2 of 24
2
No Sacred Cows—can rationalists remain rational when the issue is gun control?
Posted: 12 August 2009 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 06:47 PM
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 06:14 PM

He was never anywhere even close to a situation in which he could have actually done any harm to the president.

He himself guaranteed there was no way he was going to actually even come close to threatening the president (or anyone else).

Come on Byron, there were people around him.

And he was the focus of the most law enforcement attention next to the actual premises Obama was visiting, yeah, I know. Near him was the safest place to be in that crowd. In fact there was a chance he was providing a diversion so that violence (or something) could be carried out where there was less law enforcement attention.

goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 06:47 PM

And the legislators who enacted this law gave no consideration to the disturbing effects this kind of open visual presentation would have on a large measure of the population, not to mention the message it sends to children about our culture… look at all the trust he’s thwarting or eroding there.

I’m not sure a very sound case can be made for any of those points, quite frankly.

goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 06:47 PM

[Hunting and target practice are one thing, but I wouldn’t even begin to trust a guy who thinks he should strap a side arm on his hip and parade around in public as a symbol of freedom - law or no law.

And that’s your prerogative. I wouldn’t distrust him, personally. He’s literally wearing his heart on his sleeve in a sense, but I’m not in agreement with him (haven’t suggested any such thing). I’m certainly not defending his position, just that he was within his right to advocate it openly according to the law, even in a dramatic and almost certainly counterproductive manner.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 07:35 PM

... I certainly can’t say I approve of his methods or his agenda, but I accept that I was pigeonholing him inaccurately, and that he’s not as easily dismissed as the birthers and the other standard issue Palinite EEG flatlining hard right winger types that you have him equated with despite the crystal clear evidence to the contrary.

I don’t know about accuracy or not, but intuitively, I got the guy pegged as another “Joe the Plumber” who won’t be easily dismissed (none of them are) when the wingnuts start using him to whip-up more anti-liberal, anti-Obama fervor. Palin, if she hasn’t started already, is going to have a field day with this. And while I know it wouldn’t be possible to correlate it with this specific event without a note of reason and intent, I won’t be shocked by another whacko mass shooting as the Penn. gym and Unitarian church before the weekend is over.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Traces Elk - 12 August 2009 06:54 PM
goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 06:47 PM

Come on Byron, there were people around him.

It’s not as if I don’t know what it’s like to fire a revolver within earshot of other people. Anyone who takes lightly the significance of bringing a piece into the public square has a piece missing, no pun intended.

What has indicated to you that I’m taking it lightly (assuming that implication was intended for me, of course)?

Are you arguing that there’s a given significance, or that his motive had to be violent?

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
eucaryote - 12 August 2009 07:13 PM
Traces Elk - 12 August 2009 06:54 PM
goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 06:47 PM

Come on Byron, there were people around him.

It’s not as if I don’t know what it’s like to fire a revolver within earshot of other people. Anyone who takes lightly the significance of bringing a piece into the public square has a piece missing, no pun intended.

If you had followed this thread, you would have realized that your problem is just that you are just having emotional reactions to the simple idea that these people feel like they need to carry their 1st aid kits with them. That you would attach any other importance to their need to feel secure by having their 1st aid kits with them, is just simply unreasonable histrionics. If you would do the proper research, you’d realize just how unreasonable and irrational your fear is. I mean what’s to fear from a 1st aid kit in the hands of such an obviously rational individual? After all, research shows that virtually all carriers of 1st aid kits, unreasonably paranoid though they may be, only do so should they need an emergency bandage. They have no intention of inflicting 1st aid on anyone else. And we all know that generally, the safest place to be in a crowd is near one of these carriers, just in case you need a band-aid too. wink

Eucaryote is talking about this thread, I think.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 08:03 PM

What has indicated to you that I’m taking it lightly (assuming that implication was intended for me, of course)?

The history of your discourse on this forum? What is it that you bring to bear on the problem of taking something “seriously”?

I don’t give a flying fuck if someone actually commits mayhem. Society knows how to deal with that. It costs, but it is dealt with.

What I give a flying fuck about is intimidation, in relation to freedom of expression. I have no fucking idea why this guy is packing heat in the open. It could be to intimidate me as much as to intimidate Obama. I know what a firearm is. It is (among other things) an instrument of intimidation. Believe me, I’m intimidated by cops carrying sidearms, and yet all I want is freedom of expression. I want to be able to say to a cop, “Get back to me when I actually break the law, instead of merely disrespect it.”

[ Edited: 12 August 2009 04:23 PM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 07:35 PM
eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

The sign he was holding combined with the gun on his hip was an obvious threat. So we know he is a political right wing wacko, and we have to note that he was by standing on the grounds of “his” church. Gee I hate to unfairly sterotype this guy, after all the deep research shows that he is actually extremely unlikely to be who he appears to be.

You’re filling in details yourself, inaccurately, demonstrating your emotions are again hijacking your intellect. Still, I started out presuming some of the same things (seems I’m not immune to a touch of hoplophobic thinking myself). The difference is that I had no problem accepting I’d done so, and dropping my inaccurate presumptions. I still think the guy’s a civil Libertarian fundamentalist (arguably a nut case), and I certainly can’t say I approve of his methods or his agenda, but I accept that I was pigeonholing him inaccurately, and that he’s not as easily dismissed as the birthers and the other standard issue Palinite EEG flatlining hard right winger types that you have him equated with despite the crystal clear evidence to the contrary.

It seems that you’re eager to lump me in with Kostric in spite of there being no reason to do so and plenty not to.

You don’t seem to be terribly interested in the evidence at all, just like fundamentalist believers who don’t really care what’s real and true, just what their dogma and emotions tell them.

I just don’t see a lot of value in detailing exactly what kind of dangerous person that he is. You obviously relate to him more because you heard him espouse your very arguments. You don’t even notice that you are taking his word as “crystal clear evidence”. I think that your prior programming has affect your ability to think critically. You weren’t pigeonholing him inaccurately, in this case the application of the duck theory would likely prove spot on.

SkepticX - 12 August 2009 07:35 PM
eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

We should all be perfectly comfortable around this beady eyed nutcase with his weapon and his (politico/religious) agenda walking into our homes and places of business.

Not at all. Once again, as I made crystal clear to you in our previous “discussion”, I understand the fear and I don’t blame those who feel it, but we should be more restrained about making harsh, judgmental presumptions about others.

Gee, Byron, you’re so so fair. What’s harsh and judgmental about fear of someone who deliberately threatens and evokes fear?

SkepticX - 12 August 2009 07:35 PM
eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

Yes, I’m afraid of characters like this. No reason to trust them, his intent was not to be peaceful, but to deliberately threaten. From the Matthew interview…

Mr. Kostric - 12 August 2009 10:19 AM

Sometimes when people get mired in their positions, you can try to pull them out of it a little bit but sometimes if you show the other end of it, you can pull them a little bit in your direction…..

So he states that he’s not interested in violence, but since you perceive the contrary ... so your perceptions are more credible than his statement regarding his motives?

Curious.

Maybe you should re-read that ... ?

My perceptions are what is important when it comes to protecting myself. My perception was that he showed up at a public event involving the President with a loaded gun strapped to his hip. I don’t need to know a lot more and I’m not about to take his conflicted/and contradictory statement as “crystal clear evidence”. Why do you do so? Doesn’t the phrase “I’m advocating an armed society….a polite society”, come across as just a little contradictory to you? Just a little Orwellian?

SkepticX - 12 August 2009 07:35 PM
eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

Meanwhile over at the Southern Poverty Law Center….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/officials-see-rise-in-mil_n_257128.html

Are you alleging Kostric is a militia member? What group? If not, what’s the militia got to do with him?

I certainly won’t be surprised if we discover Kostric is a militia group type, but I haven’t pegged him as such because there’s not sufficient evidence for doing so.

Byron

Your ability to compartmentalize your thinking is extraordinary. I suppose you will have to wait for him to tell you himself that he’s a militia type before you have “crystal clear evidence” that he’s crazy. Carrying a side arm to a Presidential event and threatening the spill the blood of tyrants is just a normal thing, like carrying 1st aid kits.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Traces Elk - 12 August 2009 06:42 PM
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 06:14 PM

he effectively held his arms up in truce, tactically speaking.

Mmmkay. So this is how we’re still supposed to communicate with one another, eh?

I said that’s what he did, not that’s what we should do ... whoever we might be in that context.

By carrying his gun openly he guaranteed he’d get the kind of attention from law enforcement that makes committing any violence impossible (other than the violence of being subdued and arrested, anyway). Cameras were on the guy the whole time, as were PD eyes and more than likely Secret Service sniper scopes. Those in the crowd who were carrying concealed offered no such courtesy (and I’d almost guarantee there were several).

Yeah, it’s basic tactics. Showing your hand is a gesture of peaceful intent. That’s how both the terminology I just used and the literal handshake developed in the first place. That gesture can certainly be a ruse, but it doesn’t take a War College graduate to recognize that such a “ruse” would fail miserably as such for the aforementioned reason.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 08:25 PM

Yeah, it’s basic tactics. Showing your hand is a gesture of peaceful intent.

Do you live in a world of idealized archetypes? It’s OK with me if you do, but it’s not the world I inhabit. There comes a point when I can no longer communicate with you.

Showing your hand?

Where are we, Dodge-fucking-City? Still wanna see the frontier before it’s gone? Too late, Bro. Firearms are some exotic fucking shit, man, and if you get to think of them as routine, well, you’re in another world. Why don’t you think of thermonuclear devices as routine? Any clue? Here’s the clue: They make firearms look like bullshit.

[ Edited: 12 August 2009 04:39 PM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 07:59 PM

I don’t know about accuracy or not, but intuitively, I got the guy pegged as another “Joe the Plumber” who won’t be easily dismissed (none of them are) when the wingnuts start using him to whip-up more anti-liberal, anti-Obama fervor.

That’s what I thought at first too (see posts 1-3 or so of this thread), though I meant “easily dismissed” in rational terms, not sociopolitical.

goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 07:59 PM

Palin, if she hasn’t started already, is going to have a field day with this.

I don’t think she’s got anything to make something of yet. The guy wasn’t taken down, cuffed and hauled off to a mental facility, so unless people make enough of a stink about it there’s nothing for her to complain about—nothing to attach any indignation to. Of course the fact that reality doesn’t comply hasn’t ever slowed her or hers down before, but this situation doesn’t offer her any ideological leverage.

goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 07:59 PM

And while I know it wouldn’t be possible to correlate it with this specific event without a note of reason and intent, I won’t be shocked by another whacko mass shooting as the Penn. gym and Unitarian church before the weekend is over.

I wouldn’t be shocked by that at any time, personally, though it’s not a very related issue.

I haven’t defended any of the guy’s political positions.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Traces Elk - 12 August 2009 08:20 PM
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 08:03 PM

What has indicated to you that I’m taking it lightly (assuming that implication was intended for me, of course)?

The history of your discourse on this forum?

I think you’re mistaking a different viewpoint for taking the issue lightly, but I’m not certain what you mean.

Traces Elk - 12 August 2009 08:20 PM

What is it that you bring to bear on the problem of taking something “seriously”?

We’ve got to establish the context of the previous sentence before I’ll know what you mean here.

Traces Elk - 12 August 2009 08:20 PM

I don’t give a flying fuck if someone actually commits mayhem. Society knows how to deal with that. It costs, but it is dealt with.

What I give a flying fuck about is intimidation, in relation to freedom of expression. I have no fucking idea why this guy is packing heat in the open. It could be to intimidate me as much as to intimidate Obama. I know what a firearm is. It is (among other things) an instrument of intimidation. Believe me, I’m intimidated by cops carrying sidearms, and yet all I want is freedom of expression. I want to be able to say to a cop, “Get back to me when I actually break the law, instead of merely disrespect it.”

Which was part of his point, actually, but I’m not in disagreement with you here at all. I understand the fear of weapons. I apparently haven’t eliminated my own even after military experience and having trained with a local PD firearms instructor. It’s natural to fear a weapon in the hands of someone you perceive may use it inappropriately, whether the perception is accurate or not, and I agree that the record of police violence fails to instill quite the confidence I’d like to have in those who carry weapons, openly or otherwise. Based upon what Kostric said in his interview with Chris Matthews I suspect he agrees on this count as well.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 08:39 PM

It’s natural to fear a weapon in the hands of someone you perceive may use it inappropriately, whether the perception is accurate or not, and I agree that the record of police violence fails to instill quite the confidence I’d like to have in those who carry weapons, openly or otherwise. Based upon what Kostric said in his interview with Chris Matthews I suspect he agrees on this count as well.

What’s weird is getting used to firing a weapon. It happens naturally. People can get used to anything, but don’t have to.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Traces Elk - 12 August 2009 08:31 PM
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 08:25 PM

Yeah, it’s basic tactics. Showing your hand is a gesture of peaceful intent.

Do you live in a world of idealized archetypes?

Nope.

Traces Elk - 12 August 2009 08:31 PM

It’s OK with me if you do, but it’s not the world I inhabit. There comes a point when I can no longer communicate with you.

That’s on you. I’m not sure what’s getting you worked up here though.

Traces Elk - 12 August 2009 08:31 PM

Showing your hand?

Where are we, Dodge-fucking-City? Still wanna see the frontier before it’s gone? Too late, Bro. Firearms are some exotic fucking shit, man, and if you get to think of them as routine, well, you’re in another world. Why don’t you think of thermonuclear devices as routine? Any clue? Here’s the clue: They make firearms look like bullshit.

Who said anything about routine or the frontier?

You seem to be presuming a lot here, but you’re not speaking clearly or openly about those presumptions so they can be corrected (that’s one way to ensure communication actually happens rather than a pair of competing monologues, which can’t be a very satisfying way to go about this whole forum schtick). You just seem to be proceeding with whatever interpretation comes to mind, and making oblique references I guess I’m supposed to catch even though, because you haven’t bothered to check, they’re not related to anything I’m posting or thinking, but rather only to what you’re presuming.

At least that’s what seems to be happening. I’m more than willing to consider that I may be mistaken, but the communication has to be cooperative to a sufficient degree in order to determine such things.

Byron

[ Edited: 12 August 2009 05:03 PM by SkepticX]
 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Traces Elk - 12 August 2009 08:44 PM
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 08:39 PM

It’s natural to fear a weapon in the hands of someone you perceive may use it inappropriately, whether the perception is accurate or not, and I agree that the record of police violence fails to instill quite the confidence I’d like to have in those who carry weapons, openly or otherwise. Based upon what Kostric said in his interview with Chris Matthews I suspect he agrees on this count as well.

What’s weird is getting used to firing a weapon. It happens naturally. People can get used to anything, but don’t have to.

It’s easy to get used to in the context of the range or in a military unit, but for me I agree it would require overcoming a great deal of internal resistance to carry one openly in public, much less firing it. Something would have to compel me quite forcefully, to put it rather mildly.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 04:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
eucaryote - 12 August 2009 08:22 PM
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 07:35 PM
eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

The sign he was holding combined with the gun on his hip was an obvious threat. So we know he is a political right wing wacko, and we have to note that he was by standing on the grounds of “his” church. Gee I hate to unfairly sterotype this guy, after all the deep research shows that he is actually extremely unlikely to be who he appears to be.

You’re filling in details yourself, inaccurately, demonstrating your emotions are again hijacking your intellect. Still, I started out presuming some of the same things (seems I’m not immune to a touch of hoplophobic thinking myself). The difference is that I had no problem accepting I’d done so, and dropping my inaccurate presumptions. I still think the guy’s a civil Libertarian fundamentalist (arguably a nut case), and I certainly can’t say I approve of his methods or his agenda, but I accept that I was pigeonholing him inaccurately, and that he’s not as easily dismissed as the birthers and the other standard issue Palinite EEG flatlining hard right winger types that you have him equated with despite the crystal clear evidence to the contrary.

It seems that you’re eager to lump me in with Kostric in spite of there being no reason to do so and plenty not to.

You don’t seem to be terribly interested in the evidence at all, just like fundamentalist believers who don’t really care what’s real and true, just what their dogma and emotions tell them.

I just don’t see a lot of value in detailing exactly what kind of dangerous person that he is. You obviously relate to him more because you heard him espouse your very arguments. You don’t even notice that you are taking his word as “crystal clear evidence” ...

You really don’t read very well when you get into this issue.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  651
Joined  2006-12-08
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 08:50 PM

You [Traces Elk] seem to be presuming a lot here, but you’re not speaking clearly or openly about those presumptions so they can be corrected (that’s one way to ensure communication actually happens rather than a pair of competing monologues, which can’t be a very satisfying way to go about this whole forum schtick). You just seem to be proceeding with whatever interpretation comes to mind, and making oblique references I guess I’m supposed to catch even though, because you haven’t bothered to check, they’re not related to anything I’m posting or thinking, but rather only to what you’re presuming.

At least that’s what seems to be happening…

Actually, he’s got his fingers in his ears, yelling, “Blah blah blah.”

 Signature 

Do-gooding is like treating hemophilia—the real cure is to let hemophiliacs bleed to death, before they breed more hemophiliacs. -Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 24
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed