Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[Willie71]

Jim Jeffries does a great clip on the gun debate in America. As he says, your only argument is: "I like guns. F**k off!"

 

Note NSFW. Swearing.

 

[overtone]

he larger point, however, is that we also agree that on this particular point you are quite clearly mistaken.

If you could accurately paraphrase or repeat or respond to any argument I've made here, that would have more weight. Since you repeatedly fail at that basic approach, I'm going go on observing that you, not I, are likely mistaken in this matter.

 

As far as one can tell,l your entire assessment seems to be based on a reading comprehension problem apparently created by a bigotry based political agenda - you don't like guns, you want their prevalence and role diminished, you think gun owners and advocates are amoral idiots, and therefore you are unable to follow even very simple points made by anyone pointing to obvious problems with what you are actually saying and in fact advocating.

 

For example:

 

 

As has already been pointed out by people here and also the SCOTUS itself, the constitution need not be "set aside" and does not in any way prohibit regulation and intelligent restrictions, which is the actual subject under discussion.

See, I've made exactly that point several times now. And you are posting it as if I were in disagreement with it - in disagreement with my own posting. Do you see where that leaves your claim that I am mistaken?

 

It's great that reasonable gun control can be had without setting the Constitution aside, or allowing the powers that be to ignore it. It's also a point I've made repeatedly here, insisted on, emphasized, along with my point that the Constitution can be amended if you want to do that.

 

And so this post is just inexcusable:

 

Further, while your hyperbole makes for fun reading and theatrical experience, it is not terribly relevant here given its fictional nature. Regulations and restrictions are not prohibited by the constitution as you continue to imply. The only thing you're convincing others of is your extremist, impervious to logic and fact, pseudo-religious stance on this subject.

The only question there is what exactly is wrong with that poster's thinking - what exactly is preventing them from reading with comprehension and discussing real issues. Nowhere in any of my posts can a reasonable person find justification for that idiotic bullshit.

 

Meanwhile: The fact remains that a large fraction of gun control advocates, here and in general, are advocating dismissal of the Constitution in various ways - including advocating bizarre and uninformed "interpretations" of the 2nd Amendment, recommendations that it be ignored for the greater good, complaints about taking it too seriously given its outdated nature and irrelevance to the modern world, and so forth. And lots of very reasonable people, including many who own no guns and regard the current morass of gun violence in the US as a minor disaster, regard recommendations like that as dangerous and wrongheaded - more dangerous to most Americans than private firearms, by far.

 

 

 

The fact that you must continuously strawman the position of others to make your points (as well as disparage and demean those making them) The only way you get a strawman from my posting is by failing to read with comprehension, misrepresenting my posts and failing to follow the simple arguments therein, as noted above. And I'll demean your continual insult and disparagement of simple posts you have failed to comprehend as much as seems indicated. You are in the wrong, here, intellectually screwed up - and it's not a subtle matter. As with the GMOs and a couple of others, you have adopted an attitude proper to scientific to technical expertise instructing the layman without the science or the expertise, and without bothering to figure out what's going on. Step back, rethink, reread.

 

 

 

You continue arguing against a caricature in your head, and not against any direct participant here I'm quoting you guys, pointing to direct implications. I wish they were caricatures, these quotes and their implications. They aren't.

 

Look at this:

 

At best you are making a mistake if you think it's plain; it is anything but- partly because the world has changed in the intervening two centuries. This guy thinks educated people can't read English from the 18th century with comprehension. Why not? Maybe because of this:

 

To be blunt, the 2nd amendment is a logical non sequiteur.

The 2nd Amendment is not an argument. Nothing follows from premises within it. Nothing is a proposed "sequiter" that has become a "non". There is no problem in its logic because there is no logical reasoning in it. If you know what a militia is, and what well regulated means in the context of a militia, you are just reading a simple declaration and establishment of a right.

 

And that kind of argument creates instant opposition to whatever it "supports", especially any increase in political power for the people making it.

 

And it's not just me. The following two facts are well established in the US: 1) A large majority of Americans, including most NRA members as well as general citizenry, agrees that the US needs better and more stringent legal control over firearms in private hands. 2) All actual attempts by gun control advocates to impose such control have encountered significant public opposition, to the degree that dozens if not hundreds of political careers have been damaged and offices lost on this issue.

