Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[rhandric]

Not at all. Defense in this case cannot be excluded from shooting to kill. You can symbolize it anyway you'd like, but the results are the same.

I could decorate my lawn with rifles and call them "peace lilies", but that doesn't mean it will stop someone from using them to blow someone's brains out.

You're right, shooting to kill is an option. But you know, by the time I've chosen to use that option in the name of defense, they've given up their right to life - or at least, decided that something else has greater importance than that. Essentially, if I were to shoot to kill in self defense, it's because I value my right to life over someone else's, that someone else having decided that something else supersedes their own.

[PhaelixWW]

It doesn't matter how you're trying to relate them, the fact of the matter is you end the relation when you feel it suits your needs. It's disingenuous at best. I'm not changing the terms of your comparison, I'm flat out telling you that the terms you dictated are self serving nonsense, but it's a necessity of your argument.

What you fail to grasp is that I'm not strictly comparing guns to cars. I'm using guns and cars to compare the concept of legal ownership vs. criminal culpability. The items in question (guns and cars) are only important insofar as they pertain to the main topic of comparison. But instead of trying to handwave away my comparison, why don't you address the gun to knife comparison instead? They're both "weapons whose sole purpose is to harm", by your logic, so the comparison should be valid, even in your eyes, no?

As to your ridiculous "comparison" of my statement about purpose with baseball bats(you should really stop trying to compare things), those things have other purposes and functions, While they can be used for other, practical purposes.

By practical purposes, I suppose you mean recreational purposes, which is the same thing for firearms. Which is exactly our point.

But since you're confusing, or purposely conflating, a person's purpose, intent, or function, with an object's purpose or function, again, it's not like I'm expecting much from you.

Subjective purpose is important. Objective purpose, if such a thing even really exists (and there's a platonic argument for another day), doesn't really have much import. If there's a folding chair next to a WWF ring whose sole intended purpose is for use upside a person's head, does that make it not a weapon since a chair's "objective" purpose is as a thing to sit on? Does it not matter than in this case, the chair is never used for said purpose, it can't and will never be a weapon simply because the first chair wasn't designed as one? That's pure sophistry.

Conversely, most firearms in this country (the vast, vast, vast majority) are never used to harm a person. Their purpose isn't to harm paper, either, so much as to allow people to test their marksmanship. Actions and intended actions are the heart of criminal law. If you are to posit that people are to held accountable for every non-action and non-intention they have with their property, then you'd have to remove almost everything as a possible future murder weapon.

And as for my last statement? Recreational purpose, which you claim as a valid purpose for a baseball bat, is all about intent. After all, a bat, at its most basic, is designed to swing against another object to hit it. The use of said object for recreation is an intentional choice.

You analysis of hypocrisy is poor. My belief that private ownership of firearms will come to an end in the distant future does not dictate that I care about the outcome. it's an observation of where I see society headed in the future.

Your analysis of my analysis is poor. I'm not saying that you care because of the nature of your belief. I'm saying that you obviously care because you're arguing the point. Quod erat demonstrandum.

That's what this is all about though, your disbelief that someone could actually be indifferent to certain things and your overwhelming desire to justify your penchant for arguing things to the nth degree. I consider myself neutral on the overall subject of gun control. I have not reconciled, nor spent the time required in order to render judgement on the subject. It's something I may do in the future if I find myself interested enough in the subject. As of now, I don't.

You came back into this thread, scoffed at a legitimate poll, then tried to convince people that anybody who agrees with the gun policy stated by the Constitution is placing human life second to ownership of an item. You claim to be indifferent, and yet you tried to devalue any poll that indicates that the overall trend in support for getting rid of guns is going downward, in direct contravention to your stated belief in the inevitability of a popular, universal, and most importantly opposite position.

And you've spent pages here trying to argue said point. Your claims to indifference seem rather hollow.

But I'm going to back off on the personal aspect and try to constrain myself to debate of the actual arguments instead of the people making them from here on out.

[Callace]

You're right, shooting to kill is an option. But you know, by the time I've chosen to use that option in the name of defense, they've given up their right to life - or at least, decided that something else has greater importance than that. Essentially, if I were to shoot to kill in self defense, it's because I value my right to life over someone else's, that someone else having decided that something else supersedes their own.

And I'm not disagreeing with that at all. My disagreement is that your choice changes what guns are designed to do.

[PhaelixWW]

How so? Pretty much every gunshot injury requires hospitalization. It's not something you just go to the doctor for. If anything, the number under represents reality.

