Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Unlike Balbus I would accept this analogy, however absurd, with no qualms whatsoever if not for the fact that you fellas never accept (or even respond to) the principle extending the other way - that because it's the person and not the device carrying out the act, all murderous devices should be allowed for individuals including bombs, flamethrowers, cannons, B53s, anti-aircraft missiles, stealth bombers, submarines and doomsday devices.

 

Okay let's look at what you've come up with.

Why yes I did, I said that but no mention of you wanting to ban guns.

Why yes, yes you did say that but again no mention of banning guns.

Again nothing said about banning guns.

Oh it could be a whole lot clearer, I could have actually mentioned banning guns or I could have actually said you wanted to ban guns. So instead of these things that would actually be me clearly saying something about it, you try turn these things into something that was never said and that is about as clear as mud.

And this is pretty much an example of what you do continually.

 

Do gun control regulations affect the rights of the law abiding and responsible to own guns or do they not? It is a relatively simple question, how about an answer?

 

I've already explained it to you but seeing as you don't read my posts:

That is twice I have explained it to you and now you have the gall to say; "Oh so they don’t mean the same to you, that isn’t an explanation of a fact it is just an opinion", insinuating that I have given you no explanations.

This is just another example of your "honest debate" techniques.

 

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this somewhat obsessive labeling, anarchist? What's the point?

“Strictly from a individual rights standpoint” means that any sort of gun control would violate a person's individual rights but I have already said that I don't necessarily have any thing against gun control regulations like registration or of a waiting period.

True

True

That's what I said.

Although #2 was just a example of something else that might be considered by some as misuse.

Well If someone stole a loaf of bread because he and his family were hungry, I really don't see how such a "crime" would call into question his right to own a gun. As for a tendency to violent acts if he has committed no crimes, wouldn't taking away his right to own a gun be going against the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

So are you advocating "jailing" people before they commit a crime, that would prevent some crimes but at what cost?

Also, you ever think that your "at risk groups", what ever that is, might not want your "progressive programs" and might tell you what to do with them? Then what are you going to do, force it on them?

Of course it is not about lessening the number of guns in the hands of criminals, it is about individual freedom and inalienable rights.

Ask yourself is lessening the number of guns in the hands of criminals, worth the cost you are asking?

Perhaps you would like it to, so you can fall back on your old pat answers.

 

OWB

But as an example of me supposedly ‘twisting’ words it plainly just doesn’t work - because as I’ve said repeatedly there is a question mark at the end of my sentence.

It is not - “So only once someone ‘misused’ a gun.” (With a full stop, I believe you Americans call it a period)

It is - So only once someone ‘misused’ a gun…? (With a question mark - the symbol that is used at the end of a sentence to show that it represents it contains questions.

“If you'll notice the hi-lighted part of your question. You are not asking if this is what I said.”

BUT only if you leave out the question mark.

But the sentence actually does have a question mark – so it is exactly about asking you if this was what you meant.

I mean do I now have to teach you English along with the honest way to debate?

Can you please stop this silliness?

 

OWB

But that is not what you said, yes it is what you claim you were saying now but that’s not what you seemed to be saying at the time – to repeat your statement again –

That is saying that when I say "I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible" I’m lying.

It is not saying - you want more regulations than me which in my view would affect the rights of the law abiding and responsible to own guns more than I’d like.

Again you seem more interested in trying to ‘prove’ your trumped up charges that I am a ‘twister’ even when you clearly have no evidence.

This isn’t discussion it is a silly vendetta seemingly based on your personal dislike of what I’m saying and your resentment that you cannot think of anything with which to counter it.

 

OWB

The thing is – as I’ve said many times – I don’t see the ‘gun issue’ in separation; it is just part of a bigger picture. To me a society in which people are in such dire need that they have to steal food to survive has very great problems that need tackling.

I mean if there is a society with that level of poverty and also very easy access to guns isn’t it very likely that the desperate individual might use their gun to try and get what they need?

So what is needed is a holistic approach that would tackle the desperate poverty (and other socio-economic problems) that might make people see guns as a way out. (And also make others see guns as a means of tackling the symptoms of those same socio-economic problems).

Anyway as I’ve already mentioned to you in post 682 I am also not thinking of minor crimes but of serious ones and especially if they involved violent behaviour.

