Number of anti's on THR?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carl- that is why he rejected that argument.

Bud- A troll is someone who makes inflammatory, often untrue comments (or at the least presented without evidence) in hopes of drawing a flame war. We don't have flame wars here most of the time so the trolls are not real successful. Posters can still draw ire if they fail to make an argument or unsubstantitated allegations but we do not have the totality of war here that you see at other sites.

When I feed the trolls I give them a healthy snack of logic, reason and history. This is indigestable to most so they move on to the fast food forum to get the result they are looking for. Normally they starve and the best they can do is; ''oh yeah!, unn uh''


I am glad there is some censorship here. I do not like listening to people talk about how their race or religion or gender is superior to someone else's. I do not like listening to people who feel that have to begin and end every paragraph with a vulgarity. These are old ideas with no new ground to be covered. When faced with such a conversation in person I quickly bow out. Here I don't have to. If people want to express those ideas they can express them somewhere else.
 
budney said:
The axioms of mathematics are matters of opinion. By your definition, there's no such thing as logic or proof.

The axioms themselves are "matters of opinion". Logic and proof are how we move from axiom to theorem. To verify the proof, we need to understand the axioms.

I have never played very much with non-Euclidean geometry, but from an ancient high school course, you can develop different theorems from different axioms - the example I remember vaguely has to do with whether a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. It seems like you can logically prove a different set of theorems depending on whether you make this assumption or not. The theorems derived from one set of axioms are different than the theorems derived from another set of axioms. It is not the case that one set of theorems is correct and another incorrect. and its not the case that one set of theorems is rational, and the other irrational.

I have the sense that you are a mathematician. Isn't this formulation of the dependence of theorems on axioms more or less right?

My guess is that when pro gun rights folks deal with antis, both can be entirely rational, but working from different axioms. (To my mind, "values" are map more closely to axioms than theorems.) If antis and pros start from different axioms, and derive different theorems (theories of gun rights); neither has to be indulging in irrational thought.

If that is the case, that would explain why antis and pros seem to be talking past each other so much. It is like a Euclidean geometer arguing with a non-Euclidean geometer about a theorem.

That also suggests they way forward is to try and understand the differences between our axiomatic systems.

Enough, it's almost Shabbat, and I need to stop writing.

Next week. my wife and daughter are out of town - so I hope to make to the range 3 times in week (which is pretty rare for me). I've loaded up 400 rounds of 45 colt, and I have more cast lead ordered from Midway to arrive on Monday. I want to move from a "target" load (200 gr. SWC @ 850 fps) to a wild west load (255 gr. FP @ 900 fps). I'm pretty excited.

Have a good Shabbat, all.

Mike
 
Well two things happen(1) Shelby amendment passed and Flordia passed the
bill in there house,so that should make anti's mad.Also the polar bear one did
not pass either,so this week was a good one for good law abiding people who own firearms.
 
Thank you all for your contributions, and especially omahanew for offering his conceptions. I found this thread stimulating and enlightening and challenging to my own constructs, but somewhat destructive of my time budget.

Nevertheless, well worth it!

Thanks!
 
I realize this thread is getting long and tired, but I have a couple of points to add. I've read this thread from beginning to end and have been gathering my thoughts. Here is what I believe :

1) Gun control advocates believe that they might do something dubious if they were given a gun, therefore nobody can be trusted with a gun. I believe this principle holds credence, it also speaks to their moral charachter. It takes a morally corrupt person to do something dubious with a gun.

2) Gun control advocates can stare the consequences of their policies in the face and they do not care! Wash D.C = handgun ban = highest violent crime rate in the U.S. Chicago = handgun ban = out of control juvenile gangs and crime and they use guns! These people don't have any trouble obtaining weapons, despite the ban. What is their solution? Blame the neighboring states for their own problems.:rolleyes: America has a serious social and cultural problem, guns have nothing to with it.

3) The other end of the spectrum : Switzerland = assault rifle in every home, shooting events every weekend, children are taught firearms safety at a young age. They don't have school shootings and their overall crime rate is very low. I wonder why. Switzerland has a strong moral fabric in their society, we are rapidly losing ours here in the U.S.

4) For gun control advocates, its all about their agenda, the consequences of it be damned! They want to force all of us to rely on the govt apparatus for protection, put us all on an even keel, so to speak. They want to eliminate the principle and right of self defense. They believe in nanny state liberalism, bottom line. They want to be able to mold people's lives to what they believe is best for them, aka Micheal Bloomberg. Gun control advocates generally despise independence and self reliance, they have a fundamental hatred of freedom, in my view. WITH FREEDOM COMES RESPONSIBILITY. What the Brady Campaign calls a "common sense gun law" is the D.C gun ban!. It all boils down to who is defining "reasonable" and "common sense". I sure hope it won't be these political zealots with an emotional agenda based on mis-information and the consequences be damned, in my view.

5) The best resource I have found for debuking the gun control argument is www.gunfacts.info. I urge all of the anti's to check it out! I know many of them won't because they are closed minded and refuse to read something that will refute their jaded concepts and mis-guided conceptions.
 
Redneck with a 40 said:
Gun control advocates believe that they might do something dubious if they were given a gun, therefore nobody can be trusted with a gun.

I have never heard a gun control advocate make this remark. I have only heard pro gun rights quoting each saying gun control advocates make that argument.

Redneck with a 40 said:
Gun control advocates can stare the consequences of their policies in the face, ...

I think this gets to the heart of the lack of communication between antis and pros - each cites their own stats and examples, without grappling with the other's examples and stats. The prime example of this - from these kinds of debates in in the 60's - was the examples of Japan and Switzerland. At that time, at least by anecdote, the two countries in the world with the lowest rate of violent crime were Japan and Switzerland. Japan had the toughest bans in place, and Switzerland had full auto weapons in every house.

So what happened was that the pro gun rights folks wanted to talk about Switzerland, and the gun control folks wanted to talk about Japan. As long as that happens, then there is no dialogue. This becomes a "stat slinging" contest, where each side throws out stats from its one pile of stats, and no one is convinced. Looks like you're happy to continue the tradition. :)

The problem is that the stat slinging contests doesn't persuade anyone.

And when the stats slinging contest doesn't persuade someone, we lose. Because when the stat slinging doesn't work, people fall back on anecdotal evidence.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it largely means the evening news. And the evening news mostly reports on cases where guns are used to commit crimes.

Redneck with a 40 said:
The best resource I have found for debuking the gun control argument.

I don't see any win (for us) in slinging stats back and forth. We are in the age of Bill O'Reilly (who makes up facts as he need them on "Total Spin Factor"), and most people suspect that both sides in the debate make up stats as readily as he does. Talk radio and corporate PR folks always have stats that back up whatever they are saying - every day the FDA has to yank some drug off the market for killing folks, and the company always has lots of stats to prove how safe the drug is. People dont' trust stats anymore - unless they are from a truly unbiased source. That's why the site you mention does a great job of preaching to the choir, but little else.

My own suspicion is that there is little or no correlation between gun legislation (whether "gun control" or "shall carry") and violent crime statistics- the CDC study mentioned earlier in this thread backs up that intuition.

All in all, I am not sure how to proceed. I think that we are neutralized in the stats contest, and we definitely lose the anecdotal contest.

I have talked quietly with a couple of folks that were for the AWB, and I think opened some doors there. I explained that the AWB was largely a cosmetic ban of "guns that look scary", not based on the function of a weapon. To use the words of folks that don't know much about guns, I explained that "it's a ban on the cosmetics of weapons that look like machine guns, but really aren't".

I think the most important aspect of conversations like this happens before the conversation. You need to decide whether you really want to persuade someone or demolish them in a debate and go brag about it to you gun buddies. Do you want to engage in a dialogue, or are you mostly seeking an ego thrill? Look inside yourself before you open your mouth. (BTW, when I say "you", I don't mean Redneck with a 40 any more or less than I mean myself).

If you decide that you really want to totally demolish someone with an avalanche of facts, then you might as well send a donation to he Brady Campaign.

The discussions that I have had about the AWB that seem to have been very free of rancor or rant. Also, free of debate. My advice is that you need to make sure that you are jousting with a fellow debater before you hit debate mode. A lot folks find debaters annoying (I sure did in high school).

Mike
 
Yemen- You are unusual in your belief system in that you are honest with it. While honesty is refreshing it does not make it any more or less true.

I have found in my brief time on Earth that people believe whatever they want to believe regardless of facts and evidence. That you can hold a horse's head under water until their lungs fill and they drown but they will still not drink. That only those seeking the truth will ask any question and very few ask any questions. You can give someone a true answer but if it is not the answer that they can accept it matters little if it is true or not.

I have found that people who do not like debate mostly don't like it because their position is weak or unpopular and they do not want to be in the position of defending it. Those who do not want the truth will not look for it.

Since you reject the notion that men are entitiled to rights by birth or province then your position will be a weak one whenever you debate on pretty much every subject. So I can see why you would not like it. But antis don't normally come here to debate anyway; only troll, stalk and inflame.

It all comes down to the eternal question of the hunter and the hunted. Our society through the implementation of policies and tools that support weakness has grown vastly out of proportion to what I think was our historical make up of alphas. I have no way of validating this of course so feel free to bash away at that idea.

The weakest among us easily identify that a free society of strong individualism will result in their doom. Look at Helen Keller, a raging communist as an example of what I mean. She knew full well that without a state mandate for healthcare anyone like her would likely die.

The same tools that support a society of well fed sheep also allow greater control over people. Gun control is just another method of expanding that control and state power. Do you honestly think there is a philosophical debate about gun control in say Mogodishu? No it is all about power and everyone knows it.

Argue it however you want; that is the net result: limiting freedom, expanding power.
 
Nothing illustrates the difference between anti and pro
than this:
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • TWOSIDES.GIF
    TWOSIDES.GIF
    73.3 KB · Views: 145
And allowing an anti to speak for himself:
A Northerner's fear and loathing in Kingsport

COMMENTARY

By JOHN R. MacARTHUR

The Providence Journal

NEW YORK - Last March, I traveled for the first time to the
northeastern corner of Tennessee, a part of the country I
associate with scrawny dogs, fundamentalist preachers and scary,
gun-toting adherents to the frontier "patriotism" of Daniel Boone
and Davey Crockett. But mostly it makes me think of guns.

Of course, I know my stereotypes about this part of the South to
be unfair, that scenes from the movie "Deliverance" are in fact
just scenes from a Hollywood movie made by slick and cynical
Northerners. Not everyone in rural or small-town Tennessee
carries a gun. In any case, who was I to be feeling paranoid in
Sullivan County, Tenn.? I live in one of the most violent cities
in America -- New York -- where children carry guns and use them
to redress frivolous slights, while the police are among the most
trigger-happy in the nation. I rarely feel worried walking down
the street in Manhattan -- and I never think about the huge
number of guns that might be used against me.

Besides, my wife and I were on a business trip in the heavily
industrial part of Kingsport. More than ever these days, the old
regional differences between supposedly violent redneck South and
"socially advanced" North have been flattened or erased
altogether by franchise shopping, interstate highways and chain
hotels designed to reassure people like me that sameness is the
greatest American virtue. Nobody in the Tri-Cities region was
going to pull a gun on me.

But prejudice dies hard, and I was decidedly spooked when we
crossed the crest of the Appalachians from North Carolina on U.S.
Highway 23, for the time being still a difficult, snaking
two-lane hill climb hugged by old-fashioned "home-cooking" cafes
that looked less than inviting to a visiting Northerner --
especially one with liberal beliefs and a fervent commitment to
gun control. Behind the down-home mountain culture of hospitality
lay, I imagined, a wilder, primitive culture of resentful Bible
thumpers whose commitment to the U.S. Constitution extended only
to the Second Amendment and the establishment clause of the
First.

But while these biases and fears make me feel downright
unpatriotic, not to mention ungenerous, I can't say that my
stereotype was entirely unjustified -- that my American culture
and the East Tennessee version might be just as different as
Japan's and South Africa's. For when I checked into the Marriott
Meadowview Resort and Convention Center, the first thing my wife
and I noticed was the sign promoting the gun-and-knife show
scheduled to take place the following day. Of course, being
ironic city folks, instead of getting nervous we laughed about it
and then laughed again over dinner at Skoby's Restaurant, the
closest thing to a celebrity hangout in town. (Even if we didn't
see any celebrities, we knew Skoby's was a hotspot because the
owners had prepared a brochure informing the public that Willard
Scott, Richard Petty, Tammy Wynette and Pat Summitt, "Head Coach
of the Lady Vols," had all eaten there.)

By the time we went to bed back at the hotel, my ironic
condescension toward Kingsport and its citizens was in full
swing.

I'd even picked up a book by Patty Smithdeal Fulton titled "I
Wouldn't Live Nowhere I Couldn't Grow Corn," a collection of her
columns from the Jonesborough Herald and Tribune that purported
to exhibit Mrs. Fulton's homespun wisdom and humor. Who's afraid
of the scary old South after reading that sort of treacle?

But the next day, my snobbish attitude changed abruptly. The
gun-and-knife show was attracting a bigger crowd than I had
expected, and I found myself in the parking lot among small knots
of men dressed in camouflage fatigues, many hefting one and even
two rifles against their shoulders. From the look of them, they
might have just finished locking and loading at a Pat Buchanan
campaign rally.

In the foyer of the convention center, the scene was even more
alarming. The men in the parking lot evidently had failed upon
leaving the building to heed the sign that exhorted: "No Guns
Past This Point!!!" Nearby, another sign explained, "Tables for
Eating Only!" In case you didn't understand the reasoning,
written beneath two crude depictions of a hamburger and a hot dog
there appeared the further instruction, "No Guns on Tables."

I could see why the organizers were concerned about guns being
placed casually amid the silverware: Many of the show's
registrants had brought their small children to join in the fun.
Sophisticated city slicker that I am, walled off by my sense of
the absurd, I still thought that these signs and these parents
were very frightening and very depressing.

There is no purpose in preaching here about the American gun
culture. The argument against guns is made again and again, year
in and year out, to very little effect. If the assassinations of
the liberals Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy and the
near-murders of the conservatives George Wallace and Ronald
Reagan failed to galvanize the country against the gun lobby,
then nothing will. The Second Amendment (which even liberal
anti-gun legal scholars will concede really means what it says)
isn't likely ever to be repealed.

But since the Minuteman began the Revolutionary War with musket
fire -- I feel emboldened to make a modest proposal to break the
impasse about gun ownership in America. I suggest a historic
compromise between North and South that would permit the saving
of many lives in big Northern cities and provide endless
gratification for gun lovers south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

I propose that in exchange for unlimited ownership of
long-barreled firearms, including assault rifles, the Southern
politicians, who abort every serious gun-control initiative,
agree to support a bill that bans all handguns and sawed-off
shotguns everywhere.

I'm sure the legalization of assault rifles would upset a few
liberals, but they well understand that most gun violence is
wreaked by hidden pistols and pistols lying around on the table
at home. And they know that maintaining the ban on assault rifles
is mere window-dressing, just a dodge for politicians like
President Clinton who want to play both sides of the fence.

If all we gun-control advocates can ever hope to do is try to
reduce deaths by firearms, then let's give the states of the Old
Confederacy their due. Let them lock and load at will, as long as
we can see the glint of their rifle barrels.

John R. MacArthur, a monthly contributor, is publisher of
Harper's Magazine and a New York-based author. He wrote this for
the Providence Journal.
The year that this came out, there were no murders in
Kingsport TN (45,000 pop.) or Sullivan County (149,000 pop.)
 
I suggest a historic
compromise between North and South that would permit the saving
of many lives in big Northern cities and provide endless
gratification for gun lovers south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

I propose that in exchange for unlimited ownership of
long-barreled firearms, including assault rifles, the Southern
politicians, who abort every serious gun-control initiative,
agree to support a bill that bans all handguns and sawed-off
shotguns everywhere.

There's the ubiquitous non-compromise-compromise. "Of your $100 I propose you give me $50 and I'll let you keep the other $50, isn't that a great compromise?"
 
Carl, you're post is a perfect example of facts versus emotion. The anti was writing based on emotion and pre-concieved notions. The pro gun article was based on facts and references to how well concealed carry has worked out, imagine that. Good post.:D
 
A Northerner's fear and loathing in Kingsport
WOW! That's exactly the sort of smug, elitist crap that one hears constantly on public radio. Except that if it were an essay on public radio, the reader would have at least once used the word "icky," and would have wondered aloud,

"What all these armed-to-the-teeth rednecks would think if they knew that lurking timidly in their midst was a northern city slicker who was queer as a three-dollar bill. Would they all shout, 'Get 'im!' and start chasing me like so many Elmer Fudds in hot pursuit of a certain wascawy wabbit? I decided not to find out and slid a little lower in my seat."

--Len.
 
Titan6 said:
I have found that people who do not like debate mostly don't like it because their position is weak or unpopular and they do not want to be in the position of defending it. Those who do not want the truth will not look for it.

I'm not sure that this is strictly true. I think that there are lots of people who find debates boring and/or annoying - unless they are have a horse in the race. I think this is for two reasons.

  1. Debates are really the intellectual equivalent of an athletic contest - not really a search for truth. At least when I was in high school, debaters were not even assigned sides before the debate - they had to be equally prepared to defend both sides.
  2. Debates are not really a search for truth. In a debate, the critical issue is generally not what's right - it's who's right.

Mike
 
I have seen anti's use post on gun boards in an attempt to argue their points in newspapers and blogs.

It would not suprise me if we have few anti's on this board using it to gather information or create threads/post that could be used to portray gun owners in a less then favorable light.

Using post or threads on public message boards as "evidence" of a general attitude among gun owners is absurd in my opinion, as anyone can register and post whatever they like.
 
Last edited:
Well of course debates are wrestling matches. How could it be otherwise? Like pro wrestling matches the debates are not for the speakers. They are for the audience. The audience also serves as the judge and makes their own determination of who made the best points and had the most convincing argument.

The audience is the one searching for the truth not the ones in the debate. The ones in the debate have already made up their minds. Or in the case of a debate team commited beyond reason.

However this does not mean that one can not stumble across a truth. When somone convinces me that I am wrong I am not too blinded by my ego to admit it and have done so here in the past.
 
Veeeerrry late to the party

I think that antis may lurk here but as a general rule they won't post here for long. This is for several reasons:

1) When they are in "friendly" territory they are constantly reinforcing their beliefs that gun owners are uneducated, inarticulate, incompetent, intolerant, inbred, etc, etc, etc. Not that we don't reinforce our beliefs that antis are the same things here of course. However, when they come here they are rudely surprised to find that THR members are intelligent, well educated, articulate, etc. and have trouble changing their beliefs about gun owners to fit the environment here. So they may lurk but generally don't post.

2) When in friendly territory they freely use obscenity, insults, and general bad manners which are forbidden here. The anti with good manners is rare. So they might be seen posting elsewhere but not here.

3) The logical premises of their position: Essentially they start with guns are great tools for hurting/killing people with (No disagreement here). Also they believe that a good society works to minimize violence (No disagreement here). Indeed, society should absolutely eliminate all forms of violence (Disagree). To accomplish this society should then make the tools for mayhem harder to get, illegal even (Disagree). Since the tools of mayhem are banned, then the desire to commit violence should correspondingly decline (Disagree). If not, then the desire to hurt/kill people will be harder to realize since the most effective tools for the job won't be available (Disagree).


Most of the pro side thinks that in order for society to reach its goal of reducing violence it is more contingent on cultural factors than on legal factors. As such, whether or not guns exist is irrelevant. The historical record shows this. A key difference between the pro and anti side is that the pro side is willing to make the distinction between absolutely unacceptable violence and undesirable (but acceptable) violence. Since there is a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable, then it follows that the tools of mayhem are blameless, it is the choices made by the user that must be dealt with. The desire to commit violence may exist but it will be tempered by the potential consequences of that violence. The desire to hurt/kill people will have readily available tools to meet it. However, the actual fulfillment of that desire will be reduced due to the fact that potential victims may have the means as well as the permission of society to resist violently.

4) Antis get frustrated by their inability to convince us that their viewpoint is correct and that we should take our valuable property and melt it down to make bells, razor blades, and soup cans. Just like some of us get frustrated when we can't convince them to go buy valuable bullet projecting property.
 
I stopped reading the back and forth responses around page 6. Same-o, same-o.

But, has anybody mentioned to Omahanew that "well-regulated" at the time of the adoption of the 2nd amendment simply meant well equipped and trained?

That is the fact, and not some mythical National Guard that didn't properly exist until early in the 20th century.
 
ConfuseUs said:
Since the tools of mayhem are banned, then the desire to commit violence should correspondingly decline (Disagree).

I don't think that's exactly what I hear. I have never heard an anti express the view banning tools of mayhem will have some kind of magical effect on the desire to commit violence.

ConfuseUs said:
If not, then the desire to hurt/kill people will be harder to realize since the most effective tools for the job won't be available (Disagree).

I have heard anti's argue that guns, particularly handguns, are particularly portable and lethal tools of mayhem.

I think that's probably correct.

I know that people could use (and do use) lots and lots of different weapons, but guns were in fact developed for their portability and lethality. Pro gun folks point out (correctly) that knives, clubs, cans of gasoline are also lethal. But the reality is that we arm police and soldiers and policeman with guns as lethal weapons for good reason.

If that is the case, then there are at least some people murdered with a handgun each year who would have survived other less effective means of assault.

That implies that if weapons were not available, some lives would be saved.

My disagreement with with antis is really more of a question of how we deal with the world we live in, as opposed to the world we want to live in. I think that I share with the antis the view that I would like to live in a world where no human being is threatened with violence.

But I do feel pretty strongly that there are people who live in circumstances where a handgun may be a reasonable self defense choice. And I believe that they should have that choice.

I think that the gun rights issue is one of those difficult issues in America where the short term individual good conflicts with the long term societal good. It is probably in the long term interest of society to remove all tools of mayhem, but it may be in my short term interest to own a tool of mayhem as long as anyone has a tool of mayhem.

I have to tell you that I think that the notion that I am going to resist government tyranny with my pistol or my rifle is just silly. I am not ready to take on a tank division or an attack helicopter with any weapons that are legal for me to own.

Mike
 
It is probably in the long term interest of society to remove all tools of mayhem, but it may be in my short term interest to own a tool of mayhem as long as anyone has a tool of mayhem.

Practically every tool ever made can trace its lineage back to some sort of weapon. Probably the most significant driver of technological development in history has been the development of weapons. And quite a few tools would make dandy weapons even though that is not what they are intended for. The weapon is between the ears of the user.

Indeed, we are using weapons to prosecute this very discussion. The early development of this tool was driven by the need to understand the enemy's commmunications in WWII so that purpose made weapons could be used more effectively. Later, during the Cold War, it was desired to spread out the computing power of the Defense Dept so that no single nuclear strike could wipe out the command, control, and cryptoanalysis of the U.S. military.

So merely eliminating the tool of destruction from society picks up on the obvious tools: purpose made weapons like handguns. That doesn't mean that our homes, schools, churches, businesses, and gov't buildings will forevermore be free of the tools of destruction. We can only achieve that by abandoning absolutely all technology. That is the problem the UK is facing: they banned clearly purpose built weapons like handguns and now they are banning pocket knives. They might as well ban left and right hands.
 
If the anti's are successful, and guns are banned, how would that ban be enforced? There are over 80 million LEGAL gun owners in the U.S. I have no idea how many have guns illegally. If guns are banned, what will those attempting to collect guns use to collect them? Guns are outlawed, so law enforcement will not be allowed to use illegal arms, correct?

If guns are banned, what will be next? Knives, screwdrivers, hammers, motorized vehicles, water, pipes, hands and feet, teeth, dogs, glass, wood? All of these and soooooo many more items have been used to cause death or serious injury.

Banning guns just is not the answer, prosecuting and locking away violent criminals for more than 3 years on a 75-life sentence would be a better answer. Too many criminals and not enough prisons? Put the money spent to disarm honest people and build them. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be plenty of money available.
 
"While the Constitution can be amended, the SCT has never held that the core rights in the BOR and 14th can be undone by amendment."

Do-able if not easy...

18th Amendment - Prohibition

21st Amendment - Repeal of 18th Amendment
 
"The only type rights you seem to recognize are certain legal ones granted by the government. These are not the rights of which we speak."

The "government" in this country is nothing more than the people speaking in concert and if the people, through their representative, decide that one of their "rights" should be abolished then it happens. If you've got a line on any other "rights" then please let me know where they come from...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top