| Author |
|
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14857
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 4:47pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
The second paragraph of your first post on the thread:
QUOTE:
| I believe that we should have tougher laws on who can and who can't have access to firearms, but I also don't think that every person who owns a firearm is some cowboy who believes that it's still the Old West. |
|
|
You make a broad generalization about one side of the debate, so you can position yourself as having the "moderate" rational position. Even people who advocate a total gun ban can hold that position without having an opinion on gun owners. It's ridiculous that you are taking offense on behalf of ALL gun owners when the comments about gun zealots and fetishists are directed at the GUN LOBBY.
Edited by Michael Roberts on 27 April 2014 at 4:48pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Rich Marzullo
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 January 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2731
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 5:25pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
"And before anyone suggests that when guns are removed from the equation completely there will be less crime - let us not forget that it's going to take awhile to accomplish that and during that time the criminals aren't going to be marching into police stations to turn their weapons over. The only thing that will have changed immediate future is the criminal breaking into a house now knows that the owner is much less likely to be armed."
So, we shouldn't even try to make society a safer place to live? Hell, why have any laws? I know I blatantly break speed limits on highways. Why go to the trouble of legislating and enforcing anything?
What should be a part of this discussion are the many industrialized, Western countries that have bans on guns. Look at the gun crime rate for Canada compared to the US. We are slaughtering each other here and holding our heads up high as we do it. Madness.
It used to be that slavery was intrinsically American and a God given right. It took time to dispel that ignorant and disgusting notion from our culture, but it was worth the fight. So, too, it should be with getting guns out of the hands of the general public.
By the way, here's some fun gun facts:
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35940
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 5:28pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
One of my biggest pet peeves on any message board...
Tony Smith wrote:
I'm going to bow out now.
Have fun with the rest of the debate and enjoy the rest of your weekend. |
|
|
If you don't mean it, don't say it. If you think that you just can't resist the urge to reply to someone who's replied to you, don't say it. I may not agree with your position, but I'll respect you more if you stand by what you've said and not hop back in the moment someone makes a direct reference to one of your posts.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35940
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 5:31pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Tony Smith wrote:
| people demanded that I defend the NRA. |
|
|
This is directed at me, so I'll say that I demanded nothing of you. It was an open question directed at everyone in the discussion. Trust me, if I want to address you directly, I'll use your name and/or quote you.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 5:58pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
"You make a broad generalization about one side of the debate, so you can position yourself as having the "moderate" rational position. Even people who advocate a total gun ban can hold that position without having an opinion on gun owners.
"Frankly, just like the religious, gun lovers have fallen into a deep, deep well of self-comforting self-serving ignorance, and I can't see any ladder to get them out. No matter how many statistics about gun deaths are quoted at them, how many mass killings they see on the news, they'll dismiss it all as "isolated incidents", unrepresentative of the apparently well-behaved gun-toting majority. Why do they ignore the plain simple truth? Because people like guns, they give a sense of power and control. They're glamorized in popular fiction. They're cool. That's the sad truth about human beings: logic is not a strong point, whereas self-deception is."
"Conservatives keep doing everything in their power to turn American into a wasteland of ignorance and violence. You gotta love the "pro life" crowd."
"We are dealing with people who would rather see little children murdered in droves than give up their guns. Empirically, they are no better than the people who pull the triggers."
"The government is at fault because it gives mentally unstable people access to guns? The government is at fault because it gives ANYBODY (aside from proper authorities) access to guns!"
"As has been argued many times before, if you want to defend your family, keep a baseball bat under the bed, buy a taser or some mace, and/or take self-defense lessons. These are all much easier to use in most common crime scenarios, and less likely to harm innocent people, especially on a large scale. Of course none of these methods gives the owner quite the sense of power and coolness that a gun does."
"It's ridiculous that you are taking offense on behalf of ALL gun owners when the comments about gun zealots and fetishists are directed at the GUN LOBBY."
What part of any of those comments - particularly Mr. Byrne's and Mr. Ghazi's - suggests that they were talking about only the NRA? Particularly when Mr. Byrne later in this thread states that since people can go to the grocery store and buy food, there is no need to have weapons for hunting.
Edited by Tony Smith on 27 April 2014 at 6:01pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 6:04pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
"If you don't mean it, don't say it. If you think that you just can't resist the urge to reply to someone who's replied to you, don't say it. I may not agree with your position, but I'll respect you more if you stand by what you've said and not hop back in the moment someone makes a direct reference to one of your posts."
Apologies.
Edited by Tony Smith on 27 April 2014 at 6:05pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15950
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 6:27pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Also it boggles my mind that you guys would seem to think that my concerns that people operate motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol somehow translates that I would be okay with people bringing privately own guns into bars.... Not exactly sure HOW you got to that point. Perhaps one of you could enlighten me?--------------------------------------------------------
People probably got to discussing people bringing privately-owned guns into bars from it being the topic of the thread.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 6:38pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
"So, we shouldn't even try to make society a safer place to live?"
One of my biggest pet peeves. :-)
What part of "I believe that we should have tougher laws on who can and who can't have access to firearms,..."
Suggests I don't think we should even try to make society a safer place?
"I know I blatantly break speed limits on highways."
Blatantly? So we're not just talking about 1-5 mph over the speed limit then? Is your need to get some place that much sooner worth the lives of someone else? If the answer is no, then what do you think that says about your conscious decision to blatantly break the law? Should I comment that "driving at the speed limit gives you none of the power and coolness that speeding does?"
Please understand that I actually don't think you possess a callous disregard for human life. However that characterization seems to be the intent of people who apply that logic to a gun owner in another part of this thread - and his intent was to protect his family, not get someplace sooner.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Randy Lahey
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 January 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 675
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 6:40pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Georgia's had their first gun homicide in a bar three days after the law took effect.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 6:45pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
"People probably got to discussing people bringing privately-owned guns into bars from it being the topic of the thread."
So if the intent was only to discuss bringing guns into a bar (which I agree is a ridiculously stupid idea), then please explain:
"The government is at fault because it gives mentally unstable people access to guns? The government is at fault because it gives ANYBODY (aside from proper authorities) access to guns!"
"As has been argued many times before, if you want to defend your family, keep a baseball bat under the bed, buy a taser or some mace, and/or take self-defense lessons. These are all much easier to use in most common crime scenarios, and less likely to harm innocent people, especially on a large scale. Of course none of these methods gives the owner quite the sense of power and coolness that a gun does."
Maybe I'm missing something and Mr. Ghazi has statistics on the number of private gun owners that have to defend their families in bars, I mean, yeah there was this one time where Dad took us up to O'Hooligans and ninjas attacked us ... And while it was odd to see ninjas in a traditional Irish Pub - I just chocked it up to another weird day in Cleveland (where I lived at the time).
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 6:53pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Mr Ghazi wrote ...
"Frankly, just like the religious, gun lovers have fallen into a deep, deep well of self-comforting self-serving ignorance, and I can't see any ladder to get them out...."
Wow. Not "The Religious Right", but just "the religious".And I'm the one accused of painting with broad strokes.
Guess I missed the memo.
Edited by Tony Smith on 27 April 2014 at 6:54pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1681
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 7:42pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
You've missed plenty of memos in your vacillating arguments Tony :)
For starters, as I noted before, you seem very fast and loose with the facts, coming up with various exaggerations to suit your argument, often exhibiting inherent contradictions in your desperation to prove your point. Here's an example:
Tony Smith wrote:
| A taser or stun gun requires close contact in order to use. If your attacker has a baseball bat, he has reach that you do not and your taser is not as effective as you think. And Tasers have doubled in power over the last 30 years... |
|
|
I proved quite clearly that a Taser has an accurate reach of up to 35 feet, not "close contact". And within the space of two sentences above you contradict yourself regarding the power of a taser.
But enough dancing around, let's get right down to it. If we consider the fundamental reason for certain behavior, I believe we can arrive at certain generalizations which hold true.
When examined closely, it seems clear to me that all religious people base their beliefs not on any evidence, but entirely on self-comforting, self-serving ignorance. That's their motivating factor for being religious. If religion didn't bring them comfort and benefit them, and they actually examined all available facts, they wouldn't be religious. QED. It's that simple. That's my opinion, based on observation and logical deduction, and I stand by it.
Similarly, when examining people who argue that owning a gun is an inalienable right, we need to look at their motivation for holding this position. Why is it that, when provided with ample and equally effective alternatives for self-defense tools, which pose less risk to society in general, these people cling to the notion that only a gun will do? Having thought about it, the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that they actually love guns - that is, they are emotionally attached to the idea of owning a gun, for whatever reason (e.g. depiction of guns in popular fiction, an artificially inflated sense of power, etc.).
It's hard to come to any other conclusion. When presented with several choices for self-defense, why do these people always gravitate solely towards guns, and particularly higher caliber, automatic weapons? Indeed just examining the case of automatic weapons such as assault rifles, what possible logical justification could any average person have for owning a 600-700 round per minute weapon?
Sure, there are all sorts of self-serving rationalizations which can be made, based on what appear to be fantasy scenarios of fighting tyrannical governments, and shooting home invaders, but when we cut through all the BS, why guns? Why, after all the carnage caused by guns in recent human history, do so many people want guns in their lives? Be honest with yourself and I think you will come to see why it's pretty much a fetish as JB calls it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
