Sam Harris: A Liberal's Argument Against Gun Control

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by jpeyton, Jan 3, 2013.

  1. xj0hnx

    xj0hnx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    9,267
    Likes Received:
    1
    So one gang out of tens of thousands says something, and that makes it a blanket fact? Idiot. Gang members wouldn't lie or anything either, LOL
     
  2. dank69

    dank69 Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    17,448
    Likes Received:
    32
    I didn't get that impression from the article at all. He basically gives examples of possible legislation that he wouldn't necessarily be opposed to but then explains why they wouldn't accomplish their intended purpose even if they were enacted.
     
  3. Olikan

    Olikan Golden Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Likes Received:
    0
    indeed, illegal weapons grow on trees...why would they steal? of course is a lie
     
  4. xj0hnx

    xj0hnx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    9,267
    Likes Received:
    1
    Because it's easier, and less risky to just get someone to buy a gun legally for you than to go break into a house to get one.
     
  5. Moonbeam

    Moonbeam Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 1999
    Messages:
    57,804
    Likes Received:
    17
    My gun is sore from all the rubbing of oil on it that I always do when reading gun threads. Give me a break, please. I want to grease my nuclear weapons.
     
  6. HumblePie

    HumblePie Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    12,814
    Likes Received:
    4
    It's intermixed in there. But from a standpoint of a logical debate, a credible argument would go something like this.

    1) In the intro state what you want to do such as, "I want to present what I opinion to be a reasonable X." as well as state in the argument how or why such as, "Here is how I am going to present that argument by using Y."

    2) Present your backups in the "meat" of the argument along with explanation of why any fact, study, corollary, or argument ties in with your position from the intro.

    3) Present all logical potential counter arguments that would make the most logical sense and discuss those as well. No need to present ALL possible logical arguments as there would too many usually. Just use those that would be the strongest against your claim.

    4) In summary, reiterate why you did what you did and emphasize how everything done with your argument worked together.


    That is how a good logical presentation piece works. The author had elements of those steps I posted above in his paper, but failed overall.
     
  7. dank69

    dank69 Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    17,448
    Likes Received:
    32
    No, he didn't propose what you quoted. He listed that proposal as an example of a restriction that would not work. The fact that you can't understand this simple paragraph combined with your admitted assumptions is especially delicious. You are a dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance.



    Once again, you think this way because you can't comprehend most of my posts. I surgically point out terrible logic. You are immune to this because you don't understand logic, so logically explaining something to you is like logically explaining something to an infant.



    The fact that you did skim the article is more embarassing for you than it would be if you didn't. It means you aren't simply ignorant, you are retarded. The guy is arguing against gun control but you think he is actually arguing for it.
     
  8. soundforbjt

    soundforbjt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,690
    Likes Received:
    3
    The way these guys worked, there was little to no risk. They knew exactly where the police were in their hood at all times. It was pretty eye-opening to see how efficient and enterprising these "thugs" were. If they put their smarts towards legal enterprises they'd probably do well.
     
  9. HumblePie

    HumblePie Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    12,814
    Likes Received:
    4
    just because a person isn't book smart doesn't make them automatically unintelligent. Basic problem solving ability and to apply solutions found is what makes a person reasonably intelligent.
     
  10. chucky2

    chucky2 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1999
    Messages:
    9,020
    Likes Received:
    4
    No, he listed it, said he was in favor of it, and then says doing so wouldn't stop bad people from acquiring guns, and that sane gun owners should have access to guns. That doesn't mean he's not in favor of such an idiotic proposal. He specifically said he was. He just supports gun owners in being able to acquire weapons, a meaningless statement really given what he's talking about, because such a law, and the supports of such a law, would still frame the law in 'well, sane gun owners can pass all these tests, whammo, look, my paragraph was accurate just like dumbF69 suggested!'. Sorry, that's not what he meant there. He's doublespeaking, and you with your "logic" can't seem to comprehend that. How "delicious".

    No, I get that's your schtick. What you are failing to realize is not that I can't comprehend it, but that you pointing out things you think are terrible logic a.) doesn't make what you are pointing out terrible logic and/or b.) doesn't make your pointing out anymore logical or insightful than what you think you're shooting down. See here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/delusions+of+grandeur

    Gezus, you are this incredibly dumb?!?! Dipsh1t69, I skimmed the wall o txt because I didn't feel like reading through that at that time of night, nothing more. How "logical" of you to deduce my actual thoughts! As far as arguing against gun control, if that's true (still haven't read the article, OMG HOW IGNORANT OF ME LOL), he both started off and (almost) finished in the strangest of manners if he was taking that approach.

    Please, up your game here. Another posting like your typical posting puts you on ignore with sanduseless.

    Chuck
     
  11. dank69

    dank69 Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    17,448
    Likes Received:
    32
    I agree the structure is confusing. I wasn't sure exactly what point he was trying to make until I had read the whole thing. But the point is right there clearly in the title: Argument Against Gun Control.
     
  12. Olikan

    Olikan Golden Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Likes Received:
    0
    unless the american law permits you to sell your guns to someone, like you say...

    if not, well it's still a steal :sneaky:
     
  13. dank69

    dank69 Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    17,448
    Likes Received:
    32
    He is in favor of it because some of the "training" required to legally own a gun is laughable. Head over to OT and check out Jeebus' first hand experience if you don't believe me. He however uses that example to specifically state that the change will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The most delicious part of your ranting in this thread is that you are the exact character on the right that he is poking fun of. The type that over-reacts to any proposed legislation which is just as bad as the ones on the left that over-react to events such as Sandy Hook by looking for assault weapon bans and the like. Claiming the author is using double speak just reinforces my claim that you have no idea what you are talking about.



    I point out bad logic simply for educational purposes. Maybe someday with my help you will be able to piece together a reasonable argument. How's that for delusions of Grandeur? I know I am not that powerful.



    Oh how clever, altering my name. What a poet you are. Let me try: Go ahead fucky2, put me on ignore, the mental equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALA! Except you don't even have the willpower to ignore posts with the power of your own mind, you need software to do it. Grow a spine, fucky2.
     
  14. irishScott

    irishScott Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    21,570
    Likes Received:
    1

    Alright genius: I'm in favor of a perfect world, and am in favor of legislation towards that end. However, I realize that a perfect world is impossible to create therefore such legislation would be useless overall.

    ZOMG I just "doublespoke"! (which doesn't mean what you think it means) God that completely invalidates everything I just said! :rolleyes:

    Oh wait.. no it doesn't.

    You were one of those kids who skated by high school English weren't you? Hint: If you want to critique something and have that critique respected, you have to read the whole thing. Otherwise your critique typically ends up as stupid as your reading strategy. We don't give a shit about your time. If you don't have the time to at least read the whole thing, then you simply cannot critique the article and expect us to see more than a pile of shit.

    You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, but as a matter of physics you can't. So everyone's laughing at you and you're apparently getting off on it. Enjoy!
     
  15. irishScott

    irishScott Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    21,570
    Likes Received:
    1
    And as one of the most ardently pro-gun people on this forum, I'd like to state that this is one of the most coherent, thought-out, unbiased and overall best pro-gun arguments I've ever read.

    The fact that it doesn't play to the partisan propaganda the masses (and many on this forum) are so cathartically enamored with doesn't change that. In fact, we desperately need more articles like it.
     
  16. HumblePie

    HumblePie Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    12,814
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's the title but in the article he makes assertions for "sensible" gun control. Which is what you don't want to try to do with an article title like he has.

    for example, this is a very bad argument to use for his overall premise.

    As that is a bad talking point from gun control advocates. Do I personally think as a single person that I am going to stop the military might of the USA? * no. Nor does any reasonably sane person. However, against 300 million armed Americans, how do you think the military is going to fare even assuming none of the military would side with the public? Unless the military resorts to WMD such as nuclear bombs, they wouldn't win against the combined might of every armed American citizen. Even with if the military resorted to that, it wouldn't be a win as it would be nothing but a scorched earth campaign and suicide for them. Nor do I have any grand delusions that such a confrontation would ever happen on such a scale. Nor would I want something like that to ever happen.
     
    #66 HumblePie, Jan 4, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013
  17. dank69

    dank69 Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    17,448
    Likes Received:
    32
    He does believe we need sensible gun control but goes on to explain that sensible gun control is very difficult to acheive, and he technically did not "try," as you put it. He pointed out that the simplistic proposals being put forth currently are examples of nonsensical gun control.
     
  18. chucky2

    chucky2 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1999
    Messages:
    9,020
    Likes Received:
    4
    I just read the article. He wrote a blog telling us what is already known by any sane non-gungrabbing wacko. What I said still stands. If he took out his 'I support making it like getting an airplance license' then I'd change my response to either not posting (why bother?), or, a 'Skimmed the article, no sh1t'.

    Let me know when he updates his blog removing the pilot license bit, and I'll edit my first post.
     
    #68 chucky2, Jan 4, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013
  19. HumblePie

    HumblePie Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    12,814
    Likes Received:
    4
    His article title is that he is going to argue against gun control. Then goes into the intro and later in the argument that he believes in "sensible" gun control laws. This is a cognitive dissonance argument right there. He makes some good points for his original argument, then really goes stupid with a few counter argument points that he presents very badly. Just pointing out that this makes for a bad overall article for the point he is trying to get across.
     
  20. monovillage

    monovillage Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,445
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since owning a firearm and voting are both Constitutionally protected Rights in this country, my views on limits and restrictions to both of those Rights are very consistent.

    1.Showing an identification
    2.Small fee for background check
    3.No felons, crazies or the seriously mentally impaired.

    If you would recommend a restriction on a firearm then that same restriction can and should apply to voting.
     
  21. irishScott

    irishScott Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    21,570
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think he could have been a little more clear, but I don't think he's bashing the idea of an armed revolution, just people who buy guns explicitly for such purposes. I know if I walk into a gun store and hear some guy talking about how he's prepping for the government takeover coming in a few years, I'm likely going to drift to the other side of the gun store until he leaves.

    Likewise he mentions changes in the military and "even our politics" as reasons why an armed revolution would be unnecessary, and for the moment I agree. Our military is an all volunteer force who swore an oath to defend the Constitution (officers) and to obey the lawful orders of their superiors (enlisted). Likewise our politics are so dependent on public opinion it isn't funny. The only way we could realistically slip back into tyranny is by electing one, in which case we kinda deserve it.

    Now don't get me wrong I still believe an armed populace is a much needed emergency valve should such an event take place in a century or two, but when debating present policy, that is "how do we solve the problems we have now?" making such a long term appeal is of hollow value to most. The "armed populace as a check against tyranny" argument is vestigial to the most practical arguments and should be treated as such IMO.
     
  22. ivwshane

    ivwshane Lifer

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    14,951
    Likes Received:
    16

    That's all well and good but there are additional constitutional amendments with regards to voting that don't apply to guns, the poll tax being one of them.

    So that can affect 1 and does affect #2. So do you stand by your comment?
     
  23. irishScott

    irishScott Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    21,570
    Likes Received:
    1
    And I would love a world where everyone was required to take a 4 weeks of free, government provided firearms training in return for owning as many guns as you want and carrying them in any public location in any manner; as well as a 30 question test on the candidates and their political views to vote in an election, with a 90% required to pass.

    But it's hard to hold people to such high standards when the people are fat and lazy. Seriously, there are so many fat gun owners out there it isn't funny.
     
  24. ivwshane

    ivwshane Lifer

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    14,951
    Likes Received:
    16
    Exactly. The tyranny argument is an appeal to emotions and is about as thoughtful as getting rid of all guns as some may want.


    But hey, emotions aren't logical so it's expected.
     
  25. HumblePie

    HumblePie Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    12,814
    Likes Received:
    4
    If your argument is based upon a national federal level, then yep you are correct. But armed population is not for only a national defense, but can be used for a local one as well. Battle Of Athens comes to mind. Tyranny of the government or authority doesn't have to be on a wide scale national level.

    Now I do agree with you that if I was at a gun counter and a person buying a gun next to me professes the reason for his purchase is to defend himself against the government, I might move away as well. Although that is what the Constitutional 2nd amendment is ultimately for, that should not be the overriding reason for all citizens to go out and buy a gun for. I certainly do not. That's like a person looking for a fight.

    But back to the argument I was making, people counter the 2nd amendment purpose of a check against tyranny by always using a national level check. That idea is laughable to just about everyone. But as the Battle of Athens shows, it is not a defense against a government representative on a national scale only. Its when the cops bust down your door for some unknown illegal reason (which still happens to this day) you should be able to defend yourself against such an incursion.