Fact - Guns Have One Purpose - To Destroy What Is In Front Of The Barrel

[cantbeserious]

Fact - Given the history of gun use and gun culture in America, it is impossible to guarantee that any particular gun will never be directed at and used on someone or something that should not be destroyed.

Fact - Given that the previous guarantee cannot be made, there is only one approach that will guarantee that no gun will ever be used to destroy someone or something that should not be destroyed.

That approach is the systematic elimination of all guns in America.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Fact - It will never happen.

.

So, better to find ways to lessen their misuse and abuse.

Fact.

[cantbeserious]

4. Fact - Societies Change - DUI Laws, Gay Rights, Civil Rights - Gun Access Can Change as Well

eom

[KittyWampus]

70. you realize many people survive by hunting, right?

[cantbeserious]

81. You Do Realize That A Gun Is Not The Only Method For Killing Wild Game?

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Now we are down to the level of comedy

[cantbeserious]

85. Fact - You Are A good Comedian by Implying That Only Guns Can Be Used To Hunt Wild Game

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. do look the fallacy reductio ad absurdum

[cantbeserious]

92. The Fact Remains That A Gun Is Not The Only Method For Hunting Wild Game

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. thw fact is that this is the logic fallacy you engage in

[cantbeserious]

97. Is One Denying That Other Methods Are Used To Hunt Wild Game?

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. your op is pure reductio ad absurdum

[cantbeserious]

129. To The Contrary - Anything Created By Man Can Be UnCreated By Man - Guns In Society Are Not A Given

eom

[Common Sense Party]

252. I hunt elk with a can of beans.

When I cannot find a bicycle tire, that is.

[Fla_Democrat]

139. Take a lot of deer with your hoopak, do you?

[cantbeserious]

147. Your Reference Is Too Obscure - Was This An attempt At Humor Or Sarcasm - If So, Both Failed

eom

[Fla_Democrat]

167. Oh, I don't know..

Maybe other people are not too lazy to google the term, and are laughing their ass off now.

[cantbeserious]

168. So This Was An Ad Hominen Attack Based On Ridicule - Surely You Can Do Better

eom

[Fla_Democrat]

173. Don't be silly

it wasn't an attack, it was a visualization of other methods to take wild animals. It has nothing to do with you, per se, just the notion that somehow, a different method of supplying meat for a hungry family would eclipse the firearm. If there were other methods, as efficient, as cost effective... firearms would be collecting dust in the attic.

Nothing, not a crossbow, not a compound bow, not a hoopak, not a sharp stick, will do the job of providing food for the table like a fire arm will.

If we're talking about feeding one's family, I'd take tried and true, over some idea that if we would all beat out guns into plowshares, we could still eat by other methods. Maybe get a group of villagers together, and chase a mastodon off a cliff onto sharp rocks.

[cantbeserious]

175. Yet You Admitted To Using Ridicule To Debase Me - What Else Can That Be Than Ad Hominen

eom

[tradecenter]

86. That's why his user name is appropriate

because I just can't.

[cantbeserious]

93. When One Cannot Defend A Position One Attacks The Messenger - Classic Debating Mistake

eom

[tradecenter]

104. I don't have to defend anything.

Your position is untenable and ridiculous at best.
You are arguing for something that is never going to happen, you support the death penalty for any gun crime, by your actions, you support the most likely loss of congress which would have devastating effect on the nation.
It's you my friend that can't defend your position.
But you do have that right, so, keep on.

[cantbeserious]

149. All Change Begins With A First Step - That Some Are Unwilling To Take That Step Speaks Volumes

eom

[obamanut2012]

99. i think you just nailed it

seriously

[cantbeserious]

102. Be Advised That Your Post Is Considered An Ad Hominen Attack Under The DU Community Rules

eom

[tradecenter]

110. Then alert on it.

You takes your chances with the jury.

[cantbeserious]

148. And You Have Just Admitted That The Attack Was Ad Hominen - Thanks For Outing Yourself

eom

[tradecenter]

247. You REALLY are making this way to easy.

Nowhere did I admit that it was an Ad Hominen attack, all I said was the if you think it was, then alert on it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[KittyWampus]

89. It's the most efficient.

[cantbeserious]

91. Efficiency Is Not The Argument At Hand - There Are Other Methods For Hunting Wild Game

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. including mitary grade

Bows and crosbows. The latter can be adapted with an automqtic mechanism

Long bows and composite bows are considered military weapons so i guess we're down to clubs

[cantbeserious]

96. The Original Post Only Considers Firearms - The Discussion Has Not Been Broadened

eom

[obamanut2012]

98. snaring a deer works so well

[cantbeserious]

108. Seems Our Literature Is Replete With Stories Of Many Trappers That Used A Snare For Wild Game

eom

[Indydem]

123. Literature = fiction

Just because someone wrote it down on paper and you read it and fixated on it doesn't make it effective or actually real.

[cantbeserious]

150. Umm - I Guess You Have Never Read Non-Fiction

eom

[tradecenter]

125. Snares were mainly used to trap rabbits, beavers, and small game.

Rifles were generally used to bring down larger game.

You really are making this too simple.

[tama]

204. People eat reindeers

with nothing more than knives. How do you think they do that?

[tradecenter]

246. Notice I said that rifles were "generally" used to bring down larger game.

And of course they would use knives, I use a knife to cut my meat.

[tama]

248. Yes, you said generally

but people have also known how to trap big game for long long time. By herds.

[tradecenter]

249. True.

But a rifle makes it much safer and more humane. The Indians used to hunt buffalo with bows and arrows, but a lot of them were trampled to death because they had to get up close and personal to do so.
As they came into possession of firearms, they started to use them to hunt the buffalo.

[tama]

250. But without rifle

Europeans could not have slaughtered the buffalo the way they did to starve indians so that they could not resist robbing their lands.

Nomads of northern Eurasia who have long history of living with reindeer have partially (for meat etc) and/or fully (for transport) domesticated them. And all they need is fence, rope for lasso and knife.

The original human way of hunting big game is btw running. They can run faster, but we can run longer without getting overheated and exhausted, as we can sweat the heat away and don't have fur.

[tradecenter]

251. You won't get any argument from me about what the Europeans did to the Native Americans.

What happened to them was nothing more than an atrocity and a crime against humanity.
But my point is that using a rifle to bring down larger animals for food is more humane and safer for humans.

[tama]

255. I'm not against hunting with rifles

and I understand your point. But there is another aspect, the psychological effect that more and complex technology has on people. It's psychological easier to kill with rifle than with knife, and easier to kill with video game like drone than rifle - the technological distance and the alienating psychological effect it has. If you kill with knife, you will directly see and smell the blood and it gets splattered on your clothes and body, which you need to wash. When you kill with a drone you can just fix your tie and take a sip of coffee and bite of pizza and don't need to have any sensual experience of the life you ended.

[tradecenter]

256. Plus 1000.

And thank you for the reasoned and civil replies, which seem to be in short supply here on DU when it comes to the subject of firearms.

[backwoodsbob]

127. excellent

you want to bring back bear traps where animals suffer horribly before bleeding out or dying from shock.

