lostindc wrote:Darth J wrote:Oh, of course. If armed civilians are so inept, why are we worried about them committing violence with guns?
Good point, inept citizens will make inept mistakes with firearms. Thanks!
Then why should we be worried about inept citizens committing crimes with firearms, since they are inept? Are guns kind of like the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings, where they can be used for evil but not for good? Bad people can successfully use them in mass shootings, but law-abiding civilians can't successfully use them in self-defense?
I was born at Fort Benning, Georgia, and my dad was a major when he left the Army.
My dad also has a six-inch scar in the middle of his chest. That scar is from the surgery he had to remove the bullet after he was shot and nearly killed during an attempted mugging.
But please go on and tell me about your guesses that necessarily inform whatever you assume my views to be.
I love how you, and others, live off what their parents and great parents did in the armed forces as if it is something that gives you some level of credibility. My mom and dad both served during Vietnam with dad suffering injuries and this gives me no credibility. Also, since my dad was never shot by a mugger does that make the opposing argument to your argument (dad shot by a mugger) every bit as valid?
Perhaps you would like to decide what you're talking about and stick to it. You assumed without proof that I have never been on a military base. You are wrong. I am not claiming I have "credibility" about what it is like to actually be a member of the military. I am claiming to know what it is like to be on a military base.
And the other point is that I am sensitive to people who have had family members injured in violent crimes in which the perpetrator used a gun. The "credibility" is that I empathize with the feelings.
I cannot say what I do professionally but I will say that I know what I am talking about in regards to the military aspects of the conversation. You are arguing for the sake of arguing and have absolutely no supporting background, unless you are in a role similar to mine then I respect your privacy, carry-on.
The issue you raised is familiarity with being on a military base, in the context of the amount of people there who are armed. Responding to your naked assumption is not arguing for argument's sake. Arguing for argument's sake is changing the subject to a straw man about how I supposedly claim to have "credibility" beyond the initial question of knowing what it's like to be on a military base.
It's because you are not explaining why other states are doing it, too---regardless of the advisability or constitutionality of it.
My assumption is that the sheriffs from Oregon and Utah are misinformed in regards to the importance of every citizen having the right to semi-autos and similar weapons. I assume we disagree on this...
You're changing the subject again. The issue is your trying to frame this as unique to Utah in some way.
So you are okay with the U.S. military committing acts of war against a sovereign state. Thanks for clarifying.
I am okay with the U.S. government banning semi-autos and similar weapons. I am also okay with sticking to the actual subject of the debate and not basing an argument on a logical fallacy (see last quote).
That another change of subject. You referred to Army tactics used in Iraq and compared them to what might be done against the State of Utah if.......well, if something.
Lostindc, could you also explain for me how it is you are simultaneously saying guns don't solve the problem because one single guy at Ft. Hood was not stopped with "the level of arms that is all throughout the base," but the military can easily vanquish a geographically huge state even if all of its residents have automatic weapons?
logical fallacy
Which logical fallacy is it? Be specific.
Are you suggesting the citizens of Utah plan to do a surprise attack on the U.S. government much like the fort hood shooter conducted against those soldiers and civilians at fort hood?
No. I am suggesting that you have failed to explain why once the shooting starts, one single person is not instantly stopped on an Army base, and yet the Army can presumably invade the State of Utah and subdue its citizens (see: Posse Comitatus Act) with little to no effort, even if they were all armed with automatic weapons (as you posited). And the tactical issues are beside the point of your suggestion that the U.S. military should invade a state to undertake a police action.
