Comments on: Why Do Gun Control Arguments Boil Down to Silly Analogies http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/2008/05/why-do-gun-control-arguments-boil-down-to-silly-analogies/ you probably have a better idea Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:52:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Jim http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/2008/05/why-do-gun-control-arguments-boil-down-to-silly-analogies/#comment-2777 Jim Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:22:18 +0000 http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/?p=332#comment-2777 Since this page is for guns, control and related issues, your bear story has to involve a gun somehow. It's the rules. Since this page is for guns, control and related issues, your bear story has to involve a gun somehow.
It’s the rules.

]]> By: George http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/2008/05/why-do-gun-control-arguments-boil-down-to-silly-analogies/#comment-2776 George Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:05:21 +0000 http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/?p=332#comment-2776 Well I think we can stop beating up jon. Since.... "I don’t want someone to own an assault rifle, because I don’t think anything but tragedy will come of it, but I have to balance that against the wants of others. In other words, I know it isn’t fair to force my views on others." <---- He finally gets it !!! Don't worry so much about those so called "assault rifles." There are plenty of people who own them for a lifetime who are never visited by tragedy, accident, or violence. Now, who wants to hear my bear story? Well I think we can stop beating up jon. Since…. “I don’t want someone to own an assault rifle, because I don’t think anything but tragedy will come of it, but I have to balance that against the wants of others. In other words, I know it isn’t fair to force my views on others.” <—- He finally gets it !!! Don’t worry so much about those so called “assault rifles.” There are plenty of people who own them for a lifetime who are never visited by tragedy, accident, or violence. Now, who wants to hear my bear story?

]]> By: Jim http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/2008/05/why-do-gun-control-arguments-boil-down-to-silly-analogies/#comment-2775 Jim Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:47:04 +0000 http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/?p=332#comment-2775 The bear has a right to keep and...bear...your bazooka? The bear has a right to keep and…bear…your bazooka?

]]> By: George http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/2008/05/why-do-gun-control-arguments-boil-down-to-silly-analogies/#comment-2774 George Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:45:04 +0000 http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/?p=332#comment-2774 Just got back from hunting. Had my 1st bear encounter. It was cool as hell! Now, where's my dam bazooka? Just got back from hunting. Had my 1st bear encounter. It was cool as hell! Now, where’s my dam bazooka?

]]> By: Jim http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/2008/05/why-do-gun-control-arguments-boil-down-to-silly-analogies/#comment-2772 Jim Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:00:37 +0000 http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/?p=332#comment-2772 In order to write a gun control law that makes sense, emotion must be removed from consideration. Why? The law applied to all citizens equally, and it must convey the same message to everybody, regardless of education level, preconceived notions or any emotion about anything. If you must feel a certain way about guns in order to comprehend gun control, gun control is fundamentally flawed. In order to write a gun control law that makes sense, emotion must be removed from consideration. Why?
The law applied to all citizens equally, and it must convey the same message to everybody, regardless of education level, preconceived notions or any emotion about anything.
If you must feel a certain way about guns in order to comprehend gun control, gun control is fundamentally flawed.

]]> By: Jim http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/2008/05/why-do-gun-control-arguments-boil-down-to-silly-analogies/#comment-2771 Jim Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:55:07 +0000 http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/?p=332#comment-2771 But in order to convince the reasonable person, you must argue from reason. Define "assault weapon" in such a way that the problem gets solved, what you want banned gets banned, nobody's rights are trampled, and such a ban is the perfectly logical solution. After the '94 AWB, gun manufacturers removed the ban features IAW the requirement of the law, and released the "new" firearms for sale. The gun control camp accused the manufacturers of violating the spirit of the law. How's this possible? I mean physically and legally possible. How's it possible to follow the letter of the law and violate the spirit of the law? How's it possible to conform to the requirements of a law, and "circumvent" it at the same time? The entire concept of gun control is emotionally based, and cannot be logically encapsulated. Making a law requires logical thought in order to make it work. Gun control fails. But in order to convince the reasonable person, you must argue from reason.
Define “assault weapon” in such a way that the problem gets solved, what you want banned gets banned, nobody’s rights are trampled, and such a ban is the perfectly logical solution.
After the ‘94 AWB, gun manufacturers removed the ban features IAW the requirement of the law, and released the “new” firearms for sale.
The gun control camp accused the manufacturers of violating the spirit of the law.
How’s this possible? I mean physically and legally possible. How’s it possible to follow the letter of the law and violate the spirit of the law? How’s it possible to conform to the requirements of a law, and “circumvent” it at the same time?
The entire concept of gun control is emotionally based, and cannot be logically encapsulated. Making a law requires logical thought in order to make it work. Gun control fails.

]]> By: Jim http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/2008/05/why-do-gun-control-arguments-boil-down-to-silly-analogies/#comment-2770 Jim Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:47:35 +0000 http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/?p=332#comment-2770 Government can work long term only if it gains and keeps the consent of the governed. This means that any given law must be the logical solution to the problem, and full disclosure of the facts will support the need for the law. The law needs to have the support of the majority, or it will fail, simply because people will refuse to obey. They refuse because the law was argued from emotion, instead of facts. You get into this territory, because you let the term "assault weapon" lead your opinion to the predetermined conclusion: That the guns are so bad that they need to be banned. Government can work long term only if it gains and keeps the consent of the governed. This means that any given law must be the logical solution to the problem, and full disclosure of the facts will support the need for the law. The law needs to have the support of the majority, or it will fail, simply because people will refuse to obey. They refuse because the law was argued from emotion, instead of facts.
You get into this territory, because you let the term “assault weapon” lead your opinion to the predetermined conclusion: That the guns are so bad that they need to be banned.

]]> By: Jim http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/2008/05/why-do-gun-control-arguments-boil-down-to-silly-analogies/#comment-2769 Jim Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:38:22 +0000 http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/?p=332#comment-2769 The news stories are the most basic information to give the uninformed reader something of an idea what is taking place. They cannot be used as an authority. In the specific case, they fail to cite the law, and provide an excerpt. I don't know what you're studying in school, but most articles about gun control wouldn't be accepted in an English class. They're that pathetic. You also make a fundamental error about the government: lawlessness IS the default position. Men existed in freedom, then they agreed upon limitations on behavior. Because government cannot be everywhere at once, I believe it is wise to approach the situation asking "What's the minimum of government action which will correct the problem? Is there a better approach than government involvement?" The news stories are the most basic information to give the uninformed reader something of an idea what is taking place. They cannot be used as an authority. In the specific case, they fail to cite the law, and provide an excerpt. I don’t know what you’re studying in school, but most articles about gun control wouldn’t be accepted in an English class. They’re that pathetic.
You also make a fundamental error about the government: lawlessness IS the default position. Men existed in freedom, then they agreed upon limitations on behavior. Because government cannot be everywhere at once, I believe it is wise to approach the situation asking “What’s the minimum of government action which will correct the problem? Is there a better approach than government involvement?”

]]> By: jon http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/2008/05/why-do-gun-control-arguments-boil-down-to-silly-analogies/#comment-2768 jon Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:06:29 +0000 http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/?p=332#comment-2768 The sticking point is that I don't believe in absolute freedom. The logical conclusion of absolute freedom is lawlessness. The closest we ever got in the U.S. was the old wild west and that is dead, thank god. And if we are going to grant absolute freedom to one thing, then I think there are more important things in line first. George said, "I don’t care if a law abiding taxpaying citizen of the U.S. owns a God dam BAZOOKA!" That is an argument I can't buy into. Paying taxes and following laws up to the present moment does not make a person a saint— that is just what we are supposed to do, it's the bare minimum. There are two things to consider along with this— 1) law abiding, by legal standards, means not being convicted of a crime (which is very different from being an actual law abiding person); 2) A person can place nice today and be a monster tomorrow. At any rate, I think we can both agree a bazooka is not a gun. I would also argue that there is no legitimate use for it other than mass murder, but I suspect you might not be willing to follow me that far. Just like there are test for what counts as speech there are, and should be, tests for what weapons have only monstrous purposes. I guess I need to read up on federal gun laws before I say more. I keep hearing that ex-cons (etc) can't have guns, but then I read something about an ex-con doing something terrible with a gun he legally owned, or an 8 year old shooting himself with an uzi. Let me say this, if there are in fact laws that say ex-cons can't own guns, and that people who have been committed can't own guns, and that children can not shoot semi-automatic/automatic weapons I'd ease up considerably. However, the new stories I read seem to suggest that is not the case. I don't want someone to own an assault rifle, because I don't think anything but tragedy will come of it, but I have to balance that against the wants of others. In other words, I know it isn't fair to force my views on others. The sticking point is that I don’t believe in absolute freedom. The logical conclusion of absolute freedom is lawlessness. The closest we ever got in the U.S. was the old wild west and that is dead, thank god. And if we are going to grant absolute freedom to one thing, then I think there are more important things in line first.

George said, “I don’t care if a law abiding taxpaying citizen of the U.S. owns a God dam BAZOOKA!” That is an argument I can’t buy into. Paying taxes and following laws up to the present moment does not make a person a saint— that is just what we are supposed to do, it’s the bare minimum. There are two things to consider along with this— 1) law abiding, by legal standards, means not being convicted of a crime (which is very different from being an actual law abiding person); 2) A person can place nice today and be a monster tomorrow.

At any rate, I think we can both agree a bazooka is not a gun. I would also argue that there is no legitimate use for it other than mass murder, but I suspect you might not be willing to follow me that far. Just like there are test for what counts as speech there are, and should be, tests for what weapons have only monstrous purposes.

I guess I need to read up on federal gun laws before I say more. I keep hearing that ex-cons (etc) can’t have guns, but then I read something about an ex-con doing something terrible with a gun he legally owned, or an 8 year old shooting himself with an uzi. Let me say this, if there are in fact laws that say ex-cons can’t own guns, and that people who have been committed can’t own guns, and that children can not shoot semi-automatic/automatic weapons I’d ease up considerably. However, the new stories I read seem to suggest that is not the case.

I don’t want someone to own an assault rifle, because I don’t think anything but tragedy will come of it, but I have to balance that against the wants of others. In other words, I know it isn’t fair to force my views on others.

]]> By: Jim http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/2008/05/why-do-gun-control-arguments-boil-down-to-silly-analogies/#comment-2767 Jim Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:17:59 +0000 http://taisteal.atomiclemur.com/?p=332#comment-2767 I looked for bazooka ref. Failed to spot it. Oh well. Why do you keep rejecting philosophical profreedom arguments? Why do you keep coming up with stories involving what you believe are objectionable guns? You've received both factual and philosophical information. What's the sticking point? I looked for bazooka ref. Failed to spot it. Oh well.
Why do you keep rejecting philosophical profreedom arguments? Why do you keep coming up with stories involving what you believe are objectionable guns?
You’ve received both factual and philosophical information.
What’s the sticking point?

]]>