So, for all anti-gun people here.....

[Logical]

I guess what you are saying is that law abiding citizens with no criminal record should not be able to carry a concealed weapon but that the criminals should? Just trying to clarify your stance.

[MineralMan]

1. I believe your post belies your name.

I hate okra, so I must love all other vegetables, right?

That is all.

[Logical]

2. OK, I must not be smart enough to understand your comparison. Please expand. n-t

[MineralMan]

3. No. I don't think I will expand on that.

I can see no point to it.

Look up non sequitur on Google.

[wtmusic]

9. +1 nt

[RC]

36. +2

[JackintheGreen]

7. I tried to ignore this. I really did.

But your post is nonsense. I don't mean that in a mean, derogatory way but in a actual, denotative way. Let's turn your OP into a syllogism, shall we:

Proposition 1: "I do not believe law abiding citizens without criminal records should be allowed to carry guns"
Propositiion 2: "Sometimes, criminals DO carry guns"
Conclusion: "I believe criminal should be allowed to carry guns."

I think what MineralMan was trying to express was: "Wha?!?"

How does the conclusion follow from the premise. "Anti-gun" folks, as you define them, don't want law-abiding citizens to carry guns. They ALSO don't want criminals to carry guns. But criminals often DO carry guns, which is partly what makes them criminals in the first place, right? I mean, they are breaking laws established to prevent people from carrying guns.

Now, the reality is that I am responding to avoid returning to my dissertation. But I need to get back to it. But in the spirit of the festive day across the pond, let me close awesome evidence that I am linked to the British royalty.

I have had sex with a woman named Kate
Prince William married a woman named Kate
Therefore, I have had sex with Prince William's wife.

Ridiculous, no? Your OP was no more logical, Logical.

[Logical]

11. So you think honest citizens shoul dbe able to carry guns to protect themselves from criminals?

[MineralMan]

16. That's a non-sequitur, as well.

You're using faulty logic again, in assuming that the poster meant something he didn't write. You cannot assume that someone means anything without some evidence to show it.

What you suggest simply doesn't follow from what that person wrote.

[Logical]

18. Please answer the question. Yes/No. Should citizens be able to defend themselfes against armed....

criminals?

[MineralMan]

20. Yes, I believe they should. Were you under the impression that I'm

"anti-gun?" I'm not, and I have a CCW license, although I rarely carry. I am, however, anti-fuzzy logic. I believe that everyone should be able to defend against fuzzy logic, and should have the tools needed to do so.

[Logical]

21. But the anti-gun people here seem to worry more about us CCW holders than they do...

the criminals. Would you not agree?

[MineralMan]

24. I don't know. I'm not worried about what other people post

on DU. It's their privilege to post as they see fit. Besides, I can't see where worrying about CCW means not worrying about armed criminals. It doesn't follow. That someone does not write about one thing does not mean they do not have an opinion about that thing. My assumption is that most people believe that armed criminals are not a positive thing. I've not seen anyone say that having armed criminals around is good.

[Logical]

26. I agree but they always point out how CCW is BAD....

So I guess after reading how bad CCW is for two months and no posts from the non-gun people about how bad criminals are I get to the point where I think they dislike CCW more than the criminals.

[MineralMan]

29. That's not my problem. What you think is your deal, not mine.

My deal is making sure that things make sense.

[Logical]

31. OK, that for the lesson. I appreciate it. n-t

[JackintheGreen]

23. Argh! I've been sucked in!

You need to sit down with a notepad and formulate exactly what it is you want to say. You are all over the place here.

Someone responds to the logical fallacy in you OP so you change the subject. Someone explains the fallacy and you ask a tangentially related question without addressing the original fallacy.

*My* response above has nothing at all to so with my personal beliefs on CCW laws. CCW laws have nothing at all to do with a citizen's mere right to protect himself, though CCW laws are a means by which to do so. iPhone or not, you have done nothing here to further your argument, whatever that argument might be.

Step back, take a breath, and re-engage when you have formulated an argument. There are plenty of people here willing to take up this topic with you, but not if we can't figure out what it is.

[plumbob]

4. In what universe/ planet/country/ state/city are criminals legally entitled to conceal carry, but

folks with no record aren't?

Answer the question with an actual place, and we can talk.

BTW, have your stopped beating your wife?

[Logical]

5. But the antis here are way more worried about the CCW license holders than the criminals!

[MineralMan]

6. Are they? Are you sure?

Why don't you post some quotes of some people expressing that? That would be interesting to see. I must have missed those.

More non sequiturs.

[Logical]

10. No, the antis always post bad CCW stories but never post good ones.....

isn't that biased. The pro-gun people attack stupid CCW holders all the time. But the antis never post positive stuff about CCW holders. See the bias now?

[MineralMan]

13. How does that support your illogical original post?

Are people biased? Of course they are. Is this the Guns forum? Yes, I believe it is. Where do you suppose people go to post stories about firearms?

Your logic still does not follow. That does not benefit your case.

[Logical]

15. Apparent;y the anti-gun people think non-criminals should not have guns so they cannot ......

prevent the criminals from harming them. Do you disagree?

[MineralMan]

19. That's not apparent at all.

More likely, they believe that neither should be carrying guns. That would make sense. What you said does not make sense, logically.

But, I can't really say for sure what another person means, unless he or she says or writes it. Not everything leads to what you want it to lead to.

You'd probably be better off to say what you mean than to try to tell us what someone else means. That's generally safe.

[Logical]

22. But I never see posts attacking the criminals. Only honest CCW holders. Am I wrong in my....

observations?

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. That is the same logic as "leftists only attack the Democrats".

Because the left expects the republicans to be idiots, when a republican is an idiot it is not worth mention. But when a Democrat supports Republican idiocy, then the left will respond to the Democrat.

When a criminal breaks the law, it is expected. When your saintly CCW holder breaks the law, that is worthy of mention. And, btw, the "anti's" don't "attack" honest CCW holders. Just the mind set of those - which they share with criminals - who think that they have to be packing whenever they leave the house. It's called paranoia.

[Logical]

32. I seem plenty of Dems attacking the GOP but also attacking the Dems when they...

are wrong. Bad logic there. n-t

[billh58]

25. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Anti-social behavior can not be regulated. Law-abiding citizens and "legal" guns CAN be regulated. Those who fear confrontations with armed criminals have other options, but should be allowed to own firearms if they so desire.

The widespread carrying of weapons in the public venue is under scrutiny -- not guns themselves (and especially not guns in the home). Your framing of this very serious discussion attempts to simplify it in order to make the "antis" seem unreasonable, and against guns in general. "Antis" are generally not anti-gun, but rather anti-armed stranger in public -- licensed, or not.

Advocating a domestic arms race to combat anti-social behavior is but one way to address the problem, and not everyone agrees that it is the BEST method.

[Logical]

27. But it is a simple question to me......

Should honest citizens be able to carry guns to defend themselves from armed criminals.

No one should be able to justify not answering that question.

[MineralMan]

30. That is not the question you asked, though. You asked a

different question. If you want answers, you must ask the question for which you want the answer. Your original question was whether people agreed with what you "guessed" someone undefined was saying. Further, your question wasn't even in the form of a question. It did have a question mark at the end, but didn't really ask anything. It just said what you "guessed." Since you didn't actually address a real question to anyone, nobody could answer. And if they did, they'd probably suggest you stop "guessing" what people mean.

[Logical]

33. Did you notice the part where I wanted them to clatify their stance......

that was the part where they could disagree with my statement. Make sense now?

[MineralMan]

35. Nah. It was still a rhetorical question that didn't really call for

an answer. It wasn't actually a question, but a statement of your "guess." More bait than anything. I guess nobody was biting today. That happens to me sometimes, but I go back again another day and catch lots of fish. Sometimes, the bait just isn't right.

[Logical]

38. Clever.

[billh58]

37. Obviously it is a "simple"

question for you and other gun enthusiasts and promoters, because of the way you present the choices as "either, or." You are saying that someone either agrees with you that "honest citizens" should be able to carry guns in public to protect themselves against a potential threat, or if someone disagrees, it means that they are a despicable "anti" who does not believe in the BOR Amendments to the Constitution.

It is obviously NOT a simple question, for many different reasons: among them the estimated 200,000,000 honest citizens who do NOT own guns, but have no problem with someone keeping a gun in their own private home or business. The question is not about "honest citizens" exercising their 2A rights, but about where, when, and how they exercise their 2A rights. All Constitutional rights are shaped, to some degree, by social norms and regulations to prevent the abuse of those rights by "honest" citizens. As I stated earlier, obviously anti-social behavior can not be regulated, but it can be outlawed.

We, as a nation, need to answer the more pertinent question: when and where does the public carry of firearms become a public nuisance or threat? The SCOTUS has not addressed this issue directly yet. Free speech, the free press, the right of assembly, and other civil rights, are all regulated to some extent based in part on this simple question. The prospect of being confronted in public by an armed stranger based on a misunderstanding is a possible (and probable) scenario, made even more tragic if the stranger is an otherwise "honest citizen."

Maybe we would do well to remember the origins of the hand wave, or the hand shake, as a means of letting others know that we are not armed and have no ill intent.

[rl6214]

44. And you have some evidence to cite for this statement?

"The prospect of being confronted in public by an armed stranger based on a misunderstanding is a possible (and probable) scenario, made even more tragic if the stranger is an otherwise "honest citizen."

[billh58]

46. Isn't one of the

complaints made by the OP (just a few posts up) that "antis" only post stories about "stupid CCW holders," and never the about the "good shoots?" While I don't scour the news looking for "gun" stories, the number of stories posted in this forum about both circumstances appears to me to be about equal.

To answer your question honestly, however, no I do not have any direct "evidence to cite" for making that statement, which is why I qualified it by using the phrases "possible" and "probable." It is a given, however, that ANY demographic will contain a large range of varying traits among its constituents. Is the average CCW holder carrying a weapon in public safer than a non-CCW holder? Most likely. Are ALL CCW holders carrying weapons in public safer (or smarter) than non-CCW holders? Most likely not.

I will qualify my statement further by saying that as long as stupid people exist, some of them will, in all probability, be licensed CCW gun carriers. A background check, a safety class, and other requirements for obtaining a CCW license or permit, does not preclude a future lack of good judgment.

I still maintain that the advocacy of a domestic arms race (with criminals) in order to promote "self defense" is but one way to address the problem. Strangers with lethal weapons in the public venue, whether CCW holders or not, remain strangers in the public venue with lethal weapons.

[iverglas]

59. but as long as that's your question

Should honest citizens be able to carry guns to defend themselves from armed criminals.

So ... you're saying that people who cheat on their taxes, or their spouses, should NOT be able to carry guns to defend themselves against armed criminals??

And ... you're saying that people who are legal permanent residents should NOT be able to carry guns to defend themselves against armed criminals??

With that out of the way ...

Should I assume that there has been a super high-tech gun invented where you're at, that can sense its holder's intentions, and will fire only when being used to defend said holder against armed criminals?

If not, your question makes no sense.

Your question is actually: "Should honest <sic> citizens <sic> be allowed to carry guns?"

The question you actually asked is no different from: "Should people be allowed to walk their tigers on the street to make a fashion statement?"

I doubt that you'd care why someone states they are walking their tiger on the street.

No more than I care why someone states they are carrying a firearm around in public.

The stated intention is entirely irrelevant to the act and the consequences, real and potential, of the act.

[plumbob]

8. Any study to validate that broad assumption? Survey, even an

unscientific one? Anecdotal evidence? Anything? Anything at all? Bueller?

[plumbob]

40. Non-response. Need a geographic location.

Otherwise, it's all hypothetical and we might as well argue angels on the head of a pin.

[Logical]

12. So you agree that honest citiznes should be able to protect themselfes from armed criminals? n-t

[MineralMan]

14. Uh...you're not improving your argument, you know...

I'm still puzzling over the meaning of "aress." I can usually figure out typos, but that one escapes me.

[Logical]

17. Sorry, on my iPhone and not typing so well. I fixed it. n-t

[plumbob]

41. Non-response. Need a geographic location.

This seems to be a waste of time. Bye.

[iverglas]

60. I'll go you one further than that!

So you agree that honest citiznes should be able to protect themselfes from armed criminals?

I believe that EVERYONE -- honest, dishonest; citizen, legal resident, under a deportation order and evading the authorities -- should be allowed (what I think you mean) to protect themself against armed criminals.

So you don't??

[MrDiaz]

70. Maybe

We should give everyone a gun straight out of high school. Tell them to keep their heads up and defend themselves.:wtf:

[iverglas]

71. note

that I said not one word about guns.

;)

[PavePusher]

39. Illinois. Maryland. New Jersey. D.C.

Wisconson. California. NYC.


Is that enough?

[plumbob]

43. Please cite the statute that allows criminals to carry concealed weapons

legally in each of those locales. Thanks.

[PavePusher]

47. My bad, I thought you were being facetious with the first half of your question....

but instead it was a non sequiteur rhetorical phrase.

Whatever.

Although, in reading the reports of how some elected and appointed officials behave with firearms in some of those places, it is legal for some criminals.

[plumbob]

49. No, it was a request for facts. Nice to have some before commencing

an argument with none, and the grounds shift with each response.

Since the proposition obviously does not exist, this argument cannot begin.

Have a nice day.

[PavePusher]

51. It's obvious that criminals can not carry weapons legally.

That is what makes the question a non sequiteur, and thus dismisable.

It is also a fact that in many places, Citizens are not allowed to carry weapons for self-defense. I gave you some examples.

[plumbob]

52. Why should anyone be allowed to carry guns legally?

Now that we have determined that any discussion of criminals is beside the point.

Self-defense won't hold water. People were defending themselves for thousands of years before guns were even invented.

Second, did anyone start carrying legally and become a criminal, ever? If no, see self-defense won't hold water. If yes, just another reason to disallow.

Next?

[PavePusher]

53. More nonsense, but I'll answer:

1. "Self-defense won't hold water. People were defending themselves for thousands of years before guns were even invented."

Yes, and before firearms (and the ensueing industrial age), self-defense was pretty much predicated on physial strength, skill and financial access to weapons and armor that were beyond the reach of the average person. The word you are looking for is "progress". Weapons still cost, but they are within financial reach of all but the very poorest people, and sometimes even then. The firearm enables efficient, easy self-defense by the weak, the disabled, the poor, the out-numbered, those facing other weapons and anyone who does not feel a moral/ethical obligation to meet criminals with an inherent disadvantage. Surely we had effective communication before the internet, cell phones, telegraph and satellites... we should probably ban all of those... just to stay consistent, yes?


2. "Second, did anyone start carrying legally and become a criminal, ever? If no, see self-defense won't hold water. If yes, just another reason to disallow."

Of course they did. So what? Are they any kind of majority? Or even more than a tiny minority of all crime? No? Then by definition, their beneficial use out-weighs their abuse.

Surely someone has criminally abused access to water, so we should "disallow" it, amIright?


If all you can come up with is additional non sequiteurs, irrelevencies, slanted "questions" and predetermined answers, I will not continue this "discussion". Good day to you.

[beevul]

55. Heh...

Because the right of the people which shall not be infringed, says keep and BEAR.


Binding law.


Work on a Con-con if you are against it.

[plumbob]

56. I never said I was against it. They are irrelevant. I have never carried

one, and I have never been successfully robbed or otherwise assaulted, although twice in my long life, someone has tried one of each, unsuccessfully.

I'm just trying to get some logic into a discussion that someone else started with a bad intent and an invalid technique. It's an emotional issue, and like most emotional issues, cannot be resolved by anything but emotion. When enough owners have their guns stolen by others, when enough owners experience a loved one harming themselves with one, when enough owners realize that they really won't shoot someone to save $20 from being stolen, perhaps then a logical discussion can take place.

Founding fathers certainly didn't carry their weapons about, and neither did the denizens of Tombstone Arizona.

[beevul]

61. The question you asked was this...

"The question you asked was this:

"Why should anyone be allowed to carry guns legally?"


That question was answered.

"It's an emotional issue, and like most emotional issues, cannot be resolved by anything but emotion."


Well, I guess we differ on that. As far as I'm concerned, emotions have no bearing on the issue, and are no basis for resolving it.


"Founding fathers certainly didn't carry their weapons about, and neither did the denizens of Tombstone Arizona."


The founding fathers didnt carry their weapons around?

Really?

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

Thomas Jefferson

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/let31.asp


We established however some, although not all its important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;

Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

(what does "at all times" mean to you?)


As another poster said once:


It's deeply saddening that someone would consider his/her opinions about an important public policy issue to be worth spewing in public when s/he is so totally ignorant of the subject matter, and so deeply uninterested in learning the minimum necessary to have an opinion of even minimal value.

[iverglas]

62. I'm missing something

Thomas Jefferson eschewed ball games (I've often asked whether those who quote him for the other bit of the passage follow that part too) and advised tramping around outdoors with a gun to get exercise and stay mentally alert.

Is this some kind of proof that your founding fathers carried their weapons around?

Thomas Jefferson said that somebody had a right and duty to be armed.

Is this some kind of proof that everybody carried their weapons around?

Do you even have evidence that Thomas Jefferson himself toted a gun around with him everywhere??

[beevul]

63. Yes, you are.

Accidental I'm sure. :eyes:

The statement - or rather part of the statement being refuted what this:

"Founding fathers certainly didn't carry their weapons about..."


Note that the word "everywhere" is contained nowhere within that quote.

So your insertion of that word into it, is a goalpost move. Disingenuous. And certainly not being described by that "good faith" you were always lecturing everyone on. Once again, Hypocrite.

Now lets move on to the Jefferson quote itself:

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

Thomas Jefferson



Carrying ones gun during walks - particularly describing is in the words "Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks" refutes completely this:

"Founding fathers certainly didn't carry their weapons about..."


Unless you believe Jefferson was proposing something nobody at all ever did...


But then, you knew all that, didn't you.

[iverglas]

64. ooooh, more equivocation for me!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/walk

The act or an instance of walking, especially a stroll for pleasure or exercise.


