That’s declaring war on poverty. I’m too peaceful for that.
Any poor person who is banned can re-apply for entry after 2 weeks. Attempts to circumvent this rule with an alias means a ban for life!
I think gun owners should be allowed to hunt them. Just as long as they eat them afterwards. In the good old days, poor people were lean meat, I suspect they have lot of fat now days.
TBH, only after Heller. Until then the distinction between militia and citizen with regards to the Right to Bear Arms wasn’t settled, and could still be overturned someday ala the efforts against Roe v. Wade currently.
I end goal is to get rich and live forever, and so far, no slippery slope there. It’s how democracy works. People have beliefs and when they come into conflict, you find a third way or you persuade enough people.
So, instead of everyone takeling their position to the grave, we should let the system work. Maybe I will get thumb print safeties, and maybe you’ll get guns in churches.
So, yes I want a slippery slope, and other want a gun in the hands of every baby born, and somewhere in the middle, the majority will come down.
It’s okay to hold an extreme belief. I just think it’s impolite to debate half-measures when you secretly don’t give a shit about them. You’re taking advantage of others’ good-faith willingness to discuss a contentious issue and try to find common ground.
I am not sure what you are talking about Tim. It’s hardly an extreme belief (more than a few nations in this world ban the use of guns or ownships, and some of them are even full fledged democratic nations). Having the opinion that a lethal weapon should not be sold without scrupulous care seems to be a very common and sane set of beliefs outside of this United States.
Furthermore, there is plenty of common ground in this case between Times and myself. Sure, he has no interest in banning guns and I certainly don’t see the ban of weapons happening in the near future but how is agreeing with smartguns in any fashion disingenous? I guess in your point of view, unless you hold the exact same beliefs as the person you are talking to, we should, what, cut off all relations, because any agreement might lead to future disagreement? People with common ground should build on it. I think the NRA would hate the US publicto wake up and realize that anti gun activists will never be able to ban guns, but will be great allies to keeping there friends and families safe. Just because I have you laughable consider an extreme belief, does not mean I cannot be pragmentic with people to get what the majority of the US public would like.
So, maybe people like Timex and I can only get 50% there and maybe the New Jerseyblaw is a bridge too far, but both he and I know that gun bans are right out, so he has an ally for any moderate proposals he might have to limit the harm of guns.
He, as the moderate on this issue (and the public as a whole) controls the power in this case, not extremists like you or (lol) me. We might push at the edge, but most of the force is in the middle.
“I’d like a filet minon, medium rare.”
“Sorry, the only steak you can get is this sirloin.”
“Yeah, I’ll take that.”
“How impolite, you don’t give a shit about our sirloin!”
Compromise is exactly settling for something less than your ideal, in order to reach an agreement.
Banning guns is by definition an extreme belief because there is literally nothing more you can do than that. Aside from torturing and murdering gun owners, I guess.
It’s hard to articulate how I feel about legowarrior’s posts, so I don’t mind a little pushback. (Steak analogies sure aren’t doing it though; no offense, but P&R is awful lately with non-sequiturs.) And I’m not singling him out; there will be someone along in a few months with the exact same perspective.
I don’t know. Picture you’re arguing with someone about an issue for days, carefully correcting flawed assumptions and working through misunderstandings and harmless ignorance about a subject, and then all of a sudden they say “oh well, I secretly want extreme position X so whatever LOL.” Hasn’t all that time been wasted? What’s the point?
Maybe someone else feels the same way and can explain it better. It just seems like a dick move to be that earnest about half-measures and then move the goalposts at the last second. shrug
I’m not hanging my hat on this. More of a personal feeling and a reminder to myself.
Two times in two weeks someone shoots and kills a family member mistaken for an intruder. In this case, a father shoots his teenage son.
This is at least the second case of a family member shooting and killing a family member – apparently by mistake – within the last two weeks. On the night of December 29, a woman in St. Cloud, Florida, shot her 27-year-old daughter, apparently mistaking her for a burglar. The woman fired only one round, police said, and the daughter later died at a hospital.
I’m not sure if people respect, enough, the sheer effectiveness—the lethality—of guns. Mistakes become irreversible. I’m frankly amazed that at least some level of training isn’t mandatory.
Get a flashlight!!
That applies to everyone. Even if you’re scared of guns, you can at least blind intruders for a second.
Ha. Whenever I go to Yahoo, I get an add for defensive flashlights. The last ad had some super-bright light that was built into a nightstick/baton.
Lynch
4178
It is not about being scared of guns in general. It is about knowing that the wrong people are allowed to obtain an carry them.
With rare exceptions, we don’t ALLOW the wrong people to carry guns. The guns that most people really care about are the ones that are used to murder other people. The vast majority of these are obtained illegally by criminals and then used by these criminals to kill others (in many cases other criminals).
All the discussion about smart guns, intruders wrongly shot, armed citizens, kids accidently shot, and yes even crazies open firing in schools or movie theaters represents pretty small number of deaths in the hundreds. Roughly 1,000-2,000 murders are crimes of passion/family arguments and while a fair number are committed by people with previous records, many aren’t. About 700 homicides are justified.
The remaining 8,000-9,000 murders are done by criminals. We actually have a number of laws which effectively deter and punish criminals for using guns, primarily mandatory prison sentences for using guns. While these are often plea bargained away, mandatory guns sentences have actually been pretty effective at locking up criminals and dramatically reducing the overall crime rate in this country.
The most important thing to remember about criminals is they don’t often obey laws, so passing additional guns seems pointless, when we aren’t consistently enforcing existing laws.
Lynch
4180
I am not talking about illegal gun ownership, strollen. What I am talking about are people who are obviously not trained to handle guns properly and who do not pay the necessary respect these items deserve and require. What you get due to this are killed people. In some cases the circumstances are worse than murder.
Editorial from an Australian gun enthusiast and hunter about living in a strict gun-control society. Worth a read.
It’s fascinating to read a radically different worldview and rationalization process than my own.
The most interesting part is when he lashes out at some minor paperwork annoyance, like a character in a dystopia showing emotion within the limited boundaries he’s been given.
I wonder how old he is.
If I had infinite time, I’d love to sit down and pick his brain to see how it works.
It very much feels like it was written by someone who has learned to love his gun-free state and State.
This whole strawman exchange reminds me of Quint's speech in "Jaws" where he talks about pounding and splashing and sometimes the sharks would go away, and sometimes they wouldn't. What do you do if several guys show up? What if they don't go away when you turn the lights on? "If only modern society had invented a tool that would allow me to defend myself against a numerically superior foe with ill intent. Oh well! This stick has a moral air about it."
Yeah, I mean how are you going to indulge your throbbing fantasies of Rambo’ing multiple home invaders if you’re not locked and cocked while sitting around drinking a fine Scotch and reading about the Rough Riders’ fantastical exploits against the dastardly Spanish?
Yeah, I’ve been nipping at a similar attitude in P&R this week. I’m surprised at the inability to see an issue from another perspective. I don’t mean anyone needs to budge an inch from their position. I just mean being able to hold one side of a controversial topic in one’s head without thinking it is crazy or irrational (a term I think is often misused). Or without retreating to a vague, caustic non-sequitur like Adam there.
Look at that paragraph you quoted. Defending one’s home with a gun is not merely something the author strongly, vehemently disagrees with. Rather, it is ridiculous. It is an idea that should be laughed at. The room for discussion is nil.
Moreover, he has based this vast generalization on a single, personal life experience that happened to work out well for him. (To be fair, this may have been traumatic enough to cause a psychological error in his thought process.) He is so confused that he can’t see the contradiction between this statement and his concern about the biker gangs coming into his house while he sleeps and holding him at knifepoint, which is written in such a way that it must be a non-zero concern for him in Australia. (Yikes.)
It’s so bizarre that I find it impossible to believe. And in fact, with a little digging, that’s usually the case. When pressed, it seems like people are willing to admit they are making certain assumptions, or they hadn’t thought of a useful example, or they qualify their language. It’s easier to hash out these little oddities in a face-to-face discussion and move more quickly to substantive value differences. Less so on an Internet forum, and even less so in a one-way article.
This amuses me greatly coming from you, Tim. Takes one to know one, I guess.
And if the idea of trying to fend off a biker gang come to steal yer gunz in a shootout doesn’t strike you insane, no, we damn well don’t have any common ground.
FWIW, I’m realistic that meaningful gun regulation is DOA in the US thanks to the absurd attitudes and fantasies of Manly Men who are Defending What’s Good and Right against the teeming hordes of gang-banging thugs come to make off with their TVs and womenfolk, and/or the commie lib’rul gummint coming to take their guns. And it’s not an issue that I particularly give many personal shits about, as I don’t live or work in unsafe areas that would be meaningfully improved by a reduction in gun violence and don’t have a fetish for the things. Rolling my eyes at the latest useful idiots to make the news or taking a silent moment to mourn for the victims of the latest gun-related tragedy is about as far as it goes.
Well, that and calling out stupid bullshit on QT3 and Twitter. But I gotta have my fun somewhere.
