Is it even worth arguing with the Anti's?

[Pizzapinochle]

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.

Alright Deanimator, so to you, telling someone they are a silly, close minded, spoon fed, parentally dependent brainless individual without the ability to think for themselves was just your gentle attempts to get them to open their mind?

Ok.... whatever you say.

But, if you want, you can try to answer the question I posed many posts ago and everyone has ignored.

1. Nationwide gun laws (such as UBC and a traceable database of sales) could significantly increase the risk associated with selling illegal guns.

2. Increasing the risk associated with selling an item increases the cost.

3. Increasing the cost reduces the number of criminals able to afford that item.

4. Reduce the number that can afford it, the number using it (obviously) decreases.

5. Thus, if you increase the risk of selling guns to criminals = decrease the number of criminals with guns.

If there is a logical mistake in that progression, please point it out. Reference the specific point and provide a specific fault in the reasoning.

 

[Deanimator]

Alright Deanimator, so to you, telling someone they are a silly, close minded, spoon fed, parentally dependent brainless individual without the ability to think for themselves was just your gentle attempts to get them to open their mind?

You're talking to the wrong person... along with apparently not reading what I actually write.

 

[GBExpat]

Is it even worth arguing with the Anti's?

Sometimes it is not worth arguing with the Pros.

 

[Deanimator]

1. Nationwide gun laws (such as UBC and a traceable database of sales) could significantly increase the risk associated with selling illegal guns.

Like they do with drugs?

2. Increasing the risk associated with selling an item increases the cost.

Like with drugs?

3. Increasing the cost reduces the number of criminals able to afford that item.

Like with drugs?

4. Reduce the number that can afford it, the number using it (obviously) decreases.

Like with drugs?

5. Thus, if you increase the risk of selling guns to criminals = decrease the number of criminals with guns.

Like with drugs?

If there is a logical mistake in that progression, please point it out. Reference the specific point and provide a specific fault in the reasoning.

It's one pointless morass of logical mistakes and disdain for observed reality.

But hey, maybe the bumblebee really CAN'T fly...

 

[Pizzapinochle]

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

No, "because I say so" is not particularly convincing.

Everyone on here claims that the pro-gun side has all the facts and reasoning and studies on your side.

But here is a study that directly contradicts you and your response is:

"Nope, they are wrong because I say they are wrong."

Very convincing.

I read that statement and it all makes sense to me. Guns and drugs are 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 lot 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.

What part do you dispute?
Do you think there are as many guns available on the market as there are drugs?
Do you think the infrastructure for the gun trade is as large and well established as the infrastructure for the drug trade?
What evidence do you have that you are correct and that the study is wrong?
Do you have anything besides "I think they are wrong." to back up your claims?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

You're talking to the wrong person... along with apparently not reading what I actually write.

Sorry deanimator, that was directed at Mike1234567, not you.

 

[Warp]

Yeah...that does seem a lot like with drugs

 

[Deanimator]

No, "because I say so" is not particularly convincing.

Obviously ideologically motivated theory trumps observed reality...

 

[Pizzapinochle]

So your only reply is:

"Like with drugs"

And your justification for why the drug trade and gun trade are equivalent is

"I say so"

?????

 

[Pizzapinochle]

For that study, they spent 15 months observing the gun trade and interviewing participants in the gun trade, and then put together a 43 page report detailing their findings and observations.

They interviewed something like 200 people over the course of a year and corroborated their data with crime reports and other published information.

You are just saying "Nope, I am right."

Why in the world would i take your "I am right." with NO reasoning, NO evidence, NO documented observations over THEIR substantial work on the subject?

 

[Deanimator]

What part do you dispute?

ALL of it.

Do you think there are as many guns available on the market as there are drugs?

Fundamental logical fallacy.

Guns are a durable good, easily produced in minimally equipped production facilities.

Drugs are a consumable, many of which must be imported.

NEITHER are in the least bit difficult to come by in Chicago.

I predict that in the next post or two you will conclusively prove your fundamental ignorance of basic firearms technology.

 

[Deanimator]

You are just saying "Nope, I am right."

I'm saying it doesn't match observed reality.

How do you avoid stepping on all of those bumblebees walking on the ground?

 

[Mike1234567]

Pizzapinocchio... I'm still waiting for your metrics. If provided those then maybe I'll get off my lazy byootox and find some to contradict them. Until then, I feel nice and safe in my home with my evil guns.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm still waiting for your metrics. If provided those then maybe I'll get off my lazy byootox and find some to contradict them. Until then, I feel nice and safe in my home with my evil guns.

His "argument" such as it is, is of a kind with pro-Obamacare hucksterism, full of misdirection, deception, and attempts to ignore observed reality.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I am going to try and make sense of this.

ALL of it.

Fundamental logical fallacy.

Guns are a durable good, easily produced in minimally equipped production facilities.

Drugs are a consumable, many of which must be imported.

You then repeat your claim, but still have offered no evidence to support your claim.

Yes, guns and drugs are different.

How does that contradict the claim that there are more transactions involving illegal drugs than illegal guns in Chicago?

or

How does that contradict the claim that the infrastructure of the drug trade is more well established than the infrastructure of the gun trade?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

His "argument" such as it is, is of a kind with pro-Obamacare hucksterism, full of misdirection, deception, and attempts to ignore observed reality.

And... you've degenerated to accusing me of being a liar.

All i have said is:

"This study, posted by HappyGeek, makes claim XYZ and provides evidence and reasoning to support their claim."

Dealinator, you are repeating over and over that they are wrong, but won't reply to any of the questions I ask or, at best, give a vague reply that does not really address the question.

See post #136-
My question was:
Do you think there are as many guns available on the market as there are drugs?

Your response:
Guns and drugs are different.

YES. Guns and drugs are different.

How does that relate to the number of transactions in each market?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Pizzapinocchio... I'm still waiting for your metrics. If provided those then maybe I'll get off my lazy byootox and find some to contradict them. Until then, I feel nice and safe in my home with my evil guns.

Please clarify what you mean by "metric."

 

[Deanimator]

And... you've degenerated to accusing me of being a liar.

More of an unscrupulous propagandist for a profoundly evil ideology, like Ernst Zundel

 

[Deanimator]

My question was:
Do you think there are as many guns available on the market as there are drugs?

Your response:
Guns and drugs are different.

YES. Guns and drugs are different.

How does that relate to the number of transactions in each market?

You're still attempting to misdirect and deceive.

You're still failing.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

You're still attempting to misdirect and deceive.

You're still failing.

Because I want you to answer a question, I am trying to misdirect and deceive??

What is deceptive or misdirecting about asking a question or asking for clarification of an answer?

Your response does not make sense to me. If you can clarify the connection between your answer (guns and drugs are different) and the question (Are there more gun or drug transactions?), then please do.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Mike1234567-

I MIGHT know what you are looking for.

Here is my claim:

More restrictive gun laws can impact the ability of criminals to obtain guns for use in crime.

1. Nationwide gun laws (for example: UBC and a traceable database of transfers) could significantly increase the risk associated with selling illegal guns.
2. Increasing the risk associated with selling an item (a gun, in this case) increases the cost.
3. Increasing the cost reduces the number of criminals able to afford that item.
4. By reducing the number of criminals that can afford a gun, the number of criminals using a gun in crime will decrease.
5. Thus, if you increase the risk of selling guns to criminals through legislation, you will decrease the number of criminals with guns in crimes.

So, that is my claim and the reasoning behind my claim.

Do you agree or disagree with my claim?
If you disagree, for what reason do you disagree?

 

[tomrkba]

But, if you want, you can try to answer the question I posed many posts ago and everyone has ignored.

1. Nationwide gun laws (such as UBC and a traceable database of sales) could significantly increase the risk associated with selling illegal guns.

Not possible without violating a whole bunch of state constitutions. They will need a bad SCOTUS decision and a bunch of Federal laws to get that.

2. Increasing the risk associated with selling an item increases the cost.

Risk for who? Crimes committed with guns already add significant time. None of that matters with the current "revolving doors" on our prisons.

Additionally, I have found it interesting that many stolen guns are recovered in the state they were in at the time of the theft. I have also seen information where guns are passed around between criminals on an "as needed" basis. Gun possession then because part of the organization, rather than the individual. Mix that with narcotics sales and the budgets become large enough to purchase the illegal firearm.

Tell me how you plan upon stopping criminal activity?

3. Increasing the cost reduces the number of criminals able to afford that item.

Have you checked the prices of HK and SIG pistols lately? Retail cost is at $900-$1050. Glocks are at $600. I am not sure where your argument is going here. Are you advocating for a very heavy tax on all firearm sales?

4. Reduce the number that can afford it, the number using it (obviously) decreases.

So now the poor and middle class cannot afford guns due to some sort of tax. How does that work with the actual right to keep and bear arms? The policy contradicts the right, resulting in strangulation of the right. The government is not supposed to do that.

5. Thus, if you increase the risk of selling guns to criminals = decrease the number of criminals with guns.

How so? It is already a felony in various ways to do sell a gun to a criminal. Why do you think it is not risky for the law abiding citizen to sell a gun to a criminal?

In short, you made a whole bunch of proposals, but provided no solutions that work with the right to keep and bear arms at the state and Federal levels.

Your actual goal here is to replace the right to keep and bear arms with the privilege to keep and bear arms. That goal requires some significant legislative and judicial gyrations to accomplish.

 

[tomrkba]

Do you think there are as many guns available on the market as there are drugs?

They are not related. Narcotics are consumables and require constant replenishment. Firearms are machines that last decades or centuries. The numeric comparison does not matter because firearms and narcotics can be manufactured in a basement. Ban all guns, magically make them disappear, and the very next day some guy will have a freshly stamped AK-47.

Furthermore, no law is ever going to stop the flow of narcotics and firearms into this country. That's why it is called "smuggling". Criminals will always get them. Great Britain is an island and has yet to stop the flow of guns into their country. A ban on firearms in the US will just change the guns available from semi-autos to whatever China happens to be exporting that day. I gleefully anticipate getting my hands on a Chinese mortar and RPG so I can blow up some stumps

So, I ask again: How do you plan upon stopping criminal activity? "Three strikes and you're out" has not worked. Mandatory minimum sentencing has not worked (and in some cases has cause serious cases of injustice). Politicians being "tough on crime" has not worked. Massive prison complexes have not deterred crime. What magic bullet do you have to solve this problem? Should we go to the death penalty for every felony? If the death penalty is the only punishment, do you think that criminals would then fight to the death rather than submit to arrest?

 

[HoosierQ]

Real for sure anti types? I think at best you have a shot at making a convert of 1 in 1000.

Where you (and we) have our big opportunity are the apathetic. These are folks that may never ever have any sort of interest in guns or shooting. Folks who are antis simply because they're scared of guns, believe the media about guns being a "public safety issue". But these same folks, if carefully informed, will end up on poll day voting to maintain the rights of folks rather than restrict the rights of folks. These kinds of people are worth taking a whack at. I am convinced that this is the majority of anti people today.

Also among this same demographic group are people that come to some of the same conclusion that we have always held re: self defense, sporting, etc.

 

[Deanimator]

A ban on firearms in the US will just change the guns available from semi-autos to whatever China happens to be exporting that day. I gleefully anticipate getting my hands on a Chinese mortar and RPG so I can blow up some stumps

Not even necessary.

I imagine you know why as much as I do.

He doesn't... or won't admit it.