Guns: Facts top feelings

[Kennedy 0]

I used as much persuasion, evidence, and logic as you did. I you don't like my argument, then by extension you don't like your own. Feel free to improve your argument if you can.

Meanwhile, I have a pretty solid analogy for you: we'll trade un for od.
-Pro god folks want everyone to be free to go to their place of worship and practice any religion they want, or none at all, as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights.
-Anti god folks want to limit who is allowed to go to places of worship, who is allowed to preach, to register and regulate what religions are allowed, and what religious things you're allowed to say and do and carry in public, without due process or recourse to the courts.

Now really agnostics and atheists don't buy into religion, an some try to convince believers to give it up, but I don't know any who are trying to close all places of worship or ban people from attending their chosen service. You'd call that pretty extreme and unreasonable, wouldn't you? You might even say that was infringing on someone else's freedom, right?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If you can't see the parallels between anti-gun and religion, I can't help you.

"I'm rubber, you're glue" is the best you've got?

It's all you got.

Haven't seen you introduce any evidence to support the gun control lobby's demonization of CCW liberalization.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Oh, Lookie, Quade's finally back. Now he can tell us wtf religion had to do with the topic.

If you can't see the parallels between pro-gun and religion, I can't help you.

Then don't try to. It's just that simple!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Oh, Lookie, Quade's finally back. Now he can tell us wtf religion had to do with the topic.

If you can't see the parallels between pro-gun and religion, I can't help you.

Not nearly as strong as the AGW alarmists and religion

Not even close

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nigel99 143]

Quote

Quote

>There are no facts out there that top religion.

Other than paleontology, astronomy, evolution, abiogenesis and neuroscience.

Show me your proof, Bill.

Prove that God doesn't exist. You have 24 hours. Or admit the above is false.

Easy - God either doesn't exist or he hates amputees cause he's never healed a single one in the history of time.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[nigel99 143]

Quote

Quote

Are we supposed to vote how we think logic would dictate, or how we think it actually IS in the world? I voted the latter.

Good question. I was intending the vote to be based upon "what should be". But I can see already from the results that many people are voting based upon "what is".

Guns don't kill people....


People with guns kill people

Heard that recently and thought it was funny. I believe that the religion of the gun is unique to the USA. Pretty much everywhere else that I have lived and worked the general populace don't give a damn. Even here in the UK most people (not politicians) don't really care and it is not a topic of conversation. Rifle clubs exist and have members and game shooting is alive and well.

Honestly though guns are really fun - but the righteous indignation presented by the pro-gun lobby is very funny. They are as guilty as the other side of feelings over facts.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

They are as guilty as the other side of feelings over facts.

Hardly. Feel free to prove out your claim, though.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nigel99 143]

Quote

Quote

They are as guilty as the other side of feelings over facts.

Hardly. Feel free to prove out your claim, though.

There are 2 that stick out to me the most.

1) Guns make you safer. This is only true where the owner is properly trained and mentally prepared to use it. I have no doubt that guns make "some" people safer.

2) Accidental discharges. When I use that term I can be almost certain that there will be an outcry. The emotion behind the fact that some people make stupid mistakes is very amusing. It is a negligent discharge till it happens to you

There are instances where gun control/changes in law create a hysterical response in the USA, where the actual facts are distorted beyond belief. Take as an example UK gun law and see how many US citizens actually know the true situation - and yet it is often upheld as the very essence of anti-gun.

PS If I lived in the US I would definitely own a sport rifle probably a 30-06 as that is what I grew up with. I am not someone who believes in gun-control as I don't think it accomplishes what it sets out to in the first instance.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Honestly though guns are really fun - but the righteous indignation presented by the pro-gun lobby is very funny. They are as guilty as the other side of feelings over facts.

Really? So you have pro-gun folks using reports on children than list anyone under 21 and a child? So you have pro-gun news reports that flat out lie about what the law says? You have pro-gun news reports that show one gun and then the results of another to allegedly show the effects of the first? You have a pro-gun author who has been stripped of acacdemic awards for inaccuracies and lies in a published book?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Really? So you have pro-gun folks using reports on children than list anyone under 21 and a child?

That would be 24, actually.

[nigel99 143]

Quote

Quote

Honestly though guns are really fun - but the righteous indignation presented by the pro-gun lobby is very funny. They are as guilty as the other side of feelings over facts.

Really? So you have pro-gun folks using reports on children than list anyone under 21 and a child? So you have pro-gun news reports that flat out lie about what the law says? You have pro-gun news reports that show one gun and then the results of another to allegedly show the effects of the first? You have a pro-gun author who has been stripped of acacdemic awards for inaccuracies and lies in a published book?

Feelings over facts was the question. Lies were not discussed and honestly the vast majority of my input on US gun control comes from SC it is not very high on my interests agenda. Using lies to make claims is despicable and shows very little maturity or strength of argument.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Feelings over facts was the question. Lies were not discussed and honestly the vast majority of my input on US gun control comes from SC it is not very high on my interests agenda. Using lies to make claims is despicable and shows very little maturity or strength of argument.

OK, so one side lies. Often. The other does not. At least we can agree on that.

OK, so since Mike and I doubt your claim:

Quote

Honestly though guns are really fun - but the righteous indignation presented by the pro-gun lobby is very funny. They are as guilty as the other side of feelings over facts.

please feel free to explain why it is accurate.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

OK, so one side lies. Often. The other does not. At least we can agree on that.

I don't think he agreed to that, and even I can't.

The NRA, its support, and those in favor of protected 2nd rights, as well as full CCW access, are frequently guilty of exaggerated claims as well. But there is a tendency to misuse data, or see signal in what is really randomness. It's usually not at the Brady/Kellerman level where outright lies or fabricated data is used.

One difference is that these lies or exaggerations don't harm people. The gun control laws, used to pass legislation to deny people their rights, certainly do.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

2) Accidental discharges. When I use that term I can be almost certain that there will be an outcry. The emotion behind the fact that some people make stupid mistakes is very amusing. It is a negligent discharge till it happens to you

Nope... gun owners are like skydivers in that respect. They assume the risk. No gun owner wants a gun manufacturer sued because the gun owner screwed up, and no skydiver wants a dropzone or gear manufacturer sued because the skydiver didn't set their CYPRES/maintain their gear/pack it properly/pull on time/etc...

Therefore, we insist on proper terminology. Since it is well documented that modern, maintained guns do NOT fire unless something pulls the trigger, and when one observes proper safety procedures that doesn't happen unless it's intentional, there simply is no such thing as an accidental discharge. It's negligence. And if it happened to me, you bet I'd be saying the same thing, posting in the "incidents forum" on the firearms bulletin boards saying "hey, everyone, don't do what I did!" just like people do here when they screw up.

In skydiving, you can do everything right and still die, because our equipment is still subject to the occasional failure even in the best situations, and we've got other factors, like other people in the sky that we don't control. In firearms, that's not the case. Properly maintained modern guns fail extremely rarely, and there's only one hand on the weapon. And that's the difference between an accident and negligence. In negligence, there's a very clear indicator of who fucked up. In a negligent discharge, it's the guy holding the gun, or the guy who left it lying around for someone else to pick up.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I'm "anti-gun." But I'm also a libertarian

then you are not really a libertarian.

"Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action. Libertarianism includes diverse philosophies and organizations; all advocate either minimization or elimination of the state, and a goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom."

"The Libertarian Party supports legalization and elimination of government control over drugs, pornography, prostitution, gambling, homosexuality, opposes censorship, and supports right to keep and bear arms."

You may CALL yourself a Libertarian, but that does not mean you are one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Take Kallend. He's said many times that he does not want to ban ownership of guns - yet is regularly attacked as an anti-gun activist.

1. Because what he HAS said he wants to do has been shown not to work and tramples on citizens rights. YET, he got up in arms about his toy rockets being controlled.

2. Because his positions are the same as the Anti-gun positions but stops just short of a full ban.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

gun show loopholes

I bet you really do not know what is considered a "Gun show loophole"

Quote

The pro-gun forces AREN'T logical; they're single minded.

The anti gun forces are not logical... they think banning an item will somehow prevent a crime. And they are as single minded as you claim pro gunners are.

Pro gunners at least have some data to back their position... anti's.... Well, you didn't both to read the OP's link did you?

Quote

Instead, they have a blind faith in their interpretation of the Second Amendment and THAT is a religion.

No it is not. It is the ability to read and understand the written word. It is the ability to know history and put the quote in historical context. It is the ability to read the other quotes from the writers and signers of the BoR.

I have asked before, and you never bothered to answer... Can you show me ONE quote from a Founding Father that stated individuals should NOT have weapons?

[VincePetaccio 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm "anti-gun." But I'm also a libertarian

then you are not really a libertarian.

"Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action. Libertarianism includes diverse philosophies and organizations; all advocate either minimization or elimination of the state, and a goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom."

"The Libertarian Party supports legalization and elimination of government control over drugs, pornography, prostitution, gambling, homosexuality, opposes censorship, and supports right to keep and bear arms."

You may CALL yourself a Libertarian, but that does not mean you are one.

I generally hesitate to use the term "sorry, you're wrong," because I feel like a jerk, but...

Sorry, you're wrong.

I do believe that the government should have no part of gun control. I do support the right to bear arms.

Its guns and their use that I don't support. Note that I'm not saying that I oppose them. What others do with their rights (or, more in line with individual liberties, absence of restrictions of freedom) is up to them. For me, I don't plan on using guns; I truly believe that I can stay safe and secure without using them, and don't really see the enjoyment in killing other living things by hunting. If others feel differently, then there should be nothing stopping them from practicing safe, responsible, considerate gun use.

Supporting the right to bear arms is not the same as supporting the use of arms.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[Kennedy 0]

So you personally would not own or use guns, but you support other's rights to do ao and oppose government infringing on those rights - is that correct?

If so you would seem to be a libertarian who has chosen not to exercise a particular right. As a libertarian, I would respect your individual chose, as long as it remains a personal choice. Don't try to force it on anyone else and we are good.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[VincePetaccio 0]

Quote

So you personally would not own or use guns, but you support other's rights to do ao and oppose government infringing on those rights - is that correct?

If so you would seem to be a libertarian who has chosen not to exercise a particular right. As a libertarian, I would respect your individual chose, as long as it remains a personal choice. Don't try to force it on anyone else and we are good.

That's correct.

I don't recall forcing it on anybody else. So. I guess we are good.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I do believe that the government should have no part of gun control. I do support the right to bear arms

Sorry you said, "I am anti-gun". I took that at face value.

If you PERSONALLY do not like guns, but do not try to tread on MY rights... They you are correct and I am sorry.

[DaVinci 0]

Oh look... Still can't answer!!!!

"No it is not. It is the ability to read and understand the written word. It is the ability to know history and put the quote in historical context. It is the ability to read the other quotes from the writers and signers of the BoR.

I have asked before, and you never bothered to answer... Can you show me ONE quote from a Founding Father that stated individuals should NOT have weapons? "