

May I be so bold as to ask you to try and define non-commital?

[Sailor Steve]

Sure. Non-commital consists of not being committed to one side or the other. I didn't say that was you; in fact, that's often me. I said that from your posts I couldn't tell if you were for one side, the other, or somewhere in between, meaning not that you had no opinion but that you seemed to want to hide it, or at least not bring it out. In fact I think what I said was that you never seemed to express an opinion on the subject at all, only prodded others for their opinions. You have since stated that you don't attack people's opinions, but only their arguments or lack thereof. I've agreed to take your word for that, for the time being anyway.

While we're on the subject, exactly what do you think of the gun-control issue?

Sure. Non-commital consists of not being committed to one side or the other. I didn't say that was you; in fact, that's often me. I said that from your posts I couldn't tell if you were for one side, the other, or somewhere in between, meaning not that you had no opinion but that you seemed to want to hide it, or at least not bring it out.

Perhaps "pro gun" and "anti gun" are actually meaningless when you look at it?

While we're on the subject, exactly what do you think of the gun-control issue?

I think its mainly hot air.
I think both sides supporters recycle the same meaningless catch phrases(parrot fodder), use the same cut and pastes of dubious "proof" without actually reading it, checking the sources or even thinking.
I think too many people start with an emotional arguement and then progressively(or regressively) get more emotional on the topic.
I think that the first stage must be getting fundamental to establish the basic truths then developing the details on from that level.
I think that far too often people accept the basics, but then reject the basics when their emotions get the better of them once it comes to the details.

That is what I think of the gun control issue.

So is your next question going to be on "basics"?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Perhaps "pro gun" and "anti gun" are actually meaningless when you look at it?

That's a good point.

That is what I think of the gun control issue.

And Tribesman is now guilty of one of the best posts I think I've read on the subject.

Thanks.

So is your next question going to be on "basics"?

No. I wanted to ask what your definition of "is" is.