It seems to me, if you wanted to accurately measure the rate of non-fatal gun shot injuries, you should sample a bunch of ER rooms around the country. Do you have a better method?

The NCVS does a survey of 40,000 people. It actually asks where the care was provided. ER is only one of the options. I'd say that's more comprehensive. The fact that the numbers are 8x higher on the DoJ report should be a simple indication that it's more comprehensive.

Edit: To be fair, the fact that the NCVS victimization rates exclude those under 12 will inflate the numbers very slightly, but since less than 10% of the population is in that age range, (and assuming that there are no victims in that age range), the shrunken population pool only accounts for an 11% increase in the numbers, not a 700% increase.

[Svifnymr]

How so? Pretty much every gunshot injury requires hospitalization. It's not something you just go to the doctor for. If anything, the number under represents reality.

Not automatically, a minor wound might be easily treated without going to an emergency room, but yeah that would say that the actual rate is more than the reported rate.

It seems to me, if you wanted to accurately measure the rate of non-fatal gun shot injuries, you should sample a bunch of ER rooms around the country. Do you have a better method?

The data is useful for determining the increase or decrease during the time period for the selected hospitals, so it IS limited. Their target is larger hospitals, and specifically the ER's thereof. I assume their numbers since 2000 should be relatively competent given computers were prevalent enough then, but I assume they're also tracking the same hospitals as then? Large hospitals in an urban area may have a lot more consistent injury/emergency room/ report procedure than the population as a whole, so it may not be actually representative of the overall country...


But, it doesn't really matter, I don't think any of us believe that data set proves much in and of itself? It's all academic.

- - - Updated - - -

And I'm not disagreeing with that at all. My disagreement is that your choice changes what guns are designed to do.

Firearms are designed to fire a projectile. Some may be fired thusly to harm a person/ animal (in offense or defense or whatever), some only ever will shoot paper. Many guns are purely decorative and while perfectly capable of being shot, are not intended to ever actually BE shot.

[Callace]

Firearms are designed to fire a projectile. Some may be fired thusly to harm a person/ animal (in offense or defense or whatever), some only ever will shoot paper. Many guns are purely decorative and while perfectly capable of being shot, are not intended to ever actually BE shot.

Sure, there are some differences here and there, but the potential capacity to kill is always there unless the weapon is converted so that it can no longer discharge.

[Svifnymr]

Sure, there are some differences here and there, but the potential capacity to kill is always there unless the weapon is converted so that it can no longer discharge.

You can use a lot of things to kill, that's intent rather than design. Everything has the "potential capacity to kill" in it's way.

[Callace]

You can use a lot of things to kill, that's intent rather than design. Everything has the "potential capacity to kill" in it's way.

People don't buy "a lot of things" for self defense. They buy a gun because it's the most effective.

[Tinykong]

Sure, there are some differences here and there, but the potential capacity to kill is always there unless the weapon is converted so that it can no longer discharge.

One can argue that certain weapons are designed for competition shooting, or collecting. One can buy a shotgun that costs $500k+ People aren't shooting these guns, they collect them. You can buy a competition .22 rifle that is very impractical to use for anything other than match shooting. The engineers/designers/gunsmiths who made these weapons did not design them with the intent of killing people.

Is there a difference between what a thing is designed to, and what a thing can do?

[NYC17]

Well, I'm not expecting anything more from him. We'll get one more "you're too stupid/unimportant/uninformed/strawman to bother, so I won't" post, and we can move on satisfied that indeed, vehicles are transportation.

Or, you'll get me posting what I find to be absolute hilarity in a discussion in which such critical thinkers can not think of one vehicle, or purpose of a vehicle that is for other than transport. See what happens when you predict things?

[Callace]

One can argue that certain weapons are designed for competition shooting, or collecting. One can buy a shotgun that costs $500k+ People aren't shooting these guns, they collect them. You can buy a competition .22 rifle that is very impractical to use for anything other than match shooting. The engineers/designers/gunsmiths who made these weapons did not design them with the intent of killing people.

Someone could buy an expensive showpiece, sure. But that isn't the norm.

Is there a difference between what a thing is designed to, and what a thing can do?

Of course, but the design can certainly help.

[NYC17]

What you fail to grasp is that I'm not strictly comparing guns to cars. I'm using guns and cars to compare the concept of legal ownership vs. criminal culpability. The items in question (guns and cars) are only important insofar as they pertain to the main topic of comparison. But instead of trying to handwave away my comparison, why don't you address the gun to knife comparison instead? They're both "weapons whose sole purpose is to harm", by your logic, so the comparison should be valid, even in your eyes, no?