 

I offered you an explanation for this, with argument and evidence, and it offers ways past the paradoxical impasse. But it requires that gun control advocates recognize some serious and significant problems with the gun control advocacy thus far - it's not making sense, and it is making threats. And you can deny this all you want - but that leaves you with propaganda campaigns or outright coercion as your only options. You are going to continue to fail to persuade reasonable and informed people, in this manner.

Edited August 31, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

your entire assessment seems to be based on a reading comprehension problem apparently created by a bigotry based political agenda - you don't like guns, you want their prevalence and role diminished, you think gun owners and advocates are amoral idiots, and therefore you are unable to follow even very simple points

Speaking of reading comprehension problems regarding simple points, I've told you repeatedly in this thread and in others that I myself am a gun owner, hunter, and shooter. Thanks for reinforcing the final paragraph of my previous post, though.

 

We disagree, sure, but only one of us is being disagreeable.

 

this post is just inexcusable <snip> what exactly is wrong with that poster's thinking - what exactly is preventing them from reading with comprehension <snip> that idiotic bullshit. <snip> advocating bizarre and uninformed "interpretations" <snip> I'll demean your continual insult and disparagement of simple posts you have failed to comprehend as much as seems indicated. You are in the wrong, here, intellectually screwed up .

 

The following two facts are well established in the US: 1) A large majority of Americans, including most NRA members as well as general citizenry, agrees that the US needs better and more stringent legal control over firearms in private hands. 2) All actual attempts by gun control advocates to impose such control have encountered significant public opposition, to the degree that dozens if not hundreds of political careers have been damaged and offices lost on this issue.

 

I offered you an explanation for this, with argument and evidence, and it offers ways past the paradoxical impasse. But it requires that gun control advocates recognize some serious and significant problems with the gun control advocacy thus far - it's not making sense, and it is making threats.

A much simpler explanation is that while 80-90% of the populace support stricter regulations, it's not an intensity issue for most. There are probably 10 or 12 other things they care about more like the economy and jobs and being able to feed their families or keep a roof over their head. While it's a major issue in the U.S. relative to other nations, and while millions of people would like to see these senseless killings mitigated and gun control improved, it just doesn't affect the lives of most of the people on a daily basis. It doesn't animate them to organize and strategize or head to the polls in buses en masse.

 

For another certain segment of our population, however, this issue is the ONLY thing they care about. It DOES animate and motivate them to form large coalitions, intractable voting blocs, and through this stronghold they manage to use fear and intimidation to prevent any meaningful progress and they stand as obstacles to the implementation of any sensible measures whatsoever.

 

Or, you know, that other thing you mentioned. What was it again? Oh yeah, gun control advocates just aren't making sense. Good point. I guess that could be the reason change hasn't yet occurred, too.

Edited August 31, 2015 by iNow

[MigL]

It seems we all agree ( even through the squabbling ).

And I quote from Overtone's post #373.

On guns and related fatalities, "given the current lack of enforced responsibility in managing them. With reasonable regulation, it would likely become negligible."

All we need to do now is determine what these 'reasonable regulations' are.

Obviously Overtone and Waitforufo are of the opinion that the second amendment should not be modified, and we can respect that. But does a citizen's militia have the right ( just like government armies ) to refuse the membership of emotionally unstable or suicidal people ? In other words, can some people be denied the right to bear arms on the grounds that they might endanger themselves or others ?

We have in Canada, the right to 'bear arms', but it is severely restricted to the person's criminal record and mental well being, time place and transport, as well as weapon type ( some restricted, some prohibited ).

Would similar regulations in the US fly against the intent of the constitution ?

[overtone]

your entire assessment seems to be based on a reading comprehension problem apparently created by a bigotry based political agenda - you don't like guns, you want their prevalence and role diminished, you think gun owners and advocates are amoral idiots, and therefore you are unable to follow even very simple points

Speaking of reading comprehension problems regarding simple points, I've told you repeatedly in this thread and in others that I myself am a gun owner, hunter, and shooter

So? That changes your posting and approach? You, and the general "you" addressed, posted what you posted.

 

 

We disagree, sure, but only one of us is being disagreeable.

