Gun ownership poll

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And at the same time, many of the same people who are pro-abortion and justify it with supposed "rights" jargon are staunch advocates of vaccine mandates.

Exactly, Peter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As my torts professor used to say, most arguments are "flappable."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Note the logical flaw in his reasoning -- only people who make no exceptions whatsoever can be "true" believers. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy, or a variant, I think. But then he adds to the proposition that anyone who is not a "true" believer is a hypocrite. Geez.

This kind of thinking is where true extremism comes from. We were doing so well at having a reasonable debate.

I can’t think of the fallacy name, but a false pretense of ignorance is here too - everyone here is well aware what pro-life and pro-choice are actually in reference too - the issue of abortion, not all-encompassing totalist philosophies of the universe.

[irv]

Politicization and the media.
https://youtu.be/q3Qd7lRToLw

[irv]

Media Didn't Expect Buffalo Shooter Witness To be So Honest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOOsNYryHAg

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Some serious black or white, or maybe it's all or nothing, thinking there. Most issues in life are not all or nothing, they are nuanced and complicated. And btw what gives you the moral authority to decide who is "truly" pro-life and who is just lying to himself and others?

Originally Posted by G1911

Nobody thinks in such absolutes without any regard for context whatsoever.
.

Originally Posted by BobC

It would seem to me that if someone is saying they are pro-something, there shouldn't be any exceptions, or do you disagree Peter?

Agree, one cannot live black and white. I'm not Buddhist, but I've appreciated their teachings about understanding gray choices. The Buddha taught not to drink alcohol; it is bad juju to drink and get drunk. But if he was told to get drunk or someone would be killed, it was a worse sin on him to refuse to drink. There are many other teachings like this. Such as suicide is bad. But suicide/sacrifice to save the life of another is okay.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Some serious black or white, or maybe it's all or nothing, thinking there. Most issues in life are not all or nothing, they are nuanced and complicated. And btw what gives you the moral authority to decide who is "truly" pro-life and who is just lying to himself and others?

Gee Peter, I just answered your question that you asked me, and gave you my opinion. And now you're going to call me out for giving my opinion? Thanks! I wasn't personally going after you, or anyone else, just stating some simple truths.

You and your "friend" are now calling me an extremist and claim I'm acting like a "moral authority" for mentioning what the term Pro-life means to me, and how I feel people who claim to be Pro-life, but then have exceptions to that in regards to say the death penalty, or allowing abortions for rape or when the Mother's life is at stake, are rationalizing and are not truly Pro-life in all instances after all. And that was why I used the example of the vegetarian/vegan, to add context to what I was saying, and why and where my thinking was coming from. But that was totally ignored apparently, probably because it didn't prove your point and/or fit with the narrative of what you and your friend wanted it to be.

And talk about being an absolutist in regards to something, who gave you and G1911 the right to apparently decide for everyone on the planet that Pro-life always refers to just abortions and the abortion issue? It does not mean just that to me, and I wouldn't be too surprised if it means quite a bit more than what you two are making it out to be to quite a lot of other people as well. But you two obviously speak for everyone else on the planet, right? Or so you both seem to think.

My original post in this thread was about how all the statements about gun control, what to do, who's to blame, how to fix things, etc., in regards to these mass shootings and such, all seemed to be nothing more than band-aids to treat the symptoms, and were not focusing on the actual root problems and issues. And absolutely no one made a comment or gave an opinion on that, despite it likely being one of the most relevant, and honest posts, in this thread regarding guns and the gun issues, and what we should really be talking about and doing hopefully stop all the violence and shootings. Instead, you and your buddy decide to take issue with the final observation I made regarding abortions, since someone else had already brought it up, and how I found it somewhat hypocritical that a lot of the states with the death penalty were also arguing for more anti-abortion restrictions, yet considered themselves Pro-life proponents.

I don't give a rat's ass what you two think Pro-life means or stands for, but I'll damned if you two are going to shove your interpretation and thinking of that down my throat as the be-all, end-all understanding of what that phrase's meaning is to everyone else in the world. Especially since there is no final, exact, and agreed upon list of what exceptions are allowed for someone to feel it is okay to see/have someone killed/die, and yet still consider themselves a proponent of life. And as far as any of my comments possibly being ignorant G1911, the only ignorant thing I have done is waste my time responding to you two!

And as to my referring to people lying to themselves, you really want to argue with me and claim that most every human on this planet has not already at some point in time during their life, or at some point yet to come, rationalized something to themselves so they can feel good about whatever it was they did or decided? Like saying they're Pro-life, but agree with executing people in what they think are the right circumstances, or agreeing with abortions in certain situations. So you're basically just lying to yourself when you say you're Pro-life, but do so with rationalizing exceptions. And that is being hypocritical to yourself, claiming to be something you aren't completely. And if you two want to claim that you've never rationalized something for yourselves, and therefore never lied to yourselves, then I know you're both lying, so just go sit down somewhere and quit bothering me and turning this thread into something it wasn't originally intended to be!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

You and your "friend" are now calling me an extremist

You chose to take the most extreme possible position there is - that context is irrelevant and one must be always an absolutist to a literal reading of a phrase that means something else, or be a hypocrite. There's not really a more extreme take than that; that's an extreme end of the scale. Also, Peter didn't say it was extreme. I did. We are not the same thing. Or "friends". We have never once even spoken privately. We have conversed for more than a post or two in maybe 4-5 threads. I'm pretty sure we discussed this already when you got triggered and threw a tantrum longer than Moby-Dick because Peter and I both expressed negative opinions on PWCC's fraud ring. Peter probably does not deserve the black mark of being associated with such a despicable fiend as myself for this.

