4 of 6
4
Some sound governance
Posted: 21 July 2009 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1814
Joined  2006-11-10

Meanwhile, another summer day ends in the city of Chicago.

Two years ago, a black teenager sitting in the school bus got fatally shot by another 16-year-old black teenager. The latter was a gang member looking for rival gang members. His friend handed him a .40 caliber handgun and he fired at the bus, injuring four other kids besides the boy he killed.

Today, the youthful killer, now 18 years old, sat in the courtroom with a cocky sneer on his face while the judge sentenced him to 100 years in jail.
When asked by the judge if he had anything to say he replied: “No, I’m good”.

The father of the slain boy is a Chicago cop who has now become an advocate of gun-control.

The mother of the convicted boy walked out of the courtroom crying: “100 years!”

A young boy dead. His parents will never be as happy as they were when he was still with them. A mother worrying about her boy locked away for life. What will she be thinking about tonight and all the other nights of her life ?
A young, stupid kid might make a fine criminal if he ever makes it out of jail, considering the people he lived with.
A citizenry that feels better for a day, because the bad guy is locked away.
They will feel better until the next young delinquent does something stupid while packing heat.

It is a common feature in my city that the people who die because of gunfire had nothing to do with the shooter.
A few weeks ago, a plain-clothed cop got shot in the head because some gang members thought he was a rival gangbanger.

A week after that, a toddler got shot in the crossfire of a drive by.

And so it goes.

The best of us are febrile apes when we are at our finest.
Certainly yours truly isn’t far removed from madness at any given time and I would never want to have a firearm laying around my house.
A scared little punk from the ghetto commits a truly heinous and stupid and pointless crime and all we can think of as a society is to throw the book at him.

Hooray, another young black man in jail.

Problem solved.

And another day dawns on the windy city and all is well.

[ Edited: 21 July 2009 06:25 PM by Lapin Diabolique]
 Signature 

“You know I’m born to lose, and gambling is for fools.
But that’s the way I like it baby, I don’t want to live forever.”

From the autobiography of A.A.Mills, ‘The passage of time, according to an estranged, casual tyrant.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2009 09:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
Bad Rabbit - 21 July 2009 10:19 PM

The best of us are febrile apes when we are at our finest.

Yesssssss….., febrile, I had to look that up but truer words were never spoken you miserable, (wascally), rabbit! I always went with “pseudoplasmodiums with eyespots”, a like sentiment if you will.

Bad Rabbit - 21 July 2009 10:19 PM

Certainly yours truly isn’t far removed from madness at any given time and I would never want to have a firearm laying around my house.

Yesssss….some of us are concerned with what we don’t know, and some of us aren’t. Some of us are well trained.

Thanks for the insight, you wretched rabbit!

 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: 22 July 2009 04:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Bad Rabbit - 21 July 2009 10:19 PM

Meanwhile, another summer day ends in the city of Chicago.

Two years ago, a black teenager sitting in the school bus got fatally shot by another 16-year-old black teenager. The latter was a gang member looking for rival gang members. His friend handed him a .40 caliber handgun and he fired at the bus, injuring four other kids besides the boy he killed.

Today, the youthful killer, now 18 years old, sat in the courtroom with a cocky sneer on his face while the judge sentenced him to 100 years in jail.
When asked by the judge if he had anything to say he replied: “No, I’m good”.

The father of the slain boy is a Chicago cop who has now become an advocate of gun-control.

The mother of the convicted boy walked out of the courtroom crying: “100 years!”

A young boy dead. His parents will never be as happy as they were when he was still with them. A mother worrying about her boy locked away for life. What will she be thinking about tonight and all the other nights of her life ?
A young, stupid kid might make a fine criminal if he ever makes it out of jail, considering the people he lived with.
A citizenry that feels better for a day, because the bad guy is locked away.
They will feel better until the next young delinquent does something stupid while packing heat.

It is a common feature in my city that the people who die because of gunfire had nothing to do with the shooter.
A few weeks ago, a plain-clothed cop got shot in the head because some gang members thought he was a rival gangbanger.

A week after that, a toddler got shot in the crossfire of a drive by.

And so it goes.

Yeah ... I know.

Bad Rabbit - 21 July 2009 10:19 PM

The best of us are febrile apes when we are at our finest.

Awesome beasties, apes!

Bad Rabbit - 21 July 2009 10:19 PM

Certainly yours truly isn’t far removed from madness at any given time and I would never want to have a firearm laying around my house.

I suspect thine truly is farther removed than would prove to be a problem, otherwise, if we really were riding the edge so tightly we’d have far more problems, particularly in rural areas, in terms of contrast to what we actually have. We are pretty ingenious and industrious tool makers and users. Never-the-less I wouldn’t presume to suggest what you should or shouldn’t do in regard to any personal decision. I’d only encourage everyone in every case to base their decisions, personal or otherwise, on a sound understanding of the issues.

Read the study:
Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60. (password: skeptic)

Then see a critical analysis.

Bad Rabbit - 21 July 2009 10:19 PM

A scared little punk from the ghetto commits a truly heinous and stupid and pointless crime and all we can think of as a society is to throw the book at him.

Hooray, another young black man in jail.

Problem solved.

I couldn’t agree more.

Bad Rabbit - 21 July 2009 10:19 PM

And another day dawns on the windy city and all is well.

And so it goes.

 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: 22 July 2009 06:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

I think it would probably be more productive to hit these points one at a time instead of putting them into posts that are long enough to cause mental fatigue problems for those who are trying to negotiate through them, particularly if they have extra obstacles with which to contend on top of it (obstacles such as unfamiliarity with terms and concepts, mostly).

For as long as it seems productive ...

eucaryote - 20 July 2009 10:13 PM

Guns are not a piece safety equipment. I reject this notion out of hand.

Guns are lethal weapons. There is a chasm of very relevant distinction to be made between guns and life preservers. Even considered a piece of “emergency equipment”, (which they are not), the consequences of gun use are very different than for any of the other, almost completely benign, pieces of such equipment you may name.

Guns are not used against some thing, or in some natural event, event or to mitigate an accident. Deciding to put out a fire or to throw a life preserver to a drowning person are very different than pulling a trigger and deciding to kill someone. Throwing a life preserver by mistake or otherwise inappropriately is virtually without consequence. The lethality of guns puts them in a class by themselves even compared with closer relatives, like tasers, flak jackets, etc.

You have a huge blind spot in your most nuanced and detailed understanding of the difference between guns and safety equipment. It’s why guns belong to the class of things we call weapons and life preservers belong to the class of things called safety equipment. If you can’t acknowledge this, then it is hard to have a discussion. For you to suggest that I only make these distinctions because of my fear and loathing of those who choose to carry guns in public is absurd. I don’t have to base this reasoning on anything but the clear meaning of words.

Defensive weapons, including guns, are clearly emergency equipment. They’re for a particular emergency (or category of emergencies). You acquire and maintain emergency gear in case you need it, and you store it/keep it handy because you don’t generally get to plan your emergencies ahead of time. You don’t just keep emergency gear boxed up somewhere to ensure it’s just somewhere on the premises, geographically and theoretically close enough when you need it, you make sure you can get at it in a timely manner when/if it’s called for. Such is the fundamental nature of carrying a gun for self-defense as well as keeping and maintaining a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit, and yes, even a life preserver (and a parachute of course). You don’t wait until you’re assaulted to go get your gun (“Time out!” I said time out!!! You’re cheating!”), and you don’t carry only when you expect to be assaulted (that’s crazy, to borrow a term that’s been rather carelessly tossed about previously in this thread). If you go somewhere expecting to be assaulted and use your gun to mitigate the resulting situation, if the fact you expected the assault is discovered you’ll be expected to answer for why you weren’t somewhere else, I mean legally.

eucaryote - 20 July 2009 10:13 PM

At best, a gun is a piece of safety equipment in a very, very limited sense. Otherwise the two terms are actually completely contradictory. Weapon does not equal Safety.

This is like complaining that parachutes don’t mean you won’t slip in the shower (i.e. gun is to safety as parachute is to ground). Parachute does not equal firm footing. A gun isn’t about a safe situation, it’s about mitigating an unsafe one. It must inherently be unsafe, very unsafe, or the gun can’t be used in self-defense. When a gun is brought to bear on an appropriate unsafe situation, however, it most certainly does increase the odds you’ll make the situation more safe, post haste. They’re not magical talismans and they don’t emanate magical safety fields though, that much at least eucaryote gets right.

eucaryote - 20 July 2009 10:13 PM

-Conflicts between people are a very special class of emergency calling for an extended definitive list of appropriate “safety” measures, especially deterrence, and avoidance, (what the military mindset call’s “tactics”), which may culminate in the carrying of a gun and the legal use of a gun as the most risky, expensive and potentially consequential measure of last resort. Moreover, bringing gun into a potentially violent conflict with people endangers anyone else in the vicinity, (aka range). That is why it is fundamentally unfair to vulnerable others, to whom the gun carrier gives no choice over the decision to insure that lethal force is introduced into a conflict.

Eucaryote is obviously opposed to concealed carry, but here he also recognizes at least a theoretically valid defensive use for a gun as a “potentially consequential measure of last resort.” This is absolutely correct. It’s also a clear description of a piece of emergency equipment. He’s onto the “too late” side of the equation. His refusal to think about the matter in realistic terms prevents him from recognizing the fact that you have to prepare for emergencies before you expect them to happen, because they tend to be unplanned, applies to a “special class of emergency” just as it applies to others. The only thing he actually gets wrong, rather than just incomplete, in that particular comment is when he conflates carrying guns with their actual use (or deployment) as defensive weapons. Carrying a gun competently (concealed and secured) has absolutely no consequence for anyone but the concealed carrier who has to avoid certain venues and situations he or she wouldn’t otherwise (this is the primary reason I only carried a gun for a short period—I hope that makes the “fear and paranoia/John Wayne-vigilantism” theory into the proper perspective). Carrying incompetently (failing to adequately conceal or brandishing without sufficient cause, for a couple of quick examples) can get the carrier’s permit revoked or even put the carrier in jail (again, brandishing is assault), but that almost never happens (see previous links).

Eucaryote also errs in the last bolded comment, I expect also due to ignorance and the failure to consider the issue in a realistic manner. Violence is introduced into a “gun-defense appropriate situation” by the perpetrator, not the gun carrier. He’s attributing a characteristic of violent criminals—risking or taking the life of probably a more or less random stranger for personal gain—to legal defensive weapon carriers. This is misguided and does much to exacerbate the histrionic nature of the discourse re: gun control for obvious reasons. Eucaryote raises a valid point about innocent by-standers, but he seems to fail to appreciate the reality of the situation yet again. Violent crimes aren’t often carried out in the midst of innocent by-standers, to rather understate the matter (ex: you won’t find many muggers operating in mall food squares during lunch on weekends). This rarely happens with police who miss their target ~50% of the time when the fire on perpetrators, so while it’s difficult to determine how well that statistic translates into the civilian carrying world (on average civilian carriers are probably no better or worse marksmen as compared to police, but the police are trained in withholding fire in order to avoid shooting by-standers, and in maintaining their composure under fire), it’s not nearly as much of an issue as I strongly suspect eucaryote would like to think.

Eucaryote’s position on guns as a last resort is also contradictory to his position against carrying. It implies that when a gun owner is, or expects to be violently accosted, he should then get his gun. Too late. To hold both of these positions is obviously absurd when the curtain is pulled back, and eucaryote obviously wouldn’t normally make such a ridiculous error.

Finally, just what does “deterrence” mean for women or the elderly, or in fact for most of us? I’m not advocating that anyone opt out of doing what they reasonably can to deter violent criminals from preying on them, I’m pointing out it’s not a simple, personal issue that exists in isolation from the rest of society (just like pacifism). If you make yourself a less desirable target for crime, you’re effectively making someone else a more attractive one. It’s taking your portion of responsibility, but it’s not quite as clean and simple of an equation when violence is introduced into it (I’m also not suggesting any given individual should make any given self-defense choice in the matter, or that one self-defense decision is right or wrong).

—-

So a situation in which it’s appropriate to use a gun is one in which your life is being threatened right here, right now. If that’s not the case and you brandish a gun then you’re wrong and legally liable. As I’ve stated repeatedly, this is the only context appropriate to operate under when considering defensive gun uses. If you’re thinking of this only as one potential of last resort among the other potentials in which you’d use a gun for self-defense, you’re only thinking in the proper context for that one portion of your consideration. When you start talking about John Wayne and vigilantism you’re clearly way off the mark—comparing apples and airliners, just like when believers start talking about atheists just hating God and not wanting to be prevented from depraved behaviors by an absolute moral authority.

Byron

[ Edited: 22 July 2009 11:17 AM 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: 22 July 2009 01:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
Bad Rabbit - 14 July 2009 09:42 PM
SkepticX - 14 July 2009 08:35 PM

Do you believe this law will mean the kind of person who wouldn’t be deterred by the laws against shooting a “faggot” or “ferner” will suddenly feel free to carry a firearm when and where they wouldn’t have when it was illegal?


What I believe, Byron, is that a sizable swath of humanity is too stupid to burn, and that without an abundance of deadly weaponry laying around, for any moron to acquire, we have enough problems due to our over-sized adrenaline glands and under-sized frontal lobes.

That you seem to find it even debatable that adding alcohol to this already volatile mix is problematic makes me rethink my previous assumption that you are among the more rational posters on this forum.

Well, just to bring it all full circle, The bad rabbit originally made one of the more salient comments of the whole thread.

 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: 22 July 2009 04:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

Except that I had never and still haven’t said that I think people should be able to carry in bars. He and I cleared that up, I’m pretty sure.

As far as the other aspects of his post ... well, that’s all part of what’s been “discussed” since then.

 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: 22 July 2009 05:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
Bad Rabbit - 21 July 2009 10:19 PM

Two years ago, a black teenager sitting in the school bus got fatally shot by another 16-year-old black teenager. The latter was a gang member looking for rival gang members. His friend handed him a .40 caliber handgun and he fired at the bus, injuring four other kids besides the boy he killed.

This terrible incident OBVIOUSLY could have been prevented if the kids in the bus had been carrying their defensive handguns and on the tactical alert. The problem is with the parents, who aren’t properly arming their children at a young age, packing heat into their lunchbox, and making sure that they get the proper military training, (sadly missing in the schools, I’d say) so that they are always tactically aware, with one finger on the safety, at all times. We should get Ruger and Apple together to produce a kids gun with an i-pod and i-phone built in, so their high powered, lethal safety device would always be at the ready. We could it, the “i-preserver”. Market it as a safety campaign to protect kids from “predators”. It’s a natural. We’ll have every kid carrying deadly force in no time. Those bullies will think twice before they b4 they text dismissive tweets about Casper Milquetoast….
OBVIOUSLY, crime would cease…

The 4 wounded and 1 killed could have reduced the threat to a puddle of blood and mincemeat, but probably wouldn’t have had to because in all likely-hood, their “training”, would have taught them how to properly “brandish” their weapons and thereby frightening the “bad guy” to tears.

And of course, the well trained young person will know to always pack their high powered, deadly, safety device wherever they go, because they just never know when they’re going to have to lay down defensive fire, especially if they are regularly placed in well known, dangerous situations like school buses. The gun control cultist would have you think that guns in school buses would be a bad idea and could lead to more violence. Hah! We know how counter-intuitive that is.

These kinds of events make it CLEAR, that our kids are just sitting ducks, lacking the proper training and firepower to defend themselves. It’s our fault! We’ve developed a civilized and peaceful way of co-existing with one another that has suckered us into complacency and we’ve let our guard down. The sad fact is that VIRTUALLY NO-ONE IN AMERICA carries their gun in public as they should so as to insure their proper personal defense. Believe it or not, there are huge segments our our society, THAT DON’T EVEN OWN A GUN, much less the tactical training to use it!! They’re just asking for it! Fools!

Truly a terrible state of affairs. It’s just no wonder there’s so much gun violence. The gun control cult tells us that the problem is there are too many guns…Hah!, we know their game, they are the real bad guys and they want to take away our guns so they can attack us. Hah!, we know the real problem is a deficiency of guns, especially among obvious victims like innocent old people and children on school-buses!! Crime won’t really go away until the “bad guys” are as afraid of us as we are of them. What we need in society is more fear and more self righteousness.

[ Edited: 22 July 2009 09:26 PM by eucaryote]
 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: 22 July 2009 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

In other news (old news perhaps, but it’s timely).

Looks like the NRA’s grip on DC is slipping.

I’d argue that’s good, and potentially bad in a very limited way as well, but even in the worst case scenario the good still far outweighs the bad ... if there is any bad. The reason for which it may be tenuously bad in a very limited sense is that the NRA turns out to be on the right side of most gun control legislation (they’re just on the far end of a lot of it—seems less so in recent years though, of course in recent years they’ve been rubber stamped for the most part). I think that’s mostly by accident (certainly in the case of most of the membership—falls under the “even a blind squirrel finds a nut [in a vat of nuts]” category). So that means less resistance to gun control legislation, and in most cases that’s actually not good (at least in the past—I expect on Obama’s watch that’ll likely change to some degree), but it’s really not a problem at all in very many cases (well intended, ignorant/misguided, but with only negligible actual effect.

It’s good for the obvious reason that the NRA is way too fucking powerful, but much more so because of how they effect the discourse and the research. The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center are actually worse based solely upon the rigor of their dogma and rhetoric (as a matter of accident, as I explained from the other angle regarding the NRA), but they’re far less powerful, and I’d be really surprised if most of their supporters/politicos (their power base) aren’t far more rational and reasonable overall than the general NRA membership/politicos. The gun controller types are much more “my people” than the NRA types. So weakening the influence of the NRA is probably the most effective, practicable way to fix the underlying problems that have made histrionic fear and loathing and ignorance the overwhelmingly dominant mentality driving the discourse as well as most of the research.

So there it is.

[ Edited: 22 July 2009 09:08 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: 22 July 2009 09:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
SkepticX - 22 July 2009 09:58 PM

So weakening the influence of the NRA is probably the most effective, practicable way to fix the underlying problems that have made histrionic fear and loathing and ignorance the overwhelmingly dominant mentality driving the discourse as well as most of the research.

Yes, that’s all perfectly clear….LMAO. wink If it weren’t for the NRA, we would all accept how perfectly normal it is for the innocent to pack heat in a peaceful society. Kumbaya and pass the ammunition….Have a nice day, Life is Good, Don’t stress out and even though we all have difficult days, try to keep the safety on. grin

 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: 23 July 2009 04:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

You’re not anywhere near as stupid as you’ve been leading on in here, eucaryote. You’re just throwing a tantrum now, more or less like an adolescent. You’re losing control of your own intellect—letting your emotions hijack it from you.

Be still.

Take a deep breath.

Count to 10.

Take your rational mind back from your emotions.

 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: 23 July 2009 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20

Laughing my ass off is an emotional response, it’s true. But you don’t seem to realize how funny you are. I’m just enjoying mocking your outrageously stupid arguments.

I realize though that no matter how stupid the argument, there is probably an audience for it somewhere, though you apparently don’t have one for your stupid argument, at least not in this thread.
Still, you’ve convinced me that there is a huge market for “i-preservers”. Blue for boys and pink for girls and adults could come in all kinds of snazzy camo-rambo styles. A little more of the right kind of fear will send us all flocking to security seminars and shooting ranges. Think of all the crime that would be prevented. Even as I type this, there are literally millions of Americans thronged into public places of all kinds, grocery stores, shopping malls, classrooms, parks, business places, etc. etc. UNARMED! When unarmed people flock together this way in a civil society, THEY ARE JUST ASKING TO BE HIT.

I realize now that you and your buddies, who get up in the morning and dress for work, and put on your shoulder holster and toss your .45 into your briefcase, “out of habit”, are really just coldly rational boy scouts, who realize the importance of lethal self defense and always have your weapon with you, out of habit, no matter how unlikely you are to ever have to use it. You realize that your lethal weapon is as benign as first aid kit, and that anyone who questions that obvious fact is just showing their histrionic fear and ignorance and not in touch with the hard facts. And of course anyone who is actually afraid of you, for carrying something as harmless and well intentioned as a first aid kit, is clearly just paranoid and unable to see how first aid kits and guns are entirely equivalent. The idea that they don’t trust you, you the noble, coldly rational, well trained gun carrier, who carries guns into grocery stores and movies, is just ridiculous. After all there is no way to commit a crime with a first aid kit and anyone who thinks so just has an unnatural fear of first aid. wink

 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: 24 July 2009 07:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
eucaryote - 23 July 2009 03:16 PM

Laughing my ass off is an emotional response, it’s true. But you don’t seem to realize how funny you are. I’m just enjoying mocking your outrageously stupid arguments.

The thing is, you haven’t mentioned or even characterized a single actual argument of mine while you’ve been entertaining yourself. In fact that’s been the case pretty consistently through most of this topic. You’ve been arguing against cartoons in your head pretty much all along, and very resistant to explanations that these same cartoons aren’t running in the heads of the people you attribute them to, much less reality. In the last few posts here, in fact, you’ve just abandoned pretty damn near all pretense that your self-amusement has any connection at all to what I’ve been posting and arguing (the only pretense that remains is the statement above).

It seems that you’re really just not willing to risk your beliefs to sincere analysis on this one for some reason. You started out admitting you don’t know much of anything at all about the topic and then, shortly thereafter you felt perfectly reasonable in presuming to make vacuous tactical arguments, and in dismissing completely non-controversial points out of hand (your own words) because they didn’t fit your uneducated presumptions. You’ve demonstrated a very fundamentalist religious type of mindset (infantile, basically—a persistent state in which your emotions have hijacked your intellect, though there’s little evidence they had to perform a hijacking, so that may be a kinder than accurate way to put it than).

Are you trying to prove beyond all doubt that you’re utterly incapable of dealing with this topic while maintaining any kind of intellectual composure or integrity? If that’s it then you can stop now—you’ve succeeded.

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: 24 July 2009 11:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20

Nice set of insults Byron, You obviously think that you are the only one who has a right to a point of view, and anyone who disagrees with you is irrational, fundamentalist, a member of “your people”, (what a weird concept), or not, blah, blah, blah, . I tried to reason with you, I asked you to recognize some nuance and address the obvious details inherent to you arguments,  I spent a great deal of time patiently pointing out much of that detail, apparent to anyone intelligent and open minded person who may peruse the arguments in the debate, I even acknowledged some extremely limited legitimacy in some of your arguments, (guns as safety instruments), but to no avail. You ignored virtually everything I wrote, and then went off on a tirade about how I really agreed with you and contradicted myself. I asked you several times to recognize real and obvious distinctions between guns and life preservers, people who may carry weapons and those who don’t want to, and to address other forms of nonlethal, (and MORE effective), defense measures, but you ignore it all just to return to your rant about how irrational and emotional anyone is who disagrees with you. The issues are black and white to you. What you are trying to force on us is your preconceived, one dimensional world, where anyone who does not see as you do, simply hasn’t done their research and are irrational and acting emotionally. Give us a break. Calling me a fundamentalist is very much the pot calling the kettle black. At that point, I gave up.

When you become a cartoon by making ridiculous absolute claims, and deny anyone else a point of view, you deserve to be ridiculed. It is your ridiculous absolute arguments, like drawing absolute equivalency between guns and first aid kits, that make ridicule possible. I can say that I’m sorry to have lost at least some the respect I once held for you.

BTW, here in Grizzly country, Elk hunters carry Bear spray in addition to their hunting rifles. It’s well known that it’s far more effective that guns at stopping grizzly bears. Sometimes, during hunting season, it’s hard to find in the sporting goods stores because the women attending our local state college buy it up in the fall. Tell me medic, suppose you came across a victim of pepper spray who had had the bottle shoved in their throat and nose and then discharged? Would that be lethal?

Amazing, just this morning I read in the paper about a 3 year old in Ohio who shot himself in the face with his father’s first aid kit. So, just now, I google, “3 year old shoots” and come up with these stories in the first few hits.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/threeyearold-shoots-himself-dead-1758807.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23986213/
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/clayton/stories/2009/07/13/toddler_shot_stomach.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
http://www.foxcarolina.com/news/20166218/detail.html
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/20039842/detail.html
http://www.wisn.com/news/13846111/detail.html
http://www.americustimesrecorder.com/local/local_story_194150019.html

And to be fair, there was this..82 year old kills robber with handgun, .357 no less…Interestingly, the robber’s gun was a toy he had blackened with a marker.
http://www.newsherald.com/news/shoots-76013-bristol-year.html

[ Edited: 24 July 2009 11:42 AM by eucaryote]
 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: 24 July 2009 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1814
Joined  2006-11-10
eucaryote - 24 July 2009 03:14 PM

And to be fair, there was this..82 year old kills robber with handgun, .357 no less…Interestingly, the robber’s gun was a toy he had blackened with a marker.
http://www.newsherald.com/news/shoots-76013-bristol-year.html


I think the 2009 Darwin Award should go to Octavious Barnes for robbing a guy with a toy gun and getting his dumb-ass head blown off in the process.

I wonder if the people on the other side of the murder weapon divide can see the relentless and poisoning logic of escalating fear.

One can, by drawing a long or shorter straw in that celestial lottery called being born, find oneself in such diverse social settings as Japan, a comfy, yet dreadfully dull suburb of Amsterdam or in Smalltown USA or in Sadr City, Baghdad anno 2007.

In the first two environments one can live to a very ripe old-age without ever even seeing a gun, much less be confronted with the bloody results for which they are made.

