Gun Control Compromise

Status
Not open for further replies.

William K Elliott

The voices tell me what to write.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
5
Location
Lenoir City, TN
Ever explored as to why that may be?

I've given it a lot of thought. We have a definite problem with personal responsibility. Nothing is ever the individual's fault. Fail a test, it's the teacher's fault. Wreck your car, it's the car or the road that's at fault. Burn yourself on something, it must not have been properly protected or labeled.

If little Johnny acts up, it can't be because little Johnny has a problem...
 

William K Elliott

The voices tell me what to write.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
5
Location
Lenoir City, TN
Yep, that too.
I guess some people get off on the whole penis/gun thing.

Ah, now we really are venturing into troll territory, when you have to respond with pathetic little statements like that.

UK police aren't armed, they do all right.

How am I the troll? I have yet to call anyone a name. I have responded though, and that makes me a troll?

Maybe that's the crux of the argument here? A bad guy wants to rape a woman, the woman shoots him... the woman must be a violent person?

My point was simply that a gun, like a car, a kitchen sink, a bottle of rat poison, or a fire extinguisher, has no brain. No conscience. It makes no rational or irrational decisions on its own.

It is a tool.
 

William K Elliott

The voices tell me what to write.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
5
Location
Lenoir City, TN
Snarky? Find me an armed rebellion in a modern democratic state that succeeded and enabled positive change.

So the answer would be to only arm the government? How would that make it better? How does disarming my handicapped wife make her safer?
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
I've given it a lot of thought. We have a definite problem with personal responsibility. Nothing is ever the individual's fault. Fail a test, it's the teacher's fault. Wreck your car, it's the car or the road that's at fault. Burn yourself on something, it must not have been properly protected or labeled.

If little Johnny acts up, it can't be because little Johnny has a problem...

You are aware that that reasoning was used for over a century and has ultimately failed to come up with any useful means of reducing crime?
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
No, the answer is that civil disobedience works much better and is morally superior to armed rebellion, given a choice. And in a democracy, that choice is always available.

My comments were not addressing the issue personal defense against potential criminals at all. I was merely addressing the argument that guns are necessary to defend against the government, and I don't buy that argument at all, either in theory or in practical terms.

However, I will say that I believe if guns were as rare in the US as they are in Canada and the UK, we'd see similar murder rates. Guns aren't necessarily the cause, but they are without question in my mind a powerful enabler.
 

Graz

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
522
Reaction score
34
Location
1
I'm a gun owner as is all of my friends. Those of us that have children, (let alone one with mental health issues), keep our guns locked up. None of us has ever shot anyone.

You break into my home, I'll shoot you. If someone from the DHS or some other neo-facist entity within a post-modern failed democracy knocks on my door to collect my firearms, I'll shoot them too. I'd guess there are over 50 million gun owners that share my sentiment
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,287
OK folks.

I'm doing a little temporary clean up here until Mac or a P & CE mod can weigh in; after that I'll unlock the thread.

William K Elliott You're new to P & CE. Stop posting and read all the stickies.

Regs, you know the way we roll. Report the post
report.gif
or PM a P & CE mod, Mac or me.

There will be no name-calling or snide asides.


Stop with all the damned "You" plus an adjectival phrase or appositives.

ETA: Yeah, you know what? I'd have to soft delete too many posts because of members—some of which damn well know better—behaving badly.

So I'm locking this thread. Mac, Cranky, Haggis, Williebee are likely to have more wisdom to offer, and very well may unlock the thread.

Me, I'm locking closely at members who damn well know better not engaging in good faith. This is a tricky emotional issue right now, so maybe a cooldown will help.
 
Last edited:

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
MOD Note:

Ladies and Gentlemen. We have now seen this thread reduced a bunch of snarky one-liners and "Sez you" comments. That's not how P&CE works, it's how it doesn't.

If you need to refresh yourself on the methodology of the house, read the stickies. Read the newbie guide.

Bear in mind the one rule: Respect Your Fellow Writer.

Debate the points. Support your points of view with facts. Or sit this one out.

Thanks.

ETA: (When you get two or more Mods saying the same thing at the same time? Yeah.)
 