Carrying ones gun during walks - particularly describing is in the words "Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks" refutes completely this:

"Founding fathers certainly didn't carry their weapons about..."

Unless you believe Jefferson was proposing something nobody at all ever did...

Well, it would ... if we didn't all know (because we couldn't help but know from reading his words) that Jefferson was talking about "strolls for pleasure or exercise" and not just "walking about", as in, perhaps, walking about the legislative buildings, walking about the streets, walking about at public gatherings ... . Wouldn't it?

[beevul]

65. From you, you mean.

"Well, it would ... if we didn't all know (because we couldn't help but know from reading his words) that Jefferson was talking about "strolls for pleasure or exercise" and not just "walking about", as in, perhaps, walking about the legislative buildings, walking about the streets, walking about at public gatherings ... . Wouldn't it?"

First, the poster I was responding to made no such qualifications. YOU did.

Second, you would have to be the biggest dunce this side of the planet, if not this side of the glalaxy, if you think that guns werent carried into legislative buildings, in the street, and at public gatherings at the time of the founding of this nation.


Do you?

[iverglas]

66. JEFFERSON did

First, the poster I was responding to made no such qualifications. YOU did.

YOU cited Jefferson to rebut what the poster said.

YOU are pretending that Jefferson meant something he did not mean, primarily by equivocating on the meaning of the noun "walks" as used by him in the passage you pretended supported your rebuttal.

Your rebuttal failed.


Second, you would have to be the biggest dunce this side of the planet, if not this side of the glalaxy, if you think that guns werent carried into legislative buildings, in the street, and at public gatherings at the time of the founding of this nation.

Well there ya go! Much more effective to just call the person whose argument you seek to rebut a dunce.

:dunce:

[beevul]

67. No.

No.

YOU are pretending that the poster said something he did not say primarily by equivocating on the meaning of the phrase "Founding fathers certainly didn't carry their weapons about" as used by him, and adding qualifications such as "walking about the legislative buildings, walking about the streets, walking about at public gatherings" when that statement was in fact a GENERAL one, and contained NO such qualifications of either written or implied variety.

Your equivocation failed.


Nice try though.

You must be shaking off a little of that rust.

Not that its going to matter any.

[iverglas]

68. oh, sigh

"walking about the legislative buildings, walking about the streets, walking about at public gatherings"

are not QUALIFICATIONS, they are ILLUSTRATIONS, a list of the non-exhaustive sort (hence the absence of an "and", indicating the potential for extension).

Walking about ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE.

[beevul]

69. Blah blah blah.

"Walking about ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE."


Once again, adding words to give a meaning that the original phrase did not mean by the words it contained.


Your just not very good at this any more.

[iverglas]

58. dang, you beat me to it

However, since I don't like to assume the sex of the person I'm addressing (although I never cease to be amused by those who do it re me), I generally ask whether they have stopped beating their dog.

Oddly, I think that incenses some of them more than your question does ...

[rrneck]

34. I don't think anyone is advocating arming criminals. nt

[rl6214]

42. So what is your point today?

Which side of the gun/anti-gun debate are you on?

You seem to switch often.

[Logical]

45. Please post what anti-gun statements I have made. You say that all the time and never....

follow up. I assume it is because you are so pro-gun that anything said against them makes you angry.

What have I said that is anti gun? I don't like open-carry? Wow, what a radical things that is. Some gun owners are nuts. Wow, I have proof.

I am looking forward to your typical silence.

[iverglas]

72. kinda demonstrates the absurdity

of this "gun/anti-gun" nonsense, don't it?

Myself, I'm pro-apple and anti-stapler.

But if they didn't frame the debate that way, they'd have nothing to say.

[lawodevolution]

48. Anti gun people want to stop everyone from carrying but will fail to stop criminals

From carrying and will only disarm law abiding thus making us more like Mexico and if we did away with the right to self defense the drug gangs would start taking over here also.

[Sadena Meti]

50. I'd be much more in favor of open carry, where 1. it can be used as a deterrent, and 2. I'll know wh...

is packing. Concealed carry is really only useful if you plan to do something nefarious. You don't want people to know you have a gun.

I'm also in favor of an armed populous, but with rifles not pistols.

[PavePusher]

54. Have you ever had to carry a rifle for defensive purposes?

It is far more of a pain in the ass than a pistol, harder to use effectively in many situations, and would actually present a greater danger to the non-criminal surrounding people.

I'll stick with a 1911 for my EDC, thanks.

[iverglas]

57. "Just trying to clarify your stance. "

Maybe you'd start.

What are "anti-gun people"??

Just wanting to know whom you're addressing.

Are there people around here who are opposed to inanimate objects?

Odd.