Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > gun control in the usa      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 unixken
Joined: 1/22/2008
Msg: 2251
gun control in the usaPage 91 of 102    (62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102)
Ace - you pose an interesting quandry...

And if an individual chooses to band together with others-freedom of association also being a natural right-to insist that those who create dangerous conditions be stopped, that is an extension of their right of self defense.

You used the words "those who create dangerous conditions".

I submit that Zebras will "band together" in a group to lessen the danger to individuals (an example of the natural right you highlight.) But the Zebras don't de-claw the lions. Perhaps that's because they know the lions need their claws (and fangs) always to be instantly available to protect the pride and their young, from other Lions, Hyenas, and Leopards. After all, the Lions have a natural right to safety, just like the Zebras.

Ever see one little kid bite another? Do we march them right to the oral surgeon for tooth extraction? Or do we simply teach the kids not to bite?

It's all about educating the gun owners, not de-clawing them.
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 2252
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/18/2008 1:06:16 PM
Most gun owners are educated in gun Safety, and there are Continual writings in every gun book & magazine on safety, safety, safety.

The education is out there, but much like High School, some people just don't pay attention and act like idiots EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE BEEN TAUGHT BETTER!!

Since that guy chopped the head off another with a knife on a Greyhound Bus in Canada a few months ago...should we require knife handling courses for the owners of knives??

---------------------------------------------------

Here's the main reason the Pro-Second Amendment folks are buying like crazy and ain't real happy right now.

Liberal Dems in Congress want several things...

1. A 10-round maximum in ANY pistol, rifle, or shotgun magazine...unless it's for Law Enforcement or Military Use Only.

I own several full capacity firearms. Most liberals call them "high" capacity. I like being able to put 100 rounds of .22LR cartridges in a Calico revolving magazine, unwind the spring, and have it in my safe, where all I need to do in case of Zombie or other Enemy Attack I can pull it out, wind the spring a few times, and use it to defend myself and others from the evil hordes. Chances are I'll never need it...but I'd rather have it & not need it than be stuck with only a single-shot Blackpowder Rifle to cover my bacon bits.

It's also fun as heck to go to the range and be able to shoot all day with three magazines without haing to waste time reloading continually. I go to the range two days a week...how often do your local cops go?? ASK THEM!! You'd be shocked at how SELDOM they do go.

2. Obama has said that he wants to discontinue Concealed Carry Permits.

CCW Permit holders are some of the BEST Trained Civilian gun owners out there. If you don't trust the BEST of the bunch...what kind of trust do you have of the average Joe Citizen Gun Owner, Mr. Obama??

3. The Failed Clinton Assault Weapons Ban is to be added to, then made Permanent.

Hate to tell ya, but whatever law you can make permanent, the people can Unmake after all the gun owners vote the Dems out if they get too foolish with Draconic Gun Laws. It's why The Republicans gained control of the House back when Clinton was in office...just on that ONE issue, there was a massive gun owner turnout and they voted most everyone out that voted for Clinton's Gun Ban.

Further, the new Expanded Ban lists pretty much everything that holds over 15 rounds in a magazine, OR has a "Military Look". Most of the things the original ban listed are no longer in production and would be more or less unaffected by a new ban as person-to-person sales would be going on.

4. Nancy Pelosi (Dem. Speaker of the House) wants to extend California's Gun laws to the Entire USA.

You want to talk Draconic Gun laws? California has 'em. Strangely, all those laws that Cali has didn't do a darn thing to stop a four-time convicted felon from killing a father and his two sons with an automatic weapon in San Francisco...a city with a TOTAL GUN BAN. Gee, that really helped, didn't it??
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 2253
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/18/2008 1:42:29 PM
And the Bill of Rights be damned. I read you.


No, I don't think so. I think that you might be doing a bit of projecting yourself at this point.

It's all about educating the gun owners, not de-clawing them.


I agree, and that is exactly what I advocate: educating gun owners and potential gun owners.

I believe that things will work out a whole lot better when gun owners are on target with their arguments as well as their shots.
 unixken
Joined: 1/22/2008
Msg: 2254
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/18/2008 3:22:05 PM
I agree with some of what you say, Ace, but this seems to be where we part company...
I believe that things will work out a whole lot better when gun owners are on target with their arguments as well as their shots.
You seem to be waiting for one great unified voice to give you "the" reason that society should back off from the legal, law-abiding.

Gun control advocates, just as others do, turn a deaf ear should only just one individual clearly articulate a good reason. If the reason is valid, it should stand on it's merits, without the need for 100-million people to be able to put the same thought clearly into words. Using myself as an example, my training, listed earlier, should suffice for anyone. So why does society go after the guns? My guns! (ie HB 1022) When is enough, enough?

So few people are poets. But that doesn't mean we all haven't felt what a good poet can put into words. On the other hand, not everyone reads poetry. Likewise, not everyone opens their mind to thought provoking discourse such as this forum provides. And often times, good discourse falls on deaf ears. In the meantime, we don't outlaw pens in an effort to keep non-poets from putting pen to paper, nor require a college degree from anyone who wants to write poetry. But when an apt one-liner succinctly spells out a principle, and gives 100-million people a simple, unified way of stating a valid argument ("If guns kill people, then spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat"), they are ridiculed both individually, and as a group, for sloganeering.

As well, so few people are great chefs (and believe me, I'm not one of them!). But that doesn't mean I should be denied a right to a kitchen knife, or be required to attend culinary arts school, just to make a sandwich. If we want to discuss the "original intent" of a firearm as a device designed and intended solely to kill, understand the doubt I would express if someone were to tell me that Homo Habilus (the handy man) first chipped flint to a sharp edge, to create a vegetable peeler.
 unixken
Joined: 1/22/2008
Msg: 2255
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/18/2008 3:53:11 PM
Shrek,
The point you forgot to make about HB 1022, is this... Not only does the bill include a vastly increased list of guns that would be outlawed, but the worst part, is that the list is not definitive. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to add anything he wants to that list, at any time, without further approval of congress, or the people. And we don't vote for the U.S. Attorney General. That role is appointed, by the POTUS.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 2256
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/18/2008 4:00:21 PM
I agree with some of what you say, Ace, but this seems to be where we part company...


I agree with much of what you say as well. I also appreciate that you think about what you say before you just rattle something off.


You seem to be waiting for one great unified voice to give you "the" reason that society should back off from the legal, law-abiding.


I believe that society should back off from responsible gun owners. It is the irresponsible ones that concern me. I believe that many of the so-called "gun grabbers" are also concerned about irresponsibility and incomptence among the gun-owning public. Where I part ways with the gun grabbers is in their solution. I don't want to disarm anyone. I want people who own weapons to understand the dangers and take the appropriate precautions to keep themselves, their families, and their neighbors safe from preventable mishaps. I want to know that as a society we have done our part to make sure that all gun owners know how to handle their guns.


As well, so few people are great chefs (and believe me, I'm not one of them!). But that doesn't mean I should be denied a right to a kitchen knife, or be required to attend culinary arts school, just to make a sandwich. If we want to discuss the "original intent" of a firearm as a device designed and intended solely to kill, understand the doubt I would express if someone were to tell me that Homo Habilus (the handy man) first chipped flint to a sharp edge, to create a vegetable peeler.


Well, nobody is likely to get killed by mistake if you screw up with a kitchen knife. And yes, a knife can be used to kill people, but that is up close and personal and even an unarmed person has a fighting chance in many cases. Not so with a gun.

And a gun isn't as complex to operate as a gourmet recipe is to pull off. If you can make a sandwich and clean up your mess afterward, you can fire a gun. But the sandwich ingredients aren't liable to get somebody killed in an instant if they aren't put away properly.


