Commenter TS demands to know:
Secondly, who are you to play God? Even if you make the big assumption that disarming people will save net lives (which you are yet to prove without selectively dismissing data that doesn’t agree with your position), you are still saying that some people should die so that others (more?) will live.
First, I don't play God. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter.
Second, you still seem to be under the impression that gun control is all about taking guns away from everyone or some other such apocalyptic event. Instead, gun control is about making sure those who shouldn't have access to firearms--don't.
Third, you continue to labor under the belief that a gun will magically render you immune from harm. No wonder there are people who believe in Sarah Palin.
Last, perhaps TS will tell us why he believes that we should happily accept gun deaths many magnitudes greater than the relative few lives that are saved by firearms.
gun control is about making sure those who shouldn't have access to firearms--don't.
ReplyDeleteBy that definition, the US has never had effective gun control.
Oh yeah:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Heller-McDonald says the Second Amendment allows for "reasonable regulation".
Wait, I can't read the post I'm laughing too much from the video.
ReplyDeleteJade, thanks for the dedicated response, but why start with my “secondly”? Here is my first question again:
ReplyDelete“First of all, how many of these innocent people who defended themselves do you have to disarm to prevent one criminal from getting a gun and murdering someone? How many Jade?”
It is a legitimate question. What is your best guess for how many innocents have to be disarmed to prevent one from falling into the wrong hands?
Jade: “Instead, gun control is about making sure those who shouldn't have access to firearms--don't.”
Is that everybody? Tell me you are not suggesting you actually support law-abiding gun ownership. That runs contrary to every single thing you say here. Let’s just use this thread as an example. When someone mentions the lives saved through gun ownership, you response is not “Good for them! Let’s find way to keep that number (or increase it), while trying to reduce the murder count”. No, your response is more like “doesn’t matter, more people are murdered”. Essentially, they can die for your cause.
Jade: “Third, you continue to labor under the belief that a gun will magically render you immune from harm.”
Never said that. In fact I corrected you on that exact same thing before.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6314891743204395487&postID=7318200970810296636
Let’s move this conversation forward by you stopping these silly claims, OK?
Jade: “Last, perhaps TS will tell us why he believes that we should happily accept gun deaths many magnitudes greater than the relative few lives that are saved by firearms.”
I don’t accept gun deaths. That is why I will fight for my life.
TS: To answer your questions in order.
ReplyDeleteFirst, criminals get their guns from the same places everyone else does. Your question really ought to be 'how many gun deaths are you willing to accept before you'll accept very minor inconveniences?'
Second, as I've always said: there are no groups or organizations suggesting a total ban on guns. Thus, your fears of everyone being "disarmed" are baseless.
Third, like it or not, we always try to base policy on the greater net good. In a perfect world, we would perform a complete maintenance and overhaul of every aircraft after each flight. That would further reduce the risk of mishap. But to do so would be prohibitively expensive and basically dictate only the super wealthy could fly. In medicine, we don't perform heart transplants on folks older than 75--not because some 75 y/os can't stand the operation--it's because most cannot.
Fourth, you claim to be opposed to gun deaths. Yet, you support policies that inevitably lead to more.
Step #1. Pick a Flawed Philosophy that cannot be backed-up by scientific observation.
ReplyDeleteStep #2. Cook up crazy lies that support that Flawed Philosophy.
Step #3. Troll Internet.
Step #4 ?????
Step #5 Profit!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWeerd:
ReplyDeleteStep 1: Count fish for a living.
Step 2: Work as 'security' for anime conventions.
Step 3: Be a gunloon.
Step 4: ????
Step 5: Back to step 1.
Yep, but there is no "???" step, and all of them = Profit.
ReplyDeleteI can't blame you for being jealous.
Jade the underpants gnome says: “First, criminals get their guns from the same places everyone else does. Your question really ought to be 'how many gun deaths are you willing to accept before you'll accept very minor inconveniences?'”
ReplyDeleteSince the topic at hand is lives saved- I don’t call dying a “minor inconvenience”. You didn’t even touch the question. You guys always claim crime guns start off legally owned, then some percentage of them fall into the wrong hands. MikeB said he wants to reduce the total guns/gun owners using various numbers like 10%, 30%, 50%. How many innocent people get disarmed before you prevent one from going to a criminal? Regarding “accepting gun deaths”- show me something that works and I will gladly accept the inconvenience. Just show me something.
Jade: “Second, as I've always said: there are no groups or organizations suggesting a total ban on guns. Thus, your fears of everyone being "disarmed" are baseless.”
San Francisco 2005.
Jade: “But to do so would be prohibitively expensive and basically dictate only the super wealthy could fly.”
Funny that you say that, considering your side want to make firearm ownership prohibitively expensive so only the wealthy can own guns. As an aside, your analogy needs some work. Taking complex machinery apart and putting it back together increases the chance of failure.
Jade: “Fourth, you claim to be opposed to gun deaths. Yet, you support policies that inevitably lead to more.”
Like what?
Jade: “In medicine, we don't perform heart transplants on folks older than 75--not because some 75 y/os can't stand the operation--it's because most cannot.”
ReplyDeleteNote jade that what we don’t do is sacrifice one for the good of many. We could selectively choose people to have their organs harvested, so that one death would result in more surviving. But obviously, we don’t do that. That is the moral flaw in your argument. Even if gun control could save lives (which you are yet to show mind you), it can’t be done at the expense of depriving people the ability to defend themselves that will result in dying- no matter how “few”. We don’t do sacrifices- even to your Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I, for one, don't believe in total gun bans unless you want to talk about certain types of high-powered military-style rifles. Or, the guns that have that shoulder thing that goes up, they've got to go.
ReplyDeleteBut for regular guns, I don't preach total bans. I do think that licensing and registration should be strictly implemented and the criteria for getting a gun should be so strict that many of the people who now enjoy them, won't qualify. This would weed out many of the "bad apples" and casual owners.
"I, for one, don't believe in total gun bans unless you want to talk about certain types of high-powered military-style rifles. Or, the guns that have that shoulder thing that goes up, they've got to go."
ReplyDeleteMake a post on it! I can't wait! I bet it will be the funniest post in the internet!
"I do think that licensing and registration should be strictly implemented and the criteria for getting a gun should be so strict that many of the people who now enjoy them, won't qualify. This would weed out many of the "bad apples" and casual owners."
ReplyDeleteExcept it won't. It can't. There is no way to guarantee that someone will NEVER commit a crime, or to make sure that someone will NEVER do bad things when things go badly for them (divorce, getting fired, whatever).
The only thing that you'll accomplish is disarming plenty of people because they didn't do anything, and preventing lots of people from owning a firearm without justification.
But that's okay in the mind of statist if it (supposedly) saves one life. But is it okay if it costs one life?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “I, for one, don't believe in total gun bans unless you want to talk about certain types of high-powered military-style rifles. Or, the guns that have that shoulder thing that goes up, they've got to go.”
ReplyDeleteWeerd Beard: “Make a post on it! I can't wait! I bet it will be the funniest post in the internet!”
We’ve been over AWBs here before, and Mike *may* have even conceded the issue. His little jab at McCarthy would be the give away. Or did I totally misread you, MikeB?
MikeB, you don’t advocate total bans, but you talk about drastically reducing the guns in this country. How do you do that without taking them away from good people? You talk about lowering the standards bar, but I got news for you; disqualifying misdemeanors and your other suggestions to weed out the “bad apples”, is not going to get the numbers down to where you want them.
he also talks about total bans, and very moderate things...anything that he can't get pinned down on. Because like all anti-freedom bigots, MikeB and his compatriots is a liar and an idiot.
ReplyDeleteAlso he tries to make jokes, but he's only really funny when he's trying to be serious.
One of the Anonymous guys said about my suggestion about the benefits of stricter gun control, "Except it won't. It can't. There is no way to guarantee that someone will NEVER commit a crime, or to make sure that someone will NEVER do bad things when things go badly for them (divorce, getting fired, whatever)."
ReplyDeleteWho ever said we want laws that will ensure "someone will NEVER commit a crime" or do bad things?
This is the pro gun trick of exaggerating what we say and then arguing against that exaggerated idea.
TS, I'm glad you can pick up on my sense of humor. RuffRidr and Weer'd always miss it, on purpose I imagine.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Who ever said we want laws that will ensure "someone will NEVER commit a crime" or do bad things?"
ReplyDeleteOk, if that's not what you want, then what is the purpose of weeding out the bad apples? Is it to merely reduce the number of bad apples, or to reduce the number of gun owners, or is there a another goal?
The system, as it works right now, already weeds out a large number of bad apples. It already reduces the number of people carrying guns, because many people aren't willing to jump through hoops to legally carry a gun. And some of those who apply are not able to pass the background checks.
So now you want to further reduce the number. So, what is the final goal? Reduction for reduction's sake, or is there a number that will satisfy? Zero shootings a year? 10? 100?
Please elaborate.
Sorry, Anon, you're making it into such a tedious argument.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see more of the bad apples weeded out in order to make gun violence diminish.
Do you want to pick that apart and debate at length every little angle you can find? Or can you just accept that as my position, which although it differs from yours, is what it is.
Can you accept that?
I'm sorry that my rights are tedious to you. Stop trying to advance an agenda that diminishes or tramples them, and I'll stop picking apart and debating your argument.
ReplyDeleteIt's really this simple--if you don't like guns, don't get one, and don't carry one. Encourage those you know to not get one. If they're crazy enough to listen to you, then they'll have to live with that, if they can.
But you and every other anti-freedom statist go too far when you suggest people ought to lose their rights, or when you attempt to have laws that prevent others from protecting themselves as they see fit.
So, reduction merely for the sake of reduction it is. Got it.
One last question---only "gun violence," or all violent crime?
MikeB: “I'd like to see more of the bad apples weeded out in order to make gun violence diminish.”
ReplyDeleteYou also added “casual gun owners” last time you said you want to weed out “bad apples”. That is where our sides have big problems.