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

[zapatos]

Not bullshit. That's what they're for - from the guy holding up the convenience store to the cop with the piece on his hip.

If I may interject I would say you are both correct. The reason people use guns as a threat and not cute bunnies, is because guns are very good at killing people, and the threat will therefore likely be taken seriously.

[Raider5678]

Most people consider a shield to be a defensive item, and a gun as an offensive one.

As for "They are intended to save people. "

I'm reminded of the quote "the idea of war is not to die for your country- but to make damned sure that the other man dies for his".

" In modern day they are used to prevent the deaths of millions of people every year. "

You seem to have overlooked the 20 or so a day which form the topic here; they don't get saved.

More importantly, who is saved by guns, and how?

Are you talking about people whose country isn't invaded because they have an army?

Because that's got nothing to do with the topic of gun control. Nobody is suggesting that the armed forces shouldn't be armed.

 

"Now a gun is no use in self defence if it doesn't kill, but its also no use if you don't have one."

It's also no use if it is safely locked up. But unless it's locked up, the kids (who are the topic of the thread) can get at it.

 

Have you read the thread- a lot of these things have already been raised.

1,000,000 - 20 = 999,999,980. That's simple math, so who would you rather save, the 20 of the 1,000,000? As for who is save by guns, read the post I made. If you don't want too, I'll quote.

 

"banning guns in one country would result in massive casualties. The reason is that if a country falls behind in weapon development its usually annihilated quickly in the event of a war."

 

This is simply saying guns ARE saving people, technically.

 

As for disarming the armed forces, here's another quote that you failed to read.

 

"That's of course saying you take away guns from everybody, military and civilian alike. Now obviously that's a bad idea"

 

Now say you have a shield. Some one else has a gun, and they are trying to kill you. Your screwed, the end, and that wasn't my point. My point was that if you have a gun, fewer people will threaten you. Guns are for threats more than anything in the modern day, and they are very effective at it.

 

As for reading the entire thread, all 50 pages, of 20 post each, no. I haven't gotten time. I have read the first 10 or so pages, and the last few pages.

[zapatos]

1,000,000 - 20 = 999,999,980. That's simple math...

Wait. What?

[iNow]

Guns, on the other hand, are intended to kill people.

They are intended to threaten people.

Bullshit

Not bullshit. That's what they're for - from the guy holding up the convenience store to the cop with the piece on his hip.

If I may interject I would say you are both correct. The reason people use guns as a threat and not cute bunnies, is because guns are very good at killing people, and the threat will therefore likely be taken seriously.

I understand your desire to keep the peace and find common ground, but no matter how you slice the situation, overtone actually continues to be mistaken on this point.

 

Guns are often used to enforce threats. That's not being disputed by anyone here.

 

The leverage in the situation, however, is derived specifically from the fact that guns "are intended to kill people" and people don't want to be killed, hence the threat is often effective since it was supported by a mechanism of enforcement well understood and documented to work. That said, none of this changes the fact that the purpose of guns is to inflict harm, and more often death, not "to threaten."

 

Let's look at this same logic structure in a few different contexts so you catch my point:

 

Money can be used to enforce threats, but the intention of money is not to "threaten people."

Cars can be used to enforce threats, but the intention of cars is not to "threaten people."

The withholding of sex can be used to enforce threats, but the intention of sex is not to "threaten people."

Hammers can be used to enforce threats, as can baseball bats and crowbars and rocks and sticks, but the intention of hammers and bats and crowbars and rocks and sticks is not to "threaten people."

 

 

Same applies to guns. Their purpose is to maim and kill and they're very efficient at achieving those tasks. While they can be used to enforce threats or make them more likely to succeed, their purpose is still the maiming and the killing (a few sporting and recreational examples, excepted, but still ultimately moot since the point here relates to the claim that their intent is to threaten, a claim that is absurd on its face).

 

On another note, next time I go hunting, I'm sure the deer and the pheasants and hogs will be pleased to hear that the intention of the gun at my side is merely to threaten them.

[Raider5678]

Wait. What?

Bad typo. 999,980

[iNow]

Now say you have a shield. Some one else has a gun, and they are trying to kill you. Your screwed, the end,

Not necessarily, especially with cool tech like this metal foam: http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/metal-foam-armor-disintegrates-bullets-160408.htm

 

also: you're

 

 

My point was that if you have a gun, fewer people will threaten you. Guns are for threats more than anything in the modern day, and they are very effective at it.

Except, nope: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

 

Also: http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121-story.html

And: http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/

[overtone]

The leverage in the situation, however, is derived specifically from the fact that guns "are intended to kill people" and people don't want to be killed,

You mistake design capability for use intention.

 

 

 

Guns are often used to enforce threats. That's not being disputed by anyone here.

Make threats, you mean.

 

And that is almost always the intention of the person owning or carrying them for "self defense" or "criminal endeavor".

 

Where exactly are you locating your "intention" - is it a magic property of the gun?

 

On another note, next time I go hunting, I'm sure the deer and the pheasants and hogs will be pleased to hear that the intention of the gun at my side is merely to threaten them.

And those you are hunting with will be a bit startled to learn that your gun is intended to kill people. I think you should give them fair warning, and fifteen seconds head start.

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

1,000,000 - 20 = 999,999,980. That's simple math, so who would you rather save, the 20 of the 1,000,000? As for who is save by guns, read the post I made. If you don't want too, I'll quote.

 

"banning guns in one country would result in massive casualties. The reason is that if a country falls behind in weapon development its usually annihilated quickly in the event of a war."

 

This is simply saying guns ARE saving people, technically.

 

As for disarming the armed forces, here's another quote that you failed to read.

 

"That's of course saying you take away guns from everybody, military and civilian alike. Now obviously that's a bad idea"

 

Now say you have a shield. Some one else has a gun, and they are trying to kill you. Your screwed, the end, and that wasn't my point. My point was that if you have a gun, fewer people will threaten you. Guns are for threats more than anything in the modern day, and they are very effective at it.

 

As for reading the entire thread, all 50 pages, of 20 post each, no. I haven't gotten time. I have read the first 10 or so pages, and the last few pages.

So, the guns owned and used by the US military do something useful- they deter war.

And the guns owned by private citizens are pretty much irrelevant to that.

 

And it's the second group which kill the children, and it's that group I'd advocate controlling.

 

It's been laboured to death, but the chances of you using a gun to either threaten or kill some "bad man" are slim to non-existent (especially if you are not a criminal).

However the chances of a gun in your house killing a loved on is rather higher- especially if there are kids about and you don't keep the guns locked up.

And, as we seem to agree, a gun that's locked up isn't any use as defence.

 

All of this has been rehashed several times at great length already in this thread.

 

Re. "Now say you have a shield. Some one else has a gun, and they are trying to kill you. Your screwed, the end,"

Thanks form making my point for me. Guns are not a defensive weapon, they are an offensive one.

I remind you that you said "Originally they were used as a defense against invading enemies. ". and you now seem to have realised that they are not a defensive item

 

Of course there's the fact that you are wrong (as already pointed out- and had you never heard of body armour?) bit it's beside the point.

Edited April 11, 2016 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

Thanks form making my point for me. Guns are not a defensive weapon, they are an offensive one.

Their most common civilian use is as a defensive threat. That is their use when carried by police, kept in homes, etc.

 

 

 

So, the guns owned and used by the US military do something useful- they deter war.

And the guns owned by private citizens are pretty much irrelevant to that.

And it's the second group which kill the children, and it's that group I'd advocate controlling.

 

The first group kill plenty of children. The second group deter much besides war - KKK, for example. You can see what can happen without them all over South America and Africa and Asia.

 

It's been laboured to death, but the chances of you using a gun to either threaten or kill some "bad man" are slim to non-existent

That's not true. Most of the guns owned by my neighbors all my life existed year round as continual threats to some "bad man" or another. The chances of that use were almost 100% - a few were ornamental, locked up, etc.

Edited April 11, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

Their most common civilian use is as a defensive threat. That is their use when carried by police, kept in homes, etc.

 

 

 

 

The first group kill plenty of children. The second group deter much besides war - KKK, for example. You can see what can happen without them all over South America and Africa and Asia.

 

That's not true. Most of the guns owned by my neighbors all my life existed year round as continual threats to some "bad man" or another. The chances of that use were almost 100% - a few were ornamental, locked up, etc.

"The first group kill plenty of children. "

I think his point was that they save more than that- but feel free to condemn those guns too.

"You can see what can happen without them all over South America and Africa and Asia. "

And England, France Germany, Spain...

 

"Most of the guns owned by my neighbors all my life existed year round as continual threats to some "bad man" "

Did the bad man have a gun?

Would you have preferred that he didn't?

[overtone]

 

 

"The first group kill plenty of children. "

I think his point was that they save more than that- but feel free to condemn those guns too.

Some do, some don't. Get rid of those guns first, and the rest will be easier.

 

"You can see what can happen without them all over South America and Africa and Asia. "
And England, France Germany, Spain...

Yes, now that you mention it. Of course magic civilization immunity has prevented that from ever happening again, but people don't enjoy those powers in the Americas - or anywhere else.

 

 

Did the bad man have a gun?

Would you have preferred that he didn't?

Don't know. Some do, most don't. Doesn't make any difference.

[Raider5678]

So, the guns owned and used by the US military do something useful- they deter war.

And the guns owned by private citizens are pretty much irrelevant to that.

 

And it's the second group which kill the children, and it's that group I'd advocate controlling.

 

It's been laboured to death, but the chances of you using a gun to either threaten or kill some "bad man" are slim to non-existent (especially if you are not a criminal).

However the chances of a gun in your house killing a loved on is rather higher- especially if there are kids about and you don't keep the guns locked up.

And, as we seem to agree, a gun that's locked up isn't any use as defence.

 

All of this has been rehashed several times at great length already in this thread.

 

Re. "Now say you have a shield. Some one else has a gun, and they are trying to kill you. Your screwed, the end,"

Thanks form making my point for me. Guns are not a defensive weapon, they are an offensive one.

I remind you that you said "Originally they were used as a defense against invading enemies. ". and you now seem to have realised that they are not a defensive item

 

Of course there's the fact that you are wrong (as already pointed out- and had you never heard of body armour?) bit it's beside the point.

 

Threatening or killing someone isn't what I meant. If you have a gun, your less likely to have to use it to do those things, so that's not a valid argument to an extent.

 

If you have kids in your house, make it so the kids who are toddlers aren't going to get at it, prehaps high up. Don't be an idiot and put in on the floor cocked and loaded and then cry when your toddler shoots himself in his face. As for adolescents, it's simple. Tell them theres a gun, teach them how to use it, and teach them that they are not toys. You're (iNow) less likely to play with a gun if you know that it's not a toy, and it will kill you. If your just being dumb, and go out of your way to get the gun, then shoot your brains out, then that's just the dumb generation of today. On the news a 12 year old swallowed magnets, and he had to have them surgically removed. Now his parents are saying there wasn't a choking hazard on them so they want to sue the company. Twelve years old. That's just sad. Anyway,

 

As for body armour, it stops it from penetrating, but the kinetic energy from it is enough to put you down for a little bit. And body armour isn't exactly something everybody wants to wear everywhere. But carrying a gun is easier. Now yes, a shield has been proven wrong, so you win this one. But a gun can still be used as a defensive weapon.

 

Now the children. 6 die every day. How much more would that be if this never happened.

 

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

http://concealednation.org/2013/12/colorado-shooting-over-in-80-seconds-because-of-armed-staff-member/

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/05/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

 

Yes number 3 is a little biased.

 

Anyway, that saves kids. Almost never has a school that has been armed, had a successful mass shooting. If every school was armed it would rarely work. Prove this statement wrong, don't just dismiss it by saying that's not what your talking about. Actually address this.

 

Now one other thing I would point out, even if guns were magically made illegal then it would take at least 50-100 years for them to stop showing up in the hands of criminals. People would hide guns, like drugs. Mexican cartel would ship them over the border, they would be smuggled in. Mass shootings would go up indefinitely if the only people you had to worry about were the police. Look at the violence in other countries. While law abiding citizens cant have guns, criminals are already wanted, and they DO have guns. Again, this IS besides the point, but I felt like pointing this out.

[iNow]

If you have kids in your house, make it so the kids who are toddlers aren't going to get at it, prehaps high up. Don't be an idiot and put in on the floor cocked and loaded and then cry when your toddler shoots himself in his face. As for adolescents, it's simple. Tell them theres a gun, teach them how to use it, and teach them that they are not toys. You're (iNow) less likely to play with a gun if you know that it's not a toy, and it will kill you. If your just being dumb, and go out of your way to get the gun, then shoot your brains out, then that's just the dumb generation of today.

I recognize this is a long thread and it's unrealistic to ask you to read the whole thing, but we did discuss the idea of safety measures.

 

We discussed safety locks and mandating safes/safe storage, especially when there are children in the home. We discussed biometric locks in response to counterarguments that safes prevent one from accessing/using their gun quickly when it's most needed, and we discussed providing subsidies to those who struggle to afford these safety measures so funding and cost would not be a restrictive factor.

 

I'm curious to know, would you support or oppose these?

 

As for body armour, it stops it from penetrating, but the kinetic energy from it is enough to put you down for a little bit. And body armour isn't exactly something everybody wants to wear everywhere. But carrying a gun is easier.

And as has been repeatedly shown, throughout this and other threads including above just a few short hours ago today, the evidence clearly indicates that carrying a gun in most instances is largely ineffective at achieving the safety you claim.

 

I understand your position. Do you understand that it's been demonstrated to be invalid and doesn't in any way help your argument?

 

Now the children. 6 die every day. How much more would that be if this never happened.

Your writing is unclear. What are you trying to say here? If what never happened?

 

Regardless of your answer, 20 children every single day are hospitalized due to a gun injury and 6% of them die. My position is that we both can AND should do better, and that improvement is possible...lives can be saved...children, too... and all while showing due deference to the constitution and respect for responsible gun owners.

 

Do you disagree this is possible or even worth pursuing?

 

Almost never has a school that has been armed, had a successful mass shooting. If every school was armed it would rarely work. Prove this statement wrong, don't just dismiss it by saying that's not what your talking about. Actually address this.

Prove to me there's not a teacup orbiting Neptune. (reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot )

 

School shootings are related, but peripheral to this topic anyway. Shootings happen in both gun free and gun inclusive areas. The underlying premise you're putting forth here is not only based on a misrepresentation of reality, but it's also irrelevant.

 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/jan/13/dan-patrick/dan-patrick-says-two-mass-shootings-1950-occurred-/

...from 2009 to July 2014, 18 multiple-victim U.S. shootings--meaning any incident where at least four people were killed with a gun--occurred in places where civilian handguns were allowed.

 

Of 33 incidents in public spaces, the report said, 18 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. Conversely, no more than 15 incidents "took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called gun-free zones," the report said.

(snip)

A 2013 FBI review of "active shooter incidents" since 2000 identified five instances when shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement exchanged gunfire with the shooters;

Here's a link to that FBI report. You can see that's five instances stopped by "a good guy with a gun" out of... 160. That means 97% of the time citizens with guns didn't matter one iota: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents

 

Now one other thing I would point out, even if guns were magically made illegal then...

Many participants at this site post from countries where guns are illegal, England and Australia and Singapore to name just a few... and all of them do so all while being free citizens unenslaved by their government, they do so while protected and safe, not overrun by tyrants or violent criminals or foreign invaders. For that reason, they have an entirely valid evidence and experience based point to make here when highlighting how nonsensical some of the arguments we've seen about those things coming to pass truly are.

 

That said, very few (if any) people here are arguing that all guns magically be confiscated or even made illegal,Mao let's try not to distract ourselves with obvious red herrings.

 

The point is that we can do much better than the current status quo.

 

Surely, that's not too much to ask. Surely, (despite overtones repeated protestestations) that's not unreasonable. Surely, we can at least find common ground and align on these eminently rational and self-evidently valid points... Can't we?

Edited April 12, 2016 by iNow

[Raider5678]

I recognize this is a long thread and it's unrealistic to ask you to read the whole thing, but we did discuss the idea of safety measures.

 

We discussed safety locks and mandating safes/safe storage, especially when there are children in the home. We discussed biometric locks in response to counterarguments that safes prevent one from accessing/using their gun quickly when it's most needed, and we discussed providing subsidies to those who struggle to afford these safety measures so funding and cost would not be a restrictive factor.

 

I'm curious to know, would you support or oppose these?

 

And as has been repeatedly shown, throughout this and other threads including above just a few short hours ago today, the evidence clearly indicates that carrying a gun in most instances is largely ineffective at achieving the safety you claim.

 

I understand your position. Do you understand that it's been demonstrated to be invalid and doesn't in any way help your argument?

 

Your writing is unclear. What are you trying to say here? If what never happened?

 

Regardless of your answer, 20 children every single day are hospitalized due to a gun injury and 6% of them die. My position is that we both can AND should do better, and that improvement is possible...lives can be saved...children, too... and all while showing due deference to the constitution and respect for responsible gun owners.

 

Do you disagree this is possible or even worth pursuing?

 

Prove to me there's not a teacup orbiting Neptune. (reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot )

 

School shootings are related, but peripheral to this topic anyway. Shootings happen in both gun free and gun inclusive areas. The underlying premise you're putting forth here is not only based on a misrepresentation of reality, but it's also irrelevant.

 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/jan/13/dan-patrick/dan-patrick-says-two-mass-shootings-1950-occurred-/

Here's a link to that FBI report. You can see that's five instances stopped by "a good guy with a gun" out of... 160. That means 97% of the time citizens with guns didn't matter one iota: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents

 

Many participants at this site post from countries where guns are illegal, England and Australia and Singapore to name just a few... and all of them do so all while being free citizens unenslaved by their government, they do so while protected and safe, not overrun by tyrants or violent criminals or foreign invaders. For that reason, they have an entirely valid evidence and experience based point to make here when highlighting how nonsensical some of the arguments we've seen about those things coming to pass truly are.

 

That said, very few (if any) people here are arguing that all guns magically be confiscated or even made illegal. The point us that we can do much better than the current status quo. Surely, that's not too much to ask, is it? Surely, despite overtones repeated protestestations, that's not unreasonable. Surely!, we can at least find common ground and align on that?

I would support funding for safety measures, but then I am also wondering who would pay for it. I'm not putting it down, I would be in complete support for gun safes and safety regulations. In reality a handgun would be just as effective as a rifle if your in a close quarters situation, which would be most likely to happen if the unlikely happens, and you do have to do it. So gun safes for rifles yes, safety regulations yes, but funding for them I'm not sure how it would work. Since you have already discussed safety features, what was the decision, that it is effective at stopping deaths or that it isn't?

 

What would the safety I claim it has be? I did point out that it's true most guns would never ever be used for self-defense. When presented the evidence I agreed with it. But can it be proven that having a gun doesn't deter crime of any sort? This is not something that can be tested easily so it can honestly go either way.

 

Also, if I may ask what was proven invalid? That guns are easier to carry, that guns provide protection, or that everybody doesn't want to wear body armour?

 

I agree that doing better on gun control is possible, but I have to agree that its worth pursuing if it will save lives. What I'm trying to find is the point where you HAVE to take away all guns in order for it to save more lives rather then lose lives. You already agreed that you respect the right to own guns, so where do you think this balance is?

 

Ok, I have no evidence that a teacup isn't orbiting neptune. Since its unfair to try and have you prove the same, I'll drop this point.

 

And the 3% of the time doesn't matter at all? There is the point that most people don't carry weapons, so out of those 160 times, probably only about 120 of them had handguns. Now that is obviously giving the benefit of the doubt. Either way, most studies conducted by people for more gun control show that guns don't deter gun control. And most studies conducted by people for less gun control show that guns do deter gun control. Now only choosing select studies and saying that all those studies prove a point, so it must be true isn't going to work. They should cancel each other out in theory. Now obviously one of them is wrong, but for now even I have no clue.

 

As for those countries, is there a difference in crime rates involving knifes or other weapons? I really didn't put much thought into this one, I have to get to bed.

[overtone]

The point is that we can do much better than the current status quo.

Surely, that's not too much to ask. Surely, (despite overtones repeated protestestations) that's not unreasonable.

When you so completely and badly misrepresent the postings of others, your claims of reasonableness lose credibility.

 

If fewer gun control advocates illustrated their claims to reliable sense and reason by displaying unreasonableness, irrationality, and amnesiac incomprehension,

 

including threatening the very things they claim not to advocate, and refusing to credit critics of their approach with the very reason they claim to be looking for,

 

we might have a chance of breaking this gridlock, and adopting some of the dozen or more easily possible and almost universally supported improvements in American gun control I have been the earliest, most repetitive, and most consistently persistent advocate of on this forum.

 

But as that has been thoroughly demonstrated to be an impossible dream, we're stuck.

 

So as so many times before, this is yet another moment in the argument in which the obvious unfeasibility of the gun control approach should be recognized from the evidence, and those sincerely interested in reducing the threat to children posed by America's bizarre and crazy situation turn to one or more of the much less gridlocked - and potentially significantly more effective in the first place - approaches. Several have been listed on this forum, and in this thread, and rather than disparage them as "deflections" and the like this time maybe they could be addressed?

Edited April 12, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

...and just like that, we're once again avoiding the actual topic and focused instead on comments on style and personal barbs.

Lather.

Rinse.

Repeat...

Edited April 12, 2016 by iNow

[overtone]

...and just like that, we're once again avoiding the actual topic and focused instead on comments on style and personal barbs.

Lather.

Rinse.

Repeat..

So why do you do it?

 

Here's your contribution:

 

 

The point is that we can do much better than the current status quo.

Surely, that's not too much to ask. Surely, (despite overtones repeated protestestations) that's not unreasonable. Surely, we can at least find common ground and align on these eminently rational and self-evidently valid points... Can't we?

 

There are probably fifteen posts of mine on this thread, many addressed to you directly, that offer exactly that, address exactly that. I've listed dozens of possible areas of common ground, posted paragraphs of various approaches and reasoned response to your endless repetitions of the same old gridlocked crackpottery, overtly and explicitly invited discussion of those matters - and there is your (completely typical) response.

 

Fifty pages, you are still posting not only "personal barbs and style comments" in lieu of argument or even recognition, but dishonest ones. Expressions not only of disdain, but clueless disdain, mistaken disdain, amnesiac and irrational and wrongheaded disdain. And jack all else.

 

You guys are wrong. You are not thinking well. You are looking at the crazy of the gun nut world, and thinking it makes you sensible and reasonable. It does not.

 

And it's not confined to these play forums - that is how the most vocal and public gun control advocates talk in the big world, too. This is damaging, politically. This is - once again - the core of the gridlock problem. It doesn't matter how many people think reliable and universal background checks, trigger locks in family homes, legal standards for responsible ownership and carry, for example, would be a good idea in a better world (It's over 85% of the NRA membership even, last I checked): they aren't going to hand political power over to people who think like that, talk like that, and preen themselves in public on a moral and ethical superiority they nowhere near possess. Because such people are a threat.

 

And so, again: if you really care about the dead children, if you sincerely and against all appearances have as your actual goal a significant reduction in gun injuries to children, you probably have to set the gun control approach aside for a while - give people time to forget this behavior of yours. There are plenty of other approaches that are not trashed by your arrogant cluelessness. And even better: these approaches have more potential to actually make progress than gun control in the US has ever had. They might make a significant difference. So what's your real cause: slapping the gun nuts as hard as you can, or making the US a better and safer place for some children?

Edited April 12, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

So, your "reasonable" approach to gun control is this

"you probably have to set the gun control approach aside for a while "

Because the suggestion that people can actually do without guns is "arrogant cluelessness" and that "You guys are wrong. You are not thinking well."

 

Well, that's a "remarkable" point of view, but let's run with it for a minute.

You say "There are plenty of other approaches ..."

List a few, and explain why they will stop kids getting shot (Ideally, why they will do so better than not having guns).

 

 

If you do it really well we might even not file a forum rules complaint about this " against all appearances have as your actual goal a significant reduction in gun injuries to children, "

Because, when push comes to shove, saying that keeping guns is the best way to stop kids getting shot is plainly illogical in a society without guns it's plain that nobody gets shot.

But never mind that for the minute,- I repeat the simple challenge.

You say "There are plenty of other approaches ..."

List a few, and explain why they will stop kids getting shot (Ideally, why they will do so better than not having guns).

[overtone]

So, your "reasonable" approach to gun control is this

"you probably have to set the gun control approach aside for a while "

Yes.

 

Because the suggestion that people can actually do without guns is "arrogant cluelessness"

No.

 

and that "You guys are wrong. You are not thinking well."

Yes. And you illustrate that perfectly in such responses.

 

Well, that's a "remarkable" point of view, but let's run with it for a minute.

Let's you quit making such posts. Consider the thread topic.

 

You say "There are plenty of other approaches ..."

List a few, and explain why they will stop kids getting shot (Ideally, why they will do so better than not having guns).

How about you, not me, go back through this fifty page thread and find my previously posted lists,

somehow never registered or never read despite being quoted and referred to and at one point iirc (might have been another thread, of the several) described as a "deflection".

Actually, described as yet another attempt at deflection - which would seem to imply less than total amnesia.

Or come up with your own. Why not?

When you have done that, I will be happy to expand the list, discuss items on it, defend the approaches described, and so forth. That would be relevant to the thread - a nice change from the "personal barbs and style comments" packing the posts of the puritans.

Like this beauty (you are apparently taking to the rules committee!) :

 

Because, when push comes to shove, saying that keeping guns is the best way to stop kids getting shot is plainly illogical in a society without guns it's plain that nobody gets shot.

Here's a tip: I wouldn't put much past a moderation team that endorsed "The scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe", but I doubt even that crew would endorse a claim that I ever posted keeping guns around as any way to prevent kids from getting shot - let alone the best way.

And that will highlight the nature of your responses to my posts, which are of a piece with that (as are several other folk's): You aren't thinking well. You aren't making sense. And you are making threats, which are not as invisible to the majority of Americans as they seem to be to you.

So what's it going to be, eh? More gridlock on gun control, or a turning of attention to the prospect of actually, significantly, and realistically improving this crazy situation of kids getting shot in the US?

Edited April 13, 2016 by overtone

[Raider5678]

So john, I'm assuming your position on taking away all guns isn't the same as Inows, who would want stricter gun laws rather then simply taking away all the guns? Also, gun free countries are having a small problem with terrorist attacks I see. That's an opinion, not a fact so don't try turning that statement around on me.

[iNow]

So john, I'm assuming your position on taking away all guns isn't the same as Inows, who would want stricter gun laws rather then simply taking away all the guns? Also, gun free countries are having a small problem with terrorist attacks I see. That's an opinion, not a fact so don't try turning that statement around on me.

Effectively, all countries are having "a small problem with terrorist attacks." This is true whether those countries have unlimited access to guns, if they restrict/prohibit them entirely, or somewhere in between. Personally, I fail to see the relevance of your comment.

Edited April 13, 2016 by iNow

[overtone]

 

 

So john, I'm assuming your position on taking away all guns isn't the same as Inows, who would want stricter gun laws rather then simply taking away all the guns?

Inow's position is that nobody is talking about taking away all the guns.

 

They aren't even talking about taking away any of the guns. Except from criminals.

 

That even mentioning that threat is a sign of the irrational paranoia of the gun nuts.

[MigL]

I believe Overtone listed four approaches in the post previous to yours where you asked him to list 'a few'. Posts #1017 ( his ) and #1018 ( yours ).

If you don't bother reading his posts, John, how can you have a meaningful discussion ?

[iNow]

I believe Overtone listed four approaches in the post previous to yours where you asked him to list 'a few'. Posts #1017 ( his ) and #1018 ( yours ).

If you don't bother reading his posts, John, how can you have a meaningful discussion ?

You mean, this meaningful post? >>

 

...response to your endless repetitions of the same old gridlocked crackpottery, overtly and explicitly invited discussion of those matters - and there is your (completely typical) response.

 

Fifty pages, you are still posting not only "personal barbs and style comments" in lieu of argument or even recognition, but dishonest ones. Expressions not only of disdain, but clueless disdain, mistaken disdain, amnesiac and irrational and wrongheaded disdain. And jack all else.

 

You guys are wrong. You are not thinking well. You are looking at the crazy of the gun nut world, and thinking it makes you sensible and reasonable. It does not.

 

And it's not confined to these play forums - that is how the most vocal and public gun control advocates talk in the big world, too. This is damaging, politically. This is - once again - the core of the gridlock problem. It doesn't matter how many people think reliable and universal background checks, trigger locks in family homes, legal standards for responsible ownership and carry, for example, would be a good idea in a better world (It's over 85% of the NRA membership even, last I checked): they aren't going to hand political power over to people who think like that, talk like that, and preen themselves in public on a moral and ethical superiority they nowhere near possess. Because such people are a threat.

 

And so, again: if you really care about the dead children, if you sincerely and against all appearances have as your actual goal a significant reduction in gun injuries to children, you probably have to set the gun control approach aside for a while - give people time to forget this behavior of yours. There are plenty of other approaches that are not trashed by your arrogant cluelessness.

 

I've read overtones posts, migL. Each of them, some (many?) more than once... since so often they're larded up and bloated with unnecessary bloviation and vitriol and personal aspersions.

 

TBH, just like in the GMO threads, overtones posts remain willfully ignorant of facts, intentionally obtuse to reality, overtly abrasive, explicitly condescending, and more often than not they remind me of little more than the fact that quite a fair number of people on this planet are too consistently abrasive, too dug in and unwavering, rigid and recalcitrant, and frankly too mind numbingly oblivious and offensive to bother with, little more than obvious wastes of my limited time and incapable of achieving any meaningful progress or partnership or even a modicum... a semblance!... of productive dialog.

 

We respect each other, migL. I find you to be a valuable member of this community, and suspect (hope?) you feel the same way about me. So, please do tell me, where do YOU feel I am being in any way unreasonable here and what specific points do YOU feel I am ignoring and/or failing to address with my posts?

Edited April 13, 2016 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

So, your "reasonable" approach to gun control is this

"you probably have to set the gun control approach aside for a while "

 

Yes.

 

So what's it going to be, eh? More gridlock on gun control, ...

Do you realise that saying we should abandon gun control guarantees to gridlock it.

How could there be progress on it when you say we shouldn't even try?

Also, gun free countries are having a small problem with terrorist attacks I see.

Wow! You really said that?

9/11