What would the cover be if a bill to infringe on freedom of the press had died? The emotion of this cover is strong, but as is the case with emotion, it tells us nothing about the policies that we should adopt. Emotion without reason has no grounding, no anchor. There is no reason to support an "assault weapons" ban. Weapons that meet Frankenstein's characteristics are rarely used in crimes, and the question of utility isn't relevant to rights, anyway.
But do keep feeling, Mikeb. It's good for our side when you do.
Glock demands the sacrifice of Our Children to appease their Assembly Line. All Hail Gun Makers...
And Greg Camp what a load. Everyone claims their side is using only Pure Reason in the gun debate and the other side is using only stupid emotion.
The NRA and every Gun Right's Group and Gun Nuts by and large are all using appeals to emotion and fear (HITLER! NAZI! STALIN!!!) as the basis for their "arguments".
Gene, I give an analysis, often detailed, of each argument presented here. I offer detailed arguments for my side, but I only get insults and dismissals. I'd be happy to engage in reasoned debate, but I'm not going to do both sides.
TS, That's because you didn't read it aloud in the original German. And I agree laws should go way further in controlling guns
Greg,
Cast the mote out of thy own eye first. A Feb 1 2013 report from Annenberg spoke with Christopher S. Koper about his study of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban:
"But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period."
and
"The evidence is too limited for any firm projections, but it does suggest that long term restrictions on these guns and magazines could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings."
and
"a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”
Grung-e-gene, I put a German accent on both, and yes, “alas hail ze gun makers, ja” sounded just as much an appeal to emotion.
Ok, so in your own words, what is "particularly dangerous" about grips, stocks, shrouding, and flash suppressors, to warrant their prohibition and subsequent imprisonment of those in non-compliance? Use pure reason.
Gene, you're an illustration of what drives me nuts about your side. You squawk and moan about how I don't use reason, then you present nonsense. Look at your own sources. They're telling you that a major infringement on gun ownership might bring about a small reduction in total gun violence. That's your idea of reason?
Two other points:
1. If you're going to quote the Bible, get it right. Jesus said that hypocrites complain about the mote of sawdust in the eyes of others, while ignoring the the planks in their own eyes.
2. What exactly would you call the newspaper front page presented here? Reason?
So, Greg if the AWB had stopped Nacny Lanza's acquistion and thus Adam Lanza's 1 Incident, a small reduction, that isn't worth it because it's an infringment?
And Both Sides are using Emotion it's just you and other gun lovers present your arguments as though they are logical syllogisms.
Gene, an "assault weapons" ban would not have prevented the incident in Newtown. First, Connecticut already had that kind of law, and she owned the rifle legally. But let's say that Frankenstein's much worse law had been in place. We've been told that pump action shotguns would still be legal. We've been told that deer rifles that good and worthy hunters use would still be legal. Handguns would still be legal. The shooter studied mass shootings of the past to determine the best way to get his name in the record books. Do you think that he would be incapable of choosing other means that would be equally effective?
Here's the logic of my side. We take as a basic principle that human beings are born with rights. Among those are freedoms of belief and expression, the freedom to associate with people of our choosing, the freedom to own property, and the freedom to defend ourselves against threats to our lives. Living in a society creates civil rights--the right to due process, the right to enjoy the economic status of marriage, and so forth. The right to own and carry firearms comes from both the basic right to defend ourselves and the civil right to enjoy the blessings of a technological society.
Your side is always going on about keeping people safe. What you can't show is how gun control would accomplish that goal. There is no correlation between the strictness of gun laws and the rate of murder. Murderers just find another way when they can't get a gun. There is no correlation between the strictness of gun laws and the rate of suicide. Desperate people just find another way.
Saving the children is a commendable desire, but if all you do is feel about that, you won't come up with any useful or acceptable solutions.
Grune_e_Gene, a stricter AWB (than the one Connecticut already had) would not have stopped the acquisition, it would have changed the shape of the grip so that it would be in compliance. Using pure reason, tell us how the grip saves lives.
Actually it did work and it would work again if not for the powerful special interests who represent not the majority but the fringe lunacy of which you guys are a good representation.
What would the cover be if a bill to infringe on freedom of the press had died? The emotion of this cover is strong, but as is the case with emotion, it tells us nothing about the policies that we should adopt. Emotion without reason has no grounding, no anchor. There is no reason to support an "assault weapons" ban. Weapons that meet Frankenstein's characteristics are rarely used in crimes, and the question of utility isn't relevant to rights, anyway.
ReplyDeleteBut do keep feeling, Mikeb. It's good for our side when you do.
You mourn the death of your AWB, but you refuse to explain why its categories are Constitutional.
ReplyDeleteThat reminded me, I gotta buy a lotto ticket this week. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Glock demands the sacrifice of Our Children to appease their Assembly Line. All Hail Gun Makers...
ReplyDeleteAnd Greg Camp what a load. Everyone claims their side is using only Pure Reason in the gun debate and the other side is using only stupid emotion.
The NRA and every Gun Right's Group and Gun Nuts by and large are all using appeals to emotion and fear (HITLER! NAZI! STALIN!!!) as the basis for their "arguments".
"All Hail Gun Makers" doesn't sound much different than "HITLER!NAZI!STALIN!!!"
DeleteOk, so using pure reason, explain why it is ok for semi-automatic pistols to have pistol grips, but not a semi-automatic rifle.
Gene, I give an analysis, often detailed, of each argument presented here. I offer detailed arguments for my side, but I only get insults and dismissals. I'd be happy to engage in reasoned debate, but I'm not going to do both sides.
DeleteTS, That's because you didn't read it aloud in the original German. And I agree laws should go way further in controlling guns
DeleteGreg,
Cast the mote out of thy own eye first. A Feb 1 2013 report from Annenberg spoke with Christopher S. Koper about his study of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban:
"But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period."
and
"The evidence is too limited for any firm projections, but it does suggest that long term restrictions on these guns and magazines could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings."
and
"a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”
Grung-e-gene, I put a German accent on both, and yes, “alas hail ze gun makers, ja” sounded just as much an appeal to emotion.
DeleteOk, so in your own words, what is "particularly dangerous" about grips, stocks, shrouding, and flash suppressors, to warrant their prohibition and subsequent imprisonment of those in non-compliance? Use pure reason.
Gene, you're an illustration of what drives me nuts about your side. You squawk and moan about how I don't use reason, then you present nonsense. Look at your own sources. They're telling you that a major infringement on gun ownership might bring about a small reduction in total gun violence. That's your idea of reason?
DeleteTwo other points:
1. If you're going to quote the Bible, get it right. Jesus said that hypocrites complain about the mote of sawdust in the eyes of others, while ignoring the the planks in their own eyes.
2. What exactly would you call the newspaper front page presented here? Reason?
So, Greg if the AWB had stopped Nacny Lanza's acquistion and thus Adam Lanza's 1 Incident, a small reduction, that isn't worth it because it's an infringment?
DeleteAnd Both Sides are using Emotion it's just you and other gun lovers present your arguments as though they are logical syllogisms.
Gene, an "assault weapons" ban would not have prevented the incident in Newtown. First, Connecticut already had that kind of law, and she owned the rifle legally. But let's say that Frankenstein's much worse law had been in place. We've been told that pump action shotguns would still be legal. We've been told that deer rifles that good and worthy hunters use would still be legal. Handguns would still be legal. The shooter studied mass shootings of the past to determine the best way to get his name in the record books. Do you think that he would be incapable of choosing other means that would be equally effective?
DeleteHere's the logic of my side. We take as a basic principle that human beings are born with rights. Among those are freedoms of belief and expression, the freedom to associate with people of our choosing, the freedom to own property, and the freedom to defend ourselves against threats to our lives. Living in a society creates civil rights--the right to due process, the right to enjoy the economic status of marriage, and so forth. The right to own and carry firearms comes from both the basic right to defend ourselves and the civil right to enjoy the blessings of a technological society.
Your side is always going on about keeping people safe. What you can't show is how gun control would accomplish that goal. There is no correlation between the strictness of gun laws and the rate of murder. Murderers just find another way when they can't get a gun. There is no correlation between the strictness of gun laws and the rate of suicide. Desperate people just find another way.
Saving the children is a commendable desire, but if all you do is feel about that, you won't come up with any useful or acceptable solutions.
Grune_e_Gene, a stricter AWB (than the one Connecticut already had) would not have stopped the acquisition, it would have changed the shape of the grip so that it would be in compliance. Using pure reason, tell us how the grip saves lives.
Delete>Liberal tactic is "FO' DA CHILRENS!"
ReplyDelete>It's not working
>Double down on it
>Shocked when it doesn't work
Actually it did work and it would work again if not for the powerful special interests who represent not the majority but the fringe lunacy of which you guys are a good representation.
DeleteOh, well, we'll take whatever failure you're willing to commit.
DeleteIt's clearly not working. Give it up
Delete