Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2701  
Old 08-13-2013, 12:36 AM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Some people think a firearm is a magic wand that makes people do what you tell them. Of course, it most certainly is not.
Then what is?
  #2702  
Old 08-13-2013, 12:41 AM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Why is being in the army more dangerous than driving drunk and with a loaded firearm?
Because a drunk armed driver does not have all the armed forces of the United States of America behind him.
  #2703  
Old 08-13-2013, 03:56 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
One of the signs of your psychopathy is your separation of the individual from society, as if only one is real and the rest is a mere abstraction. It must be pretty damn lonely inside your skull.
If you can't see why it might be useful to distinguish between gun murders generally and gun murders committed by people who are legally permitted to own a gun is relevant in a discussion about gun control, then I don't know what to say.

Any gun control is going to affect law abdiing gun owners and have vitrually no effect on people who illegally possess gun.

Quote:
They're not mutually exclusive, fool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Because a drunk armed driver does not have all the armed forces of the United States of America behind him.
Based on Brainglutton's response, you had no better idea of what he was thinking than I did. But of course you didn't let that stop you from making a fool of yourself.

Quote:
Note that I said "absolutist". The absolutist position you hold by your actions, your worthless words notwithstanding, is indeed support of the right to murder. It is the only right arguably derivable from the Constitution or in any code of social conduct you can offer that you hold to be absolute. Therefore calling it what it is is simply fighting ignorance. Not your own, of course, yours is impregnable behind your psychopathy, but there are others who read these things.
And those people mostly think you're an idiot. Calling someone who promotes licensing and registration of all guns an absolutist pretty much pegs you as an unreasonable.

Quote:
Credible to you, because it's what you want to believe. You've been shown otherwise in risible detail, however.
This is the pit so you can say whatever you want but you normally don't undermine the credibility of evidence by simply stating you don't believe it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Yeah, I would to a point. Let a guy get seriously blasted on your alcohol and get into his car with no plan, you should be partially on the hook for whatever he does.
I agree, if you sell a gun to a guy who just caught his wife cheating on him and he is foaming at the mouth a foaming at the mouth, then sure. But what if he seemed perfectly fine when you sold it to him? Or are we imposing a different standard when guns are involved than we impose in any other situation

What if he bought the liquor at a liquor store and then ended up plowing through a school full of orphans because he got drunk?

Quote:
There's a difference here because I'm specifically putting gun owners on the hook for ILLEGAL or NEGLIGENT transfers of firearms--and we already have laws (that aren't really firm enough, if you ask me) preventing the (negligent) sale of alcohol to people who are "visibly intoxicated" in my neck of the woods.
If you are limiting your extensions of liability to illegal transfers of firearms then I withdraw my objection. I'm not sure what you mean by negligent transfers of firearms but once again, I am afraid you are extending CRIMINAL liability in a way that we do not in any other situation.

For example if I do not properly secure poisons I use in my business and a kid gets into them and dies, then I should be on the hook for that kid's death. If I do not properly store poisons and someone steals it and kills some kids on the other side of the continent, I would not normally be liable for the death of those children.

Quote:
I would in fact want to prosecute for murder a parent whose 16-yr-old raided their unlocked liquor cabinet and then ran someone down while driving drunk.
Well, at least you're consistent. What if the liquor cabinet was locked and the same thing happened because the kids jimmied the lock.

Quote:
No, because the fact the kid has a license (legal proof of ability) is a proper test of due diligence on the suitability of the person to operate a motor vehicle.
So if we had a licensing regime, then you would cut off liability to anyone that sold a gun to someone that possessed a license, right?
  #2704  
Old 08-13-2013, 04:33 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If you can't see why it might be useful to distinguish between gun murders generally and gun murders committed by people who are legally permitted to own a gun is relevant in a discussion about gun control, then I don't know what to say.
If you can't see that the discussion is, among other things, about who should be legally permitted to carry, then I don't know what else to say, except that you need to grow the fuck up.

Quote:
Calling someone who promotes licensing and registration of all guns an absolutist pretty much pegs you as an unreasonable.
Again, you SAY you do, but your ACTIONS say otherwise.

Quote:
This is the pit so you can say whatever you want but you normally don't undermine the credibility of evidence by simply stating you don't believe it.
Already been debunked for you, but the thought of accepting that fact is so frightening that all you can do is grab your binkie and start stroking.

Quote:
Or are we imposing a different standard when guns are involved than we impose in any other situation
Of course we fucking are, fool. And you know why, too, even if you're going to fall back on your talking points in denial.


How about you save yourself some keystrokes in future posts and just say "Law abiding, AWB, Feinstein, you're an idiot, AWB, cars, swimming pools, Feinstein, AWB, law-abiding, AWB, you're an idiot, AWB". Save you some time and have equal substance.
  #2705  
Old 08-13-2013, 10:55 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,227

Oops - second amendment does not mean free bus rides...


Sad and stupid. Driver shot and shooter dies. Over a bus fare.
  #2706  
Old 08-14-2013, 08:32 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
One of the signs of your psychopathy is your separation of the individual from society, as if only one is real and the rest is a mere abstraction. It must be pretty damn lonely inside your skull.
"There is no such thing as society." -Margaret Thatcher
  #2707  
Old 08-14-2013, 08:50 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,054
There's no such thing as Margaret Thatcher.
__________________
“If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone.” ~~Jack Handey
  #2708  
Old 08-14-2013, 11:11 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If you can't see that the discussion is, among other things, about who should be legally permitted to carry, then I don't know what else to say, except that you need to grow the fuck up.
I thought we had already established that the folks who are most likely to commit gun murders are already not legally permitted to possess (never mind carry) a firearm. The people whoa re legally permitted to "carry" a firearm are even less likely to commit gun murder than the general public.

And what does growing up have to do with any of this? I understand that insults are the crux of your argument but at least make them sensible or amusing.

Quote:
Again, you SAY you do, but your ACTIONS say otherwise.
What actions? The fact that i think only retards support an AWB? The fact that I wasn't upset that the largely ineffective Manchin Toomey bill died? What actions indicate that I don't support licensing and registration? You've just built caricature in your mind and apply that caricature to all gun owners.

Quote:
Already been debunked for you, but the thought of accepting that fact is so frightening that all you can do is grab your binkie and start stroking.
Yeah, I know, your post is your cite.

Quote:
Of course we fucking are, fool. And you know why, too, even if you're going to fall back on your talking points in denial.
So we apply a higher standard to a gun than dynamite and you think that this makes sense?

So we have established that accidental gun deaths hovers around ~700/year.

We know that the vast majority of the 12,000 gun murders committed each year are committed by people who are not legally permitted to possess a firearm.

We know that justifiable homocides hover around ~300/year

The best information we have tells us that there are ~350,000 defensive gun uses per year.

And from all this you conclude that your position is so unassailable that you don't even need to make arguments. Its all so self evident that your arguments can be limited to calling other people poopyheads.
  #2709  
Old 08-14-2013, 11:16 AM
Darth Panda is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 5,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Then what is?
My penis, on a good day.
  #2710  
Old 08-14-2013, 01:49 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If you can't see that the discussion is, among other things, about who should be legally permitted to carry, then I don't know what else to say, except that you need to grow the fuck up.
"Permitted"? Gee, that's mighty white of you.

Having debated firearms with you ElvisL1ves as much as I see any point to, let's get down to brass tacks here: I simply don't care whether you think I deserve, ought, or should own and carry a firearm or not. Bite me. And if you think that someone else (government, the police, etc.) will disarm me on your behalf, let me point out a couple of difficulties with that: First, enforcing a prohibition on firearms would be just a wee bit harder than banning things like marijuana or even meth because guns are the contraband that defends itself against confiscation. Even police in New York publicly stated that confiscating guns would be hazardous. Second, any power that could disarm rebellious gun owners would have both the power and the will to do whatever it felt like; and if you disapproved would tell you "shut up and do what you're told, you goddamn peasant". And no, a civil rights lawsuit would not do you any good at that point. IOW, if you fear citizens with guns, think how much more you should fear someone who can defeat them.
  #2711  
Old 08-14-2013, 03:29 PM
Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If you can't see why it might be useful to distinguish between gun murders generally and gun murders committed by people who are legally permitted to own a gun is relevant in a discussion about gun control, then I don't know what to say.

Any gun control is going to affect law abdiing gun owners and have vitrually no effect on people who illegally possess gun.
Cite?
  #2712  
Old 08-14-2013, 03:48 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
...First, enforcing a prohibition on firearms would be just a wee bit harder than banning things like marijuana or even meth because guns are the contraband that defends itself against confiscation. Even police in New York publicly stated that confiscating guns would be hazardous. Second, any power that could disarm rebellious gun owners would have both the power and the will to do whatever it felt like; and if you disapproved would tell you "shut up and do what you're told, you goddamn peasant". And no, a civil rights lawsuit would not do you any good at that point. IOW, if you fear citizens with guns, think how much more you should fear someone who can defeat them.
Law abiding citizens of California peacefully submitted to the confiscation of some firearms. Aside from the fact that Elvis's dreams of banning all guns from private ownership is politically impossible and constitionally impermissible, it will not make any sort of difference to the folks who are most responsible for the violence and murder that Elvis pretends to be concerned about. Criminals simply will not give up their guns because we pass a law that tells them to surrender the guns that they are already breaking the law to possess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D. View Post
Cite?
You want a cite for common sense? So some criminal who is breaking the law by owning a gun is going to suddenly comply with a law that tells him to hand in his gun at the local police station? Or am I misunderstanding your request for a cite?
  #2713  
Old 08-14-2013, 05:31 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D. View Post
Cite?
Welcome to the SDMB, Dr. Butts. It's a fun and interesting place. I hope that once you become familiar with it, you'll stick around.
  #2714  
Old 08-14-2013, 06:57 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
First, enforcing a prohibition on firearms would be just a wee bit harder than banning things like marijuana or even meth because guns are the contraband that defends itself against confiscation.
Just like at Ruby Ridge and Waco, right? If you think you can outfight the government with fucking sidearms, you're even crazier than I thought.

Quote:
Second, any power that could disarm rebellious gun owners would have both the power and the will to do whatever it felt like
Welcome to the concept of having a government. Perhaps someday you'll even realize that we have a democratic one here, and that the government is therefore us.

Quote:
IOW, if you fear citizens with guns, think how much more you should fear someone who can defeat them.
Look around you, fool. That's already the case. And it always has been.
  #2715  
Old 08-15-2013, 02:37 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Just like at Ruby Ridge and Waco, right? If you think you can outfight the government with fucking sidearms, you're even crazier than I thought.
I don't think most of the people who ranting about fighting tyranny on the internet are serious, mostly they are full of shit. However, there will be more than a few Wacos and Ruby Ridge's if the feds try to enforce national gun confiscation. You might have to impose martial law in places like Wyoming and the northern plains states. Its just infeasible.

Its one thing to wish we never had guns, its another to think you can disarm the public just by passing a law.

Quote:
Welcome to the concept of having a government. Perhaps someday you'll even realize that we have a democratic one here, and that the government is therefore us.
Absolutely, and this government supports the individual right to possess firearms. or is it only "us" when it does what you want?

Quote:
Look around you, fool. That's already the case. And it always has been.
I think you are assuming a level of cooperation from front line troops that will not be present. If you told the marines to go invade Montana and take their guns, I don't know if you'll get the sort of compliance you think you will.

Confiscation will NEVER happen.

I can't name 30 states where a senator that would vote for such a thing could ever get elected. And if you did get 60 senators to vote for confiscating everybody's guns you couldn't enforce the law.

Nobody (military, police or national guard) would enforce this law in many parts of the country.

You would probably need martial law to get compliance in some parts of the country.

And once again, you would not get compliance from criminals.
  #2716  
Old 08-15-2013, 04:50 PM
Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D. View Post
Cite?
You want a cite for common sense? So some criminal who is breaking the law by owning a gun is going to suddenly comply with a law that tells him to hand in his gun at the local police station? Or am I misunderstanding your request for a cite?
Crap! I don't know how that happened, what I wanted a cite for is this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I thought we had already established that the folks who are most likely to commit gun murders are already not legally permitted to possess (never mind carry) a firearm. The people whoa re legally permitted to "carry" a firearm are even less likely to commit gun murder than the general public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Welcome to the SDMB, Dr. Butts. It's a fun and interesting place. I hope that once you become familiar with it, you'll stick around.
Funny. ?

Last edited by Happy Fun Ball; 08-15-2013 at 04:50 PM. Reason: Fixed quote tags
  #2717  
Old 08-15-2013, 09:13 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,719
A local happening concerning carrying:

In Minnesota, a permit holder who sends in prior notification can carry in otherwise restricted areas including the state capitol building. Back in January when in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings many states including MN were considering expanded gun restrictions, pro-gun supporters showed their opposition to the proposed laws by packing the public hearings at the capitol. Many, myself included, exercised their legal right to attend while carrying. Some of the legislators pushing the proposed gun control laws complained that they felt "intimidated"; and as a result there is now a move to rescind the provision allowing carrying in the capitol. There were hearings on the subject today and more scheduled for next week.

Now I should add that currently there is no screening at the state capitol- anyone could smuggle in a gun easily enough. And since murder, assault with a deadly weapon and carrying without a permit are all felonies, additional provisions would seem to merely make the misuse of firearms illegaler. Not to mention that permit holders have been vetted as having clean records, and that anyone willing to jump through the hoops to meet the permit law's requirements is likely to be respectful of the law. But the anti-gun faction seems positively obsessed with the idea that anyone could be allowed to carry in the state capitol.

To permit holders, this feels like if teenage girls who sought to obtain birth control were denigrated as promiscuous sluts, while teenage girls who didn't bother to obtain birth control were ignored.
  #2718  
Old 08-15-2013, 10:24 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
So why would you want to have a gun with you when visiting the Capitol? What purpose do you see it serving? Is it something more than showing them damn librul politishuns what might happen if they try some of that tyranny stuff on yew? And is their statement about feeling intimidated not justified? And is that how you think democracy should work?

You're a fucking menace, in more than one way.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 08-15-2013 at 10:26 PM.
  #2719  
Old 08-15-2013, 11:18 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Not to mention that permit holders have been vetted as having clean records, and that anyone willing to jump through the hoops to meet the permit law's requirements is likely to be respectful of the law.
Limited categorical thinking is apparently a burden no gun advocate can overcome.

Nearly half (47%) of murderers had no prior conviction for a felony or misdemeanor.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

Quote:
Fifty-six percent of convicted violent felons in the 75 largest counties had been previously convicted of a felony or misdemeanor. About three-fifths of those convicted of assault(60%)or robbery (59%) had at least one prior conviction. More than half of murderers (53%) had a conviction record as well.
Determining that someone at a given point in time has not committed a crime does not mean that that person will never commit a crime. People are not static.
  #2720  
Old 08-15-2013, 11:59 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
So why would you want to have a gun with you when visiting the Capitol? What purpose do you see it serving? Is it something more than showing them damn librul politishuns what might happen if they try some of that tyranny stuff on yew? And is their statement about feeling intimidated not justified? And is that how you think democracy should work?
This is worth noting: regardless of what gun policies, or not, are actually being brought to the floor of any given legislature, you'll note that there are a LOT more incidences of "bring a gun to the capitol" requests, gun-carrying rallies, etc. when the GOP is out of power.

Realistically, this shit started REALLY getting insanely popular in the midst of some of the most laissaez-faire gun policies in decades (given the Heller decision, etc.), in the face of Obama and the legislature being so entirely disinterested in gun control that people resorted to making up conspiracy theories about the government buying up all the ammo to prevent gun owners from getting any.

Somewhat obviously, this next bit is not addressed directly at Elvis (but he's got the verbal skill of a baboon on meth so I figured I'd clarify):
I personally strongly disapprove of non-habitual carriers who carry to political functions to make a point--it's not quite criminal, but it certainly speaks to your motive being as much to frighten as to assert your rights. If it was that important to you, you WOULD carry habitually--and if you don't carry habitually, carrying your gun is not going to be any more rhetorically powerful than carrying a sign like a normal protester, it's just going to make you look somewhere between silly and a would-be tyrant.
  #2721  
Old 08-16-2013, 12:03 AM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Limited categorical thinking is apparently a burden no gun advocate can overcome.
I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the irony of the above.

Quote:
Nearly half (47%) of murderers had no prior conviction for a felony or misdemeanor.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
I'd actually be interested in the percentage of "no-prior-conviction" violent criminals for whom the crime was a crime of passion, as I see those as being the types least likely to not commit a crime due to lack of firearm (granted, any crime they commit in the heat of the moment will be less statistically deadly in the absence of a firearm). Something that I consider to partially bear this out is that it's more rare to see armed robbers (not typically a crime of passion) with no priors than murders.

To the extent that gun bans or severe limitations would work at all, I perceive them only working really well on the law-abiding and low-rent misdemeanor/minor felony crowd. The hardened types will be able to get guns as trivially as they get drugs now, IMHO, and the crime-of-passion types will in the balance probably not care.

Last edited by Zeriel; 08-16-2013 at 12:06 AM.
  #2722  
Old 08-16-2013, 12:12 AM
Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
So why would you want to have a gun with you when visiting the Capitol? What purpose do you see it serving? Is it something more than showing them damn librul politishuns what might happen if they try some of that tyranny stuff on yew? And is their statement about feeling intimidated not justified? And is that how you think democracy should work?

You're a fucking menace, in more than one way.
I agree. To be honest, I am pretty supportive of gun rights regardless of idiot partisans like DA. But citizens that exercise their gun rights by taking their guns to the statehouse or their AK47s to Safeway are idiots and are no better than the klan or the Illinois nazis exercising their free speech rights. Intimidating and offending other citizens is no way to cement your rights, it will only lead to the shit we see today. I am an atheist, and i feel the same way about people suing about the pledge of allegiance. The tide of history and law is on the side of both athiesm and gun rights, no reason, IMHO, to push it and be an asshole.
  #2723  
Old 08-16-2013, 07:16 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the irony of the above.
No, I'm not. Please explain what is ironic.
Quote:
I'd actually be interested in the percentage of "no-prior-conviction" violent criminals for whom the crime was a crime of passion, as I see those as being the types least likely to not commit a crime due to lack of firearm (granted, any crime they commit in the heat of the moment will be less statistically deadly in the absence of a firearm). Something that I consider to partially bear this out is that it's more rare to see armed robbers (not typically a crime of passion) with no priors than murders.

To the extent that gun bans or severe limitations would work at all, I perceive them only working really well on the law-abiding and low-rent misdemeanor/minor felony crowd. The hardened types will be able to get guns as trivially as they get drugs now, IMHO, and the crime-of-passion types will in the balance probably not care.
Who said anything about bans? I was referring to the specific assertion made that CCW should be allowed in state houses because they have already been cleared.

Gun advocates think that there are good and bad people, and that the latter can be identified. They think that.all you need to do is keep them from having firearms and all's well. The pont, to repeat myself, is that people are not static, or fixed. Just because they have CCW licenses does not mean they will never commit a crime or murder someone.

So, what is the irony again?
  #2724  
Old 08-16-2013, 08:09 AM
Acewiza is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Gun advocates think that there are good... They think that.all you need to do is keep them from having firearms and all's well.
Did somebody dispute the distinction between "good and bad people?"

I believe that under your premise you would consider me a "gun advocate," however that is not what I think. I believe it is one piece of a puzzle under the topic of law enforcement WRT gun control. Dumbing it down in your manner of over simplification seems somewhat disingenuous.
  #2725  
Old 08-16-2013, 08:36 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acewiza View Post
Did somebody dispute the distinction between "good and bad people?"
Well, I do, for one. Do you not?
Quote:
I believe that under your premise you would consider me a "gun advocate," however that is not what I think. I believe it is one piece of a puzzle under the topic of law enforcement WRT gun control. Dumbing it down in your manner of over simplification seems somewhat disingenuous.
Perhaps, although you say "it" with no clear reference as to what you're talking about, so I'm a bit unclear as to your meaning.

Regarding your broader point, perhaps I am oversimplifying. I am sure that there exist gun advocates who are capable of more complex thinking. Unfortunately, they are not the ones saying anything. The gun advocates who I ever hear anything from them propose solutions like “We should arm all the teachers and janitors!” This suggests a belief that belonging in the category of teachers or janitors denotes fitness to carry a firearm. I don’t know about you, but I can certainly think of many teachers who should never be allowed near a firearm.

They say things like “Just keep people with mental illness from having a firearm.” The problem is that there is not such a simple category. First of all, this statement fails to recognize that there are many different types of mental illness. For instance, should all people with an anxiety disorder be prevented from firearm possession? (My sense is that people with anxiety disorders are the lion’s share of the market for firearms, but that’s a separate discussion.) Eating disorders? Dyslexia? How about what used to be called Asperger’s Disorder, a disorder related to Autism? ADHD? Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Also, mental illness doesn’t work like a fixed switch. Disorders wax and wane over time. People may have a mental illness for a period of time in childhood or adolescence, and may never meet criteria again. Alternately, they may have a chronic course of repeated episodes throughout their lifetime. Does any history of any disorder put people in the category of “mentally ill” in terms of firearm ownership?

Furthermore, when gun owner registrations are brought up, gun advocates almost universally argue that there is no benefit to them other than to give guidance to the black helicopters when they come to confiscate your weapons. They say that the background check has already been done, so there’s no need of the gun registration. But this thinking is exactly what I’m talking about. The background check is a method of identifying concerns at a point in time prior to the ownership of a weapon. But gun owners who have passed a background check in the past can still commit crimes, right? They can still have the new onset of a mental illness, right? So without a gun registration, how do we know who already owns a firearm at the point that they end up in circumstances that would prohibit firearm ownership?

Again, I agree that some gun advocates may have nuanced opinions on these issues that do not betray categorical and static thinking about the real nature of being a human, but they are not the ones saying anything. I can only respond to what I hear gun advocates saying. And what they are saying is what Lumpy said; it's cool to allow CCW people to carry in the state house because they've already been vetted, and because CCW people are more law abiding. Do you still not see the problem with these assertions?
  #2726  
Old 08-16-2013, 09:01 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acewiza View Post
Did somebody dispute the distinction between "good and bad people?"
Yes. It's an artificial construct designed to provide reassurance to those with an underlying awareness that they, too are capable of losing control or making bad decisions. But people are people.

Whenever I've seen the distinction made and a clearer definition requested, the "I'm a good person, a law-abiding citizen" side has never come back with more than a legal one - a "bad person" who should not be permitted access to firearms is someone with a violent felony or an adjudicated mental illness or something else. Nowhere is the problem that "law-abiding citizens" can, and often do, suddenly stop abiding the law, or that "good people" can, and often do, take actions with very bad consequences.

But maybe you can do better. What, to you, are the defining characteristics of "good and bad people"? And how are you sure that you do and always will fall under the first category?
  #2727  
Old 08-16-2013, 09:45 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
So why would you want to have a gun with you when visiting the Capitol? What purpose do you see it serving?
I habitually carry; maybe I have business at the capital and don't want to have to leave my gun at home.

Quote:
Is it something more than showing them damn librul politishuns what might happen if they try some of that tyranny stuff on yew? And is their statement about feeling intimidated not justified? And is that how you think democracy should work?
If you don't understand that carrying is NOT about being a swaggering bully, then you're arguing against the stereotype strawman in your head, not actual gun owners.

Quote:
You're a fucking menace, in more than one way.
Have a smoothy on me.
  #2728  
Old 08-16-2013, 10:13 AM
Acewiza is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
...what they are saying is what Lumpy said; it's cool to allow CCW people to carry in the state house because they've already been vetted, and because CCW people are more law abiding. Do you still not see the problem with these assertions?
So by the same token it may be "cool" to allow convicted felons gun ownership under certain limited restrictions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
, to you, are the defining characteristics of "good and bad people"? And how are you sure that you do and always will fall under the first category?
It does not need any time- based attribute. By that logic nobody would ever do anything for fear of making a mistake because some assumption changes possible future outcomes This is pedantic reasoning proposed only for the sake of argument and not for the purpose of addressing a complex issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
If you don't understand that carrying is NOT about being a swaggering bully, then you're arguing against the stereotype strawman in your head, not actual gun owners.
They argue against the concept of guns themselves and all the terrible implications imaginable arising from deadly weapons - not the owners.
  #2729  
Old 08-16-2013, 10:31 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acewiza View Post
So by the same token it may be "cool" to allow convicted felons gun ownership under certain limited restrictions?
What the fuck are you talking about? Is this something you think I've advocated? Step back, understand the conversation, and then post specifically to the discussion so that others can figure out what you're saying.

Quote:
It does not need any time- based attribute. By that logic nobody would ever do anything for fear of making a mistake because some assumption changes possible future outcomes This is pedantic reasoning proposed only for the sake of argument and not for the purpose of addressing a complex issue.
Thanks for precisely exemplifying my point. "It doesn't need any time-based attribute": good and bad are determinable categories, membership in which is fixed and static. Gotcha. zeriel, any questions?
Quote:
They argue against the concept of guns themselves and all the terrible implications imaginable arising from deadly weapons - not the owners.
Not remotely true. I just spent several posts talking about problems arising from the frailty of the human condition. Guns without people are fine; it is precisely the intersection of guns and people that is the problem. Understand?
  #2730  
Old 08-16-2013, 11:25 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I habitually carry; maybe I have business at the capital and don't want to have to leave my gun at home.
Ah. So it's all about you. Nobody else's interests or concerns are relevant; the world revolves entirely around Lumpy. Got it.

Quote:
If you don't understand that carrying is NOT about being a swaggering bully, then you're arguing against the stereotype strawman in your head, not actual gun owners.
Then there must be some real, respectable reason you carry your binkie everywhere you go. How about sharing it with us then, cowboy?

What purpose did you have in mind in carrying a firearm into the state capitol?
  #2731  
Old 08-16-2013, 11:42 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Let's help you by clarifying the question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy
pro-gun supporters showed their opposition to the proposed laws by packing the public hearings at the capitol. Many, myself included, exercised their legal right to attend while carrying.
How is that distinguishable from being a "swaggering bully" (your term), at best?
Quit kidding yourself.
  #2732  
Old 08-16-2013, 05:03 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D. View Post
Crap! I don't know how that happened, what I wanted a cite for is this:
There are two things there.

People who are currently prohibited from possessing firearms are more likely to commit murder with a firearm (well murders generally and its just so much easier with a gun). I didn't think there was a dispute about this. There is some dispute about how much of the gun murders are committed by this category of people but I was pretty sure that everyone agreed that this small subset of the population committed most of the gun murders. You can flip through this http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt and do a word search for murder.

Assuming that the population of gun murdereres tracks the population of murderers generally... according to the DoJ, 53% of murderers have prior convictions, 10% of murderers are underage, add the number of murderers who have a history of domestic violence or are the subject of a restraining order and the number gets larger.

The other point is that CCWs commit gun murders at a lower rate than the general population. I didn't think this was in dispute either. The rebuttal from the other side seems to be "so what, there are examples of CCWs committing murder so who gives a shit if CCW's are generally more law abiding than the general population"

I presented some information from Texas and I believe Florida and while CCW laws are different from state to state, they all require more extensive background checks, which (combined with the voluntary nature of exposing yourself to this added scrutiny) is what makes this self selected group of people more law abiding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Limited categorical thinking is apparently a burden no gun advocate can overcome.

Nearly half (47%) of murderers had no prior conviction for a felony or misdemeanor.
So, 53% of murderers have prior convictions and yet these people account for a relatively small portion of the population.

Quote:
Determining that someone at a given point in time has not committed a crime does not mean that that person will never commit a crime. People are not static.
They are not homogenous or fungible either. Different demographics represent different risks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D. View Post
I agree. To be honest, I am pretty supportive of gun rights regardless of idiot partisans like DA.
You're new to this conversation right? What makes you think I'm partisan (besides Elvis saying so)? Or an idiot?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Gun advocates think that there are good and bad people, and that the latter can be identified. They think that.all you need to do is keep them from having firearms and all's well.
As a gun advocate, I can say that I do not believe this.

I believe that people are not fungible. I believe that some people are far more likely to commit gun crime than others and you can severely diminish gun violence by restricting access to these people.

I believe the cost to society of guns in the hands of law abiding people should be balanced against the benefits to society of guns in the hands of law abiding people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
The gun advocates who I ever hear anything from them propose solutions like “We should arm all the teachers and janitors!”
I'm obviously not speaking up enough

Quote:
They say things like “Just keep people with mental illness from having a firearm.”


Thats all?

Quote:
Furthermore, when gun owner registrations are brought up, gun advocates almost universally argue that there is no benefit to them other than to give guidance to the black helicopters when they come to confiscate your weapons.


What am I, chopped liver?

What about Zeriel?

Quote:
Again, I agree that some gun advocates may have nuanced opinions on these issues that do not betray categorical and static thinking about the real nature of being a human, but they are not the ones saying anything. I can only respond to what I hear gun advocates saying. And what they are saying is what Lumpy said; it's cool to allow CCW people to carry in the state house because they've already been vetted, and because CCW people are more law abiding. Do you still not see the problem with these assertions?
I don't think Lumpy thinks people are static, I think Lumpy thinks that the risk that you perceive is blown way the fuck out of proportion. But I agree that there are many places where we already have armed guards where we can reasonably restrict a person's ability to bear arms. And I think that any private establishment that is open to the public can restrict arms on their premises.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 08-16-2013 at 05:05 PM.
  #2733  
Old 08-16-2013, 10:22 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
No, I'm not. Please explain what is ironic.
The irony is the throwing around of "gun advocates" as a monolithic category, of course.

Quote:
Who said anything about bans?
No one recently, I was just musing on the effects of them and/or much stricter restrictions of the type that's been proposed in this thread on slowing down violent crime based on the statistics.

Hell, by the standards of some, I'm in FAVOR of those "strong restrictions" I was musing about.
  #2734  
Old 08-16-2013, 10:30 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Then there must be some real, respectable reason you carry your binkie everywhere you go.
I'll answer for him.

No one else has any legal or moral requirement to defend me from anything--not you, not the police, not anyone. Therefore, it's my own obligation to do so.

The part where you cross over into idiotic is where you fail to understand that it's entirely possible to believe it's one's moral duty to be prepared for anything, really, AND be completely aware that it's a low chance one will have to use that preparation.

The idea it has to be based on some kind of actualized fear or need for an emotional security blanket is approximately as ludicrous as the idea that buckling my seat belt means I'm pants-wettingly afraid of crashing every time I drive.

It's not a perfect analogy--my seat belt doesn't increase the risk to myself or others nearly as much as carrying a firearm does, and I'll be the first to acknowledge that. I simply disagree with you on where that risk increase balances with my duty (as a living being. It can be argued that EVERY right flows from the right to effective self-defense--the majority of which is provided, again obviously and admittedly, by the fact of the generally peaceable and civilized society in which we live) to protect my own person as I am able.
  #2735  
Old 08-17-2013, 08:12 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,719
Thank you Zeriel. I hadn't made up my mind whether it was worth responding to ElvisL1ves's post.

Last edited by Lumpy; 08-17-2013 at 08:13 AM.
  #2736  
Old 08-17-2013, 08:18 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
No one else has any legal or moral requirement to defend me from anything--not you, not the police, not anyone. Therefore, it's my own obligation to do so.
You are oblivious to the other side of the issue - that the person needed to be defended against might well be you. That there is much more than a non-zero chance that the origin of, or escalator of, a situation will be the person equipped to do so. It is amazing how much you gunstrokers are able to convince yourselves that it's impossible, that you're the law-abiding citizens, that the "bad guys" are invariably someone else. But it's self-delusion, as is demonstrated by the constant stream of gun deaths caused by those who think about themselves exactly what you think. You're not a good guy or a bad guy, those concepts are artificial and not very useful, but you are a guy, including all the strengths and weaknesses that go along with it. Don't pretend you're not.

So what are those of us in a civilized society allowed to do to protect ourselves from the danger you represent? The only solution you ever offer is to arm ourselves against you, to become you, to become part of the problem ourselves. That is, quite simply, insane. Admittedly, it's a little less insane than the "defense against tyranny" idiocy we see from so many others, including in this very thread, but it's insane nonetheless.

But there's another approach, one that virtually every other civilized society in the world uses, and which has demonstrable results in every one. What makes us so different here other than the extent to which we've allowed the problem to grow? (DA, this is where you tell us there are too many guns to grab so it's pointless to try) Is the difference the sheer numbers of people who see themselves as isolated individuals, with no responsibility at all to those inconvenient, dismissible abstractions all around them who also call themselves humans and are always blathering on about their rights not to be killed? Is it the sheer numbers of those such as yourself who deny the very existence of society as a significant or even real concept? Is the difference between the US and the civilized world the extent of that mass psychopathy?
  #2737  
Old 08-17-2013, 08:20 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Thank you Zeriel. I hadn't made up my mind whether it was worth responding to ElvisL1ves's post.
So you're not going to tell us what your intent was in carrying a firearm into the Capitol, are you? OK, never mind, we already know.
  #2738  
Old 08-17-2013, 08:52 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You are oblivious to the other side of the issue - that the person needed to be defended against might well be you. That there is much more than a non-zero chance that the origin of, or escalator of, a situation will be the person equipped to do so. It is amazing how much you gunstrokers are able to convince yourselves that it's impossible, that you're the law-abiding citizens, that the "bad guys" are invariably someone else. But it's self-delusion, as is demonstrated by the constant stream of gun deaths caused by those who think about themselves exactly what you think. You're not a good guy or a bad guy, those concepts are artificial and not very useful, but you are a guy, including all the strengths and weaknesses that go along with it. Don't pretend you're not.

So what are those of us in a civilized society allowed to do to protect ourselves from the danger you represent? The only solution you ever offer is to arm ourselves against you, to become you, to become part of the problem ourselves. That is, quite simply, insane. Admittedly, it's a little less insane than the "defense against tyranny" idiocy we see from so many others, including in this very thread, but it's insane nonetheless.

But there's another approach, one that virtually every other civilized society in the world uses, and which has demonstrable results in every one. What makes us so different here other than the extent to which we've allowed the problem to grow? (DA, this is where you tell us there are too many guns to grab so it's pointless to try) Is the difference the sheer numbers of people who see themselves as isolated individuals, with no responsibility at all to those inconvenient, dismissible abstractions all around them who also call themselves humans and are always blathering on about their rights not to be killed? Is it the sheer numbers of those such as yourself who deny the very existence of society as a significant or even real concept? Is the difference between the US and the civilized world the extent of that mass psychopathy?
So possessing weapons is, in your opinion, a secession from or rebellion against the rest of humanity? If that's the case then you're reiterating the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that freedom only leads to a war of all against all as the selfish animals all seek to look out for #1. I'm genuinely baffled by you; you seem incapable of conceiving of anyone other than a criminal or a barbarian wanting to possess the means of deadly force. To the extent that you're not seeing any other possibility, you're not even seeing or hearing a large number of people trying to explain themselves to you.
  #2739  
Old 08-17-2013, 02:28 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You are oblivious to the other side of the issue - that the person needed to be defended against might well be you.
I'm not oblivious to it at all. It's most certainly a tradeoff between "if I have a gun I can threaten someone else" and "if I don't have a gun I can't effectively defend myself against a gun wielder". If I was, I wouldn't...

Quote:
But there's another approach, one that virtually every other civilized society in the world uses, and which has demonstrable results in every one.
...call for gun use policies much closer to, say, Germany or Scandinavia (licensed owners, registered weapons, required training).

Quote:
What makes us so different here other than the extent to which we've allowed the problem to grow? (DA, this is where you tell us there are too many guns to grab so it's pointless to try) Is the difference the sheer numbers of people who see themselves as isolated individuals, with no responsibility at all to those inconvenient, dismissible abstractions all around them who also call themselves humans and are always blathering on about their rights not to be killed? Is it the sheer numbers of those such as yourself who deny the very existence of society as a significant or even real concept? Is the difference between the US and the civilized world the extent of that mass psychopathy?
Actually, if you ask me, there ARE major differences between the US and the rest of the civilized world that account for the majority of our violence period, let alone our gun violence. This statistically almost HAS to be the case--gun ownership alone doesn't cut it, because other countries don't have gun violence rates proportional to their gun ownership rates. Canada has 1/3 our guns per capita and 1/5th our gun death rate. Brazil has less than 1/10 our guns per capita and their gun death rate is double ours (and their gun homicide rate is SIX TIMES ours).

I put a lot of the blame for our violence in the hands of systemic racial bias and the insane lengths to which our so-called "conservative" parties will throw any amount of money and power at the system to keep as many people as possible desperate and poor. This is the reasons that I'm NOT a single-issue gun-rights voter--and the only reason I self-style as "the Democrat with a gun" is that I prefer voting for the lesser of two evils that has a shot rather than, say, casting my ballot for Kucinich or Nader.

Frankly, if you figure out how to build me a personal shield generator, I'd rather have that than a gun. That's my question to you--even granted the relatively low odds of an event happening where I'd prefer to have a firearm in self-defense, what are you suggesting doing to society or offering me in exchange for my firearm? Meet me halfway here--given my stated moral position on the right/duty to self-defense, what SHOULD I be doing?

Last edited by Zeriel; 08-17-2013 at 02:30 PM.
  #2740  
Old 08-17-2013, 03:00 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,604
http://www.portlandonline.com/audito...28514&a=332592

So you can carry a loaded gun if you are headed to or from a gun range but not otherwise (unless you have a CCW). I would perpetually be headed to the range.
  #2741  
Old 08-17-2013, 03:10 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,604
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shanno...b_3765070.html

The author is stupid because she is either ignorant or lying about guns and the guys who think its a good idea to try and make a statement about gun rights in Newtown, CT are stupid they have low IQs.

Its never good idea to make meaningless gestures that just rile up the other side.
  #2742  
Old 08-17-2013, 03:28 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It is amazing how much you gunstrokers are able to convince yourselves that it's impossible, that you're the law-abiding citizens, that the "bad guys" are invariably someone else. But it's self-delusion, as is demonstrated by the constant stream of gun deaths caused by those who think about themselves exactly what you think. You're not a good guy or a bad guy, those concepts are artificial and not very useful, but you are a guy, including all the strengths and weaknesses that go along with it. Don't pretend you're not.
I think you keep missing the point. Even if I were personally not allowed to own a gun I might still support the right to keep and bear arms because I recognize that there are benefits to private gun ownership that you seem to entirely ignore. Yes, some people flip out and kill people with guns that they would not [be able to] kill if they did not have a gun. But guns also prevent harm when it is used in self defense. You focus exclusively on the con side of the argument without giving any consideration to the pro side of the argument.

