Why do the Anti-Gun crowd hate women?

[R8ers]

Why do the Anti-Gun crowd hate women?
Why would you want to make it harder or impossible for a woman to defend herself against rape or sexual assault?

Remember, just because you are the wormy squirly girly man type and most women can kick your ass anyway does not mean there are not others out there she can't and may need a little help to equalize..

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Great. What are your suggestions for legislation aimed at arming and training/educating more of our general populace?

I don't think we have any problems arming our general population. 300 million guns is evidence that the market's working just fine in that regard.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I was not proven incorrect at all, and you stopped posting when a bunch of information you thought should have been regarded as The Conversation Ender was rebutted.

Let's revisit, shall we:

• That the Hubb quote you posted was a false dichotomy -- which you have not attempted to rebut, nor really addressed in any meaningful way.
• I rebutted a Jefferson quote you pulled out that you thought was the definitive Jeffersonian answer to all things guns, by showing that Jefferson's view that changing facts on the ground can and should alter our beliefs on policy.
• You claimed, or at least suggested, that regulation is the same thing as dismissing basic rights. I pointed out that, of course, it's not.
• You claimed that my political positioning is a total stonewall of all history, and ignorant and dismissive of it. I reiterated of course that it is not.

You didn't mount any serious rebuttal to any of this. These were all responses to arguments you made -- your misdirections.

Screw your head back on.

You rebutted nothing. I gave up trying to explain anything to you in detail about the issue because you seemed to lack the capacity to understand it.

That, what, the motivation for repealing the Second Amendment is rooted in sexism?

Is that even the argument I'm supposed to respond to? Because I found your shit much more reasonable.

And you are doing it again.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't think we have any problems arming our general population. 300 million guns is evidence that the market's working just fine in that regard.

So you think it's a training issue, or just that those guns should be more equally spread among the citizenry instead of individuals having multiple guns?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

You rebutted nothing.

Dead wrong. And pretty silly.

A rebuttal is an opposing claim to your claim with supporting evidence or reasoning. Which I did so on every point you made.

You cite a Hubb quote, I exposed the logical fallacy it was clinging to.

You cite a Jefferson quote, I point out that Jefferson also said that developing facts on the ground can and should alter ideas and policy.

You then claim you can't regulate a right without demolishing it. I've exposed that as patently false (do you seriously still believe this?).

You then baselessly assert that I care nothing for history, which of course is dumb, and I said so.

Four rebuttals, all of which you allowed to hang in the air unanswered, for reasons we both know very, very well.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

And you are doing it again.

The only thing I'm doing is saying the OP is a ridiculously stupid claim that's totally unsupported and logically bankrupt.

You later paraphrased your own take on it, which I've found more agreeable.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Dead wrong. And pretty silly.

A rebuttal is an opposing claim to your claim with supporting evidence or reasoning. Which I did so on every point you made.

You cite a Hubb quote, I exposed the logical fallacy it was clinging to.

You cite a Jefferson quote, I point out that Jefferson also said that developing facts on the ground can and should alter ideas and policy.

You then claim you can't regulate a right without demolishing it. I've exposed that as patently false (do you seriously still believe this?).

You then baselessly assert that I care nothing for history, which of course is dumb, and I said so.

Four rebuttals, all of which you allowed to hang in the air unanswered, for reasons we both know very, very well.

The most hilarious thing about all of that is that you do seem to be dumb enough to believe it. Anyway, care to address the topic of this thread?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

So you think it's a training issue, or just that those guns should be more equally spread among the citizenry instead of individuals having multiple guns?

The issue is that gun acquisition and gun ownership are too loosely regulated. I do not share your opinion that more people should own guns.

Nor really, do more and more people.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

The most hilarious thing about all of that is that you do seem to be dumb enough to believe it.

I know you're trolling, if that's what you're suggesting.

I think the arguments you made in that previous thread were nonetheless deserving of rebuttal, lest somebody not be in on the game we both know you're playing.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Here's the thing. If you look at gun legislation as a set of reasonable rules designed to prevent the wrong people from gaining possession of firearms then the corollary is also true. Given the validity of the second amendment, gun legislation should also encourage the right people to be armed. Such as women who are at risk of being victims of violent crimes.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't know anybody who's argued otherwise.

Really, has anybody argued otherwise?

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The issue is that gun acquisition and gun ownership are too loosely regulated. I do not share your opinion that more people should own guns.

Nor really, do more and more people.

I guess you do know of one that argues otherwise. Please continue to argue with yourself. This should prove entertaining.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I guess you do know of one that argues otherwise. Please continue to argue with yourself. This should prove entertaining.

I see what you're saying, but but there's not really a contradiction there.

The problem you're running into is that you're arguing that regulating guns de facto dissuades people from owning guns. They don't.

You know how I know? Because we already regulate guns, and we have 300 million firearms in this country.

My own personal view, that I don't think that American gun ownership should further expand, doesn't change that.

[WV]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Some studies are more conclusive than others, I'll admit as much.

You continue to completely ignore this study, however, which directly underlines the argument that greater gun prevalence (which you clearly advocate) means greater homicide rates.

Your study has a lot of fancy math, but in the end it isn't "factual" and they admit as much in their sumation. I don't really see the point either, homocides happen every day with existing gun laws and will continue to happen so long as there are criminals. Legal gun owners shouldn't be restricted simply because some criminal "could" come in and steal their weapons.

In sum, gun prevalence is positively associated with overall homicide rates but not
systematically related to assault or other types of crime. Together, these results suggestthat an increase in gun prevalence causes an intensification of criminal violence—a
shift toward greater lethality, and hence greater harm to the community. Of course, gun
ownership also confers benefits to the owners and possibly other members of the
household. The benefits are associated with the various private uses of guns—gun
sports, collecting, protection of self and household against people and varmints. But if our estimates are correct, the net external effects appear to be negative.

I would never argue against stiffer back ground checks or stronger enforcement of existing laws. I'm also willing to wait until we see what comes out of tomorrow, but anything beyond those two areas is restricting the rights of gun owners and I have a major issue with that.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The problem you're running into is that you're arguing that regulating guns de facto dissuades people from owning guns. They don't.

You know how I know? Because we already regulate guns, and we have 300 million firearms in this country.

My own personal view, that I don't think that American gun ownership should further expand, doesn't change that.

No, I'm asking you for suggestions as to how to make sure that the right people are armed and trained/educated. Once you are done arguing with yourself I'd like you to address that.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by WV

Your study has a lot of fancy math, but in the end it isn't "factual" and they admit as much in their sumation.

Nope, you're wrong. I'm not even sure that makes sense.

They admit their fancy math isn't factual? You're high on goofballs, brother.

What you bolded was that the study wasn't saying that ownership of guns was an evil. Just that the effect of more and more gun prevalence is statistically negative.

Originally Posted by WV

I would never argue against stiffer back ground checks or stronger enforcement of existing laws.

I am happy to hear this, however. We agree.

I would go far beyond that, but at least we agree that much.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

No, I'm asking you for suggestions as to how to make sure that the right people are armed and trained/educated.

I would say that, as private citizens, we're already very well armed. I'd argue that we're excessively armed.

I would increase what we pay the police though in a lot of cities to help them get more resources, however.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Cool, then you are not "anti gun", correct?

I would not describe myself as anti-gun.