Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6301  
Old 10-27-2015, 12:51 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
The problem with unfettered gun ownership is that there are a LOT of imbeciles out there.
The problem, then, is imbeciles not guns. Regulate imbeciles. Somebody who can't safely own a gun can't safely own or do a great many things.
  #6302  
Old 10-27-2015, 01:14 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
The problem, then, is imbeciles not guns. Regulate imbeciles. Somebody who can't safely own a gun can't safely own or do a great many things.
I thought that was the intent of the background checks, which the NRA is fighting.
  #6303  
Old 10-27-2015, 01:21 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
The problem, then, is imbeciles not guns. Regulate imbeciles. Somebody who can't safely own a gun can't safely own or do a great many things.
Falling on the "If you can't solve all the problems, you don't get to try to solve this problem" fallacy again, I see. The problem is that it doesn't take an "imbecile" to mistake a family member for a burglar-it just takes a drunken kid trying to sneak in after midnight, and a parent that has just been half-woken from a solid sleep by a noise heard in the distance, a noise interpreted by that half-woken mind. I know-you are one of those exceptional superhumans that snap to full awareness within seconds of waking(btw, if you are one of those very rare individuals, I know several people that would like to study you!), but most people greatly overestimate their cognitive abilities when it comes to waking up unexpectedly.
  #6304  
Old 10-27-2015, 01:27 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
The problem, then, is imbeciles not guns. Regulate imbeciles. Somebody who can't safely own a gun can't safely own or do a great many things.
Ah, but we do "regulate imbeciles" in many, many aspects of our lives.

We require that someone prove, via written and practical test that they are capable of driving a car. More advanced modes of driving require even more stringent exams. We put regulations in place to ensure that only those who are not imbeciles can purchase and use toxic chemicals and pesticides.

In fact, this is done in pretty much every aspect of our society where there is a chance that imbeciles might get ahold of dangerous objects and harm others.

Except in the case of guns. These are special. And everyone must have a right to them. And no barriers like licensing or training or regulations must intefere with the rights of imbeciles to own and operate them.
  #6305  
Old 10-27-2015, 01:41 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post

We require that someone prove, via written and practical test that they are capable of driving a car. More advanced modes of driving require even more stringent exams. We put regulations in place to ensure that only those who are not imbeciles can purchase and use toxic chemicals and pesticides.

In fact, this is done in pretty much every aspect of our society where there is a chance that imbeciles might get ahold of dangerous objects and harm others.
We don't do those things with the goal of reducing car ownership or just because we want to make it as inconvenient as we possibly can to own pesticides. This is where things fall apart for the gun control side when they want to negotiate. You have enough people on your side who have openly stated their goal is to eliminate private gun ownership that people on my side have absolutely no reason to trust you. Pick any random gun thread you like here and you'll almost certainly find antis who are very enthusiastically in favor of anything that restricts and punishes gun ownership. You propose we handle guns like we do other things, but guns are unique because there are people whose agenda is specifically to criminalize gun ownership. Talk cars and pesticides to me when there are people trying to eliminate them.

Last edited by Scumpup; 10-27-2015 at 01:42 PM.
  #6306  
Old 10-27-2015, 01:44 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,529
When you wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of an intruder, do you grab your gun, then try to become coherent enough to handle it while going towards the "intruder", or do you try to become as coherent as possible first before trusting yourself to handle a something that can kill another human being?
  #6307  
Old 10-27-2015, 01:46 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are burglars, rapists, and rioters really more plausible than kids coming back late from a party? Where the fuck do you live??
How does anything I wrote imply that? I was refuting the sarcastic posts about elephants and graboids
  #6308  
Old 10-27-2015, 01:47 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
We don't do those things with the goal of reducing car ownership or just because we want to make it as inconvenient as we possibly can to own pesticides. This is where things fall apart for the gun control side when they want to negotiate. You have enough people on your side who have openly stated their goal is to eliminate private gun ownership that people on my side have absolutely no reason to trust you. Pick any random gun thread you like here and you'll almost certainly find antis who are very enthusiastically in favor of anything that restricts and punishes gun ownership. You propose we handle guns like we do other things, but guns are unique because there are people whose agenda is specifically to criminalize gun ownership. Talk cars and pesticides to me when there are people trying to eliminate them.
Translation: You hear all conversations as "Gungrabber! Gungrabber! Gungrabber!" This relieves you of answering any question directly by pointing somewhere else and saying "Because of what that person said, this thread is really about GUNGRABBING!!!"
  #6309  
Old 10-27-2015, 02:40 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
We don't do those things with the goal of reducing car ownership or just because we want to make it as inconvenient as we possibly can to own pesticides. This is where things fall apart for the gun control side when they want to negotiate. You have enough people on your side who have openly stated their goal is to eliminate private gun ownership that people on my side have absolutely no reason to trust you. Pick any random gun thread you like here and you'll almost certainly find antis who are very enthusiastically in favor of anything that restricts and punishes gun ownership. You propose we handle guns like we do other things, but guns are unique because there are people whose agenda is specifically to criminalize gun ownership. Talk cars and pesticides to me when there are people trying to eliminate them.
Very convenient.

When you don't want ANY regulations at all on guns, you just create a definition that regulation = elimination. Yes, that's YOUR definition. Not mine.

Then you easily ignore any argument about regulations. Because, by your definition, we're talking about elimination. And that's bad. So you reject the premise.
  #6310  
Old 10-27-2015, 03:04 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 5,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Talk cars and pesticides to me when there are people trying to eliminate them.
469 Reasons We MUST Eliminate Automobiles

Standing Together to Outlaw Pestucides
  #6311  
Old 10-27-2015, 03:05 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,295
Avoidance tactics like that are based on fear. Fear of a lot of things in his case, but pretty much all of them are in his imagination only.
  #6312  
Old 10-27-2015, 03:15 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Regulate imbeciles. Somebody who can't safely own a gun can't safely own or do a great many things.
You could try self-regulating, as a show of non-imbecility. Turn in the guns you can't safely own.
  #6313  
Old 10-27-2015, 05:14 PM
PigArcher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC (From LA)
Posts: 1,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
The problem, then, is imbeciles not guns. Regulate imbeciles. Somebody who can't safely own a gun can't safely own or do a great many things.
So you are saying that you DON'T consider gun ownership to be an inalienable god-given right guaranteed by the Constitution? That there can in fact be limits and restrictions placed on it?

Duly noted.
  #6314  
Old 10-27-2015, 05:49 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenetic View Post
So you are saying that you DON'T consider gun ownership to be an inalienable god-given right guaranteed by the Constitution? That there can in fact be limits and restrictions placed on it?

Duly noted.
No, I didn't say that at all. You should check out antibiotic therapy before the spirochetes devour what little is left of your brain. Congenital syphillis is especially tragic because it really isn't your fault.
  #6315  
Old 10-27-2015, 06:07 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
The problem, then, is imbeciles not guns. Regulate imbeciles. Somebody who can't safely own a gun can't safely own or do a great many things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenetic View Post
So you are saying that you DON'T consider gun ownership to be an inalienable god-given right guaranteed by the Constitution? That there can in fact be limits and restrictions placed on it?

Duly noted.
I think Scumpup was saying that if you're too imbecilic to own a gun, then you should be under guardianship and not be allowed to vote, drink, drive or sign contracts either.
  #6316  
Old 10-27-2015, 06:11 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I think Scumpup was saying that if you're too imbecilic to own a gun, then you should be under guardianship and not be allowed to vote, drink, drive or sign contracts either.
Thank you, Lumpy.
  #6317  
Old 10-27-2015, 08:32 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,354
This just in: Amid massive refugee influx, Austrians strip shelves of guns:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-claim.html
  #6318  
Old 10-27-2015, 09:17 PM
Fear Itself is offline
One of Cecil's six friends
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
This just in: Amid massive refugee influx, Austrians strip shelves of guns:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-claim.html
News flash: Australians no smarter than Texans...
__________________
“If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone.” ~~Jack Handey
  #6319  
Old 10-27-2015, 09:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
News flash: Australians no smarter than Texans...
Austria and Australia are pretty far apart.
  #6320  
Old 10-27-2015, 09:48 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
This just in: Amid massive refugee influx, Austrians strip shelves of guns:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-claim.html
That's the kind of xenophobia you just don't expect from the Austrians.

Anyway, now that's out of my system, the article says:
Quote:
In a country of 8.5 million people, there are now an estimated 900,000 firearms in homes.
Only 7.6 million more to go and they'll approach the US rate of gun ownership. You can do it, guys!
  #6321  
Old 10-27-2015, 11:02 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
You have enough people on your side who have openly stated their goal is to eliminate private gun ownership that people on my side have absolutely no reason to trust you.
Could you give some examples of that? I often hear right wing commentators say that eliminating private gun ownership is the secret goal of the left wing, and Fox News can usually find some hippie somewhere to say anything they want someone to say so they can pretend it's what all liberals want, but I honestly can't recall anyone with any real influence saying he wants to ban guns.

For example, I can easily find sitting Republican Congressmen, governors, or Presidential candidates, who say they want to ban abortion, or gay marriage, or abolish various government agencies, etc. I consider myself fairly current in politics, but I don't know of any Democratic Congressmen, governors, or Presidential candidates who "have openly stated their goal is to eliminate private gun ownership."

So who are you talking about?
  #6322  
Old 10-27-2015, 11:02 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,113
The Daily Fail is not a very reputable source. Deutsch Welle, a fairly respected local news outlet, mentions anxiety and paranoia in the border town of Freilassing, where some have taken to carrying pistols, but the "flying off the shelves" bit gets no coverage. Being right there, I should expect DW to be on details like that.
  #6323  
Old 10-28-2015, 04:46 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You mean the foundational document for modern democracy? Is that the shit you mean?
Are you one of those who think gun ownership is a Universal Human Right; that countries like Britain or France that don't feature gun rights are not True Democracies?

Look, having millions of bombastic blowhards wandering around armed to the teeth may be either good or bad, and that might be an interesting debate if your ilk were capable of thought, but the question of whether having citizens too cowardly to walk around unarmed should be debated on its own merits; basing your case so firmly and solely on the Second Amerndment makes all y'all gun nuts seem like mindless zombies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
It is this sort of one sided analysis that makes it hard to take your side seriously.
Yes, that's precisely the point I'm trying to make in the previous paragraph.
  #6324  
Old 10-28-2015, 05:09 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Burglars, rapists, and rioters are a bit more plausible than mad elephants or fictional creatures.
And accidental discharge, misuse, loss and theft are far more likely than attack by burglars, rapists and rioters unless you live in a particularly bad neighborhood.
  #6325  
Old 10-28-2015, 12:00 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
1. Are you one of those who think gun ownership is a Universal Human Right; that countries like Britain or France that don't feature gun rights are not True Democracies?

2. <...>but the question of whether having citizens too cowardly to walk around unarmed should be debated on its own merits;
1. Self-defense is a universal human right. And the democratic principle involved isn't guns per se, but whether the government should be so strong and the people so weak that there is nothing but a tradition of democracy stopping the government from ceasing to represent the people.

2. Anyone who resorts to the "coward" slur has shown that their view of gun owners is a caricatured straw man, and that they don't really know many permit holders or why they choose to carry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
And accidental discharge, misuse, loss and theft are far more likely than attack by burglars, rapists and rioters unless you live in a particularly bad neighborhood.
Not all neighborhoods are the same and not all gun owners are the same. In effect, you're lumping the responsible and irresponsible together without distinction.

Do we really want a society in which what's allowed is chained to the most criminal, foolish and stupid 10% of the population?
  #6326  
Old 10-28-2015, 12:44 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
whether the government should be so strong and the people so weak that there is nothing but a tradition of democracy stopping the government from ceasing to represent the people.
Quote:
a caricatured straw man
Do tell.

Quote:
In effect, you're lumping the responsible and irresponsible together without distinction.
Fine, tell us how to make that distinction.

Quote:
Do we really want a society in which what's allowed is chained to the most criminal, foolish and stupid 10% of the population?
No, so we need to stop resisting the disarmament of that 10%, don't we?
  #6327  
Old 10-28-2015, 12:52 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
2. Anyone who resorts to the "coward" slur has shown that their view of gun owners is a caricatured straw man, and that they don't really know many permit holders or why they choose to carry.
How about "paranoid", then? Is that a slur? Because feeling the need to carry a gun everywhere sure sounds like paranoia to me.

Quote:
Not all neighborhoods are the same and not all gun owners are the same. In effect, you're lumping the responsible and irresponsible together without distinction.

Do we really want a society in which what's allowed is chained to the most criminal, foolish and stupid 10% of the population?
Every gun owner is a responsible gun owner until they are not. Like that expert at the gun range who ate a slug because he put the gun in the four-year-old's hands on full auto and forgot to hold onto her. You think you get to define what "responsible" means, many of the rest of us feel your definition is way too loose.
  #6328  
Old 10-28-2015, 12:56 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Every gun owner is a responsible gun owner until they are not.
This bullshit again? Everybody is a ____________ until they ___________. This one is more intellectually bankrupt with each repetition.
  #6329  
Old 10-28-2015, 12:59 PM
Fear Itself is offline
One of Cecil's six friends
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
1. Self-defense is a universal human right. And the democratic principle involved isn't guns per se, but whether the government should be so strong and the people so weak that there is nothing but a tradition of democracy stopping the government from ceasing to represent the people.
So gun ownership is necessary to overthrow the government whenever the gun owner thinks it has ceased to represent the people?
  #6330  
Old 10-28-2015, 01:03 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,295
In his own opinion, you might add. The situation arises whenever his side's arguments are declined by a majority of the electorate in a democracy, meaning it must then be resisted. In practical terms, that means preparing to kill the cops who come to enforce the law.

All of that is purely hypothetical for anyone who lacked enough commitment to that principle to join the Cliven Bundy Brigade, of course. And no one here did.
  #6331  
Old 10-28-2015, 01:05 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
This bullshit again? Everybody is a ____________ until they ___________. This one is more intellectually bankrupt with each repetition.
It merely means that claiming yourself, or others, to be a "law abiding citizen", in contrast to those "thugs" you claim to need to protect yourself from, is preening at best, self-delusion at worst. It's especially risible if the only laws you abide by are the ones you like, while the rest mean it's time to lock and load.
  #6332  
Old 10-28-2015, 01:32 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
2. Anyone who resorts to the "coward" slur has shown that their view of gun owners is a caricatured straw man, and that they don't really know many permit holders or why they choose to carry.
I'm happy to slur in this Forum since I've come to despise some of the gun-lover's cognition so much. Obviously I knew it was an over-generalization. Lumpy is barely a name to me; you may be one of the relatively rational and intelligent Dopers for all I know. But if you really thought I didn't know my slur was just a fatuous caricaturizing insult, expressly for the Pit, then you actually are, at least on this specific matter, stupid.

I do notice you use the slur as an excuse to ignore the other points I raise.

But, while we're on the subject of cowardice, we've seen plenty of examples of cowardice. Tamir Rice's killers probably acted with casual bloodlust, but the defense offered in Pit threads makes them in sudden fear for their lives which, IMO makes them too cowardly to be suited for police work.

One Doper can't fulfill his dream of visiting Europe because they don't allow guns. Another's father has no way to visit Alaska. I'm happy to use a word different from "cowardly" -- how about "pathetic."

Several Gun Dopers have asked to Count them Out for taking down a crazed killer. Again, withdraw the term 'cowardly' if you wish, but they aren't fulfilling the role that many Americans might wish them too.

Ben Carson brags that he pointed to the other guy when a gun was aimed at him.
  #6333  
Old 10-28-2015, 02:01 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,295
And whenever we hear of the existence of "good guys with guns" when there's a mass killing, Umpqua for instance, it's mostly about them not involving themselves. ISTM that's mostly good sense, not cowardice, since we know what can happen when bullets start flying everywhere. But it does make one wonder about the value of carrying at all, for those with such sense. If they had previously talked big tough words about what they would do if they ever saw one of those "thugs", unlike the "sheep" Damuri refers to above, and then failed to do it when it really happened, then you could call it cowardice, though - just like with all of the Internet tough guys who have failed to act in any of the situations where they talk big about how they would need to be ready to.
  #6334  
Old 10-28-2015, 04:59 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
So gun ownership is necessary to overthrow the government whenever the gun owner thinks it has ceased to represent the people?
Not "the" gun owner: whenever 2/3 to 3/4 of the population think that the government has ceased to represent the people, and moreover the government has proven it by ignoring a supermajority large enough to control the Congress or even pass a constitutional amendment.

The original presumption of the Founders was that democracy would be a consensus of the armed: a purely local uprising against the government, or a fanatical minority, would be put down by the populace able and willing to enforce the law. This was (admittedly very imperfectly) the case during the Civil War, when enough people were willing (however tentatively) to back the Union government's case that secession was treason.

What I don't understand is how the gun control crowd can insist that Americans overwhelmingly favor gun control and yet somehow are stymied by a supposedly tiny handful of nuts and fanatics, led by an alien entity called "The NRA". Don't these legions of gun control proponents vote? And if you claim that it's because the "gun nuts" hide behind their claim that gun ownership is a protected right (because, ah- because it on a list of enumerated rights in our government's founding charter?), then why doesn't your supposed supermajority get together and abolish the Second Amendment?

Gun owners are politically mobilized because they have a direct stake in the question of whether guns should be allowed. The portion of the population that sorta-kinda want guns restricted want someone else to do it for them. The only people who seem to be fervently active in the restriction of guns are the professional controllers: politicians, policy advisers, sociologists and other people who consider themselves wise enough to helm the ship of state.

Last edited by Lumpy; 10-28-2015 at 05:02 PM.
  #6335  
Old 10-28-2015, 08:06 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
The original presumption of the Founders was that democracy would be a consensus of the armed: a purely local uprising against the government, or a fanatical minority, would be put down by the populace able and willing to enforce the law.
Wow. End of Lumpy's credibility, right there.
  #6336  
Old 10-28-2015, 09:19 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Wow. End of Lumpy's credibility, right there.
Before professional police forces, what do you suppose the militia did? If a sheriff or a town marshall and their deputies couldn't handle a situation, the militia was called out. Before the federal government had armies of law enforcement agents, calling out the militia was the only recourse to enforce the law.
  #6337  
Old 10-28-2015, 09:40 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Wow. End of Lumpy's credibility, right there.
Which comes first, the gun or the nut? I say the nutty are drawn to guns. In particular, the pathologically fearful kind of nutty.
  #6338  
Old 10-29-2015, 04:44 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Not all neighborhoods are the same and not all gun owners are the same. In effect, you're lumping the responsible and irresponsible together without distinction.
Heaven forfend we should lump all people on the same side together. Glad to see you never do this.

