Why compromise is stupid

[Rich2018]

You like your own figure less than the one I used, eh?

I can substantiate my figure.

Please don't say I gave a figure that I did not.

 

[RF667799]

I can substantiate my figure.

Please don't say I gave a figure that I did not.

Has it been half a dozen posts now that I have accepted your figure?

I don't mind at all that your eager charge into contrariness led you to strengthen my point. I can see you don't like it.

 

[Rich2018]

Has it been half a dozen posts now that I have accepted your figure?

In a round-a-bout way after saying my figure was somehow a weakening of my argument.

Suffice to say you were guilty of misquoting me and have now retracted. Sort of.

 

[TurtleDude]

Absurd. I think the effort is to keep dishonest/crazy/spouse abuser Americans from owning. And who cares? You can still join a well regulated militia. And you want to bring back Thompson’s?

are you still unable to understand the difference between machine guns and semi auto rifles-rifles that average Americans have widely owned for 100 years. are you also so ignorant of the bill of rights that you think you have to join a militia for the right to vest?

 

[RF667799]

In a round-a-bout way after saying my figure was somehow a weakening of my argument.

Suffice to say you were guilty of misquoting me and have now retracted. Sort of.

I accepted your figure and discarded mine immediately upon you bitching about it.

I said your figure strengthened my point. Therefore, I was more than happy to accept it. And now, after ironically accusing me of beating a dead horse, you still seem unhappy with me accepting the number you offered.

 

[Rich2018]

I accepted your figure and discarded mine immediately upon you bitching about it....

Yeah, you don't like it when I make mistakes

I somehow think you'd equally dislike you mis-quoting you and deny you're "bitching"

 

[RF667799]

Yeah, you don't like it when I make mistakes

I somehow think you'd equally dislike you mis-quoting you and deny you're "bitching"

?????

 

[Rich2018]

?????

Please explain, your concern that I'd mixed up the .357 and .38 round with the .357 vs the .38 weapon ?

 

[RF667799]

Please explain, your concern that I'd mixed up the .357 and .38 round with the .357 vs the .38 weapon ?

You made two contradictory claims and then wanted to argue about them? That what you're talking about?

 

[Rich2018]

You made two contradictory claims and then wanted to argue about them? That what you're talking about?

And seemingly that irritated you ?

 

[Nickyjo]

are you still unable to understand the difference between machine guns and semi auto rifles-rifles that average Americans have widely owned for 100 years. are you also so ignorant of the bill of rights that you think you have to join a militia for the right to vest?

The difference as I understand it, is that machine guns are fully auto, and semi autos are not. I assume you have no problem with fully auto machine guns being banned. Neither do I. I also may differ from you in that I believe that semi autos should be attainable but with restrictions. What restrictions would you accept on any weapons? Cannons? Could a person have an anti-aircraft gun on his lawn if he lived next to an airport?

The second A is one sentence, poorly written in my view. But it introduces well regulated militias as a thing necessary for a free state, then it says in effect that is the way the people's right to bear arms is guaranteed. If instead of a comma after the first clause, the authors had put in "and in addition, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" or "therefore, through this the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" things would have been different. But the language allows the Supremes to say the amendment applies to individual ownership, but they leave the door open to regulation.

Btw, read a book not too long ago called "Gunfight." It reports that at times, people were *required* to keep a functioning firearm in their house, presumably to fight the Brits if they came back, but also describes western towns as big on gun control. OK corral fight started over a form of gun control, as some towns required visitors to check guns at the livery where the left their horses. Somehow they thought that horny thirsty cowboys and guns didn't work out well. Something in the book to help and hinder both sides' arguments.

French eat snails. Americans eat guns. Not sure I understand the logic of either, but snails do taste better with enough garlic.

 

[TurtleDude]

The difference as I understand it, is that machine guns are fully auto, and semi autos are not. I assume you have no problem with fully auto machine guns being banned. Neither do I. I also may differ from you in that I believe that semi autos should be attainable but with restrictions. What restrictions would you accept on any weapons? Cannons? Could a person have an anti-aircraft gun on his lawn if he lived next to an airport?

The second A is one sentence, poorly written in my view. But it introduces well regulated militias as a thing necessary for a free state, then it says in effect that is the way the people's right to bear arms is guaranteed. If instead of a comma after the first clause, the authors had put in "and in addition, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" or "therefore, through this the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" things would have been different. But the language allows the Supremes to say the amendment applies to individual ownership, but they leave the door open to regulation.

Btw, read a book not too long ago called "Gunfight." It reports that at times, people were *required* to keep a functioning firearm in their house, presumably to fight the Brits if they came back, but also describes western towns as big on gun control. OK corral fight started over a form of gun control, as some towns required visitors to check guns at the livery where the left their horses. Somehow they thought that horny thirsty cowboys and guns didn't work out well. Something in the book to help and hinder both sides' arguments.

French eat snails. Americans eat guns. Not sure I understand the logic of either, but snails do taste better with enough garlic.

I oppose the following being banned

1) any weapon normally considered a firearm-ie a weapon that is hand held and fires an inert projectile

2) any firearm that civilian police departments use on our city streets

3) the standard individual rifle of the National Guard, or US Army.

 

[Nickyjo]

I oppose the following being banned

1) any weapon normally considered a firearm-ie a weapon that is hand held and fires an inert projectile

2) any firearm that civilian police departments use on our city streets

3) the standard individual rifle of the National Guard, or US Army.

How about regulated?

 

[TurtleDude]

How about regulated?

everything harmful you can do with a firearm is illegal

threatening someone without cause-Menacing
shooting at someone without cause-felonious assault, attempted murder
actually shooting someone without cause-mayhem, felonious battery, attempted murder
killing someone without cause-murder, homicide, manslaughter

shooting a firearm in an area in which that is prohibited-illegal discharge of a firearm to reckless endangerment

etc

those adjudicated too dangerous to possess firearms violate federal and state laws by possessing firearms.

so it seems to me we have enough laws to prevent anything you fear

 

[Nickyjo]

everything harmful you can do with a firearm is illegal

threatening someone without cause-Menacing
shooting at someone without cause-felonious assault, attempted murder
actually shooting someone without cause-mayhem, felonious battery, attempted murder
killing someone without cause-murder, homicide, manslaughter

shooting a firearm in an area in which that is prohibited-illegal discharge of a firearm to reckless endangerment

etc

those adjudicated too dangerous to possess firearms violate federal and state laws by possessing firearms.

so it seems to me we have enough laws to prevent anything you fear

Tell that to the people who got shot in churches and synagogues. But good to hear you accept regulation.

 

[Rich2018]

everything harmful you can do with a firearm is illegal

What if you claim self defense ?

 

[TurtleDude]

Tell that to the people who got shot in churches and synagogues. But good to hear you accept regulation.

are you saying there was no law that would impose severe punishment to those who shoot innocent worshippers in churches and synagogues? You seem to believe in prior restraint when it comes to gun violence. Do you believe in prior restraint when it comes to rape?

Years ago, Pete Shields, then the leader of what became the Brady gun ban band, appeared at my college to argue for handgun bans. His son, a college student, IIRC, in California, had been murdered by a racist black serial killer called the Zebra Killer(s). So he became a gun banner. One black, conservative officer of William F Buckley's Party of the Right (a party affiliated with the Yale Political Union) and later an editor for the National Review, noted that since the killer of his son was black, wouldn't it be more effective to incarcerate all young black men or subject them to the same conditions as prisoners on probation, rather than ban handguns. Shields objected saying "THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL" and Mr. Brooks (IIRC) noted -NO KIDDING BUT at least that would actually prevent some crime.

 

[TurtleDude]

What if you claim self defense ?

if it is self defense than it was not harmful to society. duh

 

[Rich2018]

if it is self defense than it was not harmful to society. duh

If not sure you said harmful to society. And many people will claim self defense when it is anything but - police officers particularly.

And what if you're in a location that prohibits gunfire and are subjected to an active shooter ?

 

[TurtleDude]

If not sure you said harmful to society. And many people will claim self defense when it is anything but - police officers particularly.

And what if you're in a location that prohibits gunfire and are subjected to an active shooter ?

same thing if you are on a boat that capsizes and the nearest property says no trespassing or the waterway says no swimming.

 

[Nickyjo]

are you saying there was no law that would impose severe punishment to those who shoot innocent worshippers in churches and synagogues? You seem to believe in prior restraint when it comes to gun violence. Do you believe in prior restraint when it comes to rape?

Years ago, Pete Shields, then the leader of what became the Brady gun ban band, appeared at my college to argue for handgun bans. His son, a college student, IIRC, in California, had been murdered by a racist black serial killer called the Zebra Killer(s). So he became a gun banner. One black, conservative officer of William F Buckley's Party of the Right (a party affiliated with the Yale Political Union) and later an editor for the National Review, noted that since the killer of his son was black, wouldn't it be more effective to incarcerate all young black men or subject them to the same conditions as prisoners on probation, rather than ban handguns. Shields objected saying "THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL" and Mr. Brooks (IIRC) noted -NO KIDDING BUT at least that would actually prevent some crime.

Absurd arguments. People are imprisoned because we passed laws. Weapons are regulated because we pass laws.

 

[TurtleDude]

Absurd arguments. People are imprisoned because we passed laws. Weapons are regulated because we pass laws.

nice evasion there. you act as if there are no regulations sufficient to deter gun crime

tell us this-if someone isn't deterred by the death penalty or life in prison-what will deter them?

 

[jamesrage]

Was it intended to ?

The way anti-2nd trash love to compare our homicide to that of UK's and Australia's homicides it apparently is why they enacted their draconian gun control laws and bans.

The UK had a traditionally low number of gun homicides to start with

Again do some reading on UK gun laws and what brought them about.

I know the excuse they used. One or two mass shootings and idiots let their governments disarm over something that almost never happened.

Because the USA already has 40,000 gun deaths per year, including 10,000 gun related homicides.

Having no guns didn't stop 32 countries from having higher suicide rates than ours. I don't think the people in those countries are better at suicide than the people in our country. The only thing banning guns would do in this country is change how people mostly kill themselves and others.

And that was 2 too many in the UK

So mass shootings was almost nonexistent in the UK and even after the ban they still had another mass shooting. Using that logic we should ban knives,cars, baseball bats and anything else used to murder people. And before you go off spouting the anti-2nd amendment trash line but guns were made to kill. No gun manufacturer makes their products for the purpose of murder just as no car manufacturer makes their car for the purpose of running over people or no knife maker makes their product for the purpose of murdering people with it.

 

[Rich2018]

same thing if you are on a boat that capsizes and the nearest property says no trespassing or the waterway says no swimming.

Laughably, the 19 year old who killed two and wounded 5 in San Antonio yesterday, is claiming self defense. That he killed them before they killed him.

Isn't that a reason gun owners give for carrying ?

 

[Rich2018]

The way anti-2nd trash love to compare our homicide to that of UK's and Australia's homicides it apparently is why they enacted their draconian gun control laws and bans.

And the pro-gun "trash" love to compare UK versus US crime rate trends

I know the excuse they used. One or two mass shootings and idiots let their governments disarm over something that almost never happened.

Those "idiots" of a nation of 60 million, have suffered ONE mass shooting since 1996. The USA suffered more that ONE per DAY in 2019.

Having no guns didn't stop 32 countries from having higher suicide rates than ours....

So what?
How is that even relevant ?

Having guns let the USA have a higher suicide rate than 149 other countries


List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia

I don't think the people in those countries are better at suicide than the people in our country....

No

Most people survive a suicide attempt, however

Guns are successful in 82.5% of suicide attempts

Most Americans who attempt suicide use guns

So mass shootings was almost nonexistent in the UK and even after the ban they still had another mass shooting. Using that logic we should ban knives,cars, baseball bats and anything else used to murder people. And before you go off spouting the anti-2nd amendment trash line but guns were made to kill. No gun manufacturer makes their products for the purpose of murder just as no car manufacturer makes their car for the purpose of running over people or no knife maker makes their product for the purpose of murdering people with it.

Cars, kitchen knives and swimming pools...the usual what-about-ism from the pro gun trash


The UK is more urban so more violent than the USA, but has almost no mass shootings to go with its strict gun control. It would work here.

No guns = no gun crime.