Sam wants me out of his yard...good thing I have my own.
And it still has that new thread smell.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Here are a few thoughts...
A new federal agancy, the Militia Preparedness Oversight bureau.
They would issue federal concieled carry permits, valid in all 50 states & territories & protectorates. The cost would be covered by the applicant, but would be on a sliding scale of income. The battery of tests/classes would include,
● Firearm Safety
● Psychological evaluation
● Tactical training, including "shoot/don't shoot" simulations
● Advanced First Aid
● Background check
● Age restricted
● Citizen's arrest
Further, if caring a weapon, citizens would have to carry a tramma first aid kit & 1 million in insurance. Licensure would require revaluation every 3 years & require an "on demand" waiver for drug tests & psych evals.
Also, the MPO would deal with complaints and investigate license holders for improper/unsafe use & abuse.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Proof of safe storage needs to be a federal law yesterday.
It is the law in my state, thankfully.
When I was a 12 year old child my father did not own a safe and by all rights I should have shot myself or others on several occacions.
He also bought me the safe I currently use.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh, and MPO funding would be raised from gun*/ammo/assesories sales as a special tax.
[ June 25, 2016, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A few thoughts: it seems a bit of a euphamism to call it anything 'militia' related. Fact is, most firearms purchases in the United States aren't driven by fears of tyranny or a desire to keep government in check, or a concern with state and local fast-response readiness to external threats. Generally it's about crime and the investment we have as a society in believing America is a much more dangerous and violent place than it actually is.
A sliding scale that is paid for by applicants seems a bit of a contradiction. That program you described would be extremely expensive, especially since I assume much of it would need to be recurring to some extent.
I think you're seriously underestimating the difficulty involved in training people to be effective combatants in any sort of emergency situation involving gunfire. Even with elite soldiers who train all of their lives for controlled violence in unpredictable situations, a significant part of the success that they have involves enormous amounts of training and, in the case of a particular scenario, often a great deal of specific simulation and rehearsal for the event when it happens.
Put more simply that part of your suggestion seems a lot to me like asking a platoon of National Guard infantry to conduct a hostage rescue mission. I don't suggest that they'll try their goddamndest but I would not be surprised if it didn't go well. And I doubt your program would exceed the training of the old 'one weekend a month two weeks a year' standard either.
Effectively deputizing anyone who wants the right to carry a concealed weapon also seems problematic to me, particularly if they're armed. Regular police make mistakes on this aspect of law enforcement all the time, and they're trained and retrained. And probably would be better trained than a recurring concealed weapons carry law.
Many parts I like. The idea that someone should have to give a urine or breath test or void their license is a good one, to me. It should be akin to cars and planes. I'm concerned in this idea with who will be paying for the excess because this is an expensive set of proposals. Will it be borne only by those seeking these permits, or who else will get roped in to supporting this process?
I am also especially critical of the idea that a state or especially a local government will have no say as to whether its citizens and visitors may live and travel through their town carrying lethal force. I'm not fond of the idea of a person coming into, say, a small town who has said, "We've gotten together and thought about this, and we don't believe it's all that dangerous here and we're not worried about threats foreign and domestic. We think that on balance, your carrying a gun wherever and whenever you like makes us less safe, not more. So we're going to have to insist that you not carry a concealed weapon while we as a community have decided we shouldn't do that here." But under your program the man or woman who wishes to carry a concealed weapon in this town essentially gets to say, "Tough shit. But you can trust me to make things safer here. Not that I need you to trust me because again, tough shit, but still I'm as good as or better than a cop."
What about a private business that wants to restrict weapons period on its property? What about a college football game? A movie theater?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
● All gun free zones would be honored just like current carry permits.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
● Use of "militia" ties directory into the wording & intent (imho) of the Second Amendment
● MPO could keep lists of firearm registry, and could be in charge of registering old or passed down weapons. Registration information would include finger prints & ballistic fingerprints of the firearm.
This list would be used by LE to solve crimes, and would be protected by law & only used for computer comparison or by warrent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Use of "militia" ties directory into the wording & intent (imho) of the Second Amendment.
Why concealed carry, then? It's not like anyone was concealing their musket.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, 'concealed' is very much not in the spirit of 18th century colonial militias.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Current concieled carry permits are issued (in CA) by the police dpt if in a city with one, or by the county sheriff if not.
The permit is state wide, but also good in many other states.
quote: While 37 states have reciprocity agreements with at least one other state and several states honor all out-of-state concealed carry permits, some states have special requirements like training courses or safety exams, and therefore do not honor permits from states that do not have such requirements for issue.
quote:...the U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that there were about 8 million active permits in the United States as of December 31, 2011.
And then there's states like this:
quote: Among U.S. states, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas[disputed], Idaho (effective July 1, 2016), Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Puerto Rico[disputed], Vermont, West Virginia[46] and Wyoming are fully unrestricted, and allow those who are not prohibited from owning a firearm to carry a concealed firearm in any place not deemed off-limits by law without a permit.
And these states:
quote:A shall-issue jurisdiction is one that requires a license to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such licenses is subject only to meeting determinate criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the licenses, and there is no requirement of the applicant to demonstrate "good cause".
Which are...
quote:Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,[35] North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,[36] Pennsylvania, Rhode Island (for permits issued by local authorities), South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,[37] Texas,[38][39] Utah,[40] Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.[17] The territory of Guam is also Shall-Issue with the passage of Bill 296.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Use of "militia" ties directory into the wording & intent (imho) of the Second Amendment.
Why concealed carry, then? It's not like anyone was concealing their musket.
Um...interesting question...open carry is so wild wild west...concieled carry seems safer, as if the permit holder allows their weapon to be seen w/o cause, it breaks the law.
Back in the day, hiking back from town with a 6 foot musket offhandedly toted w you was not a rare sight.
Society changes...the dangers are no longer bears & hostile natives.
And I seriously doubt you are advocating for folk to be able to walk about with an AR strapped to their chest
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's a false dichotomy. The choices are not 'open carry on all weapons' and 'concealed carry on handguns'. And in any event if we're going to discuss 'back in the day', then I think we would have to discuss what weapons were actually like back then. To kill dozens of people in a crowded area quickly what used to be needed was a cannon loaded with grapeshot, not a single person with two firearms.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The purpose of the sliding scale is to prevent it from exclusively of the rich.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I understand that, but in order for that to be viable you'll have to significantly overcharge wealthy applicants, because the group of programs you've described would be very expensive. I mean for example around here a first time driver's license and test would run something like $35. That's for one written test on a computer, a picture taken, a card printed, and a quick spin around the area with an employee evaluating. All of that for $35 at the most basic license test.
What you've described is much, much more expensive than that and would be recurring more often as well. Hell, just a background check is more expensive.
So how will your idea deal with this? The sliding scale will drastically overcharge the wealthier applicants for what is, according to federal interpretation of the 2nd Amendmant, a constitutional right. That becomes pretty problematic, legally speaking.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote: The story of how millions of Americans discovered the urge to carry weapons—to join, in effect, a self-appointed, well-armed, lightly trained militia—begins not in the Old West but in the nineteen-seventies. For most of American history, gun owners generally frowned on the idea. In 1934, the president of the National Rifle Association, Karl Frederick, testified to Congress, “I do not believe in the promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” In 1967, after a public protest by armed Black Panthers in Sacramento, Governor Ronald Reagan told reporters that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”
Carrying a gun makes you more dangerous because you're more likely to believe others are carrying:
quote:Ung’s misreading may have been the most catastrophic. When Kelly hiked up the drooping belt of his pants, Ung suspected that he, too, might have a gun. That mistake is not uncommon: a person holding a gun is more likely to misperceive an object in another person’s hand to be a gun, according to a 2012 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Unarmed citizens have stopped more active shooters than armed citizens and concealed carry appears to have increased violent crime:
quote:In the early years of concealed carry, there was a debate about whether it reduced violence or increased it. A decade ago, when mass shootings were emerging as a frequent phenomenon, the conservative economist John Lott asserted that carry guns could halt those killings—a precursor to the N.R.A.’s current maxim that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” It’s a mantra among concealed carriers, but evidence is sparse. A 2014 study by the F.B.I. found that, in a hundred and sixty “active shooter” incidents from 2000 to 2013, armed citizens who were not security guards stopped the “bad guy” on one occasion (when a patron shot an attacker at the Players Bar and Grill, in Winnemucca, Nevada, in 2008). Unarmed citizens, by contrast, stopped active shooters on twenty-one occasions. In recent years, scholars have found that concealed carry may be altering society in measurable, and unwelcome, ways: in 2014, a study led by the Stanford law professor John J. Donohue III examined the effect of concealed-carry laws on crime, using data from 1979 to 2010. He found that the laws led to “substantially higher rates” of aggravated assault, rape, robbery, and murder.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, I listened to a Fresh Air interview with that writer this week. Interesting stuff. I knew how much the NRA had changed in the last three generations-for example, it sounds like an institution I could have respected before the 1970s-but the story of Smith and Wesson and the deliberate fear-mongering, at least the extent of it, was new to me.
I worry that it's basically a decisive victory for that side of things at this point. I mean, I don't think I've read and certainly haven't encountered times when someone was talked out of 'don't take your cues on how dangerous the world is from the evening news for god's sake'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Up until relatively recently in U.S. history, even the NRA was against concealed carry. Historically, it was considered only appropriate to have all firearms on a person visible.
That was indeed mentioned by Osnos in the fresh air interview you are speaking about:
which i recommend everyone listen to fyi. he discusses pretty plainly how guns, as an industry, are marketed through pure fear and culture a paranoid mindset among gun advocates which dramatically increases violence and has many socially negative implications.
John Lott has had a lot of sway over the years but ... his science has been shown to be almost entirely invalid, and his conclusions failed to materialize. instead, we got the opposite results from his postulation (kind of similar to Lafferism, in an eerie way)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Use of "militia" ties directory into the wording & intent (imho) of the Second Amendment.
Why concealed carry, then? It's not like anyone was concealing their musket.
Um...interesting question...open carry is so wild wild west...concieled carry seems safer, as if the permit holder allows their weapon to be seen w/o cause, it breaks the law.
Back in the day, hiking back from town with a 6 foot musket offhandedly toted w you was not a rare sight.
Society changes...the dangers are no longer bears & hostile natives.
And I seriously doubt you are advocating for folk to be able to walk about with an AR strapped to their chest
I question this. My guess would be that in fact it probably was somewhat odd for a person to go to town armed and return to their home. For what purpose? People didn't care muskets around all the time for personal protection. On the frontier you might see something like that if the area was known for outlaws or raids, in which case there was likely to be a military presence nearby. Otherwise, unless you were mustering for military service, or you were specifically out hunting, it's unlikely you'd have your gun with you.
And if it was the wild west, you probably wouldn't have your gun with you in town as many western towns had laws prohibiting carrying a weapon in town. It had to be checked with the Sheriff before entering and picked up upon leaving.
I also question the relevance of "bears and hostile" natives as the active variable we should be looking at. Most constitutional scholars would argue, I believe, that the Second Amendment wasn't drafted for the purpose of personal defense against wild animals. Or even Native Americans. So the change in the inherent dangers of walking from your house to the grocery store wouldn't affect that.
What would affect it would be a change in the average weapon of war, which a person would need access to in order to discharge their duty in the local militia. By that measure, people should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons. We generally believe that we SHOULDN'T have fully automatic weapons or other weapons of war. It's somewhat ironic that we've all come to agreement that regular people shouldn't have weapons a soldier would have when the Second Amendment was designed to allow everyone to keep access to weapons necessary to make them a soldier.
This is why I laugh whenever I hear people say that they want to be able to overthrow the government. Okay. Good luck with that. Not that an insurgency can't do a great deal of damage, but a population armed with semi-automatics along, and probably IEDs, would find themselves overwhelming underdogs against the US military (especially when we all speak the same language and have the same cultural norms).
Although Scalia did once say he it was undecided whether or not the Second Amendment allowed a person to own a Stinger Missile, so many not everyone agreed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not going to dip my toe in the water of Justice Scalia's integrity, but I will say that his thinking could get pretty...limber when it came to some ideological questions.
Stone_Wolf, there are a number of difficulties with your ideas, and I think some of them are good, that mean it simply won't happen. But there's one big obstacle to any sort of meaningful gun control reform anywhere in the United States that isn't only the most powerful oppponent to such reform in specific cases, but the most universal.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-happened-when-a-major-gun-company-crossed-the-nra/ it's a short article with an attached video about six minutes long, and PBS can be trusted with factual reporting such as this. Basically, Smith & Wesson after facing lawsuits over gun violence cut a deal with the Clinton Administration in 2000. The main features were background checks, safety locks, and magazine capacities for their weapons and weapon sales.
For this transgression, the NRA began a campaign basically of lies and scare-mongering and political pressure that caused Smith and Wesson to lose about 90% of its value and be sold. All of the things you listed in your ideal program were part of this deal the NRA mobilized to destroy and ensure no other gun manufacturer would ever dare to do such a thing again.
If you want any sort of meaningful reform, if you want even one of your plan's components to be even partially instituted, much less all of of them entirely, you would first have to pull the teeth of the NRA or profoundly change its leadership. Change it *back* I should say to what it once was.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Risuena: I've -never- been a big proponent if the NRA...I was born in '80, so I've always thought (as far as I remember anyway)...they take -any- restriction, even logical, nesseccery ones as a direct affront to the second.
quote: "The story of how millions of Americans discovered the urge to carry weapons—to join, in effect, a self-appointed, well-armed, lightly trained militia—begins not in the Old West but in the nineteen-seventies."
That millions of Americans in all 50 want & do carry is enough that there should be federal oversight...that the heart of the 2nd is citizens being a last resort to defend themselves...to me at least. That 10 states allow any non fellon to carry is enough to want some oversight. That 8 million permits have been issued...that 39 states have a "shall issue" polacy...
quote:Carrying a gun makes you more dangerous because you're more likely to believe others are carrying:
I'd like to see numbers on that. My father told me the exact opposite was true, that having a concealed weapon makes one less likely to look for trouble, as you kno you carry added responsibility. My time carrying was exposed, for a living as private security, at which time I assure you that I undeed felt added pressure bc of the extra weight on my hip.
quote:Unarmed citizens have stopped more active shooters than armed citizensand...
This seems largely irrelevant? If you asked those brave people as they rushed the crazed gunmen if they would like to stop time and get a gun and some training, I'd wager not a one would turn you down.
quote:...and concealed carry appears to have increased violent crime:
Without mandatory training & psych evals what do you expect?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ugh... phone ate my post to Lyr...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone_Wolf,
quote:I've -never- been a big proponent if the NRA...I was born in '80, so I've always thought (as far as I remember anyway)...they take -any- restriction, even logical, nesseccery ones as a direct affront to the second.
That's all well and good, but if you want even one of your ideas to even be possible, mitigating the strongest so-called defender of the Second Amendmant is the common thread for all of them. Put another way: compromise with gun control advocates is not the thing necessary to achieve your goals. Dealing with the lunatic fringe run amok of your own side of this particular aisle is the one that's needed.
quote:That millions of Americans in all 50 want & do carry is enough that there should be federal oversight...that the heart of the 2nd is citizens being a last resort to defend themselves...to me at least. That 10 states allow any non fellon to carry is enough to want some oversight. That 8 million permits have been issued...that 39 states have a "shall issue" polacy.
Alright, but not long ago you said that states and localities should be able to determine much of this. It seems like a contradiction.
quote: I'd like to see numbers on that. My father told me the exact opposite was true, that having a concealed weapon makes one less likely to look for trouble, as you kno you carry added responsibility. My time carrying was exposed, for a living as private security, at which time I assure you that I undeed felt added pressure bc of the extra weight on my hip.
That may well be true for your own anecdotal experience and that of your father. Seems a bit strange to insist on numbers-that the gun rights side is largely responsible for stopping research into-for a claim on the one hand and rebut it with entirely personal experience on the other. At the heart of that story linked to, btw, was how an ordinary scuffle escalated to a shooting because of the gun and how the carrier interpreted a totally benign gesture as a sign of a gun as well. So...anecdotal experience offset, then?
quote:This seems largely irrelevant? If you asked those brave people as they rushed the crazed gunmen if they would like to stop time and get a gun and some training, I'd wager not a one would turn you down.
I think if you also asked them, "Would you rather be trained and equipped for a gunfight with this homicidal, suicidal maniac-or would you rather he not have gotten a gun in the first place?" the answer might also be illuminating as well.
quote:Without mandatory training & psych evals what do you expect?
There's some circular thinking here. In this way of thinking, people are made less safe because people who shouldn't be trusted with guns get them, leading to people wishing to defend themselves with a gun. But...why is the solution 'maybe we should try to seriously limit the lethal force citizens can carry around others?' simply brushed aside. 'Better regulated guns' and 'fewer if any guns or handguns' both address the problem. That's the solution that other nations on earth most like us have tried, and successfully too.
If the reason you need guns is because there are too many guns and you're not safe, why is the proper course of action 'ok a huge and expensive program to ensure the most possible 'safe' guns are other there' instead of 'hey maybe this dangerous weapon shouldn't have as much of a place in our society?'
The defense against 'natives'* doesn't wash anymore. For nearly all Americans the defense against animals doesn't wash, and for those it does exceptions can be made. Defense against the government has the problem of being a fantasy. And defense against crime is centered around, as the NRA says, 'a bad guy with a gun' in their Saturday morning cartoon reasoning.
*And just as an aside that's a perverse reflection on some of the older roots of gun control rights-'hey we need to have guns so that when the people we're murdering and throwing off of their land get angry at us, we can kill them more easily'.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Part of this battle is going to picking a middle ground that, while both sides find distasteful, both sides find it ultimately plauseable.
Red side says...well, I'm not crazy, so I could still carry...
Blue side says...at least they get training & carry a med pack...and no nut jobs will get one.
I would image that part of federal registration would also be mandatory safety training & required proof of safe storage.
So perhaps to override special intrest, it would have to a direct vote or some such legal maneuver.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that is a bit of an expression of one of the key difficulties. Political realities in this country are such that even 'compromises' involve major sacrifice by gun control advocates, and even basic common sense reforms are regarded as major concessions by gun rights people.
quote: Red side says...well, I'm not crazy, so I could still carry...
Blue side says...at least they get training & carry a med pack...and no nut jobs will get one.
Case in point. 'Not crazy' should be a *given*. 'Some training' should as well, as is the case for every other powerful tool or license in our country-you must be sane and have some training to acquire them. Cars, planes, certain power tools, medical license, medicines, so on and so forth. Every single thing on your list is only a 'middle ground' because your side of the issue has so powerful and thoroughly perverted the discussion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
One wonders how to get a big law past a well funded, and absolute mindset private interest?
Would the more liberal minded voters accept that guns are just not going away...they are a part of the American fabric, and it would cause a possible second civil war...
The idea of overthrowing government was before modern warfare...there simply is no way citizens with small arms could defeat the US armed forces. Of course any plausible overthrowing of the government would HAVE to involve a coup or some other scenario were significant quantities of the military refuse orders.
Gun culture is big on rara freedom...and cops & military are often in the gun culture...and if ordered to round up US citizen's lawfully owned guns...let's just sat...it is NOT going to happen. Not this century anyway.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Risuena:
quote:Carrying a gun makes you more dangerous because you're more likely to believe others are carrying:
I'd like to see numbers on that. My father told me the exact opposite was true, that having a concealed weapon makes one less likely to look for trouble, as you kno you carry added responsibility. My time carrying was exposed, for a living as private security, at which time I assure you that I undeed felt added pressure bc of the extra weight on my hip.
The quote from the article I linked cited a study from the Journal of Experimental Psychology. I don't have access to that journal or study, but I will say that I am more likely to believe a study than I am to believe someone else's anecdotal evidence. Besides, it also makes sense to me. I don't carry a gun (by the way, while I am defintiely pro gun control, I am not anti gun - especially since I live in a house with many, many, many guns). You speak of a sense of responsibility or added pressure you feel while carrying a gun - in other words, you are very aware of that gun and that you are carrying. As someone who never carries a gun, I literally never think about guns while I'm out and about. It doesn't occur to me that others might be carrying. It makes sense to me that if I did carry, that I would at least occasionally think about that weight on my hip and wonder if other people were carrying.
quote:
quote:Unarmed citizens have stopped more active shooters than armed citizensand...
This seems largely irrelevant? If you asked those brave people as they rushed the crazed gunmen if they would like to stop time and get a gun and some training, I'd wager not a one would turn you down.
How is this irrelevant? It shows that you don't need a gun to stop someone with a gun. So all of these arguments that various people put forward that "Virignia Tech could have been stopped if someone had a gun" "San Bernardino could have been stopped!" or "Pulse could have been stopped with a gun!" are questionable.
quote:
quote:...and concealed carry appears to have increased violent crime:
Without mandatory training & psych evals what do you expect?
While I'm sure that's part of it, as Rakeesh pointed out, the article I quoted centered around an incident where a man with concealed carry got into an argument with others and shot one of the others.
Also, don't forget that gun laws in many states don't require someone with a restraining order to give up their firearms (though I believe you are not able to acquire a gun if you have a current restraining order), and women are at a very high risk of being murdered by a husband, boyfriend or ex.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone_Wolf,
quote:One wonders how to get a big law past a well funded, and absolute mindset private interest?
Would the more liberal minded voters accept that guns are just not going away...they are a part of the American fabric, and it would cause a possible second civil war...
