FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Mass Shootings/Gun Reform (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Mass Shootings/Gun Reform
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*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_ ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't parse that post.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did you read what sort of weapons he used?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Articles only said "rifle".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's unclear if it was real or fake?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

This may have gotten lost on the last page.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Correlation does not imply causation, I'd say.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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_ ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not in general Lyr...suicide by car is nearly as effective as suicide by gun.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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 [Wink]

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

[Confused]

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_ ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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 [Wink]

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. [Razz]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In use?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers

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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you really think I confuse the two?

Come on kids, jump in the gun...make sure your safetys are on

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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'.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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!

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
[No No]

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.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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!

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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!

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, hey, people are still posting in this thread. Huh.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For Hatrack now, this really moves.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/father-accidentally-shoots-kills-teen-son-at-florida-gun-range
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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!

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Cry] gunz r b4d [Cry]

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...

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Man, SW, get a grip.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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_ ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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!

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2