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
120
52%
No
84
36%
Other (please explain)
27
12%
 
Total votes : 231

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:53 am

laojim wrote:
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.


No help provided. Your conclusion can not be drawn from my response. You're once again wasting time trying to score personal insult points. Come back with something new (really hoped this time would be something new, but nope here we are again. Did you miss this?). Society does and can exist where two forces have interests that conflict. Just because a business (who has liability for patrons on its premises) doesn't want people to have firearms on its premises (for financial reasons) does not therefore conclude they don't want individuals to not have the right to carry in public. Conflating the two is intellectually lazy.



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.


I did not overlook anything. I don't make the assumption you've just made. People stand on platforms, and including gun rights. If the people didn't want a candidate they'd vote another way. But you know what they say about those who make assumptions.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby laojim » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:54 am

Shikanosuke wrote:If the people didn't want a candidate they'd vote another way. But you know what they say about those who make assumptions.


You cannot be so obviously naive. People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons and most people can't give you a rational explanation of any plank in a candidate's platform. It is an odd form of nonsense when someone claims that because candidate Jones was elected that his position on ------------- (fill in the blank) should be made into law. It is, therefore, illogical of you to assume that just because the Arizona State Legislature passed some damn fool gun bill that everyone in the state must, ipso facto, see things that way. It may occur to you that I have been demonstrating to you that the Arizonans do not really think that way or agree with this foolish law. Police don't like it. Store owners don't like it. The public doesn't like it. The schools don't like it, etc., etc. Who likes it? NRA, which gives large sums of money to the Republican Party along with some PACs and so on.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:55 pm

laojim wrote:
Shikanosuke wrote:If the people didn't want a candidate they'd vote another way. But you know what they say about those who make assumptions.


You cannot be so obviously naive.


Not at all. But I do have a strong belief in our democratic process's value and don't choose to assume what all voters want, except of course when they vote a certain way. It's hardly naive to assume that if you don't want more liberal gun laws you shouldn't vote in a conservative body of representatives next term. Nor is it naive to assume that those who do vote them in likely want liberal gun laws.

People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons and most people can't give you a rational explanation of any plank in a candidate's platform.


Including gun rights, thats a pretty big flash point these days.

It is an odd form of nonsense when someone claims that because candidate Jones was elected that his position on ------------- (fill in the blank) should be made into law. It is, therefore, illogical of you to assume that just because the Arizona State Legislature passed some damn fool gun bill that everyone in the state must, ipso facto, see things that way.


It seems illogical because you started with a faulty premise. You have to start with the premise that candidates run on platforms which represent their constituents. After being elected into office the candidate attempts to pass laws which favor his constituents. If enough of the majority agrees, it should pass into law. So because AZ passed a gun friendly law it does not mean that everyone in the state sees things a certain way, but rather the majority. That isn't nonsense or illogical its simply the democratic process. Its possible the opposite is true, and the candidates did something unpopular and not in their self interest. You can vote them out next term if so.

I'm willing of course to accept that last notion that the bills they've passed are unpopular. But to do so it has to shown by more than your rants about signs banning guns which have existed for as long as I can literally remember. For instance, protests and a change in voting would be pretty good evidence. A much better starting point there.


It may occur to you that I have been demonstrating to you that the Arizonans do not really think that way or agree with this foolish law. Police don't like it. Store owners don't like it. The public doesn't like it. The schools don't like it, etc., etc. Who likes it? NRA, which gives large sums of money to the Republican Party along with some PACs and so on.


You haven't demonstrated anything to me. Those signs exist, on business especially, in nearly all states even ones with oppressive (in my opinion) gun laws. That has little to do with popularity of gun laws or the excercise of carrying a weapon. You conflate the two. That is intellectually lazy. Furthermore you attempt to tell the legislative body can't speak for the people, but you seem to do so willy nilly. Under your absurd proposition the only people who support liberal gun laws are the NRA (because you know the NRA isn't a huge membership of people yea? just a faceless entity) and of course the 'gun nuts'. So we've come full circle again. Here you are, again, trying to lamblast me while trying to generalize your own state's population. This is a rehash.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby laojim » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:18 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:It seems illogical because you started with a faulty premise. You have to start with the premise that candidates run on platforms which represent their constituents. After being elected into office the candidate attempts to pass laws which favor his constituents...


That is comically idiotic. This is not how elections work in this country. You are supposing that American pols are delegates rather than representatives. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "An honest politician is one, when bought, stays bought." Give up your elementary school political theory.

You might learn to read for understanding. You are assuming that the sing in the window in Arizona is the same as the sign in the window in Ohio. It isn't and I have made that entirely clear. Previously you went on and on about concealed carry permits when, in fact, we don't have them and it was, therefore, irrelevant.

This is Arizona. Look it up on a map. We gave the nation John McCain, and if you want to keep him a lot of us would appreciate it.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:50 pm

laojim wrote:
That is comically idiotic. This is not how elections work in this country. You are supposing that American pols are delegates rather than representatives. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "An honest politician is one, when bought, stays bought." Give up your elementary school political theory.


Give up your cynicism and we'll begin talking. Until then we're wasting our time here.


You might learn to read for understanding. You are assuming that the sing in the window in Arizona is the same as the sign in the window in Ohio. It isn't and I have made that entirely clear.


Actually you haven't made anything clear. You've provided no evidence other than you telling me opinions, generalizations, and rants. If you want to make something clear, please show me. From what I can tell you merely need signs such as these or the like. Maybe more than one? Pursuant to this law I assume. Maybe different ones for different guns. My state requires certain posts very similar and I see signs like this in most businesses around here. Again, if you'd like to show me how they're different please do. I'm open to listen by all means.

Of course, all of this is really irrelevant to my counter point. A sign in any window, notably a business, is not to be conflated with a desire to see gun laws enacted.

Previously you went on and on about concealed carry permits when, in fact, we don't have them and it was, therefore, irrelevant.


And previously i went on and on telling you I was discussing the matter on a more national scale, to which you ignored and we dropped I assumed. I'm not sure why you bring that up (much like the majority of this topic really) unless to start another unending war of rehashed insults.

This is Arizona. Look it up on a map. We gave the nation John McCain, and if you want to keep him a lot of us would appreciate it.


So witty! Or not, more on the level of a teenager. The unnecessary sarcasm line again. I'm not sure I've ever seen you make a post without one.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby laojim » Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:16 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:...And previously i went on and on telling you I was discussing the matter on a more national scale, to which you ignored and we dropped I assumed. I'm not sure why you bring that up (much like the majority of this topic really) unless to start another unending war of rehashed insults......


It is illogical to answer for the USA, or for New Zeland when the specific observation was entirely related to the situation in one place, Arizona. There are particular elements of the situation which you failed to address, but just went on blathering endlessly about this and that. You have entirely failed to show any indication that you grasped the essential point. If you think you can refute a proposition you must logically, start by understanding the argument you hope to refute. If, for example, you wish to refute the notion of evolution as described by Darwin you need to show that you understand the notion to begin with. You skip this step and go wandering off into silly assertions about how people elected to office are responsive to the will of the electorate while the simplest of familiarity with the political scene in this country generally and this state in particular will show you that it is not necessarily true. But does that make you pause and consider? Not a bar of it. In fact you just bash on with your opinion of, for example, signs, not understanding that they occupy a significant place in the local law, as I explained a time or two.

I think you will find that the people who shot up the airport in Los Angeles were not well thought of by the passengers and I understand that the passengers the next day in Phoenix also took a dim view. I hear on the radio today that a fellow was arrested, but I don't recall where, for simply displaying a gun, legally checked in his baggage, to a friend in the baggage claim area of an airport.

People don't like gun nuts waving their precious shooting irons around everywhere and they don't want it done regardless of the ins and outs of local law. If you think they do you are a fool, but since we assume you are not then we can only note your incompetence in argumentation. I refer you the a book called The New Rhetoric in which all these types of argumentation are discussed at length.

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

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:53 pm

laojim wrote:
It is illogical to answer for the USA, or for New Zeland when the specific observation was entirely related to the situation in one place, Arizona.


And I accepted its geographic origin, and continued to talk about it on a broader scale. When you complained about it, I limited my discussion to a smaller scope. It would be one thing if I never acknowledged this point, but i've done so numerous time and yet you still think its a arrow in your imaginary quiver. It's not. Waste of time.

There are particular elements of the situation which you failed to address, but just went on blathering endlessly about this and that.


This coming from old man rant and "add a sarcastic and unrelated anecdote about what i'm doing?" please.

You have entirely failed to show any indication that you grasped the essential point.


I've grasped your point from the beginning. It's just been a nonsensical position from the inception, supported entirely by conjecture and generalizations. This has been pointed out by members other than myself (all attempting to get a real conversation some traction). You ignored these, much as you ignore most of what I've said, and continued on with 'your idiotic' 'this is naive' or other insults.

You skip this step and go wandering off into silly assertions about how people elected to office are responsive to the will of the electorate while the simplest of familiarity with the political scene in this country generally and this state in particular will show you that it is not necessarily true. But does that make you pause and consider? Not a bar of it.


I guess it must anger you when people assume the will of the people then? Crazy, kind of sounds like something I've been finding rampant in all of your posts.

In fact you just bash on with your opinion of, for example, signs, not understanding that they occupy a significant place in the local law, as I explained a time or two.


Speaking of, any response to inquiry of signs? Or is it more convenient (and in your mind, constructive) to just discuss my debating style or throw insults?

I think you will find that the people who shot up the airport in Los Angeles were not well thought of by the passengers and I understand that the passengers the next day in Phoenix also took a dim view.


Yes, people tend to dislike those who harm others. This is why people don't like criminals. Now how this relates to our conversation I'm not really sure.

I hear on the radio today that a fellow was arrested, but I don't recall where, for simply displaying a gun, legally checked in his baggage, to a friend in the baggage claim area of an airport.


Probably so. Likely breached a state law regarding recklessly brandishing firearms.

People don't like gun nuts waving their precious shooting irons around everywhere and they don't want it done regardless of the ins and outs of local law.


I don't assume to know what all people want like you. I also don't care much about what people want either, so long as its within the boundaries of the law and not harming others.

If you think they do you are a fool, but since we assume you are not then we can only note your incompetence in argumentation. I refer you the a book called The New Rhetoric in which all these types of argumentation are discussed at length.


I can't speak for the rest of the forum, but you certainly do think I'm a fool. Saying otherwise is a thinly veiled lie but that is what I've come to expect as you could have just ended your insult there, but I see you wanted to add a little extra to satisfy your own childish nature. Sad.

Ciao.


Ciao indeed. Feel free to reply but I've exhausted my (and the forums) patience with a debate on this subject with you (or really any subject). If you ever choose to substantively engage with the topic without the need to engage in verbal mudslinging I'll come back. I know its not a cause for heartache for you of course, but there's no way either us doesn't have better things to be doing than reading your insults.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby laojim » Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:53 am

Well, imagine that. So you are saying that wisdom rests in tangential analysis set interleaved with minutia? I've never seen anything like your approach.

That isn't how discussion works.

Unless you have something to add I have a ukulele to play this evening.

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

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Johnnelson » Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:29 am

Some people think guns are very bad because they generate violence, and many people kill themselves and kill other persons. The people who do not like guns always worry about them. In my opinion, when people kill, they do not have any feelings because they do not know any thing about love, compassion, liberty and promises. The only way those persons can get these feelings is when they come from family, friends and people who are close to them. Now, having a gun is not a problem; the problem is what the people feel when they use one.
Johnnelson
Tyro
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:15 am
Location: welliam street

Re: Gun Control

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:48 am

welcome to the forum Johnnelson!

So basically your saying every murderer is a socio-path or a psychopath? That means our medical professions are failing miserably in failing to diagnose the wide number of murderers when they get to court. Or just a really broken home. Some may well meet those conditions of not knowing love and so on but most will have done.

While it is a great idea to ensure as many people as possible start life well, to do more to tackle society's problems (not just for murder), doesn't mean guns aren't a problem.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”

my tumbler

my officer analysis
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 16604
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

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