Well if more gun owners, especially those in and influential in the NRA, when terms like 'civil war' and 'they're going to take our guns' are bandied about said, "Wait. You're being ridiculous. There isn't a single proposal on the table, nor anything like it, by anyone who isn't a fringe case, about taking away all of our guns. Meanwhile *we* are the ones who beat down any idea of meaningful reform, even the ones most of us agree are reasonable." That would be a start.
I can't tell you how frustrating it is to hear this sort of talk. It's not about you, Stone_Wolf, I've felt this way for a long time, and plenty of other people have said it. 'Guns aren't going away because of you liberals even *talk* about it civil war etc etc.' It's basically a threat. Meanwhile, although gun control advocates and gun manufacturers are threatened and actually acted upon if they even consider reform, gun rights groups such as the NRA treat *any* sort of reform as a total threat to basically everything good and decent in America.
It's a shameful double standard, frankly, and I'm not the only gun control supporter who is well past sick of it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/21/the-average-gun-owner-now-owns-8-guns-double-what-it-used-to-be/ It's difficult to say-largely because gun rights groups make it extremely difficult to say-how many Americans actually own guns. But at present, the best data I've seen says it's about 1/3 Americans own guns, and has been declining to that rate since the 1970s. So I think you're wrong that it's 'part of the American fabric'. If we're going to say that is true, then it's twice as true to say that *not* owning a gun is part of the American fabric, right?
Think about that. It's incredibly easy to get a gun, yet 2/3 Americans don't. Doesn't that indicate that the fascination with and need for firearms is rather seriously overstated by gun rights advocates?
quote: Gun culture is big on rara freedom...and cops & military are often in the gun culture...and if ordered to round up US citizen's lawfully owned guns...let's just sat...it is NOT going to happen. Not this century anyway.
If there are only two things you take from this conversation, I hope that they're 1) the main impediment to any of your ideas comes from your own side and 2) the 'come and round up guns' idea is a paranoid, fear-mongering fantasy put out by the very people making sure your view of the world is skewed to gun-confiscating police state in the making.
Now of course there are tons of problems with the gun control advocates, too. One of the big ones being that since like most Americans, gun control advocates often don't own and aren't interested in owning guns, they tend to be misinformed about them. 'Assault weapons' terminology being a big indicator. And sure, that needs to be fixed. But they're the leaky faucet in the guest bathroom, meanwhile the NRA has set the living do on fire.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: It makes sense to me that if I did carry, that I would at least occasionally think about that weight on my hip and wonder if other people were carrying.
Personally...I could care less who is carrying, bc if they are doing it responsibly then I shouldn't even kno.
It's when someone starts waving a gun around that I care...to get on my phone to 911 & get the eff outa there...but when they start shooting folk that I would be very interested in being able to return fire.
Most folk I‘ve talked to carry a gun like full insurance on their car...hoping to never use it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The flip to that coin is...the very few times in one's life that they NEED a gun, almost nothing else would do.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Isn't the whole point of carrying a gun that you don't think other people will act responsible towards you or your loved one's lives? I.E., most people carry for self defense. And if that's why you're carrying, than you would be irresponsible to not think about the possibility that others are carrying.
[ June 27, 2016, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Risuena ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It matters not at all who is carrying...if they keep it in their pants.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote: It makes sense to me that if I did carry, that I would at least occasionally think about that weight on my hip and wonder if other people were carrying.
Personally...I could care less who is carrying, bc if they are doing it responsibly then I shouldn't even kno.
It's when someone starts waving a gun around that I care...to get on my phone to 911 & get the eff outa there...but when they start shooting folk that I would be very interested in being able to return fire.
Most folk I‘ve talked to carry a gun like full insurance on their car...hoping to never use it.
You should really listen to that Fresh Air interview or read risuena's link. It addresses specifically this notion of 'hope to never use it'. Groups such as the NRA, with their massive fear-mongering campaign, send very mixed messages about this-that they hope never to use it but must be ready at all times in all places to use. Do you see the contradiction there?
Another thing you seem to be overlooking is the balance of risks involved. Yes, if with a wave of the hand all of your reforms were instituted-that will never happen in the foreseeable future, the gun rights side of the discussion has ensured that with overkill-it's quite possible, though far from proven, that such a licensed concealed carrier could prove useful in a mass shooting or, the gun violence that leads to far more deaths, an 'ordinary' gun crime involving a pair or a few people.
That's great, if it would work that way, I really think it would be. But against the very unlikely chance of being involved in a crime and the extremely, super unlikely chance of being involved in a mass shooting, you have to compare the years or decades or lifetime of gun ownership and attempt to assess those risks also.
In between these expensive and time-consuming recurring psychological tests, how much of a chance is there that the carrier will develop a mental illness associated with threat to themselves or others? How many times will they become intoxicated on one substance or another while they have access to or even carry their firearm? How many angry altercations will they be involved in? How many times will they face a betrayal by a loved one, whether family member or romantic partner?
So on and so forth. Many of those risks it is difficult or impossible to effectively evaluate, but you continually speak of the risks associated with the question of gun control exclusively in terms of 'what happens if bad stuff happens and a person doesn't have a gun and needs one?' You haven't once considered the other side of that question-what happens if bad stuff happens and someone has a gun that shouldn't? Psychological evaluations aren't gypsy fortunetellers, after all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It matters not at all who is carrying...if they keep it in their pants.
If they keep in in their pants, why do they need it?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Did I miss a link?
Will check...
I see zero contradiction in the constant need for a fire extinguisher or car insurance and never wanting to be in a fire or car accident.
I've known not a few, but many people who claim to have carried for multiple decades and never pulled their gun. Or only pulled appropriately.
As to wrong place wrong time...we humans are RIDICULESLY easy to kill...and are surrounded by stuff that can kill us...I'll switch to my laptop to elaborate
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It matters not at all who is carrying...if they keep it in their pants.
If they keep in in their pants, why do they need it?
How often do you use your spare tire?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Homicide is 35th* leading cause of death in the US, with about 16k deaths so far in 2016...Heart disease is number one at a little under 400k.
Just this year,
The flu is over 3 times likelier to kill you than guns.
The high blood pressure is over 4.5 times likelier to kill you than guns.
A car accident is about 6 times likelier to kill you than guns.
Diabetes is about five times likelier to kill you than guns.
You are twice as likely to fall down and die than be shot to death.
Oh wait...not shot to death...killed by another human, regardless of tool used.
[ June 27, 2016, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It is SO difficult to find non biased info on guns...I guess I could just pull my stats from both liberal and conservative rags and then add them up and take the average.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How often do you use your spare tire?
You keep your spare tire in your pants in case you need to kill someone?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It is SO difficult to find non biased info on guns...I guess I could just pull my stats from both liberal and conservative rags and then add them up and take the average.
Well, the CDC isn't even allowed to study it, so data is sometimes hard to come by.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It matters not at all who is carrying...if they keep it in their pants.
If they keep in in their pants, why do they need it?
How often do you use your spare tire?
So it's out that they always keep it in their pants or not? Once they take it out, it matters who they are. You can't have it both ways.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
I would guess that the homicide numbers don't take into account suicides or accidental deaths, both of which guns contribute to as well.
And as FlyingCow points out, research on gun violence has been severely restricted in this country.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It is SO difficult to find non biased info on guns...I guess I could just pull my stats from both liberal and conservative rags and then add them up and take the average.
Others have made this point, but I'll sum up: you're right, it is extremely difficult, and that is because one side of the argument has expended enormous political and financial capital to make it so. It is, incidentally, the same side of the argument that profits by more members and more guns being made, and tells you contradictions such as 'hope you'll never have to use it' but also 'you're safest if you're ready at any given time and place to use your gun'.
In fact there isn't a single issue you've raised or idea you've put forward that isn't made more contentious or less workable by the gun rights side of the issue as a whole. Right now, they have won, and frankly you're living on their world and kept from seeing for yourself if the grass really is greener on the other side by people that have a vested political and financial interest in keeping you in line.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't think so Risu, both suicide & "other injury" are on the list...25th & 26th respectively...all homicide 35th.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It is SO difficult to find non biased info on guns...I guess I could just pull my stats from both liberal and conservative rags and then add them up and take the average.
Well, the CDC isn't even allowed to study it, so data is sometimes hard to come by.
Wait, wait, don't tell me, the gods damned NRA...you kno what we need...a REASONABLE pro gun loby, someone to fight for the middle.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It matters not at all who is carrying...if they keep it in their pants.
If they keep in in their pants, why do they need it?
How often do you use your spare tire?
So it's out that they always keep it in their pants or not? Once they take it out, it matters who they are. You can't have it both ways.
This is a strange dycotomy...a gun in and of itself is inanimate...if someone carries for their whole life and never needs their gun, then GREAT! If they carry and only use their gun appropriately, then GREAT! Those who pull their gun inappropriately are committing a crime.
I just don't understand your point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think part of the point may be this: a spare tire is basically a tool that only has positive uses. Aside from the very, very mild drain on your fuel consumption, once you have a spare tire it is all upside. If you want to get extremely detailed, well, the price of one is a financial loss, there is a very mild drain on fuel economy, and there is a small loss of cargo capacity for a car.
Even with all of these 'downsides' taken together, the total 'con' column is extremely mild. It's not unreasonable to therefore say that even if they're never used, there are no downsides to having a spare tire. And if it *is* needed and then used, it will always be a benefit, or even a huge benefit.
Also ask yourself how often a given person is likely to need a spare tire in their lives. Just in your own experience, how many people have had the need for deadly force on their person versus how many people have had a flat tire, or needed to drive somewhere while a damaged tire is repaired? (I'll be fair, this is a trick question, since the answer is no contest.)
Contrast these things with the pros and cons of having a gun. A spare tire is simply a very bad comparison. While a handgun can be used in many good ways, it remains a weapon, not simply a tool. A spare tire is not a weapon unless you're hunting armadillo. Even determining when a gun is needed is difficult, whereas the same is not true for a spare tire. Once they decision to use a gun is made, the ways its use could go wrong are numerous. Aside from an incorrect installation, the same isn't true of a flat tire-and that process is much easier and more straightforward.
Throw in a dash of 'what happens when it's not in use'? And the ways in which a spare tire shouldn't be compared to a gun continue to mount. Zero chance you will get drunk and wield your spare tire negligently. Your spare tire will never be stolen and used as a weapon. Your kids have no chance of screwing around in the trunk of your car and firing your spare tire, ever. If your mental health takes a turn, your spare tire can't be used to shoot you in the head. You can't ever be in a crowded place and accidentally use your spare tire on the wrong people, killing them. On and on.
A spare tire isn't a gun.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
1 Shotgun to head. 99.0% 2 Cyanide. 97.0% 3 Gunshot of head 97.0% 4 Shotgun to chest 96.4% 5 Explosives 96.4% 6 Hit by train. 96.2% 7 Jump from height 93.4% 8 Gunshot of chest 89.5% 9 Hanging 89.5% 10 Auto crash 78.5% 11 Household toxins 77.5% 12 Set fire to self 76.5% 13 Structure fire 73.0% 14 Carbon Monoxide 71.0% 15 Hit by truck/auto 70.0% 16 Electrocution 65.5% 17 Gunshot of abdomen 65.0% 18 Drowning ocean/lake 63.0% 19 Stab of chest 58.5% 20 Cut throat 51.5%
As you can see, using a bridge, rope, train, car or poison are all VERY effective at suicide.
And with guns...where you shoot yourself is a bigger difference survivabilitywise than if you have a gun or not.
[ June 28, 2016, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yes a spare tire isn't a gun...but I wasn't make a generalized comparison, instead answering people who are saying that there is an inherent contradiction to carrying & never wanting to use.
Before that I was answering, if you carry, wouldn't you care who else was carrying...
Yes guns are more inherently dangerous than spare tires, a more apt comparison is not caring how your neighbor parks their car in their own driveway, but caring how they drive on the open road.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The point of that being? In that list, firearms take up 1/4 of the methods used. That's twice the rate of anything else on the list, and nearly everyone else on that list is a tool for other purposes that in this case is repurposed to kill a human being. Guns don't require repurposing, as killing living things is their purpose. Cars, trains, electricity, household toxins, knives, and spare tires are all things designed for another purpose. Household knives, anyway.
None of that is reason to say 'ban guns', but you continue to come back to these strange examples and offer them as though they prove your point. Even with a list of things where they are a plurality of methods and the most lethal method as well.
I get that you still believe that the method doesn't matter, but the arguments you continue to bring up for that idea are just strange and ineffective. Such as referencing a case where 5 attackers using knives managed to kill fewer people than one man with two firearms. Can I ask, what sort of evidence or argument might make you change your mind about this question? Without trying to be snarky, having bad arguments rebutted doesn't seem to have made a dent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Unarmed citizens have stopped more active shooters than armed citizensand...
quote: This seems largely irrelevant? If you asked those brave people as they rushed the crazed gunmen if they would like to stop time and get a gun and some training, I'd wager not a one would turn you down.
quote: How is this irrelevant? It shows that you don't need a gun to stop someone with a gun. So all of these arguments that various people put forward that "Virignia Tech could have been stopped if someone had a gun" "San Bernardino could have been stopped!" or "Pulse could have been stopped with a gun!" are questionable.
I would think they stop them by rushing in numbers...and most or some dying! It's hardly a solution anyone wants to try out for themselves.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yes a spare tire isn't a gun...but I wasn't make a generalized comparison, instead answering people who are saying that there is an inherent contradiction to carrying & never wanting to use.
Before that I was answering, if you carry, wouldn't you care who else was carrying...
Yes guns are more inherently dangerous than spare tires, a more apt comparison is not caring how your neighbor parks their car in their own driveway, but caring how they drive on the open road.
The spare tire comparison still falls flat-ha-because there is no dread associated with the use of a spare tire. As I explained, there is no hypothetical bad side to using a spare tire. This is not true of a firearm. It just isn't. I listed a handful of extremely plausible ways in which a firearm might still be misused even if the carrier was not negligent.
There's also the problem of spare tires not tying directly into false views of how dangerous society is, or (usually) male power fantasies. No action movie ever mythologized a spare tire. People don't have hysterical views about the presence of nails in the road and purchase eight spare tires.
Guns are not simply insurance. Regardless of how diligent you are and how prudent your carrying is, there is a non-zero chance that your spouse might cheat on you and throw you into a rage. There's a non-zero chance you might get drunk while carrying a gun. There's a non-zero chance you might misjudge a situation and use your gun when it wasn't called for. There's a non-zero chance that you might use your gun when it *is* called for and miss, injuring someone else and being killed by an attacker for your trouble.
Which of these non-zero chances are shared by carrying auto insurance on your car, or flood insurance on your home, or life insurance on your life? The answer is zero. Insurance if it's never needed or even never used is a danger to one's pocketbook alone. It's never going to hurt someone *else*, just like a spare tire.
A firearm is a weapon designed to kill, which can be used as insurance, but it will always remain a weapon designed to kill.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
quote: Unarmed citizens have stopped more active shooters than armed citizensand...
quote: This seems largely irrelevant? If you asked those brave people as they rushed the crazed gunmen if they would like to stop time and get a gun and some training, I'd wager not a one would turn you down.
quote: How is this irrelevant? It shows that you don't need a gun to stop someone with a gun. So all of these arguments that various people put forward that "Virignia Tech could have been stopped if someone had a gun" "San Bernardino could have been stopped!" or "Pulse could have been stopped with a gun!" are questionable.
I would think they stop them by rushing in numbers...and most or some dying! It's hardly a solution anyone wants to try out for themselves.
You were talking strictly about lives saved, before. You also never answered my question about what those people would want in that situation-that they were trained to use a gun and had one, or that the suicidal homocidal gunner hadn't been able to get one?
For a little anecdotal contrast, look up the German theater shooting this past week. It won't take more than a few minutes and it's got a serious punchline.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
*I don't kno why you are talking about car insurance... I didn't say car insurance...I said a car...which like a gun is very dangerous...and still dangerous even tho it is designed NOT to be a death machine.
[ June 28, 2016, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can't parse that post.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I read 3 articles, WashPost, CNN & MSNBC...I missed the punchline tho.
Bad guy takes hostages, killed by cops, some headlines read 25 injured, but all three reports I read said no major injuries.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Did you read what sort of weapons he used?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Articles only said "rifle".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's unclear if it was real or fake?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Right now the AP has run a story with reports from German authorities that the weapons were replica weapons, yes.
So to paraphrase the NRA, sometimes what stops a bad (or seriously mentally disturbed) guy with a gun might be if it's so hard to get a gun that he gets replicas instead and in a theater shooting no one is killed.
Meanwhile in Colorado, his tear gas was real, his shotgun was real, his handgun was real, and his rifle was real, and a dozen people died. These are two isolated and unrelated incidents, yes, but you've referenced exactly that sort of thing before, so I thought I'd offer another example.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This may have gotten lost on the last page.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Correlation does not imply causation, I'd say.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You've certainly been willing to assert a causation before based only on correlation, in this discussion. A one-line objection to a beefy study seems unreasonable, given that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Falls, hanging, household toxins, car wrecks...and helium breathing (which might be more common than we thought) are all roughly as deadly *(a means of suicide, tho less common)...I provided stats.
[ July 02, 2016, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, I remember that list. Where firearms appeared at double the rate of any of those things you mentioned. The stats you provided had more to say than that.
But at any rate, half of the things you just mentioned are under significant regulation too, especially cars. God forbid weapons designed to kill people be regulated even only as much as vehicles for moving people and cargo that *can* kill people.
But if we're going to discuss other causes of death, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm . Here's some information from that institution your side of the gun control argument makes sure nobody can hear from. For example, there are about 8x as many cars in the US as there are firearms. Of course like firearms they're not all constantly in use, but cars are certainly much *more* in use than firearms. And yet with so many more cars and so much more use, the death rate from auto accidents is about 3x that of accidental and intentional firearm deaths.
Cars are constantly in use by far more people than firearms ever are, and yet are involved in a disproportionate rate of deaths than firearms are. At least by the numbers anyway, but those numbers would appear to indicate that no, cars are not as dangerous as firearms. This is no accident, because a car is not a weapon designed to kill people. A gun is.
It's not enough to say 'well if John had an unrelenting will to kill someone, and was sufficiently skilled, he could turn nearly anything into a killing tool. Therefore don't single out guns.' That's absurd reasoning, because it makes a difference if tool a lowers the bar enormously for how much skill and determination one needs versus tool b, say a car.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Car wrecks seem like a weird thing to focus on with regards to death and injury rates.
You're certainly right that a lot of people die from cars...but a lot MORE people used to die from cars. Then we started mandating safety and heavily regulating how they're built, safety standards, how and where they can be driven, and increased enforcement.
What happened? Death rates dropped dramatically over a two decade period in the 70s and 80s. Cars have never been safer, death rates have never been lower, and they're getting better all the time.
So if your point is to say "people die in car accidents too, why do we need to do anything about guns?" I'd say you're actually proving the opposite. Clearly it worked for guns, and saved a lot of lives, and it was a huge public-private partnership that did it.
So, why should guns be exempt from the same standard we apply to equally deadly cars?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not in general Lyr...suicide by car is nearly as effective as suicide by gun.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of all yearly suicides, firearms are nearly half of the means used. Automobiles, along with everything else, make up the other half. And, again, that is in spite of the fact that there are roughly 8x as many automobiles as firearms in the United States. Furthermore, only about 1/3 *households* in the United States has a gun. http://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers
Meanwhile sixteen years ago there were over 190,000,000 ( http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p4.htm ) licensed drivers in the United States, which doesn't even account for all those who actually drive. Sixteen years ago, well over half of *today's* population, including children, had licenses to drive automobiles.
If what you were suggesting is true-if we needed to be as concerned today about automobiles as we are about firearms-the rate of deaths by accident and suicide would be, proportionate to the actual numbers of cars and drivers, much, much higher. But the facts are quite different. Suicide by firearm makes up half of the entire suicide rate in this country, which means that even if every other suicide was by automobile-which it isn't-the numbers still wouldn't add up, since there are so, so many more drivers than gun owners.
Now I don't know if it's because you're busy and distracted, or what, but I'm not the only one who has made exactly this point in the past couple of days about your reasoning concerning the dangers of guns and car, poisons, etc. But up until this point, you haven't addressed any of them with more than a line or two which hasn't actually rebutted anything. Bear in mind also that it's not just me saying it. You were the one who held up Lyrhawn as someone to be listened to, he's pointing out the major problems with your position, and you're still not addressing his challenges.
Cars are not as dangerous as firearms. Simple reasoning demonstrates this, since firearms are weapons designed to kill people and automobiles are machines designed for travel that can also kill people. The numbers also demonstrate this, since if automobiles were as dangerous as firearms we would be seeing many, many more deaths by automobile than we currently do. Just because someone *could* kill someone with an automobile-and have a harder time of it than with a firearm unless their victim obliged them by standing in the middle of a level surface of asphalt in front of the vehicle-doesn't mean an automobile is as dangerous as a firearm.
But even if it *was* as dangerous, we take regulation of automobiles and drivers far more seriously than firearms.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Not in general Lyr...suicide by car is nearly as effective as suicide by gun.
But drastically less likely.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It doesn't matter. No fact, no reasoned argument, no logic, no appeal to the heart, no stories or pictures of mutilated bodies - even those of children - will change his mind. His fantasy of being an action hero in his own life is too powerful to give up. It is more precious to him than the lives that could be saved. It is worth, to him, putting his family at a higher risk*. It is certainly worth more than the blood of strangers.
*This is statistically true. He won't believe it because it doesn't fit his imagined narrative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think that's quite a fair analysis. While it does seem pretty plain to me that the male power fantasy of the Badass Dude Who Gets It Done When Shit Goes Down is certainly very alive in the kinds of arguments Stone_Wolf and others use, that's not quite the same thing as an explicit choice of fantasy over greater death and more danger.
After all, part of that outlook is that the world actually is that way-where Shit Goes Down at any given moment. In that world, it's not irresponsible or dangerous to be ready with lethal force at any given time and place for that moment, because that moment might reasonably be expected to be imminent. In that world, the dangers of a firearm when not in its intended, virtuous use are minimal. How often is the hero shown forgetting just for a moment to be careful, and someone dies by an accidental gunshot? How often does the careful hero go out on a holiday and, without planning it, have an extra drink or three?
And it's not really a surprise that Stone_Wolf or anyone would believe in these sorts of things, because a very great deal of time, money, and expertise have been expended to help him and others believe it. It starts with most mainstream action movies made in the United States, where the world is alive with dangerous threats that can't be dealt with by prudent planning in advance and a willingness not to escalate things-which is in the real world the much better way to deal with dangerous threats in general-but by a badass with a gun. Sometimes martial arts but usually a gun.
Then along comes the NRA to piggy back on this message, and that of mass media, that shouts fear fear fear to everyone at all times and in all places. And they offer a solution. It's got three major selling points. This is America-guns are freaking cool. It's a dangerous world and you have to be ready for it. And finally there is a lot of honest, non-paranoid pleasure and use and satisfaction in owning and firing a gun, whether just to collect, or to hunt, or to practice marksmanship, or to make a firearm part of a prudent plan in advance for likely dangers.
So yeah. It is annoying as hell to hear 'cars are just as dangerous' for the second or third time, even after it's demonstrated that they're not, two or three times. But that's not the same thing as a deliberate choice for more death, danger, and irresponsibility versus less death and more common sense. The hair trigger world being taught precludes those as real options, so how can someone choose them without thinking they're there?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the guns to cars comparison has always been one of the strangest arguments in common use. one is a vital and ubiquitous component of industry and commerce and significant portions of our infrastructure are built around their use, and we see them in use all around us all day every day. the other serves such minimal function that they're mostly done away with in other modern nations. how on earth do people imagine they are comparing them fairly? if a substantial percentage of the united states had to take their guns out, load them, and fire them to get to and from work every day and we had roads full of people doing their morning gunnute we'd see so much more death than what we get with cars. they're supposed to be equivalently dangerous?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think what's being lost in this conversation is that Stone_Wolf is drawing a rather constructive equivalence with automobiles.
Consider:
* governments have the ability to license who can drive and can take that ability away due to a large number of reasons such as driving while drunk, being too old/senile, etc.
* governments have the ability to levy mandatory auto insurance and that cost can be high enough to stop high risk individuals from driving
* governments have the ability to directly control automobile use, from banning them from pedestrian only areas and deeming that only cars with odd/even license plates can drive in a city on particular days
* governments can do direct spending on initiatives to reduce car use including constructing subways and high speed rail while also using taxation to discourage fuel purchases
So let's look on the bright side. Stone_Wolf_ is arguing in favour of gun licensing that can be taken away for people who drink or are too old, rather expensive and mandatory insurance for gun owners (especially high risk ones), gun-free zones, heavy taxation on guns and ammunition, etc.
So let's not shy away from this comparison, let's embrace it Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Not in general Lyr...suicide by car is nearly as effective as suicide by gun.
But drastically less likely.
True that. I never claimed otherwise.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It doesn't matter. No fact, no reasoned argument, no logic, no appeal to the heart, no stories or pictures of mutilated bodies - even those of children - will change his mind. His fantasy of being an action hero in his own life is too powerful to give up. It is more precious to him than the lives that could be saved. It is worth, to him, putting his family at a higher risk*. It is certainly worth more than the blood of strangers.
*This is statistically true. He won't believe it because it doesn't fit his imagined narrative.
Let me speak for myself boots, jeesh.
Eta...my guns are locked up 24/7...I was a firearm safety instructor for years.
Statistically my kids are more likey to be hit by lightning than shot by my guns.
[ July 02, 2016, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I think what's being lost in this conversation is that Stone_Wolf is drawing a rather constructive equivalence with automobiles.
Consider:
* governments have the ability to license who can drive and can take that ability away due to a large number of reasons such as driving while drunk, being too old/senile, etc.
* governments have the ability to levy mandatory auto insurance and that cost can be high enough to stop high risk individuals from driving
* governments have the ability to directly control automobile use, from banning them from pedestrian only areas and deeming that only cars with odd/even license plates can drive in a city on particular days
* governments can do direct spending on initiatives to reduce car use including constructing subways and high speed rail while also using taxation to discourage fuel purchases
So let's look on the bright side. Stone_Wolf_ is arguing in favour of gun licensing that can be taken away for people who drink or are too old, rather expensive and mandatory insurance for gun owners (especially high risk ones), gun-free zones, heavy taxation on guns and ammunition, etc.
So let's not shy away from this comparison, let's embrace it
THANK YOU!!!!
Anyone who thinks that I am on the NRAs side or am indulging in male power fantasies needs to read the OP (second one).
Also Sam...if you aren't going to bother understanding the context of the coversation, please don't shit up my thread. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...and significant portions of our infrastructure are built around their use, and we see them in use all around us all day every day...
Unless one counts cop's guns...then guns ARE exactly that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Still only a fraction of the number of cars and drivers, particularly when you think about how many cops are actually on the streets.
And in any event, no, they're not built into the fabric of our society and infrastructure the way cars are even counting police officers. They're still not at all the same thing.
Is an automobile the same as deadly nerve gas? Both could kill people, after all. Wouldn't it be completely ridiculous if someone started talking about nerve gas because of the potential though not in reality deadliness of cars? Of course it would, but that is exactly what you're doing with guns. It's likely just because you're used to them, the same sort of thinking that leads someone to oppose decriminalization of marijuana but see no problem with alcohol or tobacco being legal.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Do you really think I confuse the two?
Come on kids, jump in the gun...make sure your safetys are on
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Don't forget the 8 mil in concealed carry permits & the 11 states who allow open carry, the...hard to research number of paid armed private security, secret service, fbi, etc who do not shoot anyone daily.
Guns are a vital part of our infrastructure as shown when I suggested disarming the cops in another thread and got 'shot down'.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Do you really think I confuse the two?
Come on kids, jump in the gun...make sure your safetys are on
Please don't be deliberately ridiculous, or do you really think anyone's point was 'Stone_Wolf thinks a gun is a car!'
What you are consistently missing is that firearms and automobiles have drastically different levels of danger, necessity, and widespread use in our society that makes them poor choices for the comparisons you're making. Firearms are much, much more dangerous than automobiles in the world today. Yes, a determined individual could kill someone with an automobile but it would be far easier with a firearm, because the firearm is a more dangerous tool. A weapon, in fact. Automobiles are necessary to the modern way of life in so many ways that firearms aren't. If you take away automobiles you're basically taking away the internal combustion engine which is, at the moment, a vital tool in nearly every single human activity that requires any sort of travel. Busses, cars, semi tractor trailers, cargo ships, aircraft, so on and so forth. Transporting people and everything people need to live all over the world.
If you remove firearms from the picture entirely, at a magical stroke of a wand, what has been lost? While firearms can be considered an equalizer, it's also true that when someone wants a firearm for self defense, their biggest fear is of someone else with a firearm. The sort of firearm ownership you're talking about is one which advocates safe ownership of a weapon to mitigate the dangers of unsafe use of those weapons. That's not the same with automobiles. The presence of firearms drives the need for more firearms. But there are societies across the planet that don't have this problem. Is it impossible in practical terms for the United States ever to reach this point? Well, maybe. If so one of the biggest reasons would have to be the biggest team on your side of this discussion.
But none of those societies that get by, peaceful and free, get by without automobiles. For that matter none of the ones that are failed states and have basically no firearm restrictions get by without automobiles.
Also, your point about 'look how many of them carry without firing' is problematic. First because again even throwing in all of those groups, doesn't touch the numbers or safety of automobiles. Second because if firearms are insurance, as you claim, and yet the vast majority of carriers never need to use them, and it is a fact that simply owning a firearm poses dangers, which it does...well, the usefulness of this insurance policy might be questionable.
Also, remarking that we can't disarm police is...well, not really a very fair argument. You can't insist that society ought to be flooded with firearms-which is what the gun rights side of this issue has done in the past half-century-and then claim, "See?! It's too dangerous for them to be less well armed!" Please don't create a sickness and then insist a harmful treatment is necessary to treat it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
A. cars are a great comparison, and Mucus even said so...and more importantly I'm not going to stop using it.
We have had this argument before you kno? You try and shut down a vehicle for discussion, a comparison, by pointing out they are not identical.
This isn't a discussion about if fugi, honeycrisp or red delicious are the most yummy (honeycrisp). Comparisons are useful because they point out similarities like, the need for liability insurance, safety training & government controled licensing.
B. What would happen if we waved a wand and and removed firearms? Crossbow control discussions. More wand waving and ALL projectiles are gone and we are back to might makes right...and in that world we don't chat about our differences, I strap armor to ever inch of my 6'2" frame & w my trusty katana...and as fast as you can say Bob's your uncle, mate, it's lord high king Stone_Wolf. All you non giant warriors don't get a vote. Bleh.
My pointing out that MILLIONS of people carry without incident DAILY is problematic?...to whatever leftist's disarm dream that will never happen.
Oh and people don't carry guns just to oppose other guns. As I mentioned, the human body is RIDICULOUSLY easy to cause permanent harm to! Fist fights are often deadly. Forget knives, bricks, bats, even pointy gods damned sticks. Weapons are irrelevant, humans are dangerous. New Yorkers bite twice as many people per year as sharks & human bites almost ALWAYS get infected...like a friggen kimono dragon. True story.
I am SO tired of hearing about "my side of the aisle". I am not a mosaic of right wing views, nor a board member of the NRA.If you want to rant about them start your own bloody thread and stop doing it here, in this, what is obviously a pro gun control thread!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm fairly certain you missed something important from Mucus's post. But he can speak for himself, and I may be wrong.
I know you're not going to stop using the car comparison, though. Even though at this point there are about a dozen objections myself and others have raised that you've not addressed at this point. No surprise there.
quote:B. What would happen if we waved a wand and and removed firearms? Crossbow control discussions. More wand waving and ALL projectiles are gone and we are back to might makes right...and in that world we don't chat about our differences, I strap armor to ever inch of my 6'2" frame & w my trusty katana...and as fast as you can say Bob's your uncle, mate, it's lord high king Stone_Wolf. All you non giant warriors don't get a vote. Bleh.
Well we wouldn't be having a discussion about mass shootings, that's for sure. As for your remarks about armor and katanas (oy), well, see male power fantasy discussion previously in this thread. I suspect you don't quite recognize how easily 'I would be such a badass' snuck in there, though.
Unless you're lumping in cops and soldiers, your remark that millions carry daily is still another statistic you've I'll just say not sourced and leave it at that. You may be correct to say millions, though I would also point out that 'number of permits' is not the same thing as 'actually carry every day'.
quote:My pointing out that MILLIONS of people carry without incident DAILY is problematic?...to whatever leftist's disarm dream that will never happen.
Hey, while you're complaining about being associated with the NRA, something to consider: the NRA is a political group actually in the gun control debate in this country, and I'd love to hear about any significant 'leftists' that have advocated disarming. I'll wait.
I didn't say people only bought guns because of other guns. Or do you dispute that? Does a New Yorker bite attack cross your mind, or is the first scenario in your head one of a 'bad guy with a gun', to reference one of the major scenarios you've referred to over and over again that oh by the way has no association with any group such as the NRA at all.
As for discussing it elsewhere...nah. I won't do that. (Hey, see how incredibly obnoxious that is, Stone_Wolf? And I'm not even doing it in your personal email!) Not just because, to paraphrase you, 'why would I take orders from you', but because you brought up cars and the NRA is extremely relevant to any discussion of gun control in the United States.
So yeah, if you actually want the reforms you mentioned-rather than a sort of idle thought experiment you have no intention of doing anything at all, however minor, to see realized-the NRA's going to come into it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The Dark Ages were a 'male power fantacy' that lasted for millennias. No guns! No way for a child or most women to fight off big males, law of land was might makes right, trial by combat, it was this whole thing in the before time, long, long ago?
If I had a gun on me & someone pulled a gun on me and demands my wallet...I would give it to them w a smile on my face. And leave...and go to a well lit, active area & call the cops.
My costco card is not worth my life.
Carrying a gun is to protect yourself and loved ones.
Family members of mine have been violently raped by strangers, I myself got the shit kicked out of me on more than one occasion as a teen.
I'm not saying 'how dare you talk about the NRA' I'm saying, stop painting me with the same damn brush.
As to your claims that I'm ignoring your and others objections is laughable. These aren't identical! You can knee jerk about common talking points but only at the loss of being present in the moment/disscussion
quote:No suprise there.
As to Sam's thread, I started this one specifically to honor his request! And I'm not even asking for your generalized silence...just stop lumping ME in with ANYONE!
And lastly, I supplied the source...it was Wikipedia. Why don't you check BEFORE you accuse there, champ.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I hesitate to label anything "whining" because I effing hate when you claim I'm whining, and you do it so often, however this personal email bs has got to stop. You demand we communicate prively, but refuse to do anything about it, so when I email you, you ignore my email and reply publicly, hotly demand I never email you again...I sens you a dozen words once, not a single one offensive and you compare me to a stalker and then whine about it there after. You had to click 'delete', it wasn't a huge investment in time or emotions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
One of the reasons I talk to you, Stone_Wolf, is that it's difficult to predict what you're going to complain about and how small the window is between you complaining about something and having done exactly that thing to someone else.
Case in point, you had yourself a nice little chest-thumping initially when Samprimary told you to take it out of his thread. (And if you knew him half as well as you think you did, you'd have seen the humor there.) Fast forward what, a week? Two? And now you're doing exactly the same thing. 'Don't paint me with the NRA!'...in a discussion about gun control where the NRA could not be more relevant, even though you've never said anything other than that they're on my side of the aisle.
You're also lying about what was said concerning emails. Or it might be the characteristic Stone_Wolf lazy thinking where 'hey I feel like I'm remembering this right, so I must be'. Hard to say which sometimes. I never 'demanded' you email me. You did end up emailing me and then in that thread whined that 'Gee you judge 'us' (that transparent thing you do where you claim to be speaking for others when really you're just whining about how you're being treated) publicly and only talk about yourself privately hmmmm'.
So I described a little about some of the stuff I do, which you asked for. I did it publicly, which you *also* asked for. Then you emailed me with something *different*, and when I told you not to email me again-not an unreasonable thing to tell someone, by the way-you said no.
I complained about that then, in the thread, and when did I even reference it again? It took pages of your chickenshit behavior in this thread, and your actually whining about a relevant point you didn't like hearing about.
The funny thing is, even for the very narrow inconsistent standards you can actually be bothered to set for yourself...you aren't even bound by those standards either. Yeah, it's proven more than once that you'll either be lazy, or distracted, or just intellectually gutless enough that if there's a point you don't know how to respond to from someone you don't like, you simply won't do it.
But even for the people you have explicitly listed as 'I will listen to these people', nah. Lyrhawn is one of a pair you came up with for 'these are people I trust'. It's not just me telling you how ridiculous your talk of cars, and crossbows, and Hummers, and all of that other bullshit is, but God forbid someone pry much more than a one line reply from you.
Until it's time again, like now, to whine about how unfairly you're being treated.
Oh, hey! It's about time for you to claim to take the high road by ignoring me, expressed by your repeatedly stating 'I'm ignoring you'. Or perhaps this time you'll actually innovate in the field of entitled, lazy passive aggression. Time will tell!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just curious, though: how would you respond if after telling me not to email you, I did anyway? I am of course certain you would say 'ah no big deal, ignore' and say nothing else. Because God knows your ability in that sort of thing is entirely proven and not at all completely laughable.
Show of hands though, if anyone cares: if someone says 'don't email me' (or mail me or call me or ring my doorbell), what should you do? I know what my answer is, and I know what Stone_Wolf's answer would be if it were him who'd asked.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You, individually, without anyone else's help really make me want to quit posting on this board...but of course that's likey your goal, then you can be the uncontested militant right fighter of hatrack.
Whatever. Bleh.
You couldn't keep it civil a whole week.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nothing else to say, huh? Nothing along the lines of 'hey I was recollecting the email stuff wrong' or 'hey wait people I actually set aside as worth listening to have *also* expressed frustration about my not addressing things' or 'huh I did do exactly the thing I complained about someone else doing'?
For a little while, you were getting civility and respect, Stone_Wolf. That's because, for a little while, you were actually, seriously discussing something. Someone had an objection, you actually addressed it. For a little while. But then after the second round of four or five people pointing out, for example, 'hey, cars are a really stupid comparison, here's why' in the sort of polite terms you always whine about but rarely offer yourself, hey, it was clear that the battery on the Stone_Wolf who tried to make and reply to serious points had burned out and the lazy, entitled whiner who always insisted on respect that wasn't earned was back again.
Hi there, Stone_Wolf!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, hey, people are still posting in this thread. Huh.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For Hatrack now, this really moves.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And here I was starting to feel bad for that three years or so that I signed your email up for free, daily gay porn.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, it's amusing that that's a clever potential prank for you in a way that I won't try to explain, simply grin about.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For Hatrack now, this really moves.
Hatrack is basically the Stone Wolf show these days, with valued guest appearances from Ron Lambert. Depending on the style of conversation you like, it's Ornery or Sake these days.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Posted without comment
quote:Father accidentally shoots, kills teen son at Florida gun range
SARASOTA, Fla. — Authorities say a 14-year-old boy was accidentally shot and killed by his father at a Florida gun range.
William Brumby was firing his weapon at the High Noon Gun Range in Sarasota on Sunday when a spent shell casing deflected off a nearby wall and landed inside the back of his shirt.
A statement from the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office says Brumby tried to remove the shell with his right hand, which was holding the gun and accidentally fired the gun at his son, who was standing directly behind him.
Stephen J. Brumby, later died at a hospital. The father’s two other children were with him but were not injured.
...
Related
* It wasn’t his first gun selfie, but it was his last: Washington man fatally shoots himself taking photo * Georgia girl dies after shooting herself in the head with gun she found between couch cushions * Americans were shot by toddlers 43 times this year. In 31 cases, a toddler found a gun and shot themselves
Huh. Someone might almost think that, regardless of however well trained he was with firearm safety-and it would be a very rare (impossible, in the United States? I don't know) gun range that didn't include at least some safety training-that the presence of a firearm in one's hand makes everything that person is doing, every single thing, more dangerous than if it wasn't there at all. That just because millions of people are using firearms every day, whether to fire, carry, or maintain, doesn't change that risk because that not how risk works.
If I had a time machine, and had somehow expended all of the potentially wonderful uses it afforded, and also didn't destroy the universe by accident, I might use it to travel to that morning and ask the man how confident he was in his own safe use of firearms.
We'll never know, of course, but I would be stunned if he answered anything like, "Well I could really stand to do a few more hours of training courses and practice more self discipline when I'm at the range."
But listen, the important thing here to remember is that firearms aren't the only dangerous things out there. Why, one time five brothers were out with their fifteen children at a knife throwing range in Mongolia, and there was an accident and a couple of the children were killed. Knives, dangerous. And don't get me started about the Vampire Slayer's cosplay society and the deadly shenanigans they get up to when they're making their stakes!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
gunz r b4d
You are the my least favorite person on gods' green earth...I literally like Kim Jung Un more than you.
Your entire sarcastic post is stupid and pointless since you aren't calling for guns to be confiscated...as established OVER and OVER, we agree on gun policy 90% Merely attempting to antagonize me.
I just wish your father had taken you shooting more often...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man, SW, get a grip.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why bother? That * has finally convinced me that universal kindness doesn't work...or that at least _I_ don't have the patience for it.
[ July 06, 2016, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, maybe you can send me some gay porn! That'll really get to me, hurr hurr!
So, let's see: my mother (or father) is a whore, I'm worse than a mass murdering tyrant, and that you wish I had been shot and killed by accident by my father. Heh.
Even before this, your style of posting is not at all 'universal kindness', and I am not the only one to have remarked on it. A default attitude of poorly disguised passive aggressiveness coupled with, in the long run, deceptive* claims of a lack of time to become informed, to read links, to reply to posts, and a willingness to descend into really ridiculous caricatures of Internet tantrums, along with the consistent lazy style of thinking, these are much more your style than 'universal kindness' ever was.
Of course we could talk about just how profoundly stupid and offensive the things you've said were, and the reasons would likely surprise you. Let's see.
The idea that gay porn would be so super gross and disgusting it would really show me to be exposed to it! Well, goodness, that really tugs the lid off of your claims about 'hey I'm a humanist!' If my mother or father actually *were* whores, why would that be am insult to me? For that matter given the constellation of troubles that often afflict sex workers, using them as a slur like that is also in poor taste. What else was there? Using the death of a child by accidental shooting of his father as a means to vent your petty, childish tantrum-classy as usual. Oh, the bit about North Korea, well if you could both find it on a map and make its capital city without looking it up, I would be surprised.
Oh, hey, will you run whining to JanitorBlade yourself this time, Stone_Wolf? I'm curious!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh thinks he's doing some public service, but at it's heart, his motivation is that he enjoys being cruel, and seeks out people who (may or may not) be on the wrong side of history, or are backward, or maybe just isolated & skewed, and attack them, degrade them, mock them. All the while with a puffed shirt and superior smirk.
I maybe hopelessly ignorant, but at least I *don't seem* some self deluded right fighter bully, geting my gollys at the expensive of others.
You are human * Rakeesh, your soul *seems like* a parched desert devoid of kindness and I actively struggle to not wish you generalized, non specific bad luck, discord, strife and injustice.
[ July 06, 2016, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
oh, two other things. One, thank you for once again validating 'what crazy crap is this guy going to come up with next?' In addition to pointy sticks, knives, I'm a humanist, and plenty of others I can now add over the top junior high shoving match insults. That's actually not so crazy, it was predictable, but still amusing.
Took a screenshot too, so if you're inclined to delete or edit, it won't be gone.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'll send it to you carved in stone...what's your address?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Keep it coming! Commentary on my soul from a man who has Internet arguments with me is certainly not an indicator of hysterical, narcissistic thinking on your part!
Oh, and listen, I don't actually believe you 'struggle' against those sorts of wishes. But hey, post that as a sign of your efforts at right-thinking or something, good show!
Anyway, it is another lie to claim that I am doing 'this' as some sort of public service. I have explicitly stated that this is more or less for my own amusement now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'll send it to you carved in stone...what's your address?
If I sent you that I'm not sure what would happen. Would I get shot? Get a tablet etched in stone? Tying in the strange gay porn threat, would I be propositioned? Who knows! Anyway, nah brah. Go on staying on the west coast being super busy too busy to read or reply or become informed except when it's time to lose your shit and have a tantrum then your schedule opens right up amirite?
Besides, I've got a digital copy already. Why would I want a stone tablet?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Go back to * squirrels *
[ July 06, 2016, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, man, gimme more of that sweet, sweet Stone_Wolf tantrum! That's a new one for me. The other lazy, narcissistic jackass in my life has at times referred to me and others as communists and *royalists* of all things, but animal torture is new!
Remember this feeling, SW. Aside from the seething heat of a really good Internet badass tantrum that you're having, with that squirrel remark you're also feeling something that is probably new: you're feeling ahead of the curve. Focus on it because let's be real, it's probably not happened before and a recurrence is unlikely!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's okay, I'll go hug my kids and kiss my wife. You enjoy your cold, empty bed & house, you earned them both in spades.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
One of three predictions: one, your account may be suspended or even banned, less likely, but possible. I hope neither happens, but hey, 'your parents are whores, your soul is shit, I wish you were dead, what's your address?' are pretty brisk violations by the standards of these tame parts.
Two: most likely, the thread is locked and we're each told to drop it in spite of the fact that I've made no threats and confine my criticisms and attacks to your thinking and your ideas, whereas you have not only been explicitly personal but also hinted at violence. But that's the way things go sometimes. Anyway, you then proclaim your intent to ignore me and then go about doing your usual, middle-school level job of actually ignoring me. (Example: hey Rakeesh I'm ignoring you! is actually a contradiction)
Three, you come to some sense of embarrassment about this and apologize. It's happened before, after all. If you did I would accept, because seriously, everyone flies off the handle. Then perhaps for awhile you would either not post or would make an effort to take the thoughts and questions and posts of other members seriously, and think about a given issue deeper than an inch and longer than five minutes. Discussions would happen, it would be cool. That would be the ideal possibility, actually. It almost happened before, in fact, but my prediction would be soon enough it would be back to the entitled, lazy thinking man baby who has to be dragged with agonizing slowness to the idea that no, women aren't responsible for how you feel based on how they're dressed; no, the word 'humanist' has a meaning already and to claim it for yourself based on half-ass feel good bullshit doesn't really fly; that hey, it actually does make a difference if you vote; hey, smugly suggesting that a combat veteran rode a desk and shouldn't really be talking about gun control with any authority was a dick move...well, you get the idea.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That's okay, I'll go hug my kids and kiss my wife. You enjoy your cold, empty bed & house, you earned them both in spades.
Will that be before or after you send me gay porn and gloating tablets? Anyway, be sure to proudly declare to your children, "Kids, Daddy wished a whoreson on the Internet was dead today!" You know, since you're now going to use your family as some sort of gloating tool in an argument on the Internet.
Anyway, here's something to seriously consider, if you can manage it. I'm not taunting you right now, but I know you're angry so it would be very difficult. Imagine I were speaking to you the way you are to me, and chose to involve your family in my words. Based on some of the things you've said about your family, think for a moment what some soul-beshitted, squirrel torturing sadist might say about them, and consider how that might make you feel.
Skip over the part where you manfully threaten to kick my ass. (That part was mockery, yes.) If I was what you say, after you called my parents whores, wished I was dead, and implicitly threatened me and then brought your family into it, what would I be saying right now instead of asking you to think about something?
This isn't some way for me to indirectly say those things without saying them. I would never call your parents whores, even if they actually were sex workers. I wouldn't threaten to send you porn, I wouldn't wish that someone in your family shot you to death, and I wouldn't say your soul was shit or that you tortured animals. Much less any of the other personal attacks that someone who *was* all of that would say.
What does that mean for your idea about all of that stuff? Isn't it a lot more likely that I think you're a well-meaning but lazy,-in-thinking, entitled goof who imagines that a self-perception of good intentions are the primary measure of correctness? Hint: that is actually what I think.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If that's me, what are you?!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, apparently I'm the whoreson who would be better off dead, is less likable than mass murderers, whose soul is made of shit and who tortures small animals. Who in spite of being all of these things is interested in being perceived as providing a public service, or something, and who has in spite of being so universally awful has not said anything half so personal and vicious as you have to me, on two separate occasions.
Eh. Either you'll see how ridiculous it is, or you won't. My money is that in awhile you will, temporarily, but the same style of thinking will lead you right back there again.
But seriously, please do consider my question: if I loved cruelty as you say I do, and knowing what I do about you based on what you've shared about yourself here, isn't there a *lot* of awful insults I could make? Insults based only on the surface details, that would be lacking any real context or insight into your personal life that would nevertheless have a chance at being cruel? You brought your family into this ridiculous discussion, as a tool for boasting of all things. Clearly you care about them. If I were cruel as you say, wouldn't I be taking shots at them as you have at mine (wishing my father shot me to death, calling someone-probably my mother-a whore, suggesting I have none)? That's a serious question aimed at getting you to reconsider this menacing vision you have in your head.
Also, on an unrelated note: ask around, Stone_Wolf, not just here but anywhere, of respectable people with respectable lives. Ask around and see if it's a good look to: ask for people's addresses, say they should be dead, call their parents whores, compare them to dictators, sneer at what you imagine of their personal lives, so on and so forth, in an online fight you're having. Hint: it's not a good look. It's silly and imbalanced and has only two real outcomes. One, people think it's silly and childish and write you off or worse they take you seriously and you're a potentially violent lunatic. That's not me mocking you for those things-I've already done that. That's me pointing out that it looks really bad for you to do that, and the actual threats and insults make me smile rather than wound me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:at least I'm not some self deluded right fighter bully
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, apparently I'm the whoreson who would be better off dead, is less likable than mass murderers, whose soul is made of shit and who tortures small animals.
Look on the bright side here, Rakeesh: at least he hasn't called you a bigot.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Where are tittles and Orincoro? It's not an official dog pile w/o them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I was going to write you a heart felt olive branch, asking you to be introspective & acknowledge your role in this...and then I realized...why would you change? You are getting exactly what you want, even admittedly so...here for your own entertainment...
Well are you not entertained?
It literally doesn't matter what I say, you will rebut w/ more bs about me as if this dance was a solo and you were simply a poor innocent victim.
I'm editing my posts with asterisks out of respect for BB.
I think you are a bad person Rakeesh. No bullshit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It takes a big man, when he's said to another man: one of your parents is a whore, I wish you were dead, your soul is made of shit, you're worse than a dictator, and by the way where do you live to then say, "Look, you had a role in this too, ok?"
Nah. I didn't make you say any of those things, Stone_Wolf, and please don't try to kid yourself or anyone else that you're editing 'out of respect for BB'. If that had been an important principle to you, you would've done so already or more properly stopped after the first tantrum rather than doubling or tripling down.
I don't care that you think I'm a bad person, Stone_Wolf, though if I were concerned with your thoughts on that question, well, bearing in mind what I've said I think of you isn't it more likely I would be pleased? What I think about you goes only as far as what you've said here, with the single exception of disapproving that you formerly didn't vote. I don't think your mother or father is a whore, I don't wish your father had shot you to death, I don't think your soul is made of shit, I don't think you delight in cruelty, I don't think you're worse than a dictator. I don't claim to know anything about your family or personal life beyond what you say, because I can't know any of it.
I just think you're a well-meaning, intellectually lazy entitled man who believes a number of difficult things on the surface but doesn't commit to practicing many of them. For example: the idea that any insult diminishes the person making the insult. That's something you've professed here, yet if you really believed that, you would have to think you'd significantly diminished yourself.
Clearly you don't actually think that, so when the rubber meets the road you don't actually believe that making the sorts of attacks you've made diminishes you, in spite of claiming to not long ago. That's no surprise to me.
Anyway, listen, since you held up BlackBlade and Lyrhawn yourself, unprompted, not long ago as fairminded assessors of behavior here on Hatrack, I'll ask you something I've asked repeatedly since then, which you've never to my knowledge done: hit up one of your acceptable evaluators and ask 'em, 'Hey, was this remotely kosher on my part? And am I in any position to say, "C'mon dude this is your fault too!"?' Ask 'em, see what they say. You won't listen to me, you won't listen to anyone else when you throw a tantrum like this, so ask them. (But then again, I will admit they are two *actually* busy people, not the fake busy you are when you hardly ever have time to invest time in a question or post except when you feel you've been mistreated.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, apparently I'm the whoreson who would be better off dead, is less likable than mass murderers, whose soul is made of shit and who tortures small animals.
Look on the bright side here, Rakeesh: at least he hasn't called you a bigot.
I don't have to take that kind of talk from some national guard desk jockey chickenhawk!
...time passes...
Ok that was out of line dude but cmon it was partly your fault that I said that, right?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Seriously, though, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the level of cognitive dissonance required to make "calling someone a bigot for saying all sorts of awful, bigoted things and justly proving themselves to be a bigoted person" mean and dehumanizing, but makes "harassing someone, signing them up for a bunch of gay porn (why?), calling someone's parent a whore, calling them human excrement and saying I wish their father had killed them as a child" a-okay because they disagreed with me about gun control in a thread literally dedicated to debating gun control. I'll get back to you once I have that figured out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To be fair, I'm not sure if he ever actually did that or if it was an idea he had or wished he'd had once. It would be difficult for me to tell, since, you know, porn in your inbox gets flagged and you never see it again. As for why that would have been a worrying threat, well, only Stone_Wolf can answer that.
Also to clarify: I am a bad person who delights in cruelty, it's my *soul* that is covered in excrement, Dogbreath. You were probably too busy playing Halo in ROTC instead of being an actual soldier to have caught that. (I admit I am dead to many kinds of shame, but it would be a long time after I had made that sort of misstep with someone before I felt able to make personal attacks against them, yknow? And yet with Stone_Wolf, weeks or months after literally sneering at the military service of an actual combat veteran for expressing an opinion on firearms in America, you're back to being a bully, Dogbreath.)
Anyway, as for gun control, well, I did agree with many of the suggestions SW had along those lines. But from the start I disagreed with the danger assessment he had of firearms, and especially with the supposed dangerousness of other things such as knives, cars, and pointy sticks. But after awhile it just gets tedious, man. I hung in there. I challenged his nonsense about how dangerous cars are, or knives, but although he could probably guess I thought his position was stupid, I didn't say so.
But when you blew right past your own acknowledged authority figure, in this case Lyrhawn, more than once making the same or related points without any of them even phasing you, eh. I stopped caring about his having to *guess* I thought his arguments were stupid at that point.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Are the Halo games worth playing? I never got into the series (I've never had an XBox, only ever been a PC gamer really) but I saw they released a remastered version of the first 4 games and thought it might be worth getting into.
---
One thing I do want to say since it's been brought up again: my service record isn't particularly interesting or noteworthy, and the highest awards I ever received (other than the medals that everyone gets as "participation trophies" for various deployments or campaigns) were a certcom and two NAM writeups that got lost somewhere and I may or may not ever get. I don't think being a veteran or even having a decent amount of experience with firearms makes me any sort of expert on gun control. Lord knows - back in 2011 I deployed alongside a platoon from 1st Recon, a lot of crazy dudes who were pretty much the actual embodiment of the male power fantasy action hero we've been talking about, guys who you might actually call firearm experts - and nowadays some of them have pretty wack ideas about gun control or Obama taking away their guns or politics in general. (Though they also scoff at the idea of Joe Beer-belly Schmoe who maybe goes to the range twice a year suddenly transforming into James Bond and stopping an active shooter at the drop of a hat...)
The only objection I really had is that since I once, a year and a half ago, made an off-hand comment saying that I couldn't really think of a justifiable reason for police to have machine guns for purposes of "crowd control" (while acknowledging that when reporters say "machine guns" they often mean "assault rifles"), that somehow warranted mockery of my military service and experience. Which, I should note, I only ever mentioned to confirm "yes, I do know what a machine is and my opinion is valid", and not at all "my experience means my opinion means more."
And yet that post seems to have been the turning point from being a dude who, up until that point, SW had never had a problem with and was pretty friendly towards, to becoming one of his targets. Stone Wolf's targets are Bad People, and so the "don't insult anyone" logic doesn't really apply. It's OK to bully them. It's okay to threaten to punch or kick them, or call them idiots and morons, or mock their career choices and harass them. Heck, as we saw today, it's even okay to tell them that you wish they were dead and insult their family. They're not really human beings with real feelings and families, not people deserving any amount of respect or dignity. They're targets. Victims. People he can safely bully and harass and intimidate from behind his keyboard until they finally give up at leave his playground.
Which is why I'm encouraging you give up here, Rakeesh. For better or worse, Heisenberg is right: Hatrack is the Stone Wolf show now. It's a place for him and Ron Lambert and whatever Clive alt shows up next. There's nothing left worth staying for any more.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Do you really feel like I've bullied & victimized you DB?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, because you are absolutely open to the possibility that you bullied and victimized anyone. Hell, even to the possibility that in the balance you just behaved worse.
After calling one of my parents a whore, wishing I were dead, saying my soul was shit, that I delighted in cruelty, that I was worse than a dictator, and then asking for my address you suggested that *I* was somehow in part responsible for all of that.
There is a neglible chance you would take seriously the idea that you behaved like a bully towards Dogbreath or anyone else. Can we just skip past the part where you pretend-even to yourself-to be interested in copping to any of that? Dogbreath is right, it's never someone else's fault. It only ever tops out at 'hey it was your fault too, and I'm not going to admit I did anything wrong unless you do too!'
Not that I would, but if I ever called another poster-hell, if I called *Clive*-a son of a whore, I wouldn't be so much a chickenshit as to insist they apologize for something too, unless they said something on that level. If I ever sneered at someone's experience in combat, indirectly calling them a coward and a chickenhawk, as you did with Dogbreath, it would be a long time and my case would have to be air****ingtight before I ever got all shirty with them again. I would simply be too embarrassed.
But that's you, man. You're the guy who when his feelings get hurt, gets to say *anything*, and it's never just your fault. Meanwhile in the land of grownups, the notion of fighting words went out of style decades ago. Except in action movies, anyway.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Do you really feel like I've bullied & victimized you DB?
Yes.
Do you not realize just how beyond the pale your behavior is here? Do you see anyone else here, anyone at all, doing any of the things you do? Denigrating and mocking them for their life choices? Attacking their family? Calling them human excrement? Saying they wish they were dead? These are things I have never said to another human being, and probably never will. Certainly not just because someone pointed out some flaws in my take on gun control.
More importantly, nobody here has ever done that to you. You seem to feel you're entitled to personally attack, mock, bully, and belittle anyone and everyone who rubs you the wrong way - often by merely disagreeing with you or, by demonstrating you were wrong about something, making you look silly. It's made this forum a hostile and unwelcoming place, for me at least.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'll keep that in mind going forward.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Stone Wolf Show delivers this week. 9/10.
Also I'm curious, why did the words smug and excrement have asterisks in the middle of them?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If anyone in the world has been set up for failure, it's Kim Jung Un. I feel sorry for him...also that movie The Interview was way better than I expected.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Out of respect for BB, of course!
Even Clive Candy, universally regarded here as a jerk of the highest order and a creepy misogynist, has never outright called someone's mother or father a whore to my knowledge, Stone_Wolf. And given that attacking women for monetizing sex is rather Clive's thing, that's saying something!
And as for Ron Lambert, well there's plenty I don't like about the man's views on politics, religion, and America in general but he is always civilized, even at his harshest and (to me, anyway) most unfair and least honest criticism. Even Ron, who I think you will agree doesn't get a whole lot of respect around here never called anyone a son or daughter of a whore. I mean I supposedly loathe America and despise freedom and stuff, but I would be surprised if it even *occurred* to Ron to say someone's soul was made of shit, or that their parents were whores, or to wish that they were dead. I don't think Ron would even think any of that trash much less say it. If Ron were to, for example, smear someone's military service even by accident I have little doubt he wouldn't eat humble pie quickly and thoroughly. If he would do a smear like that in the first place.
So here's to you, buddy: you are far more personal, derogatory, and violent in your personal attacks on posters and their families that you don't like than Ron Lambert and Clive Candy. Here's to you, buddy! And remember: it's everybody else's fault!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, a minor note: typically an olive branch isn't 'I will admit partial responsibility only if you do as well'. An olive branch is when you express regret for something you said or did, because you don't hold other people responsible for choices you made. An olive branch is a choice to offer up a little vulnerability in the interest of making nice, even though it may be exploited.
You don't offer olive branches, Stone_Wolf. You guard with jealous aggression your own perceived status based on how others treat you, and you're never more than a few weeks if you're regularly posting away from lashing out when someone gets too far in the red in your personal emotional status equations.
Here is an example of an olive branch: Hey man, I will say that I felt pressured into it, but my temper got the better of me and I flew way off the handle and said some things that were totally uncalled for. I'm can't say that I like you or think you're a good guy, but I shouldn't have said that stuff and I regret it. Online sometimes it's easier to lose one's temper, but that's on me.
I've actually said shades of that to other posters before, over the years, because I do enjoy arguing too much and get carried away sometimes. Whether I've offered such olive branches enough or not is impossible for me to say. I know I've done it to Ron once over the years, offered such an olive branch anyway. I believe it was based on ignorance of SDA beliefs, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, that's an example of an olive branch. I'm pretty confident that's a fair example, much more fair than yours. But don't take my word for it: go to one of your judges for this sort of thing. At this point I note that you've never actually done that, I suspect because you know what posters such as Lyrhawn or BlackBlade would say about your 'olive branch'.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
SW: Why don't you take a step back and calm yourself before reengaging? Also squirrels around the world have been frantically reporting your post to Rakeesh demanding their torture.
I appreciate self-censorship. But come on man. You are better than that. And I wouldn't let others insult you by just bleeping them out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, JB, take heart: I hardly needed a demand to get me to torture animals. As a psycho born of prostitutes who delights in cruelty deep down in my soiled soul, I'm never very far from animal torture anyway!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You are human excr****t Rakeesh, your soul *seems like* a parched desert devoid of kindness and I actively struggle to not wish you generalized, non specific bad luck, discord, strife and injustice.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Go back to tor*****g squirrels ps***o
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That's okay, I'll go hug my kids and kiss my wife. You enjoy your cold, empty bed & house, you earned them both in spades.
I was right to call out your "civility" crusade for being the empty-headed pompous moralizing it was. I was right to spit on it.
If you ever start trying to police the forum's civility again because you think we should be more polite to bigots lest we hurt their bigot feelings, someone needs to come by your house and slap you with a rolled up copy of these posts to remind you of your own standards.
Seriously, though, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the level of cognitive dissonance required to make "calling someone a bigot for saying all sorts of awful, bigoted things and justly proving themselves to be a bigoted person" mean and dehumanizing, but makes "harassing someone, signing them up for a bunch of gay porn (why?), calling someone's parent a whore, calling them human excrement and saying I wish their father had killed them as a child" a-okay because they disagreed with me about gun control in a thread literally dedicated to debating gun control. I'll get back to you once I have that figured out.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Do you really feel like I've bullied & victimized you DB?
Yes.
Do you not realize just how beyond the pale your behavior is here? Do you see anyone else here, anyone at all, doing any of the things you do? Denigrating and mocking them for their life choices? Attacking their family? Calling them human excrement? Saying they wish they were dead? These are things I have never said to another human being, and probably never will. Certainly not just because someone pointed out some flaws in my take on gun control.
More importantly, nobody here has ever done that to you. You seem to feel you're entitled to personally attack, mock, bully, and belittle anyone and everyone who rubs you the wrong way - often by merely disagreeing with you or, by demonstrating you were wrong about something, making you look silly. It's made this forum a hostile and unwelcoming place, for me at least.
These are good posts. Come back to the forum, Dogbreath. It has a lot of shit that needs overwriting with good posts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Stone Wolf -
I've considered you a friend in the past. I've always thought that while our views often differed on hot button topic, at the end of the day I could still like you as a person and you were reasonable, just differently minded. Nothing wrong with that.
But I don't know how I can reconcile that with what I've seen in your comments to Rakeesh recently, and most egregiously in this thread. If you can't summon the will to treat Rakeesh with respect personally, then at least summon the will to treat this community with respect by not posting personal insults on this board. Putting asterisks in your insults doesn't make them okay.
My word probably doesn't carry a lot of weight, but here goes: Your very next post needs to be an apology to Rakeesh. It should really be followed by an apology to the community at large. I don't care that you felt provoked, and certainly I've seen some poking and prodding on Rakeesh's side, but nothing to warrant your reaction. We're all adults here, and "he started it" is an unacceptable response.
If you blow past this without an apology, then I am done conversing with you. There's already so little left of this community, I'm not going to contribute to poisoning what remains.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I am sorry to the community for name calling.
That was wrong & won't happen again.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
"We're all adults here, and "he started it" is an unacceptable response. "
I did not say this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I was going to write you a heart felt olive branch, asking you to be introspective & acknowledge your role in this...
Sure you didn't.
But hey, I'll bite: what was my role in inciting you to call me a son of a whore, to wish I was dead, to say I was a piece of shit and my soul was barren, to say that I loved cruelty and tortured animals, to wish that my father had shot me to death as a child...well, you remember what you said.
What was my role in 'this'? What is it about challenging and then, yes, mocking your position on the dangerousness of firearms and the similarities between firearms and other machines, that diminishes your own responsibility in saying those things? In saying anything, actually. Where exactly does your own responsibility for the words you use end, and the responsibility of other people for the words you use start? You're now expressing the idea that this boundary of responsibility does exist, so where?
Also, I will note entirely without surprise your failure to measure up to *another* standard you set for yourself and have in the past tried to convince others to follow. The first standard was that critical judgments of people diminish the one doing the judging. Obviously you no longer think that's true. The second standard is the one where someone else, in this case Lyrhawn, was held up as a fair judge of behavior by you, Stone_Wolf. Of course it wasn't really fair to put someone else up on such a pedestal, and in the event you didn't actually believe in that, either.
Another prediction confirmed! Thanks, buddy! (Hey, for what it's worth Lyrhawn, I don't think I can recall a time you weren't fair minded. That said, I wouldn't endorse you as some sort of external conscience or something for myself mostly because I don't believe that's a good thing to do but also because I have no doubt sometimes you would rule against me!)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: It's made this forum a hostile and unwelcoming place, for me at least.
Please return, I will be civil or silent, I promise.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Title of post: Not Defending SW Subtitle: But
I do think some people here make a sport of poking at SW. I am not sure why JB doesn't police it; it's the kind of thing I would police if I was a mod. (God forbid.)
That being said, I'm still disappointed and surprised to see the kind of juvenile outburst that happened here.
Everyone now has to write three things they like about each other. </nag>
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
If JB should police that, should he also police the way that Ron, Clive, and certain others are treated? If someone is going to spout BS and act the fool, I see no need to treat them with kid gloves because they're sensitive or whatever.
Stone Wolf gets the reactions that he does not because he is Stone Wolf, but because of the things he chooses to write and the way he chooses to act.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well, maybe. I'm thinking it might be of benefit to shut down threads that have already devolved, not so much a general "be nice" rule. Sometimes the Ron and Clive threads end up in the same kind of place.
But since that would prevent a lot of the activity that even happens here anymore, I don't know.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You kno, one thing that never really gets discussed...people are afraid, of being hurt, killed, raped, tortured or in a word, harmed.
And really, why wouldn't they be? Why is it so unreasonable in so many of your seeming views that people who fear for their bodily harm do something about it?
Or least if they are safe and careful about it?
If we could wave a magic wand, it wouldn't be waved and guns would disappear, the waving would be for the end of human on human violence in general.
And I'd bet the majority of humanity would agree with that wish.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: "We're all adults here, and "he started it" is an unacceptable response. "
I did not say this.
I was, perhaps, being proactively defensive when I said that. I should have used ' instead of " since it wasn't a direct quote.
It IS true that he's baited you, many people have. I was acknowledging that and then going to the next step.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Well, maybe. I'm thinking it might be of benefit to shut down threads that have already devolved, not so much a general "be nice" rule. Sometimes the Ron and Clive threads end up in the same kind of place.
But since that would prevent a lot of the activity that even happens here anymore, I don't know.
We're already so low on threads. If we start shutting them down whenever things start to go off the tracks instead of trying to straighten them out, we'd pretty much just be left with the Last Post Thread.
I mean, geez, I think the Steam threads outnumber the non steam active threads at the moment.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You kno, one thing that never really gets discussed...people are afraid, of being hurt, killed, raped, tortured or in a word, harmed.
And really, why wouldn't they be? Why is it so unreasonable in so many of your seeming views that people who fear for their bodily harm do something about it?
I haven't really participated in this discussion yet, but since I'm here I'll go ahead and take a swing at this:
I think the biggest problem here, in answering why it's unreasonable if you fear for your bodily safety to want to do something about it, is not that we don't want to do something about it but rather have a radically different idea of what "doing something about it" should be.
For better or worse, we're not cavemen, or even frontiersmen - hunters and trappers in a lawless land, fighting off bears and Indians and protecting our homestead. We live in a civilized country, in a land governed by rule of law and a social contract. The reason you can go out today, unarmed, go to work or the store or your friends house, with very low chance of being robbed and almost negligible chance of being raped, tortured, or murdered isn't because the rapists, torturers and murderers and scalpers out there aren't afraid that you might shoot them, it's because we live in a civilized country where citizens are governed by a respect for law, respect for the sanctity and dignity of human life, and respect for the rights of their fellow human beings.
Indeed, civilization itself is the human race's answer to "doing something about it" when it comes to not dying a horrible, violent death. And we have various institutions that aid in doing that something. And please note: some of these civil institution are doing a poor job or even failing at the moment, and I sincerely believe if we want to lower violent crime rates we need to improve this institutions.
We have schools and, hopefully, the Family (which is absolutely a social institution) to help mold children into conscientious, well educated, informed citizens. And also teach less tangible things: respect for others space and possessions, how to navigate social situations, conflict deescalation and resolution, resolving fights with words rather than fists. The value of making an honest living.
We have mental institutions, psychologists and psychiatrists to help deal with mentally unstable who might otherwise turn to violence. And that can mean anything from anger management training to mental institutions in the most extreme cases.
We have (or should have) social programs, welfare, healthcare, foodstamps, housing assistance, as well as widespread efforts to combat poverty. Partly because poverty is an evil in and of itself, but also because crime rates are very strongly linked to poverty and impoverished areas.
We have a police force to enforce the law and come to the aid of citizens who might be in danger, and to confront and apprehend those violent people. We have prisons in which to protect society from those violent people and (hopefully) educate and reform those prisoners while they're there.
We have a military to protect us from foreign invaders, or I suppose in this day and age, maybe terrorists who are plotting against us and our allies.
And many other things too... there's a lot of improvements to be made, but for better or worse we have mostly ameliorated the threats to our safety that you mention from strangers. Consider:
Rape: the odds of being raped by a stranger hiding in a bush (or a bathroom stall) are extremely low. Most rape victims know their rapists. Further, 90% of rape victims are either intoxicated or drugged when they are raped (many aren't even conscious) - neither of those are cases where using a gun to defend yourself would be ethical or often even possible. (Can you imagine a club full of drunk or high people with guns? Every time I've gone out on a pub crawl I've seen a couple of fights between raging drunk bros being broken up by bouncers. Can you imagine the chaos if those men were dumb enough to go out drinking packing heat?)
Murder: Unless you're involved in gang warfare, the main ways to get yourself murdered are to be a victim of domestic violence or get in a fight. Ironically, of the ways to truly be a victim of a random person deciding to kill you - a drive-by shooting gone wrong, a serial killer, or a mass shooting event - you're very unlikely to be successful at defending yourself before being shot, and often these crimes are committed with legally purchased guns.
Torture: I don't know if this is something that happens except in fringe cases.
I sincerely believe that the number of accidents, or negligent homicides (using lethal force when it's not really justified) caused by people carrying is a much bigger threat to society than the negligible number of cases where somebody conceal carrying actually prevented a crime. More importantly, though, I think that sort of cowboy, vigilante mentality is destructive to the social bonds that ties our civilization together. We've collectively decided we're not going to be savages, and part of that social contract is that we leave law enforcement, protection of citizens, and justice in the hands of our government. I think the action hero mindset that goes into "I'm going to conceal carry and make citizens arrests and defend my family against murderers and rapists and it's going to be awesome" is in and of itself dangerous, and can warp the way you perceive everyone and everything around you. (A point kmbboots made several times earlier, you should really read her links)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why is it so unreasonable in so many of your seeming views that people who fear for their bodily harm do something about it?
This rather presumes that owning a gun (and thus dramatically increasing the danger of death faced by your family and loved ones) is "doing something about it" as opposed to "making it worse."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well then
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You kno, one thing that never really gets discussed...people are afraid, of being hurt, killed, raped, tortured or in a word, harmed.
And really, why wouldn't they be? Why is it so unreasonable in so many of your seeming views that people who fear for their bodily harm do something about it?
Or least if they are safe and careful about it?
If we could wave a magic wand, it wouldn't be waved and guns would disappear, the waving would be for the end of human on human violence in general.
And I'd bet the majority of humanity would agree with that wish.
I'll take a straight shot at this. The difficulty here is twofold. One, I suggest that you and most people in the world are too afraid and of the wrong things. As Dogbreath has said, in the cases of both murder and rape, the most likely attackers simply aren't the sorts of threats it appears you're concerned about at all. Murder or rape by stranger is much less common that murder or rape by a known or even trusted or loved party. Self-defense and defense of family from threats of physical violence have been recurring themes with you-and that makes sense to me. It's a human, not simply a male, impulse to feel sorry about violence and to seek to prevent or mitigate it.
Given that, consider checking out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_of_Fear . Not only does it have a lot of useful things to teach about how to deal with threats you and particularly your family might face (especially your wife and daughter(s), since women are more at risk from violent crime), it also has a lot of useful things to say about how physically dangerous the world around you, as an American, actually is.
I'm not kidding when I say that I'm not sure which would actually help keep your family safe more from actual threats: reading and embracing the lessons of a book like that, or a firearm in your possession even kept secure at home and if you're extremely well trained in its use. Admittedly I have a bias in this.
The other difficulty, or so it seems to me, is that you don't seem to understand risk and anecdotal evidence very well. Of course that is a criticism, but it's not meant as an insult. Please keep in mind that you think I'm wrong about all sorts of things too. One of the difficulties with the idea of 'firearm for personal safety' is that, yes, absolutely in certain scenarios a firearm would make you and those around you much, much safer than you and they otherwise would be. I don't dispute that. The problem is twofold: not only is it not guaranteed that even in the incredibly unlikely event that you're in such a scenario, would you be able to taken by surprise use a firearm effectively, the problem is also that every single day, all the tens of thousands of days that those scenarios *aren't* happening, that firearm adds a risk to the safety of yourself and your family. So if a firearm is to be considered an insurance policy taken out against a dangerous and unpredictable world, then like any insurance policy the cost must be considered as well as the potential security it offers. The small, constant danger of ownership of a firearm must be added to the 'cost' column of this particular insurance policy.
So that's it, twofold: an overestimate of the danger presented to you and your family by the world, and an underestimate of the risk of possessing a firearm-even with good training-poses to your family and yourself.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Just a fact for the record, someone in my close family was raped by a pair of strangers in a public bathroom.
As to the police, there is no police in my town, we are under the county sheriff, who is 45 minutes away.
I also live in a forrest, which we share with grizzly bears.
I have also (back in MN) put food on the table by shooting it, w a permit.
My farher also saved his/our lives more than once by being armed during the LA riots.
Most importantly, thank you for returning. I hope we can bury the hatchet.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
First: nobody here has made any mention at all of restricting hunting licenses, or of outlawing hunting, or banning hunting rifles or shotguns. My dad and I went hunting fairly often when I was growing up, I don't think it's really an issue. (Even countries with very strict gun laws, like the UK, still allow people to go hunting and have hunting rifles)
There have been 6 people killed by bears in California since 1837. The last person killed by a bear in California was in 2008, and that was a captive bear. The last person killed by a wild bear in California was in 1875.
The chances of you or a family member being randomly killed by a grizzly bear are astronomically low. Like "hasn't happened in over 100 years" low. I really don't really think carrying a gun because you're afraid of bear attacks is really a reasonable precaution unless maybe you're a park ranger and are actively seeking out the bears or going near their dens or something.
Likewise, during the LA riots, of the people killed during those riots, 14 were white. 3 were killed in fires, 3 by riot-related accidents, 8 were murdered. Of those murders, 2 were people getting in a fight, and another 3 were drive by shootings where the victims had literally no idea they were about to get shot until they were shot. Only one was female, only one was under 18. (Edward Travens was 15) Yet your father was in a position during the riots where he saved his own life, as well as your life, "more than once" using his gun. Were these actual situations where people were about to kill him and/or you, and he used his gun to actually save his life? Or was it maybe situations where you all were in sketchy areas, or maybe being harassed, and afterwards he said "whew, good thing I had my gun on me, I don't know how that would have turned out?" Because the numbers from the riot alone show that it probably would have turned out the exact same as if he didn't have his gun, but I'm genuinely interested to hear those stories if you're willing to share.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As to long guns...there is a very strong anti gun voice here, that doesn't distinguish between what type of firearm, simply it is enough that they are merely dangerous.
As to bears, y'all are likely right. They are not a serious concern, merely an observation that there are areas in our very large US which are populated by dangerous animals. In mn I had a couple bear encounters/near misses.
As to the riots, I may have exaggerated, there were two incidents in particular I was referring to. One was at our home in Van Nuys, which was backed by a 6' cinderblock wall. A young male someone was noisily in our back yard, my father drew a gun on him and said something like "Out the way came." Which he did. The end. Story two, same day as Denny was beaten, my dad was at work & had a big moving style truck filled with gear from the Gallagher show, who he was prop master for, when at a stop light, four young black fellas in a car pulled up behind him and jumped out of their car with weapons in hand, my father pulled his gun & shot at their feet, and drove away. The end.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As to firearms such as rifles, speaking only for myself (though I would be surprised if others didn't agree), I'm not sure what you mean by 'it's enough that they're dangerous'. Enough for what? No one is talking about confiscation, certainly not here and in fact no one in the gun control movement is either. Or at least no one of any weight and substance.
While I wouldn't be surprised if long guns were less dangerous in ways that handguns are more dangerous (in fact, I would be surprised if long guns *weren't* statistically less dangerous), having a long gun does present a danger. Full stop. It's a weapon designed to kill living things, and is therefore dangerous. Is that danger enough to offset the dangers it might help prevent? Such as animal attacks, oppressive governments, or home invasions? I don't know, though I suspect the answer is probably not since the first two are all but infinitesimal threats and I can't speak to the latter in rural areas. Can long guns, with sufficient regulation and checks be made safe enough that the risk posed by owning them is mitigated sufficiently? Actually for long guns in particular I think the answer is yes.
But they're still dangerous. You've been to gun ranges before, so I know you can understand that there's a reason why there are rules such as 'treat every firearm as though it is loaded-yes, even when you are absolutely certain it isn't loaded'. It's because they're dangerous. It's the same reason surgeons have many layers of redundancy in terms of cleanliness before and during a surgery-because there is a small risk that is always, regardless of safeguards, going to be there and it can kill people, and the only effective long term solution is massive overkill in terms of safety.
Anyway, as for bears and wild animal attacks, given what Dogbreath shared about the facts of bear attacks in California over the past 140ish years, do you feel the media coverage on animal attacks is understated, proportionate, or exagerrated?
As for the LA Riots, I can't parse the details quite. Did the man in the back yard see the weapon your father had? And the four young men, what sort of weapons did they have? But to an extent, though your own perception of the dangers and that of your father are very understandable, a cold-blooded risk assessment would also ask questions like: how likely are riots in LA going forward? How often have they happened, and how dangerous have they been in the past? If one were to happen in the future, how likely am I to be directly affected?
The truth is that the factual answers to those questions must be that the likelihood of riots in LA that affect you with direct force, or your family, are based on what we have seen before extremely rare. Meanwhile, I suspect it is true that in a single year, more children are killed by suicide by firearm in los Angeles than any humans have died in all of the riots that have taken place there combined. http://www.ph.ucla.edu/sciprc/pdf/FIREARMS.pdf
It seems to me that of two very unlikely events-rioting necessitating a firearm for defense of family, self, and property; or mental illness leading to suicide by firearm-of these two very unlikely events, it is much, much more likely that you or someone in your family, or anyone with a firearm in the household, would use the firearm for suicide than for defense against riots.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Rakeesh: I haven't successfully found a source that breaks down accidental gun deaths by weapon type, but the FBI breaks down homicides by weapon type - rifles and shotguns are only used in a fraction of them. In 2014, for example, there were 5,562 handgun homicides, 248 rifle homicides, and 262 shotgun homicides. And I would imagine a significant portion of those 248 rifle homicides were were assault rifles - a long barreled, high powered bolt-action hunting rifle is actually a pretty awkward murder weapon unless you're killing from a long distance like Charles Whitman or the Virginia snipers or something.
Lacking a breakdown of accidents by gun types, I can say anecdotally at least that it's pretty difficult to accidentally shoot yourself with a hunting rifle - most of the hunting accidents I've heard about are trigger happy hunters accidentally shooting other hunters (which is why we always wore orange) or someone shooting from level ground instead of shooting down from a tree stand and missing, and their bullet hitting someone else half a mile away type freak accident. They're also big and awkward and hard for young children to handle and play with, which is important when you consider that 8% of all unintentional shootings are by children under the age of 6.
Of course the main difference is that hunting rifles are also useful tools, and are many, many times safer (at least in terms in people killed with them for sure, and probably in terms of accident-prevention) than handguns - I don't think I've seen any serious legislation out there suggesting they be banned. As I mentioned before, even countries with very tough gun ownership laws - up to and including straight up banning handgun ownership for any reason - still make it fairly easy to buy hunting rifles and shotguns. Though "fairly easy" is a relative term - in socialist Sweden you have to have been an active member of an approved shooting club for 6 months and then take a hunting exam to basically prove you understand how to operate the weapon and hunt safely, and then you can own up to 6 rifles at a time. Which isn't too onerous for anyone who's legitimately buying guns to go hunting, and is kind of similar to states where you have to pass Driver's Ed and then have a learners permit for 6 months before getting a driver's license, but is much more restrictive than anywhere in the US and ironically much less restrictive than the "they're going to take all our guns away!" people who are literally afraid of the US turning into Sweden make it out to be.
I'm somewhat ambivalent on the issue. I own handguns and take them to the range fairly often. I also keep them locked in a safe when I'm not using them, and even padlock them in my travel case when I transport them. Conceal carry is effectively illegal* here, but even if it wasn't I don't think I would ever carry. I never really run into situations where I would ever have to use a gun, and I'm nowhere near confident enough to say that there is a 0% chance of there being an accident.
I remember, for example, when I was a kid there was a police detective who went to our church (which 6 year old me thought was the coolest thing ever) and one day he nodded off in the middle of the sermon and a gun he was wearing on a shoulder hostler fell out and clattered really loudly on the floor. He was really embarrassed and the pastor laughed and made a joke about it later, but that always sort of stuck with me. I go to the bar after work sometimes with my buddies, there have been 2 or 3 times my wife has had to pick me up because one of them bought a few rounds of shots for everyone and I didn't want to risk driving after a few drinks. I've thought in those situations, "what if I was carrying?" If I don't trust my motor skills and judgement enough after a few drinks to drive home since my car is a potentially lethal weapon, why would I trust myself with a much more lethal weapon? What if it falls out and I drunkenly reach to pick it up and flag someone or accidentally shoot someone, or someone thinks I'm aiming a gun at them and shoots me? Those are kind of absurd scenarios but I think about stuff like that a lot. Or I could leave it in the car, but then what if someone breaks into the car and steals it? Then there's a criminal with another gun. Same for if I do get mugged - if they see I have a gun, what went from 2 hours of drudgery as I cancel my credit and debit cards and order new ones and buy a new wallet just turned into a potentially lethal situation.
I just can't really think of any good reason to conceal carry and plenty of bad ones, and even though I think I'm a pretty safe and competent gun owner, I think doing so would be risky. More risky than the 1 in a million chance I'm somewhere there's a mass shooting and I'm in just the right position and have quick enough reflexes and can think clearly in all the noise and violence and confusion to find and neutralize the shooter. It's just not a very good risk-reward trade off for me personally, and I think that effect is magnified when you apply that to all of societies, with your wannabe cowboy heroes with twitchy trigger fingers out there who blow their neighbor's drunk girlfriend's brains out because she accidentally tried to get into the wrong house late at night. I've talked to more than one guy who's shared gleeful fantasies about what they would do if they ever had their home broken into or got mugged that have made me think "this man should never be trusted with a firearm."
*It's technically legal, but permits have to be issued on a case-by-case basis and the police chief here has categorically refused to issue any permits up until this point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As to the riots, I may have exaggerated...
I strongly, strongly suspect that gun culture promotes and encourages this sort of exaggeration as part of the toxic narrative on which it depends.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Flagged someone? Does that mean covered them, ie pointed a gun at then on accident?
The fact that you think about this stuff DB, is one of the reasons why I would, personally, feel safe with you packing.
Also, when drinking, one should not be armed. And under my suggested system, doing so would be a federal crime, publishable by loss of carry permit at minimum and likely substantially worse punishment, including jail time.
Just for the record, I have NEVER carried concealed in my life, not once.
Also the fellas you mentioned, who are fantasizing about killing, I would hope they would not pass the mandatory psych eval required for public carry.
