Gun Control

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Should Gun control be allowed?

Yes
118
52%
No
83
36%
Other (please explain)
27
12%
 
Total votes : 228

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:07 pm

laojim wrote:
Irrelevant quibble. You are, in effect, arguing now that no generalization can be made about the honest, sanity, reliabilty, legality, or righteousness of gun owners or anyone else and this after you began by stating that the gun owners wouldn't abide by a sign porvided for by law?


A) It is not irrelevant. Your entire "point" hinged upon an incorrect generalization. This foolish argument was pointed out by not only I, but Aygor and Sun Fin. If generalizations are incorrect, so is your "point". B) NOW? No sir. Not now, the entire freaking discussion has hinged upon your incessant inane generalization which you've been now thrice told is inaccurate to make. C) No I did not begin by stating that gun owners wouldn't abide by signs. I said some people wouldn't, meaning a certain segment of a population. I supported this by anecdotal evidence of individuals. Since then, I've repeatedly (so many times its annoyed other forum members) told you that a small segment of a population wouldn't abide by the law. I've even gone steps further to state that most citizens have to assumed to be law abiding and that those who break laws don't represent the whole. Whats worse is that other members have read my posts and grasped these simple concepts. But somehow you seem to miss this, intentionally I presume.

Did you ever own a basset hound?


No, but I can spot a dog with its tail between its legs trying to get out of a confrontation any day.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4329
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby laojim » Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:05 am

laojim wrote:
Shikanosuke wrote:So lets recap. The carry and conceal law allows you to carry and conceal firearms anywhere that isn't a government building or private business that has explicitly told you not to. The latter's effectiveness is rather limited to none. Private businesses attempt to prevent any weapons on their premises, largely for liability reasons. They've always been able to do this.


And here we see the root of the problem. For all your talk about the law and the constitution your position, which you boldly and clearly state, is that gun owners cannot be trusted to obey the law. You say that posting a sign as provided by Arizona law, cannot be expected to be obeyed by carriers of weapons. If we cannot trust them to obey the law we cannot trust them to carry a dangerous weapon and guns should, by your logic, be banned simply because it is the only reliable waay to keep them out of the drug store and the church. Thank you for making my case and have a nice day. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


So let's recap. You showed that you did not understand the legality of the posting. You assumed that the restrictions were entirely because of liability issues with no proof or examples from public places you have not been governed by laws with which you are not familiar, later trying to wiggle out of it by claiming that ZI have no right to speak in the matter. You state that the effectiveness of the posted restrictions will be "limited to none," and refuse the obvious implications that the gun owners are not complying with the law and, by further implications cannot be trusted to obey the laws you just finished telling me that they won't obey. Then you go on and on in, usually, an entirely offensive line of ridicuule and finish up by complaining that I don't see the obvious force of logic in you ridicule. Keep it up and see if the results change.

You deserve a bit of a ribbing for stepping so neatly into my argument. You could have accepted the obvious, but no, you hve carry on with abuse. I ever tossed you a bit of nonsense and you turned that to abuse. I read it to the dog anh he growled.

Ciao
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:44 pm

laojim wrote:

So let's recap.


You realize that recapping and posting your own post doesn't actually bolster the authority of your own argument right?

You showed that you did not understand the legality of the posting.


Nope, never done that. In fact, its one of the few things we've agreed upon. The only thing I didn't understand was the lack of carry and conceal permit required in AZ which didn't hurt my point. I also conceded that, and the argument continued..evidence it didn't center around the issue. I asked you if there was a law requiring private business owners and private residences to all posts signs prohibiting firearms. I'm not sure, like most of the finer points and details I've raised, thats been answered.

You assumed that the restrictions were entirely because of liability issues with no proof or examples


I assumed a motive for an action. I think its a fairly reasonable one for insurance companies. I don't think all business owners are franchise owners, either.

from public places you have not been governed by laws with which you are not familiar, later trying to wiggle out of it by claiming that ZI have no right to speak in the matter.


Theres little to no 'wiggling' coming from anyone but you. My logic has remained pretty consistent. The force of the argument isn't even hinged upon it being solely an AZ law as the AZ law is more liberal that most carry and conceal laws. You could replace your state with mine and my argument wouldn't change, except for the gun owners would have to be complying with even more restrictions. And yes, you have no right to speak on behalf a varied population and especially one in which the laws of said population seem to speak a different opinion than your own.

