Contributors

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The Answer to the Most Pressing Question of the Day

Conservatives are now presented with a dilemma: in the wake of the murder of three Muslim college students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, should they support the killer, who was a middle-aged white guy simply exercising his right to Second Amendment solutions? Or should they support the victims, who were kind-hearted Muslim dental students that volunteered to help the homeless, and were brutally gunned down by a fanatical atheist?

Speculation is rife about why Craig avowed atheist Stephen Hicks killed a Muslim newlywed couple and their 19-year-old Muslim female friend: was it a hate crime, or just an angry white guy mad about a parking spot?

Well, the answer is staring us in the face: he killed them because he had a gun. No gun, no murder.

Guns are a powerful mind-altering drug like PCP. They represent sheer naked power, power that corrupts quickly and absolutely.

If you put a gun in the hands of the most coldly rational atheist or the gentlest Christian they quickly become raging maniacs.

In so many murders and suicides the gun itself is the motivating factor. Without the weapon and the ability to kill someone as easily as turning off a light switch, thousands of people in this country would not have to die needlessly every year.

66 comments:

juris imprudent said...

Guns are a powerful mind-altering drug like PCP.

What drugs are you fucking on?

The guy was a supporter of progressive politics, and according to the reports I'm reading this was about a parking dispute with neighbors. Despite the guy being a self-professed anti-theist.

Of course we already knew he wasn't a right-wing, Christian, NRA-member because you fucking dolts would have been on that like flies on shit.

But I have to admit, it must be liberating as all fuck to live life with absolutely no sense of shame.

Larry said...

For Nikto, the mere thought of guns is a powerful PCP-like mind-altering drug. It turns him into a raging pit-yorkie. God only knows what sort of mass murderer an enraged Nikto-anus would turn into if he actually had one of the Evil Instruments of Doom (tm) in his possession. Myself, I don't think I'd trust him with two cans and a fucking piece of string.

And, no, there's no dilemma, Nikto, except in the minds of delusional loons like yourself. This is just yet another sterling example of how conservatives and libertarians are FAR better able to understand the left than vice versa, as studies shown.

Actually, this shitstain murderer sounds like he's got an awful lot in common with you, asshole.

GuardDuck said...

I withe call this entire screed an unadulterated pile of bullshit, except this sterling example of progressivism has a remarkable resemblance to both M and N. Perhaps when N claims that a gun in the hand is just a murder waiting to happen, maybe he is really making a pre crime confession.

Hey, good idea N. You really shouldn't have a gun. Or matches. Or gasoline.

Perhaps you should seek a shrink.

Larry said...

Yes, the projection is strong in this one. It's a wonder one of the kitchen knives hasn't ensorcelled his easily corruptible mind and taken him on a stabbing spree.

Mark Ward said...

I for one am happy that Hicks stood his ground over the parking spot and solved his problem with a gun. If more Americans were like him, mentally ill and somehow owning guns, we wouldn't have as many problems as we do.

On second thought....hmm...

GuardDuck said...

Would your solution of M-T prevented this?

Mark Ward said...

Would the passing of Manchin-Toomey prevent one or more deaths or injuries from gun violence that would have occurred without it? That's the X answer that you won't give which is why you've straw manned this into a yet another Y argument.

It's a yes or no question, GD. Pretty simple:)

GuardDuck said...

It's an irrelevant question mark. You are the one who keeps using specific examples. Specifically how would each of those specific example change under M-T.

Our are you specifically saying that this entire topic regarding your ideologically similar murderous political brethren is the part that's not relevant?

So make your choice. Are the examples you keep using relevant, or is the question you ask relevant? Choose one.

Mark Ward said...

Of course it's irrelevant, GD, because the answer (which is yes, btw) which be a fairly substantial gash in your ideology. At its very bedrock rests the myth that all new gun laws are bad and will mean someone will come and take away my guns. Add in that you would have to admit that MT would save lives (the other side is right and you are wrong) and it's ARMAGEDDON!

