Reply #25: there's a start [View All]

Don't ask yes/no questions. Usually when someone asks a yes/no question in an argument, they are trying to get their opponent to trap themselves in a logically untenable position. She is well-acquainted with this tactic, and will dodge all simple yes/no questions by insisting that they reflect a false dichotomy, that they're "the kind of thing a complete moron would ask," etc.

Half-truth, as is so common.

The tactic usually manifests itself in loaded yes/no questions, of course.

Instead, ask "what" and "how" questions like "what does sensible gun control mean," "how would you get guns away from criminals," etc. These questions require substantive answers that will require the person answering to define and detail their positions.

If I asked you "what does sensible gun control mean?", what would your answer be?

Might it be that you've never advocated "sensible gun control", so I should go ask someone who has done so?

You can take my answer as read now, I think.


You've noticed by now that your opponent will avoid drawing a line in the sand if at all possible during an argument. That's because when she states the particulars of her views in a clear-cut fashion, their irrationality can be pointed out.

Odd ... how I have done preciesly that, very precisely ... and nobody has ever done what you suggest at all.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=111700&mesg_id=126288

iverglas
Fri Jul-07-06 10:45 AM
30. so, where have you been all my life?

What, my dear iverglas, is your plan for gun-control?

Civilized people don't wander into a room where people are having a conversation, butt in, accuse people of saying things they haven't said (and of being not too bright, etc. etc.), and when met by mild objections, demand a replay of everything that was said before they got there.

I see you don't have a gold star. I bought myself one purely so that I could search; I paid for a service. (I had qualms about "donating" since the site is a political discussion site in a foreign country, and it's not for me to use money to influence that discourse.)

If you get one, what you want to do is a search for posts by iverglas with words like "storage" and "registration" and "licensing".

I don't have a plan for firearms control in the US, by the way, and more than I have a plan for job creation in Antigua. I have a plan for firearms control in Canada that is quite similar on most points to the plan already in effect here, with some additions that many people would like to see. And I have a wish list of things that I'd like to see done in the US because of the effect that not doing them has where I am, and of course also just because I am a fan of social justice for everyone, not just people I know.

Here's the sort of thing you find on such a search:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=129303&mesg_id=129427

iverglas
Tue Oct-03-06 08:10 PM
96. goodness, I don't think you've ever asked me!

I've issued this challenge several times....
...once more wont' hurt. Please, tell us your plan. Tell us how IT will work, when similar plans to stop pot, liquor, heroin, porn, gambling, you fukcing name it, have not.

"Similar plans"? How can you know what someone's plan is similar to, when you don't even know what it is? Spew straw, much?

Do a little searchy on my name, and you will find much. You want to look for things like

regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms
legislation requiring licensing of individuals seeking to acquire/possess firearms
legislation requiring registration of firearms ownership/transfers

Oh, and strict controls on acquisition and possession of handguns, the criminal/murderer's weapon of choice. Preferably no acquisition and possession of handguns. Not an easy thing to implement when your country is awash in the bloody things, but the longest journey starts with a single step and all that. And in the meantime, there are always

regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms
legislation requiring licensing of individuals seeking to acquire/possess firearms
legislation requiring registration of firearms ownership/transfers

What's quite funny is that when doing the search, I find more posts referring presumptuous assholes to my previous posts on the subject than anything else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=127146&mesg_id=132018

Mon Nov-20-06 12:23 AM

... Did you ever think that one of the reasons you must constantly play the part of the aggrieved and misunderstood intellectual is because you rarely (if ever) make any sort of direct statement about your ideas for pragmatic FIREARMS POLICY?

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about unimportant people's fantasies about myself or anyone else, actually.

As usual, boldface (other than for the dates of the posts) indicates things said by third parties, italics indicate things previously said by me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=124088&mesg_id=124223

iverglas
Thu Apr-27-06 10:48 AM
48. where have you been all my life?

... because said law-abiding dealers and owners suddenly develop a conscience, or at least a healthy respect for laws that require them to stop behaving that way on pain of punishment and that include some mechanisms to make it actually possible to convict them of doing it
What mechanisms might those be? This ought to be good.

It's been good for a very long time. And I'm always happy to say it for the brazilianth time for a newbie.


(1) safe/secure storage laws

Thousands and thousands of firearms pass into criminal hands because their legal owners are too stupid or piggish to store them securely and they are stolen in break-ins. Criminal liability should attach if a firearm that was not securely stored is stolen, regardless of whether it is used for criminal purposes -- and if a firearm gets into the hands of a child, regardless of whether the child or anyone else is injured.

(2) licensing requirements for firearms owners

Not just those "background checks". Permanent records of who is licensed to acquire and possess firearms (with licences only available to people who have taken appropriate courses), and requirement that a licence be presented by anyone acquiring a firearm from anyone by any method.

(3) firearms registry

The only way that the licensing requirement can be enforced, i.e. that transfers to unqualified/disqualified individuals by "law-abiding gun owners" can be deterred. Once the initial sale is recorded, all subsequent transfers must be registered, and ownership of the firearm can be traced to its last legal owner.


These laws are directed to legal, law-abiding firearms owners, most of whom have incentives to obey the law: their conscience; what they stand to lose if they are caught breaking the law. Those two factors set them apart from their criminal counterparts, along with the fact that they don't have the incentive to break the law that the criminals have (since they need firearms for purposes for which the non-criminals don't, and they can't acquire them legally).

The effect of legal, law-abiding firearms owners

(1) storing their firearms securely
(2) being identifiable and having to identify themselves in order to engage in legal firearms transactions
(3) having an incentive not to engage in prohibited transfers, whether knowingly or unknowingly

can reasonably be expected to be a reduction in the flow of firearms from legal owners to people who are or should be prohibited from possessing firearms. (A firearms registry also has other purposes and effects, but we'll stick with the "keeping guns out of criminals' hands" issue for now.)

And the effect of reducing that flow can reasonably be expected to be a reduction in firearms violence and firearms-facilitated crime, in the medium and long term. Obviously, there is a large supply of firearms already in criminal circulation in the US, and they are not going to go away the day legislation is enacted.

Of course, I also recommend very severe restrictions on the acquisition and possession of handguns, the weapon of choice for facilitating crimes and causing intentional death and injury, and the weapon vastly most commonly used for those purposes in the US.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126427&mesg_id=126486

iverglas
Thu Jul-13-06 02:45 PM
17. nope

<expanded quotation included here for clarity>

I would like to live in a society where there were no firearms, but I recognize that as an absurd aspiration. I live in a society where people hunt for food, where people raise livestock and grow crops that are threatened by predators and pests, where people make a living taking tourists hunting, where people need firearms in order to enforce the law and protect the public and in some cases to help to ensure that they can go about lawful business safely. And even where people play with guns as a hobby, which there is nothing inherently objectionable in.

The fact that I insist that all those people's firearms be registered, and that they meet stringent criteria before being permitted to acquire and possess firearms, and that they comply with safe/secure storage rules -- and that I oppose handgun possession by members of the public -- does not mean that I intend to try to keep whittling away at who may have firearms and what firearms they may have and what they may do with them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126546&mesg_id=126760

iverglas
Thu Jul-20-06 01:16 PM
96. eh?

... Which ones would you like to see 'outlawed'?

Why don't you just try paying attention? You've been here two years now; you're not actually just jumping into an existing conversation with two big feet and demanding that the participants explain themselves to you. It really just is not my problem if you don't know what I've said, and I really do get bored to tears by such efforts to keep the conversation going in circles.

Oh look. I'm pretty sure you read this post, because you were rather active in the thread:

<links to several earlier posts>

You: And if gun safes fail -- the next step may be total ban, eh?

Me: You're right. If public safety cannot be ensured by permitting people to possess certain firearms subject to conditions (whether because the conditions are never adequate for the purpose or because it proves impossible to secure compliance with them), the only way to protect the public may be to cease permitting people to possess them.

The "certain firearms" under discussion were of course handguns -- which people are allowed to possess now, with few exceptions, only for sporting purposes if they are members of approved clubs or to hold as part of collections. I advocate removing the provision excepting "collectors" from the general prohibition on possession of handguns other than by shooting club members. (And I would also advocate prohibiting the possesion of handguns by those people off the club premises, the most determining reason being that too many of both groups have demonstrated their complete inability/refusal to comply with safe/secure storage rules and as a result their firearms have ended up being used to commit crimes and cause harm.)

Happy?

But I'm glad you would allow people to own long guns. Does that include semiauto rifles similar looking to the ones the military uses (except not full auto or burst fire!!!) as they are long guns too? Or do you want them 'outlawed'? Or restricted?

I have given the source for Canadian rules in this regard, which I support, and the rules themselves, on quite a few occasions. Use your gold star and do a search for my name and "canlii". In short: they already are. And I agree.


<next is link to and quotation of post 96 reproduced earlier>


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=130282&mesg_id=130368

iverglas
Mon Oct-16-06 06:56 PM
31. howdy!

... There are several things that can contribute to making it difficult for people to possess / traffic in firearms illegally.

(1) Safe/secure storage laws
- these are directed toward those fearful / law-abidin' folks, who are susceptible to the threat of punishment and/or who don't like breaking laws, equally importantly, the educating effect of laws: the reasons for such laws are obvious to anyone who thinks about it, and anyone who cares at all about public safety will quickly grasp the wisdom of complying with them.

Safe/secure firearms storage could keep hundreds of thousands of firearms out of criminal hands in the US every year.

(2) Firearms registration
- if every firearms transaction (sale, gift, purchase) must be registered, people who are not inclined by nature to break laws can be expected to think twice before selling firearms to strangers in parking lots. They will be engaging in an illegal transaction, and if their purchaser turns out to have criminal plans for the firearm, it could be traced to the vendor and consequences ensue, so many people who are motivated by fear of punishment will also think twice.

(3) Licensing of firearms owners
- this goes in tandem with firearms registration: any transfer to an unlicensed owner would be an unlawful transfer, so the same people would be deterred from engaging in such transfers.


__________________________________

That's the last 6 months, on a very simple search.

And you've been here since 2002, and you take a rather lively interest in all things moi, and you've managed to miss every single one of 'em. Have I got that?

So. When can I expect the next rerun of the iverglas never says anything pissing and moaning soap opera?

A lot sooner than I can expect you to be retracting your false statements, I predict.

Like I wuz saying.

I think you can take my response as read.


And I think we know that "counter-sophistry" isn't quite an accurate characterization of misrepresentation. Intentional? Who knows?

We might have a clue though. The lengthy post I reproduced above was #127 in the thread.

Post #123, just preceding it in the subthread in question, was by ... why, none other than Nabeshin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=127146&mesg_id=132007

Two and a half years ago.

And making a false statement at that ...