Skipping our glorious nation for a moment, I can dimly imagine what life in war-torn Iraq would be like. I mentioned Sadr City, but any other failed state like Somalia or Haiti or similar hell-hole will do just fine as well.

I am quite certain that, in order to make sure no one would take a portable drill to my well-shaped, albeit slightly confused cranium, merely because I live on a certain block, I would fetch myself a gun.

If news clips of celebrating folks in certain Middle Eastern societies are anything to go by, a Kalashnikov is about as common a feature in these people’s homes as a shower curtain.

I imagine that these are the sort of societies that the NRA and assorted lunatics have in mind when they try to further their cause of having more and more weaponry in our land, with fewer and fewer restrictions on their use.

The USA finds itself in between these examples with murder rates , usually by way of the gun, that are far higher than in Holland or Japan and yet we have not yet descended to the level of total anarchy that can erupt when a society is put under too much stress and when every Tom, Dick and Dickwad carries a gun.


To get a gun so you feel safer makes your society less safe, as your self-proclaimed control and restraint and presumed sanity are all contingent on variables that you only have partial control over.
A couple of drinks in the pub after a bad day at the office with your asshole boss yelling at you, only to come home to find your girlfriend in bed with Billy Ray Sirus can cause anyone to go postal.


By arming yourself while there isn’t any direct threat to your safety you set in motion a cycle of fear, gun proliferation and, unavoidably, gun-violence for which I hold people like Byron directly responsible.

When I become dictator of this fine land ( and yes, that is still my plan ) I will immediately outlaw all gun ownership, but, to prove that I ain’t no hard guy, I would turn the great state of Kentucky into a free-for-all where all you little boys who are so fond of your pow-pows can go to and blow each other to bits to your hearts’ content.

If by now you don’t know how I feel about this subject then you never will.

 Signature 

“You know I’m born to lose, and gambling is for fools.
But that’s the way I like it baby, I don’t want to live forever.”

From the autobiography of A.A.Mills, ‘The passage of time, according to an estranged, casual tyrant.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2009 02:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
Bad Rabbit - 24 July 2009 04:19 PM
eucaryote - 24 July 2009 03:14 PM

And to be fair, there was this..82 year old kills robber with handgun, .357 no less…Interestingly, the robber’s gun was a toy he had blackened with a marker.
http://www.newsherald.com/news/shoots-76013-bristol-year.html


I think the 2009 Darwin Award should go to Octavious Barnes for robbing a guy with a toy gun and getting his dumb-ass head blown off in the process.

No shit! Especially since he was 24 and the bar owner was 82! Clearly Octavious didn’t go into it concerned with consequences. A strange conspiracy with 3 girls all in their 20’s.

Bad Rabbit - 24 July 2009 04:19 PM

If news clips of celebrating folks in certain Middle Eastern societies are anything to go by, a Kalashnikov is about as common a feature in these people’s homes as a shower curtain.

I imagine that these are the sort of societies that the NRA and assorted lunatics have in mind when they try to further their cause of having more and more weaponry in our land, with fewer and fewer restrictions on their use.

I’ve wondered where the rounds land when they all get carried away firing automatic weapons into the air. I wonder how tied the NRA is to right wing xtian groups in the US?

Bad Rabbit - 24 July 2009 04:19 PM

To get a gun so you feel safer makes your society less safe, as your self-proclaimed control and restraint and presumed sanity are all contingent on variables that you only have partial control over.

Precisely. Everything worked out well and logically for the 82 year old bar owner, but barely. Had the 24 year old gotten hold of the only real gun brought to the conflict, then the Darwin award would have to be given to the bar owner for being killed with his own gun after being confronted by a young maniac carrying what turned out to be a toy gun. The competition between the two, for the Darwin award, was neck and neck there.

Bad Rabbit - 24 July 2009 04:19 PM

By arming yourself while there isn’t any direct threat to your safety you set in motion a cycle of fear, gun proliferation and, unavoidably, gun-violence ....

Thanks for saying that so simply.

But I’m afraid that you just don’t get it. You are failing to properly conflate guns with life preservers and first aid kits, you should realize what a benign thing it is to carry a gun. And remember, you have to anticipate the coming conflict so that you have the first aid kit with you when you need it. And of course since it is simply a first aid kit, then there are no other possible extenuating consequences or ramification to carrying weapons, other than first aid of course.

 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
 
 
   
4 of 6
4
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed