Where do you stand?[W:452]

[Crimefree]

Re: Where do you stand?

Donald Trump is a lot of things, but naked isn't one of them.

What separates people like you and Turtle from Trump is that he knows he's full of it, whereas you guys are purely delusional.

Says a guy who want to disarm the victims of crime as a crime reduction measure.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Where do you stand?

Oh, I read it alright - and this too.

I also read what Jaeger wrote. Did you?

Jaeger: "Again.. I am NOT agreeing with you on what that statement means. And I've articulated that clearly."
You: "You are saying exactly what i'm saying. I'll say it again. A restriction on the ability to buy a gun is not necessarily an infringement on the second amendment. Don't pervert what i'm saying, ..."
Me: "Um... if the poster is saying "exactly what you're saying," and if you find what he's saying is "perverted," what does that say about what you're saying? More importantly, why repeat it?"
You: "Because he is repeating what i'm saying, and then concluding that i'm wrong because, he claims, i'm actually saying something different than what i'm saying."
You: "It is a strawman."

You both have different views on what a particular statement means.
Jaeger acknowledges that disagreement and has attempted, several times to explain his side of it.
You acknowledge disagreement but have concluded somehow that his interpretation is invalid because he doesn't agree with your interpretation.
You also think that is 'perverted.'
And to cap it off, you think that is a strawman.

Irrespective of what the statement may have been, such logic as you've responded with is about as convoluted as I've seen in some time - and that apparently because you can't seem to figure out why, or how someone can read the same thing you do and yet interpret it differently than you do. There's nothing "perverse" in that - save perhaps your definition of "perverse" - for if two people can interpret something differently, and (according to you) one of those interpretations must therefore be "perverse" - who's to say it must be the other person's and not yours?

FWIW, I happen to agree with Jaeger on this. I think he's made lucid, rational arguments; and I think he's right. Your argument on the other hand has been anything but; and I think you're looking at the whole issue wrong, likely because of a major fault in your primary premise (to wit: "I've endured lots of freedom in my privileged life and none of it required gun ownership by any means") - which Jaeger correctly identified and debunked quite effectively as well. I think you need to revisit your premise before you presume to argue this issue any further, let alone accuse anyone of perversity because their interpretation of something doesn't match with yours.

Okay then it sounds like you're conclusion seeking. It seems you (both now) are deliberately misinterpreting what i said in order to say i'm wrong. That argument is stupid. I'm telling both of you, i agree with you, so stop trying to tell me what i meant by my own statement is your strawman. Thanks.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Where do you stand?

I'm always polite even when I am not. :2wave:



Self-defence is not a privilege unless you are a governments subjects. No human rights agreement does not recognise this.



Exactly.



Children - It has a lovely emotional pull. Are children not allowed to defend themselves? Now the part you conveniently forgot. Children are the TOTAL responsibility of the parents. Do you understand what that means?



Do you realise that you have just described your fear? Others with guns. Thus you seek to disarm those you fear. You trust them without guns but not with guns. Does that make sense to you?



We have such qualification laws in place right now.



Absolutely correct but governments do not adopt gun control out of any consideration for the safety of citizens. You will understand that better when you have read all.



No that is incorrect gun ownership LEVELS. Did you deliberately neglect to mention what it did do. Can you list those and justify them as worth the effort of a total failure of a gun control law to deliver the false promise?



The down side is that it made no significant difference which was entirely predictable.

1) When I say that I mean it exactly, you cannot influence the out come of anything with change of some aspect unless there is an influencing relationship. Is that a true statement?

Good now apply it to this case or gun control in general.

2) The objective of which is not in doubt it is to reduce crime, the supply of firearms to criminals or increase public safety. Is this a correct statement?

Now we can take these to simple statements 1 and 2 and determine the result of any gun control by the simple and known fact there must be a relationship between guns and what we seek to influence, 1 and 2. If you know of any causal relationship please publish it as the world of gun control is waiting to honour that find with fame and glory. We can test that further for accuracy and it is easy enough to determine that the only possible means of guns influencing our goals is physical. We can rule out mental control or any other human sensory control. How do firearms exert a physical control over humans?

We can postulate there is some mental control but to my knowledge this has not been found either.

Conclusion??????

Validity of conclusion 100% based on two or three simple provable statements



We might say eight years is Hmmmm insignificant, not measurable, probably not present, unfounded, wild conjecture... so that is not even a point worth mentioning unless one is willing to admit it is irrelevant and probably conjecture.



Based on the above can you give me one good reason why any government would want to introduce gun control as a crime control measure?

You don't necessarily need to be able to buy a gun in order to defend yourself. For example, a child may be trained to find use their parents gun in the case of a home invasion. In that case, the parent is the responsible party.

Others with guns doesn't really make me afraid. People have lots of guns all around me, i'm not afraid. That's different than wanting a little caution exercised in the sale of firearms.

Even if you could argue to me that UBC had zero impact, i would still think it's a good law. What we have is already pretty close to UBC, and the extent to which a loophole is exploited should not be used to leave a loophole wide open.

1) yes. I think it's safe to say that guns influence gun-related crimes.

2) yes. In other words, to correct the current law that is negligent in its duty.

I would say that a projectile bullet lodging into someone's skull constitutes physical influence.

I think it's safe to say that humans, in moments of desperation, will use whatever's in arms reach. If that person is mentally unstable, and can buy a number of guns, i think such a situation is a potentially preventable tragedy.

Now, if i can show that just one, single life is saved through ever so slightly stricter gun control (simply universal enforcement of current laws), i hope that you would consider it. I do not mean to steamroll you through policy, but i think that wider gun law discussions often fall apart because the topic is so polarizing that parties neglect to listen to one another.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Where do you stand?

You don't necessarily need to be able to buy a gun in order to defend yourself. For example, a child may be trained to find use their parents gun in the case of a home invasion. In that case, the parent is the responsible party.

Others with guns doesn't really make me afraid. People have lots of guns all around me, i'm not afraid. That's different than wanting a little caution exercised in the sale of firearms.

Even if you could argue to me that UBC had zero impact, i would still think it's a good law. What we have is already pretty close to UBC, and the extent to which a loophole is exploited should not be used to leave a loophole wide open.

1) yes. I think it's safe to say that guns influence gun-related crimes.

2) yes. In other words, to correct the current law that is negligent in its duty.

I would say that a projectile bullet lodging into someone's skull constitutes physical influence.

I think it's safe to say that humans, in moments of desperation, will use whatever's in arms reach. If that person is mentally unstable, and can buy a number of guns, i think such a situation is a potentially preventable tragedy.

Now, if i can show that just one, single life is saved through ever so slightly stricter gun control (simply universal enforcement of current laws), i hope that you would consider it. I do not mean to steamroll you through policy, but i think that wider gun law discussions often fall apart because the topic is so polarizing that parties neglect to listen to one another.

nothing is as worthless as "if it just saves one life" because we can prove gun control has clearly cost at LEAST one life

and that one life nonsense can be used to justify shutting down our streets, banning high school sports, and most recreational activities

why is it we have such a hard time getting gun restrictionists to flat out say what they really want

we on the pro freedom side are pretty obvious what we want

 

[haymarket]

Re: Where do you stand?

nothing is as worthless as "if it just saves one life" because we can prove gun control has clearly cost at LEAST one life

Are you not the same person who has taken the position regarding registration and confiscation that if it just one gun that is confiscated that it is reason to condemn registration?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Where do you stand?

nothing is as worthless as "if it just saves one life" because we can prove gun control has clearly cost at LEAST one life

and that one life nonsense can be used to justify shutting down our streets, banning high school sports, and most recreational activities

why is it we have such a hard time getting gun restrictionists to flat out say what they really want

we on the pro freedom side are pretty obvious what we want

I am saying what i really want to say.

