# lissener **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 10, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807 "2003-09-10T18:16:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/81 "2003-09-11T17:03:35Z")
It’s a little funny really. For quite a while, people including myself would really get wound up by December posts. His defenders would then examine these posts, say they couldn’t see anything worth getting wound up about. “But it’s his insinuations” We would claim. “He’s implying that (group x) are bigoted. He’s blaming totally unconnected events on (person y). He’s trolling for a fight. Can’t you see that?” And how upset we would get when his defenders said we were just looking for things to be insulted about. How wronged we felt. Now we have a person of very different political leanings, and frankly lissener I think you’re doing the same damned thing. Let me illustrate: “pro-handgun people don’t care how much red goo gets splattered as a side effect, at least they’re able to say that they successfully defied the authority that insists the world would be a safer place with fewer concealable guns in it.” group x don’t care "Conservatives (so my thinking goes) have more motive to be dishonest: all their rationalizations and justifications are self motivated. " group y are are dishonest and self motivated. If you want to argue your points thats fine, but how about dropping the smarmy condemnations of whole groups, and trying to make your points through reason? Otherwise I reckon it’s only a matter of time before I see posts telling me how polite you are. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/82 "2003-09-11T17:55:45Z")
seems to me I made that point on page one. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/83 "2003-09-11T18:30:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > Try again. There are many posts with childish ad hominem attacks in both of those threads made _prior_ to mine. (Which I’ll admit are also childish and derogatory, certainly calling you a "smartass is. I regret that.) You’ve not met my challenge. I asked for a cite where I **initiated** the insults against a whole **group** of people, not where I contiuned the existing pattern and then only against one specific personality. That’s about what I expected. Somebody else hurls the first incective, and after that, anybody’s fair game, eh? The heck with that. I said not one disparaging word about _you_ in either of those threads until you slimed me with direct accusations of lying and posting in bad faith. > [@](#): > > In any case, my main thrust here is not name-calling on an individual basis. It’s: **a)** the accusations that somehow imply that gun owners and gun rights advocates, as a group, are less moral than the gun control proponents, Not me, buddy. > [@](#): > > and **b)** the _pattern_ of name-calling and childish insults - a pattern that is more often than not initiated and perpetuated by gun control people. I would assert that the pattern is more often than not initiated by your side, but I doubt very much that either one of us could prove it to the other’s satisfaction. > [@](#): > > That’s all well and good - now that you’ve explained it. But when you first made that statement, there was no way for anyone to discern exactly to whom you were applying it. How was catsix, or anyone, to know you weren’t being derogatory to them personally, or collectively. I regret my use of the phrase for precisely that reason. I posted it in a moment of peevishness rather than good sense. I did not _intend_ for it to be taken as a personal insult by anyone, but obviously it could have been. > [@](#): > > Thus, my belief that there is a positive social aspect to private gun ownership. Of course there is. The question is whether there is a _net_ positive social aspect to private gun ownership. That, of course, is a far trickier question. ---
**Author:** ![ccwaterback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@ccwaterback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ccwaterback)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/84 "2003-09-11T18:37:49Z")
Guns don’t kill people, people do. I was born and raised around guns and around people that knew a lot about guns. They all had great respect for their privilege of owning a gun, and they were all EXTREMELY cautious in the handling of their pieces. The problems are created when you put a gun in wrong hands. I would most definitely agree there are people that should not be allowed to own guns. But I will also have to say, I think there are people that shouldn’t be allowed behind the wheel of an automobile. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/85 "2003-09-11T18:56:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ccwaterback \* > **Guns don’t kill people, people do. . . .** Oooh! That’s it, I’m converted. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/86 "2003-09-11T19:00:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ccwaterback \* > \*\*Guns don’t kill people, people do. I was born and raised around guns and around people that knew a lot about guns. They all had great respect for their privilege of owning a gun, and they were all EXTREMELY cautious in the handling of their pieces. . \*\* I hear this all the time. EVery single gun owner I know considers themselves to be respectful and safe and all that, around their weapons. INcluding: a. My father who never cleaned his gun. Never. Never. kept it loaded (with decades old ammunition) and at his bedside when he wasn’t carrying it. b. My friend who has lots of guns and two small children. And a gun safe. And has lost track of at least 3 weapons. Doesn’t have any idea where they might be. c. the owners in many news stories that I’ve seen (including one involving a police officer, who quite certainly was trained about guns). I am **not** claiming that you personally are unsafe. I am **not** claiming that every gun owner is really unsafe. I am pointing out that your personal experience with some gun owners is not an absolute. there are demonstrateable cases where gun owners were also idiots when it came to their weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/87 "2003-09-11T19:22:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ccwaterback \* > \*\*I would most definitely agree there are people that should not be allowed to own guns. But I will also have to say, I think there are people that shouldn’t be allowed behind the wheel of an automobile. \*\* :Pauses to give the lad a chance to reconsider his analogy before pointing out how we determine whether people are allowed behind the wheel of an automobile: Daniel ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/88 "2003-09-11T21:04:55Z")
> [@](#): > > **minty green** said: > No kidding. But I didn’t deride you there, did I? I use a derisive term in response to a condescending drive-by from another poster entirely. If your only point is that I sometimes use “derogatory and insulting language,” is that a surprise for anybody this side of Jesus? Try not to get all bent out of shape about it unless I call you a gun fetishist. Well, based on the accounts I’ve seen from places such as guncite, Lott’s book, the Kellerman study, I would tend to believe that there are somewhere between 200,000 and 2 million defensive gun uses by private citizens every year. Considering it was the acceptance of such numbers that makes one a ‘gun fetishist’, it seemed to reason that I was included. > [@](#): > > If you’re being a jackass on other matters, obviously different considerations are involved. And when you’re being a condescending jackass in other matters? > [@](#): > > Because you called me out for being a know-it-all lawyer, you twit. If you don’t care what the law is or my explanations of it, why would you give a damn about whether I’m a legal know-it-all? No, I called you out for your attitude, not your legal knowledge. You post in a patronizing manner much of the time. It is that manner that I take issue with. > [@](#): > > Not me, baby. And you damn well oughta know it by now, as many times as we’ve gone over it. So take your strawman and shove it. No, actually I don’t know that. I know that you’ve stated what kind of guns you think should be banned, but I don’t remember reading anywhere that you said the government shouldn’t ban all guns if they so choose. Have you ever said that? I’d be interested to know where you really stand, since you do seem to spend quite a bit of time discussing what you want to make illegal and not what you think should be legal. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/89 "2003-09-11T21:43:54Z")
Ben Hicks and Cheesesteak have had the best responses so far… I’m all in favor of most gun-control laws…and I thought that Lissener was too strident. He’s one of those guys who over-states a position, thus embarrassing the people on his own side of the issue. Moderation. Good stuff. Will be used again later. Trinopus ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/90 "2003-09-11T21:55:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ccwaterback \* > **Guns don’t kill people, people do.** True, but guns do make killing easier. What was that line in _The Untouchables_? Something like, “He brings a club, you bring a knife. He brings a knife, you bring a gun.” ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/91 "2003-09-11T22:08:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > Well, based on the accounts I’ve seen from places such as guncite, Lott’s book, the Kellerman study, I would tend to believe that there are somewhere between 200,000 and 2 million defensive gun uses by private citizens every year. Considering it was the acceptance of such numbers that makes one a ‘gun fetishist’, it seemed to reason that I was included. Read for comprehension next time. I explained “gun fetishist” earlier in this thread, and it had nothing to do with simple “acceptance of such numbers.” BTW, the difference between 2 million and 200,000 is pretty damn vast. > [@](#): > > I know that you’ve stated what kind of guns you think should be banned, but I don’t remember reading anywhere that you said the government shouldn’t ban all guns if they so choose. Have you ever said that? Multiple times. Many, many times. And since you acknowledge that I’ve stated what kind of guns I think should be “banned,”\* and my answer obviously wasn’t “all of them,” doesn’t that give you a pretty big clue that, ya know, the ones that aren’t “banned”\* are, like, not “banned”\*? \*Note: Actually, “regulated to varying degrees.” But it’s all the same in some people’s book, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > I’d be interested to know where you really stand, since you do seem to spend quite a bit of time discussing what you want to make illegal and not what you think should be legal. When somebody flips a coin, do you cry out “Tails and not heads!”? Buy a bloody clue, catsix. Also, see the old GD thread titled something like “What is reasonable gun control?” ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/92 "2003-09-11T23:02:11Z")
> [@](#): > > **minty green** said: > I explained “gun fetishist” earlier in this thread, and it had nothing to do with simple “acceptance of such numbers.” Was that where I was supposed to decide for myself if you meant me? And what do you mean ‘all opponents are gun-grabbing opponents of freedom’? I don’t consider people who support the right of law-abiding citizens to own _firearms_ as opponents. Then again, I don’t draw the line at semi-automatic or even fully automatic rifles. I can’t see any compelling reason to deny the legal ownership of such to **law-abiding citizens**. > [@](#): > > And since you acknowledge that I’ve stated what kind of guns I think should be “banned,”\* and my answer obviously wasn’t “all of them,” doesn’t that give you a pretty big clue that, ya know, the ones that aren’t “banned”\* are, like, not “banned”\*? No, it really doesn’t. I have no idea if you mean ‘This restriction and absolutely no more, ever.’ or ‘This restriction, and then that one, and another, and one more.’ Where would you draw a line in the dirt and say that absolutely no further restrictions on the right to keep and bear should be made? > [@](#): > > When somebody flips a coin, do you cry out “Tails and not heads!”? Buy a bloody clue, catsix. No, I don’t. Then again, that’s a binary situation. The issues surrounding gun control are not in any way binary. Many people see the 1994 ‘Assault Weapons’ ban as a _step_ in the ‘right direction’, but would in 1994 have said ‘Just this. This is all we’re asking for.’ Every restriction is touted as ‘this is all we want’, until it’s in place, and then it’s not good enough. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/93 "2003-09-11T23:07:28Z")
This is beyond silly. I’m done. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/94 "2003-09-12T03:25:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*Was that where I was supposed to decide for myself if you meant me? And what do you mean ‘all opponents are gun-grabbing opponents of freedom’? I don’t consider people who support the right of law-abiding citizens to own _firearms_ as opponents. Then again, I don’t draw the line at semi-automatic or even fully automatic rifles. I can’t see any compelling reason to deny the legal ownership of such to **law-abiding citizens** I can, and I have about 2 dozen firearms. Some weapons are truly scary in their capacity for mayhem. They are also of very little practical use. While it might be fun to have an emplaceable heavy caliber machine gun, it’s actual possibilities for law-abiding usage are pretty slight and incidental. It would however be very good for mowing down a swat team, or taking on a police station. If it’s in the public’s hands the police have to be able to deal with it. Do you really want the police to have bazookas? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/95 "2003-09-12T03:37:10Z")
Besides, I would like to think that most responsible gun owners would eschew overkill. It’s not really the tool, it’s the skill. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/96 "2003-09-12T03:47:04Z")
> [@](#): > > If it’s in the public’s hands the police have to be able to deal with it. They already do, **Scylla**. Preventing me from owning a select-fire H&K MP-5 will have no effect whatsoever on a criminal with a full auto uzi. What benefit is there in preveting people who can currently legally own firearms from owning automatic rifles? As for ‘practical uses’, I consider going to the range and making holes in paper very quickly a ‘practical use’ for a select fire MP-5. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/97 "2003-09-12T04:27:03Z")
I’m trying to figure out how to respond to somebody who thinks an MP-5 is a good range rifle. If I wanted to quickly kill a room full of people without needing much skill, it might be a fine choice. I know of no version I would choose over a good .22 if I was shooting for score, for money, at a range. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/98 "2003-09-12T12:45:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Note: Actually, “regulated to varying degrees.” But it’s all the same in some people’s book, isn’t it? Well, yes. If you intend to “regulate” them the same way handguns are “regulated” in the city of Chicago. There, in 1968, a mandatory handgun registration policy was enacted. Then, in 1982, registration of handguns was no longer permitted. Thus, if you didn’t own a registered handgun prior to 1982, you’re out of luck - you cannot legally own a handgun and live in Chicago. Washington, D.C. did much the same thing in 1960 and 1977. This is **not** “regulation.” It’s a backdoor ban. So, yes. “Regulation” and banning are much the same thing in some peoples’ books. Especially in the pro-control peoples’ books. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/99 "2003-09-12T12:47:20Z")
> [@](#): > > I know of no version I would choose over a good .22 if I was shooting for score, for money, at a range. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807/100 "2003-09-12T13:12:28Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m trying to figure out how to respond to somebody who thinks an MP-5 is a good range rifle. Why? Because it’s fun, **Scylla**. I like shooting it. I have an enjoyable time with it. I do it not for accuracy or for competition or for skill, but for no other reason than that it makes me smile to flip the selector to full auto and spray a piece of paper with one to two second bursts of full auto fire. There are a lot of things people do for the sheer joy of it that have absolutely no practical purpose behind them. Why do people ride a ski lift up a mountain and then slide down it with sticks attached to their feet? Because they like to. Why do people pay nearly $200 to get into an airplane with a parachute on their back and then jump out? Because they like to. Why do I go to the range and shoot an MP-5? Because I like to. Did I ever say that I don’t use other guns at the range? I don’t recall that. I like to take **many different guns** to the range, each one of them for their own reasons, but some of them I take there not because it’s practical to practice with them, but just because they’re fun to shoot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lissener/200807.md?page=6)