Page 87 of 92

Re: Gun Control

Unread postPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:09 am
by laojim
Shikanosuke wrote: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!


oy vey ist mir

Well, at least you're not my son. [Old man goes off muttering "He just don't get it for some reason...."]

So you call this style "segmented?" I call it deceptive. It apparently generates the aura of thouroughness without the connectedness that makes a string of propositions into an argument. If you can't write a coherent paragraph that summarized your understanding of someone's writing and your response then I can see no point in this "segmentation." I've plowed through my share of journals and monographs but I don't recall ever seeing such a strange form of discussion. Judging by the threads in this forum it either becomes a garden of forking paths, to borrow a phrase from Borges, or it provides someone who refuses to give up his point of view with a large number of niggling details that he can pull out demanding (as if you could demand something in this situation) that the minor point from twenty posts back remains unrefuted and thus allows that person to claim that his responses, no matter how silly, are a bastion of unassailed reason. I suspect that the problem with this forum is precisely that format, but suit yourself.

Have a nice day. Oh, if you ever have occasion to study transactional analysis (why anyone would do that I have no idea, but they did have a few really good ideas) look up "uproar player." It was rather well described in an otherwise poor book called Games Students Play. You might find that interesting although I may be entirely misremembering the issue. You know how these old people are. Where's my tea cup? Oh, yes....time for a whiskey and a fist full of prescriptions. Maybe I'll leave the whiskey for tomorrow. It is rather good whiskey. You aren't still reading this are you? Imagine that.

Re: Gun Control

Unread postPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:52 am
by Shikanosuke
laojim wrote:

Well, at least you're not my son. [Old man goes off muttering "He just don't get it for some reason...."]


Amen.

So you call this style "segmented?"


Hey look! Another debate about debating! I thought you were taking the opportunity to stomp off and not come back till I 'grew up'? Hmm. Oh well. At least we've moved beyond complaints of 'abuse'.

I call it deceptive.


Cool. I say it allows individual users not to blanketly reply to general ideas while ignoring details which are important. To allow them to demonstrate the flaws and segment out issues.

Judging by the threads in this forum it either becomes a garden of forking paths, to borrow a phrase from Borges, or it provides someone who refuses to give up his point of view with a large number of niggling details that he can pull out demanding (as if you could demand something in this situation) that the minor point from twenty posts back remains unrefuted and thus allows that person to claim that his responses, no matter how silly, are a bastion of unassailed reason. I suspect that the problem with this forum is precisely that format, but suit yourself.


I'd say judging from this exact thread it doesn't matter if one can do that. Folks seem to demonstrate they can ignore entire posts, and just restate their position. The problem does not lay with the format, as it never does, but the with personal responsibility of the end user.

Have a nice day. Oh, if you ever have occasion to study transactional analysis (why anyone would do that I have no idea, but they did have a few really good ideas) look up "uproar player." It was rather well described in an otherwise poor book called Games Students Play. You might find that interesting although I may be entirely misremembering the issue. You know how these old people are. Where's my tea cup? Oh, yes....time for a whiskey and a fist full of prescriptions. Maybe I'll leave the whiskey for tomorrow. It is rather good whiskey. You aren't still reading this are you? Imagine that.


Boring. But have a pleasant day as well.

Re: Gun Control

Unread postPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:57 am
by laojim
There you go.

Ciao

Re: Gun Control

Unread postPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:12 pm
by Happiness
It looks like I missed the debate... Well, I'll add my two cents anyway. Feel free to ignore them if someone else already brought up or refuted my points.

To my way of thinking, guns have already been invented. Unless you kill or brainwash every single person who has a functional understanding of them, you can't un-invent them. In fact, there are many people who have to knowledge and skill to create a firearm out of simple scrap in their garage. My point is, you can't control guns, similar to how you can't control a fire once it is unleashed. However, a fire can be contained. Certainly, various regulations and policies can prevent many people from obtaining firearms, however it is far too late to completely seperate people from guns.

I would like to agree with the argument that while all guns can not be regulated all of the time, the more dangerous ones (Machine guns, shotguns, etc.) can and ought to be. Such weapons can kill many people in just an instant. However, you have to remember that it is insanely easy to make a weapon far more destructive than any gun; explosives. A few trips to google and home depot and you have a weapon capable of taking hundreds of lives in just a few moments. Using simple, household chemicals to to create such weapons makes them almost impossible to prevent or see coming. At least most gun users have to go through channels to get their weapons, and someone carrying a machine gun or rocket launcher is going to attract way more attention than someone with a pipe bomb in their backpack.

