Only victims of gun violence can have valid opinions on gun laws

[jstaylor62]

Placing value on experience is not the same as removing value from a lack of specific personal experience (or experience under identical circumstances).

Example for you Ez Bake - ( not singling you out )

Two people tell you that you should eat at a particularly expensive restuarant. Both people are very convincing, but one person has actually eaten there, while the other has not. You are going to value the opinion of the person that has eaten there more than the person that has not eaten there. Why? You give more value to the person that has experienced eating there as opposed to the opinion of the person that can only imagine what it's like to eat there.

 

[MoBoost]

If somebody against the death penalty answered that they had not had a family member murdered, I would simply tell them to come back and talk to me after they had.

Sorry about your loss. You do have a valid opinion about what person feels when they lose a family member to a murder - and only person with same experience can share that. However, that's where your valid opinion stops - your opinion is no more valid than any one else about crime punishment, justice system, gun control, taxes, segregation ... or whatever else you THINK you got entitlement to.

 

[MoBoost]

Two people tell you that you should eat at a particularly expensive restuarant. Both people are very convincing, but one person has actually eaten there, while the other has not. You are going to value the opinion of the person that has eaten there more than the person that has not eaten there. Why? You give more value to the person that has experienced eating there as opposed to the opinion of the person that can only imagine what it's like to eat there.

By your logic however, a person who ate at that one particular restaurant has valid opinion about ALL the restaurants.

 

[Glocktogo]

Lets continue the insight into my moronic statements...

I believe in the death penalty. There are just some crimes that raise to the level that people should be executed for them. I feel that the punishment is appropriate is some cases.

I had a brother that was murdered in an ambush. Afterward, it solidified my opinion that some people should be executed for their crimes.

I would run into people that were against the death penalty, so I would ask them if they ever had a family member that was murdered. If they said yes, I would tell them I was sorry for their loss and tell them that based on my life experience, I have chosen to support the death penalty. Then I would try to explain to them why I made my decision. Since we had a shared life experience, I had more value in their opinion since they they were exposed to similar circumstances, but just formed an opinion that was different from mine.

If somebody against the death penalty answered that they had not had a family member murdered, I would simply tell them to come back and talk to me after they had. I would try explain to them that they needed to share my life experience of having a family member murdered before they could form a valid opinion on the death penalty.

There's an old idiom...don't judge a man, until you have walked a mile in his ( shoes,boots,sandals )

People every day place value on somebody's opinion based on the life experience of that person. You just don't reliaze it or you are too stubborn to admit it...

I'm sorry for your loss. You have a unique perspective on what it feels like to lose someone to a depraved soul.

That's the end of your special dispensation. Your opinions on punishment or gun rights have a statistical value of one, not one+. Your rights end where my nose begins.

Anyone like Carolyn McCarthy or Sarah Brady or Mark Kelly has the exact same rights to speak on the subject as I do. So long as they do not lie or misstate facts to support their position, I'll listen respectfully and then respectfully reject their emotional argument with logic and facts. The moment they resort to intellectual dishonesty is the moment the gloves come off. All three of them have resorted to intellectual dishonesty in this debate, so in giving no quarter, they'll get none in return.

Sound fair?

 

[jstaylor62]

By your logic however, a person who ate at that one particular restaurant has valid opinion about ALL the restaurants.

MoBoost, I'm sorry, but I just don't see the how my logic extrapolates from the opinion about one restaurant to ALL restaurants.

Please explain your point further.

 

[MoBoost]

MoBoost, I'm sorry, but I just don't see the how my logic extrapolates from the opinion about one restaurant to ALL restaurants.

I would try explain to them that they needed to share my life experience of having a family member murdered before they could form a valid opinion on the death penalty.

You believe that your one time experience gives you authority to dismiss other opinions on arbitrary topic.

Maybe you should explain why you think your experience makes you an authority on death penalty - were you on the death row? are you a judge? governor?

 

[Rez Exelon]

Now if someone has been a victim of a crime where a firearm is involved and has a fear of guns, but hasn't made the leap to virulent anti-gunner, then yes, you can have a reasonable discourse with that person. But once they've made the leap to gun control poster boy/girl, they're a write off.

Hopefully, but I fear this is not true. Me and my girlfriend might be braking up because of her fear of guns. She said I had enough and that I can't sell without background checks. Wooooo boooy...wait till she hears about my new ones this week.

Unfortunately in general it seems that most people I debate are not going to change their opinions often, nor willingly. "They" say that most people that hit 30 are already basically set in their ways forever, and have their philosophy forever. So I don't think in this case debating is going to matter much. But my opinion probably doesn't matter because I've never shot anyone nor been shot

 

[toehanus]

Actually, I can see some validity to the argument that a "victim" of violence involving a firearm should have a lesser voice in the discussion. Mainly because their "victim" status will tend to skew their opinion towards an emotional response rather than one based on fact and logic. Anecdotes do not necessarily make a trend.

@toehanus

 

[jstaylor62]

You believe that your one time experience gives you authority to dismiss other opinions on arbitrary topic.

Maybe you should explain why you think your experience makes you an authority on death penalty - were you on the death row? are you a judge? governor?

MoBoost, I've been pretty clear. My life experience gives me a different viewpoint from somebody without similar life experience.

Another example - How do you value the opinions on how to raise children if they come from somebody that has never raised children? An opinion coming from somebody that has raised children will come fom a life experience that is going to give them a view point that is different from somebody that has not raised children.

My whole reason for starting this dialogue has been with my own trouble with trying to understand why people that are victims of gun violence form opinions that are so different from each other in spite of their shared life experience. In particular, I'm trying to understand the opinions of people in Chicago as they are faced with rising gun violence, in spite of very strict gun laws. I could be quick to label them idiots and their opinions misguided. But I'm trying to understand them better so as to have a more intellectual debate on gun laws.

 

[porscheman2944]

Do I have to be dead to have a valid point? I have carried a pistol 20 years plus mainly because of the hours I worked. I now carry a gun for a living. When I was in my 20's I backed 3 guys out of the warehouse I worked at 3 A.M. and other incidents where my pistol has saved my life or others. The news doesn't show stories about people that guns have saved lives or where bad guys had enough sense to walk away and live. My 2nd amendment rights shouldn't be decided by someone else. If I break the law then punish me, if someone else breaks the law don't punish me. plain and simple. Well no one needs to have a gun that can shoot 30 rounds. . I think we don't need freedom of speech or freedom of religion either. . . lets see how fast Pierce Morgan would change his mind if they decided to censor him. We have the 2nd to protect all the other rights. People need to break out their history books and learn the history of this country. The second amendment isn't about hunting. It is about keeping the government for the people and by the people. History also shows the Tyrants have no use for armed people. The first step is disarming the people look at history in Germany. but the government wouldn't do that. . . ask an American indian how that has worked for them or the interned Japanese during WW2. We have the resources that keep the government in check taken away and we can all be assured that we will all end up being the victims. but that is just my rant. . .