By practical purposes, I suppose you mean recreational purposes, which is the same thing for firearms. Which is exactly our point.



Subjective purpose is important. Objective purpose, if such a thing even really exists (and there's a platonic argument for another day), doesn't really have much import. If there's a folding chair next to a WWF ring whose sold intended purpose is for use upside a person's head, does that make it not a weapon since a chair's "objective" purpose is as a thing to sit on? Does it not matter than in this case, the chair is never used for said purpose, it can't and will never be a weapon simply because the first chair wasn't designed as one? That's pure sophistry.

Conversely, most firearms in this country (the vast, vast, vast majority) are never used to harm a person. Their purpose isn't to harm paper, either, so much as to allow people to test their marksmanship. Actions and intended actions are the heart of criminal law. If you are to posit that people are to held accountable for every non-action and non-intention they have with their property, then you'd have to remove almost everything as a possible future murder weapon.

And as for my last statement? Recreational purpose, which you claim as a valid purpose for a baseball bat, is all about intent. After all, a bat, at its most basic, is designed to swing against another object to hit it. The use of said object for recreation is an intentional choice.



Your analysis of my analysis is poor. I'm not saying that you care because of the nature of your belief. I'm saying that you obviously care because you're arguing the point. Quod erat demonstrandum.



You came back into this thread, scoffed at a legitimate poll, then tried to convince people that anybody who agrees with the gun policy stated by the Constitution is placing human life second to ownership of an item. You claim to be indifferent, and yet you tried to devalue any poll that indicates that the overall trend in support for getting rid of guns is going downward, in direct contravention to your stated belief in the inevitability of a popular, universal, and most importantly opposite position.

And you've spent pages here trying to argue said point. Your claims to indifference seem rather hollow.

But I'm going to back off on the personal aspect and try to constrain myself to debate of the actual arguments instead of the people making them from here on out.

What your downward trend poll doesn't answer is WHY there is supposedly less support. The poll told you what you want to hear, and you trumpeted it as significant. It's cute.

[Tinykong]

Or, you'll get me posting what I find to be absolute hilarity in a discussion in which such critical thinkers can not think of one vehicle, or purpose of a vehicle that is for other than transport. See what happens when you predict things?

You could just , you know, post one other practical purpose. You arguing imaginary stuff is really tiresome.

[Kellhound]

Or, you'll get me posting what I find to be absolute hilarity in a discussion in which such critical thinkers can not think of one vehicle, or purpose of a vehicle that is for other than transport. See what happens when you predict things?

I have tried, and everything I have thought of, at its core, is the movement of an object from one area to another.

[TrumpIsPresident]

I don't spend all day reading these forums?

Careful, not reading every post can get you banned.

I'm not kidding either I was actually given an infraction once for not reading every post in a 20 some page topic.

For some reason its still not on the General Forum Rules or the Off-Topic Rules but trust me it exists, however selectively its enforced.

[Tinykong]

Careful, not reading every post can get you banned.

I'm not kidding either I was actually given an infraction once for not reading every post in a 20 some page topic.

For some reason its still not on the General Forum Rules or the Off-Topic Rules but trust me it exists, however selectively its enforced.

The selectivity on these forums has gotten really bad. People got infracted and banned a few days ago for being snarky, and now NYC is being even more snarky, and has never received a single infraction for any of it.

[Grizzly Willy]

Nope, just not interested in stating things that should be obvious and common knowledge. If people truly believe that vehicles only serve one purpose(transport) then what would be the point of providing them examples? They've already made up their minds. Changing a predetermined position is not something I'm interested in spending my time on.

Now you're just refusing to back up a claim. I don't know a use for a vehicle outside of transportation. I legitimately don't. This isn't a matter of me being obtuse and stubborn, I do not know what you are talking about.

[TZucchini]

And as I said, it is only as valid as the hospitals chosen, the scientific method can easily be manipulated by either party in a debate.

No. It's only as valid as the methodology used to obtain the information.

And please do tell. How does one manipulate the scientific method?

[Grizzly Willy]

No. It's only as valid as the methodology used to obtain the information.

And please do tell. How does one manipulate the scientific method?

By applying it improperly.

[Kellhound]

No. It's only as valid as the methodology used to obtain the information.

And please do tell. How does one manipulate the scientific method?

By cherry picking the data one uses. Garbage in = garbage out.