Why legalize assault weapons?
#227
Posted 18 June 2008 - 11:12 PM
Your wolf thing, and I can't believe that you are trying to defend it, is asinine. No, that's the wrong word. It's idiotic. We went over this at length; the fact that you have ZERO evidence of a thing doesn't mean that you automatically MUST entertain its possibility. You would be of no use as a crime scene investigator.
DEUCAON: We should consider that maybe aliens did it, and that they used technology to make it look like a knife was used. As there is no evidence that this did not happen, we must entertain its possibility.
DAVID CARUSO: You're fired.
So, again, I don't believe in Dragons or the Cottingly faeries either. You entertain their possibility. I don't believe in the danger of assault-rifle-wielding home invaders, and you entertain their possibility, all because there is zero evidence that they cannot be.
You COMPLETELY misunderstand the use of the Dodge City reference. Simply put, it is this: Gun control cleaned up Dodge City. End of story. There is another thing they could have done, they could have allowed unrestricted gun use, and they could have put more lawmen on the streets, at great social expense. They chose to go with the route they did. It happened to work, and it was good for business. The other way may have worked as well, but it would have cost more. Of course, there are other things at play these days, such as communication and response times, so a town where every man woman and child was walking around heavily armed might not actually become a murder-happy hell on Earth. Certainly the police and the army would be an effective deterrent to crime, if not the citizens themselves. But I don't want to live in a community where every man woman and child is walking about heavily armed.
And yes, insisting that gun control is a question of civil liberties opens the question of civil liberties. Why can we have asault rifles but I can't manufacture crystal meth? Why can't I own an MX missile? How about a collection of pipe bombs? Anthrax? IT IS NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF CIVIL LIBERTIES. We are designing a society, not a meeting ground for independent and autonomous individuals. There will and naturally should be restrictions to personal liberties.
There's something else you've been doing wrong, by the way. You suggest that the more people are armend, the more and more terribly the criminals will be armed. You say, if it were well-known that folks had nothing, then criminals would have pistols. Were it well known that everyone had pistols, then criminals would have submachine guns or shotguns. If everyone had submachine guns or shotguns, then criminals would have assault rifles. Finally, you suggest that if everyone had assault rifles, that criminals would be subdued (they would think twice). THIS DOES NOT FOLLOW. Your argument leads to the necessary conclusion that since crimnals in your universe must by nature violently invade homes at any cost, that if everyone had assault rifles, then the criminals would use ARs and superior numbers, or they would use something more fearsome when attackign a house, such as a tank or missile launchers. Given your assumptins, then we must outlaw all guns. In that case, criminals would only attack houses with pistols. I'd much rather that than nonstop close-quarter firefights all over town. I have to get up early for work.
And again, home invasions just aren't being committed with assault rifles. Your scenarios of CQB are ridiculous. If you're going to be ridiculous, I am required by contract to mention the Tarrasque. Sometimes a good horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms.
#228
Posted 21 June 2008 - 01:26 AM
Your wolf thing, and I can't believe that you are trying to defend it, is asinine. No, that's the wrong word. It's idiotic. We went over this at length; the fact that you have ZERO evidence of a thing doesn't mean that you automatically MUST entertain its possibility. You would be of no use as a crime scene investigator.
So, again, I don't believe in Dragons or the Cottingly faeries either. You entertain their possibility. I don't believe in the danger of assault-rifle-wielding home invaders, and you entertain their possibility, all because there is zero evidence that they cannot be.
You COMPLETELY misunderstand the use of the Dodge City reference. Simply put, it is this: Gun control cleaned up Dodge City. End of story. There is another thing they could have done, they could have allowed unrestricted gun use, and they could have put more lawmen on the streets, at great social expense. They chose to go with the route they did. It happened to work, and it was good for business. The other way may have worked as well, but it would have cost more. Of course, there are other things at play these days, such as communication and response times, so a town where every man woman and child was walking around heavily armed might not actually become a murder-happy hell on Earth. Certainly the police and the army would be an effective deterrent to crime, if not the citizens themselves. But I don't want to live in a community where every man woman and child is walking about heavily armed.
And yes, insisting that gun control is a question of civil liberties opens the question of civil liberties. Why can we have asault rifles but I can't manufacture crystal meth? Why can't I own an MX missile? How about a collection of pipe bombs? Anthrax? IT IS NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF CIVIL LIBERTIES. We are designing a society, not a meeting ground for independent and autonomous individuals. There will and naturally should be restrictions to personal liberties.
There's something else you've been doing wrong, by the way. You suggest that the more people are armend, the more and more terribly the criminals will be armed. You say, if it were well-known that folks had nothing, then criminals would have pistols. Were it well known that everyone had pistols, then criminals would have submachine guns or shotguns. If everyone had submachine guns or shotguns, then criminals would have assault rifles. Finally, you suggest that if everyone had assault rifles, that criminals would be subdued (they would think twice). THIS DOES NOT FOLLOW. Your argument leads to the necessary conclusion that since crimnals in your universe must by nature violently invade homes at any cost, that if everyone had assault rifles, then the criminals would use ARs and superior numbers, or they would use something more fearsome when attackign a house, such as a tank or missile launchers. Given your assumptins, then we must outlaw all guns. In that case, criminals would only attack houses with pistols. I'd much rather that than nonstop close-quarter firefights all over town. I have to get up early for work.
And again, home invasions just aren't being committed with assault rifles. Your scenarios of CQB are ridiculous. If you're going to be ridiculous, I am required by contract to mention the Tarrasque. Sometimes a good horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms.
I see what you mean. I concede the argument to you.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#229
Posted 21 June 2008 - 02:06 AM
Deucon is like a debating god.
#230
Posted 21 June 2008 - 02:49 AM
Why this couldnt have been done simply by directing the post to Civ is a mystery for the philosophers.
Quote
#231
Posted 21 June 2008 - 07:14 AM
Apologies if I'm being stupid here but what the hell is a Tarrasque? All I came up with when I tried to find out was a monster in D&D.
That is one badass baby.
#232
Posted 21 June 2008 - 09:09 AM
............................................______ __
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#233
Posted 21 June 2008 - 10:04 AM
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
Oh I'm sorry Deucaon. Really from the bottom of my heart I am. What was I thinking asking a genuine question and expecting a mature answer? I suppose I should know about every meme and internet phrase off the bat because god knows I'm supposed to spend 25 hours a day sitting at this computer. Once again I'm sorry if I offended your delicate nerd sensibilities with my ignorance. In the future I shall do my best to remember the internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS.
This post has been edited by Casual: 21 June 2008 - 10:06 AM
That is one badass baby.
#234
Posted 21 June 2008 - 12:08 PM
Quote
#235
Posted 21 June 2008 - 01:02 PM
This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 21 June 2008 - 01:04 PM
#236
Posted 21 June 2008 - 03:31 PM
It's not a meme, Deucaon just felt the need to brag about how skilled he is at the Internets with his ASCII facepalm. Also, kindly refrain from any more of that nonsense, especially when completely unwarranted. Quoting those things just makes everything worse.
I'm glad this debate is over, too. It was really giving me a headache.
#238
Posted 24 June 2008 - 01:00 AM
All gays wanting religious marriages should be sent to Iraq.
#239
Posted 12 July 2008 - 02:04 AM
Quote
#240
Posted 04 April 2009 - 08:49 PM
Extra, extra, man defends house from home invaders using assault rifle in close quarters battle! Deuacon's theories affirmed, extra extra!
I have to admit though, this guy's logic is priceless:
"Obama wants to take away my guns? I'll show him that I'm a responsible assault rifle owner, watch me kill these police officers!"
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 04 April 2009 - 08:52 PM
Quote