Laatly, if carrying and buds want to drink, wouldn't you go drop off your pow pow at home before you go? That's what I'd do if I went out drinking & carried...two things I don't do, btw.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As to the riots, I may have exaggerated...
I strongly, strongly suspect that gun culture promotes and encourages this sort of exaggeration as part of the toxic narrative on which it depends.
I do not contest this, the NRA are ass bags and thousands upon thousands of unnecessary lives have been tragically lost bc of their stupidity, greed & myopia.
[ July 07, 2016, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Flagged someone? Does that mean covered them, ie pointed a gun at then on accident?
"Flagging" and "covering" are two different terms. Flagging means pointing your weapon's muzzle at another person because you're not maintaining proper muzzle control. I really recommend you become familiar with some basic gun safety rules and terminology and follow them diligently if you're going to own weapons.
quote:Just for the record, I have NEVER carried concealed in my life, not once.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm in process currently to carry concealed in my new county.
And through much of this thread as well as Sam's you've defended concealed carry and how great of an idea you it is. I guess you can make the argument that you've never concealed carried up until now, but your "in my new county" qualification implies that you concealed carried in your old county. Even if you technically haven't before, you still very much intend to carry now. So that's kind of a strange point to make.
quote:Also the fellas you mentioned, who are fantasizing about killing, I would hope they would not pass the mandatory psych eval required for public carry.
What mandatory psych eval? Back home anyway, you literally just need to not have a criminal record. Did you have a mandatory psych eval recently when you applied for your conceal carry permit?
quote:Laatly, if carrying and buds want to drink, wouldn't you go drop off your pow pow at home before you go? That's what I'd do if I went out drinking & carried...two things I don't do, btw.
do you call your gun "pow pow"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think he was referring to his ideas for a new system of gun control regulations for many of the points that puzzled you, Dogbreath.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I highly recommend reading the op.
Also, no, I just get bored and like to play with words, none of my many firearms have nick names, I refer to rhem by their make/calaber the very few times I have discussed them in any detail.
Also, I taught gun safety for years professionally, as well as carried exposed for employment.
Even the article you linked says that " In the military, we used the term of flagging someone with a weapon. By this we meant pointing, even incidentally the muzzle at someone." Bolding mine. Although I volunteered twice, I never had the honor of service and was unfamiliar w the phrase.
Did you perhaps forget my extensive experience w firearms when you suggested I familiarise with basc safety?
As to carrying in my new county...I moved semi recently, so that was all that reference was. I'm not much in process in reality. I've downloaded the forms to apply, but my printer is down and I haven't gotten around to fixing it.
I must admit I exaggerated that too.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Before we go any further, can you just go ahead and share what else you've claimed about yourself that is actually just an "exaggeration"? Do you actually own guns, or have you just thought about maybe buying one?* Where did you teach gun safety "professionally" for years while remaining ignorant of gun safety terminology? Were you a police consultant? Work for a shooting range? Or maybe you took a gun safety class once? Where does the exaggeration stop and the truth begin with you?
*This actually seems like the most plausible scenario to me now, in which case, can I ask you to please not buy a gun? Or if you do, don't carry it around with you?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I worked at three shooting ranges (three locations, two companies), over a 6 year period, and while I had other duties, teaching gun safety was one of my jobs. All employees were encouraged to carry exposed while working.
My father bought me my first gun at age 12, and I own about a dozen, currently. At no time, since the age of 12, have I NOT owned at least, but unusually more than, one firearm.
I was certified to carry exposed, and did so for a living while going to school for computer drafting and design, I worked private security for over 8 years.
I once accidentally shot thru a window at age 13, thinking I was dry firing, luckily I lived deep in rural MN at the time and the only thing in that direction for miles was a cemetery and swamp.
I once almost blew off my fingers at age 17, when I slipped while slowly lowering the hammer of a handgun. The firing pin dimpled the primer but not deep enough to go off.
I kept that round all these years as a reminder of how lucky I am to have the fingers of my left hand intact.
[ July 07, 2016, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Where are tittles and Orincoro? It's not an official dog pile w/o them.
You play the victim very well.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Some of you all make it very easy to pull off.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Some of you all make it very easy to pull off.
Well, for whoresons pieces of shit who would be better of killed as children by their parents, that's not surprising!
ETA: Hey, I'll talk seriously with you about an issue and give you another shot-again. I'll even stick up for you to Dogbreath of all people if I think he's misunderstood or missed something you said, though God knows if anyone was entitled to taking a harsh view of you it's him. (How many harrassing emails *did* you send him, anyway?)
But if you ever had the right to play the victim before-a dubious proposition at best-you burned right through that right sometime around 'if only your father had killed you as a child'. Then, all you had to say about that was 'out of respect to BB I'll put asterisks up and hey you had a role too'.
I'll save Parkour some work and just remind you, as I just did, that on this subject you are entirely full of shit. You're not a victim, you're an aggressor.
[ July 07, 2016, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And another thing-if I or any of the other people you dislike so much, the 'dogpilers', said even half of what you did, they would have apologized by now without conditions. Not that they would have said stuff like that, but if they so lost their tempers they would have expressed remorse very soon after.
It isn't that I want an apology from you, not least because it's as obvious now as it was in the past that you wouldn't mean it. But I will happily point out your glaring hypocrisy in the realm of who's a bad guy questions at the very least until you make the bare minimum gesture of civility.
------
On a separate but related issue, what does actually sting a little is the way this was treated publicly as just an 'oh, you're better than that' and 'I appreciate self-editing'.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I worked at three shooting ranges (three locations, two companies), over a 6 year period, and while I had other duties, teaching gun safety was one of my jobs. All employees were encouraged to carry exposed while working.
My father bought me my first gun at age 12, and I own about a dozen, currently. At no time, since the age of 12, have I NOT owned at least, but unusually more than, one firearm.
I was certified to carry exposed, and did so for a living while going to school for computer drafting and design, I worked private security for over 8 years.
I once accidentally shot thru a window at age 13, thinking I was dry firing, luckily I lived deep in rural MN at the time and the only thing in that direction for miles was a cemetery and swamp.
I once almost blew off my fingers at age 17, when I slipped while slowly lowering the hammer of a handgun. The firing pin dimpled the primer but not deep enough to go off.
I kept that round all these years as a reminder of how lucky I am to have the fingers of my left hand intact.
Thanks for your honesty, SW. I appreciate it.
I have a question: after the various discussions in this thread, including all the hard data that's been presented, social and philosophical and psychological issues discussed... has your perception of this issue changed at all? Do you still stand by your earlier posts, thinking that conceal carry is a good insurance policy? Do you still think the vision you presented in your original post presents a net positive gain to society?
Keep in mind, for example, that the cowboy action hero mindset folks I mentioned most certainly *would* pass a psych evaluation. (One of them at least I *know* has - he's a cop) None of them are insane or mentally unstable, they just have very dangerous world views regarding guns and self defense and a highly skewed perception of exactly how dangerous the world around them actually is. In fact, and this isn't meant as a dis, most of the things they say are things you yourself have said at one point or another over the years, mostly when talking about defending your family against hypothetical threats. (Which is perfectly understandable)
Whether or not you're sane and experienced and rational and would never ever do something like that, carrying a lethal weapon absolutely changes the way you interact with the world and other people. I don't think either of those cops set out to kill anyone that day, and I'm sure they're very sorry that they did, but when you're jumped up on fear and adrenaline and in a dangerous situation and you only have a second or two to think about your actions and you have a lethal weapon in your hand... a simple mistake or overreaction will cost someone else their life. And afterwards, quite often as we've seen, it was a death that was not at all necessary or justified.
Likewise, there's a reason why one of the leading causes of death on the battlefield is friendly fire. It's not always easy or even possible to always make the right decision, no matter how experienced or level headed you are. People make mistakes, people misjudge situations. I know damn well that I can't trust myself to always make the right decision in a split-second situation like that, to never make mistakes. Can you really say you are that confident in yourself? How about people who are demonstrably less calm and more caviler in their approach to guns than you?
Again, knowing how minuscule the potential reward is (the one in a million chance you somehow stop a mass shooting), and how great the risk is, can you still really say it's worth it?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
First off I would NOT describe my teenage self as " mature, rational, highly experienced gun owner", but thank you.
Also, did you read my stats on open carry, shall carry states? And the 8 million est. permits issued currently?
It's not so much that I am pro carry as I am pro oversight of carry, altho I could see the confusion.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: First off I would NOT describe my teenage self as " mature, rational, highly experienced gun owner", but thank you.
Also, did you read my stats on open carry, shall carry states? And the 8 million est. permits issued currently?
Yes, and others have addressed that as well.
quote:It's not so much that I am pro carry as I am pro oversight of carry, altho I could see the confusion.
If you're not pro carry then why did you claim you were in the process of getting a concealed carry permit? I realize you admitted you lied about that, but you had to have had a reason for lying about it, right? Why would you try to get a permit to carry and talk about how it's a good insurance policy and how is it really unreasonable to want to keep your family safe and so forth if you're not pro-carry?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
" Yes, and others have addressed that as well."
I must have missed that.
I didn't lie, I exaggerated...there is a difference.
If it were a higher priority in my life, I'd be further on in the process than the start.
Mostly I'm happy w my safes full of guns, most of the time you need one you get a little advanced warning.
I'd be happier with a little federal oversight.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I didn't lie, I exaggerated...there is a difference.
What difference?
You realize "exaggeration" is not an antonym of "lie", right? A lie that also happens to be an exaggeration isn't somehow made any less a lie by virtue of being an exaggeration. If I said "I make a million dollars a year" - the fact that I'm greatly exaggerating my salary doesn't somehow make that statement not a lie. If I say "I got that job!" when really I was just maybe thinking about printing out the paperwork for the job application once I get my printer fixed, that's a lie. You knowingly stated something that was untrue with the intention of deceiving other people. You lied.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
All of that is beside the point, though. What I'm interested in is the question you've avoided answering so far. Again:
quote:knowing how minuscule the potential reward is (the one in a million chance you somehow stop a mass shooting), and how great the risk is, can you still really say it's worth it?
Can you?
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Some of you all make it very easy to pull off.
You know, at this point it's a bit of a vicious circle.
You can be stubborn when someone corrects obviously untrue or possibly unwise things that you say. And because you seemingly have this idea that you must only be corrected and engaged in ways that you find appropriate, and slowly but surely become more aggressive and unhinged as people refuse to act the way you tell them to, yeah, conflict seems to find you.
This doesn't make you a victim, and it's both ludicrous and sad that you apparently think you're one, especially in this of all threads.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
DB...Not sure...something to think about at least. I am not a statistic...however I do not see a huge upside at the moment, so I haven't done more than read the paper work, establish that I meet all qualifications...it's not worth that much effort to me at the moment, however situations can change quickly, and I had thought, heck, it would be handy to have the permit just in case I ever run across a burning need to carry...like civil unrest, or nope, that's about it.
The need for a gun can be abrupt, however the wheels of government move at their own pace, so best to plan ahead.
I do not agree about all exaggerations being lies, a better comparison would be you implying that you are well off, while in actuality you are only doing okay.
I tend to reserve the word lying, especially when the person I'm speaking to and I are not necessarily on the best terms. It's terminology that can cause strife. But, that's only one man's opinion.
My point is I'm far more in favor of some oversight than I am gunho for the idea of carrying.
One feller I worked with, he was senior instructor, ex special forces somesuch, with all the advanced training degrees, the walking death type you mentioned meeting yourself...he wore his gun in his home...he was literally armed at all times.
And I was like, jesh and golly Sir (some guys you just gotta call Sir), that seems a little overkill...he had stats he quoted, likely from biased sources, and I nodded and left his steely eyed gaze as quickly as possible.
You, me, nobody was gunna get this guy's gun from him, I doubt even his cold dead fingers would let go after his heart goes from high blood pressure...he reminded me of mad eye moody from HP...CONSTANT VIGILANCE.
What is the truth? The truth is we live in a world of uncertainty, and change is the only constant.
More than I think it's GOOD to have armed citizens, I think it's IMPORTANT to pass intelligent safety laws, like the sane laws of my own state, I.e. required safety testing, required proof of safe storage.
The mag capacity & "assault weapon" ban laws are mostly a bad joke tho. Bc they are insanely easy to get around. A p.o. box or buddy in another state, a bullet button, and Bob's you uncle.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Some of you all make it very easy to pull off.
You know, at this point it's a bit of a vicious circle.
You can be stubborn when someone corrects obviously untrue or possibly unwise things that you say. And because you seemingly have this idea that you must only be corrected and engaged in ways that you find appropriate, and slowly but surely become more aggressive and unhinged as people refuse to act the way you tell them to, yeah, conflict seems to find you.
This doesn't make you a victim, and it's both ludicrous and sad that you apparently think you're one, especially in this of all threads.
I certainly have impulse control issues, but I'm hardly the only one w issues friend. I don't enjoy or seek out the victim role knowingly.
But seriously, do you really see me getting into it with ppl who are not activity seeking to push my buttons?
It's always the same five or six dudes...whether it's me they are having a go at, or Ron, or Clive, the ones who enjoy conflict, and like to put people in their place.
It isn't black and white, we all add to the discord, and while I can accept that I need to mature in some ways, I have zero doubt in mind that I ain't the only one.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I certainly have impulse control issues, but I'm hardly the only one w issues friend.
I would suggest not waiting for everyone else in the world to be done having issues before taking responsibility for and dealing with your own.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Some of you all make it very easy to pull off.
You know, at this point it's a bit of a vicious circle.
You can be stubborn when someone corrects obviously untrue or possibly unwise things that you say. And because you seemingly have this idea that you must only be corrected and engaged in ways that you find appropriate, and slowly but surely become more aggressive and unhinged as people refuse to act the way you tell them to, yeah, conflict seems to find you.
This doesn't make you a victim, and it's both ludicrous and sad that you apparently think you're one, especially in this of all threads.
I certainly have impulse control issues, but I'm hardly the only one w issues friend. I don't enjoy or seek out the victim role knowingly.
But seriously, do you really see me getting into it with ppl who are not activity seeking to push my buttons?
It's always the same five or six dudes...whether it's me they are having a go at, or Ron, or Clive, the ones who enjoy conflict, and like to put people in their place.
It isn't black and white, we all add to the discord, and while I can accept that I need to mature in some ways, I have zero doubt in mind that I ain't the only one.
Yeah, I remember the last time after you mocked somebody's views on a current events issue and they totally lost their shit and called your parents whores and wished you were dead and hinted at violence against you.
Except no, wait, that's what you do. Which makes this idea of equivalence you're pushing transparent bullshit.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
"But seriously, do you really see me getting into it with ppl who are not activity seeking to push my buttons?"
Yes. Frequently.
But in an effort to understand your viewpoint here, would you want to quote a couple of times when people were "actively seeking to push your buttons?"
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I am genuinely appreciative of your willingness to try and see things from my side, however, I feel like the actual topic of conversation is already obscured currently, and I'd like to steer it back.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: DB...Not sure...something to think about at least. I am not a statistic...however I do not see a huge upside at the moment, so I haven't done more than read the paper work, establish that I meet all qualifications...it's not worth that much effort to me at the moment, however situations can change quickly, and I had thought, heck, it would be handy to have the permit just in case I ever run across a burning need to carry...like civil unrest, or nope, that's about it.
Then what was all this stuff before about how important it is to carry as an insurance policy? I'm not going to quote literally everything you said in this thread up until now, you know what you said as well as I did. Is this discussion why you're moving goalposts now?
quote:The need for a gun can be abrupt, however the wheels of government move at their own pace, so best to plan ahead.
I also pretty convincingly demonstrated to you that the situations where there's an abrupt "need for a gun" (like the lie about your father saving your life during the riots when he literally just yelled at someone to get out of his backyard) by a civilian are either astronomically low or situations where having a gun or not is unlikely to change the outcome. You are not a statistic, however statistics pretty clearly model how much of a threat there is to you and how much having a gun will ameliorate or add to that threat.
quote:I do not agree about all exaggerations being lies, a better comparison would be you implying that you are well off, while in actuality you are only doing okay.
First, I never said all exaggerations are lies. I said "'exaggeration' is not an antonym of 'lie'" and "a lie doesn't stop being a lie by virtue of being an exaggeration." Can you at least please stop blatantly lying about what I said?
Second, that's not a better comparison. You didn't "imply" anything (and implying something untrue with the intention of deceiving people is also a lie, just a more cowardly one), you made a definite statement that you you knew wasn't true. Which is a lie.
I mean ffs, if I were to tell my boss I was in the middle of working on a project and had met x number of requirements and then it later came up after 2 weeks of jerking around that I hadn't even started that project, I would be fired for lying. She wouldn't say "oh, well, it's OK that you lied because you also happened to be exaggerating!" That's a load of crap, SW. You're a grown man here, you know damn well what a lie is and why lying to people, especially in an attempt to win an argument, is a shitty thing to do. Do you think you're winning anyone's respect by pretending to literally not understand why it's not OK for you to just make things up?
quote:I tend to reserve the word lying, especially when the person I'm speaking to and I are not necessarily on the best terms. It's terminology that can cause strife. But, that's only one man's opinion.
Whereas I think lying to people can cause strife, and I try to avoid that by demonstrating a basic level of honor, honesty and integrity in my professional and personal life. I think telling people I wish their father had killed them as a child can cause strife. And as bad is Rakeesh is according to you - worse than Kim Jong Un, human excrement, etc. - he's never lied to me. Heck, even when we've been in contentious debates and he realizes he got a minor detail wrong, he pretty quickly owns it. Do you seriously think lying is acceptable or that other people should ignore your lies to "avoid causing strife" rather than expecting you to act honorably? Because that's pretty sad. It also means I can't trust anything you say. (As you've repeatedly confirmed just in this thread)
quote:What is the truth? The truth is we live in a world of uncertainty, and change is the only constant.
That's a fundamentally false postulation, though. I already spelled it out, but you are not a cowboy in some anarchist-fantasy wild west. You live in a civilized nation where most of that uncertainty that would make you think you "need a gun" has been removed. And again, nearly every instance you claimed you need a gun for (including wild bear attacks which haven't killed anyone in your state in over 140 years!) I've demonstrated is something that has either astronomically low chances of happening, or is something that having a gun is unlikely to change the outcome. Your "world of uncertainty" has very little actual uncertainty when it comes to being a victim of violent crime, especially as a white man in the US. Adding a gun to that situation adds to that uncertainty, it doesn't detract from it.
quote:The mag capacity & "assault weapon" ban laws are mostly a bad joke tho. Bc they are insanely easy to get around. A p.o. box or buddy in another state, a bullet button, and Bob's you uncle.
It's incredibly easy for me to break traffic laws by running a red light or speeding. Should we not have traffic laws then? Are traffic laws a "bad joke" because they're insanely easy to get around?
[ July 08, 2016, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Once again, it needs stating because it can’t be stated too often: despite the desperate efforts of the National Rifle Association to prevent research on gun violence, the research has gone on, and shows conclusively what common sense already suggests. Guns are not merely the instrument; guns are the issue. The more guns there are, the more gun violence happens. In light of last night’s assassinations, it is also essential to remember that the more guns there are, the greater the danger to police officers themselves. It requires no apology for unjustified police violence to point out that, in a heavily armed country, the police officer who thinks that a suspect is armed is likelier to panic than when he can be fairly confident that the suspect is not. We have come to accept it as natural that ordinary police officers should be armed and ready to use lethal force at all times. They should not be. A black man with a concealed weapon should be no more liable to be killed than a white man with one. But having a nation of men carrying concealed lethal weapons pretty much guarantees that there will be lethal results, an outcome only made worse by our toxic racial history. Last night’s tragedy was also the grotesque reductio ad absurdum of the claim that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. There were nothing but good guys and they had nothing but guns, and five died anyway, as helpless as the rest of us.
Once again, the difference in policy views is clear, and can be coolly stated: those who insist on the right to concealed weapons, to the open carrying of firearms, to the availability of military weapons—to the essentially unlimited dissemination of guns—guarantee that the murders will continue. They have no plan to end them, except to return fire, with results we know. The people who don’t want the regulations that we know will help curb (not end) violent acts and help make them rare (not non-existent) have reconciled themselves to the mass murder of police officers, as well as of innocent men and women during traffic stops and of long, ghostly rows of harmless civilians and helpless children. The country is now clearly divided among those who want the killings and violence to stop and those who don’t. In the words of the old activist song, which side are you on?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
About the riots. Yeah, based on your latest description of what actually happened, you definitely lied about the impact of guns in that situation, and you first told that lie quite a long time ago. At least months. Maybe you're fooling yourself, too-maybe someone in your backyard (did you ever clarify if your father could see this person and if he was armed, and if the guy could see your father and if he was armed?) might've hurt your family, or something, and maybe your father having a gun saved lives, and so for argument purposes that counts as 'saved our lives', I don't know.
What I have much less uncertainty about is how you would characterize it if I did such a thing. For example, say it couldn't be released to the public certain details of certain deaths, such as suicides. Some information made it seem likely that many thousands of suicides each year were done with firearms, but I didn't actually know that for sure-it just seemed likely to me. But in an argument with you I said it was sure. Later I admit that, well, I wasn't actually sure at all.
I have little doubt you would (rightly) accuse me of lying in such a scenario. Hell, you've been willing to call my mother a whore and express a wish that I'd been killed as a child because I mocked your position, so I think it's very fair for me to think you'd call me a liar in that instance.
Anyway, here's what we appear to be left with now with your very modified claims about what gun ownership in your family might have meant for your family's safety during the LA riots. During an incredibly rare event (rioting), there were two events. One of them was trespassing which might have led to something else, such as theft or other crimes; the other was something involving multiple people and a car, I'm not sure what that could have led to. In the trespassing, it's not clear if the gun was decisive, or if the other guy had a gun either. So in that case, maybe a gun prevented what might have been a violent crime. I can't speak to the other thing, since you haven't offered enough details about it.
Up against that one open variable and the other one which has a lot of unknown in it, we have to consider the two instances when you actually, as a hypothetical, nearly did yourself serious injury by accident with a family firearm as a minor. In one of those instances, only the lack of a passerby whether hiking or visiting a cemetery or what kept that from resulting in someone else being shot as well. Were you an only child, or did other members of the family experience near misses like that?
Anyway, based on what you've now said about the riots and about your own childhood interactions with guns...yeah just those two factors well you've got two maybes in an incredibly rare circumstance, the riots, held up against two actually happened near misses.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
(FWIW, the lie in question he and I were discussing was his claim "I'm in process currently to carry concealed in my new county", which he later admitted was completely false)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, that too. It is frankly pretty damned weird, since it's not as though it bolstered the argument anyway.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Once again, it needs stating because it can’t be stated too often: despite the desperate efforts of the National Rifle Association to prevent research on gun violence, the research has gone on, and shows conclusively what common sense already suggests. Guns are not merely the instrument; guns are the issue. The more guns there are, the more gun violence happens. In light of last night’s assassinations, it is also essential to remember that the more guns there are, the greater the danger to police officers themselves. It requires no apology for unjustified police violence to point out that, in a heavily armed country, the police officer who thinks that a suspect is armed is likelier to panic than when he can be fairly confident that the suspect is not. We have come to accept it as natural that ordinary police officers should be armed and ready to use lethal force at all times. They should not be. A black man with a concealed weapon should be no more liable to be killed than a white man with one. But having a nation of men carrying concealed lethal weapons pretty much guarantees that there will be lethal results, an outcome only made worse by our toxic racial history. Last night’s tragedy was also the grotesque reductio ad absurdum of the claim that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. There were nothing but good guys and they had nothing but guns, and five died anyway, as helpless as the rest of us.
Once again, the difference in policy views is clear, and can be coolly stated: those who insist on the right to concealed weapons, to the open carrying of firearms, to the availability of military weapons—to the essentially unlimited dissemination of guns—guarantee that the murders will continue. They have no plan to end them, except to return fire, with results we know. The people who don’t want the regulations that we know will help curb (not end) violent acts and help make them rare (not non-existent) have reconciled themselves to the mass murder of police officers, as well as of innocent men and women during traffic stops and of long, ghostly rows of harmless civilians and helpless children. The country is now clearly divided among those who want the killings and violence to stop and those who don’t. In the words of the old activist song, which side are you on?
So, Sam, you own guns right? You aren't straight up anti gun that I've seen...so I don't think the sides are pro and anti gun, right? It anti carry that is your point?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
DB, I'm fairly certain that my comparison to car insurance was in response to conversation, and not a generalized call for every one to carry.
As to the bullet button...it is fully legal, and basically circumvents all bans and puts AR, AKs and such back on the CA market...The ban was in and around '99, and bullet buttons came in the market a few years after, if memory serves.
As it is a CA issue I don't think you are up to date?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'm aware of it (as well as problems in Chicago with private owners in Indiana legally selling to folks who cross the state border from Illinois), just commenting that just because a law can be easily broken or circumvented doesn't make it a "bad joke." That's sort of a tired argument - "this gun law can't be 100% enforced and therefore shouldn't exist/is just a joke!" isn't a mentality we apply to any other law, despite people routinely breaking them or finding legal loopholes around them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I tend to disagree.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It's a mentality you apply to other, non-gun related laws too?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is there a law where the approach is 'by making this law and attempting to enforce it, we can completely eliminate or nearly eliminate this activity'?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single law designed that way. Laws against murder, theft, sexual assault, traffic laws, tax laws, environmental laws, all of them exist without this bizarrely high standard of 'if there's away around it, we shouldn't make a law against it' you're arbitrarily applying here, Stone_Wolf.
Like Dogbreath said, can you reference any other law that meets the standards you're using for gun control laws in this instance?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, Sam, you own guns right? You aren't straight up anti gun that I've seen...so I don't think the sides are pro and anti gun, right? It anti carry that is your point?
How best to put this, I wonder.
Well, okay, here's my best take.
I own guns, my mom carries a gun near constantly for her half-year job (she's an outfitteer for horseback fish and game hunts really, really deep in the grand teton wilderness), my dad has traded more guns than I think I could fit a double wide trailer with, I know guns, I am not straight phobic of guns like some anti-gun types are, but I have to live with the knowledge that until this country disarms at minimum as severely as Australia did in the wake of port arthur, the price we pay for our gun freedoms will be tens or hundreds of thousands of gun homicides a year that DON'T go away when more people arm themselves, but DO go away when the government revokes gun rights and makes guns a rarity owned by only a few people overall, with plenty of regulations.
If I could rewrite human nature to make this not the case, and make it so that you could have a nation with the second amendment not have to pay for the NRA's ideal state of law with hundreds of thousands of dead people and constant violent massacres? I would so do that. I would want to believe that humans are cool enough to trust with the right to bear arms unreservedly, because the idea of owning a gun is cool up until you reach the horrible 'practice' part of the theory. But we aren't, and that's not how things work out in practice, our nation is bloody proof of that fact. I would also rewrite human physiology to be able to smoke without health risk, because smoking looks really cool, especially in movies. I would also make motorcycles not an insanely dangerous and stupid life choice, and my sociology degree worth more to me than a piece of emergency framed toilet paper. Then I would be a gun-toting, smoking, motorcycle riding, snakeskin leather boot wearing, $150k+ a year salaried community-centric city infrastucture development manager, a job that totally existed that I could do. All of these realities sound super rad in my (quite adolescent) head.
But even though I would smoke if it wasn't a stupid thing to do, smoking is a stupid dangerous thing to do, so I don't smoke.
And even though I would definitely, positively, absolutely own and ride a motorcycle ALL THE TIME if motorcycles weren't stupid dangerous to drive, they are, so I drive a Honda CRV instead.
And even though the idea of owning a gun is presented with a lot of fictional upsides, the reality is messier, and understanding that means being willing, absolutely willing, to legislate away my right to own a firearm, without hesitation. And I definitely don't carry, because the idea that concealed carry laws make people safer is also a fiction.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: It's a mentality you apply to other, non-gun related laws too?
Yes, I started a post about it years ago how old and not evenly applied laws be removed from the books, and all laws should be written in plain English, also, with a built in escape clause in case the prosecution holds the letter of the law, but go against the intent of the law.
I'll dig you up a link asap.
My thoughts were not met with general acclaim Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, at least you're consistent. :/ (Though the gun control laws you're mentioning are hardly old or unevenly applied, afaik)
___
As a quick aside: I want to note that one of the reasons it's difficult to enforce gun laws effectively - not that any law is 100% successfully enforced, or even often 50% effectively enforced - about half of all murders go unsolved, for example (though nobody has said "laws against murder are just a bad joke!" even when the murderer pretty clearly gets away with it) - is the ease of transporting weapons over state lines and vastly different gun laws from state-to-state and even different counties. If you want a good idea of what the US would look like with uniform gun control laws, Hawaii is a good example, where conceal carry is effectively illegal and where getting permission to buy, register, and own a gun is roughly as difficult as it is to buy and drive a car. Hawaii is also geographically separate from the rest of the US and, because of luggage scanners in airports, makes it much harder to just cross state lines with guns purchased elsewhere.
We have the lowest gun death rate in the US despite being a densely populated state with 1.4 million people and a minority-majority population. And keep in mind, even that rate - 2.2 per 100,000 - is mostly suicides and accidents. In 2011, for example (the latest year I found accurate data for murders broken down by weapon type), Hawaii not only had the lowest overall number of murders of any state in the Union (despite being the 39th most populous) at 7 murders, it also only had one gun murder.
That's not zero, but that's significantly lower than any other state, especially which you account for that being one gun murder out of a population of 1.4 million. And the fact that the lowest gun death rate correlates to a lowest gun murder rate which also correlates to an overall lowest murder rate in the entire US... there's a reasonably strong argument that the "if they didn't have guns just as many people would be murdered, but with knives or pointy sticks!" argument is false. Will there still be murders? Yes, of course, unless there's a fluke year where nobody gets murdered - which might happen for Hawaii but is unlikely on a larger scale like the entire US - there will still be murders. Even the most peaceful countries in the world still have murders. But those murders occur far less often, and at a much lower rate. Why? Because while the people who truly premeditate and are 100% on killing will do still do their pointy stick killing sprees, but it's much harder to kill with a stick or a knife than it is with a gun. It takes a lot more effort, thought, and intent. Killing with a gun is a decision that can be made in half a second, often reflexively. Going out and sharpening a stick to stab someone with, or even going and finding a knife and chasing someone down and stabbing them, takes a lot more physical and more importantly cognitive effort. That, and the victim(s) in question have a much better chance of surviving and fighting back. Look at the Wolverhampton Machete Attack, for example, where a deranged man went to a preschool with a machete and attacked a bunch of kids. A number of children were injured - some severely - but the teacher was able to fend him off long enough that nobody died. (Not even the attacker, who was subdued by police) Compare that to what happens when a similarly deranged man goes to a school with a gun instead.
A very interesting side effect of this is that the last time someone in Hawaii was shot during a traffic stop was in 2001. (And that involved a hostile driver with an gun who opened fire on the police, incidentally) We've gone 15 years without the sort of event that is almost depressingly common now - a routine traffic stop that escalates into a deadly situation where someone (occasionally a cop, but usually the person being pulled over) gets shot to death. You could argue that might be because of better police training, but I doubt it - I know some local cops and they aren't better trained or better paid or more professional than cops elsewhere. The biggest factor is probably that cops here can pull someone over and be reasonably certain that they're not walking into a life-or-death situation. That at worst maybe they'll have to deal with an angry tourist yelling at them, or maybe have to arrest someone for drunk driving. It's an entirely different mindset.
I think if maybe the entire US were to adopt a similar gun control stance as Hawaii - which by the way, still lets me buy and own guns and shoot them at the range - we would see a similar massive drop in the gun violence rate nationwide as well as police shootings. Not right away, or even in a few years, but in 10 or 20 years? Absolutely. A big part of that, though, arguably even more important than changing the laws, is changing the toxic gun culture we currently have in the US. That means the "guns are an insurance policy" mindset, that means the cowboy action hero mindset, that means the "it's an unsafe, uncertain world, I need my gun to protect me and my family just in case" mindset.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sam...thank you for sharing. I'm not quite sure what to do w this information. I'm running a bit short on sleep, but I'll reread it with new eyes and see if I can make proper sense it in the morn. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
DB, I liked a lot of your post, and agreed with a lot of it too.
I have a couple questions...does Hawaii have inner cities or poverty, prostitution & drug problems? Or gangs?
I'm really asking, I only visited once, and had a lovely week of snorkling and barbeque, and don't kno much about that beautiful state.
There was another thing...oh, the pointy stick thing.
I feel that the pointy stick outrage kinda overshadowed my "point". Simply, that people who have a will, will find a way.
Even my original comment acknowledged that guns are more efficient, effective killing machines.
And I'm -clearly- for added oversight.
Honestly, I'm a bit conflicted.
I own an AR15. It's preban and registered and 100% legal, and it's one of my favorite toys...especially since I got a .22 conversation bolt...and if asked, not a month ago, if it was important that I have an AR, I would have said w/o hesitation said 'yes! for reasons!'
But really, if Russians or Chinese troops start landing, my best bet for keeping my family safe would be peaceful surrender, instead of Call of Duty, Resistance ed, which honestly I have day dreamed about.
On the other hand, I was watching a show on history channel about this civilization, who, when Genghis Kahn & his armies arrived at their boarder, their king brought gifts of gold and their finest trade goods, and surrendered, begging for mercy.
Turns out old Genghis just happen to be on his death bed, and felt spiteful. He ordered his eldest son and heir to raze the entire civilization, all buildings pulled down, all citizens murdered.
And that's -exactly- what happened. The end.
Also, is it not factual that before most modern holocausts that all firearms were confiscated? That Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Quddafi, Castro, Kim Jong Il, MouTstoung, and others did exactly this?
I understand, no one here is calling for 100% disarmament, I'm really asking.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I feel that the pointy stick outrage kinda overshadowed my "point". Simply, that people who have a will, will find a way.
For this conversation, this simply isn't true. Not only do firearms lower the necessary will required to find a way to kill by a great deal, but even with a great deal of will to kill, sometimes that isn't enough. If one person has a sword of iron and the other of bronze, and both have an equal will to kill the other, the warrior with the iron sword has an advantage. Macguyvers who can turn more ordinary implements of a post industrial society are about as rare and unlikely as the notion of one good guy with a gun stopping a mass shooting.
quote:Turns out old Genghis just happen to be on his death bed, and felt spiteful. He ordered his eldest son and heir to raze the entire civilization, all buildings pulled down, all citizens murdered.
It's fortunate that conquering the known world isn't really a thing anymore. As for Russia and to a hugely lesser extent China, the only physical danger you or any Americans actually faced from them was nuclear war. Against which firearms are irrelevant.
quote:Also, is it not factual that before most modern holocausts that all firearms were confiscated? That Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Quddafi, Castro, Kim Jong Il, MouTstoung, and others did exactly this?
That's a complicated question that doesn't have a simple answer. Some of those societies had been generally disarmed for a long time prior to those leaders, such as the USSR under Stalin. It's also not the case in any of those examples that disarming a society was the biggest or even a major stepping stone to what came later. Further, if the United States government or that of California wants your firearms and decided to use force to get them, it's going to get them. That sort of use of force never comes out of the blue anyway.
But the biggest argument against this question is all of the societies that have disarmed that *didn't* have holocausts, which by the way is usually a pretty specific term and never happened in Cuba, either. The connection between tyranny and gun control is another myth fostered by gun control advocates that has little basis in history and feeds much more on, to be candid, action hero fantasies than any historical precedents.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Except maybe boots...not sure how anti gun she is...and Tom...not sure of either
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh, and the bullet button effectively negates the ban, not 50/50.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I have a couple questions...does Hawaii have inner cities or poverty, prostitution & drug problems? Or gangs?
Yes to all five. Of course it has those things. The poverty rate is a little over 10%, there is a major city with skyscrapers and ghettos and the works, as well as a few smaller cities, there is a lot of prostitution, a pretty huge meth problem as of late, and plenty of gangs. It has all the problems that come with being a modern, industrialized state with a mostly urban population.
quote:There was another thing...oh, the pointy stick thing.
I feel that the pointy stick outrage kinda overshadowed my "point". Simply, that people who have a will, will find a way.
Yes, but you skipped over the part where I talked about how it takes a lot more will and malice aforethought to murder someone with a pointy stick than it does a gun. What percentage of murders do you suppose are planned out beforehand? There are a lot more murders that happen in a fit of passion: two guys in a fight, gangsters defending their turf, someone walks in on their spouse having an affair, hell a couple is having a fight and one says they'll leave the other (and in those cases it's usually the woman who gets shot), someone gets cut off one too many times and loses their shit, a cop all jumped up on adrenaline thinks a black man is reaching for a gun... all of these are folks with, "poor impulse control" as you put it, who happen to be carrying or have immediate access to a gun.
But lets pretty much set aside the huge number of second degree murders and negligent homicides and stick to premeditated murders. Of that percentage of murders that are planned out beforehand, how many do you think depend on the murderer knowing he will succeed because he has a gun? Do you think as many drive-by or workplace shootings would occur if they were drive-by or workplace pointy stick stabbings? You've already acknowledged they would be much less lethal, but do you think there would still be just as many if the folks plotting those murders knew they were unlikely to kill anyone at all, much less 5 or 10 or 49 people? Don't you think that a huge part of plotting those mass murders in the first place is knowing that you are likely to succeed?
You seem unwilling or unable, despite numerous people explaining it to you repeatedly, to understand that "the will" isn't a static, immutable thing. That people can't just be neatly broken down into "has a will to kill someone" and "doesn't have a will to kill someone" categories. Of course you're always going to find outliers - crazy people like the machete wielding guy who attacked a preschool if you read my earlier post - but the vast majority of murders *aren't* committed by people who are determined to kill no matter how much planning or difficulty is involved. The majority of murders aren't even planned. Guns completely change that. It's not just that guns are capable of killing far more people far more efficiently - and they are - it's that guns make killing much easier to do. Both in the sense that guns require much less thought or determination to kill with, and the fact that the ability to kill quickly and easily with guns makes killing much easier and more attractive to plan. Can't you understand that?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'll read this again in the morning, but seems reasonable.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Stone Wolf: when you started this thread you were advocating for the following:
quote:They would issue federal concieled carry permits, valid in all 50 states & territories & protectorates.
That would greatly reduce the amount of oversight and almost certainly increase the amount of gun violence in my state. Do you still support this nationwide concealed carry plan you outlined in your OP, Stone Wolf? Or have you changed your mind?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Imagine violence was only expressed by driving nails into wood. It's a strange and arbitrary example, but bear with me.
Anytime someone becomes extremely angry, or intoxicated and angry, or coldly malicious, or what have you they drive nails into wood. Now imagine that in this strange world, in one village straddling a river, on one side of the village hammers from Home Depot are sold to almost anyone who wants them and can scrape together a modest amount of money. On the other side of the river are basically flat rocks and such, or frying pans, other tools that can drive nails into wood quite well but aren't designed with that task in mind.
Which side of the river do you think would get more nails driven into wood? If there is a task at hand, better tools will mean that task is completed more often. Violence is no different. Firearms are basically the pinacle tool humans have invented for violence.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, I looked up Hawaiian requirements for concealed carry permits and I'm not seeing a huge difference it would make...
quote: Requirements: 1. Show reason to fear injury to his person or property 2. Citizen of the United States 3. At least 21 years of age 4. Qualify to own a firearm under Section 7 of Chapter 134 of the Hawaii State Statutes. This section describes the disqualifying criminal background factors. 5. Sane 6. Qualified to use the firearm
Nearly all states require residency for a permit, so, no change there...
Oh...I see!
quote: These States recognize Hawaii's permit
Alabama Alaska Arizona Idaho Iowa Kansas Kentucky Michigan Mississippi Missouri Nebraska North Carolina Oklahoma South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Wisconsin
quote:Hawaii recognizes these State's permits . . . . .
Yea, I can see how the LAST thing Hawaii would want is hoards of armed tourists sipping mai tais and eating poi, narrowly eyed watching each other for a hint of a bulge. Ugg!
Alaska really should continue exposed carry, my goodness, it's still a frontier for realies yo.
So, maybe the MOP would be more of a contiguous 48 kinda deal...guns on planes scare the shit out of me.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, I looked up Hawaiian requirements for concealed carry permits and I'm not seeing a huge difference it would make...
That's because you're not even showing me the basic respect of actually reading my posts.
"It's technically legal, but permits have to be issued on a case-by-case basis and the police chief here has categorically refused to issue any permits up until this point."
Conceal Carry is effectively illegal here.
quote:So, maybe the MOP would be more of a contiguous 48 kinda deal...
So after this entire thread you still support your original plan for the rest of the US to conceal carry then? Why?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Your police chief has jurisdiction over your whole state?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I support reforming current carry laws, as they vary so much from state to state, however interstate travel is not at all regulated (not saying it should).
I support a citizen who lives up to the rather strict restrictions & vigorous training & discipline required to meet my suggested oversight to be licenced to do so, and as a fedcarry holder, they would be held to a higher standard with criminal consequences.
I am AGAINST shall issue states and guns on planes.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Your police chief has jurisdiction over your whole state?
Over the entire island of Oahu, yes, which is part of the city and county of Honolulu. (there's no distinction between the two in terms of law enforcement) The other islands are sparsely populated and rural, but have similar arrangements. As of July 2014, for example, there were 183 conceal carry permit holders in the state, with no more being currently issued. The current holders are all security professionals, retired police officers, and military members. AFAIK there are no civilians (which I should qualify as non-security, non-law enforcement) who have been authorized to conceal carry.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I support a citizen who lives up to the rather strict restrictions & vigorous training & discipline required to meet my suggested oversight to be licenced to do so
Why?
quote:I am AGAINST shall issue states and guns on planes.
You know civilians can't carry on planes already, right? When you fly with a gun it's checked luggage. Or do you mean you're against guns being transported by plane at all?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why? Because if you don't give an enemy an escape route (of your choosing, not his) and instead back them into a wall, they will fight to the death for every inch.
Or in plain English, to have a snowball's chance in hell to get any kind of positive forward movement on needed gun control past the NRA and such, one must be realistic in one's goals.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Also, I'm cool w citizen faux cops, but I made my living as one so Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I may well be just wrong, but I had thought that it was not impossible to get to the baggage area, from the cabin, just difficult and likely to set off alarms.
I literally just don't want guns on planes...gives me creeps.
Aluminium is a very cool material, but unless at, like, .5", not bullet resistant.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why? Because if you don't give an enemy an escape route (of your choosing, not his) and instead back them into a wall, they will fight to the death for every inch.
Or in plain English, to have a snowball's chance in hell to get any kind of positive forward movement on needed gun control past the NRA and such, one must be realistic in one's goals.
So you support and advocate for concealed carry and lax gun control laws - including wanting to conceal carry yourself! - because you think there's no realistic chance of more reasonable gun control laws being passed? That makes no sense. That's like me saying "I support pollution and the destruction of the environment" because I don't believe enough effective environmental protection laws are being passed.
So again, why do you say, in regards to concealed carry, "I support a citizen who lives up to the rather strict restrictions & vigorous training & discipline required to meet my suggested oversight to be licenced to do so" if you just think it's a necessary evil? Do you mean to say "I don't support it, but I think anything more restrictive than that will cause the citizens with their 'backs to the wall' to 'fight to the death' for their right to conceal carry"? Because I don't think that's a true or reasonable assumption either (as can be demonstrated with lots of other countries that have passed more restrictive gun laws or even disarmed without incident, Australia for example), but at least it makes some sense as a coherent position. Supporting something you know is bad just because you don't think it would be possible to effectively prohibit it is not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm also not a fan of the way of thinking that says, "A special interest group has basically taken a major political issue hostage, radically shifting the national status quo in just two generations. One of the very plausible consequences of this is an additional, unnecessary thousands of deaths per year, but in fact even discovering the number of additional deaths is difficult because that same group also works hard to prevent as much scientific research into the issue as possible. If they had their way, no such research would be done anywhere.
Anyway, in spite of the literally grave and unnecessary consequences to the shift that this special interest group has caused, they're just too tough so we need instead to just inch past whatever tiny, incremental reform they'll let us enact."
Well, no. The NRA isn't a force of nature. They're an extremely well connected and financed special interest group, one which could be fought. In part by repudiating them on the local, state, and federal levels when it's time to vote and in another way by bluntly rejecting the lies that they have worked so hard and with such success to make people believe.
Makes your family safer? Nope. The world is so dangerous you need one? Nope. Protects against tyranny? Nope. Other things such as cars are just as dangerous? A big old nope. Right to bear arms? The current judicial interpretation on that is also a new phenomenon. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Yeah, those cops in Dallas all had guns, and even with hours to prepare it was a bomb strapped to a robot that eventually stopped the 'bad guy with a gun'. So a big old nope on that too.
An example: when discussing Hawaii you asked about urban centers, poverty, and drugs. My question is this: why does a solution to problems such as poverty and drugs include more weapons? Nowhere on Earth has trouble with addictive substances been solved through force. All of the examples we have of successful programs to deal with drugs treat it as an illness.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: So you support and advocate for concealed carry and lax gun control laws...
Lax gun laws?
I'm -literally- advocating for the exact opposite of that.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No you're not.
You just spent this entire thread arguing for federal-level conceal carry permits valid throughout the entire US (and then slightly modified to the contiguous US) and talking about the necessities of guns and conceal carry. Just a few hours ago you just said this:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I support a citizen who lives up to the rather strict restrictions & vigorous training & discipline required to meet my suggested oversight to be licenced to do so
Have you changed your mind since then? Because otherwise you most are definitely *are* advocating for concealed carry and lax gun control laws.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How so?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Because you just freaking said you support citizens conceal carrying and reaffirmed that you support your original plan of a federal level concealed carry permit. Do I really need to quote your own posts to you over and over? Here, I'll do it again!
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I support a citizen who lives up to the rather strict restrictions & vigorous training & discipline required to meet my suggested oversight to be licenced to do so
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Once again, do you or do you not support your original plan? Or have you changed your mind?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So you are saying that the plans I discussed, are, in your eyes, lax gun laws?
Even tho they are WAY more added restrictions to current gun law in my idea?
Yes, I still like my idea.
Did you catch the whole federal saftey testing for firearm ownership? Or registration, with ballistic & actual finger prints?
Lax gun laws my left foot
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So you are saying that the plans I discussed, are, in your eyes, lax gun laws?
Yes, absolutely.
quote:Yes, I still like my idea.
Then you are part of the gun problem in this country, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Before this you had, perhaps, the excuse of ignorance to continue holding on to such dangerous nonsense. You no longer have that luxury.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I, shockingly, disagree
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There's nothing like disagreeing with facts to build a strong case.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A perfect example of why open carry is a bad idea.
Had they been concealed carrying instead, and running away as they did, then the cops would not been delayed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, DB, my options are, change my views to match yours or else I'm wrong & should feel ashamed...this seems like intellectual bigotry to me.
There's more than one road to Denver, but to get to the same place from different starting points, one must follow different roads.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, DB, my options are, change my views to match yours or else I'm wrong & should feel ashamed...this seems like intellectual bigotry to me.
There's more than one road to Denver, but to get to the same place from different starting points, one must follow different roads.
Yes, though you shouldn't feel ashamed for not having the same views as me. You should feel ashamed because, even though you know it's wrong, even though you've seen that data and acknowledged there's no real upside, you would rather see thousands of men, women and, horrifyingly all to often, little children needlessly killed every year rather than give up your pathetic power fantasy of fighting off rapists and bears and Chinese and rioting "young black fellas" and God knows what else like the steely-eyed White American action hero you so desperately want to be. That's despicable.
Also, "intellectual bigotry" isn't a thing. Not all ideas are created equal. There aren't two equally justifiable sides to every issue, or even most issues. To paraphrase Asimov, your lazy, entitled ignorance is not just as good as my knowledge. A discredited idea based on lies and delusions, an idea that needs to be defended by willfully and brazenly denying facts, is an idea that deserves to be ridiculed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If it were all that simple, maybe.
I still see value in armed citizens, and I'm not alone, and all statistics need context & an appropriate application.
You are cool w cops w guns, who go thru less training than I'm suggesting, and what is a cop other than an armed, well trained citizen, sworn to uphold the law.
To carry under the MOP, is the soul of the 2nd amendment, citizens trained to defend themselves and their communities.
I feel zero shame for finding a middle ground between disarmament and non regulation, rights based nra bs.
You should feel shame for allowing your apparent closed mindedness to promt you to try and shame people who differ but who are clearly not ignorant nor stupid. But you won't. Bc I'm the bad guy, right DB?
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
So how many dead toddlers would outweigh the perceived value in armed citizens?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How many dead toddlers make the police or armed forces valuable?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:While numbers vary from source to source — the Washington Post cites 975, while the Guardian puts the tally at 1,125 — the website killedbypolice.net found that police have killed 1,186 people in 2015 (the U.S. government currently does not track how many people are killed in police encounters.)
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/28/3735190/killed-by-police-2015/
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Since 9/11, U.S.-led forces have killed—directly, not indirectly--more than a thousand children in Syria and other war zones around the world.
quote:I still see value in armed citizens, and I'm not alone...
Are you really reassured by the knowledge that other people are also stupid?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Always classy Tom
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Our society has an excess of firearms, compared to any other nation in the developed world. It is basically certain that this has something to do with another excess of ours compared to our peers, deaths by firearm both intentional and accidental.
The reason we have so many firearms is no mystery-it's because a shift in laws and public perceptions about society, fostered by gun rights groups, has led to a major shift in both over the past 40 odd years. Because of this, it's unthinkable at present to disarm police.
What this amounts to is gun rights advocates working to make our society so dangerous that police are armed like militaries in other places, and then when criticized for their gun rights policies saying, "Well look at police! They carry and do good for society, how about that!"
It's a sort of laughable blackmail or protection racket, not unlike what we hear elsewhere-and from you-about what kinds of gun control legislation might actually be passed. You've even admitted as much. 'The biggest group on my side of things will make sure what you're asking for is totally impossible, so really you should just accept tiny, incremental change and be grateful for it.' 'A status quo created by the biggest group on my side has led to the necessity of armed police. But look at police, they all carry and it's generally alright, isn't it?'
Intellectual bigotry is a silly term, and one you cooked up basically to be able to call Dogbreath a bigot.
And as for ignorant and stupid, well. I can't speak to stupid, but on this issue you've shown yourself ignorant on basic aspects of it many times in this discussion. Animal attacks, the dangers of firearms versus other modern tools, the question of disarmed societies leading to 'holocausts', the shifting judicial perception of the 2nd Amendmant, and the ways in which concealed carry shifts the perceptions of those who actually do carry.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Always classy Tom
In spite of ample personal experience, I continue to be impressed by your willingness to be such a hypocrite where so many people can see it.
I'll say it more simply: men who throw tantrums and call other people sons of whores, pieces of shit, express wishes that their parents had killed them when they were children, torture animals, and make oblique threats of violence are really in no position to criticize someone else for not being classy.
That's based just on what you've said to me, mind. A number of other posters have their own examples based on personal experience with you why you're a terrible judge of classiness. But listen, by all means continue to attempt to assert a moral authority on the question of how to speak to other posters and the classiness thereof and I will with pleasure remind you how full of shit you are.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I still see value in armed citizens, and I'm not alone...
Are you really reassured by the knowledge that other people are also stupid?
Tom. Please.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'll be more explicit, then: does it make you feel better to know that other people share your baseless, mushy, and yet strongly-held opinion, and that these people are more likely to carry weapons? Personally I find that terrifying. I mean, you've been demonstrably, factually wrong about pretty much every asserted claim you've tried to put forward in this conversation, but still continue to cling to your opinion without displaying any awareness that every presented justification for it has been torn away.
But, no, you're not alone in your opinion. In related news, a lot of people eat Vegemite.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You, who are already convinced, see each passing assertion, no matter how little behind it but sentimentality, as proof.
It takes more work when your audience isn't already convinced
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nah, see, you can't do the pot/kettle/rubber/glue thing in this scenario.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not trying to deflect you Tom...you don't trust cops...and I've never seen your action plan for success...if given the mandate of the people how would you solve societies woes here in the here USoA?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Your 'action plan' has no chance of success, either. The people on your side of the argument-that government should have to prove why an individual shouldn't have the right to a concealed weapon, rather than that that individual should have to prove why they should-they would attack with very effective political force every single provision of your 'action plan'.
But you don't want to talk about them, and have basically accepted their status quo. And, by the way, as Tom observed, your 'you too!' defense for being shown factually wrong on just about every major factual claim you've made doesn't work. Of course you're welcome at any time to reference a claim you've made where facts can come into question and been proven right. But you won't do that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not trying to deflect you Tom...you don't trust cops...and I've never seen your action plan for success...if given the mandate of the people how would you solve societies woes here in the here USoA?
Why do pro-gun folks always insist that all of society's woes before they will consider addressing the gun woe?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What's YOUR plan for relieving the country's GUN woes boots?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think there is a fast solution. I think that the gun show and personal sales loops need to be closed. I think that sentencing for illegal possession needs to be stricter. (If politicians are worried about more black men being incarcerated, they can reduce the sentencing for non-violent drug possession.) But, mostly, I think there needs to be a cultural shift so that people like you stop buying into the action hero fantasy and are less likely to be duped into thinking they need guns. There is no reason that can't happen.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sounds good to me
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yet you still buy into the fantasy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Do I?
I'm just okay w quasi cops.
Better to control who has/carries them than to try and confiscate, on multiple levels.
I'm for oversight, I'm for gun control.
Because of this thread I believe I will not turn in those forms for concealed carry. In any given emergency, I would be too busy getting my family to safety to need or have time to use a gun.
The best equipment for my needs are a decent pair of sneakers.
That doesn't mean I've changed my mind about liking/thinking it's important to have the option open to me and those like me (if my situation changes) and I encounter a legitimate need for instant lethal ability.
Such as death threats...we all kno my mouth at times is bigger than my brain.
Just for the record, that trait is limited to words, I have never and would never physically assault anyone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Just for the record, that trait is limited to words, I have never and would never physically assault anyone.
But because your mouth is bigger than your brain, you believe that you might say something that will piss someone off enough that they'll actually want to kill you? For which reason you'd want to have a gun at hand?
I'm a pretty mouthy guy, myself, but I've never once had the thought, "Gee, I'd better make sure I have a gun before I insult this guy, for my own safety."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Do I?
Do you still have guns? Do you still think that people like you should have guns?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Tom...what is YOUR plan to resolve the gun problem in 'Merica?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Honestly? Make gun ownership as reviled as smoking. It's only through social pressure that we can solve the problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Both smoking and drunk driving are good examples of what can be done.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Both took generational change...my father, uncle & father in law all smoke(d).
My uncle died of lung cancer and stll smoked. His mother too, my maternal grandmother. My dad's dad died of lung cancer and after smoking his whole life, my father started smoking at age 13, & continues to this day.
The smokers died and the culture changed.
My wife & I smoked up until we started trying to get pregnant, and quit w little hassle. My kids don't even kno what a cigarette is!
So, change the culture and wait for the die hards to...die.
Good plan, very slow acting tho.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not that slow. Smokers have decreased by more than half in my lifetime. Drunk driving fatalities have decreased by more than half since I graduated from high school.
Maybe your inability to recognize what is in front of you is genetic?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If so, I wouldn't recognize it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Btw...did you catch what you said..."in my lifetime"...
I don't think we disagree as much as you'd like
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup. The rest of us can see that you don't. I predicted that you wouldn't back on page 2. For all you pretend to be the voice of reason.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Do I?
Do you still have guns? Do you still think that people like you should have guns?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh hey, figured out why I need an AR...apocalypse insurance.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why aren't you in Sam's face or DB? They still own guns too.
Also it seems very unfair of you to say that merely owning a firearm means I'm pro gun culture.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You don't own a firearm. You claim to own "about a dozen".
I trust Sam and DB to be more realistic about who they are in relation to firearms than I trust you. You are indulging in a fantasy; I don't think that they are.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why aren't you in Sam's face or DB? They still own guns too.
Also it seems very unfair of you to say that merely owning a firearm means I'm pro gun culture.
I don't think anyone is saying that merely owning a firearm means you're pro gun culture.
I think (and everyone who has discussed this with you has said the same) that saying things like "we should have a federal level conceal carry militia program with armed citizens empowered to citizen's arrest people George Zimmerman style" is the problem. I think that thinking you're somehow going to stop a mass shooting or defend yourself against rioting "young black fellas" is the problem. Or that you think you need to conceal carry for some reason to protect yourself against the very remote possibility of bear attacks, or the Chinese invading, or in case our government suddenly decides to start a genocide once a certain number of Americans stop conceal carrying... that is definitely a problem. That sort of toxic, paranoid, reactionary, "it's a dangerous, uncertain world and I need my gun just in case" mentality that has created and sustained the gun problem in our country, and it's a mentality you've bought into wholeheartedly.
I think if it was that you "merely" owned a firearm - let's say you said "I own a few firearms, keep locked in my safe, take 'em to the range every month or so and have a great time shooting them. Oh, I also have a hunting rifle, I go hunting when deer are in season" sans any of the other crap you claimed to "need" a gun for - I doubt anyone here, or many people in general, would have much of a problem with that. As I've mentioned, even the western democracies with the most restrictive gun laws (the UK for example) allow people to own guns for hunting and sport. The UK also has a gun death rate that is 1/45th(!) what the US's is (0.23 per 100,000 compared to 10.54 per 100,000) as well as 1/4th the overall murder rate. This is despite having all the other problems the US has that you mentioned: drugs, poverty, crime, prostitution, gangs, inner cities, etc. (Which again, is a hard number, factual refutation to your "where there's a will there's a way" pointy stick nonsense - not "sentimentality" that you can just "shockingly" disagree with)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Seriously, I would love some gun rights advocate to seriously answer the contradiction between 'if someone wants to kill someone, they'll do it, and if they can't get a gun they'll kill with something else' and the difficulty of societies much like ours-such as the UK-not bearing this out at all.
Is there something about Americans that makes us uniquely more murderous than our fellow humans in similar circumstances? Or is there some mysterious variable or set of variables that simply drive our fellow humans to murder less often?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think I'll go post an a crazy conservative board so they can call me a damn dirty liberal just for a change of pace.
Also, boots, Australia has less ppl than Cali, so pointing at them and saying...see, they did it...doesn't seem like the same thing. Also, was there a down under equivalent to the NRA, or did the Aussie constitution have a 2nd Amend version as ours does?
If you want to ban guns, you must surmount the 2nd first or risk the county going ape shit.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Where do you imagine I suggested banning guns? Is it easier to address arguments I haven't made than the ones I have?
[ July 11, 2016, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Also, boots, Australia has less ppl than Cali, so pointing at them and saying...see, they did it...doesn't seem like the same thing. Also, was there a down under equivalent to the NRA, or did the Aussie constitution have a 2nd Amend version as ours does?
Ok so we're back to population density and/or size being a driving factor. Ok. The United Kingdom ranks #53 in population density on Earth, and it should be added that quite a few that come ahead of it are basically cities that are also nation, which inflates their population density.
Wanna know what number the United States is? One-hundred and seventy-ninth.https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density This poses a problem for the assertion implicit in your question. According to the way you view the world, as explained by you, the United Kingdom as well as Hawaii should be basically Mad Max with different accents. Not only are they not apocalyptic wastelands of violence, they're far *less* violent than most of the world and especially than the United States.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, the "population density causes more gun deaths" argument is absurd. At 218 people/square mile Hawaii has ~11 times the population density of the United States (and about the same as California, incidentally) as whole but the lowest gun death rate. For extra absurdity, the least populous state - Alaska, at 1.3 people/square mile - has a gun death rate of 19.59 per 100,000, the highest in the Union.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
What's crazy about that is in Alaska the traffic fatality rate is 12.26 per 100,000. It's literally more likely for one to get shot to death in Alaska than die in a car crash.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Yeah, the "population density causes more gun deaths" argument is absurd. At 218 people/square mile Hawaii has ~11 times the population density of the United States (and about the same as California, incidentally) as whole but the lowest gun death rate. For extra absurdity, the least populous state - Alaska, at 1.3 people/square mile - has a gun death rate of 19.59 per 100,000, the highest in the Union.
But I really feel like guns can make you safer!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Where do you imagine I suggested banning guns? Is it easier to address arguments I haven't made than the ones I have?
And yet you keep asking me if I still owned guns, and acted as if owning them alone meant something...so, it might not be an all out ban, just banning me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Believing that people should choose not to have guns is not the same as banning them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Owning guns by the dozen and believing the things you have said about why you want them is evidence of you buying into the fantasy. That is why, when you deny or question that, I remind you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
All but three were gifts from my father, all in fact before my majority. All of those are small caliber, or long guns, which we hunted our land & put food on the table with.
My father sold all but one of his when the family company went under.
One I saved up for one @ age 17 w my first job out of high school, one I bought when I worked at the range, one my wife bought me for one of our anniversaries (a WWII relic, bolt action $99 Big5 special).
Honestly, it shouldn't be any of your business, but, I haven't bought a new gun in decades. They sit in my safe, unloaded (except one) for -the majority of my life-.
Also note, I made my living with a side arm.
Bleh!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Honestly, it shouldn't be any of your business...
Said the man who demanded credentials from me, and then when I said I would communicate via email, demanded they be public, and then after I posted it sent a couple of unwelcome emails to me with the gloating remark 'why would I listen to you' when I said 'don't email me'.
It was a pointless exercise anyway, since as a liar (Excuse me, 'exaggerater') you wouldn't believe what I said if it didn't suit you anyway, but I decided what the hell, more or less just to see what you would do. Once again you didn't disappoint.
And now it's, what, two weeks? Three, tops, and the words 'shouldn't be any of your business' come out of your mouth. After someone points out 'hey you're all over the map on this how many guns question'.
You're really going for broke on this hypocrite thing aren't you?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dude, you are the one who decided to start a thread on gun control.
Posted by hawser (Member # 13415) on :
Tougher gun control measures could have reduced the likelihood of some of the worst mass shootings this year.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think I'll take a three year break from this site. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It doesn't matter. No fact, no reasoned argument, no logic, no appeal to the heart, no stories or pictures of mutilated bodies - even those of children - will change his mind. His fantasy of being an action hero in his own life is too powerful to give up. It is more precious to him than the lives that could be saved. It is worth, to him, putting his family at a higher risk*. It is certainly worth more than the blood of strangers.
*This is statistically true. He won't believe it because it doesn't fit his imagined narrative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I think I'll take a three year break from this site.
Translation: Wahhhhhhhh! People keep giving me grief for failing to address facts.
Anyway, if you do take such a break, try not to call anyone sons of whores or wish they were dead. Aside from being really bad form, it makes you look like a jackass!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The 73-year-old was there as a student in the citizen police academy, a two-hour course intended to give an intimate look at what makes the department in the quaint Florida town work.
...
The hosting officers chose two students to role-play in a lethal force simulation, a scenario intended to demonstrate how and when officers decide to pull the trigger.
...
These scenarios are usually safe, acted out with either fake or empty weapons.
But when the officer’s gun was fired, Knowlton — a mother, wife and career librarian — was hit with live ammunition.
Gun Licensing requiring a Safety and Accuracy test.
Requiring Concealed Carry Permit holder to put in X-number of hours a year at a range to be proficient with their weapon, instead of a clumsy danger to anyone nearby.
Research into Gun safety to be federally funded.
Mental-instability is just cause to disallow a person from owning a gun. (The NRA is against this, fearing anti-gun groups will make the desire to own a gun proof of mental instability. However every mass shooting has been described by the NRA as a mentally unstable person with a gun. Lets take that gun away from them. Besides suicides by gun users are way higher and exponentially less survivable than suicides attempted by other means)
Posted by PanaceaSanans (Member # 13395) on :
I particularly like this:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Requiring Concealed Carry Permit holder to put in X-number of hours a year at a range to be proficient with their weapon, instead of a clumsy danger to anyone nearby.
And maybe judge by actual proficiency in addition to hours/year?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
gunz r b4d ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(Hey, for what it's worth Lyrhawn, I don't think I can recall a time you weren't fair minded. That said, I wouldn't endorse you as some sort of external conscience or something for myself mostly because I don't believe that's a good thing to do but also because I have no doubt sometimes you would rule against me!)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)