This is why it's impossible to have a rational debate with someone irrational:

Mark Underwood

Shared publicly Sep 17, 2013

 

Can we have guns sensibly regulated this time?...or are the electorate going to keep letting the NRA push their redneck buttons and persuade them that they have a constitutional right to be senselessly massacred by the next total whacko fruitcake who has easy access to a gun?

 

No?...OK just let more innocent people die senselessly then right?...what a good idea :-/

 

John Underwood

Sep 17, 2013

 

You waste your time on expressing yourself to a nation hell bent on selfdestruction. American's may have many talents but selfless introspection is not amongst them.

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 17, 2013

 

I would like to hear what sensibly controls would have prevented this shooting. And please let's focus on controls surrounding the actual guns.

 

Mark Underwood

Sep 18, 2013

 

+Brandon Jamison

All firearms except for hunting rifles that are registered to an active farm or gun club are made illegal.

 

For 2 years we then impose very large fines on anyone found with a gun, we use the revenue raised from these fines to buy back firearms from those who voluntarily hand them in.

 

For another year we increase the fines and continue buyback and reward informants who assist in the collection of illegal firearms.

 

After this initial period of legal grace anyone found with a gun goes to jail for life.

 

This gets rid of the guns and also any crazy or criminal people who still have guns after the three year period of grace.

 

Also you now no longer have the hassle of proving cases against criminals...if they have a gun they are criminals by definition...so getting the bad guys off the streets suddenly becomes much more efficient.

 

Result a much much safer country.

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 18, 2013

 

I said sensible and would have prevented this shooting. Fails on both points.

 

Mark Underwood

Sep 18, 2013

 

+Brandon Jamison the sad thing is in a country where guns have been allowed to become as ubiquitous as they are ...this is the only sensible alternative. We just need to face the reality that the evening news confronts us with most nights of the week...or continue to delude ourselves that there is some "safe" way to allow our fellow citizens to walk around carrying murder weapons.

 

Your conclusion that what i suggest is crazy is causing innocent people to die every day if we do not take the appropriate level of action.

 

This is not a constitutional debate it is quite simply a state of emergency, it needs to be recognized as such and treated as such by any rational society.

 

...the question is "are we a rational society?"

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 18, 2013

 

When one wack job shuts down, our nations capital, congress, countless schools and a naval base with a freaking shotgun, the answer is no. So freaking timid...

 

Are you volunteering to do the first door to door search and seizure? I do not think sensible means what you think it means.

 

Mark Underwood

Sep 18, 2013

 

+Brandon Jamison but what is the alternative Brandon ? I have really tried to come up with some watered down alternative but you/I/wee have to face the reality that as long as we accept guns in our society many innocent lives will be lost because of them.

 

I think you are still not appreciating the seriousness of the situation. Perhaps because it seems normal to you (if you grew up in the States?).

 

If you did not then your opinion is highly unusual. The only way Americas situation can be seen as anything but sheer insanity is if you have drunk the 2nd amendment coolaid. This was an amendment made for cowboys and indians not modern people packed together like sardines ruled over by a government with drones and cluster bombs.

 

There is absolutely no justification for arming your electorate except to protect yourself from your fellow armed citizens, which i am sure you would agree is just a ridiculous situation for a rational society to put themselves in.

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 18, 2013

 

Okay a few things before we proceed.

Not a constitutional discussion? You are talking about laws correct? Is not the constitution the highest law in the land?

 

Cowboys and Indians? Do you mean the Indians who were here before us and not citizens of the US?

 

Your point made about drones and cluster bombs is exactly why we should not give power over to the government. All other rights are forfeited at that point. The sort of security you talk about already sounds like prison so why would that be a deterrent to possessing weapons?

 

Mark Underwood

Sep 18, 2013

 

+Brandon Jamison NO...absolutely no, the constitution is nowhere near as valuable as a persons common sense. The constitution was written by people not gods...even the new pope sees the possibility that god was fallible...so the idea that people hundreds of years ago would have the answers to all our problem for eternity is not reasonable...of course the constitution should be balanced against the common sense of the people.