That isn't true. You guys have a blind spot for the nature of your own posting, its offensiveness and so forth. You dish insult and slander without self awareness, and you expect the respect due the "scientific" or "expert" or "reasonable" approach without in fact presenting it.

 

 

Obviously Overtone and Waitforufo are of the opinion that the second amendment should not be modified, - -

I haven't taken any position on whether the thing is worded as it should be. My position is that such modification is at the present time both unnecessary and dangerous - unnecessary for all the reasons above, dangerous not only because of the sheer volume or prevalence of firearms suddenly in play for regulation but also because it would be an increase in the powers of a State already proven (in Mexico, South and Central America, SE Asia, the Pacific Islands, Indonesia) to be alert and willing to employ the darker advantages of such powers.

 

 

 

But does a citizen's militia have the right ( just like government armies ) to refuse the membership of emotionally unstable or suicidal people ? In other words, can some people be denied the right to bear arms on the grounds that they might endanger themselves or others ?

Hell yes. Why would the question even come up?

 

 

 

 

Would similar regulations in the US fly against the intent of the constitution ?

Depends.Devil is in the details. Some would not, and bring great benefit at little cost or risk.

 

Meanwhile:

 

A much simpler explanation is that while 80-90% of the populace support stricter regulations, it's not an intensity issue for most. There are probably 10 or 12 other things they care about more like the economy and jobs and being able to feed their families or keep a roof over their head

That isn't simpler, but it does make sense in an abstract sort of way, if the world were different. For those who have lived through the political chaos of this issue or followed its employment in campaigns: it's the other way around -

 

people are sacrificing their interests in those 10 or 12 other things, sometimes voting against their better sense in all those issues collectively, to vote against the merest hint of gun control. Gun control they favor, in principle. The reason they give, variously worded and articulated, and there's no reason to disbelieve them in this, is that they don't trust gun control advocates to exercise good judgment with State power - in general, not just regarding guns. And that's a reasonable concern, frankly. Look at the justifications proposed, the descriptions of the natured of the problem advanced, the way these people talk about guns and everything connected with them, the specific proposals advanced.

Edited August 31, 2015 by overtone

[dimreepr]

My intelligence/comprehension is relatively limited, ‘overtone’, especially when it comes to semantics, so please can you clarify your position, do you advocate gun control or the current status quo?

[overtone]

My intelligence/comprehension is relatively limited, ‘overtone’, especially when it comes to semantics, so please can you clarify your position, do you advocate gun control or the current status quo?

Let's provide a few hints, eh?

 

Here are some quotes from my posting in this thread:

 

From my post immediately above yours and visible to you while you typed, #381:

 

 

 

Some {new gun regulations like Canada has} would - -- - bring great benefit at little cost or risk.

 

 

Here's from a post one post down from your post #371, and responding to it: #373

 

 

The risk {from guns in the US} to the non-suicidal and the non-criminal is very low, even given the current insane lack of enforced responsibility in managing them {guns} . With reasonable regulation {of guns}, it would likely become negligible.

 

 

Is that enough, or do you need a dozen and more similar quotes from the rest of the thread? Do you need these quotes explained to you? Do you have some questions about what describing the current lack of enforced responsibility in gun management as "insane" means, semantically?

 

btw: My post number #373 has received 2 "negative rep" points, as well as being misrepresented in references etc subsequent - I invite the fair reader to take a look at my language and reasoning in that post, and these questions and innuendos and slanders, and draw the appropriate conclusions about the "gun control" advocates in this thread.

Edited August 31, 2015 by overtone

[dimreepr]

Let's provide a few hints, eh?

 

 

Why not just answer my question, eh?

[overtone]

Why not just answer my question, eh?

And the hits keep coming.

 

This is the nature of the "gun control" advocacy in the US, the predominant voice of those self described as advocating better gun control.

 

No wonder it's jammed, politically.

Edited August 31, 2015 by overtone

[dimreepr]

I guess I have my answer. But the reason it's jammed politically is the huge gun lobby.

[overtone]

 

 

But the reason it's jammed politically is the huge gun lobby

Surprisingly effective, that lobby, considering that most of its supporters and contributors favor stricter government regulation of firearms and firearm management in the US.

[Phi for All]

Surprisingly effective, that lobby, considering that most of its supporters and contributors favor stricter government regulation of firearms and firearm management in the US.

