Common sense question about gun control leaders [W:753]

[haymarket]

No. Because I don't care to engage intellectually dishonest people.

Here is an article from the NY times just to see how you try and wriggle out of this one...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0

And what do you think this rare and highly unusual instances prove regarding the establishment of public policy for a state or a nation?

 

[haymarket]

Actually, you haven't said either way. Maybe we can circle back to earlier and you can provide an answer.



Do the duly elected representatives of the American people always do what you consider to be right?

People are human and thus not infallible. However, we have no other better system to go to than the one we have.

 

[haymarket]

OK, then why should the general victim class be mandated to have less able guns than the police class (or specially permitted class) of citizen?

The problem is in your term LESS ABLE.

 

[Green Man]

People are human and thus not infallible. However, we have no other better system to go to than the one we have.

You seem to be missing the point.

Someone asked, "Should we have law X?"

You responded with, "That's up the the duly elected representatives of the American people."

So it sounds like you are saying that it is right to have any law that is enacted by the legislature. Is this your stance? That any law enacted by the legislature is a good and desirable law? Do you not make up you own mind about whether or not a law is good?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The problem is in your term LESS ABLE.

Really? Individual constitutional rights are now to be issued in full only to the "most able"?

 

[haymarket]

Really? Individual constitutional rights are now to be issued in full only to the "most able"?

You misunderstand. I disagree with the descriptive qualifier LESS ABLE.

 

[haymarket]

You seem to be missing the point.

Someone asked, "Should we have law X?"

You responded with, "That's up the the duly elected representatives of the American people."

So it sounds like you are saying that it is right to have any law that is enacted by the legislature. Is this your stance? That any law enacted by the legislature is a good and desirable law? Do you not make up you own mind about whether or not a law is good?

Having worked for three years in the Michigan legislature as chief of staff for a legislator, I have a fairly decent grasp of how laws are passed and the considerations given to them. I never said that every law passed was good or desirable. Of course I have opinions about laws. So what?

 

[ttwtt78640]

You misunderstand. I disagree with the descriptive qualifier LESS ABLE.

Really? Do "reasonable restrictions" make them simply "differently abled"?

 

[Green Man]

I never said that every law passed was good or desirable. Of course I have opinions about laws. So what?

So when someone asks you, "so why do you presume that honest people can have 10 round magazines but have to be prevented from having 15 round magazines", it seems like a cop-out to justify such a law by saying, "that is an issue for the duly elected representatives of the American people", rather than to construct an argument for or against.

 

[haymarket]

Really? Do "reasonable restrictions" make them simply "differently abled"?

I do not know where you are getting these terms from.

 

[haymarket]

So when someone asks you, "so why do you presume that honest people can have 10 round magazines but have to be prevented from having 15 round magazines", it seems like a cop-out to justify such a law by saying, "that is an issue for the duly elected representatives of the American people", rather than to construct an argument for or against.

I m sorry if you do not like the American system of government. But the reality is that is the one we have and it is not me who dictates the laws of the land.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I do not know where you are getting these terms from.

We were talking about magazine capacity limits, IIRC.

 

[Black Dog]

And what do you think this rare and highly unusual instances prove regarding the establishment of public policy for a state or a nation?

And I rest my case.

If you want to go on some fallacy trip and dishonestly ignore my point well that's OK.

 

[Green Man]

I m sorry if you do not like the American system of government. But the reality is that is the one we have and it is not me who dictates the laws of the land.

Who said I don't like the American system of government?

I am just pointing out that your answer was an obvious cop-out.

 

[haymarket]

And I rest my case.

If you want to go on some fallacy trip and dishonestly ignore my point well that's OK.

I spoke directly to your point and did not invoke any fallacy...... which incidentally you DID NOT name nor document in your charge.

 

[haymarket]

Who said I don't like the American system of government?

I am just pointing out that your answer was an obvious cop-out.

It was a truthful and honest answer. You sound like a person frustrated because their trap did not work as envisioned by them.

 

[Green Man]

It was a truthful and honest answer. You sound like a person frustrated because their trap did not work as envisioned by them.

It was a total cop-out. Here is the question you were asked:

so why do you presume that honest people can have 10 round magazines but have to be prevented from having 15 round magazines

It is a question about what you think. It is asking why you think that there ought to be magazine limits. Here is your response:

Because that is an issue for the duly elected representatives of the American people.

One must either conclude that you are trying to pass the buck and dodge the question or that you blindly accept any law passed by the duly elected representatives of the American people as being right.

 

[haymarket]

It was a total cop-out. Here is the question you were asked:



It is a question about what you think. It is asking why you think that there ought to be magazine limits. Here is your response:



One must either conclude that you are trying to pass the buck and dodge the question or that you blindly accept any law passed by the duly elected representatives of the American people as being right.

I do not know what the magic number is and that is what you are asking for. I do not know. I leave technical matters up to others who are paid to represent the people and find out the answers to such question.

This is true for lots of things. I have opinions about automobile but I have no idea what the magic horsepower number is for successful passing at certain speeds on the freeway so I can then argue about safey standards.

I have no idea what the minimum health requirements are for food intake and what percentage should come from various sources so I cannot pass judgement about federal standards on school lunches. I simply leave that to others who are paid to find out and listen to experts.

There are many things like that.

YOu make me king and I will have a reason to learn the bullet magic number. Until then - its useless trivia to me.

 

[Black Dog]

I spoke directly to your point and did not invoke any fallacy...... which incidentally you DID NOT name nor document in your charge.

Fortunately around here, wlth your posts it's a given. No need to explain.

Good day sir.

 

[BretJ]

So if one has a ten shot ability and they fire at someone and miss with the ten shots as you describe - your contention is that they next few shots will make the difference? Why not miss the first 25 and then suddenly hit him with the next five?

You "miss" the point. You may have no visible clue that you hit or missed. If after you fire your first shot the attack is still continuing, you continue to defend yourself until the attack stops. There are many, many cases of people continuing an attack even after being mortally wounded and still killing the victim or police officer. Just as there are many, many instances where they were killed outright with a single shot.

There are too many variables in a chaotic situation. He is moving, you are moving (or at least you should be). You hope with skill/luck one of your rounds will stop the assault outright, but if it does not, you hope for a secondary effect of causing the bad guy to miss while he is trying to avoid your fire. The husband of a friend was a police officer. He was involved in a firefight with a bad guy here locally. He was intially wounded and was trying to reload while behind the cover of his vehicle. The bad guy was not taking fire so he calmly walked around the squad car, took careful aim and then shot and killed the officer as he was trying to reload. Two things happened after he and his partners death; local PD started carrying larger capacity firearms and they also started carrying backup firearms in the event the first one malfunctioned or they were wounded and can't reload.

The whole idea that magazine restrictions would amount to any decrease in firearms murders is as vacuous as assuming you can calmly determine how many rounds are enough in any particular situation to stop a bad guy. May I suggest you read case studies of law enforcement shootings and FBI studies of firearms terminal effects in order to have an informed, opinion. Watching cop shows or movies is not considered a study.

 

[haymarket]

Fortunately around here, wlth your posts it's a given. No need to explain.

Good day sir.

Because you are unable to cite any fallacy. An it has been a good day seeing you make charges that you cannot substantiate.

 

[haymarket]

You "miss" the point. You may have no visible clue that you hit or missed. If after you fire your first shot the attack is still continuing, you continue to defend yourself until the attack stops. There are many, many cases of people continuing an attack even after being mortally wounded and still killing the victim or police officer. Just as there are many, many instances where they were killed outright with a single shot.

There are too many variables in a chaotic situation. He is moving, you are moving (or at least you should be). You hope with skill/luck one of your rounds will stop the assault outright, but if it does not, you hope for a secondary effect of causing the bad guy to miss while he is trying to avoid your fire. The husband of a friend was a police officer. He was involved in a firefight with a bad guy here locally. He was intially wounded and was trying to reload while behind the cover of his vehicle. The bad guy was not taking fire so he calmly walked around the squad car, took careful aim and then shot and killed the officer as he was trying to reload. Two things happened after he and his partners death; local PD started carrying larger capacity firearms and they also started carrying backup firearms in the event the first one malfunctioned or they were wounded and can't reload.

The whole idea that magazine restrictions would amount to any decrease in firearms murders is as vacuous as assuming you can calmly determine how many rounds are enough in any particular situation to stop a bad guy. May I suggest you read case studies of law enforcement shootings and FBI studies of firearms terminal effects in order to have an informed, opinion. Watching cop shows or movies is not considered a study.

So based on what you said - there is no magic number... be it six or ten or twelve or fifteen or sixty four or fourhundred and twenty eight.

 

[TurtleDude]

So based on what you said - there is no magic number... be it six or ten or twelve or fifteen or sixty four or fourhundred and twenty eight.

there is no evidence whatsoever that magazine limits have any objectively useful purpose. The main support for them comes from those weak minded members of the public who think such laws "DO SOMETHING" and mendacious politicians who pander to such people or worse-want to ban guns and realizing if a 10 round limit is imposed, a 6 round limit is reachable and then a 2 round limit

 

[jaeger19]

I do not know what the magic number is and that is what you are asking for. I do not know. I leave technical matters up to others who are paid to represent the people and find out the answers to such question.

This is true for lots of things. I have opinions about automobile but I have no idea what the magic horsepower number is for successful passing at certain speeds on the freeway so I can then argue about safey standards.

I have no idea what the minimum health requirements are for food intake and what percentage should come from various sources so I cannot pass judgement about federal standards on school lunches. I simply leave that to others who are paid to find out and listen to experts.

There are many things like that.

YOu make me king and I will have a reason to learn the bullet magic number. Until then - its useless trivia to me.

With all due respect.. you show the fallacy of your position and its ironic that you bring up the American system of government. See.. we DON'T have a king.. or an emperor... and therefore it is EVERY citizens duty.. honest to goodness DUTY to know or research things as what magazine capacity makes sense, or what horsepower is needed to pass safely, or a myriad of other things that are going to be dealt with by the American government. THATS the only way that the American form of government can function in a just manner.. is if the citizens can hold their elected leaders responsible to common sense and facts... .

too sad that you think understanding the issues at hand and having an informed knowledge about them is "useless trivia" to you.

 

[BretJ]

So based on what you said - there is no magic number... be it six or ten or twelve or fifteen or sixty four or fourhundred and twenty eight.

Exactly. The only magic number is whatever was required to stop that particular individual during that particular incident under those particular circumstances. The best number is whatever you are comfortable with. There is no legitimate way to determine a number. To artificially limit someone because some folks irrationally believe anything larger will make otherwise honest people criminals, is willfull ignorance of reality.