Knife Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
251

Many times when laws are discussed, we slip into a discussion about what is and is not a good idea. If breaking a law does not affect anyone else, that law is not a good one, it does not matter if the action itself is a “good” idea or not.

Note: I did not say that if someone else is affected when numerous laws are broken, then all those laws are good.

Example: A man who was convicted of possession of cocaine in the mid-90s shoots and kills 80 children in a gun-free school zone, using an illegally posessed gun. The law against murder was violated. Good law. The man broke the law saying he could not possess a gun. Silly law. The man illegally entered a gun-free zone while possessing a gun. Silly law, but great advertisement for a killing field.

Another example: A crazy man kills his neighbor by beating him to death with a rock for no reason. The man did not break a law by possessing the rock, but did break the law against murder.

Another: A man who was convicted of possession of cocaine in the mid-90s shoots and kills another man who had just started firing shots at children in a gun-free school zone. The man broke the law saying he could not possess a gun. The man illegally entered a gun-free zone while possessing a gun. The man shoots and kills a man who is shooting at children on the playground. This would likely be ruled a justifiable homicide. What laws were broken and how much sense do they make in this scenario?

Last: A man lives in southwest Virginia and eats and drinks nothing but cheetos and Dr. Pepper. I think we can all agree this is not a good idea. It is also not illegal. Should it be? If not, why not?

252

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Many times when laws are discussed, we slip into a discussion about what is and is not a good idea. If breaking a law does not affect anyone else, that law is not a good one, it does not matter if the action itself is a “good” idea or not.

Note: I did not say that if someone else is affected when numerous laws are broken, then all those laws are good.

Example: A man who was convicted of possession of cocaine in the mid-90s shoots and kills 80 children in a gun-free school zone, using an illegally posessed gun. The law against murder was violated. Good law. The man broke the law saying he could not possess a gun. Silly law. The man illegally entered a gun-free zone while possessing a gun. Silly law, but great advertisement for a killing field.

Another example: A crazy man kills his neighbor by beating him to death with a rock for no reason. The man did not break a law by possessing the rock, but did break the law against murder.

Another: A man who was convicted of possession of cocaine in the mid-90s shoots and kills another man who had just started firing shots at children in a gun-free school zone. The man broke the law saying he could not possess a gun. The man illegally entered a gun-free zone while possessing a gun. The man shoots and kills a man who is shooting at children on the playground. This would likely be ruled a justifiable homicide. What laws were broken and how much sense do they make in this scenario?

Last: A man lives in southwest Virginia and eats and drinks nothing but cheetos and Dr. Pepper. I think we can all agree this is not a good idea. It is also not illegal. Should it be? If not, why not?

[/quote]

How the fuck is the notion that a convicted felon has relinquished their right to own a firearm because of their disregard for the well being of society a “silly law?”

253

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Many times when laws are discussed, we slip into a discussion about what is and is not a good idea. If breaking a law does not affect anyone else, that law is not a good one, it does not matter if the action itself is a “good” idea or not.

Note: I did not say that if someone else is affected when numerous laws are broken, then all those laws are good.

Example: A man who was convicted of possession of cocaine in the mid-90s shoots and kills 80 children in a gun-free school zone, using an illegally posessed gun. The law against murder was violated. Good law. The man broke the law saying he could not possess a gun. Silly law. The man illegally entered a gun-free zone while possessing a gun. Silly law, but great advertisement for a killing field.

Another example: A crazy man kills his neighbor by beating him to death with a rock for no reason. The man did not break a law by possessing the rock, but did break the law against murder.

Another: A man who was convicted of possession of cocaine in the mid-90s shoots and kills another man who had just started firing shots at children in a gun-free school zone. The man broke the law saying he could not possess a gun. The man illegally entered a gun-free zone while possessing a gun. The man shoots and kills a man who is shooting at children on the playground. This would likely be ruled a justifiable homicide. What laws were broken and how much sense do they make in this scenario?

Last: A man lives in southwest Virginia and eats and drinks nothing but cheetos and Dr. Pepper. I think we can all agree this is not a good idea. It is also not illegal. Should it be? If not, why not?

[/quote]

How the fuck is the notion that a convicted felon has relinquished their right to own a firearm because of their disregard for the well being of society a “silly law?”[/quote]

That man was released from prison back into society. How is it not seen as ridiculous to strip him of rights outside of prison? He has served his time. If he has not, then why is he being released? Also, have you noticed how many things are felonies? Many don’t demonstrate a disregard for the well being of society, only a disregard for that law.

254

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Many times when laws are discussed, we slip into a discussion about what is and is not a good idea. If breaking a law does not affect anyone else, that law is not a good one, it does not matter if the action itself is a “good” idea or not.

Note: I did not say that if someone else is affected when numerous laws are broken, then all those laws are good.

Example: A man who was convicted of possession of cocaine in the mid-90s shoots and kills 80 children in a gun-free school zone, using an illegally posessed gun. The law against murder was violated. Good law. The man broke the law saying he could not possess a gun. Silly law. The man illegally entered a gun-free zone while possessing a gun. Silly law, but great advertisement for a killing field.

Another example: A crazy man kills his neighbor by beating him to death with a rock for no reason. The man did not break a law by possessing the rock, but did break the law against murder.

Another: A man who was convicted of possession of cocaine in the mid-90s shoots and kills another man who had just started firing shots at children in a gun-free school zone. The man broke the law saying he could not possess a gun. The man illegally entered a gun-free zone while possessing a gun. The man shoots and kills a man who is shooting at children on the playground. This would likely be ruled a justifiable homicide. What laws were broken and how much sense do they make in this scenario?

Last: A man lives in southwest Virginia and eats and drinks nothing but cheetos and Dr. Pepper. I think we can all agree this is not a good idea. It is also not illegal. Should it be? If not, why not?

[/quote]

How the fuck is the notion that a convicted felon has relinquished their right to own a firearm because of their disregard for the well being of society a “silly law?”[/quote]

That man was released from prison back into society. How is it not seen as ridiculous to strip him of rights outside of prison? He has served his time. If he has not, then why is he being released? Also, have you noticed how many things are felonies? Many don’t demonstrate a disregard for the well being of society, only a disregard for that law.[/quote]
I agree with you

But it would make sense for many to think of there being different levels of … ‘rehabilitation’

Just because someone is ‘rehabilitated’ enough to not be locked in a cage, doesn’t mean they are ‘rehabilitated’ enough to carry guns around disarmed zones

But I do agree with you if the real crimes are punished harder and the fake ones are dropped - that’s not the case tho - so someone’s probably about to blast on you…

255

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I see you continue with your campus/courtroom analogy which you insist you never made. "But, but, but, you’ve got to understand ‘magnitude’, dude!" Ummm…sure, pal.
[/quote]

Jesus Christ.

It is now clear to me that you need to start learning about what an analogy is and what an analogy isn’t, and I mean beginning with the very fundamentals of logic. I will explain this to you as soon as you do the following:

Tell me exactly what is the direct analogy I’ve drawn. Express it in the formal A is to B as C is to D.[/quote]

Joseph Smith.

It is now clear to me that you need to understand the following (repeated):

In any conceivably reasonable scenario a college campus can never “lock down” itself with metal detectors, X-ray equipment and such like a courtroom or airport can.

There are thousands of Amanda Collins type rape victims all over the 50 states every single year. None of them have been raped in courtrooms. Many of them have been raped on college campuses that have these “impressive” police departments with which all “non-paranoid” people should place their undying trust.
[/quote]

No no.

You’ve been attacking me for my “analogy” over the course of the past two pages.

Express this analogy to me in formal terms. A is to B as C is to D.

Let’s see it.[/quote]
court room attendies is to court rooms

as

college students is to college campuses

A is to B

as

C is to D

yeah, I think that works - could be wrong - but your response should be interesting…

An analogy or not doesn’t have jack to do with magnitude, a ‘direct’ analogy doesn’t even sound right in the first place…

What you did can be expressed in formal analogous expressions - now what?

256

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

If it isn’t the receipt of federal money, then what is it?..[/quote]

I already answered that. I said a public university is in the public square.[/quote]

You may have said it, but you certainly haven’t proved it.

What does that mean, “in the public square?” How is it in the public square? Why is it in the public square? We’ve already established that this isn’t about the fact that state universities receive state subsidies, so what makes them part of the “public square?” Since we’re talking Constitutional law here, it would probably be a good idea to show me where this is written down and what precedent there is for it. What else is in the “public square?” Can you carry a firearm into all of those places/institutions?

And if a state university is indeed part of the “public square,” why is it that students’ First Amendment rights are often curtailed therein? It seems to me that “the public square” would be the last place in the country where the right to free speech could be revoked. Could you walk into a classroom at the University of Montana and simply sit down? Strike up a conversation and exercise your right to free speech?

And how is it that the State University of New York at Buffalo has banned the smoking of cigarettes on its grounds? It’s part of the public square, isn’t it? Where does the Constitution allow one person to tell another person he’s not allowed to light up in the public square?

257

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Another good point: people are mandated to live with strangers.

The list of reasons is long.[/quote]

I’m not mandated to live there with strangers; I just showed up to watch a collegiate basketball game. Uh-oh…now what do we do?[/quote]

Either you accept the limitations imposed upon you by the people who are in charge of the space you’re occupying, or you don’t go. Just like at Pfizer, just like at the office of the local Parks and Recreation department. Etc.

258

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I see you continue with your campus/courtroom analogy which you insist you never made. "But, but, but, you’ve got to understand ‘magnitude’, dude!" Ummm…sure, pal.
[/quote]

Jesus Christ.

It is now clear to me that you need to start learning about what an analogy is and what an analogy isn’t, and I mean beginning with the very fundamentals of logic. I will explain this to you as soon as you do the following:

Tell me exactly what is the direct analogy I’ve drawn. Express it in the formal A is to B as C is to D.[/quote]

Joseph Smith.

It is now clear to me that you need to understand the following (repeated):

In any conceivably reasonable scenario a college campus can never “lock down” itself with metal detectors, X-ray equipment and such like a courtroom or airport can.

There are thousands of Amanda Collins type rape victims all over the 50 states every single year. None of them have been raped in courtrooms. Many of them have been raped on college campuses that have these “impressive” police departments with which all “non-paranoid” people should place their undying trust.
[/quote]

No no.

You’ve been attacking me for my “analogy” over the course of the past two pages.

Express this analogy to me in formal terms. A is to B as C is to D.

Let’s see it.[/quote]
court room attendies is to court rooms

as

college students is to college campuses

A is to B

as

C is to D

yeah, I think that works - could be wrong - but your response should be interesting…

An analogy or not doesn’t have jack to do with magnitude, a ‘direct’ analogy doesn’t even sound right in the first place…

What you did can be expressed in formal analogous expressions - now what?[/quote]

Quote for me the exact words of mine that set this analogy up. Do it in context–i.e., without cutting a word out of the post from which it came.

259

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I see you continue with your campus/courtroom analogy which you insist you never made. "But, but, but, you’ve got to understand ‘magnitude’, dude!" Ummm…sure, pal.
[/quote]

Jesus Christ.

It is now clear to me that you need to start learning about what an analogy is and what an analogy isn’t, and I mean beginning with the very fundamentals of logic. I will explain this to you as soon as you do the following:

Tell me exactly what is the direct analogy I’ve drawn. Express it in the formal A is to B as C is to D.[/quote]

Joseph Smith.

It is now clear to me that you need to understand the following (repeated):

In any conceivably reasonable scenario a college campus can never “lock down” itself with metal detectors, X-ray equipment and such like a courtroom or airport can.

There are thousands of Amanda Collins type rape victims all over the 50 states every single year. None of them have been raped in courtrooms. Many of them have been raped on college campuses that have these “impressive” police departments with which all “non-paranoid” people should place their undying trust.
[/quote]

No no.

You’ve been attacking me for my “analogy” over the course of the past two pages.

Express this analogy to me in formal terms. A is to B as C is to D.

Let’s see it.[/quote]
court room attendies is to court rooms

as

college students is to college campuses

A is to B

as

C is to D

yeah, I think that works - could be wrong - but your response should be interesting…

An analogy or not doesn’t have jack to do with magnitude, a ‘direct’ analogy doesn’t even sound right in the first place…

What you did can be expressed in formal analogous expressions - now what?[/quote]

Quote for me the exact words of mine that set this analogy up. Do it in context–i.e., without cutting a word out of the post from which it came.[/quote]
Well, that would be disputable by nature - if you want to play that

You obviously didn’t say " ___ is to ___ as ___ is to ____" when making your analogous arguments - that’s not how humans usually talk. But I’ll see what I can do

By the way, you claiming to make an analogy was not the ‘charge’. The ‘charge’ was that you did make one while pretending not to. Be it on purpose or accident, I do not claim to know that either

I’m going to look toward the post where you originally claimed to not be making a ‘direct’ analogy, which would imply to me that you were making an ‘indirect’ one - and see what that finds. I think I’ll be finding an analogy that fits into the ABCD type ‘requirements’, but you’ll tell me that’s not what was intended or something.

:wink:

remember?

haha - maybe I should see what I find first…

260

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Well, that would be disputable by nature - if you want to play that

You obviously didn’t say " ___ is to ___ as ___ is to ____" when making your analogous arguments - that’s not how humans usually talk. But I’ll see what I can do

By the way, you claiming to make an analogy was not the ‘charge’. The ‘charge’ was that you did make one while pretending not to. Be it on purpose or accident, I do not claim to know that either

I’m going to look toward the post where you originally claimed to not be making a ‘direct’ analogy, which would imply to me that you were making an ‘indirect’ one - and see what that finds. I think I’ll be finding an analogy that fits into the ABCD type ‘requirements’, but you’ll tell me that’s not what was intended or something.

:wink:

remember?

haha - maybe I should see what I find first…[/quote]

My prediction for how this will go is slightly different. I think that, as is usual when you step into a discussion without thinking about and/or reading it beforehand, you will run in place for a couple of posts and then recede back into obscurity.

Regarding the substance of this particular discussion, bear in mind that there is a monumental difference between making an argument from analogy and using two nouns that happen to be capable of being set up as analogous to each other in the same sentence. The “court attendees:court::college students:college” line that you just tried is a perfect example of the latter–it expresses a meaningless relationship between those four nouns that was not in any way a salient feature of this discussion. That people who attend court have a relationship with court that is similar to the relationship that students have with the universities that they attend is nothing more than a banal quasi-truth and it plays exactly no part in my argument in this thread.

In other words, I won’t stand accused of arguing from analogy without somebody showing me to have argued form analogy, in my own words.