[cantbeserious]

151. No Advocacy Was Made - That Guns Are The Only Option For Those That Need To Feed Themselves

Was the only argument made.

[backwoodsbob]

162. the other options are snares and traps

both make the animal suffer horribly

[KittyWampus]

211. actually, crossbows are the alternative. But since I'm refuting the OP'er I didn't mention it.

Part of this conversation highlights that many people here on DU live in a bubble where food only comes from the grocery store.

[backwoodsbob]

214. I have a high end crossbow

if it comes to feeding my family...Give me the rifle

[KittyWampus]

228. Oops, after checking I just realized that crossbows are no longer legal in NY state.

Manner of Taking: Shotgun, using a single ball or slug, or a muzzleloading rifle, shooting a single projectile, having a minimum bore of 0.44 inches. Shotgun barrels may be rifled, and telescopic sights may be used. No muzzleloading pistols are permitted. As of December 31, 2012, crossbows are no longer legal in New York State. Crossbows MAY NOT be used during the special firearms season in January.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. Many? Please provide the data on per cent of population that survive

using hunting as their primary source of food.

[KittyWampus]

88. Why? Because you don't know anyone or live in a comfortable bubble?

Where all your food comes nicely wrapped in plastic at the grocery store?

[Warren Stupidity]

111. No because I doubt that "many" people in the us use hunting as their primary food source.

That was your claim and I think it is bullshit.

[KittyWampus]

178. Then you must live in either an urban or economic bubble.

[Warren Stupidity]

179. where is your data for your unsubstantiated assertion?

I call bullshit. All you have is insults.

Hunting makes gun manufacturers billions of dollars annually. In 2011 only 15% of the population hunted anything. Average daily cost of hunting: $37. Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/fhw11-nat.pdf

Bring your data to the table. I'll wait.

[KittyWampus]

212. Actually, you are the one making an unsubstantiated claim. That no Americans rely on hunting f/food.

There are subsistence hunters in Alaska as well as a good number there that rely on hunting.

And I know people personally who rely on hunting to get by in the winter.

Sorry, you are the one who needs to back up your claims.

[Warren Stupidity]

244. You made a claim that many people depend on hunting for survival.

You have refused to back up that claim. We are done.

[overthehillvet]

234. not really BS

At least half of the population of Alaska depends on wild meat for sustenance. They use rifles to secure this needed food.

Prob 10% of most of the midwest, north central and pacific northwest states populations also hunt and they do not through the meat away when the harvest it.

That is a significant number of people you have just discounted as being nonexistent.

[Warren Stupidity]

243. Link to your data source?

Also: I never claimed nobody depended on hunting for survival, I think the total numbers of such people are very small compared to the population of the United States, consequently a claim that "many people are subsistence hunters" is dubious and really needs to be substantiated.

Also: eating the food you hunt is not depending on that food for survival.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Fact, this is as fringe as more gunz for everyone

From the NRA.

[cantbeserious]

7. So - You Are Advocating The "Acceptable Losses" Philosophy?

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. No, I want regulations

But I'm also aware politics is the art of the possible.

Confiscation will lead to a shooting civil war.

[cantbeserious]

37. So - With Regulations - One Is Still Advocating For "Acceptable Losses"

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. You are going to have losses

From a slew of things, including guns. The goal is to reduce them to oh Swiss levels...want to aim high...Canadian levels.

Canada has more guns per person than we do...check their gun violence stats. Less than 100 dead a year ain't bad. Translated to the US...you are talking less than five hundred people...with a good number accidental from hunting accidents. In fact, most of them. And sorry, we need hunting...unless you are willing to reintroduce white tail predators. I am sure people want brown bears and wolves in the necessary density to control white tail. Sorry I forgot the Cougar and Puma.

The difference, Canada allows highly regulated gun ownership...there are cultural differences too, but that is reality.

It is also reality that ranchers, they still exist, need them in the ranch, as a tool...ironically most long guns in Canada are also present in the ranch.

You must live in a city. I do as well, but cover the back country.

[cantbeserious]

48. If Guns Are Not Part Of The Society Then The Losses Will Be Astronomically Low

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Good luck with that

Serious. Fringe, just as the NRA. Why the Brady campaign has never even suggested that.

And you addressed zero of the points I raised.

Not surprised frankly.

Don Quixote good luck tilling that windmill.

[cantbeserious]

58. All Points Raised Have Been Addressed - Maybe The Logic Is Too Unsettling For Some

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. What logic?

Look sunny, I have seen what these guns do to real people. I did not have to imagine what responders found. But the reality is that you try that, I hope you can live with 20-50 million dead, infrastructure destruction rivaling WW II and 100 million internally displaced people.

That is a civil war.

[cantbeserious]

146. Reread The Original Post More Carefully - The Logic Is Unassailable

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. Reductio ad absurdum

It's a fallacy in logical thought, look it up. That is exactly what you are engaging in.

[cantbeserious]

160. There Is No Logical Fallacy - Each Statement Proceeds Logically From The One Before

That one chooses to argue that it is a fallacy reflects an attempt to deflect the argument made.

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. Yes it is...and fantasy to boot

You want to ban guns, that is an impossible task.

It would also lead, I guarantee it, to a shooting civil war.

Can you live with millions of death, and millions of displaced people? This is why this is fringe.

It's not because the US is exceptional...it's just the reality on the ground. Period.

Politics is the art of the possible, not fringe views that have no way, outside of extreme violence, of being achieved.

Live your fantasy and logical fallacy and fringe views. And I say that as somebody who wants reforms...reforms that are possible and will cut this insanity in real ways.

You want to engage in the impossible, don't be too shocked if we have a good laugh...at your expense.

[cantbeserious]

165. More Misdirection - Maybe One Should Reread The OP - Society Has A Choice To Make

Society must choose either "Acceptable Losses" or decide that "Acceptable Losses" are no longer tolerable.

If the choice is no tolerance then the options are limited and clear as stated in the OP.

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. No misdirection

Truth.

[cantbeserious]

169. It Appears That One Is Unwilling To Face Their Personal Choice Which Has Become Clear In Context

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

170. Which s exactly what?

If you are going to engage in policy discussions in a serious manner, reductio ad absurdism policy positions and ad hominen attacks will get you nowhere.

I suspect you either are not serious, and trolling is what you are doing, or you lack understanding of politics, in the US in particular.

So what is it? You want to be serious, please inform yourself of why the let's ban all guns and take them off the streets...will lead to a real shooting civil war. Then you will understand why this is something unserious people suggest.

At this point this has to be a joke...because really, you can't be that daft.

[cantbeserious]

171. You Appear To Be Advocating For The "Acceptable Losses" Policy In That The Problem Is So

intractable that a policy of compromise is the only option.

I am merely stating facts and then using logic to make the point that options exist and that society, and members of society, has a hard choice to make.

Either accept the "Acceptable Losses" or demand better.

I am not here to debate the compromises that are used to justify and rationalize "Acceptable Losses".

[nadinbrzezinski]

172. I live in the real world

Where your fantasy will lead to the very real deaths of 20-50 million people and the displacement of 100 million. That is the real world.

I also live in the real world where policies come from compromise...so unless we get a real dictartoship that can mandate the end of gun ownership, see civil war...it ain't gonna happen.

Granted, assuming you win, then you can impose the no guns anywhere policy. How do you justify 20-50 million dead to achieve that goal? And yes, I can guarantee this would be the spark to get that war going. Estimates based on a hot civil war in the United States from various sources and having studied and worked around them.

Once again, read the Constitution. Take as long as you need to...and finally internalize the concept of compromise, which is at the heart of the system. If you don't like it, there are a few dictatorships around the world you might find more to your liking.

Damn, you are sounding like tea party fanatics right at the moment. Don't worry, they don't get compromise either.

If you want to be taken seriously, once again, reductio ad absordum policies ain't gonna work. Nor can you forget ideas. Oh and these days, with rapid prototyping (another reality) printing guns at home will be possible. How do you deal with that? Thought police?

[cantbeserious]

174. All That Reads As Rationalization To Justify "Acceptable Losses" - Sometimes The Truth Is Unsettling

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

176. What you call rationalization

Is the real world.

You are right, your handle fits you. You cannot be taken seriously, by one iota.

Nor do you understand how politics actually work in general, let alone the US.

Don't expect any more engagement from my part. A serious discussion cannot be had, and your views are fallacious and fringe.

Enjoy your life being a laughing stock.

Have a good day.

Sorry I tried to explain how politics actually works. Like a tea party, this s a waste of my time. And you are not unlike a tea party radical.

[cantbeserious]

177. Compromise Is Just A Fancy Word For Someone Wins And Someone Loses

When the compromise is not life threatening, the rationalization works tolerably well.

When the compromise means that a son or daughter will never return home due to death by firearm, the rationalization falls apart completely.

So much for the art of compromise.

[derby378]

67. You haven't addressed jack

If you ever teach a Logic course at the learning annex, remind me to look for another instructor.

[cantbeserious]

153. Each And Every Counter Argument Has Been Addressed As Deflecting Rhetoric From The OP

Seems many do want to address the root cause of the problem - guns in society.

[overthehillvet]

237. I'm a realist and I do try and look at the facts

Fact #1 even if the gun violence is not acceptable in this country to most Americans they will not see the elimination of guns as the answer. That is what you see but you are in a very tiny minority. They may implement other gun control but confiscation is not on the table or even on the horizon.

Fact#2 you have totally ignored the presence of the 2nd amendment of our constitution.

Fact #3 When you do acknowledge the 2nd amendment you must consider that it takes 38 states to agree on a change to or the elimination of the 2nd amendment.

Fact #4 When you take a single quick glance at the red and blue voting map of our nation you will see that this alteration of the 2nd amendment is never going to happen.

Fact #5 You will ignore all of this because the facts have no place in your reasoning.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Actually, its well past that position

[cantbeserious]

13. So - You To Are Advocating The "Acceptable Losses" Philosophy?

eom

[beevul]

229. People engage in the "acceptable losses" philosophy EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Cars.

Alcohol.

Two perfect examples.

Think about that next time you drive, particularly if you're headed to the liquor store.

[cantbeserious]

262. So - It Would Be Acceptable If We Nominate Your Loved Ones To Be The Next "Acceptable Loss"?

eom

[beevul]

266. I didn't realize anyone was nominating anyone specifically.

Unless you are for banning cars and alcohol, you too are engaging in the "acceptable losses" philosophy.

Now, we both know you aren't for banning those things. Essentially nobody is.

Therefore I can only conclude, that you'd say such a thing as a distraction from the fact that you too, engage in the "acceptable losses" philosophy, and only differ from others in what you support openly or overtly applying it to.

[cantbeserious]

267. If We Accept "Acceptable Losses" We Are Accepting A Probability - What Probability Will You Accept?

eom

[99Forever]

19. So, precisely...

... how much gun slaughter is it We the People are supposed to find acceptable, so the gun freaks can keep clutching their "precious"? How many of YOUR family members and friends are YOU willing to sacrifice at the alter of the Holy Weapons?

[cantbeserious]

21. Yes - That Is The Question That The "Acceptable Losses" Crowd Must Address

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. I want assault weapons to be designated under the 1934

Gun laws. Point to me the last mass murder committed with a machine gun in the United States?

Politics, get used to this, is the art of the possible. Confiscation is not in the cards in the United States. Not at this time.

You want a real hot civil war? Now after the war, assuming your side wins, that s the moment to remove all guns from circulation, (which you got 300 million right now) and write the second out f the constitution or write a new one.

Quite frankly I don't think the us will survive as a country, but that is another story.

What you can do is background checks, 100% universal, run at the Federal level, which they'll fight, and forbid a class of guns not by looks, but firing mechanism. Any grand fathering, goes into the reality of confiscation, must be covered under the 1934 laws. Oh and buy back programs at market prices.

Gun confiscation is a fringe fantasy. Just as the NRA no laws, more gunz please.

[99Forever]

44. And of course you didn't answer the question.

Why am I not surprised?

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Read post 37

And you live in fantasy. Serious.

[99Forever]

56. You still haven't answered the question. Post 37 wasn't even yours.

If you can't answer, at least have the integrity to say so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Since you can't find it

In the discussion thread: Fact - Guns Have One Purpose - To Destroy What Is In Front Of The Barrel [View all]
Response to cantbeserious (Reply #37)Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:05 AM
nadinbrzezinski (114,677 posts)
46. You are going to have losses

From a slew of things, including guns. The goal is to reduce them to oh Swiss levels...want to aim high...Canadian levels.

Canada has more guns per person than we do...check their gun violence stats. Less than 100 dead a year ain't bad. Translated to the US...you are talking less than five hundred people...with a good number accidental from hunting accidents. In fact, most of them. And sorry, we need hunting...unless you are willing to reintroduce white tail predators. I am sure people want brown bears and wolves in the necessary density to control white tail. Sorry I forgot the Cougar and Puma.

The difference, Canada allows highly regulated gun ownership...there are cultural differences too, but that is reality.

It is also reality that ranchers, they still exist, need them in the ranch, as a tool...ironically most long guns in Canada are also present in the ranch.

You must live in a city. I do as well, but cover the back country.



Occupy: Guide to the Perplexed http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/120904
Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread


And I hope you are able to answer, unlike your friend, how you plan to deal with White Tail populations.

[hack89]

33. That "human slaughter" has been steadily declining for decades

and is at historic lows. We have cut our murder rate in half.

There are two ways to continue this decline in gun deaths:

1. Focus the justice system on violent criminals and get them off the streets.

2. Mental health care as part of single payer health care to reduce the numbers of suicides.

These steps will reduce root causes.

[99Forever]

42. Tell that to the families of Sandy Hook.

How many of YOUR family and friends getting mowed down by a gunz psycho is acceptable to YOU?

Don't just dance around the question. spewing NRA bullshit talking points. Answer it or be ignored.

[hack89]

55. Facts are not NRA talking points

if you think that inciting moral manic while waving the bloody shirt will accomplish what you want, then knock yourself out. I think you will be disappointed.

