I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
But then that argument is that these other people to whom the statistics don't apply, desperately need guns to protect themselves from something that is statistically never going to happen to them?
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
But then that argument is that these other people to whom the statistics don't apply, desperately need guns to protect themselves from something that is statistically never going to happen to them?
Please point out where I've stated that.
This forum seems to still have a problem addressing what someone has actually stated rather than what they think someone has stated or what's convenient for their argument.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
But then that argument is that these other people to whom the statistics don't apply, desperately need guns to protect themselves from something that is statistically never going to happen to them?
Please point out where I've stated that.
This forum seems to still have a problem addressing what someone has actually stated rather than what they think someone has stated or what's convenient for their argument.
Given that multiple people have read your posts and come to similar conclusions, perhaps you are not being as clear as you think you are? Not maliciously, but it's easy to not be as clear as you are in your mind (general "you") on a text-based internet forum.
Like.... we're at 5+ people that are drawing the same conclusion from what you've said. It's not some conspiracy of the forum
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
But then that argument is that these other people to whom the statistics don't apply, desperately need guns to protect themselves from something that is statistically never going to happen to them?
Please point out where I've stated that.
This forum seems to still have a problem addressing what someone has actually stated rather than what they think someone has stated or what's convenient for their argument.
Given that multiple people have read your posts and come to similar conclusions, perhaps you are not being as clear as you think you are? Not maliciously, but it's easy to not be as clear as you are in your mind (general "you") on a text-based internet forum.
Like.... we're at 5+ people that are drawing the same conclusion from what you've said. It's not some conspiracy of the forum
After I've explicitly stated the opposite multiple times, and clearly stated my points before even that, I can't see where I'm not being clear enough. It's not something new when it comes to this specific topic and is why it is shut down so frequently.
2. That citizens without significant misdemeanor conviction, or any felony conviction, are not as likely to be perpetrators or victims of firearm crime.Thus the disparity in perspective, and contributing factor to the majority of "reasonable" gun owners not instantly siding with the anti-ownership "side".
These are your words. You literally just said that statistics detailed by the studies cited by @Abbalah do not apply to non-criminals because non-criminals are much less likely to be mugged or something.
It's already been stated here, and in previous threads, that the vast majority of people in the US aren't going to experience violent crime involving firearms, controlling for things like previous convictions and participation in criminal activity. And the most "attacked" class of firearms (semi auto rifles) account for a minuscule amount of firearm homicides per annum (~300 for all rifles, or .04% of firearms homicides).
The argument for the second amendment is that there is some sort of 'natural right' to be able to create large holes in anything that might attack one's person (or try to impose the King's will upon you). However, you just admitted that the likelihood of that is a statistical aberration.
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
But then that argument is that these other people to whom the statistics don't apply, desperately need guns to protect themselves from something that is statistically never going to happen to them?
Please point out where I've stated that.
This forum seems to still have a problem addressing what someone has actually stated rather than what they think someone has stated or what's convenient for their argument.
Given that multiple people have read your posts and come to similar conclusions, perhaps you are not being as clear as you think you are? Not maliciously, but it's easy to not be as clear as you are in your mind (general "you") on a text-based internet forum.
Like.... we're at 5+ people that are drawing the same conclusion from what you've said. It's not some conspiracy of the forum
After I've explicitly stated the opposite multiple times, and clearly stated my points before even that, I can't see where I'm not being clear enough. It's not something new when it comes to this specific topic and is why it is shut down so frequently.
So instead of simply saying that's not what you believe, why don't you tell us what it is that you actually do believe? What is the benefit to the guns that outweighs their danger if not their use in self-defense?
2. That citizens without significant misdemeanor conviction, or any felony conviction, are not as likely to be perpetrators or victims of firearm crime.Thus the disparity in perspective, and contributing factor to the majority of "reasonable" gun owners not instantly siding with the anti-ownership "side".
These are your words. You literally just said that statistics detailed by the studies cited by @Abbalah do not apply to non-criminals because non-criminals are much less likely to be mugged or something.
It's already been stated here, and in previous threads, that the vast majority of people in the US aren't going to experience violent crime involving firearms, controlling for things like previous convictions and participation in criminal activity. And the most "attacked" class of firearms (semi auto rifles) account for a minuscule amount of firearm homicides per annum (~300 for all rifles, or .04% of firearms homicides).
The argument for the second amendment is that there is some sort of 'natural right' to be able to create large holes in anything that might attack one's person (or try to impose the King's will upon you). However, you just admitted that the likelihood of that is a statistical aberration.
Please point out where I've made a pro 2A argument with regards to the right to self defense.
Also I didn't state they didn't apply, but that the statistics I provided, as admitted in one of their sources, May have a significant effect. And I replied in a manner that would allow continued discussion.
If something is disproportionately used in criminal acts, that alone seems to be a good reason to increase regulation and decrease access.
For example, the function of medication is to improve life. But we regulate medications like psuedoephedrine due to their use in drug manufacturer. Why wouldn't we then want to further regulate something who's main purpose is to cause harm?
If guns were treated like any other good, they would be regulated as inherently dangerous objects subject to serious misuse, but with both public and private utility. Like explosives, or dangerous chemicals, or drugs, or exotic animals, or automobiles, or any of dozens and dozens of useful but dangerous things that we regulate all the time. We would just balance the benefits and detriments of the regulation.
We don't have that as the regulatory and legal regime, because guns are special - legally, politically, culturally. Gun control conversations tend to become about whether they really should be as special as they are, rather than how they should be regulated, because the specialness is a prerequisite to answering that next question.
If gun ownership is a "fundamental right" then the regulatory answer has to be different - the standards are different for limiting fundamental rights. Imagine if, say, there was a Fire Amendment to the US Constitution, stating that the right to the use of fire shall not be infringed - then a lot of the regulations involving when you can start a fire, where you can start said fire, how liable you will be when your fire burns up a nightclub, etc, would fail under that standard even though they otherwise happily survive being something open to the state's general police power. If guns are just a dangerous and useful thing, we could likewise set pretty much any limits we wanted to their ownership and operation, like we can with cars, or fire, or chemicals, or swords. But we can't. Because guns are special.
Clearly, guns are special, otherwise they would be heavily regulated like anything else.
What then is your argument about why guns are special, if it's not that there is some 'natural right'?
If something is disproportionately used in criminal acts, that alone seems to be a good reason to increase regulation and decrease access.
For example, the function of medication is to improve life. But we regulate medications like psuedoephedrine due to their use in drug manufacturer. Why wouldn't we then want to further regulate something who's main purpose is to cause harm?
If guns were treated like any other good, they would be regulated as inherently dangerous objects subject to serious misuse, but with both public and private utility. Like explosives, or dangerous chemicals, or drugs, or exotic animals, or automobiles, or any of dozens and dozens of useful but dangerous things that we regulate all the time. We would just balance the benefits and detriments of the regulation.
We don't have that as the regulatory and legal regime, because guns are special - legally, politically, culturally. Gun control conversations tend to become about whether they really should be as special as they are, rather than how they should be regulated, because the specialness is a prerequisite to answering that next question.
If gun ownership is a "fundamental right" then the regulatory answer has to be different - the standards are different for limiting fundamental rights. Imagine if, say, there was a Fire Amendment to the US Constitution, stating that the right to the use of fire shall not be infringed - then a lot of the regulations involving when you can start a fire, where you can start said fire, how liable you will be when your fire burns up a nightclub, etc, would fail under that standard even though they otherwise happily survive being something open to the state's general police power. If guns are just a dangerous and useful thing, we could likewise set pretty much any limits we wanted to their ownership and operation, like we can with cars, or fire, or chemicals, or swords. But we can't. Because guns are special.
Clearly, guns are special, otherwise they would be heavily regulated like anything else.
What then is your argument about why guns are special, if it's not that there is some 'natural right'?
If something is disproportionately used in criminal acts, that alone seems to be a good reason to increase regulation and decrease access.
For example, the function of medication is to improve life. But we regulate medications like psuedoephedrine due to their use in drug manufacturer. Why wouldn't we then want to further regulate something who's main purpose is to cause harm?
If guns were treated like any other good, they would be regulated as inherently dangerous objects subject to serious misuse, but with both public and private utility. Like explosives, or dangerous chemicals, or drugs, or exotic animals, or automobiles, or any of dozens and dozens of useful but dangerous things that we regulate all the time. We would just balance the benefits and detriments of the regulation.
We don't have that as the regulatory and legal regime, because guns are special - legally, politically, culturally. Gun control conversations tend to become about whether they really should be as special as they are, rather than how they should be regulated, because the specialness is a prerequisite to answering that next question.
If gun ownership is a "fundamental right" then the regulatory answer has to be different - the standards are different for limiting fundamental rights. Imagine if, say, there was a Fire Amendment to the US Constitution, stating that the right to the use of fire shall not be infringed - then a lot of the regulations involving when you can start a fire, where you can start said fire, how liable you will be when your fire burns up a nightclub, etc, would fail under that standard even though they otherwise happily survive being something open to the state's general police power. If guns are just a dangerous and useful thing, we could likewise set pretty much any limits we wanted to their ownership and operation, like we can with cars, or fire, or chemicals, or swords. But we can't. Because guns are special.
Clearly, guns are special, otherwise they would be heavily regulated like anything else.
What then is your argument about why guns are special, if it's not that there is some 'natural right'?
Are you asking me or just opening up the conversation on this point?
I would prefer if this mischaracterization of what I said would stop.
I didn't say that people with criminal histories, or even people actively engaged in criminality deserve anything. I didn't say I didn't care because they are "somehow different".
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
So basically your position is "I'm a white middle class male, and as the statistically least likely to experience the negatives of this issue (and thus the positives of regulation), we shouldn't regulate it." This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to systematic racism.
Earlier you cited an article that stated that three quarters of firearms crimes are committed by criminals. So, that still leaves tens of thousands of homicides and assaults each year that could. It's still a huge and disgusting problem that needs to be addressed.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
Surprise, you don't care about statistical evaluation unless it's backed by your anecdotal evidence.
I would prefer if this mischaracterization of what I said would stop.
I didn't say that people with criminal histories, or even people actively engaged in criminality deserve anything. I didn't say I didn't care because they are "somehow different".
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
So basically your position is "I'm a white middle class male, and as the statistically least likely to experience the negatives of this issue (and thus the positives of regulation), we shouldn't regulate it." This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to systematic racism.
Earlier you cited an article that stated that three quarters of firearms crimes are committed by criminals. So, that still leaves tens of thousands of homicides and assaults each year that could. It's still a huge and disgusting problem that needs to be addressed.
No, that isn't my position. That's my read on why the pro control side seems to have trouble with gun owners coming forward to "compromise". Again please actually read what I type instead of trying to create a position of moral outrage based on inferred prejudice that I haven't stated nor implied.
FYI there are ~10,000 firearms homicides per year.
So no, that doesn't leave tens of thousands of homicides. That leaves ~ 2500 homicides.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
Surprise, you don't care about statistical evaluation unless it's backed by your anecdotal evidence.
Clearly because I don't blindly agree with the position of another poster I must be arguing in bad faith, instead of trying to have a discussion including information I've provided. This is Debate & Discussion, isn't it?
Discussion doesn't require that I agree with even the majority position here.
+2
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Considering you just spent the whole page objecting to people misreading your posts, it sure is interesting you just decided to ignore the 'and assaults' part of his statement.
I would prefer if this mischaracterization of what I said would stop.
I didn't say that people with criminal histories, or even people actively engaged in criminality deserve anything. I didn't say I didn't care because they are "somehow different".
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
So basically your position is "I'm a white middle class male, and as the statistically least likely to experience the negatives of this issue (and thus the positives of regulation), we shouldn't regulate it." This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to systematic racism.
Earlier you cited an article that stated that three quarters of firearms crimes are committed by criminals. So, that still leaves tens of thousands of homicides and assaults each year that could. It's still a huge and disgusting problem that needs to be addressed.
