Alright, let's go ahead and talk about Obama's gun control proposals

[Hyena Dandy]

So do you have a response to my POINT, or a nitpick of my PHRASING?

Edit: Apparently not, since my point was that describing them as a political lobbying group was accurate, and you did the same in your post...

By that mentality any lobby group, even a liberal one could be told off for taking any action, or publishing a magazine.

[PepperElf]

it was about your point.


"phrasing"? You were the one who said

That's not what people are doing. Honestly, NRA members are honest Americans, many of them calm, reasonable people. But when people attack the NRA as a 'corporate lobbying group' it's not based on some vaguery. It's based on the behavior of the NRA as an organization. It's based on the magazines they publish, and the statements by their leaders and spokesmen. The NRA members are not the ones publishing the magazines.

I merely point out that

1) " It's based on the magazines they publish" - only one of them is political. everything else is hobby-based such as equipment, training, safety, recipes etc.

One cannot attribute politics or "lobby" to that. It would be like trying to claim a car magazine, or a knitting book is a "political lobby publication".




2) The standards you seemed to push for this was that the organization took actions etc. that can be applied to ANY lobby.



I'm not sure where phrasing comes into it.
but i do agree with the blogger that people DO tend to forget that members are citizens. It's easier to ignore their points if one says "oh that's just a lobby anyway".


3) I never said they weren't a political organization, but pointed out that the publiationS you mentioned ... made it sound as if everything they published was some political piece. when in fact it's not.

bit like saying "these are all oranges" while pointing at a box of apples, grapes, oh and one orange.

[Duelist925]

That's because the controls suggested don't actually fix anything. And it's been proven again and again that they won't.


Yet it's the first thing some politicians grasp for - adding more controls on non-criminals - in an effort to stop criminals.



When the "solution" offered is just reduced rights, added restrictions, combined with the attitude that there's something mentally wrong with gun owners for not falling in line with this, then ... yes, said solution will be looked at as a "stick".



*snip*

This does not answer the main point of my question: WHAT POSSIBLE CARROT COULD BE OFFERED?

What could be offered in compromise? Because right now, I cannot think of one thing that anti-gun control people want that could be given without utterly giving up on gun control.

Even watered down, basic common sense legislation is treated as poison, as the first step towards totalitarianism. Something as simple as fucking expanded background checks.

it was about your point.


"phrasing"? You were the one who said




I merely point out that

1) " It's based on the magazines they publish" - only one of them is political. everything else is hobby-based such as equipment, training, safety, recipes etc.

One cannot attribute politics or "lobby" to that. It would be like trying to claim a car magazine, or a knitting book is a "political lobby publication".




2) The standards you seemed to push for this was that the organization took actions etc. that can be applied to ANY lobby.



I'm not sure where phrasing comes into it.
but i do agree with the blogger that people DO tend to forget that members are citizens. It's easier to ignore their points if one says "oh that's just a lobby anyway".


3) I never said they weren't a political organization, but pointed out that the publiationS you mentioned ... made it sound as if everything they published was some political piece. when in fact it's not.

bit like saying "these are all oranges" while pointing at a box of apples, grapes, oh and one orange.

Further, you are utterly missing Hyena's point. It is not "That they took actions" it is the actions they are taking themselves! It's not that they acted as a group, its that they're acting as a group pandering to the interests of the corporations that buy them off instead of the interests of they're members. Stop focusing on the one poorly phrased portion of his statement and nitpicking it to death.

[Nekojin]

Even watered down, basic common sense legislation is treated as poison, as the first step towards totalitarianism. Something as simple as fucking expanded background checks.

The biggest problems with regard to screening for dangerous loonies is that medical privacy laws completely thwart most efforts at data sharing for such purposes. It's not explicitly a gun control issue at play here - it's more of a "loony control" issue. We don't want mentally ill people having guns - but we don't want them having explosives, or hydrochloric acid, or pilot's licenses, any of a thousand other potentially dangerous things. Expanded background checks won't stop them from any of this unless they're declared legally insane, by a judge.

This isn't a gun issue. It's loony issue.

[Hyena Dandy]

My point, as best I can say it, is as follows.

2) The standards you seemed to push for this was that the organization took actions etc. that can be applied to ANY lobby.

I have no problem with the NRA being a lobbying group. I was responding TO A POINT THAT WAS MADE.

They are a lobbying group. They are free to be a lobbying group, and they are free to lobby for whatever they want. They are free to lobby for forced euthanasia or for genocide, if that's what they want to lobby for. I have no problem with them lobbying against gun control.

My point was, in response to the person's post, defending the NRA from accusations of being a corporate lobbying group, on the grounds that there are so many people who are a part of it, I am saying as follows.

That people accusing the NRA of this are not saying that it does not have a large number of members, or that it's members do not behave as it says they do, and therefore, the defense is irrelevant.

As evidence - The NRA officially does not support expanding background checks. 74% of its members do. Therefore, it takes actions that its members do not approve of. Therefore, the membership of the NRA is not actually a defense of the NRA.

But rather than actually respond to that point, you decided to say "BUT ONLY ONE MAGAZINE IS POLITICAL."

That is irrelevant nitpicking. So why stop at pointing out I said 'magazines' instead of 'magazine'?

I'll just defend myself by pointing out that the NRA has published several issues since at least January 2012. So therefore, using the word magazines would be appropriate. Or that there are at least two copies of America's First Freedom in existence, so yes, I can say magazines, because there are two of them.

Or, here's a better suggestion. We could talk about my points instead of my phrasing.

[PepperElf]

This does not answer the main point of my question: WHAT POSSIBLE CARROT COULD BE OFFERED?

None. Not when the "sticks" do nothing to solve violence - and have been proven to increase crime. Not when the sticks only affect law-abiding citizens.


can't offer any carrot that makes up for trying to punish the innocent for the actions of criminals


phrasing. meh. strawman?

[PepperElf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjAl_kbAxmc

oh ranger up how you crack me up.

[Duelist925]

None. Not when the "sticks" do nothing to solve violence - and have been proven to increase crime. Not when the sticks only affect law-abiding citizens.


can't offer any carrot that makes up for trying to punish the innocent for the actions of criminals


phrasing. meh. strawman?

How, exactly, do expanded background checks increase crime or only affect law abiding citizens?

[Hyena Dandy]

phrasing. meh. strawman?

Do you know what a strawman argument actually is?

Because I wasn't using one. A strawman argument would be claiming you made an argument you didn't make. Claiming your response was to nitpick my use of the word "Magazines" over "Magazine" seems a pretty fair assessment. You can't just call strawman on any argument you don't like.

[PepperElf]

the real meaning or how it's used here most times?




as for how ubc increases crime...

i never said "ubc increases crime"
i said "None. Not when the "sticks" do nothing to solve violence - and have been proven to increase crime. Not when the sticks only affect law-abiding citizens."

[Gravekeeper]

Dear lord, catching up on the last 3 pages of this gave me a headache >.>

How have "sticks" been proven to increase crime? Crime is largely a socio-economic issue. More or less guns will not increase or decrease crime. Contrary to the belief of both sides in some cases. The effect that gun availability has is that more or less guns will be used in crime and increase or decrease the violence or severity of some crimes ( Such as mass shootings ).

I'm not really sure why this is all such a tangled issue. The objective of large scale gun control is the reduction in firearms available for crime. Not the reduction of the capability of people to defend themselves despite what a third of America seems to think.

Having a gun to defend yourself only functions when having said gun tips the balance of power in your favour. Without at least common sense gun legislation the Bad Guys(tm) will also have a gun and nothing has changed except an increase risk of someone being hurt or killed.

Its actually pretty foolish to reject even basic common sense regulations that would increase the chance that you're the only one with the gun if shit ever hits the fan. -.-

[Hyena Dandy]

the real meaning or how it's used here most times?

Any meaning you like.

I am yet to see a version of "Strawman argument" where my saying 'you're not providing an actual counter-argument, you're nitpicking my phrasing" is arguing something other than what you're doing. As far as I can tell, that's actually what you're doing.

If you care to explain why saying 'magazines' instead of 'magazine' actually invalidates my point, and you were trying to show that, then I didn't use a strawman argument, but did unintentionally misinterpret you. And if that's the case, I apologize.

My point, by the way, is as follows. Since it seems to be so hard for people here to grasp, both of you and Duelist have missed a bit of it.

My point is a counter-refutation to an original refutation to a point.

In this case, the original point is "The NRA serves corporate interests over the will of its members."

The original refutation was "The NRA has many members, of many demographics, around the country, and its membership is growing."

My counter-refutation was "That doesn't actually prove it doesn't serve its members."

Your response to that was, as far as I can tell

1) The NRA is doing lobbying (which is irrelevant to the original point, which is criticizing it for not lobbying for what its members want)

and

2) I said magazine instead of magazines.

Finally, "Strawman argument" is not a formal logical fallacy. So the 'real' meaning is not one that's been formally decided on academically.

[Hyena Dandy]

Added: I can see how you can accuse my saying that their rebuttal was irrelevant as a strawman. As that was a situation where I was responding to a point. As best as I can tell, I was responding to what the actual position was, or at the very least, what the position the person presented was.

I may have misinterpreted.

But no, I really don't think that my accusing you of just nitpicking my phrasing is a strawman. That's a thing you did.

[Tanasi]

Dear lord, catching up on the last 3 pages of this gave me a headache >.>

How have "sticks" been proven to increase crime? Crime is largely a socio-economic issue. More or less guns will not increase or decrease crime. Contrary to the belief of both sides in some cases. The effect that gun availability has is that more or less guns will be used in crime and increase or decrease the violence or severity of some crimes ( Such as mass shootings ).

I'm not really sure why this is all such a tangled issue. The objective of large scale gun control is the reduction in firearms available for crime. Not the reduction of the capability of people to defend themselves despite what a third of America seems to think.

Having a gun to defend yourself only functions when having said gun tips the balance of power in your favour. Without at least common sense gun legislation the Bad Guys(tm) will also have a gun and nothing has changed except an increase risk of someone being hurt or killed.

Its actually pretty foolish to reject even basic common sense regulations that would increase the chance that you're the only one with the gun if shit ever hits the fan. -.-

Sticks increase crime by making criminals of those that owned something that was previously legal suddenly illegal such as in NY where the definition of so-called High Capacity magazines was changed. There was no provisions for grandfathering those magazines.
While the Gun Controllers will spout some high and mighty righteous reasons for the need of more and more and more gun control it's not about guns but control. While Feinstein, Pelosi, and such won't openly say it but they believe that they know what's best for you and yours, it's just that you're too stupid to understand. Their arrogance knows no bounds and all forms of politics suffer from this regardless of party. I think you know what's best for you just as I think I know what's best for me.
If it comes to a fight I'd much rather be the only one with a gun but rarely does one get to pick and choose such situations, you fight with what's at hand. I don't want bad guns have firearms, nor knives, club, tazers or anything offensive or defensive weapons. The recently defeated senate bill regarding background checks was effectively a null bill for the most part but appeared to criminalize something as simple as lending a friend a shotgun to hunt with or shoot skeet. Basically it was poorly written but not nearly as bad as the NY SAFE act.
I have a challenge for you: Define "Common Sense" to where everyone agrees with your definition.

[Tanasi]

Maybe you guys google-fu is better than mine but I can't tie down the source of this "90%" in favor of expanded background checks and the questions behind it. I'd also like the source for the the 70% of NRA members that have a similar opinion. Thanks.


In several previous posts no one can think of even one carrot, I've pointed out a few in previous posts (hint: one is in this thread.)