or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Positions on Guns in America
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Positions on Guns in America - Page 8

Poll Results: How do you feel about guns in the US? (click all that apply)

Poll expired: May 12, 2007 This is a multiple choice poll
  • 19% (38)
    It is too easy to buy a gun in the US.
  • 3% (6)
    The proper systems are in place to control guns.
  • 6% (12)
    Gun control laws already go too far.
  • 7% (15)
    Guns save lives.
  • 14% (28)
    Guns are dangerous and should be strictly controlled.
  • 10% (21)
    Guns are a menace and should be banned.
  • 4% (9)
    The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct (assuming it allows possession).
  • 13% (26)
    The 2nd Amendment is out of touch with modern America (assuming the same)
  • 3% (7)
    College student should have the right to protect themselves with guns
  • 17% (34)
    College campuses are no place for weapons
196 Total Votes  
post #281 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You see. There you go. You're once again being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the FACT that you wouldn't be threatened with death if the criminal thought you didn't have a gun. You'd lose your wallet, and almost NEVER your life.

Not to mention that yes -- although some criminals might still have access to guns, most would not. And you might be threatened with a knife instead.

My wallet? Cool. He can have it. Pointing a gun at my wife and me while taking a couple of hundred thousand dollars of my work off the table and leaving my family destitute? No. That will forever draw a fully armed response from me. Sorry about that.

Your feel-good "take em all away" does not work. Pure and simple. A lofty and high-minded ideal to be sure. Hell, I'd like to uninvent the things. But that is not the real world. There are hundreds of millions of small arms in the world, and banning them in one spot does not preclude them just coming in from another. Look at Europe. Africa. Latin America. The people that are usually after people like me come from south of the border, where there are "no guns in private hands."

The gun that was used to threaten me was stolen from a Police station in Mexico. Now what?

All of this is a waste of time, tonton. While I admire your idealism, it is not functional in practice.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #282 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You see. There you go. You're once again being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the FACT that you wouldn't be threatened with death if the criminal thought you didn't have a gun. You'd lose your wallet, and almost NEVER your life.

You can't expect him to advertise what his intentions are, or be truthful about them if he does. Just take your wallet? Hurt you for fun? Rape you? Take your life so there is no witness? First one, then another right when you thought you were "through"?

Even where guns or other weapons (knives are every bit as lethal on close range.. let's see a ban on them) are relatively commonly carried on person, it just isn't normal for criminals to kill you outright without warning. (Doesn't mesh with assault for fun or rape. If it's about just money, this modus operandi represents very poor risk-reward, since the police attention and eventual punishment go through the roof.) You're in every way a better position when you are armed, getting the choice between co-operating and of effective resistance. Your weapon(s) can stay hidden until you decide the moment warrants using one.
post #283 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

My wallet? Cool. He can have it. Pointing a gun at my wife and me while taking a couple of hundred thousand dollars of my work off the table and leaving my family destitute? No. That will forever draw a fully armed response from me. Sorry about that.

Your feel-good "take em all away" does not work. Pure and simple. A lofty and high-minded ideal to be sure. Hell, I'd like to uninvent the things. But that is not the real world. There are hundreds of millions of small arms in the world, and banning them in one spot does not preclude them just coming in from another. Look at Europe. Africa. Latin America. The people that are usually after people like me come from south of the border, where there are "no guns in private hands."

The gun that was used to threaten me was stolen from a Police station in Mexico. Now what?

All of this is a waste of time, tonton. While I admire your idealism, it is not functional in practice.

Jub, your on about you need a gun, based upon the nature of your work. Fine! you have a case. What's wrong with applying for a license and getting one? The argument that criminals don't apply for their licenses doesn't hold for me.
post #284 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by OfficerDigby View Post

JThe argument that criminals don't apply for their licenses doesn't hold for me.

You have answered your own question, silly man.

Do you think criminals ARE going to apply for licenses, then? Because they ARE going to have guns either way.

Criminals won't. And they love your victim disarmament laws. I'm not leaving my right to self defense up to some bureaucrat who could give a shit if I have a need or not. They already do that in California and other left wing states with big crime problems. It is a de-facto ban where no one can get a permit, unless they threaten to file suit. Yet again I say, I will not ask permission for what I already have a right to: self-preservation and self-defense.

... Next.

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #285 of 367
I love the following assumptions, which dictate the ongoing silliness in this thread:

1. Criminals will obey the laws on guns, when they are breaking laws with greater punishments.
2. Criminals will not get guns if they are banned.
3. Properly trained, law-abiding people are inherently reckless when in possession of a gun.
4. It is preferable to be without an option for defense, rather than have the option.
5. Average gun owners are marching around looking for a reason to kill someone.
6. Guns cause crime. Just like cars themselves cause traffic accidents.
7. It is possible to take up every gun, from everyone, without criminals retaining their guns.
8. That gun owners like dead children, and do nothing to prevent it.
9. That criminals not knowing who is armed and who isn't does not give a criminal pause.
10. Criminals and whackos give two shits about a "gun-free zone."
11. All semi-auto guns are bona-fide "assault weapons"
12. All rifles with scopes are "sniper rifles."

... to be continued, as the knee-jerk, simple-minded hysteria goes on...

Have a great weekend all...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #286 of 367
13. Most victims of crimes will benefit from having guns.
14. That a high percentage of victims in non-gang-related crimes involving guns end up dead.
15. That armed victims won't result in shootings that wouldn't otherwise have occurred.
post #287 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

jube will like this one-

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=185167

hell, anyone would like this one.

You realize this article isn't true, don't you?
post #288 of 367
Hey... start you own damn list... the idealistic silly version
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #289 of 367
Quote:
13. Most victims of crimes will benefit from having guns.

Of course not, if they had a gun they might prevent themselves from becoming victims in the first place.

Quote:
14. That a high percentage of victims in non-gang-related crimes involving guns end up dead.

"Involving guns." Please tell me, WHO had the gun in your non-cited opinion? The criminal or the victim? We could improve those odds if the victims were not disarmed as you would have.

Quote:
15. That armed victims won't result in shootings that wouldn't otherwise have occurred.

Yep. Must protect those criminals from being shot in the commission of crime! Armed victims can stop crazies and criminals. Otherwise we all just wait until the criminal is done doing whatever they want. Gon is right on this one.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #290 of 367
Speaking of recent bullshit popular pro-gun articles:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55288

There are so many problems with the article it's hard to know where to start. I could start by wondering where they got that crime rate number for morton grove, considering stats on the illinois state police site put it at 1858.6/100,000, not 2,268 as cited in the article, not to mention less than the 2,027 cited for Kennesaw and less than half of the national crime rate.

Neighboring Lincolnwood, which has gun shops, has a crime rate of 5,735/100,000.

This guy points out some more problems with the article.
post #291 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Of course not, if they had a gun they might prevent themselves from becoming victims in the first place.

Well, the people who get shot here in my area that bans handguns now are almost exclusively armed gang members, and their guns aren't protecting them.
Quote:
"Involving guns." Please tell me, WHO had the gun in your non-cited opinion? The criminal or the victim?

That's not my opinion, it's yours, and it's wrong.

In practice, it's just doesn't happen to the degree you imagine it does. I'm not saying this is the case everywhere, either, but it's the case in a diverse, highly populated portion of a major US city with gangs, relatively high crime and a handgun ban. Plus, anyone with even minimal intelligence should be able to recognize this as something that could possibly (but not certainly) support a rational pro-gun argument.
Quote:
Yep. Must protect those criminals from being shot in the commission of crime!

Or the victim of the crime when the attacker panics. Either way, even a criminal's life is worth more than $20.

I don't even think handguns should be banned. I don't even disagree with the idea that people protecting themselves with handguns could potentially reduce crime; I don't know one way or the other. Rather, it's just that some of your arguments are founded on the same misconceptions shared by many rabid gun activists.
post #292 of 367
Thread Starter 
The NRA is hard at work trying to protect all Americans:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/...M6fjrFHvnMWM0F

"WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects."

Trying to protect the 2nd...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #293 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

Well, the people who get shot here in my area that bans handguns now are almost exclusively gang members, and their guns aren't protecting them.
...
Either way, even a criminal's life is worth more than $20.

And soldiers' guns aren't protecting them in battle, since they seem to die a lot?

I don't think anyone is putting a price on criminals' heads here. I hold that as long as someone is actively threatening me, I can do whatever is necessary to make that threat stop. There's no moral obligation for me to endure risk for the benefit of their health, when they're initiated the whole mess in the first place, and have the option of turning around and running away or otherwise demonstrating harmlessness at any time. I have no problem giving up a wallet, a bike, an iPod or whatever. But if at any time, before they obviously stop being a threat, I have a good opportunity to disable the aggressor, I will do so because that positively ends the threat and doesn't require gambling on the intentions and good will of a violent criminal. Like I said before - there's no guarantee they'll stop and leave even if you do what they say.
post #294 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

And soldiers' guns aren't protecting them in battle, since they seem to die a lot?

Huh? You've completely missed the point. The point is that law abiding citizens who, according to rabid gun advocates, should be getting shot and killed by these armed thugs are, in reality, not at all. Those shootings are completely unrelated to whether guns are legal or not and there are no shootings that will be prevented by legalizing handguns here. If anything, having more guns will just tack on more shootings that wouldn't otherwise have occured. There's just no way to deny that.

At the same time, removing the handgun bans could potentially help prevent other kinds of existing violence and muggings. That argument could very well be valid and I tend to agree with it.

The problem is that rabid gun advocates refuse to acknowledge the potential drawbacks and make up fantasies about how most people are actually affected by crime, instead focusing on rare, extreme situations or just completely making shit up.
Quote:
I hold that as long as someone is actively threatening me, I can do whatever is necessary to make that threat stop.

Uh, thanks for letting us know about your gun-slinging fantasies?
post #295 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I love the following assumptions, which dictate the ongoing silliness in this thread:

And I'll reply with your ignorance of the facts.

Quote:
1. Criminals will obey the laws on guns, when they are breaking laws with greater punishments.

YOU'RE IGNORING: Although some hardened criminals won't care, "Desperate Joe" who considers robbing a liquor store for the first time might think twice.
Quote:
2. Criminals will not get guns if they are banned.

YOU'RE IGNORING: Fewer criminals will have access to guns, even if some still do.
Quote:
3. Properly trained, law-abiding people are inherently reckless when in possession of a gun.

YOU'RE IGNORING: For every gun sold to a "properly trained" person, just how many are sold to idiots or ignorant assholes who think what they know is "good enough"?
Quote:
4. It is preferable to be without an option for defense, rather than have the option.

STRAWMAN: The defense is reduced risk. Duh. FEWER GUNS, FEWER PROBLEMS.
Quote:
5. Average gun owners are marching around looking for a reason to kill someone.

STRAWMAN: No one ever said that.
YOU'RE IGNORING: Average gun owners DO have accidents or make mistakes or poor decisions.
Quote:
6. Guns cause crime. Just like cars themselves cause traffic accidents.

STRAWMAN: Get a grip! CARS HAVE A LEGITIMATE, NECESSARY PURPOSE WHOSE ADVANTAGES FAR OUTWEIGH, BY A THOUSANDFOLD, THEIR DISADVANTAGES.
YOU'RE IGNORING: Guns do cause crime. There would be no severe disadvantage to ANYONE if there weren't any. The advantyage would be fewer deaths! Duh.
Quote:
7. It is possible to take up every gun, from everyone, without criminals retaining their guns.

STRAWMAN: No one ever said that or implied it!!!!
YOU'RE IGNORING: Take up half the guns, there will still be significant reductions in gun deaths.
YOU'RE IGNORING: The more time passes, the fewer guns there will be, and the fewer deaths there will be. And the guns will get more expensive. MUCH more expensive.
Quote:
8. That gun owners like dead children, and do nothing to prevent it.

YOU'RE IGNORING: Accidents happen. Gun owners are willing to allow for that possibility as long as they can keep their guns. And not every gun owner is a responsible one, nor will all gun owners EVER be 100% responsible people, no matter how responsible you yourself are.
Quote:
9. That criminals not knowing who is armed and who isn't does not give a criminal pause.

YOU'RE IGNORING: That criminals not knowing who is armed and who is not makes them paranoiod and gives them itchy fingers! "Honest! I thought he was reaching for a gun, that's why I fired!"
Quote:
10. Criminals and whackos give two shits about a "gun-free zone."

YOU'RE IGNORING: That criminals and whackos aren't the ones we're concerned about.
Quote:
11. All semi-auto guns are bona-fide "assault weapons"

YOU'RE IGNORING: That there's no legitimate purpose for semiautomatic weapons, except to facilitate taking repeated shots more frequently. If you're "well trained" and protecting yourself, why should you need to shoot even once, much less twice?
Quote:
12. All rifles with scopes are "sniper rifles."

YOU'RE IGNORING: All rifles with scopes can be used as "sniper rifles", and hunters can get by just fine (and most would say make more sport of it) without them.

Quote:
... to be continued, as the knee-jerk, simple-minded hysteria goes on...

Simple minded is someone who only takes one side of an argument and doesn't even acknowledge the other side.

Quote:
Have a great weekend all...

I will, partially due to the security I gain from the knowledge that I live in a city whose population is seven million, yet only about 2 or 3 people die of gunshot wounds per year. Thank you for the sentiment.
post #296 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I told my fife, but all it does is whistle back...


Let me give you a non-simplistic hand here...



Glad I could help. And by the way, there is a *little* issue of a Constitution here, but meh, who cares? Why let a little thing like that pesky "rule of law" and "Bill of Rights" get in the way. You are acting just like Bush.

I don't need no help. Suggest you double-check results on the top and some national polls. You are going down ... along with your outdated views. Remember what happened to dinosaurs?

We'll be building a new society, free of weapons and wars.

Camouflage is out. Green is in.

No Guns (in No Hands) = No Problems.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #297 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

You realize this article isn't true, don't you?

Actually, this article is perfect. you can't disprove it either.

But I admit- you can't prove it's true as well.
post #298 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post


Uh, thanks for letting us know about your gun-slinging fantasies?

Well, that's what's it's all about in the end, isn't it?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #299 of 367
Did anyone else catch the NYTimes article on the minor yet intriguing shift of some liberal law scholars towards support of interpretation of the 2nd amendment as granting individual rights as opposed to the current nearly UNIVERSAL legal interpretation as a grant of state's rights?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #300 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Did anyone else catch the NYTimes article on the minor yet intriguing shift of some liberal law scholars towards support of interpretation of the 2nd amendment as granting individual rights as opposed to the current nearly UNIVERSAL legal interpretation as a grant of state's rights?

I did not, but I think we should really consider doing away with the whole thing.

It would eliminate the secondary market which would make it even harder for unlicensed and unscrupulous types to get a hold of weapons. Mandate strict accountability and reporting of lost or stolen firearms would also help. But the NRA types are against registration too. I mean it's okay that the government mandate car registration but guns, well, that's a different story.

On an unrelated note, as a member of a well ordered militia, I qualified expert with my M249 yesterday, yay me
post #301 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Did anyone else catch the NYTimes article on the minor yet intriguing shift of some liberal law scholars towards support of interpretation of the 2nd amendment as granting individual rights as opposed to the current nearly UNIVERSAL legal interpretation as a grant of state's rights?

I was pleasantly surprised to find this from former Republican Chief Justice Burger:

Quote:
“The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all,” Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

Quote:
Still, nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question.

So the individual rights view of gun ownership is decidedly *not* the way we interpret that amendment.

Ouch!
post #302 of 367
Thread Starter 
And a good example of why college students shouldn't have guns:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/04/stu....ap/index.html

Altercation leads to one injury and a death by handgun, alcohol possibly involved.
This inicdent just occured, so the investigation might find something else.

The suicide was made easier by the gun; sure, a knife would have done the trick, but the gun made it much easier.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #303 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

And a good example of why college students shouldn't have guns:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/04/stu....ap/index.html

Altercation leads to one injury and a death by handgun, alcohol possibly involved.
This inicdent just occured, so the investigation might find something else.

The suicide was made easier by the gun; sure, a knife would have done the trick, but the gun made it much easier.

Indeed. This just goes to show that I'm right: all girls between the ages of 13 and 25 should be required by law to carry a handgun loaded with hollowpoints at all times.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #304 of 367
Thread Starter 
What will you do, midwinter, when you give Kathy a "D" on a paper and she pulls out a Colt .45? Pull out your M-16 and say the grade stands?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #305 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

What will you do, midwinter, when you give Kathy a "D" on a paper and she pulls out a Colt .45? Pull out your M-16 and say the grade stands?

I'll probably do the same thing I did last Wednesday: make sure I have a cop on hand if I think a student will become violent.

But you know, I think that the chance of Kathy shooting me over her grade is just one of the things we have to accept about my plan.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #306 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

I don't need no help. Suggest you double-check results on the top and some national polls. You are going down ... along with your outdated views. Remember what happened to dinosaurs?

We'll be building a new society, free of weapons and wars.

Camouflage is out. Green is in.

No Guns (in No Hands) = No Problems.

Wow... I was waiting to see how long it took some poor soul to reference the poll. AMAZING! A board full of liberals who want to take away guns from law-abiding people and criminals alike! What a shock! Really... Means absolutely dick when it comes to reality outside this board. I could have given you those results before the first person voted.

As for your utopian world with no guns, faeries galore, unicorns running free, and no conservatives or atomic weapons... I guess we'll see what we'll see.



Thanks for the laugh, truly.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #307 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^ View Post

On an unrelated note, as a member of a well ordered militia, I qualified expert with my M249 yesterday, yay me

I qualified last week to teach personal firearm safety for another two years, so I can teach the "PEOPLE" in the second half of the Amendment how to safely exercise their rights.

Congrats on the M249. That can be a challenge, depending on manufacturer.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #308 of 367
Quote:
And I'll reply with your ignorance of the facts.

Facts are all I deal in.

Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: Although some hardened criminals won't care, "Desperate Joe" who considers robbing a liquor store for the first time might think twice.

Nope. A criminal is a criminal. Someone willing to victimize another person has already overcome the real barrier... finding the will to do it. The means don't matter.

Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: Fewer criminals will have access to guns, even if some still do.

You're ignoring that ALL OF THEIR VICTIMS will NOT have access, even if some criminals don't have access. See?

Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: For every gun sold to a "properly trained" person, just how many are sold to idiots or ignorant assholes who think what they know is "good enough"?

You can send donations directly to my training and safety account. My address is... In all seriousness, training is good. Required training isn't so bad. Mandatory standards are inherently good. All until you build a national database of gun owners. That's a tool for what you've already said you want to do... take em all away.

Quote:
STRAWMAN: The defense is reduced risk. Duh. FEWER GUNS, FEWER PROBLEMS.

Here we go again. Fewer guns in the right hands? More problems. Much much more.


Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: Average gun owners DO have accidents or make mistakes or poor decisions.

Again, the address you can send your dues to is: NRA, Fairfax Virginia.... So do average drivers, parents, golfers, drinkers, hell- all humans. Standards are good. Required education is awesome. But keeping records like you want is the gateway to taking away our rights.


Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: Guns do cause crime. There would be no severe disadvantage to ANYONE if there weren't any. The advantyage would be fewer deaths! Duh.

How many crimes do guns CAUSE on the premises of gun shows or the SHOT show or NRA conventions? Gun crimes? With THOUSANDS of guns on premises? I'd say a shitload less than your "gun free zones." Find me a random shooting at one of the aforementioned places. The only shooting I have ever heard of at a gun show is in Austin about 5 years ago, when an off-duty policeman shot himself in the foot while breaking two existing laws...


Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: Take up half the guns, there will still be significant reductions in gun deaths.

Nope, because the half you are taking up are not going to be from criminals. They will be from newly-defenseless targets. You'll increase crime.

Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: The more time passes, the fewer guns there will be, and the fewer deaths there will be. And the guns will get more expensive. MUCH more expensive.

Ahhhh... so only WEALTHY people will be able to own guns. So the poor and middle classes will be disarmed while all the rich folks are secure. That's nice.

Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: Accidents happen. Gun owners are willing to allow for that possibility as long as they can keep their guns. And not every gun owner is a responsible one, nor will all gun owners EVER be 100% responsible people, no matter how responsible you yourself are.

Your own strawman. I have never said that every person should have a gun. And I advocate (and have since the beginning) that we raise the training requirements for CHL holders. You see, if we trusted anyone to NOT want to come collect our guns, I'd be more than glad to have mandatory safety classes to buy and own a gun. It's too bad that you guys have tipped your hand that you want the full ban. It prevents many from wanting "common sense" when it comes to training and standards.

Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: That criminals not knowing who is armed and who is not makes them paranoiod and gives them itchy fingers! "Honest! I thought he was reaching for a gun, that's why I fired!"

Fantasy. Pure fantasy. If you repeat it long enough...

Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: That criminals and whackos aren't the ones we're concerned about.

And THAT, my friend, is the problem. You are concerned with controlling average law-abiding people, not criminals or whackos. Shazzam!

Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: That there's no legitimate purpose for semiautomatic weapons, except to facilitate taking repeated shots more frequently. If you're "well trained" and protecting yourself, why should you need to shoot even once, much less twice?

Astounding ignorance. If I am attacked 1-to-1, a single shot pistol is fine. What happens with multiple attackers who may be under the influence or not stopped with their "one bullet"? You simply do not understand personal defense with a firearm. If you were in Texas, I'd let you come to class for free such that you might "get it." Look at the stats, brotha... not many crimes are committed with semi-auto rifles in the US. Very small compared to their share of guns in circulation.


Quote:
YOU'RE IGNORING: All rifles with scopes can be used as "sniper rifles", and hunters can get by just fine (and most would say make more sport of it) without them.

My goodness, dear friend. Hunting without a scoped rifle? That's all that IS legal for hunting in many states in the US. It is the most common firearm worldwide for taking game. Are you pulling my leg, or just trying to make me nuts?

Quote:
Simple minded is someone who only takes one side of an argument and doesn't even acknowledge the other side.

I acknowledge the other side. I see where some might think that it's bad for average people to have guns. I don't agree, but I see it. I want responsible gun owners, higher standards for training, and mandatory safety education. That's far from "extreme." Your definition of extreme is "want's guns in private hands at all."


Quote:
I will, partially due to the security I gain from the knowledge that I live in a city whose population is seven million, yet only about 2 or 3 people die of gunshot wounds per year. Thank you for the sentiment.

Good for you. How many violent crimes do you still have with other weapons? What is the crime rate? I'm so glad that you can live in a place that is not swimming in guns, and now you feel like "it can just be like that everywhere" because you think it can. Now, come to work with me for a week. See what life is like in a country without an effective rehabilitation system from criminals and repeat offenders. Where any criminal activity can be excused for a plethora of reasons. I bet your justice system works. Ours returns violent, hardened, un-rehab-ed criminals to the street for the rest of us to deal with. And I, and many like me, get to make a stand and try to make a living against these thugs... while a bunch of idealists want me to take care of myself and my family with a "please don't hurt us, sir" and a cell phone to call 911.

You will never. Ever. Get. My. Gun.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #309 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I qualified last week to teach personal firearm safety for another two years, so I can teach the "PEOPLE" in the second half of the Amendment how to safely exercise their rights.

I'm just curious. Do you teach people to kill others? I'm serious. Do you actually teach peopleor at least try to teach themto be killers?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #310 of 367
Thread Starter 
Good question.

Also: do you teach people how to deal with the death of someone they have shot while trying to save their own little important selves? What about if they shoot an innocent bystander, or their own loved one? Do you train them to deal with the pressures of a crisis situation so that they have the steadiness of mind to deal with it effectively, hopefully without resorting to their gun? Do you run them through scenarios where they are mugged, robbed, stalked, etc., where you would propose that they use their guns? If they have not practiced the scenarios, the probability that they will react correctly is low, and might lead to unnecessary use of the firearm. Proper training takes time. Lots of time. Time your average Joe doesn't want to spend... Law enforcement spends years training, they are proficient, but they still make mistakes. Will your Joe be ready?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #311 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'm just curious. Do you teach people to kill others? I'm serious. Do you actually teach people—or at least try to teach them—to be killers?


Killers?
Is that supposed to be used for shock value, or do you really care what I do?
I'll indulge you for purposes of discussion.

Training simple "killers" ?

Nope. Shooting to kill is not the policy of any instructor. You shoot to stop. When the stop happens, the shooting stops. Killing is a terrible thing, which I spend a considerable amount of time talking about. The military trains killers. I train people on how to prevent, respond to, and stop attackers. It only includes death when there is no other way. That is very rare. The lawful use of deadly force is required for CHL licensees. Hours of time is spent defining what is and is not "justifiable." And to date in Texas (in the 12 years we have had CHLs) not a single CHL holder has been indicted for unlawful use of deadly force. Far from the "wild west" we were promised by the Brady Campaign...

There is some common caricature around here (pushed by many of you) that I sit in a camo-covered room and tell a bunch of new gun owners how to kill on the first shot, with no provocation, and then where to go to get a ribbon afterwards. Nothing could be further from the truth... In all my years as an NRA instructor, I constantly tell others how terrible taking a human life is. That the effects of that are as permanent for the shooter as for the deceased.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #312 of 367
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You will never. Ever. Get. My. Gun.

Unless you carry it in firing position at all times, have spherical vision that is as sharp as an eagle's (even in darkness) and pay attention to nothing else, the right bad guy with a will and a little practice can disarm you or eliminate the effectiveness of your gun without much effort.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #313 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Good question.

Also: do you teach people how to deal with the death of someone they have shot while trying to save their own little important selves? What about if they shoot an innocent bystander, or their own loved one? Do you train them to deal with the pressures of a crisis situation so that they have the steadiness of mind to deal with it effectively, hopefully without resorting to their gun? Do you run them through scenarios where they are mugged, robbed, stalked, etc., where you would propose that they use their guns? If they have not practiced the scenarios, the probability that they will react correctly is low, and might lead to unnecessary use of the firearm. Proper training takes time. Lots of time. Time your average Joe doesn't want to spend... Law enforcement spends years training, they are proficient, but they still make mistakes. Will your Joe be ready?

I do all those things. I am confident my Joes are ready. We practice stress-fire techniques. Use of cover. How to get a clear shot. Where the percentages are in your favour. Avoiding innocents. Escape techniques. Psychology of true combat. Steps in the force chain. Proper handling of appropriate tools. Proper training takes time... that's what we do. We take time. We do it right. And if what you have put forth as a standard is such that you think you'll win the argument, you've just made my case. We do what you speak of and more.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #314 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Unless you carry it in firing position at all times, have spherical vision that is as sharp as an eagle's (even in darkness) and pay attention to nothing else, the right bad guy with a will and a little practice can disarm you or eliminate the effectiveness of your gun without much effort.

audiopollution is teaching me kung-fu. I can't tell you much more.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #315 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post


Killers?
Is that supposed to be used for shock value, or do you really care what I do?
I'll indulge you for purposes of discussion.

I really care what you do. Seriously. If I didn't care and were merely positioning you, I'd respond with something like this:

Quote:
Training simple "killers" ?

You think training killers is "simple"? Or that people who kill with their weapons are somehow less than those who don't?

See? I didn't do that.

Quote:
Nope. Shooting to kill is not the policy of any instructor. You shoot to stop. When the stop happens, the shooting stops.

I'm still curious, though, about your position. You complain that the left operates according to some utopian vision, and yet you seem to assume that anyone, trained, carrying a weapon, can draw it and pull the trigger.

I'm just curious how, precisely, that works. Because it seems to me that you seem to operate according to some equally utopian vision of a world populated by Rambo.

Quote:
Killing is a terrible thing, which I spend a considerable amount of time talking about. The military trains killers.

Good. I had assumed that you do. I also assume that you begin your training by discussing how to avoid potentially dangerous situations? Would you be willing to let my wife sit in on this portion of the training, because she doesn't seem to have a "blink" response to that stuff. She also attracts panhandlers.

Quote:
I train people on how to prevent, respond to, and stop attackers.

Groovy. I'm curious, seriously, about how you instruct them. What, precisely, do you teach? How do you prevent vigilantism? How do you weed out the Rambo-types? The bullies? The Rednecks?

And before you get any illusions about what might be in my head when I say "rednecks," keep in mind that I'm from the cradle of civilization: Mississippi. And before you get any illusions about what might be in Addabox's head, keep in mind that he is from the wilderness of Alabama.

Quote:
It only includes death when there is no other way. That is very rare.

What, precisely, is "it" in that first sentence?

Quote:
The lawful use of deadly force is required for CHL licensees. And to date in Texas (in the 12 years we have had CHLs) not a single CHL holder has been indicted for unlawful use of deadly force. Far from the "wild west" we were promised by the Brady Campaign...

Well, frankly, it is TEXAS. I mean, come on. It's TEXAS.

Quote:
There is some common caricature around here (pushed by many of you) that I sit in a camo-covered room and tell a bunch of new gun owners how to kill on the first shot, with no provocation, and then where to go to get a ribbon afterwards. Nothing could be further from the truth... In all my years as an NRA instructor, I constantly tell others how terrible taking a human life is. That the effects of that are as permanent for the shooter as for the deceased.

Well, I hardly think the effects are as permanent for the shooter as they are for the deceased. That may sound nice and all, but, well, one is dead while the other just feels bad about having made the one person dead.

And yeah. Frankly, there is an image. But it's not the camo-covered nutjob. Those people don't bother with permits, anyway. The image is this:

Sue, 28, has a BS in communications from the local white college, where she had all white friends, and works for a local mostly white advertising firm. One night, while out drinking with her pals celebrating the closure of some campaign she'd worked on, she leaves the bar a bit tipsy and bumps into a NOTWHITE person, who berates her rather loudly (of course using the word "bitch") in front of her friends and gets up in her face. Sue backs away and gets in the cab, but she's scared for days afterwards. She decides that every NOTWHITE person she sees on the street is potentially out to get her. She has dreams about this. And those dreams haunt her. She enrolls in her local Sugar Land self-defense course....

Another?

Sally, 43, was brutally raped by her meth-head ex-boyfriend. Now that she's free of him, she no longer feels safe in any situation. She enrolls in her local Galveston self-defense course....

My point? A gun is not a pacifier, nor will it make people feel less afraid. And I do not like the idea that I may be at any moment in a room with people who are both afraid and armed.

My other point? The utopia of an armed citizenry you seem to imagine hinges on the idea that those people will, if pressed, use the guns. You do not know this to be the case.

And yeah. There was a shooting on my campus about 10 years ago, and the guy was put down by a police officer.

And yeah. There was a shooting about 30 miles from me a few months ago, and the guy was put down by an off-duty police officer.

What do those two have in common?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #316 of 367
Thread Starter 
Midwinter raises a very good point: will people who are motivated by fear choose the best course of action in a serious situation?

What if Sue gets her license, buys her gun and then walks down the street feeling a little safer than before, and is then approached by a group of notwhites (the group she thinks is out to get her), and one guy starts walking up to her. She feels threatened and pulls out her concealed handgun. Shaking, she tells them to back off, which they do. Suddenly, she hears something behind her and Sue's stress turns to panic. One male moves towards her, his hand outstretched; oshe doesn't see the sign on the placard above him that reads, "Main Street Church of God Christmas Giving". Sue pulls the trigger, and is almost too startled by the bang to notice that the bullet missed her intended target. The group of males rush up to her and try to grab the gun out of her hand. She struggles, another shot goes off, and she then sees the young boy behind them on the ground, a woman crouching over him screaming, her hands covered in blood. Sue faints and comes to after the police arrive. She is shocked when she hears an officer refer to one of the notwhites as "Father". Yep, he was a minister and the dead boy was his son. For the rest of her life, she will relive the boy's killing over and over. For the rest of their lives, the minister and his wife will miss their only son.

Merry Christmas.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #317 of 367
Quote:
I'm still curious, though, about your position. You complain that the left operates according to some utopian vision, and yet you seem to assume that anyone, trained, carrying a weapon, can draw it and pull the trigger.

I'm just curious how, precisely, that works. Because it seems to me that you seem to operate according to some equally utopian vision of a world populated by Rambo.

Nope again. We're not connecting here. I do not advocate everyone having a gun, everyone getting a CHL, or whatever. Anyone who chooses to spend the time and effort that I think should be mandatory, and mostly is, can be quite prepared and should have a CHL if they want to. You are back to caricature yet again... Rambo? Give me a break. You are smarter than that.
I would say that a US with properly trained and law-abiding people with CHLs is much closer than the utopian "snap fingers and they all just disappear" line of thinking.

Quote:
Good. I had assumed that you do. I also assume that you begin your training by discussing how to avoid potentially dangerous situations? Would you be willing to let my wife sit in on this portion of the training, because she doesn't seem to have a "blink" response to that stuff. She also attracts panhandlers.

Of course. The best way to win a fight is to not get into one to begin with. That is common sense. As I have said before... the gun is not the most powerful weapon... the brain is. Sometimes, though, the problem finds you, and you have to deal with it. In your home. In your business. In your car. In a Luby's cafeteria enjoying lunch with your parents. A lot of time in my classes are spent in identifying threats before they become threats, understanding how to avoid situations and escalations that could be dangerous, etc. It's basic. Those discussions happen for 4 hours before we even talk about guns.


Quote:
Groovy. I'm curious, seriously, about how you instruct them. What, precisely, do you teach? How do you prevent vigilantism? How do you weed out the Rambo-types? The bullies? The Rednecks?

Any instructor can tell you how easy it is to see through a vigilante or Rambo or bully. They are not hard to spot. In my experience, they are quietly confronted and/or usually asked to leave. No one wants to train the wrong people... so we are good at spotting problem cases. You cannot even get the application materials for a CHL unless you pass a background check. That is state law. For 99% of people, the constant hammering on them that the misuse of force is treated criminally generally does the trick. No vigilante wants to risk 35 years for voluntary manslaughter or worse. In my 15 years of training, I have only ever had 1 person of thousands who has been a person there for the wrong reason. Finding one case of a "bad guy" trained by a "good guy" does not negate the rest of what we do day in and day out.

Quote:
And before you get any illusions about what might be in my head when I say "rednecks," keep in mind that I'm from the cradle of civilization: Mississippi. And before you get any illusions about what might be in Addabox's head, keep in mind that he is from the wilderness of Alabama.

Hey, I am from Texas. Our Rednecks are generally better with guns than our cops. Heck, half of them ARE cops.


Quote:
What, precisely, is "it" in that first sentence?

"It" is the confrontation.


Quote:
Well, frankly, it is TEXAS. I mean, come on. It's TEXAS.

Your point?


Quote:
Well, I hardly think the effects are as permanent for the shooter as they are for the deceased. That may sound nice and all, but, well, one is dead while the other just feels bad about having made the one person dead.

I never even pulled the trigger on the person who victimized my wife and me. And that took months of hard work to get over. Talk to a vet who has pulled the trigger on another person. My point is that the act is not free of psychological costs -huge ones- to the shooter. I belabor that point on a daily basis... "Even if a shooting is found to be justifiable homicide, that person has a family that will be angry and distrought, you'll have it on your shoulders that you killed someone, and you'll have tens of thousands in attorney's fees. And that is if the state decides you were acting lawfully. Be damn sure that there is no other way when you pull out that firearm."

Quote:
And yeah. Frankly, there is an image.

My point? A gun is not a pacifier, nor will it make people feel less afraid. And I do not like the idea that I may be at any moment in a room with people who are both afraid and armed.

OK, midwinter, we can "situation" this to death. I can give you just as many. But it is a futile exercise because each situation is different. I'm not sure what "nonwhite" has to do with anything, other than maybe race baiting? Sue needs psychological help. Go fight for that.

My gun does make me less afraid. On a daily basis at work. And at home. You know that. You throw around "afraid" like it is some playground "point and laugh" thing. Look who's A-F-R-A-I-D. Well fuck that. People do jobs in which healthy fear leads to vigilance which leads to safety. Part of my vigilance, and thus my safety, is my firearm.

I don't like the idea that I may be at any moment also eating dinner in a Lubys, or making a living at work, minding my own fscking business, when the shit hits the fan with someone that you could not stop with any law you made. Only a firearm in the right hands. If it ever presents itself, one of us derelict "gun nuts" will save lives. Maybe yours or your family's.

Quote:
My other point? The utopia of an armed citizenry you seem to imagine hinges on the idea that those people will, if pressed, use the guns. You do not know this to be the case.

The citizenry is already armed, BTW. It is no utopia. What I have committed years to is the idea that people who intend to use guns for self-defense should be capable, trained, meet standards, and know how to handle themselves and situations to prevent the loss of life- be that theirs or the perp. People in New Orleans (the ones who did not have their guns unlawfully confiscated) were pressed and they did use their guns. I can cite numerous examples of people who were "pressed" and properly used the tool at hand... the evil firearm.

Quote:
And yeah. There was a shooting on my campus about 10 years ago, and the guy was put down by a police officer. And yeah. There was a shooting about 30 miles from me a few months ago, and the guy was put down by an off-duty police officer. What do those two have in common?

They are both anecdotal and rare?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #318 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Midwinter raises a very good point: will people who are motivated by fear choose the best course of action in a serious situation?

What if Sue gets her license, buys her gun and then walks down the street feeling a little safer than before, and is then approached by a group of notwhites (the group she thinks is out to get her), and one guy starts walking up to her. She feels threatened and pulls out her concealed handgun. Shaking, she tells them to back off, which they do. Suddenly, she hears something behind her and Sue's stress turns to panic. One male moves towards her, his hand outstretched; oshe doesn't see the sign on the placard above him that reads, "Main Street Church of God Christmas Giving". Sue pulls the trigger, and is almost too startled by the bang to notice that the bullet missed her intended target. The group of males rush up to her and try to grab the gun out of her hand. She struggles, another shot goes off, and she then sees the young boy behind them on the ground, a woman crouching over him screaming, her hands covered in blood. Sue faints and comes to after the police arrive. She is shocked when she hears an officer refer to one of the notwhites as "Father". Yep, he was a minister and the dead boy was his son. For the rest of her life, she will relive the boy's killing over and over. For the rest of their lives, the minister and his wife will miss their only son.

Merry Christmas.

... and THIS, friends, is the stock and trade of the Million Mom March and the rest of those that hate the 2nd Amendment. "What-if" Heart-breaking tales of accidental murder at Christmas because of, presumably, the NRA and law-abiding gun owners. Or just the gun itself. Sue is a criminal. Guilty of homicide. And she will be prosecuted in any state in the union, so dispense with the bullshit. Albert Einstein in a bathrobe, you people need to get a real platform that does not include one fantasy tear-jerker after another to make an equally fantastical point.

Did you come up with that on your own? You should write for Sarah Brady. And what the fuck is the trip with the "non-whites" thing? You guys are looking desperate with "what if" fantasies like this. Maybe it's the way that you keep yourself stirred-up to take away others' rights to self-defense, I dunno. Maybe I should write some of this from the other point of view... like some deranged, fucked-up romance novel.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #319 of 367
Jube-- what's your take on the fact that your individual rights interpretation of the second amendment is decidedly *not* the actual law of the land?
post #320 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Jube-- what's your take on the fact that your individual rights interpretation of the second amendment is decidedly *not* the actual law of the land?

My take? My take is that your take is bullshit. It's that simple. The PEOPLE, throughout the Bill of Rights, means the PEOPLE... citizens, the PEOPLE. I don't think the "PEOPLE" of the 2nd A is any different from any other usage of "PEOPLE." It's common usage. Please read Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10 for help with the "people" concept. Then direct your surely gymnastic rebuttal to the wall at your left.

People means people. Why use "people" when you mean "militia" - BOTH are explicitly stated.

If it is not the law, friend, what are 250 million guns doing in private hands? You mean we've been wrong all this time just because you say so and it supports your desire to end basic personal rights? Dang, I hate it when that happens!

We are on the edge of this being explicitly affirmed by the courts, to put a final period at the end of your misguided attempt to deny the People their rights to self-defense.

Stay tuned.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Positions on Guns in America