And yet, the gun lobby is perceived as a bastion of the far right conservatives. And since 2010, the gun lobby has embraced lots of campaign financing from those good old citizens, the Corporations.

 

Perhaps we should redefine citizenship as the ability to bear arms, then the Citizens United decision could be overthrown using some appropriate ammunition.

[overtone]

And yet, the gun lobby is perceived as a bastion of the far right conservatives.

So?

 

 

 

 

And since 2010, the gun lobby has embraced lots of campaign financing from those good old citizens, the Corporations.

The gun control issue goes back a lot farther than 2010.

 

 

 

Perhaps we should redefine citizenship as the ability to bear arms, then the Citizens United decision could be overthrown using some appropriate ammunition.

We're going to be lucky if it doesn't work the other way, with corporations gaining the Constitutional right to field militias. Edited August 31, 2015 by overtone

[Phi for All]

So?

So you seemed to say that support for the surprisingly effective gun lobby is also support, in this instance, for bigger government and more regulation. I question why any extreme conservative would lend that support.

 

The gun control issue goes back a lot farther than 2010.

Not with corporations defined as "people". Did you really think I was saying the gun control issue is five years old?

 

We're going to be lucky if it doesn't work the other way, with corporations gaining the Constitutional right to field militias.

Which is why I suggested redefining "people" as someone who is capable of picking up a gun. Corporations certainly can't, but you're right, the step from private security guards to constitutionally approved militias is getting smaller.

[MigL]

It seems, Phi, that despite his rants and railings against conservatives, even Overtone has some conservative sympathies. He probably even agrees with that R Reagan quote posted earlier in the discussion.

 

But seriously if we all agree on more ( sensible and enforceable ) government regulations, can we not start discussing what sort of regulations would do the most amount of good along with the least amount of harm ?

( are we being intenionally obtuse , Dimreeper ? )

[overtone]

So you seemed to say that support for the surprisingly effective gun lobby is also support, in this instance, for bigger government and more regulation

About as baffling a "seeming" as anyone has claimed to derive from my posts. And there have been some doozies.

 

 

 

 

It seems, Phi, that despite his rants and railings against conservatives, even Overtone has some conservative sympathies.

I have few sympathies with rightwing authoritarians, and none with the current batroost of Reagan era Republicans. Whose "conservative" is at issue?

 

 

 

 

But seriously if we all agree on more ( sensible and enforceable ) government regulations, can we not start discussing what sort of regulations would do the most amount of good along with the least amount of harm ?

Tenoz has done that, and I have continued. So the start is there - if anyone wants to chip in. Edited September 1, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

About as baffling a "seeming" as anyone has claimed to derive from my posts. And there have been some doozies.

Essentially everyone here has come away from your posts with the same perceptions and conclusions regarding their meaning, yet you continue to derisively and divisively blame the reader for failures in comprehension and breakdowns in communication. Fascinating.

 

It's a mistake to blame the audience for misunderstanding when the onus for clear messaging sits squarely with the author.

[overtone]

 

 

Essentially everyone here has come away from your posts with the same perceptions and conclusions regarding their meaning,

The Bandarlog argument.

 

1) No, the post I was quoting there was a unique and bizarre "perception" not so far visibly shared by, for example, you. Here it is again: " So you seemed to say that support for the surprisingly effective gun lobby is also support, in this instance, for bigger government and more regulation"

Now I have said absolutely nothing anyone could read like that, plausibly. And nobody else has. So if you try to claim that everyone here has come away with that perception of what I posted, I call bullshit.

 

2) That isn't true - the various flailings and screwball presumptions have been all over the map. From the git-go they have shared a proclivity to insult rather that argue, is about all.

 

3) So? I mean, your posted perceptions and conclusions are very stupid, and insulting, and slanderous, and impossible to justify with quotes and arguments, and directly contradicted by easily located direct quotes and arguments, and so forth. You can't change any of that by making a chorus out of it - no matter how many times and threads you try.

 

 

It's a mistake to blame the audience for misunderstanding when the onus for clear messaging sits squarely with the author.

I'll remind you of that the next time you have the problems with creationists or climate denialists I'm having with you - again.