But the violent act would be the trigger that causes the taking away of the ‘right’. Think of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, that is the trigger, the person looses the ‘right’ to drive, we don’t allow the drunk to carry on driving until he ‘commits’ a more serious offence, like maiming or killing someone.

In most cases if someone is caught just drink driving they’re not given a custodial sentence; they’re just not allowed to drive on the public highway.

You need to read post 817

But to repeat what I said above the acts would be the trigger that causes the taking away of the ‘right’.

Could you please clarify?

But I think we have already established that you are also in favour of regulation, you say above that - “I have already said that I don't necessarily have any thing against gun control regulations”

So the debate would seem to be about what types and what level of regulation is most prudent?

What cost do you think I’m asking?

 

"Since everyone knows you are an idiot, does that mean that no one should listen to you?"

Please notice the question mark at the end, according to your "reasoning" that means I'm not really calling you an idiot.

Perhaps it is your silliness that needs to be stopped and you should go back to school and learn how the English language actually works.

 

Another example, it's like pulling teeth just to get you to answer a simple question. How many posts does it take for you to give up the answer to this question; "Do gun control regulations affect the rights of the law abiding and responsible to own guns or do they not?"? I've lost track of how many posts it's been, in fact I've almost lost track of why I asked it. This is just another example of your "honest debate" methods.

 

Saying someone is lying to themself and just saying that person is lying are two different concepts but then I have begun to notice that you do not pick up on the subtle nuances of the English language very well.

You are correct I did not say that but then again that is not what I was pointing out at the time.

I have continually given you the examples you asked for but you consider this to be a vendetta even though this is what you asked for.

Vendetta? Are you really this paranoid?

1) I may not agree with what you are saying but I do not dislike what you are saying. I do have a problem with how you carry on an "honest debate"

2) I have come up with much to counter what you say, most of which you have not responded to. Instead you seem to want to address, not what I said but what you say I "implied", which turns into me explaining that what you say I implied, I neither said or implied and you then say, oh yes you did. Another example of your "honest debate" methods.

3) It is you that asked for these examples to be shown to you, "implying" that we were just lying about there actually examples to be brought up. I am only supplying what you asked for, I just think you knew there were so many examples.

 

How many times must a dead dog be kicked before someone realizes it is dead?

 

At least a couple more times. :beatdeadhorse5:

 

If any of us were convinced we were right, do you think we would be interested in this thread at all?

 

OWB

Oh yes you certainly have lost track of what you were saying. I’m happy to explain.

In post 661 you stated that you didn’t believe that prohibitions (the making of something like alcohol or drugs illegal) worked.

My reply to that post was in 683 - in which I said that I was also not in favour of a prohibition but that I did believe in regulation to reduce the likelihood of harm.

In post 686 you tell me that I am lying when I claim I have nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun. seeming to imply that I

In post 693 I asked what ‘truth’ you were talking about and pointed out that you seemed to be suggesting that I wanted to ban everyone from having guns. Since you were saying I was lying when I said I didn’t.

In post 696 you claim this is me twisting words and that you really meant that any gun control measures limits the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible.

Which isn’t what you said at all, you said -

Since then you have just repeated over and over that wasn’t what you said.

The problem is that is what you did say.

I mean this is silly, its just a matter of you admitting saying something that was badly worded that implied something you didn’t mean. That is all you needed to say not start accusing me of the crime of twisting words. And then try and prove it by trying to claim that what you said wasn’t what you said.

 

OWB

Again I’ll repeat your words, you said -

You are claiming that you know the ‘truth’ that I’m lying when I claim "I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible”

*

It is not saying - you want more regulations than me which in my view would affect the rights of the law abiding and responsible to own guns more than I’d like

The problem is that what you said at the time was

*
Again you seem more interested in trying to ‘prove’ your trumped up charges that I am a ‘twister’ even when you clearly have no evidence.

The problem is that your ‘examples’ are not honest examples they are based on lies, innuendo and deceit.

I’m saying it’s a silly vendetta because it is mindless hostility which seems to have no logical or rational basis.

*

To repeat for the umpteenth time if you think I haven’t addressed something just point it out (for example I noticed something I hadn’t addressed earlier and did so in post 817).

