Guns: Facts top feelings

[Kennedy 0]

If I understand what he meant, then it was poorly stated but contained a valid point. I think his point was that a pro gun control person wants control over another person's the legal ability to purchase and possess firearms. A pro gun rights person desires no such control.

Remwa's simplified example failed only in that guy C didn't fit any of the demonized categories of citizen and the gun wasn't described as one of the demonized types of firearm.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>A pro gun rights person desires no such control.

Several pro-gun rights people here have admitted they have no problem seizing guns from people convicted of felonies or people who have been adjudicated to be insane. So your caveat doesn't work either; pro-gun people often DO want control over another person's legal ability to purchase and possess firearms.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Show me your proof, Bill.

Easy. A tenet of the Christian religion is that all mankind came from Adam and Eve, who existed together in a garden approximately 6000 years ago. DNA analysis allows us to determine our "mitochondrial Eve" - the most recent common ancestor of all women. She lived approximately 200,000 years ago in East Africa.

On the other side of the equation, you can date the first common Y chromosome to determine "Y chromosome Adam", the most recent common ancestor of men. He lived approximately 75,000 years ago.

So we've demonstrated that Adam and Eve did not exist at the same time, even if you stretch the story in Genesis way beyond reason. You could stretch it even further and claim that it's all a big metaphor, and that they didn't exist at the same time, and that it's just a story of God's love for us. (Which I have no problem with.)

That would be an example of science forcing a reinterpretation of the most primal story of Christianity. An example of scientific fact trumping religion, in other words.

It's trivially easy to kill this. Option A) God did it this way to test faith. And B) the Bible is a man made creation, initially passed down as much orally as written, and translated a few times. Hence, cannot be taken literally.

BTW, you're writing above than Man didn't exist for a full 125k years after Woman?! Only God could make such a thing possible.

Quote

>Prove that God doesn't exist.

?? I never said God didn't exist. I said that facts trump religion, and gave an example.

Your turn. Prove God exists. You have 24 hours to do it, or admit defeat.

Why would I do that? I'm an atheist. But you're trying to assert that science can produce facts against God (religion). It cannot.

But antigun talking points can be proved false with the greatest of ease, with real data.

[billvon 2,400]

>B) the Bible is a man made creation, initially passed down as much orally as written,
>and translated a few times. Hence, cannot be taken literally.

So science causes a book once taken literally to be "reinterpreted" as a faulty and error-ridden book. Once again, science wins.

>BTW, you're writing above than Man didn't exist for a full 125k years after
>Woman?! Only God could make such a thing possible.

Nope. Mitochondrial Eve (and Y chromosome Adam) had plenty of men and women around them when they lived.

>But you're trying to assert that science can produce facts against God (religion).

Ah, I see your confusion now.

You are confusing "God" and "religion." It is trivially easy to disprove the tenets of many parts of many religions via science. The creation story is an easy example. That is not even close to claiming "God doesn't exist."

>But antigun talking points can be proved false with the greatest of ease,
>with real data.

If you do not have a gun, you cannot shoot someone with it. Can't disprove that.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If you do not have a gun, you cannot shoot someone with it. Can't disprove that.

If you don't have a criminal, you don't have a crime. Can't disprove that.

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

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

If you do not have a gun, you cannot shoot someone with it. Can't disprove that.

If you don't have a criminal, you don't have a crime. Can't disprove that.

This is wrong on at least two accounts. Three if you count the second statement.

A person is innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent people aren't criminals.

Therefore, crimes can be committed without criminals.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you do not have a gun, you cannot shoot someone with it. Can't disprove that.

If you don't have a criminal, you don't have a crime. Can't disprove that.

This is wrong on at least two accounts. Three if you count the second statement.

A person is innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent people aren't criminals.

Therefore, crimes can be committed without criminals.

I'll clarify, then, for the deliberately and obsessively obtuse.