 

 

You don't get a pass on mere "misunderstanding". I have a far lower opinion of your slanders and insults and willful misrepresentations in this thread, than that.

 

And they illustrate, these posts of yours, where the derailment of reasonable gun control happens in the US: being oblivious to the threats posed by their correlated extremes has rendered "both sides" of the discourse untrustworthy and unreliable - not only to each other, but to reasonable onlookers and unaffiliated voters. This is almost unique among US political issues - sound and sober reality based reasoning is normally on one side or the other (the liberal side, 9/10). And it is uniquely damaging thereby.

[Ten oz]

DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. — A DeKalb County police officer was shot monday evenig after police went to the wrong house responding to a burglary call, authorities said.

Officers received a vague location for the burglary in progress call and when they arrived in the neighborhood around 7:35 p.m. ET they entered the wrong home, according to DeKalb County Public Safety Director Dr. Cedric Alexander. Gunshots were fired and both an officer and the homeowner were struck, Alexander said. The homeowner's dog was killed.

“We did respond to the wrong residence tonight and then these other circumstances unfolded,” he said.

Alexander called the situation complicated. Officers fired their weapons, the chief said, but it’s not clear if the homeowner had a gun.

Alexander said the situation happened like this: A neighborhood resident called 911 at 7:34 p.m. to report a suspicious person and described a home to the dispatcher. Three officers responded to a house that fit the description the caller gave 911. The officers went to the back of the home and found that a screen door and a rear door were unlocked.

“That in and of itself would probably suggest to anyone that it is possible that there could be intruders inside, but it turned out not to be the case,” Alexander said. “Somewhere at the rear of that home, some things happened that have yet to be determined.”

The officers had just entered the home when the gunfire erupted.

“There was gunfire, I just cannot tell you who fired and who did not,” he said.

The injured officer was transported to Grady Memorial Hospital in critical condition after losing "a lot of blood" from being shot in the thigh, Alexander said. He was headed into surgery as of 8:45 p.m.

The homeowner was shot in the leg and the homeowner's dog was killed, police said at the scene.

A DeKalb County police officer was shot on Monday, authorities said. 11Alive

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/31/ga-police-officer-shot/71495714/

The way we perceive threat in this country is a huge part of the problem. The idea that an unlocked door leading out to ones own backyard is clear evidence to anyone that a crime is in process and thus justifying a guns drawn entry of a home is ludicrous. Of course the police department will use the fact that all criminals potentially are armed to justify needing their guns at the ready. The prospect that criminal could have shot at them will also be used to explain why they couldn't just announce themselves and knocked on the front door while watch the rear of the house. Here in the states many use guns as a preemptive tool to combat the worst possible threats they can imagine in a given situation. Imagination should not have anything to do with it. People should be be held accountable when they overreact. Would have, could have, may have, and etc are not be acceptable reasons to shoot someone. What is actually happening in a given situation trumps what someones fears might happen. It is a cultural issue. We allow a certain attitude about these matters to exist at all levels.

[swansont]

Let's provide a few hints, eh?

 

!

Moderator Note

 

No, I don't think that's going to fly. When people ask for clarification, they expect and deserve an answer, not hints. Further, complaining about them misrepresenting/strawmanning you doesn't fly when all you have given is hints, instead of a clear answer. You know, actual clarification.

 

Further, complaining about being slandered and insulted loses a lot of its weight when you are dishing it out.

 

Do not respond to this modnote in the thread.

 

[Phi for All]

No, the post I was quoting there was a unique and bizarre "perception" not so far visibly shared by, for example, you. Here it is again: "So you seemed to say that support for the surprisingly effective gun lobby is also support, in this instance, for bigger government and more regulation"

Now I have said absolutely nothing anyone could read like that, plausibly. And nobody else has. So if you try to claim that everyone here has come away with that perception of what I posted, I call bullshit.

I apologize for any lack of clarity. Let me explain what I meant.

 

Surprisingly effective, that lobby, considering that most of its supporters and contributors favor stricter government regulation of firearms and firearm management in the US.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your words, but this seems to suggest that the majority of the supporters of the gun lobby favor stricter regulations. When I pointed out that the gun control issue is one of the hallmarks of the far right, who argue for less regulation and government interference, your response was, "So?"

 

Not a helpful remark in a discussion where I asked what you meant. I'm sorry that the internet is preventing a more nuanced interpretation of our words, but that's why we have phrases like, "What did you mean by that?"

[dimreepr]

( are we being intenionally obtuse , Dimreeper ? )

 

 

I often think my pithy remarks are much funnier when I’m drunk, my spelling also suffers.

And sometimes, to stay on topic, it’s a good job I don’t have ready access to a lethal weapon.

[Ten oz]

About as baffling a "seeming" as anyone has claimed to derive from

 

 

Tenoz has done that, and I have continued. So the start is there - if anyone wants to chip in.

 

I appriciate you acknowledging that I have attempting to engage in discussion about measures which are reasonable. The way this thread has being going I will take that as a compliment from you and run......

[overtone]

The prospect that criminal could have shot at them will also be used to explain why they couldn't just announce themselves and knocked on the front door while watch the rear of the house.

That's not reasonable. Assigning presumptive unreasonableness is not valid. Police who break into somebody's house on flimsy pretexts with drawn weapons and no warning are behaving badly, and whether or not they might present some bs excuse for not behaving as they should have is beside the point.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps I misinterpreted your words, but this seems to suggest that the majority of the supporters of the gun lobby favor stricter regulations. When I pointed out that the gun control issue is one of the hallmarks of the far right, who argue for less regulation and government interference, your response was, "So?"

Not a helpful remark in a discussion where I asked what you meant

I asked you what you meant. You seemed to see some kind of problem in the juxtaposition of two facts - that the majority of the members of the NRA (not "supporters of the gun lobby", exactly, and in fact contrasted with your emphasis on the new corporate bigmoney supporters of the gun lobby) personally favor stricter gun controls, and that the far right in the US famously and overtly argues for less regulation and government interference.

This contrast or comparison or apparent paradox is something I have now pointed to many times on this forum, including more than once in this thread. I use it as support for my tediously repeated contention that there is a serious problem with the gun control advocacy in the US, equivalent to the irrationality and counterproductive paranoia and bs rhetoric from the gun rights fringe. It's something I've posted a lot. Now you post it, and seem to think the mere posting of the fact is meaningful in some way, is a point that I need to address or something.

The fact that the most of the people who have been so strongly opposing and voting against the mere hint or suggestion of gun control in practice, personally favor stricter gun control and would like to see some in the US, personally hold quite reasonable views and preferences in the matter, is one of my most often repeated observations here and in other gun control threads. It's a fact of the matter. And I think it's a fact that gun control advocates should notice, because if they did they might take seriously the obvious explanation for it: there's something wrong with their arguments, their rhetoric, their approach. There's a problem with the gun control advocacy in the US. The political jam is partly their fault. They are not entitled to their presumption of being the reasonable voice in the room.

Reasonable people are going out of their way and consciously voting against their own interests simply to keep gun control advocates out of power. That should give pause. That should create a mood of reflection and honest attention for posts like 373.

These objections I have been posting - and they aren't just mine - have been as you can read in, say, post 373, calm and sober and perfectly sound. And they have been greeted with what you can read throughout - irrational insult, trolling misrepresentation, Fox-questions and similar illegitimate attempts at wrongfooting, demands that bad faith and slander be treated with respect, and so forth. This in my opinion illustrates the problem with the gun control advocacy in the US - an entire faction of it has exempted itself from reason and reasonableness, as if the nobility of the cause justified their tactics and consequences.

Edited September 1, 2015 by overtone

[MigL]

Well, now that that's all over, lets move on...

 

If a person had to apply to the local police department, who would do a background check, in order to obtain a firearm purchase permit, to be able to purchase handguns ( at least ), do you think that would have any effect on the handgun deaths statistics ?

 

Once the background check has been done and the purchase permit issued, the applicant can purchase as many guns as he wishes, since we know he's not a criminal or a nutbar; he/she just can't do it immediately but has to wait a period of time. And the police have a record of which houses/individuals posses handguns, and can proceed accordingly when responding to a call from that house/individual.

 

We have this system in Canada ( FAC ), while I hear that in the US you can buy guns 'on the spot', at gun shows, pawn shops, etc.

Please inform me if otherwise, and, do any of you think it will partially alleviate the problem, or, trample your fundamental rights Waitforufo.