Today's mass shooting in the US

[Angilion]

Yes. Because why else are you carrying the gun? Answer me that.
[..]
You don't. But I'm betting there's a much higher proportion of law-abiding bus drivers that manage to get on with their day without killing someone than people who decide to go out carrying weapons. The difference is that a bus is designed to be used as a method of transportation, a gun is designed to kill people. I can use my keyboard to slap some sense into you, but that's not what it's designed for and hence if I walk onto a train carrying a keyboard nobody is going to bat an eyelid.

Guns are designed to kill people, that's literally their only purpose. Excuse joe public for assuming that's what you're carrying it for. [..]

I think you're over-egging your argument.

In cultures where carrying a weapon is normal, it does not follow that the only reason to be carrying a weapon is to kill people. Do you, for example, assume that all Sikhs are constantly killing people? An observant Sikh will be carrying a weapon, an object designed to kill people.

There are millions of people carrying weapons in the USA. If your argument was correct, hardly anyone would be left alive in the USA, which would be a fragmented mess of petty warlords and their fiefdoms.

 

[wesimmo]

I think you're over-egging your argument.

In cultures where carrying a weapon is normal, it does not follow that the only reason to be carrying a weapon is to kill people. Do you, for example, assume that all Sikhs are constantly killing people? An observant Sikh will be carrying a weapon, an object designed to kill people.

There are millions of people carrying weapons in the USA. If your argument was correct, hardly anyone would be left alive in the USA, which would be a fragmented mess of petty warlords and their fiefdoms.

You're talking about a small minority of a small minority that carry a ceremonial blade.

There is no ceremonial reason to be carrying a gun around in everyday life.

And his argument isn't that because everybody is carrying a killing device that they'll use it, because that would obviously be untrue.

What is definitely true though, is that when you have lots of killing devices should someone, say once a day, decide to use it, then they do and lots of people die, have life changing injuries and mental trauma.

But hey, as long as Billy Bob gets to act the big man and strut around with a gun that's a price worth paying is it?

 

[ianh]

It didn't make me angry, it made me roll my eyes and dismiss anything you say on this point..........

And that attitude is why the people you're talking at will never see your point of view nor change their mind. I try and be helpful and I get that sort of reply, well in future enjoy looking foolish to the very people whose opinions you're trying to change. For example -

"My Ferrari does 50mpg"
"You don't have a Ferrari, you've got a Ford Transit van"
"Yeah well it's got 4 wheels and an engine, we all know what I'm talking about, stop being pedantic about the terminology"

Thats how foolish you look to others when you call things the wrong name during an argument and then say "well we all know what I mean".

Anyway I think you've already shown that you're foolish mainly by assuming my position on US gun culture without even asking first, all because I tried to help you get the terminology right so you didn't look foolish. I mean I've absolutely 100% got to a be a pro-gun nutter if I bothered to learn the correct names for firearms categories and everything just so I didn't look like fool when having a firearms discussion, so I must be a "sitting in my room fapping to Guns and Ammo" type or "an apologist" I believe you called me right...............right????

 

[Angilion]

You're talking about a small minority of a small minority that carry a ceremonial blade.

There is no ceremonial reason to be carrying a gun around in everyday life.

There's a cultural reason, which is the same thing.

And his argument isn't that because everybody is carrying a killing device that they'll use it, because that would obviously be untrue.

That was exactly their argument, repeated for emphasis.

 

[wesimmo]

And that attitude is why the people you're talking at will never see your point of view nor change their mind. I try and be helpful and I get that sort of reply, well in future enjoy looking foolish to the very people whose opinions you're trying to change. For example -

"My Ferrari does 50mpg"
"You don't have a Ferrari, you've got a Ford Transit van"
"Yeah well it's got 4 wheels and an engine, we all know what I'm talking about, stop being pedantic about the terminology"

Thats how foolish you look to others when you call things the wrong name during an argument and then say "well we all know what I mean".

Anyway I think you've already shown that you're foolish mainly by assuming my position on US gun culture without even asking first, all because I tried to help you get the terminology right so you didn't look foolish. I mean I've absolutely 100% got to a be a pro-gun nutter if I bothered to learn the correct names for firearms categories and everything just so I didn't look like fool when having a firearms discussion, so I must be a "sitting in my room fapping to Guns and Ammo" type or "an apologist" I believe you called me right...............right????

Your analogy just doesn't work.

I've not assumed your position, I said that your semantic attitude to an irrelevance in the grand scheme of things made you sound like an apologist. I stand by that.

 

[wesimmo]

That was exactly their argument, repeated for emphasis.

Where did he say that everybody WOULD use a gun? He said that if you have a gun in a public place and you DO use it, it's for killing people. Which is true.

 

[Angilion]

Where did he say that everybody WOULD use a gun? He said that if you have a gun in a public place and you DO use it, it's for killing people. Which is true.

In response to this:

If I'm walking around in Texas with a pistol holstered are you going to assume I'm going to shoot someone?

They replied with this (quoting the above, so it is explicitly in reply to that):

Yes. Because why else are you carrying the gun? Answer me that.
[..]
Guns are designed to kill people, that's literally their only purpose. Excuse joe public for assuming that's what you're carrying it for.

They very explicitly stated that their position is that anyone carrying a gun is going to shoot someone. They made no mention of "if you DO use it". They were explcitly talking about carrying it, not using it. You added the "if you DO use it" clause. It's not in their argument. That's not their stated position.

 

[wesimmo]

In response to this:



They replied with this (quoting the above, so it is explicitly in reply to that):



They very explicitly stated that their position is that anyone carrying a gun is going to shoot someone. They made no mention of "if you DO use it". They were explcitly talking about carrying it, not using it. You added the "if you DO use it" clause. It's not in their argument. That's not their stated position.

I'll give you that if you take it literally how it was written, then you're right.

But that's not what he meant in the context and flow of the conversation, it's obvious that there was a bit of deliberate, sarcastic hyperbole about the reason for having a gun in public.

To infer anything else would be inferring a ridiculous outcome, and one that is demonstrably false and he obviously isn't claiming. A strawman if you will. It therefore follows that there was more context and nuance to his literal words.

 

[Angilion]

I'll give you that if you take it literally how it was written, then you're right.

But that's not what he meant in the context and flow of the conversation, it's obvious that there was a bit of deliberate, sarcastic hyperbole about the reason for having a gun in public.

To infer anything else would be inferring a ridiculous outcome, and one that is demonstrably false and he obviously isn't claiming. A strawman if you will. It therefore follows that there was more context and nuance to his literal words.

There's no shortage of people taking a position without thinking it through to the ridiculous outcome. I think you're retrofitting an explanation to their post. Maybe they'll reply to clarify whether or not they meant what they wrote.

 

[ianh]

Your analogy just doesn't work.

I've not assumed your position, I said that your semantic attitude to an irrelevance in the grand scheme of things made you sound like an apologist. I stand by that.

There's only so much you can try and help some folk before it gets so painful you just have to walk away

 

[wesimmo]

** Quote & reply removed ****


Go on then, you seem to be dying to tell me, what are they? Perhaps if you'd made that clear from that start I wouldn't have thought you sounded like an apologist for idiots that want to carry guns in public.

 

[Scam]

They very explicitly stated that their position is that anyone carrying a gun is going to shoot someone. They made no mention of "if you DO use it". They were explcitly talking about carrying it, not using it. You added the "if you DO use it" clause. It's not in their argument. That's not their stated position.

No I didn't. Shall I be even more clear?

The only reason anyone is carrying a gun is because they might use it. It's like carrying an umbrella. Therefore, as an observer you are perfectly entitled to think "that person has a gun, they might use it". Like, duh.

Now, if you're a gun carrier and your reason for carrying a gun is something other than using it, well the only logical explanation is that you're carrying it to intimidate people. Don't you see how very quickly the gun-carriers are on the wrong end of the argument, either way?

 

[krooton]

No I didn't. Shall I be even more clear?

The only reason anyone is carrying a gun is because they might use it. It's like carrying an umbrella. Therefore, as an observer you are perfectly entitled to think "that person has a gun, they might use it". Like, duh.

Now, if you're a gun carrier and your reason for carrying a gun is something other than using it, well the only logical explanation is that you're carrying it to intimidate people. Don't you see how very quickly the gun-carriers are on the wrong end of the argument, either way?

Don't forget some just get a rush-boner from having one on them, even if no one else can see it, and they would never actually use it.

 

[Felon]

Now, if you're a gun carrier and your reason for carrying a gun is something other than using it, well the only logical explanation is that you're carrying it to intimidate people. Don't you see how very quickly the gun-carriers are on the wrong end of the argument, either way?

And this in itself raises two fundamental points.

It seems ridiculous to have a society where people a; feel the need to carry guns in public, and b; complain when the society in question has repeated incidents of carnage that occur on a regular basis. It's as though there's a cognitive dissonance on the part of the gun owners, where they're against any gun-control, against legislation and also against people being killed - but they still want to carry their guns at all costs, whilst refusing to believe they're part of the problem.

Surely, in the final analysis, masses of people walking around with guns is going to result in problems. If I was a space alien and I'm orbiting the earth observing and studying, and I see millions of people in open carry states walking around with firearms, then I see repeated problems off mass shootings in and around those states in the US; the situation is exactly as expected, there's nothing extra-ordinary occurring. (especially when I'm studying all the other advanced countries and I don't see masses of guns, and practically no repeated mass-shootings)

The way I see it, all of this comes associated with a price tag, if people want guns to be available in the quantities and types found in some states, with no meaningful rules or restrictions - then ultimately that price tag is going to be very high and the currency used to pay it will be stacks of body bags.

 

[ianh]

Go on then, you seem to be dying to tell me, what are they? Perhaps if you'd made that clear from that start I wouldn't have thought you sounded like an apologist for idiots that want to carry guns in public.

Seen as you eventually asked, while I have used military and civilian firearms for over 25 years in the UK giving me a wealth of experience of firearms, my opinion on US firearms culture as a non-American is that I have no right to tell them how their laws should or shouldn't work, it's their issue to deal with not mine. Just like I believe that someone from the US shouldn't be telling us to change our laws to ban knifes just because of London knife crime etc.

However I would never want to see anything even close to US firearms legalisation in the UK which is something I could talk about at length, so for example (but not limited to) I'd want stricter rules for some UK firearms including a ban on .22LR semi-automatics which I see as having no useful role other than "fun/entertainment" in the UK (can't be used for pest-control etc), I'd want looser rules on others (historical etc), changes made towards stricter initial licensing, rigorous and continuous mental health checks and FEO/FO visits to owners, family, friends, colleagues etc. However I wouldn't advocate for a full firearms ban because I believe that there are definite and specific use cases where firearms are the best solution but overall I'd want most parts of the current scheme tightening up and modernisation of UK laws to cover areas where we currently have, unacceptable to me, "grey areas".

Hope that helps!

 

[wesimmo]

Seen as you eventually asked, while I have used military and civilian firearms for over 25 years in the UK giving me a wealth of experience of firearms, my opinion on US firearms culture as a non-American is that I have no right to tell them how their laws should or shouldn't work, it's their issue to deal with not mine. Just like I believe that someone from the US shouldn't be telling us to change our laws to ban knifes just because of London knife crime etc.

However I would never want to see anything even close to US firearms legalisation in the UK which is something I could talk about at length, so for example (but not limited to) I'd want stricter rules for some UK firearms including a ban on .22LR semi-automatics which I see as having no useful role other than "fun/entertainment" in the UK (can't be used for pest-control etc), I'd want looser rules on others (historical etc), changes made towards stricter initial licensing, rigorous and continuous mental health checks and FEO/FO visits to owners, family, friends, colleagues etc. However I wouldn't advocate for a full firearms ban because I believe that there are definite and specific use cases where firearms are the best solution but overall I'd want most parts of the current scheme tightening up and modernisation of UK laws to cover areas where we currently have, unacceptable to me, "grey areas".

Hope that helps!

That does help, and it sounds like a very sensible position.

However, you are in a thread about US mass shootings, if you don't want to discuss those and the possible solutions, then don't post in here, because that's what the thread is.

I also still stand by the fact that the semantics of the exact terminology are irrelevant in the general discussion, and if you truly believe in more gun control, trying to dismiss people's arguments for such controls on a technicality seems at odds with your stated position.

To try and improve on your analogy, it's like me standing in front of a speeding car that's about to hit me and i shout "Oh no I'm about to be killed by a V8 Ferrari." and someone correcting me that it's a V10, it's still going to have the same result, I'm dead if it hits me.

 

[Washout]

"My Ferrari does 50mpg"
"You don't have a Ferrari, you've got a Ford Transit van"
"Yeah well it's got 4 wheels and an engine, we all know what I'm talking about, stop being pedantic about the terminology"

Thats how foolish you look to others when you call things the wrong name during an argument and then say "well we all know what I mean".

Could ask the dead folk if it mattered if they just got hit by a pickup truck or a Ferrari?

 

[ianh]

I realise that this is an emotive subject and people get all caught up in the Pro vs Anti discussions but the semantics do matter, even if people would wish it otherwise.

To try and improve on your analogy, it's like me standing in front of a speeding car that's about to hit me and i shout "Oh no I'm about to be killed by a V8 Ferrari." and someone correcting me that it's a V10, it's still going to have the same result, I'm dead if it hits me.

To continue your example, if people now demand that all V8 Ferraris must be banned even though it was a V10 one that killed you, then semantics makes a huge difference. Thats why they're called different things, so that people can describe exactly what they are talking about.

Also, the only reason I did post in here was to try and help/educate people with the hope that it would improve their arguments, rather than to get into a revolving discussion on why it's important (or not to some) to name things correctly. Anyway, I feel like I'm starting to derail the thread so I'll leave it here.

Could ask the dead folk if it mattered if they just got hit by a pickup truck or a Ferrari?

They'd be dead so they don't care, however as above, if their relative then called for a ban on the specific type of item that killed them (either the pick-up or Ferrari) then they've got to call it the right thing, if you want the argument you use to hold any weight.

 

[wesimmo]

To continue your example, if people now demand that all V8 Ferraris must be banned even though it was a V10 one that killed you, then semantics makes a huge difference. Thats why they're called different things, so that people can describe exactly what they are talking about.

No, people are asking more control over whether people can have a car, be that a 4 pot, V6, V8, electric. Ultimately the propulsion method is irrelevant, the fact someone can run you over at a speed to kill you in any of them is the pertinent part.

To make my point clearer, i would be even more generic and say weapons should be banned in public places. Need a crossbow in Walmart? No, ban open carry of them then.

 

[Roar87]

To make my point clearer, i would be even more generic and say weapons should be banned in public places. Need a crossbow in Walmart? No, ban open carry of them then.

Criminals don't listen to your laws, law abiding citizens could carry a 7.62mm M240B machine gun in public and would not commit mass murder. Essentially you save 0 lives and **** a lot of people off.

edit: sorry the M240B is infact 7.62mm