Originally Posted by BobC

And talk about being an absolutist in regards to something, who gave you and G1911 the right to apparently decide for everyone on the planet that Pro-life always refers to just abortions and the abortion issue?

You know exactly what pro-life vs. pro-choice is about. Stop pretending you don't. I did not define these terms in context. Nor did Peter. Decades of American culture and common language have.

Originally Posted by BobC

I don't give a rat's ass what you two think Pro-life means or stands for, but I'll damned if you two are going to shove your interpretation and thinking of that down my throat as the be-all, end-all understanding of what that phrase's meaning is to everyone else in the world.

Again, you know damn well what the phrase means and its context here in this thread. You know what pro-choice vs. pro-life is.

Originally Posted by BobC

And as far as any of my comments possibly being ignorant G1911, the only ignorant thing I have done is waste my time responding to you two!

Your post was definitely ignorant of what a logical argument is. Though what I actually said there was a false pretense of ignorance, I am positive you are well aware how pro-life vs. pro-choice has been discussed in this thread and what it means. Quite politely and reasonably too, before this nuttery.

[egri]

Originally Posted by egri

I was going to say, for a quasi-political thread, this one has been pretty mild. It's even going better than the Nolan Ryan thread in the sports talk section.

I guess I spoke too soon.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by todeen

Agree, one cannot live black and white. I'm not Buddhist, but I've appreciated their teachings about understanding gray choices. The Buddha taught not to drink alcohol; it is bad juju to drink and get drunk. But if he was told to get drunk or someone would be killed, it was a worse sin on him to refuse to drink. There are many other teachings like this. Such as suicide is bad. But suicide/sacrifice to save the life of another is okay.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

You too?

I am not living in a black and white world, There are so many different opinions and ideas as to what may or may not be acceptable in regards to accepting that people may be killed or die in certain circumstances, and yet that person can still be viewed by themselves, or others, as being Pro-Life. And since there is no one definitive, agreed upon by all people's meaning for that term, and list of allowable exceptions to still be considered a Pro-Life person, I have chosen to think in terms of the actual meaning of that phrase. Absent the inclusion of any context or background for a specific situation or set of circumstances, taking the literal meaning of the term "Pro-Life" seemed to me to be the most educated and logical place to start then. The term, "proponent of life", doesn't state there are exceptions for murderers, or for fetus' of raped women, or whatever other exceptions someone may have. And since I have absolutely no way of knowing each and every other person's exact definition of what Pro-Life means to them, I figure it best to start with exactly what someone with a reasonable intelligence would look to, the definition of the specific term - proponent of life. The one concrete meaning behind that term is that the person it applies to would be for life, in all possible situations where there is a choice to be made. If you want to have an exception for yourself, or in a specific situation like this thread, then state, I'm Pro-Life, but believe in the death penalty for convicted murderers, or something along those lines for whatever exception(s) you may have. You can't just assume everyone else is going to agree with your exact definition and understanding of what that term means.

And again, that is also why I specifically gave the vegetarian/vegan example in my earlier post, to show the context of my meaning and where I was coming from. So Tim, if someone tells you they are a vegan or vegetarian, do you automatically assume that means they eat absolutely no meat whatsoever, or that they cheat a couple times a year, or maybe they only mean red meat and poultry is okay, or possibly they don't have an issue if their food is cooked in animal fat as long as it contains no actual meat, and so on? See my point? You don't know exactly what they mean, or the complete background and context behind the statement of their being a vegan/vegetarian. Yet, I get called out by a couple people accusing me of not paying attention to the situation and not supposedly understanding the context behind the term "Pro-Life", despite the fact I am given no specific background or context for how someone was using or referring to that term in this thread. And don't go trying to tell me it was implied, unless you can point me to the specific statement in this thread, before I posted, where it says the term Pro-Life is only to be used in reference to abortions and the abortion issue. If it was and I missed it, I'll gladly apologize for my mistake in having missed that post then. But still, I found it almost laughable that I get accused of being ignorant due to my statements and not magically guessing and understanding the context of the term "Pro-Life" as used in this thread, that others have now declared what it is after the fact, even though there was no previous context offered or given to my knowledge. Meanwhile, I went out of my way to provide a specific example to show the context of my understanding and treatment of the term "Pro-Life", using a vegetarian/vegan example, yet the accusing parties seem to have totally ignored that very relevant fact, or didn't comprehend it, and yet I'm supposed to be the ignorant one. Yeah, right!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

You chose to take the most extreme possible position there is - that context is irrelevant and one must be always an absolutist to a literal reading of a phrase that means something else, or be a hypocrite. There's not really a more extreme take than that; that's an extreme end of the scale. Also, Peter didn't say it was extreme. I did. We are not the same thing. Or "friends". We have never once even spoken privately. We have conversed for more than a post or two in maybe 4-5 threads. I'm pretty sure we discussed this already when you got triggered and threw a tantrum longer than Moby-Dick because Peter and I both expressed negative opinions on PWCC's fraud ring. Peter probably does not deserve the black mark of being associated with such a despicable fiend as myself for this.



You know exactly what pro-life vs. pro-choice is about. Stop pretending you don't. I did not define these terms in context. Nor did Peter. Decades of American culture and common language have.



Again, you know damn well what the phrase means and its context here in this thread. You know what pro-choice vs. pro-life is.



Your post was definitely ignorant of what a logical argument is. Though what I actually said there was a false pretense of ignorance, I am positive you are well aware how pro-life vs. pro-choice has been discussed in this thread and what it means. Quite politely and reasonably too, before this nuttery.

And there you are, telling me again what and how I think, and how I'm supposed to only believe what you say. The most childish and ignorant argument I can think of......I'm right and you're wrong. That is basically all you ever come back with. And what most extreme position did I supposedly take, saying that I thought states that were anti-abortion while also being for the death penalty were possibly somewhat hypocritical? How the f#$% is that an extreme statement? It is raising a hypothetical question based on some logical facts and circumstances, or is it that you have feelings and thinking that may coincide with such states, and don't like the idea being pointed out to you that you might be a hypocrite yourself then? It was certainly not directed at nor made to attack any individual, just provoke some thought any maybe further discussion. Instead, it elicited personal attacks from you and Peter.

i never made any argument by the way, I simply stated my opinion as to how I feel states that are for stricter abortion laws and anti-abortion, yet for the death penalty, seem to me to be somewhat hypocritical. You can have any damn opinion you want, I don't care, just don't try telling me that whatever opinion I may have is wrong because it isn't yours.

Again, you also ignored the obvious example I gave to show where I was coming from and my context, but because that doesn't agree with your narrative and thinking, I'm automatically wrong in your eyes. Another big surprise.

The term Pro-Life is specifically used by many advocates instead of the term Anti-Abortion, because they want to highlight their belief that abortion is the taking of a human life. And thus, they are advocating for human life, which isn't solely defined as fetuses. You, however, are apparently trying to state that it is only relevant for the taking of a human life in regards to abortion though, which I don't think is entirely true. Here's a current article discussing the much more evolved and complex meanings behind the terms Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, and specifically how the meaning of the term Pro-Life now encompasses a lot more than you're alluding to. If there is someone who may not fully understand and comprehend the currently accepted meaning of the Pro-Life term, and what it may truly stand for and how it encompasses ALL lives, I think it is you. You don't want to think there could be conflicting opinions to yours? Guess what, too bad for you, they're out there and help to prove my point!

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro...fe-pro-choice/

And by the way, the opposite of Pro-Life is not necessarily considered Pro-Choice by everyone, it is actually considered Pro-Death by many. Do yourself a favor and do a little reading up. Your myopic view of this is appalling.

And I do apologize for calling you and Peter friends, it was just the two of you coming back at me seemed to be getting along for a bit, so i mistakenly lumped you together. My bad, Peter is actually a very good guy, but he completely missed my point. I merely answered his questions and I don't think he understood where I was coming from. You, on the other hand.................................

So hopefully reading the article and the now recognized meaning of Pro-Life as being for ALL lives, not just fetuses, you'll understand the logic behind my suggesting how being against abortion, but for the death penalty. can be thought of as somewhat hypocritical for someone claiming to be Pro-Life. So as I said, a Pro-Life person who is for the death penalty, appears to be making exceptions to the common understanding of what Pro-Life means, at least what it may mean to a lot of other people that aren't you. But by rationalizing, a person is able to be for the execution of a convicted murderer in certain instances, yet still consider themselves to be a Pro-Life person as well. So here's the definition of "rationalize".

https://www.bing.com/search?q=ration...ANAB01&PC=HCTS

I especially like the last part of that main definition, "even if these are not true or appropriate". Hmmmmm, "even if these are not true", gee, isn't that a sort of nice way to say you are lying? So, as I suggested and opened up for discussion in that earlier post (not personal attacks), rationalizing how presenting yourself as a Pro-Lifer, while still being for the death penalty, can be logically construed in some instances as lying to yourself so you can still feel good about your personal choices. I am not attacking and condemning, nor condoning, anyone in particular or their opinions. I'm merely pointing out how by someone rationalizing a point of view by effectively lying to themselves, they are maybe committing the ultimate form of hypocrisy. (Do I need to link you to the definition of "hypocrisy" as well, or can you look that one up yourself to see I'm not wrong in my thinking, once again?)

[vintagetoppsguy]

You may want to call your pharmacy this morning and see if they can renew your prescription for your meds.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

There is no question this country has a gun problem. I'm just looking to sample this community out of curiosity.

Have to be in complete disagreement with this statement. What we are seeing is a symptom of a much larger problem. Lots of moving parts here and guns aren’t it.

1) Liberal takeover of the educational system
2) The internet
3) First person shooter video games
4) Unlimited availability to pornography
5) Food additives
6) Overall dietary changes from fats to carbs
7) Unknown medication conflicts
8) Contaminated water supplies
9) Hollywood



Possible Solution:

1) Equal balance of Liberal & Conservative thought in schools
2) Limit under 18 internet access
3) Eliminate underage access to first person shooter video games
4) Eliminate underage access to pornography
5) Purify the food supply
6) Balance underage diets
7) Limit medications for children have long track records
8) Purify the water supply
9) Eliminate underage access to violent and sexual media content


Prediction: In 1 generation most of the problems subside.

The less expensive way out of this is blaming guns. If we as a nation don’t want the Liberty then there is a mechanism to remove it. Otherwise it stays in place.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by G1911

A thread that has been pretty polite and mannered debating firearms ownership is the most disrespectful thing you have ever encountered?

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob, is a pro-life individual being a hypocrite if he or she signs up for military or police service knowing that could involve the taking of a human life?

Personally I see no inconsistency between being pro-life and supporting the appropriate (and hopefully very limited) use of the death penalty.

You see no inconsistency? I'm pro-life except when I'm not? No inconsistency? I happen to consider myself pro-life. Like you, I support the use of the death penalty when appropriate and when there is 100% absolute proof of guilt (after all, once they're dead, there's no taking it back). I find being pro-life and supporting the death penalty as contradictory. I could be called a hypocrite for espousing both views and I would agree. To me, it's better to acknowledge the hypocrisy than to try to perform some mental gymnastics and twist my brain into a pretzel to convince myself otherwise. But, to each their own.

Originally Posted by G1911

Nobody thinks in such absolutes without any regard for context whatsoever.

A person who is pro-life does not believe that there is no such thing as justifiable self-defense and that they are obligated to let their family be killed instead, or that the innocent and the guilty are the exact same thing.

A person who is pro-choice does not believe anyone can make any choice at any time.

This should not need to be said. I’m sure the two sides could debate on reasonable grounds.

Wow, talk about thinking in absolutes. Do you automatically assume that self-defense has to include killing the perpetrator? This should not need to be said, but a pro-lifer can defend him(her)self and his(her) family without resorting to killing. To think otherwise is unreasonable.

Originally Posted by G1911

You know exactly what pro-life vs. pro-choice is about. Stop pretending you don't. I did not define these terms in context. Nor did Peter. Decades of American culture and common language have.

Again, you know damn well what the phrase means and its context here in this thread. You know what pro-choice vs. pro-life is.

I know what the terms mean to me. Pro-life is a term people who are opposed to abortion like to call themselves in an attempt to take the high moral ground in the abortion debate. They want to claim abortion is murder and therefore they are "pro-life" in opposing abortion. They also, like Peter has done repeatedly, call people who are pro-choice, "pro-abortion." That's a pejorative term they like to label the opposition, again in an attempt to frame their argument in a more favorable light. But, just because a person likes to use "pro-life" to describe himself in regards to abortion, it doesn't mean they are truly pro-life. A more accurate term for them is anti-abortion or even anti-choice.

The pro-choice vs. pro-life dichotomy doesn't exist. It's a made-up artifice perpetrated by people who are against abortion to persuade others that they are morally superior to people who don't have the same belief about abortion that they have. That is the plain, simple truth about pro-choice vs. pro-life.

I happen to be pro-life and pro-choice. Even though being pro-life and not opposed to the death penalty makes me a hypocrite, being pro-life and pro-choice does not.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

It's a debate and he started with his premise. Others have rebutted, agreed and disagreed.
Personally, I think this thread has been quite tame. IF it goes off the rail it will get locked. Hopefully it stays ok.
Also, if anyone is seriously debating you need to have your name out here per the rules (or per me asking for them in this thread, whatever you want)

As for this debate, I don't think guns kill people. I have never heard of a gun just killing someone with no one pulling the trigger (yes, there are probably extraordinary situations).
I will go back to the biggest problem in America today, and what leads to most (not all) of this, BAD PARENTING.

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The last word is yours Bob. You're too angry, defensive and reactive for me to engage in a reasonable discussion. It seems a person can't disagree with you without you taking personal offense and turning it into a fight/diatribe. No thanks. Peace.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Leon

It's a debate and he started with his premise. Others have rebutted, agreed and disagreed.
Personally, I think this thread has been quite tame. IF it goes off the rail it will get locked. Hopefully it stays ok.
Also, if anyone is seriously debating you need to have your name out here per the rules (or per me asking for them in this thread, whatever you want)

As for this debate, I don't think guns kill people. I have never heard of a gun just killing someone with no one pulling the trigger (yes, there are probably extraordinary situations).
I will go back to the biggest problem in America today, and what leads to most (not all) of this, BAD PARENTING.

.

I'm not saying the thread should be locked. It's hardly a debate, though, when the OP states "There is no question this country has a gun problem," and anyone else who partakes in the so-called debate is handcuffed by a "no politics rule" fear.

I simply believe it's in poor taste to have this discussion/debate in the wake of an event that took the lives of a bunch of 4th graders. Between the shooter's mental health history, the obvious piss poor parenting from the POS's POS mother, and the police response, blaming the inanimate firearm(s) shouldn't even come to mind.

All shootings involve mental health issues, while most additionally involve family issues and some sort of Big Pharma drug. Nobody wants to debate that, though, because it 1) doesn't make someone money, 2) the topics don't exactly fit certain political agendas, and 3) actually solving problems means less money to be made and less opportunity at power grabs, encompassing 1 & 2.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? So, please, "debate" away while my wife and I discuss schooling options that are not public school, considering "debates" like this prove fewer people actually care about focusing on real solutions to protecting our kids than should.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kyle, to one of your points, last year in my hometown the police shot and killed a man who refused to put down his weapon and was behaving in a very threatening way. The officers were exonerated, but what struck me was the finding that the man was on an unbelievable cocktail of about 10 psychoactive meds. My thought was that his doctor was the one who should have been investigated.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I'm not saying the thread should be locked. It's hardly a debate, though, when the OP states "There is no question this country has a gun problem," and anyone else who partakes in the so-called debate is handcuffed by a "no politics rule" fear.

I simply believe it's in poor taste to have this discussion/debate in the wake of an event that took the lives of a bunch of 4th graders. Between the shooter's mental health history, the obvious piss poor parenting from the POS's POS mother, and the police response, blaming the inanimate firearm(s) shouldn't even come to mind.

