Guns: Facts top feelings

[VincePetaccio 0]

Quote

that's closer than most get to an individualistic perspective

if you replace "as a whole" with "for me" ('as a whole' is none of my business)
delete "may" (who am I you to give permission to another's opinions)
and just delete "and I'm open to that" (being 'open' to another's position is also none of my business - what am I really judging?)

If we do that, we have a serious winner.

But, take note, you would be considered a "pro gun nutjob" with your position by the anti-gun types here and most places.

By "as a whole," I meant "in the majority of situations," and by "may," I meant "might."

By saying I'm open to it, I suppose that I mean that I'm open to hearing what others have to say.

However, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by your last part. Do you mean to say that taking a stance that is open to the opinions of those who are pro-gun could earn me the title "pro gun nutjob"?

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[billvon 3,090]

>>Call it what you will, but if you believe in a god, you're not basing
>>your belief on facts.

>I consider the two separate, for what it's worth.

Which two? Religion and spirituality? Yes, you can indeed separate them, although they are related.

However, Quade was talking about religion, period. It would indeed be interesting to see how many people believe that facts top feelings - but also believe that feelings top facts when it comes to religion.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

that's closer than most get to an individualistic perspective

if you replace "as a whole" with "for me" ('as a whole' is none of my business)
delete "may" (who am I you to give permission to another's opinions)
and just delete "and I'm open to that" (being 'open' to another's position is also none of my business - what am I really judging?)

If we do that, we have a serious winner.

But, take note, you would be considered a "pro gun nutjob" with your position by the anti-gun types here and most places.

By "as a whole," I meant "in the majority of situations," and by "may," I meant "might."

By saying I'm open to it, I suppose that I mean that I'm open to hearing what others have to say.

However, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by your last part. Do you mean to say that taking a stance that is open to the opinions of those who are pro-gun could earn me the title "pro gun nutjob"?

Ever heard of the phrase "You are either with us or against us"?

It isn't just something that the last president said.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

By "as a whole," I meant "in the majority of situations," and by "may," I meant "might."

By saying I'm open to it, I suppose that I mean that I'm open to hearing what others have to say.

However, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by your last part. Do you mean to say that taking a stance that is open to the opinions of those who are pro-gun could earn me the title "pro gun nutjob"?

1 - yeah, I got it. Sorry, I just wanted to play semantics pickery - it's a popular pasttime on SC....

2 - Yes, the anti-gun crowd want government to interfere with an individual's right to choose what private property they can own (certainly some are just unreasonable, but others have personal rationalizations for their positions that they think are reasonable). The Pro-gun crowd just wants people to choose for themselves and leave each other alone and the rationalizations are not important when placed against the right to choose for yourself. You are a pro-gun nutjob. frustrating isn't it?

It's really simple:

Guy A is a "pro gun Nutjob"
Guy B is an "anti gun Activist"

If Guy C wants to own a gun - Guy A won't stop it, Guy B would pass laws to not allow Guy C to own one.
If Guy D wants to not own a gun - Guy A won't force him to own a gun, Guy B will won't either.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,090]

>Guy A is a "pro gun Nutjob"
>Guy B is an "anti gun Activist"

>If Guy C wants to own a gun - Guy A won't stop it, Guy B would pass laws to not
>allow Guy C to own one.

>If Guy D wants to not own a gun - Guy A won't force him to own a gun, Guy B will
>won't either.

Not quite. Plenty of people who have been labeled "anti gun activists" here are perfectly OK with Guy C owning a gun. Conversely, there are pro-gun types who have proposed forcing guy D to own a gun.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

However, Quade was talking about religion, period. It would indeed be interesting to see how many people believe that facts top feelings - but also believe that feelings top facts when it comes to religion.

There are no facts out there that top religion. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God. It can poke holes in the minor detail (like the age of the world) or explain miracles (parting of the Red Sea), but it can't prove that God didn't cause the Big Bang, or just create the world in recent times with lots of old fossils to test faith.