You cannot pass the legislation you want without the support of gun owners. Plain and simple. So if you wish to do more than feel smug and self righteous then you need to stop the insults and engage in mature and rational discussion. Or you will find yourself fussing and fuming on the sidelines once again.

[99Forever]

60. Can't read either?

Buh bye.

[tama]

220. What about the gun slaughter

in other countries by US standing army, MIC and military etc. imperialism for resource grapping?

If you are really serious about disarming American - and global - society, shouldn't you start from the top of hierarchy, not from the bottom, like hunting weapons of native peoples?

[99Forever]

222. Not sure where "you start from"...

.. is something I really care to argue about. I'd prefer every gun on the planet be gone, but it isn't likely to happen. Nor is the murderous MIC likely to stop it's evil ways, and how we go about changing that, I'll gladly listen to any suggestions you might have.

[tama]

245. I'm pretty thin on suggestions. :)

I was "conscious objector" and refused to serve in the army, but I'm not against hunting.

[slackmaster]

3. Except, of course, for weapons in the hands of government employees

Who will have to be greatly expanded in number due to the added responsibility of making sure that everyone stays disarmed in addition to their existing duties in fighting malum in se crimes, which history of radical gun control in other countries demonstrates won't be reduced at all.

[cantbeserious]

9. No Guns Means No Guns

eom

[slackmaster]

12. No guns means un-inventing them and putting society back to conditions in the early 14th Century.

Not going to happen.

[cantbeserious]

14. Some Said That Woman Would Never Receive The Right To Vote - Nay Saying Is Predictable

eom

[slackmaster]

15. You have one thing right. The root purpose of a gun is to destroy something.

Sometimes things need to be destroyed.

[cantbeserious]

17. Reread The Original Post More Carefully

eom

[slackmaster]

18. You're asking for a guarantee that bad things won't happen, in a world where bad things happen

It is hyperbolic nonsense.

[cantbeserious]

20. No - Bad Things Happen - However, Those Bad Things Do Not Have To Be Caused By A Gun

eom

[hack89]

35. So how do you stop criminals from having guns?

plan to use the war on heroin and cocaine as your model?

[cantbeserious]

47. Any Firearm Use In The Act Of A Crime Will Be Met With An Automatic Judgment Of Death By The State

It only takes a few instances before society sends a clear message that the behavior is no longer to be tolerated.

[hack89]

57. The death penalty - what better way to show how we value human life. nt

[cantbeserious]

62. To Discourage Those That Would Choose To Use A Gun To Destroy Others - A Fair Question To Raise

In a separate discussion.

[NYC_SKP]

63. LOL!

How progressive!

[cantbeserious]

66. The Use Of THe Death Penalty To Deter Crime Is A Fair Question For Another Discussion

eom

[tradecenter]

69. Wow,

you are in the wrong place.

[Lurker Deluxe]

79. Well, better make that police force full military

Because now, if someone is going to rob a store with a gun and get caught they will fight to the death to not get caught.

Why do you think that cop killing is as low as it is, it's capital. Getting caught doing anything illegal is nothing compared to killing a cop. Kill a cop and if you live through it, depending on where you are you may get dead anyways.

You want to make the punishment for robbing a liquor store with a gun the same crime as killing a cop. So ... going to rob that liquor store, kill everyone you come into contact with. EVERYONE, penalty is the same.

LOL.

[RC]

116. Enforce a law like that and you guarantee more gun deaths.

The perpetrator would then have nothing to lose my mowing down everyone in sight.
Criminals do not think the same as normal, rational people would. They have a problem thinking things through to a logical conclusion. In other words, they think they are too smart to get caught. Killing all the witnesses, in their mind guarantees it.

[Puha Ekapi]

157. Hope you...

...have that Goose-Step down. That's the sort of society you seem to be envisioning.

[PrincetonTiger2009]

259. Why are you so cruel?..here is a case where just what you propose has happened

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022146767

Would you pass a death sentence on all the mentally unstable people..what good is your deterrence plan to someone who cant help themselves or was born and raised to have a criminal intelect like so many of our poor who have nothing and grow up in communities full of drugs and crime..How would you change that aspect for the millions trapped in social decay

Your mean and cruel to suggest we summarily execute people who are just products of fate..or is this just your form of "Acceptable losses"

I'm sorry but your talking about killing human beings..just like this poor young man..so sad you cannot see you have become "them"

[GreenStormCloud]

279. The State will have to use guns to enforce your law.

So you still haven't gotten rid of guns, you just confined them to those with whom you agree on ideology.

[beevul]

232. Your proposal is the equivalent of uninventing women.

Whether you see that or not.

[samsingh]

5. kick

[geckosfeet]

6. Fact - your post is hyperbole

[cantbeserious]

10. Fact - Unassailable Logic Is Often Not Palatable

eom

[geckosfeet]

22. Logic: "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference"

Your OP is unsupportable assertion

[cantbeserious]

23. No - Your Desire To Negate Logic Is The Unsupportable Assertion - The OP Logic Is Unassailable

eom

[geckosfeet]

71. Even countries with outright bans have firearm homcides

albeit much lower than what we experience in the US.

List of countries by firearm-related death rate

At best you are propagating a myth.

Some would call it a lie.

To call it logic is sick.

[cantbeserious]

100. The Logic Remains Unassailable - To Eliminate Destruction By Firearms - Eliminate The Firearms

eom

[geckosfeet]

126. Well - let us know when you get back to the real world.

[cantbeserious]

140. Firmly Living In The Real World Today

eom

[geckosfeet]

258. The real world is - the guns are here.

They are not magically going away.

It's been nice. Looking forward to future 'discussion'.

But this is over.

[Common Sense Party]

253. Sure, and to eliminate destruction caused by drunk driving, eliminate alcohol.

And cars, while you're at it.

You must be on board with that, seeing as how so many innocent people are killed by drunk drivers.

[Robb]

11. Bravo. This should be our starting position.

Politics is compromise; this discussion must be framed by two extremes -- not one extreme calling for guns in schools and a group of moderates calling for some gun safety legislation.

If you start in the middle, you wind up in the other camp's turf.

[AndyA]

16. Good point. n/t

[Robb]

27. Thank you.

I'm surprised it needed saying, as it seems too obvious for me to have thunk of it myself.

[sylvi]

230. Except that "calling for guns in schools"

Except that "calling for guns in schools" is nowhere near the extreme end of the pro-gun spectrum. That would be more along the lines unrestricted availability of automatic weapons (or even other man-portable versions of "arms&quot , permitless concealed carry, removal of age restrictions, no waiting periods, no NICS checks, abolition of the need for FFLs for dealers, etc., etc.

Since very few serious pro-gun people are calling for those items in a strategy of "framing by extremes", and are themselves calling for additional laws sch as the availability of NICS checks for private sellers, it would seem that the pro-gun side is much closer to the moderate center than than those whose starting position is "ban all guns", and in much greater peril of winding up in the other camp's turf than the ant-gunners are.

[Robb]

231. Life is full of peril. Too fucking bad.

[sylvi]

235. Unresponsive

Your assertion was that the pro-gun side was starting from the extreme while the anti-gun side was starting from a position of moderation, and as such the "ban guns" extreme was what was needed to counter it lest one "wander into the enemy camp". I simply pointed out that your definition of extreme was anything but, and actually quite the opposite.

Your snarky, "Life is full of peril. Too fucking bad", was not only irrelevant to the question, but also all too common from a group that constantly wails about the "unreasonableness" of the other side. Pity. One would think you wanted to be taken seriously.

[Robb]

236. Not by you; I'd prefer you underestimate me.

But I've said too much already.

[sylvi]

238. I don't think it's possible to underestimate you. nt

[Robb]

240. Zing!

[tradecenter]

25. Are you going to be on the confiscation team?

Fact - Guns will always be a part of the American culture.

Fact - You will never eliminate firearms in this country, never.
But it's your right to try, better get started.

[cantbeserious]

41. Fact - Nothing On This Earth Has To Be Part Of Any Culture Should The Society Decide It So

eom

[tradecenter]

43. Heres my answer to you.

Fact - for better or worse, guns are here to stay, society has already chosen.
Would you be willing to be part of a confiscation team?

Extreme positions like yours are doing nothing for the national debate, all you're doing is firing up the NRA types, they are getting a huge influx of new members and with it, more money to fight any gun control legislation.
Were you around for the ass kicking we took in 94? I was and it was ugly and it could very well happen again if we're not careful.
Maybe you think the loss of congress is worth it to pass extreme gun control measures, but it would also mean a loss of universal health care, a roll back of equal rights for all, repeal of those gun control measures you're so fond of, loss of union rights, all kinds of bad things.

Sure you want to go down that highway?

[cantbeserious]

50. Fact - Societies Can Choose Again

eom

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. Logically sound...

...but fails to make the case that this is an attainable (or even desirable) outcome.

[cantbeserious]

30. Logic Stands On Its Own - Making The Case Is Simple - Do We Want People To Die By Firearms?

If the answer is yes, then we, as a society, have chosen to condone tragedies like Newtown as part of society.

If the answer is no, then we, as a society, have chosen the path of systematically eliminating firearms from society.

[Lizzie Poppet]

36. Of course. But as I said, the logic in your initial post doesn't speak to attainability.

The logic in your initial post, while internally sound, in no way speaks to the attainability of the outcome it posits.

[cantbeserious]

39. Fact - Attainability Is Not An Impediment - We Changed DUI Laws, Smoking Laws, Marriage Laws Etc...

eom

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. I have to disagree.

We had laws against booze, too. We still have laws against pot. We can change the laws regarding gun ownership all we like, but past a certain point of restriction, they will be no more effective than the above examples. I can't make that point strongly enough: past a certain point of restriction, further regulation of firearms will not succeed. Absent aggressive enforcement, it will be ignored (by quite a substantial percentage of local law enforcement in addition to civilians). With aggressive enforcement, it will be forcibly resisted...and not just on an individual level, but without question by entire states.

[cantbeserious]

54. Fact - Booze And Pot Do Not Have As Their Fundamental Purpose To Destroy Something Or Someone

eom

[tradecenter]

61. Fact- booze and pot are not a right.

This is too easy.

[cantbeserious]

65. Fact - Any Amendment To The Constitution Can Be Repealed - It Is Part Of Our Constitution

eom

[tradecenter]

75. Then you should get right on it.

But bear in mind that it takes only 13 states to defeat any amendment and your fantasy of repealing the second amendment is is just that, a fantasy.
But you certainly have the right to petition the congress for a repeal.


Please, keep us updated on how well your petition is going.

[Lizzie Poppet]

122. Doesn't change the argument I was making in the least.

[dems_rightnow]

53. Is it also "fact"

....that the passage of these laws means we no longer have DUI's or smoking in "illegal places"?

Just checking.

[cantbeserious]

73. Fact - That Society Chooses To Condone Unacceptable Behavior Is Clear - Gun Violence This Discussion

Circular analogies do not undermine the OP logic.

The question is what does society choose to condone?

If the society chooses to condone the continued destruction of people through the use of firearms, then that is a choice.

If the society chooses not to condone the continued destruction of people through the use of firearms then that is also a choice.

[dems_rightnow]

76. Great answer to the question...

... except for the part where it completely ignored it.

[cantbeserious]

78. Nothing Was Ignored - The Choice Is Clear - "Acceptable Losses" From Guns Or A Zero Tolerance Policy

eom

[NYC_SKP]

106. I Totally and Unequivocably Choose "Acceptable Losses" Over a Zero Tolerance Policy.

I don't want to live in a Zero Tolerance Death Penalty world.

Indeed.

That was easy. Now what have you got by way of argument?

[cantbeserious]

156. None - You Have Chosen To Relive The Terror Of Newtown On A Ongoing Basis - That Speaks Volumes

If you reflect society then what does that say about the society you live in?

[Loudly]

28. Gradually. Please emphasize gradually.

Talk of systematic confiscation of anything but unsold new product triggers too much paranoia in the deranged mind.

[oldhippie]

29. Fact - Your screen name is ...

... very appropriate. .

[cantbeserious]

32. Be Advised - That Is Considered An Ad Hominen Attack And Is Against The Rules Of DU

eom

[Lizzie Poppet]

38. Except, for better or worse, that rule has been effectively tossed.

Ad hominem attacks are regularly sustained by juries these days, and the admins aren't acting on them either. Yes, there's a considerably greater chance of an ad hominem directed against a pro-gun-rights poster being sustained, but generally they're allowed to stand regardless. Sad, really...

[cantbeserious]

40. Well - If The Ad Hominen Attacks Continue It Is Within The Community Rules To Alert

eom

[Lizzie Poppet]

51. And I encourage that...but without a lot of confidence in things changing.

I'd like to see those rules enforced. But the jury system's not going to do it (at least not fairly and with minimal bias). The jury system is a broken trainwreck in which far too many jurors base their vote on whether or not they agree with the alerted post (or like the poster) and not on whether it breaks the rules. The Admins don't have time to police the countless cases of use of ad hominem, either.

[oldhippie]

118. Now, really, how can you consider a compliment ...

... an Ad Hominen attack? That's a pretty good stretch.

[cpwm17]

34. THEIR guns are making US unsafe

Guns make the US a worse place to live. It's not unreasonable to ask that guns be eliminated. I can't imagine advocating for a selfish position that makes everybody else unsafe.

[hobbit709]

68. Fact is: you got a better chance of winning the lottery.

[cantbeserious]

74. Fact - Someone Always Wins The Lottery Eventually

eom

[hobbit709]

80. Fact: one of these days the sun will expand to a red giant.

Strict gun control laws didn't help in Norway-another fact.

Your dichotomy of wanting to eliminate guns and at the same time want the death penalty is also ridiculous.

[cantbeserious]

82. False Equivalencies - All Guns Can Be Eliminated Long Before The Sun Goes Nova - As For Norway

It should be axiomatically obvious that all guns were not systematically eliminated from society.

[hobbit709]

87. Your mind is made up with your own unrealistic facts.

I don't argue with closed minds and yours is nailed shut.
"Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig"

[cantbeserious]

137. Facts Are Facts - Logic Is Logic - Maybe Your Mind Is Closed

eom

[GreenStormCloud]

280. Our Sun won't go nova, it will expand to a red giant.

Get your science right.

[duhneece]

72. I agree that guns' whole purpose is destruction

But I don't support attempting to eliminate all guns in the US.

I support MANY approaches, including but not limited to, more research, more mental health resources, better licensing policies including having to update your gun license, just as we do for driving cars, with some mechanism for family, law enforcement, to 'veto' someone owning a gun at any time...and of course, laws to prevent those at gun shows to sell guns with no back ground checks...

[cantbeserious]

77. Then To Be Clear - One Is Condoning The "Acceptable Losses" Argument

eom

[duhneece]

218. Yes, similar to car deaths

And I look at the reduction of car deaths per car miles from early days to now & see many similarities to what I want, fewer gun deaths.
With cars, we realized that getting rid of all cars would stop car deaths entirely, but the resulting increase in walking deaths, death on horseback or mules, etc. justifies SOME car deaths.

But we reduced car deaths by better roads (more lanes, the slope on curves, when it rains, etc.), better laws, better licensing policies, better brake design, better steering design, seatbelts, etc.

I think we need better mental health research & treatment, gun licenses should be reviewed periodically just as drivers' licences, better gun laws, a whole slew of changes, all of which began with raising awareness of the need to change things...now to dialogue, discuss, try new policies in small bits...

[cantbeserious]

103. Reread The Original Post More Carefully - Pay Attention To What Was Not Said

eom

[FreeJoe]

105. Why stop there?

Fact: Given the history of evil thoughts, it is impossible to guarantee that any particular evil thought will never lead to action resulting in someone or something being destroyed.

Fact - Given that we cannot guarantee that evil thoughts will turn into evil actions, there is only one approach that will guarantee that no evil thought will ever be turned into an evil action.

That approach is the systematic elimination of all evil thoughts in America.

Of course, this is totally unrealistic, but you don't seem to be concerned with what is possible, so why stop with guns? Are you accepting the losses that occur when people attack people with fertilizer bombs? Knives? Their bare hands? Are those losses acceptable to you?

If you are going to live in the fantasy world where we can track down and eliminate all guns, provide internal protection without guns, and defend the nation without guns, why stop there? Why not ban evil altogether?

[cantbeserious]

114. Truly This Post Does Represent A Logical Absurdity Because It Begins With A Non-Tangible Proposition

Thought!

Guns are physical entities in place in the present world.

As tangible entities they can be removed from the world just as they were created in the world.

[FreeJoe]

117. Are you serious?

You believe in a wild fantasy like the possibility of eliminating hundreds of millions of guns and yet you can't get behind the idea that we can limit people's thoughts? Why are you so willing to accept losses to non-gun violence? Are you in the pay of the knife/bomb industrial complex?

Besides, eliminating guns is more than a tangible task. You need to eliminate the ability to create new ones. What is to stop me from building my own guns? The technology is readily available and becoming more available every day. You're going to have to not just wipe out guns, but eliminate knowledge of how to build them. Thought!

Seriously, I'm assuming that you are trolling, but I can't say that I understand your purpose. Even in my most naive and idealistic days did I believe something like totally eliminating guns and the ability to create them would be possible without the imposition of a police state so controlling that it would make our current world seem like a paradise.

[cantbeserious]

138. Facts Speak For Themselves - Logic Is Logic - The Fantasy Is That Nothing Can Be Done

eom

[obamanut2012]

107. Your user name is "cantbeserious"

I think posters need to realize that.

[cantbeserious]

113. My User Name Is Not The Topic At Hand - Is Attacking The Messenger The Best You Have To Offer?

eom

[oldhippie]

120. Oh, NO! No one would ever attack the messenger around here .....

.... but just call them right wing trolls and NRA shills is OK.

[cantbeserious]

133. If One Is A Right Wing Troll Or A NRA Shill Then That Is Not Necessarily An Ad Hominen Attack

Those personal characteristics are either facts or they are not.

However, attacking a user name is clearly an ad hominen attack.

[Common Sense Party]

260. What is one if, actually, an unserious, self-aggrandizing fool?

Those personal characteristics are either facts or they are not.

If they are an indisputable fact, and have been demonstrated as such through the course of a lengthy thread, then it would not be an "ad hominen" attack. (Consult a dictionary, please.)

[aikoaiko]

109. Ahhh. This type of rhetoric feeds right in to NRA's rhetoric about gun grabbers

Your rhetoric makes it so much easier for the NRA to show gun owners that gun violence activists' real desire is to get all the firearms.

If you didn't exist the NRA would have to invent you.

[FreeJoe]

119. Now It Makes Sense

I was wondering if someone could really be that totally naive. Of course not. It's another lame attempt by a RW to spin up a false flag to use later as a straw man. Portray the left as unrealistically naive fools pushing for the physical elimination of all guns rather than as reasonable people looking to improve safety with reasonable restrictions and regulations.

Thanks. I could smell troll, but I missed the point of it.

[cantbeserious]

134. No Troll - Have Voted Progressively My Entire Life - Logic Dictates That A Choice Be Made

eom

[Deep13]

115. I totally destroyed those stick-on paper targets.

Canada has not eliminated all guns. Neither has Australia. They have a tiny fraction of our gun violence. Some new restrictions are definitely in order. But focusing on the machines overlooks the larger nature of violence in this country. Why are we such a violent people? That is a complicated question, but there are real answers.

[cantbeserious]

143. Logic Dictates That We Do Not Conflate The Issues - Stick With One Challenge At A Time

eom

[Deep13]

155. Reality just isn't that linear.

Again, access to firearms, especially high-capacity semi-autos is a serious problem. Not denying that.

Still, this society normalizes violence. Most gun crimes are not mass shootings. They are one-off events: robberies, drug deals, domestic violence, murder for hire. And there are a lot of violent crimes that are not gun crimes.

Society teaches people that violence is a solution to problems. This includes an aggressive foreign policy, the death penalty, entertainment, our national narrative, acceptance of prisons and violence in them, callousness to poverty, and a construction of our national identity--especially among men--that violent attitudes are part of masculine identity.

[cantbeserious]

159. Reality Is As Linear As Society Chooses To Make It

Society Can Choose That Gun Death Is No Longer Acceptable.

[Recursion]

121. So - you are advocating the "Acceptable Losses" philosophy?

Any prohibition regime will involve enforcement, and that enforcement will from time to time turn violent. Those losses are acceptable to you?

Also, kudos for using "advocate" correctly; I get annoyed by "advocate for".

[cantbeserious]

132. No - Logic Dictates Otherwise - It Is Society That Deems Dead Children As "Acceptable Losses"

eom

[Rex]

124. Fact - what you purpose is impossible to inact.

But you knew that going into this OP.

[cantbeserious]

130. Fact - Defeatist Attitudes Will Doom Most Endeavors - You Knew That When You Posted

eom

[rrneck]

128. This thread is more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

[cantbeserious]

135. Glad That The Unnecessary Deaths Of Innocent Woman And Children Brings You Amusement

eom

[rrneck]

141. Glad you would leverage a tragedy to feed on your own sanctimony.

Not surprising though, talking heads, petty pundits, partisan fundamentalists, and assorted media hounds do it all the time. But they're a lot better at it than you are.

[cantbeserious]

144. Not Leaning On Tragedy - The Tragedy Is The Motivation And Root Of The OP Logic

eom

[rrneck]

181. The OP is self serving hyperbole. nt

[cantbeserious]

183. The OP States The Facts And Draws A Conclusion Based On Logic - Society Must Choose

If "Acceptable Losses" are truly acceptable.

If society chooses that more innocent people die by firearm then that is a choice with implications.

If society chooses that innocent deaths by firearm are no longer acceptable then that choice also has implications

[rrneck]

184. Do you know the difference between

acceptable and inevitable?

[cantbeserious]

191. Yes - Of Course

Acceptable

1. capable or worthy of being accepted

Inevitable

1. incapable of being avoided or evaded


Society must choose if the inevitable death of innocent children by firearms will continue to be acceptable.

Or society can choose to prevent inevitable firearm deaths by making all such deaths unacceptable.



Both definitions from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

[rrneck]

194. Then is

the bludgeoning of children with a baseball bat acceptable?

[cantbeserious]

195. Society Must Choose Which Methods Of Death Are Acceptable And Unacceptable

Death by firearm appears to be "more acceptable" than death by baseball bat.

[rrneck]

197. Is death by baseball bat acceptable? nt

[cantbeserious]

202. Asked And Answered

eom

[rrneck]

217. Asked and avoided.

Or am I to understand that death by bludgeoning is just fine with you?

I eagerly await your next declaration regarding what society needs.

[ZombieHorde]

131. That is kind of true.

We could also say a hammer's only purpose is to hit nails, but that would deny the purpose of hitting nails.

When we say the only purpose for guns is to destroy, we are ignoring the purpose of destroying. Outside of war, hunting and self defense are the most common reasons for the destruction.

That approach is the systematic elimination of all guns in America.

When you say "all guns," don't you mean "some guns," or do also wish to disarm the police and military?

[cantbeserious]

136. Reread The Original Post More Carefully - Pay Attention To What Was Not Said

eom

[ZombieHorde]

213. You absolutely get bonus points for not mentioning Hitler. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

142. Fact - Prohibitions fail. You'll never eliminate most of the 300,000,000 firearms. n/t

[cantbeserious]

145. Fact - Defeatist Thinking Will Doom Most Endeavors

eom

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

219. There's a difference between being realistic and unecessarily defeatist.

Realistically... I'd bet you get 70% of the firearms in an all-out UK style ban. Being overwhelmingly optimistic, You might get 80-85% of them. That would leave around 50 MILLION firearms left in america - and it won't be the law abiding citizens holding on to them. And that assuming you could effectively stop ALL black market illegal arms trade coming into the US.

Hell, even if you miraculously dissapeared 95% of guns from the streets, you'd still have 15 million guns in criminal hands. That's not being defeatist. That's just the real world facts and numbers.

Being a defeatist would require pointing out that the 7 high profile mass shooting in 2012 only required 7 guns... and then asking why waste all this time and effort limiting the public to 15,000,000 guns.

[cherokeeprogressive]

152. In response to your last paragraph...

I hope you're willing to completely seal the northern and southern borders in your attempt to eliminate all guns in America, because those people who cross illegally will make many thousands of dollars for each and every weapon they can smuggle in.

[cantbeserious]

154. False Misdirection - Eliminating Guns Would Mean Stiff Penalties For Those Breaking New Gun Laws

Up to and including a mandatory death penalty for violators.

If society chooses to send a message it can do so.

If society chooses to not send a strong message then society has chosen to endure "Acceptable Losses".

[cherokeeprogressive]

161. So you're a Death Penalty Advocate then? We have that already. Doesn't stop murderers.

[cantbeserious]

164. No Advocacy Was Made - It Is Axiomatic That Guns Will Exist Elsewhere - Those Choosing To Use Guns

Would necessarily be penalized.

[TheKentuckian]

180. Perhaps so, just like bow and arrows or spears or swords or blowguns

Beyond that the logic fizzles. There is no guarantee that any weapon or anything wielded as a weapon will not be used to destroy you...none whatsoever. An ink pen or a pencil could be used to destroy you.

Unacceptable risk is an argument with merit, no guarantees marches directly into the heart of fantasyland and no indication of the desired result since such things happen rarely even under the most rigorous prohibition meaning still no guarantees.

[cantbeserious]

182. So You Are In Support Of The "Acceptable Losses" Defense - Duly Noted

eom

[Thinkingabout]

185. If NRA was interested in protecting the right to bear arms they would promote less killing.

In recent weeks have they promoted safety? No, they have promoted more guns. Their answer to prevent mass killings have teachers pack guns. Did not prevent the many times when shooters from entering police departments nor many other places where mass murders have occurred but it did sell guns. I think the answer will be requirements of large liability policies and yearly license procedures. Want the big guns and ability of that weapon to fire many rounds without reloading then pay up. Perhaps tax the guns and ammo. It will cost to play. With any regulation I am sorry to say it does not reverse the damage to innocent people.

[cantbeserious]

190. Yes - Agree - The NRA Has Become Its Own Worst Enemy

eom

[MotherPetrie]

186. Works for me. Unfortunately it'll never happen, just like I won't wake up tomorrow a size 5.

But the constantly repeated (based on nothing) threat of it happening is certainly effective in whipping gun lovers into a positive frothing frenzy of outrage and ever increasing paranoia.

[cantbeserious]

189. All Change Begins With the First Step - Society Must Choose If "Acceptable Losses" Are To Be Tolerated

eom

[Throd]

187. Fact. I own a gun for that very purpose.

If you try to enter my house to commit harm you will be shot.

[cantbeserious]

188. The Self Defense Argument As One Of The Many Compromises Justifying "Acceptable Losses"

eom

[Throd]

192. Shooting an intruder is a completely acceptable loss from my perspective.

[cantbeserious]

193. Yes - Your Position Is Clear - The Price Of Gun Ownership Is "Acceptable Losses" In Society

eom

[Throd]

196. People have the right to defend themselves in their homes.

[cantbeserious]

200. Yes - But Maybe Not With Firearms If Society Chooses Otherwise

rom

[Throd]

208. I don't care what you or society thinks about defending my home with fireams.

[Common Sense Party]

254. How else are you suggesting people defend themselves in their homes?

The 72-year-old widow, facing down some homicidal punks who just broke into her home. what do you tell her? "Learn tae kwon do, Granny"??

[oldhippie]

209. Acceptable Losses is a concept and policy .....

... that is used and accepted in many circumstances. We have "acceptable losses" in the use of cars, swimming pools, electricity, gasoline, and many other products. Yes, there is some "acceptable loss" in the area of retaining rights, otherwise why were the losses of so many soldiers and patriots accepted. The whole premise of military strategy is about acceptable losses. You make it sound like there is no such thing as "acceptable loss" and your use of the phrase is tiring.

I tire of you. Goodbye.

[sylvi]

242. Thank you

Cost/benefit in all things hazardous was something I was just about to bring up in relation to the "acceptable losses" argument. You put it quite succinctly.

[flvegan]

198. This thread is hilarious.

The OP is comedic genius.

[cantbeserious]

199. Glad That The Unnecessary Deaths Of Innocent Woman And Children Brings You Amusement

eom

[dems_rightnow]

215. Thank you for inventing

...... that part about the other poster laughing at deaths of women and children. You know you've lost it completely when you start inventing things.

[flvegan]

216. First, it doesn't and only an idiot would suggest such a thing.

Secondly, I'd have to wonder why the concept of such a thing makes you "glad"

Your admission, not mine.

[zappaman]

201. Great thread!

Very entertaining and full of win!!!

[tama]

203. OK

You want to start the disarming from the standing army and military-industrial complex and robocops?

[cantbeserious]

205. There Was No Mention Of Disarming The Well Regulated Militia That Is Our Army, Navy And Air Force

With the civilian population disarmed, there would be no need for law enforcement to carry firearms.

The well regulated militia would serve its intended purpose: national defense.

[tama]

210. Get real

Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Your Army, Navy and Air Force is what Jefferson meant by "standing army", not "Well Regulated Militia".

Standing army that is fighting imperialistic wars on many fronts and murdering tons of people. Acceptable Loss?

I see you were not serious about disarmament, just very seriously supporting what Jefferson called Tyranny.

[rightsideout]

206. You can't be serious. LOL.

I hear ya! But as much as I'd like to see the elimination of guns, it ain't gonna happen. There are too many.

The best we can do, if you don't want to own a gun is learn to drop to the floor quickly in case something happens.

Every American should learn to do that in our gun toting society since the gun folks and the National Reload Association wants to arm everyone.

It's called adapting to the paranoia of our fellow militiamen.

[SQUEE]

207. Fact- Hysterical knee jerk reactions based on emotion

As opposed to reasoned and opened discussion exist merely to build the posters ego, and are at best self aggrandizing, and sad indications of an inability to exercise any form of non-linear thought, and the sign of insecurity as to the size of their cerebrums. Fortunately they are also amusing, carry on I was feeling sad today.

[jmg257]

221. Why would you feel this is a "knee jerk reaction"? Are the most recent

mass murders, and/or the ongoing levels of gun related deaths, some unique occurance?

Hardly not.


Very likely these type of emotions, based on experience, have been developing for quite a long time, in quite a few people.

WHy not use them as a basis to spur discussion?

[SQUEE]

223. Discussion, yes, by all means.

In fact as a owner of many firearms, I am extremely interested in safe and reasonable rules and regulation,but ad absurdum declarations are not discussion.

[jmg257]

224. Its only absurd because you don't agree with. He's right though...

if there were no guns, there would be no gun violence, accident, suicides, etc.

And we always taught never to point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy, so that notion isn't quite so absurd either.

[SQUEE]

225. and if there were no <fill in blank>...oh what a wonderful world this would be.

Fact there are millions of gun owners, and there is a 2nd amendment, which has as many interpretations as their are readers of it.

[jmg257]

226. So, what's your point? Does the number of existing guns change his fact with regards to the

benefit of eliminating them?

"there is only one approach that will guarantee that no gun will ever be used to destroy someone or something that should not be destroyed.

That approach is the systematic elimination of all guns in America."

Sure makes sense to me. Hard to argue with actually.

[SQUEE]

227. Again it is an absurd concept, not based in reality.

It is contra the Constitution and is a demand I find unreasonable and facile, not to mention childishly simplistic and absurd. Why would I even begin to have a meaningful conversation with a person that is using a dream as a starting point. I reject the notion that it is a beneficial idea. I will deal in political and social possibilities.

[jmg257]

233. Why? Because you agree that, although a strange concept, it is the thruth?

And although hard to fathom, helping to move towards that point, even a bit at a time and maybe not even completely, would be a worth-while cause?

Other then that, I can see it being a waste of your time. Especially if it not something you want.

Hmmm... "I have a dream..." I bet some pretty good notions through-out history started out as just a dream.

[sylvi]

239. Guns have no single intrinsic purpose

They have many uses and capabilities. Purpose is determined by the person wielding it.

[Remmah2]

241. ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[cantbeserious]

265. Glad To See You Enjoying Your Snooze When The Parents Of Sandy Hook Will Live A Life Of Tragedy

For the rest of their days.

[Remmah2]

269. Action not emotion solves problems.

Emotions are also a bad substitute for logic.

[cantbeserious]

270. Exactly - Sleeping Will Accomplish Nothing

eom

[LibertyMonger]

257. Drugs are illegal...

and are killing many more people than guns! Especially the pharma's! Lets make illegal drugs illegal! That will fix the problem! Besides, criminals do folloow laws and they will gladly turn their guns in! Lmao

[ecstatic]

261. I'm not willing to be under teabagger rule in order to have a gun free America

I'm all for a complete ban. However, unless there's a miraculous shift in American thinking, the party that bans guns will be in the woods forever. One suggestion is to let a pro-ban repub get elected and help him to ban all guns. He or she would probably be impeached by his/her fellow republicans, and then a democrat could take over.

[cantbeserious]

274. A Short Term Strategy - Merits Further Consideration

eom

[ileus]

263. Gong on you....they have three purposes.

Save the potential victims behind the trigger when properly used.

Harvesting game animals and taking varmints.

Dozens of different competitions.

[cantbeserious]

264. The One Pulling The Trigger Reverts To The Definition Above - Destroy What Is In Front Of The Barrel

eom

[cali]

268. yet another person confusing fact and opinion. ho hum.

[cantbeserious]

271. Facts Are Clear - To What Opinion Do You Refer?

eom

[LAGC]

272. Dream on.

Guns will never be purged from America, no matter how many authoritarian measures the government may resort to.

The toothpaste is already done out of the tube. There's no putting it back in now.

[cantbeserious]

273. No Dream - Societies Change - Guns Can Be Purged - All It Takes Is Courage And The First Step

eom

[LAGC]

275. You're the NRA's best spokesperson.

Carry on.

[cantbeserious]

276. Shame That You Are So Short Sighted

eom

[LAGC]

277. Keep making the NRA's case for them, that gun controllers really want to ban all guns.

We'll never see "reasonable" gun regulations so long as that meme is parroted about.

[cantbeserious]

278. Ah, One Misses The Point Entirely - Shame That Your Mind And Eyes Are So Myopic

eom

[GreenStormCloud]

281. On the day you eliminate guns from the world, the following will happen:

Someone will set up a shop to make guns for his private army and he will then rule the world. Because you have to guns to defend yourself, he will be your new overlord.

Those who beat their swords into plows always end up serving those who still have swords, or in this case, guns.

[cantbeserious]

282. What A Pessimistic World View You Espouse - That Humanity Cannot Grow And Change - You Have My Pity

eom