[geeks] CCW for Ohio!

[Mike Hebel]

On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 10:25 PM, Francisco Javier 
Mesa-Martinez wrote:

> Look, if you want to feel insulted, by all means do so. I am sure you
> could find anything that you may find insulting even if I had been
> talking about the nuances of bonsai grooming.

But the insult was most definitely _not_ about bonsai grooming - it was 
about us.  Those "gun nuts" remember?  The use of the term is offensive 
and "from my experience" almost any gun owner or advocate would react 
badly to the use of it.

> Hey, at least I was man enough to offer an apology, even though the 
> last
> of my intentions was to insult anyone in this list. So if I do not
> apologize, is bad, if I apologize is too late. Whatever. The double
> standards are quite interesting though...

As is the double standard of insulting a group of people and claiming 
not to have.

> Hey, look a Straw man attack! Isn't that ironic?...

*blink* *blink*
Fair enough.  ;-)  Honestly in the heat of argument I did not realize I 
had stooped to such a tactic.  My apologies.  *bows*

> No what I meant is that in order for a person to own a gun, he or she 
> needs to demostrate some sort of ability to operate a gun, understand 
> the responsabilities involved
> in owning a fire weapon, and make sure he or she is mentally fit.

The problem here becomes who decides what the criteria are.  If from 
the heat of this discussion if I yell "I FULLY INTEND TO KILL $blank" 
there are some who would find me unfit even were I to pass a full 
psychiatric inspection.

> The process should be made so that it is neutral with respect of the 
> will of
> the pro-gun and anti-gun people.

Not possible in my opinion.  The two are far too divergent to be 
brought together in this manner. About the only method that would 
closest to acceptable by both parties is DNA sensitive "smart weapons". 
Even then those do not prevent a gun from being used they only bring 
almost total responsibility to the shooter.

> The law/process then must also be made
> protected from possible government intromissions, that is part of the
> responsability of the citizenry. In this respect, if you are qualified,
> in the sense that you know how to operate a gun and can responsibly 
> own it
> (what use is a gun if you do not how to use it?) by all means own a 
> gun.
> But there must be a process in place to guarantee that.

Again - who decides?  A test?  Who makes up the tests?  The government? 
  Again, you are assuming that the government is composed of fair and 
sane people.  A quick glance at the contents of several of the laws and 
bills being passed and presented will tell you that is not the case.  
The anti-gun lobby?  No one would ever be able to pass the test!  A 
panel made up of both pro and anti gun people?  No test would ever be 
approved!

Please for the sake of the clarity of this argument specify who would 
make up these requirements in a fair and impartial manner.  I 
personally can't think of anyone - myself included - along with the 
members of this list.

> Twist that all you want. I was just expressing a need to balance the
> rights of the people to own a gun, with the actual responsability that 
> gun
> ownership implies. In case you missed it, I am not in favor of banning
> guns, but I am not in favor of indiscriminate gun ownership.

How about teaching people when they are young what a gun does and what 
responsibilities it comes with?  A nasty thought that many parents 
would stone me for but still a valid idea.

I learned at a very young age that a bullet would penetrate and damage 
anything it hit.

This, in my opinion, is an argument of parenting and ethics _not_ 
legislation.

>> I name you Troll.
>
> Now that is really mature...

No more immature than insulting people indirectly.  You deliberately 
baited Kurt.  If that's not Troll I don't know what is.

>>>> Of course you don't, and I would not expect you to either, afterall 
>>>> you
>>> already called me an "old soldier" in a previous thread.
>>
>> Character Attack.  Justified if what you say is true.  However it 
>> shows
>> your lack of
>> ability to sustain the argument on merits.
>
> Huh?

You sought to justify a character assassination using content not part 
of the discussion.
The _only_ purpose in mentioning that content was to undermine 
credibility where Nadine was concerned.  Period.

> Well, I am afraid that accusing someone of a straw man attack, and then
> right away using such a approach yourself shows a bit of 
> inconsistency. Or
> at least a lack of short tem memory.

My "Straw Man" aside - my comprehension is quite good.  I stand by my 
argument that you deliberately baited people using indirect insults.

>> Your meaning was quite clear however indirect your words.
>>
>> *ignites lighter in front of can of Troll-Be-Gone and sets troll
>> flaming*
>>
>> Begone TROLL!  We have fed you enough!
>
> Yeah, the TROLL approach a well known and refined debate technique.

"I calls them as I sees them."

The troll-be-gone was an attempt at two things:

1) To increase your realization of how you look from other people's 
point of view.  You may not care but it _will_ affect any attempt to 
argue effectively.

2) An attempt at humor to slightly defuse the tone of the argument.  I 
forgot my "winky". ;-)

> Seriously, I offered and apology and a clarification. I do not believe
> that the indiscriminate personal insults, nor the gang up of people who
> accuse me of something, while themselves doing exactly what I was being
> accused of was granted nor excused.

Your apology was fine but you continued to stick to the data that you 
had _not_ insulted anyone when you have.  This is the reason you 
continue to be "attacked".  Though I for one do not consider pointing 
out mistakes as "attacks" in anything but the most general sense.

As for a "double standard" in the replies I can only find my mistaken 
Straw Man which I have apologized for already.

Mike Hebel