10 US States with the MOST Gun Violence

  It's a huge pain in the ass.  Is it necessary? Well, the difference between cars and guns is that virtually everybody in the U.S. will need to have a car at some point, whether they want one or not, whether they are interested in learning how to use one properly or not. And of course if you have a car, you USE it, and you use it in a public place around tons of other people, by definition. None of this is true of gun owners.  A majority of gun owners stick their guns in a closet and don't use them, the vast majority of people who use them will use them in private places often dedicated for their use, and everybody who uses a gun as part of their job [i]is trained in their use anyway.[/i]  

Gun enthusiasts gain nothing by having the state force them to attend some class on things they already know. But people who hate guns and the people who use them gain much from leveraging the State to pointlessly pester people and keep tabs on them, and that’'s obviously what this is really about.

This is all irrelevant blather that fails to address the main similarity between guns and cars: they accidentally kill people when people don’t use them correctly. it doesnt’ matter if people rarely use them. When they use them poorly–and too often do–or leave them unsecured, people die. That’s why we need safety courses for new gun users or users of a new type of gun…regardless if the obtuse consider it a “pain in the ass.” And Uccisore throws out another straw man when he mentions people who use guns as part of their job. He knows very well those aren’t the people we are discussing and just wants to further distract from the real issue, a real issue he is unable to address.

These are even more straw men arguments, so I seriously doubt Uccisore is an academic, as he claims. He certainly isn’t arguing like one. Most gun enthusiasts, have already received such training so the required courses won’t apply to them. And the ones who haven’t do gain from being trained by professionals and lose nothing from doing so. Having people take safety courses is not pestering people; it is making sure American citizens–particularly children–are not killed by careless and/or inept gun usage and poorly secured guns. The fact Uccisore cares more about gun users being pestered than preventing those deaths is reprehensible.

And as I said earlier, keeping tabs on who has guns is not harassment; it is public safety. Too many times police have answered domestic disturbance calls–and other calls–having no ideas the citizens had guns in the household and got shot and killed. When the police know which households do and don’t have registered guns, they can act accordingly. The fact Uccisore doesn’t care about the lives of our policemen, along with other citizens, and cares more about not “pestering” gun users is also reprehensible and indefensible.

So we are going to not require people who own guns to demonstrate that they know how to use and keep them safely on the wager that they aren’t going to use them anyway, and on the admission that most people who own them really have no use for them other than to furnish the closet? Even though many of them will and do use them all the time? My oft aforementioned friend with the cc permit recently got licensed as a firearms instructor. In my state, people who carry guns ARE in fact required to pass a test first, and he teaches people how to pass. He is of the opinion that many of the people he instructs are not in fact at all good with their weapons and many of them probably shouldn’t be handling guns in the first place (though most of them, including many of the inept ones, do end up passing the test, which he says is not particularly difficult, and especially not for people who already know how to handle guns).

Let me ask you this: If there were a constitutional right to own cars and drive, would it be “infringed” by our present system of registration and licensing?

It probably seems obvious to people who resent having to prove that they know how to responsibly use deadly weapons before they are allowed to buy them, but since their resentment is based in mistaken preconceptions like yours that it’s all about punishing gun owners, i can’t really sympathize, anymore than i sympathize with people who complain that registering their car and obtaining a license is a “huge pain in the ass”. i mean, yeah, it’s a hassle, but that doesn’t make it insensible.

i assure you Uccisore is in fact a professional academic, as he claims, and quite a skilled debater, as i know personally, though i disagree with him more often than not.

It would be, if that were actually the case, but i think you’re jumping to conclusions about your opponent in the argument based on anger. i could be wrong, as i know nothing about you personally, but that is my impression.

I, myself, am a professional academic and have never encountered one with such deficient debating “skills;” he certainly hasn’t shown himself to be a skilled debater in any of my encounters with him. And if you can assure me he is a professional academic, please provide me the proof and tell me what his position and profession is.

It is actually the case, and I’m not jumping to any conclusions. He made it clear he is against added gun safety restrictions because they would “pester” gun owners. That logically means he cares more about gun users being pestered than preventing gun deaths. I’m surprised you didn’t catch that. And I’m not angry, so you erroneously jumped to that conclusion as well as wrongly presuming my correct analysis of Uccisore’s position came from it.

So, try to read the posts better before wrongly accusing me of jumping to conclusions.

Sorry. It’s between you and Uccisore, i should not have involved myself. However, i do think your position on the issue of gun control itself (which i mostly agree with) would be better served if you stuck to arguing the issue rather than disparaging your opponent, even IF your opponent is likewise disparaging you. Granted, that’s not advice i always follow myself, and i don’t want to sound patronizing, but it’s nonetheless true. I’ll say no more on the matter. Have at it.

In what field?

He’s an academic? You should be able to check that easily. He can give you his name, you find him and his email (usually available on the site of the college), and you send him an e-mail asking whether he is posting in ILP under the nickname Peripheral. If it truly is one and the same person, then he’ll respond positively.

Most people prefer to stay anonymous however, which is understandable so his refusal to provide information on personal identity is only expected. But claiming one is a professional academic and then refusing to provide evidence achieves the opposite effect and makes people appear dumber, not smarter, especially if they continue expecting of people to take their claim seriously.

His insincerity, obnoxiousness, and the provocative and irritating manner in which he conducts himself is very unlike an academic as well, and slowly but surely are reducing the cogency of his arguments. After all he’s said, and the way he said it, people are very justified in assuming he doesn’t give a shit about gun-owners and their rights.
His style of arguing and writing doesn’t resemble that of an academic, either.

Another desperate retard craving attention would be my guess, and Ucc is giving him the cold shoulder, the best treatment against such a type IMHO

No, what I addressed to you was between you and me…because you initiated the discussion with me. However, at least it is clear you can’t assure me Uccisore is an academic. It is also clear you were wrong when you said I “jumped to a conclusion” about Uccisore’s position when I was dead-on about it:

And your telling me to not disparage my opponent even “IF”–avoid those unnecessary screencaps–he disparages me is patronizing, particularly since you don’t follow that advice yourself. It is also patronizing, and lamely biased, you said nothing to Uccisore, which shows a lack of objectivity further undercutting anything you say on the matter. And if someone disparages me, I’m not going to turn the other cheek…just as you clearly haven’t done. So, save that hypocritically pious preaching for Uccisore or somebody else.

So, as I said before, try to read my posts better before embarrassingly wrongly accusing me of “jumping to conclusions.” And don’t “assure” someone someone else is an academic if you can’t actually do so.

English and English Literature

This seems an odd place to find an academician in Eng Lit.
What do you teach (if you don’t mind)?

If you think so, you don’t know much about English lit. academics. To get our Ph.Ds we all have to be well-read in Critical Theory, which is mostly made up of Post-structuralist, Existentialist, Marxist/Post-Marxist, and Phenomenological philosophy. So, philosophy forums are a perfect place for Eng. lit. academicians. I, personally, also minored in philosophy and am pretty well-read in Classical and Enlightenment philosophy as well.

I answered your last question, so it is your turn to answer mine. What do you do for a living? I will answer your last question once you answer that.

i’m certainly not going to provide you information about another poster without that poster’s permission, i was simply reinforcing a claim about himself that he already made. If you don’t want to trust either one of us because doing so would force you to accept that you are wrong about him, then that is unsurprising but also pretty lame on your part. But whatever, i will reciprocate your lame attitude by refusing to believe that you are a professional academic as you claim. You certainly don’t argue like one, given the way you personally disparage people because they disagree with you.

Further i would like to know how you know you are “dead-on” about his position, when he has yet to respond to your assertion about what his position is. You have indeed jumped to conclusions. Even if you are guessing correctly about what he thinks and feels, it is still a guess. A conclusion that you have jumped to. Very unlike an academic.

i do in fact follow it often, but i am human as well, and so sometimes i give in to my emotions. Sorry if it was patronizing, but you are making it increasingly clear you needed the advice.

No, i’ll save it for you, since you can clearly use it. Here it is rephrased in simpler terms: Grow up. Learn how to argue with ideas rather than insults. That is what academics are supposed to do.

i have read your posts quite thoroughly. Any erroneous conclusions i have drawn about them are, i ASSURE you, the result of deficiencies in your writing, not my reading.

Well, you clearly lied when you said you would “say no more on the matter.” I never asked you to post information. i just asked you to show me information (like posts) that would support his being an academic. As I told you, none of his posts to me have supported that. So, the only lame attitude is yours, as well as your lame hypocrisy by now lamely attempting to disparage me. And trusting you when you have provided no evidence except your clear bias for Uccisore would only show my gullibility; it certainly wouldn’t make me accept I’m wrong about him…and I’m clearly not.

You clearly aren’t an academic. One doesn’t have to wait for a response when the person has already made their position clear. This was his quote:

So, I was dead-on when I said Uccisore cares more about not pestering gun-owners than preventing gun deaths with safety courses. It’s all up there in his post; no response is needed. So, grow up and stop making childish assumptions and disparaging comments when you haven’t even read the relevant post well. Also, read better, the deficiencies in them and your writing are now glaring.

Actually, the only one who has been disparaging in our exchange is you. You started this whole exchange with a disparaging comment. So, you not only need to grow up and read better, you also need to follow your own advice and stop being a hypocrite.

Again, you should save it for yourself, since you have been the hypocritically disparaging one. And if Uccisore is actually an academic, then, using your logic, you should have addressed it to him. Of course, you haven’t been objective (or logical) this whole discussion, so you didn’t do so. And like all academics, I argue my ideas without insults, but we do return insults when we get them, and I did to Uccisore just as he merited.

All-caps, huh? Now it is clear you are the angry one losing his composure. I have already clearly shown, as I did above, that your reading and your arguments have been substantially deficient. You, however, like a child, have just attempted to disparage my writing without giving any evidence at all. So, if you want to actually attempt to make a grown-up critique, again, grow up a bit and actually address my actual writing, instead of childishly mewling about it.

Maybe this time you’ll actually “say no more on the matter.” Somehow, I doubt it… :wink:

This exchange is boringly predictable. And juvenile. i will indeed say no more about it.

Since you have provided the boring predictability–your responding again is an example–and the juvenilia, it’s indeed best you keep quiet.

i accept fault for involving myself, and apologize for intruding.

 You mean, are we going to leave things the way they are right now and always have been? In the absence of any evidence of a crisis, I certainly don't see why not.  Your post comes off as though you think guns were invented last Tuesday, and they present some new situation we have to react to.  

 That said, I was thnking about it, and I think I could accept mandatory gun safety/competency classes, and it could even be paralleled by the example you love to keep bringing up- cars.  Driver's Ed was mandatory in high school, so yeah, let's do it. 
 Every student in their senior year of high school should have to take a week long gun safety course.  They learn how guns work, how to fire them, how to clean them, how to store them responsibly, how to carry them without endangering people nearby.   There will be a lecture on gun violence and how terrible it is, and a lecture on the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment. Everybody learns gun safety, and the State doesn't get to single out gun owners, because everybody is required to participate.  Have a police officer do the training maybe, so teachers don't have to learn this stuff themselves if they don't want to. 
 I don't see a downside.  
It depends. Is the system of regitration and licensing proposed purely as a means to an end by car-hating assholes that ultimately want to take them away from everybody, but mandatory registration is as much as the voting public will let them get away with for now, or is the registration and licensing actually a response to a real problem that it would really solve? 
 People that ultimately want to flush the 2nd Amendment down the toilet might suggest things along the way that aren't, in themselves, violations of the 2nd Amendment. But if the things they suggest aren't actually viable solutions to some actual problem, fuck them anyway.

Peripheral Banned for 1 day, Rule 1 violations. I have zero tolerance for him bringing the way he behaves in every other forum to mine.

Does more really need to be said?