Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[The Riddler]

Curious thought that passed through my mind...

There's a lot of people who are engaged in a large amount of hand-wringing over the Boston Bombers. They are not so much concerned about the bombing victims, but they are VERY concerned about potential 'backlash' to the Muslim community. The reasoning being used is that "it is unfair to blame the larger Muslim community for the actions of one or two extremists."

I think most people agree with that sentiment. So - does the logic extend. Shouldn't we be concerned about "unfair backlash" on the GUN OWNER community for the actions of one or two extremists? Are not these gun laws and other limits and restrictions an unfair backlash on the innocent gun owner community based on the actions of an extremist?

So if it is a bad thing to unfairly blame the Muslim community and associated groups for the actions of extremists - howcome it's OK to unfairly blame gun owners and its associated groups (such as the NRA) for the "lone actions of extremists"? What's the logic there, exactly?

[Åmbulance]

Curious thought that passed through my mind...

There's a lot of people who are engaged in a large amount of hand-wringing over the Boston Bombers. They are not so much concerned about the bombing victims, but they are VERY concerned about potential 'backlash' to the Muslim community. The reasoning being used is that "it is unfair to blame the larger Muslim community for the actions of one or two extremists."

I think most people agree with that sentiment. So - does the logic extend. Shouldn't we be concerned about "unfair backlash" on the GUN OWNER community for the actions of one or two extremists? Are not these gun laws and other limits and restrictions an unfair backlash on the innocent gun owner community based on the actions of an extremist?

So if it is a bad thing to unfairly blame the Muslim community and associated groups for the actions of extremists - howcome it's OK to unfairly blame gun owners and its associated groups (such as the NRA) for the "lone actions of extremists"? What's the logic there, exactly?

Common sense is not allowed here. But yes, it's what people want you to believe, and do.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Law abiding gun owners have nothing to fear, not even backlash, in the form of universal background checks. There's a bunch of arm flailing about how universal background checks would infringe on the second amendment, and no explanations as to how.

But as you said, common sense is not allowed in this discussion.

[Åmbulance]

Law abiding gun owners have nothing to fear, not even backlash, in the form of universal background checks. There's a bunch of arm flailing about how universal background checks would infringe on the second amendment, and no explanations as to how.

But as you said, common sense is not allowed in this discussion.

Quite a few of us are still waiting for a source stating that armed Air Marshalls were on the 9/11 flights. You seem to keep ignoring these people.

[Svifnymr]

Law abiding gun owners have nothing to fear, not even backlash, in the form of universal background checks. There's a bunch of arm flailing about how universal background checks would infringe on the second amendment, and no explanations as to how.

But as you said, common sense is not allowed in this discussion.

It'd be nice if you would revise your rhetoric to say "with no explanations that I accept" rather than ignoring that people HAVE posted answers that you find acceptable to you.

---------- Post added 2013-04-22 at 02:48 PM ----------

Curious thought that passed through my mind...

You really missed an opportunity to start this post with "Riddle me this".

There's a lot of people who are engaged in a large amount of hand-wringing over the Boston Bombers. They are not so much concerned about the bombing victims, but they are VERY concerned about potential 'backlash' to the Muslim community. The reasoning being used is that "it is unfair to blame the larger Muslim community for the actions of one or two extremists."

I think most people agree with that sentiment. So - does the logic extend. Shouldn't we be concerned about "unfair backlash" on the GUN OWNER community for the actions of one or two extremists? Are not these gun laws and other limits and restrictions an unfair backlash on the innocent gun owner community based on the actions of an extremist?

So if it is a bad thing to unfairly blame the Muslim community and associated groups for the actions of extremists - howcome it's OK to unfairly blame gun owners and its associated groups (such as the NRA) for the "lone actions of extremists"? What's the logic there, exactly?

I'm sure some will disagree, but for the most part we should all accept that had this been two guys with guns shooting up the finish line, there'd be no end to the regulations they try to pass on guns. I really haven't seen any anti-islam backlash, and there shouldn't be any. My first thought after the explosions was a Die Hard plot with germans robbing a bank somewhere else in the city rather than a terrorist attack.

I've had to explain to quite a few people what/where Chechnya is lately, and I'm not very good at geography to begin with.

[The Riddler]

It'd be nice if you would revise your rhetoric to say "with no explanations that I accept" rather than ignoring that people HAVE posted answers that you find acceptable to you.

Remember - he said common sense is not allowed... As long as the lack of common sense gets me mah gun kontrol laws (which don't address any identified problem) anyway...

[Åmbulance]

Seems like a lot of " FACTS " Are being spewed around here as of late by TWO certain individuals, who never back up their " FACTS " with any real proof. They will give you a copy n pasted lines from some supposed super secret study, but never link the source.

Then go as far as claim the flights of 9/11 had Armed Air Marshalls, and they " refused to step in" ,and when asked for proof, disappear, only to re-appear a few pages later like they never said anything that outrageous. So really, why even debate with these two people?

[Svifnymr]

It should have said "ignoring that people HAVE posted answers that you find unacceptable" of course, but oh well.

[Åmbulance]

It should have said "ignoring that people HAVE posted answers that you find unacceptable" of course, but oh well.

That's how the game is played sir! if you ignore it, it doesn't exist!

[Cthulhu 2020]

Quite a few of us are still waiting for a source stating that armed Air Marshalls were on the 9/11 flights. You seem to keep ignoring these people.

I didn't even bother when it became apparent that nobody was willing to participate in a discussion and would rather just argue for the sake of argument when people started arguing that air marshals are recruited for their psychic ability and knew that the hijacked plane was going to be used as a kamikaze.

You know, when Wells provided a Department of Justice report when asked for a source on something, and it was hand waived away by an angry rant blog. I don't even bother when it becomes obvious people wouldn't accept facts put right in front of their face.

It'd be nice if you would revise your rhetoric to say "with no explanations that I accept" rather than ignoring that people HAVE posted answers that you find acceptable to you.

Slippery slopes and returning the arguments to why gun bans are bad doesn't count as reasons why we shouldn't have universal background checks. "Background checks wouldn't have stopped sandy hook" also isn't a good argument for why they shouldn't be implemented. We've already been over the point that you don't have to completely nullify gun violence for a measure to be effective.

[Åmbulance]

I didn't even bother when it became apparent that nobody was willing to participate in a discussion and would rather just argue for the sake of argument when people started arguing that air marshals are recruited for their psychic ability and knew that the hijacked plane was going to be used as a kamikaze.

So what you really ment is . " I didn't bother because i made such an outlandish and wildly incorrect statement, that i really didn't feel the need of saying ' i was wrong'. And in fact the flights of 9/11 did NOT have Armed Air Marshalls on board'."

[Cthulhu 2020]

So what you really ment is . " I didn't bother because i made such an outlandish and wildly incorrect statement, that i really didn't feel the need of saying ' i was wrong'. And in fact the flights of 9/11 did NOT have Armed Air Marshalls on board'."

No, I really meant I'd rather not bother with people who would dismiss my source even if I did procure it, because they'd rather stubbornly stand their ground in the face of overwhelming evidence and logic than have an evolving discussion.

[Åmbulance]

No, I really meant I'd rather not bother with people who would dismiss my source even if I did procure it, because they'd rather stubbornly stand their ground in the face of overwhelming evidence and logic than have an evolving discussion.

The thing s there IS NO SOURCE. You can't and will NEVER procure it. That's the thing, quit trying to stand behing your false premise by going. " well no one will believe me so why try"

[Cthulhu 2020]

The thing s there IS NO SOURCE. You can't and will NEVER procure it. That's the thing, quit trying to stand behing your false premise by going. " well no one will believe me so why try"

Wells was asked to source something many pages back, he procured a Department of Justice report. It was dismissed and countered with Fox News and an angry rant blog.

Is it starting to sink in why people tire of trying to have a discussion with people who don't let facts get in the way of their beliefs?

[Åmbulance]

Wells was asked to source something many pages back, he procured a Department of Justice report. It was dismissed and countered with Fox News and an angry rant blog.

Is it starting to sink in why people tire of trying to have a discussion with people who don't let facts get in the way of their beliefs?

No, he NEVER procured a DoJ report, he copy and pasted two lines from SOMETHING. Nowhere was there a link, so i am supposed to trust that his 2 lines that were copy and pasted were from the DoJ report? The ONLY thing he linked was from the Wash. Post.

[Eroginous]

Seriously? Did you seriously just say that?

I guess you're right, they only recruit air marshals with psychic abilities that could predict they were taking over the planes to fly them into the towers.

His point is that there WERE no Marshals on the 9/11 flights to begin with. If there had been, 9/11 wouldn't have been a day where we watched the twin towers crumble into dust after being hit by planes.

Fact of the matter is there were a total 33 employed US marshal's on the day of 9/11. Some of them were undoubtedly not on duty that day. Prior to 9/11, US marshal's were only put on SOME planes, typically those that were deemed high risk. It's not unfathomable to think that of the 4 hijacked planes, none of them had a marshal present. You know, considering there were 100s of flights around the country that day.

[Åmbulance]

Also I'd like to take a moment beyond just letting you know this is a complete nosequiter to also point out its hilariously wrong.

323 people were killed with Assault rifles in 2011.

86 people were convicted of voter fraud after a 5 year investigation.

Here is the famous link to the DoJ you referred to. Notice there is no link, just copy and pasted garbage. Then he even refers back to this as his source for the argument. Again, with no link.

Oh sad, he's now banned as well. Pity.

[Svifnymr]

I didn't even bother when it became apparent that nobody was willing to participate in a discussion and would rather just argue for the sake of argument when people started arguing that air marshals are recruited for their psychic ability and knew that the hijacked plane was going to be used as a kamikaze.

You could easily point out that if there had been a marshal, the events still would have gone down the same, but instead you chose to make the outlandish claim that there was a marshal there and still maintain that is true.

You know, when Wells provided a Department of Justice report when asked for a source on something, and it was hand waived away by an angry rant blog. I don't even bother when it becomes obvious people wouldn't accept facts put right in front of their face.

It's okay, I've provided NIJ documentation with survey links and it's been ignored too. Heck, even the stuff I've linked about the NRA's stance on stuff or source of funds has been completely ignored by some folks in their biases.

Slippery slopes and returning the arguments to why gun bans are bad doesn't count as reasons why we shouldn't have universal background checks. "Background checks wouldn't have stopped sandy hook" also isn't a good argument for why they shouldn't be implemented. We've already been over the point that you don't have to completely nullify gun violence for a measure to be effective.

So you agree that arguments have been presented and you've dismissed them out of hand because you don't like them?

Though we have an issue with one thing, they should be showing how a law WILL impact crime vs how it will impact rights of the law abiding, we shouldn't pass laws based on the ability to ignore the people refuting them.

We currently have Dealer Background Checks, Universal Background Checks were an idea, but that wasn't put up for a vote. Instead we had Gun Show Loophole law presented. We may as well call it the "Go Outside" law, because that's your "loophole" to get around the law... you walk out the door and do your deal.

Not that you'd have to anyway since there'd be no one enforcing the law.

Why didn't they propose a Gun Show Dealer law? If you want to rent table space at a gunshow and possess firearms at the table (for sale or otherwise) you must have a Federal Firearm License? (that way holster makers and airsoft dealers could still get tables)

[Cthulhu 2020]

His point is that there WERE no Marshals on the 9/11 flights to begin with. If there had been, 9/11 wouldn't have been a day where we watched the twin towers crumble into dust after being hit by planes.

Fact of the matter is there were a total 33 employed US marshal's on the day of 9/11. Some of them were undoubtedly not on duty that day. Prior to 9/11, US marshal's were only put on SOME planes, typically those that were deemed high risk. It's not unfathomable to think that of the 4 hijacked planes, none of them had a marshal present. You know, considering there were 100s of flights around the country that day.

I have to wonder, how do you get his point was "there were no air marshals" from "Why would an air marshal let everyone die rather than risk his life". Cause to me, that sounds like he's implying that people on the plane would have known what was about to happen when we know for a fact that nobody knew wtf was going on until the planes had already hit the WTC. Felya pointed it out, in a situation like that it's assumed it's a hostage situation and not a kamikaze.

I just went and tried to find the source for where I'd heard that (when the intellectual dissonance started, I got up and did something else, because I didn't even want to bother), and I couldn't, so I will concede that there were none. You see that? That's something the other side could learn to do a lot more of rather than argue a point into the ground with no supporting evidence.

Here's the original point of my response. The post before that was made that if more Americans were armed, we could prevent a lot of terrorist attacks. That's a false mentality, given that terrorist attacks are either suicide, hostage, or drop and run. Two out of three of those a gun would do jack shit against, and in the case of hostage situations, use of force ends up just getting a lot more people killed.

[Thephayul]

I have to wonder, how do you get his point was "there were no air marshals" from "Why would an air marshal let everyone die rather than risk his life". Cause to me, that sounds like he's implying that people on the plane would have known what was about to happen when we know for a fact that nobody knew wtf was going on until the planes had already hit the WTC. Felya pointed it out, in a situation like that it's assumed it's a hostage situation and not a kamikaze.

I just went and tried to find the source for where I'd heard that (when the intellectual dissonance started, I got up and did something else, because I didn't even want to bother), and I couldn't, so I will concede that there were none. You see that? That's something the other side could learn to do a lot more of rather than argue a point into the ground with no supporting evidence.

Here's the original point of my response. The post before that was made that if more Americans were armed, we could prevent a lot of terrorist attacks. That's a false mentality, given that terrorist attacks are either suicide, hostage, or drop and run. Two out of three of those a gun would do jack shit against, and in the case of hostage situations, use of force ends up just getting a lot more people killed.

You are forgetting the fact that knowing the victim is likely to be armed and able to defend themselves and others is a great deterence to that kinda stuff