EPTOn February 19 2018 17:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
roflmao @ gun-check
I ceded the (obvious) point immediately? Perhaps you missed it?
I was trying to help both sides by shifting the argument to what people were trying to say. I thought I already made that clear?
Show nested quote +
On February 19 2018 17:33 Introvert wrote:
Then we can have a gun check-in! But you've ceded the principle, which is good. But what is a more likely target? The supporters or Trump? I mean if some guy wanted to shoot up people leaving a rally he wouldn't need a permit to get to the parking lot.
All I'm trying to do is point out that the rally situation is different than generally supporting open or concealed carry. That's all I'm trying to accomplish here.
On February 19 2018 17:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean you know the shallowness of the point and the actual point people are arguing but you are expressly rejecting to engage with it so I foresee a rather unproductive discussion going forward. Nearly everyone here already thinks you are in denial (reasonably or not) so there's no sense in me joining the dog pile. Honestly I was trying to help us all out, but you go ahead and die on this hill if you want to.
Ugh, can't help it.
Not really. If you've ever been to a presidential rally (especially one with any sort of significant attendance) you'd know you park pretty far away from where you go in.
I can't recall the comedian at the moment but he cleverly pointed out, that making sure no one can carry inside means that people know 100% of the people coming out at the end are unarmed.
Meaning one of the most vulnerable groups of people (by this logic) would be Trump supporters leaving a rally. So sure Trump's safe, but by his own logic he's turned his supporters into walking potential victims either of having their guns stolen or being unarmed on the way back to their guns.
On February 19 2018 17:05 Introvert wrote:
Well I reserve the right to object to that but...there doesn't have to be a cut off. Just because it's not clear that "state legislator no, Congressman yes" doesn't mean it's absurd or will break down. My premise is not "more guns=more safe," although it could be, we just have to decide who has the guns :p
And to see there is no logical inconsistency we can consider an example. Why would you cc out on the town? For self-defense. Why would you carry a gun into a presidential speech? To shoot the president. The place is already secure, you don't need a gun for your own safety.
I don't have to draw a hard line, and such a demand is unwarranted. Lots of famous people have armed private security. That's fine too. No one has demonstrated the need for a hard line but the fact that they go for the two polar extremes is interesting by itself.
Edit: And remember the narrow scope of how this started: Trump (or more accurately the Secret Service) don't allow guns into rallies. That is obviously correct. I refuse to believe that anyone can't see the difference between that and advocating for CC.
That's not what I mean by target, quite obviously. But in that case you'd like to have your own weapon to fire back
Random shootings are pretty rare, you aren't likely to get shot, but if you find yourself in a bad spot... but I said I wasn't arguing that. The president already has security. No more guns needed, and in fact it would look rather suspicious if you brought one.
On February 19 2018 16:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
People are asking how big the target has to get before it's valid. You can't really address that because of the flawed premise. You can point to people where you can say it makes obvious sense, but you can't get anywhere near a threshold because the whole argument would fall apart.
While I appreciate the nuanced perception of what they said vs trying to read what they meant (forgive the liberals) they were addressing the larger "more guns =more safe" argument you're perfectly capable of agreeing with them is as stupid as it clearly is and this can be done without any more indignation on either side.
On February 19 2018 16:53 Introvert wrote:
the latter is exactly the point. I'm not here to argue the virtues of the second amendment. But to compare presidential security and regular open carry and then use that to claim hypocrisy is ridiculous. you joe schome on the street don't have a gigantic target on your back.
On February 19 2018 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your point seems kinda dumb. I mean without at least admitting more guns don't make you safer, which is I think the root of what people were getting at.
If your point is certain people having guns in certain contexts makes certain people safer I don't think anyone would really disagree with you.
On February 19 2018 16:47 Introvert wrote:
I don't read other threads, basically just abl and the feedback threads.
this still isn't really my point though. say it was safer to have an armed populace. in the case of the president it still makes more sense for only the ss to have weapons of any sort. the two situations aren't comparable. same with any other high level VIP with their own security who could be a target by virtue of who they are. only an ignoramus would think they are the same.
On February 19 2018 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Dunno if you saw the gun thread but I'm pretty reasonable on this.
Another way of thinking about it would be how about everyone in the thread was all in the same room. You think giving us guns makes us safer or less safe?
How about just you, danglars, xdaunt, RiK and me. Giving us all guns make us more or less safe?
How about just you, gun make you safer?
Thinking guns make people safer is a wrongheaded idea. Gun's are tools, they can be used in a wide variety of ways and a wide variety of contexts. It's a small and simple concession to admit that the logic around "more guns=more safe" is comparably stupid to everyone at an NRA rally with the president having the guns they carry everywhere else.
To drive this home, if we had 1,000,000 (add as many 0's as it takes for this not to be the focus) yous, and put them all in a room with a gun for a year, some of them would kill themselves with the gun if for no other reason than by accident. Take away the guns and we save some yous. sure we'll lose some yous to a lot of different causes, but no guns will mean significantly fewer dead yous. Same thing if we put the yous in a city or a country.
that obviously wasn't part of it but at least acknowledging that it's different is a start.
Dunno if you saw the gun thread but I'm pretty reasonable on this.
Another way of thinking about it would be how about everyone in the thread was all in the same room. You think giving us guns makes us safer or less safe?
How about just you, danglars, xdaunt, RiK and me. Giving us all guns make us more or less safe?
How about just you, gun make you safer?
Thinking guns make people safer is a wrongheaded idea. Gun's are tools, they can be used in a wide variety of ways and a wide variety of contexts. It's a small and simple concession to admit that the logic around "more guns=more safe" is comparably stupid to everyone at an NRA rally with the president having the guns they carry everywhere else.
To drive this home, if we had 1,000,000 (add as many 0's as it takes for this not to be the focus) yous, and put them all in a room with a gun for a year, some of them would kill themselves with the gun if for no other reason than by accident. Take away the guns and we save some yous. sure we'll lose some yous to a lot of different causes, but no guns will mean significantly fewer dead yous. Same thing if we put the yous in a city or a country.
I don't read other threads, basically just abl and the feedback threads.
this still isn't really my point though. say it was safer to have an armed populace. in the case of the president it still makes more sense for only the ss to have weapons of any sort. the two situations aren't comparable. same with any other high level VIP with their own security who could be a target by virtue of who they are. only an ignoramus would think they are the same.
Your point seems kinda dumb. I mean without at least admitting more guns don't make you safer, which is I think the root of what people were getting at.
If your point is certain people having guns in certain contexts makes certain people safer I don't think anyone would really disagree with you.
the latter is exactly the point. I'm not here to argue the virtues of the second amendment. But to compare presidential security and regular open carry and then use that to claim hypocrisy is ridiculous. you joe schome on the street don't have a gigantic target on your back.
People are asking how big the target has to get before it's valid. You can't really address that because of the flawed premise. You can point to people where you can say it makes obvious sense, but you can't get anywhere near a threshold because the whole argument would fall apart.
While I appreciate the nuanced perception of what they said vs trying to read what they meant (forgive the liberals) they were addressing the larger "more guns =more safe" argument you're perfectly capable of agreeing with them is as stupid as it clearly is and this can be done without any more indignation on either side.
Well I reserve the right to object to that but...there doesn't have to be a cut off. Just because it's not clear that "state legislator no, Congressman yes" doesn't mean it's absurd or will break down. My premise is not "more guns=more safe," although it could be, we just have to decide who has the guns :p
And to see there is no logical inconsistency we can consider an example. Why would you cc out on the town? For self-defense. Why would you carry a gun into a presidential speech? To shoot the president. The place is already secure, you don't need a gun for your own safety.
I don't have to draw a hard line, and such a demand is unwarranted. Lots of famous people have armed private security. That's fine too. No one has demonstrated the need for a hard line but the fact that they go for the two polar extremes is interesting by itself.
Edit: And remember the narrow scope of how this started: Trump (or more accurately the Secret Service) don't allow guns into rallies. That is obviously correct. I refuse to believe that anyone can't see the difference between that and advocating for CC.
On February 19 2018 17:02 Kyadytim wrote:
Correct, the average person on the street does not have a gigantic target on their back. However, plenty of them have small targets on their back that they don't know about until someone starts shooting at them for something.
On February 19 2018 16:53 Introvert wrote:
the latter is exactly the point. I'm not here to argue the virtues of the second amendment. But to compare presidential security and regular open carry and then use that to claim hypocrisy is ridiculous. you joe schome on the street don't have a gigantic target on your back.
On February 19 2018 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your point seems kinda dumb. I mean without at least admitting more guns don't make you safer, which is I think the root of what people were getting at.
If your point is certain people having guns in certain contexts makes certain people safer I don't think anyone would really disagree with you.
On February 19 2018 16:47 Introvert wrote:
I don't read other threads, basically just abl and the feedback threads.
this still isn't really my point though. say it was safer to have an armed populace. in the case of the president it still makes more sense for only the ss to have weapons of any sort. the two situations aren't comparable. same with any other high level VIP with their own security who could be a target by virtue of who they are. only an ignoramus would think they are the same.
On February 19 2018 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Dunno if you saw the gun thread but I'm pretty reasonable on this.
Another way of thinking about it would be how about everyone in the thread was all in the same room. You think giving us guns makes us safer or less safe?
How about just you, danglars, xdaunt, RiK and me. Giving us all guns make us more or less safe?
How about just you, gun make you safer?
Thinking guns make people safer is a wrongheaded idea. Gun's are tools, they can be used in a wide variety of ways and a wide variety of contexts. It's a small and simple concession to admit that the logic around "more guns=more safe" is comparably stupid to everyone at an NRA rally with the president having the guns they carry everywhere else.
To drive this home, if we had 1,000,000 (add as many 0's as it takes for this not to be the focus) yous, and put them all in a room with a gun for a year, some of them would kill themselves with the gun if for no other reason than by accident. Take away the guns and we save some yous. sure we'll lose some yous to a lot of different causes, but no guns will mean significantly fewer dead yous. Same thing if we put the yous in a city or a country.
that obviously wasn't part of it but at least acknowledging that it's different is a start.
Dunno if you saw the gun thread but I'm pretty reasonable on this.
Another way of thinking about it would be how about everyone in the thread was all in the same room. You think giving us guns makes us safer or less safe?
How about just you, danglars, xdaunt, RiK and me. Giving us all guns make us more or less safe?
How about just you, gun make you safer?
Thinking guns make people safer is a wrongheaded idea. Gun's are tools, they can be used in a wide variety of ways and a wide variety of contexts. It's a small and simple concession to admit that the logic around "more guns=more safe" is comparably stupid to everyone at an NRA rally with the president having the guns they carry everywhere else.
To drive this home, if we had 1,000,000 (add as many 0's as it takes for this not to be the focus) yous, and put them all in a room with a gun for a year, some of them would kill themselves with the gun if for no other reason than by accident. Take away the guns and we save some yous. sure we'll lose some yous to a lot of different causes, but no guns will mean significantly fewer dead yous. Same thing if we put the yous in a city or a country.
I don't read other threads, basically just abl and the feedback threads.
this still isn't really my point though. say it was safer to have an armed populace. in the case of the president it still makes more sense for only the ss to have weapons of any sort. the two situations aren't comparable. same with any other high level VIP with their own security who could be a target by virtue of who they are. only an ignoramus would think they are the same.
Your point seems kinda dumb. I mean without at least admitting more guns don't make you safer, which is I think the root of what people were getting at.
If your point is certain people having guns in certain contexts makes certain people safer I don't think anyone would really disagree with you.
the latter is exactly the point. I'm not here to argue the virtues of the second amendment. But to compare presidential security and regular open carry and then use that to claim hypocrisy is ridiculous. you joe schome on the street don't have a gigantic target on your back.
Correct, the average person on the street does not have a gigantic target on their back. However, plenty of them have small targets on their back that they don't know about until someone starts shooting at them for something.
That's not what I mean by target, quite obviously. But in that case you'd like to have your own weapon to fire back
Random shootings are pretty rare, you aren't likely to get shot, but if you find yourself in a bad spot... but I said I wasn't arguing that. The president already has security. No more guns needed, and in fact it would look rather suspicious if you brought one. I mean you know the shallowness of the point and the actual point people are arguing but you are expressly rejecting to engage with it so I foresee a rather unproductive discussion going forward. Nearly everyone here already thinks you are in denial (reasonably or not) so there's no sense in me joining the dog pile. Honestly I was trying to help us all out, but you go ahead and die on this hill if you want to.
On February 19 2018 17:13 Introvert wrote:
Because presumably you are already safe, though perhaps you could start a fist-fight. And colleges do have armed security. But this is the sort of line drawing I said didn't matter to the narrow scope of president vs citizen. You can have places or people that are defined targets. You in downtown are prob not a target and you prob aren't targeting anyone else. You bring a gun into a Trump rally, you prob have a target.
Your reason for having the weapon on your person in those two situations is different. This is quite obviously true, and it is the entire crux of the hypocrisy charge.
On February 19 2018 17:10 Acrofales wrote:
Why can't I use a gun in self defense at a Trump rally? Or alternatively, why aren't colleges (and high schools) secure?
On February 19 2018 17:05 Introvert wrote:
Well I reserve the right to object to that but...there doesn't have to be a cut off. Just because it's not clear that "state legislator no, Congressman yes" doesn't mean it's absurd or will break down. My premise is not "more guns=more safe," but although it could be, we just have to decide who has the guns :p
And to see there is no logical inconsistency we can consider an example. Why would you cc out on the town? For self-defense. Why would you carry a gun into a presidential speech? To shoot the president. The place is already secure, you don't need a gun for your own safety.
I don't have to draw a hard line, and such a demand is unwarranted. Lots of famous people have armed private security. That's fine too. No one has demonstrated the need for a hard line but the fact that they go for the two polar extremes is interesting by itself.
On February 19 2018 16:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
People are asking how big the target has to get before it's valid. You can't really address that because of the flawed premise. You can point to people where you can say it makes obvious sense, but you can't get anywhere near a threshold because the whole argument would fall apart.
While I appreciate the nuanced perception of what they said vs trying to read what they meant (forgive the liberals) they were addressing the larger "more guns =more safe" argument you're perfectly capable of agreeing with them is as stupid as it clearly is and this can be done without any more indignation on either side.
On February 19 2018 16:53 Introvert wrote:
the latter is exactly the point. I'm not here to argue the virtues of the second amendment. But to compare presidential security and regular open carry and then use that to claim hypocrisy is ridiculous. you joe schome on the street don't have a gigantic target on your back.
On February 19 2018 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your point seems kinda dumb. I mean without at least admitting more guns don't make you safer, which is I think the root of what people were getting at.
If your point is certain people having guns in certain contexts makes certain people safer I don't think anyone would really disagree with you.
On February 19 2018 16:47 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I don't read other threads, basically just abl and the feedback threads.
this still isn't really my point though. say it was safer to have an armed populace. in the case of the president it still makes more sense for only the ss to have weapons of any sort. the two situations aren't comparable. same with any other high level VIP with their own security who could be a target by virtue of who they are. only an ignoramus would think they are the same.
[quote]
I don't read other threads, basically just abl and the feedback threads.
this still isn't really my point though. say it was safer to have an armed populace. in the case of the president it still makes more sense for only the ss to have weapons of any sort. the two situations aren't comparable. same with any other high level VIP with their own security who could be a target by virtue of who they are. only an ignoramus would think they are the same.
Your point seems kinda dumb. I mean without at least admitting more guns don't make you safer, which is I think the root of what people were getting at.
If your point is certain people having guns in certain contexts makes certain people safer I don't think anyone would really disagree with you.
the latter is exactly the point. I'm not here to argue the virtues of the second amendment. But to compare presidential security and regular open carry and then use that to claim hypocrisy is ridiculous. you joe schome on the street don't have a gigantic target on your back.
People are asking how big the target has to get before it's valid. You can't really address that because of the flawed premise. You can point to people where you can say it makes obvious sense, but you can't get anywhere near a threshold because the whole argument would fall apart.
While I appreciate the nuanced perception of what they said vs trying to read what they meant (forgive the liberals) they were addressing the larger "more guns =more safe" argument you're perfectly capable of agreeing with them is as stupid as it clearly is and this can be done without any more indignation on either side.
Well I reserve the right to object to that but...there doesn't have to be a cut off. Just because it's not clear that "state legislator no, Congressman yes" doesn't mean it's absurd or will break down. My premise is not "more guns=more safe," but although it could be, we just have to decide who has the guns :p
And to see there is no logical inconsistency we can consider an example. Why would you cc out on the town? For self-defense. Why would you carry a gun into a presidential speech? To shoot the president. The place is already secure, you don't need a gun for your own safety.
I don't have to draw a hard line, and such a demand is unwarranted. Lots of famous people have armed private security. That's fine too. No one has demonstrated the need for a hard line but the fact that they go for the two polar extremes is interesting by itself.
Why can't I use a gun in self defense at a Trump rally? Or alternatively, why aren't colleges (and high schools) secure?
Because presumably you are already safe, though perhaps you could start a fist-fight. And colleges do have armed security. But this is the sort of line drawing I said didn't matter to the narrow scope of president vs citizen. You can have places or people that are defined targets. You in downtown are prob not a target and you prob aren't targeting anyone else. You bring a gun into a Trump rally, you prob have a target.
Your reason for having the weapon on your person in those two situations is different. This is quite obviously true, and it is the entire crux of the hypocrisy charge.
Ugh, can't help it.
Not really. If you've ever been to a presidential rally (especially one with any sort of significant attendance) you'd know you park pretty far away from where you go in.
I can't recall the comedian at the moment but he cleverly pointed out, that making sure no one can carry inside means that people know 100% of the people coming out at the end are unarmed.
Meaning one of the most vulnerable groups of people (by this logic) would be Trump supporters leaving a rally. So sure Trump's safe, but by his own logic he's turned his supporters into walking potential victims either of having their guns stolen or being unarmed on the way back to their guns.
Then we can have a gun check-in! But you've ceded the principle, which is good. But what is a more likely target? The supporters or Trump? I mean if some guy wanted to shoot up people leaving a rally he wouldn't need a permit to get to the parking lot.
All I'm trying to do is point out that the rally situation is different than generally supporting open or concealed carry. That's all I'm trying to accomplish here.
roflmao @ gun-check
I ceded the (obvious) point immediately? Perhaps you missed it?
I was trying to help both sides by shifting the argument to what people were trying to say. I thought I already made that clear?
For the record that was a joke
But I think you were trying to move it just a little further. Maybe not.![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9MAabKh.jpg)
