Gun rights victory today!

[Kilgore Trout]

I thought it was just your phrasing that was off, but apparently it's also your understanding of the issue. I'd expect an intelligent guy like you to be able to understand this better.

You seem to have an inability to separate your disagreement with something with the validity of an argument.

If you have an actual argument against what I said, please state it.

 

[Magic Man]

You seem to have an inability to separate your disagreement with something with the validity of an argument.

If you have an actual argument against what I said, please state it.

"but one of them isn't the right to a nanny-state socially engineered to result in the lowest amount of harm and suffering. "

This is nothing more than an exaggeration. It's no better than when Glenn Beck compares Obama to Hitler for trying to reform healthcare. I was hoping someone of your intellect would understand that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

"but one of them isn't the right to a nanny-state socially engineered to result in the lowest amount of harm and suffering. "

This is nothing more than an exaggeration. It's no better than when Glenn Beck compares Obama to Hitler for trying to reform healthcare. I was hoping someone of your intellect would understand that.

So your argument against my rhetoric, is your rhetoric.

 

[Storm]

But there was no strawman in my comment.

Yes, there was. You said (from memory) "That's different then saying everyone should have guns." No one was arguing that point. Rebutting a flimsier argument never made is the very definition of strawman.

I was talking about your comment specifically.

I apologize for the miscommunication.

If I'm ignoring something, it's because it's irrelevant to my argument. As I've said, I'm not necessarily saying guns should be banned. I just think there's a lot more to it than "I want them, and you can't tell me I can't have them because it only makes me want them more".

I said in a later post that I was under the impression you were, and now I know better.

Just like people can't drive any speed they want for public safety reasons, maybe people shouldn't own guns for public safety reasons.

But that won't work.

Well, this was kind of my point earlier with the "I want them and you can't tell me I can't have them" mindset. I don't think that's a strong argument here.

Well, to be frank, this is the same kind of twisting opponents of queer marriage and abortion utilize. My argument is that liberties don't require justification, restrictions do. Rephrasing that fundamental principle of governmental ethics as a childish tantrum is rather dishonest.

Rick mentioned something about Australia. You mentioned the UK.

Gotcha.

I didn't provide sources as I should have because I assumed you would remember the threads on UK knife crime and the ban on cheap katanas.

A quick Google query of "knife crime UK" turned up this page. From the third article down:

The new figures indicate that in the year 2007-8 there were some 277 deaths from stabbings in England & Wales alone(the highest recorded figure for 30 years). This represents an average death toll as a direct result of stabbings of over 5 for every week of the year​

Adding the phrase "rise" brought up Big rise in knife crime despite tougher penalties from the Independent, Knife crime doubles in 2 years from the Times, and The rapid increase in knife crime from the Telegraph, along with 216,000 other results. Not being familiar with British media outlets, I chose the first three listed, excluding the Daily Mail, which I understand to be the UK's answer to FOX News.

Then there's the ridiculous ban on katanas. Here's the first article from my search.

Yes, assuming you're talking about killing something to feed your family, especially since there are ways to do that without guns.

Yeah, a sledgehammer between the eyes. That's much better.

I don't see how. There might be some good reasons for the destruction, but it's still destruction. It's the entire goal of the object.

And there might be good reasons for restricting liberty, but it's still restriction. Why is it acceptable for you to speak bluntly and not your opponent?

But the goal of the object is destruction. I doubt anyone would have a problem with someone who just had a collection of guns that didn't actually work and couldn't fire off a round.

Broken tools are much less pleasing.

I will admit, I don't understand some people's affection for guns. They don't really appeal to me in that way. But I don't begrudge it, either.

 

[Magic Man]

So your argument against my rhetoric, is your rhetoric.

Nope. My argument against your comment is that it's a silly comment that shows a lack of understanding of the issue, either intentional or otherwise.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nope. My argument against your comment is that it's a silly comment that shows a lack of understanding of the issue, either intentional or otherwise.

I'll take that as a "yes."

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, there was. You said (from memory) "That's different then saying everyone should have guns." No one was arguing that point. Rebutting a flimsier argument never made is the very definition of strawman.

Ah, a misunderstanding. The fact that armed guards could help make things safer is only an argument for guards being armed, not for your average citizen being armed. That was the point of the "that's different than saying everyone should have guns".

I apologize for the miscommunication.

No apology necessary.

But that won't work.

Do speed limits work?

