Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 2, 2012, 07:14 PM   #51
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey Beard View Post
iJohn, you know that long trench coat you have. That would work very well for your concealing a shot gun or two.
KGB
Have you been watching Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey Beard View Post
Oh, just on the BBC, the score is now seven down.
Score? Sad, and somewhat frivolous.
iJohnHenry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 07:20 PM   #52
Mac'nCheese
macrumors 68020
 
Mac'nCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Both. Everybody had muskets in the 1700/, everybody has whatever weapons we have now.

Define what you mean by danger. If you're talking about lethality of the weapons, obviously today's are more dangerous, but that's irrelevant to the central discussion.
I don't think that everybody has weapons now. I would guess that a higher % of people had firearms back in the day then now. They had a lot of bears running around and stuff. Yes, I was talking about the lethality (is that a real word?) of the weapons and how that isn't relevant to a conversation about the right to bear arms, which what this thread has turned into thanks to our posts, is beyond me.
Mac'nCheese is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 07:23 PM   #53
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Semantics. Shooting at agents of the government is akin to shooting at the government.
Still people. The right to bear arms was not added because deer hunting was being threatened.


Quote:
As eric/ has been saying - the situation has evolved. I believe the concept of bringing firearms to a fight with the government now is like bringing broadswords to a fight with the British in the 1770s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
That's a misrepresentation of what I've been saying, nice try.
OK - I withdraw it. I thought I had paraphrased you accurately, but if not I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
The US government had a hard enough time in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...
I'm not sure of your point here ?
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
snberk103 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 07:25 PM   #54
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese View Post
I don't think that everybody has weapons now. I would guess that a higher % of people had firearms back in the day then now. They had a lot of bears running around and stuff. Yes, I was talking about the lethality (is that a real word?) of the weapons and how that isn't relevant to a conversation about the right to bear arms, which what this thread has turned into thanks to our posts, is beyond me.
Well the actual percentage isn't relevant.

Lethality is a real word. You know that, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to form a response based on the concept.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lethal

It turned into this based on another poster suggesting that the constitution was referring to long guns under the second amendment. Which is a fallacious argument.
eric/ is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 07:28 PM   #55
Mac'nCheese
macrumors 68020
 
Mac'nCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Well the actual percentage isn't relevant.

Lethality is a real word. You know that, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to form a response based on the concept.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lethal

It turned into this based on another poster suggesting that the constitution was referring to long guns under the second amendment. Which is a fallacious argument.
Why isn't relevant? You can't just keep dismissing things without reason.

I know that its a real word, it keeps coming up as a spell check error.

Ok, so it turned into this from another poster. You still haven't said why the lethality (still with a red wiggly line under it) isn't relevant.
Mac'nCheese is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 07:29 PM   #56
glocke12
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Im just glad they didn't refer to the shooter as a "white asian"...
glocke12 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 08:11 PM   #57
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
.... If you're talking about lethality of the weapons, obviously today's are more dangerous, but that's irrelevant to the central discussion.
I don't think it is. In societies that restrict guns, everybody still has the "the same weapons"... fists and knives. And while there are some deaths due to fists and knives it pales in comparison to gun deaths in societies with access to guns. Guns make it easy (relatively) to kill. Todays guns make it very easy.
In the 1700s guns were very difficult to use as it involved loading power and shot and wads and ramming it all home. Then you got one shot which by todays standards didn't necessarily do a lot of damage. And you then had to clean the debris out of the bore before starting the process all over again.

Most people who were shot died of infections. The ball would carry bits of your clothing into the wound. The idea of "cleanliness" before and during any operation to remove the ball and the clothing was an alien concept.

So yes, I think the lethality of today's weapons definitely makes a difference.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
snberk103 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 08:14 PM   #58
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese View Post
Why isn't relevant? You can't just keep dismissing things without reason.

I know that its a real word, it keeps coming up as a spell check error.

Ok, so it turned into this from another poster. You still haven't said why the lethality (still with a red wiggly line under it) isn't relevant.
Well why is it relevant then?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
I don't think it is. In societies that restrict guns, everybody still has the "the same weapons"... fists and knives. And while there are some deaths due to fists and knives it pales in comparison to gun deaths in societies with access to guns. Guns make it easy (relatively) to kill. Todays guns make it very easy.
In the 1700s guns were very difficult to use as it involved loading power and shot and wads and ramming it all home. Then you got one shot which by todays standards didn't necessarily do a lot of damage. And you then had to clean the debris out of the bore before starting the process all over again.

Most people who were shot died of infections. The ball would carry bits of your clothing into the wound. The idea of "cleanliness" before and during any operation to remove the ball and the clothing was an alien concept.

So yes, I think the lethality of today's weapons definitely makes a difference.
In societies where firearms are banned, only criminals have access to them. So all you do is end up restricting ownership by people who have no I'll intentions.

Also, people still died from the weapon. So it doesn't matter.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 08:31 PM   #59
Ugg
macrumors 68000
 
Ugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Penryn
Send a message via AIM to Ugg
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post

I know what your attempting to do, but it's a fallacy. Especially if you're arguing in terms of the Constitution (which I don't like doing since I don't care for the constitution) in whic no mention is made of specific types of weapons.
So, why are you still living in America if you 'don't care' for the Constitution? It would seem that any thinking man, as you claim to be, would choose his residence based on the legality of privately owned lethality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Both. Everybody had muskets in the 1700/, everybody has whatever weapons we have now.

Define what you mean by danger. If you're talking about lethality of the weapons, obviously today's are more dangerous, but that's irrelevant to the central discussion.
Could you clarify what you mean by 'everybody'? While gun ownership is high in the US, I know quite a few people over the age of 18 who don't own guns.

Laws are enacted to reflect technology that is in use at that time. Were the writers of the second amendment somehow supposed to see into the future where cheaply made automatic weapons were available at gun shows? Gun shows that are currently exempt from gun check laws. It would seem that the NRA would be interested in upholding the law, not subverting it. Who knows, maybe they're just another one of those corrupt, corporate fed mouthpieces!?!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post

Also, people still died from the weapon. So it doesn't matter.
You love simplification unless of course it points out the utter insanity of your reasoning. So sad.
__________________
Check out <Peter's family tree!
Ugg is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 08:42 PM   #60
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
So, why are you still living in America if you 'don't care' for the Constitution? It would seem that any thinking man, as you claim to be, would choose his residence based on the legality of privately owned lethality?
Love it or leave it fallacy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
Could you clarify what you mean by 'everybody'? While gun ownership is high in the US, I know quite a few people over the age of 18 who don't own guns.
Just a generalization. Obviously not everybody has weapons. Idk what the actual weapon ownership is per person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
Laws are enacted to reflect technology that is in use at that time.
No they aren't. Especially not a document like the Constitution which was meant to be enduring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
Were the writers of the second amendment somehow supposed to see into the future where cheaply made automatic weapons were available at gun shows?
No idea. I can't speak for dead people. Neither can you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
Gun shows that are currently exempt from gun check laws. It would seem that the NRA would be interested in upholding the law, not subverting it. Who knows, maybe they're just another one of those corrupt, corporate fed mouthpieces!?!?
They probably are. I don't really care for the NRA. I think all gun shows should be required to follow their state laws.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
You love simplification unless of course it points out the utter insanity of your reasoning. So sad.
Well the simple fact was that the guns killed them, either directly or indirectly. So I fail to see why it matters.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 08:46 PM   #61
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Yes, we get it. Some guy once said you can have guns, so now it's okay for people to run around putting holes in each other.

If you weren't born into it you would be just as happy, just as 'free', and far safer.
niuniu is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 08:58 PM   #62
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
Yes, we get it. Some guy once said you can have guns,
Well it wouldn't' matter if they said it or not. I still have the same feelings because it's irrational to not come to the same conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
so now it's okay for people to run around putting holes in each other.
Fallacy. That would be murder anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
If you weren't born into it you would be just as happy, just as 'free', and far safer.
I feel pretty happy right now. I'd probably be happy without owning a firearm. But it's irrelevant.
eric/ is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 09:11 PM   #63
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Well it wouldn't' matter if they said it or not. I still have the same feelings because it's irrational to not come to the same conclusion.



Fallacy. That would be murder anyway.



I feel pretty happy right now. I'd probably be happy without owning a firearm. But it's irrelevant.

Do you know what fallacy means?
niuniu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 09:15 PM   #64
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
Do you know what fallacy means?
yes
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 09:20 PM   #65
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
yes
Then break down the quoted part of the sentence and show how it is a fallacy.
niuniu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 09:27 PM   #66
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
Then break down the quoted part of the sentence and show how it is a fallacy.
No problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
Yes, we get it. Some guy once said you can have guns,
Ok. More like the framers of the Constitution said that and then wrote it down and it was used as part of the founding of the United States of America. But ok.

(not that this point is even relevant since I don't really care what they think personally)

Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
so now it's okay for people to run around putting holes in each other.
This has nothing to do with your first premise.

I've never stated that murder was ok, nor has anybody else, nor does one guy saying you can have guns mean that it's ok to murder people.

It's called a non sequitur.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 09:32 PM   #67
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
No problem



Ok. More like the framers of the Constitution said that and then wrote it down and it was used as part of the founding of the United States of America. But ok.

(not that this point is even relevant since I don't really care what they think personally)



This has nothing to do with your first premise.

I've never stated that murder was ok, nor has anybody else, nor does one guy saying you can have guns mean that it's ok to murder people.
What premise did I make? And where did I mention murder?
niuniu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2012, 09:38 PM   #68
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
What premise did I make?
It's really not a big deal, but it's a fallacy. Perhaps rewording your statement or stating things in a different manner will be better.

Your premise was:

some guy said it was ok to have guns

and then your conclusion was:

it's ok to put holes in people

that's a non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
And where did I mention murder?
Filling people with holes isn't murder? If not, what is it? What exactly are you trying to say?
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2012, 12:41 AM   #69
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
...
In societies where firearms are banned, only criminals have access to them. So all you do is end up restricting ownership by people who have no I'll intentions.
...
And you'd still be safer if only criminals had guns.

The majority of shootings are committed by people who were not criminals, until in an act of irrationality they reached for the gun keep at home - pointed it at a loved one - and pulled the trigger. Guns used by people intending to commit a crime accounts for less than 15% of the people who die of gunshot wounds. If you took all the guns away - except for those that criminals have... you'd still be safer. You are more likely to be shot dead by your husband/wife/parent/sibling/child/best-friend/pal/acquaintance using a registered weapon than a criminal.

The experience in societies with strongly restricted guns is that in fact criminals have a much harder time getting their hands on weapons, that they often can't afford them, and that they don't actually use guns much because - well - they don't have to. They know their victims are most likely unarmed, so why bother risking the extra jail time in case you get caught. Plus, the police will make a much more thorough investigation if a gun is used since gun crimes are taken that much more seriously.

So in fact you are also safer from criminals.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
snberk103 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2012, 05:52 AM   #70
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
And you'd still be safer if only criminals had guns.
You are arguing with a charter member of the "Cold Dead Hands" club.
iJohnHenry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2012, 07:57 AM   #71
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Wirelessly posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/
...
In societies where firearms are banned, only criminals have access to them. So all you do is end up restricting ownership by people who have no I'll intentions.
...
And you'd still be safer if only criminals had guns.

The majority of shootings are committed by people who were not criminals, until in an act of irrationality they reached for the gun keep at home - pointed it at a loved one - and pulled the trigger. Guns used by people intending to commit a crime accounts for less than 15% of the people who die of gunshot wounds. If you took all the guns away - except for those that criminals have... you'd still be safer. You are more likely to be shot dead by your husband/wife/parent/sibling/child/best-friend/pal/acquaintance using a registered weapon than a criminal.

The experience in societies with strongly restricted guns is that in fact criminals have a much harder time getting their hands on weapons, that they often can't afford them, and that they don't actually use guns much because - well - they don't have to. They know their victims are most likely unarmed, so why bother risking the extra jail time in case you get caught. Plus, the police will make a much more thorough investigation if a gun is used since gun crimes are taken that much more seriously.

So in fact you are also safer from criminals.
The best part about this argument is that even if that were true (no links provided on your part) you still have no philosophically consistent argument regarding when, how, and if one person has the 'right' to tell another person what they may or may not have. You're on quite the slippery slope.

You're just drawing an arbitrary line about what you consider acceptable. Well, who cares?

Last edited by eric/; Apr 3, 2012 at 07:58 AM.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2012, 08:13 AM   #72
Zombie Acorn
macrumors 65816
 
Zombie Acorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
I see no correlation between guns per capita and gun related homicides by state. The reason family related death rates with guns are high is because they add suicides and self inflicted gun shots to the statistics. suicides accounted for nearly 50% of all gun related death in some years. Obviously they would have found another way.
__________________
--2.6 C2Q 4gb DDR3 GTX 260-Win 7--
--2.0 CE Macbook Alum-Leopard--
Zombie Acorn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2012, 08:23 AM   #73
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
That's not the context he's using long gun in.

If it was, than ok I suppose. But the argument is still bad.
In context he is correct. Long guns are better for combat. Plan and simple. Unless you want to explain why the military mainly issues rifles to its troops.

Handguns are for close range and often times last ditch options. They are not a good choice for first line.
Rodimus Prime is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2012, 08:37 AM   #74
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
Handguns are for close range and often times last ditch options. They are not a good choice for first line.
I agree.

I prefer not letting the bad guys see the whites of my eyes.
iJohnHenry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2012, 08:51 AM   #75
ericrwalker
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albany, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohnHenry View Post
You are arguing with a charter member of the "Cold Dead Hands" club.
What club is that? Something like this Mr. Heston?

ericrwalker is offline   2 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Middle School Shooting - Reno/Sparks, Nevada bradl Politics, Religion, Social Issues 258 Oct 26, 2013 04:02 PM
Students Hurt In Accidental Shooting By Cop At School Safety Event Near Los Angeles steve knight Politics, Religion, Social Issues 0 Oct 24, 2013 11:00 AM
Shooting at Atlanta Middle School Leaves 8th Grader Shot in the Head bradl Politics, Religion, Social Issues 169 Feb 3, 2013 09:03 AM
Bidenís Gun Violence Event Interrupted By News Of Another School Shooting rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 113 Jan 13, 2013 12:38 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC