Terry, are you saying that defenders don’t work at all? So apparently we shouldn’t try any defense? Everyone should turn in all of their weapons and kiss their tush goodbye? First their guns, then their knives. And sharp sticks, too?

I have many problems with this reasoning. But for one thing, and I think you will concede this point, the evil-doers around us will decline to subscribe to your strategy.

So now you say we are no longer talking about school shootings or home invasions or terrorism. Now the issue is “whether having large numbers of guns in the community generally, will lead to more or less deaths by shooting.”

OK, let’s talk about that. You want to use a statistical argument that compares our culture and your culture to make me feel guilty that I insist on an effective method of self-defense, and on being ready to defend our liberty.

Terry, I am not a statistic. My family is not a statistic. In spite of your statistics, we have not gone rogue, we have not been murdered, and we are armed. No one in my family has been negatively affected by our self-defense measures or philosophy. My kids made it to adulthood with a healthy thankfulness for their liberty. How does that fit your statistics?

If statistics are so important to you, why do you have any time at all to worry about guns? Statistics show that far more people die from other causes. Why aren’t you writing about those unfortunate people? I think it’s because you have substituted emotion for logic and reason. Critical thinking shows the problems with your position. So you will switch the topic now and talk about statistics.

I will say once more that I don’t think statistical arguments are useful in this discussion. Statistics have no bearing whatsoever on what will happen to you or to me, and they have absolutely no effect on what people choose to do in the future.

I absolutely disagree that my “views” have had a negative effect on myself, my family, my community, or my country. Or your country.

You miss the point. It’s not about unarmed defenders being able to deter armed terrorists or other gunmen – obviously they can’t. My latest point was simply to suggest that probably armed defenders can’t do it in most cases either.
But the whole argument is not about that, it’s about whether having large numbers of guns in the community generally, will lead to more or less deaths by shooting. Or maybe you had forgotten that.
All the evidence is that more guns means more innocent people dying, but you seem prepared to ignore that just to protect your constitutional right to bear arms. You’re free to hold that view, as long as you can ignore the evidence and/or suppress your conscience about all the extra deaths that result from such views.

Terry, I think I understand your position now. Defenders who are armed are useless because they will be taken out “first shot”, but unarmed defenders will be able to turn away terrorist bombers.

My position on school guards is that defenders are better than no defenders. In my descriptions, they are armed because that is a reasonable and appropriate way to prepare to defend against armed rampage shooters.

This is a maxim of my philosophy, in fact, and you will see it peppered throughout my posts. It is that the good guys should be as well armed as the bad guys. After all, if we want to ask defenders to take chances with their lives to face down the evil doers, we should at least give them a fighting chance.

Another fundamental tenet of my philosophy is that the good guys are not confined to the government and the police, but include average non-violent citizens as well. This is why I am diametrically opposed to Hilary Clinton’s preferred confiscation plan, which she said would resemble the Australian model.

If armed defenders are actually less capable of defending against armed killers, then how could this possibly occur?

http://www.people.com/article/teen-boy-shoots-kills-burglar-south-carolina

Brain, analyzing the data merely demonstrated the degree that your comments are anti-left. What I want to know is YOUR reasoning about gun ownership rights. Not what you think of the left’s reasoning.

—
BRIAN COOK:
“It’s true that I’m a conservative thinker politically and fiscally…”
—

For instance, as a conservative thinker are you happy with the gun rights you have now or do you think they should be increased?

What beneficial implications would there be with your level of public gun ownership rights?

What about the mentally ill owning guns?

Stating the downside of your position, without the distracting criticism towards your opponents, would go a long way to show that, and what, you do think.

I wouldn’t hesitate to ask questions like these to either side of an argument, for it shows that the individual is the source of their own thoughts and not merely being oppositional. In other words, it would help if you could positively state your reasoning on gun ownership rights without the negativity of your opponents.

Dust me off if you want, but if you want to have fair intellectual interactions with your peers this would be a good first step.

Brian,

You wrote “….Terry’s omission regarding the Paris terrorist attacks. The defenders there were successful at keeping the bombs out of the soccer pitch. He seems to have left this out of his last post.” I didn’t mention that, because it wasn’t relevant to this debate BECAUSE THOSE DEFENDERS WERE NOT ARMED! They were just normal security guys to keep out anyone without a ticket. So guns were not needed.

The anti-left thing in my head? Please.

The anti-left “thing” is in well more than my head! In fact, a conservative tidal wave is set to make both the executive and legislative branches anti-left in 2016!

The rabid and illogical anti-gun religion that is widely accepted on the American political left is a complete disaster. If it has achieved anything, it is that violent crime has gone up as a result of backwards reasoning like gun free zones. It needs to be called out for what it is whenever someone uses one of these improperly reasoned assertions, so that more people don’t have to die because of this anencephalic logic.

The ultra-liberal, ultra-leftist, ultra-idiot in chief, the high priest of gun control, is a shining example of why I need to point out the fallacious reasoning used by the political left. A few days after a Russian plane was bombed out of the sky, the day after Beirut was bombed, and a few hours before 129 people were murdered in Paris, Barak Obama had concluded that he had contained ISIS! Clearly, someone needs to address failures of reason on the political left.

When people’s posts resemble the utterly failed philosophy of the left, I think it helps to point out where this philosophy and rhetoric comes from, and I intend to continue doing so when I feel the need to comment further.