In strict contrast, the facts around the results of CCW liberalizing proves quite handily that the emotional cries about wild west shootouts are fantasy and has no bearing on reality. One can fight about the claims that CCW would reduce crime, but there's no question it's not making things worse. CCW permit holders typically compare well to metropolitan police departments in terms of crime rates, and well above the general population.

Why did Quade bring religion into this? Because otherwise he had nothing. So he hoped to create this wedge issue, a Willie Horton if you will, based on the premise that guns owners tend to be right, and Christians tend to be right. Doesn't apply to us gun toting atheists, though.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Not quite. Plenty of people who have been labeled "anti gun activists" here are perfectly OK with Guy C owning a gun. Conversely, there are pro-gun types who have proposed forcing guy D to own a gun.

I believe your last sentence is true, and minor.

That 2nd sentence? they wouldn't be 'anti-gun activists' if they are ok with someone else owning- what would they do, buy a gun and then try to pass a law where the government only restricts their specific personal ownership? or perhaps they'll stage protests against themselves? or they have multiple personality disorder and don't know their alternate egos? nuts

Perhaps you mean they are ok with Guy C owning - but only if he's a cop, or only if he's a movie star or something - well, if that's the case, then I'll clarify that Guy C is just your average Joe...


Let's call them -

Anti-Gun
vs
Pro-Choice

how's that?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,090]

>they wouldn't be 'anti-gun activists' if they are ok with someone else owning . . .

Perhaps not. But things here are black and white. Even if you think that the CCW laws should be changed a bit, you are a "gun-o-phobe" who wants to ban all guns. Take Kallend. He's said many times that he does not want to ban ownership of guns - yet is regularly attacked as an anti-gun activist.

[billvon 3,090]

>Why did Quade bring religion into this?

Because religion is perhaps the biggest example in the US of feelings topping facts, and most conservatives are both pro-gun (and would profess to put facts over feelings in that regard) and religious.

>There are no facts out there that top religion.

Other than paleontology, astronomy, evolution, abiogenesis and neuroscience.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

...However, I personally feel as though guns are unnecessary as a whole and that they only lead to bad. Others may agree or disagree as they see fit, and I'm open to that...

Just out of curiosity, what facts do you base that opinion on?
You certainly are entitled to your opinions, but I have yet to see any accurate or rational reasoning that supports that particular opinion.
Please don't tell me the "43 times more likely" myth.

I won't disagree that they can be misused, and that misuse causes a lot of misery.

But the number of guns that are misused is a very small percentage of all guns out there. Even the number of guns that are actually used to prevent/stop crime is a small percentage of all the guns out there (although a larger percentage than those used in crimes).

If they are unnecessary and only lead to bad, why do cops, security guards, soldiers, ect carry them?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[regulator 0]

The first word in the subject of this topic is Guns:

Like vince said there's alot of grey area and being the subject is so vague people are running off and saying its about religeon and what not..(not talking to billvon just talking about thread drift) so my father is a sherrif...he has well over 120 pistols, rifles and a few assault rifles to boot. I have inherited quite a few of these and one day when he passes on I will inherit more of them. I own a M1 carbine that I have not shot once....I have boxes of ammo and I really dont want to go shoot it ..'just because'. Trust me if some fucking nutjob breaks glass in my house and tries to gain entry while I'm sleeping my M1 is the first place I'm going to. But theres a LOT of difference between being a gun nutjob and someone who owns guns. Don't get me wrong I dont dislike shooting guns, I just dont want to make it a daily thing that takes my time up. I have skydiving on the weekends and thats good enough for me.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>There are no facts out there that top religion.

Other than paleontology, astronomy, evolution, abiogenesis and neuroscience.

Show me your proof, Bill.

Prove that God doesn't exist. You have 24 hours. Or admit the above is false.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>they wouldn't be 'anti-gun activists' if they are ok with someone else owning . . .

Perhaps not. But things here are black and white. Even if you think that the CCW laws should be changed a bit, you are a "gun-o-phobe" who wants to ban all guns. Take Kallend. He's said many times that he does not want to ban ownership of guns - yet is regularly attacked as an anti-gun activist.

his own words betray him over and over again.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I'm curious how many people that voted "Facts top feelings" also believe in religion.

I did and do.

Have fun with it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[VincePetaccio 0]

Quote

Just out of curiosity, what facts do you base that opinion on?
You certainly are entitled to your opinions, but I have yet to see any accurate or rational reasoning that supports that particular opinion.
Please don't tell me the "43 times more likely" myth.

I won't disagree that they can be misused, and that misuse causes a lot of misery.

But the number of guns that are misused is a very small percentage of all guns out there. Even the number of guns that are actually used to prevent/stop crime is a small percentage of all the guns out there (although a larger percentage than those used in crimes).

If they are unnecessary and only lead to bad, why do cops, security guards, soldiers, etc carry them?

To respond to your post in an upside-down fashion, I'll answer your last question first, by asking you a question: if criminals, insurgents, etc did not have guns, would cops, security guards, soldiers etc carry them? I don't believe that there would be a need to.

Of course, one could argue that they would still carry guns to protect themselves from other weapons (knifes, "shanks," icicles, rabid chipmunks, etc), but then they would be carrying weapons whose lethality potentially exceeded that of those from whom they are protecting themselves, a scenario which does not exist currently.

If this ideal (in my mind) situation DID play out, though, I'm sure the next big debate would be knife rights, then shank rights, then icicle rights, then rabid chipmunk rights.

So I suppose that my opinion on the issue comes down to my view of the world and those who inhabit it. I'm a deontologicalist- I value intentions over outcomes. I believe in the good of mankind. I'm an idealist.

Would I like to see guns as weapons (hunting, etc is another issue in my mind) erased from our society? Absolutely. But do I think it will ever happen? Absolutely not.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'm a deontologicalist- I value intentions over outcomes. I believe in the good of mankind. I'm an idealist.

Would I like to see guns as weapons (hunting, etc is another issue in my mind) erased from our society? Absolutely. But do I think it will ever happen? Absolutely not.

You contradict yourself. You claim to believe in the intrinsic "good" of mankind, then make a statement that implies that mankind cannot be trusted.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

To respond to your post in an upside-down fashion, I'll answer your last question first, by asking you a question: if criminals, insurgents, etc did not have guns, would cops, security guards, soldiers etc carry them? I don't believe that there would be a need to.

Of course, one could argue that they would still carry guns to protect themselves from other weapons (knifes, "shanks," icicles, rabid chipmunks, etc), but then they would be carrying weapons whose lethality potentially exceeded that of those from whom they are protecting themselves, a scenario which does not exist currently.

If this ideal (in my mind) situation DID play out, though, I'm sure the next big debate would be knife rights, then shank rights, then icicle rights, then rabid chipmunk rights.

So I suppose that my opinion on the issue comes down to my view of the world and those who inhabit it. I'm a deontologicalist- I value intentions over outcomes. I believe in the good of mankind. I'm an idealist.

Would I like to see guns as weapons (hunting, etc is another issue in my mind) erased from our society? Absolutely. But do I think it will ever happen? Absolutely not.

Thanks for the response.

I tend to be less of an idealist and more of a realist. There are people out there who are willing to hurt or kill me. Whether they have guns, knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, bricks, rocks, or just their fists and feet.

Even if the bad guys had zero guns, the cops would still need to have them.
I'm not a cop by any means, but I would not want to be attacked by (hypothetical scenario) Aggiedave or Davjohns. Both of those guys are huge, in great shape and up to speed on their hand-to-hand.

As a smaller person, I simply couldn't defend myself against them without a gun.
And what about women?

And what about against multiple attackers?

Look at society after serious natural disasters. Hurricanes are the most obvious example. Society breaks down. Those who are willing to hurt others do so in order to take what they want. The police are useless.
The only people who are reasonable safe from the looters are those who are prepared to defend themselves. Usually with guns.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

As a smaller person, I simply couldn't defend myself against them without a gun.
And what about women?

a gun would help you defend yourself against them too

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Beachbum 0]

Quote

Quote

Are we supposed to vote how we think logic would dictate, or how we think it actually IS in the world? I voted the latter.

Good question. I was intending the vote to be based upon "what should be". But I can see already from the results that many people are voting based upon "what is".

ROFL ... not exactly the thread you envisioned either, I bet! Now it's gone to religion, and I even saw a reference to abortion rights!

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

>There are no facts out there that top religion.

Other than paleontology, astronomy, evolution, abiogenesis and neuroscience.

Show me your proof, Bill.

Prove that God doesn't exist. You have 24 hours. Or admit the above is false.

Ok, God lives on, due to the absence of proof otherwise.

[Kennedy 0]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Neither side can "prove" their chosen belief.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I'm curious how many people that voted "Facts top feelings" also believe in religion.

I have seen some pretty strong evidence of the existence of religion.

[billvon 3,090]

>Show me your proof, Bill.

Easy. A tenet of the Christian religion is that all mankind came from Adam and Eve, who existed together in a garden approximately 6000 years ago. DNA analysis allows us to determine our "mitochondrial Eve" - the most recent common ancestor of all women. She lived approximately 200,000 years ago in East Africa.

On the other side of the equation, you can date the first common Y chromosome to determine "Y chromosome Adam", the most recent common ancestor of men. He lived approximately 75,000 years ago.

So we've demonstrated that Adam and Eve did not exist at the same time, even if you stretch the story in Genesis way beyond reason. You could stretch it even further and claim that it's all a big metaphor, and that they didn't exist at the same time, and that it's just a story of God's love for us. (Which I have no problem with.)

That would be an example of science forcing a reinterpretation of the most primal story of Christianity. An example of scientific fact trumping religion, in other words.

>Prove that God doesn't exist.

?? I never said God didn't exist. I said that facts trump religion, and gave an example.

Your turn. Prove God exists. You have 24 hours to do it, or admit defeat.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

But things here are black and white. Even if you think that the CCW laws should be changed a bit, you are a "gun-o-phobe" who wants to ban all guns. Take Kallend. He's said many times that he does not want to ban ownership of guns - yet is regularly attacked as an anti-gun activist.

One doesn't have to advocate a 100% ban on all private ownership of firearms to be an anti-gun activist. Maybe he only wants to ban hand guns. That would be an anti-gun position, no? Or one could propose any person who has been arrested not be allowed to own guns. Perhaps one might believe all gun purchases should require a $300 tax. All of those are anti gun positions, right? Most proposals limiting freedom are incremental. Others are not overtly antagonistic towards liberty, but they may be used for those ends. See the history of gun registration.

Many of the professor's positions on gun rights versus gun control, when he will actually state them clearly (a rarity), are on the side of limiting guns rights. He also uses a lot of very loose terms than gun banners like to make his points. See "loony." without a definition, it could be stretched to include anyone if the person doing the defining so wishes. And while he is very careful not to clearly state any ideas that limit gun rights, he just about never speaks up for more gun right or less gun control. Is he the most rabid gun controller out there, or even here on dz.com? No, not by a long shot. But that doesn't mean he isn't on that side of the argument.

And I prefer hoplophobe over silly things like gun-o-phobe. It comes from the Greek hoplon, meaning armor or weapon, as in hoplite.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,090]

>One doesn't have to advocate a 100% ban on all private ownership of firearms
>to be an anti-gun activist.

OK, fine with me. You're now arguing with rehmwa's claim that "they wouldn't be 'anti-gun activists' if they are ok with someone else owning [a gun]." That view is an overly simplistic one IMO, which is why I posted what I did.