Based on the last time we talked about MT, you are unwilling to discuss the finer points of the law and would rather simply issue imperial declarations about me being wrong. If that has changed, let's discuss your view on pgs. 19-24 (lines 4-22, specifically). Summarize your understanding of this part of the law and we can go from there.

your ideologically similar murderous political brethren

How am I ideological similar to Hicks?

Larry said...

What, just an imperial declaration, Marksie? You've been asked to explain specifically how you think M-T would have changed it. Instead, you pull a typical first-grader's "debating" move. Smoooth move, Teacher-Boy.

GuardDuck said...

You ran away from that conversation mark. You want to discuss it, fine. Do so here.

Three people say that you are incorrect about what you think M-T would have changed. They have explained why.

You have not.

Mark Ward said...

Since you and the others haven't commented on the specific passages I've noted, it seems that you either haven't read the law or you don't understand it. You guys didn't do it in the other thread either so it's obvious you and the others aren't being serious.

So what's it going to be? Your understanding of pgs. 19-24 (lines 4-22, specifically) or more childish taunting?

GuardDuck said...

Oh for fuck's sake.......


You said M-T would have prevented Kmetz from buying the gun.

We said it wouldn't have. The reason it wouldn't have was because a background check WAS performed for the purchase of the gun.

Did you not catch that part the first twenty times it was told to you?

A BACKGROUND CHECK WAS PERFORMED.


Specifically looking at the sections you are asking us to does not change that fact.

I am really trying to figure out just what your assertion is. But since you are being childish and REFUSING to explain it - I am left with guessing what you are trying to claim. With no other evidence to the contrary I am left with nothing but the assumption that that you seem to think this section has bearing on this case. Since I can read and have practical knowledge of what transpires when these words are put into effect I am at a loss to figure out how you think this section applies. Best guess? You seem to think that "reasonable cause to believe" that a straw purchase was occurring applied in this case. I disagree. I won't bother wasting the time to explain why unless you decide to grow up and explain your own assertions - so I can be sure I'm not explaining something to you that you never claimed.

am left with the assumption that you are ignorant of what you are talking about.





Mark Ward said...

What I'm looking for, GD, is a brief summary of what you think that section of the law means. Clearly, you aren't making the connection between the letter of that law and the Kmetz case. I'd like to know why and I can understand that better if you explain what you think that section means. After that, I will explain my interpretation of the law.

What's not going to happen is me explaining (again) my interpretation and you, Biff-like, saying, "Uh...you're wrong, Macfly. And stupid." If you want to have a discussion, that's fine but it's going to be two way.

So, pgs. 19-24 (lines 4-22, specifically)...

Larry said...

Why do you insist on two-way when you only practice one-way, you two(or three)-faced hypocrite?

Anonymous said...

Lines 4-22 on which of those pages. every page has lines 4-22 in your pages 19-24?

Mark Ward said...

page 24 (4-22).

GuardDuck said...

Well, I gave you a chance to show where you made a mistake. You want to play games, you leave me no choice but to treat you like the idiot you are acting like.

pg. 24 lines 4-22 are exceptions to license revocation. This means that under the previous headings a licensee will not have his license revoked for a violation unless he violates the sub-sections listed, lines 12-22.

Awesome.


Because you are an idiot, you are wrong that this would have changed a thing.

Current law makes it unlawful for anyone to transfer a firearm to someone who who is prohibited to have a firearm. CFR 478.32 and 18 USC 922(d) That's a criminal act - not a mere license revocation. Notice the wording in the USC - "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— "

Further, the supreme court ruled in Abramski vs. U.S that a false statement on the form 4473 makes the attempted transfer unlawful as well. So even if the ultimate purchaser is lawfully able to posses the firearm - the mere act of the 'straw purchase' is unlawful.


What you, in your blissful state of ignorance are trying to say is that the M-T bill would have prevented the transfer - because it would have given the FFL dealer cause to reject it based upon a threat of license revocation.

But you are a fucking idiot because current law makes that transfer a crime - to both the straw purchaser, the straw purchasee and - if there is a case that the FFL knew or had reasonable cause to believe a unlawful transfer was taking place and made the transfer anyway - the FFL.


As you've been told, over and over and over and over.....M-T would not have prevented this transfer.

Now, if you want to argue that the FFL did have 'reasonable cause to believe', we can discus that. But YOU are going to have to present a case for that. Enough of this bullshit having others do the work for you. You want to make an assertion - you have to present a case for it.

juris imprudent said...

OK M put up or shut up time for you.

What does licensee mean on pp 19-20? Who is that exactly?

How is a licensee different from you (if you were selling one of your guns)?

And here is some discussion about the problems of the bill as it was proposed.

GuardDuck said...

Clearly, you aren't making the connection between the letter of that law and the Kmetz case.


Oh, and part of having a two way conversation is you participating in it as part of the conversation.

Clearly, I wasn't making the SAME CONNECTION as you - primarily because without you PRESENTING your case I HAD NO FUCKING IDEA what the hell your case was. And since your case was in ERROR nobody could have SIMPLY LOOKED at the law and figured out the obvious. Because what is obvious to you, a person in error is not obvious to a person who isn't in error.

If you would have just been an adult and PRESENTED YOUR FUCKING CASE two weeks ago all this obviousness would have been clear.

Mark Ward said...

This means that under the previous headings a licensee will not have his license revoked for a violation unless he violates the sub-sections listed, lines 12-22.

That's right, GD, and, as I stated previously, this very part of the law would have given the gun dealer pause in selling the gun because the law behind straw purchases are muddy. And that's according to the Hennepin County Sheriff, Rich Stanek, who supported Manchin-Toomey for its clarity on this issue. Of course, it likely would not have even made it that far. Why?

Page 21 (lines 22-25) would have made the internet sale itself illegal because the seller was not a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer. This is the section about increased background checks and Smetz would have had to go through one when he bought the guns in the first place. He never would have even made it to the dealer nor would he have had to cajole his buddy to go and pick it up.

Now, if what you have asserted is true, why aren't the feds busting the dealer right now? I would think that they understand the law better than you or I do.

I get why guys are pissed off here. It would be the end of the fucking universe for you to admit that a new gun law would prevent injury or death. Well, I'd start giving some leeway if I were you because the loss that's coming your way is going to be massive unless you are willing to take a few steps.

So, now that this out of the way, do any of you think that Manchin-Toomey would prevent some injuries or death as a result of its passage? Let's move beyond this one case and look at the bigger picture. Yes or no?

GuardDuck said...

Hahahhahha! Oh you slay me Mark. Really, you are at you funniest when you patronizingly lecture people while talking completely out of your ass.

Your not even within the ballpark of reality here buddy. So far out that I'm going to have to disassemble each one of your statements.

That's right, GD, and, as I stated previously, this very part of the law would have given the gun dealer pause in selling the gun because the law behind straw purchases are muddy.

No they are not. They are perfectly clear and each and every one of the dozen or so FFL licensee's I personally know are completely non-muddy about it.

Further, you expect us to believe that M-T's law - which revokes a licence is somehow more capable of giving a dealer 'pause' than doing the EXACT SAME THING under CURRENT LAW which would be a criminal act. Think about that. What would give more pause - licence revocation or jail time? As I said - you're not even operating within reality here.

Page 21 (lines 22-25) would have made the internet sale itself illegal because the seller was not a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer.

WRONG! Have you even bothered to read the bill dude? I know legalese is hard, but try harder. You need to read the entire sub-section where a part is located in order to see what modifiers are in play. In this case there is:

(2)Paragraph(1) shall not apply if-

(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee....


con't...

GuardDuck said...

...con't


This is the section about increased background checks and Smetz would have had to go through one when he bought the guns in the first place. He never would have even made it to the dealer nor would he have had to cajole his buddy to go and pick it up.

And again you are wrong. Probably because you are ignorant about what happens when one buys or sells guns. You do a background check when the gun is transferred. The transfer does not occur when a advertisement is placed online, when a bid or offer is made or when funds are sent. The transfer of the gun occurs when the gun is handed over to the buyer. To say that a background check would have occurred before it got to the 'dealer' is laughable. If I want to buy a rifle from a dealer in another state - I have to give that dealer the name and address of a dealer in my state in order for the first dealer to send the rifle to the in-state dealer. I may send money to one or the other, but when the first dealer sends it to the second dealer, they are transferring to each other. The transfer to me does not occur until I present myself at the dealer and do the background check. Nothing in M-T would change this.


Now, if what you have asserted is true, why aren't the feds busting the dealer right now? I would think that they understand the law better than you or I do.

Yes, they absolutely know the law better than you do. The reason they aren't busting the dealer right now is probably exactly because they know the law better than you do.

While you are here assuming that the dealer 'knew or had reason to believe' a straw purchase was taking place, people who know the law better than you probably realize that what the dealer knew or had reason to believe did not reach an actionable level of knowledge. In other words, just because this guy came in and used a different name than the internet order DOES NOT automatically imply straw purchase.

Here's a mental exercise for you: A man and a women walk into a gun store. The man asks to look at several guns, inspects them and eventually decides upon one. The woman says nothing. When the purchase is made the woman fills out the paperwork in her name and pays in cash.

Is this situation an example of a prohibited person (the man) buying a gun with the help of a non-prohibited person (the woman) doing the straw purchase?


Or is it a case of a man who is knowledgeable about guns assisting his girlfriend with the purchase of a gun for her use?

I'm sorry, but there isn't enough reason to deny the sale based upon what Kmetz' buddy said at the gun store. And remember, Kmetz didn't even need to try to buy the gun online. He could have simply sent his buddy to the SAME dealer to buy any gun he had in stock - Then there wouldn't even be the question of the name on the online site.

As we have told you time and again - M-T would have changed NOTHING.

And you really should start listening to us - because you've gone past looking like and asshole and have solidly entered the moron zone.

Mark Ward said...

Given that you threw a whole bunch of personal remarks about me into these comments to pad them out leads me to the conclusion that you think I'm right. You've once again dodged my overall question and failed to understand how internet sales would change under Manchin Toomey. How would they?

And how many lives do you think would be saved if this law was passed?

Take comfort in the fact that the other three commenters will agree with you no matter what:)

Oh, and this...

Hahahhahha! Oh you slay me Mark. Really, you are at you funniest when you patronizingly lecture people while talking completely out of your ass.

Your not even within the ballpark of reality here buddy. So far out that I'm going to have to disassemble each one of your statements.


makes you sound really insecure, dude. Wow...

juris imprudent said...

I see the problem here GD: M has decided that the intent of M-T was to do something despite the fact that the language of the proposed statutory changes did not.

Since M, like all progressives, is all about intentions, that the law would not have accomplished them only proves that the law needs to be even stronger. In short, DO IT AGAIN, HARDER.

La plus ├ža change...

GuardDuck said...

Well since your entire response was directed at me rather than at the facts I laid out for you, that leads me to believe that you have no relevant response.

You've once again dodged my overall question and failed to understand how internet sales would change under Manchin Toomey. How would they?

Well, let's see: M-T is supposed to increase the cases in which background checks are performed for gun purchases, including specifically a purchase made on a gun advertised on he internet.

In the case of Kmetz, an gun was advertised on the internet and the purchase was made after a background check was performed.

Hey wow! Almost EXACTLY like M-T specified should happen.

So yeah, M-T would have DONE NOTHING to have changed the outcome of this case.

YOU still have not accepted this fact. You are still operating in some fantasy land.

If you don't know what would or would not be an actual change under M-T how could you possible understand anything regarding potential outcomes?



How about this question - Do you think 'saving just one life' is adequate reason to pass any particular law?

Mark Ward said...

Still avoiding the answer to new gun laws and whether or not they would save lives...not surprising.

Really, at this point, you and I already know the answer but, as Nikto mentioned in a recent comment, your faith won't let you believe otherwise. And that's going to go for each new incident of gun violence that would have been prevented by Manchin-Toomey.

GuardDuck said...

As N said- even when presented with irrefutable proof....you can't accept that you are wrong - it's a matter of faith for you.

How can you possibly be in any position to state whether any death would have been prevented by M-T when you are unable to understand that the example you used would not have?

Further, I am not avoiding the question. I asked a directly relevant question regarding your question - Is 'saving one life' an adequate reason for passing any particular law?

If you can't answer that with an affirmative then the entire basis of your question falls apart.

juris imprudent said...

Still avoiding the answer to new gun laws and whether or not they would save lives...not surprising.

Talking to yourself there M?

Mark Ward said...

GD, I hope that it's apparent by now that your assessment of me and my views don't matter at all. In addition to all of them being completely in error, they are also childish, rooted in fallacy, insecure, petty, and irrational (just like most conservatives these days).

I engage with you on occasion because this is my site. Why you engage with me...someone who you feel is a myriad of wrong and bad things...is a mystery. You've stated in the past that you like the conversation and I believe that you don't get much of it in the real world...again, because this is my site, I feel responsible and I pity you so I engage on occasion. I also believe that you are under the impression that if you "beat me" in the comments section of a blog that you will somehow achieve a victory in a world that is moving rapidly away from your ideology (see: bubble contracting, pants shitted). If you can somehow "prove me wrong," the tide will turn.

Do you honestly think that's going to happen?



GuardDuck said...

Little less amateur psychology of me, more intellect focused towards your argument. May help you keep your argument rooted in reality.

Your entire argument here has been in error. Not mine. You have been childish and irrational. Now you've completely rejected any pretense of rational debate and fallen completely into emotional tantrum.

I don't need to 'beat you', you beat yourself.

juris imprudent said...

May help you keep your argument rooted in reality.

Mwuhahahahahaha, oh that is a good one GD.

Mark Ward said...

I'll take your silence on what I wrote as confirmation that I am saying is true...unless, of course, you'd care to illustrate how I am in error.

As I have told you many, many times, GD, it's going to be a tough next few years for you guys. I wonder how long you are going to be able to hold out until reality pops the bubble...

juris imprudent said...

I wonder how long you are going to be able to hold out until reality pops the bubble...

What a curious question from you of all people. It is almost like you are projecting or something.

Mark Ward said...

Actually, there is a really easy way to determine who is part of the solution and who is part of the problem. In fact, I might turn this into a larger post at some point. A few questions...

Are refinements necessary to our current gun laws? Why or why not?

Is climate change man made and is it a threat that we must confront immediately? Why or why not?

Do increased government spending, increased regulations and higher taxes make for a more stable economy? Why or why not?

How you guys answer will determine whether your part of the problem or part of the solution, thus illustrating who is projecting and playing childish games and who isn't.

Actually, answering questions like this honestly pretty much ends nearly every discussion we have ever had.

GuardDuck said...

My silence about your comments about me rather than anything relating to what we were talking about?

Yeah, I figure it was because you couldn't refute me so you decided to attack me. Not worthy of reply.

Mark Ward said...

Of course I can't refute you, GD. I never will because you are so insecure and deluded that you continually make up whatever you want, ignoring reality, while keeping 100 percent of the blame squarely on me.

The good news is that you can only avoid dealing with these problems for so long. You are right about one thing, though. Anything I say about gun violence is largely pointless because, like they gay marriage issue, it's one day going to be solved rather rapidly and what I write here will have nothing to do with it.

And that day is sadly coming sooner rather than later for you guys, I just hope that no one dies that you care for.

juris imprudent said...

Just to prove that you won't answer our questions, even after we've answered yours.

Are refinements necessary to our current gun laws? Why or why not?

If refinement includes elimination of laws that don't accomplish much, yes of course we should refine them. Arizona and New Hampshire serve as excellent examples.

Is climate change man made and is it a threat that we must confront immediately? Why or why not?

Climate changed long before man ever burned a log let along fossil fuels. Has man over the last 80-100 years made significant contributions to that change? Yes, though how significant those contributions are has yet to be determined. You certainly can't tell me what the 'correct' temperature of the world is. Should we shit our pants and run around like Henny-Penny? No, absolutely not. We should invest in more, better research and possibly experiment with climate engineering (which of course the pant-shitting Henny-Pennys believe is as bad if not worse that AGW).

Do increased government spending, increased regulations and higher taxes make for a more stable economy? Why or why not?

Increased from what base? From today? Hell no. Increased from essentially zero? That's an entirely different discussion - and depends a great deal on what govt is spending on and what is being regulated. I doubt that higher taxes lead to stability, but they certainly do lead to economic distortion. You see, taxes should be raised to pay for what the govt wants to spend on - not as a fuck the rich childish attitude so prevalent on the left.

OK bitch, erh I mean M, are you going to step up and not run away the next time I put 3 questions to you? Are you?

Mark Ward said...

It depends on the questions, juris. I'm not going answer childish questions like the one GD posed above. They are rooted in fallacy and completely fail to seriously address the issue at hand. He calls for a yes or no answer when there isn't one.

Just to prove that you won't answer our questions

Ah, so you guys are a collective now. Well, I'm glad we finally have that cleared up. Just make sure that in the future you never EVER disagree with each other or anything. Imagine how disastrous that would be!

Larry said...

Let me ask one, then. Which question of GD's are talking about/refusing to answer, and please explain why you think GD's question is childish.

If dropping the speed limit to 45 mph (and installing governors on vehicles to prevent them from exceeding that speed) saved 10,000 lives a year from traffic accidents, would that be worth it? Please explain why or why or not.

Mark Ward said...

This question...

Do you think 'saving just one life' is adequate reason to pass any particular law?

is childish because it depends on the law, how it is written and how it is implemented. I'm also saving GD from some embarrassment on this one because I can think of one very glaring example of a law in which he would vote "yes."

GuardDuck said...

So it depends then? Not exactly black and white?

So when you claim that me answering 'yes' to your silly question will completely refute my position, are you saying THAT question IS black and white? No shades of gray?

Mark Ward said...

My question was about a specific law, GD. My answer to that question is YES. What's yours?

Larry said...

You mean M-T, the one you've already demonstrated that you don't understand any better than you understand the current laws?

GuardDuck said...

"depends on the law, how it is written and how it is implemented."

Mark Ward said...

You mean M-T, the one you've already demonstrated that you don't understand any better than you understand the current laws?

Anytime you want to test that theory in a larger forum...say a law forum with unbiased legal experts...feel free to post a link.

You, GD, juris, and 6Kings seem to be under the delusion that if you all agree that I am wrong, then I must be wrong (high opinions of oneself in a blog commenting forum=massive insecurity and inferiority complex in real life).

Considering you never disagree with one another and always are in disagreement with me as a collective, I'd say all of your views are not relevant.

juris imprudent said...

Ah, so you guys are a collective now.

Pardon me for over-stepping and speaking for others out of turn.

You don't answer my questions you shit-eating weasel.

You, GD, juris, and 6Kings seem to be under the delusion that if you all agree that I am wrong, then I must be wrong

If 2 or 3 people can explain to me why I am wrong about something I would be a fool to not pay attention to them. It isn't me that is delusional about that kind of feedback.

Mark Ward said...

You don't answer my questions you shit-eating weasel.

You asked me...

OK bitch, erh I mean M, are you going to step up and not run away the next time I put 3 questions to you? Are you?

I answered...

It depends on the questions, juris. I'm not going answer childish questions like the one GD posed above. They are rooted in fallacy and completely fail to seriously address the issue at hand. He calls for a yes or no answer when there isn't one.

So, I don't know you are angry...other than the fact that it's part of your ideology.

If 2 or 3 people can explain to me why I am wrong about something I would be a fool to not pay attention to them. It isn't me that is delusional about that kind of feedback.

Hmm...so if those 2 or 3 people were members of the North Korean government, you would pay attention? :)

Perhaps that's a little extreme...how about this...you post a question on Quora about gun rights. Pick something you think you can "get me" on...answer it with the full force of your ideology...then let's see how 2 or 3 people respond.

I sincerely doubt you will pay attention. Nikto and I are "2 people" who have showed how you are wrong repeatedly and you clearly haven't paid attention:)

Larry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry said...

I'm sorry, M, but your remarks are based in phallusy and so aren't worth answering. When you decide to stop being such a deliberately obtuse dickhead, we can try again. Until then, I fart in your general direction.

GuardDuck said...

genetic fallacy

juris imprudent said...

So, I don't know you are angry

You don't know why? Despite being told, repeatedly? I think the universe must've collapsed into a point in space located between your ears.

other than the fact that it's part of your ideology

Ah, there we go, playing the retard. This is part of a pattern too M. Please don't think you can sell it as something original.

members of the North Korean

Very fucking retarded M.

GuardDuck said...

"He calls for a yes or no answer when there isn't one."


Yet you gave an answer of no without even realizing it.

Mark Ward said...

Really, GD, how so?

GuardDuck said...

You asked a question: "Would the passing of Manchin-Toomey prevent one or more deaths or injuries from gun violence that would have occurred without it?"

With the implication ("the x answer") that an answer of 'yes' would torpedo my 'opposition' to M-T.

That is a False Dilemma fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html).

If I answer 'yes' that one or more lives may be saved by M-T it does not refute my 'opposition' to M-T, as my 'opposition' is not based upon lives saved or not saved. Further, lives saved is not even a valid reason to pass any particular law.

I illustrated to you the fallacy by asking you "Do you think 'saving just one life' is adequate reason to pass any particular law?"

You answered "is childish because it depends on the law, how it is written and how it is implemented.

Let's look at what is asked and what you answered.

The question asked if 'saving just one life' is THE reason to pass a law. The only way one could answer 'yes' to that is if one would answer 'yes' to this question: "The government is going to pass a law that will save at least one life. You do not know anything more about this law other than that. Are you in favor of passing this law?"

Unless you are a moron, you would not answer 'yes' to this question - because in order to support a law one must know a bunch of stuff about it - things like you said "how it is written, how it is implemented" among a lot of other information. In other words - no, 'saving just one life' is not adequate reason to pass any particular law.

Which, when you answered that 'it depends on the law' you answered my question with a solid (if unwitting) no.

This, of course, illustrates why your 'gotcha' question is the silly one. Whether or not M-T will 'save lives' does not torpedo my 'oppostion' to M-T any more than it is the 'only' reason for your support of it.

Mark Ward said...

Unless you are a moron, you would not answer 'yes' to this question

Hmm...it seems to me you would answer yes if it was a federal law banning abortion. According to your beliefs, that would save more than one life. Please correct me if I am wrong.

This, of course, illustrates why your 'gotcha' question is the silly one.

Yet, I'm not the one dealing in absolutes, GD. You are. You will support no new legislation regarding gun laws nor any refinements to existing gun laws. You have stated unequivocally that you support leaving things the way they are.

I, however, support Manchin-Toomey because I think it would reduce the number of deaths and injuries from gun violence due to increased background checks and refinements to existing law, like straw purchases and internet purchases. Do you think the law would effect such a reduction? Why or why not?

I would not support legislation that would ban guns such as an assault weapons ban. That would do absolutely nothing to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. So, I take a more nuanced approach to new gun laws and refinements and you take one single minded approach which I think is myopic and costing people...Americans...their lives every single day.

GuardDuck said...

Hmm...it seems to me you would answer yes if it was a federal law banning abortion. According to your beliefs, that would save more than one life. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong. This is another example of a voice in your head. Never said such a thing.

You are also wrong in the meta sense. It seems you just are incapable of actually reading what is written.

By stating what the law would ban you are giving more information to judge the law than my question supposed. With that extra information the law can be judged on more than if it saves just one life. Reading comprehension, you should try it once in a while....

Yet, I'm not the one dealing in absolutes, GD. You are.

Oh really now? Then the purpose of your question of whether or not M-T would save lives is????? Random chit-chat? Or was it to somehow negate any opposition I have to it on grounds of, let's say...'how it is written' or 'how it is implemented'? You were trying to deal a black and white 'gotcha' question, so don't tell me you aren't dealing in absolutes.


You will support no new legislation regarding gun laws nor any refinements to existing gun laws.

Not true.


You have stated unequivocally that you support leaving things the way they are.

Also not true. Again, try reading for comprehension.


I, however, support Manchin-Toomey because Blah blah blah...

I have shown unequivocally that you have no idea what you are talking about. You think M-T would have changed the Kmetz situation. You are wrong. You are wrong because you don't understand what current law is. You don't understand what M-T does. Without either a beginning or end point you have no frame of reference to determine what if any changes are possible.

If you have no ability to determine those things then any claim of 'support' for the law based upon projected outcome is nothing more than fantasy.


Do you think the law would effect such a reduction? Why or why not?

Possibly. It could also cost some lives as well.

But again, since I'm not dealing in absolutes, I do not think 'saving just one life is adequate reason to pass any particular law'. There are other metrics to judge this law upon. Juris posted a link to some of those metrics. There is also the reason of people like you. Background checks are not a particularly efficient way to 'save lives'. The trouble is people like you think they are better at doing so than they actually are. That means that after the passage of any particular law, the results don't match the hype. Then people like you come back again and shout about how 'we have to do XXXX to save lives'.

Let me ask you this. If M-T were to be passed - and it saved EXACTLY one life a year. No more, no less. Would you then be happy? Would you cease any and all calls for further gun control, for ever and ever? Or would you be right back at it yelling about the 'gun cult' and the 'annual culling' and calling for some other pie in the sky idea that you don't understand to 'fix' things?

Mark Ward said...

Well, I'm happy to be wrong, GD, regarding your views on gun laws. I also take heart in your admission that laws like Manchin Toomey would possibly save lives. It's important to look past a single case and take a broader view.

As to the rest of this sort of stuff...

There is also the reason of people like you.

The trouble is people like you

Then people like you come back again

You are wrong. You are wrong because you don't understand what current law is. You don't understand what M-T does.

calling for some other pie in the sky idea that you don't understand to 'fix' things?


there's not much point in offering a response because you are acting like an 8 year old....although the challenge is always extended for you to post the question of whether or not Manchin Toomey would have prevented Smetz from acquiring guns to a larger forum. Perhaps somewhere like Quora where there are plenty of legal experts who would let us know if your assertions are valid.

GuardDuck said...

Can you explain how you think I'm acting like an 9 year old?

GuardDuck said...

Ignoring the question, however, is rather juvenile.

juris imprudent said...

Perhaps somewhere like Quora where there are plenty of legal experts who would let us know if your assertions are valid.

Well GD it appears you've been playing chess with a pigeon.

GuardDuck said...

I guess you're right Juris. It's like speaking greek to a pig.

Mark Ward said...

Will either of you be willing to admit that you are childishly baiting me here? Honestly, this is the only example I need offer:)

juris imprudent said...

Will either of you be willing to admit that you are childishly baiting me here?

Playing the wounded innocent when all of your prevarications are in plain sight isn't terribly compelling. But since you do it over and over again I don't suppose you'll do any different this time.

Larry said...

I just noticed this little Freudian slip.
N: In so many murders and suicides the gun itself is the motivating factor.

Do tell. Just think about that one for a while.

GuardDuck said...

Will either of you be willing to admit that you are childishly baiting me here? Honestly, this is the only example I need offer:)

No. We were talking to each other. If it does prick you like you are being baited then perhaps the truth hits a little close to home.


Still waiting for you to explain how, when I stated a position (which you so often criticize me for not doing), that I am 'acting like an 8 year old'?