In the wake of this most recent shooting incident, there is a renewed cry from those on the left to ban guns. But if we look at the numbers, a bigger question emerges. What is it that makes a certain number of guns go bad? It is estimated that we have approximately 330,000,000 guns in the United States, yet the number of crimes committed with guns appears to be in the thousands (less than 500,000) or so are used in crimes of any sort. Just to be on the safe side let's say it's 1,000,000. What that means is that less than 0.003% of all guns are used in some sort of crime every year. But since these guns are environmentally conscious they probably recycle which means that the number of guns used in crimes is most likely less than the number of gun crimes committed. FYI, I suspect that each gun commits more than one crime per year. But, let's stick with the 1,000,000 or 0.003% to be safe.
What we are left with is that 99.997% of guns in the Unites States are solid law abiding guns who don't do anything wrong.
So, once again, what is it about that 0,003% of guns that makes them go bad? What can we do to help these guns stay away from lives of crime?
Does it really make any sort of rational sense to punish the 99.997% of guns who live their entire lives doing absolutely nothing wrong, for the behavior of the 0.003% of bad ones?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
180 comments:
FYI, even if the number of bad guns was to miraculously jump to 33,000,000 that still means that 99.9 % of all guns don't do anything wrong.
I'm rather dubious of gun bans, outright. I think we have a violence problem in our nation (almost uniquely amongst the world where we have these mass killings) and that if we banned guns outright, I think we'd still have a violence problem.
That being said, we need to do something about these mass killings. I haven't been following the latest serious proposals (I'm sure many people are ranting, saying "Let's get rid of all guns!" but so far as I know, that has never been a serious proposal), but I rather doubt that they're talking about outright bans. Usually, what the talk is about is having better, more thorough background checks and other limits on how freely available they are, not bans outright.
I have no problems on placing limitations on those items that have the potential to cause great harm, I have no problem requiring licensing on such items, on having required training. We do all of that for motor vehicles (the bigger the vehicle, the more training required as in the case of semi-trucks, and the more limitations). I don't know that such limitations and regulations will solve all our violence problems, but I don't see in any way how it is an unreasonable expectation to have some regulations and limitations with a tool with so much potential for causing so much harm.
We can't purchase a rocket car and drive it around our streets, we have regulated that kind of thing for societal safety. Some regulations are reasonable. I would guess you and I agree that some regulations are reasonable on guns and cars and other tools which might cause great harm if misused?
OK, so what. You really haven't addressed the point of my post.
I've gotta say, Craig, that your post seems tongue-in-cheek, to say the least. As such, unless I'm missing something, it seems Dan is on point. It could be me as I've had a long week at work, but what is your point if not addressing the push for more gun control?
re: "whose knee jerk reaction is that we must ban all guns..."
I can't find anywhere where Obama has proposed banning all guns. Here are his specific proposals from the big school shooting in 2012...
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx
Nothing about banning all guns. Are you mistaken about Obama's point or has Obama said something about banning all guns that I have not heard?
And Marshall is right, I am on point, I am at least half way agreeing with you and, from that point of agreement, I ask if you have problems with some reasonable regulations (acknowledging we may not agree on which ones are reasonable).
Dan,
I've heard a couple of things from P-BO which lead me to believe that he is a) blaming guns for these and b) would like to ban them. At this point I don't have the time to check specifics. So, let me put it this way. There are a bunch of people who's knee jerk reaction is "let's ban all guns" and P-BO's knee jerk reaction is to blame guns while downplaying any other possible reasons. Satisfied? I'd suggest that P-BO's reaction from 3 years ago might not be the best representation of his current response either. I'll try to look later and clarify.
I acknowledged our point of agreement in my earlier comments. However, my point is less about not about regulation, but about the gross overreaction that suggest that banning or imposing further regulations on the 99.997% is the appropriate way to deal with the 0.003%.
As to further regulations, please suggest one specific regulation that would have prevented any particular shooting? Please explain why these types of shootings occur more frequently in areas where guns are already more heavily regulated?
Does it really make any sort of rational sense to punish the 99.997% of guns who live their entire lives doing absolutely nothing wrong, for the behavior of the 0.003% of bad ones?
To answer your question (about gun owners, not guns): No. But having reasonable regulations is not a punishment, it's a reasonable precaution, like speed limits, like limits on what sort of vehicles can and can't be drive on the roads, etc.
Could we agree upon this?
To be honest, I'm more interested in trying to find out what makes our nation so uniquely violent. I can't imagine we have more mentally or emotionally unwell people than other nations. I can't imagine that we are inherently more evil than other nations, so what is it? Do we have an attitude - at least in some circles - that says it's okay to use violence against those with whom we disagree? Do we have attitudes that say deadly violence is a normative starting place for dealing with disagreements? What is it?
Guns in the hands of non-violent people would not be a problem (presuming that they're safely managed). Seems to me.
After a quick check, it seems like I misheard P-BO's response re a ban, so I will try to fix that. It also appears that what he did say is that even adding additional restrictions would probably not have prevented anything.
So, please suggest what restrictions on guns (short of a ban) would prevent any of these shootings? Why do these shootings more frequently occur in areas of heavier regulation?
MA,
(edited response replacing above)
My point is that we have an increasingly vocal group of folks, whose knee jerk reaction is that we must ban all guns. On what other topic do you see people engaging in such on overwhelmingly disproportionate response. First, the irrational tendency to blame an inanimate object. Second, the desire to confiscate the 99.997% of said inanimate objects that are not causing a problem. To be fair, these same folks wanted to ban the Confederate flag for the same irrational reason.
Also to be fair to Dan's off topic comment, his contention that we have a violence problem not a gun problem is a much more rational and reasonable start than "It's the guns fault". I've seen Facebook comments that say that anyone with the temerity to disagree with the " It's guns fault" narrative should be influenced for daring to suggest any other possible options.
Of course the tired old "rocket launcher" crap is just a ridiculous straw man, yet it still gets used.
It strikes me as strange that these things always seem to happen in gun free zones, and that the cities with the most restrictions on gun ownership have such high rates of gun crime, yet to suggest that those policies are potentially part of the problem is not even tolerated.
So, yes if was a satirical attempt to point out that banning the 99.997% of inanimate objects not used for crime just might be a bit out of proportion.
Interesting article here, especially the chart that shows some stats about where gun deaths occur...
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
please suggest what restrictions on guns (short of a ban) would prevent any of these shootings?
I don't know, I haven't researched it. It's why you don't see me making any specific recommendations. Just the rational starting point of, "it's reasonable to have some regulations and trainings required for potentially dangerous tools, cars, explosives, poisons and guns all included..."
Do you disagree with my rational starting point?
Off the top of my head, people who have been convicted with violent crimes should be regulated, those with a history of violence (domestic violence, for instance), should be regulated. Some required training seems entirely reasonable to me.
Do you think any of these are irrational or too "restrictive..."? If so, why?
Why do these shootings more frequently occur in areas of heavier regulation?
1. I don't know that this is the case. The Columbine mass shooting was in Kentucky, not a heavily gun restricted place.
2. You're not suggesting correlation equals causation, are you? Because that would be a rational error, but I'm sure you know that.
This is funny...
https://plus.google.com/+DonDenton/posts/Sf64dvp4AJ4
1. Interesting old article, but it doesn't distinguish between types of gun death. I'm specifically looking at crime.
2. I'm not surprised that your position is "we need additional restrictions", yet you haven't researched enough to know what restrictions already exist nor enough to even suggest what specific additional "restrictions" are needed.
3. I notice that none of your "restrictions" actually apply to guns. This has been my point forever regulating inanimate objects is not nearly as effective as regulating the people who want to use them.
4. Having said that restrictions on people are interesting in our US legal system. Essentially everything you list is a restriction on someone for what they might do, not what they've done. (Except felons, but they are already banned from owning guns. Of course, I'd be willing to bet that there are plenty of felons who still possess guns). Our legal system is based on the concept of punishing people for what they do, not to try to prevent what they might do. This is further complicated by the fact that we are talking about trying to restrict a right enumerated in the Constitution, which SCOTUS has confirmed as an individual right. So, how do you propose to restrict someones Constitutional right based on what you think they might do in the future? That being said, I think that some of these things could be implemented at the state level much more effectively than at the federal level.
5. I'm suggesting that to ignore the fact that these shootings repeatedly occur in "gun free zones" and the the cities with the most restrictive gun laws have obscenely high rates of gun crimes is simply not rational. So, I am suggesting that the undeniable correlation should be open for discussion and research, and that it is within the realm of possibility that a "gun free zone" just tells people that they will be safe from counterattack. So, no correlation=causation.
6. Unless I am really bad at geography and memory, the Columbine shooting was in CO not KY.
7. I've given you some leeway here. But, my point remains (which you still haven't really interacted with), that there is a significant, vocal group of folks whose knee jerk reaction to this is that the only possible option that should even be considered is,"all guns everywhere must be banned immediately and anyone who disagrees with this should be ignored and ridiculed" (I'm not suggesting this represents you, just that they are out there). So, if you want to talk about specific, constitutional, measures that would prevent these things feel free. But, banal general talking points don't seem to be helpful.
2. I'm not surprised that your position is "we need additional restrictions", yet you haven't researched enough to know what restrictions already exist nor enough to even suggest what specific additional "restrictions" are needed.
I haven't said we need additional restrictions. I said that some regulations and restrictions are reasonable. Again, as I said, you have not seen me advocating for gun restrictions. I think you are arguing against a point I have not made and a position for which I have not advocated.
4. Our legal system is based on the concept of punishing people for what they do, not to try to prevent what they might do.
I do not think it is rational to say we have unlimited and unrestrained rights to any and all materials and tools, no matter how dangerous. We rightly restrict driving to adults-(ish)... is that a "punishment" or is it simply reasonable?
I am saying that we don't need to be stupid. Of course we rightly can restrict dangerous things and such restrictions/regulations are not punishments, just common horse sense.
Do you actually disagree? Do you think that there should be unlimited access to ALL things, no matter how potentially dangerous, and any restrictions for non-felons is equivalent to a "punishment..."? I can't imagine that you do.
5. I don't think that any of these shootings have occurred in "gun free zones." Am I mistaken? There is not a ban on guns in Kentucky. There is not a ban on guns in Pennsylvania (many Amish own guns, you may or may not know).
I don't know that you have established an "undeniable correlation" exists, but feel free to demonstrate with some data.
6. Sorry, I meant the Heath High School shooting in Kentucky. My fault. The point stands.
7. Are there some who knee jerk say, "Let's get rid of all guns?" I'm quite sure there are. Have there been any serious policies pushing for that at a gov't level? Not that I know of. I think you're fearing something that does not exist in the real world except at the level of ranting about crime.
It's a fact that people will sometimes make exaggerated demands in the heat of the moment and a goodwill desire to make things better. But any rational people I have spoken with - left or right or otherwise - if you start asking about hunting rifles or other reasonable tools - are not talking about total bans, they are talking about reasonable restrictions.
Can you find one single politician who is advocating for a gun ban? I rather doubt it.
So, again I ask: Are you not able to agree with me that some restrictions and regulations are reasonable?
As to the point of your post, I have already agreed, repeatedly, that banning guns is not a reasonable position to take to solve our violence problem. And, as I have noted, I am not advocating for bans or even new regulations, just making the what I believe to be rational point that some regulations are rational.
Do you disagree with my actual position? I don't think you do.
I will note that those who rant and, in ranting, talk knee jerk about "gun bans" are not being rational, they're just ranting. It's similar to those who, in response to these shootings, automatically go on the defense and make claims like "the president wants to take our guns..." or "it's a punishment on law-abiding citizens to restrict our guns!"
Both sides, if taken seriously, sound pretty squirrely. I have to believe that in most cases, most people can agree that, no, bans are not needed or called for and no, no one in power is trying to "take our guns" or "punish" law abiding citizens.
And you want to talk correlations? How about the correlation that these people who do these mass killings often self-identify as conservative and anti-liberal in their views? Does that correlation demand that we look into what is it about conservative thinking that produces mass killers?
"I don't think that any of these shootings have occurred in "gun free zones." "
Given that virtually every school in the country is a gun free zone, as was Ft. Hood I'd say that you might be mistaken.
#4. I merely suggested that depriving people of a constitutional right based on something they have not done, but might do seems problematic.
What point stands, schools are "gun free zones" unless KY is different.
Oh, by Gun Free Zones, I thought you meant at a city level. You're talking about buildings and schools not being able to have the liberty to decide for themselves if they want firearms in the buildings. I see. My mistake. I would disagree with you, then, if you are suggesting that schools and private businesses should be forced to allow firearms in their buildings, just as I would disagree with them being forced to allow smoking in their buildings or firecrackers or bombs or toxins or any other potentially dangerous materials/items.
Do you think that the building owners/schools should have their right to decide about dangerous items to be subservient to the right of the individual to smoke, drink, bring poisons in or bring firearms in? If so, I disagree. If not, then we agree. If you think SOME things can be decided by the school/building but not other things (ie, cigarettes can be banned in the building, but not guns), why the one and not the other?
4. I don't think we have a constitutional right to just any firearms, any time, any place. If you think that is a constitutional right, I would say you are mistaken as a point of fact.
Again, do you agree with me that some regulations/restrictions are reasonable, as it relates to firearms? To cigarettes? To toxins? To automobiles? If you do for some of those but not firearms, why the exception?
Craig, do you think people should have the right to play very loud music (let's say just under the decibel level that is criminal, or that causes potential hearing loss - loud, but not harmfully or illegally loud) in public buildings should be curtailed? Do you think it is a "punishment" to ban or limit very loud music in public places if the people playing the music are otherwise law-abiding citizens?
Or banning/limiting cigarette smoke?
How is that different than your line of reasoning about "punishing" would be gun owners by having reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership?
I have to think that you will basically agree with me on these principles and you're just ranting in a manner akin to those who rant about "gun bans..." I'm just stating a very reasonable, middle of the road position.
On schools and "bans" on items, I'm curious, do you support schools having the right to ban certain clothes... dresses above the knees, for instance?
Is it not that student's (and their law-abiding families) right to wear clothes that they see fit to wear. They have committed no crimes, but those who support dress code policies on things as harmless as clothes seem to undermine any support for disallowing "gun free zones..."
1. I have been clear that I believe that it could be constitutionally problematic to restrict people from owning things that are legal because of something they might do at some point in the future. Is this clear to you? Do you disagree?
2. I do not believe the same problem exists regarding people who have their constitutional rights limited for things they have done. In other words convicted felons. Is this clear? Do you understand that I am making a distinction between things that have been done in the past as opposed to things that might be done in the future? Do you understand the constitutional implications for imposing restrictions on peoples constitutional rights for something they might do in the future?
3. Since my post was directed at the folks who are on the "We must ban all guns now" bandwagon, and since you disagree with them, then you agree with the point of my post. Why then are you bringing up all of this other stuff that isn't part of my original post?
4. "Are you not able to agree with me that some restrictions and regulations are reasonable?" The problem with your question is that is is phrased in a manner that assumes that there are no "reasonable" restrictions in place already. So, it seems that your first order of business is to demonstrate that the current restrictions are not "reasonable", and then to advocate for additional restrictions that are "unreasonable". For example, you might consider establishing "gun free zones" to be a "reasonable" restriction. OK, so how's that working? Is it stopping people from bringing guns into schools? By all means, let's hear some "reasonable" restrictions that aren't currently in place that would work? Another example, many believe that an "assault rifle ban" is reasonable. OK, given the fact that a total ban on "assault rifles" would have a negligible effect of crime (they are virtually never used in crimes), is it reasonable to impose a restriction that will have virtually zero effect?
5. "How about the correlation that these people who do these mass killings often self-identify as conservative and anti-liberal in their views?" Really? Are you positive about that? I think it's pretty safe to say that since Columbine the majority of these folks are nihilist, atheist, likely mentally ill, or (as in the case of Ft Hood, and the recruiting station shooters), Muslim or Muslim sympathizers. Sorry, but the nihilist/atheist/anti Christian crowd tend toward the political left here in the US. I'm not saying it's 100% in any political direction, but there's plenty on your side of things.
CONTD
6. "Does that correlation demand that we look into what is it about conservative thinking that produces mass killers?" It would probably be more worthwhile to look at the correlations related to; violent video games, being raised by single parents, a general diminishment of the value of human life, and the sad state of mental health care first. But if you want to start an anti conservative witch hunt feel free.
7. "Oh, by Gun Free Zones, I thought you meant at a city level." No, I'm talking about zones that identify themselves as "gun free zones". These zones come in all shapes and sizes. I'm sorry you misspoke due to being unaware.
8. "I would disagree with you, then, if you are suggesting that schools and private businesses should be forced to allow firearms in their buildings,..."
Good, because I haven't suggested that there should be a ban on gun free zones. What I am suggesting is that if these mass shootings continue to occur in gun free zones then it might be worth evaluating the success of the gun free zone premise. Personally, I support the right of people to do as they wish on their private property. I also don't have much sympathy for them if their choice leads to negative consequences for them.
9. "...just as I would disagree with them being forced to allow smoking in their buildings...", yet many of your political persuasion are advocating or implementing bans on smoking in private property. I can only assume that you disagree with this tactic, correct? "..or firecrackers..." Yet fireworks are severely restricted, do you have a problem with that? "...or bombs or toxins or any other potentially dangerous materials/items." See now you go off the deep end by attempting to establish an equivalence between a Black Cat and C4 or a bottle rocket and Botulism. As long as you can't delineate between classes of things, you undermine your credibility and your ability to distinguish "reasonable". You've done it already, and you just can't stop yourself. No one is suggesting that bombs, etc be treated in the same way as personally owned firearms.
10. "...why the one and not the other?" I believe that private property owners should have more leeway to determine what they will or will not allow on their private property. I don't see why those decisions have to make sense to me.
11. "I don't think we have a constitutional right to just any firearms, any time, any place."
I never said there was. What I have said over and over is that denying people their constitutional rights based on the possibility that they might do something in the future is potentially problematic and should be carefully considered before doing anything. Do you understand my position now? Do you think that the federal government should be allowed to restrict constitutional rights based on possible future acts?
CONTD
12. "Again, do you agree with me that some regulations/restrictions are reasonable, as it relates to firearms? To cigarettes? To toxins? To automobiles? If you do for some of those but not firearms, why the exception?"
Automobiles- the only restrictions on automobiles are related to making sure that the automobiles function properly, safely, and uniformity of operation. All other restrictions are on people, not on automobiles.
Cigarettes- I have absolutely no problem with people choosing to ( provided they are aware of the risks) engage in pretty much any behavior they wish. Provided they don't harm anyone else. So, I'm all for lifting restrictions on cigarettes, making sure that there are detailed ingredient lists and warnings and letting people smoke themselves into an early grave if they want.
Toxins- This one makes no sense. Again, as long as peoples interaction with toxins doesn't impact unsuspecting people, I don't see the why I should stop someone from hurting themselves.
Firearms- I have no problems with the current federal firearms restrictions currently in place. I also have no problems(in theory) with cities and states voting to place additional restrictions for their jurisdictions.
The thread running through this is that I believe in more freedom, not less, as long you aren't imposing on anyone else. I also believe that it makes much more sense to regulate people and behaviors instead on inanimate objects. Every example you gave has virtually no innate degree of danger. An empty parked car poses virtually zero danger. An unattended firearm is perfectly safe. An unlit/unsmoked cigarette poses no danger to anyone. The common thread which injects any level of danger to any of the inanimate objects you list is the use to which they are put by humans. The problem you have is your underlying premise that inanimate objects (in and of themselves) are inherently dangerous.
So, I actually think I'm pretty consistently libertarianish on these things. I'm perfectly willing to allow people to make bad decisions and do pretty much whatever they want. As long as they don't involve others.
For example. I live in a large metropolitan area that has banned smoking virtually everywhere except in designated smoking areas or private residences. Now personally I have allergic reactions to smoke and find it disgusting to be around. So from my selfish personal perspective this ban benefits me. But I strongly oppose the ban and fully support the right of business owners to decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking. If things ever change here, it might mean that I won't go to certain bars/restaurants/venues that I go to now, and I'm fine with that. I respect their decision to operate the way they want and to cater to the clientele they choose.
So, to conclude; more freedom, not less.
I've allowed you a lot of leeway and to take off topic, but I need you to focus back in on dealing specifically with this comment and the questions asked before going off on any more tangents. I tried to corral a lot of your disparate comments/questions in this response, and it would really be helpful if you could respond in kind. After that we'll see, but I'd appreciate you respecting my attempt to (temporarily) focus things.
Thanks.
OK- You posted some more comments while I was writing. For some reason you felt it necessary to ask the same question a few more times before giving me the chance to answer it the first time.
With the understanding that I am choosing to indulge you and extending you some degree of grace, I will deal with the new questions (not the ones I've already dealt with) with the understanding that after this you will focus on my three part response before injecting any more detours.
Craig, do you think people should have the right to play very loud music (let's say just under the decibel level that is criminal, or that causes potential hearing loss - loud, but not harmfully or illegally loud) in public buildings should be curtailed?
No.
"Do you think it is a "punishment" to ban or limit very loud music in public places if the people playing the music are otherwise law-abiding citizens?"
If the music is being played in a legal manner then I would suggest that preventing people from engaging in legal behavior is, in a sense, punishing them.
"Or banning/limiting cigarette smoke?"
Answered.
"How is that different than your line of reasoning about "punishing" would be gun owners by having reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership?"
First, you have misstated my position. Did you do this on purpose, or was it a mistake?
Second, I would suggest that to deprive someone who has not committed any crime from owning or engaging in anything that is legal is, in a sense, punishment? So, if you want to deal with my actual position, fine, if not don't bother making up falsehoods and expecting me to act as if your falsehood is reality.
"I have to think that you will basically agree with me on these principles and you're just ranting in a manner akin to those who rant about "gun bans..." I'm just stating a very reasonable, middle of the road position."
You are, welcome to your opinion, the problem is that if you actually read my post, as well as my responses to your questions you would understand this.
My post was dealing with the indisputable fact that at least 99.997% of all of the guns in the United States have NEVER caused anyone any harm or engaged in criminal behavior. Therefore to propose banning the 99.997% of guns (TO BE CLEAR,I AM SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE "THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION THAT IS REASONABLE IS A COMPLETE BAN" FOLKS THAT ARE ALL OVER MY FACEBOOK NEWS FEED, NOT ABOUT ANYONE ELSE. NOR DID MY POST ADDRESS ANY ADDITIONAL "REASONABLE" RESTRICTIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE IMPOSED), based on the actions of 0.003% of guns is simply ridiculous. I've allowed you plenty of leeway here, but I see no reason to allow you to misrepresent the point of my post.
CONTD
"On schools and "bans" on items, I'm curious, do you support schools having the right to ban certain clothes... dresses above the knees, for instance?"
Had you had the patience to wait for me to answer your earlier question, you would not be asking this based on your incorrect assumption.
The short answer is, I believe that schools should have the freedom to implement any restrictions on dress and behavior they wish. I also believe that parents should have the freedom to decide whether of not they want their children to attend a particular school based on those kinds of things. I also believe that if a local elected school board decides to enact these kinds of things they can, but the parents can elect a school board which will make changes if the parents choose.
"Is it not that student's (and their law-abiding families) right to wear clothes that they see fit to wear. They have committed no crimes, but those who support dress code policies on things as harmless as clothes seem to undermine any support for disallowing "gun free zones...""
Again, had you chosen to exercise some patience you wouldn't be asking questions based out of your ignorance.
OK, you've had pretty free reign and I've answered your questions, so now it's your turn to focus.
No time right now to peruse all the comments, but I did get this far:
"To be honest, I'm more interested in trying to find out what makes our nation so uniquely violent."
I just read in a related article that if we remove the three worst states for gun crime, Illinois, California and (I think) New York, our stats are comparable to other nations. What is the relation between these states? Most gun control laws.
I would also posit that we could probably remove the largest urban cities from those states and the stats would drop more in line with other nations. What about those cities results in more crime? Could it be their more "sophisticated" notions of morality? I think so.
It isn't hard to point to the actual causes of attitudes which leads to violent behavior. It isn't a freakin' mystery, except to those who promote the very policies and philosophies that can only result in such outcomes.
MA,
I do think that Dan is on to something here, except I would suggest that the problem is, at heart, a spiritual problem. How have we ended up with this segment of our population who shows virtually no regard for human life? How do we end up with people who are willing to line up Christians and shoot them in cold blood for their beliefs? Of course, it's easy to blame guns. The entire premise behind Dan's position of additional "reasonable" restrictions is that it presumes that there are a lack of 'reasonable" restrictions already in place. It further presumes that if we can just get the "right" "reasonable" restriction that these shootings will all just go away. The premise is that it is possible to legislate our way out of this problem. Just like we've legislated our way out of every other crime in history. I'm sure that someone suggested "gun free zones' as a "reasonable" restriction, so hos has that worked? How many mass shootings do we see in non "gun free zones"? I'm sure that someone presented Chicago's current gun laws as "reasonable" restrictions, but do the numbers of gun murders suggest success or failure?
I'd posit that to blindly assume that something that has "worked" in other countries will automatically work here. Of course, that assumes that the data shows that gun bans have really worked in other countries. Does an objective look at the data make that case?
It's interesting when you look at common threads among these shooters, one factor that jumps out to me is being raised in a home by a single mother. Will this allow us to take a rational look at what the acceptance/encouragement of easy no fault divorce has done to affect our society? Not to say that it can be simple to trace back to one cause, but when any cause but guns is a priori excluded from the conversation how can anyone ever even hope to come to any sort of honest answer.
As long as the left is satisfied with some place on the "It's guns fault" continuum and is unwilling to go beyond that I'm not hopeful we'll ever see the kind of open honest dialogue needed.
Dan,
I know that it might be tempting to respond to this comment or to MA, but I am nicely asking you to please focus on my multi part response to your numerous and random questions, as well as the questions therein, before moving on.
Thank You
I would suggest that to deprive someone who has not committed any crime from owning or engaging in anything that is legal is, in a sense, punishment?
We are talking about regulations, ie, what is and isn't legal. Does this mean, then, that if we decided to regulate guns almost to the point of a ban, making all guns illegal except for hunting rifles, for instance, that you'd be okay with it, because then, it would NOT be a punishment because it's just denying them something that is illegal?
If we decriminalize/deregulate nuclear waste, then by that reasoning, it would be a punishment to limit who can access it. I say, No. IF nuclear waste is freely available and we decided to criminalize it/regulate it, then that is not a punishment, it's being sane.
Do you disagree with at least that example?
I chose that one question as a starting point because I think that gets to the heart of where we may or may not agree.
"We are talking about regulations,..."
No, "We're" not talking regulations, you are.
"If we decriminalize/deregulate nuclear waste, then by that reasoning, it would be a punishment to limit who can access it. I say, No. IF nuclear waste is freely available and we decided to criminalize it/regulate it, then that is not a punishment, it's being sane."
Even after being warned about this particularly egregious foolishness you continue to engage in it. If you want to come up with stupid outrageous non examples go ahead, but don't expect me to waste my time with idiocy.
"Do you disagree with at least that example?"
Which one, the unrealistic one or the stupid one. How about dealing with the real world instead of some fantasy world?
What part of "I would suggest that to deprive someone who has not committed any crime from owning or engaging in anything that is legal is, in a sense, punishment?", is unclear.
I've been patient, I've shown grace, I've been polite, I've been respectful, how about you try to at least make an attempt to go along with my request?
Or, if your tactic is to provoke annoyance by intentionally not complying with my request, just say so and stop the crap.
I'm asking reasonable questions to which I want to know your answers. I guess you don't find them reasonable and thus, don't want to answer them. So be it.
I'm sorry you're getting so worked up on a point where it seems we probably have some common ground.
Peace.
Since I'm not really sure what has you all upset, I guess I'll try one more time and you can tell me if I'm still upsetting you. Where you say...
No, "We're" not talking regulations, you are.
The point of your post - in a sarcastic manner - is to bring up the "problem" of gun regulations... How implementing regulations that effect all legal gun owners when gun misuse is only a problem for a small percentage of gun owners is a "punishment..." Thus, your complaint appears to be exactly about policies and regulations related to guns, am I mistaken?
So, since YOU are speaking of regulations, and YOU stated "I would suggest that to deprive someone who has not committed any crime from owning or engaging in anything that is legal is, in a sense, punishment?" ...I'm asking the reasonable question: IF guns were illegal, then it wouldn't be punishment to prevent people from having guns, according to what you just said. Am I mistaken?
I'm guessing you mean, "If we deprive someone from owning something that IS CURRENTLY LEGAL AND REGULATED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, then any additional restrictions would be a punishment..." Is that what you mean?
I ask because I don't know.
Dan,
My mood stems from the fact that I asked you to deal with the multiple lengthy comments I posted earlier. In those comments I spent a significant amount of time answering your questions, I also asked you some questions. Instead of focusing on those comments/answers you have chosen to strike out on a different course. Instead of dealing with my answers to your previous questions, and with my previous questions you chose to ignore all of that and continue to demand that I answer additional questions from you. Then to cap it off, you choose to take the discussion from actual things happening in the real world, off into fantasy land.
"Thus, your complaint appears to be exactly about policies and regulations related to guns, am I mistaken?"
Yes, and had you read my previous comments perhaps you would understand, or at least ask for clarification. Instead you choose to tell me what the point of my post is.
"I'm asking the reasonable question: IF guns were illegal, then it wouldn't be punishment to prevent people from having guns, according to what you just said. Am I mistaken?"
Here lies the problem, instead of dealing with my previous answers and questions, you continue to ask additional questions. Not only that, but you choose to ask questions not based in the current reality. You've already pled ignorance and declined to suggest "reasonable" regulations that you believe would be effective. At that point, why should I engage you in ridiculous hypothetical?
So, why don't you spend less time trying to guess what I mean, less time trying to pretend as if there aren't plenty of things already out there that you won't deal with, less time telling me what I mean, and more time dealing with what I have said, answered, and asked before you move on?
"Is that what you mean?"
NO, what I mean is, ""I would suggest that to deprive someone who has not committed any crime from owning or engaging in anything that is legal is, in a sense, punishment?".
If you are having some specific confusion with the actual words I used to express myself, ask for clarification. If you understand, then stop trying to mold my comment into something else.
Most of all, try showing the decency and respect to do as I asked and focus on what's already in play before you decide that you get to control the conversation.
"I'm asking reasonable questions to which I want to know your answers. I guess you don't find them reasonable and thus, don't want to answer them. So be it."
I've answered plenty of your questions in previous comments, I've asked reasonable questions to which I want your answer. I guess you don't want to show the common courtesy to deal with my previous answers, and answer the questions directed to you, but want to decide to move on and ignore what I've asked you to deal with. If you don't want to answer them, so be it, just don't pretend as if I haven't answered you or that you haven't just skipped over plenty of questions.
I answered one of your questions, a central one. I asked for clarification. If I can't get an answer to that question or get you to understand my point, then why would I go on to answer more of your questions that you will proceed to also not understand or answer back?
I think we probably generally agree on the notion that additional gun limits will have only limited impact (or no impact, in your estimation, perhaps... would be a "punishment," in your opinion - and this in spite of the fact that you almost certainly agree with many on the notion that limits are reasonable as a central principle) and that we have a violence problem. Beyond that, you do not appear prepared to engage in further conversation and I am doing something to annoy you for reasons that escape me, so I'm thinking I'll stop while we're half-way ahead.
If you've answered one of many questions, I must have missed it.
The reason why you should answer the unanswered questions, is that they were asked before the question that you say I haven't answered. How do you see this a a conversation where you ask a bunch of questions, I answer them, and ask you some, you ignore my answers, ignore the questions, start asking more questions, then complain because I won't answer your new question. If that sort of unbalanced back and forth is what you are looking for, then look elsewhere.
As I have said multiple times I am perfectly willing to engage in further conversation, as soon as you catch up with the past conversation. I really don't understand how it is possible that you could not understand this. I asked nicely, respectfully, and repeatedly for you to focus on my multi part comment in which I responded to your earlier questions, and asked you some. For some reason you have chosen not to do so. I can certainly respect you making whatever choice you want, but do not understand why you seem to want to put that responsibility on me.
I suggest that you re read my comment from 5:15 which goes into some detail, if you have any further questions about my frustration.
Since you still seem confused I will try to re state my position in simple terms.
1. Given the fact that there is no data to suggest that current "gun control" restrictions have seemed to have much impact on these "mass shootings", I see no reason to simply enact more federal legislation which will not actually do anything to prevent more of these shootings.
2. Depriving a law abiding citizen of the ownership or use of any item that is legal for them to own and use, is in a sense a punishment.
3. There is no point in discussing any additional restrictions unless and until you deal with the following.
a. Protect existing constitutional right to individual gun ownership.
b. Demonstrate specifically what the failings in the current restrictions are and
How those specifically enable the perpetrators in these "mass shootings".
c. Accept that there may be other causes that might be dealt with.
d. Demonstrate how any additional restrictions would specifically prevent these
sensationalized "mass shooting" incidents.
So, once you deal with my answers to your questions and your answers to my questions that are contained on my multi part comment. I will at that point consider any further new things or entertain new questions.
I've been nice, respectful, polite, patient, and extended you plenty of grace. Your choice now is to either do me the courtesy of responding in kind or simply announce that you choose not to and move on.
It's your choice.
One final comment.
If you would have read and interacted with the lengthy multi part comment which contained answers to your previous questions, plus additional information (notwithstanding the questions I asked you), I think you would be able to discern the answers to many of your additional new questions, or at a minimum deal in specifics based on what I actually said rather than to construct hypotheticals designed to get the answers you want. It would have also saved so much time.
One thing, then, that also, I believe, gets to the heart of your mistake...
Protect existing constitutional right to individual gun ownership.
You don't have a "right" to unlimited individual gun ownership, any more than you have a "right" to unlimited access to toxins or explosives.
What the Constitution notes is...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
1. The right is in the context of a WELL-REGULATED militia
2. The right does not say or imply an unlimited right to bear ALL possible arms.
You almost certainly agree with the second point, as you almost certainly don't want nukes and other explosives freely available to law-abiding citizens (I believe Marshall has stated that he wouldn't be worried about that, but he's a bit crazy on that point). I think you are misunderstanding the 2nd amendment to say "gov't (ie, we the people) can't have any restrictions on any legal stuff... AND the gov't can't decide that some stuff should be illegal or limited..."
Dan,
Your last comment is so indicative of why this conversation has been so difficult, that I am going to leave it as an illustration.
Here are the problems.
1. You blatantly chose to ignore my previous comments and requests in favor of charting your own course.
2. The most current SCOTUS ruling confirms that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right.
3. I have NEVER EVER said that the constitutional right is unlimited. So, for you to claim otherwise is either one more example of your ignorance of these issues or an intentional falsehood.
4. I've warned you about the idiotic tactic of trying to create an equivalence between guns and other dangerous substances. It is stupid because there is no conversation at all about how other dangerous substances are regulated. Further there is no constitutionally enumerated right that mentions explosives or nukes or whatever other stupid comparisons you trot out.
5. I have been quite clear that I acknowledge and don't have any problems with the current regulations in place. So, it would be impossible to sustain your charge that I believe that the 2nd amendment confers an unlimited right.
The reason I bring up the constitutional issue is that when one considers increasing regulations of guns, those regulations must be structured in a manner that acknowledges and protects the fundamental right of individuals to own guns as enumerated in the constitution as well as confirmed and upheld by SCOTUS.
So, once again, are you unclear on what I am asking you to do? Are you choosing to intentionally not respect my requests? Are you going o stop misrepresenting my positions, and telling me what I think?
I honestly believe that you are intelligent enough to understand what is being asked of you, as well as being able to grasp my actual positions. This is why I suspect that you are intentionally choosing to ignore (or dodge or "miss" or whatever) my request or that you have just decided that continuing to spout your same talking points despite my asking you not to.
Perhaps one reminder about context would help your confusion. This particular post was written in the context of responding to those who's only acceptable solution is to ban all guns. The ones who will attack the suggestion that there is any other option. Once you attempt to impose a different context to the post, it just invites confusion. So, how about I get to determine the content and context of my own post and you put forth a minimal amount of effort to accept that. I think that once you remove the meaning and context you've tried to impose then things might make more sense to you.
I have NEVER EVER said that the constitutional right is unlimited. So, for you to claim otherwise is either one more example of your ignorance of these issues or an intentional falsehood.
I have NEVER EVER EVERNNEVERNEVER said that you said so, have I?
In fact, I said that you "almost certainly agree with the second point..." So, clearly, you have misunderstood. I apologize if my words ("you almost certainly agree... there is not "an unlimited right...")
What I did say is "I THINK YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING..." If my thought, my best guess, was mistaken, then all you have to do is clarify. The claim that I have made that claim is a false one and I'll expect you to be apologizing for it and retracting the false claim.
It is stupid because there is no conversation at all about how other dangerous substances are regulated.
It is not stupid, when we're talking about principles. The principle: "Can we reasonably regulate dangerous items" is what is being discussed in your blog topic that you raised. If you don't want to talk about it, perhaps you should raise the topic.
It is not "stupid" to understand basic philosophic principles when discussing ideals, nor is it "stupid" to make comparisons to help illustrate the principle. What IS stupid is trying to shut down a conversation because you don't like the way it is going.
Reasoned conversation is not "stupid." I think your emotions are getting the best of you and for that reason, again, I think we should end this where we basically agree on the underlying principles.
If my words... were not clear, I meant to finish out...
Here's an article that looks to the larger question: How do we treat our violence problem?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/health/gupta-stopping-violence/index.html
"It is not stupid, when we're talking about principles"
The principle at hand in this post is whether of not we should confiscate legal possessions from law abiding citizens for something they might do in the future.
"The principle: "Can we reasonably regulate dangerous items" is what is being discussed in your blog topic that you raised"
No, it is the topic that you introduced and continue to impose on the thread.
"If you don't want to talk about it, perhaps you should raise the topic."
Or you could talk about the topic actually raised, not the topic you want to impose.
"Reasoned conversation is not "stupid."
I never said it was, I said that your continuing attempt to decree some sort of equivalence between guns (constitutionally protected) and explosives (not), was stupid.
Look if your not going to answer questions and deal with the actual conversation, fine. Just stop pretending otherwise.
As far as I'm concerned if you can't get back to what I've asked you do deal with, and can't admit that you won't, then you can stop wasting my time.
"I think your emotions are getting the best of you and for that reason,..."
Then you are either choosing not to read my comments, ignoring my comments, or feel that you are better able than I to evaluate my mental state.
You just can't wrap your mind around the fact that how you act has some bearing on how others react. As long as you choose to ignore my requests, misrepresent my positions, choose to try to dictate what my post is about, and pretend as if you are engaging in any sort of conversation, I will tend to get more and more annoyed with your behavior.
You're saying the same thing as I am, Craig.
"Can we reasonably regulate dangerous items"
"whether of not we should confiscate legal possessions from law abiding citizens"
It's the SAME question, looked at from both sides of the argument, Craig. Do you see that, now?
Dan,
As long as you just want to set the terms of the conversation here I'm done. Patience doesn't work
Respect doesn't work.
Grace doesn't work.
Asking politely doesn't work.
Nothing works with you, you are determined to drive the "conversation" where you want without letting little things like answers or facts get in your way.
You've done it, I assume this is what you hope happens. You ignore, dodge, make false statements, get defensive when your behavior annoys people, then ignore some more.
I'm done. If you seriously think "regulate" and "confiscate" are the same thing, I can't help you. No amount of explanations, no amount of simple one syllable words, will help you to understand what you choose not to.
"Do you see that, now?"
I see exactly...
And who, exactly, is talking about confiscating guns?
Show me the quotes where Obama, Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Harry Reid... ANY Democrat or liberal leader who is actually speaking of confiscating guns. The topic was regulations and limitations.
I think you're living in fear of a boogie man that doesn't exist and that is making you see ghosts where there are none.
So, is that really what you meant in your post when you said "does it make sense to punish the law-abiders..." that you think someone is trying to take away your guns? Do you expect the jackboots will be coming to our doors and kicking butt and taking guns?
I do apologize if that is your actual fear and I didn't realize what you were speaking of. I assume that this is so irrational and so fear-mongering that a good and decent and reasonable man like you isn't actually living in that sort of fear, when no one has ever brought that up in Congress, as far as I know, in, well, ever.
But live in fear of what "they" "want" to do, that "they" want to "punish" us by "confiscating" our dear guns, oh lawdylawdy, what will we do? With no guns to protect us, we are entirely emasculated!
Get serious, Craig.
OK, instead of responding to my answers and to the questions I ask, you divide ridicule is a substitute for conversation. Mature and filled with grace, that's how you roll.
"The topic was limitations"
Your topic may have been, not mine. Lest you forget, this is still my blog, my post, my topic. So haw about you lay aside your desire to control the conversation and deal with reality. From your first comment you've been determined to make this about what you want to to be, unfortunately I've shown you too much grace and given you too much leeway.
I'm truly sorry that you have such a fear of answering questions and engaging in actual two way conversation.
funny.
Just because I like to answer questions (and not because it appears you understand my points), here are the answers to all your questions (I will include follow up questions in bold, but I really don’t think they’re necessary, as we appear to agree, other than your combative attitude, on the principles involved)...
1. I have been clear that I believe that it could be constitutionally problematic to restrict people from owning things that are legal because of something they might do at some point in the future. Is this clear to you? Do you disagree?
No, it is not clear to me. That is why I ask questions. Yes, I disagree.
I presume that you agree with the rational starting point that we can reasonably restrict some dangerous items. You almost certainly agree, as I think you have indicated this to be the case. So, deciding that, "you know, this thing is something that is problematic enough from a safety point of view that we need some restrictions," is not constitutionally problematic. At all.
As evidence, I point to the real world where we have decided just that in the past. Limits are legal.
2. I do not believe the same problem exists regarding people who have their constitutional rights limited for things they have done. In other words convicted felons. Is this clear?
Yes.
Do you understand that I am making a distinction between things that have been done in the past as opposed to things that might be done in the future? Do you understand the constitutional implications for imposing restrictions on peoples constitutional rights for something they might do in the future?
Yes. Yes.
Do you understand that we are not imposing restrictions based upon what some people "might do..." but because restrictions have been deemed reasonable?
3. Since my post was directed at the folks who are on the "We must ban all guns now" bandwagon, and since you disagree with them, then you agree with the point of my post. Why then are you bringing up all of this other stuff that isn't part of my original post?
You are talking about limits to gun ownership. I'm talking about the legal and rational principles of limits. Do you understand why that is related and pertinent?
4. "Are you not able to agree with me that some restrictions and regulations are reasonable?" The problem with your question is that is is phrased in a manner that assumes that there are no "reasonable" restrictions in place already.
I have made no such assumptions. Your assumption is mistaken. Do you understand that? If so, will you acknowledge it with a simple, "my fault, I misunderstood..."?
So, it seems that your first order of business is to demonstrate that the current restrictions are not "reasonable", and then to advocate for additional restrictions that are "unreasonable".
Since I am not arguing for further restrictions (at least at this point), why would I need to demonstrate anything? To prove a point I'm not making?
Do you understand that I am not rationally required to make a defense for a proposition I am not making? Will you acknowledge that mistake?
cont'd.
For example, you might consider establishing "gun free zones" to be a "reasonable" restriction. OK, so how's that working?
I don't know, I don't have the data, one way or the other, nor have you provided any data to support the implication that it isn't working so well... But then, I'm not arguing for gun free zones, just that people/businesses/institutions should have the liberty to decide for their locales what they want to do, a point we appear agreed upon.
Is it stopping people from bringing guns into schools?
We can see that the answer is No, that people still bring guns to school. But people still drink and drive. Does that mean we should have no laws against drinking and driving?
Has the regulations limited guns being brought into these places? I don't know, do you?
By all means, let's hear some "reasonable" restrictions that aren't currently in place that would work? Another example, many believe that an "assault rifle ban" is reasonable. OK, given the fact that a total ban on "assault rifles" would have a negligible effect of crime (they are virtually never used in crimes), is it reasonable to impose a restriction that will have virtually zero effect?
Again, I'm not arguing for specific limitations, just the already agreed upon notion that some limitations are reasonable and are NOT a "punishment..."
Do you now agree that limitations do not necessarily equal punishment? It appears you do, so we agree.
5. "How about the correlation that these people who do these mass killings often self-identify as conservative and anti-liberal in their views?" Really? Are you positive about that?
Yes, the data supports the claim. Not saying that there is a correlation, just that it's a real world thing that many of these mass killings have been commited by fundamentalist/conservative types (ie, those who self-identify as conservative, often militia types, and self-identify as loathing liberal ideals). McVeigh, Nichols, Polk, Lampley, Bailie, Langan, Hamblin, Shoemake, Starr, McCranie, Kayser, the twelve members of the "Viper Team," the KKK (!!), Rudolph, Pitner, the three "Phineas Priests," the "Mountaineer Militia," Looker, "Army of God" attacks on a gay bar (yeah, those were hippie/liberals!), Salyers... well, I could go on, but here's a link to many, many more...
https://www.splcenter.org/20100126/terror-right
I'm not saying it's 100% in any political direction, but there's plenty on your side of things.
Nor am I. But the people you cite are not, by and large, self-identifying as liberals or hating conservatives or doing so in defense of their notion of liberal ideas. You are simply factually mistaken on that point.
6. "Does that correlation demand that we look into what is it about conservative thinking that produces mass killers?" It would probably be more worthwhile to look at the correlations related to; violent video games, being raised by single parents, a general diminishment of the value of human life, and the sad state of mental health care first. But if you want to start an anti conservative witch hunt feel free.
I'm okay with looking at all contributing factors and making rational choices based upon the data.
contd
9. "...just as I would disagree with them being forced to allow smoking in their buildings...", yet many of your political persuasion are advocating or implementing bans on smoking in private property. I can only assume that you disagree with this tactic, correct?
? I support people having the right to limit/restrict what they perceive to be harmful. Thus, I support the right to gun bans and to cigarette bans equally. I do not support telling people that they can't smoke in their own homes or have guns in their own homes, that should be clear. "Many of my political persuasion..."? How many laws have been enacted by liberals to that end? Zero?
I thought so.
"..or firecrackers..." Yet fireworks are severely restricted, do you have a problem with that?
No, why would I?
"...or bombs or toxins or any other potentially dangerous materials/items." See now you go off the deep end by attempting to establish an equivalence between a Black Cat and C4 or a bottle rocket and Botulism. As long as you can't delineate between classes of things, you undermine your credibility and your ability to distinguish "reasonable". You've done it already, and you just can't stop yourself. No one is suggesting that bombs, etc be treated in the same way as personally owned firearms.
The principle, then, is sound: That we the people CAN reasonably institute limits on potentially dangerous items. Do you understand that principle and agree with it?
Automobiles- the only restrictions on automobiles are related to making sure that the automobiles function properly, safely, and uniformity of operation. All other restrictions are on people, not on automobiles.
Well, if we determine that a truck that is twice as wide as fits our roads and twice as heavy is not a safe vehicle, then we can reasonably regulate it, we would agree. By that same reasoning, if we determined that machine guns or assault rifles were not safe firearms (ie, something might be inherently problematic with them, just as might be true of the supersized truck), then we can reasonably regulate them.
NOTE: I am not saying that there is some inherently less safe about these firearms, I am just talking about the principle, which principle we appear to agree upon - that items CAN be regulated and that deciding to regulate items is NOT punishment, but a reasoned decision made by we the people for safety's sake. Understand?
Toxins- This one makes no sense. Again, as long as peoples interaction with toxins doesn't impact unsuspecting people, I don't see the why I should stop someone from hurting themselves.
Because toxins have a nasty habit of not staying with the one person who might be handling it. If someone enjoys playing with small pox, just for their own personal joy, we can STILL regulate it, because of the potential danger beyond what might happen to that person. Agreed on that principle?
The thread running through this is that I believe in more freedom, not less, as long you aren't imposing on anyone else. I also believe that it makes much more sense to regulate people and behaviors instead on inanimate objects.
And yet, in the case of bombs, explosives and toxins, you agree we can reasonably regulate/restrict the inanimate objects. THAT is my point, a point on which we agree: That the principle: We can reasonably regulate items and not be "punishing people by doing so. Are we agreed? (and if you've already answered this in the previous questions, no need to repeat, I'm just answering your questions, even though the answer should be obvious to you by now.
Every example you gave has virtually no innate degree of danger. An empty parked car poses virtually zero danger. An unattended firearm is perfectly safe. An unlit/unsmoked cigarette poses no danger to anyone. The common thread which injects any level of danger to any of the inanimate objects you list is the use to which they are put by humans. The problem you have is your underlying premise that inanimate objects (in and of themselves) are inherently dangerous.
Yes, a principle with which you agree, as I've pointed out repeatedly, now.
So, I actually think I'm pretty consistently libertarianish on these things. I'm perfectly willing to allow people to make bad decisions and do pretty much whatever they want. As long as they don't involve others.
Me, too. Which is why limits on cigarettes, toxins, explosives and firearms are all reasonable, on the things themselves, as YOU AGREE, in principle.
92% of these mass shootings occurred in gun free zones. Now how are they working.
You know, I admire the fact that you dodged and pretended for so long, but finally did answer some questions. I guess it would have been asking too much for you to have done this days\comments ago instead of playing your petulent little games.
I'm at work, doing this on my phone so I don't have the time or device to property deal with your questions. When I have time I will.
See, isn't just easier to acknowledge the reality of the situation and face it rather than pretending things you don't like don't exist?
I do that, Craig - as I have stated - precisely because it's so hard to get answers - direct and clear answers - from you guys, collectively and you, included. The only bargaining chip I have to get your type to respond to questions directly is to try to keep it one for one.
Your questions are not usually anything that are difficult to answer, or difficult to know if you have read my actual positions. So, it's not like they're hard questions (other than when there's a load of them all at once, then the number can be daunting to find time for). I just am trying to get answers to my questions, as well. Direct and clear answers. Especially when I am asking something that is self-evident and where we almost certainly have no disagreement, because I'm just asking about reality.
So, when you get a chance, can we agree that
1. You have misunderstood my position (I am not advocating further gun restrictions) and
2. Thus, you have no rational reason to ask me to defend what I'm not advocating and
3. That it is rational to establish principles on which we're making decisions, in this case, the principle is that there is nothing wrong in and of itself with deciding that limitations/regulations on what we own and
4. This is a principle on which we agree, as evidenced by toxins and explosives, and
5. It is not, therefore, a "punishment" to decide upon regulations, not in principle, but perhaps it's an unwarranted restriction *
6. Thus, your problem is not with the principle - since it's one we agree upon - but the case that you have hunches that additional regulations (which specifics you have never dealt with, can you acknowledge that, as well?) won't help in the case of firearms...
7. and finally, thus, the onus is on those making the proposals to make their case AND the *onus is on you, if you want to convince against these specific proposals...
?
Can we agree on these points, given all we've said thus far and all the agreement we have, thus far?
Since you are not advocating further restrictions, wise since you acknowledge your ignorance of current restrictions, why in the name of all that is holy have you spent the last 40 comments arguing the we need additional " reasonable restrictions ". It's obvious you are not equipped to discuss specifics, nor do you have the desire to do so. You spend time talking about things which no one wants to change the level of restrictions on all the while trying to throw enough false equivalencies up against the wall hoping something will stick.
There are two basic problems with these " principles " you are trying to demonstrate.
1. They are predicated on restrictions on legal activities and products owned or engaged in by 99.9 % of the population for the actions of .1% of the population. In essence you want to restrict my driving because you got a DUI.
2. They are predicated on restrictions on legal activities and products based on the possibility that someone might use a similar product at some point in the future in a manner that is already illegal.
The problem is the no amount of "reasonable restrictions" will actually make one iota of difference when someone decides to shoot a bunch of people. But it is a convenient political bludgeon for the left it's easier to blame inanimate objects than to look at real causes of these things.
Here's a final question.
If I could guarantee you than mandating concealed carry would eliminate any more of these mass shootings, would you (or the broader American political left) even give such a proposal a fair listen? How about a real world experemental trial?
Let's go back and see how long we have had "gun free zones", then make a few of those mandatory concealed carry zones (without advertising), then evaluate after x number of years let's compare.
That seems reasonable to me, that we actually test out these things before implementation, but we both know your side would never go for it.
why in the name of all that is holy have you spent the last 40 comments arguing the we need additional " reasonable restrictions ".
I have not done this. Not one word of what I said is this.
Your turn to answer a question:
DO YOU UNDERSTAND, NOW, THAT I HAVE NOT DONE THIS?
By all means, go back and review every comment I have made, see for yourself that I literally HAVE NOT DONE THIS. And then, please answer my question, to demonstrate your intent to engage in respectful, two way conversation.
As to one of your questions (while I'm waiting you to answer ONE question)...
If I could guarantee you than mandating concealed carry would eliminate any more of these mass shootings, would you (or the broader American political left) even give such a proposal a fair listen?
No. It's not quite that simple, so no.
Look: We can easily eliminate mass shootings. Kill everyone who might possibly grow up to be a killer. Throw everyone in jail. Remove all belongings. etc. Doesn't mean that it's a good idea. The thing would be, Craig: To drastically reduce/eliminate mass killings while still maintaining human liberties and basically decent living conditions.
For instance, here's a woman with a legal right to carry a gun, carrying a gun...
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/30725284-story
She was at Home Depot, a shoplifter ran out of the store and jumped into a car and the legally gun-toting woman started firing rounds at the escaping shoplifter, like she was Dirty Harry. Your free concealed/carry didn't help that situation. So, you can't make that guarantee. I would, however, always be willing to listen to reasonable ideas. However, since I don't want to own a gun, I do not support laws that "mandate concealed/carry," no, because that would be a violation of my freedom of conscience, and I support more freedom, not less.
Now, I've answered another of your questions, directly. Your turn.
Are you really suggesting that you didn't introduce "reasonable restrictions" into this thread. I wrote a post about the "it's guns fault, they should be banned, and if you don't agree you're stupid "crowd. Nowhere did i talk about "reasonable restrictions " until you introduced it.
I guess you should have read your first comment before you jumped.
Jeeze Mr. impatient. But thanks for confirmation of my suspicions.
I seriously cant believe that after all the questions of yours I've already answered in this thread you're pulling the "you don't ever answer me" whine.
And I will notice you didn't answer my question. And no, I did not advocate new reasonable restrictions. At all.
Read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Do you deny that you introduced the term\concept into the thread.
Of course you also chose to ignore my explanation why i haven't answered your questions yet, if you hadn't you couldn't keep up the whining.
I guess answering every other question you've asked in this thread still isn't enough to stoo tne "you never answer questions# trope,
What you claimed, Craig:
why in the name of all that is holy have you spent the last 40 comments arguing the we need additional " reasonable restrictions
THAT, I did not do. I did NOT argue for "additional reasonable restrictions." Not ever. Not one time. Just look at my words.
Did I talk about principles regarding reasonable restrictions? Yes. Did I argue that we need additional reasonable restrictions? No, in the real world, in my words right here on your blog, we can see that I did not ever do so.
I'll ask you again and this really is my final time:
DO you understand the reality that I did not do what you claim?
IF you DO think I did so, then present even one word where I argued that we need additional restrictions. If you can't do so (and you can't, because I didn't), then please admit you misspoke. Be a decent man and demonstrate that you are able to hold a reasonable conversation.
Answer this one question, directly.
Okay,okay. You introduced the term, you introduced the concept, but you did so because you didn't think it was needed. Makes percect sense to me. Of course you could still deny you brought the germ/concept into the conversation. So, i guess since you weren't arguing for "reasonable restrictions " you had some other reason for introducing the term/concept and blathering on about it for the entire thread.
So if I mistook your introducing the term/concept and harping on it for advocacy for the concept you brought up, I apologize for drawing the reasonable but wrong conclusion. Most folks don't natter on about things they don't advocate, but you're not most folks.
Or are you still denying you introduced the term/concept?
"still..."? I never denied that I've talked about the principles involved with restrictions. Talking about principles is not the same as advocating. You understand that, now? Because it appears you don't. You appear to think you took a reasonable leap from "Dan is talking about the principles involved with limits on stuff in a free republic - principles I appear to agree with - therefore, he must be advocating for ADDITIONAL limits..." But then, since you agree with me on the principle (apparently, it's a little hard to tell), does that mean that you think YOU are advocating additional limits?
So your grace filled response to my acknowledging that i mistook your introduction of and constant prattling about "reasonable restrictions " as advocacy, is a snarky comment berating me for exactly what i acknowledged as a mistake and apologized for.
Classy, grace filled, that.
Look, Craig, if you honestly didn't get the point I introduced in the first comment, let me walk you through it.
1. I agreed with you and said I am dubious of gun bans.
2. I pointed out that there are no calls for Gun bans in existence from any serious actors. No politicians, for instance, are calling for gun bans.
3. I pointed this out because you appeared fearful of "punishing" law-abiding people.
4. I stated that perhaps there might exist additional rules that we could all put our minds to and improve things. You have offered no data to demonstrate that there aren't any additional restrictions that could help. Again, this is NOT advocating for additional restrictions, just noting that maybe they exist and I'm willing to consider it.
I offered the example of gun training. As it exists right now (and again, I haven't researched deeply, but I don't think I'm mistaken), there are no universal training requirements in common across the US.
Am I mistaken?
If not, is that not a reasonable additional "restriction" to consider? If not, why not?
We "restrict" auto licenses to those who can pass tests and demonstrate some training has occurred, I assume you think this is reasonable?
5. Regardless, raising the specter of "maybe some additional rules are out there that may help..." is not advocating, it's wondering and being open to it.
6. Those who have knee jerk response against the very possibility of considering additional "restrictions" are behaving the same as those who have a knee jerk response and say "ban guns" when handgun violence happens. Agreed? Are you open to considering additional restrictions if they are reasonable? If not, why not?
All of that was the point of my comment, none of which is advocacy of "additional restrictions." It's advocacy of keeping an open mind.
Understand where you made your error now?
"Do you understand that we are not imposing restrictions based upon what some people "might do..." but because restrictions have been deemed reasonable?"
Deemed "reasonable" by whom? The bottom line is that "reasonable" doesn't matter. If you restrict someone who is a law abiding citizen with no criminal record based on what they might do, or because of what someone else has done, I find that disturbing. Just because you find such restriction "reasonable" does not change the nature of the restriction. Your premise here is flawed as it is based on your opinion,not on objective fact.
"Do you understand why that is related and pertinent?"
I understand that you believe it to be so, and that it could be related. The problem here, as I explain over and over, is that it is NOT the topic of this post. So whether it's related or not is immaterial, it's not what I wrote about. For the time being, this is still my blog so I think I get to decide what posts are about.
"Do you understand that? If so, will you acknowledge it with a simple, "my fault, I misunderstood..."?"
You've admitted ignorance about this topic, you've shown no indication that you are aware of what current gen regulations might or might not be, you weren't aware of the "gun free zone" concept, I don't think it's a stretch to conclude that you believe guns to be largely unregulated. Based on your own testimony it doesn't seem to be the case. But if you are less ignorant than you appear, I apologize.
"Do you understand that I am not rationally required to make a defense for a proposition I am not making? Will you acknowledge that mistake?"
Sure. The bigger question is if you realize this, why do you so often demand that others do exactly this?
"But people still drink and drive. Does that mean we should have no laws against drinking and driving?"
No. Do you think that laws are designed to prevent things?
"Has the regulations limited guns being brought into these places? I don't know, do you?"
1. Obviously it hasn't
2. If some one is willing to commit multiple murder, do you really think that they are going to obey some "reasonable" gun restriction? Are people who do these kinds of things reasonable?
The Sandy Hook shooter broke multiple serious felony laws before he ever set foot in the school, do you think the "gun free zone" sign was even a blip on his radar?
"Do you now agree that limitations do not necessarily equal punishment?"
I agree that I never said they did. However, some limitations could be the equivalent of punishment under certain circumstances.
"Do you understand that principle and agree with it?"
Had you actually read my previous comments, you would already know the answer.
There, a few minutes in front of a real computer, and you get some answers. I'm sure an apology for your impatience is forthcoming, as well as some acknowledgement that I have answered some of your questions.
More later.
I just love it when some schmuck on the internet starts making pronouncements on things like the sincerity of my apologies. I can't believe that you don't wonder what it is about you that provokes people so often. FYI, this kind of thing is a good start.
"I'm sorry you're so stupid"
Please, show me where you got that quote?
I acknowledge that you have claimed ignorance on this topic, I have said that some of your false equivalencies were stupid, but I've never said "you're so stupid".
Not angry, not combative. Frustrated, sure. Thanks for the long distance psychoanalysis though I'm sure you're awesome at it.
So, you do admit that you brought the concept of "reasonable restrictions" into the conversation and continued to raise it over the course of multiple comments. Thank you for so graciously admitting that.
Deemed "reasonable" by whom?
We, the people of a free Republic.
The bottom line is that "reasonable" doesn't matter. If you restrict someone who is a law abiding citizen with no criminal record based on what they might do, or because of what someone else has done, I find that disturbing.
YOU think "reasonable" matters. YOU agree with those who restrict people from freely owning explosives and toxins because YOU agree it is reasonable. And it is reasonable NOT because of what someone has already done, but because of the potential risk of something going wrong.
Am I mistaken and if so, where?
Allow me to clarify why "reasonable"doesn't matter in this context.
1. Because the decision process is not driven by objective measures but by emotion.
2. Because the definition of "reasonable" to each side means something completely different.
3. Because no one is going objectively assess the effectiveness of current "reasonable restrictions " and determine what works and what doesn't before deciding that something else is needed.
So absent an objective standard and some agreement the term "reasonable" in this context has no value because it means anything,everything,and nothing depending on who is using it and the context.
For example, data clearly shows that jurisdictions with concealed carry have lower crime, yet as you have demonstrated, the left wouldn't even consider the fact that expanded carry might lower the number or body count in these events.
So, if we the people can't regulate firearms, explosives or toxins based on what seems reasonable to us, on what basis do we regulate them? I don't see how you're making sense.
And you again did not directly answer my question: Are you saying, "No, I don't think reasonable matters..."? Are you saying you don't agree that we can restrict people from owning some explosives and toxins?
Please explain what you mean.
If not reason, then what?
ome thoughts in response to your points, 1-3 (not necessarily corresponding to your numbers)...
A. Murders and mass killings are a problem. Emotions are not a bad thing so long as we use them to motivate us to act decisively and rationally. Be ye angry, and sin not. Agreed.
B. Deciding, for instance, that some measure of firearm training may be beneficial in an effort to prevent gun deaths is not an irrational opinion. (for instance, the legal conceal/carry woman who was shooting at an escaping shoplifter - threatening all manner of lives and inappropriately using deadly force... SHE could have benefited from some additional training, it would seem...) I don't know that anyone knows objectively if it will or won't help, but it's not an irrational opinion to hold. Do you know of any research that shows training does not help prevent such incidents? If so, please show the data. Deciding that steps to try to cut down on the "off record" gun sales are not an irrational conclusion.
C. What makes you think that our leaders we have elected are not going to objectively assess the effectiveness of reasonable regulations? Do you include the NRA/GOP leaders in the group that are not going to objectively assess what works, or are you saying that your side is objective and our side isn't? If the latter, then pardon me, but your partisan subjective irrationality is showing.
The thing is, I don't think we know what will "fix" this problem. If we knew, we would do it. Having an Old West, "let's arm everyone" approach sounds patently insane and did not work in the Old West, I'll note. Requiring all people to carry guns conflicts with human liberty.
I agree that emotions run high on all sides in the wake of murders. I agree that sometimes, this leads us to not make rational decisions. I disagree that we can't or shouldn't try to do so, nonetheless.
"Understand?"
I understand that this is your opinion and that you have asked me the same question multiple times. Simply asserting an opinion does not make for a universal truth. Understand? Do you also understand that the process to regulate the constitutional right for individuals to own firearms in more complex than regulating items not specifically protected by the constitution, understand?
"Agreed on that principle?"
Yes, I agree that there are protocols in place for handling substances that are inherently dangerous and not constitutionally protected. I fail to see the equivalency between those and objects that are 100% not inherently dangerous, and which in real life are 99.997% not used dangerously. What other object that is so unlikely to cause harm is regulated this extensively?
"Which is why limits on cigarettes, toxins, explosives and firearms are all reasonable, on the things themselves, as YOU AGREE, in principle."
No, I have been clear that in virtually all cases the restrictions are on the people who use the items not on the items themselves. It doesn't help when you misstate my position to do so EMPHATICALLY, it still misstates my position.
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND, NOW, THAT I HAVE NOT DONE THIS?"
Do you understand that when you introduce a term or concept then spend multiple comments continuing to harp on it that a reasonable person might thing your support the concept/term you introduced? How many more times do you think I will need to explain this before you understand it?
"Am I mistaken?"
No any training requirements are handled at the state level as they should be. Having said that I would agree that in principle I could be supported to support a national training standard, provided it would allow people with increased levels of training access to additional types of firearms or if it was in conjunction with a national concealed carry standard.
"If not, is that not a reasonable additional "restriction" to consider? If not, why not?"
It is, but it is a restriction on gun OWNERS not on guns. Which has been my point all along.
"We "restrict" auto licenses to those who can pass tests and demonstrate some training has occurred, I assume you think this is reasonable?"
No we restrict DRIVERS licenses to "those who pass the...". The actual car license (that licenses the vehicle is more of a vehicle to verify ownership, proper registration, and taxation. So, I've said often that I think it is reasonable to license PEOPLE not things.
"So, if we the people can't regulate firearms, explosives or toxins based on what seems reasonable to us, on what basis do we regulate them?"
I'd start by looking at the actual data to determine what works and what doesn't. As I pointed out "reasonable" is a subjective term, and "seems reasonable" is more subjective and speculative. Wouldn't it make more sense to start by basing decisions on data and success rather than what some amorphous "we" feel is "reasonable"?
"And you again did not directly answer my question:..."
Yes I did.
"Are you saying, "No, I don't think reasonable matters..."?"
No, I'm saying "reason" is subjective.
"Are you saying you don't agree that we can restrict people from owning some explosives and toxins?"
No, I'm saying that that is a completely different category and is not relevant except in the most tangental of ways. Mainly because of the constitutional issues.
"Please explain what you mean."
Done.
"If not reason, then what?"
What's wrong with data as a starting point? Actual measurable real life data?
A. So your point than seems to be that murders act in an emotional and unreasonable manner, yet they will somehow be deterred by "reasonable restrictions". Tell me how that works in the real world.
B.So it's reasonable to base your position on ONE story that may or may not be factually accurate and written by an unbiased reporter. You do realize that a quick look at the data will demonstrate that the story you site is an anomaly and therefore not a basis for making public policy decisions.
C. I've seen the kinds of decisions our leaders (on both sides) make, I'm not sure I trust them with much of anything. I am saying that there is objective science to back up the "pro gun" side, I haven't seen much of that from the "anti gun" side.
I love how you throw out the most bizarre examples. We're having a conversation about guns and what type of person commits these mass shootings and you name a bunch of guys who used bombs. I start talking about basing decisions on data and you throw out the "old west" as a counter.
I used the "arm everyone" as an example of a response that the "anti gun" side would reject regardless of the data simply based on their emotional knee jerk response. Up until P-BO care I would have agreed that forcing people to buy something under threat of punsihment was a violation of liberty, now that that door is open, I'm not so sure.
This is twice I have gone through the thread and spend lengthy multiple comments to answer all of your questions. (To be fair, on the second round I answered all of the questions you put in BOLD type and whatever others I could find) Not only have I done this I have answered some of these multiple times because you were too impatient to wait for an answer to the first time you asked.
So, can you please stop the "you don't answer me" whining and the impatient bitching?
I added this because the chances of you acknowledging this seem to be slim and none based on your previous pattern.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-mom-shoots-home-intruder-face-article-1.1234400
This is just one quick story I remembered. I can understand why you wouldn't want to use this kind of thing to make your point.
"So, if we the people can't regulate firearms, explosives or toxins based on what seems reasonable to us, on what basis do we regulate them?"
"Reasonable" would be to stay on topic, which in this case is the topic of gun ownership, not the ownership of explosives or toxins.
This thread has progressed too rapidly during that part of the week when I work, so I am not going to peruse all the comments just yet (if at all). I've seen enough to know what's going on here.
Dan alluded to a position of mine that I've put forth as theoretical, which is that I do NOT feel threatened by the thought that an responsible, honorable, moral and law-abiding neighbor possesses any dangerous object or substance. If he has a nuke, the mere possessing of that nuke by a righteous man is no threat to me. How could it be? One could argue that one cannot account for the unexpected, but the mere possession of any object by such an individual isn't in itself a threat. I doubt Dan can understand the distinction inherent in this theoretical situation, but I don't know any better way to paint him a picture. The nature of man changes as Dan needs it to change in order for him to make his point.
As such, I have no problem with such a moral neighbor owning automatic weapons. I am in no danger whatsoever by the mere fact that he has them in his home. A responsible gun owner doesn't need a mandate to train with the weapon of his choice, just as the typical golf enthusiast needs no government force to practice his putting. A responsible gun owner doesn't need a mandate to know how to secure his weapons from theft or misuse by others.
Conversely, no mandate has yet prevented the criminal and/or insane from acquiring and misusing weapons of all kinds, including explosives ( i.e. T. McVeigh) We can regulate all we want and evil will find a way to commit evil acts. In the meantime, those same regulation prohibit the good from opposing the evil.
So, if we the people can't regulate firearms, explosives or toxins based on what seems reasonable to us, on what basis do we regulate them?
What Dan fails to realize is that my ability to hit my target has no bearing on my right to bear arms for protection. I still possess that right and he has NO right to deny me. At the same time, my ability to hit everything at which I aim my gun puts my fellow citizen at greater risk should I go off the deep end. Thus, demanding I pass some sort of training requirement doesn't keep Dan any safer.
He also fails to realize how much more protected he is by the uncertainty that unregulated gun ownership provides. The criminal can't be sure that his criminal intentions won't result in his own self being shot when he can't be sure that neither his victim, nor anyone who might by chance encounter his unlawful act, might also be armed and ready to defend against him. Thus, Dan doesn't need to arm himself in any concealed carry state and benefit by the liberty others exercise to protect themselves. (Which also addresses the idiotic notion that anyone is suggesting a law that would force the Dans of the world to keep and bear arms.)
Also, Dan cites the "well-regulated militia" phrase in his call for more regulation. Unlike Dan, some of us actually DO seriously study both the Constitution as well as Scripture. To that end, I offer this to demonstrate how badly gun-control advocates understand the Constitution.
And yes, Dan. It is more than completely reasonable that you are indeed calling for, and have been calling for, more gun regulation. To dodge that fact by suggesting you are merely calling for "considering" regulation is weak. What's the point of considering that which one has no desire or intent to either enact or prohibit?
"...it is a violation of basic human rights, the right to self determination, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty."
"Justice requires innocent until proven guilty."
It seems strange that if the above are true, that one could support further restrictions or confiscation of guns from those who have committed no crime.
We are NOT BANNING GUNS.
We are speaking of the VERY SAME PRINCIPLE with which you agree: That we can reasonably limit some items based on agreed upon concerns about what we, the people, think are reasonable safety concerns.
It is not to punish, it is to work for human rights and safety.
YOU DO NOT THINK it is a human rights violation to restrict access to explosives and toxins. It's the same principle.
Or, put another way: On what rational basis do you say, "We CAN restrict/regulate explosives and toxins and it isn't a punishment of people to do so?" What is your reasoning?
You're not saying, "Criminals can't have nuclear explosives." You're saying "Law abiding citizens can not have nuclear explosives." Why the hypocrisy?
Don't talk to me about hypocrisy, I don't think that imposing restrictions on law abiding people for something they haven't done.
Oh. Your welcome.
So where are explosives and toxins mentioned in the constitution?
Oh, your welcome.
Oh and we don't. Regulate explosives snd toxins so much as we regulate who can use them and how they are handled and stored.
Oh, your welcome.
Where are handguns, assault rifles, grenade launchers, nukes or rifles with clips mentioned in the constitution?
Oh, you're welcome.
(and it's YOU'RE welcome, not "your welcome..." - you're welcome).
Tell you what, though, if we want to be constitutional literalists of that sort, I am fine with everyone who wants one owning a single shot blunderbuss, no restrictions needed (although a registration and training seem reasonable.)
You're welcome.
, I don't think that imposing restrictions on law abiding people for something they haven't done.
Yes, you do. You restrict them from owning explosives and nuclear bombs. Thus, by definition, hypocrisy.
You're welcome.
And there is nothing hypocritical about saying "I support having restrictions and regulations on our freedoms, especially when it comes to owning and operating potentially dangerous stuff..." and then, you know, actually not being opposed to supporting regulations.
I don't think that word means what you think it means, Craig.
Wow,getting your questions answered upsets you that much. You're going to bitch about an auto correct grammar goof,really, it is kind of amusing to see you demonstrate your self proclaimed ignorance
FYI the blunndebuss was obsolete by the time the constitution was written, just more of your ignorance of this topic showing. As does your attempt to show an equivalence between constitutionally protected firearms and nukes. It's a stupid,ignorant,uninformed attempt at an emotional manipulation.
But i guess it's just too much for you to lose the "you don't answer questions" whine, and acknowledge that I did what i said i'd do.
No, it's hypocritical to get on your high horse about "innocent until proven guilty " while bfeing prepared to deny innocent people their constitutional rights for something someone else has done.
But hey you want to get angry and pissy I can't stop you.
If by dismantling you mean throwing out specious.false equivalence, then you may be right. Unfortunately that's not what dismantling means.
Seriously, Craig, I wish you peace and goodwill. I hope you have a great weekend. Sorry for any misunderstandings (and Lord, they sure are there).
If one was to take your specious "single shot blunderbuss" at face value then it completely undercuts your point.
During the revolution the US civilians had weaponry that was more state of the art than did the British. In addition private citizens could own cannons of the same size as the military So if we take that to a logical conclusion then the constitution protects individuals possessing firearms that are at least as state of the art as the military.
The other problem with this line of "argument" is that if one is to be consistent (not that you have ever been), is that one must apply the same wooden liberalism to anything else not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Of course as soon as that is applied to something you like, your tune would change.
Unfortunately for you SCOTUS does not agree with your bizarre interpretation.
As to your stupid question, "Where are handguns, assault rifles, grenade launchers, nukes or rifles with clips mentioned in the constitution?". Handguns, "assault rifles" and rifles with clips would seem to fall under the broad constitutional category of "arms", so that would mean that they are in there. As to nukes and grenade launchers, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING that those things be treated any differently than they are now, therefore you are trying to establish a false equivalence as an attempt to derail the point of the post.
See, even now your questions still get answered.
Given that fact, I have one question for you.
Can you define "assault rifle" without using google?
And Dan slinks off in a cloud of pious sounding blather.
Does losing the "you don't answer my questions" excuse really bother you that much?
Oh and you're welcome.
So, why do nuclear weapons not fall under the category of arms?
Of course, they do. It's just not convenient for your position so you keep trying to hide it under a rock, as if they did not exist in this argument.
The point is, Craig: You and I AGREE on the principle, when it comes to nukes and other weaponry. The difference is, I'm rationally consistent and am willing to consider regulations and limitations on items as not necessarily a "punishment" but being, you know, just sane.
There is no specific, legal definition of assault rifle, it's a loose term that generally describes many things, nothing specific. That is my understanding. Why?
Why? I just wanted to confirm what I suspected, that you just threw out the term because it loaded not because you actually know what one is.
Of course nukes are arms, my point was that your poor attempt to twist the 2nd amendment was one more failure.
Of course your constant attempts to change the subject is tiresome.
You're welcome. As usual I'm fine with answering your questions even the insulting repetitive ones.
Except we don't agree, as the very form of your statement indicates. You are advocating restrictions on inanimate objects which in and of themselves are virtually harmless, while I am advocating restrictions on people based on their behavior.
This is where the liberal view fails,in my view. The US legal system is not set up to prevent crime, but to punish those who commit crime. Therefore until one is proven guilty, they are presumed innocent. Further, our legal system is based on the concept of the individual in that we don't punish, restrict, or blame someone for what someone else does. The fact is that there are plenty of folks on your side of the political spectrum who are advocating going much further than you appear to think is reasonable. Ultimately though, your additional "reasonable restrictions " approach leads down that road as well, because these additional "reasonable restrictions " aren't going to stop these shootings. So every time one more happens we'll see more and more "reasonable restrictions ". As I've said plenty of times this isn't a gun problem it's a problem of people who have no regard for human life, adding additional restrictions on inanimate objects isn't going to help that.
Can you agree that scientifically researched studies would provide a good way to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of approaches to this problem?
Can you agree that if is foolish to exclude any possible effective solution from the discussion?
Would you say that mandating that each adult in the country will have a weapon in their home would result in higher or lower crime rates? (For the sake of the question you can assume that it would be possible to have a waiver for this that would exempt those with reasonable objections. Also that the firearms would be issued, and appropriate training would be provided.)
Surely you can agree that any restrictions should be basef on objective evidence as tk their efficacy and not on emotional or political philosophy, can't you?
As for your question about nukes being arms.
1. The 2nd amendment is about an individual right, therefore it seems safe to extend the concept to arms used by individuals, which would exclude nukes.
2. No one is claimed that the 2nd amendment is unlimited. I haven't changed my position since the last time I said that.
Surely you can see why continually covering the same ground over and over again could get frustrating, can't. You?
Craig, I would love to hear a direct answer to this question, should you be so inclined. As you know, Stan is ironically bemoaning how people don't heed his opinions about sola scriptura. I don't know if his hunches and yours line up on this theory, but Stan says, as you saw...
Coupled with Philosophy and Experience, these two gain substantial superiority over biblical authority. "Yes, yes, Paul claims that there is none who does good, but we know better. Common Sense tells us that this just isn't true."
And you commented something about reason "trumping" "the bible..."
What I always try to get to and never can get anyone to answer directly is: You are using your reason to make sense/interpret the words of the Bible, are you not? If that is the case, first of all, why do you all denigrate reason, (which is what we all have in common when reading the Bible - I'm giving you all the benefit fo the doubt that you're using your reasoning ability to make sense of the text)?
If, then, you are using your common sense/reason to read "no one does good" or "infants lie from the womb" and one side REASONS OUT...
1. This is not metaphor, it is literal.
2. Therefore, there is LITERALLY NO ONE who does good and infants LITERALLY tell lies from the womb...
and the other side reasons out...
1. Well, we can see people doing good,
2. Therefore, clearly that isn't a literal fact and, of course fetuses can't tell lies, therefore, that is not a literal fact
Both sides are using their reasons to make sense of those words, do we not agree upon that much?
Why, then, is the first side who is using their reasoning (sort of, on the one hand), but ignoring reality the ones who are treating the Bible correctly and the other side (who is reasoning through the Bible, too, AND observing reality with appropriate objectivity), not treating the Bible correctly?
And why is Stan (and, you, in your mocking of reason) mocking reason, which very reason you used to reach your hunches? Do you think you are not using reason to reach these conclusions?
I honestly don't understand this combative attitude towards reason, on the one hand, and fellow believers who, like you all, are using our reason to reach our conclusions, too. I'd love to hear a direct response to this line of questions, should you be inclined. Stan, of course, is not so inclined.
Also, re: "sola scriptura..." If that were true, then
A. The Bible never mentions or hints at sola scriptura. Not one time. Ever.
B. Sola scriptura is, in fact, a human-reasoned hunch about how to philosophically think about the Bible
C. Thus, sola scriptura is self-defeating.
If the Bible is the "sole source" or "primary source" for reaching theological conclusions, and the Bible doesn't argue this, on what basis would one insist upon it as an essential, much less reasonable?
Feel free to delete this off topic line of questions, I'm just genuinely curious to know the answers you all would give.
For now I'm going to leave this as an example, and make a few points about the strangeness of this.
I'm going to start with this being a no win situation.
If I reply, I encourage you to come in and run roughshod over my posts and topics as well as encourage you to continue to ignore aspects of the topic at hand by introducing some totally unrelated off topic comment.
If I don't reply, I suspect I am in for more snark and disparagement for failing to answer your important and pertinent questions. I also suspect that my failure to respond will get me mentioned in one of your "look at what these idiots believe" posts.
At some point I list some reasons why this bothers me. Until I'm done no more comments.
1. How many times have I or someone else been chastised on your blog for following the natural course of a conversation until it becomes "off topic" (or strayed into areas you didn't want to deal with), yet now you think this is appropriate.
2. It's not my fault you've been banned at Stan's, nor am I obligated to provide you with an end around your ban.
3. You bail on this thread, leaving questions unanswered, comments unresponded to and just assume that you can jump back in and derail the thread to your own ends.
4. You haven't even acknowledged that I've answered virtually every question you've asked in this thread, yet show up with one more version of the "no one answers my questions" load of crap and expect me to take you seriously.
5. We've had this discussion before. Why should I get sucked back into this tar baby scenario again.
6. In this thread in particular you have shown an even greater propensity than usual for distorting or falsely representing my positions so you can argue against your false version rather than the actual version. This despite my repeated corrections of your false representations. This is exacerbated by your use of the same tactic in your off topic comment.
So, for now I'll leave this as evidence, don't expect much latitude in further comments absent some significant changes.
You don't have to answer the questions, it was just a polite request. Maybe sometime, if you want to defend this extra-biblical human theory (and that quite literally is what it is... humans have REASONED their way to it, the Bible literally does not teachh it), you could write a post about it. If not, no problem.
I just continue not to find the case plausible and can't see how it is even rational to make an extra-biblical claim reached by human reasoning that the Bible is the "sole authority..." It just seems self-defeating and thus, I will continue not to buy into this human theory, so long as no one steps up to defend it and, at the very least, acknowledge the reality that it's a human theory, not a literal biblical teaching.
Thanks just the same.
Somehow i suspected you would be willing to complete the conversation at hand before detouring onto an off topic and completely unrelated topic. So no surprise there, also no surprise that you decided to try to get me to respond for Stan.
Also no surprise that you are unwilling to even acknowledge the fact that virtually all the questions you asked have been answered, heaven forbid we let reality intrude on the "no one answers my questions" schtick you have going on. That schtick is just too good an excuse to bail when the conversation gets difficult for you to give up.
I'd offer to suggest some resources that would help you understand the Orthodox doctrine which seems to confuse you, but you've never taken the ti m e to look at anything else I've eve d suggested to you and i suspect this would be no different. I'd. Suspect that the predominant Anabaptist position asfirm this particular bit of Orthodoxy.
"...I will continue not to buy into this human theory, so long as no one steps up to defend it and,..."
Bearing in mind that the above words are a direct quote from you, do you really believe that "no one" has defended this particular Orthodox doctrine? C'mon, do you really believe that "no one" has ever defended this Orthodox doctrine? "No one", really? Not ever? Ever? Really?
They have not defended it to me, rationally, answering the specific questions I am asking. Never. Not ever. Really. Ever.
Craig, don't forget, I was raised in a traditional evangelical environment. I KNOW the arguments (or at least, I did at one time - I've forgotten more evangelical specifics than most people ever know, as the trope goes). Having heard and been familiar with the traditional position, THESE questions remain outstanding and have not been answered satisfactorily in any significant rational manner, not that I am familiar with. By all means, point me to something that you think addresses my specific questions.
But if it's just more of the same "we believe this because it's true and we know it's true because we believe it and it makes sense to us...," well, I'm familiar with all that.
In brief, the only answers I've seen to this question...
If the Bible is the "sole source" or "primary source" for reaching theological conclusions, and the Bible doesn't argue this, on what basis would one insist upon it as an essential, much less reasonable?
...are of the sort that say, in essence, "Because we REALLY think that if you take these handful of cherry picked verses and read them JUST THE RIGHT WAY in the manner that we do with the presumptions we hold going in and agree with US in how we interpret them, THEN one really must affirm that the Bible is hinting so strongly at it as to be not only reasonable but essential..."
But that's not compelling. Understand?
Are you saying that no one ever has actually come to you and specifically answered every single question you have asked.
Or
Are you saying that no one has ever in all of human history answered your questions period. In essence that the answers do not exist.
Or are you saying that you haven't searched for or found the answers that you want.
You seem to be suggesting that if someone doesn't spoon feed you directly the answers that you seek, that you are going to presume that the answers either don't exist or that you can dismiss them as "we believe this because it's true but...".
"I've forgotten more evangelical specifics than most people ever know..."
Brag much? Perhaps somewhere in those forgotten specifics are the answers you want, but you just weren't aware of it at the time. Perhaps, you have somehow misremembered what forgotten specifics you have forgotten and perhaps things might not be as you remember what you forgot.
I don't know. What I do know is that there are plenty of folks out there who seem to have a pretty good handle on Orthodox doctrine and the Biblical support for it. If I were you, I'd ditch my preconceived notions about what you might have heard in the past, ditch my preconceived notions that there hasn't been anything in the last 30 years that might do a better job answering your questions, and go do the research for yourself.
Seriously, you expect a couple of random guys on the internet to give up their time, and spend the effort to be at your back and call to answer questions, when you can't even be bothered to get past your "I've forgotten more Evangelical specifics than most people ever knew" hubris and your "I know that there is absolutely nothing written in the last 30 years that is anything more than a rehash of what I already forgot" smugness and do the work yourself.
Seriously, these blanket "No one ever..." whines are getting old, why not stop relying on others and step up do the research for yourself. Look at it this way, if you do the research, find out that thousands of years of Church history and theology are wrong, you will have all of the credit for demonstrating how wrong everyone else is.
If, as in the past, this is one of those "Well I don't really care enough to do my own research, but you guys are writing about it and I have all these questions" things then I'd say if you really have these questions then go find answers. If you're just disagreeing with Stan for the sake of disagreeing fine, but don't ask like you've had these burning questions for years that no one has answered.
We live in an age were information is so readily available and easy to access that there is no excuse for blaming others for not answering your questions. There is also no excuse for "I used to be an expert, but I forgot it all"
If you have on topic comments I'd love to see and respond to them, If you'd be gracious enough to continue the on topic conversation where you've let things drop, that would be great as well. But, if you just want space to complain about all the mean guys who won't answer your questions, do it somewhere else.
"But that's not compelling. Understand?"
I understand that you don't find some unremembered thing you heard (possibly incorrectly) 30 years ago compelling. I already addressed that in my comments. The fact that you have decided that your Reason is more compelling than something you forgot from 30 years ago, is your problem not mine.
Neither Stan, MA, or I are responsible for correcting every bit of (possibly) erroneous or forgotten information you got 30 years ago. If these things concern you; go, search, research, figure things out for yourself, don't expect others do do your work for you and convince you. Especially people who your default position is disagreement with.
Your problem is that as with so many things your position appears to be "You guys are wrong about this." , yet you have no counter position to advocate for.
So, if you won't do the research to demonstrate that Stan (and the Orthodox position) are wrong and be able to provide Biblical support for that, then you only have one other option. Take an actual position (Not "your wrong") and build a positive scriptural case that supports your position. Not just, "this seems right to me" or "my opinion is...", but actually state a position and lay out a positive Biblical case to support your position. You really should try to do that at some point.
But, for here and now, enough of the "No one gives me answers" whining.
"If the Bible is the "sole source" or "primary source" for reaching theological conclusions, and the Bible doesn't argue this, on what basis would one insist upon it as an essential, much less reasonable?"
One bit of encouragement for you. How about you take the above question and turn it around ab bit an write a post making your case based on the following.
Is there a "primary source" for matters of faith and practice?
Is there a "primary source" that is objective?
Is the Bible that source?
If the Bible is not that source, what would you propose is that source?
Is there a need for a "primary source"?
If so, why do we need one?
If not why not?
If you were to start with those questions and build a Biblically (or otherwise) supported case for your position, that would be interesting. It might help you gain some understanding of others positions as well.
So, I encourage you not to wait for others to answer your questions, but to use your own resources and explore these things that you have questions about. In the end it will be so much more satisfying if you don't rely on others to do what you can do for yourself.
Are you saying that no one has ever in all of human history answered your questions period. In essence that the answers do not exist.
Or are you saying that you haven't searched for or found the answers that you want.
As addressed already, I have grown up in this, Craig. I'm generally familiar with these arguments and find them wanting. Have I read EVERYONE who has ever addressed this topic? Of course not. But how many people should I read/listen to after the first, let's say, 100, were not compelling?
The thing is, I'm familiar with these arguments and just do not find them compelling in the first place, or anywhere near humble enough (insisting that a topic never addressed by Jesus or the Bible is a Christian "essential..."? Humble thyself and Satan, get behind me!) to make me change back to the way I once believed.
What is odd about that?
To answer your questions about me to Stan...
One wonders how much study Dan has put into this matter, and how open minded he was when he went into said study.
30 years' (+) worth of indocrination in traditional Southern Baptist churches in some 2000+ sermons, Sunday School classes, Training Union classes, personal reading, as well as Nazarene and Church of God teachers and teachings. That was in the years that I accepted it out of tradition's sake. Plus more years since then in slowly recognizing it just is not a biblical teaching and certainly nothing to be called "essential..."
How many decades worth of research does one need to accept it?
One wonders why Dan needs someone to convince him, rather than to be motivated enough to study the issue himself.
I don't. I have studied the issue myself. Extensively. It's just that when people start finding teachings that Jesus never endorsed and insist that they are "essential" teachings of Jesus, I think it is reasonable to raise plausible, responsible questions. One wonders why people flee from answering the questions?
One wonders why Dan finds this particular "extra biblical" theory implausible, yet finds the "extra biblical theory" that Genesis is myth plausible?
Hard data and good reason. I have no problem with extra biblical teachings, but then, I'm not the one saying "sola scriptura..."
One wonders why Dan finds the notion of deciding to base ones acceptance of scriptural teaching on human Reason Biblical, while finding this Orthodox doctrine "extra biblical"?
I believe it is rational and biblical to use our God-given reasoning. Do you disagree? I find it extra biblical because that is just the fact. It is a human theory, as a point of fact. Do you actually disagree?
Finally, one wonders of Dan really actually believes that "No one" in the entire course of History has ever bothered to defend this Orthodox doctrine. You heard that correctly, "No one steps up to defend it..."
Gossip much? That's not part of the Kingdom of God, you know?
I'm not saying no one has defended it. I'm saying no one has effectively dealt with these questions in a manner that I find either biblical or rational.
Congratulations you've manged to suck me in to this.
First, you've managed to confuse me. On the one hand you say you've forgotten more doctrine than most people ever knew, then you say you are familiar with all of the writings on the topic that were current 30 years ago, then you say you have studied extensively, could you clarify which of your comments is the closest to the truth?
"Hard data and good reason."
If you have "Hard data" that Genesis is myth, why haven't you ever shared it?
"Gossip much?"
There's no gossip here. I asked a third party their opinion on a number of questions. I did it in full plain public view. I did it because it fit with the conversation. None of that is anything I haven't said to you anyway. Get off it.
"I'm not saying no one has defended it..."
"They have not defended it to me, rationally, answering the specific questions I am asking. Never. Not ever. Really. Ever."
So, "they've never defended it..." means something other than "they've never defended it.
Unless your point is that anyone or everyone who holds to Orthodox doctrine is obligated to defend it explicitly and specifically to you and to specifically answer your specific questions. Seriously, get over yourself dude. Narcissistic much?
"I'm saying no one has effectively dealt with these questions in a manner that I find either biblical or rational."
If I am to take you at your word, that you have not read everything that everyone has written on the subject at face value, then your above comment is demonstrably false. It is especially so given that you base your preordained conclusion on vague things that happened 30+ years ago. Personally, If I was going to make a vast sweeping condemnation saying that "no one" has done X,Y, or Z, I'd think basing it on nonspecific things you read and/or heard 30+ years ago and "forgot", is not a sound footing for such a claim.
Interesting at your selective question answering, you'll answer rhetorical questions not directed at you from somewhere else while dodging and ignoring on topic questions directed to you in this very thread. Inconsistent and hypocritical much?
Again, if you have so much knowledge and expertise in this subject, then stake out a firm position on the topic, outline your support for said position, and make your case. It should be easy given your facility with the subject. Here again are some suggestions you could choose to explore.
One bit of encouragement for you. How about you take the above question and turn it around ab bit an write a post making your case based on the following.
Is there a "primary source" for matters of faith and practice?
Is there a "primary source" that is objective?
Is the Bible that source?
If the Bible is not that source, what would you propose is that source?
Is there a need for a "primary source"?
If so, why do we need one?
If not why not?
If you were to start with those questions and build a Biblically (or otherwise) supported case for your position, that would be interesting. It might help you gain some understanding of others positions as well.
So, I encourage you not to wait for others to answer your questions, but to use your own resources and explore these things that you have questions about. In the end it will be so much more satisfying if you don't rely on others to do what you can do for yourself.
I encourage you not to wait for others to answer your questions, but to use your own resources and explore these things that you have questions about.
Done and done. I was just giving you an opportunity to address the holes in the "sola scriptura" theory. You have not. In your defense, I don't think you can because there are actual holes pointing to problems with this human theory. It's time for another theory.
"Do you see anywhere where he addresses it?"
I was unaware that Sproul was obligated to address one of your specific questions in one essay. Surely you can't be suggesting that by cherry picking one essay, that you have exhausted every option for this one author to address your question. Conveniently, you've not provided any context or links.
"I have answered that question..."
If the blather that comes after the above statement is an attempt to restate your "answer" to the question, then it's not. The question specifically asks "If the Bible is not, then WHAT IS?. Given your lack of a "WHAT IS", there is no way you can claim you have "answered" the question.
I see you realized that you didn't answer the question, and decided to not answer it a second time with more pious Orthodox sounding catchphrases that can be interpreted to mean anything you want them to mean.
I give you credit, you've tried to suck me into this again, well I'm done. If you want to get back to answering on topic questions and dealing with the on topic issues raised in THIS post please do so. If you just want to attempt to take this further off topic, do it somewhere else.
Oh, if I really wanted to gossip about you I'd use e mail. What I did was to bait you into "answering" because you have demonstrated a distinct lack of willingness in this thread to answer direct questions.
After I post this, the deleting begins, not all, just enough to leave evidence when you try to claim that you didn't derail this thread.
"Done and done."
Except for the nagging little details of no support for your opinions Biblical or otherwise. Opinions are like... The problem is you throw out opinions with no support, but think that is enough. I'm sure it is for you, but in the absence of a clearly stated position that contradicts Orthodox doctrine, with Biblical support more extensive than the support FOR Orthodox doctrine, you haven't even begun to make a case, let alone finished.
"Done and done." No and no, as I just pointed out.
"I was just giving you an opportunity to address the holes in the "sola scriptura" theory."
So far you haven't pointed out any holes, you've just said that in all of your forgotten theology "no one" had ever defended it to your satisfaction, big difference. Great topic for a post where it is not off topic.
"You have not."
You are correct, you came here with your off topic rant expecting me to explain to you something that Stan said at his blog. Just for starters that's irrational. You then ignore the fact that Stan appears to be doing exactly what you demand, yet you still want me to defend his points made elsewhere. Again, not exactly rational. You then tout your extensive expertise on the topic yet complain you've forgotten much of it. Not rational. Then you appear to have deluded yourself into thinking that I am actually writing the posts at Stan's, not Stan so you continue down this irrational path of expecting me to defend what others say.
"In your defense, I don't think you can because there are actual holes pointing to problems with this human theory."
Ah, the old trying to bait me card. I'll give you a hint, the last time we had this conversation I provided you with significant amounts of material for your consideration. The fact that you interacted with and dealt with virtually none of it as well as dismissing things you don't like without even considering them is why I will not take your bait.
"It's time for another theory."
Have you missed the fact that I've been asking you to provide, support, and defend exactly what you say "we" need. Personally, I don't "need" a new theory, maybe you do. So, if a new theory is needed, come up with one, provide support both Biblical and from Church history that supports this new theory. Then go somewhere else and write about it and reserve comments here for things that are on topic.
FYI, if I ever comment at your blog again, and if you pull the "It's off topic" dodge when things go in a direction you find difficult to handle, you had better be prepared to give me as muck latitude as I've given you here.
"What am I missing?"
You are missing the fact that when I say "You are throwing out unsupported opinions" and you respond with "You have no data." that your response doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't provide the data to support your unsupported opinions, nor does it diminish the data offered to support the Orthodox doctrine. Simply asserting something does not make it so. I believe that one of your opinions is that the Biblical support offered by the Orthodox is somehow wanting. You have the right to hold that opinion, however, the fact remains that the Biblical support is supporting data for the Orthodox position. So, to simply assert "You have no data." is meaningless because there is certainly Biblical data to support the position. You may not like it or don't agree, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (FYI it appears that Stan is covering this very topic over the course of several posts perhaps you could wait before making pronouncements.) So, you can either demonstrate that the existing data is false, that it doesn't do what people claim it does, or you can provide data to counter the existing data. What you can't reasonably or credibly do is make the claim you have made, that data does not exist.
One last thing the next time I see one more of these stupid ass "Eating/raping babies/puppies" "legalize nukes" or whatever sick twisted crap you come up with the post will be gone. It's childish and ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time.
It's an analogy, a rational comparison between two things to establish a point or principle. I'm sorry my sound analogy is so offensive to you. I'll try to use one that is less likely to upset you so next time.
Doesn't upset me at all.it just demonstrates your inability to construct a rational comparison. Because everyone knows that a slide action .22 short gallery gun is compatible to a nuke.
I do want to say thank you though.
The point made was rationally sound. I am sorry you don't understand that and the strength of the comparison made you miss the point. Next time, I'll use a softer analogy so as to not detract from the point.
You're quite welcome.
I know that constructing a comparison based around "raping puppies" or "eating babies" appears rationally sound to you. The problem I have is that it seems as though expecting me to defend Stan's blog post seems rationally sound to you. Derailing this thread to try to get me to defend Stan's post appears to seem rational to you. Getting upset when people go "off topic" at your blog while constantly doing so at others blogs seems rational to you. Bailing from a conversation when you don;t want to answer questions and deal with answers to your questions seems rational to you.
My problem is that what seems rational to you, doesn't seem rational by most reasonably objective standards.
So when you appeal to your Reason, I have serious questions about how rational that process is.
"It's time for another theory."
Have you missed the fact that I've been asking you to provide, support, and defend exactly what you say "we" need. Personally, I don't "need" a new theory, maybe you do. So, if a new theory is needed, come up with one, provide support both Biblical and from Church history that supports this new theory. Then go somewhere else and write about it and reserve comments here for things that are on topic.
You are,of course, correct. It is completely my fault that you chose to abandon this thread with things hanging. My fault that you only came back because you thought you could backdoor a way into a thread at another blog. My fault that you decided to keep on pushing for your topic change.
Must be nice to live in your own little world.
Of course I'm waiting for you to articulate and support an alternative to Orthodox doctrine on this issue, since you think we need one.
To be posted on my blog soon... but in case you want it here (I can't tell if you're asking me to provide something here or not)...
An Alternative to the Human Theory/Tradition of Sola Scriptura, a Theory Never Espoused by Jesus or in any way called "essential" in the Bible, because
it is not espoused in the Bible:
My Theory is what I call the Rational Theory of Godly Inspiration
I. Regarding "sola scriptura..." theories
1. In the Bible, we find that God reveals God's Self and Ideas in many ways...
a. through Creation,
b. through God's Spirit,
c. through Jesus' direct teaching,
d. through "scripture" (almost always speaking specifically of OT teachings)
e. through "God's Word" or revelation (here, not speaking specifically of Bible books, but the over-arching notion of "every word out of God's mouth..."
or the idea of God's Ways)
f. through God's Self revealed in our hearts, minds and/or being,
g. through our God-given reasoning,
h. through "special" or direct revelation (God speaking to someone, directly, audibly - and sometimes inaudibly)
i. through tradition, maybe?
j. ...and possibly others I'm not thinking of at the moment
2. At NO time in the Bible, do biblical authors, God or the text give one of these methods of revelation a priority over the others. It never happens.
3. At NO time in the Bible - and for followers of Jesus, more specifically, in Jesus' teachings - does we learn about any direct notion of "sola
scriptura," or the human theory that the 66 books of the Bible have a special, primary place of authority, in matters of theology or practice. It never
happens, not for the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, nor for "Scripture," in general.
4. At NO time in the Bible is the notion of "sola scriptura" - never being directly taught by anyone in general or Jesus, specifically, not literally -
called "essential" to Christian teaching.
5. Given all this, at a minimum, we need to start with the recognition that, as a point of fact:
a. sola scriptura IS a human theory/tradition,
b. it is not an essential teaching of Jesus (or of the essence of Jesus' teachings)
c. that believers of good faith can disagree on this and that's okay
More coming...
II. If not "sola scriptura," then what?
1. First of all, if we have no rational or biblical reason for Theory A, we are under no obligation to espouse an Alternative to Theory A. It is sufficient to say, Theory A is not sound. For instance, if someone says that we can "know" all Biblical inspiration comes from God via an alien race named Thetans and we can know this because of Ezekiel's story of the spinning wheel and a few other verses, it is sufficient to say "that is not a rational conclusion..." and if they respond, "then via what source do we receive God's inspiration?" we do not need to come up with an alternative theory to Thetan revelation. It is sufficient to say, "that is not a sound theory."
...more coming...
So far I'm not impressed, but maybe your Biblical support is coming. Hell at this point you've hijacked the thread so post it here anyway. I may give it it's own post at some point.
"It is sufficient to say, Theory A is not sound."
"sufficient" for what" If all you have is "I say theory A (whatever that is ) is not sound, therefore theory A is not sound", then you're wasting a lot of time and effort. Again, I'm hoping for something specific, coherent, and Biblically based. I hope I'm not disappointed. I'll try to curtail any more interjections here until you are done. I just thought I could save you some wasted time if this was all you had.
No, I expect biblical support for the positive case you are making for the alternative theory you say we "need". I'm looking forward to seeing what you have come up with. No rush, take all the time you need to do it well.
You need to embrace reality. Reality is, the Bible does not endorse, teach, claim SS and certainly not as an "essential" part of Jesus' teachings (seeing as how Jesus literally never one time taught it. Ever. Zero times.). What part of this are you failing to understand?
The alternative to your theory which is not grounded in reality, Craig, is to embrace reality. You can do this by...
"we need to start with the recognition that, as a point of fact:
a. sola scriptura IS a human theory/tradition,
b. it is not an essential teaching of Jesus (or of the essence of Jesus' teachings)
c. that believers of good faith can disagree on this and that's okay"
Can you do that much?
So, instead of rising to the challenge to come up with an alternate to S.S. (an alternative that YOU claim "we" NEED) your just going to trot out the same old "You are wrong because my Reason tells me so", with no support no data, no evidence, no nothing. You claim that there are a few verses that are misread (How many verses endorse homosexual sex? Oh. it's less than the support for S.S.) and twisted to support S.S.. Where is your exegesis that demonstrates that those who hold to this Orthodox doctrine are wrong?
I admit, you had me going, I thought you were actually going to take a firm position on a topic, state it clearly and unambiguously, provide evidence and Biblical support for your position, and make a case. Instead you just trot out the same old "You guys are wrong. I know this because my "Logic" and "Reason" tell me so. But because I don't actually have a position, I don't have to commit to or support anything specific." crap we get all the time.
The fact that you have the gall to ask me questions at this point in this thread given what you left undealt with when you ran off just boggles my mind.
This is what I get for showing you the grace, and forbearance.
"...more coming..."
October 14, 2015 at 7:35 AM Delete
So, is there more coming, or the the above a lie?
So, trying to follow along, it seems Dan successfully changed the subject in order to avoid defending the notion that more gun control regulation is a good idea. Now, he's trying to run with his tired argument regarding what the Bible says about itself, which is nothing more than a ploy to provide him liberty to hold counter Biblical positions of his own.
For example, according to Dan, we must see somewhere in it's pages the Bible proclaiming that it is what it clearly appears to reasonable, rational and honest people what it is. Unless it says something like, "Hey there! The Holy Bible here. I just want you all to know in no uncertain terms that I am indeed a history book (among other things). So no arguing about it any more, OK?" in order for anyone to dare refer to it as a book that is a recording of historical events.
In this case, Dan needs it to somewhere use the words "sola scriptura" in order of us to know that Scripture stands as the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. It isn't enough that several Biblical characters, including Christ Himself, refer to Scripture in a manner that reasonable, rational and honest people are compelled to recognize. Here is a rather exhaustive defense of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, wherein the author cites numerous passages that speak of the authority of Scripture.
The issue here isn't whether Scripture is authoritative. It's whether or not one wishes to regard it as such. Dan wants to assert that because some, like himself, are incapable of honesty or intelligence in their personal understanding of Scripture, the authority of Scripture is undermined. Human defect has no bearing whatsoever on the authority of Scripture any more than ignorance of the law mitigates the authority of the U.S. Constitution. It is merely ignorance and/or rebellion...a lack of respect for the authority of the law or of Scripture. Both are prevalent in so many of Dan's positions. He continues to demonstrate his poor reasoning ability, as well as the fact that he never truly understood the traditional and conservative positions (either religious OR political) and thus was never truly conservative himself. Indeed, the very thought is laughable.
MA
I have a slight disagreement with your comment. Dan slunk off because he had nothing on topic to offer and the unanswered questions were piling up so it was easier to leave.
He came back because he can't comment at Stan's and because if he posted. It ar his place no one would pay attention so he decided to impose on my good nature. The problem is he can't control the conversation the way he does at his place. So he comes here, and I'm more indulgent than I probably should be.
More coming on my blog. I will pass on making it here because it has your collective panties in a wad because of the big bad thing I'm forcing on you like a meanie.
Thou shalt not bear false witness Craig. But at this point, I think your hatred and biases have just blinded you to hearing or seeing anything that I've written in an objective stance.
Peace to you, gentlemen. Seriously.
Wow.I've allowed you plenty of leeway,been encouraging and all you have is some made up hatred and alleged biases. You really must not have anything to offer if that's the best you have.
I do look forward to your alternative to S.S. and the biblical support you provide for your new theory.
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2015/10/i-can-do-no-other.html
A well researched,Biblically supported defense of placing "Reason" as the final arbiter of everything.
Except there's no Biblical support provided.
I'm observing a fact, Craig. We, in fact, use our reason to sort out biblical meanings and to seek God's ways. Whatever sources/methods we may use (prayer, Bible, observing nature, observing humanity, meditation, being still and seeking God within, etc) to seek Truth, we are using our reason to sort it all out. Just as a point of fact.
Do I need a Bible verse to make a factual observation of reality? I would argue that, no, facts stand on their own and it would be rather silly to cite the Bible to prop up a fact. Facts stand on their own.
Do you disagree?
And, to clarify a misunderstanding you're having: Reason is not the final arbiter of everything, God is. Reason is what we use to strive to understand God and Truth.
Do you disagree with reality on this point?
A question I'd have to you in response to "where's your biblical defense?" is, WHY do I have to make a biblical defense? I'm making a rational one, one which I would assume you agree with, since it's just a rational observation of reality... there's not really anything with which to disagree. So, why do I need an additional biblical "defense" of what we probably agree upon?
Once again I have to admire your chutzpah. The fact that you continue to ask question after question as if you haven't left multiple unanswered questions ignored in this thread both before and after I allowed your off topic diversion.
But you just go ahead and pretend.
As one more gesture of goodwill I choose to answer your question about providing Biblical support for your alternative.
You don't NEED to do anything, but it seems reasonable that any case regarding the place of scripture in Christian life, would contain at least a tiny bit of Biblical support.
It seems that you chose to make a case based on Reason instead. I understand why you chose this route, and I find it a fascinating glimpse into areas of your theology that you have previously been reluctant to expose and clearly explain.
The answer imbalance continues to grow, as does the level of denial.
"As to any questions that you think are unanswered on my part, here, Craig, I think you are simply mistaken."
To be blunt, what a load of bullshit. If you want your current dodge to be "I thought they were rhetorical", be that as it may. But it's just one more dodge of many. I'm not surprised at your dodging questions any more, in fact I expect it. That doesn't change the fact that you are showing an incredible amount of chutzpah to come back after dodging multiple questions from the FIRST topic, then to try to changer to a SECOND off topic topic, then to start demanding that I answer questions about your off topic comments. I don't really care what flimsy excuse you concoct at this point, the facts remain that you ran away leaving unanswered questions. Dress it up all you want, you can even lie to yourself about it, but don't think I'll buy your crap.
Look it's obvious that you are comfortable making pronouncements about what God "loves" or condones without bothering to dredge up even the tiniest bit of Biblical support. So, the fact that you are willing to base your entire "theory" on the foundation of fallible human Reason shouldn't surprise me. Ultimately your problem is that you are unable to provide Biblical support for many of your positions, so you simply construct a world for yourself where Biblical support for your hunches is not necessary. Why, because you have "Reason", what else do you need?
"No, the only serious unanswered questions here are mine to you."
The problem with the above is that it demonstrates that you are wholly unconcerned with the facts of the situation or that you are perfectly comfortable trying to use a flat out lie as a way to dodge. I'm horribly sorry that you seem to believe that you can dodge questions, run away to avoid answering the questions you've dodged, than come back lie about it and e=demand that I answer more of your questions.
Oh, this is preemptive. If you're even are thinking about coming back with any of your paranoid "You are so full of hate", "Stop the slander and gossip", "embrace grace" or any of your other faux pious catchphrases; don't even bother.
I don't hate you, I'm not slandering or gossiping, I'm not bearing false witness, and I've certainly extended you plenty of grace in this thread.
So stand up, stop dodging, stop lying, and grow a spine. I'd actually have a tiny bit of respect for you if you'd just admit that you don't want to answer questions, or they're too hard or whatever. But as long as you just dodge, run away, then lie you forfeit whatever residual respect I might have had for you.
You've been generous with your psychoanalysis, even in this thread, so I'm going to return the favor. Anytime anyone engages in the behavior you have in this thread (dodging, lying, claiming "hatred"), it suggests to me that you may have some sort of persecution complex or perhaps some form of paranoia, perhaps you should get some help.
So, there is no hatred, animus, falsehood, or anything else you might imagine.
What there is is sadness, disappointment, and perhaps some pity for your unwillingness or inability to recognize things as they actually are.
"So, the fact that you are willing to base your entire "theory" on the foundation of fallible human Reason shouldn't surprise me."
Indeed, Dan depends upon that concept in order to maintain his support for what are to honest and rational people of faith clearly in conflict with Biblical teaching.
"It is demonstrably false that I have, in any way, generally not answered your questions, the questions actually asked, Craig."
OK, then all I have to do is provide ONE question you have not answered and demonstrate that the above statement is "demonstrably false", so...
"On the one hand you say you've forgotten more doctrine than most people ever knew, then you say you are familiar with all of the writings on the topic that were current 30 years ago, then you say you have studied extensively, could you clarify which of your comments is the closest to the truth?"
above we have an unanswered question that proves your claim to be "demonstrably false".
So by all means, please if my position is demonstrably false, then demonstrate it. I've done so, now it's your turn. If you can't or won't demonstrate your claim (which you said you could demonstrate), than not only is my claim true, but your claim is proven to be the lie it is.
"It is demonstrably true that you have failed to answer some of the more salient questions I have asked of you."
While this statement is technically true it is being used to convey a falsehood. I have intentionally NOT answered your off topic questions for four reasons.
1. They are off the topic of this post.
2. There are questions that remain unanswered by you that precede the questions I have not answered.
3. Your questions are directed at trying to get me to respond to something that someone else (Stan) wrote. The fact that your behavior has gotten your commenting privileges revoked at Stan's does not obligate me to answer questions that are derived from a post that I did not write.
4. Since you have not answered the questions I asked you from the last time we had virtually the same conversation, I see no reason to indulge your unreasonable demands any further.
"I'm guessing your anger, your biases..."
Then you would be horribly, horribly wrong. If anything has made me "angry", it is you and your attempt to hijack this thread and take it off on tangents based on what you want to talk about, it's your refusal to acknowledge the fact that I answered EVERY SINGLE QUESTION you asked before your second foray off topic, it's the fact that you continue to act as if the previous statement isn't true, it's your inability to take responsibility for your actions, it's your desire to blame others ("hate", slander", "gossip") for your own refusal to engage.
So, to be clear. I have no anger, no biases, no nothing. What I have is disgust for your unwillingness to do what you demand of others. Frustration with your lies. An unwillingness to indulge your fantasy world any further. No "hate", "anger", of "bias".
"Let me know if that changes. I think I have raised some very good, very reasonable questions. Many people would agree. If you want to answer the questions asked of you, at any time, maybe when you've calmed down or gotten over this... whatever it is, let me know."
Don't hold your breath. The only possibility you have of getting your off topic questions answered is to start by answering every single one of the on topic questions you have dodged.
"I remain open to conversation with both of you guys."
Only on your terms and as long as you can ignore things that you find inconvenient or difficult. Only as long as you can dodge questions, and pretend as if your questions don't get answered. Only as long as you can run away when you get in over your head. Only as long as "conversation" involves demanding that everyone else do what you refuse to do.
In short, bullshit.
You said, ""It is demonstrably false that I have, in any way, generally not answered your questions, the questions actually asked, Craig."
I earlier copy pasted the requisite ONE unanswered question that demonstrates the above to be a lie. Now in the interest of fairness I have copy pasted 15 additional unanswered questions. The majority of these were taken from the multi part comment I referenced multiple times as the place where I answered all of your questions and where I had asked you questions. You know, the one you pretended didn't exist. All of these questions demonstrably (Yes, I can actually demonstrate my claim as opposed to you), came BEFORE any of the questions you bitch about me not answering.
1. "Surely you can agree that any restrictions should be based on objective evidence as to their efficacy and not on emotional or political philosophy, can't you?"
2. "Are you choosing to intentionally not respect my requests?"
3. "Are you going o stop misrepresenting my positions, and telling me what I think?"
4. "I have been clear that I believe that it could be constitutionally problematic to restrict people from owning things that are legal because of something they might do at some point in the future. Is this clear to you?"
5. "Do you disagree?"
6. "I do not believe the same problem exists regarding people who have their constitutional rights limited for things they have done. In other words convicted felons. Is this clear?"
7. "Do you understand that I am making a distinction between things that have been done in the past as opposed to things that might be done in the future?"
8. "Do you understand the constitutional implications for imposing restrictions on peoples constitutional rights for something they might do in the future?"
9. " Why then are you bringing up all of this other stuff that isn't part of my original post?
10. "Are you not able to agree with me that some restrictions and regulations are reasonable?" The problem with your question is that is is phrased in a manner that assumes that there are no "reasonable" restrictions in place already. So, it seems that your first order of business is to demonstrate that the current restrictions are not "reasonable", and then to advocate for additional restrictions that are "unreasonable". For example, you might consider establishing "gun free zones" to be a "reasonable" restriction. OK, so how's that working?"
11. "Is it stopping people from bringing guns into schools?"
12. "Another example, many believe that an "assault rifle ban" is reasonable. OK, given the fact that a total ban on "assault rifles" would have a negligible effect of crime (they are virtually never used in crimes), is it reasonable to impose a restriction that will have virtually zero effect?"
13. "Do you think that the federal government should be allowed to restrict constitutional rights based on possible future acts?"
14. "First, you have misstated my position. Did you do this on purpose, or was it a mistake?"
15. "I've been patient, I've shown grace, I've been polite, I've been respectful, how about you try to at least make an attempt to go along with my request?"
At this point, I will allow no further comments from you on ANY topic until you acknowledge that your claim to have answered my questions was false. Until you apologize for said falsehood. Until you do as I asked way back when and deal with my answers to your questions as well as the questions that I asked you in the previously mentioned multi part comment.
"At this point, I will allow no further comments from you on ANY topic until you acknowledge that your claim to have answered my questions was false. Until you apologize for said falsehood. Until you do as I asked way back when and deal with my answers to your questions as well as the questions that I asked you in the previously mentioned multi part comment."
If you can't read and comprehend the simple paragraph above, why in the world would I suspect that you have anything worthwhile to say about anything more difficult?
Feel free to ignore this and continue with attempts to justify yourself, they'll just keep dissapearing.
I have to love how you insist that when I paraphrase your actual positions, using virtually the same words you use, you deny that your position is what you said it was. Unfortunately for you I can go find the quotes, and see of you can spin those. But contradicting yourself has never really bothered you that much.
You obviously are having difficulty with basic comprehension of English.
I'm glad you understand that I'm deleting your comments because you continue to ignore the fact that I told you what comments will be allowed before any other comments get through.
It's pretty simple.
Craig,
Please go to my profile page and send me an email to my email. I thought we had corresponded before, but I can't seem to find anything that looks like you in my contact list. I'd like to get your opinion on something. Thanks.
Post a Comment