Well, to be frank, this is the same kind of twisting opponents of queer marriage and abortion utilize. My argument is that liberties don't require justification, restrictions do. Rephrasing that fundamental principle of governmental ethics as a childish tantrum is rather dishonest.

But that's what it is. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. No harm comes of that. Guns help cause harm. That may or may not be reason enough to ban them, but it's reason enough to render the argument "I want them" moot.

Gotcha.

I didn't provide sources as I should have because I assumed you would remember the threads on UK knife crime and the ban on cheap katanas.

A quick Google query of "knife crime UK" turned up this page. From the third article down:

The new figures indicate that in the year 2007-8 there were some 277 deaths from stabbings in England & Wales alone(the highest recorded figure for 30 years). This represents an average death toll as a direct result of stabbings of over 5 for every week of the year​

Adding the phrase "rise" brought up Big rise in knife crime despite tougher penalties from the Independent, Knife crime doubles in 2 years from the Times, and The rapid increase in knife crime from the Telegraph, along with 216,000 other results. Not being familiar with British media outlets, I chose the first three listed, excluding the Daily Mail, which I understand to be the UK's answer to FOX News.

Then there's the ridiculous ban on katanas. Here's the first article from my search.

I must have missed that thread. So, they had a ban on knives and katanas and knife violence went up? Am I understanding that right?

Yeah, a sledgehammer between the eyes. That's much better.

It may not be any better, but that's not the point. The point is that a gun has a sole purpose of destruction.

And there might be good reasons for restricting liberty, but it's still restriction. Why is it acceptable for you to speak bluntly and not your opponent?

It's fine for everyone to speak bluntly. I'm just trying to avoid terms that are specifically used to conjure bad thoughts just by their phrasing.

Broken tools are much less pleasing.

Not a very good way to put it. Besides, if all you're doing is collecting them and showing them off, why would you need them to work? Also, a civil war musket is still pretty cool even if it's still mostly intact but doesn't actually work.

 

[Magic Man]

I'll take that as a "yes."

Take it however you want. It was still a stupid comment by you that showed a lack of understanding of the issue. If it helps you to continue feeling superior, go right ahead and do a facepalm and ignore any and all criticism.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was still a stupid comment by you that showed a lack of understanding of the issue. If it helps you to continue feeling superior, go right ahead and do a facepalm and ignore any and all criticism.

I don't object to your posting here at all, but such tantrums are distracting. Calm down, will yah?

 

[Storm]

Ah, a misunderstanding. The fact that armed guards could help make things safer is only an argument for guards being armed, not for your average citizen being armed. That was the point of the "that's different than saying everyone should have guns".

OK.

No apology necessary.

Do speed limits work?

Speed limits are not comparable. They're not rooted in the much deeper issues I've raised, and smuggling's not a factor.

But that's what it is.

No, it isn't.

Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. No harm comes of that. Guns help cause harm.

One of the stastics mentioned upthread stated that half of US households possess firearms. If that's true, the vast majority of those guns never harm anyone.

That may or may not be reason enough to ban them, but it's reason enough to render the argument "I want them" moot.

Since that's not actually the argument, this is irrelevant at best.

I must have missed that thread. So, they had a ban on knives and katanas and knife violence went up? Am I understanding that right?

Not in that order, but pretty much. They banned guns, and use of other weapons went up.

It may not be any better, but that's not the point.

Sure it is. There's no bloodless way to get meat. The many hunters I've known preferred to do their own "dirty work," which was considerably more humane than many slaughterhouses.

The point is that a gun has a sole purpose of destruction.

It's fine for everyone to speak bluntly. I'm just trying to avoid terms that are specifically used to conjure bad thoughts just by their phrasing.

"A sole purpose of destruction" is such a term.

Not a very good way to put it. Besides, if all you're doing is collecting them and showing them off, why would you need them to work? Also, a civil war musket is still pretty cool even if it's still mostly intact but doesn't actually work.

I could ask the same of car enthusiasts, which I seem to recall includes you. Would a fine vehicle be as fine if it didn't run? Part of "showing them off" is demonstrating their function.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Take it however you want. It was still a stupid comment by you that showed a lack of understanding of the issue. If it helps you to continue feeling superior, go right ahead and do a facepalm and ignore any and all criticism.

I'd love to respond to criticism, if only you presented any rational criticism to respond to.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't object to your posting here at all, but such tantrums are distracting. Calm down, will yah?

I'm perfectly calm. I'm sorry that some here can't take criticism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm perfectly calm. I'm sorry that some here can't take criticism.

Criticism is fine, but your choice of words & tone are rancorous.
If I'm stupid, that should be something I'd discover for myself upon reading your
insightful analysis. But if you just tell me I'm stupid, then it's in one eye & out
the other. Some people even get angry when being called that. Strange, but true.

 

[Magic Man]

Speed limits are not comparable. They're not rooted in the much deeper issues I've raised, and smuggling's not a factor.

My point is that using the argument that we should be able to own guns because we should have that freedom doesn't work. By that argument we should also be able to drive any speed we want. In both cases there are dangers involved.

No, it isn't.

Yuh huh!

One of the stastics mentioned upthread stated that half of US households possess firearms. If that's true, the vast majority of those guns never harm anyone.

Not quite the same. A same-sex marriage between two consenting adults doesn't hurt anyone ever. It's not that they don't hurt people most of the time.


Since that's not actually the argument, this is irrelevant at best.

Sure it is. There's no bloodless way to get meat. The many hunters I've known preferred to do their own "dirty work," which was considerably more humane than many slaughterhouses.

And still the point of the gun is to destroy by killing.

"A sole purpose of destruction" is such a term.

No, it's not. A nail gun is meant to put a nail in something. A regular gun is meant to put a bullet in something. Putting a bullet in something is a forming of destroying it.

The point is that even if something else has harmful side effects, like cars or a nail gun, those side effects are not the primary intention or goal of the object. The primary goal of a gun is to put a bullet into something really, really hard, or in other words, destroy it.

I could ask the same of car enthusiasts, which I seem to recall includes you. Would a fine vehicle be as fine if it didn't run? Part of "showing them off" is demonstrating their function.

I'm not much of a car enthusiast. I used to be more interested than I am now. But I'd still think it was pretty cool to have a Batmobile whether or not it worked. I could use the analogy of swords, too. I have two swords at home. Neither one is sharp, and neither one works very well as a sword, but they're still pretty cool. It's like the Civil War musket I mentioned.

The sad part is I'm not even sure what the point of this part of the discussion was.

 

[Magic Man]

I'd love to respond to criticism, if only you presented any rational criticism to respond to.

OK, well, then go back and respond to my earlier posts.

 

[Magic Man]

Criticism is fine, but your choice of words & tone are rancorous.
If I'm stupid, that should be something I'd discover for myself upon reading your
insightful analysis. But if you just tell me I'm stupid, then it's in one eye & out
the other. Some people even get angry when being called that. Strange, but true.

One of my faults is responding to people with the same tone they give. I know you are especially offended by my words because it's me, but in reality I was giving nothing more than ATS was.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

OK, well, then go back and respond to my earlier posts.

I've already responded to all your posts asking for some sort of rational argument or debate. I have no idea what your objection is, as your only argument has been a repeated, infantile (not to mention, ironic) labeling of my post as "stupid" and "silly," without any attempt at refutation or retort.

Now, once again, do you actually have some type of rational argument or objection? Or, are you going to continue to throw tantrums and childish insults?

 

[Revoltingest]

One of my faults is responding to people with the same tone they give. I know you are especially offended by my words because it's me, but in reality I was giving nothing more than ATS was.

You're responding to the tone you feel, rather than the tone conveyed.
Try this - go back & count the epithets (eg, "stupid", "stubborn", "wrong", "infantile", "silly", associations with Fox News)
used by each of us & tally'm up. You might be surprised.

Btw, it's not just that I found your language offensive. It's that the excessive use of ad hominem argument is uninteresting.
I see that you're capable of being interesting, but you don't post enuf about what you think about the issues themselves.
To be interesting is so much more important than to seek being right.

 

[Magic Man]

That's one way to phrase it. Not a very good one, but it's certainly one way.

Revoltingest and ATS -

Here is my original criticism of ATS. It was in response to ATS's silly use of terms like "social engineering" and "nanny state". I understand that it is seemingly hard for you guys to understand how silly those terms are to use in this discussion, but you should try to look at it from an objective point of view.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest and ATS -

Here is my original criticism of ATS. It was in response to ATS's silly use of terms like "social engineering" and "nanny state". I understand that it is seemingly hard for you guys to understand how silly those terms are to use in this discussion, but you should try to look at it from an objective point of view.

He was being over-the-top, but that did not warrant the vitriol in your response.
We all get to be silly now & then. One shouldn't be abused for it.