Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Pogo]

OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns. And in your view, the op is answered.

So let's compare that to pot.

Straw purchases - pot - not legal

Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now

Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now

Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.

So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns. That is the question by the OP.

Good. Very good.

Now take the next step....

If you wanted to eradicate, to use this example, recreational cannabis use, legislation doesn't do it. If anything it makes it more popular.

So how would you do it?

You'd eliminate the desire, that's how. You'd make it an unattractive pastime to engage in. You'd spread the word about the negative sides. When the public desire is not there, you don't need legislation. You need it technically to apply some controls, but you go in knowing those controls act only as a remedy after the fact, not as a deterrent.

Take the example of tobacco. It was once cool, almost mandatory for an adult who wanted to appear successful. Now it's more a scourge of stink that nobody wants around-- more or less depending on the individual setting. We're not there yet, still working on it, but we've made significant dents. We made those inroads not because smoking is banned, but because it's undesirable. That's a cultural shift. A cultural shift doesn't eliminate anything from possibility; it just pushes it to the societal fringe so that it's no longer epidemic.

Apply that to gun violence. Stop glorifying guns in every movie, every TV show, every child's toy, every NRA ad and every internet message board post. Get over the illusion that we live in a war zone under the law of the jungle, get away from the culture of death and promote a culture of life.

There's no single entity that does that -- not government, not media, not corporatia. People do that en masse. When the people lead, all those institutions follow. They have no other choice. It doesn't start with some distant authority; it starts with "me".

I'll say again what I've been saying forever: we don't have a problem of legislation; we have a problem of spiritual values. We are a culture of death. That is what needs to change. The fact that there are 300 million firearms in this country should be seen as an absurdity. Once it is, gun violence goes way down.

That's why I keep telling you your OP asks the wrong question: it assumes this culture of death is a given and can only be met with more death. And that presumption is absurd.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. I said government needs to stop trying to ban guns, it doesn't work. People should be able to defend themselves. They should.

What aren't mutually exclusive? What's "those"? I'm citing a single fundamental there, not two.

Tobacco is a good point to bring up. In the late eighties, my wife and I came home every night with our hair, clothing, stinking of cigarettes. And we didn't smoke. If other people want to do stupid things that's fine, but we wanted the right to not smoke. So did the majority.

I'm not sure I see it parlaying cleanly to drugs or guns. You only associate guns with violence, but I see that as a minor use. I see it primarily as sporting, hunting and collecting.

"Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent. Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is. I associate guns with violence because that is their whole purpose. They're invented for war. That's why we call them "arms". So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public. As if they were the enemy in a war.

And I don't see how you turn criminals against guns. So I like the idea, but I don't see the plan. And while tobacco is a reasonable data point, it's not a sufficient argument in itself, there are too many differences.

Of course it isn't identical in its nature; cannabis even less so. That's not my point. The point is what drives people as a whole (a culture) to accept or reject a given behaviour. ANY behaviour. I'm looking at a very very basic level. The fact that we have a culture that glorifies guns and death and violence in general feeds this issue. THAT is a starting point.

Here's another point I've been making throughout my time here: the Klebods and Harrises and Loughners and Lanzas and Holmses, all those guys, are not out for purpose of murder. They're out for carnage. That's an important distinction. You can murder people with a knife or a baseball bat or an envelope laced with ricin. You can mass murder with a bomb. But those don't deliver carnage, the visual feedback of watching your victims frantically run for their lives, fall in their tracks and ooze blood. I submit that is their purpose, and only a gun delivers that. And those images have been generated by violent media, including self-feeding stories of the last guy's carnage (e.g. Lanza's obsession with gun slaughter before he went on his own). Video games deliver carnage, but it's virtual. Attach a sufficiently self-distraught mind to the same image, let him figure out that a firearm in his hands can be his ticket to inflicting exactly that kind of carnage in reality, and then act surprised when he does just that.

That guy is so beaten down in his own mind, that it's worth sacrificing his own life, as long as he gets the satisfaction of that carnage in revenge before he goes.

That's exactly why we see the pattern of the powerless, the picked-on, the alienated, the downtrodden, the frustrated, as noted earlier. It's a general revenge on random humans for the perception that 'the world is against me'. Who the victims are doesn't matter; what matters is the orgasm of slaughter. Only a gun can deliver that kind of orgasm. It's not an act of murder any more than rape is an act of sex; it's an act of power. And if it's not crystal clear that it's an act of frustrated power, consider that all of these shooters are male.

And it's fueled by the values that want to sell the idea that the answer to violence is more violence, "might makes right", and that the answer to your gun is that my gun is bigger.

That's a fool's quest. There's no way it ends well, and every way it gets worse. That's why I keep ranting that this attitude is only digging us deeper. And as the old Texas proverb says, when you find yourself in a hole, the thing to do is quit diggin'.

 

[kaz]

"Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility

True for the literal act of collecting. I have a collection. I'm the oldest on both sides of the family and have guns that go back to the civil war. However, collectors that I know do generally like the item itself. I am not collecting to sell and make money. I plan to die with my collection.

target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent.

Yes, they can, but convince shooters of that. Shooting such as skeet or trap is a lot more fun.

Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is.

LOL, so are you a vegetarian? I know so many liberals who say this and eat meat. BTW, I am a vegetarian. But not because I am morally against meat, it's just that I have been since 1997 and I like the diet better.

I associate guns with violence because that is their whole purpose. They're invented for war. That's why we call them "arms". So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public. As if they were the enemy in a war.

Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about. I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan, guns, hunting, shooting are part of life. No one is pretending to shoot people. In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Good. Very good.

Now take the next step....

If you wanted to eradicate, to use this example, recreational cannabis use, legislation doesn't do it. If anything it makes it more popular.

So how would you do it?

You'd eliminate the desire, that's how. You'd make it an unattractive pastime to engage in. You'd spread the word about the negative sides. When the public desire is not there, you don't need legislation. You need it technically to apply some controls, but you go in knowing those controls act only as a remedy after the fact, not as a deterrent.

Take the example of tobacco. It was once cool, almost mandatory for an adult who wanted to appear successful. Now it's more a scourge of stink that nobody wants around-- more or less depending on the individual setting. We're not there yet, still working on it, but we've made significant dents. We made those inroads not because smoking is banned, but because it's undesirable. That's a cultural shift. A cultural shift doesn't eliminate anything from possibility; it just pushes it to the societal fringe so that it's no longer epidemic.

Apply that to gun violence. Stop glorifying guns in every movie, every TV show, every child's toy, every NRA ad and every internet message board post. Get over the illusion that we live in a war zone under the law of the jungle, get away from the culture of death and promote a culture of life.

There's no single entity that does that -- not government, not media, not corporatia. People do that en masse. When the people lead, all those institutions follow. They have no other choice. It doesn't start with some distant authority; it starts with "me".

I'll say again what I've been saying forever: we don't have a problem of legislation; we have a problem of spiritual values. We are a culture of death. That is what needs to change. The fact that there are 300 million firearms in this country should be seen as an absurdity. Once it is, gun violence goes way down.

That's why I keep telling you your OP asks the wrong question: it assumes this culture of death is a given and can only be met with more death. And that presumption is absurd.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. I said government needs to stop trying to ban guns, it doesn't work. People should be able to defend themselves. They should.

What aren't mutually exclusive? What's "those"? I'm citing a single fundamental there, not two.

Tobacco is a good point to bring up. In the late eighties, my wife and I came home every night with our hair, clothing, stinking of cigarettes. And we didn't smoke. If other people want to do stupid things that's fine, but we wanted the right to not smoke. So did the majority.

I'm not sure I see it parlaying cleanly to drugs or guns. You only associate guns with violence, but I see that as a minor use. I see it primarily as sporting, hunting and collecting.

"Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent. Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is. I associate guns with violence because that is their whole purpose. They're invented for war. That's why we call them "arms". So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public. As if they were the enemy in a war.

And I don't see how you turn criminals against guns. So I like the idea, but I don't see the plan. And while tobacco is a reasonable data point, it's not a sufficient argument in itself, there are too many differences.

Of course it isn't identical in its nature; cannabis even less so. That's not my point. The point is what drives people as a whole (a culture) to accept or reject a given behaviour. ANY behaviour. I'm looking at a very very basic level. The fact that we have a culture that glorifies guns and death and violence in general feeds this issue. THAT is a starting point.

Here's another point I've been making throughout my time here: the Klebods and Harrises and Loughners and Lanzas and Holmses, all those guys, are not out for purpose of murder. They're out for carnage. That's an important distinction. You can murder people with a knife or a baseball bat or an envelope laced with ricin. You can mass murder with a bomb. But those don't deliver carnage, the visual feedback of watching your victims frantically run for their lives, fall in their tracks and ooze blood. I submit that is their purpose, and only a gun delivers that. And those images have been generated by violent media, including self-feeding stories of the last guy's carnage (e.g. Lanza's obsession with gun slaughter before he went on his own). Video games deliver carnage, but it's virtual. Attach a sufficiently self-distraught mind to the same image, let him figure out that a firearm in his hands can be his ticket to inflicting exactly that kind of carnage in reality, and then act surprised when he does just that.

That guy is so beaten down in his own mind, that it's worth sacrificing his own life, as long as he gets the satisfaction of that carnage in revenge before he goes.

That's exactly why we see the pattern of the powerless, the picked-on, the alienated, the downtrodden, the frustrated, as noted earlier. It's a general revenge on random humans for the perception that 'the world is against me'. Who the victims are doesn't matter; what matters is the orgasm of slaughter. Only a gun can deliver that kind of orgasm. It's not an act of murder any more than rape is an act of sex; it's an act of power. And if it's not crystal clear that it's an act of frustrated power, consider that all of these shooters are male.

And it's fueled by the values that want to sell the idea that the answer to violence is more violence, "might makes right", and that the answer to your gun is that my gun is bigger.

That's a fool's quest. There's no way it ends well, and every way it gets worse. That's why I keep ranting that this attitude is only digging us deeper. And as the old Texas proverb says, when you find yourself in a hole, the thing to do is quit diggin'.

Indeed. The best way to stop people from owning and using firearms to defend themselves from threats against their lives and well being, is to advocate for a sound, objectively reasoned, sustainable culture.

To do that, one must advocate for objectively reasoned, sound principle.

To do that one must oppose subjectively reasoned contests to sound principle.

Which is where we are here and now.

The Problem is that those who lack the means to reason objectively, cannot find the objectivity to recognize the fatal flaw in their reasoning and hold themselves accountable to CHANGE THEIR PERSPECTIVE.

Which, sadly, is the purpose of war. Thus represents the valid need for firearms and why surrendering the tool and therein forfeiting the right, by setting aside the responsibility to own and be proficient in the principles of use, is a very VERY foolish thing to do.

I mean we live in a culture wherein people who bray incessantly about population control, declare themselves the right to murder the most innocent of human life. This as a means to specifically AVOID having to recognize their responsibilities in PROCREATION! Which is a first class example of INSANITY.

There's little hope of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Because this culture has been redesigned to CREATE CRIMINALS!

 

[Politico]

The death penalty doesn't deter people because they are shielded from it. If you can't figure that out maybe someone will explain it to you.

Then making guns a 10 year offense won't deter people because they are "shielded from it". If you can't figure that out, maybe someone will explain it to you junior...

Oh - and by the way - Mr. McGuire here vehemently disagrees with you (and he knows way more about capital punishment than you do junior). Turns out, he wasn't so "shielded" from it as you claim.

Executed Killer Dennis McGuire Gasped And Snorted For 15 Minutes Under New Lethal Drug Combo

I knew you were too stupid to get it. Neg returned dumbass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That too. False comparison.

But still the common general psychology of behavior-modification-by-legislation is useful.

We should have learned this from Prohibition; banning didn't work since nothing was done to address the cultural value (the desire). Without that modification, bootlegging thrived; prohibition failed and was rescinded, and today we still have an alcoholism problem. Had they taken the approach of making drunkenness a stupid thing to do, they would have had a lot more success.

Now we did take that approach to drunk driving. It still happens but it's a lot less common than it used to be. Not so much because it's not tolerated by law (that's part of it) but because it's not tolerated by the public.

If you want to get something done, that's where the power is.

Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.

You would have us believe firearm violence has been reduced?

Bullshit.

And take a reading lesson. I didn't say it eliminated these things. That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic. That's the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.

If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.

Yes I would, and I have the link to prove it.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Violence, 1993-2011

69 percent decrease in nonfatal firearms crimes. From 1993.

 

[OKTexas]

Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.

You would have us believe firearm violence has been reduced?

Bullshit.

And take a reading lesson. I didn't say it eliminated these things. That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic. That's the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.

If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.

Yes I would, and I have the link to prove it.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Violence, 1993-2011

69 percent decrease in nonfatal firearms crimes. From 1993.

Seriously, you trying to make his head explode? He can't deal with facts, they interfere with his fantasy world.

 

[kaz]

The death penalty doesn't deter people because they are shielded from it

Then making guns a 10 year offense won't deter people because they are "shielded from it".

I knew you were too stupid to get it

How is his point not valid? You are saying in the end that no one who's going to kill someone with a gun is contemplating the death penalty at that moment. He's saying well, they aren't thinking about guns laws either. It seems spot on.

Seriously, you think that if someone's going to rob a bank or hijack a car or shoot their boss, they are seriously thinking "Oh crap, a gun could get me in trouble..."

 

[Pogo]

"Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility

True for the literal act of collecting. I have a collection. I'm the oldest on both sides of the family and have guns that go back to the civil war. However, collectors that I know do generally like the item itself. I am not collecting to sell and make money. I plan to die with my collection.

And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either. That's my point.

Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is.

LOL, so are you a vegetarian? I know so many liberals who say this and eat meat. BTW, I am a vegetarian. But not because I am morally against meat, it's just that I have been since 1997 and I like the diet better.

Non sequitur. I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there. I'm defining terms. Out of bounds, incomplete pass.

Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian FWIW but it's got nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with food processing. And dietary ingestion judgments and efficient use of land. But none of these are the topic here.

I associate guns with violence because that is their whole purpose. They're invented for war. That's why we call them "arms". So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public. As if they were the enemy in a war.

Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about. I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan, guns, hunting, shooting are part of life. No one is pretending to shoot people. In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.

Know who has never shot anyone? People without guns. Ask The Dick Cheney.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Show me how guns were not invented for the purpose of making war.

 

[Pogo]

Those aren't mutually exclusive. I said government needs to stop trying to ban guns, it doesn't work. People should be able to defend themselves. They should.

What aren't mutually exclusive? What's "those"? I'm citing a single fundamental there, not two.



"Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent. Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is. I associate guns with violence because that is their whole purpose. They're invented for war. That's why we call them "arms". So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public. As if they were the enemy in a war.

And I don't see how you turn criminals against guns. So I like the idea, but I don't see the plan. And while tobacco is a reasonable data point, it's not a sufficient argument in itself, there are too many differences.

Of course it isn't identical in its nature; cannabis even less so. That's not my point. The point is what drives people as a whole (a culture) to accept or reject a given behaviour. ANY behaviour. I'm looking at a very very basic level. The fact that we have a culture that glorifies guns and death and violence in general feeds this issue. THAT is a starting point.

Here's another point I've been making throughout my time here: the Klebods and Harrises and Loughners and Lanzas and Holmses, all those guys, are not out for purpose of murder. They're out for carnage. That's an important distinction. You can murder people with a knife or a baseball bat or an envelope laced with ricin. You can mass murder with a bomb. But those don't deliver carnage, the visual feedback of watching your victims frantically run for their lives, fall in their tracks and ooze blood. I submit that is their purpose, and only a gun delivers that. And those images have been generated by violent media, including self-feeding stories of the last guy's carnage (e.g. Lanza's obsession with gun slaughter before he went on his own). Video games deliver carnage, but it's virtual. Attach a sufficiently self-distraught mind to the same image, let him figure out that a firearm in his hands can be his ticket to inflicting exactly that kind of carnage in reality, and then act surprised when he does just that.

That guy is so beaten down in his own mind, that it's worth sacrificing his own life, as long as he gets the satisfaction of that carnage in revenge before he goes.

That's exactly why we see the pattern of the powerless, the picked-on, the alienated, the downtrodden, the frustrated, as noted earlier. It's a general revenge on random humans for the perception that 'the world is against me'. Who the victims are doesn't matter; what matters is the orgasm of slaughter. Only a gun can deliver that kind of orgasm. It's not an act of murder any more than rape is an act of sex; it's an act of power. And if it's not crystal clear that it's an act of frustrated power, consider that all of these shooters are male.

And it's fueled by the values that want to sell the idea that the answer to violence is more violence, "might makes right", and that the answer to your gun is that my gun is bigger.

That's a fool's quest. There's no way it ends well, and every way it gets worse. That's why I keep ranting that this attitude is only digging us deeper. And as the old Texas proverb says, when you find yourself in a hole, the thing to do is quit diggin'.

Indeed. The best way to stop people from owning and using firearms to defend themselves from threats against their lives and well being, is to advocate for a sound, objectively reasoned, sustainable culture.

To do that, one must advocate for objectively reasoned, sound principle.

To do that one must oppose subjectively reasoned contests to sound principle.

Which is where we are here and now.

The Problem is that those who lack the means to reason objectively, cannot find the objectivity to recognize the fatal flaw in their reasoning and hold themselves accountable to CHANGE THEIR PERSPECTIVE.

Which, sadly, is the purpose of war. Thus represents the valid need for firearms and why surrendering the tool and therein forfeiting the right, by setting aside the responsibility to own and be proficient in the principles of use, is a very VERY foolish thing to do.

It sounds like you're saying the existence of war "validates" gun violence. Take a step back: you're assuming war itself is valid. That's not a safe assumption and I don't accept it.

I mean we live in a culture wherein people who bray incessantly about population control, declare themselves the right to murder the most innocent of human life. This as a means to specifically AVOID having to recognize their responsibilities in PROCREATION! Which is a first class example of INSANITY.

No we don't. Eugenics pretty much died with World War II. And it also sounds like you're saying not procreating is irresponsible, which is also a little weird. We do however live in a culture that celebrates death and violence, from our common sporting events and everyday TV/movie/gaming entertainment to our dominant religion that hangs a man to suffer in helpless agony on a cross. That's a death mentality, and as long as that's our value, the idea of grabbing your AR-15 and mowing down the population of a school is not going to seem all that far out.

 

[hunarcy]

Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about. I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan, guns, hunting, shooting are part of life. No one is pretending to shoot people. In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.

I own several handguns, several shotguns and a couple of rifles. People like that guy think the only purpose for them is to kill people. None of my weapons have killed another human and I can say that because I bought them new and have owned them for decades. Could they kill a person? Sure. Why do they not? Because I'm not a criminal and criminals for the most part seem to avoid me so I don't have to defend myself from them. Once, my house was burglarized, but none of my weapons were taken because they were securely stored.

I am not special. There are LITERALLY millions of people like me. Yet, the Left feels I should be punished because of the actions of a few people who don't follow the rules of society and don't behave responsibly. The Left is made up of foolish people who don't want to hold people responsible for their own actions. I have no respect for their ideas.

 

[Pogo]

Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about. I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan, guns, hunting, shooting are part of life. No one is pretending to shoot people. In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.

I own several handguns, several shotguns and a couple of rifles. People like that guy think the only purpose for them is to kill people. None of my weapons have killed another human and I can say that because I bought them new and have owned them for decades. Could they kill a person? Sure. Why do they not? Because I'm not a criminal and criminals for the most part seem to avoid me so I don't have to defend myself from them. Once, my house was burglarized, but none of my weapons were taken because they were securely stored.

I am not special. There are LITERALLY millions of people like me. Yet, the Left feels I should be punished because of the actions of a few people who don't follow the rules of society and don't behave responsibly. The Left is made up of foolish people who don't want to hold people responsible for their own actions. I have no respect for their ideas.

I have a couple of musical instruments I've never played. That doesn't make them NOT instruments that were designed to make music.

Duh.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility

True for the literal act of collecting. I have a collection. I'm the oldest on both sides of the family and have guns that go back to the civil war. However, collectors that I know do generally like the item itself. I am not collecting to sell and make money. I plan to die with my collection.

And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either. That's my point.



Non sequitur. I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there. I'm defining terms. Out of bounds, incomplete pass.

Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian FWIW but it's got nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with food processing. And dietary ingestion judgments and efficient use of land. But none of these are the topic here.

I associate guns with violence because that is their whole purpose. They're invented for war. That's why we call them "arms". So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public. As if they were the enemy in a war.

Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about. I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan, guns, hunting, shooting are part of life. No one is pretending to shoot people. In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.

Know who has never shot anyone? People without guns. Ask The Dick Cheney.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Show me how guns were not invented for the purpose of making war.

Non sequitur. I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there. I'm defining terms. Out of bounds, incomplete pass.

You said and I quote: "Collecting is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent. Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is."

Is this not a stab at moral equivalency, Pogo? Upon further review, both of the player's feet were in bounds, interception.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about. I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan, guns, hunting, shooting are part of life. No one is pretending to shoot people. In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.

I own several handguns, several shotguns and a couple of rifles. People like that guy think the only purpose for them is to kill people. None of my weapons have killed another human and I can say that because I bought them new and have owned them for decades. Could they kill a person? Sure. Why do they not? Because I'm not a criminal and criminals for the most part seem to avoid me so I don't have to defend myself from them. Once, my house was burglarized, but none of my weapons were taken because they were securely stored.

I am not special. There are LITERALLY millions of people like me. Yet, the Left feels I should be punished because of the actions of a few people who don't follow the rules of society and don't behave responsibly. The Left is made up of foolish people who don't want to hold people responsible for their own actions. I have no respect for their ideas.

I have a couple of musical instruments I've never played. That doesn't make them NOT instruments that were designed to make music.

Duh.

Hey, a wet floor sign isn't designed to kill someone, but it CAN be used to kill someone. Baseball bats are made to hit baseballs, not human skulls, but hey, that doesn't not make them implements their respective purposes. However, there's always a chance someone will find a rolling pin lying around on the kitchen counter and beat the daylights (and the life) out of someone. Heck, we could go as far as to say that a sharpened pencil could be an instrument of death... or an instrument of knowledge. Just because someone doesn't use those things as weapons a la carnage, doesn't make them not implements for which someone can use to kill someone else.

The list goes on. The possibilities are endless. Heck, you could even take the strap off of a backpack and use it as a garrote! That is the inherent flaw in your argument, Pogo.

 

[hunarcy]

I own several handguns, several shotguns and a couple of rifles. People like that guy think the only purpose for them is to kill people. None of my weapons have killed another human and I can say that because I bought them new and have owned them for decades. Could they kill a person? Sure. Why do they not? Because I'm not a criminal and criminals for the most part seem to avoid me so I don't have to defend myself from them. Once, my house was burglarized, but none of my weapons were taken because they were securely stored.

I am not special. There are LITERALLY millions of people like me. Yet, the Left feels I should be punished because of the actions of a few people who don't follow the rules of society and don't behave responsibly. The Left is made up of foolish people who don't want to hold people responsible for their own actions. I have no respect for their ideas.

I have a couple of musical instruments I've never played. That doesn't make them NOT instruments that were designed to make music.

Duh.

Hey, a wet floor sign isn't designed to kill someone, but it CAN be used to kill someone. Baseball bats are made to hit baseballs, not human skulls, but hey, that doesn't not make them implements their respective purposes. However, there's always a chance someone will find a rolling pin lying around on the kitchen counter and beat the daylights (and the life) out of someone. Heck, we could go as far as to say that a sharpened pencil could be an instrument of death... or an instrument of knowledge. Just because someone doesn't use those things as weapons a la carnage, doesn't make them not implements for which someone can use to kill someone else.

The list goes on. The possibilities are endless. Heck, you could even take the strap off of a backpack and use it as a garrote! That is the inherent flaw in your argument, Pogo.

The fact that the guy obviously didn't read the post and instead chose to make some inane comment justifies his existence on my ignore list.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.

You would have us believe firearm violence has been reduced?

Bullshit.

And take a reading lesson. I didn't say it eliminated these things. That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic. That's the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.

If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.

Yes I would, and I have the link to prove it.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Violence, 1993-2011

69 percent decrease in nonfatal firearms crimes. From 1993.

Ohh Pogo I see you ignored the fact I proved your statement absolutely wrong and the fact that in the last 20 years crimes with firearms has been reduced by 67 percent. All the while firearm ownership has been going up, concealed carry is increasing as is open carry.

 

[P@triot]

“Gun shows have never been a significant source of guns for criminals. Under President Clinton the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted a survey of eighteen thousand state prison inmates in 1997. Fewer than 1% of inmates (0.7 percent) who said they had a gun reported that they’d obtained it from a gun show.”

Excerpt From: Beck, Glenn. “Control.” Threshold Editions. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/control/id599776911?mt=11

 

[P@triot]

“a National Academy of Sciences commission already has taken a hard look at the data. During the final days of the Clinton administration this panel reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications, along with some of its own empirical work on firearms and violence. Their 2004 report was not able to identify a single gun control regulation (for example, background checks, gun buybacks, assault weapon bans, limits on gun sales, regulating gun dealers) that clearly reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents.”

Excerpt From: Beck, Glenn. “Control.” Threshold Editions. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/control/id599776911?mt=11

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where did Pogo go?

 

[Pogo]

True for the literal act of collecting. I have a collection. I'm the oldest on both sides of the family and have guns that go back to the civil war. However, collectors that I know do generally like the item itself. I am not collecting to sell and make money. I plan to die with my collection.

And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either. That's my point.



Non sequitur. I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there. I'm defining terms. Out of bounds, incomplete pass.

Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian FWIW but it's got nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with food processing. And dietary ingestion judgments and efficient use of land. But none of these are the topic here.


Know who has never shot anyone? People without guns. Ask The Dick Cheney.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Show me how guns were not invented for the purpose of making war.

Non sequitur. I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there. I'm defining terms. Out of bounds, incomplete pass.

You said and I quote: "Collecting is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent. Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is."

Is this not a stab at moral equivalency, Pogo? Upon further review, both of the player's feet were in bounds, interception.

No, it's not. It's actually the opposite -- a contrast. "Collecting" is a false equivalence; "Sporting" is a false equivalence. Neither applies to the function of the instrument. Hunting, by contrast, does.

Where's the value judgement then? Kazzin It made this into a false equivalence, calling it a "moral" conclusion. It's false because I didn't present any such judgement; we're just defining terms of what a gun is used for.

After further review, play stands as called, incomplete pass. The receiver was not even in the ballpark, let alone in bounds.

 

[Pogo]

Where did Pogo go?

Keep yer pants on Sarge. Pogo had stuff to do. And now his Eggplant Parmigiana says it's ready.