What's new

Gun Control

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that these are, by their very nature, law abiding citizens.

There is a difference between "rational people who won't misuse guns" and those who are generally "law abiding citizens".

If you are reflexively opposed to any arguments against gun control, then of course you won't find this convincing. It's a two-way street, eh?

Absolutely. I bet that sort of rubber-glue rebuttal works great on posters who reflexively oppose any arguments against gun control, like Straw One Brow.
 
There is a difference between "rational people who won't misuse guns" and those who are generally "law abiding citizens".


Absolutely. I bet that sort of rubber-glue rebuttal works great on posters who reflexively oppose any arguments against gun control, like Straw One Brow.

Perhaps but this only aimed at those law abiding citizens who happen to be rational people who won't misuse guns. If there are people carring concealed weapons without permits do you think barring the legality of the permits on campus will stop them from carring?

This is another senseless attempt to restrict the rights of responsible gun owners.
 
There is a difference between "rational people who won't misuse guns" and those who are generally "law abiding citizens".

This comes across in a manner that suggests you don't see any overlap in the two groups. I'm suggesting that most people who fall in one of these categories fit in both, so arguing the difference is unnecessary.

Do you actually LOL as you're trolling, or do you sit back and smugly revel in your clever gamesmanship?
 
This comes across in a manner that suggests you don't see any overlap in the two groups. I'm suggesting that most people who fall in one of these categories fit in both, so arguing the difference is unnecessary.

Do you actually LOL as you're trolling, or do you sit back and smugly revel in your clever gamesmanship?

The scarier thought is that he actually thinks he making a valid case for his POV...
 
Perhaps but this only aimed at those law abiding citizens who happen to be rational people who won't misuse guns.

Perhaps there are aspects to getting a carry permit of which I am not aware. Which of those guarantees you will behave rationally at all times and and not misuse guns?

If there are people carring concealed weapons without permits do you think barring the legality of the permits on campus will stop them from carring?

No, I don't think that will happen, nor do I see why it's relevant to this conversation.
 
This comes across in a manner that suggests you don't see any overlap in the two groups. I'm suggesting that most people who fall in one of these categories fit in both, so arguing the difference is unnecessary.

There is certainly an overlap. There's also an overlap between each of those groups, and those who possess firearms illegally.

I see no reason to think your suggestion has merit, given that "the difference" results in more deaths from accidents, domestic violence, suicide, etc. People who act irrationally without a gun won't act rationally because they possess a gun.

Do you actually LOL as you're trolling, or do you sit back and smugly revel in your clever gamesmanship?

No trolling on my part. I'm amused that every qualification and correction I offer gets treated as if it's a call to ban all guns at all times, but I'd be much more interested and satisfied in a conversation where that reaction did not happen.
 
Perhaps there are aspects to getting a carry permit of which I am not aware. Which of those guarantees you will behave rationally at all times and and not misuse guns?



No, I don't think that will happen, nor do I see why it's relevant to this conversation.

The rate of gun misuse is essentially the same between police officers and CCW holders. I suppose we should ban police officers from bringing their guns onto campus when responding to calls...besides all the drunk college kids who might get a hold of the police officers guns.
 
Perhaps there are aspects to getting a carry permit of which I am not aware. Which of those guarantees you will behave rationally at all times and and not misuse guns?



No, I don't think that will happen, nor do I see why it's relevant to this conversation.

Then by this arguement we should ban SUVs since people could be dangerous with them regardless of them having a license.
 
When you direct that question to me, I'll answer. As long as you insist on engaging Straw One Brow, I see no need to respond.

So you're saying you won't respond if I call you SOB? I wonder if the filter here would even let me "engage Straw One Brow".

hmmm. .. . looks like the filter doesn't see that as a problem... . . . get Colton on it ASAP.

Look real One Brow, you're the man with the blog about the Universe, and I've watched you debate popular fiction about the meaning of everything pretty endlessly, and pointlessly. I do wonder who pays you to be on the internet for the amount of time you invest. . . . or how you actually earn your living. . . . but whatever.

I've seen in the immense volumes of your product where you actually look forward, like most "progressives" do, to the time when the UN's stated objective of absolutely no private people having any weapons is achieved, and "world peace" will be the result. . . . negotiated at the tables of unelected UN officialdumb to the complete satisfaction of statists worldwide. . . . . lol.

Until you recognize yourself for what you actually are, nobody can tell you any different from what you think. Besides believing in the promoted agenda of some the world's cleverest propagandists, which I suppose is a human right as well as self-defense. . . . . a lot of folks are as set in their ways as I imagine you are, in complete satisfaction with it all. But let me try one more time to unsettle you with some barbarous little pokes. . . .

do you or do you not realize that's it's just a waste of time to quibble about erudite distinctions in statistical categories of theoretical classifications of human beings? "reasonable citizens" don't exist in the minds of political strategists or government managers...... all citizens must be guided by the "reason" of the objectives of the statists. Anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda must be separated out, labeled as some kind of threat, and marginalized by the media somehow. . . . ignored. . . . called hateful slurs of some kind. . . . Even letting the government have the power to employ professionals to make those distinctions is going to result in horrific oppression.

No matter how airtight the psychiatric classifications can be made, the human who is completely predictable one day just might flip out tomorrow. And that goes for Presidents as much as for druggies behind the liquor store. No professional and responsible approach to management, imposed by the world's leading intellects, is going to be able to stop people from doing "wrong" when they decide to do it, nor stop them from inventing their own views and reasons different from what they're "told". History is replete with examples of tyrants and statists of every stripe who have gone over the deep end somehow, and become homicidal monsters on grand scales, or in unforseeable ways implemented forms of genocide within their own lands, and started senseless wars with neighboring realms. . . . . And that is why it's just a human right, to absolutely possess significant deterernce against the immediate threats to life, limb, or property.

An armed citizenry should be viewed as a civic duty, as the most convincing deterent we can ever hope for, against criminals, gangs of criminals, or governments gone wrong.

we will always have policemen who go bad, presidents or statesmen of any rank, kings and tyrants who go bad. We have scientists who go bad too. There is no place you can safely place your trust, and you have no legitimate business trying to tell other people where they should place theirs. . . .. speaking as an authority of any kind, that is. . . . it is nothing more than perhaps your opinion. God I hope it's your opinion, and not just something on your "talking points" sheet for the day.

And, finally, anyone who imagines a universe that is merely mechanical, or rational, or capable of being reduced to a mathematical equation, is just missing out on all the fun in life.
 
Last edited:
There is certainly an overlap. There's also an overlap between each of those groups, and those who possess firearms illegally.

I see no reason to think your suggestion has merit, given that "the difference" results in more deaths from accidents, domestic violence, suicide, etc. People who act irrationally without a gun won't act rationally because they possess a gun.



No trolling on my part. I'm amused that every qualification and correction I offer gets treated as if it's a call to ban all guns at all times, but I'd be much more interested and satisfied in a conversation where that reaction did not happen.

My intial post - which, for the record, was not a response to anything you had posted - stated (in a nutshell) that I felt Colorado's HB1226 would result in a net decrease in safety on college campuses. You chose to engage this discussion with a commentary, not on legal CCW holding citizens (the subjects of the law, and my post), but on "immature drunks". It's difficult to come to any conclusion other than you believe CCW holders are more dangerous than other (read: illegal) gun owners. If not, how does eliminating the possibility of there being someone who is equipped and prepared to do the right thing in an ugly situation make it safer? They are going to be most likely to obey the rules. How do I know this? Because taking the time and expense (and passing the background check) to acquire a CCW demonstrates it. That's how I know. That may not satisfy you, but it's a whole hell of a lot more than the conjecture that is the foundation of your argument (I think... honestly, you make it difficult to know exactly where you stand. Your very evasive.)

Just so we're clear - Someone may act irrationally, so they better not have a gun - is the conjecture I speak of.

I haven't accused you of wanting to ban all guns at all times, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
 
Back
Top