Yay, GUNS!

[overtone]

 

Overtone,

I'm familiar with the convention.

Your use of it implies you were citing John 5746

But he didn't say what you are asserting.

I say his agenda is as I described it, visibly - whether he is willing to admit it or not.

 

And so will most gun rights advocates - waving one's hands and typing the word "education" does not remove the direct implications of one's argument and visible agenda, and will not impress anyone already wary of governmental overreach - the large majority of gun owners. The direction of "education", for starters, would normally proceed from the better informed (the majority of gun rights advocates, in this case) to the less well informed (for example, those who claim that murder rates within the US correlate positively with gun prevalence and negatively with gun control efforts, or that gun violence can be addressed without reference to racial issues or drug laws). But the assumption seems to be the reverse, and the advocacy is of backing it with governmental power.

 

If you set out to significantly reduce the prevalence of "guns" in the US via governmental action and policy, especially from the persepective that "educated" people would naturally cooperate with such an endeavor, you will end up using coercion to take guns from people who want to keep them. The people who currently own guns know this.

[John Cuthber]

I say his agenda is as I described it, visibly - whether he is willing to admit it or not.

 

 

 

So, you have some magical way of knowing what he means better than he does.

That's nice.

"The direction of "education", for starters, would normally proceed from the better informed (the families of the victims) to the less well informed (for example, those who think their right under an outdated constitution is more important than the lives of those who die pointlessly.)

[overtone]

So, you have some magical way of knowing what he means better than he does.

I have a well-informed and long experienced way of knowing what his agenda implies in the way of law and political event, regardless of what he thinks would happen. He's asserting that "educating" current American gun owners (how? by force?) will induce a substantial fraction of them to discard their guns, and I think that's an indication of naivety at best.

 

So what do you think is likely to happen when a government politically launched on and committed to a program of reducing the prevalence of guns discovers that "education" does not work?

 

 

 

The direction of "education", for starters, would normally proceed from the better informed (the families of the victims) to the less well informed (for example, those who think their right under an outdated constitution is more important than the lives of those who die pointlessly.)

Uh, dude, that would have been and be the same people, normally, all along - that's one of your assertions, anyway, throughout this thread. You did notice that, I hope? You were making such a big deal out of it earlier, for some reason that I agree made no sense but can't just be discarded unremarked.

 

And talk about "outdated" Constitutional rights is not forgotten by those you wish to reassure you only mean to "educate".

 

you will end up using coercion to take guns from people who want to keep them. The people who currently own guns know this.

Edited July 3, 2013 by overtone

[arc]

therefore, all weapons....nukes, chemicals, etc. must be freely distributed. One argument from the extremes deserves another.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=yJDDgSqOsHM

No, not at all. My point is legal guns have been available through manufacturers of known origins, with serial numbers and paper trails. Citizens prefer quality that assures reasonable expectations. The quality of the guns available have for a long time been superb. Even the smaller and inexpensive but still legal "Saturday night specials" have a degree of functional quality that reveals a higher manufacturing quality control than most products of more general purposes.

 

I would compare the current gun manufacturing processes to those of professional mechanics tools, having a wide range of performance and prices with the lower product lines providing a consistent degree of manufacturing control.

 

These so called "home made" automatics are really guns made in clandestine shops by and/or for the use of drug related enterprises. These weapons reveal that when the guns stolen in burglaries are not available the market supplies a replacement source. It also makes strikingly clear a gun, even a fully automatic machine gun is not a complicated design. They can be made with a minimum of skill and equipment if adequate designs are available. Most people do not realize these mechanisms can be reduced to minimal parts, about as complicated as the stapler on your desk. Stolen guns are the professional criminals choice but not their only source.

 

I see many similarities to the prohibition of alcohol and the way market forces back then and like now provide contraband and make criminals some of the richest and most powerful people in society. Having the money to corrupt all levels of government and law enforcement.

 

Be careful what you wish for. You may be able to talk half of the gun owners out of their weapons, but illegal sources will flourish supplying the market with unregulated and truly dangerous guns that do not have any of the safety features that now protect the general public. Legal guns can be dropped without misfire, have internal and external safeties and provide performance as basic as to stop firing when the trigger is released. Do not expect these features in future drive-by shootings, store robberies or teens partying and passing around some dumb ass's new toy.

 

I don't want to see what happens when a homemade mac11 with a 30 round clip is dropped on the floor of a crowded nightclub or used to rob a grocery store. "I didn't mean to shoot anyone" will be an even more often repeated phase.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs

 

Some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members are criminally active in the U.S. today. Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment report, gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and up to 90 percent in others. We’re redoubling our efforts to disrupt and dismantle gangs through intelligence-driven investigations and new initiatives and partnerships.

 

The paragraph above is sobering. It should be pointed out that these gangs were all built on drug profiteering, stolen guns were initially a tool of the trade and a form of currency used in street level transactions. "responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and up to 90 percent in others." I would expect they would not be affected by most regulation, they haven't been so far. I also assume that the law abiding citizens that live where those activities take place have a desire to arm themselves.

 

It seems rather ridiculous to suggest regulating law abiding citizens while these criminal elements operate with what looks to be a never ending serial criminal enterprise based on drugs that in turn perpetuates most of the crime and violence. It strikes me as ironic that the Bill of Rights appears to work better for them than the law abiding.

 

I would be curious to see the results if American gangs were in a regulated country like the UK, would it make any difference in their activities? Would they overwhelm law enforcement the way they do in the U.S.? arc

[John Cuthber]

" I have a well-informed and long experienced way of knowing what his agenda implies in the way of law and political event, regardless of what he thinks would happen. "

Sounds like the "thin end of the wedge" logical fallacy to me.

 

"Uh, dude, that would have been and be the same people, normally, all along"

That's true but unimportant.

Teachers were once pupils.

The difference is the understanding and knowledge that they acquire in between.

So. in the same way that teachers go to college and learn stuff that they pass on to pupils, those who get their kids shot learn what the rue cost of gun ownership is and, having received that information, are best placed to educate others.

 

 

"And talk about "outdated" Constitutional rights is not forgotten by those you wish to reassure you only mean to "educate"."

How many amendments is the constitution up to now?

That evidence shows the original to be outdated.

[john5746]

I say his agenda is as I described it, visibly - whether he is willing to admit it or not.

I say your agenda is to arm the anarchists and terrorists, resulting in a revolution that will result in you being our overlord. Therefore, you can make no valid point on this issue.

 

 

I don't want to see what happens when a homemade mac11 with a 30 round clip is dropped on the floor of a crowded nightclub or used to rob a grocery store. "I didn't mean to shoot anyone" will be an even more often repeated phase.

Would home made bombs be analogous?

 

 

I would be curious to see the results if American gangs were in a regulated country like the UK, would it make any difference in their activities? Would they overwhelm law enforcement the way they do in the U.S.? arc

Why are "American" gangs different than the UK? Genetics? Satan? GUNS?

[overtone]

" I have a well-informed and long experienced way of knowing what his agenda implies in the way of law and political event, regardless of what he thinks would happen. "

Sounds like the "thin end of the wedge" logical fallacy to me

It's a description of a real life political situation, one familiar to many US gun owners. If you begin by asserting that what any gun owner in the US has seen happen and threatens to happen again is some kind of error in logic, you indict your own reasoning and undermine your own credibility.

 

 

That's true but unimportant.

The importance of it was in its illustration of the fecklessness of an innocent - non-coercive - "education" endeavor aimed at US gun owners. They have been shooting themselves, their kids, and each other, for 250 years now (175 or so since the handgun, a key innovation). They have generations of family and friends in and out of the military, many in actual combat. They hunt animals and target shoot by custom and tradition, from childhood on. Any plan to use a civilian government of comparative ignoramuses to "educate" them about guns is going to come up against a choice: coercion or failure.

 

We face an agenda that involves using the government to "educate" people to a certain way of thinking held to be the correct one; the targets of the education are better informed in most relevant ways than the agenda promoters, the government is the one that when confronted with problems in its agenda enforced catalytic converters on farm trucks and unswitchable airbags aimed at the shotgun seat. This threatens systematic coercion, not as a logical implication but as a political and sociological one. Is that really so invisible to you?

 

 

 

I say your agenda is to arm the anarchists and terrorists, resulting in a revolution that will result in you being our overlord

That would be more evidence of your poor grasp of political reality in this matter.

Edited July 3, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

It's a description of a real life political situation, one familiar to many US gun owners. If you begin by asserting that what any gun owner in the US has seen happen and threatens to happen again is some kind of error in logic, you indict your own reasoning and undermine your own credibility.

 

 

This

"you will end up using coercion to take guns from people who want to keep them."

already happened?

They already took away your guns?

Really?

 

Well, more sort of no.

So If you begin by asserting that something has happened when it hasn't really that "is some kind of error in logic, you indict your own reasoning and undermine your own credibility."

 

And I'd still like to see the evidence for this "the targets of the education are better informed in most relevant ways than the agenda promoters"

Are they really better informed of the cost of gun ownership than the families of the victims?

Edited July 3, 2013 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

So If you begin by asserting that something has happened when it hasn't

I didn't. You have reading comprehension problems.

 

 

 

Are they really better informed of the cost of gun ownership than the families of the victims?

Of course.

 

For the third time now: they are the families of the victims. In addition, they are the families of the victims with 250 years of close personal and cultural experience with privately owned guns, as well as victimhood. The culturally familiar gun owners of the US are probably the people best informed about the value and cost of private gun ownership on this planet.

 

That doesn't make them wise, intelligent, or even sound of mind, but it does mean that if you launch your government on an agenda of "educating" them into your current poorly thought out and comparatively ignorant point of view, you will present your government with the choice of coercion or failure.

 

Most US gun owners have on hand generations of personal experience and cultural familiarity with how the US government normally makes that choice.

Edited July 3, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

OK, you may have a point. I see that the NRA have got a valid education programme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Eagle

Which teaches people to

"

• Stop — to take time to remember the rest of the instructions.
• Don't touch — A firearm that is not touched or acted upon by an outside force is highly unlikely to fire, or endanger a person.
• Leave the area — By leaving the area the child removes himself/herself from temptation, as well as from the danger that another person might pick up the gun and negligently cause it to fire.
• Tell an adult — An adult, if not personally trained in handling firearms, should know enough to seek professional assistance."

 

 

Now, all they need to do is realise that the same logic holds for adults as for children.

Guns should be left to the professionals.

 

In the meantime

you say "It's a description of a real life political situation, one familiar to many US gun owners"

and "you will end up using coercion to take guns from people who want to keep them."

Yet that coercion isn't apparently familiar to gun owners- because they still have their guns.

[overtone]

 

 

Yet that coercion isn't apparently familiar to gun owners- because they still have their guns.

The transition from government "education" to government coercion has been played out in so many venues common to the daily life of US gun owners - alcohol and tobacco and marijuana production and consumption, bike helmets, car seats and seat belts and air bags and insurance, licenses/permits for boats and bikes and chicken coops and firepits, protective gear on machinery and curbs on everything from starting ether to match flammability, etc etc etc - that it is by turns a standing joke and simply an assumed aspect of the political world.

 

Never allow the government to provide "education" toward something you do not want to be coerced into, is the rule of thumb.

 

This comes under the heading of wisdom in other intellectual arenas, btw:

 

"Those of the highest propriety {legal, ritual} take action accordingly

and when no one responds appropriately

they roll up their sleeves and use force" Tao Te Ching (38)

[arc]

Would home made bombs be analogous?

 

 

Do you think they are? Bombs are usually not carried around in the pants of gangsters.

 

http://www.lapdonline.org/get_informed/content_basic_view/1396

 

The County and City of Los Angeles are the “gang capital” of the nation. There are more than 450 active gangs in the City of Los Angeles. Many of these gangs have been in existence for over 50 years. These gangs have a combined membership of over 45,000 individuals. Gang membership in Los Angeles has continued to increase over the past five years even though there have been periodic crime decreases. One of the major factors contributing to increased gangs, gang membership and violence has been the lucrative narcotics trade, with rival gangs vying for the greatest market share. Gangs are not a new phenomenon. During the last three years, there were over 16,398 verified violent gang crimes in the City of Los Angeles. These include 491 homicides, nearly 7,047 felony assaults, approximately 5,518 robberies and just under 98 rapes.

 

These individuals have an inseparable self image interwoven with guns. Arming themselves with poorly made firearms will not increase the general public's safety.

 

Why are "American" gangs different than the UK? Genetics? Satan? GUNS?

Are you saying a heavily regulated country like the U.K. has gun packing gangs proportional to the U.S?

 

Requiring law abiding citizens to forfeit their firearms while 1.4 million members in 33,000 gangs illegally arm themselves to engage in crime and murder with what appears to be impunity would seem a little out of balance. The absolute failure of both alcohol and drug prohibition should be evidence enough that prohibition would only provide a market for illegal firearms and furnish the gang's with additional revenue sources that in turn will produce additional gang violence.

 

Those are the lessons already learned. I would welcome an attempt by you to show how this would have a different outcome. arc

[John Cuthber]

The transition from government "education" to government coercion has been played out in so many venues common to the daily life of US gun owners - alcohol and tobacco and marijuana production and consumption, bike helmets, car seats and seat belts and air bags and insurance, licenses/permits for boats and bikes and chicken coops and firepits, protective gear on machinery and curbs on everything from starting ether to match flammability, etc etc etc - that it is by turns a standing joke and simply an assumed aspect of the political world.

 

Never allow the government to provide "education" toward something you do not want to be coerced into, is the rule of thumb.

 

This comes under the heading of wisdom in other intellectual arenas, btw:

 

"Those of the highest propriety {legal, ritual} take action accordingly

and when no one responds appropriately

they roll up their sleeves and use force" Tao Te Ching (38)

 

So, it is a "thin end of the wedge" argument then.

[overtone]

So, it is a "thin end of the wedge" argument then.

It's not a thin edge, but the wedge itself. Also known as authoritarian US politics, bait and switch, or the voice of experience.

 

None of which are logical fallacies.

 

So we recognize that US gun owners are familiar with this manner of introducing coercion by government? That their wariness is well informed by experience?

Edited July 4, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

You seem to have mistaken John 5742 (who is not advocating coerced gun control, but education) for the US government whom you believe to be in favour of coerced gun control (and whose policies have, predictably enough, increased sales of guns (much to the delight of the arms industry)).

.

[overtone]

 

 

You seem to have mistaken John 5742 (who is not advocating coerced gun control, but education) for the US government whom you believe to be in favour of coerced gun control

He is advocating reducing the prevalence of guns in the US by "educating" US gun owners.

 

The observation is that most US gun owners (as well as I) regard a national US policy of "educating" them into discarding their guns as presenting a familiar threat of governmental coercion, a familiar tune to a familiar dance,

 

and these gun owners are long experienced and well informed in making that assessment of such an agenda. It is a threat of coercion, and if its advocates don't realize that so much the less credible them - they don't know what they are doing.

[Iggy]

Post 769 means, 'Hey, I was trying to obnoxiously start a flame war, didn't anybody notice?'

 

 

Reminds me... this was in the news today:

 

Those on opposing sides of the national gun debate agree on one thing, if little else — if you want to be taken seriously, engage in reasoned, rational discourse.

 

Look the opposition in the eye and hammer them with facts, figures and statistics that back up your viewpoint. Yell if you have to be heard, but be as respectful as possible.

 

Then there is Gilberton Police Chief Mark Kessler. His profanity laden tirades have made him a minor celebrity, at least for this week. Kessler's forte when discussing gun rights appears to be his vocabulary of profanity, which he couples with the fire of machine guns to express his viewpoint: You want these guns? Come and get them.

 

But his extreme stance, while it may play well with some members of the pro-gun movement, doesn't really add much to the conversation happening in Washington, D.C., or in Harrisburg for that matter, said several people on both sides of the issue.

 

Even gun rights proponents agree: Cussing, shooting Gilberton police chief detracts from debate

 

Good story.

[overtone]

Those on opposing sides of the national gun debate agree on one thing, if little else — if you want to be taken seriously, engage in reasoned, rational discourse.

Does the argument: "this guy is a dangerous armed nutcase and he opposes any kind of gun control, therefore any kind of gun control is a good idea"

 

count as reasoned, rational discourse?

 

How about the assertion that "people who argue that the Second Amendment does establish a Constitutional right, it was written by well-informed and profoundly thoughtful individuals, and that this both strongly and probably wisely restricts the kinds and degrees of legitimate government regulation of firearms possession" are in league with that nutcase - reasonable? rational?

 

Should the people who make those kinds of arguments be taken seriously, granted respect as if they were respectful themselves?

 

Or to approacht it another way - in my area a local major city police chief while running for Governor of the State (a legitimate, mainstream candidate) once advocated banning all guns except specific hunting weapons from all major cities in the State - including by going door to door and confiscating handguns from private homes. The story of this has never been reported as the entree and reference example to a discussion of the role of dangerous nutcases in the media debate - his comments have always been presented as legitimate and respectable.

Edited August 7, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

Post 769 means, 'Hey, I was trying to obnoxiously start a flame war, didn't anybody notice?'

 

 

This is post 769 and you need to time travel more carefully.

[Iota]

This is post 769 and you need to time travel more carefully.

 

And if you time travel too recklessly you get deleted from history. I learnt that the hard way.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Iota

[Iggy]

This is post 769 and you need to time travel more carefully.

 

The previous post 769 was deleted (as, it seems, Iota made reference to). I knew it would be deleted which is why I linked to it rather than quoting it. I didn't want to repeat the garbage it contained.

 

I can only suggest that when someone in the future seems to respond to a non-existent post you consider that posts are not permanent before jumping to derision and time travel.

[john5746]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kFvhx3ZOXs

 

Yep, something is wrong, but it definetly has nothing to do with guns. Nope. Such a tradgedy, but one bright spot in all this is that despite the past troubles that the this shooter had with guns, his rights were NOT infringed. Yay! Oh, another one is that our army doctors don't have to travel to get experience with war zone casualties.

[Iggy]

Such a tradgedy, but one bright spot in all this is that despite the past troubles that the this shooter had with guns, his rights were NOT infringed.

Moral decay without individual rights is far worse. So... yeah... it is a bright spot.

[john5746]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/

 

Yep, finally had someone in a theatre with a gun, those people were safe and didn't know it.

 

I guess the problem here was that EVERYONE didn't have a gun.

 

More guns - in theatres, malls, schools. What could possibly go wrong?

[iNow]

Wouldn't have happened if he wasn't using his mobile phone. Mobile phones aren't protected by the constitution. I think the solution here is obvious. Outlaw mobile devices and give everyone a gun. That's just logic, yo.