![]() |
Question Regarding Gun Opinions
I've got a question for the anti-gun/rights members of this board.
Why is it that you assume that, simply because someone owns, carries, or is carrying a firearm that they are automatically a violent, irrational, poorly-educated, racist, secretly frightened redneck hick? Why the entirely overt and stated assumption that, simply because someone owns or carries a firearm, they want to kill someone? Why the assumption that I am a racist, a homophobe, or simply a slack-jawed moron? Nobody assumes that a policeman or a soldier is a violent racist asshole simply because they carry a firearm, after all, even though your odds of being accidentally shot by a cop are higher by several orders of magnitude than your odds of being accidentally shot by a lawfully-armed civillian. Simply because someone -will- kill, if needed, to defend themselves does not mean that they -want- to kill; merely that they value their life and will do what is needed to preserve it. We're not a pack of wild-eyed, drunken racists, thank you. We are vehement, we are committed, and we are entirely, deadly, 100% serious about maintaining our rights. But we don't WANT to kill anyone, we're typically a pretty well-educated bunch, and nearly to a man/woman we would give our lives to assure that Blacks, gays, and whoever else you assume we hate enjoys the same rights we do. Seriously, what gives? |
Dune, you should know that this is a broadly painted image by those in the main stream media because they are an anti-freedom/anti-self defense group. They don't believe that plain civilians have the right to carry a gun, much less own one, so every report that hits the news about gun violence portrays the homeowner/shopkeeper as the 'Shooter and the criminal/perpetrator as a 'Shooting Victim.
Rarely do news agencies (TV or Print) bother to correctly report self defense shootings as justifiable as evidenced by the Pearl, MS school shooting. The media reported that a student started shooting other students with a .30-.30 hunting rifle and was soon tackled and held to the ground by other students as well as a teacher. Only ONE media outlet ever bothered to report that the student stopped shooting because the vice principal of the school had a .45 caliber handgun pointed at the student. This vice principal, instead of being commended for stopping the shooting and saving lives (having had to sprint 1/4 mile to his truck and back for the gun because of stupid no gun zones), was villified for daring to bring a gun on to school grounds. Ain't america great? |
Seriously, what gives? Why do you assume that we all make these assumptions about you? I certainly don't. I know plenty of wild-eyed drunken racists, some of whom I'm related to, that don't own any guns or have any intentions of owning guns. I also know several college professors that have full gun safes.
Your post basically refutes itself because its guilty of making the reverse assumptions about those you're accusing of making assumptions in the first place. I certainly don't make any assumptions about gun owners - you can't tell who they are just by looking at them. By the way, you are not all vehement, you are not all committed, and you are not all entirely, deadly, 100% serious about maintaining your rights. One of the guys I had lunch with today just sold all of his guns because he has young children in the house. He's certainly not committed and hasn't been for the 5 years that I've known him. |
I don't assume that these assumptions are made; I -see- them being made every time a gun thread comes up. The most recent example is in the thread ( top of this forum ) discussing Illegal Immigration and the presence of Minuteman volunteers along the Canada/US border. The comments along the lines of "Great more rednecks with guns...just a matter of time until Billy Bubba shoots somebody" are there for all to see. I just want to know whence these ideas sprang.
|
I get it too, on many other forums as well as this one. It's not a direct frontal insult. When the serious gun fearing/gun ignorant person describes the person with an arsenal/stockpile/cache of weapons or they go in to the diatribe of 'the only reason people want assault weapons is to make up for what they are missing between their legs' and frankly, its gone past amusing and become somewhat irritating.
Not everyone does this, there are always exceptions to every rule. But more often than not, thats what we get. |
I'm not anti-gun, I don't really think about the topic much, so let's just say I'm "non-gun". Here's my off-the-cuff thought about your question...
Quote:
Perhaps I'm a pollyanna, but I don't see the world this way. Perhaps someday I or someone I love will die because I wasn't prepared to defend myself. Nonetheless, I will enjoy the time I have up to that point, because I won't fear the world. Again, this isn't something I generally think about, so please excuse me if these thoughts aren't complete. |
Quote:
There is a stereotype at work in there and it has more to do with "idiot rednecks" than it does with guns. |
I don't like private gun ownership. However I do not see myself in your description of anti-gun people.
I observe the following incontestable facts: 1) Some parts of the world allow private gun ownership 2) All parts of the world have violent unbalanced or otherwise unsafe people 3) The people in (2) sometimes get to the point where they deliberately or accidentally hurt or seek to hurt other people 4) In parts of the world that allow private gun ownership more of the people from (2) use guns to do (3) to people I therefore draw the following conclusions that many pro-gun people chose to argue with (as is there right) 1) If there are more legal guns in private ownership, it will be more easy for criminals to obtain illegal guns 2) If there are more legal guns in private ownership, and therefore more illegal guns held by criminals, there will be a greater chance that someone will be killed or hurt by a gun. It seems to me totally logical (and more importantly seems to be backed up by crime statistics) that not allowing private gun ownership would lead to a reduction in death by firearms. It doesn't mean that I think that all gun owners are nutters, it means that i think that there are a number of nutters in the world, and if there are guns out there then the nutters will get them. |
I'm a huge believer in the color grey, and I try to practice it where ever possible. What I mean is that there is very little in this world that is black and white. No group of people are "always" something unless its an absolute defining trait like "dead" or "Hindus". Within the subset, it's usually impossible to have any further absolutes.
That said, not all rednecks, hillbillies and poor white trash are gun owners and enthusiasts. If anyone needs examples, I have plenty of family members to introduce you to. Not all gun owners are any of the above either - I'll point to our President as proof given that despite his affectations to be a cowboy, he was born and educated in New Haven, CT. So when you guys are done pillorying all the gun opponents for being close minded, let me know so that I can help clean up the cups and plates from the pity party. Just like everything else, not all gun opponents have a closed mind on this subject, although you apparently do. I'm certainly willing to listen to new information and change my opinion as warranted. |
I agree the anti-gun phobia in the US has gotten really frightening lately. I really don't understand it considering guns were instrumental in gaining independence in this country and are still a symbol of our freedom today.
Just the other day I was out of town working construction in Kentucky. We had a new employee who was from California and wasn't used to seeing guns in public unless they were involved in some sort of crime or carried by law enforcement. Anyway, we were eating at a restaraunt and a family came in and the father was wearing a holster with a handgun in it. This new employee literally started freaking out and I had to inform him that indeed guns are perfectly legal for the a citizen to carry and he was in no danger of being shot at. It's interesting that most who support civil libertys and civil rights don't support the fundamental civil liberty that protects all the other ones. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Many people do not think that we will ever need to overthrow our government by force and therefore do not need a right to bear arms and even if it comes to that our measly single shot weapons may not be enough to resist a well armed corrupt government anyway. They may have a point if the government keeps restricting the types of firearms we are allowed to own.
There are those who think a government controlled militia should have the right to bear arms but not individuals. This seems somewhat odd reasoning since the government is what individuals would have to overthrow. If you take away the need to protect ourselves from our own government, many people think that gun control (elimination) is a good way to reduce gun violence and will make our society safer. With the number of guns out there and the attitude of many who own them I don't think this is even possible today at least not across the whole country. I guess those who believe the above also think that those of us who own (and carry) firearms are part of the problem. They have a point if there was really some way to disarm everyone and if they believe the government could do it without too much trouble. I think the gun culture is too far entrencehd here not to mention the Constitutional issues. Even though I own and sometimes carry firearms I also look twice at someone if I see they are carrying (especially hidden) as well, I think it's just human nature and curiosity since it is not something you see a lot except out here in the country. |
Any chance we can combine all the gun control/gun ban/gun rights threads? I feel like I'm seeing the same arguments everywhere I look.
|
I'm with will here,
It's like, every 3 days, i get to read about how gun control advocates are missing the point and that every citizen needs to carry a gun just to feel safe and the framers meant for everyone to be prepared to fight against their own government and that there aer several gunowners who have prevented a crime while the kids who accidentally get shot are just statistics and accidents happen,e tc Frankly, it gets old, just combine the topics or stick ot one or just realize that people will always have different opinions on what to do about guns and you wont' agree with any of them until every citizen is armed, which obviously won't happen Whooo, longest runon ever |
Every citizen doesn't need to carry a gun. It's the fact that it should be their choice to own or carry if so desired. Yes, many pro-gun people think the anti-gun people are the devil and communists in disguise, and vice versa, I've always looked at it as having the right to make that choice, and not having it made for me. :)
I'm a very pro-gun individual, and a lot of things on both sides get overhyped. So, in the end, stick with what you already believe and let it go at that. |
The problem I have with many of the pro-gun arguments is the idea that around every corner is some violent criminal intent on holding them up at gun-point. Thankfully, I've never been witness to any kind of violent crime whatsoever - I walk through city streets with an overall feeling of safety. Not so the gun lobby. To them, walking through the city is like asking to become a victim. It's this evident (and in my <b>opinion</b>, irrational) fear, and the feeling that one needs to protect oneself from some unseen criminal threat that I find slightly worrying. Is it paranoia? Maybe, maybe not - but it just doesn't seem healthy. Maybe I'm naive, but as I said, I have never been witness to a violent crime, and nor have any of my friends or family (with the possible exception of drunken brawls at the end of an evening) - In my world, it's just not something I spend any great time thinking about.
The typical pro-gun answer would be something along the lines of describing some far-out situation (let's say, terrorists spraying a mall with AK47 fire) and pointing out that if some people had concealed weapons, that we'd all be safe. Well perhaps you're right. But I just don't believe that 'terrorists' give a damn about my poxy out-of the way mall, much less travel all the way over there to start firing at random consumers. So - generally then - and if this upsets people I'm sorry, but it's the true opinion I have about those who obsess over their weapons - it seems to me that the pro-gun lobby are generally more fearful than the rest of us, which in turn, because of all the guns that are more readily available to all (and are more easily stolen for example), puts them in the hands of those who might use them for criminal intent. The concealed carry thing only applies to people who are willing to brandish a weapon and perform a 'hold up'. In a concealed carry culture, the criminal, if he wants to get away with it, is encouraged to shoot first, and not spare anyone's life - and that does not make me feel any more secure - and it wouldn't do, whether I had a gun or not. So finally then - would I ever own a gun? Yes. If I felt I lived in a violent area where there was no law enforcement, and I might have to hold-out against attackers. But we're talking Afghanistan, or central Africa. Not suburban USA. Is America really that dangerous? Is America really that lawless? Are Americans really that afraid of one another that they feel the need to protect themselves with lethal weapons? The answer would appear (to me) to be yes. |
Quote:
Quote:
Second, George Hennard wasn't a terrorist. He was just a man that snapped. And he may not have cared about going to a mall with an AK-47, but what he did care about was being able to kill as many people as he could, as easy as he could, before anyone could stop him. At that point, he didn't care about breaking a silly gun control law, but what he did care about was finding as many 'sitting ducks' as he could. I'm sure that most of those people sitting in lubys enjoying lunch/dinner weren't fearful of anything. After all, there were laws made to keep people from carrying weapons out in public. Well, that didn't work out very well, did it? But if one or two people in that restaruant had been carrying, 22 people would not have died that day. There will always be a way for a criminal to get a gun easily. Gun control has not worked in D.C. or chicago, that should be evident. It's not going to work anywhere else. Quote:
You say that criminals will only be encouraged to shoot first if everyone is carrying. 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. Quote:
|
DK, as pointed out before, DC has had a reduction in murders, and even though DC proper has had a drop in population, the metro area has had one of the largest increases in population in the country.
|
Quote:
|
From another thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=61 Originally Posted by dksuddeth So if you hear gunshots down the street and see 2 or 3 people chasing and shooting at a lone individual, you'd leave your target rifle locked in its place and dial 911?? Quote:
Maybe you should take a look at some court cases like Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services., or Hartzler v. City of San Jose The police are under no obligation to protect you as an individual. So, if the police aren't going to protect us, who will? Quote:
Quote:
meaningless without that. Quote:
Quote:
For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are: • Four times more likely to burn to death or drown • 17 times more likely to be poisoned • 19 times more likely to fall • And 53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident Quote:
|
Quote:
Speaking directly to those cases, they all confirm that you have no standing to sue the police for not protecting you, the individual. They all clearly state that the function of the police is to protect the individual. I think that YOU need to spend the time to read the cases or at least the Westlaw version. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I've said it before, I don't care if you own a gun, I don't care if you want to carry it, Personally I don't give a fuck.
But what I do care about is when you demand to carry weapons where children are like amusement parks, schools, city parks, stadiums and so on or where alcohol is served. Guns have no right in those places. I've had people on this forum tell me they have the right to carry anywhere they wish. That is a lie. In Ohio, the owner of a company can make that decision and it is illegal in bars, churches, hospitals, stadiums/amusement parks and any private property the owner deems it unnecessary. So if you respect my rights to own a company and say "no guns allowed". And respect the rights of those other companies out there that say "no guns allowed", then we're cool. But you trample on my rights or someone else's then we have issues. Because private property/ business owners should have the right to bar weapons if they desire to. Don't like it shop elsewhere. It's respect. You respect my rights I'll respect yours. You decide your rights are more important than mine.... we have a pissing war and one of us ends up losing rights.....and we all end up losers in the long run. |
Quote:
And....there it is. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Maryland has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, so it makes me wonder how many of those firearm deaths are crime related/gang related as compared to accidental. D.C. has a total gun ban so all of those have to be crime related/gang related. Nevada, not having enough of an idea about the nature of the state other than gambling...how many are suicides? Alaska......you got me. everybody walks? |
Quote:
In the other respect, I look at the last few years of mass shootings here in texas and they include a courthouse, 3 churches, a school playground, and a few bars. Why? because that sign that has a gun on it with a red circle and slash through it like this http://www.blueflamepolitix.org/medi...FreeZonesm.jpg tells anyone that wants to kill people that nobody in here is armed, fire at will. |
Do you really think that is the reason someone chooses such a place?...I highly doubt it.
|
Quote:
And you should both know that no one here thinks EVERYONE with a gun is a mainiac. Careful when you talk about broadly painted images in support of a broadly painted image. |
Quote:
schools, no guns churches, mostly no guns workplaces, no guns courthouses, only guns belong to law enforcement which is probably why there aren't that many. In 1997, Luke Woodham slit his mother's throat then grabbed a .30-30 lever action deer rifle. He packed the pockets of his trench coat with ammo and headed off to Pearl High School, in Pearl, Miss. Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up. Vice Principal Joel Myrick saw the killer fleeing the campus and positioned himself to point a gun at the windshield. Woodham, seeing the gun pointed at his head, crashed the car. Woodham did not expect anyone other than a cop to be there with a gun. It was only after the vice principal sprinted 1/4 mile to his car, retrieved his gun, and ran back to point it at Woodham did the kid stop thinking about killing other kids and realize that he could be killed. Were it not for Myrick, Woodham might also be dead by his own hand or that of the SWAT team. Guns save lives as easily as they can take them. It all depends on whose hands they are in. |
Easton police officer dies after being shot at station
Officials aren't releasing details of Jesse Sollman's death. By Tracy Jordan Of The Morning Call An Easton police officer died after being shot in his own police station near the end of the 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. shift Friday. Patrolman Jesse E. Sollman, 36, an 11-year veteran of the force who lived in Washington Township, Northampton County, died of his wounds about 4:25 p.m. after being flown by helicopter to St. Luke's Hospital in Fountain Hill, authorities said. Two days after Marion Alexander Lindsey was ordered by a judge to stay away from his estranged wife, the 31-year-old followed her after she left work and fatally shot her. The stakes for shooting his 27-year-old wife, Ruby Nell Lindsey, were raised because of where Lindsey committed the crime — a police station parking lot. The following mind-boggling attempt at a crime spree in Washington appeared to be the robber's first (and last), due to his lack of a previous record of violence, and his terminally stupid choices: 1. His target was H&J Leather & Firearms, a gun shop specializing in handguns. 2. The shop was full of customers - firearms customers. 3. To enter the shop, the robber had to step around a marked police car parked at the front door. 4. A uniformed officer was standing at the counter, having coffee before work. Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a hold-up, and fired a few wild shots from a .22 target pistol. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, the police officer with a 9mm Glock 17, the clerk with a .50 Desert Eagle, assisted by several customers who also drew their guns, several of whom also fired. The robber was pronounced dead at the scene by Paramedics. Crime scene investigators located 47 expended cartridge cases in the shop. The subsequent autopsy revealed 23 gunshot wounds. Ballistics identified rounds from 7 different weapons. 0n the morning of September 3, 1998, Joseph Montgomery watched as two men entered his store. The 56-year-old owner of the store 500 Guns, located near the Indianapolis 500 Speedway, remembered them as having come in earlier. The men walked to a glass case that held three shelves filled with handguns. "I want that one," said the taller of the two and pointed to a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver, which Montgomery reached down to remove from the display case. Montgomery later recalled that after his head came back up, one of them grabbed him by the neck as the other one stuck a 9x19 mm Ruger to his forehead. The man holding the gun said, "This is a stickup!" An Eastside gun store owner has died two months after he was robbed and beaten with a hammer. Tucson Police say someone walked into Jerry's Gun Exchange on December 29 before 12 p.m., beating and robbing owner Jerry Zwicker. Police say the 78-year-old suffered severe head trauma as a result of the attack. Zwicker is believed to have lost consciousness for more than 30 minutes before calling police himself. Zwicker's daughter, Robin, said her father was healthy before the incident, suffering only from arthritis. As you can see, It is relatively easy to find incidence of gun violence to bolster either side of this claim. While it is true Guns can serve as a deterent, or indeed as a way to ease in the commision of a crime, Attempting to back your opinion on this with individual stories is not supporting the position......just as the above stories do nothing to back my own. |
Quote:
I digress, my main point was that someone wanting to commit MASS murder is going to pick a place where people are most likely to be unarmed, and gun free zones are a top pick. |
I see your point, and in ways agree with it, as it is obvious that should someone decide to use a Gun to commit a crime they would prefer to do so unopposed. My point is simply that while this may be the case, it is not a reason to make guns unrestricted on private property. I well understand the vehement position of a "Right to Bear Arms", and have no problem with Gun owners, or the Laws in effect to limit proliferation of Some weapons. My point is that Gun free zones do not "Make" it more likely there will be violence, which is the implication you make....intended or not.
It just seems to me that if you want me to agree with this right to carry a firearm, you should allow me to say...."Not in here"....if I do not want one in my House/Buisiness/School/ Whatever. It is when you push to hard, that people begin to push back, even if there is agreement on the issue in the first place. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As a nod to the other companion thread about perceptions of gun owners, I love how you just called any gun owning residents of DC gang members and all criminals gang members. Yes, some of them probably are, but certainly not all. Probably not even most. Another example of the far right gun nuts screaming in terror "If I don't have my gun the gangs are going to get me!" |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
All of the cases that you listed uphold that individuals cannot COLLECT MONETARY DAMAGES. When you see people collecting big awards from governments it is almost always because the government employee in question was acting outside the scope of their employment (i.e. a cop beats an unarmed person breaking no laws). At that point, the government becomes liable for those actions. All of the cases that you cited involve folks asking for montetary damages, and I could not find any reference to any portion of the decisions stating that the police are NOT required to protect the public, including the individual. They did hold up the doctrine of sovereign immunity. |
Quote:
As for people shooting where guns are not allowed. IT doesn't matter if the sign is there or not, and I seriously have issues with the argument, "if I were allowed to carry a gun in there, that wouldn't happen." Most of the school shootings are kids, where exactly do kids go? People want to make statements when they do those mass shotings, I seriously doubt they care if there are other people there armed. They probably know they are on a suicide mission and in most cases it seems they have their "mission" well planned, plus they are usually massively armed. That plan usually is taking everyone by surprise. Most people, even if they do have guns when surprised, shocked and scared do not know how to react. If you have people carrying guns in courthouses for fear of some psycho coming in, you have a lot of people with itchy trigger fingers and the second something happens that they aren't ready for, you may get innocent people getting shot because people over-reacted. Or, if it is an attack you may get more people killed because of crossfire. There's a reason most major cities have SWAT teams and people who specialize in these areas. It is no, not, never a good place for the average Joe to take out his Glock and play Rambo. You're asking for more trouble than it is worth. Do you honestly believe the average Joe (trained in a classroom setting, who basically shot at a paper and took some written exam) and his Glock 9, are going to take down some nut case, who probably doesn't feel pain at the moment, who has more fire power than a Marine, and is ready for anything? My feeling is the average Joe is shitting himself, IF he is brave enough to pull out his gun his hand is shaking so bad he can't get good aim and misses, perhaps maiming or killing innocents. Meanwhile, the Psycho hears the guns and really lets loose. So you tell me, is it worth it? I don't think so, and I think the argument that people who carry guns are trained at handling this and the above scenario would never happen is a pipe dream and not based on anything. If I am to be taken out by a shooter, I'd rather it be the psycho, than an innocent man playing Rambo. The psycho will get his, the innocent man who made a mistake will live with that guilt for the rest of his life. Even in your above example, it was OUTSIDE the school where the Vice Principal had the gun. INSIDE may have been disasterous. You can argue it wouldn't have been, I can argue it would have.... no one knows, and IMHO I am thankful for that. Also, as far as respect, how about cities where the people living there VOTE for gun bans and people outside the community challenge the voice of those people by suing and demanding "their (the outsiders)" gun rights. Case in point San Francisco. Where's the respect of others' rights? One of the worst issues we have is where people believe their rights supercede everyone else's even if the community decided how they want their communities to live. This is the major reason we have a Federal government so strong and constantly in our lives. This is why there are people that feel we have too many rights and believe we can't handle them. No one's rights supercede anyone else's. It's about respect and the knowledge that my rights end where your rights begin. In other words, if I choose to carry a gun and you are an owner of a "no gun zone" then my rights are lost when I step foot on your property. As you stated above, you may agree with that, but many NRA members and gun afficiandoes seem not to. As a few have argued they have the right to carry anywhere they desire on here. The only way to get government out of our lives and the laws cut down..... have people respect others rights...... but a lot of people refuse to see that or live by that simple premise. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I support the right to bear arms & own guns. I don't own one myself, but that's my personal decision. Without guns, we would have never gained our independence. Now-a-days, this argument is pretty moot: the government has MUCH better weapons than we as a citizenry will ever have. I think the present situation is that the government should be afraid if ENOUGH of the citizenry rise up in revolt that the current Army is well out-numbered. I'm worried, however, that some crackjob in the upper eschelons of the gov't will not yield to the citizenry. (Too "Tilted Paranoia"?) |
Quote:
Quote:
I had planned on replying to all of your points, but I don't see the point. No disrespect intended to you Pan, but you have an extremely low regard for the capabilities of people. I've learned that theres just no argument that can combat that except experiencing it for yourself. Although, in regards to your san francisco point. Only 58% voted for that ban, how do their rights get to supercede the other 42%? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Going back to the actual question posed in the OP - why do SOME gun REFORM advocates think/act like gun owners are super-violent etc.? (And I've not seen anything personally about y'all being racists or something, btw.)
This is why: Quote:
|
Quote:
Am I fine with that? Yes. Do I wish the system better? Yes. Do I think that armed civilians enforcing the law is a much more flawed system with a huge potential for failure? Yes. Do I want you or any other armed civilians responsible for protecting me or my family? Absolutely not. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
as an afterthought, it dumbfounds me that some of the attitudes that people have about life, especially their own. On top of that, the pitiful opinions that they have in regards to the capabilities of others compared to the ideas that they have about their own as well. It's no wonder this country has gone to hell in a handbasket when people feel they know whats right for everyone else. You say you are fine with the flawed system, I take that to mean that if your kids are killed in front of you because the cops could not get there in time, you're fine with that and thats just plain pathetic. To view life in such a callous fashion is just beyond my comprehension. what is wrong with you people? |
Quote:
I won't change your viewpoint. You won't change mine. Why do I post in Politics? I keep making that mistake. |
Quote:
Just as people who go into McDonald's, or Wal*Marts or wherever. To say shootings will only occur where people are not allowed to have guns.... or that the psychos choose places because they know there are no guns there, is ludicrous. What of armed guards in the courthouses? Quote:
If I truly had "low regard for the capabilities of people", I would be wanting guns banned period. I just believe the vast majority of people whether they carry guns or not, can talk a great game but when in the real situation and the pressure is on, will tend to react very differently then they talk. Or are you trying to state that every single person carrying a gun will respond the exact same way, and will be perfect shooters and there would be no crossfire or innocents hurt? Which if that's the case, I find as misguided and sad as you obviously found my comments. Quote:
But I still don't see how that gives people who live outside that community the right to try to dictate policy and overturn the voice of the people. Again, that's why the Federal government is so strong. They capitalize on the fighting and have to make laws. And when that is the case we all lose. But, keep fighting the voice of the people in places you don't live and may never visit. Keep believing that you know what's best for a community you don't even live near. You tell me I have "low regard for the capabilities of people"? Yet you support going into a community where the voters have spoken and want to tell the vast majority there that they are wrong..... and use the courts to do so? Who wants to dictate policy now, who wants to tell whom, "they know what's best for the people"? Not me, I believe in the voices of the people and respect the voting procedures from which our nation was founded upon. It's like the C&CW laws here in Ohio. The majority voted for it. I may not like it, but it passed, the people have spoken and I respect the law they voted for. I can still speak out and try to get it repealed on a later election, but it is not my right nor should it be, to take it to court and demand the government steps in and repeals it against the will of the majority that voted for it. If you want to use the tired argument that the above example would allow a law that discriminates against a man's color/religion/ethnicity and so on to be legal. Then by all means. But that argument is a fallacy. There is a huge difference between discrinating between a person, himself and what a person chooses to carry on them. If your community votes that "no one with blue eyes can own land" and I move there and try to buy land and am denied for that reason. It's illegal because it discriminates me personally, they are singling me and everyone else with blue eyes out. But if push came to shove, I could buy my property and live outside city limits. Now if San Francisco says, "People are not allowed to have guns within the city limits, except in their own homes." and you get arrested for carrying a gun, then you should suffer the consequences. Because there is no singling out of anybody, and because you knew the law and chose to carry there. One of the above is discrimination against a person for whom they are and the other is a law for an OPTIONAL appliance one chooses to carry. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
edit - I did want to acknowledge this statement by you Quote:
|
Quote:
I can live with how you came up with "low regard for the capabilities of people". I may not like it nor agree with the reasoning on your conclusion, but I am not as offended because of your explanation. Like you, I watch people and it is my profession to know a little bit about psychology. Personal experience and observations have allowed me to believe most people would not react the way they should. There are exceptions, but the vast majority when facing a situation like that.... I just don't believe would handle it exactly beneficially. Even if we use your choice of 25% who should not own guns, you still leave the opening that one of those 25% would have a gun and try to play Rambo and make the situation worse by getting more people killed. That's not a chance I want to take. I am not that familiar with the SF law, but if it is true they ban all gun ownership, then yes, there is legal recourse there because I truly believe in what you do on your private property, so long as it hurts no one else and does not affect anyone else's rights, you have the right to do as you please. You want to smoke weed in your house, it's your right. You want to own as many weapons as possible because you believe the revolution is coming tomorrow, then by all means own all you want (so long as you are not taking target practice close enough to my property that a ricochet or misfire can hit anyone on my property). I believe in the rights of the people, I just believe in the voices of the people also and am naive enough to believe that people in communities know what is best for themselves far better than I or the federal government know. |
Quote:
Private businesses that cater to the general public can set up their own rules but they cannot usually violate constitutional rights. I guess the constitutional right to own firearms does not mean that they cannot be banned from them. |
Quote:
|
Anybody else think Congress should address the second amendment, amybe clarify it for the modern times? Settle most of this debate once and for all.
|
Quote:
I am allowed to be responsible for my own family's safety, just not with a handgun. I don't let the kids play in the street or jump off the roof. How would owning a pistol help with either of those? I make sure they know how to swim and that a policeman can help if they're lost. Thank god I have my gun for that (oh wait...)! Look, I just don't think that you need to carry a gun 24/7 to be safe. In my line of work I get reports all day long of horrible ways that people die. I'm trying to figure out how I can start a thread to tell some of the more interesting stories without risking the anonymity of my clients. For the record, I do write the liability coverage for 4 different manufacturers of guns that at least 10 members here own (last I checked about 6 weeks ago). Guns don't malfunction and kill people, but lots and lots of other things do, like paper bailers, cement trucks, manlifts and scaffolding. In my part of Chicago, I am much more likely to get 1) hit by a car, 2) hit by a bicyclist or 3) die in a fire than get shot. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Like abortion, school prayer, drugs and most other issues, let the voters decide in each state/city etc. Think how many millions would be saved from the needless court battles. The less back logged the court systems would be and the less government intrusion there would be. The people should have the right to vote what's best for their individual communities and government and people outside should respect those wishes. Life would be much simpler and needless monies spent to enforce idiotic laws that are made to homogenize the country would be freed to be used elsewhere. |
Quote:
But as a store owner you are not banning the rights of minorities to shop (or add your own protected activity).... you are only saying, "not on my property |
Quote:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm Quote:
|
Quote:
Considering that the "minority" populations are now basically financial equals it would be foolhardy to say "we won't serve Blacks/Jews/people with blue eyes and so on." Why? Because you'd miss a lot of money and sales that way. Not to mention boycotts, bad press and so on. But theoretically and lawfully, you can discriminate in privately owned businesses.... now if you overcharge or treat that minority unfairly once they do do business with you, then that is illegal. |
I think the point a lot of anit-gun folks miss is that there are things in life you can't control (a out of control vehicle running you down), things you cont control much (like dying in a fire), and things you can control (your own self-defense from a person meaning to do you harm). None of the pro-gun rights folk on this board are arguing that a gun will make them safe from everything. Only that being a well-trained, prepared gun owner puts your self-defense from an attacker in your own hands, more so than not having a gun would. Everyone knows you are more likely to die in a car accident than by a bullet and no one is arguing anything different. But that is no reason to leave your life in the hands of an attacker should you ever be in that situation. Most often the best arguement an anti-gun person can come up with is that it will never happen to you so you don't need to prepare yourself for it.
|
Quote:
The non-gun-carrying-group wonders why the gun-carrying-group sees the world as such a dangerous place. * Coconut deaths significantly outrank shark deaths. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I find it very strange that the serious anti-gunners like to think that it will most likely never happen to them (being a victim of crime) yet are more than willing to accept that they will be one of the first ones shot if a civilian starts shooting a gun at a criminal. I just can't follow that logic. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
FYI, the executive branch has also come out on this with a DoJ report confirming the individual right as well. so with 2 of the 3 branches affirming an individual right, what would be the argument if the courts said no? |
Quote:
http://www.wyff4.com/news/7501397/detail.html Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I would be happy to allow people to carry guns, as long as they were concealed, and if they were held legally responsible for how they are used, <b>whoever</b> uses them. If someone breaks into a house, or car, steals a gun and subsequently uses it, the original owner should bear responsibility for any crime committed with that weapon.
That is the only way to ensure everyone takes on the full responsibility that goes along with the 'right' to own a weapon. I don't know what laws exist regarding the transfer of ownership of weapons - I assume private sales are illegal, and that you have to trade your weapon in at the gun-store if you want to relieve yourself of a weapon, or trade up to a new one. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Why doesn't the NRA have statistics on how many firearm deaths there are per year in the US?
|
Quote:
For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are: • Four times more likely to burn to death or drown • 17 times more likely to be poisoned • 19 times more likely to fall • And 53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident Now, this is only accidental deaths, not suicides or homicides. In my opinion, suicides shouldn't count because if someone wants to take their life, not having a gun isn't going to stop them. When you consider that guns are used defensively about 2.5 million times a year and, according to the FBI estimates of crimes committed with firearms, Guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I've found his material quite informative |
I think we're moving away from the OP again, and I apologize.
I think that some people with guns have violent impulses or tendencies or even fantisies, but they are not the majority. While I am not interested in having or being around guns, I respect your right to have one. If there is a vote, well we can discuss that on a case by case basis. Not all gun owners are loons, and not all are Rambo wannabees. That being said, I do take issue with many gun owners. I think that gun owners would do well by helping to fix the multitutde of problems in the area of gun control, instead of simply focusing on their right to bear arms. I gladly defend my right to free press, but I call the press on bullshit every day, and I do what I can to fix the problem. The price for freedom is eternal vigilence. You can have freedoms, but you shoudl help to maintain them for the benifit of your fellow man. |
dksuddeth hasn't posted about guns in a few hours and I'm worried if he's alright.
|
I thank you for your concern will, i'm fine. Just a touch of stomach flu.
|
Oh jeez, I was kidding. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you feel better soon. Try to keep hydrated and get plenty of rest!
|
will, i knew you were kidding. relax. and thanks for the advice. =)
|
One of my concerns about cases like those listed in this thread is that pro gun people often seem to argue along these lines:
News Story = Nutter With Gun Kills Innocents, Hero Citizen Stops Nutter With Own Gun Argument of made-up pro-gun person = "See - this proves that we need guns to protect ourselves from gun wielding nutters" Secondary argument of pro-gun fictional character = "you would leave us at the mercy of gun wielding nutters/criminals/etc because you want to prevent heroes/cops/teachers/security men/etc having guns to protect themselves/us" ============================ You see, to me (and I am not speaking for all anti-gun people, just myself), the pro-gun person has started their argument a step to late. In a world where random nutters can buy guns (or steal them from self-defence conscious citizens) surely the argument ought to be not "make sure heroes can have guns" but rather "stop nutters getting them". That's why I dislike guns - not to prevent the sane rational sport shooters and careful people that want to prevent themselves becoming victims, but that to curtail those "freedoms" in order to prevent the nutters and criminals from having guns. ============================== There is also the right to bear arms and form a militia argument. I understand that in a nation that was born in rebellion from a tyrannical army (as the citizens saw it) there would be a strong will to be able to ensure that the government could b overthrown by an armed militia. However - would it not be fair to say that a militia trying to protect the liberty of citizens does not need the variety of weapons that seem to be available in the States. As an outsider, I wonder (and I'd love sensible answers on this one) why it isn't better to encourage a small range of firearms that have a common standard for ammunition types, and less chance of being used in crime (i.e. some sorts of rifle/carbine/SMG - rather than pistols, hand-guns etc). That way, if it ever gets to the point that the people need to form a REAL militia for self defence, the logistics will be more likely to achieve a good outcome - if everyone is using 7mm rounds of type "X", no problem with your militia having 9mm handguns and only .303 riffle ammo. Now - all tell me why I'm wrong. ;) |
Sorry to double post, but I've just realised your sig contains an argument that I feel enhances my point, and you probably feel enhances yours.
================= "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington ================= You SEEM to read it showing that the key point is that the people should be armed. I read it to mean that IF the people are going to be armed, they ought FIRST have discipline. All the rugged individualists may have personal discipline, but I find it hard to see that they could in time of need be welded into a valuable fighting force. And another thing - what would people now be saying if the constitution had been written long enough ago that it gave citizens the specific right not to "bear arms" but to "carry swords" or "own bows"? Would you now be seeking to argue that the founders MEANT high powered riffles? And what arms are included in "bear arms"? It seems acceptable to most people to restrict the use of military aircraft, missiles, rockets, tanks and the like. What would happen if the Minutemen on the Canadian border wanted a fully armed A10? Or if a militia was founded off Portland and wanted an aircraft carrier? Just asking. |
To sum up and answer most of your points/arguments, all too often in any society do the loudest groups make the case that in order to stop the smallest minority that caused the most damage, everyone has to pay. In some of these cases, where they (those in power/read that as lawmakers) create such legislation so that, say with guns/crime, because a handful of people over a period of time have caused so much havoc that we feel compelled to make carrying a gun illegal......with the noted exceptions of military, law enforcement, and public servants such as us. All this does is create an elite class that now has priviledges while the rest of society does not. chicago is a classic example of this. gun ownership in the city of chicago is effectively illegal. In order to get around constitutional legalites, they grandfathered weapons that were registered before 1982, BUT, city alderman/council members and state representatives are either allowed to carry concealed weapons for their own protection OR they get assigned chicago policemen for their bodyguards....all at taxpayer expense.
To answer the second part of your argument, the right shall not be infringed does not mean that all people SHALL own a firearm, but those that wish to should not be restricted in any way, shape, or form. The 'militia' issue has been degraded to the point of uselessness because the government/media have been able to 1) present the issue that people don't need militias anymore, they have the police and the military/national guard for their protection. They conveniently avoid ANY founding father statements about the concern for standing armies and government corruption/oppression. 2) That any 'militia' that IS formed is soundly and immediately cast in to suspicion as being 'anti-government' with allegations of intent to take down and destroy the federal government. It also doesn't hurt their cause any to be able to sprinkle untruths about other predatious criminal activity like child molestation, religious fanatacism, and occultism whether they are true or not. It becomes a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario. Arms were defined as personal weapons. It didn't matter a whit if they were bows/arrows, knives/swords, or rifles/pistols. My george washington quote says it all. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." What he is saying is that we should ALWAYS remember the lesson that the british army taught us, that the first step in to establishing their rule/authority over us is to disarm us and that in order for us to always be prepared to show anyone, including our own government, that if they choose to abuse the powers that we've given them, that we can and will fight back. The 1934 national firearms act was the most important step in disarming the people and having it upheld by the media argument that it was necessary to fight moonshine running criminals who were using automatic weapons to skirt the law, thereby making automatic weapons imaged as 'criminalistic weapons'. Once they got that foot in the door, it was baby steps to make all guns look evil and that 'civilized, law abiding people didn't need them, we had the police and military to protect us. 'Arms', as would be defined then and now, would be that any personal firearms that the individual can carry and use, same as our government. That means all pistols and all rifles (including automatics or 'machine guns'). Rockets, Tanks, Planes, and Ships are not arms. They are instruments used in warfare, but not individual arms. Now, some people don't want to get past that strawman argument because it helps make their case when they argue that the second amendment is a 'states' right, not an individual right but they have been consistently proven wrong on that point, although, some circuit courts are still loaded with judicial activists who want to see the populace disarmed. There will be no way to stop 'nuts' from getting a gun. It's impossible as long as the 'nut' still has freedom. The ONLY way to stop the nut from being able to commit the murder and mayhem that some have, is to stop infringing on the peoples right to bear arms. Once 'nuts' (the milder ones at least) see that there are other people out there ready to kill them if they try to commit violent crimes, they will not be as 'nutty'. There will always be the psychos, but fewer of them and after time, it will be handled. They will eventually die out from attrition. |
You've covered a ot there, friend. I hope you don't mind me taking some of your comments a little further.
Quote:
I like the fact that society as a whole can get it's shit srted to ban dangerous things (like unsafe cars, crashing aircraft, madmed with guns, etc). This is the point - my personal "freedom" to market a deadly car is curtailed by law - and so is my "freedom" to own my own weight in lethal armaments - it's one of the tings I love about my country. We clearly have very differnt world views - I accept that your's has merit, but it's far from mine. It seems that many pro-gun people do not acept my right to have the opinion I hold - I am not accusing you, I do not know what you think of my ideas. ;) Quote:
It's sad but true. If you want the decent gun ownrs to be treated fairly in the media, get your friends together and stop the extremists on the fringes of your own camp. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I see the arguments used in this thread about the 85,000,000 gun owners (or whatever the stat. was) and the arguments about not banning them because you'd never collect them all. Private guns were legal and indeed cmmon in the UK in the first decades of the 20th C, but were banned for reasns of public safety. At the time people made the same arguments that have been common in the US lately. Over the rest of the century the number of guns in society fell dramatically, and nowadays most illegal firearms in the UK come from legal sales in other "civilised" countries diverted to illegal imports, rather than from 3rd world countries (I was told this by a friend in the Home Office some time ago, but I have not researched the actual data, sorry). All in all if NEW guns were banned now in the US, how long would it be before the number of gun deaths fell? And would it be worth it? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
As to the handgun ban in the UK, it is not an apt comparison to the DC gun ban. The UK gun ban is occouring on an island, and is country-wide. The same is hardly true for Washington D.C. That might explain the differences in success. Just for the sake of information, Britain remains one of the countries with the lowest homicide rate in the world accounting for 853 homicides in the reporting period 2003/04 according to the Home Office's Crime Statistics. (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp) I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate our older brother, the UK ,for several years of decreasing violence. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Just so you know, the quoted statement above is by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School. I am not a lawyer, but he is (and quite a good one at that). Quote:
Also, the citizens of the UK are hardly defenceless. That is an exageration at best, and a lie at worst. They have available to them the same defensive technologies as Americans such as security systems, safety doors and windows, clubs, panic rooms, tasers, defensive aerosols, and the likes. I will say this again for clarity: a gun is not the only defence against criminals. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As I stated in an earlier post: Quote:
|
When guns get into the hands of people who will use them for criminal purposes, the people responsible should be held responsible. If the right to hold is so important, it must also come with the responsibility to hold in a way that does not endanger others.
That responsibility has been taken <b>far</b> too lightly in the past - and is the primary reason why gun-control is seen as being necessary. |
The lubys massacre that I've written and posted about in these gun control threads was an event that was directly responsible for the texas legislature passing the concealed carry law in 95. this video link shows Suzanna Gratia, now a texas state representative, testifying in front of congress and then representative charles schumer about the assault weapons ban. Probably the best video and statement that could ever be made against gun control
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ontrol&pl=true |
It's quite possible that the majority of gun owners are ok.
What bothers me is that some pro-gun posters on this board post messages that show a clear ignorance of other parts of the world. There are many countries with fully functioning stable democracies, strong restrictions no (legal) gun ownership, and a low incidence of gun related injuries. Given that - I tend to respond if I see a poster acting as if the sky will fall, as soon as weapon X is restricted. Ok, guns might be useful/necessary for defense in some parts of the world - but this sure doesn't seem to be the universal case. |
Quote:
In Japan, for instance, which is often touted as an anti-gun paradise, the Police can enter your home and search it at any time, without a warrant or probable cause. You can be arrested without a warrant, and the burden of proof is on the defendant; you are presumed Guilty until proven otherwise. This is not Freedom, this is a Samurai fiefdom redefined as a Corporatocracy. Likewise in the UK, where six men can be arrested, tortured, convicted on the basis of coerced and inconsistant testimony...and then, when all of the above is discovered, the Judge can refuse to acquit or release them because it might make the courts look bad. Look up the Birmingham Six if you don't believe me. Ireland is the one truly glaring exception to this; IMO, this is because of an extremely active and engaged electorate which wields its' venom and votes like a bullwhip. The threat of a resurgent ( Official ) Irish Republican Army also probably helps. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project