But when an apt one-liner succinctly spells out a principle, and gives 100-million people a simple, unified way of stating a valid argument ("If guns kill people, then spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat"), they are ridiculed both individually, and as a group, for sloganeering.


This is because the slogans come of as dimissive and unresponsive to the legitimate concerns about safety amnog those who are afraid of guns. When you are consistently dismissive of those fears, you exacerbate them and make those frightened people even more determined to get those guns away from you.
 unixken
Joined: 1/22/2008
Msg: 2257
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/18/2008 4:19:45 PM
Ace,

I thank you for the above, excellent post.

Now what is it going to take to get the legislators to back off on the guns, and start mandating "Eddie Eagle" to elementary and preschool kids ("Stop, Don't Touch, Leave the area, Tell an adult!"), and making MANDATORY gun safety and marksmanship classes a part of the education system?... (one class, perhaps every other year, from junior high through graduation.)


This is because the slogans come of as dismissive and unresponsive to the legitimate concerns about safety among those who are afraid of guns.
Gee. That sounds just like congress. ;)

The "Fat Rosie" slogan isn't meant to ignore the safety training issue. It's meant to point out the folly of going after the guns, AND UTTERLY FAILING TO ADDRESS THE SAFETY TRAINING ISSUE. And that's because politicians (and civilian "gun grabbers") dont give a poop about safety training. It's just not their agenda to make people gun-smart. It is their agenda, their doctrine, to make people gun-less.

Here is the web site of "Americans For Gun Safety": www.americansforgunsafety.com
I see no mention of safety training on that web site. They indicate that they'd folded into a partnership with another organization, and give the following information:


For current gun safety data and other information, we recommend the American Hunters and Shooters Association, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
I challenge anyone in this forum to find me ONE link, on any of the above sites of groups supposedly concerned with "gun safety", to a saftey training course of any kind, for any age group, anywhere.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 2258
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/18/2008 11:28:42 PM
Well, here's the thing. I tend to agree with you that these folks are extreme. However, some of that extreme reaction comes from the extreme position that the irresponsible-sounding pro-gun slogans appear to advocate.

I tend to think that a sober response to those extremists will play a lot better than a response that is just as extreme in the opposite direction.

I took a lot of flak for advocating that people take the "well-regulated militia" clause seriously. However, I believe that the Founders foresaw the possibility of a climate of lawlessness that an unregulated proliferation of guns in untrained hands could bring about. That kind of chaos is just as much a tyranny to peace-loving people as a hostile king. And that is exactly what we have in the inner cities right now.

So whereas the gun grabbers think the solution is to get rid of the guns, I tend to think that it doesn't matter how many guns are floating around if everyone is trained in their safe storage, proper maintenance, and legal use.

Remember that video you cited? Those little twerps would be singing a very different tune if they know that every other person in the neighborhood was capable of using a gun and of a mindset to do so if necessary.

So train everyone, and use the "well regulated militia" clause as the justification for advocating government funding for that training. Yes, it is a scary thought to some, but we either have the right and rely on one another, or we don't.

Personally, I don't think that the Founders intended for us to live in fear, barricaded in our homes, as embattled lone heroes with weapons at the ready just in case. I think that what they had in mind for us was a society based on mutual respect and trust in one another--knowing full well that each and every one of us can be deadly if need be, but only if need be.
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 2259
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/19/2008 2:55:30 AM

I believe that society should back off from responsible gun owners. It is the irresponsible ones that concern me. I believe that many of the so-called "gun grabbers" are also concerned about irresponsibility and incomptence among the gun-owning public. Where I part ways with the gun grabbers is in their solution. I don't want to disarm anyone. I want people who own weapons to understand the dangers and take the appropriate precautions to keep themselves, their families, and their neighbors safe from preventable mishaps. I want to know that as a society we have done our part to make sure that all gun owners know how to handle their guns.