Quote:
But there's another approach, one that virtually every other civilized society in the world uses, and which has demonstrable results in every one. What makes us so different here other than the extent to which we've allowed the problem to grow? (DA, this is where you tell us there are too many guns to grab so it's pointless to try)
This is where I tell you that it would be impossible to confiscate all the guns because you could never pass that law.

But in some mythical alternate universe where you could get that law passed you could not enforce the law because you don't really know where the guns are.

And even if we lived in an even more remote alternate universe where we had an active registry of all firearms so you could track down the guns, you would only be able to confiscate guns from the law abiding citizens.

You would still be left with a large population of criminals (the ones most likely to commit future crimes) with a civilian monopoly on the use of firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Frankly, if you figure out how to build me a personal shield generator, I'd rather have that than a gun. That's my question to you--even granted the relatively low odds of an event happening where I'd prefer to have a firearm in self-defense, what are you suggesting doing to society or offering me in exchange for my firearm? Meet me halfway here--given my stated moral position on the right/duty to self-defense, what SHOULD I be doing?
If we all had personal shield generators then guns wouldn't really be a threat to anyone but people would still be deathly afraid of them. Especially if they have forward grips and bayonet lugs.
  #2743  
Old 08-17-2013, 04:02 PM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 27,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You are oblivious to the other side of the issue - that the person needed to be defended against might well be you. That there is much more than a non-zero chance that the origin of, or escalator of, a situation will be the person equipped to do so.
Actually, given the hundreds of millions of guns out there, even if there were hundreds of thousands of offensive gun uses per year, that'd be pretty close to zero, not much more than zero. Still way too many, though.
  #2744  
Old 08-17-2013, 07:49 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
But guns also prevent harm when it is used in self defense. You focus exclusively on the con side of the argument without giving any consideration to the pro side of the argument.
We've been over this. More deaths are caused by the availability of guns than are prevented by it. About time you dealt with it.

Quote:
But in some mythical alternate universe where you could get that law passed you could not enforce the law because you don't really know where the guns are.
And this is where you show you still don't realize how ridiculous the militia/tyranny stuff is that you find yourself forced to fall back on.

Quote:
And even if we lived in an even more remote alternate universe where we had an active registry of all firearms so you could track down the guns, you would only be able to confiscate guns from the law abiding citizens.
This "law abiding citizen" stuff fascinates you, doesn't it? You use it as a synonym for "gun owner" when it is nothing of the sort. Those, like you, who would resist any sort of registration law would become criminals, violent criminals if they resist. Not "law abiding citizens" That means you, fool.

There is no power on earth that can make you see yourself as something other than one of the "good guys" in a John Wayne film, is there? Too bad, life is a little more complicated than that. But, as a psychopath, you're incapable of comprehending that.
  #2745  
Old 08-17-2013, 07:55 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
So possessing weapons is, in your opinion, a secession from or rebellion against the rest of humanity?
Are you really this dishonest or do you just have poor comprehension skills? The massaging of only one's own perceived interests, and the discounting of other people's as abstractions that must give way, is the psychosis. Demanding the right to carry the ability to kill others is evidence of that psychosis.

Quote:
I'm genuinely baffled by you; you seem incapable of conceiving of anyone other than a criminal or a barbarian wanting to possess the means of deadly force.
What you personally want is not the supreme consideration, is it? That baffles you because of your inability to think of anyone else but your own damn self, much less to think of yourself as part of a society to which you have any responsibilities.


So are you going to let the obvious inference about your reason for carrying a weapon int the Capitol simply stand, or do you have something to try to explain? IOW is there any reason not to think of you as a fucking menace?
  #2746  
Old 08-17-2013, 08:42 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,719
I tried- I really tried, everyone- to read and consider ElvisL1ves's response but it's a total non-sequitur; I can't figure out how what he says is supposed to reference my statements that he's quoting. It's like the Chewbacca Defense. All I'm getting is "You're selfish! You're selfish! You're selfish!"
  #2747  
Old 08-17-2013, 10:21 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The massaging of only one's own perceived interests, and the discounting of other people's as abstractions that must give way, is the psychosis.
Sort of like how your own perceived interest allows you to discount ours as lies, psychosis, cover for some sort of deep-seated inadequacy or insanity, etc?
  #2748  
Old 08-17-2013, 10:32 PM
Acewiza is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
...because of your inability to think of anyone else but your own damn self, much less to think of yourself as part of a society to which you have any responsibilities.
I think of other people all the time. The actual, real people I think of sometimes are scary - not the altruistic "society" members you fantasize about. Reality and death is what you fear. The ones who may perpetrate it against me and my family are what I fear.
  #2749  
Old 08-18-2013, 09:03 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
So your response is to give them more reason to fear you than vice versa? That's sane?

Here's the same question for you that so often goes unanswered by others: What makes you one of the "good guys"? How can anyone else tell?
  #2750  
Old 08-18-2013, 09:05 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Sort of like how your own perceived interest allows you to discount ours as lies, psychosis, cover for some sort of deep-seated inadequacy or insanity, etc?
When's the last time hearing "I'm rubber, you're glue!" convinced you of a point? Gawdamm, boy, this ain't fourth grade no more.
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 06:26 PM.

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