No, that isn't my position. That's my read on why the pro control side seems to have trouble with gun owners coming forward to "compromise". Again please actually read what I type instead of trying to create a position of moral outrage based on inferred prejudice that I haven't stated nor implied.
FYI there are ~10,000 firearms homicides per year.
So no, that doesn't leave tens of thousands of homicides. That leaves ~ 2500 homicides.
I did read what you typed. Specifically you said:
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault...
So don't move the goal posts and tell me you're arguing in good faith. Don't tell me that your anecdotal experience outweighs a statistical evaluation. That's not debating in good faith.
And don't tell me that your need to have fun outweighs the value of life for another. It's morally bankrupt.
I would prefer if this mischaracterization of what I said would stop.
I didn't say that people with criminal histories, or even people actively engaged in criminality deserve anything. I didn't say I didn't care because they are "somehow different".
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
So basically your position is "I'm a white middle class male, and as the statistically least likely to experience the negatives of this issue (and thus the positives of regulation), we shouldn't regulate it." This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to systematic racism.
Earlier you cited an article that stated that three quarters of firearms crimes are committed by criminals. So, that still leaves tens of thousands of homicides and assaults each year that could. It's still a huge and disgusting problem that needs to be addressed.
No, that isn't my position. That's my read on why the pro control side seems to have trouble with gun owners coming forward to "compromise". Again please actually read what I type instead of trying to create a position of moral outrage based on inferred prejudice that I haven't stated nor implied.
FYI there are ~10,000 firearms homicides per year.
So no, that doesn't leave tens of thousands of homicides. That leaves ~ 2500 homicides.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
Surprise, you don't care about statistical evaluation unless it's backed by your anecdotal evidence.
Clearly because I don't blindly agree with the position of another poster I must be arguing in bad faith, instead of trying to have a discussion including information I've provided. This is Debate & Discussion, isn't it?
Discussion doesn't require that I agree with even the majority position here.
You keep talking about what the population could be convinced of, making it extremely hard to have a discussion with you because you keep falling back on "well that's not what I feel."
I would prefer if this mischaracterization of what I said would stop.
I didn't say that people with criminal histories, or even people actively engaged in criminality deserve anything. I didn't say I didn't care because they are "somehow different".
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
So basically your position is "I'm a white middle class male, and as the statistically least likely to experience the negatives of this issue (and thus the positives of regulation), we shouldn't regulate it." This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to systematic racism.
Earlier you cited an article that stated that three quarters of firearms crimes are committed by criminals. So, that still leaves tens of thousands of homicides and assaults each year that could. It's still a huge and disgusting problem that needs to be addressed.
No, that isn't my position. That's my read on why the pro control side seems to have trouble with gun owners coming forward to "compromise". Again please actually read what I type instead of trying to create a position of moral outrage based on inferred prejudice that I haven't stated nor implied.
FYI there are ~10,000 firearms homicides per year.
So no, that doesn't leave tens of thousands of homicides. That leaves ~ 2500 homicides.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
Surprise, you don't care about statistical evaluation unless it's backed by your anecdotal evidence.
Clearly because I don't blindly agree with the position of another poster I must be arguing in bad faith, instead of trying to have a discussion including information I've provided. This is Debate & Discussion, isn't it?
Discussion doesn't require that I agree with even the majority position here.
You keep talking about what the population could be convinced of, making it extremely hard to have a discussion with you because you keep falling back on "well that's not what I feel."
So what do you believe in?
I'm fine with regulation. In fact we have regulation right now. I don't agree with a licensing scheme because that sets the stage for de facto ban. And many of the proposals members have made here that aren't outright complete ban are either too onerous or expensive for the state to set up and maintain. Or in the case of a registry, haven't done anything of value for a similar nation which implemented it, and subsequently eliminated it due to extreme cost overrun and limited usefulness.
Please point out where I've typed "well that's not what I feel". I've provided recorded statistics on perpetrators and victims of firearm homicide and assault, and argued that the majority of US persons aren't likely to experience firearm homicide or assault, and thus that may influence their desire to "come to the table". Because more than once in these threads posters have lamented that "reasonable gun owners" aren't coming to the table.
Considering you just spent the whole page objecting to people misreading your posts, it sure is interesting you just decided to ignore the 'and assaults' part of his statement.
The word 'and' usually means inclusive.
But I'm sure you knew that.
I made that clarification because the vagueness (I don't want to accuse Heffling of being purposefully misleading) could lead one to think that there are tens of thousands of homicides with firearms, regardless of his inclusion of "and assaults".
And as I have not been vague, there is much less to misread. And I wasn't being misread, I was being mischaracterized as a racist or elitist.
I would prefer if this mischaracterization of what I said would stop.
I didn't say that people with criminal histories, or even people actively engaged in criminality deserve anything. I didn't say I didn't care because they are "somehow different".
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
So basically your position is "I'm a white middle class male, and as the statistically least likely to experience the negatives of this issue (and thus the positives of regulation), we shouldn't regulate it." This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to systematic racism.
Earlier you cited an article that stated that three quarters of firearms crimes are committed by criminals. So, that still leaves tens of thousands of homicides and assaults each year that could. It's still a huge and disgusting problem that needs to be addressed.
No, that isn't my position. That's my read on why the pro control side seems to have trouble with gun owners coming forward to "compromise". Again please actually read what I type instead of trying to create a position of moral outrage based on inferred prejudice that I haven't stated nor implied.
FYI there are ~10,000 firearms homicides per year.
So no, that doesn't leave tens of thousands of homicides. That leaves ~ 2500 homicides.
I did read what you typed. Specifically you said:
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault...
So don't move the goal posts and tell me you're arguing in good faith. Don't tell me that your anecdotal experience outweighs a statistical evaluation. That's not debating in good faith.
And don't tell me that your need to have fun outweighs the value of life for another. It's morally bankrupt.
I provided four different sources. It's not anecdotal.
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I would prefer if this mischaracterization of what I said would stop.
I didn't say that people with criminal histories, or even people actively engaged in criminality deserve anything. I didn't say I didn't care because they are "somehow different".
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
So basically your position is "I'm a white middle class male, and as the statistically least likely to experience the negatives of this issue (and thus the positives of regulation), we shouldn't regulate it." This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to systematic racism.
Earlier you cited an article that stated that three quarters of firearms crimes are committed by criminals. So, that still leaves tens of thousands of homicides and assaults each year that could. It's still a huge and disgusting problem that needs to be addressed.
No, that isn't my position. That's my read on why the pro control side seems to have trouble with gun owners coming forward to "compromise". Again please actually read what I type instead of trying to create a position of moral outrage based on inferred prejudice that I haven't stated nor implied.
FYI there are ~10,000 firearms homicides per year.
So no, that doesn't leave tens of thousands of homicides. That leaves ~ 2500 homicides.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
Surprise, you don't care about statistical evaluation unless it's backed by your anecdotal evidence.
Clearly because I don't blindly agree with the position of another poster I must be arguing in bad faith, instead of trying to have a discussion including information I've provided. This is Debate & Discussion, isn't it?
Discussion doesn't require that I agree with even the majority position here.
You keep talking about what the population could be convinced of, making it extremely hard to have a discussion with you because you keep falling back on "well that's not what I feel."
So what do you believe in?
I'm fine with regulation. In fact we have regulation right now. I don't agree with a licensing scheme because that sets the stage for de facto ban. And many of the proposals members have made here that aren't outright complete ban are either too onerous or expensive for the state to set up and maintain. Or in the case of a registry, haven't done anything of value for a similar nation which implemented it, and subsequently eliminated it due to extreme cost overrun and limited usefulness.
Please point out where I've typed "well that's not what I feel". I've provided recorded statistics on perpetrators and victims of firearm homicide and assault, and argued that the majority of US persons aren't likely to experience firearm homicide or assault, and thus that may influence their desire to "come to the table". Because more than once in these threads posters have lamented that "reasonable gun owners" aren't coming to the table.
Considering you just spent the whole page objecting to people misreading your posts, it sure is interesting you just decided to ignore the 'and assaults' part of his statement.
The word 'and' usually means inclusive.
But I'm sure you knew that.
I made that clarification because the vagueness (I don't want to accuse Heffling of being purposefully misleading) could lead one to think that there are tens of thousands of homicides with firearms, regardless of his inclusion of "and assaults".
And as I have not been vague, there is much less to misread. And I wasn't being misread, I was being mischaracterized as a racist or elitist.
Ah, silly me. I should have assumed the one being specific was the vague one and the one changing the context of a statement by excising words was being specific.
Regarding a licensing scheme, are you afraid the government is about to ban cars? That slipperly slope argument is paranoid delusion of the highest order. I'm licensed for my firearms. I still have my firearms. In fact, licensing has been happening in Canada for decades and no one has shown up at my door to confiscate my guns. Licensing is probably the most likely way to improve the proliferation of firearms in the US because that solves the background check for private sales problem.
I would prefer if this mischaracterization of what I said would stop.
I didn't say that people with criminal histories, or even people actively engaged in criminality deserve anything. I didn't say I didn't care because they are "somehow different".
I argued that this prevalence of criminality (not arrests or police contact, but convictions) associated with firearm homicide and assault is likely why the vast majority of voting populace doesn't and won't experience firearm homicide or assault, and likely why those who claim to want to compromise seem to not find "reasonable" gun owners coming to the table. Because they have nothing to gain by coming to the table and don't experience firearm homicide or assault on the same level.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
So basically your position is "I'm a white middle class male, and as the statistically least likely to experience the negatives of this issue (and thus the positives of regulation), we shouldn't regulate it." This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to systematic racism.
Earlier you cited an article that stated that three quarters of firearms crimes are committed by criminals. So, that still leaves tens of thousands of homicides and assaults each year that could. It's still a huge and disgusting problem that needs to be addressed.
No, that isn't my position. That's my read on why the pro control side seems to have trouble with gun owners coming forward to "compromise". Again please actually read what I type instead of trying to create a position of moral outrage based on inferred prejudice that I haven't stated nor implied.
FYI there are ~10,000 firearms homicides per year.
So no, that doesn't leave tens of thousands of homicides. That leaves ~ 2500 homicides.
Yes, and the idea that 'reasonable' gun owners 'have nothing to gain by coming to the table' because most of the firearm deaths happen to people who aren't them is what people are calling gross.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
Surprise, you don't care about statistical evaluation unless it's backed by your anecdotal evidence.
Clearly because I don't blindly agree with the position of another poster I must be arguing in bad faith, instead of trying to have a discussion including information I've provided. This is Debate & Discussion, isn't it?
Discussion doesn't require that I agree with even the majority position here.
You keep talking about what the population could be convinced of, making it extremely hard to have a discussion with you because you keep falling back on "well that's not what I feel."
So what do you believe in?
I'm fine with regulation. In fact we have regulation right now. I don't agree with a licensing scheme because that sets the stage for de facto ban. And many of the proposals members have made here that aren't outright complete ban are either too onerous or expensive for the state to set up and maintain. Or in the case of a registry, haven't done anything of value for a similar nation which implemented it, and subsequently eliminated it due to extreme cost overrun and limited usefulness.
Please point out where I've typed "well that's not what I feel". I've provided recorded statistics on perpetrators and victims of firearm homicide and assault, and argued that the majority of US persons aren't likely to experience firearm homicide or assault, and thus that may influence their desire to "come to the table". Because more than once in these threads posters have lamented that "reasonable gun owners" aren't coming to the table.
Considering you just spent the whole page objecting to people misreading your posts, it sure is interesting you just decided to ignore the 'and assaults' part of his statement.
The word 'and' usually means inclusive.
But I'm sure you knew that.
I made that clarification because the vagueness (I don't want to accuse Heffling of being purposefully misleading) could lead one to think that there are tens of thousands of homicides with firearms, regardless of his inclusion of "and assaults".
And as I have not been vague, there is much less to misread. And I wasn't being misread, I was being mischaracterized as a racist or elitist.
Ah, silly me. I should have assumed the one being specific was the vague one and the one changing the context of a statement by excising words was being specific.
Regarding a licensing scheme, are you afraid the government is about to ban cars? That slipperly slope argument is paranoid delusion of the highest order. I'm licensed for my firearms. I still have my firearms. In fact, licensing has been happening in Canada for decades and no one has shown up at my door to confiscate my guns. Licensing is probably the most likely way to improve the proliferation of firearms in the US because that solves the background check for private sales problem.
No, because the state issues a license for use of a motor vehicle on public roads, as the majority of states license for the carry of a firearm in public. That is not the same as a licensing scheme for ownership. If you're going to make the motor vehicle comparison, at least understand the difference first.
If you want to solve the "background check for private sales problem", then eliminate private sales. Pro ownership posters in here have already said that the requirement of a NICS check for secondary market sales was a reasonable restriction.
RE Specificity: Since when was "tens of thousands" more specific than an approximate concrete number? And I wasn't changing the context, I was clarifying for those who don't know better that we don't have tens of thousands of homicides per year, as could be inferred by that statement.
I don't support a defacto ban but if the populace is so in favor of one at some point in the future they create a new amendment to the constitution I'm okay with law enforcement having an easier and less bloody time enforcing it
Saying you don't support something because it could be easier in the future to enforce a ban as an argument against regulation is crazy to me. A ban isn't coming in this political climate any time soon, the NRA has sold a pack of lies and you have to be a borderline delusional person with a religious attachment to your firearms to suspect that's a near term possibility
and as I said if 2/3 of the country and our politicians some day fall on the other side of that, well tough shit we live in a society
I don't support a defacto ban but if the populace is so in favor of one at some point in the future they create a new amendment to the constitution I'm okay with law enforcement having an easier and less bloody time enforcing it
Saying you don't support something because it could be easier in the future to enforce a ban as an argument against regulation is crazy to me. A ban isn't coming in this political climate any time soon, the NRA has sold you a pack of lies and you have to be a borderline delusional person with a religious attachment to your firearms to suspect that's a near term possibility
and as I said if 2/3 of the country and our politicians some day fall on the other side of that, well tough shit we live in a society
I didn't say I was against it because it may, hypothetically in the future, make it easier to enforce a potential de jure ban, rather that it may create a current (at the time of enactment) de facto ban.
I don't support a defacto ban but if the populace is so in favor of one at some point in the future they create a new amendment to the constitution I'm okay with law enforcement having an easier and less bloody time enforcing it
Saying you don't support something because it could be easier in the future to enforce a ban as an argument against regulation is crazy to me. A ban isn't coming in this political climate any time soon, the NRA has sold a pack of lies and you have to be a borderline delusional person with a religious attachment to your firearms to suspect that's a near term possibility
and as I said if 2/3 of the country and our politicians some day fall on the other side of that, well tough shit we live in a society
Why is that argument crazy to you? It seems fairly obvious to me, as simply explained as "getting your foot in the door". Its very much like any other right: the more you restrict it the more you weaken it and set the stage for it to be ultimately or effectively removed when it's convenient to do so. Especially in this context, these additional restrictions are being pushed by people who quite blatently Do Not respect gun ownership as any kind of right.
As it stands, gun ownership is a right and I see it as an extension of the basic human right to self defense. I find it logical to oppose those who want to weaken that right, both for myself now and my children to come.
+4
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I don't support a defacto ban but if the populace is so in favor of one at some point in the future they create a new amendment to the constitution I'm okay with law enforcement having an easier and less bloody time enforcing it
Saying you don't support something because it could be easier in the future to enforce a ban as an argument against regulation is crazy to me. A ban isn't coming in this political climate any time soon, the NRA has sold a pack of lies and you have to be a borderline delusional person with a religious attachment to your firearms to suspect that's a near term possibility
and as I said if 2/3 of the country and our politicians some day fall on the other side of that, well tough shit we live in a society
Why is that argument crazy to you? It seems fairly obvious to me, as simply explained as "getting your foot in the door". Its very much like any other right: the more you restrict it the more you weaken it and set the stage for it to be ultimately or effectively removed when it's convenient to do so. Especially in this context, these additional restrictions are being pushed by people who quite blatently Do Not respect gun ownership as any kind of right.
As it stands, gun ownership is a right and I see it as an extension of the basic human right to self defense. I find it logical to oppose those who want to weaken that right, both for myself now and my children to come.
The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
Unless you oppose any and all restrictions, it's also dishonest.
I don't support a defacto ban but if the populace is so in favor of one at some point in the future they create a new amendment to the constitution I'm okay with law enforcement having an easier and less bloody time enforcing it
Saying you don't support something because it could be easier in the future to enforce a ban as an argument against regulation is crazy to me. A ban isn't coming in this political climate any time soon, the NRA has sold a pack of lies and you have to be a borderline delusional person with a religious attachment to your firearms to suspect that's a near term possibility
and as I said if 2/3 of the country and our politicians some day fall on the other side of that, well tough shit we live in a society
Why is that argument crazy to you? It seems fairly obvious to me, as simply explained as "getting your foot in the door". Its very much like any other right: the more you restrict it the more you weaken it and set the stage for it to be ultimately or effectively removed when it's convenient to do so. Especially in this context, these additional restrictions are being pushed by people who quite blatently Do Not respect gun ownership as any kind of right.
As it stands, gun ownership is a right and I see it as an extension of the basic human right to self defense. I find it logical to oppose those who want to weaken that right, both for myself now and my children to come.
The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
Unless you oppose any and all restrictions, it's also dishonest.
Caveat: I do not think a ban is coming any day now, nor am I paranoid or delusional.
Just because Slippery Slope is a fallacy, one shouldn't commit the fallacy fallacy. I have seen a similar argument against piecemeal regulation of 1A (especially in the Political Media and Gawker threads) and 4A made here in this forum. And that Slippery Slope could be a fallacy, doesn't mean it can't be correct in any circumstance.