Well said Ace. Irresponsible , INCOMPETENT and CRIMINAL gun owners.....
The first you can educate the following two you can prosecute. SOME people should be disarmed however. The last two obviously and the first if they refuse or fail training or repeat actions which through their own negligence may endanger the public. Support for such measures from the "gun nut" circles would show them to be "gun enthusiasts" instead with the same concerns as the "gun grabbers". Perhaps then even the most anti-gun people in that end of the spectrum will start to accept that whether or not they personally approve there are elements in society which use guns yet pose minimal risk to society and those people should not be punished for the actions of others. There will always be some that feel any restriction at all is unfair or that any civilian guns pose a danger even if only due to theft, but those people don't matter unless they are a clear majority.
 fra59e
Joined: 6/4/2005
Msg: 2260
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/19/2008 6:21:12 AM

Personally, I don't think that the Founders intended for us to live in fear, barricaded in our homes, as embattled lone heroes with weapons at the ready just in case.

The intent of the founders is pretty clear from their voluminous writings. The point of preserving the armed civilian isn't primarily his protection from unruly neighbors. It is restraint on potential despotism from his own government.

"Government is at best dangerous, at worst intolerable." - Thomas Paine
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 2261
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/19/2008 8:17:51 AM

I agree, and that is exactly what I advocate: educating gun owners and potential gun owners.


Perhaps if we EDUCATED CRIMINALS,...that there are Citizens that are Armed, and able to shoot them dead in self defence,..maybe there would be less crime, and less need for self defence,....

Instead of making it harder for an honest citizen to defend themselfs, both in public, and in a court of law.


I believe that things will work out a whole lot better when gun owners are on target with their arguments as well as their shots.


As mentioned before,.....manditory Gun Safty Classes arent required , yet,..but may be a stipulation in the future, if "Cry Babies" keep insisting.

The way it stands now,...any person desireing a hand gun, can buy them, if they have a Permit,..or can pass a Back Ground Check, and willing to wait a few days.

If you want to complain about gun owners being "On Target",....you better include members of Law Enforcement in that Arena too.......

Case in Point,....lets look at the shooting of Sean Bell, by 5 NYPD Officers,....50 shots fired,...
50,...
yet it would of only taken one good shot,...to of ended this persons life, or his threat to society, or the Officers involved,....

Theres a lot of bickering going on back and forth between a few of you,....you fail to remember that this thread topic is about,...


gun control in the usa


Instead of bragging, accuseing, being off topic, and pointing the finger,..lets remember that its about gun control,....

Of course some people want to ban guns,...
they feel we have a Police Force,..that their job is to make us "Safe",......such is not the case,.....

Then we have the people that understand that the only way to be safe,..is to have a means of protecting ones self, their loved ones, and their property,..by being armed with a hand gun,...just like the criminals.

Wether you be an "Expert",..or just an "Ordinary Joe",..when it comes to "Being On Target",...anyones chance of survival,..is greatly increased, by being armed.

As Im sure most will agree,...the matter of "Self Defence",..useually comes down to deadly force,..only when the attacker in within a very short distance from the shooter,
and most times,..its a "Last Effort" , to end the matter....being the best shot in the world
helps,.....but at such close range, even a poor shot can manage.

As mentioned before,...a "Triple Shot",..should be sufficent,....used to be,..it was a "Double Tap",...now,...with the invent of drugs that can cause people to hardly feel no pain,...the two shots to the torso,..and one to the head, should stop any attacker,
but,..you can never be too cautious.

GUN CONTROL,.....to me,...
Is a plot,...by "Anti Gunners",..that want to take away,...and take away,....your availabilty to have guns,...till there is only a very limited choice available to ordinary
citizens,....

But "They" can have guns,...their Body Guards can have guns,....its just us,......
the "Ordinary Joe",....that they dont want to have guns, because their afraid that we,
the honest Citizen,..might someday get tired of their efforts to control us,...and revolt,
and of course,..they want to amke sure were not armed with anything more than a,
"Pea Shoter"....

Thats GUN CONTROL !
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 2262
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/19/2008 8:37:59 AM

The intent of the founders is pretty clear from their voluminous writings. The point of preserving the armed civilian isn't primarily his protection from unruly neighbors. It is restraint on potential despotism from his own government.

"Government is at best dangerous, at worst intolerable." - Thomas Paine


And yet, it remains preferable for the most part to the Hobbesian state of nature that Locke was responding to.

We either govern ourselves or someone else will. That applies just as much to our behavior with respect to guns as with anything else.

The entire point of having a government is to protect us from unruly neighbors, be they reckless individuals or aggressive nations. If we didn't have to concern ourselves with the risk of unruly neighbors, we wouldn't need a government at all.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 2263
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/19/2008 8:40:03 AM
As mentioned before,.....manditory Gun Safty Classes arent required , yet,..but may be a stipulation in the future, if "Cry Babies" keep insisting.


This is exactly the sort of dismissive and disdainful tone that riles up the opposition and keeps them coming after your guns.

Why should anyone who appears to be so puerile be entrusted with a dangerous weapon?


Wether you be an "Expert",..or just an "Ordinary Joe",..when it comes to "Being On Target",...anyones chance of survival,..is greatly increased, by being armed.


In theory, this ought to be true. In fact, however, it is a questionable assumption. Where is the evidence to back up this claim? Do you actually have any? I believe that the gun grabbers can cite studies showing that households in which there are guns have higher incidence of gun-related injuries and deaths than those that do not. In any case, I believe that we'd all have to agree that a gun in the hands of an untrained person is as dangerous to that person as it is to any potential target.

Understand that when I question your statements and comment on the negative impression that your remarks leave, I am trying to help you make your point in a way that will actually be effective. Those arguments might be music to your ears, but they just don't work very well for others who aren't already members of your choir.
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 2264
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/19/2008 12:45:03 PM
Even "Highly Trained" individuals can screw up completely. Recently a Police Pistol Trainer shot and killed a member of the class he was teaching. He was giving a demonstration with what was supposed to be a Issue Pistol loaded with blanks...he pointed it at a student and pulled the trigger, striking her in the head and killing her instantly.

Obviously he failed on a couple of levels to create that situation.

1. He brought live ammunition onto a training grounds. For that alone he should have been fired.
2. He failed to check to see what he loaded into the weapon. THAT should have been obvious.
3. You Never point a weapon at anyone that you don't intend to shoot.
4. He discharged the weapon while aiming at a student. He should have been pointing at least slightly ABOVE someone just to be safe...I think we all remember what heppened to Brandon Lee? Safer to pull an A-Team than to kill someone.

So if even the most highly trained humans can totally screw up...where does that leave the rest of the world??

You cannot legislate Intelligence into people. You can only write laws and HOPE that the general populace decides to obey them. Let's face it, the chances of a total gun ban being adhered to are basically about the same as people obeying the laws against Marijuana...SLIM to NONE.
 unixken
Joined: 1/22/2008
Msg: 2265
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/19/2008 3:14:26 PM
I suppose this should stand as my summary post to the list, as it just keeps going around in circles.

Point #1 - PUNISH the CRIMINALS. Use the huge existing body of laws already on the books, to round 'em up and lock 'em away (think of Operation Exile's success, in Richmond, VA). Implement this type of law enforcement practice everywhere BEFORE defining any more laws.

Point #2 - As I described several posts back, remove all plea-bargaining, early release, and parole options for gun related crime. Assign the maximum penalties for criminal convictions on gun-related charges. I'd MUCH rather see my tax dollars go to building more criminal courtrooms and prisons, and paying for more cops, prosecutors and judges, than I would to see them build some multi-multi-million dollar database of gun owners, doomed from the start to be incomplete, disastrously inaccurate, unreliable, and ineffectual toward the stated causes of either gun SAFETY/CONTROL (pick whichever word you care to.) Think of Canada's example database, which has cost TEN TIMES more than projected, and realize there are several provinces refusing to utilize it because they know the monetary black-hole it has become. Also, consider that the database would only EVER contain registrations for the LAW ABIDING, LEGAL gun owners. Felons (who are already disqualified from owning guns could NEVER be COMPELLED to register their guns (and thus admit to being a felon in possession), under 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Point #3 - Start the "Safety Training" of the next generation TODAY, with MANDATORY programs such as "Eddie Eagle", in every pre-school and elementary school. Do away with a "field trip" if you have to, to pay for it. Kids need gun safety training more than they do a field trip to the zoo (not to knock zoos.) It's been emphasized so many times on here, by so many people, that a kid can DIE over a gun. So let's prioritize, responsibly. That same kid WONT die, for lack of a day at the zoo with his classmates. And the lesson of "Stop, Don't touch, Leave the area, Tell and adult" WILL SAVE LIVES. In just 15 years, by the time EVERY pre-school aged kid becomes a legal adult, you will have SAFELY TRAINED the entire next generation of LEGAL ADULTS in this country.

Point #4 - Endorse more "Hunter Apprentice" programs in every state. These are programs where those who are curious about hunting, but who have never tried it before, are allowed to buddy-up with a licensed hunter for one season, without having to go through the expense themselves, for a license that season, to see if it's something they'd enjoy doing in the future. Those who find they don't like it wont have to feel like they wasted their money. Those who find they do enjoy it, will be eager to CONTRIBUTE THEIR future LICENSING FEES and gun-and-ammunition excise TAX DOLLARS to state and federal land-management and wildlife preservation programs, donate their harvested game meats to local FOOD BANKS, and will learn the benefit of leaving large tracts of undeveloped land available to future generations to enjoy. All while directly LEARNING GUN SAFETY under the mentorship of EXPERIENCED, LICENSED hunters.

Point #5 - With full respect for, and in full recognition of, the concerns of those who insist that safety CANNOT be managed by teaching alone, and that there MUST be some kind of LOCKING, DISABLING, DISASSEMBLY, or CRIPPLING of the guns... I say let's DO IT. But ONLY for all guns that are LEFT UNATTENDED in the home, when all responsible parties are out of the home, to protect THE GUNS from theft by an UNSAFE CRIMINAL... (who probably isn't planning to steal them for the purpose of SAFELY shooting his next CRIME VICTIM, anyway.) Personally, if he steals my gun and then shoots HIMSELF with it because he's UNSAFE, I won't be the first to shed a tear for the dumb@ss.) The reciprocal point to this being that when the responsible owner IS at home, ALL THE LOCKS BECOME DESCRETIONARY AND OPTIONAL... NOT MANDATORY.

FIVE points made so far, that would make SIGNIFICANT, GUARANTEED, and CLEARLY and OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE progress toward the stated objectives and ideologies of EVERYONE who has posted on this list, WITHOUT the fear-mongering rhetoric... WITHOUT taking the guns... WITHOUT banning the guns... WITHOUT outlawing the guns... WITHOUT criminalizing the LAW ABIDING gun owner... WITHOUT putting anyone at RISK... and WITHOUT stripping anyone of their liberties.

Now here come's the "flame-bait"....

Who here STILL feels that we MUST legislate to BAN the guns, render them USELESS and inoperative to the owner, CONFISCATE them, and DENY LIBERTY to the RESPONSIBLE, SAFETY-TRAINED, and LAW-ABIDING citizen?
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 2266
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/19/2008 5:29:18 PM
^^^ Now that's some common sense.

I could never understand why in Australia they had to keep their guns in a safe, disassembled, while they were home. If someone kicked in your door you were just in deep ca-ca unless you "Just Happened To Be" preparing for a hunting expedition.
 unixken
Joined: 1/22/2008
Msg: 2267
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/19/2008 6:59:23 PM
^^^ Now that's some common sense.

Thanks, Shrek. But I prefer the words "good sense." Common, is supposed to be what is "common" to all, and I find in politics, that there's plenty of "common", but very little "good". Besides, the gun grabbers have so over-used the phrase "common sense gun legislation" that anything "common sense" is now a big red flag for me (even outside the context of the gun debate), and it sickens me every time I hear it. (My reaction to that phrase is as guttural as, and has the same impact on me, as "Rosie" slogans have, for Ace. I can't say that I blame him.)

But I do appreciate the post, nonetheless.
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 2268
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/20/2008 9:31:32 AM
Considering that some people believe that "TRAINING',...in Gun Safety, and its Use,
is a good thing,....and I agree that it is,...

There are others, that dont want people,...even high school teens,...to be able to learn about the use of safe handling, or useing a firearm,..as is the case at this site,....

Education Not Arms Coalition
http://www.projectyano.org/educationnotarms/

Gun Control,...to me,....isnt about Gun Safety,...thats two different things,....
Gun Control,...to me,....is about limiting our ability, to have Guns.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 2269
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/20/2008 9:59:10 AM
There are others, that dont want people,...even high school teens,...to be able to learn about the use of safe handling, or useing a firearm,..as is the case at this site,....


If you look carefully, those people will be using some spurious arguments and misleading slogans to advocate their position. Take those slogans and arguments apart and show them to be fallacies, and the people who think and plan--the ones who have lasting influence--will get it.

Respond with arguments that are equally stupid and slogans that are just as misleading and it's crap shoot. At that point it will boil down to who is louder and more persistent. And that might not turn out to be you.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 2270
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/20/2008 10:07:37 AM

Besides, the gun grabbers have so over-used the phrase "common sense gun legislation" that anything "common sense" is now a big red flag for me (even outside the context of the gun debate), and it sickens me every time I hear it. (My reaction to that phrase is as guttural as, and has the same impact on me, as "Rosie" slogans have, for Ace. I can't say that I blame him.)


Yep. If they were posting that crap here I'd be pounding just as hard on them.

You hold an important piece of the truth. We need to be able to defend ourselves effectively.

They hold another piece of the truth. The fact that guns are effective also makes them dangerous if abused. We need to be safe from such abuse on the part of untrained or distraught individuals, just as much as we need to be safe from criminals and debased governments.

They lie when they say that the threats posed by criminals and debased governments are irrelevant. I think we can agree on that. So now let me ask you a hard question: Do we lie when we dismiss the threats posed by untrained and distraught individuals?
 unixken
Joined: 1/22/2008
Msg: 2271
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/20/2008 12:08:05 PM
So now let me ask you a hard question: Do we lie when we dismiss the threats posed by untrained and distraught individuals?
Here's my answer...

You nailed it right on the head, without realizing it. You didn't say the threat was from the gun. You said "the threats posed by the untrained and distraught individuals." I do not dismiss those threats. And neither do those who wish to preserve personal liberties. Not one person I know would dismiss the threats "posed by untrained and distraught individuals." We recognize fully, that THAT is where the threat exists... NOT in the material object.

So why would a gun-grabber who would advocate that I get my head examined for liking firearms, not think that they themselves just might need their own head examined, for thinking the inanimate object is the cause of all of man's woes? If we have the psychiatric resources to "examine me" (or at least make an uneducated, emotional "diagnosis" about me, such as ... "He's crazy for liking guns!"), can't we then turn those same resources toward diagnosing the emotionally unbalanced?

I do not dismiss that there are untrained and distraught individuals out there. For the training aspect, I've already endorsed getting to the kids while in pre-school, and get going from there. For the distraught, get them the counseling and psychiatric care they need. If such care needs to be adjudicated by the courts, then so be it.

It is unrealistic, bordering on insanity, to think that any means of planning, legislation, restriction, control, oversight, or accounting is going to 100% eliminate all risk from any object, condition, place, person, circumstance, or "life" itself. Concentrating on the material objects of the risk, be they swimming pools, automobiles, vending machines, or guns, is not an answer. Educating people, and treating the emotionally troubled are both things we should be doing anyway, guns aside. There is where you will find the greatest potential for ensuring the safety of all.

"Life" has risks. Understand the risks, and plan the best you can to minimize them, but be realistic about Utopian expectations.

Confiscate, lock up, disable, or destroy all the guns, and the berserk or determined individual will just find another tool. Take away all the swimming pools, and kids will still drown in bathtubs (and banning water is more than a little impractical, on a planet covered 70% by the stuff.) You mitigate that risk by watching for the distraught behavior patterns. You don't leave unattended children in a bathtub or near a swimming pool. You deal with the human aspect of it. Therein, lies the problem.

I've said in the past, that a glass is neither half-empty, nor half-full... but that instead, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. In this case, I say that I don't see an assertion being a truth to be accepted, or a lie to be dismissed.. Instead, I see it as quite simply as... the wrong assertion.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 2272
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/20/2008 12:19:17 PM

So why would anyone who would advocate that I get my head examined, for liking firearms, not think that they themselves just might need their own head examined, for thinking the inanimate object is the cause of all of man's woes?


LOL!!! As I recall, Ken, it was you and TS who suggested that I might need to get counseling for busting him on his bullshit.

I advocate universal training and proof of completion before issuing some untrained idiot a gun. That is all I have ever advocated--other than getting honest about the real risks involved in unsecured guns or guns in the hands of untrained idiots.

At this point I think that you and I are in violent agreement. Let's deal with the problem by getting everyone trained. Only then will they be in a position to make an informed choice about the role guns should play in their lives. And they might as well be informed in their choices since, as you all so eloquently point out, there is no getting rid of guns completely, even if one wanted to.
 fra59e
Joined: 6/4/2005
Msg: 2273
view profile
History
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/20/2008 12:57:55 PM
Training is fine so long as it is anonymously and privately administered. The government should NEVER know who is armed. When the government knows that many citizens out there just could be armed, this restrains the natural tendency of every government towards despotism and the ambition of bureaucracies to gain more and more power.
 unixken
Joined: 1/22/2008
Msg: 2274
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/20/2008 1:07:28 PM

LOL!!! As I recall, Ken, it was you and TS who suggested that I might need to get counseling for busting him on his bullshit.
I do my best to avoid personal attacks. The debate already provides enough fertile ground for discussion. I don't recall suggesting you needed counseling for busting anyones arguments. In my "getting my head examined" statement above, I was making a generalization about gun-grabbers, and not spot-lighting anyone in particular.


At this point I think that you and I are in violent agreement.
That's an interesting way of putting it. I applaud you, Ace!


Let's deal with the problem by getting everyone trained. Only then will they be in a position to make an informed choice about the role guns should play in their lives.
The problem is in convincing "the ruling class" and the unwashed gun-phobic masses, of this priority. They're too busy pushing "the wrong assertion" (that guns are the problem, and that eliminating them will be the Utopian cure.)


And they might as well be informed in their choices since, as you all so eloquently point out, there is no getting rid of guns completely, even if one wanted to.
Ah... but watch them try nonetheless, because the truly believe that they can. (Delusion - another behavior for which some people need their head examined.)

Peace!
 unixken
Joined: 1/22/2008
Msg: 2275
gun control in the usa
Posted: 11/20/2008 1:13:37 PM

Training is fine so long as it is anonymously and privately administered. The government should NEVER know who is armed. When the government knows that many citizens out there just could be armed, this restrains the natural tendency of every government towards despotism and the ambition of bureaucracies to gain more and more power.
Here's a better solution. Rather than training only select individuals, and recording only their names, you see to it (through mandatory programs in the public education system) that EVERYONE is trained.

If the government then wants a list of those who threaten it's presumed aristocracy, let them know that "everyone" is on that list.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > gun control in the usa