HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » A genuine question for gu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 08:00 AM

A genuine question for gun regulation supporters.

Violence is a given. Since the dawn of mankind itself, humanity has been continually developing more efficient and more brutal methods of killing one another. The reasons may as well be nonexistent: Religion, wealth, rebellion, poverty, land, "he sat on my golden stool", et cetera. Humans kill one another, and that is a true, if a sad, fact.

Your goal can't truly be humanism or empathy, can it? Hundreds of thousands die of disease or malnutrition yearly. Thousands more die in motor vehicle altercations, and more people die by plain old accidents than by gunfire. There are a dozen things more fatal and more life-threatening than gun violence.

So why guns? Taking on AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer's, famine, or any number of other pandemic causes of death would yield far more substantial benefits than attempting to control access to firearms. Please note that I am not accusing anyone (ANYone) of not also fighting the good fight in the name of curing things like cancer or AIDS, nor am I stating that anyone is a "single-issue care-er", by any stretch.

This is my question.

Gun violence and suicide is an incredibly small part of death in America, outpaced even by accidental poisoning. What brought you to argue in favor of gun control as opposed to any other more prominent cause of death?

64 replies, 4424 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply A genuine question for gun regulation supporters. (Original post)
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 OP
jehop61 Oct 2012 #1
glacierbay Oct 2012 #10
Confusious Oct 2012 #29
glacierbay Oct 2012 #34
Confusious Oct 2012 #35
gejohnston Oct 2012 #36
Confusious Oct 2012 #37
gejohnston Oct 2012 #39
Confusious Oct 2012 #42
gejohnston Oct 2012 #43
Confusious Oct 2012 #45
gejohnston Oct 2012 #49
safeinOhio Oct 2012 #61
glacierbay Oct 2012 #40
Confusious Oct 2012 #41
glacierbay Oct 2012 #44
Confusious Oct 2012 #46
glacierbay Oct 2012 #47
Confusious Oct 2012 #48
gejohnston Oct 2012 #50
glacierbay Oct 2012 #52
glacierbay Oct 2012 #38
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #12
Trunk Monkey Oct 2012 #20
GreenStormCloud Oct 2012 #27
Db Owen97 Oct 2012 #62
safeinOhio Oct 2012 #2
hack89 Oct 2012 #3
safeinOhio Oct 2012 #5
hack89 Oct 2012 #11
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #14
gejohnston Oct 2012 #18
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #13
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #24
GreenStormCloud Oct 2012 #28
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #31
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #60
Db Owen97 Oct 2012 #64
LineReply a
MrYikes Oct 2012 #4
ileus Oct 2012 #7
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #17
rl6214 Oct 2012 #19
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #25
spin Oct 2012 #21
PavePusher Oct 2012 #22
aikoaiko Oct 2012 #6
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #63
aka-chmeee Oct 2012 #8
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #15
aka-chmeee Oct 2012 #55
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #56
aka-chmeee Oct 2012 #57
aka-chmeee Oct 2012 #58
krispos42 Oct 2012 #9
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #16
krispos42 Oct 2012 #23
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #32
graham4anything Oct 2012 #26
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #30
graham4anything Oct 2012 #33
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #51
glacierbay Oct 2012 #53
Decoy of Fenris Oct 2012 #54
glacierbay Oct 2012 #59

Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 08:19 AM

1. My Reason

Was a gun pointed at my husband's head by a gang banger. Turned out well, but that person should not have had a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:18 AM

10. Why blame an inanimate object

 

without human interaction, a gun is no more than a hunk of metal and plastic. It could just as easily have been a knife, a broken bottle. or something else.
Place the blame where it belongs, on the POS thug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #10)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 04:39 PM

29. A knife, a broken bottle, or a hunk of metal or plastic

Probably wouldn't have gone through a thick plate glass window and a leg.

(oh, and one also through a door and a wall into the next apt.)

In my case.

Just so you know, I can see a need for people to defend themselves in their homes.

Carry them everywhere? No so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #29)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 10:08 PM

34. You're saying that crime only happens in the home?

 

Let me ask you this, who is responsible for your personal safety? Here's a hint, it ain't the police, we're only responsible for the general public's safety, so why shouldn't law abiding citizens be allowed to carry the best tool to defend themselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #34)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:30 PM

35. 'cause I don't want to be shot

By someone who thinks he's hot shit because he has a gun.

Police miss shots under pressure, and they train all the time.

My suggestion, don't go places you need a gun, which is pretty much everywhere.

Don't hang out with people who might put you in a situation where you need a gun.

Seems like common sense.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #35)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:44 PM

36. actually,

police don't train all of the time. They shoot something like a box once a year. I train more often than most cops, and I don't even carry. FWIW, in New Zealand, every legal handgun owner does twice the range time as their LEOs as a condition of keeping their ownership license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #36)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:47 PM

37. Well, I think they're more prepared to deal with things

Then the common citizen.

His post just shows that any restriction on guns is seen as unreasonable.

Ps. Seems you are mistaken. Qualification happens at different times at different police depts. Some annually, some bi-annually, some quarterly. The home weapon they have to qualify with yearly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #37)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:09 AM

39. most gun owners I know go to the range

once a week, it is their golf. BTW, there is no such thing as "common citizen". I came from a family of cops, there is nothing special about their training other than SWAT types. Situations are different. For someone defending themselves, it is very obvious what the situation is and who the "bad guy is". Cops show up either after it is over or, at best, in the middle of it. They have to figure out the situation as a third party. Totally different.

Any restriction? I didn't see him advocate repealing all current gun laws, he only said carry restrictions are absurd. Extreme is repealing NFA and the GCA, making it legal for a ten year old to order a machine gun from Amazon, no one is saying anything close to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #39)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:36 AM

42. He didn't have to say it

His reaction to my post said it all.

Cops deal with things every day that most people don't. I can tell when someone works as a cop, it;s in the personality and the way they hold themselves.

Saying that there is no difference between a person who works as a cop and deals with things like that every day is like saying there's no difference between a techie and a "regular" person (non techie) when the computer fucks up.

And I know that's bullshit.

(I suppose they show up after the drug bust has gone down. How nice of the criminals to arrest themselves)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #42)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:41 AM

43. that has nothing to do with

defending yourself. Are you saying people should not defend themselves, or at least have the most effective means to do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:45 AM

45. Another reaction

that tells me everything I need to know.

I guess you need to defend yourself from the skyrocketing crime rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #45)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:58 AM

49. need to know about what?

you reacted with a post with no basis in fact, and you claim "I reacted" ummm. I didn't say anything about crime rates, or where. I asked as a generic question. I have found many if not most "antis", for the lack of a better term, seriously believe it is uncivilized to defend yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #49)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 07:29 AM

61. I think it is civilized to defend yourself.

Also, find it nuts to require zero training and practice to purchase and use a handgun. A 12 hour course that skims over the law and everything else is hardly enough to issue a permit to carry. While you and I may practice and stay current with the law, most do not. How many handgun in the U.S. have not been fired in the last year or two? I'd more than those that are.

I was married to a cop and they spent way more time at the range and classroom than you suggest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #37)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:10 AM

40. I can catagorically state as fact that

 

except for the specialized units within LE, like ESU, SWAT, most LEO only qualify once or twice a year, now I take it upon myself to shoot at least 3-4 times a month at my own expense with my dept. issue sidearm and my personal AR-15 which I carry when on the job, I also urge the officers under my command to get out and practice as much as possible.

Citizens traditionally practice much more than the average LEO.

And in no way did my post say anything about not supporting any restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #40)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:32 AM

41. Nope, you didn't say that

Your reaction to my post did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #41)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:42 AM

44. In no way did my reaction to your post

 

indicate that I don't believe in restrictions, that's your interpretation and a wrong one at that. As a cop, I have no problem at all with qualified citizens CC'ing. Here are the MO. requirements for a CC permit, which I think are very reasonable.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5710000101.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #44)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:47 AM

46. Yes it did.

knee jerk reaction.

Usually why I don't come here.

Say anything that is remotely close to "I have doubts" and you get a reaction like yours.

Hey, I know the deal. Nothing is going to happen on guns, not now, not in the next 4, not in the next 12.

Massacres are just something we have to put up with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #46)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:53 AM

47. Like I said

 

that's your interpretation and it's a wrong one at that.
So, on that note, it's almost midnight and I'm tired so you have a good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #44)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:54 AM

48. Don't need anything in Arizona

Anyone can CC.

Even the unqualified ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #48)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 01:00 AM

50. same is true in Vermont

and much longer than Arizona.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #48)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 08:01 AM

52. So?

 

If that's what AZ wants to do, that's their business, however, I live in MO so does AZ law have to do with me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #35)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:04 AM

38. If CC permit holders frequently shoot the wrong person

 

then there should be lots of stories, so it shouldn't be too hard to post links.

A citizen with a permit is responsible for the protection of themselves, not others, whereas the police are responsible for the protection of the general public, which means that if we encounter, say, an armed robbery in progress, then we are duty bound to take action, the citizen is not duty bound at all, the best bet is to call 911 unless they are directly threatened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:42 AM

12. I can respect that.

While I do agree with the poster above, I understand your reasoning. I likewise have a somewhat visceral reaction to certain stimuli that have caused me emotional or physical distress in the past. Thank you for your response, and peace to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:35 AM

20. I agree that person probably shouldn't have had a gun

 

and under current law probably had the gun illegally.

So, why do you want to take my right to own a gun legally based on what some thug did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 04:10 PM

27. About 40 years ago I had a gun pointed at my head.

My response has been to arm myself.

Please explain how disarming the law-abiding will have any effect on the gang members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:13 AM

62. But...

 

Would you then disarm someone that could be in your place at a given time,a gun pointed at them by some faceless nameless stranger?

Would you in fact want that person to go through the same type of situation with no means of defense ?
Even though your situation ended without death or bodily injury (I'm guessing at this point),how many can be so lucky with such odds?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 08:32 AM

2. May I ask you

why would you want no regulations on guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 08:48 AM

3. The OP is not calling for no regulations

the question is why aren't you devoting your time and effort on things that would save more lives.

That is what has always puzzled me about the AWB - it would save so few lives if any yet it is presented as necessary to halt a massive epidemic of violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 08:56 AM

5. So, gun regulations are not black and white issue.

The question is were do we draw the line. That is not what was asked.

With crime so low and your chances of needing a weapon to defend yourself rare why would anyone spend so much time and energy to making it easier to buy and carry a handgun?

The extremes on both sides are equally nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:32 AM

11. What effort?

it is not like the gun control movement is putting up a fight. You are pretty much marginalized politically. The fight is over - we are coasting now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:48 AM

14. You're right on at least one count.

Violent crime is descending, if not rapidly, then consistently. Whether or not gun control or CCW carriers are having an impact is not a measurable statistic, and it is my opinion that conclusions drawn in favor of either side based on the descending violent crime numbers given in either case is an error.

I believe that you are offering a false choice, however. Not every carrier, nor gun owner, owns a gun for protection. I gladly own my firearms for the appreciation of them in historical applications, as well as the enjoyment I get out of firing them for practice and fun. Call me simple, but I do love a good explosion and the smell of gunpowder. Historical appreciation or basic visceral thrill are both viable reasons for the purchase and safe enjoyment of a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 10:51 AM

18. a bit of a false choice

since no one is talking about repealing current laws, at least on the federal level anyway. I have not seen the extreme pro gun, which I would define as someone who wants to repeal all of the federal and state gun laws. IOW, make it legal for a ten year old to buy a machine gun from Amazon have it shipped to the door. That extreme doesn't seem to exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:44 AM

13. As stated below, I do not support no gun regulation.

I support regulation based on both mental state and capability regarding the purchase of firearms, a waiting period, and a non-mandatory complementary gun safety class for any and all who wish for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #13)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 03:05 PM

24. Complimentary gun class, I'll go with that.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #13)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 04:16 PM

28. What purpose would a waiting period accomplish? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #28)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 05:50 PM

31. A time to consider for those who may have slipped through the mental health screening.

Not all of those who aren't mentally in a state of mind to safely wield a gun will get caught by a background check, and a day's waiting period may cut down on "crimes of passion." While I may not appreciate such a waiting period myself, if such a simple thing and mild inconvenience saves the life of someone somewhere, I'm willing to wait a day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #31)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 05:40 PM

60. Concerning "crimes of passion..."

The Center for Disease Control has surveyed the research on gun intervention strategies and concluded in its Executive Summary:

"The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
_____________________

It would be interesting to see how many "crimes of passion" can be linked to recent purchases of firearms, particularly within the time periods contemplated by those advocating waiting periods. I think it incumbent on advocates for any legal measure to show meaningful evidence on how such measures will affect well-defined social problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #2)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:16 PM

64. TO:Safeinohio

 

Because restrictions do nothing to stop violent criminals.
And
Such restrictions only serve to control people that follow laws.

Here is a question....

The 1934 N.F.A. did what to stop violent crimes from happening?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 08:48 AM

4. a

person who commits a crime while in possession of a firearm shall be put to death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:02 AM

7. That would be great...except.

Last edited Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

(I oppose the DP for the most part, I may be able to support it if framed in a earth friendly POV.)


However.com the controllers among us would have citizens pulled over for speeding put the death. Parked in the post office parking lot; death.

While lobbying for criminals to be given 2nd and 18th chances because they were economically or socially challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 10:06 AM

17. And what of nonviolent crimes?

Passing on a double solid?
Jaywalking?
Hiring a prostitute?

At what level of crime does the death penalty kick in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:09 AM

19. Troll post

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #19)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 03:09 PM

25. Troll? Ah, that explains that backside sound I heard.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 12:12 PM

21. So would you execute a person caught jaywalking. ...

if they were carrying an firearm and had a carry permit?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 02:32 PM

22. What about other weapons?

 

What, in the use of a firearm, makes a crime so much more heinous that you would advocate such a thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:01 AM

6. Gun violence is just a ruse to wage a culture war for some gun controllers

As you write, gun violence is a small part of death in America (albeit smaller in some other similar countries).

There are some elitists who view the possession of guns as vulgar, uncivilized, and uncouth. For them, the dead and injured are a means to an end -- that is, justify their culture war. I'm pretty sure they get giddy when a tragic act of gun violence occurs. Its the dirty secret in the anti-gun, anti-rkba club.

Of course there are some people with dubious motives on the pro-RKBA side. We get to hear about them all the time from the

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:02 PM

63. +1 +1 +1 +1 grand slam

Thanks

The pro-control side:
Elitists, social engineers with a god complex, fear mongers who had a close encounter of the firearm kind, general dupes, band wagon riders who are following a party or more general movement/org, politicians looking for media and/or have a close friend or family member who is one of the above.

If I wasn't in favor of the RKBA, I would still be anti-control just because liberty beats control with only very select exceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:07 AM

8. I never realized that all the mentioned causes represented a "Pick One Only" option.

This argument makes as much sense as the one I got in a barber shop just after I was drafted....."Why, we kill more people in car accidents every year than have been killed in Viet Nam all together!"
Hell of a good reason to continue a stupid war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aka-chmeee (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:51 AM

15. I've taken great cares to express a distinct disassociation with your statement.

People pick causes for reasons. More often than not, someone takes up a cause because they, or someone they love or something they care about, has been negatively affected by said influence or cause. What I am curious about is your reasoning behind your particular cause.

What's mine? As I mentioned upthread, I just like shooting. I like the smell of gunpowder, I enjoy testing my admittedly meager skills against nonmoving targets, and I appreciate each firearm that I own for its historical merit. Likewise, and according to the notion that firearms are indeed deadly, I give them the proper respect they, as killing tools, deserve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #15)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 09:24 AM

55. No Problem here with Guns,

I have several;even an assault rifle. Like you I enjoy shooting and frequently enjoy a game of drink your target plinking. I am simply pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between gun violence and all the other examples in your post. Can you legislate limits on diseases or accidents? Like deaths from car accidents are just different from being forcibly conscripted, shipped off to Viet Nam and killing and being killed in creative ways by your fellow man. Sorry I am not more skillful at writing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aka-chmeee (Reply #55)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 09:33 AM

56. Are there that many differences, though?

AIDS is directly spread through a knowing contact. You don't just "Accidentally AIDS". You might not know you have it; in all other ways, it is directly comparable to an accidental gunshot. Likewise, cancer has a myriad of causes, most of which are completely unintentionally instigated by the sufferers. Similarly, no one hops into a car and says "I'm going to kill a whole bunch of people." Yet it happens.


The primary association between the aforementioned causes, and the comparison to gun violence, is simple. People die. Cars crush, AIDS decays, cancer devours, bullets make holes. To be blunt, death is a part of life. Why pick any one "cause" over any other? (And to answer your question, yes, you can legislate limits on diseases, but it infringes on morality and rights: AIDS victims -cannot by law- have sex, for example. Repeat for any STD.)

And don't worry about being skillful at writing, friend. I have a rather uncommon ability when it comes to writing, and I do not expect the same of anyone. You are perfectly understandable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #56)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 11:34 AM

57. Well, fortunate it is

that here on DU, monolithic conformity of thought is not a requirement, so we both can happily waltz off with our original beliefs undamaged! And, btw, welcome to DU where uncommon writing skills are actually rather common.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #56)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 11:41 AM

58. Oops...

I am so accustomed to seeing posters with 15000 posts, I assumed someone with a hundred must be new. But Welcome anyway, a couple of years delayed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:10 AM

9. I'm not a supporter of a strict environment of regulation

However, I would imagine that part of the reason is that we can't simply focus on one thing (say, food safety) and abandon all other problems that cause injury or death, because those problems will grow into huge unmanageable problems.


Part of it, too, is that some things are intentional,and some are accidental or statistical. I know that each time I put food in my mouth, there's some kind of tiny chance it has something wrong with it. But, what's wrong with it will be accidental. Undercooked burger, cross-contamination, mom didn't rinse off the cutting board enough after cutting up raw chicken, a rat pooped in a vat of peanut butter, etc.


When guns are misused, it is conciously and with deliberation and intent. I am going to rip away the sanctuary of your home with raw, brute force. I am going to shove this loaded gun in your face and demand your wallet, your car, your family jewels. You are going to be helpless before me, because I have the gun. And if I decide to shoot you so there are no witnesses, or to rape or beat you or your child simply because it amuses me, then you're at my mercy and helpless. This is far more terrifying and physically, mentally, and emotionally scarring than getting sick after eating at Jack-in-the-Box.


I believe that many people that support a strict regulator environment do so because of their vision of a good and just society. I believe it includes a nation where physical violence is always unacceptable, and that tools designed to be used to commit lethal violence are not available to anyone. By not having the tools around, people are unable to train with them, study them, or acquire a mastery of their use. Such skills are dangerous because they enable the mental framework of taking human life, and that mentality will lead to violence. People that think about taking human life every day, and the people that will carry weapons in anticipation or preparation of doing so, are thus far more dangerous to society because they are inured to the social stigma of being non-violent in all matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #9)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 10:00 AM

16. A well-thought response, and I thank you. Shall we continue?

Last edited Sat Oct 20, 2012, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Firstly, let me thank you for your response, as it is exceptionally well thought and expressed.

Now, on to the body of your post. To a certain extent, I would like to agree with you, but I simply find that I cannot. Humanity, since its inception, has thrived on conflict; conflict (greed, jealousy, superiority) drives and evolves us. The greatest technological advancements of humanity are almost universally via necessity through warfare and open conflict, the need to create a better killing weapon, something that allows "us" to survive better than the other "us." Those who do not adapt and evolve their weaponry cease to be.

I believe your argument revolves around the crux of humanity as inherently good as opposed to inherently evil or inherently neutral. I will not stoop to argue such a belief, as although I believe differently, I respect your right to your own beliefs, and as with any belief, I have no proof to back it up.

Your assessment of "when guns are misused" is spot on, and I appreciate it for the complex nuances, the points often lost. It is no small thing to have a gun thrust in ones face, and you captured that element beautifully. As a purely hypothetical discussion, do you think that the same result would be achieved with a knife, or an axe, or any other killing tool had firearms not been invented? Take a look at Scotland, where you are... I believe five times more likely to be knifed to death than shot. The Homicide rate in Scotland is greater than America's by no small amount, yet despite rigid gun control laws, knives are an established weapon of both death and intimidation. Using Scotland as an example, do you believe that even if strict gun control laws are laid down, that another weapon will not rise up to take the place of firearms? (Remember, please, that knifings are more likely to be fatal than gunshot wounds. I can fetch statistics on demand, if anyone so desires. )


NOTE: My claim of Scotlands greater homicide rate is false, and what is sad is that I knew it was even when I posted this. I can only blame a head cold and a long work night. My apologies, folks. Please see Krispos' post down below to find actual statistics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #16)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 02:45 PM

23. To clarify, I was stating my view of one side, not not viewpoint.

Having said that, the greatest technological change occurs when competition runs fierce. This includes war, but war often focuses tightly on certain aspects of technology that have military benefits that fit within the current military framework and that have senior leaders that can envision how to effectively use the technology.

For example, it would have been feasible for the Union to manufacture and field more advanced weapons than the Springfield rifled musket almost immediately upon rebellion; the Sharps carbine or rifle was created 15 years prior to the start of the rebellion. However, close-minded thinking by senior military officials were worried about ammunition waste, and clung to their Springfields that shot at one-third the speed of the Sharps. Now, they might have had a point because the logistical revolution from the steam engine and the railroad was also underway, but again the people that could not adapt mentally to the ideas of supplies brought in by steam and rapid-fire weapons were a liability to the military effort.

It was not until later on, after the old-fashioned leaders that were unable to adapt were replaced by either new leaders or old but flexible officers did the new technology become commonplace.


Now, given, 1861 and 1941 were very different... the officers fighting in 1861 had seen their world remain largely the same until about 1850, when trains and telegraphs and steamships began to seriously alter the nations of the world. The officers fighting in 1941 had, on the other hand, seen their world change a lot in their lifetimes, and everyday, ordinary lives were affected by this change in fundamental ways, so acceptance of new technologies was not as inherently difficult.

But, it wasn't until after WW2 when the technologies that had been developed for narrow wartime purposes were expanded into general civilian life, and the economic conflict created a dazzling array of new products and ideas designed to survive on the battlefield of market share and customer whim, not the forests of Europe or the jungles of the Pacific.

And many of those ideas that were developed in the competive marketplace were in turn picked up by the military-industrial complex and used to make new or improved weapons and logistical infrastructure.


According to the BBC, there were 95 homicides in Scotland in 2009-2010. With 5,255,000 people in Scotland, that's a rate of 1.81 homicides per 100,000 per year, or about one-third the US rate. However, Scotland's total rate is about our non-gun homicide rate; assuming that NONE of the people killed in the US with guns would be subsequently killed with "other" is of course ridiculous.

We have about 16,000 homicides a year. This means that every year, 15,000 people decided to kill at least one person. Since about 9,000 are using guns, to expect those 9,000 people to just.... I don't know, stay home and play Playstation, is just ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #23)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 05:53 PM

32. A pleasure, krispos.

As you have found the same statistics I have and drew the -correct- conclusions from them, I will walk back what I stated in my prior post in this subthread. I was posting after a long ten-hour shift and with the tail end of a massive head cold. My apologies. I will be leaving the post up, but will be adding a note at the bottom of it, if I can. Thank you again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 03:31 PM

26. Meek Mayor Mike...my how he is scaring the NRA and the gun fans(the 1.5 of america)

 

and scientists work on cures for AIDS, alzheimer's, panademics(except for those conspiracy theorists that never want a little needle prick citing phony quacks like Wakefield)

the NRA has 4.3 million(same audience cume that Rush has btw)
there are 320 million in america

rounding off, the NRA is the 1%, yet the single biggest mouth lobby group bully in the nation

their days though of blackmailing politicians who dare go against them are coming to an end

Meek Mayor Mike three days ago announced he is donating 8 figures (that is between 10 and 99 MILLION DOLLARS to a new pac that is for those that agree with him(like I do)
on his issues like getting guns off the streets

Gun people want to go to shooting ranges- so keep it locked up in the shooting galleries
Gun people want to collect-well, stamps are collected to- does anyone go packing stamps in the theatre while seeing Batman?
Gun people want to hunt and kill God's creatures

Gun people with LEGAL GUNS like Zimmerman hunt down and stalk and kill with a LEGAL gun
Legal guns were in Colorado, Columbine and in so many places where major events happen.

We have eradicated many diseases.
Smoking is down to almost none from almost all
We have the ability to eradicate and make obsolete a bullet (no problem with a gun if there are no bullets).

Guns are made to kill something.

We are liberal democrats, and the bullsheet excuses are ridiculous

MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, TREY'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS were shattered by the extreme viewpoint of what the 2nd means.

in a decade or two, a new court shall rule different. Same as corporate personhood will be found to be wrong.

thank God for Mayor Mike.
the sugar thing(which I approve of) was a trial run for bigger and better.

Of course the same old same old will argue some minutia to distract.

Guns are WMD, manufactured to kill something.
this is 2012 not 1855. The wild west is so teapartylibertarian. Those days, THANKFULLY are gone.

and the NRA bully pulpit is going the way of the cigarette bully pulpit.
You may not ban all, but the glorification of the gun will stop.

And that so called perp you are worried about might be the one to eradicate the next mega virus. only a stereotyping of that person would think it not possible.

BTW3-automobiles are being made that will drive themselves. Making one day accidents obsolete, same as all the other examples.

Here's to Meek Mayor Mike...he is putting the fear into people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 05:47 PM

30. You have neither answered the question nor stayed remotely on topic.

I have no idea who this Mike character is, and the rest of your post is nigh incomprehensible. I wish I could respond, but I just can't; your thought process is too difficult to follow for more than a sentence. You seem to be strictly authoritarian, yet you claim yourself liberal, toss out a "purity test", then make a post that could essentially be a very rough draft for someone's political speech.

Would you like to answer the question I posed? Or, failing all else, could you at least tidy up the post above?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #30)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 06:26 PM

33. It's easy as ABC

 

to have the back of those that support his goals

We can eradicate some cancers
we can eradicate guns

you seem to have mixed up that both are good things to strive for

you I think were citing "bad" people out there.
well, those people will always exist

but saving 1 or 2 or 10 or a million lives from legal and illegal guns can happen without anyone getting another gun

I don't believe in the radical rightwing court that interpreted the 2nd the way they did
same sort of court gave us corporate parenthood

wanting more guns to stop a gun is so wrong I can't count that high.
the old NRA talking points are old and stale.
This is 2012

We need to stop the killings by legal guns and then help those less fortunate to rise on the social ladder (the lower class is more important than the middle class which is more important than the upper class.

give the lower class something other than crime, and they no longer need the gun.

But first you gotta stop the LEGAL guns to later put a dent in illegal

IF all you are worried about is crime- well, more security OUTSIDE the perimeter of a hotel, theatre, restaurant, movie house, baseball stadium means we could keep ALL guns out, provided that those with legal guns are also not allowed to enter.

SEE the problem?
It's the LEGAL guns that stop getting rid of the illegal ones.
It is so clear.

but then "some see what they want to see and disregard the rest"

But in just 2 posts I tore down every single NRA talking point

You can have your guns, inside your home (but make sure you alert anyone who may not want to enter your home that you have one.) I myself would not choose to enter a home where if we argue a political hot topic (like guns or abortions, someone in the fit of rage uses that gun against me, legal as it is.)(then says they were defending themselves.)

You can collect guns, you can go to a shooting range.

But you don't need to have a gun on your possession in the restaurant I am eating at and then accidentally a child gets hurt, or something happens.
I don't want you thinking you will save my life.

(that is what GOOD police are for (not though bad cops).

Long as you keep ALL (legal and illegal) guns out of a place, then no one gets shot.

How much simpler can it be?

Meek Mayor Mike is the NY Mayor who announced 3 days ago he is giving and starting a new pac and giving 8 figures (that means 10-99 MILLION dollars, which will compete against the NRA should he choose, and gun is something he is against.
(as he no longer is running for any office, he is immune to campaigning himself, but now other candidates will have someone protecting their back and not cowering in fear of the bully NRA

imho

again-simple as A B C. Get the legal guns out of the outsides, and bring them only inside your own home, and then we can get rid of illegal guns.

It is like cigarettes-there was NO need to get rid of cigarette companies. Just make people stop smoking outside, showing them cigs are so bad, and they also stop smoking inside.
Cig. companies still exist, but most people no longer smoke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #33)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 05:46 AM

51. I feel like taking a crack at this, if only to test myself.

It's easy as ABC
to have the back of those that support his goals


Obviously not, as I have no clue who "He" is, nor what "his" goals are.



We can eradicate some cancers
we can eradicate guns

you seem to have mixed up that both are good things to strive for


Not at all. I distinctly pointed out and in fact emphasized that it was fully possible to support multiple, or indeed all, worthwhile causes at the same time. I think you might have missed the two or three times I said otherwise.


you I think were citing "bad" people out there.
well, those people will always exist


Of course people like that will always exist. They always have and they always will. However, when examining crime and criminal activity, in addition to the method in which said crimes were executed, it is important to look directly at those "Bad" people and recognize them for what they are.


but saving 1 or 2 or 10 or a million lives from legal and illegal guns can happen without anyone getting another gun

Prove it.



I don't believe in the radical rightwing court that interpreted the 2nd the way they did
same sort of court gave us corporate parenthood


That is your right as a human being. No one said you had to agree with anyone.


wanting more guns to stop a gun is so wrong I can't count that high.
the old NRA talking points are old and stale.


The only ones who seem to routinely bring up "NRA talking points" are those arguing in favor of strict gun control measures. Arguing the case for owning a gun based on interpretations of the Bill of Rights is hardly parroting talking points.



This is 2012

We need to stop the killings by legal guns and then help those less fortunate to rise on the social ladder (the lower class is more important than the middle class which is more important than the upper class.


You know, I actually agree with you here, to an extent. Crime is largely based on the overall satisfaction of the classes involved, and a direct correlation between social status and criminal intent can be found. However, judging by what you have said further down in your post, you contradict yourself by stating that eliminating killings via legal guns will come from social establishment, not the other way around, which you have asserted here. Can you clarify for me, please?


give the lower class something other than crime, and they no longer need the gun.

But first you gotta stop the LEGAL guns to later put a dent in illegal


I disagree. Simply removing a stimulus from an environment is not enough to affect a long-term social migration away from criminal behavior. Remember that in some areas, the "poor" have as much established in their being poor as in criminal acts. In rural New York, the local lower class take great pride in being "Rednecks". This has little to do with crime as opposed to an appreciation for the "heritage" that they have, and that they have come from. Certain activities are as ingrained as some survival instincts, and the same holds true for crime. Simply removing one tool of the capability to commit violent crime cannot and will not cease to perpetuate a class-based function that has been essentially genetically transferred from parents to children time and time again. To put it simply, "You can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy", so to speak.


IF all you are worried about is crime- well, more security OUTSIDE the perimeter of a hotel, theatre, restaurant, movie house, baseball stadium means we could keep ALL guns out, provided that those with legal guns are also not allowed to enter.

I am not worried about crime at all, personally. Crime is dropping, and my chances of being murdered are about on par with being hit by an asteroid within my lifetime. Thrice. What I -am- worried about is the potential long-term control and regulated distribution of a consumer product arbitrarily enforced on faux-humanistic grounds; I am a firm believer in personal responsibility and likewise personal freedoms of consumption and distribution.


SEE the problem?
It's the LEGAL guns that stop getting rid of the illegal ones.
It is so clear.

but then "some see what they want to see and disregard the rest"


I don't see that problem at all. If people do not have access to firearms legally, then people will get said firearms illegally in one way, shape, or form. If said firearms cannot be procured through legal or illegal means, then alternate methods of attaining a firearm will be implemented; see garage-built zip-guns


But in just 2 posts I tore down every single NRA talking point


In one post, you praised a man who dubiously may or may not be the second coming of the Messiah, given your lack of content, and in this post, you've solved exactly no problems and only raised questions.


You can have your guns, inside your home (but make sure you alert anyone who may not want to enter your home that you have one.) I myself would not choose to enter a home where if we argue a political hot topic (like guns or abortions, someone in the fit of rage uses that gun against me, legal as it is.)(then says they were defending themselves.)


I think I'll just let this quote speak for itself. Nothing to do here.


You can collect guns, you can go to a shooting range.

But you don't need to have a gun on your possession in the restaurant I am eating at and then accidentally a child gets hurt, or something happens.
I don't want you thinking you will save my life.

(that is what GOOD police are for (not though bad cops).


I agree that no one -needs- to have a firearm on them. That does not disqualify anyone from exercising a desire. Your fear of a child being accidentally shot is just as viable as a CCW fearing a criminal altercation while they are at that same restaurant. Both points hold merit, but neither should take priority.


Long as you keep ALL (legal and illegal) guns out of a place, then no one gets shot.

In theory, that works. In practice, everywhere will have to have metal detectors; simply claiming "remove all guns" or "ban all guns in public spaces" does not mean that said action will result in a gun-free area. As mentioned before, zip guns are common and growing in popularity, thanks to the complexities of the internet.



How much simpler can it be?

Meek Mayor Mike is the NY Mayor who announced 3 days ago he is giving and starting a new pac and giving 8 figures (that means 10-99 MILLION dollars, which will compete against the NRA should he choose, and gun is something he is against.
(as he no longer is running for any office, he is immune to campaigning himself, but now other candidates will have someone protecting their back and not cowering in fear of the bully NRA


Bloomberg? He's a laughingstock. You know what happened in his Soda ban? Individuals bought two Small sodas and made a Large and sold them for a profit. Now imagine the same thing happening, but with unlicensed, unregistered, unnumbered and hypothetically untraceable firearms. THAT is the situation you want to perpetuate to promote social change? If anything, it sounds like a lead-up to an underground American firearm black market.


imho

again-simple as A B C. Get the legal guns out of the outsides, and bring them only inside your own home, and then we can get rid of illegal guns.

It is like cigarettes-there was NO need to get rid of cigarette companies. Just make people stop smoking outside, showing them cigs are so bad, and they also stop smoking inside.
Cig. companies still exist, but most people no longer smoke.


I will just categorically say, no, it's not that simple, unless you ignore vast swaths of precedent and focus only on idealistic and unachievable or downright unsafe goals. You want to talk about cigarettes? People don't care about -where- they can smoke, they care about the prices. When a pack of cigarettes approaches half a tank of gas in value, people are forced to choose: Cigarettes, or drive to work today. Is such a "sin-tax" inevitably successful? Of course it is. Is it -right-? No. I'll elaborate if I need to, but if you really don't get why the government micromanaging the lives of it's citizens through selective economic disassociation is wrong, you have bigger problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #51)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 08:10 AM

53. Ahhhhhh

 

I see you've met our Mike Bloomberg, NY Mayor, fanatic. G4A really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does he. He once told me that defending yourself against a criminal attacking you by shooting them is wrong because that criminal might someday invent the cure for cancer or AIDS.
Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #53)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 08:19 AM

54. So I have.

His posts are slightly... Well, reading them is a bit of a slog. However, I am not one to discount views, I simply wish him to elaborate and to preferably substantiate his beliefs. And as I said above, I do like a challenge every now and then.

(Edited to alter "Prove" with "Substantiate". One cannot necessarily "prove" a belief.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #54)

Sun Oct 21, 2012, 12:36 PM

59. BTW

 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your reply to him, you pretty much tore down all of his talking points, good job and I agree with just about everything you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread