More guns, more gun deaths - Page 10

More guns, more gun deaths

This is a discussion on More guns, more gun deaths within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; As I see it tonight, it's just totally orthogonal to the original purpose of the thread. I have to admit, I havent heard that one ...

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 151
Like Tree99Likes

Thread: More guns, more gun deaths

  1. #136
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,134
    As I see it tonight, it's just totally orthogonal to the original purpose of the thread.


    I have to admit, I havent heard that one in a long time...
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/


  2. #137
    Member Array dugo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by brocktice View Post
    I understand all of that. I've thought about it quite a bit. It's just a different level of discussion and sophistication than was relevant to my point, but whatever, I'll sleep on it and see if there's some way to rescue that portion of the conversation tomorrow. The funny thing is, now that I think about it and re-read, that I think the problem is really what we each mean by 'primary'. As I see it tonight, it's just totally orthogonal to the original purpose of the thread.

    Just to push it further, it is interesting to note that the public (and individual) perception of firearms has been manipulated by terminology and plausible (though not necesarily true) generalities that have been inserted seemingly deliberately and outside of attention into the discussion for a long time. For example, even the term "gun violence", which even many gun owners have acquesced to, is a term which may have have been deliberately promoted to skew perceptions. Logically, however, guns are not really a subset of violence and linguistically "gun" is not an adjective.

    This would seem trivial and nitpicky if it were not scientifically certain (and practiced consistently in marketting, sales and politics) that conditioning is so important for manipulating perceptions and emotions. The effect of such terms as "gun violence", is to condition the mind to equate the terms. Then, when we think of guns we think of violence at the same time and when we think of violence we think of guns. Subconsciously, in more extreme cases, in a sense it becomes as if guns ARE violence,and violence IS guns. That very much changes what seems plausible, and what is accepted with little critical examination. It therefore can be made to seem logical and reasonable to say, "the function of guns is violence and destruction."

    Theatre has used a similar kind of "anchoring" (classical conditioning) for a long time. Comedians have, too (remember Jack Bennie's signature look when he delivered a punch line. So have sales people, preachers, lawyers and --- politicians. Most conditioning happens outside of our conscious attention. That's why even dedicated gun rights advocates can be heard talking about "gun violence", as if they were one thing, instead of talking about violence and guns as distinct parts of the conversation (as they logically are).

    Evidence of the deliberate conditioning technique is easily seen in the titles of many groups whose names contain the word "violence", but who focus exclusively on guns -- and most consistently seek to regulate guns without much regard to whether they are used for violence. Conditioning is most powerful, however, when it is concealed in "normal" talk during conversations and other presentations, and repeated consistently -- just outside of conscious attention -- over a long period of time.

    Sorry for the diversion, but it seems relevant to any examination of how to discuss things logically with gun control enthusiasts. It may be helpful to understand how and why logical and truthful discussion is often slow to overturn well-conditioned biases.
    Rock and Glock likes this.

  3. #138
    Distinguished Member Array zamboni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North of the Line
    Posts
    1,219
    Quote Originally Posted by brocktice View Post
    I understand all of that. I've thought about it quite a bit. It's just a different level of discussion and sophistication than was relevant to my point, but whatever, I'll sleep on it and see if there's some way to rescue that portion of the conversation tomorrow. The funny thing is, now that I think about it and re-read, that I think the problem is really what we each mean by 'primary'. As I see it tonight, it's just totally orthogonal to the original purpose of the thread.
    That was my point. Anytime statistically independent numbers come into play. Their involvement's are left to the eyes of the beholder. They can be accumulated to the extent, that their mass will invoke increasing concerns, into your plague.

    With the resent goings-on. I am totally heedful, to the appearance of so many new posters; with the obscure injections of those who seem to have very little linguistic on the subjects perpetrated here, and thru on this forum. But to possibly come here and try to bait into the demagog of today's controversial queuing theory's? Or, on agendas of facts finding mission?

    Some may come to invoke and inflame? Some may come to gather self agenda-ed information? But there sure are a lot of NEW posters whom have become interjects here lately?

    Just an observation......just saying IMHO-YMWV

  4. #139
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,142
    orthogonal
    And I thought being a tax nerd / code slinger was hard........ Hey Ma! I got my orthogonals all wadded up and tied in knots!


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  5. #140
    Distinguished Member Array zamboni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North of the Line
    Posts
    1,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    And I thought being a tax nerd / code slinger was hard........ Hey Ma! I got my orthogonals all wadded up and tied in knots!
    Maybe we could pool our resources and make a video..."Modern Day McCarthyism....GONE WILD"

    be-careful now & don't get sand in your linguistic

    And don't go all Bob Dylan on us now ("Mama, put my guns in the ground. I can't use them anymore").

  6. #141
    Distinguished Member Array brocktice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    1,277

    Re: More guns, more gun deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by zamboni View Post
    That was my point. Anytime statistically independent numbers come into play. Their involvement's are left to the eyes of the beholder. They can be accumulated to the extent, that their mass will invoke increasing concerns, into your plague.

    With the resent goings-on. I am totally heedful, to the appearance of so many new posters; with the obscure injections of those who seem to have very little linguistic on the subjects perpetrated here, and thru on this forum. But to possibly come here and try to bait into the demagog of today's controversial queuing theory's? Or, on agendas of facts finding mission?

    Some may come to invoke and inflame? Some may come to gather self agenda-ed information? But there sure are a lot of NEW posters whom have become interjects here lately?

    Just an observation......just saying IMHO-YMWV
    I don't even know how to respond to this. I'm still trying to parse it.

  7. #142
    New Member Array jcp907's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Seminole Cty, Fl
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by brocktice View Post
    I'm a scientifically-minded person, and it is an empirical fact that countries with more guns per capita have more gun deaths per capita, with the exception of Mexico. This makes sense to me. More guns around means more available to criminals (via theft), and more available to law-abiding citizens that turn criminal...Is there anything beside "look at the Bill of Rights" that can even be said, empirically, to such criticisms?
    I would like to add that from a debate perspective regarding this particular issue, I believe that an approach that appeals to the psychological side of the argument would be more effective than one that appeals to the empirical side.

    You may argue that guns were meant to kill, I'll argue that they are meant for defense. Fully automatic assault weapons, that's another story, and a moot point, as they are not legal for me to own, easily. But, I can still get my hands on them, if I desired. At any rate, the direct evidence is that my guns were purchased for defense, and have not killed anyone. Additionally, there is a valid argument that the Chinese invented "gun powder" and used the first rudimentary "guns" in defense of the mongol invasions. I am not a historian, but, based on what I have found, this is presumed to be true, therefore the first guns were designed for defense, not the sole purpose of killing. Additionally, if guns were designed solely to kill, they are terribly ineffective. Consider the number of guns available, and the number of gun deaths.

    Some arguments or analogies that I have seen on the boards (this and others) may include:

    Guns are a preventative measure, or damage control, no different than wearing a seatbelt, which incidentally, is required by law.
    Or, like a fire extinguisher, which is also designed to defend your home, in the case of a fire. Only the paranoid have a gun? Only the paranoid have a fire extinguisher.

    I am out of time for now, but, if you have time, check this link out: Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality, By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

    Thank you for posting this thread. I think we can all learn a good deal, working through the process.

  8. #143
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,817

    Re: More guns, more gun deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by brocktice View Post
    I don't even know how to respond to this. I'm still trying to parse it.
    Me too. I've read it 3 times trying to understand what it says.

    Perhaps the poster has been drinking in a bit of Christmas cheer?

    Sent from my Galaxy S2
    Brad426 likes this.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  9. #144
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,142
    A "wee" bit


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  10. #145
    Distinguished Member Array brocktice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    1,277

    Re: More guns, more gun deaths

    Ok, after thinking about this, clearly the "death and destruction" thing was a poor choice of words, and drew a bunch of attention that got us on the much-maligned "orthogonal" discussion of the semantics of the "primary" purpose of guns. I think what this comes down to is that guns and cars are tools, and we need to make sure the conversation is about the *most important* uses of those tools (what you all seem to mean by primary), not the *simplest* or *most basic* uses of those tools, which is what I meant by primary. Again, my take-home from this thread is that I should focus on validating the footnotes in the gunfacts.info book. I think after the holidays I'll start a thread about it and ask people who are interested to claim specific footnotes and then research them. That alone will not win the issue for us, but it could be very helpful.

  11. #146
    Member Array Nosler Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by brocktice View Post
    I've seen something similar before, and it makes extremely clear that 'assault weapons' are not the problem.
    You are precisely correct. The issue comes down to a problem of unwanted access. Almost every article I read where someone is killed with a firearm, has to do with a person gaining access who shouldn't be able to. As of late, it seems more common that a minor gains access to a parents' or friends' firearm because they were not properly secured. I understand that there are exceptions such as the shooting at Virginia Tech, however, it seems that most are attributed to a problem with unwanted access.
    Conservative, Gun-Toting, Backwoods, College Educated, Hetrosexual, Male
    Any Questions?

  12. #147
    Distinguished Member Array brocktice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    1,277

    Re: More guns, more gun deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by jcp907 View Post
    I would like to add that from a debate perspective regarding this particular issue, I believe that an approach that appeals to the psychological side of the argument would be more effective than one that appeals to the empirical side.
    Probably, but especially after Sandy Hook emotions are strongly against our purpose for many people. It's going to be a tough sell.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcp907 View Post
    You may argue that guns were meant to kill, I'll argue that they are meant for defense. Fully automatic assault weapons, that's another story, and a moot point, as they are not legal for me to own, easily. But, I can still get my hands on them, if I desired. At any rate, the direct evidence is that my guns were purchased for defense, and have not killed anyone. Additionally, there is a valid argument that the Chinese invented "gun powder" and used the first rudimentary "guns" in defense of the mongol invasions. I am not a historian, but, based on what I have found, this is presumed to be true, therefore the first guns were designed for defense, not the sole purpose of killing. Additionally, if guns were designed solely to kill, they are terribly ineffective. Consider the number of guns available, and the number of gun deaths.

    Some arguments or analogies that I have seen on the boards (this and others) may include:

    Guns are a preventative measure, or damage control, no different than wearing a seatbelt, which incidentally, is required by law.
    Or, like a fire extinguisher, which is also designed to defend your home, in the case of a fire. Only the paranoid have a gun? Only the paranoid have a fire extinguisher.

    I am out of time for now, but, if you have time, check this link out: Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality, By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

    Thank you for posting this thread. I think we can all learn a good deal, working through the process.
    Thanks, I'll check that out in the mean time. However, let me test this example. Say I'm Joe Chinese Soldier in the 13th century or whatever, with my firestaff. One day, some Mongols invade and I'm called out to fend them off. Luckily for me, I have my new FireStaff 3000, which I wave at the advancing raiders on horseback to deter them. Now, either they leave, because they don't want to die today, or they attack, and I attempt to kill them with it. The basic function of such a device is killing or at least injuring, or the threat of killing or injury, there's just no way around that.

  13. #148
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,134
    Probably, but especially after Sandy Hook emotions are strongly against our purpose for many people. It's going to be a tough sell
    Ya know, I wonder about that. I don't think its going to be as tough a sale as the news media wants us to believe.
    For one, gun ownership is at an all time high. When the first Brady Bill was enacted, there were only a handful of states that had concealed handgun permits. Now 49 out of the 50 do.

    The only calls for gun control I have heard comes from the talking heads. They are on a media blitz, but for people that don't watch TV much or take everything that is put out as gospel, there isn't much talk in the way of more restrictions.
    Even on the Internet, with the various boards, the consensus seems to be going in the other direction,away from gun control, not towards it.

    Any yeah...the basic function of a gun is to kill the sucker that wants you dead. Nothing new there. Fortunately we are at a time in history, that the majority of the population that owns guns doesn't have to do that.
    brocktice likes this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  14. #149
    Distinguished Member Array brocktice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    1,277
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Any yeah...the basic function of a gun is to kill the sucker that wants you dead. Nothing new there. Fortunately we are at a time in history, that the majority of the population that owns guns doesn't have to do that.
    THANK you. That's all I was trying to say about that point in so many words.

  15. #150
    Distinguished Member Array brocktice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    1,277

    Re: More guns, more gun deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    The only calls for gun control I have heard comes from the talking heads. They are on a media blitz, but for people that don't watch TV much or take everything that is put out as gospel, there isn't much talk in the way of more restrictions.
    It was all over my Facebook news feed the first day or two, but I think most people that don't have a horse in this race are already moving on. Keep writing your reps.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

book more guns more gun deaths

,

deaths from guns by country and per capita

,
powered by mybb british industrial revolution
,
powered by mybb dead people
,
powered by mybb drug detection times
,
powered by mybb drug list
,
powered by mybb find drug information
,

powered by mybb legitimate home based business

,

powered by mybb michigan state

,

powered by mybb noun

,

powered by mybb side effects of illegal drugs

,
powered by mybb who invented medicine
Click on a term to search for related topics.