CDZ Sadly, I fear we are still one grisly step away from resolving the gun debate

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by usmbguest5318, Feb 26, 2018.

  1. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,768
    Off-Topic:
    I'm responding to your post out of courtesy. What any political party has or has not proposed to enhance school safety isn't the thread's discussion topic because the temporal context of the thread topic is forward looking not backward looking.

    Just so you are aware, the broad topic of the thread is how far or near we are to resolving the gun debate and what will or will not have to occur for a definitive resolution to come about. I expressed in the OP what I think it'll take to arrive at a resolution. If you have a similar or different idea of what will effect a resolution, then please do share it.

    That is clearly not so:
    The examples above are but the "tip if of the iceberg." Of course, individuals whose eyes are directed "landward" won't observe even that.​
     
  2. andaronjim
    Offline

    andaronjim Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2015
    Messages:
    11,841
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,298
    The way to resolve the gun issue.
    1. get rid of all the miserable Liberals(that means all of them) either by execution or by deporting them to Cuba, the socialist utopian paradise they all crave. When they are gone, the rest of the United States citizens(not illegals) can now have Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness, because those miserable wretches aren't there complaining and shooting anymore.
     
  3. 9thIDdoc
    Offline

    9thIDdoc Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    5,256
    Thanks Received:
    859
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,041
    Apparently sarcasm-as well as current events for the last 4--5 decades-escapes you. And my assertions and speculations are most certainly more plausible and probable than your OP. Why do you think I would bother with supporting evidence when you ignored it when I did present it to you in your OP in the "I don't understand..." thread and disproved some of your assertions in the doing. If you actually wanted a discussion as you have claimed, why don't you discuss instead of running away?
     
  4. Manonthestreet
    Offline

    Manonthestreet Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    18,881
    Thanks Received:
    6,667
    Trophy Points:
    430
    Ratings:
    +16,436
    Honestly your op sounded like an action plan for accomplishing your stated goal. Don't do anything to make schools safer and hold out until the right people get killed and again try to capitalize on it.
    Your op pre-supposes inaction to make schools safer because of NRA so liberals clinging to their Hardline position is part of the discussion.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2018
  5. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,768
    ??? It was clear to me then and it remains clear that you didn't understand (1) the rhetorical point of the OP in that thread and (2) what the hell I requested; consequently, you provided content that answers a question that wasn't being asked. You could have provided literally all the supporting evidence in the world and it still would not have addressed the actual question I posed. I ignored most of what you had to say because you're 70 years-old and didn't address the central question of that thread.

    As I made clear to another member, the point of the OP in that thread is this:
    To avoid the formal and precise language of economics, I, in that thread's OP, I expressed the central question in layman's terms and as a statement, thinking that readers could from that statement derive what must necessarily be the question the thread entreats them to answer.
    The entirety of the remainder of that OP is nothing other than my sharing broadly the nature of what I'd observed in seeking the answer to my question.

    What you did was share different observations and challenge the ones I shared. That's all well and good, but that those observations can and do exist -- yours or mine -- does not answer the central question:
    • In layman's terms: "Why are folks so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles?"
    • In economic terms: "What motivates the elasticity and substitution conclusions consumers obtain when demanding (effective and latent) semi-automatic rifles?"
    If one doesn't have an answer to the question, well, one just doesn't. I don't have an answer to it, so I'm not going to ridicule someone else for not having an answer to it. If one wants to post and say "I don't know the answer to your question," that's fine too. But don't sit there feeling dejected because I didn't respond to your remarks that don't answer the thread question. Yes, the question was tacitly posed, but still, you're 70 year-old; it shouldn't have overtaxed your abilities to get from a statement to a question.

    Hell, in your first post in that thread, you deigned to tell me with what consumer sub-groups certain firearms are popular. Why you did so is beyond me, for my OP made it clear that I already knew that semi-automatic rifles are popular. With whom they are popular is irrelevant to that thread's central question unless one/you show (credibly, not just your say-so) that the specific people or consumer sub-groups with whom they are popular are the people driving demand for item under consideration (in that thread's case, semi-automatic rifles).

    Absent providing input that explains why folks are so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles, one might also have shown that the premise of the question -- that folks are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles -- is not true. Such a tack would be very difficult to credibly take, but it's an option and effectively showing the inaccuracy of the question's implicit premise does directly address the question.

    Lastly, your notion of providing credible support for things and mine are clearly very different. I can sit here and attest to being an expert in the fields in which I am; however, insofar as I don't care to yield the freedom from professional controversy I here enjoy on account of my anonymity, I am not going to identify myself and point folks to my publications and achievements. Because I'm not going to offer anyone here a means for verifying my status as an expert in a few disciplines, when I'm assert something about a matter for which I am an expert, I nonetheless provide links to credible references rather than bidding readers to rely on my say-so. I do that because as an expert, it's no trouble at all for me to do so -- 30 seconds to a minute is all it takes because I know exactly what I'm looking for, the names of authors (researchers) who've written about the matter, etc. Truly, the majority of those few seconds is spent finding a document that's available in the public domain and that doesn't require one to purchase it.

    Contrast that with what you did. You undertook to tell me about all your experience with guns and bid me to take your word for it.
    Quite simply, I cannot verify any of that. But I'm not insisting that you provide the means for me to do so. Documentary support published by other experts and that I can read will do just fine. Indeed, that approach, when well executed, can obviate the need for you (or anyone) to be a widely acknowledged expert. But here's the key: experts on "whatever" don't generally misconstrue what be the central question being asked and, in turn, answer a question that's not been asked. There is, however, one genre of sometimes-experts who do that: politicians.
     
  6. frigidweirdo
    Online

    frigidweirdo Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2014
    Messages:
    30,849
    Thanks Received:
    3,077
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,488
    But it wasn't a gun free area, there was a guy with a gun. He just couldn't stop the other guy with the gun.
     
  7. BlackSand
    Offline

    BlackSand Nobody Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    14,587
    Thanks Received:
    4,190
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Wherever I May Roam
    Ratings:
    +16,120
    It could simply suggest that if knee-jerk reactionary politics is going to be the way that what the poster deems to be effective gun control measures are enacted ...
    It probably won't see substantial success until someone shoots up the elite's or politician's children.

    The OP made a fair point looking forward and in respects to accomplishing goal ... And offering a process they deem would be more effective.

    .
     
  8. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,768
    How you drew that as the rhetorical purpose of the OP is beyond me. Tijn Von Ingersleben very aptly, perfectly in fact, summarized in post 3 the theme upon which the OP is an exposition that applies that theme specifically to the matter of unlawful gun use.
     
  9. Manonthestreet
    Offline

    Manonthestreet Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    18,881
    Thanks Received:
    6,667
    Trophy Points:
    430
    Ratings:
    +16,436
    Treachery by repub pols....say one thing do another .....what a bright future the country will have under such a system. Reason we are where we are on many issues is duplicity in Congress.
     
  10. Manonthestreet
    Offline

    Manonthestreet Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    18,881
    Thanks Received:
    6,667
    Trophy Points:
    430
    Ratings:
    +16,436
    How you can't see it is beyond me. There are actions that can be taken now to prevent this thus making the op mute. Democrats don't want that...thus it would seem they prefer the latter
     

Share This Page