ForumGarden

Tyson puts it in perspective and then the gun wingnut nitwits go about doing their popular whataboutery fallacy.

Famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has a particularly entertaining history of publicly irking conservatives. So it wasn’t surprising when Tyson yesterday took aim at gun violence in America. And it was even less surprising that conservatives responded in characteristically cuckoo-bananas fashion.
Neil deGrasse Tyson enrages gun-loving wing-nuts: “What a croc o’ sh*t! - Salon.com

Ahso!;1489319 wrote: Tyson puts it in perspective and then the gun wingnut nitwits go about doing their popular whataboutery fallacy.

Neil deGrasse Tyson enrages gun-loving wing-nuts: “What a croc o’ sh*t! - Salon.com


Good luck to him !

Guns are designed for one use only. For killing things. Is it any surprise that America suffers so many fatal shootings when so many guns are held by civillians (legally and illegally)? I think the law needs to change, insofar as a civillian must demonstrate a proveable necessity to own a gun, let alone tote one about the streets!

Guns should not be a lifestyle statement, or a fashion accessory!

Neil deGrasse Tyson. Love this guy. Admire his brain, admire his love for space since childhood & his hard work to reach the top of his profession. Plus, he's cute with a great sense of humor. :-4

Name calling, "wing nut"

Nice way to start a conversation.

Smaug;1489342 wrote: Guns are designed for one use only. For killing things.


Problem being?

tude dog;1489368 wrote: Name calling, "wing nut"

Nice way to start a conversation.There are reasonable-minded gun owners and there are fundamentalist gun owners, it's the fundies who are the wing-nuts. Gun owners who resort to whataboutery are most likely wing-nuts. Any questions?

Ahso!;1489371 wrote: There are reasonable-minded gun owners and there are fundamentalist gun owners, it's the fundies who are the wing-nuts. Gun owners who resort to whataboutery are most likely wing-nuts.

Any questions?


Yea

What are you talking about?

tude dog;1489369 wrote: Problem being?Now this Who Cares argument is honest. Which is what all the whataboutery actually is - We Don't Care!. Perfect. Thank you, TD.

Ahso!;1489376 wrote: Now this Who Cares argument is honest. Which is what all the whataboutery actually is - We Don't Care!. Perfect. Thank you, TD.


I still don't know what your are talking about.

I'm not surprised. Re-read the thread if you like. There's nothing more I can do to help you.

Ahso!;1489381 wrote: I'm not surprised. Re-read the thread if you like. There's nothing more I can do to help you.


Don't need any help from you, thanks just the same.

tude dog;1489389 wrote: Don't need any help from you, thanks just the same.Why then were you asking?

Ahso!;1489391 wrote: Why then were you asking?


Just wanna know.

Forget about it.

tude dog;1489368 wrote: Name calling, "wing nut"

Nice way to start a conversation.


But in this instance, not Ahso's.

Any comment on the article?

tude dog;1489369 wrote: Problem being?


Yes - Guns are designed for one use only. For killing things.

There were wars & murders for thousands of years without guns, Bryn.

AnneBoleyn;1489442 wrote: There were wars & murders for thousands of years without guns, Bryn.


but not on the scale we're seeing with guns and, back in the day, there was good reason why some people would need to carry weapons.

and before the issue comes up, I do not consider defending yourself from other people who might be carrying weapons to be a "Good" reason, more a downside of allowing the existence of weapons in the first place.

Bryn Mawr;1489445 wrote: but not on the scale we're seeing with guns and, back in the day, there was good reason why some people would need to carry weapons.

and before the issue comes up, I do not consider defending yourself from other people who might be carrying weapons to be a "Good" reason, more a downside of allowing the existence of weapons in the first place.Not only that but the whataboutery offered sounds like an argument to say: well murders and killing have always occurred so what's wrong with making it easier to do?. It's the wrong direction to go.

Bryn Mawr;1489445 wrote: but not on the scale we're seeing with guns and, back in the day, there was good reason why some people would need to carry weapons.




The population was no where near our present day scale, consequently bringing more violent, crazy people.

Ahso!;1489446 wrote: Not only that but the whataboutery given sounds like an argument to say, well murders and killing have always occurred so what's wrong with making it easier to do?. It's the wrong direction to go.


You sound like Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise! (that's a good thing). He once said (this is one of my favorite quotes!): “We’re human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we’re killers . . . but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill — today!

25 Quotes from ‘Star Trek’ Space Philosopher Captain Kirk | Flavorwire | Page 3

AnneBoleyn;1489447 wrote: The population was no where near our present day scale, consequently bringing more violent, crazy people.


The days before guns were violent times because civilisation was less advanced and the rule of might makes right was entrenched.

Today we aspire to the rule of law, there is no justification for a law abiding citizen carrying weapons. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that its citizens are safe and that includes ensuring that *no-one* carries weapons whose sole purpose is to kill.

You mean the responsibility of my government who refuses to adequately tax the rich, thus making hiring & training more civil servants an impossibility? That's one reason citizens arm themselves. Not sticking up for it, just telling the facts.

AnneBoleyn;1489452 wrote: You mean the responsibility of my government who refuses to adequately tax the rich, thus making hiring & training more civil servants an impossibility? That's one reason citizens arm themselves. Not sticking up for it, just telling the facts.


Yes, I mean the responsibility of any government which claims to govern a civilised country.

"We Won't Tax the Rich Capitalists" is part of our Constitution. Now, if it were up to me.............

AnneBoleyn;1489454 wrote: "We Won't Tax the Rich Capitalists" is part of our Constitution. Now, if it were up to me.............


:wah:

AnneBoleyn;1489452 wrote: You mean the responsibility of my government who refuses to adequately tax the rich, thus making hiring & training more civil servants an impossibility? That's one reason citizens arm themselves. Not sticking up for it, just telling the facts.I don't understand what you're saying.

Ahso!;1489456 wrote: I don't understand what you're saying.


We don't have enough money for essential services because the rich are too damn rich & not paying enough in taxes. IMO.

AnneBoleyn;1489458 wrote: We don't have enough money for essential services because the rich are too damn rich & not paying enough in taxes. IMO.I got that part, I don't see where the guns come in.

Ahso!;1489459 wrote: I got that part, I don't see where the guns come in.


I have read where some say they can't count on scarce police protection, & thus arm themselves, particularly in rural communities. Hiring police costs taxpayer money.

AnneBoleyn;1489460 wrote: I have read where some say they can't count on scarce police protection, & thus arm themselves, particularly in rural communities. Hiring police costs taxpayer money.Yikes! That's essentially the same false argument the NRA makes. You think we need more police? How many is enough? Outlaw gun manufacturing and let people settle it with fistfights for all I care.

Need more police? Need more people who were brought up to behave themselves. More police won't solve that one.

Bryn Mawr;1489440 wrote: Yes - Guns are designed for one use only. For killing things.


Kinda helps when you are hunting for food.

Bryn Mawr;1489439 wrote: But in this instance, not Ahso's.

Any comment on the article?


Yea, I should have started there.

He throws out numbers devoid of any background.

3,400: Americans who died by Terrorism since 2001

3,400: Americans who died by household Firearms since five weeks ago.


HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS, I don't know what that means.

A little more info on where the numbers come from and a break down on circumstances where which led to all these deaths would go a long way.

I am not going any further as his selective numbers are just as useless.

I have more but can't post due to

Error 500 (Internal Server Error)

Bryn Mawr;1489445 wrote: but not on the scale we're seeing with guns and, back in the day, there was good reason why some people would need to carry weapons.

and before the issue comes up, I do not consider defending yourself from other people who might be carrying weapons to be a "Good" reason, more a downside of allowing the existence of weapons in the first place.


I always love the unarmed person being innocent as in the US between 2010-2014 the weapon of choice for murder

Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1 769 751 707 687 660

FBI

I can't prove it but I suspect many thousands of people had the holy crap beat out of them. For over 50 years, I been too old to scrap. I will risk the consequences of using a gun to defend myself.

I don't know the costs of lawyers etc, but it must be cheaper fixing a broken skull.

Growing up the only gun we kept in our home was a little .25 semi auto for my mom after she was mugged coming home from work. I feel better when I am gone from home Mrs.Dog sleeps with her .38.

Bryn Mawr;1489451 wrote: The days before guns were violent times because civilisation was less advanced and the rule of might makes right was entrenched.

Today we aspire to the rule of law,


I agree we aspire to the rule of law.

Bryn Mawr;1489451 wrote: there is no justification for a law abiding citizen carrying weapons. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that its citizens are safe


Problem is, the government can't protect everybody all the time.

Bryn Mawr;1489451 wrote: and that includes ensuring that *no-one* carries weapons whose sole purpose is to kill.


Went from designed for to sole purpose.

AnneBoleyn;1489462 wrote: Need more police? Need more people who were brought up to behave themselves. More police won't solve that one.


Bingo.

I now live in a rural area where the Sheriff office isn't open 24 hours. A dispatcher can contact help if needed.

900 square miles, who know where the nearest deputy is?

Back in LA I lived maybe two miles from the nearest police station open 24/7.

Consider if you rob a bank in under three minutes, you got a good chance of getting away with it.

No criticism of the police, but being a bank robbery or whatever other crime the cops arrive just in time to make a report.

Ahso!;1489461 wrote: Yikes! That's essentially the same false argument the NRA makes. You think we need more police? How many is enough? Outlaw gun manufacturing and let people settle it with fistfights for all I care.


The last thing I need to see is my Mom, wife, sister or girlfriend in a fistfight.

Bryn Mawr;1489451 wrote: The days before guns were violent times because civilisation was less advanced and the rule of might makes right was entrenched.

Today we aspire to the rule of law, there is no justification for a law abiding citizen carrying weapons. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that its citizens are safe and that includes ensuring that *no-one* carries weapons whose sole purpose is to kill.


Sorry, but the government is far too busy for me to place my family's safety in their hands. They can protect us from the foreign threats, I'll take car of the local threats, myself.

Yes, there are far too many crazy people able to get their hands on guns. That needs to be stopped. But my giving up my guns is not going to solve THAT problem. In fact, I am doing my part. I know that the guns I own will not find their way into the hands of crazy people.

tude dog;1489501 wrote: I agree we aspire to the rule of law.

Problem is, the government can't protect everybody all the time.

Went from designed for to sole purpose.


LarsMac;1489506 wrote: Sorry, but the government is far too busy for me to place my family's safety in their hands. They can protect us from the foreign threats, I'll take car of the local threats, myself.

Yes, there are far too many crazy people able to get their hands on guns. That needs to be stopped. But my giving up my guns is not going to solve THAT problem. In fact, I am doing my part. I know that the guns I own will not find their way into the hands of crazy people.


No, the government cannot protect everyone all of the time - nobody, and no amount of arms carried about your person can guarantee your safety, ask JFK et al.

But what the government can do is to minimise the danger to its citizens any allowing any and every person who asks for it the right to carry arms does the exact opposite.

Bryn Mawr;1489508 wrote: No, the government cannot protect everyone all of the time - nobody, and no amount of arms carried about your person can guarantee your safety, ask JFK et al.

But what the government can do is to minimise the danger to its citizens any allowing any and every person who asks for it the right to carry arms does the exact opposite.


You don't understand. A right is not something we ask for, and which is granted by the government. We have the right to own firearms. Period.

There is the problem. Let's start there. How do we then find a way to control access to guns by people who have no sense of responsibility or who are incapable of understanding that responsibility, while not infringing the rights of responsible citizens?

Bryn Mawr;1489508 wrote: No, the government cannot protect everyone all of the time - nobody, and no amount of arms carried about your person can guarantee your safety, ask JFK et al.

But what the government can do is to minimise the danger to its citizens any allowing any and every person who asks for it the right to carry arms does the exact opposite.


There is no guarantee. I just like the odds in my favor.

LarsMac;1489512 wrote: You don't understand. A right is not something we ask for, and which is granted by the government. We have the right to own firearms. Period.

There is the problem. Let's start there. How do we then find a way to control access to guns by people who have no sense of responsibility or who are incapable of understanding that responsibility, while not infringing the rights of responsible citizens?


By changing the constitution to something more civilised and more in keeping with today's society.

tude dog;1489514 wrote: There is no guarantee. I just like the odds in my favor.


But it does not put the odds in your favour - just compare the stats for the USA with countries that do not have your mad gun laws.

tude dog;1489497 wrote: Kinda helps when you are hunting for food.Growing food works too. And there's the good old American way of obtaining food by buying it. It's not necessary to use a gun for food hunting any longer, that's what jobs are for.

tude dog;1489501 wrote: Problem is, the government can't protect everybody all the time.

False argument. Who requires protection 24/7? That sound more like paranoia than it does a constitutional right. People who are that scared of their surroundings might consider moving.

tude dog;1489503 wrote: The last thing I need to see is my Mom, wife, sister or girlfriend in a fistfight.Well then they should avoid arguments that might end up in those types of confrontations. More paranoia.

LarsMac;1489506 wrote: Sorry, but the government is far too busy for me to place my family's safety in their hands. They can protect us from the foreign threats, I'll take car of the local threats, myself.What threats are you faced with on a daily basis? How many times in the past ten years have you needed to use your guns for self-defense?

LarsMac;1489506 wrote: Yes, there are far too many crazy people able to get their hands on guns.Those are the consequences of a society that refuses to behave altruistically regarding this issue.LarsMac;1489506 wrote: That needs to be stopped.Agreed LarsMac;1489506 wrote: ButIOW, never mind!LarsMac;1489506 wrote: my giving up my guns is not going to solve THAT problem.You're right. However, everybody giving up their guns voluntarily and the rest confiscated, and then addressing the manufacturing side of the issue can.LarsMac;1489506 wrote: In fact, I am doing my part. I know that the guns I own will not find their way into the hands of crazy people.You might be right, but you're not the first person to be wrong about it. And then what about the young and the innocent? Or are they crazy too?

Bryn Mawr;1489519 wrote: But it does not put the odds in your favour - just compare the stats for the USA with countries that do not have your mad gun laws.


Criminy.

Other countries?

I have plenty of stats here.

Other countries, do we really want to go there? Different cultures, histories and blah blah blah.

I envy you that you live in a paradise of safety from crime.

Bryn Mawr;1489517 wrote: By changing the constitution to something more civilised and more in keeping with today's society.


Not an entirely logical solution when probably 90% of the gun owners in the country are quite responsible.

I would rather see realistic laws regarding responsible gun ownership.