All shootings involve mental health issues, while most additionally involve family issues and some sort of Big Pharma drug. Nobody wants to debate that, though, because it 1) doesn't make someone money, 2) the topics don't exactly fit certain political agendas, and 3) actually solving problems means less money to be made and less opportunity at power grabs, encompassing 1 & 2.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? So, please, "debate" away while my wife and I discuss schooling options that are not public school, considering "debates" like this prove fewer people actually care about focusing on real solutions to protecting our kids than should.

I feel it's ok to have this discussion in the wake of a huge tragedy. It might be more disrespectful in a different venue (such as in Uvalde proper) as it might be seen as too soon. There have been tens of millions of discussions just like this one since this last tragedy.

I politely disagree with "all shootings involve mental issues" . Maybe most mass shootings do but not ALL shootings in general. That said I am only guessing.

I think this debate does, as you and your wife are doing, spur debate concerning school safety, home schooling and much more. That is a good thing.
.

[vintagetoppsguy]

How many remember the Cokeville Elementary School Bombing? It happened in Cokeville, WY on May 16, 1986. A crazed loon and his wife took 154 hostages (mostly children) in a classroom and threatened to designate a bomb if his demands weren't met (I think he wanted $2 million per child, but I don't remember exactly). Anyway, the idiot's wife accidentally designated the bomb and fortunately only her and her husband were killed. However, a lot more were seriously injured. My point is this: you don’t need guns to kill a lot of people. These two idiots tried to do it with a bomb. Sure, you can argue that they were unsuccessful and only killed themselves in the end, but the point is that the bomb was powerful enough that it could have killed everyone in that classroom. Just remember 9/11 - a few bad guys with boxcutters killed nearly 3000 people and there were no guns involved. We didn’t have discussions about banning boxcutters or making them less accessible. No, we locked and reinforced cockpit doors. Why don’t we lock schools (where were can) and individual classrooms?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Wow, talk about thinking in absolutes. Do you automatically assume that self-defense has to include killing the perpetrator? This should not need to be said, but a pro-lifer can defend him(her)self and his(her) family without resorting to killing. To think otherwise is unreasonable.

Re-read. I never said EVERY self-defense case requires lethal force. I have even said very much the opposite in this thread. Some cases do. I said that in such an eventuality, a pro-life person is not hypocritical.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I know what the terms mean to me. Pro-life is a term people who are opposed to abortion like to call themselves in an attempt to take the high moral ground in the abortion debate. They want to claim abortion is murder and therefore they are "pro-life" in opposing abortion. They also, like Peter has done repeatedly, call people who are pro-choice, "pro-abortion." That's a pejorative term they like to label the opposition, again in an attempt to frame their argument in a more favorable light. But, just because a person likes to use "pro-life" to describe himself in regards to abortion, it doesn't mean they are truly pro-life. A more accurate term for them is anti-abortion or even anti-choice.

The pro-choice vs. pro-life dichotomy doesn't exist. It's a made-up artifice perpetrated by people who are against abortion to persuade others that they are morally superior to people who don't have the same belief about abortion that they have. That is the plain, simple truth about pro-choice vs. pro-life.

I happen to be pro-life and pro-choice. Even though being pro-life and not opposed to the death penalty makes me a hypocrite, being pro-life and pro-choice does not.

What it means to you is utterly irrelevant. If we all just decided what phrases meant for ourselves, human communication would be impossible. I am well aware all of you know the purpose of language. I am well aware that all of you understand exactly what pro-life and pro-choice means in the context of an abortion debate. How I feel about these phrases is entirely irrelevant (personally, I'm not a fan of them either). We all know what is being talked about no matter how much some of you want to pretend that you do not. Pro-life and pro-choice are opposing platforms on abortion. Stop pretending otherwise.

It's wild that we (others really, I gave no opinion on abortion itself) were having a very polite and civil discussion on abortion, and it's now starting to derail over people pretending not to know what the terms even mean. Usually it's the opinion on abortion that causes the fire, not the dictionary.


For those who claim not to know:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice

[G1911]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

The OP is as entitled to give his opinion as anyone else.

I don't disagree with your view, I too wish people who stop pretending it's a tool if the tool used has political capital (there's never a left-wing outrage over a hammer murder or a knife murder) and would address the actual issue: the person who used the tool. But everyone is entitled to their opinion in a debate.

[egri]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You may want to call your pharmacy this morning and see if they can renew your prescription for your meds.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The last word is yours Bob. You're too angry, defensive and reactive for me to engage in a reasonable discussion. It seems a person can't disagree with you without you taking personal offense and turning it into a fight/diatribe. No thanks. Peace.

I put Bob on my Ignore List a while ago. The forum has gotten a lot more enjoyable since then.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Michael, if "pro-abortion" is not the best or most neutral term, then neither is "pro-choice," which is a feelgood phase that misleadingly implies that all that is involved is a decision by a single individual.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

And there you are, telling me again what and how I think, and how I'm supposed to only believe what you say.

Okay BobC. You win. I will agree with you. You are truly mentally incapable of understanding what pro-choice and pro-life mean in an abortion debate. Congratulations on this stunning victory.

Originally Posted by BobC

The most childish and ignorant argument I can think of......I'm right and you're wrong. That is basically all you ever come back with.

I am not right. I have given no opinion on abortion. I am saying that the dictionary is right and you are wrong.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life

Originally Posted by BobC

And what most extreme position did I supposedly take, saying that I thought states that were anti-abortion while also being for the death penalty were possibly somewhat hypocritical? How the f#$% is that an extreme statement?

