7 ms·

I think it was a very valid argument, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. You can take time to re-read and think about it more. Let's try one more way... We ma

I think it was a very valid argument, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. You can take time to re-read and think about it more. Let's try one more way... We may know all the statistics of every baseball player that make up both teams. But, we can't declare winner based on stats alone. We still have to go out there and play the game. If we ban guns based on stats, then it would be equivalent to asking baseball players to not use bats during the game... because stats!!! What's the point of taking bats to the game, you are going to lose anyway. Right? I may not take on a professional baseball team, my decision. Someone may decide to do just that, they may succeed, they may not. Should they not play because of stats? Should they not carry bats to the ballpark because of stats? Should the society stop the game from happening, outlawing it but declaring winner at the same time, because of stats? That is the equivalent of society banning guns from citizens. You declare the criminal who carries gun anyway an automatic winner, you don't let the citizen have a chance at the game, you use force (police) to stop citizen from attempting to play.

maxerickson 9y ago
Sports leagues have competition committees. They do things like look at statistics related to specific rules and, as they see fit, make changes to the rules. So for instance, professional baseball players play exclusively with wooden bats, they don't allow the very best bats that can be constructed because it changes the game in ways they don't like.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Sports league controls the environment of a game completely. And, even at most professional levels, you still get doping and deflate-gate. You don't control the events in the world with its full complexity. Are you claiming you can control what weapons criminals can bring to my house? What should be your punishment if you fail at maintaining that control? I can't see how you can keep the promise of maintaining control over guns used by criminals. I see you as someone who is trying to limit my options while having no means to make situation any better for me. I hope you can see why gun control supporters get seen as enemy to personal well being, not just a nuisance, by the gun rights advocates.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Yes, the idea would be to limit your options, with people accepting the negative consequences of that rather than accepting the negative consequences of easy gun ownership. It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that it's not the one that is best for society.
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      lol And I wholesale reject your idea. You have stated a preference. A wish for world to be a certain way, with no proof that the world behaves that way, all the while world is behaving exactly opposite of how you claim it to be. I am a law abiding citizen. You are affecting my chances of survival. You intend to use police force to negatively affect my chances of survival. You intend to outlaw basic right to fight for survival, updated to work with modern era weaponry and challenges. I see you as detrimental to my well being without proper cause or ethical reasoning. I reject your idea and your preference. Feel free to try again with a better version, if you like.
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        Where have I stated any intention to use force? There's a difference between stating what I believe would be best for society and having any belief that society will actually choose that course of action.
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        >Where have I stated any intention to use force? here... > the idea would be to limit your options Your proposed options are more restrictive than my options now, while not giving ethical/moral reasoning for it being more restrictive. If I don't agree with the options you propose voluntarily, you will make new laws and use police force to stop me from buying a gun or limit kind of gun I can buy etc. I didn't do anything wrong and I don't intend to do anything wrong. Making a law that targets me is a threat to use force (criminal/civil court proceedings and law enforcement) against me.

maxerickson 9y ago

Sports leagues have competition committees. They do things like look at statistics related to specific rules and, as they see fit, make changes to the rules. So for instance, professional baseball players play exclusively with wooden bats, they don't allow the very best bats that can be constructed because it changes the game in ways they don't like.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Sports league controls the environment of a game completely. And, even at most professional levels, you still get doping and deflate-gate. You don't control the events in the world with its full complexity. Are you claiming you can control what weapons criminals can bring to my house? What should be your punishment if you fail at maintaining that control? I can't see how you can keep the promise of maintaining control over guns used by criminals. I see you as someone who is trying to limit my options while having no means to make situation any better for me. I hope you can see why gun control supporters get seen as enemy to personal well being, not just a nuisance, by the gun rights advocates.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Yes, the idea would be to limit your options, with people accepting the negative consequences of that rather than accepting the negative consequences of easy gun ownership. It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that it's not the one that is best for society.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    lol And I wholesale reject your idea. You have stated a preference. A wish for world to be a certain way, with no proof that the world behaves that way, all the while world is behaving exactly opposite of how you claim it to be. I am a law abiding citizen. You are affecting my chances of survival. You intend to use police force to negatively affect my chances of survival. You intend to outlaw basic right to fight for survival, updated to work with modern era weaponry and challenges. I see you as detrimental to my well being without proper cause or ethical reasoning. I reject your idea and your preference. Feel free to try again with a better version, if you like.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Where have I stated any intention to use force? There's a difference between stating what I believe would be best for society and having any belief that society will actually choose that course of action.
      - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        >Where have I stated any intention to use force? here... > the idea would be to limit your options Your proposed options are more restrictive than my options now, while not giving ethical/moral reasoning for it being more restrictive. If I don't agree with the options you propose voluntarily, you will make new laws and use police force to stop me from buying a gun or limit kind of gun I can buy etc. I didn't do anything wrong and I don't intend to do anything wrong. Making a law that targets me is a threat to use force (criminal/civil court proceedings and law enforcement) against me.