Last edited:

Cranky

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
14,945
Reaction score
8,145
I just finished reading the thread and was going to say the same things that these two have. So consider it said. It may perhaps seem a bit heavy-handed, but considering how emotional folks are, it doesn't seem out of place. There is a discussion to be had here, folks, but it needs to stay above the belt.

ETA: And we're open again. As we've said, please remember RYFW rule and keep it civil, even though I know this is a tough thing for folks to talk about right now. Assume good faith, as Williebee always says.:)
 
Last edited:

William K Elliott

The voices tell me what to write.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
5
Location
Lenoir City, TN
It seems I overstepped some boundaries in my responses ti what I perceived as personal attacks. It also seems that I may have posted some things that others took as a personal attack.

I apologize. My intention here was not to attack anyone.

Bill
 

goldmund

---
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
326
Reaction score
33
Location
Outside
Website
blazedzikowski.wordpress.com
They gave it a hell of a try, even though they were poorly armed and supplied. Some even managed to make crude zip guns which they used to kill guards, allowing them to steal the guards' arms for themselves.

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

I'm quite informed about the uprising, as I live on the very stretch of land that the Ghetto was located. In the neighboring block, there's an old fragment of wall... all that's left of the uprising.

It was NOT a fight to win, defend themselves or change their fate. They were going to die and they chose to go kicking. That's all.

It's not much of a stretch to believe that a few thousand FP-45 Liberators dropped into the ghetto could have made a tremendous difference. Unfortunately the OSS preferred to maintain centralized control over the resistance, so the help they sorely needed never arrived.

It is actually such a huge stretch that it enters the realm of fantasy. The regular Polish army couldn't stop the Germans. And yet, somehow, a tiny group of malnourished, young guys with stolen guns would go all Wolfenstein on Wehrmacht? Yeah, right.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
You are aware that that reasoning was used for over a century and has ultimately failed to come up with any useful means of reducing crime?
Then how do you account for this "sharp and continuing decrease in violent crime?"

From Nick Gillespie: 4 Awful Reactions of Sandy Hook School Shooting - And Thoughts on a Better Response, an article worth reading in its entirety:

First, about violent crime in general:
...the past 20 years has seen a sharp and continuing decrease in violent crime.

In 1992, for instance, the violent crime rate per 100,000 residents was 758. In 2012, it was 386. Between 2000 and 2009 (the latest year for which I could easily find data) use of firearms in violent crime had decreased from a rate of 2.4 per 1,000 to 1.4 per 1,000.

More specifically, about school crime:
During the school year of 1992-93, for instance, the number of on-location murders of students and staff at K-12 public schools was 47 (out of population of millions). In 2009-2010 (the latest year for which data is listed), the number was 25. Over the same period, the rate on victimizations per 1,000 students for theft dropped from 101 to 18. For violent crimes, the rate dropped from 53 to 14. And for "serious violent" crimes, the rate dropped from 8 to 4.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
The rates of incidence has dropped. That's part of what makes events that do happen stand out, that and the rabid mindset of today's media. Although yesterday's would have stood out anyway.
 

William K Elliott

The voices tell me what to write.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
5
Location
Lenoir City, TN
I'm quite informed about the uprising, as I live on the very stretch of land that the Ghetto was located. In the neighboring block, there's an old fragment of wall... all that's left of the uprising.

It was NOT a fight to win, defend themselves or change their fate. They were going to die and they chose to go kicking. That's all.

It is actually such a huge stretch that it enters the realm of fantasy. The regular Polish army couldn't stop the Germans. And yet, somehow, a tiny group of malnourished, young guys with stolen guns would go all Wolfenstein on Wehrmacht? Yeah, right.

The question is, does the fact that the Jews were incapable of overthrowing the NAZIs mean that such an attempt should not be made? Further, does it also mean that only the government should have access to arms?

In the Twentieth Century, over on hundred million people were murdered by their own governments (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html). I cannot imagine that disarming the would do more to discourage this sort of thing from occurring again.

Even within the U.S. the government has done horrible things to its citizens. From slavery to the Tuskegee syphilis study ( and more).
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Certainly gun control issues provoke emotional responses. It's difficult not to respond in kind to extreme positions put forward by individual posters.

What, for example are we to make of this?
You break into my home, I'll shoot you. If someone from the DHS or some other neo-facist entity within a post-modern failed democracy knocks on my door to collect my firearms, I'll shoot them too.

We live in a democracy. The second amendment is interpreted differently by different people. Regardless of whose view is correct, the point is that there is a deep and honest divide over the meaning of it.

But the sentiment expressed in this statement seems to be that if society ultimately decides that the proper thing to do is to limit access to guns -- through enacting laws proposed by democratically elected officials, the appropriate course of action would be to murder any law enforcement officer who attempts to enforce those democratically enacted laws.

People who support gun rights quite naturally get ticked off by being referred to as "gun nuts." But there are such people, and I fail to see how any conversation with them can have a useful outcome.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
It is actually such a huge stretch that it enters the realm of fantasy. The regular Polish army couldn't stop the Germans. And yet, somehow, a tiny group of malnourished, young guys with stolen guns would go all Wolfenstein on Wehrmacht? Yeah, right.
A war between two armies is far different than a one-to-one confrontation between a victim and his oppressor, particularly if both are armed.

Perhaps the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn are germane here. Although separated by geography, he faced much the same enemy:
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,984
Reaction score
6,937
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
After reading and thinking today, I can't help but steer towards the idea that the categories of gun crimes are as disparate as to be talking apples, oranges, and groundhogs.

As far as mass shootings, I think it's a sublime collision of mental illness and the everybody-gets-their-fifteen-minutes culture. It's a horrible case of look-at-me-itis cut loose of the spectrum of regular egos that prefer positive attention.

Would restricting gun access reduce these types of crimes? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But I think it's closing the barn door years after the horses ran off. There are so many guns out there and so strong a devotion to the idea of the positives of gun ownership (disclaimer: I am a gun owner) that any meaningful reduction is almost unforeseeable.

The hardest part is what to do about crazy people. I know a person who has scared me more than any individual I've ever met. Everyone who knows him (and his history) fears that "One day, so-and-so is going to do something terrible." And we can do what about it? Minority report his ass and preemptively lock him up? He has committed no crime, but when he feels really good, he doesn't think his meds are necessary. In fact, they're holding him back, man. So what do we do? Shoot him with an elephant dart and surgically implant a medicine pump in his guts?

Honestly, what do you do? I'll tell you what I'm not going to do and that's give up my gun. Then next time his meds make him itch, he may be close at hand.
 

goldmund

---
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
326
Reaction score
33
Location
Outside
Website
blazedzikowski.wordpress.com
The question is, does the fact that the Jews were incapable of overthrowing the NAZIs mean that such an attempt should not be made? Further, does it also mean that only the government should have access to arms?

No. It just means that when there is actually tyranny & oppression, a bunch of people with weapons isn't going to overthrow it. You failed to answer the question I post here again and again: whose lead would you follow to overthrow evil government? How would you know they're right? How do you imagine the US government turning against own people? Don't you think the other half (or more) of the nation would always be pro-government? And they'll have guns, too?
 

Kaiser-Kun

!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
6,944
Reaction score
1,915
Age
39
Location
Mexico
Have there been any studies about how, if at all, the ease to acquire a gun influences in a crime? Maybe if it weren't so easy, fewer crimes would happen.

About what to do to detect these cases, maybe institute regular psychological testings in all schools and jobs? They might help detect when a person needs counseling and when one's about to snap.
 

William K Elliott

The voices tell me what to write.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
5
Location
Lenoir City, TN
Certainly gun control issues provoke emotional responses. It's difficult not to respond in kind to extreme positions put forward by individual posters.

What, for example are we to make of this?

We live in a democracy. The second amendment is interpreted differently by different people. Regardless of whose view is correct, the point is that there is a deep and honest divide over the meaning of it.

But the sentiment expressed in this statement seems to be that if society ultimately decides that the proper thing to do is to limit access to guns -- through enacting laws proposed by democratically elected officials, the appropriate course of action would be to murder any law enforcement officer who attempts to enforce those democratically enacted laws.

People who support gun rights quite naturally get ticked off by being referred to as "gun nuts." But there are such people, and I fail to see how any conversation with them can have a useful outcome.

The sentiment was probably not well expressed, but I can understand the concept. In order to properly remove firearms from the population, a Constitutional Amendment would need to be drawn up and ratified. Otherwise, such confiscation would be Constitutionally illegal. Even then, I would have difficulty as the Amendments were meant to enshrine on paper rights which were and are considered "unalienable."

Still, you are quite correct in your assertion that there are nuts on all sides of an argument.

In our home we have a grand total of four firearms. Two are semiautomatic handguns (For the uninitiated, a semiautomatic is a firearm that launches one projectile every time you squeeze the trigger. A machine gun is a fully-automatic weapon). I use these for home defense, or for carry (I have a Tennessee permit). We also have a hunting rifle (and I don't hunt--Go figure), and a shotgun. The shotgun is the best home defense weapon for a home invasion. You barricade yourself in a room, call 911, and wait.

Recently, a friend in Oak Ridge Tennessee was the victim of a home invasion. Two men kicked their way into his home and attacked him and his family. The family escaped when the attackers went after the home owner. When they caught up with the man, they stomped him, breaking several bones and crushing his ankle so badly that they actually destroyed the joint. The men fled when they saw a neighbor (armed) heading for the residence they had invaded.
 

Graz

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
522
Reaction score
34
Location
1
Certainly gun control issues provoke emotional responses. It's difficult not to respond in kind to extreme positions put forward by individual posters.

What, for example are we to make of this?

We live in a democracy. The second amendment is interpreted differently by different people. Regardless of whose view is correct, the point is that there is a deep and honest divide over the meaning of it.

But the sentiment expressed in this statement seems to be that if society ultimately decides that the proper thing to do is to limit access to guns -- through enacting laws proposed by democratically elected officials, the appropriate course of action would be to murder any law enforcement officer who attempts to enforce those democratically enacted laws.

People who support gun rights quite naturally get ticked off by being referred to as "gun nuts." But there are such people, and I fail to see how any conversation with them can have a useful outcome.


No, we live in a post-modern failing democracy that leans toward neo-facism, corporatocracy. With jerrymandering, the amount of money needed to run for office, the barriers put in place by the two party system to even get on the ballot, using the phrase "democratically elected officials," is at best a stretch.
 

William K Elliott

The voices tell me what to write.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
233
Reaction score
5
Location
Lenoir City, TN
No. It just means that when there is actually tyranny & oppression, a bunch of people with weapons isn't going to overthrow it. You failed to answer the question I post here again and again: whose lead would you follow to overthrow evil government? How would you know they're right? How do you imagine the US government turning against own people? Don't you think the other half (or more) of the nation would always be pro-government? And they'll have guns, too?

Do you not think that there are not men who might step up to the plate? In the 1770's there were many such men. During the NAZI occupation of much of Europe, there were many leaders who rose up against them in the occupied areas. The same is true of areas occupied by Japan.

As to how the US government might turn tyrannical, I don't know. I pray it never happens, just as I pray that I'll never again have to face down a criminal intent on harming me. I do know that, if I had been armed the last time I had to face down a criminal, my father would not have needed surgery to repair the multiple fractures of his face, and would still have feeling on that side.
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,698
Reaction score
1,539
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
I think a major problem with all this is that is difficult to tease out the distinctions between a gun as a tool and a gun as a powerful symbol, a totem.

There is something else. As a pacifist, I would not use a gun. What I infer from the more extreme pro-gun folks is that it is somehow my responsibility to defend myself with deadly force, and that if I don't this it is a failure on my part.

I understand that my viewpoint might, perhaps put me and my family at some incrementally higher risk of being a violent crime victim. I think that risk is far less than the risk I run of being struck by lightening, which is roughly 1 in 10,000 over a lifetime. On the other hand, the risk to my family of an accident involving a gun is significant.

To me, if you strip away the totemic aspects of it, gun control is a public health issue, no different than many others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.