Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Not necessarily. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies for a reason.

Not in this case.   The "objective" is to stop another Sandy Hook.   When the next Sandy Hook happens, and it will if school security isn't addressed, that type of firearm will come under fire.  

You and I both know it.    I'm just willing to say it.

No, it is a fallacy in this case.

It's perfectly possible to ban HCAW without banning handguns. No one is arguing that we should ban all guns. When that happens, you are free to argue against it.

So I can't argue now?    Shockingly, I thought I was.

OK, let me rephrase. When someone argues that we should take away all guns, your argument will be effective. Until then, it's crap.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Not necessarily. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies for a reason.

Not in this case.   The "objective" is to stop another Sandy Hook.   When the next Sandy Hook happens, and it will if school security isn't addressed, that type of firearm will come under fire.  

You and I both know it.    I'm just willing to say it.

No, it is a fallacy in this case.

It's perfectly possible to ban HCAW without banning handguns. No one is arguing that we should ban all guns. When that happens, you are free to argue against it.

So I can't argue now?    Shockingly, I thought I was.

OK, let me rephrase. When someone argues that we should take away all guns, your argument will be effective. Until then, it's crap.

I'd argue that is EXACTLY what we're arguing.

No one wants first graders being killed at their desk.    Everyone is concerned with public safety.

Are you implying that first graders can't be killed at their desk with a shotgun or that the public wouldn't be safer in no one was carrying a concealed handgun?

Other than the fact that just about everyone arguing against you has said they don't want to ban all guns???

It's called "big picture".

Now answer the question. 

Are you implying that first graders can't be killed at their desk with a shotgun or that the public wouldn't be safer if no one was carrying a concealed handgun?

The entire world would be safer if we got rid of all guns. But that isn't reasonable. It is reasonable to ban assault rifles.

See the difference? We're arguing that we should take reasonable steps to improve safety when possible.

You're arguing that we shouldn't take that reasonable step because then someone might want to do something that isn't reasonable.

Because other guns are incapable of killing people in large doses?

The are capable.

MY BEAUTIFUL BOAR THREAD!

RUINED!


BY BORING, PEDANTICS!

TUSK TUSK!

Posted by tecwrg on 1/22/2013 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 12:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 11:45:00 AM (view original):
My question has always been "What problem do you hope to resolve?"  

Banning and collecting HCAW doesn't solve the problem you seem to be presenting.    It just makes you all warm and fuzzy because you "did something".

Address the problem.    You know, by making people register all firearms, because even the little ones can kill people, and increase prison terms for possession of an unregistered firearms.    Then secure the ******* schools with something more than a sign that says "No trespassing" and a door that can be kicked in by a 120 lb crazy person.

You keep focusing on the schools. Like tec said, mass shootings happen at all kinds of different places.

HCAW are very good at what they are designed to do--kill people. They are more effective than handguns in a mass shooting situation. Make HCAW illegal and therefore harder to get and we make an incremental improvement to public safety.

It doesn't solve all problems. It doesn't stop all shootings. But it is an improvement.

I submit that it doesn't solve any problems.

It just makes some people feel good because they "did something".

FWIW, I've understood what you've been doing with respect to this discussion all along.

You're saying that banning HCAW alone doesn't solve the problems.  I agree.  But as I've been saying all along (if you've been paying attention) is that it's one step out of many that probably need to be taken to solve the problem of the frequency and/or scope of mass killings.

My take is that you don't think anything should be done unless and until a complete solution can be outlined with a plan to implement.  "Complete solution" including things like weapons, registration, background checks, mental health reform, sensationalization by the media, exposure of kids to violent movies/video games, etc,  If that's an incorrect assumption on my part, feel free to correct me.

Assuming that is where you're coming from, I'll just say that I disagree.  if you wait until a complete solution that is satisfactory to everybody can be defined and agreed upon, nothing will ever happen.  Nothing.  And that's not acceptable.  Incremental changes, though they can be slow, move you in the right direction.

So I'll ask you this: assuming you agree that there can be some sort of multi-faceted solution that can lead to a result in which mass shootings (while not ever totally avoidable) can be downsized in both (or either) their frequency and/or scope, can you envision any scenario in which the continued availability of HCAW to the general public is part of any solution?

Or is it your opinion that nothing can be done, so we shouldn't even bother trying?

Again, it's not just schools . . . it's schools, malls, movie theaters, sports arenas, concerts, etc.

?

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
I didn't say that.  But I did state in the other thread that, technically speaking, the outlawing of those things, as well as tanks, fighter jets, military drones, etc., is absolutely unconstitutional.  The fallacy in this thread is that the people supporting an assault weapons ban ignore the Constitutional problem and act like what we need to do is weight the benefits vs. the harms of an assault weapon ban.  IE do assault weapons do more harm or good.  In spite of the fact that MikeT has actually tried to participate in this ridiculous argument, it's hard to argue the good side of that debate.  Frankly, by engaging in it he's really playing into the hands of the pro-ban people.  The reality is that it should be a harms vs. harms debate - net harms of assault weapons in society vs. the inherent harms of violating the Constitution without amending it to legalize your actions.  There is certainly a bad precedent created by something like an assault weapons ban, and while slippery slope arguments are weak they may apply here.  Not inherently as a slippery slope argument.  But if the Supreme Court continues to allow assault weapon bans, there is now a growing legal precedent for allowing the government to restrict gun purchases or ownership.  Slippery  slope arguments are fallacies, bad_luck is absolutely right about that.  But legal precedents and their role in future court decisions make something very similar to a slippery slope argument a legitimate concern in this case.

1.  The part your ignoring dahs is the part that says something like, "in order to maintain a militia".     It has a clear purpose.  It doesn't say  just you're are allowed to own a gun, it gives a clear purpose why.     

2.  You may think it is unconstitutional to limit gun ownership but the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that states can restrict gun ownership.  It has also ruled you can't make your own militia.   States have every right to limit gun ownership.

I think your point #1 helps my argument rather than hindering it.  If the point of legal gun ownership is for potential maintenance of a militia, the guns you want the people owning have to be useful for military purposes.

In regards to your point #2, the Supreme Court has also ruled that minimum wage laws were illegal, that government hiring and firing based on political affiliation or beliefs was legal, that oral sex is illegal, that a law banning interracial marriage wasn't discriminatory since it applied equally to all races, and that the Constitutional Amendment forbidding search and seizure (also a Bill of Rights issue) didn't apply to state law enforcement officials.

Not to mention Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson.

All of those have been reversed.  The 4th Amendment reversal indicates that the initial Supreme Court ruling was, in fact, a bad interpretation of the Bill of Rights as initially intended to be understood.  So the mere fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the states can do things that might be considered unconstitutional acts for the Federal Government - in this case, restricting gun ownership, but this did also stand as a Federal law - doesn't mean they can't reverse the decision later, or that they are inherently correct in their interpretation.  It is, in fact, an excellent analogue...

Posted by tecwrg on 1/22/2013 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/22/2013 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 12:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 11:45:00 AM (view original):
My question has always been "What problem do you hope to resolve?"  

Banning and collecting HCAW doesn't solve the problem you seem to be presenting.    It just makes you all warm and fuzzy because you "did something".

Address the problem.    You know, by making people register all firearms, because even the little ones can kill people, and increase prison terms for possession of an unregistered firearms.    Then secure the ******* schools with something more than a sign that says "No trespassing" and a door that can be kicked in by a 120 lb crazy person.

You keep focusing on the schools. Like tec said, mass shootings happen at all kinds of different places.

HCAW are very good at what they are designed to do--kill people. They are more effective than handguns in a mass shooting situation. Make HCAW illegal and therefore harder to get and we make an incremental improvement to public safety.

It doesn't solve all problems. It doesn't stop all shootings. But it is an improvement.

I submit that it doesn't solve any problems.

It just makes some people feel good because they "did something".

FWIW, I've understood what you've been doing with respect to this discussion all along.

You're saying that banning HCAW alone doesn't solve the problems.  I agree.  But as I've been saying all along (if you've been paying attention) is that it's one step out of many that probably need to be taken to solve the problem of the frequency and/or scope of mass killings.

My take is that you don't think anything should be done unless and until a complete solution can be outlined with a plan to implement.  "Complete solution" including things like weapons, registration, background checks, mental health reform, sensationalization by the media, exposure of kids to violent movies/video games, etc,  If that's an incorrect assumption on my part, feel free to correct me.

Assuming that is where you're coming from, I'll just say that I disagree.  if you wait until a complete solution that is satisfactory to everybody can be defined and agreed upon, nothing will ever happen.  Nothing.  And that's not acceptable.  Incremental changes, though they can be slow, move you in the right direction.

So I'll ask you this: assuming you agree that there can be some sort of multi-faceted solution that can lead to a result in which mass shootings (while not ever totally avoidable) can be downsized in both (or either) their frequency and/or scope, can you envision any scenario in which the continued availability of HCAW to the general public is part of any solution?

Or is it your opinion that nothing can be done, so we shouldn't even bother trying?

Again, it's not just schools . . . it's schools, malls, movie theaters, sports arenas, concerts, etc.

?

First, I'm sure, over the last two months, I've addressed each and every point.

Second, I was trying not to lump you in with the rest but you're forcing it.

Third, I think the number of mass shootings is being greatly overblown.   They're not an everyday thing and those that have happened haven't been solely with AW-type weapons.   Giffords-9mm.   Aurora-30 rounds from an AW, the rest from shotgun/handgun.   Columbine-not sure but I thought shotguns/handguns.  Beltway sniper-sniper rifle.   VaTech-handguns.   So, in reality, only the Sandy Hook was HCAW.   Therefore, I don't get the "BAN HCAW!!!!!  But don't worry about those other guns" mantra.  

Finally, I'll repeat myselfL
1.  Secure the schools.  Not the bullshit way it's done now but that's not good enough.  Anyone who says it is might be a moron.
2.  Register all existing firearms.
3.  Impose heavy prison terms for any possessing an unregistered firearm.
4.  Stop the sell/manufacturing of these AW-type guns or tax them so highly that they're priced out of the market.

Now, you say, "Well, where are you drawing the line?"  I'm drawing the ******* line at a government collection of what are currentely legal firearms.  

Better?