No. This opinion here is commonly held, it is a fallacious argument as 2 of us pointed out, but a fallacy is not extreme. As was explained earlier, "It would seem to me that if someone is saying they are pro-something, there shouldn't be any exceptions, or do you disagree Peter?" is an extreme position. The argument that a person must ignore context, and be an absolutist and hardliner is by its definition extreme - that is a polar end of the possible opinions one could have. Everything or nothing, no context, no gray, just the appeal to purity. It is extreme.

Originally Posted by BobC

It is raising a hypothetical question based on some logical facts and circumstances, or is it that you have feelings and thinking that may coincide with such states, and don't like the idea being pointed out to you that you might be a hypocrite yourself then? It was certainly not directed at nor made to attack any individual, just provoke some thought any maybe further discussion. Instead, it elicited personal attacks from you and Peter.

I have not attacked you personally, until this post above where I agreed you cannot comprehend what the words mean, after you were insulted that I believe you are indeed capable of understanding a few syllables and being a rational human. Pointing out the fallacies and extremes in your argument is not a personal attack. Surely you have debated in the past and are aware that the person and the idea are different things. Or maybe you can't figure that out either.

Originally Posted by BobC

I never made any argument by the way, I simply stated my opinion as to how I feel states that are for stricter abortion laws and anti-abortion, yet for the death penalty, seem to me to be somewhat hypocritical.

.... that is an argument.... words mean things...

Originally Posted by BobC

Again, you also ignored the obvious example I gave to show where I was coming from and my context, but because that doesn't agree with your narrative and thinking, I'm automatically wrong in your eyes. Another big surprise.

Again, you are wrong by the dictionary and fallacy not because we 'disagree' (I'm not even sure we do disagree on abortion). Take it up with Webster and Aristotle.

Originally Posted by BobC

The term Pro-Life is specifically used by many advocates instead of the term Anti-Abortion, because they want to highlight their belief that abortion is the taking of a human life. And thus, they are advocating for human life, which isn't solely defined as fetuses. You, however, are apparently trying to state that it is only relevant for the taking of a human life in regards to abortion though, which I don't think is entirely true.

Again, dictionary. It's a discussion of abortion. You know what the terms mean in context. Your personal redefinitions are utterly irrelevant to anyone else.

Originally Posted by BobC

Here's a current article discussing the much more evolved and complex meanings behind the terms Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, and specifically how the meaning of the term Pro-Life now encompasses a lot more than you're alluding to. If there is someone who may not fully understand and comprehend the currently accepted meaning of the Pro-Life term, and what it may truly stand for and how it encompasses ALL lives, I think it is you. You don't want to think there could be conflicting opinions to yours?

Again, I have given no opinion on abortion whatsoever. The only opinion I have given is that the Texas bounty law is meant to punish the other side from the people who passed it. I have not endorsed pro-life or pro-choice views. I am simply aware of what the words mean and the basic rules of logic. That you are flipping out and going nuts over this is pathetic. Anytime something you don't like is posted you respond with some absolute nutty crap the length of a 19th century Russian novel.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Just remember 9/11 - a few bad guys with boxcutters killed nearly 3000 people and there were no guns involved. We didn’t have discussions about banning boxcutters or making them less accessible. No, we locked and reinforced cockpit doors. Why don’t we lock schools (where were can) and individual classrooms?

This seems to be a common saying/meme going around in the past few days due to a certain person who typically doesn't know what she's talking about.

The response to 9/11 wasn't just reinforcing cockpit doors and, yes, boxcutters and other sharp objects were made to be less accessible. Even today, only some sharp items are allowed in carry on bags or on your person while others need to be stowed away in checked baggage. The response to aviation threats has only added more security measures.

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-...objects?page=0

Along with that, the government actually responded to the issue pretty quickly instead of today's world where there is initial outrage, followed by talks of "compromise" to work together and come to a solution, and then followed by everybody moving on to the next shiny object to cause outrage and forgetting about the previous issue until it happens again.

Within three months of 9/11, DHS and TSA were created. Screening was handed over to the government instead of private companies. The Patriot Act was passed. Someone tried to detonate his shoe a few months later so now we all have to take our shoes off for screening. All baggage is now screened for explosives and other prohibited items. There was then a threat involving liquids so all liquids, gels, and aerosols were banned from carry on bags (later updated to no more than 3.4 ounces in a clear plastic bag). There is also now 100% pre-screening for all domestic, outbound, and inbound flights to the US.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Michael, if "pro-abortion" is not the best or most neutral term, then neither is "pro-choice," which is a feelgood phase that misleadingly implies that all that is involved is a decision by a single individual.

All of the "pro-x" terms being discussed are imperfect and leave out some truth.

As to whether America has "a parenting problem" or "a mental health problem" or a "profits above human lives problem" the answer, in my view, is yes to all of these.

For some perspective on whether or not America has "a gun problem", I recommend speaking with literally anyone outside of our country.

[Deertick]

I remember when we just measured pee-pees. Now it's the number of, capacity of, and firing rate of our firearms.
I find it very interesting that seemingly sane "collectors' and "sportsman" fall into a Rambo-esque wet dream when posed with the fictional scenario of "them coming for my guns". I wonder who they think will be coming? Will the unwavering support for our military and law enforcement be shrugged off as they lay a spray across their front lawn?

The rhetoric is insane. Both sides know there is common ground. As in any issue, allowing the loudest on each side to dominate the "discussion" is rarely the solution.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Michael, if "pro-abortion" is not the best or most neutral term, then neither is "pro-choice," which is a feelgood phase that misleadingly implies that all that is involved is a decision by a single individual.

Whether or not to have an abortion IS a choice, usually decided by either one or two (the father if he's around) people. It's not a "feelgood" phrase, it's simply a phrase that best describes the one side of the issue - that a woman should be able to choose whether she has an abortion or not. Whether to have an abortion or not is an agonizing choice women must make after very careful consideration. It doesn't mean they are pro-abortion, it means that at that moment, choosing to have an abortion is best for them.

The whole issue regarding abortion comes down to one question - when does life begin? If a person believes life begins at conception, then they should be against abortions and should choose not to have one. But, not everyone believes that life begins at conception. I don't (that's why I can be pro-life and pro-choice). Women who choose to have an abortion most likely do not. Many other people do not believe life begins at conception. By not allowing a pregnant woman to abort the unborn fetus if that is her choice, a person who believes life begins at conception is imposing their BELIEF on that woman. She's being denied her choice. Earlier you were talking about extreme views - my belief is that believing life begins at conception is the extreme view. Many extreme responses are required to fully implement that view.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

But, not everyone believes that life begins at conception. I don't (that's why I can be pro-life and pro-choice).

It's proven science that life begins at conception whether you want to believe it or not. That's why Roe vs. Wade is now a more hot button topic than ever because the science wasn't around back then. You can believe that the world is flat if you want to and that's certainly your choice, but science would prove you wrong. Conversely, science has proven that life begins with conception.

But, just out of curiosity, when do you believe that life begins?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

What it means to you is utterly irrelevant. If we all just decided what phrases meant for ourselves, human communication would be impossible. I am well aware all of you know the purpose of language. I am well aware that all of you understand exactly what pro-life and pro-choice means in the context of an abortion debate. How I feel about these phrases is entirely irrelevant (personally, I'm not a fan of them either). We all know what is being talked about no matter how much some of you want to pretend that you do not. Pro-life and pro-choice are opposing platforms on abortion. Stop pretending otherwise.


For those who claim not to know:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice

It's very relevant, and not just to me. One of the comments on the pro-life definition in response to a comment to an earlier comment: "I've been working in the pro-life cause for decades and in every definition we have ever given it has included all life from conception to natural death, but Webster's dictionary can redefine what actual pro-life people mean by the word. I am pro-life, this includes being against euthanasia, child abuse, elderly abuse, or anything else that attacks the dignity of the human life! No your the the one rewriting in order to fit a liberal agenda."

So what do you call the person who wrote the quote above? She's against euthanasia because she believes in the sanctity of life, but according to you, she can't call herself pro-life unless she is talking strictly about her stance against abortion.

I also find it very odd that a person could be "pro-life" because they're against abortion and then not give a damn about that life after it's born.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Here's an interesting piece on that "extreme" view of life.

https://abort73.com/abortion/abortio...pocratic_oath/

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

It's proven science that life begins at conception whether you want to believe it or not. That's why Roe vs. Wade is now a more hot button topic than ever because the science was around back then. You can believe that the world is flat if you want to and that's certainly your choice, but science would prove you wrong. Conversely, science has proven that life begins with conception.

But, just out of curiosity, when do you believe that life begins?

Please show me a where a preponderance of scientific papers claim life begins at conception. I'll wait .....

I don't have a clear cut moment at when I think life begins. It's definitely not before there is a heartbeat. I would put it somewhere along the line of when the fetus can survive on its own.

But, since YOU believe life begins at conception, where's your moral outrage at all of the fertilized eggs (i.e., conception) that are naturally aborted?

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education...issed%20menses.

"In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses."

Why aren't you and people like you demanding that women who lose a fertilized egg be charged with a crime at the loss of life ... charge them with involuntary manslaughter or something. Why aren't you demanding that every time they have a bloody discharge, the discharge needs to be sent in to be checked for fertilized eggs (a now dead life)? That way you can punish them for ending that life.

Why aren't workers at fertility clinics where they plant multiple fertilized eggs in a woman charged with murder if every egg isn't born?

Why? Because most people do not actually believe that life begins at conception. Either that or they're not really concerned about the staggering loss of life.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here's an interesting piece on that "extreme" view of life.

https://abort73.com/abortion/abortio...pocratic_oath/

Okay, so let me ask you. At fertility clinics, they fertilize eggs to implant in a woman. Not every fertilized egg is born. So, since every fertilized egg is a human life, who is responsible for the deaths of the fertilized eggs that aren't born? Who gets charged with the crime of murder?

[egri]

Originally Posted by G1911

Anytime something you don't like is posted you respond with some absolute nutty crap the length of a 19th century Russian novel.

In fairness to 19th century Russian novelists, War and Peace, Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment were enjoyable reads. The same cannot be said for the ramblings of the internet's angriest CPA. My unsolicited advice is put him on your ignore list.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by egri

In fairness to 19th century Russian novelists, War and Peace, Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment were enjoyable reads.

Now this thread is getting truly controversial!

[jchcollins]

I own zero guns, unless you count the Daisy 880 air rifle I got for Christmas in 1989, which is still in my basement somewhere. I don't have BB's for it anymore.

As a parent, I have zero desire to have anything to do with guns right now - and wish more of the US felt the same way.

[egri]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Now this thread is getting truly controversial!

I didn't enjoy them when I had to read them for school, but years later, on my own, I did. Especially Anna Karenina; I picked it up again a couple days after Russia invaded Ukraine.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

It's proven science that life begins at conception whether you want to believe it or not. That's why Roe vs. Wade is now a more hot button topic than ever because the science wasn't around back then. You can believe that the world is flat if you want to and that's certainly your choice, but science would prove you wrong. Conversely, science has proven that life begins with conception.

But, just out of curiosity, when do you believe that life begins?

Interesting, the selectivity with which humans often choose to rely on "proven science" in their beliefs and decisions.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I remember when we just measured pee-pees. Now it's the number of, capacity of, and firing rate of our firearms.
I find it very interesting that seemingly sane "collectors' and "sportsman" fall into a Rambo-esque wet dream when posed with the fictional scenario of "them coming for my guns". I wonder who they think will be coming? Will the unwavering support for our military and law enforcement be shrugged off as they lay a spray across their front lawn?

The rhetoric is insane. Both sides know there is common ground. As in any issue, allowing the loudest on each side to dominate the "discussion" is rarely the solution.

+1 agree. Most level-headed and rational post in this thread yet.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by egri

I didn't enjoy them when I had to read them for school, but years later, on my own, I did. Especially Anna Karenina; I picked it up again a couple days after Russia invaded Ukraine.

That was my experience as well. I just couldn't get through them! Perhaps I'll give it another try at some point.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by egri

In fairness to 19th century Russian novelists, War and Peace, Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment were enjoyable reads. The same cannot be said for the ramblings of the internet's angriest CPA. My unsolicited advice is put him on your ignore list.

I’m a big fan of “War and Peace”, one of the odd things I collect is cards of Leo Tolstoy, including vintage Eastern European postcards of him. I enjoy Dostoevsky as well. Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons” is a favorite, though I’m probably missing the full experience by not understanding Russian and doing them in translation.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns.

You've fallen into a common misconception. One which is easy to fall into.

It conflates three different things.

Rate of fire - Rounds per minute
Capacity- how many the gun holds
Full vs semi-automatic.

Easiest one first.
Fully automatic=Pull the trigger it shoots till you stop or the ammo runs out.
Semi Automatic= One pull one shot, but you have to pull the trigger for each one. A large percentage of guns are this type. The shotgun my friend has me use for trap shooing is. I just load one at a time to stay within the rules.

Fully automatic - "machine guns" have been heavily controlled since the mid 1930's. Full registration, $200 tax to transfer, very serious background check, some serious legal trouble for not doing things properly. Since those controls were put in place, last I checked there have only been 2-3 incidents involving a legally owned full auto weapon.

And that moves right into the "police don't have machine guns"...One of those incidents was a law officer using a department machine gun that he was legally allowed to use. Just not at all the way he used it.

Most guns, depending on how they were made and local laws hold less than 10 rounds. If you're in a place that allows higher capacity maybe as many as 30. Much more isn't common, but is possible.

So yes, you may be able to fire hundreds of rounds a minute, but you'll be out in a few seconds. And usually anything past the first one isn't going where you want it to go. (Yes, I've tried, shot 1 was pretty good. They said I did well to get number 2 on the paper, and the backstop fortunately caught number 3 - It was good that was all I was allowed for that exercise. Could I have done better with practice? sure. But anything outside the target is pretty much a fail.

Oh, and a huge percentage of regular hunting rifles are semi-auto. They just don't look "tactical" so the crazy people don't usually buy them. In some cases they have the exact same inner machinery as the ones everyone wants to ban.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I’m a big fan of “War and Peace”, one of the odd things I collect is cards of Leo Tolstoy, including vintage Eastern European postcards of him. I enjoy Dostoevsky as well. Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons” is a favorite, though I’m probably missing the full experience by not understanding Russian and doing them in translation.

Even this thread, improbably, gets a card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Okay, so let me ask you. At fertility clinics, they fertilize eggs to implant in a woman. Not every fertilized egg is born. So, since every fertilized egg is a human life, who is responsible for the deaths of the fertilized eggs that aren't born? Who gets charged with the crime of murder?

In her dissent from the commerce clause majority view in the Obamacare case, Justice Ginsburg quoted something Robert Bork once said or wrote to the effect that just because you can hypothesize a slippery slope, doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom. Almost any belief in this world could be challenged by the Socratic method, but that doesn't invalidate them all.

[Butch7999]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems to us like 99% of Americans are either too illiterate or too lazy
to read that entire sentence and understand the delimiting context of
the clause in the first half. Or maybe it's us, and we're mistaking
the armed forces and police as a well-regulated militia. Bazookas
and tanks for everyone!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Even this thread, improbably, gets a card.

Your Ogden's Tolstoy has a much sharper corners than mine does.

I don't have access to my box right now so this copy is not mine, but Tolstoy's T68 is my favorite American card of him:

He was a fine author I enjoy and I think a greatly interesting man and philosopher.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems to us like 99% of Americans are either too illiterate or too lazy
to read that entire sentence and understand the delimiting context of
the clause in the first half. Or maybe it's us, and we're mistaking
the armed forces and police as a well-regulated militia. Bazookas
and tanks for everyone!

Perhaps you should read the court decisions on the Militia Clause, if you have not. Basically, they don't find it limits the broader right.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps you should read the court decisions on the Militia Clause, if you have not. Basically, they don't find it limits the broader right.

And perhaps he should also have his full name in his post...unless he is "too illiterate or too lazy to read" the forum rules.