Gun Fanaticism

[WinePusher]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[TSGracchus]

"Certainly we could, in principle, but we haven't. It isn't politically feasible.'

Clownboat: "Readers, let me remind you of his own words:
TSGracchus: "Once, a country without a king was a pipe-dream. Once a country where slavery was illegal was a pipe-dream. once a country with universal adult suffrage was a pipe-dream."

Do you agree or or will you refute that statement? It is unclear what you were trying to demonstrate. Perhaps you misplaced your argument? The editing program can be tricky.

TSGracchus: "And in principle we could vet those wishing to possess guns, but we do a very poor job of vetting even law enforcement officers, who shoot down unarmed persons every week, often by 'accidental discharge'. (Sometimes guns do kill people.)"

Clownboat: "Readers, Law enforcement also get into car accidents. It's the leading cause of police fatalities. Perhaps guns are to blame for car accidents too."

No, or at least very rarely.
But if police did not drive around in cars they would have no car accidents. Perhaps they could send out swarms of flying drones. Then also, perhaps the police wouldn't be so predisposed to shoot people because they became afraid. And likewise, if no one had guns there would be no shootings. I think you have made my point.
Banning guns would not prevent all violence to be sure, but neither will polio vaccination prevent measles or mumps. It is frequently the case that separate problems require separate solutions.

Clownboat: "You once again failed to address the questions posed to you."

TSGracchus: "I only failed to provide the answers you wanted to hear. "

Clownboat: "Demonstrably false. The available answers are more tyrannical, less tyrannical or stays the same."

Not all answers can be reduced to multiple choice, especially answers to questions that are not honest attempts to elicit information. Possibly in your education this was not impressed upon you. The whole truth is sometimes more than just yes or no.
I'm sorry you were confused. I'll try to keep this simple: I am aware of no correlation between levels of gun ownership and tyranny. If you have such information, please share it with us by answering your own question, and, to save time, supporting your answer with relevant citations.

Clownboat: "I do not plan to waste more of either of our time."

TSGracchus: "Of course! I am not surprised."

Clownboat: "I would imagine you saw it coming. Give enough non answers and what would you expect."

And yet you are still here. Perhaps it is time for you to proclaim victory and depart the field?

[Clownboat]

And yet you are still here.

It should have been obvious to you that my reply was addressing the readers.

Possibly in your education this was not impressed upon you.

I'm sorry you were confused.

I'll try to keep this simple

When the debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser. - Socrates

TSGracchus. I entered this discussion hoping to pick your brain because I have enjoyed many of your posts in the past. Your non answers and ridicule are a waste of time here for both of us. Therefore, I addressed the readers...

Be well.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to Clownboat]
I am disappointed but not surprised to find you feel offended.
It's simple: No guns, no shootings! That will not make a paradise, it does not mean utopia. But it is logically undeniable.
You can ignore me, dismiss me, turn away and make your argument to the crowd. You can obfuscate and split hairs. You can appeal to emotions.
You say you wanted to pick my brain, but it seems you wanted only verification of your own views.
I understand the myth of the gun-slinging hero. I grew up with it. And finally, more than fifty years ago, I out grew it. It seems you have not.
Just last week in my town a three year old was "accidentally" killed in a drive-by gang shooting. The shooter is very sorry that he didn't hit his intended target, who was wearing the wrong colors, inappropriate to the neighborhood.

This is not about you, or me. It is about harmful errors of fact.

No guns, no shootings. It is that simple.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat]

I am disappointed but not surprised to find you feel offended.

Now I'm offended?!?
Please cease and desist.

It's simple: No guns, no shootings!

This is the pipe dream that has not been addressed. The government and criminals will still have guns.
I reject pipe dreams for being unreasonable and untenable. Continue to proffer them as if they are a real solution though.

You can ignore me, dismiss me, turn away and make your argument to the crowd. You can obfuscate and split hairs. You can appeal to emotions.
You say you wanted to pick my brain, but it seems you wanted only verification of your own views.

You are addressing the user, not the topic.

I understand the myth of the gun-slinging hero. I grew up with it. And finally, more than fifty years ago, I out grew it. It seems you have not.

And there we have it, I have growing up to do.

Just last week in my town a three year old was "accidentally" killed in a drive-by gang shooting.

I hear this emotional argument and it is terrible. What I don't see is a solution to get criminals to give up their guns. Me, a law abiding citizen will get rid of my guns due to being law abiding, but the guys doing the drive bys, will still be able to do their drive bys.

I have a solution. Instead of getting rid of guns, let's just get rid of all killings.
Readers, do you find my pipe dream reasonable? My pipe dream trumps the pipe dream of getting rid of all guns it would seem.

No guns, no shootings. It is that simple.

Even simpler would be to have no murders. No murders = no purposeful killing of others.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 62 by Clownboat]

I've already proven that TSGracchus ban on guns is not necessary to greatly reduce gun crime (as low as 1%). TSGracchus simply refuses to acknowledge stats that factors in the population that is committing the vast majority of gun crime, that is, the criminals.

You have to question why someone would reject a scenario that keeps self-defense in place while also reducing gun crime just to accept an idea that involves that banning guns which takes away effective self-defense (while NOT reducing violent crime done with knives and illegally acquired guns). Such line of thinking is not based on logic.

[AgnosticBoy]

No guns, no shootings. It is that simple.

No guns for criminals, no gun crime (well maybe it would be around 1% at most, according to the stats, and low gun crime amongst armed law enforcement/military). Oh, did I mention that my plan keeps self-defense in place?!

It's rather simple to see that you're just posting the typical liberal talking points. Try putting logic before liberalism.

Here are stats that actually documents gun crime committed by CRIMINALS vs. LAWFUL carriers:
Texas Department of Public Safety-https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/Repor ... rt2016.pdf
OR
https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/ >click on "Reports & Statistics">click on "conviction rates"> click on "2016 Conviction Rates Report (PDF)". The report compares crime by LTC (Licensed to carry or licensed gun carriers).
* The only category involving crime committed with a gun, that is, AGG ASSLT W/DEADLY WEAPON", shows only 0.3951% committed by Licensed carriers. In other words, less than 1% of gun crimes are committed by LAWFUL gun owners.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 64 by AgnosticBoy]

Please, tell me: Where do the "criminals" get their guns? Do they conjure them? Do they make them from scrap metal? They buy them or steal them from all those oh so careful, oh so legitimate, would-be-heroic gun owners and sellers.

Gun fanatics cling to their guns just as religious fanatics cling to their holy books and rituals, just as fanatical patriots cling to their flags and tribalism. Reason can't sway them. No matter how much harm is done, they will continue to rationalize that it is the other guys, the bad guys, who are doing it. The massacres are enabled by guns. Guns make murder easy. That is their purpose.

Guns are "needed" to defend against guns and the bullets fly and bystanders are killed.

I have a proposal: Let everyone who wants to own a gun be paired with another, and let them face each other's fire until one is dead. Then give the survivor his gun and brand him on the forehead so every one knows a killer on sight. Until that is done these gun fanatics are just wannabe killers. Let them earn their guns by showing they are willing to use them.

I am tired of these would be heroes.

[AgnosticBoy]

Please, tell me: Where do the "criminals" get their guns? Do they conjure them? Do they make them from scrap metal? They buy them or steal them from all those oh so careful, oh so legitimate, would-be-heroic gun owners and sellers.

This can be resolved by keeping a database of guns sold and to whom they're sold to. Currently, this is illegal, but given the problem of 'straw purchases' I think it is very necessary. People would think twice before selling guns to criminals or buying it for them.

Gun fanatics cling to their guns just as religious fanatics cling to their holy books and rituals, just as fanatical patriots cling to their flags and tribalism. Reason can't sway them. No matter how much harm is done, they will continue to rationalize that it is the other guys, the bad guys, who are doing it. The massacres are enabled by guns. Guns make murder easy. That is their purpose.

The only purpose for guns is 'murder'? That's clearly false because there are many many many cases where guns are used for SELF-DEFENSE which is far different than 'murder'.

I'm "rationalizing" that it is the bad guys committing the majority of the gun crime? Can you substantiate your claim here in light of the government based stats I posted in my last post which show that CRIMINALS commit the majority of gun crime?

Also, how much gun crime is committed by armed law enforcement (including FBI agents)? If guns are so horrible, why is gun crime low among this population? My view is that if civilians had the same background checks, training, and education (at least on gun laws), as an FBI agent goes though, then that would greatly reduce gun crime amongst even the good guys. And by that I mean drop it below the ONE percent that it is currently at.

[AgnosticBoy]

On a lighter note, here's what happens when you take away guns (watch the first minute and 10 seconds):

[Youtube][/youtube]

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 64 by AgnosticBoy]

Please, tell me: Where do the "criminals" get their guns? Do they conjure them? Do they make them from scrap metal? They buy them or steal them from all those oh so careful, oh so legitimate, would-be-heroic gun owners and sellers.

Gun fanatics cling to their guns just as religious fanatics cling to their holy books and rituals, just as fanatical patriots cling to their flags and tribalism. Reason can't sway them. No matter how much harm is done, they will continue to rationalize that it is the other guys, the bad guys, who are doing it. The massacres are enabled by guns. Guns make murder easy. That is their purpose.

Guns are "needed" to defend against guns and the bullets fly and bystanders are killed.

I have a proposal: Let everyone who wants to own a gun be paired with another, and let them face each other's fire until one is dead. Then give the survivor his gun and brand him on the forehead so every one knows a killer on sight. Until that is done these gun fanatics are just wannabe killers. Let them earn their guns by showing they are willing to use them.

I am tired of these would be heroes.

Readers, do you notice any part of this response that is not laced in emotion? If so, please point it out if you feel it deserves a response.

He seems immune to the knowledge that most law abiding citizen would get rid of their guns if a law was passed by virtue of them being law abiding. Rather than acknowledge this, he would prefer to pretend law abiding citizens are fanatics and wannabe killers (that's right, 'wannabe killers') and will cling to their guns that they just got rid of. Where is the logic in clinging to something you no longer have? Then more emotion about how reason cannot sway these fanatical wannabe killers.

Yes, that's right, these fanatic wannabe killers like myself that no longer have guns because we are law abiding are going to cling to them like a religious fanatic clings to religion. What is going on? What part of we don't have guns to cling on to is not making sense?



Criminals now on the other hand... I would suspect they would not be so quick to part with their guns by virtue of them being criminals. I'm desperately trying to understand the logic of arguing for something that would make government and criminals the only ones to have guns.