Are you afraid of guns?

[Checkmite]

I am not afraid of guns; I am afraid of the people who brandish them. I am highly intimidated by open-carriers, which I take to be their intent so it would seem the height of irony to me for one of them to complain if I exhibit fear.

The fact is, a person who is visibly carrying a gun is at that moment the most obvious and dangerous threat to my life and of course I'm going to conduct myself as if that's true. If the person is compelled to make a visual point of the fact that he's armed with a deadly weapon - fine; I'll make a visual point of treating him like a health hazard.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Are you afraid of guns?
yes, except when handled by a trained Police officer.

I was never a civilian police officer, but when I learned to shoot, age 14, it was three months before I fired my piece. Gunny Miyagi was a thorough man.

 

[tyr_13]

Let's look at this section:



This is creating a strawman or simply lying about the content of studies that show guns in a negative light.



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._causes_higher_suicide_rates_study_shows.html



http://cel.webofknowledge.com/Inbou...ID=Highwire&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord



http://cel.webofknowledge.com/Inbou...ID=Highwire&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord



http://cel.webofknowledge.com/Inbou...ID=Highwire&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord

I could go on.

Maybe those are the studies he was talking about, but I doubt it as they don't appear to be from medical journals and none show a 3x increase, which is what he specifically mentioned. I wouldn't make the argument that all studies are flawed or that there is no increase in successful suicides. The presence of good studies in now way excuses using bad studies. I'll wait to see what he was actually referencing. Intentionally using wrong numbers would be a dishonest thing to do.

 

[Totovader]

You took that out of context. It was addressing a hypothetical about whether reasonable people would all agree on gun control. The point was to show that a case could be made for either side of the issue, based on reason - and that logic alone could not determine the right answer. It is not an assertion of a position. Please retract.

ETA: If the rhetorical device is confusing, try this, where it is more obvious:
"I am Superman, so naturally I fear Kryptonite. You, as Lex Luthor, think it's a handy thing to have around. We both have good reasons to hold opposite views."

I hope you can see in that bit of prose I am not actually claiming to be Superman. If not, well, I tried.

That has got to be the most ridiculous claim I have ever seen. I was not taking your comments out of context. If anyone has doubts about that, they can click on the link and see the entire conversation.

 

[newyorkguy]

How do you think that supports the argument that throwing all the guns into the sea from private citizens is the best option?

No one I'm aware of is seriously advocating throwing all the guns in the sea. Can you back your assertion up?

You're avoiding this issue. You said gun control advocates are never quite honest. Their real goal is to ban guns. I asked you to back up your assertion. Your proof was to quote a comment made on a message board. The person who made it then said you're taking it out of context and asked you to retract it. You refuse.

If you're arguing that people on message boards occasionally say they'd like to see guns banned I would agree. Only you're not arguing that. You're using that comment and others like it to avoid any rational discussion of gun control laws or the place for firearms in a modern society. You're making it impossible to discuss it objectively through the use of inflammatory and emotional rhetoric. I'm surprised you can't see that. I therefore conclude, and have concluded, that you're doing it deliberately.

...Plus, gun control advocates are never really quite honest in their objective. It's not about gun control, it's about taking the guns out of the citizens and making sure that the police and military have them...

Gun control advocates want to ban guns? Can you back up that assertion with anything besides anecdotes?

Of course! See: jref forums...

You took that out of context...Please retract...

 

[AlBell]

...

What central planning? Do you believe gun control advocates are secret agents of the new world order?

Somewhere on the sliding scale between fellow-traveler to Marxist? Yes, I believe that is too often the situation.

 

[AlBell]

...
Honestly, my solution is that neither group needs guns. I realize that in your mind this would lead to total anarchy as we are all brutalized by the villains, but it seems to work surprisingly well in most of the developed world.

What world do you live in? It doesn't sound like earth.

And with zero guns, will we go through a sword-spear-hatchet period on our way to clubs, stones, physical strength?

 

[Totovader]

No one I'm aware of is seriously advocating throwing all the guns in the sea. Can you back your assertion up?

That was like the 4th comment in this thread...

Guns don't kill people. People kill people! Therefore, I'm afraid of people with guns. Because they kill people. If you took all the guns, unloaded them, piled them into giant containers, and sunk them in the ocean, they'd be awesome.

You're avoiding this issue. You said gun control advocates are never quite honest. Their real goal is to ban guns. I asked you to back up your assertion. Your proof was to quote a comment made on a message board. The person who made it then said you're taking it out of context and asked you to retract it. You refuse.

Because marplots is not being honest- anyone can click on that link and see that it was not taken out of context. Just because he said it was taken out of context doesn't mean it was, and his example of what he was arguing doesn't make any sense. He wasn't pretending to be Superman, he was pretending to have a rational position. At this point, no one will step forward and proudly proclaim their defense of banning all guns- and even if they did, you wouldn't accept it.

If you're arguing that people on message boards occasionally say they'd like to see guns banned I would agree.

So then you are sending me on a fools errand- because you know this, yet you demand proof for it as if it doesn't exist or you're unaware of it. Anything I post you will reject with the following statement:

Only you're not arguing that. You're using that comment and others like it to avoid any rational discussion of gun control laws or the place for firearms in a modern society. You're making it impossible to discuss it objectively through the use of inflammatory and emotional rhetoric. I'm surprised you can't see that. I therefore conclude, and have concluded, that you're doing it deliberately.

What I am saying- as plainly as I can- is that gun control advocates obviously run the spectrum: some want very little restriction, some want gun owners dead. We're talking about the middle because it's pointless to talk about the tails. My argument is that the curve is- while advocates will claim moderation- they are really in favor of eradication: it skews to the right. It most often shows up as saying that it's impossible in the US, but it would be grand- it's a pipe dream. My counter to that is that gun control advocates are not being honest when they claim that: they don't want all guns thrown into the sea, they want the elite to have them (otherwise, how are they going to take all the guns), plus "we" have to be able to defend ourselves (meaning the police, military, etc). I'm talking about the logical inconsistency in that argument- if you choose to reject that, you certainly can. But the logical inconsistency is still there: those who want to ban all guns are not being honest.

 

[newyorkguy]

...Can we get back to the issue at hand, now?

Then don't throw in comments expecting no one should respond to them.

Am I afraid of guns? Individually it depends on the circumstances. Collectively I have concerns, yes even fears. When people advocate citizens arming themselves in great numbers I wonder what unintended societal effects this will have. I've seen some studies that appeared to be pretty objective, by researchers that seem fairly unbiased, that suggest there is a correlation between the number of guns -- especially handguns -- and the level of violence in a society.

The argument is, the instances where a gun carrier will be able to fend off a robbery or assault will be outnumbered by the instances where guns will be used aggressively or irresponsibly. So the net effect of more guns is more gun shot victims. The numbers appear to be fairly accurate.

I'll admit I'm not convinced either way. For one thing, I have the impression that the majority of Americans have no desire to carry a handgun whether they have the right to or not. OTOH you read of incidents where someone is needlessly killed because, or so it seems to me, primarily because a gun was present. In a study of self-defense shooting in Florida, the MAJORITY of victims shot were unarmed. I think that fact would give any sane person reason for pause.

 

[newyorkguy]

...What I am saying- as plainly as I can- is that gun control advocates obviously run the spectrum: some want very little restriction, some want gun owners dead.....My counter to that is that gun control advocates are not being honest when they claim that: they don't want all guns thrown into the sea, they want the elite to have them (otherwise, how are they going to take all the guns), plus "we" have to be able to defend ourselves (meaning the police, military, etc)...

And I'm telling you as clearly as I can, you're confusing people posting messages on an Internet message board with people in the real world who are working to pass sane and effective laws aimed at reducing gun violence. You're using the former to discredit the latter. Not only that, you're posting in a manner that you know, I know, we all know, will bring forth the kinds of responses that you can then attack.

This is what gun control is about to you, people posting messages on the Internet? I guess that's why you have told me to stop posting links to studies or to comments by people who are involved in the real politics. You have no interest in that. You prefer to stick with what people say on the Internet.

Okay. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Totovader]

Some of the medical studies I was referencing or have referenced in other threads:

New England Journal of Medicine: Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership

American Journal of Public Health: Weapons in the Lives of Battered Woman

Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery: Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home

American Journal of Public Health: Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

I apologize if that comes across as linkbombing- but I felt that Tsukasa Buddha deserved a response.

 

[newyorkguy]

Some of the medical studies I was referencing or have referenced in other threads:

New England Journal of Medicine: Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership

American Journal of Public Health: Weapons in the Lives of Battered Woman

Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery: Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home

American Journal of Public Health: Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

I apologize if that comes across as linkbombing- but I felt that Tsukasa Buddha deserved a response.

What do they mean? What are we supposed to learn if we open them? Why do you post them without any qualification?

 

[Totovader]

And I'm telling you as clearly as I can, you're confusing people posting messages on an Internet message board with people in the real world who are working to pass sane and effective laws aimed at reducing gun violence. You're using the former to discredit the latter. Not only that, you're posting in a manner that you know, I know, we all know, will bring forth the kinds of responses that you can then attack.

And yet... in the "real world" Senators are given as examples and you dismiss them because they're not forum members... as far as we know.

This is what gun control is about to you, people posting messages on the Internet? I guess that's why you have told me to stop posting links to studies or to comments by people who are involved in the real politics. You have no interest in that. You prefer to stick with what people say on the Internet.

Nice straw man. Please quote where I have said that.

 

[Aepervius]

Fear is a healthy, normal response to the unknown. People who are afeared of guns have, in general, little or no experience with them.

People are not afraid or gun in my experience. People are afraid of persons which feel the needs to carry on or keep it home a tool used solely to target other human. The "sport" usage being a second or only accompanying the defense usage.

If somebody felt the need to carry a sword on them or a sword at home for defense, I would be wary of them identically, and I have a sword at home for decoration (and a hunting bow, and for a long time I had a rifle used for sport).

it is not the tool people are wary of, it is the owner in conjunction of the desired usage.

 

[Totovader]

What do they mean? What are we supposed to learn if we open them? Why do you post them without any qualification?

See: OP

I was responding to Tsukasa Buddha who requested the studies.

What it means: there is a widespread problem in the medical approach and reporting to gun issues. In addition to the fallacy I outlined in the OP, there is bias in the studies and the peer review process has broken down.

You know this because you and I already discussed it in another thread. Remember? You accepted one study that was clearly flawed because it agreed with your position and then rejected a different study that you didn't like because you thought the sample size was too small, despite the fact that it was statistically sound.

That study you supported unquestioningly is an example of bad design, although not the kind of design I was talking about in the OP. Still, I added it to my collection.

Psychological Science: Guns, Testosterone, and Aggression

But, now I am linkbombing.

 

[Totovader]

People are not afraid or gun in my experience. People are afraid of persons which feel the needs to carry on or keep it home a tool used solely to target other human. The "sport" usage being a second or only accompanying the defense usage.

If somebody felt the need to carry a sword on them or a sword at home for defense, I would be wary of them identically, and I have a sword at home for decoration (and a hunting bow, and for a long time I had a rifle used for sport).

it is not the tool people are wary of, it is the owner in conjunction of the desired usage.

How can you possibly determine intent by the ownership of an inanimate object?

You said you own a sword, from that I surmise that you plan to go chopping off all the heads of all the babies in the whole world. Hey, that was easy. No evidence needed.

 

[newyorkguy]

And yet... in the "real world" Senators are given as examples and you dismiss them because they're not forum members... as far as we know...

It wasn't Senators plural, it was one Senator. Her assault weapon ban was proposed twenty years ago. Her handgun ban was more recent but it only involved one state and it failed.

If you had said 'a Senator from California once proposed' I would've agreed with you. Only you said gun control advocates, implying what's behind the motives of the gun control movement in general. I asked you to back that up. You don't seem to be able to do that.

I remind you, I'm on the fence. Convince me you're right and I'll agree. So far you're not doing that.

 

[Aepervius]

How can you possibly determine intent by the ownership of an inanimate object?

You said you own a sword, from that I surmise that you plan to go chopping off all the heads of all the babies in the whole world. Hey, that was easy. No evidence needed.

Because the intent of self defense is often enough announced itself by the person ? And frankly what other reason would you have to carry a gun in public place ? Give it a sun bathing ?

 

[newyorkguy]

...What it means: there is a widespread problem in the medical approach and reporting to gun issues. In addition to the fallacy I outlined in the OP, there is bias in the studies and the peer review process has broken down...

I'm asking you, specifically (and briefly) what is the problem? At first I presumed you linked the studies because they would support your position. Now you seem to be saying you linked them because they don't support your position.

Tell us what we're supposed to learn, what we should look for, if we open those links. It just seems to me you refuse to discuss those questions because you don't want to have to commit to anything. You want to be able to craft a position in relation to how other people respond. If you don't say, "It shows A, B and C" you can't be wrong.

The only person you're fooling is yourself.

 

[Totovader]

It wasn't Senators plural, it was one Senator. Her assault weapon ban was proposed twenty years ago. Her handgun ban was more recent but it only involved one state and it failed.

If you had said 'a Senator from California once proposed' I would've agreed with you. Only you said gun control advocates, implying what's behind the motives of the gun control movement in general. I asked you to back that up. You don't seem to be able to do that.

I remind you, I'm on the fence. Convince me you're right and I'll agree. So far you're not doing that.

Imagine a venn diagram of gun control advocates and Senators... Where does she fit in that venn diagram?

I contend you're unwilling to be convinced by the evidence. If I am wrong, then please share what it would take for you to be convinced.