Published Voting Lists (by gun ownership)...Follow

1. So was that a "random tangent" and/or something that you couldn't follow?

2. You never demonstrated how what I stated wouldn't prevent these kinds of shootings, acknowledging the fact that "anything" is possible. You simply ignored it because you didn't want to address it. Your criteria was met because it addressed the scenarios discussed that allowed these actions to occur.

So unless you're against preventing criminals, the mentally unstable and/or "people in potentially dangerous environments", from possessing fire arms, then my response met your criteria.

Edited, Mar 8th 2013 5:27am by Almalieque

Um... The posts you actually made in this thread in response to my question about why the public (or an employer specifically) needs to know who owns firearms. You went off on a tangent about requiring "beware of dog" signs on people's yards, and another one about phone books versus tracking down cell phone numbers. Don't forget that I was responding to your assertion that you had responded to my specific request for a reason why such information needs to be made public with the statement about tangents and irrelevant comments.

Um... Which sorta makes you quoting yourself from a different thread, discussing a completely different gun issue a tangent as well, doesn't it?




You're the one giving proposals for gun control Alma. If you think those are good ideas then it's your responsibility to make the argument that such legal changes would have some positive impact with regard to mass shootings, gun crime, homicide rates, or whatever else you think is important. Having gun control for the sake of gun control isn't a valid argument.



Huh? I'm not against the first two at all. But your list of proposals doesn't target them. It makes it harder for everyone to own guns, but that's like saying we can prevent criminals from running free on the streets by putting everyone in jail. Is there something in your list that targets criminals and the mentally unstable? Cause I didn't see that anywhere.

As to the third, that's such a vague statement that I'm not going to touch it. I'm assuming you mean "gun free zones", but that's a bizarre way of expressing it. All areas are "potentially dangerous", so how you do limit that? Let's not forget that I had three criteria that you were responding to (in that thread anyway):

1. Would be effective at preventing the kinds of mass shootings we were talking about.

2. Would not violate the 2nd amendment.

3. Is made up of restrictions on gun ownership.


Remember that my point here isn't to argue *for* restrictions on gun ownership, but to illustrate how ineffective such restrictions are at accomplishing the goal (requirement #1), while not violating the 2nd amendment (requirement #2). It's designed to make you realize that such things aren't the right way to go and that perhaps we should be looking at solutions other than tighter gun restrictions to achieve that goal. I know that this is a more subtle approach and some people may be confused by it, but sometimes the it's best way to make a point like this sink in. I can argue until I'm blue in the face that we should be doing X instead of Y, if we want to accomplish A without violating B and not get anywhere simply because those I'm arguing against never argue *for* their position. So I have to force them to by asking them to provide an example of Y that accomplishes A, without violating B. Then, when they can't do it, I hope and pray that a lightbulb will go off.

Sadly, it usually doesn't work, but I do try at least!

I thought Samira was clearly talking about gbaji.

What's your guilty conscience for?

I find it funny that you would pull out Freedom of Speech, a right that carries quite a few restrictions, when talking about Right to Bear Arms, of which you refuse to accept almost any restrictions at all.


Edited, Mar 8th 2013 9:04am by Uglysasquatch

Only if you don't call it that.

Maybe Ugly is just easily amused?

I guess, in a Road Runner cartoon sort of way. You know the coyote is going to fall off a cliff.

As much as you want to try to make them, those responses were not off on a tangent. You clearly realized that you were wrong and did what you (and others) tend to do when you're wrong, just skip it. The biggest concern was privacy and being seen as a "bad guy" for allowing the public to know that s/he posses something that could potentially cause harm. I countered those concerns by providing the aforesaid scenarios.



Only if your quota for ignoring a post changes.





You asked for restrictions and I gave them to you. You stated that it didn't meet your criteria which means you done an analysis. I'm asking for you to present your analysis on how those restrictions either violated the 2nd amendment and/or would not prevent these kinds of shootings.



Read #1.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

As to the third, that's such a vague statement that I'm not going to touch it. I'm assuming you mean "gun free zones", but that's a bizarre way of expressing it. All areas are "potentially dangerous", so how you do limit that? Let's not forget that I had three criteria that you were responding to (in that thread anyway):

1. Would be effective at preventing the kinds of mass shootings we were talking about.

2. Would not violate the 2nd amendment.

3. Is made up of restrictions on gun ownership.


Remember that my point here isn't to argue *for* restrictions on gun ownership, but to illustrate how ineffective such restrictions are at accomplishing the goal (requirement #1), while not violating the 2nd amendment (requirement #2). It's designed to make you realize that such things aren't the right way to go and that perhaps we should be looking at solutions other than tighter gun restrictions to achieve that goal. I know that this is a more subtle approach and some people may be confused by it, but sometimes the it's best way to make a point like this sink in. I can argue until I'm blue in the face that we should be doing X instead of Y, if we want to accomplish A without violating B and not get anywhere simply because those I'm arguing against never argue *for* their position. So I have to force them to by asking them to provide an example of Y that accomplishes A, without violating B. Then, when they can't do it, I hope and pray that a lightbulb will go off.

Sadly, it usually doesn't work, but I do try at least!

I provided a plan that not only addressed your concerns, but exceeded them. You are simply in denial in support of maintaining your weapons.

As opposed to this word? Precision!

Gbaji,

How about this? Why don't you provide at least one scenario in which my fully implemented plan would not significantly impact the probability of its occurrence and/or outcome?



I gave you restrictions that did not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. Read above, provide a shooting that would not be significantly mpacted by my fully implemented plan.



And I'm asking you for your analysis. You simply said that my plan wouldn't be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings, but you have failed to express your analysis. What are the loopholes of my plan that allows for mass shootings to continue? You said this analysis was "pretty simple", so why is it so difficult for you to explain it? Why are you spending more time saying "nu-uh" as opposed to revealing your "pretty simple analysis"?



Why? Because you're full of trash who will just continue to say "nope" regardless of what is presented. So, unless you explicitly express why something doesn't apply, you can't be held to a standard.

Either you forgot that you provided the challenge and/or you fail at the concept of criteria. I'm not asking you to do anything that you didn't already do. You made an analysis, I'm asking for your analysis. You're not doing anything extra. The amount of time and effort you put in your responses far exceeds your "pretty simple analysis". So why don't you just say it? Answer: Because there isn't one. The simple fact that your argument is "Nope.. that's not it, but I'm not going to tell you why. You have to read my mind" is evident of your denial.

Obviously you wont admit to it, so as stated, provide ANY FICTIONAL, but realistic, mass shooting scenario that would not be impacted by my fully implemented plan.



So, wait.. You don't read it the first time when it was in the post that you were replying to and now you want me to re-post exactly what you didn't read the first time in hopes that you will actually read it the second time? No thanks. If you chose to skip it the first time and not bother to reference it the second time, then you're obviously not trying to have a real discussion. If you can't figure out what "#1" is referencing to in the post in question, when it's numbered, then you have more serious problems. I give you a hint, it's the FIRST point, hence #1.



I'm not a mind reader. You made a "pretty simple" analysis, so provide it. If you can't provide your analysis, then make up a scenario that would cause a loophole in my plan.

Was there some point to posting a synonym? Couldn't be cause I said drivel was the wrong word could it? If so quote it.

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 3:37pm by Zymunn

You think he's looking for drivel? I kind of think the drool fits on gbaji.

Yeah, no.