Is it even worth arguing with the Anti's?

Pizzapinochle said:

How about instead of just calling someone "silly" and engaging in ad hominem attacks, you actually offer some reasoning of your own.

Here is an example of reasoning:

Statement 1.
A hand grenade is an item that has been banned from civilian ownership.

Statement 2:
Obtaining a hand grenade is very difficult.

Statement 3:
If guns were banned from civilian ownership, obtaining a gun would be very difficult.

How is that "silly"? Is there a fault in the reasoning? Do you have a logical counter argument?

Or, is the extent of your ability to talk about this subjct limited to calling someone a close minded person who can't think for himself?

I hope you can offer better than that.

Click to expand...

At what point in time were tens of millions of hand grenades owned by American citizens?

At what point in time were hand grenades that could be used thousands, or tens of thousands, of times over a period of decades owned by tens of millions of American citizens?

"Even local gun brokers report that a large share of their transaction attempts goes unfulfilled – around 30-40%. Reasons included the inability to get a gun from a supplier; the customer and broker could not agree on the location for the transaction; and the broker either did not trust the customer’s intentions or thought he or she was an undercover police officer."

That does not sound like the "anyone can get a black market gun in an hour" world that pro-gun folks says is commonplace.

Click to expand...

That's funny, when I was going to Catholic grammar school on the south side of Chicago in the '60s, nobody had any trouble getting guns, including some of my classmates.

But hey, there are people who, contrary to all evidence, will claim that Anne Frank was mauled by a polar bear, rather than that she died in a concentration camp...

"Even local drug brokers report that a large share of their transaction attempts goes unfulfilled – around 30-40%. Reasons included the inability to get drugs from a supplier; the customer and broker could not agree on the location for the transaction; and the broker either did not trust the customer’s intentions or thought he or she was an undercover police officer."

Click to expand...

See how that works?

I guess it's really hard to get drugs... just apparently not when it came to a lot of my high school and college classmates... nevermind my troops when I was an Army officer.

"Interviews with 17 young adults who consider themselves “regular” thieves, self-defined as deriving a substantial share of income from crime and engaging in at least four thefts per year, further support the general finding. Of the 17 interviewees in this group, only one person said they could find a gun in less than a week."

Pizzapinochle said:

How about instead of just calling someone "silly" and engaging in ad hominem attacks, you actually offer some reasoning of your own.

Here is an example of reasoning:

Statement 1.
A hand grenade is an item that has been banned from civilian ownership.

Statement 2:
Obtaining a hand grenade is very difficult.

Statement 3:
If guns were banned from civilian ownership, obtaining a gun would be very difficult.

How is that "silly"? Is there a fault in the reasoning? Do you have a logical counter argument?

Or, is the extent of your ability to talk about this subjct limited to calling someone a close minded person who can't think for himself?

I hope you can offer better than that.

Click to expand...

At what point in time were tens of millions of hand grenades owned by American citizens?

At what point in time were hand grenades that could be used thousands, or tens of thousands, of times over a period of decades owned by tens of millions of American citizens?

Deanimator said:

See how that works?

I guess it's really hard to get drugs... just apparently not when it came to a lot of my high school and college classmates... nevermind my troops when I was an Army officer.

Click to expand...

Deanimator... I am really not sure what u are trying to do?

You replaced the word "gun" with "drugs."

What is your point?

Pizzapinochle...I am really not sure what you are trying to do?

You are making up non-apt analogies and pretending like they mean something, while ignoring farther questioning.

Why are you trolling?

BUT, deanimator, there is a nice section in that report that contrasts the gun trade to the gun trade.

One definition from earlier in the paper:

thinness:
the number of buyers, sellers and total transactions is small and relevant information is scarce.


"Note that it is the combination of illegality and thinness that seems to be the key for creating the frictions and trading externalities that characterize the underground gun market in Chicago. If the market were illegal but thick, as for narcotics, institutions would develop to facilitate exchange, and sellers and buyers would have incentives to develop reputations (Koper and Reuter, 1997). For example drug-selling corners have developed in that market and seem to change locations easily in response to law-enforcement pressures, given that buyers and sellers are closely connected and so information about changes in trading locations is easily transmitted back and forth. In contrast in the underground gun market some white ethnic street gangs or gun importers help organize fist-fighting events in the city’s warehouses, but these occur only every 3-4 months. The coordination costs of moving these fighting events in response to legal or other threats is greater than with relocating a drug corner, and so these events are advertised only among a selected clientele."

"You are making up non-apt analogies"

Please point out the "non-apt analogies" that I made up.

As for your questions:

At what point in time were tens of millions of hand grenades owned by American citizens?
At what point in time were hand grenades that could be used thousands, or tens of thousands, of times over a period of decades owned by tens of millions of American citizens?

I agree, there is a difference in the supply of each object. Certainly any attempt to regulate firearms on the same level as hand grenades would take a LONG time, given the supply of firearms.

And, I largely agree. I don't think comparing hand grenades to guns works, I don't think comparing drugs to guns works.

I think looking at the gun market based on the unique characteristics of guns is the way to go.

But, Warp, you at least offered a REASON for it being a not great comparison, reasoning which is actually pretty solid.

Mike1234567 just engaged in personal attacks on the poster and called him silly. Whether I agree or not with the point in question, I will always object to those types of responses.

Fair enough.

I was getting at the fact that hand grenades are not comparable to firearms, but drugs may not either, as you are saying

Pizzapinochle said:

How about instead of just calling someone "silly" and engaging in ad hominem attacks, you actually offer some reasoning of your own.

Here is an example of reasoning:

Statement 1.
A hand grenade is an item that has been banned from civilian ownership.

Statement 2:
Obtaining a hand grenade is very difficult.

Statement 3:
If guns were banned from civilian ownership, obtaining a gun would be very difficult.

How is that "silly"? Is there a fault in the reasoning? Do you have a logical counter argument?

Or, is the extent of your ability to talk about this subjct limited to calling someone a close minded person who can't think for himself?

I hope you can offer better than that.

Click to expand...

LOL!! Look who's talking. I'm talking about being "open-minded" and "acquiring facts". I also stated "you should continue your anti 2A arguments if you deem it appropriate" AFTER doing proper research. Either open your mind, research and base your arguments on acts or stop BSing. LOL!!

Arguing? No. Discussing? Absolutely.

If you happen to get into a discussion with someone about it, educate them. If they just want to argue, then just remove yourself from that interaction.

Mike1234567, I have never called someones ideas silly, told them their ideas are spoon fed from their parents, or accused them of being incapable of thinking for themselves. You did all three...none of these are meaningful contributions to a discussion.

I am very open minded and very well researched. When I decided to find out more about the gun control debate, I had no particular position. I read a lot, researched a lot, and arrived where I am now, which most of you consider an "anti."

I understand the pro-gun position and can express it intelligently (probably better than most pro-gun people).

There are a few spots in the pro-gun reasoning that I can't figure out, because despite my best efforts, they don't make sense to me. I try to get good, logical explanations of those pro-gun positions, but have not been presented with any that make as much sense as the pro-control counter argument.

BUT, deanimator, there is a nice section in that report that contrasts the gun trade to the gun trade.

Click to expand...

And why would I believe 50+ years of observed reality over ONE report?

The illegal gun and illegal drug trades are remarkably similar. Success and failure in both involves similar traits and practices.

Of course guns don't have to come from Colombia, Peru, Mexico or Thailand...

Please clarify your "50+ years of observed reality."

And sorry about the type... should have read:

"there is a nice section in that report that contrasts the gun trade to the drug trade"

Actually, forget that, don't worry about clarifying.

You say "The illegal gun and illegal drug trades are remarkably similar."

The section I quoted lays out very clear difference in the gun trade and drug trade that make them SIGNIFICANTLY different.

The drug trade is THICK (lots of product, lots of buyers, lots of sellers) and has a well established infrastructure of corner sellers that communicate effectively.

The gun trade is THIN (not a lot of sellers, not a lot of buyers, not a log of product) and relies on individual contacts that don't have great communication.

This makes one market (drugs) much EASIER to access than the other.

Do you think this analysis is incorrect?

If so, explain WHY it is incorrect.

I won't be a hypocrite and argue about facts. My argument is from memory. Where is yours coming from... memory also? I guess both our arguments are moot. Until Uncle Sam takes my home defense firearms I'll have mine chambered and ready to go. If someone breaks into my home at 3AM with the intent to kill me at least I'll have more than BS to defend myself.

"Oh, please sir, do not harm me. I'm unarmed. Take whatever you want and do whatever you want with my wife and children and leave peacefully. Peace and love to you and yours, dear sir."

Huh??

Back on the original topic...

Even IF the gun genie could be put back in the bottle, this STILL doesn't change what the gun has historically enabled the weaker man to do or the human nature which REQUIRES the weaker man to have them in order for societies as we know them today to exist.

By and large, the rank and file of mankind has either forgotten, or likely never bothered to learn, what it means for the population in general NOT to have access to weapons which effectively enable them to stand toe-to-toe with the more powerful/dominant people.

THIS is what the gun really did for mankind that radically changed things for the common man. Rights? Rights are for those in POWER because THEY are the ones who determine what those "rights" are and, more importantly, who gets them. The common man didn't get these rights out of the good will of the powerful...they TOOK them and said "US, TOO, YE B*STARDS!"

When the general population has no recourse to physical arms, then they revert to the WILL OF THOSE IN POWER. It's only a matter of time, not whether or not it will happen...because it WILL happen.


The vast majority of people for gun control don't see this because they don't live that life...they have a limited field of view, historically speaking, and are utterly focused on the here-and-now, believing it will ALWAYS be this way.

And the minority of people for gun control who DO see and understand this are actively manipulating the majority for the longer view.


This is a difficult concept to get people who are NOT geared to think long-term, both historically and for the future, to understand.

Do you think this analysis is incorrect?

Click to expand...

Yes, as I already made clear.

I've got 50+ years of observing drug users and sellers and illegal gun purchasers.

Anybody who can't find a gun in Chicago has the sensory apparatus of Helen Keller.

Mike1234567 said:

I won't be a hypocrite and argue about facts. My argument is from memory. Where is yours coming from... memory also? I guess both our arguments are moot.

Click to expand...

I am very confused.

What facts are you referring to?
What argument are you referring to?

Your response to people has been:

QUOTES:

"open your mind just a little bit... just a crack"
"Stop falling back on what your parents taught you and think for yourself."
"stop making silly "hand grenade" arguments"
"the post you responded to (#76) is pure unsubstantiated silliness"
"open your mind, research and base your arguments on acts or stop BSing"

None of those are facts, reasoning, or even arguments. They are just attacks on a person you don't agree with.

If you want to engage in a discussion using facts and reasoning, by all means, do so, but at this point you have not done that.

Deanimator said:

Yes, as I already made clear.

I've got 50+ years of observing drug users and sellers and illegal gun purchasers.

Anybody who can't find a gun in Chicago has the sensory apparatus of Helen Keller.

Click to expand...

So...

No reasoning as to WHY it is incorrect?
No disputing the characteristics of the two markets (thick vs. thin)?
No logical analysis?

Just..

"I've been around for 50+ years and they are wrong."

Do you have any critique on the analysis of the difference between the two markets?
Anything besides your personal age and experience to validate your claim?

Pizzapinochle said:

I am very confused.

What facts are you referring to?
What argument are you referring to?

Your response to people has been:

QUOTES:

"open your mind just a little bit... just a crack"
"Stop falling back on what your parents taught you and think for yourself."
"stop making silly "hand grenade" arguments"
"the post you responded to (#76) is pure unsubstantiated silliness"
"open your mind, research and base your arguments on acts or stop BSing"

None of those are facts, reasoning, or even arguments. They are just attacks on a person you don't agree with.

If you want to engage in a discussion using facts and reasoning, by all means, do so, but at this point you have not done that.

Click to expand...

Those weren't intended as "attacks". They were simple statements intended to persuade you to open your mind. Hey, I'll open my mind. I'm listening. I haven't stated specific data. I'm awaiting yours though.

It's always worth it to me. I've gotten rather cranky about it over the years because after 40 years I just can't see the other side of it logically. To me it defies logic, and I generally say so. During the heated ones like I used to have at work, I found there many people watching and listening intently. I usually heard later it was the talk of the plant how I had put so and so in their place by those on our side. Also, I had many fence-sitters tell me nobody had ever inundated them with so much logic they were apt to change their mind, but they were now considering it. One I had felt rather bad about, because I said I couldn't believe anybody could be so stupid, and the arguer retired soon after with his 45-50 years, I found laden with little victories, which helped put my feelings behind me. Some don't respond to logic or facts and you simply need to get in the trenches with them. I'm not beyond that, or better than them because I don't do that. I use whatever method I have at my disposal to get my point across, because, like it or not, some will say they put you in your place if they are the ones simply screaming louder.

No reasoning as to WHY it is incorrect?

Click to expand...

I guess "Because I SAW that it was incorrect." doesn't count...