Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #701  
Old 02-22-2013, 06:34 PM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,341
Police in Clarkstown, New York have confiscated a cache of high-powered weapons and body armor from a man who was arrested for posting death threats against against many Democratic politicians and every liberal supporter of President Barack Obama.

According to WCBS, 49-year-old Larry Mulqueen was arraigned on Thursday on charges of “making terroristic threats, illegally possessing weapons and harassment.”

Mulqueen’s landlady had tipped off police after she found a “hit list” posted on Facebook that threatened Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) and all members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  #702  
Old 02-22-2013, 07:28 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
Nah, you can have your rifles too, I'm feeling generous
Great!
Quote:
That's not what you told me earlier
What did I say earlier?
Quote:
I dunno, you brought up the uzi pistol, what makes that different from a non-black, Jewish weapon?
Nothing really at all except it looks more "assault like" than a normal pistol. I figured you wouldn't like it because of cosmetics, and sure enough you didn't.

Quote:
We need to do something about gun violence and reducing firearms is a good start
I love it when you gun grabbers use the words "a good start." It proves the slippery slope is the real strategy rather than a than a logical fallacy.
  #703  
Old 02-22-2013, 07:34 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
Only 47 this week.
So the current number is a lot less than when the assault weapon ban was in effect?
  #704  
Old 02-22-2013, 07:44 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
And yet the NRA oppose independent research. Why do you suppose that is?
They don't oppose independent research. They oppose research into gun violence from the public health perspective. I think they are just bothered by the fact that the CDC discovered that guns can kill people. They are also a bit wary of how the public health professionals present the facts. They compare the frequency of accidental shooting by a gun in the home with the frequency of shooting a home invader. They entirely ignore situations where you don't actually shoot the home invader.

We have plenty of independent and government research on gun violence by criminologists which falls on either side of the argument but public health folks aren't equipped to evaluate the role of guns in society. They can only evaluate the impact of guns in society. Their studies leads you to believe that the country would be better off if noone had guns, and that may be true, but what people end up advocating based on these studies is a society where no law abiding citizen has guns and make no provision for what to do about guns in the criminal sphere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Pretty good analysis. It is true that gun grabbers have poisoned their own well, which probably has to some degree hurt the cause of gun safety. But they sure sell a lot of AR15s. Heck, you can't hardly get a revolver from Smith and Wesson right now because most resources are being directed at producing M&P rifles to keep up the the accelerated demand.
No kidding. If they REALLY wanted to hurt the gun enthusiasts, they would lift the ban on automatic weapons and watch gun collecters let out a collective gasp as the value of a full auto M-16 goes from 20K-25K to 2k or 3K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Yes the slippery slope works with everything; just like the Defense of Marriage Act leads inexorably to concentration camps for gays.
Has anyone proposed concentration camps for gays? Because they have proposed seizing some guns (or forcing you to sell them out of state).

Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
Everybody knows that. But not doing anything about it, to me, is flawed reasoning. We need to do something about gun violence and reducing firearms is a good start
Reducing firearms only among law abiding citizens is a HORRIBLE start.

Its like saying, "nuclear weapons are bad, we should get rid of them. First things we should do is decommission the US nuclear arsenal, I'm sure the whole North Korea and Iran thing will work itself out"

WHO has the guns makes a difference.
  #705  
Old 02-23-2013, 02:05 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Of course the NRA opposes independent research. The more actual data is out there, the less people can run around saying CCW people never commit crimes or there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.
  #706  
Old 02-23-2013, 02:15 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Has anyone proposed concentration camps for gays? Because they have proposed seizing some guns (or forcing you to sell them out of state).
Yes, they have, so that makes it a real likelihood if DOMA is allowed to stand.

And the only people that would sell their guns out of state are those who are trying to evade the law.

Last edited by Fear Itself; 02-23-2013 at 02:15 PM.
  #707  
Old 02-23-2013, 02:20 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,143
A minor nitpick on that one, in that there are several metropolitan areas that straddle state lines. You might be only "driving across town" to sell your people plugger, but you will be crossing a state line.
  #708  
Old 02-23-2013, 03:01 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Reducing firearms only among law abiding citizens is a HORRIBLE start.
Where do you think the guns criminals use come from?
  #709  
Old 02-23-2013, 06:13 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Yes, they have, so that makes it a real likelihood if DOMA is allowed to stand.
So you are comparing the rantings of some crazy religious nut to the legislative actions taken by senators and governors?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Where do you think the guns criminals use come from?
Then shouldn't your focus be on reducing the transfer of guns between law abiding citizens and criminals? Disarming the general populace only makes sense if you ignore the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are committedby criminals.
  #710  
Old 02-23-2013, 07:24 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,143
A discussion of salve, bandages and wamer clothing to treat frostbite is not quite the same as arguing the merits of immediate amputation.
  #711  
Old 02-23-2013, 09:35 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
A discussion of salve, bandages and wamer clothing to treat frostbite is not quite the same as arguing the merits of immediate amputation.
If I'm not mistaken you do want to chop certain guns out of existence though, don't you? Those black ones that aren't live affirming like a Winchester model 94, correct?
  #712  
Old 02-24-2013, 12:46 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
If I'm not mistaken you do want to chop certain guns out of existence though, don't you? Those black ones that aren't live affirming like a Winchester model 94, correct?
Well, I'm glad someone understood what that post meant.
  #713  
Old 02-24-2013, 02:07 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,143
Well, at least you understand each other! I swear, somebody says maybe some regulations are in order, what you hear is "Let's grab all the guns!" Or somebody says "Maybe some restrictions on sales?" you hear the dreaded crunch of liberal jackboots, coming to take all the guns!

Hell, if someone says good morning, you think he's saying "Today is a good morning....to grab all the guns!"

Weird.
  #714  
Old 02-24-2013, 06:23 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Well, at least you understand each other! I swear, somebody says maybe some regulations are in order, what you hear is "Let's grab all the guns!" Or somebody says "Maybe some restrictions on sales?" you hear the dreaded crunch of liberal jackboots, coming to take all the guns!

Hell, if someone says good morning, you think he's saying "Today is a good morning....to grab all the guns!"

Weird.
What's weird is all you gun control advocates telling us how much you love guns. And how you think "we just want to grab some of your guns, at least for now" is anything we should welcome. Who do you think you are fooling?

And let's not forget elucidator that you don't have any higher principles that you are acting from. Risk of death as consequence of certain actions is just fine by you so long as you enjoy those actions yourself. So which is it, are you a real hypocrite, or just a lockstep liberal who can't think outside his ideology?
  #715  
Old 02-24-2013, 10:46 AM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Then shouldn't your focus be on reducing the transfer of guns between law abiding citizens and criminals? Disarming the general populace only makes sense if you ignore the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are committedby criminals.
That would be nice but the NRA opposes anything that impedes the transfer of weapons to criminals, kids and mental patients. Their only purpose is to move guns. They protect the rights of mass shooters over innocent children. They ensure criminals can always purchase weapons at gun shows, flea markets and online without background checks. As long as the NRA is around, criminals will have unfettered access to guns.
  #716  
Old 02-24-2013, 12:31 PM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Risk of death as consequence of certain actions is just fine by you so long as you enjoy those actions yourself.
Sorry, I can't tell - are you talking about elucidator or yourself?
  #717  
Old 02-24-2013, 12:47 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
What's weird is all you gun control advocates telling us how much you love guns. And how you think "we just want to grab some of your guns, at least for now" is anything we should welcome. Who do you think you are fooling?

And let's not forget elucidator that you don't have any higher principles that you are acting from. Risk of death as consequence of certain actions is just fine by you so long as you enjoy those actions yourself.
Society is the arbiter of that.

Quote:
So which is it, are you a real hypocrite, or just a lockstep liberal who can't think outside his ideology?
One might see you as an unthinking mechanism defending guns without accepting data from the real world.
  #718  
Old 02-24-2013, 01:47 PM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,614
I don't think it's worthwhile to ban specific guns based on their shape or how they look. Bad guys will use what's available. If they can't get gun X, they'll use gun Y. I think instead we could set limits on gun capabilities such as how powerful the ammunition can be, how quickly bullets can be shot, and how many shots before reload (although I don't think that's really important). This way we can try to limit how much damage a bad guy can do rather than what the gun looks like.
  #719  
Old 02-24-2013, 03:49 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Society is the arbiter of that.

One might see you as an unthinking mechanism defending guns without accepting data from the real world.
... But at least all of Kable's "see guns are not stupid" have kept this thread visible for weeks longer than I thought it would last. This has let the rest of us see it and remember to continue to post the stupid news about guns.
  #720  
Old 02-24-2013, 04:27 PM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Has anyone proposed concentration camps for gays? Because they have proposed seizing some guns (or forcing you to sell them out of state).
Michelle Bachmann proposed concentration camps for anybody who spoke out against the United States for being un-American, but that would include people other than gay people who are advocating change.
  #721  
Old 02-24-2013, 05:03 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
That would be nice but the NRA opposes anything that impedes the transfer of weapons to criminals, kids and mental patients. Their only purpose is to move guns. They protect the rights of mass shooters over innocent children. They ensure criminals can always purchase weapons at gun shows, flea markets and online without background checks. As long as the NRA is around, criminals will have unfettered access to guns.
The NRA is not all powerful, their total political donations in an election cycle is dwarfed by some individuals. They may have gone off the rails (because of how their elections work) but it doesnt really help the siituation to fight stupid ideas with different stupid ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Well, at least you understand each other! I swear, somebody says maybe some regulations are in order, what you hear is "Let's grab all the guns!" Or somebody says "Maybe some restrictions on sales?" you hear the dreaded crunch of liberal jackboots, coming to take all the guns!
I thought I had proposed some reasonable regulations (licencing and registration) and what I keep hearing from several gun control advocates is "well that might be a good place to START"

The 2nd amendment is no more absolute than any other, it is no less either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Society is the arbiter of that.
In a constitutional democracy, "society" is constrained by the constitution.
  #722  
Old 02-24-2013, 06:52 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
In a constitutional democracy, "society" is constrained by the constitution.
Not fully constrained. Society could amend the constitution and replace the judicial system with Thunderdome if it wanted to.
  #723  
Old 02-24-2013, 08:10 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
... But at least all of Kable's "see guns are not stupid" have kept this thread visible for weeks longer than I thought it would last. This has let the rest of us see it and remember to continue to post the stupid news about guns.
Sorry, reverse psychology isn't working this time. Anyway here's a 66 year old lady who saved her life by shooting an intruder. Don't click of you are squeamish of blood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrL53-dE5Sc

Though, I guess you gun-grabbers think she should have been trained in Muay Thai.
  #724  
Old 02-24-2013, 08:15 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Society is the arbiter of that.
By that you mean what?

Quote:
One might see you as an unthinking mechanism defending guns without accepting data from the real world.
And one might be mistaken. I'n fact I would bet my real world firearm experience is on par, at least, with anyone here.
  #725  
Old 02-24-2013, 08:18 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
I don't think it's worthwhile to ban specific guns based on their shape or how they look. Bad guys will use what's available. If they can't get gun X, they'll use gun Y. I think instead we could set limits on gun capabilities such as how powerful the ammunition can be, how quickly bullets can be shot, and how many shots before reload (although I don't think that's really important). This way we can try to limit how much damage a bad guy can do rather than what the gun looks like.
You mean like in England? They still have mass shootings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...bria_shootings
  #726  
Old 02-24-2013, 08:25 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Sorry, I can't tell - are you talking about elucidator or yourself?
Both of us. Both Elucidator and I think the rewards of drinking alcohol is worth the risks that come with it. Elucidator (and a lot of you if you share his belief) becomes a hypocrite when they want to outlaw firearms, for which use also has risks and rewards, simply because they don't like them, fear them, or just think they are supposed to be against them because they were indoctrinated as democrats or something. Yes?
  #727  
Old 02-24-2013, 08:43 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
You mean like in England? They still have mass shootings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...bria_shootings
So, you think any attempt to reduce gun violence is a failure unless it eliminates all violence? If gun violence only went down 20-30%, it would be a bad thing?
  #728  
Old 02-24-2013, 10:17 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
So, you think any attempt to reduce gun violence is a failure unless it eliminates all violence? If gun violence only went down 20-30%, it would be a bad thing?
Of course not. If drunk driving deaths went down 20-30% we'd all think that's great wouldn't we? But none of us would outlaw alcohol to do it though, would we?
  #729  
Old 02-24-2013, 10:40 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Of course not.
Then what was the point of linking to a single example of British gun violence? You avoided telling us what the real impact of gun control in Britain is by pretending it is a failure.
  #730  
Old 02-24-2013, 11:05 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Then what was the point of linking to a single example of British gun violence? You avoided telling us what the real impact of gun control in Britain is by pretending it is a failure.
That single exception was a mass killing with a double barrel shotgun and a bolt action .22. If someone wants to kill a lot of people they'll do it. And none of this gun control is about concern for innocent lives, else you would all champion more important causes, and you wouldn't ignore the lives saved by guns. It's about your fear of guns Fear Itself.
  #731  
Old 02-24-2013, 11:08 PM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Sorry, reverse psychology isn't working this time. Anyway here's a 66 year old lady who saved her life by shooting an intruder. Don't click of you are squeamish of blood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrL53-dE5Sc

Though, I guess you gun-grabbers think she should have been trained in Muay Thai.
There are better choices for home security than a gun. I think guns give people a false sense of security. They think that's all they need and that they'll use it to fend off the intruder. But guns require someone to operate them. If the intruder is silent, the gun will sit there inert while he enters your bedroom and kills you.

Why not instead look at solutions which actively impede an intruder. She could have had an alarm, a dog, and upgraded doors/windows. All of those things would have helped prevent the intruder from ever getting to her in the first place. Even if the she became incapacitated, they will continue to work. I think that a 66-year-old woman will get more security from an alarm and dog than she would with a gun. Plus, if she doesn't have a gun, she can't accidentally shoot herself or a family member with it.
  #732  
Old 02-24-2013, 11:19 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
There are better choices for home security than a gun. I think guns give people a false sense of security. They think that's all they need and that they'll use it to fend off the intruder. But guns require someone to operate them. If the intruder is silent, the gun will sit there inert while he enters your bedroom and kills you.

Why not instead look at solutions which actively impede an intruder. She could have had an alarm, a dog, and upgraded doors/windows. All of those things would have helped prevent the intruder from ever getting to her in the first place. Even if the she became incapacitated, they will continue to work. I think that a 66-year-old woman will get more security from an alarm and dog than she would with a gun. Plus, if she doesn't have a gun, she can't accidentally shoot herself or a family member with it.
Well, like most people she didn't accidentally shoot herself or a family member. Alarms and dogs are great, but cost more. And unlike an alarm or a dog, a gun stops the intruder from just moving down the line to another house without a dog or alarm.
  #733  
Old 02-24-2013, 11:25 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
And unlike an alarm or a dog, a gun stops the intruder from just moving down the line to another house without a dog or alarm.
Says who? How many home defenses with a gun result in killing, disabling or apprehending an assailant, as opposed to just scaring him away like a dog or an alarm? Oh, that's right, we are not permitted to collect data on gun violence.
  #734  
Old 02-24-2013, 11:26 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
There are better choices for home security than a gun.
Also did I mention that a gun worked great for me when my home was invaded?
  #735  
Old 02-24-2013, 11:53 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
CA has strict gun laws. Old ladies get to shoot wildly at intruders.

Aren't you big boys feeling a little girly now for crying about how strict gun laws lead to tyrannical overthrows?

Little old lady showed you.
  #736  
Old 02-25-2013, 12:04 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Also did I mention that a gun worked great for me when my home was invaded?
I don't own a gun, and my home has never been invaded. Based on your reliance on anecdotal evidence, I can only conclude that guns attract criminals.
  #737  
Old 02-25-2013, 01:10 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Not fully constrained. Society could amend the constitution and replace the judicial system with Thunderdome if it wanted to.
Im probably going to really want my guns then.
  #738  
Old 02-25-2013, 01:26 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Both of us. Both Elucidator and I think the rewards of drinking alcohol is worth the risks that come with it. Elucidator (and a lot of you if you share his belief) becomes a hypocrite when they want to outlaw firearms, for which use also has risks and rewards, simply because they don't like them, fear them, or just think they are supposed to be against them because they were indoctrinated as democrats or something. Yes?
I think you may have blundered blindly within reach of my actual point, rather than the voices in your head.

Grew up in Texas, where guns were very common. Are to this day. So was alcohol, a very accepted part of life. Drinking and driving was only looked down upon by Calvinistic killjoys with a pickle up their butt. Of course, outside of greater metropolitan Waco, you might drive an hour and see no one else.

But drinking and driving is stupid and dangerous. Ought to be laws against it, ought to be disapproved by right-thinking people. A progressive notion. Met with the happy enthusiasm for change that Texas has long been envied for. Well, actually, no, it was a long hard slog. But bless their pointy little heads, the idea began to seep in.

Not gonna stop with that, you know, that's just the first step. Next it will be seat belts! Then they'll close up all the package stores in every county, not just the ones with an overabundance of Baptists. Church of Christ, too, they can be a real pain about it. You wait and see, first you can't drive with a beer, then they come for your whiskey!

Its about violence and fear as central themes in our culture. Guns, and the myth of their necessity, are symptoms. That's what I want to change, and that is not subject to law, it can't be legislated, the only road is the slow road. I don't want to take people's guns, I want them to stop thinking they need them.

So, I am encouraged by what you would think of as "anti-gun" awareness, but haven't the slightest inclination to try and take them away. Keep the goddam things if they mean that much to you.
  #739  
Old 02-25-2013, 08:32 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Says who? How many home defenses with a gun result in killing, disabling or apprehending an assailant, as opposed to just scaring him away like a dog or an alarm? Oh, that's right, we are not permitted to collect data on gun violence.
Mine resulted in the disabling and apprehending of an assailant. So have most of the video's I've posted. However you bring up a good point. The numbers of crimes stopped without making the news is much more. Maybe in the hundreds of thousands to millions. There are studies on that BTW, and you are permitted to collect any data you want.
  #740  
Old 02-25-2013, 08:41 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I think you may have blundered blindly within reach of my actual point, rather than the voices in your head.

Grew up in Texas, where guns were very common. Are to this day. So was alcohol, a very accepted part of life. Drinking and driving was only looked down upon by Calvinistic killjoys with a pickle up their butt. Of course, outside of greater metropolitan Waco, you might drive an hour and see no one else.

But drinking and driving is stupid and dangerous. Ought to be laws against it, ought to be disapproved by right-thinking people. A progressive notion. Met with the happy enthusiasm for change that Texas has long been envied for. Well, actually, no, it was a long hard slog. But bless their pointy little heads, the idea began to seep in.

Not gonna stop with that, you know, that's just the first step. Next it will be seat belts! Then they'll close up all the package stores in every county, not just the ones with an overabundance of Baptists. Church of Christ, too, they can be a real pain about it. You wait and see, first you can't drive with a beer, then they come for your whiskey!

Its about violence and fear as central themes in our culture. Guns, and the myth of their necessity, are symptoms. That's what I want to change, and that is not subject to law, it can't be legislated, the only road is the slow road. I don't want to take people's guns, I want them to stop thinking they need them.

So, I am encouraged by what you would think of as "anti-gun" awareness, but haven't the slightest inclination to try and take them away. Keep the goddam things if they mean that much to you.
That's a lot of blather and you didn't talk your way out of your hypocrisy. As I recall, you would in fact like to do away with all the black "goddam things." But not your alcohol, no way!
  #741  
Old 02-25-2013, 09:18 AM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Also did I mention that a gun worked great for me when my home was invaded?
How was the intruder able to get into your house? Did he have to defeat any alarms or get past a dog? Or did he slip in unnoticed and startle you as you were sleeping? What would you have done if the intruder was armed and pointing his gun at you when you first noticed him?

Just because something worked doesn't mean it's a good solution. There are other solutions which work better and don't introduce the same risk of lethal accident when the grandkids come over to visit.
  #742  
Old 02-25-2013, 11:13 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Says who? How many home defenses with a gun result in killing, disabling or apprehending an assailant, as opposed to just scaring him away like a dog or an alarm? Oh, that's right, we are not permitted to collect data on gun violence.
Of course we're allowed to collect data on gun violence. The government does it all the time. The CDC is the only outfit that isn't allowed to conduct research on it because some people don't like how they conduct and present their research.

I don't have any problems with the CDC doing research or funding research but I understand why people were annoyed with the CDC "public health" approach to gun violence rather than the FBI "criminologist" approach to gun violence.

My understanding is that the public health approach focused on banning guns as an effective method of reducing gun deaths, but the prevented gun deaths were almost entirely suicides. They also presumed that these suicides would be replaced by the typical "attempted" but unsuccessful suicides rather than other equally lethal methods of suicide. The CDC also doesn't place very much weight on the increase in crime victimizatiojn that might occur in a disarmed citizenry with armed criminals unless people will die as a result. So if the CDC starts looking at this from more of a criminologist's perspective, I don't see why anyone could reasonably object but the suspicion is that these people aren't built to look at these problems in that way.
  #743  
Old 02-25-2013, 01:02 PM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
What did I say earlier?
About what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Nothing really at all except it looks more "assault like" than a normal pistol. I figured you wouldn't like it because of cosmetics, and sure enough you didn't.
You assumed I would, then you couldn't name the difference between that and a normal pistol. Its not my fault you're redundantly naming off the same thing, if they are the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
I love it when you gun grabbers use the words "a good start." It proves the slippery slope is the real strategy rather than a than a logical fallacy.
Its a good strategy. People should have their guns limited, licensed, and registered, and they should be trained to handle it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Reducing firearms only among law abiding citizens is a HORRIBLE start.

Its like saying, "nuclear weapons are bad, we should get rid of them. First things we should do is decommission the US nuclear arsenal, I'm sure the whole North Korea and Iran thing will work itself out"

WHO has the guns makes a difference.
Its reducing it for everyone and drying up the supply
  #744  
Old 02-25-2013, 01:44 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
The numbers of crimes stopped without making the news is much more. Maybe in the hundreds of thousands to millions. There are studies on that BTW, and you are permitted to collect any data you want.
It is clear you do not know the difference between data and anecdotes. You are expressing your opinion only, not facts on which others can base an informed decision about gun control.
  #745  
Old 02-25-2013, 02:17 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
Its reducing it for everyone and drying up the supply
Tell me how your law works so that it won't end up reducing firearms among law abiding citizens without having much if any impact on firearms owned by criminals?
  #746  
Old 02-25-2013, 02:32 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,143
Is firearm ownership by anyone a value we are obliged to protect and promote? Clearly, we would prefer that criminals did not have weapons. But does that mean we have some obligation to encourage "law abiding citizens" to arm themselves? Isn't that why we have armed policemen in the first place? We defer our right to self-defense to a group of trained professionals, don't we? In a similar manner, we place the responsibility for national defense on trained soldiers, and supply them with the weapons appropriate to their duty. Is there some reason that similar weapons should be available to civilians?
  #747  
Old 02-25-2013, 02:35 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
It is clear you do not know the difference between data and anecdotes. You are expressing your opinion only, not facts on which others can base an informed decision about gun control.
He is referring to studies by McDowall and Kleck which pin the number of times that guns are used in self defense at 65,000/year and 2,500,000/year respectively. These two numbers are the bookends of estimates and the real number is probably somewhere in between.

A DOJ survey estimates the number at over a million per year.
  #748  
Old 02-25-2013, 02:57 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Is firearm ownership by anyone a value we are obliged to protect and promote?
Protect? Yes. Promote, probably not anymore but there was a time when it was required by law.

Quote:
Clearly, we would prefer that criminals did not have weapons. But does that mean we have some obligation to encourage "law abiding citizens" to arm themselves? Isn't that why we have armed policemen in the first place?
Policemen are armed more to protect them than us.

Quote:
We defer our right to self-defense to a group of trained professionals, don't we?
Maybe you do, I don't.

Quote:
In a similar manner, we place the responsibility for national defense on trained soldiers, and supply them with the weapons appropriate to their duty. Is there some reason that similar weapons should be available to civilians?
Yeah, because there is a constitutional right of the people to bear arms.

If that isn't good enough for you (and I would ask WHY thats not good enough for you), then the natural right to self defense.

If that isn't enough for you then because we cannot depend on the police to be there when crime is occurring, only to try and catch the criminal after it has occurred. Heck, I have seen cops drive right by (heck they were parked and they drove away from) criminals in the middle of the commission of a crime on their way to protect people in wealthier neighborhoods. I don't blame them but I don't think I can depend on them either.

When seconds count the police are only a few minutes away.
  #749  
Old 02-25-2013, 03:01 PM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Tell me how your law works so that it won't end up reducing firearms among law abiding citizens without having much if any impact on firearms owned by criminals?
That's not the goal. The goal is to reduce it for everybody. Of course the ones who comply will be hit first, but that's ok, there are other guns available that allows them to defend themselves just fine. The fallacy is assuming that only these guys allow the law-abiding to defend themselves fully. It would not be a loophole if 100% of law-abiding citizens cannot own these while making a marginal impact on the criminal. You guys still have handguns and shotguns, good enough for self-defense. You don't need an illegal weapon just because criminals have it. You may as well ask why the law-abiding can't own rocket propelled grenades because how are you going to defend yourself from criminals with RPGs? The answer is that you use a different gun and we dry up the supply for assault weapons as much as possible
  #750  
Old 02-25-2013, 03:45 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-n...#ixzz2LwbhlCSs

And another: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/14/black...ence-research/

Quote:
That pushback from gun-rights supporters sent a not-so-subtle message to the CDC—as well as any other government agency thinking of funding gun violence research, Kellerman said: “You toucha this topic, I breaka your face.”
The result: Nearly two decades later, with Washington mulling gun-violence prevention measures in the wake of last month’s Newtown, Conn. shooting, policymakers find themselves hampered by a lack of objective, scientific information on one of the country’s major public health threats—one which costs the country 31,000 lives and an estimated $100 billion per year. That has left today’s policymakers flying virtually blind.

“We said, there’s two injuries that are the leading cause of death in the U.S. right now: cars and guns,” recalled Mark Rosenberg, who helped establish the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), in part to study gun violence. “We spend hundreds of millions on cars, we spend nothing on guns.”

The message appears to have been received. As the researchers’ letter to Biden noted, over the last 40 years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has provided 486 research awards to study cholera, diphtheria, polio, or rabies, and just three to study gun violence, even though during that period, there have been more than four million gun-violence injuries—almost 2000 times more than the number of documented cases of those diseases.
It's science vs. witchcraft. Science vs. creationism. Science vs. climate deniers. It's all part of the War on Science.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017