The simple presence of a gun isn't going to turn an otherwise law-abiding person into a one-man crime spree.

The simple absence of a gun (for his use) isn't going to deter a criminal from committing a crime. It *may* deter him from committing certain *specific* crimes.

The possibility of an armed victim *does* act as a deterrent for at least SOME criminals according to various studies.

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

[jgoose71 0]

Lets simplify this Bill

Feelings can top facts when you are dealing with yourself.

Facts should top feelings when you are dealing with others.

The pursuit of happiness is a god given right protected by the constitution. You can go and pursue your happiness, what ever it is. Do what you feel is right.

When dealing, or more importantly, writing rules that may effect others, facts are what are important.

If you are writing laws, facts are needed. If you are just going out for the day and want to do something to make yourself happy, take your self to church.

Dragging someone else to church against their will or writing gun laws based on how you "feel" are both wrong.

There is a reason we have freedom of religion and lady justice wears a blind fold.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you do not have a gun, you cannot shoot someone with it. Can't disprove that.

If you don't have a criminal, you don't have a crime. Can't disprove that.

This is wrong on at least two accounts. Three if you count the second statement.

A person is innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent people aren't criminals.

Therefore, crimes can be committed without criminals.

Not really true. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Presuming them innocent isn't the same as them being innocent.

There are lots of criminals (people who committed a crime) who have never been charged, or charged and acquitted. They certainly aren't innocent of those crimes, even though a court may have ruled that way.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>A pro gun rights person desires no such control.

Several pro-gun rights people here have admitted they have no problem seizing guns from people convicted of felonies or people who have been adjudicated to be insane. So your caveat doesn't work either; pro-gun people often DO want control over another person's legal ability to purchase and possess firearms.

My example wasn't flawed. It was simplified so the concept and intents are easier to discuss so anal retentive assholes don't sit and pick at the fine print but instead talk about an individual's philosophy and how it should be applied if they were really pure about it. The starting point is what matters - if you believe in choice, then your basis starts there, from that perspective you have a more just position to assess the 'exceptions' to the rule (crazy people, convicts, etc). You live for those exceptions, but you always miss the target on the philosophies. I think you do it on purpose.

You are consistent in that you always refuse to see the forest for the trees. Your logic is equivalent to an anti-abortionist saying "Seee? you can't be pro-abortion unless you want to force everybody to get an abortion at least once a year" So very 'clever', so very useless.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You are confusing "God" and "religion." It is trivially easy to disprove the tenets of many parts of many religions via science. The creation story is an easy example. That is not even close to claiming "God doesn't exist."

You're avoiding the premise for a defeatable target. Going back to Quade's poor attempt and comparing religion and gun control, it was about people's faith/feelings, not their 100% belief in every aspect.

I reject your differentiation. God = religion. And trying to 'disprove' the creation story really misses the point. You a) can't, b) again have the issue of it being a inaccurate accounting by man, and c) haven't disproved God by doing so.

Quote

>But antigun talking points can be proved false with the greatest of ease,
>with real data.

If you do not have a gun, you cannot shoot someone with it. Can't disprove that.

Another strawman by a guy who knows better.

A criminal can still KILL someone without a gun. The crime in this situation is not that he shot someone, it's that he hurt or killed someone. I've point this out before - it's moronic to worry about gun crime, as opposed to plain crime. The criminal substitutes another tool. A mugger is just as effective with a knife or 240lbs of muscular build.

And the notion that all guns disappear is another fantasy. You can't remove the ones that exist, you can't prevent them from being smuggled in along with the drugs, and you can't keep people from making them from scratch (in a world without any at all, zip guns are easy to make and powerful).

The majority of "gun deaths" in the US are in fact suicides, something the liars of gun control love to use emotionally, and of course without detail. But we know what happens in countries where they don't have easy access to guns. They still commit suicide, be it swords (Japan) or jumping off bridges (Canada). The gun isn't the cause, it's mental illness.

