The Energon Pub

News Credits: 553 · by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:00 pm

Answer me this one simple question.

Would you say to one of the parents who lost their child in the NIU or Virginia Tech shootings and say that the death of their child was a price you're willing to pay for the right to own a gun?

by **DesalationReborn** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:17 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Answer me this one simple question.

Would you say to one of the parents who lost their child in the NIU or Virginia Tech shootings and say that the death of their child was a price you're willing to pay for the right to own a gun?

It wasn't my price, nor my intention, nor a direct cause to the presence of guns-- it was that man's decision. In other words, don't blame me-- blame the killer. Frankly, he could have just as easily became a night stalker and slit throats. I assume that outcome wouldn't be a good alternative for them-- have another individual die instead their child. If someone really wants to kill someone, it's very easy to think of ways. Hell, knowing high school chemistry, one could easily make a bomb to blow up a building, killing hundreds of people by using simple fertilizers, say... Timothy McVeigh.

If anything, guns level the playing field about killing. You say that within an auditorium it would be hard to aim due to running individuals, but that is merely due to the secondary response to fight or flight-- without the ability to fight the good fight, people run. You assume a world where guns are not the norm. If everyone in that auditorium had a gun, they'd be either aiming or ducking, not running.

In the end, it is the mentality of the wielder that determines the use of the item. And, I'd have to say, appeals to sentimentalism as to guilt response is not that great a way to debate.

Oh, as well as we're on guns: http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/60509/detail/

Penn and Teller's show, "Bullshit," on gun control. Being fairly libertarian myself, I can't help but generally agree with them on many counts.

And good post, Caelus. Damn intimidating to debate, even just for the length!

News Credits: 6 · by **Dr. Caelus** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:34 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Answer me this one simple question.

Would you say to one of the parents who lost their child in the NIU or Virginia Tech shootings and say that the death of their child was a price you're willing to pay for the right to own a gun?

You really like the tacky underhanded rhetorical blows, don't you?

I thought you said it was inappropriate to use their deaths to make a point?

News Credits: 553 · by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:49 pm

I have a problem with the night stalker argument. The guy was simply a poor sap who went off his meds. He owned a bunch of guns and, in a moment of clouded judgement, used them on a bunch of random people.

Caelus wrote:You really like the tacky underhanded rhetorical blows, don't you?

I thought you said it was inappropriate to use their deaths to make a point?

I was against using the NIU topic for the gun rights discussion. This is a different topic. I don't see how it is an underhanded rhetorical blow at all. Feel free to explain.

You didn't answer my question.

There is a price to be paid for your freedom to own a gun. A small part of that price was the lives of five of my classmates. Was it worth it to you? Are you alright with it happening again? Can you say to somebody that you know that this kind of thing will keep happening and that's a price you're willing to pay to own a gun?

If it is, cop to it. Say, "Yes, it's a shame that random people keep getting shot and killed, but if that's the price I have to pay for the right to own a gun, then so be it." If that's how you feel, then it's how you feel. Come right out and say it.

If it isn't, please explain why.

News Credits: 6 · by **Dr. Caelus** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:13 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:I have a problem with the night stalker argument. The guy was simply a poor sap who went off his meds. He owned a bunch of guns and, in a moment of clouded judgement, used them on a bunch of random people.

Da.

Professor Smooth wrote: I don't see how it is an underhanded rhetorical blow at all. Feel free to explain.

It's a knight's fork argument. If the person says no, then they lose the argument, if they say yes, you decry them as an inhuman monster. It's cheap and overused to the point of being a cliche. Honestly, it's an insult to my intelligence that you'd bother with such a maneuver in an adult debate.

I was against using the NIU topic for the gun rights discussion. This is a different topic.

And yet, you make highly personal comments like this:

There is a price to be paid for your freedom to own a gun. A small part of that price was the lives of five of my classmates.

Which suggests to me that while you demanded the other thread be kept as a pure memorial, free of debate, you're somehow okay with dragging sentimentality in here and capitalizing on tragedy when it suits your purposes.

Was it worth it to you? Are you alright with it happening again? Can you say to somebody that you know that this kind of thing will keep happening and that's a price you're willing to pay to own a gun?

See, this old argument can be used for so many things... I could ask you if you're willing to go tell a mother who lost her child to a drunk driver that it is a price you're willing to pay for your right to drink alcoholic beverages or own a car?

Or, can you walk up to someone at one of those kids' funerals and say, 'I'm sorry there are a bunch of homophobic religious extremists outside the church protesting while you're trying to bury your child, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for my right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion?'

Or perhaps you could tell them, 'I'm sorry your child died, but that's a price we have to pay if we're not going to set up a comprehensive eugenics program to eliminate the psychotics from our society'.

It's amazing the absurdities that you can justify using that formulaic argument.

If it is, cop to it. Say, "Yes, it's a shame that random people keep getting shot and killed, but if that's the price I have to pay for the right to own a gun, then so be it." If that's how you feel, then it's how you feel. Come right out and say it.

I've already voiced my opinion on gun control in this thread, more than once. I fail to see why you even need to ask that question.

News Credits: 127 · by **Counterpunch** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:42 pm

Caelus wrote:It's a knight's fork argument. If the person says no, then they lose the argument, if they say yes, you decry them as an inhuman monster. It's cheap and overused to the point of being a cliche.

All points of the argument aside, good call pointing this out.

Removing traps like that from a worthwile debate is a skill more people should learn to employ.

News Credits: 553 · by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:52 pm

The only thing that he's pointed out is that he DOES feel that the deaths of those students are a price he's willing to pay. He just won't come right out and admit it because it would make him look "like an inhuman monster."

I think that much is fairly obvious from his post, don't you?

News Credits: 6 · by **Dr. Caelus** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:13 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:The only thing that he's pointed out is that he DOES feel that the deaths of those students are a price he's willing to pay. He just won't come right out and admit it because it would make him look "like an inhuman monster."

I think that much is fairly obvious from his post, don't you?

You really are one of the biggest di'kute I've ever met.

You really think that's how I feel?

Maybe you should revisit the first page:

Caelus wrote:
Missourisnowflakes wrote:If handguns were outlawed the only people who would not have guns were the honest law abiding citizens.

And yet, when was the last time that a group of honest law abiding citizens actually defended themselves with those guns they supposedly carry concealed everywhere they go? If that philosophy actually worked, why did this latest shooting 'succeed'? Why have all the others succeeded? Why do so many carjackings, muggings, and home-invasions succeed?

And has there actually been a significant decrease in violent crimes in Missouri since conceal and carry was passed? Lots of talk about it as a deterrent at the time, but since then, haven't really heard much about it.

Did some snooping - now IIRC, C&C was passed in 2002-2003. The immediate result was exactly what they claimed it would be - the violent crime rate dropped from 539 crimes per 100,000 people to 490.8 crimes per 100,000 people (almost as low as it was in the year 2000). Huzzah, it worked!

But wait... what has happened since 2003? As of 2006, the violent crime rate has risen to 545.6 crimes per 100,000 people, the highest it has been since 1998.

Similarly, murder rates dropped from 5.8 per 100,000 in 2002 to 5.1 per 100,000 in 2003, then rose to 6.3 per 100,000 by 2006.

In light of those numbers, how exactly can we claim that C&C has done anything of lasting benefit?

The criminals would keep their illegal guns.

Some criminals would keep their guns illegally. Some. And some of those criminals would get busted for possession before getting a chance to use them.

But honestly, I'm less concerned with the use of handguns in bank-robberies and school-shootings than I am with their use in domestic violence and suicide, where the heuristic schemes tied to the weapons presence increase aggression in human beings, and their ready availability transforms contemplation into action.

Because of the way the human mind is constructed, and the thoughts we associate specifically with handguns, the gun's trigger, at least metaphorically, tugs the owner's finger. Turning a cranky or slightly disturbed person into a murderer in a single moment of idiotic spontaneity. That's ashame both for the victim and the killer.

News Credits: 553 · by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:47 pm

Caelus wrote:You really are one of the biggest di'kute I've ever met.

I hate to point out the obvious again, but you've never met me.

News Credits: 6 · by **Dr. Caelus** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:42 am

Professor Smooth wrote:
Caelus wrote:You really are one of the biggest di'kute I've ever met.

I hate to point out the obvious again, but you've never met me.

Oh wow! You're so clever!

I hate to point out the obvious but:

Dictionary.com wrote:Met...
1. to come upon; come into the presence of; encounter: I would meet him on the street at unexpected moments.
2. to become acquainted with; be introduced to: I've never met your cousin...

Dictionary.com wrote:Acquainted...
1. having personal knowledge as a result of study, experience, etc.; informed (usually fol. by with): to be acquainted with law.
2. brought into social contact; made familiar: people acquainted through mutual friends...

Dictionary.com wrote:Contact...
10. to communicate with: We'll contact you by mail or telephone.

We have communicated (we are communicating) over the internet.

Ergo, unfortunately, we have met.

Now, do you have any other adolescent responses handy?

Or are you ready to "cop to" the fact that you (A) assumed I was progun simply because I tried to give voice to both sides of the argument, and (B) attempted to demonize me at a personal level by using a middle-school level debate tactic?