To Arm or to Disarm.

[Tams 20]

[MightyMouse 12]

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.

 

First off, I would choose to be in cabin 2 as a kid. Sounds more exciting.

 

Secondly, I am 51 and have been married for 20 years and have met, worked with, and been tempted by a lot of good looking girls and have never cheated. Me having sex with someone gives someone complete control over the future direction of my life. No one gets that control and I am certainly not going to trade it for a 3 minute impulse. 3 minutes is being boastful.

 

Vince most murders are committed by friends, family, and acquaintances. Stats have been about 80% ( of all murders are from F,F,and A) for a long time. Changing gun laws would only marginally decrease the number of deaths in the friends family and acquaintances group. I read somewhere a long time before this debate that crimes of passion are impossible to control and it made sense. The other 20% that get murdered, would likely be the most impacted by a change in gun laws simply because it is harder to kill someone without a gun. It is more difficult to mistakenly kill an unintended target without a gun. In my mind any improvement is a move in the right direction.

 

A gun will be used when there is a reason for it to be used. The reason can be rational or irrational. Adam Lanza, Son of Sam, the columbine kids, ,someone defending themselves, a target shooter, a hunter, a thief, and a drug addict needing money right away all have reasons to use a gun.

 

I suspect the rational and irrational reasons in the above list are evident and agreeable to both pro and con gun control people on this thread. What is not agreeable is the solutions to keep guns out of the hands of the irrational persons who have access to guns either legally or illegally obtained.

 

Adding guns is a crazy solution authored by individuals who have a stake in the supply of guns. Banning all guns is impossible and not anything I have ever suggested either. I also don't ever think our govt will overthrow us by force so needing guns for that reason seems somewhat surreal, but persons a long time ago who were a lot more experienced in such matters and smarter than I made it a law and I have no desire to chop up a law simply because the threat does not appear to exist today.

 

Living near Newtown and driving through it everyday is a constant reminder that something has to give. These people, as a community, are in agony. Decent people do not need to lose their rights and should not be threatened by an attempt to improve safety of innocent people.

[SunTrader 10]

Mr. LaPierre’s comments drew a sharp rebuke from Carol Foyler, a politician-control advocate who ........

 

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?

Google Andy Borowitz. I already knew who he is but I google everytime when I'm not aware of the source or validity of something.

 

"Truth is stranger than fiction" and vice versa and sometimes one and the same.

 

BTW I was silent till now because I just read it - a little thing called trading .... and life gets in the way sometimes.

[Vince50 10]

[Mouse, what is happening in Newtown that they are in such agony. You are quite correct in what you say about those stats. Im just saying the other 20% and thats millions over a decade....can be lowered with rational thinking...not just stats and NRA controlled politicians who make speaches but never declare if the NRA supports them in any way.....or worse,if they support the NRA! the NRA needs to be disbanded the same as the NAACP. Both had a use............. at one time. Now both are money machines. In fact, I think every politician supporting them should be investigated if not impeached. Id settle for investigate. They dont impeach politicians anymore,do they mouse? -)

 

GREAT POST!

 

And yes, I am a gun owner, albeit a rational one. And no, I have not taken any loans on my house to buy ammo or weapons, and no I do not have any idea how to survive in the woods.:crap:

[Vince50 10]

 

 

love that photo and sign. Priceless! Is the girl single? I'll take a six pack. And she goes to a range too? Great, lets set the date for june 1st. lol

[Tams 20]

[zdo 20]

Reducing the “lethalness of criminals” is a quality aim that appeals to all of us (except maybe S&Mtrx ;) )

 

 

 

 

AVAILABILITY OF GUNS IS DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO THE USE OF GUNS.

Vince50

 

Actually, that’s not really saying much – especially to this issue. Availability of anything is correlated to the quantity of its use. That can be generalized.

But, in many of the to Disarms arguments ( and sometimes To Arms’ too ) we see 'availability' magically being spread to the qualities of use and then, with even more magic, on to a separate axis of ‘intentions’.

Jumping axis then acting / arguing ‘as if’ we didn’t is faking it … let’s not let people get away with that on either side of this argument.

 

Humans and individual variability in propensity to use force.

 

Even if you did thousands of cabins with your scenarios, I hold that the important variable would not be the count and availability of lethal objects. The variable that would far overshadow supply of lethal objects would be the distribution / occurrence and variable severity of INDIVIDUALS who would readily resort to force that got dropped into these ‘cabins’.

It is the counts/distributions of those who would go over the threshold in their propensity of using force to get what they want PLUS the count of those in the cabins who would resist the use of force over them that would be the extremely superior ‘predictor’ of “USE” of objects as weapons.

 

This is just more of the accumulating pile of prepositions we’re subjected to in this thread – actually this whole forum - that simply don’t transfer to the real world. Misused statistics, alternated with inflammatory ‘reports’ of individual atrocious isolated events wheeled out in support, etc. etc. etc. don't get at the real issues and don’t describe or account for the ‘guitar cabins’ that happened to get members who would resort to violence. They also try to omit ‘via pretend scenarios’, how many guitars would get smashed over heads in perping and in self defense in the 'art supply cabins'. A few of us, at least, would hope that the available ‘art’ objects in those ‘cabins’ would be functionally ‘misused’ in self defense, lethally if necessary, to vanquish the ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals who got dropped into that ‘cabin’ … even if it did shatter MM's already "suddenly upset" dreams and hopes for significantly fewer ‘incident reports’ and lower “USE” statistics from the ‘art supplies cabins’.

 

So, using examples of utopia like isolated ‘cabins in the woods’ world where weapons are not ‘needed’, are only illustrative if you could possibly control for the ‘propensity to violence’ individuals. MM and those who lik his posts. are focused only on trying to control for access to ‘ready lethality’ instead of focusing on the realities of ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals. But, in reality, if you could set up a huge, significant sample of such 'cabins', here’s what you would end up with:

In both the ‘lethal objects’ cabins and the ‘artsy’ cabins, the ones with quantities of ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals will have more violent force episodes, and tragically, deaths

AND the ones where those where the ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals win will continue to have more violence, and tragically, deaths

AND the ones where the ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals are defeated/eliminated will revert to low violence and, thankfully, fewer tragic deaths.

 

… really the only redeeming feature of these isolated ('prison'? / ) ‘cabin’ pretend world ‘examples’ is that they illustrate even less outside ‘intervention’ than is available in 20,000 + laws and in a 911 call with a 10 to 120 minute waiting period…

 

Since they apparently feel helpless in controlling for the randomlike appearances of ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals that show up in (and in between) ‘cabins’ in the real world, MM and co. mistakenly thinks, and posts and posts and posts, that controlling for the lethality of objects will ‘do something, anything!’… while all along…

By Far, the most effective way to reduce the “lethalness of criminals” is to increase the lethalness of their potential victims.

Match criminals' threats as effectively / as closely as possible and their "USE" will go way down!

 

It's not just you Vince. All of us have to be careful and not get sucked into the reactive brain games... especially when those games can be "USED", then denied with a simple " I never... "

 

 

 

 

 

"The irony is, if you're willing to kill a perpetrator, you probably won't have to." Massad Ayoob

Edited February 4, 2013 by zdo

[SIUYA 11]

 

Humans and individual variability in propensity to use force.

 

Even if you did thousands of cabins with your scenarios, I hold that the important variable would not be the count and availability of lethal objects. The variable that would far overshadow supply of lethal objects would be the distribution / occurrence and variable severity of INDIVIDUALS who would readily resort to force that got dropped into these ‘cabins’.

.............

In both the ‘lethal objects’ cabins and the ‘artsy’ cabins, the ones with quantities of ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals will have more violent force episodes, and tragically, deaths

AND the ones where those where the ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals win will continue to have more violence, and tragically, deaths

AND the ones where the ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals are defeated/eliminated will revert to low violence and, thankfully, fewer tragic deaths.

 

So basically humans are inherently violent - or those that are are willing to use any force necessary/available regardless of the rules....

If so, then would it still not be better to reduce the number of options available to them - in an ideal world - all of them.....including governments.....

 

OR does this only apply to a select few - ie; those in the USA.

Extend this to the rest of the world.

Extend this to those communities who feel they are being attacked - are they not also allowed to arm themselves to protect themselves from those who they percieve as aggressors OR are actively being attacked. Do you support their rights as humans as well?

 

Or is this a leap too far -- the fantasy of one side

 

 

… really the only redeeming feature of these isolated ('prison'? / ) ‘cabin’ pretend world ‘examples’ is that they illustrate even less outside ‘intervention’ than is available in 20,000 + laws and in a 911 call with a 10 to 120 minute waiting period…

 

Since they apparently feel helpless in controlling for the randomlike appearances of ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals that show up in (and in between) ‘cabins’ in the real world, MM and co. mistakenly thinks, and posts and posts and posts, that controlling for the lethality of objects will ‘do something, anything!’… while all along…

By Far, the most effective way to reduce the “lethalness of criminals” is to increase the lethalness of their potential victims.

Match criminals' threats as effectively / as closely as possible and their "USE" will go way down!

 

"The irony is, if you're willing to kill a perpetrator, you probably won't have to." Massad Ayoob

 

Zdo - I and i think many others get your point. Ideally many of us will never experience much violence, or need to defend from it. If I needed to defend myself, I would rather firearms not be involved.

If it becomes an arms race, then regardless of what many with weapons think - having the ability, having the balls, having the opportunity to really be able to defend them selves might be the fantasy of the other side.

(I have killed plenty of animals on the farm - and have no compulsion to do it for fun, but have no problems doing it. Not many others can....and these are animals.)

 

The other thing that i think MM and others also probably would prefer to keep in check, something that is clearly impossible the attitutudes of some that it is ok to resort to violence as a first resort.....we see some of these here.

Too often these merely mask another sort of implementation of their own moral codes/ agendas on others, and as they too are only human would by the 'natural law of cabins in the woods' want to implement their ways on others through the use of force. Usually the reason for force - even if its ego driven.

 

"By Far, the most effective way to reduce the “lethalness of criminals” is to increase the lethalness of their potential victims" ----- this might even the playing field a little, but this is the leap you make that many of us just dont agree with.

This seems to have the assumption that every criminal will be intent on using lethal force - many are just opportunisitc. If they know their targets are armed - are they not more likely to use 'preemptive strikes' - they already break the laws, so whats another one?

(This does not just apply to individual criminals )

 

.........

By the way, i enjoyed my trip to the US this time, never felt threatened or fearful. Only problem was the knee injury that was self inflicted (snowboarding and no tree involved) and the flu that was natural.

(ps Zdo - one of your posts quotes a General or Major - i have seen that before and i think its incorrectly attributed. Plus even some of those premises can be disputed - I cant believe I am even engaging in this thread again :doh: - more out of curiosity than anything I imagine)

Edited February 4, 2013 by SIUYA

[MightyMouse 12]

35 Guns Stolen From Siloam Springs Pawn Shop | 5NEWSOnline.com ? Ft. Smith, Fayetteville, Bentonville News & Weather from KFSM and KXNW Television

 

shouldn't be allowed to sell guns

 

Erie police are searching for a burglar who stole guns from a westside residence this morning.

 

The burglary happened shortly after 11:30 a.m. in the 2900 block of Liberty Street. Three handguns and an assault rifle were reported stolen from the residence. The rifle was later found in a backyard, police said.

 

The burglar was described as a white male with light brown hair who was about 5 feet 10 inches tall and was wearing a dark-colored hood, according to police.

 

In both cases law abiding citizens had their guns stolen.

 

We can guess that the guns would be sold to bad guys.

 

The stream of stolen guns is endless.

[MightyMouse 12]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbYNa_OzrKM]Sandy Hook Students & Jennifer Hudson sing at the Super Bowl 2013 - America The Beautiful - YouTube[/ame]

 

Some of the kids that did not get killed by weak American Gun Control Laws.

 

Its not that hard to imagine what the unintended consequences of additional firearms would be.

 

What are the unintended consequences of less firearms? Less, not none.

[Tams 20]

NRA's enemies list: Most of America

 

NRA wary of Britney, Oprah

 

NRA's enemies list: Most of America - CNN.com

[Patuca 13]

Well the coldblooded killer in the school bus hostage crisis in dead. But people still dont get it do they? They passed a law in alabama making it illegal to board a school bus. As if this law would have stopped this murderer from boarding the bus. What might would have stopped him is an armed bus driver or an armed guard on the bus. The man was a criminal by definition and another law would not have stopped him at all. People take all the wrong measures trying to feel secure. Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. When will people learn this? We think in america that laws will stop the lawless. It wont. See, what has happened is, we are entering a stage of evil and lawlessness that we have never seen in america before. It has been going on for some time in latin america. Now it is getting here. We dont know how to deal with it. We think another law will stop it. We think we are a nation governed by the rule of law. People that break laws are lawless. They could care less about another law. However, most are scared of guns and armed law abiding citizens.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Patuca

[SunTrader 10]

Viet Nam veteran gun nut.

 

Just like Iraqi veteran gun nut who killed the other Iraqi veteran "hero" sniper.

[Patuca 13]

See?

 

Napolitano: Obama ?stealing? American lives

[SIUYA 11]

Well the coldblooded killer in the school bus hostage crisis in dead. But people still dont get it do they? They passed a law in alabama making it illegal to board a school bus. As if this law would have stopped this murderer from boarding the bus. What might would have stopped him is an armed bus driver or an armed guard on the bus. The man was a criminal by definition and another law would not have stopped him at all. People take all the wrong measures trying to feel secure. Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. When will people learn this? We think in america that laws will stop the lawless. It wont. See, what has happened is, we are entering a stage of evil and lawlessness that we have never seen in america before. It has been going on for some time in latin america. Now it is getting here. We dont know how to deal with it. We think another law will stop it. We think we are a nation governed by the rule of law. People that break laws are lawless. They could care less about another law. However, most are scared of guns and armed law abiding citizens.

 

Problem is Patuca - what alternative are you proposing?

How do you define good and bad, what are you going to propose the bad are 'controlled' with.

You seem to be proposing an America that is a nation governed by the rule of the gun.

The NRA seems to represent arms manufacturers these days with its one stop solution

 

These are serious questions that I think require answering.....

 

(I know you think that you dont give a sh.t what others think of you - what governs you? what rues do you adhere to, and what do you do if people disagree with you?)

[MightyMouse 12]

Well the coldblooded killer in the school bus hostage crisis in dead. But people still dont get it do they? They passed a law in alabama making it illegal to board a school bus. As if this law would have stopped this murderer from boarding the bus. What might would have stopped him is an armed bus driver or an armed guard on the bus. The man was a criminal by definition and another law would not have stopped him at all. People take all the wrong measures trying to feel secure. Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. When will people learn this? We think in america that laws will stop the lawless. It wont. See, what has happened is, we are entering a stage of evil and lawlessness that we have never seen in america before. It has been going on for some time in latin america. Now it is getting here. We dont know how to deal with it. We think another law will stop it. We think we are a nation governed by the rule of law. People that break laws are lawless. They could care less about another law. However, most are scared of guns and armed law abiding citizens.

 

I agree with you on the new law. The law is no deterrent for someone on a death wish. Pretty much nothing is a deterrent when someone is prepared to die.

 

Removing available guns from the system would help somewhat, making it more difficult to obtain guns by people on a death wish. On a death wish, we can assume that the individual would find alternatives of which the options are endless.

 

A lot of your posts have an underlying tone of euphoric invincibility; that when you own or carry a gun, you are invincible to being killed by a gun because you have one. As if a gun will keep you from getting killed or shot. If 2 people meet with guns and a shot is fired, then someone likely gets shot. In your mind it is never you. An armed bus driver would certainly have a better chance of defending himself, but if the perp knew he was armed, then all it meant was that the perp had to draw and shoot quickly before the bus driver had a chance. Keep in mind, the perp is on a death wish Armed or not, the bus driver would likely end up dead anyway.

 

Personally, I wouldn't let my child get onto a bus that had a $10 an hour employee who is made to carry a gun. I suspect that the armed bus drivers would, from time to time, share the same euphoric feeling that you do when you hold a gun.

[Ingot54 13]

Don't know if this has been posted - I no longer follow the thread.

 

I was sent this link by a colleague, and thought it might wake up a few people as to how we are educating the masses to think the gun is the answer to everything!

 

btw ... this is the "clean" version ... only a sicko would want to see the original!

 

The industry that has made millions from gun violence, is standing firm in demanding a plan to change all of this.

 

You?

 

[MightyMouse 12]

Don't know if this has been posted - I no longer follow the thread.

 

I was sent this link by a colleague, and thought it might wake up a few people as to how we are educating the masses to think the gun is the answer to everything!

 

btw ... this is the "clean" version ... only a sicko would want to see the original!

 

The industry that has made millions from gun violence, is standing firm in demanding a plan to change all of this.

 

You?

 

The hypocrisy is that those actors take parts in violent moves, yet they cry mercy afterwards.

[Patuca 13]

See?

 

Poll: Gun Issues Will Drive Women to Polls in 2014

[Patuca 13]

I agree with you on the new law. The law is no deterrent for someone on a death wish. Pretty much nothing is a deterrent when someone is prepared to die.

 

Removing available guns from the system would help somewhat, making it more difficult to obtain guns by people on a death wish. On a death wish, we can assume that the individual would find alternatives of which the options are endless.

 

A lot of your posts have an underlying tone of euphoric invincibility; that when you own or carry a gun, you are invincible to being killed by a gun because you have one. As if a gun will keep you from getting killed or shot. If 2 people meet with guns and a shot is fired, then someone likely gets shot. In your mind it is never you. An armed bus driver would certainly have a better chance of defending himself, but if the perp knew he was armed, then all it meant was that the perp had to draw and shoot quickly before the bus driver had a chance. Keep in mind, the perp is on a death wish Armed or not, the bus driver would likely end up dead anyway.

 

Personally, I wouldn't let my child get onto a bus that had a $10 an hour employee who is made to carry a gun. I suspect that the armed bus drivers would, from time to time, share the same euphoric feeling that you do when you hold a gun.

i imagine that the deceased heroic bus driver wish he would have had a gun and at least had a chance at survival. As it was he had to face evil with nothing but his physical body. A gun would have given him a chance.

[Patuca 13]

 

(I know you think that you dont give a sh.t what others think of you - what governs you? what rues do you adhere to, and what do you do if people disagree with you?)

i smile and get dramatic..but agree with their right to disagree.

[SIUYA 11]

i smile and get dramatic..but agree with their right to disagree.

 

congratulations for that.....but what alternatives are you suggesting if you dont want laws?

 

Now I am not saying that there are not too many laws or more the point - often the laws could be termed inefficient and maybe need to be continually scrapped and rewritten for the times, however - it gets a little confusing when people talk about criminals and laws and then say that we think we are governed by laws when we are not.

 

Patuca - you have already shown in the puzzles page with that riddle that you would prefer to - teach everyone a lesson, wanted to manipulate the scene to your own ways of doing things, could not even be bothered to count the number of uncles registered when you set the rules, release a riddle that does not conform with normal grammar (using Yet instead of yet - a proper name v an adverb or conjunction) and hence in writing it (as opposed to verbal communication) is deliberately deceiving- so its kinda hard to take you too seriously when you say such things and yet do things which a tyrant might do. (or is Yet the tyrant?)

should the call be more effective laws, new laws, no laws, revised laws....

Which is why I ask - what alternatives are you suggesting?

[zdo 20]

“Too honest?”

:wheresthatfalldownrolloverlaughingsmiley:

 

poignant thing is - this pretty much sums up whole this thread in about 1 minute

 

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWax4i1O18s&feature=player_embedded]Caught On Camera ~ Joe Biden Admits Gun Control Will Not Stop Mass Shootings Or Save Lives - YouTube[/ame]

[MightyMouse 12]

“Too honest?”

:wheresthatfalldownrolloverlaughingsmiley:

 

poignant thing is - this pretty much sums up whole this thread in about 1 minute

 

 

 

Right, it is a great case for not trying to do anything too. Right? Since we can't stop all mass shootings we shouldn't bother to try to stop any of them.

 

Throughout this thread I have learned how to think like a gun nut. I feel conservative now.

[SIUYA 11]

It might sum up the debate for you Zdo - too bad there are others who might have different opinions. or maybe its just that stinking lib/conservative media stirring things up again.

 

i guess that depends on if you think there is a difference between saying

"we have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to diminish the prospects of it happening again"

Or

that the laws will "nothing we are going to do is going to fundamentally alter, or eliminate the possibility...... or guarantee that we will bring down " the numbers.

 

on one hand you could shrug your shoulders and say lets not do anything as we cant eliminate all possibilities, or you could say lets try and do something - and that includes those wanting to arm more citizens, or yourself that includes wanting to do things - like arming yourself - that might diminish the prospects of certain things happening, but it still does not eliminate other possibilities....