But that is how honest debate works, I am not telepathic, I read what you say and try to work out what you mean by it, it is not always clear. This as I’ve explained can often take the form of ‘you seem to be implying’.

The problem seems to come when you don’t seem able to explain what you have said, and so instead just go off claiming that I’m twisting things rather wondering why you are unable to explain your thinking.

You claimed that I was twisting words, I asked for example of it and so far for all this shouting and bluster your examples haven’t shown anything of the sort.

It just shows that all I’ve been doing all along is trying to work out what you are actually saying.

 

OWB

You are not calling me an idiot you are claiming that everyone knows I’m an idiot.

But not everyone does think I’m an idiot, but I’m sure there are those that out of hostility or animosity would call me an idiot.

Are you calling me an idiot?

(An aside: I believe in ancient Greece an ‘idiot’ was someone that didn’t take in interest in politic or didn’t vote)

 

OWB

Why not just address what I’ve raised about your views for example in 817 or 827 rather than pursuing this stupid animosity driven vendetta to prove I’m a ‘bad’ person?

 

Then tackle those problems, guns don't cause people to to steal food and more gun control will not solve that problem.

Again guns don't cause poverty. Saying that someone might use a gun out of desperation does not seem like a good reason we should put more limits on the rights of "law abiding and responsible" people.

Again, great, take that wonderful "holistic approach" and put it to work, because we really need it. Heaven knows that no one else's "holistic approach" has worked so far. But you still haven't pointed out how gun control figures into this. Really isn't taking guns out of the hands of the "criminals" just doing the same thing that you accuse the pro-gunners of doing, attacking a symptom rather than the underlying cause?

That was not made clear in your post but okay.

I don't really see how this illustration helps your case.

If a person commits an act of domestic violence, we don't take away his right to drive a car and yet road rage is as much a fact of life as gun violence.

(Also, as a side note, in the US driving is called a privilege and is not considered a right.)

What "acts" are you taking about?

And who is to decide at what point such "acts" show that his rights should taken away and of course that is assuming that all violent persons, that have committed these "acts" will turn to gun violence or even that a majority of them will.

Which again causes me to ask; if a person has never committed gun violence, isn't assuming he might, taking away his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We think you might commit gun violence, so we are taking away your right to own a gun just in case.

What's to clarify? It's a pretty simple straight forward statement that even you should able to understand.

But okay, did it ever cross your mind that these "at risk groups" might get tired of being poked and prodded and being used as a guinea pig by every Clem Clown that comes along with a "Whole New and Improved Idea" for solving their "problems" and that they may just consider their biggest problem to be "every Clem Clown that comes along with a "Whole New and Improved Idea" for solving their "problems"".

You might want to read: Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto, by Vine Deloria Jr., He has an interesting take on people who want to "fix" the "Indian Problem".

Actually this debate is about; Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?. That is what the OP is and I am against that, as I have frequently pointed out.

Interestingly you have pretty much said you disagree with me, which would seem to, how would you put it, oh yes, it would seem to imply that that you want a gun ban.

But I'll try to keep it simple for you;
I do not think guns should be banned in the US and you disagree with me.
That would seem to imply you want guns banned, so please once and for all, clear this up for us; do you want guns banned or not? And if not please explain why you keep disagreeing with those who say they don't want guns banned.

You want guns taken out of the hands of a few criminals at the price of abrogating the rights of gun ownership for all "law-abiding and responsible" people.

 

If only you would.

Okay

Okay

Come on now, saying that you are lying and what I actually said; that you where lying to yourself are two different concepts.

And even this does not imply that you want guns banned.

Again you say I "suggested" that you want to ban guns and so far nothing has suggested anything of the kind, except perhaps in you imagination.

Since nothing you have shown of what I have said shows that I have "implied or "suggested" that you want to banned guns. I would have to say yes, it is you twisting words. Please feel free to come back and discuss this further when you have something little more substantial than your opinion of what I might be saying.

Yes that is exactly what I said. I just don't see anything that says you want to ban guns.

No, I have repeated over and over that that is exactly what I said but I have repeatedly also said that I have not said what you keep saying I implied or suggested.

Yes it is what I said and it is not a problem.

When are you going actually going to stick to what is said and stop arguing about what has not been said? When You can quote me saying that "you want to ban guns" come back and talk to me about it, till then please stop imagining that things were said that were not said.