Mark Steel on NRA reaction to Boston bomb. Genius
15 May 2013, 7:33 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
But someone who takes an anti-gun position cannot benefit from it in the way that someone who takes a pro-gun position often does.
Why not?
Quote:
But what motivation do they have for being anti-gun in the first place? Nobody in their right mind would think "for my career I'm going to make it look like Mexico's gun problem is more related to the widespread availability of guns in America than it really is". For a start, there's much more money to be made in the pro-gun position.
Money is not the only thing that can provide motivation.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
18 May 2013, 9:09 am
Dox47 wrote:
01001011 wrote:
See above. Again you are conflating possibility with feasibility. By your logic, since people routinely enter the US illegally, the border control is totally useless and there is no point to set up any checkpoint.
I believe in open borders.
In the sense there is no passport check and anyone (not just Mexican and Canadian citizens) can come and stay at the US at will?
Quote:
Again, what's your point? Have I at any point argued that guns are not deadly weapons?
See the beginning of my post you did not quote. Do you now concur that a criminal with a gun is more deadly than one without (few people are martial art experts).
Quote:
01001011 wrote:
What is the difference? You need the same control system to put your craft exactly in front of the AF1, and the AF1 is loaded with state art electronic counter measure. Moreover what is your supposed intercept height? How much time does it take for your model to reach the position? There are radars scanning the airspace near the airport and I suppose there is extra measure if the AF1 is coming.
You offered up the example of the fact that the hardest man to kill
Wait here. The US president is just an ordinary human being. What makes you think it is harder to kill him than any other man?
Quote:
... his survival is more due to lack of interest in the deed,
Base on what you make such assertion?
Quote:
and now you want to pick nits.
The intercept geometry, the enemy's reaction time and his performance envelope are the most basic factors to consider when design any guided weapons. You call that nit pick. That speaks about how good is you self identified 'weapon expert'.
Quote:
You also didn't say anything about my other example, which is telling.
You have the one who has the bundle of proving your concept, and we have not seen a shed of evidence you have put any thought on your suggestion.
Not much material is transferred in a handshake. Your poison must be very strong, and can be absorbed by the skin. AND you claimed it must be made of over the counter materials. Exactly what chemical do you plan to use? Moreover, how do plan to put the material on your hand (a glove is too obvious) so that the poison doesn't kill yourself?
In view of the underwhelming gas attack by Aum Shinrikyo, the case for any non-state actor pulling the shunt is really weak.
Quote:
01001011 wrote:
Neither do you. Moreover, simply quoting the view of a few slave owners 200 years ago is just appeal to authority.
Oh, so you specialize in non-sequitur then? You'd have a point if I only used the Constitutional argument, but I don't, and you don't. As usual.
You are the one quoting me out of context. In the quote I was replying, you were clearly using nothing but Constitutional argument.
Quote:
01001011 wrote:
Supporting plans for better social service is not a reason for not supporting gun control in order to reduce suicide -- there is no reason why one can support _both_ courses of action. You are the one who needs to read because your arguments are full of those fallacies.
And I'm sure you're going to point out those fallacies you claim are there? Or is this just another drive-by?
I already pointed quite a few of them out in my previous posts. If you didn't follow me, there is no point to repeat.
Do you see what is the logical flaw when talking about "_gun_ rights" or "_gun_ regulation"?
Quote:
01001011 wrote:
They did practically remove private ownership of 'destructive devices'.
Legal ownership of destructive devices. Big difference.
Quote:
You offered up the example of the fact that the hardest man to kill in the world hasn't been killed as proof that restricting access to weaponry is effective
Where are those illegal destructive devices? How many homicides involve destructive devices in the last 20 years?
Quote:
01001011 wrote:
Don't count on illegal production. Criminals in the developed world aren't desperate enough to bet their own lives on firearms with no quality standard whatsoever.
Criminals trust their lives to zip guns, why do you think they'd suddenly get all discerning in the face of a ban?
Quote:
What criminals? Those from some third world countries few people know?
Quote:
Also, CNC machine tools can make commercial quality firearms with the push of a button, no skill required, and the price of entry is dropping into the low 4 figures. People are willing to risk decades in prison or worse to make a buck off of drugs, why do you think guns would be any different?
Why do you think an average criminal would want a gun? How much do you think they can pay for a gun? How many gun do you expect to sell each month? How do you market your guns? For many _economic_ factors where guns are very different from drugs.
