Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Huntermaxfield]

I agree with the notion to regulate the ability of unjust citizens to purchase firearms. I cannot comprehend how the gun show loophole evaded attention from our Federal Government. The lucid decision to prohibit certain criminals from possessing guns is apparent and quite honestly not even a moot topic.

The AR-15 was released to the public nearly 50 years ago! The horse is out of the stall! It is foolish to believe that this weapon will simply vanish because of a sanction. Whoever believes that a law will suddenly halt or even decrease deaths by this weapon must also believe that criminals follow the law. Which is obviously not the case.

Sanction and regulate the purchasing of such weapons, absolutely. But hundreds of thousands of AR-15 are already within the possession or circulation of the public. Denying citizens of these weapons will only push the flow of these weapons to the black market with is favorable for criminals anyway.

[UniversalAlien]

I agree with the notion to regulate the ability of unjust citizens to purchase firearms. I cannot comprehend how the gun show loophole evaded attention from our Federal Government. The lucid decision to prohibit certain criminals from possessing guns is apparent and quite honestly not even a moot topic.

The AR-15 was released to the public nearly 50 years ago! The horse is out of the stall! It is foolish to believe that this weapon will simply vanish because of a sanction. Whoever believes that a law will suddenly halt or even decrease deaths by this weapon must also believe that criminals follow the law. Which is obviously not the case.

Sanction and regulate the purchasing of such weapons, absolutely. But hundreds of thousands of AR-15 are already within the possession or circulation of the public. Denying citizens of these weapons will only push the flow of these weapons to the black market with is favorable for criminals anyway.

I agree and welcome to the Online Philosophy Club Huntermaxfield. If you have the time you might want to skim through this entire thread from the beginning which I started after the Sandy Hook incident as I knew the 'gun-grabbers' would be in heat, and as expected Dianne Feinstein who is one of the worst began to howl - she wants to outlaw 100 guns styles that she says are more dangerous than others because of design and to pass other draconian anti Second Amendment legislation. Of course we already have some gun control and have had through most of the 20th Century and I agree reasonable ideas that might exclude criminals and lunatics will be acceptable to most.

What is occurring to my way of thinking lately, and which may please some but not everyone, is to hold the owner of the firearm more responsible for it after purchase. Another words as some strict gun control countries such as Australia require guns be locked-up when not in use -- I would not go that far BUT if the owner allows access to his/her gun that is misused {as was the case with Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook killer} his mother could have been considered complicit for leaving him easy access to the guns. And possibly gun owners should be required to run a background check when they sell the gun privately {the gun show loophole}. I firmly believe in the Second Amendment but now also believe to maintain our gun rights all legitimate gun owners should accept more responsibility for their safe maintenance and to avoid their falling in to the hands of criminals and the insane. What do you think?

[Blazmeteor]

First the Second:


(Nested quote removed.)


I could not watch the news this morning save for only one story: 27 people, 20 of which were children between 5-10 years old were gunned down by a lone gunman who also killed his mother who was teaching the children at the time. Gun control advocates can now celebrate {cynicism intentional}. Again they will start to call for more draconian anti-gun laws to protect the public - But will this really protect the public? Australia after a similar incident some years ago outlawed all guns. And then the crime rate went up so high they had to rescind the law. In the USA with many millions of guns already in the hands of the public a gun ban would cause, to use an old saying: "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns".

So how can 'we the people' be protected from the lone mad gunman determined to kill? We can not be protected completely, both guns and for that matter life itself is dangerous. Recently a lone swordsman dispatched a bunch of people in Japan and don't forget terrorist bombers who kill many more with no guns at all. So what do we do? If we took the Second Amendment literally and allowed the the right of the people to bear arms, this mass murder scenario would end. If enough of the 'well armed militia' was in fact armed the public would no longer be subjected to mass murderers; they could be stopped before their carnage was complete. To quote a somewhat controversial politician of years past" "A well armed society is a polite society" -G. Gordon Liddy

By valuing the lone gunman's life above your own. Love.

[Huntermaxfield]

UniversalAlien

A mandatory background check seems to be a superb idea to try and prevent firearms getting into the wrong hands. This will not stop all owners however. The greed that unfortunately plagues certain human beings would enable them to be bribed and still sell to criminals. That being said, it will be effective in most cases. Like i said, not all cases, but no solution will prevent these mass murder plots from being invented. Great idea, love it.

All gun owners should be held responsible for their firearms. It should be a crime to mishandle and carelessly own a firearm. I hate the idea of the government intruding even more into our lives, but it seems that gun handling should be taken more seriously by gun owners.

A solution I seek for is one that would not be a band-aid to the wound. Sure, carelessness of a weapon should be a crime, but we must look beyond that to the root of the problem. Video games and television shows do not play part in these crimes. Hundreds of millions Americans watch television everyday. These mass shootings are happening once or twice a year. It seems lucid to me that mental illness is a significant factor in these tragedies. I understand thousands of Americans also suffer from mental illnesses. I believe that a specific and certain type of illness coupled with excessive mistreatment builds resentment in these mass murderers. The formula is rare and unpredictable. It is also a formula that cannot be prevented in present day America. The focus of the government should lean towards gun training and gun safety. There is nothing that can be done to ensure gun murders are completely abolished, but they can be reduced in magnitude. The police nor Feds are the ones capable to reduce such tragedies. It lies in the hands of ordinary citizens who are equipped with the ability to properly use a firearm.

Before any gun control elitist's begin to attack this idea, consider the love that you have for your family and loved ones. This sounds cliche and shallow, but bare with me. In the public areas where these massacres are occurring, their are plenty of parents and guardians with their children. They share the same dying love for one another like we do for our loved ones. I understand that ordinary citizens are consumed by trepidation in these occurrences, but they feel this because they are helpless. Any father that has gone through the proper training and is equipped with a firearm would not let this fear prevent him from protecting his family. If this training is made easier to access by the assistance of the government, more and more law abiding citizens would be open to the idea of protecting their families. The police cannot protect anyone until they are made aware of the shooting and then able to journey to the scene. Instead, the media has tagged firearms with a negative, cynical connotation that is forcing listeners to shy away from training and owning a firearm.

[Rederic]

In the public areas where these massacres are occurring, their are plenty of parents and guardians with their children. They share the same dying love for one another like we do for our loved ones. I understand that ordinary citizens are consumed by trepidation in these occurrences, but they feel this because they are helpless. Any father that has gone through the proper training and is equipped with a firearm would not let this fear prevent him from protecting his family. If this training is made easier to access by the assistance of the government, more and more law abiding citizens would be open to the idea of protecting their families.

Are you meaning some sort of vigilante force?

[UniversalAlien]

UniversalAlien

A mandatory background check seems to be a superb idea to try and prevent firearms getting into the wrong hands. This will not stop all owners however. The greed that unfortunately plagues certain human beings would enable them to be bribed and still sell to criminals. That being said, it will be effective in most cases. Like i said, not all cases, but no solution will prevent these mass murder plots from being invented. Great idea, love it.

All gun owners should be held responsible for their firearms. It should be a crime to mishandle and carelessly own a firearm. I hate the idea of the government intruding even more into our lives, but it seems that gun handling should be taken more seriously by gun owners.

A solution I seek for is one that would not be a band-aid to the wound. Sure, carelessness of a weapon should be a crime, but we must look beyond that to the root of the problem. Video games and television shows do not play part in these crimes. Hundreds of millions Americans watch television everyday. These mass shootings are happening once or twice a year. It seems lucid to me that mental illness is a significant factor in these tragedies. I understand thousands of Americans also suffer from mental illnesses. I believe that a specific and certain type of illness coupled with excessive mistreatment builds resentment in these mass murderers. The formula is rare and unpredictable. It is also a formula that cannot be prevented in present day America. The focus of the government should lean towards gun training and gun safety. There is nothing that can be done to ensure gun murders are completely abolished, but they can be reduced in magnitude. The police nor Feds are the ones capable to reduce such tragedies. It lies in the hands of ordinary citizens who are equipped with the ability to properly use a firearm.

Before any gun control elitist's begin to attack this idea, consider the love that you have for your family and loved ones. This sounds cliche and shallow, but bare with me. In the public areas where these massacres are occurring, their are plenty of parents and guardians with their children. They share the same dying love for one another like we do for our loved ones. I understand that ordinary citizens are consumed by trepidation in these occurrences, but they feel this because they are helpless. Any father that has gone through the proper training and is equipped with a firearm would not let this fear prevent him from protecting his family. If this training is made easier to access by the assistance of the government, more and more law abiding citizens would be open to the idea of protecting their families. The police cannot protect anyone until they are made aware of the shooting and then able to journey to the scene. Instead, the media has tagged firearms with a negative, cynical connotation that is forcing listeners to shy away from training and owning a firearm.

I agree.

But you see what we are up against are people who do not like self-defense, guns or the Second Amendment and will do all they can to undermine the basic principles of the United States Constitution. Some of those posting on this topic here have indicated they are not from the US but are from countries such as UK or Australia where the population has already lost its rights as to guns. I believe these people while indicating their concern for American gun violence are really jealous over the fact the Americans still can legally protect themselves and what is theirs and they have mainly lost this right. Some of the politicians {unfortunately mainly Democrats} who are pushing for more gun control really want the UK type paradigm for the US - they really don't want intelligent gun control - they want to eliminate the Second Amendment and the rights of Americans - They are in my opinion solid New World Order {NWO} lackeys and if they be exposed it would be seen they are more than just enemies of gun owners and the Second Amendment, but they are in reality enemies of United States.

Again, and in my opinion, no one derives more pleasure from a mass murder by guns than an anti gun advocate such as Dianne Feinstein {Dianne Goldman Berman Feinstein} the senior United States Senator from California. A member of the Democratic Party, She has had her sites set on gun control for a long time and her and those of similar persuasion are now motivated over the blood of the children in the recent Connecticut tragedy - it sometimes seems these people pray for gun massacres to motivate their agendas. Don't remind Dianne Feinstein who claims to be Jewish that millions of Jews were marched off to concentration camps and extermination and could not resist as the Nazis had disarmed most of the civilian population to facilitate their agenda - but why should she worry? She is very rich - And in Nazi Germany most of the rich Jews could buy their way out.

[Steve3007]

Some of those posting on this topic here have indicated they are not from the US but are from countries such as UK or Australia where the population has already lost its rights as to guns. I believe these people while indicating their concern for American gun violence are really jealous over the fact the Americans still can legally protect themselves and what is theirs and they have mainly lost this right.

In the UK, the police are not routinely armed and the vast majority of them don't want to be. They would not characterize this as giving something up. They would characterize it as not wanting to be shot dead.

Personally, I quite like the fact that Americans are all armed to the teeth. It kind of goes with the popular image of America. So long as the guns stay in America. And I understand the fact that the high rate of gun related deaths is regarded as a price worth paying for freedom. But the reason I, and most other UK people, don't want a similar level of gun ownership here is simply because we don't want to be shot dead. It's not about giving up rights. It's about having the right to walk through most of the streets of most cities at night without serious fear.

If any other country wants the level of gun deaths that goes with routine gun ownership that's up to them. Vive la difference, as they say in France!

[UniversalAlien]

(Nested quote removed.)


In the UK, the police are not routinely armed and the vast majority of them don't want to be. They would not characterize this as giving something up. They would characterize it as not wanting to be shot dead.

Personally, I quite like the fact that Americans are all armed to the teeth. It kind of goes with the popular image of America. So long as the guns stay in America. And I understand the fact that the high rate of gun related deaths is regarded as a price worth paying for freedom. But the reason I, and most other UK people, don't want a similar level of gun ownership here is simply because we don't want to be shot dead. It's not about giving up rights. It's about having the right to walk through most of the streets of most cities at night without serious fear.

If any other country wants the level of gun deaths that goes with routine gun ownership that's up to them. Vive la difference, as they say in France!

I understand what you are saying. And there might be and probably are some differences in the nature of society in the UK and the US and therefor people may be somewhat different in these two countries. But what has become demonstrable fact is that in the cities where guns are most restricted the US has the highest gun crime and homicide rates; Chicago and Washington, DC for example. And the Supreme Court ruled that these cities can no longer bar gun ownership.

I have traveled alone in many places in the US. The most fearful place I can recall being was on a subway train in New York City late at night with no one else on the train - you would get the feeling that at any moment a gang of hoodlums would enter the car and ??? - NYC has had strict gun control for most of the 20th Century and has always had a high rate of mugging type crimes. Now flash forward to Phoenix, Arizona where the state of Arizona makes gun purchase rather simple {back then there was no background check or waiting period, a simple state drivers license was all that you needed} and I can recall walking around alone late one night and had a feeling of security - muggers are less likely to attack knowing you may be armed - Criminals will usually pick on defenseless people. Now you might feel safe in the UK because of less guns but I've been reading knife crimes are on the rise and would suppose, like in any country it depends on what city, neighborhood and time of day when crime is to be feared.

A personal opinion is that if some from the UK think Americans are too gun crazy - I think the UK went too far in passing the draconian gun control measures it now has. I remember watching a TV show which claimed it was one major incident where some nut case killed a bunch of kids that sparked your current restrictive gun laws - If some other nut case took his auto and ran into and killed a bunch of kids standing at a bus stop would anyone suggest that they outlaw automobiles?

It seems in many peoples minds there is a perceived negative image of firearms because they can kill - but so can many other things including bombs, motor vehicles, knives, clubs, etc; In two relatively recent events knives/swords where used in China and Japan on school children and even though the carnage was not as great as it might have been with a gun, it was not as bad as it could have been with a bomb. And in any case a sword wielding assailant can be almost as dangerous as one with a gun under some circumstances.

The old expression still stands: Guns don't kill people - People kill people.

[Wooden shoe]

UniversalAlien.

After reading your post and a number of others I admit that I feel really sorry for your plight. It must be terrible to live in a so called civilized nation and feel the need to have military style weapons for protection from all the bad people, and even from you own government! And to see that in the nation just a bit farther north where I live, I have never in all the years I have lived here, met a single person who had any concerns in this area. I have often been amused at seeing "in God we trust" on US coins, knowing full well that many US citizens have far more faith in their weapons then any deity!

Perhaps the saying "What you sow, that shall you reap" is true as the US had it's birth as a nation through violence, and it's history is a bloody one.

Regards, John.

[edelker]

UniversalAlien wrote,


“For now your arguments are superfluous, irrelevant and immaterial. In the United States of America the Second Amendment stands and as so recently interpreted by The Supreme Court gives the individual citizen of America 'the right to bear arms'. For now I stand by American law and have no need to write a book explaining the issue for your benefit - there are many books written on the subject of guns and the Second Amendment.”


Again, not the issue! How many times need I repeat this point? The issue is about certain types of firearms and the recent Supreme Court’s ruling is irrelevant on this point.


The 2nd Amendment is not unalterable or absolute. But I am glad to see you cede the point that you’re quite content with the legal—pro-government enforcement of your side. So, I think we can safely side step your supposed concerns about government coercion. After all, you appear quite content with such coercion when the law sides with your felt position. I know, you mean to “defend the 2nd Amendment.” Well, “defend” it in a certain way-whether or not doing so is either relevant or rational.


UniversalAlien wrote,


“The issue of 'so-called assault rifles' is not of any specific concern of mine at this time - excepting, and has been stated where, when, and who draws the lines as to whether one gun is more dangerous than another when it can hardly be denied that all guns are dangerous and no firearm is without some risk. But since you fancy yourself a logical conduit to enlighten us I will not take up your neurons with excessive rhetoric.”


Umm… a 38 or a 9m’ is hardly as lethal as an AR-15 or AK-47-and you know it. Adam Lanza killed over two dozen people in less than ten minutes. Not something that can be done with either a 9mil’ Beretta pistol or a six shooter. Anyone who’s familiar with these varying types of guns knows and understands the output, velocity differentials, and cartridge capacities of these, and many other, weapons. The military doesn’t carry shotguns into battle as the standard issue weapon FOR a reason!


The problem here is that drawing the line distinguishing the obvious mechanics of varied types of firearms appears to require such enlightenment for those who oddly contend for a kind of weird relativism between ALL firearms. Surely, if an Adam Lanza knows the difference, YOU do! After all, he had other types of weapons on him that he DIDN”T prefer as his primary weapon FOR a reason.


UniversalAlien wrote,


“In the America of today you might have a better chance of limiting kind words than guns. Listen to the news lately?”


Your tone and personal attacks are both obscene and cheap! You do display a great deal of emotion-I’ll give you that. I just don’t see your arguments. Of course I understand that there’s a lucrative business involved in making people afraid of their government, liberals, minorities, communists and all other manner of boogie monsters. Yet, the reason there are so many guns out there hasn’t anything to do with our side of the isle. It’s your side that makes many such scenarios like Columbine and Newtown legally possible. You oppose such actions and think them horrible no doubt-but your political support on the matter has a very different set of consequences. Adam Lanza killed over two dozen people because weapons in his home had been legally accessible to him by a mother who thought the neighborhood could have bad people in it and the government evil. The availability of these weapons had nothing to do with liberals or the government! Quite the opposite. In most of the high profile shootings the guns were legal and used by people who had nothing to do with government or the political left. I get the news-I also understand what makes such news possible!


Perhaps you should be aware of another quote that has proven to be all too true: “he (insert “they”) who live by the sword shall die by the sword.” In a world of weapons for all-for the protection of all is a sure recipe for the opposite of anything like “protection.”


IniversalAlien wrote,


“politicians attempting to pass gun legislation have made much more money for gun manufacturers and dealers than the NRA or any other pro-gun group.”


And this fact should be disturbing!


Again, maybe I’ll eventually get an argument that is coherent and absent of any personal attacks or grounded in fears of some possible government takeover.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Huntermaxfield wrote,

“The AR-15 was released to the public nearly 50 years ago! The horse is out of the stall! It is foolish to believe that this weapon will simply vanish because of a sanction. Whoever believes that a law will suddenly halt or even decrease deaths by this weapon must also believe that criminals follow the law. Which is obviously not the case.”


Once more, no one is arguing that eliminating such weapons and their ammunition will eliminate criminals using these weapons-but the facts do support that legal restrictions DO make it more difficult for criminals to purchase, train, and use these weapons. Adam Lanza, for example, could NOT purchase these weapons himself-for one. Had his mother not trained him on the use of these weapons and given him access to them, he simply wouldn’t have been able to use them. One may argue that he could have gotten them off the street. But even this argument isn’t too believable simply because his income was centered on his mother’s and he was a decently educated caucasian suburbanite who had no such connections or likely know-how with the black market sufficient for anyone to trust him-let alone sell him anything. Same goes for the Columbine shooters-and a whole host of other such shooters.


Simply put, it works when such laws are put into effect overall and over time. It isn’t a cure-all nor is such legislation going to stop all such shootings. But, again, if these sorts of laws force the Adam Lanza’s of the world to go through the potentially dangerous, highly political, and costly underground world to obtain these weapons, I’m all for it!


Keep in mind that criminals who’ve been known to circulate these weapons to the point where they have a lucrative in-country underground market are very careful who they sell to; typically have standards sufficient to deny some people these weapons for the very reason that investigations could bring the authorities directly to their front door.


Would it be that we in civil society would have the standard of some criminals!

Eric D.

[UniversalAlien]

Your tone and personal attacks are both obscene and cheap! .........

Again, maybe I’ll eventually get an argument that is coherent and absent of any personal attacks or grounded in fears of some possible government takeover.

Personal attacks?????

Personal attacks are against the rules of this forum. Please state exactly what words you consider to be a personal attack.

Again, maybe I’ll eventually get an argument that is coherent and absent of any personal attacks or grounded in fears of some possible government takeover.

Government takeover? Takeover of what? Maybe the government will takeover this OnlinePhilosophyClub.com. After all if you can denigrate the Second Amendment why not the First Amendment as well {hypothetical concept, not to be perceived as a personal inference}.

PS: I am not an NRA member and have no commercial interest in guns whatsoever. I believe in World peace and also believe that Gandhi was the greatest leader of the 20th Century. In my way of thinking guns are not at the root of American or human violence and a future where you have to outlaw guns for one group { the private citizen} and then thoroughly and completely arm another group {the government} is a society that is not well. It is not to disarm the masses of humanity that will bring about peace - it is to reach a state where weapons are no longer a threat because human nature is no longer threatening. No amount of disarmament will ever make the world safe if people have malignant intentions and as has been pointed out earlier in this thread the worst case of murder at a school was perpetrated by a nut case using dynamite - And if you say dynamite is harder to obtain I will agree but gasoline is readily available and if we leave schools unprotected in this unfortunatley violent world of all too many nuts, it is just a matter of time before....

AGAIN: Guns don't kill people - People kill people

[edelker]

UniversalAlien wrote,


“Personal attacks are against the rules of this forum. Please state exactly what words you consider to be a personal attack.”


Umm.. yeah, pretty easy: allow me to quote your Posts: 135, “But since you FANCY YOURSELF a logical conduit to enlighten us I will not take up your neurons with excessive rhetoric. And I will not bother you with quotes from the great philosophers on the nature of government, civilization, and an armed population” (emphasis mine). Obviously, sarcasm about both how I’m arguing and what you infer to be my personality without argument or evidence, just pure emoting here.


Not to worry, I’ve read worse lol. But very clearly you dismissed my points by making an irrelevant reference to your personal view of my character. Whether such tactics you used here is explicit enough to warrant a breaking of the rules is neither my job nor concern.



UniversalAlien wrote,

“After all if you can denigrate the Second Amendment why not the First Amendment as well”


Disagreeing with you ABOUT the interpretation and implementation of the 2nd Amendment isn’t equivalent to denigrating it. Again, you’re superimposing a position on my argument that I neither made nor hold.



UniversalAlien wrote,


“In my way of thinking guns are not at the root of American or human violence and a future where you have to outlaw guns for one group { the private citizen} and then thoroughly and completely arm another group {the government} is a society that is not well.”


No one is credibly arguing that the root of violence in America is guns. So, this is a straw-man argument.


Also, no one is talking about outlawing all guns either. So, who are you arguing against here?


As far as a morally sick society, given the implication in your argument, both a society whose citizens possess guns for self-preservation and governments that use weapons in the course of managing diplomacy is equally sick. Again, if you want to make a normative argument that one kind of social arrangement is better than another, then make it. Merely telling us what you think isn’t the same as making a cogent case for a specified reading of the 2nd Amendment, or what have you.



UniversalAlien wrote,


“It is not to disarm the masses of humanity that will bring about peace - it is to reach a state where weapons are no longer a threat because human nature is no longer threatening.”


Again, who’s talking about disarmament? I’m not! Did I miss something? Who’s saying that some national and international peaceful utopia will be had by banning all guns? You’re arguing against the wind here-and not anyone on the gun-control side of this issue.


UniversalAlien wrote,

“No amount of disarmament will ever make the world safe if people have malignant intentions and as has been pointed out earlier in this thread the worst case of murder at a school was perpetrated by a nut case using dynamite”


An attempt to reduce certain types of gun violence isn’t the same as “making the world safe.” Really, TRY TO ADDRESS THE GIVEN ARGUMENTS. Please!


Also, if there’s a criminal pandemic of “nut” cases using dynamite to blow children, and others, to bits, then we’ll address that as a separate, and equally important, issue. However, the facts remain that the vast majority of children, and others, killed in this country are by guns, not dynamite. Dynamite, and other means of murder, doesn’t even come close—that’s the issue! In fact, 80% of all homicides involve guns.



UniversalAlien wrote,


“And if you say dynamite is harder to obtain I will agree but gasoline is readily available and if we leave schools unprotected in this unfortunatley violent world of all too many nuts, it is just a matter of time before....”


Well, then, let’s see how far an Adam Lanza can get with a mere plastic gallon of gas, or even a car load of gasoline, and a match. To make, produce, and gain access to these homemade ‘explosive’ type weapons is vastly more complicated than simply grabbing an AR-15 and spraying 30 people in less than ten minutes is. Regardless, what “nuts” would do or wouldn’t do in the utter absence of these types of conveniently gained weapons is mere speculation. What we do have are the weapons they have plenty of access to right now and happen to be using. Until we’re able to deal with the vast array of complicated causal contributions to violence currently plaguing us, we can address some practical and useful methods now for gun access.


Again, what’s an argument for why it would be wrong to remove certain types of weapons? I see lots of speculations, but see no cogent argument that points to a clear principle.


Also, people do kill people, but guns sure help-alot!!

Eric D.

[UniversalAlien]

UniversalAlien wrote,


“Personal attacks are against the rules of this forum. Please state exactly what words you consider to be a personal attack.”


Umm.. yeah, pretty easy: allow me to quote your Posts: 135, “But since you fancy yourself a logical conduit to enlighten us I will not take up your neurons with excessive rhetoric. And I will not bother you with quotes from the great philosophers on the nature of government, civilization, and an armed population” .

Obviously, sarcasm about both how I’m arguing and what you infer to be my personality without argument or evidence, just pure emoting here.


Not to worry, I’ve read worse lol. But very clearly you dismissed my points by making an irrelevant reference to your personal view of my character. Whether such tactics you used here is explicit enough to warrant a breaking of the rules is neither my job nor concern. .........

Eric D.

Personal attack??? Again, how can anyone take your arguments seriously when you consider what I just quoted as a personal attack? Do you know what a personal attack is? If I say you are being hypocritical in dissecting others whose viewpoints are not congruent with yours while calling it a personal attack when criticized would you call that a personal attack? When I say you have turned what was an interesting debate on gun control into a lesson in how to use philosophical debate to convince others that your opinions are more valid than theirs would you consider this to be a personal attack? If I say your arguments are without merit - that is not a personal attack - that is an opinion.

But some of your arguments might have some merit so if you would refrain from what by your logic and definition might be considered 'personal attacks' on the opinions of others and state your opinions clearly, we might give them more credit and analyze them without prejudice.

[edelker]

UniversalAlien wrote,

“Do you know what a personal attack is?”

Sure do! It is when, in the course of dialectical exchange, one person deflects an argument offered by refocusing on perceptions of one’s interlocutor’s personal knowledge, character-or what have you. What you wrote above simply fits the bill- and others can quite easily read and see it for themselves as just that. To sarcastically, and explicitly state, that “you fancy yourself a logical conduit to enlighten us I will not take up your neurons with excessive rhetoric. And I will not bother you with quotes from the great philosophers on the nature of government, civilization, and an armed population…etc.” as some supposedly fair minded-emotionally free- assessment of what I’ve done in this discourse or what I deem myself to be cannot surely be a serious reply-is it? This clear statement and tone is nothing other than a personal and insulting opinion you have of me-at least as you have of me in this context. As a result, based wholly on this caricature of me, and by your own admittance, you dismissed my objections. Quite obviously, and once more, your point here had nothing to do with the argument presented by me-you simply dismissed the objections on grounds of your perceptions of me, period! So, “no” I haven’t done the same in kind.



UniversalAlien wrote,

“If I say you are being hypocritical in dissecting others whose viewpoints are not congruent with yours while calling it a personal attack when criticized would you call that a personal attack?”


You never addressed my arguments though. You simply drug in red herrings and straw-men arguments as if by doing so you’ve made some relevant point. When your argument amounts to, “Yeah, but gun-control advocates (like myself) want all our guns and wish to leave it to the government to protect us all-leaving the rest of us practically defenseless etc…” one can only conclude that such a stance is nothing but a strawman argument grounded in your perceptions about cognitions and intentions of entire groups of people you could not possibly know, let alone establish a cogent argument on such spurious grounds. This dialectical fact isn’t me “attacking” you, it is a factual observation for which I’ve made time and again. You’re not dealing with the arguments offered. That fact may be inconvenient for you, aggravate you, you may see it as a personal attack, or whatever- but none of that is intended. You’re simply not addressing us-but your perceptions of us. That’s it!



UniversalAlien wrote,

“When I say you have turned what was an interesting debate on gun control into a lesson in how to use philosophical debate to convince others that your opinions are more valid than theirs would you consider this to be a personal attack?”


Umm… this is a philosophy forum….so…I’m not certain how I have committed some inappropriate error by BEING philosophical. Moreover, being logically consistent and utilizing facts relevant to the context in the course of argumentation are not things confined to dry methodological systems of logic; rather, they apply, I would hope, to any case that one is attempting to make generally.


This isn’t about your opinions only. This is how well you present your case. No one ought to care what you think is the deep psychological intentions of gun-control advocates. I fail to see why that’s interesting. Rather, I would think on a philosophy forum that when discussing gun-control that issues such as “liberty,” one’s view of “justice,” “rights to self-protection—the meaning of such rights in a so-called just society,” the individual’s relationship to society etc. would all be interesting and relevant. I’m sure you do have some interesting views on these and like matters- and can make some sort of sustaining argument to boot. I just haven’t seen it. If I’m wrong, please correct me by all means.


Also, I’m not against the sharing of opinions. However, when one wishes to stake out some claim that X is so, then one has the onus of showing why that might be or is likely to be the case. You’ve staked out your claim-clearly. Now defend it!


UniversalAlien wrote,

“If I say your arguments are without merit - that is not a personal attack - that is an opinion.”


K….got it! But this “opinion” still won’t amount to much if I can show that my position does have merit or, more relevant to this discourse, yours lacks some sort of 'objective' merit. This hasn’t been particularly hard to do—others here have done the same. If you wish to dismiss our positions on your mere opinion-fine. But don’t expect anyone else to respect your opinion as a serious policy position or insight. After all, if it is mere opinion ONLY, then all points of view are equally valid. But I don't think that your above posts could be or would be typically construed that way.



UniversalAlien wrote,

“But some of your arguments might have some merit so if you would refrain from what by your logic and definition might be considered 'personal attacks' on the opinions of others and state your opinions clearly, we might give them more credit and analyze them without prejudice.”


I’ve already offered plenty and can cite the posts and points for you if you’d like. I’m still waiting for some cogent reply to both my, and other people's, posts. Why I have to continue to provide what I have already done, sometimes at length—with no bias or prejudice whatsoever—is an odd request. You simply haven’t yet addressed the many objections raised to your position, none, that is, that isn’t a questionable characterization of us, and others, who advocate for gun control.

I’ve made one point about your personal attacks, which was obviously accurate, among a whole host of other points for which you’ve clearly dismissed as irrelevant based solely on your stated “opinion.” So, what else can I offer?


Eric D.

[UniversalAlien]

UniversalAlien wrote,

“But some of your arguments might have some merit so if you would refrain from what by your logic and definition might be considered 'personal attacks' on the opinions of others and state your opinions clearly, we might give them more credit and analyze them without prejudice.”


I’ve already offered plenty and can cite the posts and points for you if you’d like. I’m still waiting for some cogent reply to both my, and other people's, posts. Why I have to continue to provide what I have already done, sometimes at length—with no bias or prejudice whatsoever—is an odd request. You simply haven’t yet addressed the many objections raised to your position, none, that is, that isn’t a questionable characterization of us, and others, who advocate for gun control.

I’ve made one point about your personal attacks, which were obviously accurate, among a whole host of other points for which you’ve clearly dismissed as irrelevant based solely on your stated “opinion.” So, what else can I offer? Eric D.

Yes Eric D. I did err on one statement: "some of your arguments might have some merit". I have changed my viewpoint, I do not believe anything you say has any merit whatsoever; and are only based on rhetorical argument for its own sake. I will no longer read or reply to anything you say, so address your concerns to other fans you might have on this forum - my contact with you is terminated with prejudice.

"most men are followed by a beggar to whom they owe nothing"