You state that the effectiveness of the posted restrictions will be "limited to none," and refuse the obvious implications that the gun owners are not complying with the law and, by further implications cannot be trusted to obey the laws you just finished telling me that they won't obey.


I noted that their effectiveness in limited indeed, and some segments of a population will ignore a given law. It didn't generalize all gun owners and it doesn't lead to a conclusion that gun owners as a population are untrustworthy or that they won't follow a given law.

Then you go on and on in, usually, an entirely offensive line of ridicuule and finish up by complaining that I don't see the obvious force of logic in you ridicule. Keep it up and see if the results change.


I shall. And you realize there were about 20 or so following posts clarifying in detail my exact position right? Clarifying over and over again what I've just said above. Clarifying it so painfully that two other members are able to pick it up quickly and even agree. Other members were also able to note the silliness in your argument. So, sorry. My force of logic has nothing to do with ridicule (thats just an easy side task). My force of logic is found buried in the multiple replies where I've deconstructed your sad argument line by line. Unlike you I didn't just quote the entirety of your posts and just ramble on with the same argument as if you hadn't even read the bazillion posts.

Will the results change? No. But I doubt its my tactics. My tactics have been sufficiently clear to effectively communicate an elementary point to two other members will no difficulty or conflict. But it doesn't really matter how loud or explicit for some people.

You deserve a bit of a ribbing for stepping so neatly into my argument.


Sorry, I really don't. I know you think you're some old mastermind in here. But you're not. You can keep on acting like 'people are stepping into your arguments' or folks are 'making your point', but the thing is you have to have an argument or point to make as prerequisite. Unfortunately all we have here is curmudgeonly ill-conceived generalizations.


You could have accepted the obvious, but no, you hve carry on with abuse.


Abuse? I don't think there anything that out of the ordinary for SoSZ. And nothing of course out of the ordinary for you and I. I respond rather consistently I'd say to your haughty and condescending rhetoric every thread. You'd note I didn't to the other two delightful members.

And obvious? Yes, generalizations are obvious errant assumptions. That's been pointed out to you thrice already by your peers. Doesn't seem to matter to you.

I ever tossed you a bit of nonsense and you turned that to abuse. I read it to the dog anh he growled.


Yes, you toss in a lot of nonsense in the hope of irritating other members. You think its clever and subtle. It's really just an opening for you to make another quip.

Ciao


Bon Voyage!
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4329
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby laojim » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:16 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:.....

I ever tossed you a bit of nonsense and you turned that to abuse. I read it to the dog anh he growled.


Yes, you toss in a lot of nonsense in the hope of irritating other members. You think its clever and subtle. It's really just an opening for you to make another quip.


I am familiar with your type of argument because I have dealt professionally with adolescents for many years. perhpas you see this as the "king has no clothes" revelation, or something of the sort, but it is still just adolescent rage. You stepped into a key point and are apparently desperate to pretend not to have done so and so you persevere with abuse when you might do better to improve your argument.

The thing that points up what I just wrote is that you begin one assertion after another with some form of "you think..." when simple logic will make it abundantly clear that you have no idea what I think. This is typical of adolescent argumentation, to substitute guesses for fact.

I'll get back to you when I want to know more about gun legislation in Arizona, you being an expert with insight into our minds and all.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:08 pm

laojim wrote:
I am familiar with your type of argument because I have dealt professionally with adolescents for many years. perhpas you see this as the "king has no clothes" revelation, or something of the sort, but it is still just adolescent rage.


I'm tempted to call you a liar, because if my deconstructing your argument piece by piece and occasionally adding a sarcastic quip comes off as 'rage' then you've obviously never worked with adolescents or delinquents. I hope my future adolescent kids are willing to do that. It seems no one else also found my points, which they've easily picked up on (and explained to you) to be inappropriate or 'rageful'. So go ahead and try to paint the picture that I've railed against you in fits of 'rage' which has blinded me from engaging in a constructive conversation if that makes you happy. I find it just an annoying red herring.

Personally I'd wager that ignoring posts by multiple users explaining simple positions to you and then restating your original position lined with sarcasm counts as 'adolescent' or immature. But hey, what do I know. You're the old professional.


