We place guns as our only means of protection which makes the statement that I am prepared to kill. It cheapens life to say that’s the only means. It’s that cheapening of life that Cardinal Dolan referred to as a part of the ‘culture of death.’ You desensitize life in one area, and a leak opens up in another.
that’s a typical strawman argument. no one says guns are the only means of protection, except people trying to take them away.
if you (“we”? who are you talking about?) do that, you are both a criminal and a sinner.
I showed that the conclusions the writer came up with were not supported by his graphs.
Really? I have seen, and said myself, there are other forms of protection, yet gun rights activists make repeated statement such as, 'why would you want to take away my right to defend?
I believe we have reached the end of our discussion. Semantics, and borderline ad hominems, do not make for a truthful discussion, in my opinion. For me, it invalidates most points being made by those who find it necessary to do so.
So you disqualify all statistics in the article? It appeared he compiled many different sources and I fail to see all of them as ‘inaccurate.’
yes, I agree. I hope my instruction to you on constitutional law and honest advocacy has helped you.
It has helped me, even though it was from example and not from what I consider ‘instruction.’ I find the bishops guidance on target, and am even more convinced that we should not place guns, or a constitution equal to, or before, Him, or the least of His. We have a higher calling than either of those things that are man made (secular).
Perhaps not yet, but if you find you are misled in one way, you’re justified in suspecting you have been misled in other ways.
I can agree with that with the caveat that until those suspicions are proven valid, they are still only suspect.
Being suspect, then, nobody should rely on them, recommend their content, or base any opinions on them.
The definition of assault weapon is available for those that were banned, and for those being proposed for ban. It’s not as meaningless as some make it out to be, and it doesn’t change the guns being considered.
With all due respect, but the Catholic Church is so precise in the meanings of the words it chooses … but the use of the term “assault weapon” … renders the statement moot … suggests that … whoever put the statement together … needs to define the terms.
There would be differences of opinions, even among researchers. We all know it’s best to compare and then expect truth to lie somewhere in the ‘middle.’ The only reason all of these statistics are so quickly dismissed, is simply because some don’t like the implication. That in itself is ‘suspect.’
The first few parts of the article were flawed to a very high point. Why should I continue to pay attention to the rest of the article? The writer has disqualified himself right off the bat.
Yes, and the way he manipulated the first few sources excludes the article from consideration, imo. The sources may or may not be accurate; that was not my problem with the article. The problem that I had was that the writer drew inaccurate conclusions and manipulated the evidence.
the hazy definition of “assault weapon”, referring to cosmetic features like this, from California, Penal Code sec.
the definition is profoundly stupid – thumbhole stocks? forward pistol grips? really??? --, but it has great meaning. it means that the user is a gun grabber and that focuses the argument away from a sane discussion of gun control between reasonable, educated people into a partisan pie fight where there’s no quarter asked for or given.
I wasn’t saying anything about Cdl Dolan or St. Thomas Aquinas.
And choosing to believe suspect information suggests an ideological, not a factual, basis for one’s position.There would be differences of opinions, even among researchers. We all know it’s best to compare and then expect truth to lie somewhere in the ‘middle.’ The only reason all of these statistics are so quickly dismissed, is simply because some don’t like the implication. That in itself is ‘suspect.’