Facts and honesty about facts have to be the foundation of any gun control discussion

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

I would argue the position that the only representatives of those who oppose gun control with whom there can be substantive discussion and meeting of the minds in establishing reasonable and effective policies are those who are honest about facts relating to guns and gun violence. The rest, by their dishonest and factual inaccuracies exclude themselves from any serious discussion. This includes bogus claims about Gandhi, or Hitler.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMFCtKX5X63TpsL-CUXGzR084CbAOsx6UGoG_TD15CUQnsW9lD4w

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQi5Gi5ND-AHkLcfTKI1BYKa62f58NaBPZ3fuDsHKvyP4ppatRcLbIBweA

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrG0mxS6sNq25EHZzVIHymkK095BFWxIGSYDC3fl2Z01QFVB19

from Penigma

[bFact checking Gandhi on Guns: To Lie is to Lose]

I like to fact check. I fact check the right, the left, and the center; whenever I see a fact that looks questionable I check it.

The right is lying, again, still; this time about Gandhi and guns. We cannot have a productive, honest discussion when people on one side refuse to tell the truth as a foundational premise of such a discussion.

Gandhi = Guns? Gandhi advocating a 'lock and load' policy? Gandhi as Rambo? No, emphatically NO.

and further down the post:

...noted historian of non-violence Peter Brock wrote about these comments - the FULL comments:

“[Gandhi] believed at that time (although he became more skeptical of this later on) that India could win equal partnership for itself within the British Empire if as large a number as possible of its able-bodied men volunteered to help the Empire, in one way or another, in times of need.”

But just in case there might still be any ambiguity in what Gandhi had to say about guns, in his autobiography, quoting a letter he wrote to the Viceroy of India during WW I:

“I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment, and I know that India, by this very act, would become the most favoured partner in the Empire … I write this because I love the English nation, and I wish to evoke in every Indian the loyalty of Englishmen.”

And when it came to his own participation on the side of the English in WW I, Gandhi joined the ambulance corps in 1914, stating:

“A rifle this hand will never fire.”

[iiibbb]

1. This will not end well.

http://www.guncite.com

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

7. you mean with guncite.com using a quote about public education

to oppose gun control? Because the quote was clearly out of context and not about guns at all.

It does seem to be a bit misleading, given the context of the quote from the letter to a mister Yancey on the founding of the University of Virginia in 1816, yes.

Is that what you meant?

[iiibbb]

8. No, I mean if you're going to wash yourself in facts... you need to wash yourself in all facts.

Not just the side you've chosen.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

16. If you can provide facts, not just opinion about facts, have at it.

But so far, I haven't seen you be very factual.

[iiibbb]

24. Your OP, it's your lead dude.

[Eleanors38]

48. Let's try this one...

Where the defence of a third party is in question Gandhi does not take as narrow an approach as one of his mentors, Tolstoy, did. Tolstoy was firm in his belief that the justification of violence used against a neighbour for the sake of defending another man against worse violence is always incorrect, because in using violence against an evil which is not yet accomplished, it is impossible to know which evil will be greater.

Gandhi, however, insisted that injustices had to be fought and his intolerance of cowardice prompted him to explain that self-defence and defence of third persons, even if violence is involved, "is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation". He was even willing to go as far as to claim that nonviolence may be compatible with killing, but never with hating:

"Even manslaughter may be necessary in certain cases. Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic, will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man."

When Gandhi was asked by his eldest son what action he should have taken had he been present when Gandhi was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen his father killed or whether he should have used the physical force that he wanted to use in defense of Gandhi, he was informed that "it was his duty to defend me even by using violence".

http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/Thomas%20Weber.htm
_____________

I have always been impressed by Gandhi's approach to interpersonal self-defense, esp. when contrasted with that of Tolstoy. Gandhi would have died trying to defend his loved-ones from violent assault. I would have used violence to defend my love-ones; not ahimsa, but nevertheless fulfilling my duty to defend.

[iiibbb]

2. I'm interested in your thoughts about people

who misuse terminology and drum up the capabilities of certain weapons...

like bump firing for instance?

Your thoughts?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

3. I think that the arguments about bump firing

have been dishonest on the side of the anti-gun control groups.

Bump firing is a form of spray firing. Spray firing is clearly a problem, as was demonstrated by the pattern of shooting in the Newtown CT massacres and the Aurora Colorado mass shooting, as well as a number of exchanges between law enforcement and criminals.

And the validity of it as a problem was recognized by the DC ban court decision is 2011, that acknowledged that there was an increase in people injured, and an increase in the number of wounds with assault or assault- STYLE weapons, and large capacity magazines.

Now, are YOU willing to acknowledge those facts, or are you still going to cling to baloney about bump firing? Or are you going to continue to try to pretend this is just a 'parlor trick'?

Until and unless we have more honesty, we cannot have a meeting of the minds. The pro-gun / anti-gun control side isn't being very honest if they are still arguing about the basic reality the rest of us are addressing.

To the degree they refuse to acknowledge reality, those people will simply opt out of the discussion. It is a choice, and not a good one on their part.

[iiibbb]

5. I might be guilty too... but we are both soaked in squaller together on the bump-fire front.

You ginned it up until it was pointed out that it was not a feature unique to AR-15's and the like; then you changed your story.

[kudzu22]

9. You have some evidence that Lanza was bump-firing?

Bump firing is a parlor trick. Something to do to waste ammo -- it's not useful in any real scenario.

[iiibbb]

10. Doesn't have to be restricted to bump firing.

How about the police who ginned up the buyback of 2 "rocket launchers" in California to scare people?

How about the people who make a big deal about cosmetic features, or even safety features of guns in order to make them more scary?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172108348

Krispos makes an excellent discussion of features that make weapons safer; but gun control proponents have ignored those functions and tried to describe these features only in the context of killing people.

what say you?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

13. do you have any credible source for that claim?

I'm not aware the police 'ginned up' anything.

And I'm also not aware of anyone focusing on cosmetic features; people are focusing on what enables spray firing, period.

[iiibbb]

15. Feinstein Bill

Ms. Feinstein’s bill — which, unlike the 1994 assault weapons ban, would not expire after being enacted — would also ban certain characteristics of guns that make them more lethal.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/politics/feinstein-bill-details

http://www.governor.ny.gov/assets/documents/RiflesBannedFeatures.pdf


See if you can find the cosmetics. It's like where's Waldo... it'll be fun.

[iiibbb]

41. The police ginned up the rocket laucher buybacks; parading them in front of the press as a photo-op

the press took it and ran at the time

One was a decades-old single use tube... not usable and not reloadable.

The other was a trainer from more than a decade ago.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/29/local/la-me-1230-rocket-launcher-20121230

[jmg257]

18. I think those people 'make a big deal' about 'cosmetic features'

in an attempt to limit the access to certain weapons, understanding completely that manufacturers and purchasers/possessors will do anything they can to get around the intent of the laws.

They could ignore certain distinguishing features and just ban, say...all repeating arms with a capacity greater then 10. Would that be a better solution?

When you have to deal with the NRA and their dupes who are against most restrictions, you have to pick and choose in ways that can be articulated to get what you can.

[iiibbb]

26. no, but there is nothing wrong with fighting a law that doesn't make sense and won't accomplish what

it promises at my expense.

We are all guilty of arguing against the other side, and representatives of the other side, as if they share one belief.


I make a big deal about the cosmetic features precisely because there are work-arounds. It makes the controllers look ignorant and disingenuous about what their ultimate goals are. It makes people have to adopt work-arounds because the law isn't being clear.


I am law-abiding. You will not find a gun law that I have knowingly broken. I moved to NY and my handguns have resided out-of-state in deference to the laws here. For 6 months I've been waiting for approval to move mine here. My record is spotless. There is no reason for me not to have a gun if I choose. When I do move them here, it will cost me nearly 50% of their value to move them to this state. Guns I've owned over a decade.

How many weapons have entered the state illegally in that time.

You'll excuse my open scoffing at the efficacy of laws and who these laws really affect.

[jmg257]

30. But you KNOW what the goal is - they want to ban 'assault weapons'.

And you KNOW what they mean by Assault Weapons:

An AR-15. A semi AK-47. An AR-180. An AUG. An SAR-48. An M1A. An AR-10. etc. etc.
All semi-auto versions of assault rifles.

And you KNOW why they want to ban them. Yet you pick apart any legislation that attempts to do so, KNOWING that is HAS TO 'pick and choose' in order to leave more traditional arms alone. KNOWING that grandfathering is almost necessary. KNOWING there will always be 'law-abiding gun owners' who won't be so law abiding if they simply don't agree with their inconvenience. Selfish reasons, otherwise, there wouldn't be a desire for work-arounds. All this BS necessary in crafting a law in the hopes of out-battling the NRA and their dupes over the slightest control. All this BS against any bills that are proposed to maintain the status quo.

Your expense has little importance if the unfettered access to these arms can be better controlled. There is community and govt interest to do so.


So again - would a ban on all repeating arms with capacities greater then 10 rounds be more acceptable to you? Straight forward. No nonsense. No cosmetic test. Simple law.

[Straw Man]

33. Capacity.

Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:20 PM - Edit history (2)

And you KNOW what they mean by Assault Weapons:

An AR-15. A semi AK-47. An AR-180. An AUG. An SAR-48. An M1A. An AR-10. etc. etc.
All semi-auto versions of assault rifles.

How are we supposed to know when they don't even know? Some of these passed the old two-feature test but would fail the new one-feature test. "Assault weapon" is defined by laws, which vary by state and over time. If the intent is to ban all semi-auto firearms, that should be plainly stated so that the public knows exactly what is being proposed. The "assault weapon" fixation represents obfuscation from the control side.

So again - would a ban on all repeating arms with capacities greater then 10 rounds be more acceptable to you? Straight forward. No nonsense. No cosmetic test. Simple law.

With a detachable magazine, capacity is a function of the magazine, not of the firearm.

[jmg257]

37. Which is why I did not mention 'magazine', and only 'capacity'.

And I already explained the cause of any obfuscation, and the reasons for it...not worthwhile to do so again.

Clearly the intent is NOT to ban all semis- as that would be much easier to do (technically, not in actuality).

The new bill has specific lists and features. Might not agree with them, or why they are there, and true a few do not make sense - but they ARE there. If enacted, it would CERTAINLY reach its goal in regulating & reducing the purchase of such arms (and mags) in the future. To wit: To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

What is apparently needed to make everyone more happy with it is an authority approval process that can update the list as the workarounds are attempted.

[iiibbb]

34. I've stated my position

I am mechanistic. You have to show the connection to preventing crime. It can't be done; so yeah, I will guiltlessly nitpick their proposals.

I've also stated that I should be limited to the technology available to an average patrol officer.

I think the government is well within their rights to define the arms of the militia; and that the average police officer should be limited to this same standard. They can even say I'm limited to some number of defensive weapons as a militia member... fine by me.

to paraphrase the recent meme. ">What war are the police fighting? Why do they need these weapons only designed to kill large numbers of people?<"

[jmg257]

38. You are a mechanic. But you do read the papers. There in fact have been numerous

crimes committed with the targeted weapons and their accoutrements over the years.
Substantially reducing the numbers of and access to such weapons would substantially reduce their use in crimes.

All for limiting patrol officers, retired LE etc. Also for the govt having more input for defining/controlling the arms of members of the unorganized miltia, just as they do the organized miltia. So we agree on that too.
There are plenty of ways to control the arms and still provide for the rights of individuals.

[iiibbb]

39. I think if people like you and I were the only ones in the room... something could be figured out.

Unfortunately ... this debate is controlled by the obsessed and the ignorant.

[jmg257]

40. Ha - likely! :) You would likely get more of what you want though.

I am a push-over comparatively! AND do understand where you and so many others are coming from!

[iiibbb]

42. I'm not as hard core as I sound sometimes...

... I get fed up with some of the arguments people make and feel like I have to push buttons.


I get riled in here because some of the people who post treat people like me as if we were the enemy. I won't sit there and take that, and I won't let those sorts of implications to frame the debate.

I get frustrated with the pro-guns sides rhetoric on revolution and fighting oppression. There are many valid reasons for access to a lot of these arms and there's no need to go there IMHO.... not that I disagree with them exactly, but it's not a focal point.

But then there are those who say the 2nd amendment means "militias" and muskets. That isn't right either. The bill of rights are rights of "the people" and "the people" = individuals.

So then it just comes down to being rational and reasonable. Something that both sides often fail. What is licensing and registration without getting something in return --- like reciprocity? Another thing that bothers me is that the legal landscape for law-abiding gun owners is very inconsistent. That was the main reason I got a concealed carry permit where I lived before; I didn't care about carrying a gun... but I did care that the rules concerning possession were the same for me no matter where I went within the state... and the CCH permit preempted all municipal laws. So when a anti-gunner says that all permit holders are vigilante assholes... well... I get less conciliatory?

Anyway... I've got work to do.

[Straw Man]

43. OK.

Substantially reducing the numbers of and access to such weapons would substantially reduce their use in crimes.

But it would not substantially reduce the number or severity of the crimes -- not when other weapons are available that have virtually the same capabilities. What then? Welcome to the slippery slope.

[jmg257]

46. It would if the various other weapons with the same capabilities were also restricted.

No need to start on the top of slope - start 1/2 way or so...can be more effective right off the bat.

[Straw Man]

50. Which is all semi-autos.

With pump and lever-action not far behind. Is that your goal?

[jmg257]

51. My goal? Nope. nt

[Straw Man]

52. OK.

Just checking. Do you acknowledge that it's where that path leads?

[jmg257]

53. Not sure...really. Certainly there are plenty who would like

That. Likely an AWB won't be enought to make a big difference overall (grandfathering, loopholes, etc.), so 'what's next' is likely possible.

[MicaelS]

4. I don't give a damn about Ghandi in particular, or

Pacifists in general.

Pacifism only works if your opponent is moral or relatively moral. Gandhi succeeded with Pacifism against the British because the British were moral. If Gandhi had tried Pacifism against Hitler or Stalin he would have been executed.

And Gandhi was a man who thought the Jews should commit mass suicide. I do not respect that man or his views.

I'm not religious, and I consider Pacifism just another religious cult. With all the connotations the term "cult" implies. I have no more respect for Pacifists than I do people who speak in tongues or handle snakes. If Pacifists want to die for their belief, that is their choice, they do not have the right to compel others to live by their viewpoint.

And Pacifists are NOT going to foist their morality on me.

[iiibbb]

6. It still works... against police brutality for instance... it preserves the moral high ground.

You have to use the right tool for the job.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

14. Gandhi thought Jews should commit mass suicide?

got a credible citation for that?

In every successful revolution in the latter 20th century and so far in the 21st century, what prevailed began as peaceful not violent resistance.

It would subsequently escalate to the military taking sides in civil war, but it was the attempt to oppose peaceful protest with violence in every case that led to the support by the military changing sides to support the protests / revolution.

Arab spring is the most recent example.

And yes, we DO have the right to compel others to live by peaceful protest ONLY; it is written into our Constitution.

Taking up arms against the United States and its government is treason. So you are already COMPELLED as you put it, to live by that belief. It has none of the characteristics of cults. You clearly are one of those fringie extremists who are not well educated if you so selectively ignore the parts of the constitution you don't like, or if you are so very ill informed of what defines cults.

I don't know that the people that MLK went up against were any less violent or more moral than Stalin or Hitler; only someone oblivious to the actions of the KKK could think so. But it was overwhelmingly what worked.

It was violence by a German Jew against a Nazi, using a gun, that set off Kristallnacht, so your claims about Hitler are clearly erroneous.

What is moral or ethical is determined independently of any individual, so you can choose to be moral or immoral, but not what defines either category.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

17. Gandhi's position towards Hitler evolved.

Initially, he compared his early success as less violent than WW II - which was not the same as approving of Hitler.

He did believe that the Jews should protest peacefully against Hitler as a means to appeal to world opinion the same way that he and others appealed to world opinion in the protests against England in India.

But that was in the earlier days, and has been falsely represented as advocating the Jews commit suicide en masse.

It ignores statements Gandhi made after the actual war and Holocaust began and is an excellent example of deceptive cherry picking:

Statements that refute Gandhi wanting to see the Jews commit mass suicide include and that he opposed what was done to them include:

"If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province."

Letter in Harijan (1938)

from wikipedia:


Letter to Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, regarding the military situation between England and Germany (May 1940), quoted in Collected Works (1958), p. 70. It should be noted that in May 1940 the battles of World War II were just beginning after the German invasion of Poland. The subsequent blitzkrieg invasions of The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France, were indeed swift and relatively bloodless compared to the trench battles of the First World War, and the persecution of the Jews in the eyes of the world was at this point limited to deprivation of civil rights, and the use of concentration camps and ghettos: the facts of Nazi genocidal strategies were not widely known until towards the end of that war, in 1945.

Whatever Hitler may ultimately prove to be, we know what Hitlerism has come to mean, It means naked, ruthless force reduced to an exact science and worked with scientific precision. In its effect it becomes almost irresistible.
Hitlerism will never be defeated by counter-Hitlerism. It can only breed superior Hitlerism raised to nth degree. What is going on before our eyes is the demonstration of the futility of violence as also of Hitlerism.
What will Hitler do with his victory? Can he digest so much power? Personally he will go as empty-handed as his not very remote predecessor Alexander. For the Germans he will have left not the pleasure of owning a mighty empire but the burden of sustaining its crushing weight. For they will not be able to hold all the conquered nations in perpetual subjection. And I doubt if the Germans of future generations will entertain unadulterated pride in the deeds for which Hitlerism will be deemed responsible. They will honour Herr Hitler as genius, as a brave man, a matchless organizer and much more. But I should hope that the Germans of the future will have learnt the art of discrimination even about their heroes. Anyway I think it will be allowed that all the blood that has been spilled by Hitler has added not a millionth part of an inch to the world’s moral stature.
Harijan (22 June 1940), after Nazi victories resulting in the occupation of France.

It also ignores that if people are not strong enough to engage in non-violent protest, Gandhi did not forbid violence in self-defense:

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent.

Non-Violence in Peace and War (1948); also in Gandhi on Non-violence : Selected Texts from Mohandas K. Gandhi's Non-Violence in Peace and War (1965) edited by Thomas Merton

And here is a better explanation for what Gandhi asserted:

Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.

The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (1950) by Louis Fischer. The quote is in the context of Gandhi's argument to his biographer that collective suicide would have been a heroic response that would have "aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence".

Gandhi was talking about passive resistance to Hitler, PRE- WW II, as he was rising to power, in opposition not only to Hitler but to all anti-semitism. It was in the context of non-violence versus violence, as the most effective means to block someone.

I think there is some merit to the idea that if the world knew the extent that Hitler was willing to go to kill Jews, that there would have been stronger action against him earlier, and that might have produced more effective opposition sooner, including stronger action from the U.S.

I always find that those who are so critical of the actions of others conveniently ignore the support for Hitler that existed in the U.S. during the 30s and even into the 40's; we were pretty late to take sides ourselves against Hitler.

[MicaelS]

20. 'THE JEWS', BY GANDHI - FROM HARIJAN, NOVEMBER 26, 1938

Straight from the man himself.

http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/writings_online/articles/gandhi_jews_palestine.html#%27The%20Jews%27,%20by%20Gandhi%20-%20From%20Harijan,%20November%2026,%201938

And I am NOT talking about taking up arms against the US Government. I am talking about people who do not like others owning guns for personal and home defense. Who think it is immoral or should be illegal to shoot a criminal invading one's home, and try to foist that morality on others.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

35. wrong again

I think shooting someone should be a course of last resort, not the first response.

Gandhi's comments on Jews and suicide are widely viewed as metaphorical advocating peaceful protest in the face of violence, a kind of martyrdom. Trying to pretend they are anything else is ludicrous, particularly as the comments you reference were pre-Holocaust, and in response to Hitler's efforts to get Jews to leave Germany.

Nothing you have posted here contradicts that, or anything else I've written.

[Starboard Tack]

22. Wow! Like fucking WOW!

"I consider Pacifism just another religious cult"

"And Gandhi was a man who thought the Jews should commit mass suicide."

I usually have a response when I see shit like that, but you leave me speechless.

[MicaelS]

23. Being able to shut you up, even for a small while..

Is a victory.

[Starboard Tack]

25. Do you actually have a quote from Gandhi, that says "suicide"?

Also, try to stay with the conversation and away from personal attacks.
How is shutting me up a victory? Are we at war? Is this all a game to you?

[MicaelS]

27. See Dog Gone at Penigma post #17

She extracted it.

Non-Violence in Peace and War (1948); also in Gandhi on Non-violence : Selected Texts from Mohandas K. Gandhi's Non-Violence in Peace and War (1965) edited by Thomas Merton

And here is a better explanation for what Gandhi asserted:

Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.

The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (1950) by Louis Fischer. The quote is in the context of Gandhi's argument to his biographer that collective suicide would have been a heroic response that would have "aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence".

Gandhi was talking about passive resistance to Hitler, PRE- WW II, as he was rising to power, in opposition not only to Hitler but to all anti-semitism. It was in the context of non-violence versus violence, as the most effective means to block someone.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

29. Yet what you don't include

is that Gandhi was accepted as speaking metaphorically, not literally, in terms of organized peaceful protest against anti-semitism pre-holocaust.

Try again. You've failed to make a valid claim that Gandhi really wanted anyone to commit mass suicide.

[Starboard Tack]

31. I'm familiar with Ghandi's positions.

I still don't see Ghandi using the word suicide. Others interpret his comments about passive resistance to mean "collective suicide". Now you are running with that ball to inflame and basically derail the discussion presented by the OP.

[jimmy the one]

47. ghandi likely speaking narrowly

ghandi, pre wwII: Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.

It seems to me he could've been speaking of early jewish in germany, metaphorically of course since jews in germany were generally nowhere near high cliffs to the sea.

Ghandi might've meant early jewish in germany, when they had first started to become oppressed under hitler - ie nuremburg laws ~1935 - should have 'offered themselves' in non violent protest so that they would've been sent to concentration camps and brought notice to other countries what hitler was doing to them. What happened to all the German Jews, would read the amsterdam & alsace lorraine tabloids.
.. clearly ghandi was not speaking of 5 or 6 million jews to have committed mass suicide by jumping or revolting or 'taking one nazi with them' in a death struggle, but imo just a cadre' of early affected german jewish which, ghandi thought, might've nipped anti semitism in germany in the bud, or delayed it, whatever.
Tho of course this metaphorical quip has as much credibility as the opposite tack, to presume that jewish arming themselves in late 1930's could've prevented the holocaust or affected the rise of the 3rd reich in any significant manner. Neither tack would've made headway.

The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (1950) by Louis Fischer. The quote is in the context of Gandhi's argument to his biographer that collective suicide would have been a heroic response that would have "aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence".
Gandhi was talking about passive resistance to Hitler, PRE- WW II, as he was rising to power, in opposition not only to Hitler but to all anti-semitism. It was in the context of non-violence versus violence, as the most effective means to block someone

There was some notice of anti semitism at the berlin olympics, iirc, 1936 was it?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

36. except of course you have done nothing of the kind

but it speaks badly of your character that you would try to do that.

You must be afraid you're losing.

Because you appear to be; you aren't making good, factual arguments.

[kudzu22]

11. Speaking of facts and honesty

Can we finally lay to rest the myth that a pistol grip is designed "to allow spray fire from the hip"? This has to be the most annoying myth the antis have cooked up in order to justify why one rifle should be banned while the exact same rifle with a different stock is legal.

The pistol grip is purely ergonomic, so you have something to hold onto when the rifle is on your shoulder, not your hip. It's actually easier to hip-fire with a traditional stock.

It would be refreshingly honest if they admitted that semi-auto hunting rifles are materially the same as semi-auto "tactical" rifles and differ only in cosmetic ways.

[iiibbb]

12. They should ban sights... they allow a murderer to be more effective with a weapon.

If murderers couldn't aim... it would save lives. Sights are only needed to make guns more effective killing machines.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

19. got any facts for that conclusion?

Sights only become important as distance increases.

I was not aware that most people engaging in gun violence were all that precise, but rather that they seemed to rely, at least in mass shootings, on lots of bullets rather than a few well placed bullets.

But hey, if you have any facts that support that accuracy is a problem in gun crimes, or that there are very many crimes committed by snipers, please post them here.

Otherwise, you're opting out of a factual discussion.

[iiibbb]

21. got snipers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Boyd_Malvo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_highway_sniper_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Vang


what do you have on verifiable bump fire massacres?


So we just take the sights off of guns. Right... to make them safer.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

28. I've got Aurora Co

and Sandy Hook, CT; and of course the many, many exchanges of gunfire between law enforcement and gang bangers, bank robbers, and drug cartels.

The comparative damage done by snipers using sights is miniscule compared to other kinds of crimes where there is rapid fire aka spray fire aka bum fire.

But hey, when you have appellate courts finding that sights are a problem the way they have found assault style weapons and expanded capacity magazines are, you be sure to post them here.

Until then, those weapons and magazines are a significant problem; sights on guns are not.

Facts are facts, and you don't have them on your side. That you cannot discern the difference between the two means you are probably not going to be taken as seriously as other people making more factual arguments.

Again.

[Lurks Often]

32. You're not going to be taken seriously either when you get YOUR facts wrong

Bump firing is done by adding an aftermarket stock to the firearm, a stock which was approved by the ATF

Spray firing is rapidly pulling the trigger while pointing the gun in the general direction of the target. So unless you can provide the police report from the Aurora shooting, all you are doing is speculating on whether the murderer in CO AIMED at people or just fired in their general direction.

The AR-15 has been available for civilian use since 1963 and despite what the 24/7 news cycle may suggest, they are not the preferred choice of mass murders.

Here is the CT Office of Legislative Research report:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

45. so long as he was firing rapidly, does it matter

if James Holmes was firing accurately in the dark or just shooting wildly, so long as he killed and injured a lot of people in a very short time?

Numerous people have stated that the fun fire was occurring pretty much continuously until his 100 round drum magazine jammed.

Beyond that, the Virginia state and other studies have indicated that the AR 15, or guns like it, are the preferred weapons in numerous crimes because of the rapid firing of a lot of ammunition feature.

You can't make that go away, or the compelling evidence presented in the DC assault (style) weapons ban/ large capacity magazine ban. They demonstrated beyond any doubt that these weapons are a problem in terms of crime, damage - both lethal and injury.

So it doesn't matter what happened in 1963 when there were very few of them, and far fewer gun problems; they are clearly a problem NOW.

I think if you looked at the mass murders of the last two years, including those that were prevented, like the other two on the same day as the Sandy Hook shooting, you would find that assault style weapons are used too often NOT to regulate, or preferably, eliminate.

[Eleanors38]

49. "...preferred weapons in numerous crimes..." I'm not sure what you mean by "numerous"...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl11.xls

For the years 2010, 12,996 total homicides were recorded in the U.S. by the FBI. Of that total, 358 were committed with a "rifle." That is, rifles of ALL types, semi-auto "assault-style" (whatever that is) included in that total. This is far fewer than the 742 killed by "...hands, fists, feet..." -- a kind of "bump" killing, I suppose!

No, Dog Gone, that does not appear to be "numerous" considering the big picture.

Again, you and many others seem to favor bans on "looks." By now, the notion of "looks" is deeply embedded in our culture, from the looks of sexually-desirable men & women, to cars, to clothes, to guns. To ignore this factor with regards the latter, and to somehow justify banning on the basis of looks by over-stating data and "bump-fire" capabilities, strikes me as being less than forthright.

BTW, BATF does not consider "bump-firing" to be the exercise of, or even included in the technologies of, "full-auto."

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

55. numerous would be the study by Virginia

that showed a low in assault style weapons and large magazines used in crimes at the end of the assault weapons ban in 2004 at around 11 - 12%, with them rising to being used in 22% of crimes in 2010-11, and appearing to be rising / increasing in use at a steeper rate in more recent years.

That is what is meant by 'numerous'. It is confirmed by other studies as well.

[Lurks Often]

54. Missed the study from the Connecticut

Office of Legislative Research did we?

And so much for facts. When the facts are pointed out to you, you say it doesn't matter, because it doesn't fit what YOU want the facts to be.

[petronius]

44. Honesty, integrity, accuracy, and a willingness to critically examine one's own 'facts'

are essential characteristics in anyone who is going to make a useful contribution to any conversation. Personally, I just quietly disregard anyone who demonstrates a lack of these characteristics - they may be entertaining, but they add nothing to my understanding and do nothing to advance the discussion...