To Arm or to Disarm.

[MightyMouse 12]

These "characters" are so tough, bad-azzes ............ on the net.

 

 

It really makes it not worth having a conversation.

[MightyMouse 12]

30 guns stolen in Greensboro burglaries | Piedmont - WXII Home

 

The article states that the guns were properly stored. Obviously the news source is afraid of ruffling the feathers of NRA members. How were they properly stored if they were stolen? Another case of an irresponsible law abiding gun owner making his guns available to criminals. Criminals will always have guns as long as there are dumb ass gun owning law abiding citizens.

[Tams 20]

gun ownership gives a fuzzy warm feeling to certain people...

because they naively believe that just because they have the gun,

they can have peace.

 

gun ownership gives a fuzzy warm feeling to certain people...

because they know that with the gun, they can violate you.

And they can do that before you can react. (eg. Sandy hook, NY firemen)

 

gun ownership gives a fuzzy warm feeling to certain people...

because they naively believe that it is their right (under god, constit, or watever).

they believe they must have guns, everything else does not matter.

Righteousness trumps everything.

You death is only an accidental inconvenience of a just cause.

[Patuca 13]

30 guns stolen in Greensboro burglaries | Piedmont - WXII Home

 

The article states that the guns were properly stored. Obviously the news source is afraid of ruffling the feathers of NRA members. How were they properly stored if they were stolen? Another case of an irresponsible law abiding gun owner making his guns available to criminals. Criminals will always have guns as long as there are dumb ass gun owning law abiding citizens.

criminals by definition are law breakers. another law will not stop them. guns will stop them. "dead" in their tracks. what about dumb ass law abiding golf club owners? dumb ass law abiding hammer owners? dumb ass law abiding car owners? hey lets just ban dumb asses. anybody want get in line? we can reserve a spot for you MM only if you like of course :rofl: :rofl: now why didn't i think of that before? ban all dumb asses and that will solve societies problems? :doh: oops ..don't think it will as some of these dumb asses actually have high IQ. maybe just ban all legal doctor prescribed meds and legalize all illegal drugs? that will for sure stop it...:doh: oops but then the smart asses (since dumb asses have been banned) will just get high on the illegal drugs and all become dumb asses which will have to be banned and it will be the end of the world. conclusion: banning brings about the end of the world. and playing golf..and driving cars..and carpenter work...:crap: sh$t not so sure this banning stuff will work.

[MightyMouse 12]

criminals by definition are law breakers. another law will not stop them. guns will stop them. "dead" in their tracks. what about dumb ass law abiding golf club owners? dumb ass law abiding hammer owners? dumb ass law abiding car owners? hey lets just ban dumb asses. anybody want get in line? we can reserve a spot for you MM only if you like of course :rofl: :rofl: now why didn't i think of that before? ban all dumb asses and that will solve societies problems? :doh: oops ..don't think it will as some of these dumb asses actually have high IQ. maybe just ban all legal doctor prescribed meds and legalize all illegal drugs? that will for sure stop it...:doh: oops but then the smart asses (since dumb asses have been banned) will just get high on the illegal drugs and all become dumb asses which will have to be banned and it will be the end of the world. conclusion: banning brings about the end of the world. and playing golf..and driving cars..and carpenter work...:crap: sh$t not so sure this banning stuff will work.

 

yes! Can medicine, golf clubs, and guns all be grouped together? We learn how to properly group items in kindergarten. Maybe NRA members should go back to kindergarten to learn to properly group items so that they can then have intelligent conversations.

[Patuca 13]

It was given that some yahoo would give this response. Nonsense, utter nonsense. I suppose on the internet, we can say anything we want; Intelligent conversations be damned.

 

Ask a Navy sniper if they would drop the gun or not and compare the answer to yours.

now what in the hell would you do? lay down your golf club and high tail it out of there? see grafic for deeper understanding.

[zdo 20]

Good morning suntrader

 

people are DYING....... and will continue to die as long as this country is swimming in guns and gun nutz ...

 

That thinking is wack... For humanoids, the 'murder rate' goes up and down but overall has been about the same for 12,000 years now. Maybe your assuming we've made some evolutionary leap... which we now need to really 'manifest' ... new age utopia would be nice... but realistically it's a time not here yet. "...swimming in guns and gun nutz" is not the real problem. Egos are the real problem. Whoops - that was too hard to follow...

 

You are also hard to follow...Seriously.

 

:haha: First, “follow” is not recommended…

but, if you insist, there is a how-to thread on how to ‘follow’ zdo posts.

It involves hallucinogens… seriously .

[Patuca 13]

yes! Can medicine, golf clubs, and guns all be grouped together? We learn how to properly group items in kindergarten. Maybe NRA members should go back to kindergarten to learn to properly group items so that they can then have intelligent conversations.

nonsense utter nonsense :rofl: :rofl::haha:

[Patuca 13]

These "characters" are so tough, bad-azzes ............ on the net.

 

better to be a good bad ass than a good dead ass :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: only a good bad ass can stop a bad bad ass. the others flee like chicken sh$t. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Edited January 31, 2013 by Patuca

[zdo 20]

It’s endemic in this thread for the gun grabbers to lump -

<the largest group, the millions of responsible gun owners, who seriously just have guns for self defense,

<the small, but to them still too large, group of less responsible gun owners (who might buy and sell guns to and from anyone)

<the weensty teensty bunch of bunker nutxs who hoard guns and occasionally feel threatened and go off,

<all kinds of 'dealers' who protect their inventory and territory with weapons.

<thieves who use violence to accomplish their ends.

<addicts who resort to guns to support their addictions.

<the criminally insane who ‘reach out and touch someone’ in classrooms with bullets

<the ‘_opaths who go around ‘creating’ and ‘attracting’ fights with the some other ‘nut’ who was also attracted to trouble… and if one or both happen to be carrying a gun…

<the tiny sample of normals who have latent underlying potential to go off and shoot…and do...

 

More accurate compilations and descriptions could be compiled I’m sure…

but point is – to our gun grabbers herein, ALL of the above is the new lunatic fringe!

(...which must be associated and vilified...) MM, unfortunately you did not "learn how to properly group items in kindergarten."

 

 

Their conjecture = If we do gooders could just get the guns out of the hands of the whole of them, all these horrible deaths would end. As needed, they’ll tone it down with “can’t prevent all murders of course, but many…” or ramp it back up with “if we could just prevent one of them it would be worth it” – but underlying virtually every to Disarm post in here is their one big single solution to what is really a multiple caused and layered ‘problem’. And underlying their every post and link is the implication that it’s really the first big group that is source and must be changed , eliminated …

With the wrong problem, it is doubtful they have any chance at the right solution.

 

They must sell the ‘lumped’ all together theory ala MM's “criminals will always have guns as long as there are dumb ass gun owning law abiding citizens.”, for their “it’s guns and violence” argument to hold any stability at all. I continue to resist this underlying ‘lumping’ , and the ‘single’ solution thinking herein...

Really - “The problem with gun violence is not the gun part. It's the violence part.”

"Violence may cause guns, but guns do not cause violence"

... yet they're attempting to force yet another allopathic 'solution'...

 

Get real, doods. You’re going to legislate away your new (and growing! – yikes) ‘lunatic fringe’? All I can say is - good luck :rofl:

 

“Gun laws should be federally mandated” v50… From the federal level? "Federal level" works better every time we try [snic] … we now have so many federal laws that they are now all (necessarily) selectively enforced (uh oh - via decisions rooted in politics and corruption). .. and you, vince50, break on ‘average’, 3 federal laws a day. You, vince50, are a criminal without even trying

 

…You guys need to seriously question how you’re identifying you’re ‘problem’ and where you’re putting your confidence and trust for ‘solutions’…

Edited January 31, 2013 by zdo

[MightyMouse 12]

It’s endemic in this thread for the gun grabbers to lump -

<the largest group, the millions of responsible gun owners, who seriously just have guns for self defense,

<the small, but to them still too large, group of less responsible gun owners (who might buy and sell guns to and from anyone)

<the weensty teensty bunch of bunker nutxs who hoard guns and occasionally feel threatened and go off,

<all kinds of 'dealers' who protect their inventory and territory with weapons.

<thieves who use violence to accomplish their ends.

<addicts who resort to guns to support their addictions.

<the criminally insane who ‘reach out and touch someone’ in classrooms with bullets

<the ‘_opaths who go around ‘creating’ and ‘attracting’ fights with the some other ‘nut’ who was also attracted to trouble… and if one or both happen to be carrying a gun…

<the tiny sample of normals who have latent underlying potential to go off and shoot…and do...

 

More accurate compilations and descriptions could be compiled I’m sure…

but point is – to our gun grabbers herein, ALL of the above is the new lunatic fringe!

(...which must be associated and vilified...) MM, unfortunately you did not "learn how to properly group items in kindergarten."

 

 

Their conjecture = If we do gooders could just get the guns out of the hands of the whole of them, all these horrible deaths would end. As needed, they’ll tone it down with “can’t prevent all murders of course, but many…” or ramp it back up with “if we could just prevent one of them it would be worth it” – but underlying virtually every to Disarm post in here is their one big single solution to what is really a multiple caused and layered ‘problem’. And underlying their every post and link is the implication that it’s really the first big group that is source and must be changed , eliminated …

With the wrong problem, it is doubtful they have any chance at the right solution.

 

They must sell the ‘lumped’ all together theory ala MM's “criminals will always have guns as long as there are dumb ass gun owning law abiding citizens.”, for their “it’s guns and violence” argument to hold any stability at all. I continue to resist this underlying ‘lumping’ , and the ‘single’ solution thinking herein...

Really - “The problem with gun violence is not the gun part. It's the violence part.”

"Violence may cause guns, but guns do not cause violence"

... yet they're attempting to force yet another allopathic 'solution'...

 

Get real, doods. You’re going to legislate away your new (and growing! – yikes) ‘lunatic fringe’? All I can say is - good luck :rofl:

 

“Gun laws should be federally mandated” v50… From the federal level? "Federal level" works better every time we try [snic] … we now have so many federal laws that they are now all (necessarily) selectively enforced (uh oh - via decisions rooted in politics and corruption). .. and you, vince50, break on ‘average’, 3 federal laws a day. You, vince50, are a criminal without even trying

 

…You guys need to seriously question how you’re identifying you’re ‘problem’ and where you’re putting your confidence and trust for ‘solutions’…

 

As with most laws, if you are a law abiding citizen, of sound mind and body, and in the case of guns, if you can tell the difference between a can of pesticide and a gun, then the laws will have no impact on you. In other words, you lose nothing. You will still be able to shoot your guns for fun, and they most certainly are fun, and you will be able to protect your castle.

 

Personally I don't want to have a gun drawn on me because I am arguing over a parking spot. Not sure how an argument over a parking spot can be considered a valid reason to draw a gun, but such is the case in many gun loving communities.

 

Hearing, over lunch, that someone is "packing a 380 and I always have it" with a tap on his pocket is a sign pride gone awry, but that is just me. Especially when you consider the community.

[zdo 20]

As with most laws, if you are a law abiding citizen, of sound mind and body, and in the case of guns, if you can tell the difference between a can of pesticide and a gun, then the laws will have no impact on you. In other words, you lose nothing. ..

 

Changing your tune a little bit ? Or are you just (temporarily) scurrying to cover up that you and yours have been lumping all these “sound mind and body”’s into the new lunatic fringe in most of your posts?

Piling on your new laws actually does have an impact on “me”. I would lose something. Yet such new laws really would be worthy of consideration if those laws did anything to stop any of the killings that got ya’ll so “suddenly upset” (or even any of the ones you still don’t give a sht about).

But those new laws WOULDN’T have ANY impact! They are just as likely to influence events for the worse!

Meanwhile, you and yours continue wishing, dreaming, hoping prohibition would suddenly turn some cultural corner for us…put a new big significant dent in those 11000 gun murders per year USD.

Sam Cohen nailed your philosophy of gun control 'improvements “Teenagers are roaring through town at 90 MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20."

You don’t even understand your ‘problems’, yet ya’ll think your allopathic ‘solutions’ will work .

I don’t.

 

 

...

Personally I don't want to have a gun drawn on me because I am arguing over a parking spot. Not sure how an argument over a parking spot can be considered a valid reason to draw a gun, but such is the case in many gun loving communities.

 

You are standing alone on this one. :haha: All the rest of us do want to have a gun drawn on us when arguing over a parking spot…[ sarc sarc ]

...And that didn't take long ... you're already back to Lumping again. Trying to associate "gun loving communities" with the individual "_opaths" that in the real world live in all the different 'kinds of communities'

 

If you really had new laws to alleviate the ‘problem’ of “ ‘_opaths who go around ‘creating’ and ‘attracting’ fights with the some other ‘_opath who was also attracted to trouble… and if one or both happen to be carrying a gun”, laws that would immediately eliminate almost all of those 11000 murders per year, you’d ‘have the votes’ in the senate by now [snik]… but, Lord help us, you may even be less realistic than they are.

The redneck Robert Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society.". Check it. In the real regular world where all pro-gun people - law abiding, criminal, crazy, and…etc - are not so all LUMPed together like you grabbers would like, “an armed parking lot is a polite parking lot” …

 

 

Hearing, over lunch, that someone is "packing a 380 and I always have it" with a tap on his pocket is a sign pride gone awry, but that is just me. ....

No that’s not just you. That is a sign that actually more than pride has gone awry. Still, your fear really goes no where – unless you do mistakenly believe those "someones" are a way high % of the gun murderers in this country... when in reality, those “someones” are just compensating - not killing classrooms of children, or you, or victimizing anyone else. Wouldn’t you know it? You’re really back to Lumping again… and meanwhile your arguments still carry that Tamlike tone of

"Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."

 

Originally Posted by zdo »

It’s endemic in this thread for the gun grabbers to lump -

<the largest group, the millions of responsible gun owners, who seriously just have guns for self defense,

<the small, but to them still too large, group of less responsible gun owners (who might buy and sell guns to and from anyone)

<the weensty teensty bunch of bunker nutxs who hoard guns and occasionally feel threatened and go off,

<all kinds of 'dealers' who protect their inventory and territory with weapons.

<thieves who use violence to accomplish their ends.

<addicts who resort to guns to support their addictions.

<the criminally insane who ‘reach out and touch someone’ in classrooms with bullets

<the ‘_opaths who go around ‘creating’ and ‘attracting’ fights with the some other ‘nut’ who was also attracted to trouble… and if one or both happen to be carrying a gun…

<the tiny sample of normals who have latent underlying potential to go off and shoot…and do...

 

More accurate compilations and descriptions could be compiled I’m sure…

but point is – to our gun grabbers herein, ALL of the above is the new lunatic fringe!

(...which must be associated and vilified...) MM, unfortunately you did not "learn how to properly group items in kindergarten."

 

 

Their conjecture = If we do gooders could just get the guns out of the hands of the whole of them, all these horrible deaths would end. As needed, they’ll tone it down with “can’t prevent all murders of course, but many…” or ramp it back up with “if we could just prevent one of them it would be worth it” – but underlying virtually every to Disarm post in here is their one big single solution to what is really a multiple caused and layered ‘problem’. And underlying their every post and link is the implication that it’s really the first big group that is source and must be changed , eliminated …

With the wrong problem, it is doubtful they have any chance at the right solution.

 

They must sell the ‘lumped’ all together theory ala MM's “criminals will always have guns as long as there are dumb ass gun owning law abiding citizens.”, for their “it’s guns and violence” argument to hold any stability at all. I continue to resist this underlying ‘lumping’ , and the ‘single’ solution thinking herein...

Really - “The problem with gun violence is not the gun part. It's the violence part.”

"Violence may cause guns, but guns do not cause violence"

... yet they're attempting to force yet another allopathic 'solution'...

 

Get real, doods. You’re going to legislate away your new (and growing! – yikes) ‘lunatic fringe’? All I can say is - good luck

 

“Gun laws should be federally mandated” v50… From the federal level? "Federal level" works better every time we try [snic] … we now have so many federal laws that they are now all (necessarily) selectively enforced (uh oh - via decisions rooted in politics and corruption). .. and you, vince50, break on ‘average’, 3 federal laws a day. You, vince50, are a criminal without even trying

 

…You guys need to seriously question how you’re identifying you’re ‘problem’ and where you’re putting your confidence and trust for ‘solutions’…

[MightyMouse 12]

Changing your tune a little bit ? Or are you just (temporarily) scurrying to cover up that you and yours have been lumping all these “sound mind and body”’s into the new lunatic fringe in most of your posts?

 

I have held all along that if you are a law abiding gun owner you should have nothing to worry about if new laws are created.

 

I suppose I could be called a lunatic for wanting people to be responsible with their guns, but only a madman would call me a lunatic, rendering it meaningless

Piling on your new laws actually does have an impact on “me”. I would lose something. Yet such new laws really would be worthy of consideration if those laws did anything to stop any of the killings that got ya’ll so “suddenly upset” (or even any of the ones you still don’t give a sht about).

If the new laws prevent you from acting irresponsibly with your guns, it will be a positive impact on you and the well being of your family. The bigger risk of your family hurting itself with your guns would diminish. You are more likely to die from a handgun if you own a handgun, but that's a stat you won't believe since it is not on the NRA website, but you will spout the choking stats of people who eat peanut-butter without milk and offer it as a valid comparison in a conversation about guns.

 

If the new laws do not prevent anyone from acting irresponsibly with their firearms, then I agree that they would be pointless. Unfortunately, the NRA has its nose everywhere and protects the profits of its supporters so there is a very good chance that safety will lose to the thirst for profits. It is awesome how the NRA has recruited so many to help it protect the profits of its constituents and awesome at how many citizens are willing to gulp from its toxic stream of bullshit.

 

I do live with a constant reminder of the tragic event that occurred in Newtown. You can bet on that and repeat the fact as much as you like.

 

 

...And that didn't take long ... you're already back to Lumping again. Trying to associate "gun loving communities" with the individual "_opaths" that in the real world live in all the different 'kinds of communities'

 

 

Texas is a gun loving state. You should know this. Everyone knows this. Is it bad to state something that is true? People do draw guns and and fight over parking spaces. is that not true too? Am I a lunatic for stating something that is true? In a state where there are more guns than normal, wouldn't you expect that there would be guns drawn more often when there is a parking space in dispute? Sure the boogie man is a concern, but fuck me if I have to walk an extra 15 feet when I saw the parking space first.

 

Sorry, ZDO, I do not live in fear. Maybe if I was more fearful, I would see the need to protect gun owners rights to leave guns all over the place to be easily stolen or to be improperly sold, falling into the wrong hands.

 

Smart boy, though, avoid the tough questions and go for the low hanging fruit.

[SunTrader 10]

Good morning suntrader

 

 

 

That thinking is wack... For humanoids, the 'murder rate' goes up and down but overall has been about the same for 12,000 years now. Maybe your assuming we've made some evolutionary leap... which we now need to really 'manifest' ... new age utopia would be nice... but realistically it's a time not here yet. "...swimming in guns and gun nutz" is not the real problem. Egos are the real problem. Whoops - that was too hard to follow...

 

 

 

:haha: First, “follow” is not recommended…

but, if you insist, there is a how-to thread on how to ‘follow’ zdo posts.

It involves hallucinogens… seriously .

 

So the murder rate of Chicago is normal these days?

 

Hallucinogens - that s'plains it.

[MightyMouse 12]

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

 

Zdo, patuca, and shoot first and ask questions latter samatrix conclusion would be that since criminals are going to get guns anyway, we shouldn't change the laws. We should arm everyone to protect against the criminals.

 

Removing the reasons to commit crimes with guns should be a priority, reducing the sources of supply of illegal guns should also be a priority.

 

The fact is that the more guns owners we have and the more gun dealers we have, then more guns will fall into criminals hands if we have the same laws.. Ever think of that connection?

 

Which means that if there are more criminals, then you are going to get robbed and raped, not once but twice, so you need more ammunition and guns. Yes there are going to be more boogie men. Shit, with all these guns, you might even get a boogie woman showing up too. Make sure you have clean drawers on that night; it would be embarrassing if a boogie woman came to shoot you and you are wearing soiled underpants.

[zdo 20]

So the murder rate of Chicago is normal these days?

 

 

no the murder rate in chitown is not 'normal' these days...

are you hinting that the murder rate would be much more 'normal' if even stricter gun restrictions, permit hoops to jump through, etc etc. than they currently have were imposed - in some weird hope it will turn their tide. ?

 

Maybe in your case you prefer the gov’t just use modern 'samurai' with the best military grade assault weapons Sword hunt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia style - (but, of course, only [if only] to keep guns away from the law abiding people - because somehow keeping guns away from the law abiding people would keep killers from getting weapons. whoops...that ends up with killing to stop the killing. Is that ok with you too?)

 

Either way you’re on a steep slope – your ‘solutions’ are risking even more trouble and loss and suffering and death…

You’re making the same philosophical errors all alllopaths do

 

...obviously you haven’t done the hallucinogens yet …explains why you can't 'follow'

[zdo 20]

MightyMouse

re:

I have held all along that if you are a law abiding gun owner you should have nothing to worry about if new laws are created.

I know you have held that all along. I have held all along that more new laws realistically will not help with what you want to help… and certainly not in this day and age.

 

I suppose I could be called a lunatic for wanting people to be responsible with their guns,

I haven’t called you a ‘lunatic’ – yet . So far, I’ve just questioned your “low hanging” and your high hanging thinking…

 

If the new laws prevent you from acting irresponsibly with your guns, it will be a positive impact on you and the well being of your family. The bigger risk of your family hurting itself with your guns would diminish. You are more likely to die from a handgun if you own a handgun, but that's a stat you won't believe since it is not on the NRA website, but you will spout the choking stats of people who eat peanut-butter without milk and offer it as a valid comparison in a conversation about guns.

 

If the new laws do not prevent anyone from acting irresponsibly with their firearms, then I agree that they would be pointless.

I am assuming HIGH and consistent implicit responsibility among the millions of human gun owners. I am assuming that we can legislate some consequences for those for whom natural consequences ‘are not enough’, but that that we really cannot legislate more responsibility. I am assuming more, new - incremental or extreme – laws would not ‘move’ responsibility in a way significant enough to offset the costs and risks to individual liberties, etc. In trading vernacular, I am assuming that more legal controls in ‘exchange traded’ derivatives / guns will not alter undersirable behaviors in non-regulated/dark market, off exchange derivatives / guns trading.

 

You seem to be assuming LOW and unreliable implicit responsibility among millions of human gun owners. You seem to be assuming that natural consequences ‘are never enough’ and that we can legislate significantly shifts to more responsibility. You are assuming more, new - incremental or extreme – laws would ‘move’ responsibility in a way significant enough to offset the costs and risks to individual liberties, etc. In trading vernacular, it appears you are assuming that more control in ‘exchange traded’ derivatives / guns will alter undersirable behaviors in non-regulated/dark market, off exchange derivatives / guns trading.

 

 

Texas is a gun loving state. You should know this. Everyone knows this. Is it bad to state something that is true? People do draw guns and and fight over parking spaces. is that not true too? Am I a lunatic for stating something that is true? In a state where there are more guns than normal, wouldn't you expect that there would be guns drawn more often when there is a parking space in dispute?

Good lord man you really are “lumping” - worse than I thought at first . While historically "Texas is a gun loving state.”, metro Texas is just about as ‘gun controlly’ as any metro's in other states like NY… the stereotypes are largely projection... lumping at work...

Let's unlump it just a little -

It is the individual ‘opaths’ who live in all places that are likely to pull a pistol "over a parking space" or a "breaking into line" or a ... be it TX, OR, NJ, OH, or … you're not 'statisticlly safer in nice NE...

It is not the gun count. It is the ‘_opath’ count.

 

I do live with a constant reminder of the tragic event that occurred in Newtown. You can bet on that

I know and you have my empathies.

But, we can also bet on, as William S. Burroughs, another dumb, reckless, shoot first redneck, commented

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.

and they before they take the guns way from the people who didn't do it, they have to somehow 'make' the people who didn't do it "responsible"... you are helping them with that part... may the good lord bless your heart and heal your head.

[zdo 20]

 

...

The fact is that the more guns owners we have and the more gun dealers we have, then more guns will fall into criminals hands if we have the same laws.. Ever think of that connection?

 

Which means that if there are more criminals ...

 

You just argued that Guns - Cause - Criminals.

Maybe you actually believe that… I doubt it.

But that same faulty 'logic' is embedded and utilized in about ¾ of your posts in this thread.

 

I respect your intentions. But your premises and 'logics' need to be examined. ...makes all your 'symptom reduction' solutions suspect too.

 

At this point, I'm not arguing with the outright gun prohibitionists as much as I am arguing with you. You're hoping for 'improvements' from the 'balanced middle' ...incremental 'improvements' in forcing "responsibility" and that will magically result in killers haviing radically reduced access to guns. Meanwhile - the 'reasonable middle' you have come to (love and) trust so deeply, is accelerating its dissipation - right before our very eyes ( if we dare look).

 

...Meanwhile, in the real world, fewer guns and legislated "responsibility" would not result in fewer crimes anywhere near the extent you are trying to convince us they would...

Edited February 1, 2013 by zdo

[MightyMouse 12]

You just argued that Guns - Cause - Criminals.

Maybe you actually believe that… I doubt it.

But that same faulty 'logic' is embedded and utilized in about ¾ of your posts in this thread.

 

I respect your intentions. But your premises and 'logics' need to be examined. ...makes all your 'symptom reduction' solutions suspect too.

 

At this point, I'm not arguing with the outright gun prohibitionists as much as I am arguing with you. You're hoping for 'improvements' from the 'balanced middle' ...incremental 'improvements' in forcing "responsibility" and that will magically result in killers haviing radically reduced access to guns. Meanwhile - the 'reasonable middle' you have come to (love and) trust so deeply, is accelerating its dissipation - right before our very eyes ( if we dare look).

 

...Meanwhile, in the real world, fewer guns and legislated "responsibility" would not result in fewer crimes anywhere near the extent you are trying to convince us they would...

 

I never stated that guns cause criminals. No post of mine implies that by any means. Only a very deliberate misread could come up with such nonsense.

 

The more guns that are manufactured, the more guns are sold and the more guns end up in the hands of the wrong people. The criminals were criminals before they had the guns. They can now shoot instead of swat at or spray someone with pesticide.They are more lethal with guns. Would you say they are more lethal? Would it make some sense to decrease the "lethalness" of criminals so that they don't miss and kill innocent people during their crimes?

 

Are you going to argue that guns are not lethal?

 

By your brilliance, a gun, hammer, and can of pesticide can all kill and, ala NRA, should all be grouped together. Then, why don't you protect yourself from the boogie man with pesticide?

[MightyMouse 12]

If you are going to equate gun ownership to freedom, then I suppose it boils down to this:

 

Would you let one innocent person be killed in order to let millions of others be free?

[Patuca 13]

Is this working?

 

Mexico vigilantes bring 'charges' against 53 - Yahoo! News

Edited February 2, 2013 by Patuca

[zdo 20]

I never stated that guns cause criminals. No post of mine implies that by any means.

 

If I find time, I will find examples …

For other readers, though… it appears you are most likely to harden and entrench your positions even more…

 

The more guns that are manufactured, the more guns are sold and the more guns end up in the hands of the wrong people. The criminals were criminals before they had the guns. They can now shoot instead of swat at or …

 

Guns are lethal.

 

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

 

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

 

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.

Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

 

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

 

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

 

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.

These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job.

 

That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

 

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

 

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

 

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

 

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

 

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.

It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

 

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

 

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

 

 

Would it make some sense to decrease the "lethalness" of criminals

Sure it would make ‘sense’ – if it would work in the real world.

You’re thinking it is possible to decrease their "lethalness". I don’t.

You seem to be saying we can significantly decrease supply in the dark, unregulated market by decreasing supply in the regulated market… enough to move the dangerous criminals and ‘murder statistics’ significantly ... ( and btw, worldwide ‘murder statistics’ has very ‘iffy’ correlations with ‘supply’ (or ‘demand’) of lethal weapons )

 

As the article above points out – sometimes “force” takes the “reasoning”options off the table. To be ready for that, it’s actually better – one more time, in the real world for EVERYONE who chooses it, to be ready to match force with force... even in the 'modern' , urban, 'civil' world, MM...

"Save a life, teach a woman to shoot."

 

I acknowledge and accept the risks that someone may steal my weapons and use them with force over others or even kill someone else. If you cannot accept that risk, then by all means, stay Disarmed.

 

 

 

 

If you are going to equate gun ownership to freedom, then I suppose it boils down to ...

First, I don't "equate" gun ownership with freedom. One aspect of 'liberty' is an inherent right to defense of family and self.

"... shall not be infringed" was part of an experiment in rule of law... that experiment is over... for now.

For you, MM, you can choose not to bring parity into any imposed force defense of your family and self, if you like...

But when you start playing silly games with my choices and others' choices, let's get this straight! -

"Molon labe!"

 

Would you let one innocent person be killed in order to let millions of others be free?

 

It can’t boil down to that – because in the real world there is no way we could set up the situation where killing one person could assure the freedom of millions. Even as sharp as you are MM, any 'practical' attempts you could devise in your head to accomplish such would also carry high probabilities of backfiring bigtime... a risk you don't seem to want to acknowledge.

(

...and what happens to 'traders' who and 'systems' that don't acknowledge risks ???

:helloooo:

)

Please boil it down some more… or maybe just move over to one of the other beakers on the heat … but stay away from the one that possibly has pesticides in it

Interesting you keep wacking away at something I said about pesticides when discussing risks… instead of discussing the underlying assumptions I recently brought up that each of us seems to be carrying into this... or discussing…

 

(however - for silliness and for the readers' sake - since you have started using the term repeatedly, if you have time you might define what you mean by "boogie man". Does a 'boogie man' have any superhuman, satanic powers, etc, etc ?

thx.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Those that give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." gun nutzy redneck, Benjamin Franklin … a man who for the most part CHOSE to walk about unarmed… while simultaneously staying real , in the ‘laws’, and in plain ole common sense for those who CHOSE to be able to defend themselves against “force”

[Vince50 10]

Mouse you said this: Originally Posted by MightyMouse »

I never stated that guns cause criminals. No post of mine implies that by any means.

 

 

I think you are closer to the truth than you realize. First of all, I notice one thing on this board. Those that are pro-gun concede nothing, and those that are not do concede sometimes. This is very scary.

 

But back to mighty mouse. If you put a roomful of 40 children of all ages in a cabin in the woods for 2 years as a learning experiment. They would go to a nearby school, be allowed 2 hours of playtime,all supervised by adults, but the rest of their time must be spent in a cabin.The older kids would then become "supervisors." (This by the way is the "normal" way most inner city and many middle aged kids are brought up today,no? Now we break this in half. We have 2 cabins.....One cabin is filled with machetes,sex crime movies on TV, different lethal chemicals clearly marked POISON, bowie knives neatly stacked in a draw, books on how to make explosives all over the place, and the materials to do it there as well. Now lets add in a few loaded pistols and revolvers all in a paper bag in the closet.Throw in some normal things such as board games,footballs,and other fun stuff too.

 

Now lets go to cabin#2-There are none of the above items. There are guitars, violins,a piano, books on reaching your goals for the older ones and toddler books with pictures for the little ones. there is nourishing healthy food already prepared sitting in the fridge.The TV only has wholesome sitcoms we had as kids like Gilligans Island, Sanford and son, I dream of Jeannie, Hawaii 5-0,etc, and also board games and the usual kids fun stuff.

 

Now I say that no matter how you divide the 20 kids to each cabin up, the cabin with the guns and other lethal items WILL DEFINITELY BE USED! Even if you skewed the experiment and put all the "good" kids in the cabin with no guns and explosives and all the bad kids in the cabin with wholesome tv shows and no lethal items.

 

WHY? For those of you that are not parents,the answer is this...kids do things, for the same reason climbers climb mountains-"because its there". I SAY AVAILABILITY OF GUNS IS DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO THE USE OF GUNS. PERIOD! Anyone who doubts me, I would wager my life savings that if we posed this question to a panel of experts who know the answer, they would concur. Mighty mouse had it right ,just didnt realize he was standing on the truth all along.

 

For those that dont agree,I will provide further proof:why when you buy a new gun is there fervent, almost pleading in the instruction manual to keep the gun lock always on the gun and the gun in a gun safe or far out of the reach of and i quote "Children and irresponsible adults." Why is that iuncluded if we can depend on responsible people to be responsible around guns?

 

I see I need to go a step futher. Put 20 married men who have never cheated on their wives, aged 35-45(mature enough,yes? in a cabin for 1 year. However in the cabin are 20 very horny and sexy women who were hired for this experiment,sort of like a candid camera thing.

I AM BETTING LONG BEFORE THE YEAR IS UP, 19 OUT OF 20 MEN CHEAT ON THEIR WIVES.WHY? BECAUSE ITS THERE!

 

So the answer to every single post on this thread is this: "Yes the gun will eventually be used by someone. Why? Because its there."

 

Disclaimer: I am a gun owner and have a concealed weapon permit.

[Vince50 10]

Mr. LaPierre’s comments drew a sharp rebuke from Carol Foyler, a politician-control advocate who has spent the past twelve years lobbying for stricter limits on the sale of politicians.

 

“Right now, a man like Wayne LaPierre can walk right into Congress and buy any politician he wants,” she said. “There’s no background check, no waiting period. And so hundreds of politicians are falling into the hands of people who are unstable and, quite frankly, dangerous.”

 

 

Mitsubishi, you posted the above. What scares me is if those quotes are actually true, all you have to do is take out the word politician, put in the word prostitute,young girls, women,etc and someone would think we are talking about a white slavery or extortion ring!

 

I havent looked into your post...yet. But if this is actually posted word for word in a well known magazine, Im stunned we dont have rioting in the streets as well as a presidential and/or senate investigation that would make Watergate look like Disneyworld!

 

I also am assuming by the silence on this thread about it, no one can believe their eyes.Or is this too much information for most to grasp. This is one of the most important posts on this thread!!!! Something is not quite right in The land of Oz, is it Dorothy?

[Tams 20]