Well, since states that have liberal concealed carry laws do not have a higher instance of accidental gun deaths or of guns used in “heat of the moment” type situations than states with stricter gun control laws, it seems that you are posting from a standpoint of willful ignorance, and perhaps it would behoove you to take Mr. Moto’s advice. Not to learn how to clean and field strip an AK-47, but to learn what the actual facts concerning gun ownership are so you don’t make another post that’s nothing but a knee jerk reaction based upon an unreasoning fear like this one.
And why don’t YOU put a sign in front of your house saying, “DIAMONDS, RARE COINS, GOLD CHAINS INSIDE!”
Or buy a 2005 Beamer, leave the keys in the ignition, and put a sign by your mailbox to that effect.
Didn’t think so.
But feel free to explain what going out of your way to draw attention to your house has to do with anything relative to the gun debate.
As an NRA member, I find this remark to be really disingenuous and insulting. I, and every NRA member I know, care very much about reducing the number of deaths due to firearms misuse, such as what Ms. Graham did. We are not advocates of killing, and we should not be unfairly labeled as such.
Those of us who own firearms and who consider them to be tools of self defense typically view this rather like having a fire extinguisher - it’s there to use in a situation we hope every day never arises.
We support programs like Eddie Eagle, like Project Exile, and like hunters’ education courses (which are actually a good idea for everyone who might come in contact with firearms, because the primary focus of the course is safety), and for citizens to get out and educate themselves regarding firearms safety because we don’t want to see carnage.
We (typically) support stiff penalties for those who use firearms to commit crimes, and we certainly don’t think that criminals should have firearms.
Always, though, there is the mischaracterization that we are uncaring about the victims of violent crime. If anything, I believe we care more about the victims than people like Sarah Brady and her organization. I’ve read articles in NRA magazines regarding self defense, and remarkably (at least to those who have little knowledge of the NRA) these articles do not recommend that everyone get a gun. They’ve recommended things like having a dog, a security system, or a firearm, whatever each individual is most comfortable with. They’ve also said very clearly that owning a firearm is not enough. You (general) must train, train, and train some more so that you don’t create accident victims and needless harm.
I don’t think I, catsix, NRA member, deserve the implications made about me by my membership in the organization that you just made.
And nor do we “deserve” the contempt of those who are pro-gun.
I think there have been enough generalizations here made by both “sides” about the other. This is non-productive and pointless.
Willfully ignorant? I don’t think so–come into my ICU and see the harm guns do to people-many of them innocent victims.
the pro-gun folks want to see this issue one way, I, and others like me, another. I have no problem agreeing to disagree–being told I am out of touch, willfully ingnorant or hypocritical is uncalled for.
So, on a % basis, lets see a thread with your thoughts about auto deaths of all types, head injuries from bicycle accidents and miss diagnostics of medical decisions by doctors. And lets hear about the EMT’s that kick a back board under an accident victim ( me ). Yes kick it…( and after he go into the ambulance he proved all over again what an asshole he was. )What do you think happened when it was reported by the victim???
I have two sisters who are RN’s. one a radiology tech, two cousins that are doctors etc. and I know about ER’s from them. Now you may be in a real battle ground for gunshot victims where you are but you are coming off as if the whole country’s ER’s are swamped with gunshot victims and nothing else is nearly as bad . That is just as hypocritical as anything else being said in here. IMO.
YMMV
Why?You accused Mr Moto if ignoring facts to further his agenda. You then ignored facts to further YOUR own agenda. You posted statements that are just not true, and gave them as a reason for your anti-gun stance. When I pointed that out to you, your response is not to reevaluate your position, or to investigate a little further, or even to come back with other, true facts. No, you just bristled that I pointed out your error. Sounds willfully ignorant to me.
I got a question for you. Of all the people who come into your ICU with GSWs, how many of them are true innocents, as in not criminals? 10%? 20%? I doubt it’s much higher than that. Please, tell me what law you propose that will prevent all those criminals ( that 80-90% ) from getting shot.
Guns don’t do harm. People do harm.
And of course, you have no real way of knowing whether the person who was shot was an ‘innocent victim’ or not.
There really isn’t. But- if you want to try and prove there is- please start a thread in GD. Not here, not in this thread or forum.
I’m sure I’m not as expert on these subjects as you are. However, I’m not spouting off opinions on a message board on these either.
Should the need arise to have this information, I’d get it posthaste. Because of this, I can tell you scads of stuff about reflux in infants, virally induced asthma, positional plagiocephaly, and necrotizing enterocolitis.
Nope. I’m not demonizing you for your position. I’m criticizing your ignorance, which is a different thing entirely.
Now, how can you have a position about guns if you don’t know current law or the purposes guns are put to?
I certainly can agree to disagree, but I prefer to do this when a person has looked at the same facts I have and has reached a different conclusion. When a person has not looked at the facts, and proves unwilling to do so, a more proper response is to dismiss that opinion as one not worth listening to.
Why don’t you read up on the subject a bit, and let me know what you find out? Citations would be helpful in this regard.
Ii could return to the OP for a moment: The the events as as far as I can see break down as:
- Woman’s son is shot dead in gang violence
- Woman becomes anti-gun campaigner, also finds son’s gun and places it in cupboard
- ???
- HYPOCRISY!
Could some kind fellow fill in the step 3 for this clearly old and senile man?
- Woman has close ties with individuals involved in shootings, and possesses in her home both illegal drugs and an illegal gun with the serial number filed off. It is by no means proven that said gun belonged to her dead son, and even if it did, possession of that gun after his death would be a crime.
“You can’t prove I’m wrong!” doesn’t work for the religious witnesser, and it doesn’t work for you either. Given the choice between the gun belonging a gang-running adolesecent or an anti-gun campaigner, I choose to let Occan call the shots. Likewise that if she placed the gun aside after finding it, she probably was not even aware that it possessed a serial number, let alone that it had been filed off.
Close ties? One of the ‘individuals involved’ was her son! I’m honestly not sure what you’re trying to insisnuate with that, except some kind of sleazy guilt-by-association sort of thing.
Unless, perhaps, you actually have any Cites? to back up your rather tortured interpretation?
Even assuming the gun was her son’s, which I’ll allow is likely, and allowing that she didn’t know the serial number had been filed off, when her son died, she inherited the weapon, and by wrapping it up and putting it aside, she quite clearly took possession of that weapon willfully and with full knowledge. She is a prominent anti-gun crusader; the fact that she then took that gun and shot someone makes her a hypocrite.
She didn’t shoot anyone. That was another of the gun-control hypocrites.
And before anyone attacks me for the last, what I meant is those people who believe in gun control yet hypocritically own or use guns. Not all gun control advocates fall into that category - indeed, most don’t.
Unless, of course the president of the association was a former open heart patient, and had his political interest vested from another source.
Fighting ignorance, and being intolerant of variations in knowledge are not identical.
Not everyone needs to know and appreciate firearms. Knowing about firearms is not a prerequisite for having a valid political opinion. It’s a choice of interest. I know almost nothing about lumber import practices, and damn little about lumber in general. But I have opinions about import laws regarding foreign lumber. Those with vested interest in the forests are not all lumbermen, or carpenters.
Being able to shoot a gun is one source of knowledge about firearm policy needs. Being able to die of a gunshot wound is another. I don’t have much of an opinion about the person being vilified in the OP, but to claim only those with an interest and understanding in handling firearms are entitled to an opinion on public firearms policy is dangerous thinking. Perhaps only lawyers should be allowed to have input on the creation of law.
Tris
“An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.” ~ H. L. Mencken ~
Thank you, Tris , for re-iterating my one and only point in this thead.
Clearly, the point it obvious to some.
Apparently, I have to explain every little thing, which makes the whole joke less funny. Here we go:
Certain members of society have chosen to purchase firearms for home defense, opting to take personal responsibility for the safety of themselves and their families. These “gun people” are not easily distinguished from “not-gun people” (people who do not have firearms, but rather, mistakenly believe that the police can do more than merely mop up their scattered internal wobbly bits long after the criminal has come and gone). Because gun and not-gun people are not easily distinguishable, criminals have a more difficult time deciding who to rob, rape, and murder. Thus, not-gun people receive a spillover safety benefit as a result of the existence of gun people. This benefit is taken for granted by not-gun people.
Were all people to be equally disarmed, the spillover benefit would not exist, as all people would be equally vulnerable. I posit an absurd suggestion to poke fun at the notion that an unarmed society is the safer one. Snicker snicker, jab jab, oh we have such good times.
If you’d like me to subtitle all my future posts for your benefit, just say the word.
My point was, if the woman is the president of a chapter of an organization whose main purpose is to get rid of guns (again, ostensibly), then it would behoove her to be able have at least some inkling of how to accomplish that task.
I do plead ignorance as to the objectives of the Million Moms. Maybe their charter instructs people who have guns to wrap them up and place them in the cupboard. In that case, “Flirty” acted absolutely perfectly.
I’m not a neurosurgeon, but I’ve had a couple of back surgeries, lumbar microdiscotomies. I have a fairly good understanding of how the ruptured disc was pinching the sciatic nerve, how this was in turn affecting my leg. Now I could not perform this procedure, but I have enough of an inkling to at least describe what was done and why.
When I see someone unable to walk correctly, complaining of pain radiating down the back of their leg, unable to bend over, etc., I can draw a semi-educated guess that there is a possibility they are suffering from sciatica.
I guess I underestimate the criteria for being president of a Million Mom chapter. Perhaps having a title and feeling good about yourself is more important than being able to actually do something about the problem your organization (supposedly) sees as needing fixed.
Excellent point, Triskadecamus, and I do agree. But eleanorrigby hasn’t demonstrated to me either particular expertise on this issue nor a willingness to learn. She has her prejudices, and they must be vigorously defended.
Now, had she presented some facts, statistics, or citations this might be not be the case. What she in fact presented were admissions if total ignorance outside of her own little provincial experience. She doesn’t know about gun law, nor does she think this knowlege is important to the debate. She admits her reactions to this issue are based in extreme emotion and fear - that she’d freak out and not know what to do if she found a gun.
I don’t think she needs full firearms training to participate in this discussion. I’d be happy if she did a little Internet reading on the subject, or followed such stories in the paper. Just enough so that, when she enters gun discussions, she has more to bring to the discussion than admitted fear and ignorance.
I do respect the unique POV her occupation gives her, but this isn’t the sum total of information on the subject. I’ll happily admit partial ignorance in this area, not being a medical professional. I do know from civilian and military firearms and first aid training that guns can gravely injure and kill people. That’s part of their intended purpose, after all.
I have to ask, though, given what we all know is true here, how is it relevant? Are you saying, eleanorrigby, that the damage guns do outweighs their positive use? If this is your position, and it seems close, kindly back it up somehow.