Regulation--From: Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[LOki]

Not at all esoteric, it's actually an interesting argument.

Now let's assume that everyone obeys every law (this is just an abstract ideal I'm using, I'm sure you know that but I have to make it perfectly clear just in case I'm felled from behind).

A law is passed which requires every firearm manufactured to be robust enough to discharge ammunition in a safe (for the user) manner. Now in my abstract ideal situation no firearm would blow up because it wasn't properly manufactured.

Contrast that with the situation where (still in my abstract ideal world) there was no regulation about manufacture. What might happen? Guns would be blowing up everywhere.

Or, if it was my ideal world for purposes of making a point, there's no particular regulation regarding the robustness of firearms, and no firearm blows up because there's just no point in building firearms that blow up in the user's face.

Contrast that with regulated manufacture, where a long standing and hard earned reputaion for quality is replaced by a government issued certificate of merit--a certificate that is issued by an agenct appointed by "honest" politicians. What might happen? Guns would be blowing up everywhere because a buddy of the politician lobbied (with underaged hookers, and over aged scotch) for his certificate that grants him equal standing (by regulatory fiat, rather than actual merit) with legit concerns.

Survivors would sue and in years they would get their damages. The gun manufacturers would continue to carry out their risk management analyses in the same manner Ford did with the Pinto.

Sure enough, in a while there would be sufficient data for the general public to wake up to the fact that the Inyereyes Firearms Company was making shitty firearms whereas Remington were making good firearms and the Inyereyes Firearms Company would go broke. Eventually.

Your ideal world is much more ideal than I gave it credit for; in your ideal world, retards would continue to buy shitty guns from shabby manufacturers, despite the evidence around them of the consequences from using said shitty weapons. These shabby manufacturers, abbetted by their retarded clients, would be performing the valuable social service of cleaning up the gene pool--until, of course, this shabby manufacturer gets sued.

In which case, his buddies in the regulatory agency, and on Capitol Hill, sheild their certified quality arms manufacuterer from liabilty--since proving that this shit-heel is a shabby manufacturer ony serves to indict the regulatory system that granted him equal standing (by regulatory fiat, rather than actual merit) with his peers.

I'd be willing to bet that in your ideal world, these politicians would blame "our violent society" and then regulate who gets guns based on their ability to buy well made guns--discriminating against the poor while preserving the full rights of their wealthy campaign contributors. Yes?

In the meantime there would be dead and injured.

Yep. Dead and injured retards.

Isn't it better to prevent this than pick up the pieces later?

Yes.

Surely it's prudent to pass and enforce regulations?

No.

 

[Diuretic]

Are we going to parse?

 

[LOki]

Are we going to parse?

This has already been covered.

I don't think "parse" means what you think it means.

When you finally work out what it means, you'll find that I'm not doing any "parsing" that would be objectionable in this discussion; such as resolving your sentences into their component parts of speech and describing them grammatically; or describing your arguments grammatically by stating parts of speech and explaining the inflection and syntactical relationships.

If your problem is that I resolve your arguments into their component points, then address and analyze critically each of your points, and each argumentative support--well, that's just the nature of argumentive discussion--perhaps you should offer stronger arguments and better points.

Better yet, if you don't like your arguments and points to be analyzed critically, you could choose to not submit them here where critical analysis happens.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes I prefer to address the argument as a whole and go from there. Your style of taking sentences and breaking them into little pieces and then subjecting them to some sort of analysis on a semantical level is not useful. I much prefer to read someone's argument and then respond to it. At times I may have to reference a phrase or two but I don't like to go through the sort sentence by sentence analysis that you prefer. Why not try to make an argument and then see how it goes?

And if you feel the urge to mount a counter argument then why not do so? Why select sentences and analyse words? Why don't you read the entire argument and think about it and come back with a rebuttal? A rebuttal is good, if it's valid, we can all move on and start moving towards greater understanding.

 

[Ravi]

Yes

Agreement. That’s good, we are getting somewhere.

I prefer to address the argument as a whole

Ah, but you are making a subjective statement now, and where does that leave us?

and go from there

Go where? You are so not explaining your point.

Your style

Yes, my style…what of it? One’s opinion of another style is nothing but an attempt to distract.

of taking sentences and breaking them into little pieces

Ideas, not sentences!

and then subjecting them to some sort of analysis on a semantical level is not useful.

Again, this is your subjective opinion.

I much prefer

Subjective!

to read someone's argument and then respond to it.

Respond to this, buster!

At times I may have to reference a phrase or two

There, you’ve admitted to doing the same thing, see how easy this is?

but I don't like to go through the sort sentence by sentence analysis that you prefer.

Subjective!

Why not try to make an argument and then see how it goes?

I’ve forgotten what we are arguing about…

And if you feel the urge to mount a counter argument then why not do so?

Urges are subjective, are they not?

Why select sentences and analyse words?

Because words are important. Did you notice that you spelled analyze wrong? This could derail the entire conversation.

Why don't you read the entire argument and think about it and come back with a rebuttal?

I prefer picking things to shreds. Global thinking is wrong on so many levels.

A rebuttal is good, if it's valid,

Subjective!

we can all move on

moveon.org? Commie!

and start moving towards greater understanding.

What are you, some kind of hippy?

 

[LOki]

Yes I prefer to address the argument as a whole and go from there.

That's fine, particularly since I maintain the cohesive whole of the argument as I address each point.

Your style of taking sentences and breaking them into little pieces and then subjecting them to some sort of analysis on a semantical level is not useful.

I don't do this, and it's not my style.

I much prefer to read someone's argument and then respond to it.

So do I, and this I do.

At times I may have to reference a phrase or two but I don't like to go through the sort sentence by sentence analysis that you prefer.

That's fine too, but you often fail to address an important point or two, and it appears you do so not out of accident--I try to not leave this impression.

Why not try to make an argument and then see how it goes?

I have, and my arguments, at times, get parsed to omit their strongest points from discussion in favor of subjecting them to some sort of analysis on a semantical level.

And if you feel the urge to mount a counter argument then why not do so?

I do this.

Why select sentences and analyse words?

I don't do this.

Why don't you read the entire argument and think about it and come back with a rebuttal?

I do this.

A rebuttal is good, if it's valid, we can all move on and start moving towards greater understanding.

I agree. It appears to me your problem with me is that I'm effective in rebuttal, not that I fail to rebut.

 

[LOki]

Agreement. That’s good, we are getting somewhere.


Ah, but you are making a subjective statement now, and where does that leave us?



Go where? You are so not explaining your point.



Yes, my style…what of it? One’s opinion of another style is nothing but an attempt to distract.



Ideas, not sentences!



Again, this is your subjective opinion.



Subjective!



Respond to this, buster!


There, you’ve admitted to doing the same thing, see how easy this is?



Subjective!

I’ve forgotten what we are arguing about…


Urges are subjective, are they not?



Because words are important. Did you notice that you spelled analyze wrong? This could derail the entire conversation.



I prefer picking things to shreds. Global thinking is wrong on so many levels.



Subjective!



moveon.org? Commie!



What are you, some kind of hippy?

This LOki is flattered.

 

[Diuretic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
Yes I prefer to address the argument as a whole and go from there.
That's fine, particularly since I maintain the cohesive whole of the argument as I address each point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
Your style of taking sentences and breaking them into little pieces and then subjecting them to some sort of analysis on a semantical level is not useful.
I don't do this, and it's not my style.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
I much prefer to read someone's argument and then respond to it.
So do I, and this I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
At times I may have to reference a phrase or two but I don't like to go through the sort sentence by sentence analysis that you prefer.
That's fine too, but you often fail to address an important point or two, and it appears you do so not out of accident--I try to not leave this impression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
Why not try to make an argument and then see how it goes?
I have, and my arguments, at times, get parsed to omit their strongest points from discussion in favor of subjecting them to some sort of analysis on a semantical level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
And if you feel the urge to mount a counter argument then why not do so?
I do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
Why select sentences and analyse words?
I don't do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
Why don't you read the entire argument and think about it and come back with a rebuttal?
I do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
A rebuttal is good, if it's valid, we can all move on and start moving towards greater understanding.
I agree. It appears to me your problem with me is that I'm effective in rebuttal, not that I fail to rebut.

Is there an argument you'd like to put? <---- that's my comment

 

[Ravi]

You're welcome, Loki



And, thanks.

 

[LOki]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
Yes I prefer to address the argument as a whole and go from there.
That's fine, particularly since I maintain the cohesive whole of the argument as I address each point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
Your style of taking sentences and breaking them into little pieces and then subjecting them to some....

SNIP .....

Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
A rebuttal is good, if it's valid, we can all move on and start moving towards greater understanding.
I agree. It appears to me your problem with me is that I'm effective in rebuttal, not that I fail to rebut.

Is there an argument you'd like to put? <---- that's my comment

I suppose you're referring to this:

Fair enough. I think we can agree there. And I realize you were arguing a different point. I just wanted to know if you were opposed to all regulation, hence the question.

Sorry for interrupting.

I am pretty much (not entirely) opposed to all regulation--maybe not the intent of some regulations, but the notion of regulation in particular.

For instance, I think a regulation that requires that a gun be substantial enough to safely discharge the ammunition it's loaded with is a nice regulation, but failing to do so (manufacture a gun that can safelt discharge its ammunition) could be considered criminally neglegent without regulation, and without creating a regulatory agency to create rules that are not subject to legislative procedure.

Esoteric, and beside your point, I'm sure.

If so, then the reason I'm pretty much (not entirely) opposed to all regulation--maybe not the intent of some regulations, but the notion of regulation in particular--is that I don't like the notion that political appointees of the Executive are empowered to make rules with the force of laws without those rules being subject to the procedure of law-making.

It occurs to me that rules with the force of laws are, for all intents and purposes, laws; and we charge legislators with the responsibility of making laws, and we pay them for it--they should not dodge their responsibilities by sub-contracting our trust to appointees of the Executive Branch which is not supposed to be making legislation (and then add insult by making us pay extra for that sub-contracting).​

Is this what you're looking for?