posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly? Make gun ownership as reviled as smoking. It's only through social pressure that we can solve the problem.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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-.
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tougher gun control measures could have reduced the likelihood of some of the worst mass shootings this year.
Posts: 116 | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
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.
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!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 366 | Registered: May 2016
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