 

The constitution is now in direct opposition to my and many other peoples common sense...maybe one day yours too if you trust your own judgement.

 

You have a choice: honour a small passage in a document written a long time ago by people from a different period and allow people to die on mass...or use your common sense and realize this amendment needs amending.

 

Living is safety does not sound like a prison to me, living in fear is restrictive but safety = freedom

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 18, 2013

 

+Louis Stell

 

Louis Stell

Sep 18, 2013

 

As +Mike Williamson   stated so eloquently, alcoholic beverages are responsible for a helluva lot more deaths annually than firearms including THE CHILDREN. If ya'll gun grabbers are so concerned, why not ban and prohibit alcohol, it does no one any good, is not needed, purely a recreational thing responsible for tens of thousands of deaths every year ..................... wait, that didn't work out so well.

 

As far as confiscation goes, better let that simmer on the backburner for another 30 years or so, still a generation away from the full benefit of the programming.

 

Or buy a lot more backhoes.

 

Sheesh.

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 18, 2013

 

The new pope bit was classic!

 

Mike Williamson

Sep 18, 2013

 

How about we "sensibly regulate" the internet to reduce the risk of child predators?  Professionals, such as me, with background checks, can have internet access at home.  Non-professionals can access the internet from libraries.  It's not a violation of the First Amendment--we're not telling you what you can say or look at.  We're just regulating where you look at it, and logging your browser history to help tackle crime.

 

Are you reasonable, or are you a free speech nut who supports pedophiles?

 

Mark Underwood

Yesterday 10:11 AM

 

If I buy a bottle of wine there is no intention to cause future harm.

 

If I buy a gun it is the deliberate purchase of a lethal weapon that has been carefully and specifically designed to kill people. It is disingenuous in the extreme to compare things that may cause death accidentally with the use of muder weapons to deliberately slaughter innocent people.

 

So far this year we have had a mass shooting (more than 4 dead/injured at a time) for 250 out of 261 days!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/mass-shootings-us_n_3935978.html

 

Whilst drinking wine "may" cause unintended injury and death and certainly do, injury and death are not implicit in their use. They also can be demonstrated to to have many positive effects within society, even drinking brings millions of people happiness even though it also brings great sadness.

 

A gun simply brings death and destruction.

 

Once you take a loaded gun out of a drawer your purpose is to cause injury and death whether it is self defence or not. You don't take a gun out at a party and watch people smile or laugh...you take out a gun to kill.

 

If you take out another weapon (a knife?) the purpose may be the same, but it is harder (by a huge order of magnitude) to kill someone with a knife. In fact it is very hard to kill a person with anything except a gun, a gun just takes an imperceptible squeeze from an "emotional removed" distance...and a human being is lost to those who love them forever.

 

a 4 year old shot his sister in July !...a four year old!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/4-year-old-shoots-6-year-old-kentucky-loaded-gun_n_3529486.html

 

thats how dangerous a gun is, have you ever seen a four year old kill someone with a glass of beer? I am afraid your arguments are made of straw and mainly serve the purpose of assuaging your own consciences for defending an indefensible position.

 

Honestly, you should be ashamed for hiding behind such shallow arguments.

 

Of course we could ban things that may lead to harm, but that would be ridiculous, what we can do is ban those things that have no purpose but to cause harm and misery.

 

Mark Underwood

Yesterday 10:26 AM

 

+Mike Williamson Not sure if you are talking to me here...but just for the record I support all reasonable regulation of things that can or may be dangerous and I also support the banning of things that are always dangerous.

 

My only caveat is that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not affect anyone else.

 

Going back to alcohol it should be pretty simple to identify people who are alcoholics or have addictive personalities and prohibit the sale of alcohol to them on the grounds that they will almost certainly do serious harm to someone before they die of their addiction or quit the habit.

 

Mike Williamson

Yesterday 12:37 PM

 

Before we continue, be aware that I am, in fact, an expert on the subject of weapons--25 years in the military, rated expert by Army and USAF on several weapons, served as instructor, armorer, range chief.  I'm a gunsmith, bladesmith and researcher.  I consult to mfrs, private clients, TV and the military.  So please do not even pretend to lecture me on how dangerous anything is, when you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

So that's sort of the first step--if you wish to engage in debate, have some clue what you're talking about, not repeat the same tired crap.  It's like a Creationist "explaining" to a geneticist why science doesn't exist because Bible

 

Unfortunately you live in America, where you don't get to regulate a lot of those things you want to regulate.  You will have to accept this fact, no matter how unfortunate it is for you.  There is nothing you can do about it.  Abortions are legal, access to guns is a right, hate speech is protected and stupid people get to breed.

 

You will also have to accept that while your proposals sound neat on paper, even if they were Constitutional, they would not be effectively implementable.

 

As for straw men, you have nothing but, and most of your arguments are dishonest.  If anyone should be ashamed, it's you.

 

Thanks for that post--you managed to hit every cliche I've addressed in the last week.  When you claim to be concerned about children, YOU"RE LYING, and we know you're lying:

 

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/how-gun-control-supporters-lie-to-themselves-each-other-and-us 

 

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/reasonable-regulation

 

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/response-to-a-response-about-washington-navy-yard

 

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/false-arguments-for-gun-control

 

Oh, and being honest here--I don't give a shit how many kids die from guns.  So no, I have no dishonest position to assuage.

 

I DO give a shit how many kids die because their parents ARE STUPID with cars, drain cleaner, guns, sports, and anything else.  It's the STUPID that kills.

 

Mark Underwood

Yesterday 1:36 PM

 

+Mike Williamson You make a very good point, why should I have to lecture you on how dangerous guns are when you are so familiar with them?

 

Why should I or anyone need to lecture this point, it requires no lecture it is one of the most self evident statements a person could make.

 

I'm not lying I really DO want to take your guns from you. Where did you get the impression I did not.

 

Brandon Jamison

Yesterday 1:58 PM

 

+Mark Underwood you are faced with a real problem.  Your "solutions" are ones that lack any real chance of implementation.  See, you can not take guns from us.  Like +Louis Stell said, have had better give it another generation of brain washing before you try.

 

Mike Williamson

Yesterday 3:36 PM

 

Mark

 

Guns are not dangerous. That you think so is the basis of the problem.  A gun is a device. It is no more dangerous than anything else.

 

Interestingly, none of my 260 some guns have been used to kill anyone, despite regular use.

 

People do stupid and dangerous things. They occasionally do so with guns, frequently with cars or booze, sometimes with the internet.  People do die from all of these.

 

That you believe inanimate objects have intent is a problem.  I would hope most people have moved past animism.  A child dead from a drunk is no better than one shot.  In both cases, someone has made bad choices and someone else has suffered. To that end, we have a criminal justice system that punishes PEOPLE, not devices.

 

If "Cars are not meant to kill," but nevertheless kill more people than the device you claim is intended to kill, it says that cars are too dangerous for people to possess.

 

Here's the problem on this specific issue:

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

 

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."

 

- See more at: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/why-the-assault-weapon-ban-failed-and-a-new-one-would-too#sthash.PhnQTZ12.dpuf

 

 

That means, for purposes of the US, you're wrong.

 

It doesn't matter, for Constitutional purposes, if an act is dangerous, or if a million people die.  Motorcycle racing kills people, but it's legal.  AIDS kills people, but unprotected sex amongst gays remains legal.  Unhealthy foods kill people.  Booze kills both users and bystanders, and there are ZERO nonmedical necessities for booze.  It's still legal.  And the attempt to make it otherwise failed miserably, as will any attempt to ban guns.

 

 

So you get the same answer as the anti-abortion crowd, anti-any particular religion crowd, anti-porn crowd or anti-gay or anti-black crowd:  Go fuck yourself. smile

 

As an immigrant and veteran, I quite enjoy saying that to people who arrogate to themselves an imagined moral superiority.

 

And my daughter finds you amusing:

 

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/26725-1/m4morrigan_4476.jpg

 

John Underwood

Yesterday 7:12 PM

 

Any country that has in its Constitution the right to bear arms lives with the consequences. As I said earlier the argument is pointless. Violence is at the core of America's foundation and nothing will change that.

 

This discussion is only a part of a systemic issue, the need to dominate others and how war and the realization that disconnecting from the world's gold standard meant wars/weapons could be funded by simply printing more money (a problem that has gained impetuous with the advent of GFC also caused by massive expenditure on war).

 

This in turn led to the business model embraced over decades a business model that argues that wars stimulate the economy.

 

This addiction to war resulted in the reliance weapons manufactures have to continue their business in the absence of war, consequently they must sell product to civilians.

 

America is totally fucked and it all stems from the addiction it has to prove its right and the need to impress others with its brutal strength. Thankfully China is wise and realizes that it only has to wait.

 

Mike Williamson

Yesterday 9:03 PM

 

Mr Underwood: The flaw in your argument is the "arms manufacturers" who make small arms do about 1/1000 the business of banks and pharmaceutical companies.  Most civilian weapon makers employ 50 or less employees. They generate millions in revenue, but not billions.

 

And most of the companies that build LARGE weapons (tanks, planes, ships) also make commercial equivalents, in larger, simpler contracts.

 

Humans are prone to violence because humans have always been prone to violence, going on 7 million years now...long before Honeywell existed.

 

Interestingly, the death count in wars peaked around WWI-WWII, and has dropped precipitously in the developed world.  Because generating income is much easier and preferable to fighting.

 

Most of the theories of companies creating wars for the purpose of profit fall apart when analyzed.  It's simply far less profitable to fight than to engage in legitimate business.

 

The purpose of the 2A is to allow INDIVIDUALS to defend themselves and the state.  The intent was to NOT have a standing army.  For various reasons it didn't work, but there are a variety of nations in a variety of political systems that have strong militaries, all of which suck a lot of resources.  Profit is absolutely not a motivation for a military.

 

Gold standards have advantages and disadvantages. Fiat systems have far fewer advantages, and many disadvantages.  I prefer the proposal to base national currency on a variety of assets--metals, oil, real estate, agricultural production.  It represents the true wealth of a nation without tying it to a resource that can lead to deflation due to scarcity, and without allowing speculative inflation.

 

John Underwood

11:39 AM

 

Americans are prone to violence because they conditioned from birth. The rest of us are wired differently. Hence why this discourse is pointless.  

 

Mike Williamson

12:22 PM

Mike Williamson

12:22 PM

 

Oh, right.  There's never been any violence in Asia, the Middle East, or Europe.

 

BTW, you do realize I'm an immigrant, right?

 

The US does have a greater diversity of culture, and a strong trend of independent individuality. 

 

FYI, per Leyden (Holland) University's International Crime Victim Survey, England and Wales are the most violent Western nation.  Australia and Canada are in the top 5 (and having lived in Canada, I can assure you it IS true).  Mexico is 18th, the US 25th, and Japan 30th.

 

That you believe we're somehow worse than scientific analysis shows just reinforces that America has a press who obsesses over violence.

 

If you actually compare crime rates between the US and the UK using the same methodology, it's a LOT safer here overall, and not significantly different.  The UK only considers a murder after conviction, for the year of the conviction. The US considers a report or charge as a murder.  IOW, in the UK, you can die from "stabbing" but it's not considered a murder.

 

But go live in Singapore for a while and let me know how peaceful and tender it is.

 

Mike Williamson

12:22 PM

 

The discourse is pointless because none of you know fuck all about the subject, but are convinced you're experts.  Google "Dunning-Kruger Effect."

 

Mark Underwood

3:25 PM

 

+Brandon Jamison it can be done we just need to wait till poeple who hold your opinion are completely marginalized, which if the mass murders continue at the current rate may just happen...so don;t get too coky about it :-}

 

Mark Underwood

3:32 PM

 

+Mike Williamson you just said "Guns are not dangerous" which effectively removes all credibility from your argument.

 

I can say stuff like that too ...watch:

 

"Camels can fly helicopters"

 

...wow it''s really quite liberating to completely separate your brain from the process of rational thought isn't it?

 

Now we both know what Dr Zeus feels like :-O

 

Mark Underwood

3:42 PM

 

+John Underwood yes I see what you mean, America needs wars to keep all the people involved employed because once you build a massive war machine you are stuck it aren't you, unless they want to un-employ all those involved and remove a major part of the economy...it really is a huge problem. Not suer if the DOD needs fools to buy guns to keep it all going but it would explain a few things

 

Brandon Jamison

3:45 PM

 

+Mark Underwood the problem again is you have no clue what your talking about. More and more people are buying firearms and exercising their right to defend themselves or at least be prepared to. More and more people are waking up. The trend is heading the other direction from what you and the government would like.

 

Mike Williamson

6:24 PM

 

Ah, yes, a DoD conspiracy.

 

Funny thing...did you notice neither WNY or Ft Hood had enough armed people to stop a shooter?

 

Most units rotate weapons with deployed units, because there aren't enough.

 

And of course, billion dollar aircraft carriers are exactly the same as rifles.

 

It's a neat hypothesis you've come up with.  Unfortunately, it bears no relation to reality.

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Rtc2.gif Your side is losing. Badly.  In public opinion, in the courts, and in the market.

 

John Underwood

7:00 PM

 

One thing you have proven MW is that America attracts like minded people.

 

Mike Williamson

7:05 PM

 

Thank you.  I feel complimented.

 

If this is not the kind of country you like, I'll be happy to contact my friends in State Dept on your behalf and see if we can arrange a swap.  I know people in Holland, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan who'd be happy to move here, if State regs allowed.

 

Louis Stell

10:58 PM

 

+Mark Underwood Guns aren't dangerous, people are. The most dangerous people are those who ascribe the characteristics of sentient beings to inanimate objects. A person becomes exceedingly dangerous when they point a loaded firearm at you and pull the trigger. A person is dangerous when they plug in a toaster and drop it into your  lap whilst you sit in your bathtub. A person is dangerous if they pick up a claw-hammer and use it to bash in your skull.

 

After you remove all firearms from the world, what is the next "dangerous" object you intend to ban?

 

Shaka Zulu and the city council of Carthage can attest, from both side, that a firearm is not needed to make man a dangerous animal or enable him to kill a few thousand, or a few million, other persons.

 

It is ridiculously easy to blame objects and call them dangerous, but it's just another way of avoiding reality. It's also a pretty damn irrational way of dealing with the world. 

 

John Underwood

11:23 PM

 

And American people are the most dangerous of all, why because from birth guns are portrayed as a right, where as all instruments of violence should be abhorred.

 

Mike Williamson

11:29 PM

 

Dude, someone here is obsessed with guns. 

 

HINT:  It's you.

 

Think about it--I support gay rights, female issues, reproductive choice, racial equality, but I like guns, so I'm some sort of pariah you can't deal with.

 

Not very tolerant on your part.

 

FYI, unless you are the biggest, baddest mofo on the block, you just might someday need an "instrument of violence" against those who aren't.  Ask Poland how they fared against Germany.  Ask the Baltics how they fared against the USSR.  Ask anyone who's been attacked by a redneck nutjob with a tire iron while carrying a small child (me), how well they fared.

 

I did okay. I showed him a gun and didn't need to use it.

 

Unless you can ban tire irons, your argument is invalid.

 

Oh, yeah---I have a friend in a wheel chair. He was threatened by three punks who didn't have anything more dangerous than kitchen knives.  He couldn't run.  Luckily, he too had an "instrument of violence."

 

But at least the tire iron and kitchen knives had a useful purpose and weren't intended to kill, right?

 ~~~


Mr U then resorted to the age-old retort of "you must have a small penis."  So I sent him a photo.  

I also wonder by what mechanism he plans to take away my guns.  If he asks, I intend to refuse.  If he attempts force...well, I have a gun.  So his options are limited.

Unless of course he plans for other people with guns to do the taking.

In which case he's all in favor of violence against people he disagrees with. 

Also, he should keep in mind that arguing there's no "intent" to cause harm with a bottle of wine is a bullshit evasion.  The intent is to cause loss of inhibitions, motor function, and decision making.  That's like arguing there's no intent to hurt someone with a dropped anvil, it's just gravity that did it.

He's a boozehound who wants his precious drug, no matter how many kids die.

This is why debate is impossible.