Stop it. Stop it right now. eumaas - in the way he constructs an argument - is absolutely nothing like Steve. In fact, with your barely concealed disdain for knowledge and rational, fact based argument you are the closest person here to Steve. Of course, as eumaas points out, at least Steve sort of cited the sources of his positions (granted, they were shoddy and his method of "debate" was more like that of a troll).101Walterton wrote:See this is the part I don't get. You claim this open minded approach however you are no different to Steve and every other gun owner I have spoken to in that you dismiss gun legislation for the staus quo without any attempt to do anything to stem the tide of mass shotings.
In any case, eumaas has argued many things over the course of his time on these boards, but arguing in favor of "the status quo" has never been one of them. That you characterize his argument as such suggests you have not grasped his position in the slightest. He has pretty much held your hand the whole way to try to get you to understand, too.
The onus is on you to defend your own freakin' position. If you are basing your opinions on this large body of evidence and writing, as you claim, cite some of it. Cite just one goddamned study or paper. If you don't do any of that, fine, whatever floats your boat. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Making arguments with absolutely no willingness to cite where you're getting your "facts" from is the futile exercise here, not what eumaas is doing.Also, like Steve, you base your arguments on your 'books and papers' which you like to cut and paste in great quantity to back up 'your opinion'. For every book and paper supporting you there is a book and paper against you so have you dimissed all those ? I have studied a number of related fields none of which I would cut and paste to back up my point of view because that is a futile excersize.
It also helps to steel yourself from attack if you put forth a cogent argument. In favor of gun control, Inder and Medulla have done that, and done it quite well. Crooked Beat was able to put together extraordinarily excellent arguments in favor of gun control back when he posted here. I say this because I want to make it clear that you're not being picked on for the sentiments of your position (which I'm sympathetic towards), but rather that your methodology is beyond merely "suspect." What's worse is you seem to completely lack awareness of your epistemological shortcomings, making the ability to move forward in a debate with you practically impossible.
1. This is wrong on so, so many levels I find it intellectually offensive.Whilst I concede to you I appear to be stubborn and closeminded in my opinion (just like you and Steve) however I have 27 years of working in related fields and place far more weight on that that than 'others papers' experience I have read about in a book or paper.
2. The point of studies and research is to gather data that a single person simply cannot gather enough experience with on a personal basis. There are a lot of things one can question about a study (methodology, conclusions, etc.) but to reject wholesale the idea that studies offer more complete information than one's personal experiences and that the latter is somehow inherently more valuable than the former is folly.
Again, eumaas has not been advocating an adherence to the status quo. It's also offensive to suggest that people that may not be huge gun control advocates don't care about people who get shot. Just as it was offensive for Steve to suggest gun control advocates were responsible for the Virginia Tech shootings. It's inflammatory rhetoric with no purpose whatsoever.My main sticking point, and the reason for my closeminded opinion, is the protection of innocent people from the mass shooting that will occur. I vote for change because your status quo isn't working and surely trying to do something about it is better than standing back and doing nothing whilst people are being slaughtered.
Cut the shit. Everyone here is concerned with trying to improve lives. How we do that is the difference, and these are differences worthy of discussion and debate. To say otherwise is just a fucking sideshow.