Smart gun laws

This thread has gone pretty far off-topic.

hawkwing wrote:

This thread has gone pretty far off-topic.

Mea culpa. :)

hawkwing wrote:

This thread has gone pretty far off-topic.

You just say that because you're a public school loving socialist!! ;)

Mars wrote:

This thread has gone pretty far off-topic.

You just say that because you're a public school loving socialist!! ;)

It was because he could give no evidence that new gun control laws would make kids safer than shuttering all government schools.

jvquarterback wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

This thread has gone pretty far off-topic.

You just say that because you're a public school loving socialist!! ;)

It was because he could give no evidence that new gun control laws would make kids safer than shuttering all government schools.

Shuttering all government schools and keeping kids out would, by definition, be safer because there would be no kids in them to be kept safe. Moving the goal posts like that do not help. Also, no one is suggesting that gun control laws are the sine qua non of protecting lives. The argument, instead, is that they are an important piece in the puzzle. Isolating and focusing on gun control exclusively to argue that new such laws alone will not improve safety is again trying to win the argument by definition.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Mars wrote:

This thread has gone pretty far off-topic.

You just say that because you're a public school loving socialist!! ;)

It was because he could give no evidence that new gun control laws would make kids safer than shuttering all government schools.

Shuttering all government schools and keeping kids out would, by definition, be safer because there would be no kids in them to be kept safe. Moving the goal posts like that do not help. Also, no one is suggesting that gun control laws are the sine qua non of protecting lives. The argument, instead, is that they are an important piece in the puzzle. Isolating and focusing on gun control exclusively to argue that new such laws alone will not improve safety is again trying to win the argument by definition.

What gun control laws have ever made kids safer at schools? The data aren't there.



People get all emotional over this stuff and that's fine - maybe even a good thing. What isn't a good thing is when they make decisions without any basis in evidence. You were right when you said you don't want to debate. If you did you'd have to bring a fact or two to this forum.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

This thread has gone pretty far off-topic.

You just say that because you're a public school loving socialist!! ;)

It was because he could give no evidence that new gun control laws would make kids safer than shuttering all government schools.

Shuttering all government schools and keeping kids out would, by definition, be safer because there would be no kids in them to be kept safe. Moving the goal posts like that do not help. Also, no one is suggesting that gun control laws are the sine qua non of protecting lives. The argument, instead, is that they are an important piece in the puzzle. Isolating and focusing on gun control exclusively to argue that new such laws alone will not improve safety is again trying to win the argument by definition.

What gun control laws have ever made kids safer at schools? The data aren't there.



People get all emotional over this stuff and that's fine - maybe even a good thing. What isn't a good thing is when they make decisions without any basis in evidence. You were right when you said you don't want to debate. If you did you'd have to bring a fact or two to this forum.

Debating you would do no good. I might aw well talk to a brick wall. You do not respond to what people actually say or ask. It is a fool's errand. It is too exhausting dealing with strawman arguments all day. You are good at that, I will grant you. But it makes for horrible discussions.

Dude. I doubt you even know what a straw man argument is but the whole point of my saying shuttering government schools is a better option than gun control was to show how unsupported by fact the gun control argument is.



Someone asked about real things that can be done to help kids be safer at schools. Here you go:



1. Make the school financially responsible for injury that occurs at the school. Schools in turn will carry insurance against injury to students and the insurance companies will tell them how to best minimize risk.



2. This is really a subset of the first idea because insurance companies will discounts rates when schools hire private security who are interested in security rather than law enforcement. The school could have hired four private guards for the cost of one sheriff's deputy. Rather than focus on going after kids with alcohol, cigarettes, and pot (their parents should be doing that), the guards would have provided actual security.



Those two free market measures will make kids safer at schools. Gun control measures will not.



Of course an even better solution is to have a loving father in every home but with all the social programs and abortion on demand liberating women (and their children) from men that's as likely to happen as abolishing government schools - yet another reason the free market keeps us safer than the government ever will.

jvqb -- honest question: In a debate online, have you ever had the other person concede?



Because the way you go about "debate" is just absolutely terrible. You got to find a better way of delivering your message.

snoscythe wrote:

jvqb -- honest question: In a debate online, have you ever had the other person concede?



Because the way you go about "debate" is just absolutely terrible. You got to find a better way of delivering your message.

He did convince me not to become a Libertarian.