When a professional psychiatrist diagnoses a patient with a severe mental illness that poses a material threat to public safety, the government would be negligent to then hand that patient a loaded gun.

Your speculation that gun control has cost more lives than it's saved is not well founded.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Re: Where do you stand?

Says a guy who want to disarm the victims of crime as a crime reduction measure.

Which victims did I say I wanted to disarm? Link to the post.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Where do you stand?

I am saying what i really want to say.

When a professional psychiatrist diagnoses a patient with a severe mental illness that poses a material threat to public safety, the government would be negligent to then hand that patient a loaded gun.

Your speculation that gun control has cost more lives than it's saved is not well founded.

actually in that case, the doctor has a duty to report it. I probably know that law better than anyone on this board since I have actually defended a doctor who was sued when he turned in a VA patient who expressed a desire to kill another patient.


somehow I think your desire for gun restrictions go well beyond this very narrow issue

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Where do you stand?

actually in that case, the doctor has a duty to report it. I probably know that law better than anyone on this board since I have actually defended a doctor who was sued when he turned in a VA patient who expressed a desire to kill another patient.


somehow I think your desire for gun restrictions go well beyond this very narrow issue

I don't want any new restrictions. I primarily want universal enforcement of our current restrictions. Toward that goal, i think registration could play a role, but i don't have strict feelings about that.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Where do you stand?

You are saying exactly what i'm saying. I'll say it again. A restriction on the ability to buy a gun is not necessarily an infringement on the second amendment. Don't pervert what i'm saying, you seem to want to put the argument in my mouth that i'm saying that every restriction on the ability to buy a gun does not infringe on the second amendment.

You seem to be mixing up a right with a freedom. I think people do not realize that most freedoms are actually privileges, admittedly they are often protected privileges.

The reason those folks took up arms to defend freedom is because other folks took up arms to inhibit freedom. Do you not realize that Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia were facilitated by the barrels of guns ? Guns are not a pure, unquestionable route to freedom. Handing guns out blindly to sociopaths and criminals will not make us more free nor more safe.



I'm sure there are elements of truth to this.

And now we off on another tangent that now rights aren't freedoms. Good god man.. now you are arguing "protected privileges".. ? Talk about moving goal posts.

So I realize that Nazi German and Stalins Russia were facilitated by the barrels of guns? Certainly.. and what was Hitlers and Stalins move prior? to disarm the populace that they wished to subjugate. Do you realize that? Or do you really think that there is some utopia where the bad men of the world will give up their plans and arms to subjugate others.. because the good men of this world will lay down their arms?
Are you naïve enough to believe that the hitlers and the stalins of the world will obey the laws and give up their plans because "we made a law". Hilter violated the treaty of Versailles su in his quest to arm Germany. I suppose you think that if there was just one more treaty.. he would have obeyed that?

No one is handing out guns blindly to sociopaths and criminals. They don't need to... criminals and sociopaths break the law willingly to get their hands on the tools that they willingly use to break further laws.
What you would do is disarm and or inhibit those that are willing to follow the law from protecting themselves and others....

Blindly ignoring reality and disarming and inhibiting the good people of the country from protecting themselves and others will not make us more safe or more free.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Where do you stand?

I am saying what i really want to say.

When a professional psychiatrist diagnoses a patient with a severe mental illness that poses a material threat to public safety, the government would be negligent to then hand that patient a loaded gun.

Your speculation that gun control has cost more lives than it's saved is not well founded.

Now that's a strawman.. if a patient comes in with a mental illness and displays a threat to public safety to themselves or others, the providers have a duty to report it. FURTHER.. the government does not.. does not "hand that patient a loaded gun"..ever.

Seriously.. where do you get this stuff?

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Where do you stand?

I don't want any new restrictions. I primarily want universal enforcement of our current restrictions. Toward that goal, i think registration could play a role, but i don't have strict feelings about that.

Registration is a new restriction.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Where do you stand?

I don't want any new restrictions. I primarily want universal enforcement of our current restrictions. Toward that goal, i think registration could play a role, but i don't have strict feelings about that.

Do you support the Hughes Amendment or the ridiculous restrictions on suppressors and SBRs?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Re: Where do you stand?

Registration is a new restriction.

Whether it's an unfair or an unreasonable restriction is a completely different question, however.

 

[Crimefree]

Re: Where do you stand?

Which victims did I say I wanted to disarm? Link to the post.

What are you babbling about? Get a grip.

I can do it in steps for you so you can understand.

1) Who do you wish to disarm?

 

[Crimefree]

Re: Where do you stand?

I am saying what i really want to say.

When a professional psychiatrist diagnoses a patient with a severe mental illness that poses a material threat to public safety, the government would be negligent to then hand that patient a loaded gun.

Your speculation that gun control has cost more lives than it's saved is not well founded.

Would it not be better if you acquainted yourself with existing laws first instead of parroting gun control?

 

[Crimefree]

Re: Where do you stand?

I'm telling you that having any reason that a potential "right" can be revoked actually makes that potential "right" a privilege.

It's okay if we misuse the term "right" in some contexts. In this way, we're saying that 26 year old black man will never have the "right" to vote revoked for any reason.

However, almost all people believe that some people can lose the "right" to own a gun. For example, by being a violent criminal or suffering from a dangerous mental illness.

The constitution makes no exception for criminals or anyone else. I defy you to produce the wording in the Bill of Rights. An imprisoned criminal is not denied this right and no judgement removes this right. Where do you get that the right is denied?

Some people inflexibly use the second amendment's wording of a "right" to mean that there should be zero regulation of gun ownership because any regulation constitutes infringement on that "right."

As of when was the constitution "flexible". The words mean what they say. An infringement is exactly that it's not "flexible". Is this stuff rocket science to you?

I maintain that the ability to buy a gun is rightfully described as a privilege.

Not it's a right denial would be an infringement of that right..

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Where do you stand?

And now we off on another tangent that now rights aren't freedoms. Good god man.. now you are arguing "protected privileges".. ? Talk about moving goal posts.

So I realize that Nazi German and Stalins Russia were facilitated by the barrels of guns? Certainly.. and what was Hitlers and Stalins move prior? to disarm the populace that they wished to subjugate. Do you realize that? Or do you really think that there is some utopia where the bad men of the world will give up their plans and arms to subjugate others.. because the good men of this world will lay down their arms?
Are you naïve enough to believe that the hitlers and the stalins of the world will obey the laws and give up their plans because "we made a law". Hilter violated the treaty of Versailles su in his quest to arm Germany. I suppose you think that if there was just one more treaty.. he would have obeyed that?

No one is handing out guns blindly to sociopaths and criminals. They don't need to... criminals and sociopaths break the law willingly to get their hands on the tools that they willingly use to break further laws.
What you would do is disarm and or inhibit those that are willing to follow the law from protecting themselves and others....

Blindly ignoring reality and disarming and inhibiting the good people of the country from protecting themselves and others will not make us more safe or more free.

I'm not saying rights aren't freedoms. I'm saying that what you're calling a right is actually only a privilege. Both rights and privileges are examples of freedoms. Why are you making up another bizarre strawman?

I don't know why you're rambling about treaties. It sounds like you're having an argument with an imaginary liberal strawman. You are right that one person having a gun and another person not having a gun creates an imbalance of power. Now, i don't know about you, but most people are not carrying a gun at some point in time- if an armed lunatic found you at this time, they'd have power over you. They could rob you, kidnap you, torture you, or simply kill you. Why do you want to let the lunatic buy a gun through a legal sale ?

I like how you argue that the desire to have a gun, and the willingness to have a gun, makes guns just fall from the sky into their lap. Do you know how to buy a gun on the black market? I sure as hell don't. Either way, why should the government play a role in arming a known bad actor ?

I'm not sure why you think handing guns to felons and crazies will make us safer, like i should be worried about their rights.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Where do you stand?

Now that's a strawman.. if a patient comes in with a mental illness and displays a threat to public safety to themselves or others, the providers have a duty to report it. FURTHER.. the government does not.. does not "hand that patient a loaded gun"..ever.

Seriously.. where do you get this stuff?

Sometimes they can restrain patients. Not every time they are a material threat.

If someone is a violent sociopathic serial killer out on parole, you want that person to be able to buy a gun. That's what you're saying here.

They can still be a diagnosed threat and run free. If they run free, the gun sales loophole lets them legally buy a gun (even if they are not legally allowed to possess it). You think the government should turn the other cheek and let a paranoid schizophrenic buy a gun. The government played a role in their acquisition of a gun.

Registration is a new restriction.

No, it is a simple hoop, and it could be done behind the curtains with the background check, creating no additional restriction, whatsoever.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Where do you stand?

Do you support the Hughes Amendment or the ridiculous restrictions on suppressors and SBRs?

I don't really have a strong opinion. If someone shoots me, i don't think i'll care much if a silencer was equipped or not. On the other hand, if the un-silenced noise helped get an ambulance there quicker, and that saved my life, i suppose i would be grateful.

I don't think the presence or absence of a silencer is all that useful for hunting, target practice, or self defense. At least not enough to guarantee availability.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Where do you stand?

I don't really have a strong opinion. If someone shoots me, i don't think i'll care much if a silencer was equipped or not. On the other hand, if the un-silenced noise helped get an ambulance there quicker, and that saved my life, i suppose i would be grateful.

I don't think the presence or absence of a silencer is all that useful for hunting, target practice, or self defense. At least not enough to guarantee availability.

I don't quite get the last sentence

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Where do you stand?

Would it not be better if you acquainted yourself with existing laws first instead of parroting gun control?

I can and should learn more about gun control laws.

That doesn't stop me from sharing my current view with you, trying to keep communication open so that i may understand yours.

The constitution makes no exception for criminals or anyone else. I defy you to produce the wording in the Bill of Rights. An imprisoned criminal is not denied this right and no judgement removes this right. Where do you get that the right is denied?



As of when was the constitution "flexible". The words mean what they say. An infringement is exactly that it's not "flexible". Is this stuff rocket science to you?



Not it's a right denial would be an infringement of that right..

Prisoners do not have the "right" to bear arms.

An adult citizen generally has the "right" to bear arms. If they commit a crime that puts them in prison, that "right" is revoked. The revoke forces the second amendment to more accurately be described as a privilege. If we consider it this way, we can say that the "right" to bear arms is a very strong privilege, meaning that the government can only very rarely revoke that privilege.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Where do you stand?

I don't quite get the last sentence

I don't believe a silencer is useful enough for legal gun owners to guarantee that it should be made available per the second amendment.

Meaning that i think the case isn't overwhelmingly strong in either way. I'd prefer any public gun shot to be loud, but i don't think it's that important.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Where do you stand?

I don't believe a silencer is useful enough for legal gun owners to guarantee that it should be made available per the second amendment.

Meaning that i think the case isn't overwhelmingly strong in either way. I'd prefer any public gun shot to be loud, but i don't think it's that important.

I don't like that thinking. The duty should be on the government to prove-using at least clear and convincing evidence, that something should be banned, not the other way around , FDR tried to ban them because there was unsupported claims that poor people would use them to poach deer during the depression. They have lots of uses such as shooting rifles in legal hunting areas where the noise might disturb people which is why they are being legalized in ohio. WE have horses, and one would be useful for shooting coons that get into the horsefeed without causing the horses to spook from even a 22 RF

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

Re: Where do you stand?

Get gun control laws like Europe and Australia. There has to be some reason why their gun violence is less than ours.