You want the violence to stop. How wonderful for you. I want it to stop, too. However, I must insist that that happen through criminals renouncing their criminal ways.
And their spokesman won’t even come to the bargaining table!
In other news, Man shot during altercation with truck driver who had just towed his car
I wonder if the driver called the police on his way there.
And just when you felt that too few guns were getting into too few American hands, along comes the answer to your prayers - a home shopping channel for guns. Gun TV will premiere in 2016.
“My gut reaction is that it’s the last thing that we need.” The last time we let someone dictate policy based on their gut, we got George W. Bush, lady.
I literally have no idea what you are saying.
I am saying that criminals must change their ways if the violence is to end, not honest citizens who own guns.
Do you mean this on a practical level or a theoretical level? I mean, clearly if I pressed a magic button and every gun in the US vanished, then there would be no more gun violence without criminals changing their ways.
And does “old criminals die off and the next generation contains far fewer criminals due to vastly better public schools and less poverty” count as “criminals must change their ways”?
I guess I’m puzzled where your stated position actually fits in when it comes to practical proposals and ideas.
In practical terms, there is an endless supply of criminals. Honest citizens surrendering their most effective means of defense will neither eliminate criminals nor gentle them. Eliminate weapons and all you do is clear the way for the physically strong or the numerous to do what they wish to their chosen victims. Remember, there were murderers, rapists, and robbers long before there were guns.
I want laws that force criminals to change their ways. Do you?
Obviously, we alrwady have such. Now you tell me, if you force me to turn in my dad’s .38 or one of my old service pistols, how will that stop the violence?
Stronger background checks do not lead to confiscation.
Finding one? It was not only obvious but the only conclusion I can see that anyone can draw. You, as an anti-gun proponent, come into a thread whose purpose is to highlight incidents where gun ownership has allowed people to fend off people who would otherwise have raped, robbed, beaten, strangled, tortured and/or killed someone and start going on about how it isn’t the fault of criminals that they’re the way they are, it’s the fault of the racist society they grew up in. And seeing that you advocate the elimination or limited use of guns and are presumably arguing in their behalf, what other conclusion is there to draw other than you think people should be willing to give up (or be denied) the guns they use to defend themselves from criminals because it isn’t the criminals’ fault.
Not sure what this means. Certainly I’ve laid the blame for a fair amount of criminality in the past on certain things liberals have done that I think exacerbates it, but in this thread I’m merely advocating that people should be free to own and use guns to protect themselves.
You may find this hard to believe but I do too. The difference between us appears to be that I want it to stop coming from those who commit it rather than those who use it to defend themselves against others who were violent (or threatening) first. In other words my solution to ending violence doesn’t involve standing there helplessly with my hands at my side while someone pounds my face until they either get what they want or grow tired and move on. If the violence is going to stop, doesn’t it make sense that the guy who initiates it should be the one whose behavior gets stopped, rather than that of the of person defending him/herself from it?
I’ve never said you condone violence. On the contrary it appears to me you object to the use of violence even against someone who’s being violent to you first. I’ve also never said “BAD GUYS BAD” nor used that as an answer to violence. But be that as it may you’re really talking about two different things here. Yes, societal changes have to occur in order to address the conditions that lead to people becoming criminals. But once they’ve already become criminals and are threatening or attacking you, that’s a completely different kettle of fish and has to be dealt with in a different way.
So fine, work to try to eliminate the societal conditions that lead to criminality, but be realistic and acknowledge that once someone crosses the line into threatening or trying to commit violence against someone else then all bets are off and the innocent person has to the right to defend him/herself with violence in order to put a stop to the threat.
Part of solving a problem lies in assessing blame for what’s causing it. I’m fine with and actually support solving the problems that lead to crime. But once crime is occurring it’s time to throw all that out the window and defend yourself. Otherwise you and your family may no longer be around to try to achieve any more societal crime fighting.
The two San Bernardino shooters passed all sorts of background checks, including the vetting of the woman who immigrated from Pakistan, and all their weapons were purchased legally.
Plus many on the side of stronger background checks are really trying to work toward eventual bannination. And we all know it. Once you start letting the government decide the terms under which people are allowed to purchase guns you also put the power in its hands to start coming up with ways to deny people the ability to do so. If people on the left were not so strongly anti-gun and had had a more sincere desire all along to regulate gun ownership along the same lines as automobile ownership and driver’s licenses there would have been much less pushback from the pro-gun side. But just like we know Obamacare is a foot in the door to what many hope will eventually be single-payer health care, government gun regulation is a foot in the door to eventual elimination…and of course the only ones that will be eliminated are those belonging to those who feel compelled to follow the law. So guess who winds up with all the guns then?
The rifles were purchased legally, but not by the terrorists.. That is why we need stronger background checks, so terrorists cannot buy guns legally.
Blah, blah blah. What tiresome conspiracy theories. “Gundamentalists want easy access to guns so they can overthrow the government.” See? I can play too!
Exactly. You and Starving Artist don’t actually want the violence to stop. You want it to stop in a particular way that smacks of magical thinking.
Me, I want it to stop, and I’m willing to look at why people are making the violent choices they’re making, and whether there’s something we can do to influence those choices more effectively than what we’re doing now. I don’t give a crap whether the criminals feel all bad and repentant and shit, whether they don sackcloth or praise Jesus or whatever. I want it to stop, full stop.
That’s the difference. You want righteousness. I don’t.
On second thought, I should have read further. I appreciate your acknowledgment that solving underlying social ills is critical (although we absolutely disagree on the social ills that need remedying–I think there’s a centuries-old crisis of violence in white culture, you don’t).
In that vein, let me point out that I have never, here or elsewhere, suggested that the use of lethal force in self-defense against the threat of lethal force is wrong. I have no problem with someone who shoots a probably-lethal attacker. We might quibble on some details, but the underlying principle, that you can shoot your attacker if you need to in order to survive, is something we agree on. So don’t project that caricature onto me.
Frankly, I’ m not sure what you want. Your posts are a melange of glitter, wishful thinking, and plain old bullshit. At this point, I don’t even disagree with you because your position doesn’t make enough sense for me to do that.
The weltanschauung of true believers doesn’t allow for that kind of thinking. At all. There is no distinction to be made, there are no good guys. You can catch this in the verbiage used in news stories once you know what to look for, usually almost content free, third person twice removed kind of stuff aka “mistakes were made” language. Language matters, the narrative.
The perpetrator of an armed robbery, for example, will often be described as “the victim” if he is shot in the course of the crime.