My point is, there are far more dangerous weapons than guns, and they are much cheaper, as well as easier to obtain. As for the argument that violent video games incite violent tendencies in people, I could easily claim the opposite. Maybe it gives them a place to vent out their frustration, so that they don't have to take it out on others at all. The year that the video game Doom came out marked the beginning of the spike in violent first person shooters, yet it also marked the point where handgun related homicides began to decrease (By 1992 and 1993 it had peaked at around 17,075. Directly after 1993 it began a steady decline until roughly 1999, where it was at about 10,117. A decrease of roughly 7,000 in all, so it is very significant). My source for this is the National Institute of Justice (Webpage = http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-vio ... elcome.htm) last modified April 4, 2013. Another source is the article "5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Tells You About Guns" by Jack O'Brien and David Wong, uploaded March 26th, 2013 (Webpage = http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5- ... -guns.html).

In conclusion, I doubt gun control can work to the degree that many hope it can. Even still, I consider explosives to be far more of a pressing issue. In terms of gun ownership, I believe everyone has a right to protect themselves, and many can not do so reasonably without a firearm (If they are disabled, elderly, not an amazing martial artist, etc.). I would recommend a stun gun or some other non-lethal weapon, but I believe the choice is theirs. Personally, I despise guns and consider them dishonorable, but like it or not they exist.

Re: Gun Control

Unread postPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:23 pm
by laojim
I'm not entirely clear what the story is here but I have heard several references to it lately. Apparently someone finally noticed that the NRS (a gun manufacturers' trade association that has been recently claiming to represent gun owners) has compiled a list of gun owners. http://www.buzzfeed.com/stevefriess/how ... gun-owners The problem seems to be that gun owners who are rabidly against having their names on any government registry have been quietly having their names added to another list kept by the NRA and that a great many of them have not consented to be on any such list.

There seems to be, in other words, more than one way to skin a cat.

Re: Gun Control

Unread postPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:34 am
by AlanHiggins
Shikanosuke wrote:
laojim wrote:
Shikanosuke wrote:---I think I'd only be concerned if there was someone enforcing said sign. Enjoy your day sir.


Well, there you have it. Gun owners will ignore the law unless there is somebody right there to enforce it. Gun owners cannot be trusted to behave is a legal and socially proper way. It seems to me that if they cannot be trusted to follow the law then they certainly cannot be trusted to carry deadly weapns because, as we just read, they won't do it unless there is a policeman right there to force them. Since they can't be trusted perhaps the best thing for us law abiding citizens is to have their guns taken away once and for all and then we won't have to worry about these scoff laws carrying their guns all around.



This saddens me this is your 'tada!' moment. We ran around this bush before and it still gives your argument no merit. First of all, as I led your illogical argument down before, I also don't often stop at stop led light and I often ignore private owners signs prohibiting I carry knives on their premises. By said logic, car owners and knife owners cannot be trusted to follow the laws unless there is a policemen in front of them to enforce them so we should have them removed. Sorry, ridiculous and over generalizations. And thats what really sad about your argument, I merely stated that some people won't. You argument takes my statements and superimposes them upon all gun owners, making law abiding citizens pay for the mistakes of those who ignore the law.

Secondly, private owners have the onus to enforce the restrictions upon their property even if the trespassers are the ones who are violation of the restrictions. This is another ridiculous folly of your argument. Many gun owners may fully comply with all government regulations, as in actual laws passed by their legislature regarding firearms, and still ignore small signs posted by private individuals. I sure do and would. I've never considered buying a firearm illegally or not complying with the stated regulations or carry and conceal laws. So somehow firearm owners are able to comply with government regulations, and yet can't be trusted to 'behave in a legal and socially acceptable way'? (also i don't know how Arizonians do it, and I'm not one to judge, but where I'm from firearm ownership isn't socially unacceptable nor is it to have one on your person).

Either scenario, same absurd conclusion. I'm sorry it upsets you that the requests and demands of private individuals are just that. They are not laws. They have a right to demand patrons and invitees behave and manage themselves in a certain manner while on their premises. But the onus is on them to enforce said regulations (either personally, by calling an officer, or judicially). This is significantly different than a law, which applies regardless of what property you are on. It's a pretty weak argument and we've gone rather far down the rabbit hole if a) the reason you think gun owners are all criminals and untrustworthy is because they may ignore private business signs b) all gun owners can now be generalized into people who break the law c) because some folks break the law the law abiding citizens must therefore shoulder the burden and d) that the logical, fair, and constitutional solution to any time someone doesn't follow a law is to simply ban whatever item it is question entirely.

Speaking of which..it's the fourth of July. Huzzah! I bet a million people will illegally misuse fireworks today. Firework owners can't be trusted, and the sale of fireworks can be heavily regulated, ban em all!

There should be tough laws and implementation of these laws to control fireworks.. A single mistake leads to havoc so it must be handled very seriously

Re: Gun Control

Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:51 am
by laojim
The proposition I put forth was that in this state we have virtually no gun laws and anyone can carry any gun anywhere with a few exceptions, one of which is that the law allows anyone to post a sign on their property or business disallowing guns in that place. The sign, therefore, has the force of law in forbidding the carrying of guns. We find such signs nearly everywhere these days and it suggests to me that while gun carrying is legal it is not appreciated and while we allow you to carry your gun if you think you need it we really don't want you carrying it around us.

An interesting case in this regard occurred just the other day. Two fellows showed up at the arrivals terminal at the local airport, Sky Harbor. One was carrying a holstered hand gun and the other was carrying a long rifle of some sort. They were closely observed by security people and interviewed but not arrested or detained. It appears that they claim that they came to meet someone and that they feared for their safety at Sky Harbor, although they failed to give any rational reason for such a fear. They were allowed to go because they were not obviously in violation of any law. We assume, however, that had they returned they might have received more than simple observation.

I take it that their presence was not appreciated by either the authorities nor the other people at the airport.

Re: Gun Control

Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:00 pm
by Shikanosuke
laojim wrote:The proposition I put forth was that in this state we have virtually no gun laws and anyone can carry any gun anywhere with a few exceptions, one of which is that the law allows anyone to post a sign on their property or business disallowing guns in that place. The sign, therefore, has the force of law in forbidding the carrying of guns. We find such signs nearly everywhere these days and it suggests to me that while gun carrying is legal it is not appreciated and while we allow you to carry your gun if you think you need it we really don't want you carrying it around us.


My response is that posting signs is not a sign of disapproval of the law, but of protection of property or person. If the general populace didn't want individuals carrying it around the general public, they'd be passing stricter permits more similar to other states' carry and conceal laws instead of liberalizing them. I'd suggest you will find such signs on nearly every (or a majority at least) business (especially if franchise) around the nation. Doesn't mean much to most people.

An interesting case in this regard occurred just the other day. Two fellows showed up at the arrivals terminal at the local airport, Sky Harbor. One was carrying a holstered hand gun and the other was carrying a long rifle of some sort. They were closely observed by security people and interviewed but not arrested or detained. It appears that they claim that they came to meet someone and that they feared for their safety at Sky Harbor, although they failed to give any rational reason for such a fear. They were allowed to go because they were not obviously in violation of any law. We assume, however, that had they returned they might have received more than simple observation.

I take it that their presence was not appreciated by either the authorities nor the other people at the airport.


If 'not appreciated' starts becoming a legally meaningful phrase, I may start taking your points and anecdotes under consideration. That sounds more snarky than I mean it, but I'm stressing that your 'take' on people's appreciation is but conjecture. I think its pretty telling these individuals were not even detained. Even in state's win liberal gun laws (such as yours) people are often detained for open display if people feel threatened. Either way, if you want your state to become less friendly to gun owners (as I feel you do), the answer is simple. Replace the legislative members who speak for the people.

Re: Gun Control

Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:45 am
by laojim
Shikanosuke wrote:
laojim wrote:The proposition I put forth was that in this state we have virtually no gun laws and anyone can carry any gun anywhere with a few exceptions, one of which is that the law allows anyone to post a sign on their property or business disallowing guns in that place. The sign, therefore, has the force of law in forbidding the carrying of guns. We find such signs nearly everywhere these days and it suggests to me that while gun carrying is legal it is not appreciated and while we allow you to carry your gun if you think you need it we really don't want you carrying it around us.


My response is that posting signs is not a sign of disapproval of the law, but of protection of property or person. If the general populace didn't want individuals carrying it around the general public, they'd be passing stricter permits more similar to other states' carry and conceal laws instead of liberalizing them. I'd suggest you will find such signs on nearly every (or a majority at least) business (especially if franchise) around the nation. Doesn't mean much to most people.


Once again you make my point for me that a society in which we don't want gun nuts toting their shooting irons all over the place needs more protection than just a sign, even if that sign has the power of law behind it. Guns need to be registered and identified. It's a lot of work, but we have lots of unemployed people around here who could do the work. Strict and enforced laws should regulate where and when and by whom a fire arm or other dangerous weapon can be carried. Thanks for the help.

Ciao.

Re: Gun Control

Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:48 am
by laojim
Shikanosuke wrote:....Replace the legislative members who speak for the people.


You have overlooked the obvious point that those elected should regard it as a sacred trust and they should make some attempt to represent the people of their districts rather than only the few wealthy donors who have put them in office. Otherwise, your remark is pointless simply because it is obvious.