It’s true that I’m a conservative thinker politically and fiscally. I think it is substantially more reasonable. However, I don’t agree much more with republicans than I do with democrats.

It’s also pretty clear that you don’t like the style of my writing or my thinking. But please understand that I’m not trying to make you happy with it.

“My analysis is that the source of your gun argument is without thoughtful consideration of the arguments themselves.” I think I’ll let the other readers of the forum decide if my arguments are well reasoned or not.

But since you maintain that I’m doing this incorrectly, then I encourage you to address the issues I touch on yourself. If the only reasoning you can do requires statistics, then feel free to analyze it the way you want to. Just don’t be surprised when I disagree.

In the first post you make, you should correct Terry’s omission regarding the Paris terrorist attacks. The defenders there were successful at keeping the bombs out of the soccer pitch. He seems to have left this out of his last post.

BRIAN COOK:
“Do you have any arguments with my reasoning…?”

My argument with your reasoning was in my last comment; you’re acting polemically.

Some of your arguments have substance but get lost in your diatribes against the left. If you can’t argue without mentioning the ‘left’ it’s probably because you don’t have a good argument of your own. Being opposed to the left is not a good argument. No one else here is ranting about the ‘right’ like you about the ‘left’.

The point of a good conversation is not to convince but to understand. I understand the position you’re coming from and I have attempted to state it in my comments. I like to know if my understanding of an opponent’s argument is correct. You substitute what people have to say here with some anti-left thing happening in your head. Stop it!

Ok, Doug. I believe you.

You’ve convinced me that I AM critical of the philosophy on the left. I said this in my last post. The questions that Terry asked me to answer reflect the philosophy and the reasoning regarding guns that I have seen over and over again on the American left.

None of the quotes you assembled attack Terry. They only attack the philosophy and the reasoning.

Do you have any arguments with my reasoning or did you just want to give me a spanking?

Brian, I took a little time to analyze the position you are arguing from.

By my count you mentioned the “left” in a critical way 38 times out of the 48 times mentioned in the comments to this point. The majority of the remaining 10 ‘left’ references were either in quoting you or didn’t mean the ‘political’ left.

I don’t think anyone here is being unreasonable for disagreeing with you and yet you think those opposed to you are ‘unreasonable, irrational and illogical thinking’. Although this may be the case, your comments do attack the left polemically:

—
BRIAN COOK:
“But I think that Terry didn’t really want to face reason, like every other lefter I have encountered to date.”

BRIAN COOK:
“In a quick search I only found the word “lefty” in your post. I almost certainly never called you that…”
—

Neither Terry, nor I, identify with the left as you seem to assume we do. You argue your right to own a gun. Fine. I own guns too. But this does not mean those who are of a different opinion are being unreasonably emotional.

My analysis is that the source of your gun argument is without thoughtful consideration of the arguments themselves.

“Polemic: …unlike debate, which may allow for common ground between the two disputants, a polemic is intended only to affirm one point of view while refuting the opposing point of view.” – Wikipedia

BRIAN COOK in his own words:
“This is what common sense is, not the government speak “common sense measures” that the ultra left has used as a mantra against guns”
“Does this pass for critical thinking on the left?”
“This is so much like the left with emotional, illogical and unreasoned arguments.”
“Having trained shooters at schools is a much better solution, although irrationally, the left dislikes the idea.”
“There are other examples of this kind of backwards thinking on the left…”
“it has been the threat to being *able* to prepare at all in the future because of the liberal left’s attempts to keep that from happening”
“…the assignment of guilt in this matter by the left is completely misplaced.”
“my plan succeeds more frequently than the plan on the left does.”
“But I have learned a lot about what has previously been the perplexing philosophy of the left on the issue of guns.”
“the vehemence with which the American left eschews guns”
“I was really encouraged that someone from the far left would have the intestinal fortitude to convert us all to his view based on logic and reason.”
“Terry didn’t really want to face reason, like every other lefter I have encountered to date.”
“Terry’s “reason” is filled with fear, and studded with the religion of the left”
“By making sure that only criminals have guns, the lefters provide for these miscreants a perfect environment for their criminal activities.”
“The left likes to blow the rare tragedies associated with irresponsible gun handling way out of proportion.”
“You would have us debate the statistics from the left as opposed to the statistics from the right.”
“…the efforts from the left to stigmatize all things related to guns.”
“I don’t have the same opinion about their evil intentions that is held by lefters.”
“…a society that has been described by lefters as “awash” in guns.”
“If the left will surrender to reason on this issue and agree that school guards are a wise idea…”
“In fact, Terry’s naked fear of gun violence comes from the dogma of the left. Guns are bad.”
“This is why the unrealistic, illogical and unreasoning philosophy used by the left needs to be addressed directly.”
“It is with a heavy heart that I look upon the failures of this philosophy from the left.”
“But the lefter’s dogma gets recited with every new tragedy…”
“Rather than addressing the cultural issues that produce this violence, we have the politically correct left blaming guns…”
“Because of the superstition and dogma of the left. Guns are just bad.”
“More trained shooters are worse, not better. The reasoning from the left starts with those assumptions. This is an emotional, not a reasoned response.”
“I find most of the philosophy from the left to be illogical and emotional”

BRIAN COOK:
“Well how about in Alaska?”
“When was the last time you heard of a rampage killing in Alaska?”

TRUTH:
In the last 9 years only 6 states had a school mass shootings and Alaska has the third highest gun violence in all of the USA.