The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[Yorzhik]

It's not the wife beater fallacy. The wife beater question explorers the underlying assumptions we make without even realizing we make them. If you ask me if I have stopped beating my wife, the truthful answer is no. What you do with that answer reveals more about you than about me.

As to my question, it is a real world question. There has been at least on case in the news where a doctor raised concerns about patient with police that went ignored. The patient later did use a gun to kill people. There are questions regarding the mental condition of the Aurora theater shooter who was under a psychiatrists care. I saw an article recently where, I believe it was Klebold, was sociopathic. In the real world these things do happen. I can't give you the name of the next killer because I am an engineer and I am not trained to recognize, let alone treat, mental disorders. I would hazard to guess that there is more than one doctor that has a patient that they are more than just a little concerned about.

So, if you knew that a person had a mental predisposition that would make them highly likely to start killing people, would you support their right to purchase all the guns they want?

Nice dodge. But if you can't figure out who is not allowed to defend themselves according to some psychological test, then you can't defend them if their allowance to defend themselves is taken unjustly.

And if you can't identify them, then everyone is subject to a removal of their rights with your blessing even if there is no reason to suspect they will commit a mass murder.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nice dodge. But if you can't figure out who is not allowed to defend themselves according to some psychological test, then you can't defend them if their allowance to defend themselves is taken unjustly.

And if you can't identify them, then everyone is subject to a removal of their rights with your blessing even if there is no reason to suspect they will commit a mass murder.

You write that and accuse me of dodging? Wow. It's quite obvious that you do not think better. I can't figure out who is mentally competent but I did say that doctors such as phsyciatrits do have the training to figure it out.

 

[exminister]

Ah, so, you were asking if I stopped beating my wife. Answer in the affirmative, and I want crazy people to shoot people. Answer in the negative, and I become a tyrant like you.

This demonstrates the logical fallacy of your question. You should read more about Logical Fallacies: The Loaded Question at The Fallacy Files

So, if we are to have a conversation, isn't it reasonable that you dispense with the logical fallacy first?

Do you think it is tyrannical when schizophrenics have their driver licenses revoked?

I don't think it is tyrannical to care about people's safety.

Are you against requiring drivers licenses? Have I cornered you again?

 

[Delmar]

What's important about this is that if I am a convicted criminal, and I want to buy guns that I am not supposed to be able to buy, I can simply have my friend buy them, and he can then sell them (or give them) to me 'privately' without anyone knowing, or anyone even checking up on where the guns went. So that even the background check laws that were intended to stop convicted criminals from buying guns, don't really stop anyone.

The gun lobby loves to talk about how criminals can buy guns "illegally" if they want them. What they don't tell you is that they made sure that criminals can get them, legally, by pushing for these completely useless background check laws and then using them to pretend that we already have gun regulation, and that regulation doesn't work. It doesn't work because they built in all these "back doors" to make sure that it wouldn't.

If it is not legal for you to own a gun, it is not legal for me to sell you a gun. This is true now, in all 50 states.

 

[Granite]

You write that and accuse me of dodging? Wow. It's quite obvious that you do not think better. I can't figure out who is mentally competent but I did say that doctors such as phsyciatrits do have the training to figure it out.

It's obvious he's not going to answer the question.

When it comes to this issue at the end of the day they don't care about anything other than the satisfaction their guns bring them. If you can't say "a schizophrenic shouldn't be able to buy a gun," then the discussion's pretty much over. What else is there to say? The children shot to death at Sandy Hook are collateral damage in an issue they believe to be more important than most others.

Obama's bit about clinging to guns and religion? He hit the nail on the head, which is why that comment infuriated them so much.

 

[PureX]

If it is not legal for you to own a gun, it is not legal for me to sell you a gun. This is true now, in all 50 states.

It's not true in any of them, as far as I know. If I am a convicted criminal, and I can't legally own a gun, I can go to any state that has weak background checks and so long as their check does not divulge that I am a convicted criminal, they can sell me a gun.

If I am a psychopath, and I am not legally allowed to own a gun, I can still go to an adjoining state where their background check will almost certainly not detect this information, and they will be allowed to sell me a gun.

Or, I can ask a friend to give or sell me a gun, and he can do that without asking or knowing that I am a convicted criminal or a psychopath who is not supposed to be allowed to own one.

Our current laws are basically useless. And they have been deliberately made that way so the gun manufacturers and the NRA can pretend we have gun regulation when we do not, and then proclaim that gun regulation doesn't work.

 

[Sitamun]

Basically saying that since two random people can't tell who is mentally "dangerous" from those that aren't then saying it can't be done. Is ridiculous. It's the same thing as saying that since these two random people can't sculpt then it CAN'T be done by anyone, or build a house, or wire circuitry correctly. It's one last grasp. How in the world is background checks and mental medicals an insane step towards owning something who's sole purpose it is wound, maim, and kill?

 

[bybee]

Basically saying that since two random people can't tell who is mentally "dangerous" from those that aren't then saying it can't be done. Is ridiculous. It's the same thing as saying that since these two random people can't sculpt then it CAN'T be done by anyone, or build a house, or wire circuitry correctly. It's one last grasp. How in the world is background checks and mental medicals an insane step towards owning something who's sole purpose it is wound, maim, and kill?

I agree but with caveats! We must be careful in our labeling of each other.

 

[ok doser]

If I am a psychopath...

if?

 

[Yorzhik]

You write that and accuse me of dodging? Wow. It's quite obvious that you do not think better. I can't figure out who is mentally competent but I did say that doctors such as phsyciatrits do have the training to figure it out.

Yes, you dodged the question. Can you give us a name or not? I addressed the problem of relying on psychiatrists, and you respond as if I didn't. Here's a way to make it simpler for you: How do you police the psychologists? Since there is no measure for psychoanalysis, they can declare anyone mentally unfit to have a gun and it would be with your blessing, even if that person was you.

So, yeah, as demonstrated again, I think better than you.

So, back to the challenge you dodged:

Give us an example of someone with a "mental condition" that would predispose them to committing mass murder, or any murder at all, who hasn't done so yet. You know, just as an example of the kind of people that we need to disallow them defending themselves.

And don't give us "people like Elliot Rodger" or something vague like that. Give us the name of the next "Elliot Rodger" so you can show us that you were right and how stupid we are for not listening to you.

 

[Yorzhik]

Do you think it is tyrannical when schizophrenics have their driver licenses revoked?

I don't think it is tyrannical to care about people's safety.

Are you against requiring drivers licenses? Have I cornered you again?

You admit your logical fallacy before we can go on.

Or don't you think you committed a logical fallacy? I'll even remind you again why it was a logical fallacy: If I answer in the affirmative, I want crazy people to shoot people. If I answer in the negative, I become a tyrant like you.

Obviously, there is a more basic question you are missing.

 

[PureX]

You admit your logical fallacy before we can go on.

Or don't you think you committed a logical fallacy? I'll even remind you again why it was a logical fallacy: If I answer in the affirmative, I want crazy people to shoot people. If I answer in the negative, I become a tyrant like you.

Obviously, there is a more basic question you are missing.

There is no "logical fallacy" involved. It's simply a question based on a necessary fact of reality. Like asking if you want blind people driving motor vehicles on public roads, or not. It's a question based on the simple fact that blind people can't reasonably be allowed to do that. And it's asking that you acknowledge that reality.

The same goes for the question of crazy people having guns. All the question is asking is if you will acknowledge the fact that not everyone can reasonably be allowed to have guns.

And so far, you haven't been honest enough to acknowledge that simple fact, yet.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes, you dodged the question. Can you give us a name or not? I addressed the problem of relying on psychiatrists, and you respond as if I didn't. Here's a way to make it simpler for you: How do you police the psychologists? Since there is no measure for psychoanalysis, they can declare anyone mentally unfit to have a gun and it would be with your blessing, even if that person was you.

So, yeah, as demonstrated again, I think better than you.

So, back to the challenge you dodged:

Give us an example of someone with a "mental condition" that would predispose them to committing mass murder, or any murder at all, who hasn't done so yet. You know, just as an example of the kind of people that we need to disallow them defending themselves.

And don't give us "people like Elliot Rodger" or something vague like that. Give us the name of the next "Elliot Rodger" so you can show us that you were right and how stupid we are for not listening to you.

I have already answered you. I disagree that you dealt with relying on professionals to do what they are trained to do.

I find it interesting that you say that somebody who thinks it prudent to keep guns away from those most likely to commit atrocities with them is tyrannical. I do not think that you want crazies to shoot people, I think that you simply do not care.

For the record, you have answered the question by your studied refusal to answer a simple question directly.

At least I have the courage to state my opinion and reasons and stand up for them. Why don't you?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You admit your logical fallacy before we can go on.

Or don't you think you committed a logical fallacy? I'll even remind you again why it was a logical fallacy: If I answer in the affirmative, I want crazy people to shoot people. If I answer in the negative, I become a tyrant like you.

Obviously, there is a more basic question you are missing.

I'd say it's you who's logic is somewhat skewed here. If you answer in the affirmative then it doesn't necessarily follow that you actually want a mentally ill person to shoot anybody, but it would follow that you're comfortable enough with their having a gun where the danger of that happening is increased.

 

[Yorzhik]

There is no "logical fallacy" involved. It's simply a question based on a necessary fact of reality. Like asking if you want blind people driving motor vehicles on public roads, or not. It's a question based on the simple fact that blind people can't reasonably be allowed to do that. And it's asking that you acknowledge that reality.

As a man with Macular Degeneration once told me, "yeah, the state is insane in that I am allowed to drive."

The same goes for the question of crazy people having guns. All the question is asking is if you will acknowledge the fact that not everyone can reasonably be allowed to have guns.

And so far, you haven't been honest enough to acknowledge that simple fact, yet.

It's not the same. The question isn't about a privilege, but a right. The right to defend one's self.

The question is closer to: "can't we say that if a human is just a cell or a few cells in size that it isn't a human?" Agree and babies can be murdered throughout 9 months in the womb (at least, and more state approved murder being pushed for out of the womb). Disagree and pictures of a single cell are posted about how it, obviously, doesn't *look* like a human and doesn't have formed human organs.

Thus, it is clearly a logical fallacy. It also means a more basic question needs to be answered first.

 

[Yorzhik]

Let's deal with this quote first: "I do not think that you want crazies to shoot people, I think that you simply do not care."
That's the same thing you idiot.

If I answer in the affirmative, I don't care if crazy people shoot people. If I answer in the negative, I become a tyrant like you.

I have already answered you.

No. You named no names. The answer would be the name of the next crazy person to do a mass shooting.

I disagree that you dealt with relying on professionals to do what they are trained to do.

Because professionals will either do the state's bidding to declare all those the state does not like as crazy, or they will be cowed into doing the state's bidding.

Let me guess, you are going to claim that couldn't happen.

I find it interesting that you say that somebody who thinks it prudent to keep guns away from those most likely to commit atrocities with them is tyrannical.

Really? Who are you talking about? Who are these "most likely to commit atrocities?" And don't give us a vague answer of "crazy people." Who exactly will have their right to defend themselves removed by the state?

The state removing rights... that's tyranny.

For the record, you have answered the question by your studied refusal to answer a simple question directly.

That's only because you assume what people are thinking and would have the state act accordingly. You're all into thought control. I haven't answered the question because it is a logical fallacy, and a more basic question must be answered first.

At least I have the courage to state my opinion and reasons and stand up for them. Why don't you?

Well, if you call advocating tyranny courage, then I guess so.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Let's deal with this quote first: "I do not think that you want crazies to shoot people, I think that you simply do not care."
That's the same thing you idiot.

If I answer in the affirmative, I don't care if crazy people shoot people. If I answer in the negative, I become a tyrant like you.


No. You named no names. The answer would be the name of the next crazy person to do a mass shooting.


Because professionals will either do the state's bidding to declare all those the state does not like as crazy, or they will be cowed into doing the state's bidding.

Let me guess, you are going to claim that couldn't happen.


Really? Who are you talking about? Who are these "most likely to commit atrocities?" And don't give us a vague answer of "crazy people." Who exactly will have their right to defend themselves removed by the state?

The state removing rights... that's tyranny.


That's only because you assume what people are thinking and would have the state act accordingly. You're all into thought control. I haven't answered the question because it is a logical fallacy, and a more basic question must be answered first.


Well, if you call advocating tyranny courage, then I guess so.

You keep going on about logical fallacies and refuse to accept that you're in error yourself. It's pretty obvious why blind people are not permitted to drive and it has nothing to do with some tyrannical regime to penalize blind people but for common sense purposes of overall safety. Is it equally tyrannical to have driving tests in order to legally drive on public roads?

Now apply that to people who have conditions that render them more prone to irrational bursts of paranoia/ violence and just consider for a minute. Isn't it logical that any such person is more likely to commit a violent act with a lethal weapon than someone without such a condition? I'm not saying that you wish for it to happen but logic dictates the likelihood is increased in much the same way as car accidents would multiply if the unsighted were allowed to drive vehicles in public.

It's simply common sense.

 

[Tambora]

http://www.guns.com/2015/10/06/suspect-shot-in-the-mouth-while-brutally-beating-elderly-man/
I'm glad this guy is alive and wasn't deprived of his right to self defense by an overly burdensome process.

Me too!
:up:

 

[Tambora]

http://www.guns.com/2015/10/08/woma...-violent-domestic-dispute-involving-children/
I'm glad this woman is alive for her children.

Yeppers! :thumb:

 

[Tambora]

I wonder why gun-regulation freaks never comment on the fact that guns save lives. :idunno:

Me too!