Gun Control thread (merged many)

[CaptainHaplo]

So because one idiot in a leadership role of the NRA proves his personal fanatacism and arrogance, the entire organization must be?

So what does that generalization say about the Democratic Party, headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Or Democratic legislators led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

Care to stop blasting everyone that you disagree with using baseless and wrong generalizations?

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So because one idiot in a leadership role of the NRA proves his personal fanatacism and arrogance, the entire organization must be?

So what does that generalization say about the Democratic Party, headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Or Democratic legislators led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

Care to stop blasting everyone that you disagree with using baseless and wrong generalizations?

Of course he doesn't. You take away the insults and the anti-gun side doesn't have anything. After all it's not like they have a record of accomplishment to concentrate on.

You take away the insults and the anti-gun side doesn't have anything.

Yet as the "pro gun" crowd repeatedly base their arguement on a position they have already rejected they appear to have nothing at all.

[Armistead]

The anti gun lobby has yet to do anything to save one life, yet they've cost many.

The anti gun lobby has yet to do anything to save one life, yet they've cost many.

The antis say the same aout the pros.
You need to get away from that and climb to the middle ground for a clearer view.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The antis say the same aout the pros.
You need to get away from that and climb to the middle ground for a clearer view.

But that would require looking at both sides and thinking about them. And then you risk getting called "fence-sitter" or "non-commital". Haven't you heard the catch-phrase "The man who stands for nothing will fall for anything?" Of course that is usually said by someone who already fell for something and is now afraid to let go of it.

But be reasonable. The middle ground is also no man's land, and that's the most frightening ground of all.

But that would require looking at both sides and thinking about them. And then you risk getting called "fence-sitter" or "non-commital".

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

Of course that is usually said by someone who already fell for something and is now afraid to let go of it.

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.

But be reasonable. The middle ground is also no man's land, and that's the most frightening ground of all.

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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

[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.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

What I find ironic is that Canada was also a gun nation too. Things were not a whole lot different up here (in some ways it was more harsh). Yet the results were quite different in several ways. We don't quite have the same level of paranoia that seems to exist in the states in relationship to government, or are as concerned about possessing firearms. Now it could also be argued that our biggest issue is political apathy (we tend to shrug our shoulders and go back to our daily lives when it comes to our idiot scum sucking politicians).

All countries and cultures have their mythologies, and all have difficulty accepting that these things are myths.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Intersting link.

Now really, how come Canada has such a lower gun violence rate than the US, despite allowing Canadians to bear arms ??