[quade 3]

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.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you do not have a gun, you cannot shoot someone with it. Can't disprove that.

If you don't have a criminal, you don't have a crime. Can't disprove that.

This is wrong on at least two accounts. Three if you count the second statement.

A person is innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent people aren't criminals.

Therefore, crimes can be committed without criminals.

thus proving that if you don't get caught, it isn't illegal
:)

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

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.

if we look at the OP, it goes the other way, religion and gun control both fall back on emotional choices more often than logic.

--
Rob

[quade 3]

Quote

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.

if we look at the OP, it goes the other way, religion and gun control both fall back on emotional choices more often than logic.

So, then . . . you'd prefer to align the pro-gun owners with atheists, even though the the NRA is more like a church than a chess club.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

if we look at the OP, it goes the other way, religion and gun control both fall back on emotional choices more often than logic.

So, then . . . you'd prefer to align the pro-gun owners with atheists, even though the the NRA is more like a church than a chess club.

I would certainly align the pro-gun owners with with logical people. And the anti-gunners with the over-emotional types.

Anything else inferred is of your own manufacture.

--
Rob

[quade 3]

Quote

I would certainly align the pro-gun owners with with logical people.

Why? Where's the logic in making them more available to criminals via the gun show loopholes? Where's the logic in the NRA being against closing it?

No. The pro-gun forces AREN'T logical; they're single minded.

If the NRA was logical, they'd fight harder to keep guns OUT of the hands of criminals.

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

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

I would certainly align the pro-gun owners with with logical people.

Why? Where's the logic in making them more available to criminals via the gun show loopholes? Where's the logic in the NRA being against closing it?

No. The pro-gun forces AREN'T logical; they're single minded.

If the NRA was logical, they'd fight harder to keep guns OUT of the hands of criminals.

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

again you're inferring things that I didn't imply.

--
Rob

[turtlespeed 212]

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.

I believe that that has been asked and answered very specifically and correctly.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I would certainly align the pro-gun owners with with logical people.

Why? Where's the logic in making them more available to criminals via the gun show loopholes? Where's the logic in the NRA being against closing it?

You could at least correctly refer to it as the privater seller 'loophole.' Has nothing to do with gun shows.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

I believe that that has been asked and answered very specifically and correctly.

you also could see his tacit acceptance that his side can't debate with actual facts.

[Kennedy 0]

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

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

>A pro gun rights person desires no such control.

Several pro-gun rights people here have admitted they have no problem seizing guns from people convicted of felonies or people who have been adjudicated to be insane. So your caveat doesn't work either; pro-gun people often DO want control over another person's legal ability to purchase and possess firearms.

I was referring to a person whose rights have not been limited or removed by due process related to felonies, mental illness, etc.

Gun control, by it's very nature, is about prior restraint, rather than due process in response to an actual event. Anti-gun rights people want fewer people, if any, to be allowed to buy/own/carry guns, and they want fewer types of guns, if any, to be approved for ownership. "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in." They want to ban or further restrict the rights and choices of free people without and evidence that doing so prevents or reduces crime, without logic as to how it would, and without explaining how the constitution would allow such things to exist.

Folks that respect gun rights and free choice oftheir fellow citizen want as fee restrictions as possible. Think about free speech, or voting rights, or any other right. Would you stand for anyone suggesting that they need massive further restriction? Or accept the idea that you can just read it out of existence with reinterpretation (that collectivist "the people means states in this one but people in the others" nonsense).

It's about a simple question: do you think the rights of free citizens should be as limited as possible because of what they might do, or should the rights of citizens be protected and broad as possible ao long as they don't infringe on the rights of others?

Someone once said there are no freedoms, there is freedom. It is singular and not divisible. To diminish any freedom is to diminish all freedom. To diminish freedom for one is to diminish freedom for all. I agree.

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

[quade 3]

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?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver