Debate Thread Reloaded: Mano-a-Mano (Kucinich Edition)

[eriador]

First of all, what you happen avoid mentioning is in the Emerson case, the court found that it was the right of the individual, not the state, to keep arms.

The decision said that the gun control law in question (which regulated the sale and transport of guns across state lines) was constitutional. However, they also found in a related finding that the Second Amendment protected the right of the individual to own a gun, a finding which has been contradicted in a more recent case. In other words, there is no no set decision on what exactly the Second Amendment protects. However, there is a hell of a trend in the cases, which is all I'm saying.

Not that it matters, since you seem perfectly fine with dismissing any contradicting evidence to your claims of absolutes. "Every decision says this! Oh, what's that? Oh, well, yeah. Those are examples of it supporting the individualist viewpoint... Um... look over here! Distraction! The gun control laws weren't stricken!"

The simple fact of the matter is that you're talking out of your ass when you're making those wild claims and haven't provided a shred of substantiation. Further, the insistence that gun control laws existing and being supported in Supreme Court cases is evidence that the Court upholds the belief that the right applies to states is more than a little specious. Limitations on rights do not indicate a lack of those rights.

Have you actually read those cases? I thought not. I will admit that I haven't either, but my basic knowledge of law tells me that you're being ridiculous. When a court decides a case on the constitutionality of a law they have to do a couple of things. First of all, they have to decide whether or not the law should stand. They then have to provide a legal opinion on the body of law that has been brought up by the counsel for both sides. If one side is arguing that the assault rifle ban is in violation of the Second Amendment, the court has to include in their decision the interpretation of the Second Amendment that they used to come to their decision. It is THERE that the courts claim that the Second Amendment applies to states, not individuals. Capiche?

Beyond that, it's rather clear you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about in terms of militias. Believe it or not, the militia was nothing more than the collective, adult, male population of the area. When our founding fathers spoke of militias, they didn't speak of government run bodies. Of course, Teddy changed that during his tenure in the White House, but that doesn't change the fact that the militias spoken of in the Constitution is merely the adult male population. Brushing up on legislation from early American history would serve you well. You might start with the Militia Act of 1792, for starters.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

And congratulations. Saving one life makes it all worth it. Why stop there, though? We could save so many more lives by banning all guns. And knives. Scissors. Knitting needles. Clubs. Tire irons. Baseball bats.

Have you payed any attention at all? I have said SEVERAL TIMES that I believe that the pros of banning guns outweigh the cons. Point out A REASONABLE CON to banning handguns and I might reconsider. Sadly, I have found none yet. The only one somebody mentioned was target shooting, which I believe should go the way of Dog Fighting and Bear Baiting: being put to an end due to the downsides of the sport.

Regardless, it isn't just that it won't be massively effective. It's counter-productive. You're limiting the freedom of people wholly unrelated to the situation. "Let's stop crime by banning guns! If we make them illegal, the people getting them illegally already won't be able to get them legally!"

I was googling for a few facts on this (namely, what percentage of crimes involving handguns are committed with legal weapons. I found this page ridiculing the idea that there should be a distinction between "legal" and "illegal" weapons:

The gun lobby wants you to think that there are two kinds of firearms: one kind is completely legal, owned by hunters and "responsible gun owners," who handle their weapons safely, and would never shoot a human being, would never break a single crime. The second kind, acccording to the gun lobby, are those terrible "illegal weapons" that the police have to fight against and criminals use, and that give "responsible gun owners" a bad name.

But that's completely false. There aren't two kinds of firearms, there's only guns, and they're used by "responsible gun owner" and criminal alike. A person may never break a law in his life until he pulls a trigger to shoot an enemy, and a lifetime criminal might, for one reason or another, make it through a background check (or avoid it completely with a newspaper loophole) to legally own a gun. It's ridiculous to divide weapons into "good" and "bad" weapons-- they all kill, and that's why they're all unsafe.

I totally agree with the point that they make here, however, I did find the statistics (which, as GunGuys points out, are kinda spurious) here:

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

If we consider these numbers to represent the sources that criminals get their guns from, immediately banning ONLY THE SALE handguns could eliminate about 14% of the weapons used by criminals, which could (based on the number of violent crimes involving handguns in 2004) stop about 52,500 violent crimes. I'd say that that is pretty significant.

Of course, it's very possible that more criminals would get guns through illegal sources, but those would also be limited (but not eliminated). I'd argue that it's a pretty good effectiveness. As to the problem of limiting freedom, that's the purpose of government, isn't it? Reasonably limiting freedoms to provide for greater safety. When a freedom is dangerous and has no really benefits (except for being a freedom, which is a pretty weak argument) I'd say that it's worth infringing on.

For someone calling the logic of others in question, you sure do base your arguments on pretty faulty logic yourself. Though, if you're going to play that card, at least you could give me the courtesy of labeling those fallacies, instead of the rather lame "oMg, Ur uSiNg l0gIcAl fAlLaCiEs!111!1!!1one!!11!!" At least you recognize that I've actually done some research, though. You might want to try it some time.

You have no idea how funny I find this statement. The sheer irony of it astounds the mind. You insist that I label the fallacies in your arguments, then refuse to do the same for mine. You have totally ignored the fact that I have done research (links, facts, yeah, that's called research, and that's what I've been doing. You have linked to... two different sources in the course of this thread. I've linked to many, many more, almost all of them good. I would appreciate you following the golden rule and recognizing me the same way I recognize me. I understand how hard it can be (after all, I do the same) but if you're going to point out the flaws in me, please don't make the same mistakes because it makes you look amateur and childish.

And, for the record, presenting the opinion that the pros outweigh the cons as a valid argument doesn't make for an interesting discussion. You're free to hold any opinion you like -- there are, in fact, undetectable turtles (giant turtles!) under the Earth holding us stationary so that the Invisi-Pink Unicorn may watch us and bless his followers -- it doesn't make your opinion any more true than the facts can illustrate. Stating your opinion isn't supporting your argument; presenting evidence is.

Anyway, I look forward to your response. You always manage to give me a chuckle.

argument (plural arguments)

1. A fact or statement used to support a proposition; a reason:
2. A verbal dispute; a quarrel.
3. A process of reasoning.
4. (philosophy, logic) A series of statements organized so that the final statement is a conclusion which is intended to follow logically from the preceding statements, which function as premises.
5. (mathematics) The independent variable of a function.
6. (computer language) A value, or reference to a value, passed to a function.
7. (computer language) A parameter in a function definition; a formal argument.
8. A summary or short statement of the plot or chief points of a book.

Look at definition four, which is probably the most applicable to your usage of the word. An argument is a series of statements:

statement (plural statements)

1. a declaration or remark
2. a presentation of opinion or position
3. (finance) a document that summarizes financial activity

a bank statement

4. (computing) an instruction in a computer program

I have a feeling that you can understand the conclusion that this argument is supposed to bring you to, but I'll spell it out anyway for the sake of clearness. An argument is simply a series of statements, and an opinion can be considered a statement. Case closed.

Of course, I could also use a different usage of the word statement to make a much more complete argument. In mathematical logic, a statement is simply a sentence that has a truth value. If I use in an argument a statement of opinion, that statement can be considered to say "I believe X". If an arguments contains those statements then it's conclusion will be something along the lines of "I believe X", instead of what you're reading it as: "X". That's really the way I want my arguments read, as an insight into how I think with the hope that you will agree. I find making absolute arguments ridiculous, especially when considering topics (such as this one) that HAVE NO OBJECTIVE CONCLUSION. It's stupid and arrogant to think that there is one, thinking which is implicit in the making of absolute arguments.

[Syphon the Sun]

Eri,

The problem is that all you're doing is back-peddling. First it was all cases, then the overwhelming majority, now it's merely a trend. Further, you're still basing your argument on the belief that regulation constitutes a lack of rights. It wasn't true the first time you expressed it; it isn't now. Besides, the only case law even on the topic are in regards to regulation of certain kinds of firearms -- no case has ever been presented (and thus ruled on) regarding the right to bear arms, only to what extent said right is limited.

Further, I find it rather humorous that you haven't even read case law on the topic, yet insist you have some kind of valid basis for your assumptions. How much experience do you actually have with law, Fetus? You're in high school. I'm a senior, Pre-Law student getting dual degrees -- one of which happens to be a B.Sc. of History with a minor in Political Studies, both of which concentrated on early American history and politics. All three of my internships have dealt with either early American history or law. I'll be enrolled in law school in less than a year. I've been discussing case law on this and many other topics for four years. I've taken three courses in which our only source of materials was case law. So, forgive me if I don't quite think reading a wikipedia entry means you know what the hell you're talking about, especially when you have the arrogance to believe everyone must be as ignorant as you.

And once again, the court decisions do not put the right with the state -- after all, the state is a government body. Militias are not, nor ever were, a government controlled body. In fact, their entire purpose revolves around that fact.

Moreover, as I explained early, the term "militia" just meant the collective body of the adult, male population. Although, I'm not sure you even read that part of my post, since your response to such had absolutely nothing to do with what they meant by the term militia. Letters, editorials, and legislation written by the founding fathers does indicate what it means. Like I said, if you actually care about the issue, you're free to brush up on the information. I won't hold my breath, though.

And I know that you've said you believe the pros outweigh the cons. Whoopty doo. You can believe whatever the hell you want; it doesn't make you right, though. Further, since you don't really understand how the legal system works, it's not my responsibility to show why something should be legal. It's up to you to show why it shouldn't. Why is this? Because everything is legal until a law is passed prohibiting it. So, it's up to you to convince the rest of us to give up that right.

And the reasons you've given thus far are less than adequate. Especially given the fact that the last century of gun control laws have only furthered to prove that A) they're ineffective at what they are designed to do and B) it only pushes us further along a slippery slope.

Regarding target shooting, however, I'm curious as to what "downsides" of the sport existing you're talking about. I'd be interested in hearing about it.

The site you linked is more than a little entertaining, though. Insisting that citizens exercising their right are on the same level as criminals is more than a little specious. It's downright absurd. Of course there is a difference between legally and illegally obtained firearms, especially when you're talking about preventing criminals from getting their hands on them. Meanwhile, at least you read the statistics, even if it took a couple of crackpots to point you to it (despite the fact that I referenced it in my last post). And, to be fair, those numbers are for all firearms, not handguns.

As far as logic goes, I notice you still haven't supported your wild accusations, merely diverted the attention. [That's called a red herring, cupcake.] Regardless, the faulty logic lies in the entire composition of your argument. Let's break your argument down:

1. Firearms increase crime rates.
2. Banning firearms will stop people from legally obtaining them.
3. Therefore, without legal access to firearms, crimes rates will decrease.

This is a fallacy because both premises to your argument are questionable at best, outright lies at worst, or somewhere in the middle. Questionable premises are, indeed, logical fallacies.

As far as your "research" goes, your claims are laughable at best. Wikipedia accepting a source doesn't prove it's validity or objectivity. In fact, you seem to have a pattern of being unable to discover anything that even remotely resembles an objective source. Quality over quantity, kid. Always quality over quantity.

Meanwhile, I had hoped we wouldn't have to resort to a debate of semantics, but, if you insist, I guess we'll travel that road. "Argument," used in both the context of the sentence and the context of the discussion, is meant as "logical argument." American philosopher Garth Kemerling defined it rather understandably as "a collection of two or more propositions, all but one of which are the premises supposed to provide inferential support—either deductive or inductive—for the truth of the remaining one, the conclusion." In short, opinions do not provide support for the truth of any conclusion. Regardless, simply restating your opinions doesn't help form a valid and sound logical argument.

One final note: You did, in fact, make absolute arguments, you know. So I'm glad you find your arguments are ridiculous as the rest of us do. Keep 'em coming.

[Eaquae Legit]

I had such a sense of deja vu, reading that.

[eriador]

I agree with EL. We both know s*** and are too proud to admit it. How about shutting up now, because at this point we're just repeating ourselves.

[VelvetElvis]

So, forgive me if I don't quite think reading a wikipedia entry means you know what the hell you're talking about

Be my friend?

[Syphon the Sun]

Be my friend?

You'll always be my Cap'n.

[eriador]

So, forgive me if I don't quite think reading a wikipedia entry means you know what the hell you're talking about

Be my friend?

Wikipedia is like a refresher course for me. I know about a lot of things, Wikipedia just helps me get organized.