I don't support a defacto ban but if the populace is so in favor of one at some point in the future they create a new amendment to the constitution I'm okay with law enforcement having an easier and less bloody time enforcing it
Saying you don't support something because it could be easier in the future to enforce a ban as an argument against regulation is crazy to me. A ban isn't coming in this political climate any time soon, the NRA has sold a pack of lies and you have to be a borderline delusional person with a religious attachment to your firearms to suspect that's a near term possibility
and as I said if 2/3 of the country and our politicians some day fall on the other side of that, well tough shit we live in a society
Why is that argument crazy to you? It seems fairly obvious to me, as simply explained as "getting your foot in the door". Its very much like any other right: the more you restrict it the more you weaken it and set the stage for it to be ultimately or effectively removed when it's convenient to do so. Especially in this context, these additional restrictions are being pushed by people who quite blatently Do Not respect gun ownership as any kind of right.
As it stands, gun ownership is a right and I see it as an extension of the basic human right to self defense. I find it logical to oppose those who want to weaken that right, both for myself now and my children to come.
The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
Unless you oppose any and all restrictions, it's also dishonest.
Hardly. It can be a fallacy, but most large changes don't just happen out of the blue. It's a process. If you want an easy example of this, look at Gay Rights. It didn't just happen one day. Legislation was built on legislation, as laws and norms began to change so did the public perception of the issue.
I'd say that was a positive example. I find gun rights much murkier. I'm open to sensible legislation that helps us maintain our rights, but I am wary. I am wary of people who do not respect the right or want me to have it attempting to push a similar process, pushing restrictive legislation and attempting to change public perception regarding gun rights as a whole. The AWB is a pretty clear example of this.
Yelling "slippery slope fallacy!" at me is an attempt to sidestep how change actually happens, how laws work as a stepping stone to more laws and how this can mold the public perception of an issue. It's ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
+2
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited July 2016
Except the only argument you've provided thus far in opposition to licensing is that it could lead to a de facto ban.
You want to know what else could lead to a de facto ban? Self defense.
I mean, do you oppose licensing for any other reason?
EDIT: THat was specifically after NSDFRand's post. Frankie, I do not see at all how gay rights is at all applicable. Gun owners are not an oppressed minority, nor are they a recognized class (Nor need to be), nor are they being specifically restricted from things other people are not.
Except the only argument you've provided thus far in opposition to licensing is that it could lead to a de facto ban.
You want to know what else could lead to a de facto ban? Self defense.
I mean, do you oppose licensing for any other reason?
I mean, if you hold that gun ownership is a protected right it follows that liscensing can constitute an undo burden and has been shown to be ripe for abuse regarding guns in the past (for reference see "may issue" areas simply never issuing).
Moreover, I'm uncomfortable restricting a right in such a way, the same way "free speech zones" and the like worry me when they arise.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
guys i just read a fascinating letter from thomas jefferson about this
he says that it is just and fair that every gym bro with sick biceps should wear a sleeveless vest
To your edit Nova, reread my post. I'm not comparing gay rights and gun rights. I'm showing a process. Yo accused me of a slippery slope fallacy and my response is that societal and legislative change is a process. You can only fight the end result of that process by fighting the steps that lead there.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
To your edit Nova, reread my post. I'm not comparing gay rights and gun rights. I'm showing a process. Yo accused me of a slippery slope fallacy and my response is that societal and legislative change is a process. You can only fight the end result of that process by fighting the steps that lead there.
That's such a generalized argument as to be applicable to all legislation. Any law could be part of the path to a fascist autocracy.
I don't believe that's a good enough reason to simply tell the government they're not allowed to enact any laws or regulations.
I live in a society with licensing that is not an undue burder, nor has it led to any kind of de facto ban. So you have to do better.
Except the only argument you've provided thus far in opposition to licensing is that it could lead to a de facto ban.
You want to know what else could lead to a de facto ban? Self defense.
I mean, do you oppose licensing for any other reason?
Do you understand the difference between de facto and de jure ban?
Yes?
I'm not arguing that licensing would lead to a de facto ban, but that it may enact a de facto ban by placing an additional monetary cost on a protected right (before you reply with "Well the government isn't required to purchase your guns so there's already a cost!", there is a distinct difference between the cost of purchasing an item with which one may exercise a protected right, and the state placing a monetary restriction on that exercise beyond reasonable restriction). The argument Frankie is making is that it would be a step in the legislative process towards a de jure ban.
The example of legislative process working towards a goal steadily and incrementally is not a comparison between the two subjects of those legislative processes, rather a comparison of the process. Sixty years ago someone would be committing the same Slippery Slope fallacy arguing that eventually, through steady and incremental legislative change, being gay would become legally protected (regardless of actual issues still faced by LGBT citizens).
To your edit Nova, reread my post. I'm not comparing gay rights and gun rights. I'm showing a process. Yo accused me of a slippery slope fallacy and my response is that societal and legislative change is a process. You can only fight the end result of that process by fighting the steps that lead there.
That's such a generalized argument as to be applicable to all legislation. Any law could be part of the path to a fascist autocracy.
I don't believe that's a good enough reason to simply tell the government they're not allowed to enact any laws or regulations.
I live in a society with licensing that is not an undue burder, nor has it led to any kind of de facto ban. So you have to do better.
How many people legally own handguns in Canada?
Frankie isn't arguing that any possible legislation ever could lead to your hyperbolic example. Rather that a specific piece of legislation, coupled with the explicit desire for a full ban as expressed by a few of the proponents of control legislation (especially Feinstein), could.
To your edit Nova, reread my post. I'm not comparing gay rights and gun rights. I'm showing a process. Yo accused me of a slippery slope fallacy and my response is that societal and legislative change is a process. You can only fight the end result of that process by fighting the steps that lead there.
That's such a generalized argument as to be applicable to all legislation. Any law could be part of the path to a fascist autocracy.
I don't believe that's a good enough reason to simply tell the government they're not allowed to enact any laws or regulations.
I live in a society with licensing that is not an undue burder, nor has it led to any kind of de facto ban. So you have to do better.
I live in a society where previous liscensing schemes have been used to simply deny people from obtaining them, so no. I don't have to do better. It's also on you to show why we specifically need to restrict a constitutional right in this way.
As to the generalized argument, sure, but you're switching goal posts. I'm opposing specific legislation because the intent is clear and the groundwork it lays is clear. Stepping stone legislation is not new or revolutionary. The response to this was that I was committing a slippery slope fallacy, which led to my response showing how one can logically see the end goal of campaign and oppose it.
Specifically, people who don't think I should have the right to own guns, who do not respect it as a constitutional right, who have clearly stated they want to restrict that right "for my own good" are proposing legislation that restricts and weakens this right.
And yet somehow I'm supposed to assume that having gained this concession they will be content? Sorry, that does not follow.
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited July 2016
If the argument against is constitutional then there's no point in me discussing. I'm not American, the constitution doesn't mean anything when it comes to what a possible regulation would or would not accomplish and so I have nothing to say about that.
If the argument against is constitutional then there's no point in me discussing. I'm not American, the constitution doesn't mean anything when it comes to what a possible regulation would or would not accomplish and so I have nothing to say about that.
It's not the totality of my argument but it plays an obvious part. It's an American fact, it comes into play
If you oppose gun control measures because of a status-loss based argument, there's really no point in discussing what would be the "ideal" level of regulation, because it automatically puts any increased regulatory measure completely off the table. It also makes any discussion of whether gun rights are in fact rights at all, fundamental rights, impact other rights requiring a corresponding balance, or the rights (if indeed they exist) are exceeded the by status quo, impossible - because to concede even to argue those issues is to implicitly concede the threshold status-loss issue.
Posts
But then that argument is that these other people to whom the statistics don't apply, desperately need guns to protect themselves from something that is statistically never going to happen to them?
Please point out where I've stated that.
This forum seems to still have a problem addressing what someone has actually stated rather than what they think someone has stated or what's convenient for their argument.
Surprise, people tend not to care as much about something unless it's likely to or has personally affected them.
Given that multiple people have read your posts and come to similar conclusions, perhaps you are not being as clear as you think you are? Not maliciously, but it's easy to not be as clear as you are in your mind (general "you") on a text-based internet forum.
Like.... we're at 5+ people that are drawing the same conclusion from what you've said. It's not some conspiracy of the forum
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
After I've explicitly stated the opposite multiple times, and clearly stated my points before even that, I can't see where I'm not being clear enough. It's not something new when it comes to this specific topic and is why it is shut down so frequently.
These are your words. You literally just said that statistics detailed by the studies cited by @Abbalah do not apply to non-criminals because non-criminals are much less likely to be mugged or something.
The argument for the second amendment is that there is some sort of 'natural right' to be able to create large holes in anything that might attack one's person (or try to impose the King's will upon you). However, you just admitted that the likelihood of that is a statistical aberration.
So instead of simply saying that's not what you believe, why don't you tell us what it is that you actually do believe? What is the benefit to the guns that outweighs their danger if not their use in self-defense?
Please point out where I've made a pro 2A argument with regards to the right to self defense.
Also I didn't state they didn't apply, but that the statistics I provided, as admitted in one of their sources, May have a significant effect. And I replied in a manner that would allow continued discussion.
Clearly, guns are special, otherwise they would be heavily regulated like anything else.
What then is your argument about why guns are special, if it's not that there is some 'natural right'?
Are you asking me or just opening up the conversation on this point?
So basically your position is "I'm a white middle class male, and as the statistically least likely to experience the negatives of this issue (and thus the positives of regulation), we shouldn't regulate it." This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to systematic racism.
Earlier you cited an article that stated that three quarters of firearms crimes are committed by criminals. So, that still leaves tens of thousands of homicides and assaults each year that could. It's still a huge and disgusting problem that needs to be addressed.
Surprise, you don't care about statistical evaluation unless it's backed by your anecdotal evidence.
No, that isn't my position. That's my read on why the pro control side seems to have trouble with gun owners coming forward to "compromise". Again please actually read what I type instead of trying to create a position of moral outrage based on inferred prejudice that I haven't stated nor implied.
FYI there are ~10,000 firearms homicides per year.
So no, that doesn't leave tens of thousands of homicides. That leaves ~ 2500 homicides.
Clearly because I don't blindly agree with the position of another poster I must be arguing in bad faith, instead of trying to have a discussion including information I've provided. This is Debate & Discussion, isn't it?
Discussion doesn't require that I agree with even the majority position here.
The word 'and' usually means inclusive.
But I'm sure you knew that.
I did read what you typed. Specifically you said:
So don't move the goal posts and tell me you're arguing in good faith. Don't tell me that your anecdotal experience outweighs a statistical evaluation. That's not debating in good faith.
And don't tell me that your need to have fun outweighs the value of life for another. It's morally bankrupt.
You keep talking about what the population could be convinced of, making it extremely hard to have a discussion with you because you keep falling back on "well that's not what I feel."
So what do you believe in?
I'm fine with regulation. In fact we have regulation right now. I don't agree with a licensing scheme because that sets the stage for de facto ban. And many of the proposals members have made here that aren't outright complete ban are either too onerous or expensive for the state to set up and maintain. Or in the case of a registry, haven't done anything of value for a similar nation which implemented it, and subsequently eliminated it due to extreme cost overrun and limited usefulness.
Please point out where I've typed "well that's not what I feel". I've provided recorded statistics on perpetrators and victims of firearm homicide and assault, and argued that the majority of US persons aren't likely to experience firearm homicide or assault, and thus that may influence their desire to "come to the table". Because more than once in these threads posters have lamented that "reasonable gun owners" aren't coming to the table.
I made that clarification because the vagueness (I don't want to accuse Heffling of being purposefully misleading) could lead one to think that there are tens of thousands of homicides with firearms, regardless of his inclusion of "and assaults".
And as I have not been vague, there is much less to misread. And I wasn't being misread, I was being mischaracterized as a racist or elitist.
I provided four different sources. It's not anecdotal.
Ah, silly me. I should have assumed the one being specific was the vague one and the one changing the context of a statement by excising words was being specific.
Regarding a licensing scheme, are you afraid the government is about to ban cars? That slipperly slope argument is paranoid delusion of the highest order. I'm licensed for my firearms. I still have my firearms. In fact, licensing has been happening in Canada for decades and no one has shown up at my door to confiscate my guns. Licensing is probably the most likely way to improve the proliferation of firearms in the US because that solves the background check for private sales problem.
No, because the state issues a license for use of a motor vehicle on public roads, as the majority of states license for the carry of a firearm in public. That is not the same as a licensing scheme for ownership. If you're going to make the motor vehicle comparison, at least understand the difference first.
If you want to solve the "background check for private sales problem", then eliminate private sales. Pro ownership posters in here have already said that the requirement of a NICS check for secondary market sales was a reasonable restriction.
RE Specificity: Since when was "tens of thousands" more specific than an approximate concrete number? And I wasn't changing the context, I was clarifying for those who don't know better that we don't have tens of thousands of homicides per year, as could be inferred by that statement.
Saying you don't support something because it could be easier in the future to enforce a ban as an argument against regulation is crazy to me. A ban isn't coming in this political climate any time soon, the NRA has sold a pack of lies and you have to be a borderline delusional person with a religious attachment to your firearms to suspect that's a near term possibility
and as I said if 2/3 of the country and our politicians some day fall on the other side of that, well tough shit we live in a society
I didn't say I was against it because it may, hypothetically in the future, make it easier to enforce a potential de jure ban, rather that it may create a current (at the time of enactment) de facto ban.
Why is that argument crazy to you? It seems fairly obvious to me, as simply explained as "getting your foot in the door". Its very much like any other right: the more you restrict it the more you weaken it and set the stage for it to be ultimately or effectively removed when it's convenient to do so. Especially in this context, these additional restrictions are being pushed by people who quite blatently Do Not respect gun ownership as any kind of right.
As it stands, gun ownership is a right and I see it as an extension of the basic human right to self defense. I find it logical to oppose those who want to weaken that right, both for myself now and my children to come.
The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
Unless you oppose any and all restrictions, it's also dishonest.
Caveat: I do not think a ban is coming any day now, nor am I paranoid or delusional.
Just because Slippery Slope is a fallacy, one shouldn't commit the fallacy fallacy. I have seen a similar argument against piecemeal regulation of 1A (especially in the Political Media and Gawker threads) and 4A made here in this forum. And that Slippery Slope could be a fallacy, doesn't mean it can't be correct in any circumstance.
Hardly. It can be a fallacy, but most large changes don't just happen out of the blue. It's a process. If you want an easy example of this, look at Gay Rights. It didn't just happen one day. Legislation was built on legislation, as laws and norms began to change so did the public perception of the issue.
I'd say that was a positive example. I find gun rights much murkier. I'm open to sensible legislation that helps us maintain our rights, but I am wary. I am wary of people who do not respect the right or want me to have it attempting to push a similar process, pushing restrictive legislation and attempting to change public perception regarding gun rights as a whole. The AWB is a pretty clear example of this.
Yelling "slippery slope fallacy!" at me is an attempt to sidestep how change actually happens, how laws work as a stepping stone to more laws and how this can mold the public perception of an issue. It's ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
You want to know what else could lead to a de facto ban? Self defense.
I mean, do you oppose licensing for any other reason?
EDIT: THat was specifically after NSDFRand's post. Frankie, I do not see at all how gay rights is at all applicable. Gun owners are not an oppressed minority, nor are they a recognized class (Nor need to be), nor are they being specifically restricted from things other people are not.
Do you understand the difference between de facto and de jure ban?
Yes?
I mean, if you hold that gun ownership is a protected right it follows that liscensing can constitute an undo burden and has been shown to be ripe for abuse regarding guns in the past (for reference see "may issue" areas simply never issuing).
Moreover, I'm uncomfortable restricting a right in such a way, the same way "free speech zones" and the like worry me when they arise.
he says that it is just and fair that every gym bro with sick biceps should wear a sleeveless vest
the right to bare arms
mandatory sleeves is gun control~
That's such a generalized argument as to be applicable to all legislation. Any law could be part of the path to a fascist autocracy.
I don't believe that's a good enough reason to simply tell the government they're not allowed to enact any laws or regulations.
I live in a society with licensing that is not an undue burder, nor has it led to any kind of de facto ban. So you have to do better.
I'm not arguing that licensing would lead to a de facto ban, but that it may enact a de facto ban by placing an additional monetary cost on a protected right (before you reply with "Well the government isn't required to purchase your guns so there's already a cost!", there is a distinct difference between the cost of purchasing an item with which one may exercise a protected right, and the state placing a monetary restriction on that exercise beyond reasonable restriction). The argument Frankie is making is that it would be a step in the legislative process towards a de jure ban.
The example of legislative process working towards a goal steadily and incrementally is not a comparison between the two subjects of those legislative processes, rather a comparison of the process. Sixty years ago someone would be committing the same Slippery Slope fallacy arguing that eventually, through steady and incremental legislative change, being gay would become legally protected (regardless of actual issues still faced by LGBT citizens).
How many people legally own handguns in Canada?
Frankie isn't arguing that any possible legislation ever could lead to your hyperbolic example. Rather that a specific piece of legislation, coupled with the explicit desire for a full ban as expressed by a few of the proponents of control legislation (especially Feinstein), could.
I live in a society where previous liscensing schemes have been used to simply deny people from obtaining them, so no. I don't have to do better. It's also on you to show why we specifically need to restrict a constitutional right in this way.
As to the generalized argument, sure, but you're switching goal posts. I'm opposing specific legislation because the intent is clear and the groundwork it lays is clear. Stepping stone legislation is not new or revolutionary. The response to this was that I was committing a slippery slope fallacy, which led to my response showing how one can logically see the end goal of campaign and oppose it.
Specifically, people who don't think I should have the right to own guns, who do not respect it as a constitutional right, who have clearly stated they want to restrict that right "for my own good" are proposing legislation that restricts and weakens this right.
And yet somehow I'm supposed to assume that having gained this concession they will be content? Sorry, that does not follow.
It's not the totality of my argument but it plays an obvious part. It's an American fact, it comes into play