And of course, just like everyone thinks they're an above-average driver, everyone thinks they're a responsible gun owner.
Quote:
Do we really want a society in which what's allowed is chained to the most criminal, foolish and stupid 10% of the population?
We frequently do that exact thing in the name of public safety, often on the basis of only a few incidents. How many deaths will it take until we are allowed to act with regard to guns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
This bullshit again? Everybody is a ____________ until they ___________. This one is more intellectually bankrupt with each repetition.
And yet it keeps cropping up as an actual argument from gun supporters. But I agree that it's intellectually bankrupt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Before professional police forces, what do you suppose the militia did? If a sheriff or a town marshall and their deputies couldn't handle a situation, the militia was called out. Before the federal government had armies of law enforcement agents, calling out the militia was the only recourse to enforce the law.
Did they all get to decide on their own whether to shoot someone? Or were they organized militias acting under the direction of a government agent?
  #6339  
Old 10-29-2015, 06:27 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
This just in: Amid massive refugee influx, Austrians strip shelves of guns:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-claim.html
How can they be expected to defend themselves against a group of people historically known for supporting fanaticism, violence, and wanton murder of innocent men, women and children in the name of religion? Now that the Austrians have bought up all the guns, I mean.
  #6340  
Old 10-29-2015, 08:09 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Before the federal government had armies of law enforcement agents, calling out the militia was the only recourse to enforce the law.
And now it isn't. So why act as if it is?
  #6341  
Old 10-29-2015, 11:49 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
He's probably going to overpower you, or at least get the jump on you, take your gun, and use it against you. And on somebody else later.
Right because rapes are inevitable so you might as well just submit and enjoy it. After all you can't even get pregnant from rapes. The body has mechanisms to prevent that. Right?

Quote:
They'll likely be armed, prepared for you, and be able to get off a fatal shot while you're still looking for your own gun.
Yeah, you're better off just dying without putting up a fight.

And if you can get to your gun, there is a good chance that you will fire before the intruder. Try playing hide and seek and see if the hider sees the seeker first or if the seeker sees the hider first. When an intruder enters the room, you are pretty sure they are coming through the door. The intruder has no idea what the room looks like or where in the room you will be.

Quote:
Call up the well-regulated militia (and don't pretend you're one of them, or well-regulated anyway). Or the police, who are far better armed and organized and trained than you are.
See LA riots.

Quote:
Look, nobody ever said there are never any circumstances where it could help you. Only that there are far more where it hurts you. It would serve you well to quit imagining what you're being told and pay attention to it instead.
And you have not established to any degree of that owning a gun hurts you more than it helps you. All I have seen is correlation between people who own guns and people who get murdered. there is an even greater correlation between people who are single and people who get murdered; people who rent their home and people who get murdered; people who do drugs and people who get murdered; etc.
  #6342  
Old 10-29-2015, 11:54 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are burglars, rapists, and rioters really more plausible than kids coming back late from a party? Where the fuck do you live??
There are neighborhoods that are this dangerous in places like Chicago and NYC. Would you support gun ownership in these neighborhoods? When these residents of these neighborhoods try to use this as "good cause" to get a gun license, the response is always "no, mere self defense is not good cause to own a gun"
  #6343  
Old 10-29-2015, 11:58 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Austria and Australia are pretty far apart.
And you know who ELSE was from Austria?
  #6344  
Old 10-29-2015, 12:01 PM
Biffy the Elephant Shrew is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Over on the left
Posts: 13,186
A nine-year-old boy in San Jose, CA is recovering from surgery after being struck in his bed by a rifle bullet when his upstairs neighbor shot himself in the foot.

Last edited by Biffy the Elephant Shrew; 10-29-2015 at 12:02 PM. Reason: tpyo
  #6345  
Old 10-29-2015, 12:11 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Could you give some examples of that? I often hear right wing commentators say that eliminating private gun ownership is the secret goal of the left wing, and Fox News can usually find some hippie somewhere to say anything they want someone to say so they can pretend it's what all liberals want, but I honestly can't recall anyone with any real influence saying he wants to ban guns.

For example, I can easily find sitting Republican Congressmen, governors, or Presidential candidates, who say they want to ban abortion, or gay marriage, or abolish various government agencies, etc. I consider myself fairly current in politics, but I don't know of any Democratic Congressmen, governors, or Presidential candidates who "have openly stated their goal is to eliminate private gun ownership."

So who are you talking about?
Politicians cannot admit to wanting to ban guns no matter where their heart lies because the fact of the matter is that it is politically impossible (which is why I am comfortable with things like licensing and registration, it is a politically toxic enough position that almost no one is willing to admit to it). 20% of Democrats own guns, and they're not all hunters. They own them for all the same reasons that non-Democrats own guns.

The folks that can admit to wanting to ban guns are people who aren't subject to the political process or who are in ultra safe Democratic districts.
Anti-gun organizations like the folks at the Violence prevention center at Harvard
Private individuals like Elvis and Hentor
Commentators like Piers Morgan and Rachel Maddow

But, in the end, the fact that politicians cannot safely promote repealing the second amendment or banning all guns tells me that its just not a real threat. Heck, they couldn't even pass a meaningless fig leaf AKA, the Manchin-Toomey bill after the most horrific US mass shooting in living memory.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 10-29-2015 at 12:13 PM.
  #6346  
Old 10-29-2015, 12:15 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Right because rapes are inevitable so you might as well just submit and enjoy it. After all you can't even get pregnant from rapes. The body has mechanisms to prevent that. Right?


Quote:
Yeah, you're better off just dying without putting up a fight.
You haven't even tried to understand a single thing you've been told, have you?

Quote:
And if you can get to your gun, there is a good chance that you will fire before the intruder.
Only in your fantasies. Which are extensive.

Quote:
See LA riots.
You keep saying that like it means something. Well, no, it doesn't.

Quote:
And you have not established to any degree of that owning a gun hurts you more than it helps you.
Cites aplenty. Horse, water.
  #6347  
Old 10-29-2015, 12:23 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Are you one of those who think gun ownership is a Universal Human Right; that countries like Britain or France that don't feature gun rights are not True Democracies?

Look, having millions of bombastic blowhards wandering around armed to the teeth may be either good or bad, and that might be an interesting debate if your ilk were capable of thought, but the question of whether having citizens too cowardly to walk around unarmed should be debated on its own merits; basing your case so firmly and solely on the Second Amerndment makes all y'all gun nuts seem like mindless zombies.
If you are boiling down our entire argument to "then second amendment says so" then you haven't been paying attention. I am merely responding to someone who is being flip about the cornerstone of modern democracy.

I don't think gun ownership is a universal human right. If I did, I wouldn't bother with making cost/benefit arguments any more than I would with slavery.

I think that there is a good argument for private gun ownership in America.

Quote:
Yes, that's precisely the point I'm trying to make in the previous paragraph.
So the gun rights side never denies that guns kill people. Heck, legally owned guns kill people by accident and law abiding citizens can turn into murderers. But the gun control side seems to have a lot of trouble admitting that there are a lot of benefits to private gun ownership.
  #6348  
Old 10-29-2015, 12:29 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
But the gun control side seems to have a lot of trouble admitting that there are a lot of benefits to private gun ownership.
It would help if you could support that claim with facts, not your fantasies and fears. You do realize, I hope, in some far corner of your fear-ravaged, murder-rationalizing brain, that this stuff about overthrowing tyranny is not the product of a fully healthy mind. But that's at the top of the list, isn't it?
  #6349  
Old 10-29-2015, 12:30 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
So gun ownership is necessary to overthrow the government whenever the gun owner thinks it has ceased to represent the people?
The type of government that needs overthrowing would probably not be particularly offensive to most of the people that think that we need guns to overthrow the government. Most of the "in defense of tyranny folks" don't really mind tyranny as long as it is their brand of tyranny.

None of these guys were talking about second amendment solutions when they passed the Patriot Act. No, it took the tyranny of Obamacare and universal access to healthcare to make people realize how tyrannical the government had become.
  #6350  
Old 10-29-2015, 12:41 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You keep saying that like it means something. Well, no, it doesn't.
The LA riots are just one example of where armed civilians did what cops and the national guard couldn't do. Because they weren't there or they didn't care.

During the LA riots, rioters were burning down Koreatown. On the second day of riots, the Korea storeowners armed themselves with guns and the burning stopped. It clear that the guns are the reason the burning stopped in that part of town. Storeowners pleading with rioters and looters were either ignored or beaten and had their livelihood burned to the ground. Storeowners with guns were able to open their stores for business when the national guard moved in and restored peace.

So that is at least one example where private ownership of guns was useful and good for society.

Quote:
Cites aplenty. Horse, water.
And those cites are pretty worthless for the purpose you are using them for.
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 04:20 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017