2nd Amendment

Duck and cover
User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19798
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:21 pm

Monk, just shoot him. Then claim it was self defense. We'll all testify in your behalf.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:33 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Monk, just shoot him. Then claim it was self defense. We'll all testify in your behalf.

He can't. He doesn't believe people should be allowed to own guns and he doesn't believe people have the right to shoot the bad guy in self defense. But it was a nice gesture on your part. Thanks for having my best interests in mind.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:51 pm

@xoup

*sigh*

nope, no inconsistency, just your desire to spot one:
rights are a question of reciprocity: as an individual, I have no rights, because there is no one there to observe my rights. If I consider myself as a member of a group, and that group considers me a member, then we grant each other rights by virtue of observing each other's boundaries. Nothing more nothing less: rights are granted by assuring each other that we will not infringe upon them.

If I get less rights from you than I give you, I might think that I need other benefits to make up for that gap - but I stated more than clearly that this is a question of personal desires, not rights.

And if necessary I would not be above invoking the way to stop you badgering me about this in the forum (non-lethal, non-permanent): it's called calling upon moderators.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:10 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:rights are a question of reciprocity:

Is that an assertion that you have empirical evidence for? Is your claim falsifiable? Under what condition would you admit that rights are not a question of reciprocity? Do you have specific examples of what, if observed, would specifically challenge your theory? Exactly what observation is it that would disprove rights are a question of reciprocity?

ElectricMonk wrote:And if necessary I would not be above invoking the way to stop you badgering me about this in the forum (non-lethal, non-permanent): it's called calling upon moderators.

Go right ahead. I'm calling your bluff.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:32 pm

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:rights are a question of reciprocity:

Is that an assertion that you have empirical evidence for? Is your claim falsifiable? Under what condition would you admit that rights are not a question of reciprocity? Do you have specific examples of what, if observed, would specifically challenge your theory? Exactly what observation is it that would disprove rights are a question of reciprocity?


wow - you really think you can turn the table on this?

Unlike you (until a few minutes ago), I am not making any statements about natural laws: I don't claim that rights exit as a matter of provable fact, and that there must be a platonic realm filled with social obligations of reciprocity.

I am making observations on how Rights work in human societies: that they are by necessity a social construct and thus depend on mutual acceptance. Just like any social construct (money, LLC's, property rights, nation states etc.) there is no objective truth to them and talking about them is not the same as making scientific claims.
History has shown that an ape's sense of fairness requires us to all play by the same rules, to protect other players and to punish cheaters - this principle can be observed to a larger or smaller degrees in all social structures. So we play by the rules of 'individual rights' as a clever way to avoid getting bogged down in negotiations about status and power relative to one another: it is just more expedient in modern times to agree that we all have the same rights - that way we don't have to fight to maintain ours all the time. And we need an authority to control for cheaters to make sure we can keep on playing the game.

From experience, we see that social constructs lose their power when the belief in them is not shared: money is only worth something if everyone accepts it as money.

You are free to develop a better explanation for the workings of social constructs, I belief mine works pretty well for most situations. If you come up with a situation in which people grant others a massive amount of rights willingly without any perceived benefit in return, I might have to adjust my explanations.
Until then, let this line of questioning come to a close, please?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:34 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:wow - you really think you can turn the table on this?

Yes. In fact I just did. I am holding you to the same standards that are demanded of me.

ElectricMonk wrote:I don't claim that rights exit as a matter of provable fact,

Yes you do. You made the following claims of fact:

1. rights are a question of reciprocity
2. rights are by necessity a social construct
3. society gives you rights and can take them away.

If, as you allege, rights have no objective truth and if rights are not a provable fact, then what exactly did society give you?

ElectricMonk wrote:I am making observations on how Rights work in human societies: that they are by necessity a social construct and thus depend on mutual acceptance. Just like any social construct (money, LLC's, property rights, nation states etc.) there is no objective truth to them and talking about them is not the same as making scientific claims.

Wrong. Money, corporations, and the United States all exist as provable objective facts.

In any case, now that you have said "there is no objective truth to them and talking about them is not the same as making scientific claims" then I no longer need to provide scientific evidence for the existence of natural rights. I can now claim natural rights have no objective truth and thus depend only on my claim that I have them.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:47 am

@xouper

you lack a scientific understanding here - you don't seem to know or understand the difference between real and imaged things.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Philip K. Dick


Corporations are not real in the sense atomic bonds or electromagnetic waves are - if it was, you could not create or destroy them with a bit of wiggly ink on a specific piece of paper. Neither is money or nation states - humans have invented them, and they will all disappear from our imagination when humans do, or even before then.

Human behavior, especially group behavior can not be studied with the same exactness as radioactive decay: there are no Laws of Humans like there are Laws of Nature. Social Sciences can do remarkable things in description and, to a very limited degree, prediction, but they don't come up with Scientific Theories.

But you have asserted (in the past) that humans by being humans have an intangible power called rights, and that is mingling the physical with the supernatural, i.e. a dualist view of the world. Maybe you did not understand that when you made the claim, and simply meant: I believe in Natural Rights, because they would be a neat thing to have.
But that is a very different statement, from a scientific point of view.

Unlike you, I never made any scientific claims about by theories of rights - so I am not and never was bound by the Scientific Principle: my explanations are useful descriptions of what rights are in a human context, and they help at the very least me to understand social orders and interactions better.










I have always asserted that there are no Natural Rights in the sense that they can exist without people believing they exit: they are not real in the sense a stone is real.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:18 am

ElectricMonk wrote:... you lack a scientific understanding here - you don't seem to know or understand the difference between real and imaged things.

Right back at ya, sport.

ElectricMonk wrote:"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Philip K. Dick

My sentiments exactly. Just because you stop believing in money, doesn't make it go away.

ElectricMonk wrote:Corporations are not real in the sense atomic bonds or electromagnetic waves are - if it was, you could not create or destroy them with a bit of wiggly ink on a specific piece of paper.

Not relevant. The fact that something can be created or destroyed is prima facie evidence that it has an objective existence.

ElectricMonk wrote:But you have asserted (in the past) that humans by being humans have an intangible power called rights, and that is mingling the physical with the supernatural, i.e. a dualist view of the world.

I have not made any claims about anything supernatural. It is false and dishonest to accuse me of having a dualist view of the world. Human emotions are not tangible either, but that does make me a dualist. You cannot point to anything in the human brain and say "there lies consciousness" and yet we know consciousness has an objective reality.

ElectricMonk wrote:Unlike you, I never made any scientific claims about by theories of rights

Yes you have. You have made several objective claims of fact about rights.

ElectricMonk wrote:I have always asserted that there are no Natural Rights in the sense that they can exist without people believing they exit: they are not real in the sense a stone is real.

Perhaps you have seen in another thread where I proposed a scientific experiment to get empirical evidence for or against the objective existence of the right of self ownership (which is a natural right).

It's somewhere in the middle of this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=459618#p459618

I would prefer that you reply to that experiment there and not here, but the choice is obviously yours.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:47 am

@xoup

at a certain level, you don't understand what I and others are talking about when we talk about rights (natural vs. legal).
I tried, really hard, to make you understand but obviously failed.
So I will no longer try to educate you on this.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:14 am

xouper wrote:My sentiments exactly. Just because you stop believing in money, doesn't make it go away.


Incorrect! Totally incorrect! Earth to xouper incorrect!

All you need to do iz blink too long and money will disappear!
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:28 am

ElectricMonk wrote:at a certain level, you don't understand what I and others are talking about when we talk about rights (natural vs. legal). I tried, really hard, to make you understand but obviously failed. So I will no longer try to educate you on this.

I understand how you feel. I feel the same way about you. Thank you for owning up to the fact that you have not made an argument that I find persuasive. I'll add that there is no shame in dropping out of the conversation (for any reason, or even no reason at all). But anytime in the future if you want to jump back in, I might still be here.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:24 am

Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:50 pm

JO 753 wrote:Self defence report

That was an interesting video, thanks for posting it. And your point is?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:57 pm

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Self defence report

That was an interesting video, thanks for posting it. And your point is?


that one should make up one's own mind?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:33 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Self defence report

That was an interesting video, thanks for posting it. And your point is?

that one should make up one's own mind?

True, but that's too generic and pretty much applies to almost anything. I was looking for something a bit more specific.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Sat May 02, 2015 4:36 am

The point being that gunz arent so great for self defense. The attacker alwayz haz the advantaj at the beginning uv an encounter kuz he knowz wen it will start and wut he iz going to do. Everybudy else iz at least a second behind and thats plenty uv time to get a fatal shot off.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat May 02, 2015 5:00 am

Following Jo's point.
because of this, conflicts with armed participants escalate much more quickly, because everyone realizes how important it is to be the first one to draw.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sat May 02, 2015 6:16 am

JO 753 wrote:The point being that gunz arent so great for self defense. The attacker alwayz haz the advantaj at the beginning uv an encounter kuz he knowz wen it will start and wut he iz going to do. Everybudy else iz at least a second behind and thats plenty uv time to get a fatal shot off.

ElectricMonk wrote:Following Jo's point. because of this, conflicts with armed participants escalate much more quickly, because everyone realizes how important it is to be the first one to draw.

Those are interesting and reasonable sounding speculations, but they are not supported by the data. It is a statistical fact that using a gun to defend against a violent assault results in fewer injuries to the victim. Not to mention that I have posted several examples (in another thread) that directly refute the above speculations. Also, the kind of attack in that video is not at all typical of most attacks by armed bad guys.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat May 02, 2015 6:33 am

xouper wrote:Those are interesting and reasonable sounding speculations, but they are not supported by the data. It is a statistical fact that using a gun to defend against a violent assault results in fewer injuries to the victim. Not to mention that I have posted several examples (in another thread) that directly refute the above speculations. Also, the kind of attack in that video is not at all typical of most attacks by armed bad guys.



You are making unwarranted assumptions here: just because someone is threatened does not mean he would be hurt: as you said yourself, guns often work to intimidate attackers - they work even more often to coerce people into giving in. You keep on commingling attacks against a person with attacks against property: if someone wants to rob you, he is using the threat of force to make you hand over your money: hurting is not the objective.
So if the victims just gives in, no one (physically) gets hurt. Calling an armed robbery an attack is not technically correct if only threats of violence are employed.
But if the intended victim starts fighting back, ideally only the attacker is hurt, more likely he himself or both are.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Tom Palven » Sat May 02, 2015 6:40 am

JO 753 wrote:The point being that gunz arent so great for self defense.


And wine may not be the best thing for one's health.

Should prohibitionists make the rules, or are people born free to choose?
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sat May 02, 2015 6:54 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:Those are interesting and reasonable sounding speculations, but they are not supported by the data. It is a statistical fact that using a gun to defend against a violent assault results in fewer injuries to the victim. Not to mention that I have posted several examples (in another thread) that directly refute the above speculations. Also, the kind of attack in that video is not at all typical of most attacks by armed bad guys.

You are making unwarranted assumptions here: just because someone is threatened does not mean he would be hurt:

Since it is not possible to know what the bad guy is going to do, it is prudent, legal, and moral to assume the worst and act to stop the threat.

ElectricMonk wrote:... You keep on commingling attacks against a person with attacks against property: if someone wants to rob you, he is using the threat of force to make you hand over your money: hurting is not the objective.

You cannot possibly know that the bad guy only wants the money. Sometimes he also wants to hurt you.

ElectricMonk wrote:So if the victims just gives in, no one (physically) gets hurt.

Tell that to the people who gave in and still got harmed.

ElectricMonk wrote:Calling an armed robbery an attack is not technically correct if only threats of violence are employed.

That is legally incorrect.

ElectricMonk wrote:But if the intended victim starts fighting back, ideally only the attacker is hurt, more likely he himself or both are.

That is contradicted by government data. Fighting back results in fewer injuries than not resisting.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Sat May 02, 2015 8:10 am

Tom-Palven wrote:
JO 753 wrote:The point being that gunz arent so great for self defense.


And wine may not be the best thing for one's health.

Should prohibitionists make the rules, or are people born free to choose?


If it were ONLY criminalz initiating all shooting events, there woud be less to argue about. And if there were no inosent bystanderz getting shot, and the 'good guy with a gun' won the confrontation well over haf the time, then thered be nothing to argue about. This iz not the case.

Everybody iz being forced to partisipate in this activity to sum degree, often having their livez taken away, even if they never payed any attention to it.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Tom Palven » Sat May 02, 2015 8:17 pm

Has everyone seen the movie Death Wish with Charles Bronson?

It's very well done, but real gun-haters probably wouldn't like it.

http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Death-Wish ... kid=222336
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19798
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat May 02, 2015 9:13 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Following Jo's point.
because of this, conflicts with armed participants escalate much more quickly, because everyone realizes how important it is to be the first one to draw.

Yeah, everybody wants to go Solo. 8-)
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Sun May 03, 2015 1:20 am

Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10532
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun May 03, 2015 1:55 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Following Jo's point.
because of this, conflicts with armed participants escalate much more quickly, because everyone realizes how important it is to be the first one to draw.

Yeah, everybody wants to go Solo. 8-)

Han or Napoleon?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Thu May 07, 2015 12:06 am

ElectricMonk wrote:You are making unwarranted assumptions here: just because someone is threatened does not mean he would be hurt:

The assumption is not always unwarranted. Example: Ana Charle.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/murdered-homeless-shelter-director-asked-security-article-1.2206108

... On Monday night, police say a former resident of the Bronx shelter forced her [Ana Charle] to strip naked, tried to rape her in her car and then shot her dead just blocks from her job as she tried to run away.

... On Monday night, Charle was walking to her car one block from the Bronx Blvd. shelter. West Spruill waited with a .40-caliber handgun and her license plate written on a piece of paper, cops said.

A video montage cobbled from security cameras captured ex-con Spruill, 39, lying in wait for Charle, said Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce. ...


The following editorial is from: http://fff.org/2015/05/04/gun-control-killed-ana-charle/

Jacob G Hornberger wrote:As I have written so many times in the past, kidnappers, rapists, and murderers don’t give a hoot about gun-control laws. New York’s strict gun-control laws certainly didn’t dissuade Charle’s killer from possessing a gun and using it against her. He obviously didn’t say to himself, “My gosh, I can’t use a gun to kidnap and kill this woman because that would be illegal.” At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if a person is willing to violate laws against kidnapping, murder, and rape, he’s also willing to violate gun-control laws.

But New York’s gun-control laws are extremely effective in prohibiting peaceful, law-abiding people like Ana Charle from defending themselves against kidnappers, rapists, and murderers. By making it illegal for them to carry a weapon to defend themselves, the gun-control laws make them easy targets for violent criminals.

Compare what happened to Ana Charle with what happened to Dinah Burns. Burns was out walking her dog on a path when she encountered two men with a baseball bat, one of whom said, “You’re coming with us.” The Ohio woman pulled out her concealed handgun and said, “I have this and I’m not afraid to use it.” The men backed off and left the scene.

Without her gun, there is little doubt that Burns would have met the same type of fate that Charle met.

I have nothing to add. That pretty much says what I want to say to those who took away Ana's right to carry a gun to defend herself. Gun control did not stop the bad guy.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Thu May 07, 2015 4:55 am

Exampl 1 iz no good. It iz assuming that comprehensiv gun control will fail to reduse proliferation, allowing the bad guyz to alwayz hav eazy akses to gunz.

Exampl 2 iz no good. The bad guyz were stoopid to show up without a gun. Du.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Thu May 07, 2015 5:14 am

JO 753 wrote:Exampl 1 iz no good. It iz assuming that comprehensiv gun control will fail to reduse proliferation, allowing the bad guyz to alwayz hav eazy akses to gunz.

Example one is a very good example of how gun control did not make Ana Charle more safe, in fact, just the opposite.

JO 753 wrote:Exampl 2 iz no good. The bad guyz were stoopid to show up without a gun. Du.

The point of the second example is that Dinah Burns was able to prevent the attack because she had a gun.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu May 07, 2015 6:29 am

http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/8d/3 ... _women.pdf

guns don't protect women against rape - they mainly help abusers.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Thu May 07, 2015 8:13 am

ElectricMonk wrote:http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/8d/3/1757/Gun_laws_and_violence_against_women.pdf

guns don't protect women against rape - they mainly help abusers.

That is factually incorrect. According to official data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), rape victims who defended themselves with a gun had fewer injuries or rapes than those who didn't.

Michael Bloomberg has a reputation for lying with statistics. I'll wager you never even bothered to vet any of those numbers in that propaganda piece, else you would have found them to be false (or at best grossly misleading).

Nice try, Monk, but on a skeptic forum, I am not fooled by such a tactic as you just tried.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Thu May 07, 2015 8:59 am

xouper wrote:Example one is a very good example of how gun control did not make Ana Charle more safe, in fact, just the opposite.


Reiterating the claim duznt make it any less ded. Your reiteration also haz a flaw: It requirez proof that Ana attempted to own and carry a gun and the law prevented her.

The point of the second example is that Dinah Burns was able to prevent the attack because she had a gun.


Yes. But that duznt negate the other points illustrated by the example.

2 A. Dinah being able to own & carry a gun around makes it far more likely that the bad guyz will be able to do the same.
B. Bad guyz on a mission are obviously pinhedz wen they fail to take advantaj uv the eazy akses to gunz.
C. Bad guyz walking around with baseball bats are eazy to spot.
D. She may hav dun just az well with less risk with pepper spray.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Tom Palven » Thu May 07, 2015 10:48 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:Example one is a very good example of how gun control did not make Ana Charle more safe, in fact, just the opposite.


Reiterating the claim duznt make it any less ded. Your reiteration also haz a flaw: It requirez proof that Ana attempted to own and carry a gun and the law prevented her.

The point of the second example is that Dinah Burns was able to prevent the attack because she had a gun.


Yes. But that duznt negate the other points illustrated by the example.

2 A. Dinah being able to own & carry a gun around makes it far more likely that the bad guyz will be able to do the same.
B. Bad guyz on a mission are obviously pinhedz wen they fail to take advantaj uv the eazy akses to gunz.
C. Bad guyz walking around with baseball bats are eazy to spot.
D. She may hav dun just az well with less risk with pepper spray.


A gun might do more to cut down on recidivism than pepper spray, which could create an angrier rapist, JO.

Btw, have you seen Death Wish?

Was sorry to see Rayvon Owen go home on Idol last night. Great voice and super likable.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Thu May 07, 2015 4:36 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:Example one is a very good example of how gun control did not make Ana Charle more safe, in fact, just the opposite.

Reiterating the claim duznt make it any less ded. Your reiteration also haz a flaw: It requirez proof that Ana attempted to own and carry a gun and the law prevented her.

No flaw. Apparently you did not read the whole story.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:The point of the second example is that Dinah Burns was able to prevent the attack because she had a gun.

Yes. But that duznt negate the other points illustrated by the example.

Those other points are invalid.

JO 753 wrote:A. Dinah being able to own & carry a gun around makes it far more likely that the bad guyz will be able to do the same.

Both examples disprove that. In Ana's case gun control did not stop the bad guy from having a gun. And in Dinah's case they could have had a gun and did not. Your conjecture is without merit. Criminals don't pay attention to gun laws. In both cases, the bad guys had equal access to guns, despite differing gun control laws.

JO 753 wrote:B. Bad guyz on a mission are obviously pinhedz wen they fail to take advantaj uv the eazy akses to gunz.

They are already pinheads for attempting to commit a criminal act by attacking Dinah.

JO 753 wrote:C. Bad guyz walking around with baseball bats are eazy to spot.

No they aren't. Or do you automatically assume that someone carrying a bat is a bad guy? Seriously? Do you actually think about what you type before hitting the submit button?

JO 753 wrote:D. She may hav dun just az well with less risk with pepper spray.

Maybe, or maybe not. Pepper spray is not always as effective as a gun. We've been over this before, JO.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Thu May 07, 2015 5:00 pm

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:Example one is a very good example of how gun control did not make Ana Charle more safe, in fact, just the opposite.

Reiterating the claim duznt make it any less ded. Your reiteration also haz a flaw: It requirez proof that Ana attempted to own and carry a gun and the law prevented her.

No flaw. Apparently you did not read the whole story.


I did. Apparently you missed a few detailz. This for example:

Cops said the weapon used in the savage street killing was originally sold in Arizona, and it was unclear how the gun reached the Bronx.


The local lawz had no effect. Screen door on a submarine.

They are already pinheads for attempting to commit a criminal act by attacking Dinah.


Thats their job! They are bad guyz! They woud probably be at least az incompetent at most other jobz.

JO 753 wrote:C. Bad guyz walking around with baseball bats are eazy to spot.

No they aren't. Or do you automatically assume that someone carrying a bat is a bad guy? Seriously? Do you actually think about what you type before hitting the submit button?


Yes. Men walking around with bats will raize sum suspicion. If they are wearing baseball uniformz and are in the vicinity uv a ball park, not so much. If they are also wearing weird makeup, they are obviously memberz uv a street gang. In any case, a baseball bat iz not concealable to any practical degree.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Thu May 07, 2015 5:06 pm

:roll:

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Thu May 07, 2015 5:07 pm

Tom-Palven wrote:A gun might do more to cut down on recidivism than pepper spray, which could create an angrier rapist, JO.


Well, a gun can teach a lesson thats impossible to forget. I often say 'thatl teach him! Wont make that mistake agen.' wen sumwun gets killed.

Btw, have you seen Death Wish?


Yes. Its been quite a wile, but I recall it being a good movie. Hav you seen The Mechanic? Charles Bronsons best movie.

Was sorry to see Rayvon Owen go home on Idol last night. Great voice and super likable.


I havent been watching Idol. I will probably tune in to the finale.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10760
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Thu May 07, 2015 5:13 pm

JO 753 wrote:
Cops said the weapon used in the savage street killing was originally sold in Arizona, and it was unclear how the gun reached the Bronx.

The local lawz had no effect.

That's exactly my point. The local gun laws did not keep a gun out of the hands of the bad guy, but they did keep a gun out of the hands of Ana. That's the whole point.

This example proves the cliche: If you make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns. And that's exactly what happened to Ana. Taking guns away from responsible law abiding citizens did not make them safer. That's the whole point of this example.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Thu May 07, 2015 5:39 pm

It proved no such thing. I read nothing in the story indicating that she wanted to own a gun. Therez alot about them asking for more security and not getting it. Therez nothing about them requesting special permits to carry weponz.

Proliferation iz the root problem. The story iz further evidence.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4832
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Tom Palven » Thu May 07, 2015 5:55 pm

JO 753 wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:
Yes. Its been quite a wile, but I recall it being a good movie. Hav you seen The Mechanic? Charles Bronsons best movie.



Yup, but same thing, it's bin a wile.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest