Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have never, ever known ignorance that runs deeper or purer than that of the strident anti-gun rights types. It's spectacularly mindless and dumb, yet because there are enough of them (especially in a city like Chicago where "blue collar guys" and their practical, grounded sense of reality have been largely replaced by flighty, urbane Nancies who believe we all need to be governed as closely as possible), they're able to find a circle of "support" for their hilariously uninformed and illogical mindset and couch it all in the high-minded philosophies of a completely detached idealist.
Yes the Chicago of today is much closer to San Francisco than the Chicago that Sandburg and Algren wrote so eloquently about. The Nanny State mentality prevails in just about every aspect of life. The term "Chicago tough" is an anachronism. Even though I often get homesick for the place, I always remind myself that the town I'm pining for no longer exists.
On another note, I wonder if the recent DC ruling has or will have any effect on Chicago's draconian handgun ban?
I have never, ever known ignorance that runs deeper or purer than that of the strident anti-gun rights types. It's spectacularly mindless and dumb, yet because there are enough of them (especially in a city like Chicago where "blue collar guys" and their practical, grounded sense of reality have been largely replaced by flighty, urbane Nancies who believe we all need to be governed as closely as possible), they're able to find a circle of "support" for their hilariously uninformed and illogical mindset and couch it all in the high-minded philosophies of a completely detached idealist.
You're simply using name-calling to demonize a point of view that doesn't jive with yours. That's hardly the high-minded logical way to go about this argument. You are certainly the "pot calling the kettle black", and have not contributed anything to this conversation.
It's clear that there are ignorant, uninformed, mindless, dumb, flightly, illogical people on both sides of this argument, and you very well may be one of them. And of course, many people who support stronger gun control are intelligent, informed, and quite logical in their beliefs. It all has to do with your opinions on the role of government, and it's possible to recognize these dfferent beliefs without sinking to your "call the other guy stupid" approach.
You're simply using name-calling to demonize a point of view that doesn't jive with yours. That's hardly the high-minded logical way to go about this argument. You are certainly the "pot calling the kettle black", and have not contributed anything to this conversation.
No, I think I can demonstrate that the "point" they make is outright stupid and when the same standards they apply to firearms are applied to a logical analog, they fail miserably... if anyone wants to open the door to that debate, I'll gladly play along.
What life hasn't taught you (apparently) is that there's a world of difference between "hollow name calling" and calling a spade a spade.
For example, if I were to say "you're just a dummy!", that is a bit hollow. If I were to say something like ... "that you can't decipher the difference between empty name calling and contextually relevant invective makes you an idiot," that would be an example of spade calling. Harsh, maybe a bit mean-spirited, but spot-on-the-mark nevertheless.
As much as people of a 'certain political bend' cannot fathom this (as to them, every question is relative and cannot ever be firmly concluded one way or the other) a lot of questions really do have a right and wrong answer, when you hold them liable to the most basic principles of logic. The problem is, too many retards have come to believe that the 'right to an opinion' means that anything which can be tagged as "opinion" is summarily legitimized as right. When you combine this phenomenon with their central belief that all matters are relative and every question is liable to whatever distant hypothetical tangent they concoct in their minds and summarily present as a scenario, you have otherwise distinctly yes/no questions that suddenly become a matter of "opinion".
I definitely agree that there are stupid people on either side of any given argument, but this is one of those issues that has a generally right and wrong answer. Ones "belief in the role of government" is maybe 5% of this discussion, unless you are so seriously deluded as to believe that the fundamental right to effective individual self defense is a function of a central government. Also, contrary to your claim, I have yet to encounter an anti-gun type who is "informed". Yeah, they definitely all believe they are, but when the rubber hits the road, it's clear that they aren't. This isn't to say that such people don't exist (I'm sure there are a few at leftist think-tanks in Washington), but if the argument arises in real life without immediate access to google, it becomes abundantly clear who is "informed" and who isn't when it comes to understanding firearms, the general capabilities and the underlying philosophies associated with their ownership.
Last edited by PokerPlayer1; 05-05-2009 at 10:49 AM..
No, I think I can demonstrate that the "point" they make is outright stupid and when the same standards they apply to firearms are applied to a logical analog, they fail miserably... if anyone wants to open the door to that debate, I'll gladly play along.
What life hasn't taught you (apparently) is that there's a world of difference between "hollow name calling" and calling a spade a spade.
For example, if I were to say "you're just a dummy!", that is a bit hollow. If I were to say something like ... "that you can't decipher the difference between empty name calling and contextually relevant invective makes you an idiot," that would be an example of spade calling. Harsh, maybe a bit mean-spirited, but spot-on-the-mark nevertheless.
As much as people of a 'certain political bend' cannot fathom this (as to them, every question is relative and cannot ever be firmly concluded one way or the other) a lot of questions really do have a right and wrong answer, when you hold them liable to the most basic principles of logic. The problem is, too many retards have come to believe that the 'right to an opinion' means that anything which can be tagged as "opinion" is summarily legitimized as right. When you combine this phenomenon with their central belief that all matters are relative and every question is liable to whatever distant hypothetical tangent they concoct in their minds and summarily present as a scenario, you have otherwise distinctly yes/no questions that suddenly become a matter of "opinion".
I definitely agree that there are stupid people on either side of any given argument, but this is one of those issues that has a generally right and wrong answer. Ones "belief in the role of government" is maybe 5% of this discussion, unless you are so seriously deluded as to believe that the fundamental right to effective individual self defense is a function of a central government. Also, contrary to your claim, I have yet to encounter an anti-gun type who is "informed". Yeah, they definitely all believe they are, but when the rubber hits the road, it's clear that they aren't. This isn't to say that such people don't exist (I'm sure there are a few at leftist think-tanks in Washington), but if the argument arises in real life without immediate access to google, it becomes abundantly clear who is "informed" and who isn't when it comes to understanding firearms, the general capabilities and the underlying philosophies associated with their ownership.
Well, a lot of the smartest people I know are on the opposite side of the argument from you. And I guarantee they are your intellectual superiors. So that must mean that you're the idiot.
This is why the Republican party is repeling people right now. They only speak in extremes and fail to realize the complexity of issues. I'm relativelly moderate on many issues and get fed up with ultra liberal bull****, but the new nastier "you're with us or you're against us" Republican party is pushing moderates away at a rapid pace. I know many former Republicans who are just repulsed by these attitudes, and have turned to the more moderate Democrats.
Now, I understand that you believe there is only one "truth" out there, and that you are only supporting an argument based on truth. I too believe that there are absolutes in this world, and that certain things are right and wrong. But the gun control issue is more complex than you realize, and the arguments that you put so much faith in are full of holes. It's clear to me that both sides have dug in on this issue, and no longer have the capacity to solve the actual problem. Congratulations. You are the problem.
Also, contrary to your claim, I have yet to encounter an anti-gun type who is "informed". Yeah, they definitely all believe they are, but when the rubber hits the road, it's clear that they aren't.
Oh, shut up. I've seen published studies that support both arguments in this debate. And studies of those studies. You're not "informed" when you only listen to arguments that support your pre-determined beliefs. That's called cherry picking, and the right and left can now live in bubbles where they get their news and read books that only support their views. Thus the "post-fact" society we now live in where no one actually has to be challenged anymore. Then people are so SHOCKED when the encounter a person who has the GALL to believe something different. Get a clue.
Oh well too bad it got nasty. I kind of like both posters. I do have to say to me it's a no brainer. I understand people getting fed up with the Republicans, the neocons have virtually destroyed that party, but when the New Left took over the Democratic Party in the 60s and 70s it was sayonara for me. I'll never go back. I'll also never relinquish my gun, nor will I live in any state that will not allow me to carry a weapon. Call me a knuckle dragging neanderthal if you like. Say I'm dumb, with a low IQ, etc. The fact is there is a lot of research, very persuasive research that indicates allowing law abiding citizens their second amendment freedoms is a definite deterrent to crime. One of those researchers was once affiliated with the University of Chicago. I actually know a respectable researcher who's done some work along those lines, and could give anecdotal evidence but why bother. Regular blue collar people are being permanently squeezed out of the big American cities by a new elite that shares what's left with an underclass also being forced out. The new upper class in the cities wants to disarm them and regular proles like me to make the world safe for Starbucks. Still I come here to have a faint tenuous connection to the town I grew up in, and in spite of it all like in a cyber kind of way a lot of the posters that tilt to the left.
I've been reading and thinking about the issue for twenty five years. It is anything but clear cut to me. I currently support the right to carry. In my mind the pro-gun arguments are overall slightly superior, like 55%-45%. I could change my mind though if I learn about new data and perspectives. I've always been baffled by how little trouble so many people have in landing on one side or the other of these issues.
I've been reading and thinking about the issue for twenty five years. It is anything but clear cut to me. I currently support the right to carry. In my mind the pro-gun arguments are overall slightly superior, like 55%-45%. I could change my mind though if I learn about new data and perspectives. I've always been baffled by how little trouble so many people have in landing on one side or the other of these issues.
For me it was a lot of reading, researching and soul searching. I did not come to my current views on gun ownership easily. Only now do I wonder why it did.
I don't trust any of the published studies on the effects of "right to carry" on crime rates. There are just as many published studies that refute these findings (including one done at the University of Chicago by Steven Levitt of Freakonomics fame). There are studies refuting the refuted studies. And more studies refuting the refuted refuted studies. You can easily cherry pick whoever you want to listen to, and yet you have learned nothing in the end.
But I also think gun control alone is pretty useless in a society where guns are in large supply and where criminals will get them regardless of the laws. Gun control only works in Western Europe because they have effectively controlled the supply of weapons. It's damn hard to get a gun there, even if you're a street thug. But I think culture could be the strongest factor. Canada has loose gun laws, but still has a much lower rate of gun violence than we do.
In the end, I personally don't think gun control matters. I firmly believe that gun control doesn't work, and that conceal carry also doesn't work (as far as detering crime is concerned). I personally would like the right to own any sort of non-military weapon in Chicago, but I really believe it is a non-issue. And I'm deeply skeptical of people who try to make this a major issue. Most are right wing gun nuts or ultra liberal losers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