You stepped into a key point and are apparently desperate to pretend not to have done so and so you persevere with abuse when you might do better to improve your argument.


I've stepped in nothing. It seems you consistently want to throw this out there by asserting 'I've stepped in it' or 'You've made my point'. All of which I've refuted in detail, but to which you don't actually reply to. You simply reiterate a flawed argument not backed up by evidence or logic but by merely attempting to state 'well you said this! and I got you now!'. Which is a joke, and everyone has seen it.


The thing that points up what I just wrote is that you begin one assertion after another with some form of "you think..." when simple logic will make it abundantly clear that you have no idea what I think. This is typical of adolescent argumentation, to substitute guesses for fact.


I can only respond to what logic you put into the computer which shows up on this forum. You've made your poor logic fairly explicit by engaging in gross generalizations as a premise (which multiple users have pointed out is a flawed arguing tactic) and following that flawed premise with the assertion that therefore guns should be not be allowed to US citizenry. That's pretty much the entire argument encapsulated, with the exception of your attempt to be cute by putting constitutional freedoms in "s. I don't know what you think, I know what you say. I respond to what you say. It is not my fault if you misspeak or what you type is full of blatantly illogical nonsense and long-winded rhetoric. That is on you. You might well think or believe something entirely different. But I can't respond to that. I can only respond to what you say. Which is what I do, it is why I deconstruct what you say.

I also find this hilarious from one who has blatantly ignored repeated posts which go into detail explaining a position/assertion and from who still has yet to get that assertion correct. So, yes, if diligently deconstructing long-winded response, responding to it point-by-point, and trying not to engage in gross generalizations is adolescent then I'm guilty as charged. Whats more likely is that I've attempted to actually engage in conversation and you've just responded with attempts at subtle sarcasm which fall flat here. Not to mention a bit humorous coming from someone temporarily banned for spamming not too long ago.

I'll get back to you when I want to know more about gun legislation in Arizona, you being an expert with insight into our minds and all.


You do that if you wish. If you come back with more generalizations though, it really won't change the conversation points now will it?
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4329
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby laojim » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:43 am

Shikanosuke wrote:....
I am familiar with your type of argument because I have dealt professionally with adolescents for many years. perhpas you see this as the "king has no clothes" revelation, or something of the sort, but it is still just adolescent rage.


I'm tempted to call you a liar, because if my deconstructing your argument piece .......[/quote]

Well, folks, there you have it. The final refuge of one with no real argument.

Deconstructed? You obviously don't know the difference between that and a hole in the wall. Interleaving abuse and prattle is hardly an example of deconstruction. I can only conclude that you don't know what you are writing about, but you seem like a nice enough fellow so we'll leave it there where I quit reading.

For deconstruction I direct your attention to the preceding explication of the state of Arizona and their gun laws, in which weight is given to a) the history of the territory b) the relationship to the previous occupants [although I may have removed that, I don't recall, c) the place naming of the new residents from Wikiup to Window Rock, d) tourist entertainments such as the daily gun fights in Tombstone, e) the current legal atmosphere, d) the current political climate, f) the recent revision of gun laws regarding the carrying of firearms and the posting of restrictions and a few other minor considerations. I believe I pointed out, I certainly alluded to, the change in posted bans on guns by sinage, that you stated gun owners would not observe. The only other point is the extension of your contribution, that gun owners would not obey legal sinage to make the obvious conclusion that gun owners are not to be trusted to follw the law.

What more you have to contribute I am frankly incurious at this point. I weary of the adolescent abuse. You seem to believe that this is some sort of contest in which you win by not responding sensibly. I used to have a wife like that. Whatever became of her? I'm sure you are a fin and upstanding citizen of wherever it is that you live, but it is obviously not Arizona. If you ever are in the neighborhood drop in and have a drink if I'm home. If I'm not home try the back door. The booze is in the pantry.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby laojim » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:56 am

Oh, yes, by the way, nonsense is neither subtle nor sophisticated. It is, however, good fun.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:25 am

laojim wrote:
Well, folks, there you have it. The final refuge of one with no real argument.


Yes, its terrible when one replies to 'you're in adolescent rage!' with a calm 'this is how I've handled your argument. I'd say the one with no argument is the one who is more concerned with commenting on how a argument is handled and less concerned with actually commenting on the issue at hand.