I was strongly leaning that way until he shared many of his views on how Libertarians think.

snoscythe wrote:

jvqb -- honest question: In a debate online, have you ever had the other person concede?



Because the way you go about "debate" is just absolutely terrible. You got to find a better way of delivering your message.

I've never seen anyone on either side of any debate, online or otherwise, concede. You have?



Most of these arguments are just for others who read them to see the merits of both sides (or lack thereof in this case). I'm not really doing this for Boise's or Mars' sake and I don't really expect them to present any data (because there isn't any) or to publicly and shamefully concede a point. That's just not the way people are programmed.



Others will see that you can't have smart gun laws without the data to back it up. And since no one has presented data about how gun control laws make schools safer - well you get the point.

"There's not enough data" seems to be a poor excuse to do nothing. Data is good, but lack of data need not be crippling, as long as common sense exists.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvqb -- honest question: In a debate online, have you ever had the other person concede?



Because the way you go about "debate" is just absolutely terrible. You got to find a better way of delivering your message.

I've never seen anyone on either side of any debate, online or otherwise, concede. You have?



Most of these arguments are just for others who read them to see the merits of both sides (or lack thereof in this case). I'm not really doing this for Boise's or Mars' sake and I don't really expect them to present any data (because there isn't any) or to publicly and shamefully concede a point. That's just not the way people are programmed.



Others will see that you can't have smart gun laws without the data to back it up. And since no one has presented data about how gun control laws make schools safer - well you get the point.

Your view of people is disturbing. There is NO shame in conceding a point. That's what real men and women do when the facts or the evidence indicate this. I have conceded points all my life with newer information presented. I have seen others do the same too. I can tell you are a smart guy. You write pithy responses, most apparently designed to piss as many people off as possible by insult and denigration. It is not a real good way to advance discussions or improve discourse, but if that is what floats your boat, whatever. You are smart enough too, I can tell, to know that he or she who controls the question wins the debate. And so you create the question designed upfront to win your point--give me proof that gun control laws make schools safer, knowing full well there is no "proof." You "win" in your zero sum exercise of discussion by demanding the impossible. The response is several fold. First, how can we have "proof" of such gun laws when the laws we are discussing have NOT been enacted? Second, NO ONE is stating that gun control laws in and of themselves will make schools safer. It is not the issue. Yet. in your formulation it is the ONLY issue. It need not be and in real discourse elsewhere gun control laws are not the sine qua non of school safety. Will new gun control laws help? Might they be part of the puzzle of solving gun violence in our nation? Perhaps. There is evidence that some guns laws might help. Is it proof? By your demanding proof you have again defined the answer you want up front. No evidence is not proof. But there is evidence that more extensive, universal background checks reduce suicides. There is evidence that tighter gun sale restrictions reduce various forms of gun violence. The data is hard to come by because tight gun control restrictions in say Chicago can't really be measured when someone can go outside the city limits and buy the gun and return and cause mayhem. Third, by demanding "proof" as the only acceptable response, you exclude by definition notions of common sense. That seems unncessarily limiting.

FInally, to answer one of your earlier questions, yes I know what a straw man argument is. I deal with such virtually every single day.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvqb -- honest question: In a debate online, have you ever had the other person concede?



Because the way you go about "debate" is just absolutely terrible. You got to find a better way of delivering your message.

I've never seen anyone on either side of any debate, online or otherwise, concede. You have?



Most of these arguments are just for others who read them to see the merits of both sides (or lack thereof in this case). I'm not really doing this for Boise's or Mars' sake and I don't really expect them to present any data (because there isn't any) or to publicly and shamefully concede a point. That's just not the way people are programmed.



Others will see that you can't have smart gun laws without the data to back it up. And since no one has presented data about how gun control laws make schools safer - well you get the point.

I have seen people concede, although more often they agree that there is more than one valid viewpoint and agree to disagree and end the debate.



Your method of presentation isn't going to win any unbiased third party readers. It's a total turn off.

snoscythe wrote:

I have seen people concede, although more often they agree that there is more than one valid viewpoint and agree to disagree and end the debate.



Your method of presentation isn't going to win any unbiased third party readers. It's a total turn off.

I will concede and yield the field to Snoscythe. I do not concede grudgingly. I do it without hesitation. He's smart, considerate, a better looking man, emotionally intelligent, a sense of history (important), has great personal hygiene, dresses snappy, has strong hands and humane heart. An unbeatable combo.

8) :whistle:

jvquarterback wrote:

I've never seen anyone on either side of any debate, online or otherwise, concede. You have?



Most of these arguments are just for others who read them to see the merits of both sides (or lack thereof in this case). I'm not really doing this for Boise's or Mars' sake and I don't really expect them to present any data (because there isn't any) or to publicly and shamefully concede a point. That's just not the way people are programmed.



Others will see that you can't have smart gun laws without the data to back it up. And since no one has presented data about how gun control laws make schools safer - well you get the point.

I've conceded points on this very board many, many times. Here's a few of them:

http://www.cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19451&p=223715&hilit=Concede#p223715

SpiffCoug wrote:

A one year dip when we first joined the WCC - even if I'm willing to concede that point - does mean we have had some "light recruiting the last couple of years" because we haven't.

http://www.cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18341&p=210490&hilit=Concede#p210490

SpiffCoug wrote:

I concede the point about Texas or Oklahoma coming to town drawing more interest than just WVU.

http://www.cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17705&p=203672&hilit=Concede#p203672

SpiffCoug wrote:
I can concede my question was poorly worded.

http://www.cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12130&p=130858&hilit=Concede#p130858

SpiffCoug wrote:
I've got nothing after that picture. I concede.

http://www.cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20239&p=232518&hilit=i+was+wrong#p232518

SpiffCoug wrote:
Seriously though. I was #NeverTrump. I was completely wrong in what I thought would happen. I am very happy that Hillary lost. I didn't cost Trump the election, I just couldn't bring myself to vote for him.

Your turn. How many posts can you find where you said you were wrong, or concede?

Mars wrote:

"There's not enough data" seems to be a poor excuse to do nothing. Data is good, but lack of data need not be crippling, as long as common sense exists.

Starting a thread about smart guns laws and failing to produce any data at all that these laws would do any good. That deserves every bit of derision any of us can muster.



As for your common sense (really just an appeal to emotion) - when it precludes anyone from defending their life, liberty, or property - well you can take your common sense and do whatever you please, just keep it away from the rest of us.



As far as people conceding points. If what spiffcoug counts as conceding points I've done plenty of that ("if I'm willing to concede the point" or conceding a point you never made - come on. Here's one - will you concede your post had no point to concede in the first place). I can't think of any substantial point where I've ever seen someone change their stance publicly. I'm sure that has to do at least in part with how I grew up with street debate, but there are well validated psychology studies that show people don't really ever concede. In fact, there are groups of psychologists that believe reason exists only so we can destroy our opponents, or at least to be wary of their arguments - like the "common sense" ones the charlatans try to sneak past us.

BoiseBYU wrote:

how can we have "proof" of such gun laws when the laws we are discussing have NOT been enacted?

Who said I'm limiting you to the USA. Show me how gun control laws in Mexico (or anywhere else for that matter) have helped.

BoiseBYU wrote:
But there is evidence that more extensive, universal background checks reduce suicides. There is evidence that tighter gun sale restrictions reduce various forms of gun violence.

Can you cite those data please? And I don't care about gun violence. I care about all violence.

BoiseBYU wrote:
The data is hard to come by because tight gun control restrictions in say Chicago can't really be measured when someone can go outside the city limits and buy the gun and return and cause mayhem.

Who's begging the answer now. You'll explain increases in gun violence with gun control measures by saying you just need more gun control in other places. Explain then how gun violence in New Hampshire is less than anywhere in Europe despite gun ownership rates 3-10 x that in those countries or how there are fewer school shootings today than there were in the 1990s when "assault rifles" were illegal.

BoiseBYU wrote:
Third, by demanding "proof" as the only acceptable response, you exclude by definition notions of common sense. That seems unncessarily limiting.

Common sense is a load of baloney, the last refuge of those whose arguments have all failed. Give me data on how many school shootings would be averted if the age to own a gun were raised to 21 or go home.

I didn't start this thread to trot out all my cool proofs and arguments, but to ask others for theirs. My mind is very open on the subject, as it is on most subjects. I've changed my mind on many issues over the years. Anyone who hasn't is both ignorant and arrogant.

So can you link to one of those times of you conceding points (even as I'm counting)? I mean, since you've done it plenty, it shouldn't take long to find one.



And did you notice the last point I quoted? I was completely wrong on Trump. I'm glad he won. I changed my mind on that.