Deconstructed? You obviously don't know the difference between that and a hole in the wall. Interleaving abuse and prattle is hardly an example of deconstruction.


Right. I'm sorry that breaking your paltry responses into component parts and dismantling your arguments upsets you. But if throwing out insults and acting haughty is the way you wanna go, have at it.



For deconstruction I direct your attention ...I believe I pointed out, I certainly alluded to, the change in posted bans on guns by sinage, that you stated gun owners would not observe.


Nope, I didn't do this. Stop your generalizations right there and come back when you've understood the position restated now by three members. You also seem to fail to consider what the law also obviously says about the state's opinion of carrying firearms in public places.

The only other point is the extension of your contribution, that gun owners would not obey legal sinage to make the obvious conclusion that gun owners are not to be trusted to follw the law.


Flawed conclusion from a flawed premise. Went to great lengths to dissuade you of this, but of course it was for nothing if one won't read other posts.

What more you have to contribute I am frankly incurious at this point.


Not surprised. You don't seem to read past a few lines and then retort focusing almost entirely upon one's arguing style. Which makes me laugh. I think I've seem this exact complain (concern about what you contribute) in my own posts multiple times.

I weary of the adolescent abuse.


You've yet to prove or even make an argument for the idea that my responses to you in any way constitute 'adolescent abuse'. In which case its nothing but either an insult to me or, once again, a comment directed towards arguing style in an attempt to deflect attention from the issues at hand. And if you're weary of being here, abandon here. You've nothing to prove and you're certainly not adding anything of value to the conversation other than to call me adolescent and complain about how I treat you (a boring argument I grow weary of).

You seem to believe that this is some sort of contest in which you win by not responding sensibly.


This coming from the man who said 'i'll be back to when I've read up on AZ law' (which sounded more sensibly as 'when I've got something other than the straws of gross generalizations to grasp at) but who returned by coming back to say 'you adolescent, arg, you make me weary!'.

I don't win by responding sir. I don't win at all. For one its supposed to be a give and take conversation where we all win by exchanging ideas. That certainly isn't happening, so we're all losing and with you its just banging your head against a wall anyway. For another, this is essentially what you're doing. You've added nothing but complaints about arguing style to your posts for about three pages now.

..wasnt it just you who complained about starting arguments with '..you think or 'you believe'? Oh well.

I used to have a wife like that. Whatever became of her? I'm sure you are a fin and upstanding citizen of wherever it is that you live, but it is obviously not Arizona. If you ever are in the neighborhood drop in and have a drink if I'm home. If I'm not home try the back door. The booze is in the pantry.


Cool. Is this before you 'take care of me' as I think you put it? Or is this just more nonsensical babble not pertinent to any point?


laojim wrote:Oh, yes, by the way, nonsense is neither subtle nor sophisticated. It is, however, good fun.


Not sophisticated is pretty accurate to describe to this entire conversation.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4329
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby laojim » Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:58 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:....
laojim wrote:Oh, yes, by the way, nonsense is neither subtle nor sophisticated. It is, however, good fun.


Not sophisticated is pretty accurate to describe to this entire conversation.


What a shame that you can think of nothing but abuse to try to answer a reasoned position. Let me know when you grow up. Now, if you will excuse me, I have some reading to do.

Ciao
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:02 pm

laojim wrote:
Shikanosuke wrote:....
laojim wrote:Oh, yes, by the way, nonsense is neither subtle nor sophisticated. It is, however, good fun.


Not sophisticated is pretty accurate to describe to this entire conversation.


What a shame that you can think of nothing but abuse to try to answer a reasoned position. Let me know when you grow up. Now, if you will excuse me, I have some reading to do.


:lol: :roll: Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black. Call an entire segmented response 'abuse' and then respond with an insult. I tire of having a debate about debating. If that is what you call a 'reasoned position' or if you think any calm and reasonable criticism of your poor replies constitutes 'abuse' then don't expect 'abuse' to ever quit. You can stay home and read. Perhaps now we can return to the actual issues (something sun fin graciously attempted a few pages ago which you disregarded) surrounding gun control and not how poor old mr. rogers feels 'abused'. Ciao!
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4329
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved