I'm coming out of the closet for Milo Yiannopoulos.... [Archive]

DeathRay

06-21-2016, 04:28 PM

Any specific bigotry of his that you disagree with?

I disagree with all bigotry as a general principle, as I hope you would as well, but his anti-Islamic bigotry will do for a start.

You may think that Milo is some sort of breath of fresh air, especially being uniquely postured (as a right wing queer) to respond to Orlando, but he has offered nothing that hasn't been heard time and again since 9/11.

To put a finer point on it: I just listened to Sam Harris (the famous atheist) in the same breath condemn Trump for his pigishness but praise him for his "moral clarity" in saying "America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism." (I guess Hillary has not said anything this "bold", although I'm sure she has said many things just as empty.) If Trump has a plan to "unite the world" (including Muslim countries) he has yet to roll it out. I won't count on him doing so either.

So Orlando has given the usual suspects the opportunity to say the usual things. What they won't ever say is that it is time for a louder and more open conversation with America's Muslims--who are no more nutty than America's white population of spree killers--about just how to create the worldwide response to jihadism that we are all crying out for.

The reason why this conversation never happens is because no one wants to give the microphone to Muslims, even moderate Muslims. White, Christian Americans, be they right wing or left wing (such as myself) have no desire to elevate that religious perspective, even for strategic purposes.

This means that liberals must resort to mealy-mouthed responses to terrorism designed to keep America's hate on a low simmer, while the right wing pretends to have an answer that they never get around to revealing, because their only real strategy is violence, which naturally plays right into the hands of terrorists, who more than anything want American Muslims to become aliens in their own land. All the better to recruit them!

LittleLebowski

06-21-2016, 09:02 PM

DeathRay

06-21-2016, 09:35 PM

Interesting first couple of posts on a gun forum.

So you are deriding Sam Harris because he dislikes Trump yet does not condemn everything en masse that Trump says? Or if I misunderstood you, are you taking umbrage with Sam not calling out Trump on his lack of a detailed plan to unite the whole world in the fight against Islamic terrorism?

I am saying that although Harris (in the audio I listened to) clearly thinks Trump is a boob, even he cannot help but swoon at the barest scrap of "moral clarity". But what Trump said was political boilerplate of the most predictable sort. Anyone could have said what Trump said, and I'm sure many have. It's 15 years since 9/11. We don't need an invitation to join hands with the rest of planet earth. Tell us how it's done, Don, or STFU.

May I assume that when you complain that no one wants to give moderate American Muslims a voice, that you are not referring to CAIR? I think it is fairly clear that you do think that American Muslims can aid America in the fight against Islamic terrorism that you say is "no more nutty than America's white population of spree killers", correct? What is that solution they offer? Not to anger them further or more killing sprees will occur? They'll be forced to radicalize?

The solution is a long game, and will not come from any one voice. CAIR does not have a formula, neither do Democrats or Republicans. But we could have an ongoing engagement with Muslims on a regular basis to clarify where the threat in this country and abroad is coming from, and where it is not, the proper institutions to single out for condemnation after an event like Orlando, the ones that have nothing to do with that kind of thinking, and in essence build bridges within our country that will slowly neutralize the appeal of jihadist recruiters. Instead, we are always in reaction mode, blaming the wrong people or giving pats on the head to people who can speak for themselves.

I don't know how not to conclude from your last post that you're blaming American treatment for acts of Islamic terrorism such as Orlando. Furthermore, it's a sad sign of the time we live in when a self professed "liberal" doesn't first and foremost acknowledge the both cultural and religious equal rights problems endemic with the world's Muslim population. Islam seems to be still suffering from the blast backwards into time that the Mongols dealt them and it's high time Islam has its own Renaissance and figured out how to get out of the yoke of theocracy.

I am not a liberal, I am a leftist. As for the problems within Islam broadly, those are problems that have been there for a long time, and to a certain extent are present in all conservative religious thought. Regardless, our problem is not with "Islam", or we would have been having this conversation long before 9/11. The problem is the jihadi movement. It is Islamic and religious in nature, yes, but if you expect every good Muslim in the world to rise up in outrage and end the problem for us, then I'm sure there are some Muslims who would like to know when America will bring democracy to China. (I'm sure there are a lot of Tibetans who would like to know as well.)

As for Islam's Renaissance, I am all for it. But we cannot force it anymore than Sweden could force single payer health care on us.

JAD

06-21-2016, 10:33 PM

I, But we could have an ongoing engagement with Muslims.

We just had two of those.

OnionsAndDragons

06-21-2016, 10:41 PM

I think I like this Milo kid; thanks for bringing him to my attention.

Deathray, I think you misinterpret Harris' comment on Trump's "moral clarity."

He was not referring to the underlying substance, or lack thereof, of the Don's proclamation. He was acknowledging that Trump was addressing the problem and not going off on a tilt against the AR-15 shaped windmill.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Josh Runkle

06-21-2016, 10:43 PM

I am saying that although Harris (in the audio I listened to) clearly thinks Trump is a boob, even he cannot help but swoon at the barest scrap of "moral clarity". But what Trump said was political boilerplate of the most predictable sort. Anyone could have said what Trump said, and I'm sure many have. It's 15 years since 9/11. We don't need an invitation to join hands with the rest of planet earth. Tell us how it's done, Don, or STFU.

The solution is a long game, and will not come from any one voice. CAIR does not have a formula, neither do Democrats or Republicans. But we could have an ongoing engagement with Muslims on a regular basis to clarify where the threat in this country and abroad is coming from, and where it is not, the proper institutions to single out for condemnation after an event like Orlando, the ones that have nothing to do with that kind of thinking, and in essence build bridges within our country that will slowly neutralize the appeal of jihadist recruiters. Instead, we are always in reaction mode, blaming the wrong people or giving pats on the head to people who can speak for themselves.

I am not a liberal, I am a leftist. As for the problems within Islam broadly, those are problems that have been there for a long time, and to a certain extent are present in all conservative religious thought. Regardless, our problem is not with "Islam", or we would have been having this conversation long before 9/11. The problem is the jihadi movement. It is Islamic and religious in nature, yes, but if you expect every good Muslim in the world to rise up in outrage and end the problem for us, then I'm sure there are some Muslims who would like to know when America will bring democracy to China. (I'm sure there are a lot of Tibetans who would like to know as well.)

As for Islam's Renaissance, I am all for it. But we cannot force it anymore than Sweden could force single payer health care on us.

I think you have some valid points that merit some decent discussion. While you take a different approach (I'm more of a conservative libertarian), I like hearing and discussing things from different angles.

That being said, you jumped in with your first post like this is prison and you had to find the biggest MOFO and sock him in the nose.

Let's start here: are you into guns?

DeathRay

06-21-2016, 11:04 PM

Let's start here: are you into guns?

Nope, although I find the issues surrounding them interesting. I came here for the discussion on Milo.

Harris does make a valid point about the AR-15 not being the relevant issue, as handguns are deadlier in mass shootings. The problem is, of course (from the liberal point of view), that if you can't bring up "military" style weapons like AR-15s or AKs (or what have you) after a mass shooting, then you can't have the discussion at all, since the press and public are far quicker to shut down a debate if you suggest any regulations on plain ol' pistols. Meanwhile, the problem continues with no solutions, year after year. I'm for an ammunition tax myself.

Malamute

06-21-2016, 11:11 PM

There is already an ammunition tax. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_ Restoration_Act)

Josh Runkle

06-21-2016, 11:18 PM

Nope, although I find the issues surrounding them interesting. I came here for the discussion on Milo.

Harris does make a valid point about the AR-15 not being the relevant issue, as handguns are deadlier in mass shootings. The problem is, of course (from the liberal point of view), that if you can't bring up "military" style weapons like AR-15s or AKs (or what have you) after a mass shooting, then you can't have the discussion at all, since the press and public are far quicker to shut down a debate if you suggest any regulations on plain ol' pistols. Meanwhile, the problem continues with no solutions, year after year. I'm for an ammunition tax myself.

A forum is a place for polite, two-way discourse, where the end result is that we all learn something. The "two-way" discourse involves sharing your opinion, and learning something from the opinions of others.

I understand that you are not into guns, and that you only came here to discuss Milo. I think I understand the "opinion that you wish to share", so my question is, what are you hoping to learn from others on this topic?

I mean this with the sincerest and most polite of intents.

warpedcamshaft

06-21-2016, 11:30 PM

who are no more nutty than America's white population of spree killers

You generalizing bigot.

:p

warpedcamshaft

06-21-2016, 11:46 PM

I'll expound:

Whites and Blacks commit mass murders at a fairly consistent rate with their population percentage.

Asians commit mass murders at a much higher rate considering population percentage, and Latinos commit mass murder at a much lower rate.

The phrase "White population of spree killers" is absurd, illogical, and unjustified.

jc000

06-21-2016, 11:54 PM

The phrase "White population of spree killers" is absurd, illogical, and unjustified.

Well he / she / it has self-described as a leftist who's not into guns.

Just what we need around here.

Drang

06-21-2016, 11:58 PM

warpedcamshaft

06-22-2016, 12:28 AM

I'm for an ammunition tax myself.

Taxing ammunition with the intent of preventing crime only serves to punish civilians/law enforcement officers who participate in legal recreational sport shooting and/or training. Look into the amount of ammunition fired at a single training class or shooting match. We (the good guys) shoot way more ammunition than they do. (the bad guys: Violent criminals)

Mass murderers who have decided on a terminal trajectory towards committing a horrific act could easily sell personally owned items to fund a purchase of a couple hundred rounds with or without the tax. But our civilians and law enforcement officers who frequently choose to hone their skills by firing that many rounds per day of a class/match will be punished.

I know plenty of officers who practice quite a bit with personally purchased ammunition in order to increase their skills. Surely, you must admit that these individuals don't deserve to be taxed at an even higher rate?

hufnagel

06-22-2016, 05:29 AM

Milo is entertaining and possesses a high verbal IQ.

Do not worship false idols.

He's not perfect (his comments on atheists for one, but then this is America and he's allowed to have his opinion and express it. You know, that thing the Left HATES so much) but i think his heart and intention is in the right place and direction. I can no-homo-man-crush on the guy for what he says that I agree with, and respectfully disagree with him on the things I don't. At the end of the day he seems to present his ideas from the avenue of logic and reason; I'll raise a pint to anyone who does that.

Tamara

06-22-2016, 05:30 AM

Nope, although I find the issues surrounding them interesting. I came here for the discussion on Milo

So, you just basically Google the name of that narcissistic douche and, whenever you see it appear in a forum, you register an account there to debate about him, whether that forum is about handguns, herpetology, or hentai? Are you, like, a lone anti-Milo internet ronin?

Hambo

06-22-2016, 05:55 AM

I came here for the discussion on Milo.

Dude, you need to get out more.

fixer

06-22-2016, 06:42 AM

The solution is a long game, and will not come from any one voice. CAIR does not have a formula, neither do Democrats or Republicans. But we could have an ongoing engagement with Muslims on a regular basis to clarify where the threat in this country and abroad is coming from, and where it is not, the proper institutions to single out for condemnation after an event like Orlando, the ones that have nothing to do with that kind of thinking, and in essence build bridges within our country that will slowly neutralize the appeal of jihadist recruiters. Instead, we are always in reaction mode, blaming the wrong people or giving pats on the head to people who can speak for themselves.

Build bridges? Neutralize appeal to jihad?

We used to have this thing called assimilation that worked quite well.

The left is 100% liable for its demise.

We have been lectured, brow beaten, slandered, and libeled by the left and 'social justice warriors' for decades upon decades: assimilation is hegemony, racist, sexist, micro-aggression, etc...

The left has worked assiduously to create protected groups in reaction to 'White America' and its paternalistic, racist, misogynist, ways.

We now have protected groups fighting each other and the left is in a complete mental tailspin trying to figure out how we got here.

The left has no answer here. We have been living under false paradigms invented by the left that have created the adversarial situations we have right now between protected groups.

There is your bed...have fun sleeping in it.

Tamara

06-22-2016, 06:51 AM

I blame the Designated Hitter Rule.

LittleLebowski

06-22-2016, 06:55 AM

I need some coffee...

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/mug-throw-big-lebowski.gif

Jay Cunningham

06-22-2016, 07:10 AM

I blame the Designated Hitler Rule.

FIFY

Hambo

06-22-2016, 07:11 AM

I blame the Designated Hitter Rule.

You elitist NL fans are all alike.

Chris Rhines

06-22-2016, 09:42 AM

I wonder if milo-forum.com is available.
Dunno, but handgunsherpetologyandhentai.com is up for sale...

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 10:06 AM

...whether that forum is about...hentai?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6FqnRSoX0po

hufnagel

06-22-2016, 10:43 AM

I wonder if milo-forum.com is available.

yep.
milo-forum and miloforum, as well as most (if not all) of the TLD's.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 10:55 AM

A forum is a place for polite, two-way discourse, where the end result is that we all learn something. The "two-way" discourse involves sharing your opinion, and learning something from the opinions of others.

I understand that you are not into guns, and that you only came here to discuss Milo. I think I understand the "opinion that you wish to share", so my question is, what are you hoping to learn from others on this topic?

Oh, a polite conversation is revelatory in itself. If we are moving ON from Milo to guns (imagine!), I suppose I would be most interested in what y'all think is the answer to the mass killing epidemic. I'm getting a little tired of seeing flags at half mast, aren't you?

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 10:58 AM

The phrase "White population of spree killers" is absurd, illogical, and unjustified.

In context, what I meant is that people think that the shootings Orlando and San Bernardino are part of a problem separate from events in Newtown and Aurora. I think they are all a symptom of the same problem.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 11:03 AM

Mass murderers who have decided on a terminal trajectory towards committing a horrific act could easily sell personally owned items to fund a purchase of a couple hundred rounds with or without the tax. But our civilians and law enforcement officers who frequently choose to hone their skills by firing that many rounds per day of a class/match will be punished.

I know plenty of officers who practice quite a bit with personally purchased ammunition in order to increase their skills. Surely, you must admit that these individuals don't deserve to be taxed at an even higher rate?

I don't think a simple, blanket ammo tax would itself solve the problem. A person who owns a gun for self defense and logically only needs a few bullets in their lifetime is obviously in a different situation than a hunter or sport shooter.

My logic is that since there are too many guns to ver confiscate, and no real willingness amongst the public to do that anyway, another avenue to making gun crime difficult must be found, one that does not offend the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Since the business part of a gun is actually the bullet, maybe thatare the feature we should be regulating better. After all, the vast majority of people will not manufacture their own bullets.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 11:04 AM

So, you just basically Google the name of that narcissistic douche and, whenever you see it appear in a forum, you register an account there to debate about him, whether that forum is about handguns, herpetology, or hentai? Are you, like, a lone anti-Milo internet ronin?

Hey, I didn't start the thread, did I? :P

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 11:15 AM

Oh, a polite conversation is revelatory in itself. If we are moving ON from Milo to guns (imagine!), I suppose I would be most interested in what y'all think is the answer to the mass killing epidemic. I'm getting a little tired of seeing flags at half mast, aren't you?

1). Make a choice between having freedoms or not having freedoms. Having freedoms will always come at some cost to society. If we allow people to drink alcohol, then eventually some people will get in their cars and drive drunk, regardless of the law.

2). Nearly EVERY SINGLE mass shooting has occurred in a gun free zone. Often times, these zones prohibit off-duty police officers from carrying their weapon in that area. For example, in Florida, I believe that no one is allowed to carry a gun in a bar, even if they are not drinking. The good guys obey the law and don't bring guns. The bad guys don't obey the law. Laws that target good guys are essentially irrelevant.

3). Change the culture related to dealing with violence. Both of my grandfathers were raised in different parts of the US (one in Ohio, one in Iowa and then Minnesota). Neither came from similar backgrounds, but both would have attacked the guy with the gun, even as an unarmed 80 year old. Why? Because there is a lower chance of surviving by hiding. (Running away IS a valid option, though. Don't think that I have some boner to fight people.) Most people who crouched down in the nightclub were shot. There are no reports of anyone attacking the shooter. I recently went to a symposium at a local college where the new tactic being taught to teachers for dealing with a mass shooting is to have everyone hide next to the door and have everyone jump the shooter at once when he comes in the door. This way, only one, two, or maybe no people get shot, rather than a whole classroom. We need to change the culture and show people that if they can't run away, they need to fight back. Even if they don't know how to fight, the simple decision to do something might save their life.

4). Enforce pre-existing laws. Many of these shooting would be prevented if laws related to psychiatric reporting or immigration were actually enforced.

5). Recognize that motives rather than tools are the issue. Every mass shooting in my lifetime that has been at the forefront of the gun-ban discussion has been perpetrated by either someone with a severe mental illness or a devout duty to Islam. We have chosen not to lock up everyone that is mentally ill anymore, and we have chosen to try to keep targets of the backs of Muslims. This prevents hate crimes, but allows a few bad eggs to slip through the cracks. This goes back to step 1: freedom. Freedom always comes at a cost. And the cost of not blaming every Muslim or everyone with a mental illness certainly seems worth it to me.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 11:17 AM

Build bridges? Neutralize appeal to jihad?

We used to have this thing called assimilation that worked quite well.

The left is 100% liable for its demise.

I actually don't see any problem with assimilation in our country. It is Europe, which has less of a "melting pot" philosophy, that has the assimilation problem with Muslims. Their history with that population is also different... a lot of residents from former colonies, and of course, the refugee wave of the present moment. This is not quite America's "Ellis Island" experience.

We have been lectured, brow beaten, slandered, and libeled by the left and 'social justice warriors' for decades upon decades: assimilation is hegemony, racist, sexist, micro-aggression, etc...

The matter at hand is not ethnicity but religion. The jihadist problem draws from the religion of Islam, which is (understandably) treated as alien by the vast majority of Americans who simply don't know how to have a polite conversation about a foreign religion without it threatening our our traditional Christian outlook. It is 9/11 and what has happened since that has forced this conversation, otherwise we would all still be in a "live and let live" mode.

So I repeat: what we ought to do is have an ongoing two-way conversation with mainstream American Muslims, so that the pushback on terrorism can come from them as well, instead of the press rushing to dig up a token Muslim after every tragedy so they can either A) ask why they hate us or B) ask if they are worried about their mosques being fire bombed.... and then forget about them until the next tragedy.

There is your bed...have fun sleeping in it.

We all have to sleep in this bed we are making. We are a democracy, and the People are to praise or blame for the quality of our situation.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 11:24 AM

A person who owns a gun for self defense and logically only needs a few bullets in their lifetime is obviously in a different situation than a hunter or sport shooter.

I would encourage you to read around the rest of this website. We have nothing to hide. Most of us who choose to have a gun for self defense recognize that it would be negligent to own a gun but not know how to use it. That would be unsafe for ourselves and our family members, and potentially our neighbors.

Most of us would never shoot someone who is stealing a wallet or a tv. Let them have it and call the police. But, there are some really sick psychos out there who rape and kill people. So, what if someone's trying to rape and kill my wife, and I try to shoot them and I miss and hit my wife, or I miss and it goes next door and kills my neighbor. That wouldn't be very good.

So, most of us practice. I don't shoot competitively, and I don't hunt. I shoot for self-defense and because I enjoy going shooting. I shoot a varying amount each year, but, to keep it simple, let's average it out and say that I shoot about 20,000 rounds a year. If a tax is placed on that ammo so that I can only afford to shoot 10,000 rounds, how does that save lives? If you mean an ammo restriction, rather than ammo tax, and you think I should only be able to own 10 rounds, then how is it safe for me to own that gun in the first place if I'm going to have a dangerous, negligent knowledge of how to use it?

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 11:28 AM

My logic is that since...

...and no real willingness amongst the public to do that...

So, you acknowledge that the public in this country seems to have a majority type of thinking that differs from your own. Do you only support democracy when you think the ideas are good and you agree with them?

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 11:35 AM

1). Make a choice between having freedoms or not having freedoms. Having freedoms will always come at some cost to society. If we allow people to drink alcohol, then eventually some people will get in their cars and drive drunk, regardless of the law.

While this much is true, there is also the question of the abuse of freedom which has to be looked squarely in the eye. Weapons are, after all, a business. Gun makers want to sell guns and keep selling them. The more sold, the more used, and the more eventually used for crime. I think we have come to a point where the very saturation of guns is forcing a policy change.

2). Nearly EVERY SINGLE mass shooting has occurred in a gun free zone. Often times, these zones prohibit off-duty police officers from carrying their weapon in that area. For example, in Florida, I believe that no one is allowed to carry a gun in a bar, even if they are not drinking. The good guys obey the law and don't bring guns. The bad guys don't obey the law. Laws that target good guys are essentially irrelevant.

This "good guy with a gun" theory is simply one I don't buy. I dunno... maybe I will have to see an attempted mass shooting in an open-carry state get thwarted by six vigilant citizens all shooting the killer in the head for me to see the virtue of getting rid of gun-free zones. It seems to me that most of these mass-shootings are glorified suicides, so the killers aren't worried about the effect of "a good guy with a gun" (they usually DO wind up shot dead, after all, either by cops or themselves). And frankly, it seems likely that when people all start pulling guns, they will quickly confuse each other with the killer and end up shooting one another.

3). Change the culture related to dealing with violence... I recently went to a symposium at a local college where the new tactic being taught to teachers for dealing with a mass shooting is to have everyone hide next to the door and have everyone jump the shooter at once when he comes in the door. This way, only one, two, or maybe no people get shot, rather than a whole classroom. We need to change the culture and show people that if they can't run away, they need to fight back. Even if they don't know how to fight, the simple decision to do something might save their life.

Fair enough, though on a mass level, this seems likely to have limited results. You can't easily change the human reaction to a panic situation, unless you start from kindergarten and implement it nationwide. But let's say we did that: the sensible public reaction to that curriculum would be:"Um, excuse me? What is going on in our nation that, rather than control guns, children must be trained from birth how to tackle a homicidal Rambo? Aren't we missing the forest for the trees here?"

RoyGBiv

06-22-2016, 11:37 AM

This "good guy with a gun" theory is simply one I don't buy. I dunno... maybe I will have to see an attempted mass shooting in an open-carry state get thwarted by six vigilant citizens all shooting the killer in the head for me to see the virtue of getting rid of gun-free zones.

At the risk of feeding the troll...

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

Tamara

06-22-2016, 11:37 AM

Hey, I didn't start the thread, did I? :P

Would have been hard to land on it from a search engine if it didn't preexist, so that's kind of a tautological response.

Scal

06-22-2016, 11:38 AM

Milo strikes me as a cheap, funhouse mirror image of Gore Vidal. And before you think that means I like Vidal, I really liked Florence King's impression of the man in the form of a book review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/211935/fridays-florence-florence-king

And thirding/fourthing an ammo tax besides Pittman-Robertson being dumb as hell, since the folks who repeatedly buy ammo by the case don't really seem to be the same people committing street crime or mass shootings.

Tamara

06-22-2016, 11:44 AM

Florence King is my spirit animal.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 11:46 AM

So, most of us practice. I don't shoot competitively, and I don't hunt. I shoot for self-defense and because I enjoy going shooting. I shoot a varying amount each year, but, to keep it simple, let's average it out and say that I shoot about 20,000 rounds a year. If a tax is placed on that ammo so that I can only afford to shoot 10,000 rounds, how does that save lives? If you mean an ammo restriction, rather than ammo tax, and you think I should only be able to own 10 rounds, then how is it safe for me to own that gun in the first place if I'm going to have a dangerous, negligent knowledge of how to use it?

A fair point, and I have always thought that an approach like mine should be crafted with the input of people who own guns. There are obviously many nuances that come with keeping the freedom to own guns but reigning in its excesses.

As for your particular situation, where you need to fire off 20,000 rounds to participate in your hobby, I don't know exactly what to say. If you shot your gun at a club, then perhaps the club would be responsible for tracking your ammo. Ammo could also be stamped with serial numbers to keep track of where it is going and who owns it (remember, I know there is no final solution to gun violence. The goal is minimization of crime).

In the final analysis, however, my bottom line would be this: guns are a weapon designed for killing. Recreational use for target shooting is secondary to the real public interest of making sure this weapon is used as infrequently as possible against the innocent. If that means you won't get to shoot your gun as frequently as you like, then that's the sacrifice you would be asked to make.

The other side of the coin would obviously be: what sacrifice would you ask of me?

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 11:49 AM

So, you acknowledge that the public in this country seems to have a majority type of thinking that differs from your own. Do you only support democracy when you think the ideas are good and you agree with them?

Where in this conversation have I suggested anything but a democratic solution to the problem of gun violence?

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 11:49 AM

...another avenue to making gun crime difficult must be found, one that does not offend the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Since the business part of a gun is actually the bullet, maybe thatare the feature we should be regulating better.

This is a notion that has been highly perpetuated by Hilary Clinton, which has been thought by many to be fairly false. "Well Regulated" in the Amendment does not mean "government regulation", it means "well armed and well trained". The Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Essentially:

"To have a free country, the people have to be well armed and well trained. Their individual right to keep and bear arms cannot be interfered with by the government."

That is why the government has never passed a law, so far, regulating weapons.

So, right now you might be thinking, "Hello, idiot! You can't buy a rocket launcher! And you have to pass a background check to buy a gun! Of course, some 'reasonable' restrictions are necessary!"

Well, in 1934, (when you could order a rocket launcher in the mail without a background check) the government got pissed about gangs carrying Thompson "Tommy Gun" Submachine Guns. So, they tried to ban them, but they realized that they couldn't ban them. It was, after all, illegal for the government to pass any laws restricting firearms (and/or ammunition). So, they came up with a clever idea: the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes as they wish. So, they passed a $200 tax on machine guns (and also silencers, destructive devices...which are things like rocket launchers, and so on). $200, according to my inflation calculator would be $3,507.09 today. A massive tax that made gangsters go to buying other types of guns. Eventually, Congress realized that they should track who has paid the tax for an item, and so, the ATF does a "tax paid transfer and registration of" those items. But, there's a fine line. They are allowed to keep a registration that a tax has been paid on that item. That is the reason they can track where that item is. Thy cannot just make people register all guns.

But what about a background check, isn't that a restriction? Well, no, actually. The background check only occurs on the person spending the money, not the person owning the gun. If you and I go to a gun shop and you give me money to buy a gun for you, that is illegal. That is called a straw purchase. But, if I choose to buy the gun for you as a gift, and we walk into the shop together, I do the background check because I am spending the money, and you never do a background check and you walk home with the gun. Why is it like this? Because Congress has the power of the purse. They can regulate things related to who spends money and how they spend it, but they can't regulate anything about having the gun. (Obviously, there are laws regarding special populations like prisoners, or minors, but they aren't extended all of the other rights of the constitution either)

So, Congress has found "work around" ways to restrict weapons, using their power of the purse. It would be completely legal for them to tax ammunition, as they have already done. But, it would be completely illegal for them to just make a blanket statement banning possession of ammunition.

Tamara

06-22-2016, 11:51 AM

In the final analysis, however, my bottom line would be this: guns are a weapon designed for killing.

This presumes that there's never anybody who needs to be shot.

chiral

06-22-2016, 11:51 AM

.... stamped with serial numbers to keep track of where it is going ....final solution....The goal is minimization...

#Godwin'd

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 11:56 AM

At the risk of feeding the troll...

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

I'm not sure what you think this minor stat proves. Are you saying that the killers are specifically choosing gun free zones for their crimes? I would like to see evidence of that.

Perhaps you are saying that where shootings take place in gun free zones they go from only attempted shootings or small numbers of victims to mass shootings, while in... let's call them "gun zones"... the "good guys" are all shooting back and the "mass" killing never happens. Again, I will want to see evidence of that.

Pie charts don't wow me. Good arguments do.

Scal

06-22-2016, 12:07 PM

DR,

I would ask you to realize what you are doing is going to elicit a reaction that ends with "...and the horse you rode in on!"

Consider the ease of obtaining an abortion in Texas or Oklahoma. Consider that the many religious, socially conservative people consider abortion to be murder. Despite their protests to the contrary, what they, and politicians trying to court that voting bloc are doing is piecemeal trying to make abortion illegal, or at least as difficult as possible, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

Shooters, correctly in my opinion, see how many liberals and Democrat Party leaders have the same goals regarding gun ownership as pro-life people do regarding abortion. They see how things are are going in CA, NY, and NJ in regards to "reasonable" gun control at this point, which is much more restrictive than they are happy with. So, now whenever someone starts beating the gun control drum, the response from most shooters is extremely negative. There is a lot of well earned mistrust on both sides that stem from incompatible first principles. The likelihood of changing this is slim to none.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 12:08 PM

While this much is true, there is also the question of the abuse of freedom which has to be looked squarely in the eye. Weapons are, after all, a business. Gun makers want to sell guns and keep selling them. The more sold, the more used, and the more eventually used for crime. I think we have come to a point where the very saturation of guns is forcing a policy change.

You seem to think this is a new issue in the US. This was debated for quite some time by Congress in the 1930's, and it was debated for a VERY long time during the founding of the US. It was equally as contested by both the public and the politicians at both of those times. It is not a new issue. It is one thing that has always made America unique from the rest of the world.

This "good guy with a gun" theory is simply one I don't buy. I dunno... maybe I will have to see an attempted mass shooting in an open-carry state get thwarted by six vigilant citizens all shooting the killer in the head for me to see the virtue of getting rid of gun-free zones. It seems to me that most of these mass-shootings are glorified suicides, so the killers aren't worried about the effect of "a good guy with a gun" (they usually DO wind up shot dead, after all, either by cops or themselves). And frankly, it seems likely that when people all start pulling guns, they will quickly confuse each other with the killer and end up shooting one another.

Well, you have to remember that nothing is a "Mass Shooting" until 4 people die. That's the actual way it is tracked. So, if 600 people are shot, but only 1 person dies, it's not considered a mass shooting, despite the obvious. If the person is attempting a mass shooting and goes into a mall with a rifle, handgun and a bunch of grenades, and only kills one person and then is killed by someone with a concealed weapons permit, that is not considered a mass shooting. The NRA posts links to local news sources where people defended their life with a gun. Occasionally, like the mall shooting in Oregon, those events are "attempted" mass shootings that never make the definition for "mass shooting", and so, the president doesn't make speeches about them.

Here is a link to the Oregon example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting

There is a long thread on here with probably several hundred hours of potential reading with links to local shootings, good and bad, and commentary from many people on here who are current or former military, and local or federal law enforcement.

Fair enough, though on a mass level, this seems likely to have limited results. You can't easily change the human reaction to a panic situation, unless you start from kindergarten and implement it nationwide. But let's say we did that: the sensible public reaction to that curriculum would be:"Um, excuse me? What is going on in our nation that, rather than control guns, children must be trained from birth how to tackle a homicidal Rambo? Aren't we missing the forest for the trees here?"

You would say yes, I would say no. Why should we have to explain to a kindergartener that their friend was killed by a drunk driver? Statistically, it is far, far, far more likely that a kindergartener will have a friend killed by a drunk driver than a gun. So, when will we ever finally see the forest for the trees and ban alcohol?

Or...do we recognize that bad people will find access to things regardless of their legal status, like during Prohibition, and that those bad people will still hurt people regardless of the law? So, maybe, just maybe, we choose freedom for the citizens who are good people, and we start targeting only the bad people.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 12:13 PM

The other side of the coin would obviously be: what sacrifice would you ask of me?

Absolutely nothing! You be you. I'll be me. Let's be polite and leave each other's lives alone. I don't care who you marry, I don't care what your house looks like. I don't care if you choose to do drugs in your own home...

Let's just be polite neighbors and stop targeting each other and stop asking each other to make sacrifices. Let's make the bad people in society make sacrifices, and leave everyone else alone!

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 12:15 PM

A fair point, and I have always thought that an approach like mine should be crafted with the input of people who own guns. There are obviously many nuances that come with keeping the freedom to own guns but reigning in its excesses.

Do you have any relation to a politician or a politician's office?

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 12:16 PM

Where in this conversation have I suggested anything but a democratic solution to the problem of gun violence?

You were saying that the public doesn't want to have that conversation, but then, that you want to make them have that conversation.

nycnoob

06-22-2016, 12:27 PM

Where in this conversation have I suggested anything but a democratic solution to the problem of gun violence?

Why does this have to be about voting?

The federal government stepped in and abolished the "Jim Crow" laws of the south due to infringement of rights. What do you think is protected by the second amendment? How much regulation would be too much? The bill of rights was not passed piecemeal it was a collection of rights so presumably we could have a similar action by the federal government for the second amendment.

Where do you see this line? The notion of rights must have some meaning.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 12:29 PM

DR,

I would ask you to realize what you are doing is going to elicit a reaction that ends with "...and the horse you rode in on!"

So far I am pleased to see that that is not the case. :o

Shooters, correctly in my opinion, see how many liberals and Democrat Party leaders have the same goals regarding gun ownership as pro-life people do regarding abortion. They see how things are are going in CA, NY, and NJ in regards to "reasonable" gun control at this point, which is much more restrictive than they are happy with. So, now whenever someone starts beating the gun control drum, the response from most shooters is extremely negative. There is a lot of well earned mistrust on both sides that stem from incompatible first principles. The likelihood of changing this is slim to none.

I am not at all surprised that on a board for gun enthusiasts the attitude is "pro gun", and I think that after reading my posts you will notice that I am not trying to change anyone's mind on enjoying guns, nor have I suggested that I am anti-2nd Amendment. There is, however, an undeniable problem with firearm violence that I think you will admit to. This is, after all, the reason for all those lefty infringements on gun ownership that you point out.

(BTW, isn't it refreshing that arch-communist Bernie Sanders is the most pro-gun candidate in the race?)

My useful purpose, if I can serve one, is to suggest a different avenue to dealing with the problem. Although there is nothing new under the sun, there are new attitudes to old solutions.

The fact of the matter is, however, that every new mass killing is tipping the balance in favor of the policies you least like. It may not happen in this generation, but the tide is turning against gun owners as we descend further and further into RoboCop-style madness. There are plenty of bad ideas on the left, but you guys could co-operate more instead of trying to sell the country on some sort of vigilante fantasy where the problem is solved when every Mom, Dad and Gramma is strapped.

Mass killings are part of the gun culture too.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 12:40 PM

So far I am pleased to see that that is not the case. :o

I am not at all surprised that on a board for gun enthusiasts the attitude is "pro gun", and I think that after reading my posts you will notice that I am not trying to change anyone's mind on enjoying guns, nor have I suggested that I am anti-2nd Amendment. There is, however, an undeniable problem with firearm violence that I think you will admit to. This is, after all, the reason for all those lefty infringements on gun ownership that you point out.

(BTW, isn't it refreshing that arch-communist Bernie Sanders is the most pro-gun candidate in the race?)

My useful purpose, if I can serve one, is to suggest a different avenue to dealing with the problem. Although there is nothing new under the sun, there are new attitudes to old solutions.

The fact of the matter is, however, that every new mass killing is tipping the balance in favor of the policies you least like. It may not happen in this generation, but the tide is turning against gun owners as we descend further and further into RoboCop-style madness. There are plenty of bad ideas on the left, but you guys could co-operate more instead of trying to sell the country on some sort of vigilante fantasy where the problem is solved when every Mom, Dad and Gramma is strapped.

Mass killings are part of the gun culture too.

Your "new solutions" are just the same as the ones the rest of the world already has. America is unique. It has been unique, and it will remain so. Why not live somewhere where you can have the gun free lifestyle you want instead of trying to force yours on the rest of us?

nycnoob

06-22-2016, 12:41 PM

There is, however, an undeniable problem with firearm violence that I think you will admit to.

The data I have seen points to a very different scientific consensus. Even the older data points the same way. After the Sullivan Act was passed in NYC 100 years ago the insurance companies begged NYC to repeal it because of skyrocketting crime.

John Lott's data is more modern and shows a similar effect when gun control is removed and crime plummets.
I have no idea where you get your data but I find it most unreliable.

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 12:42 PM

There is, however, an undeniable problem with firearm violence that I think you will admit to. This is, after all, the reason for all those lefty infringements on gun ownership that you point out.

That is largely irrelevant. That's like saying "There is an undeniable problem with marijuana abuse. This is, after all, the reason for all those right-wing infringements on marijuana use." The existence of political rabble rousing doesn't necessarily mean there is a statistically meaningful problem at all, just look at all the various overreactions to so-called reefer madness, the satanic influences of rock-n-roll, and the mind-bending powers of violent video games for some counterexamples.

Frankly speaking, remarks like "The fact of the matter is, however, that every new mass killing is tipping the balance in favor of the policies you least like. It may not happen in this generation, but the tide is turning against gun owners as we descend further and further into RoboCop-style madness" indicate an extremely lacking understanding of the statistics. The fact of the matter is that if you care about public safety there are many issues that are more pressing than gun control, so long as you're honest with your statistical analysis.

As for "you guys could co-operate more," I am somewhat at a loss. We're entitled to our political opinions just as your are to yours, and the whining about gun owners not cooperating frankly means very little to me. Mostly it reeks of "I can't win this argument by persuasion or by logic, therefore I will call the other side names or try to guilt trip them into making concessions." Not speaking of you specifically, but that is the general undertone I see in the debate at large.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 12:42 PM

Occasionally, like the mall shooting in Oregon, those events are "attempted" mass shootings that never make the definition for "mass shooting", and so, the president doesn't make speeches about them.

Here is a link to the Oregon example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting

I expected this to be an example of the fabled "good guy with a gun" preventing a massacre. Instead, the killer shot himself, after shooting three other people.

You would say yes, I would say no. Why should we have to explain to a kindergartener that their friend was killed by a drunk driver? Statistically, it is far, far, far more likely that a kindergartener will have a friend killed by a drunk driver than a gun. So, when will we ever finally see the forest for the trees and ban alcohol?

Or...do we recognize that bad people will find access to things regardless of their legal status, like during Prohibition, and that those bad people will still hurt people regardless of the law? So, maybe, just maybe, we choose freedom for the citizens who are good people, and we start targeting only the bad people.

Since I am not suggesting repealing the 2nd Amendment, the Prohibition example is a bit dodgy. And the example of "training kids to protect themselves from Rambo" (to paraphrase someone's suggestion about handling crazed shooters) isn't exactly comparable to having to explain the realities of drunk driving to students. In the latter case, you are just breaking the bad news. In the former, you are telling kids that they must live in a world where at any moment a lunatic with a gun may burst in, and nuts to them if they don't throw themselves in the way of the bullet while their friends try to tackle the guy.

What you really mean to say is: "there is no escape from the bad consequences of freedom". I'm with you there. But an increasing number of people have had enough of the "from my cold, dead hands" argument whenever a new slaughter hits the news. Frankly, that defense is cold and dead.

JAD

06-22-2016, 12:45 PM

As for your particular situation, where you need to fire off 20,000 rounds to participate in your hobby,

I think you may have misread what Josh said, so I'll try to rephrase it a little. While shooting is a hobby to many people on this forum (see my avatar), most of us have a primary interest in firearms as a means to maintain our personal freedom from tyranny -- the tyranny of the individual criminal, and the tyranny of the State. 'Hobbyist' is a fairly derogatory term around here. We train and practice with firearms not (just) to win competitions, but to be able to more effectively stop violence without accidentally inflicting harm on innocent people. I can't speak for Josh's 20K, but my 3-8K is spent specifically improving my ability to end a violent encounter in the most effective and responsible manner possible. I need every one of those rounds, and many more, to be as good as I believe i need to be to win that fight.

To some of us, the second amendment doesn't protect hunting, or recreation -- it specifically protects the means to individually defend ourselves at all times, in all places, from all comers.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 12:46 PM

Absolutely nothing! You be you. I'll be me. Let's be polite and leave each other's lives alone. I don't care who you marry, I don't care what your house looks like. I don't care if you choose to do drugs in your own home...

Let's just be polite neighbors and stop targeting each other and stop asking each other to make sacrifices. Let's make the bad people in society make sacrifices, and leave everyone else alone!

Well, that simply evades the problem. The status quo, with the fortnightly mass slaughters committed with guns, is untenable. If the gun culture as it stands was one where we could simply all mind each other's business, then obviously we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't know what is going to change in this argument, but something is going to have to. Things have gone too far.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 12:46 PM

Do you have any relation to a politician or a politician's office?

Sure, I know a few politicians. None of consequence.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 12:47 PM

You were saying that the public doesn't want to have that conversation, but then, that you want to make them have that conversation.

I'm sure you are not suggesting that there is anything totalitarian about forcing a necessary conversation.

Robinson

06-22-2016, 12:49 PM

This is, after all, the reason for all those lefty infringements on gun ownership that you point out.

No, it's not.

The fact of the matter is, however, that every new mass killing is tipping the balance in favor of the policies you least like. It may not happen in this generation, but the tide is turning against gun owners as we descend further and further into RoboCop-style madness. There are plenty of bad ideas on the left, but you guys could co-operate more instead of trying to sell the country on some sort of vigilante fantasy where the problem is solved when every Mom, Dad and Gramma is strapped.

I challenge you to learn more about the type of people who frequent a forum such as this one. The people on this forum would all rather avoid having to use their firearms to stop a violent attack but at the same time prefer to be prepared to do so. Vigilante fantasies would not be looked at kindly here. Instead, people like those who post here choose to put reliance on themselves rather than on the government for personal protection. It seems many on the left hold the opposite view -- that lethal power should rest only in the hands of the government. The end result of their Utopian fantasy would be that the government and criminals would be well armed but law abiding citizens would not.

Mass killings are part of the gun culture too.

Depends on what you are calling the "gun culture". If you mean the body of citizens who take their own protection seriously and therefore engage in shooting activities for the sake of proficiency then your comment is absolutely incorrect.

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 12:49 PM

I'm sure you are not suggesting that there is anything totalitarian about forcing a necessary conversation.

Who makes it a "necessary conversation"? That is entirely a matter of opinion, rife with subjectivity.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 12:53 PM

To some of us, the second amendment doesn't protect hunting, or recreation -- it specifically protects the means to individually defend ourselves at all times, in all places, from all comers.

I won't deride at all your desire to be a self-reliant Minuteman. But while you are preparing for the unlikely event of an invasion or insurrection, the real situation is one of a bloody war being waged a thousand times a year by criminals and lunatics. This is not theory.

I am not trying to convince any gun owner that they are wrong to own a gun, and I am not fool enough to believe that guns are going away. I'll play the foil of the liberal pussy if you like (BTW, I find the term "liberal" as offensive as "hobbyist", not that you used it). What I would like is for gun owners to own that part of the gun culture they don't want to take responsibility for, the part that leads to all these mass shootings.

warpedcamshaft

06-22-2016, 12:55 PM

What I would like is for gun owners to own that part of the gun culture they don't want to take responsibility for, the part that leads to all these mass shootings.

This statement is dumber than snake mittens.

What other groups would you like to take responsibility for the actions of a small percentage?

How about Muslims killing gay people in several countries or oppressing beating/women? Where is "the left" and Feminists on those issues?

How about black on black crime statistics? Who should take responsibility there?

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 12:57 PM

I'm sure you are not suggesting that there is anything totalitarian about forcing a necessary conversation.

There is when you make the decision about what discussion is necessary, and the public disagrees with you.

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 01:00 PM

I won't deride at all your desire to be a self-reliant Minuteman. But while you are preparing for the unlikely event of an invasion or insurrection, the real situation is one of a bloody war being waged a thousand times a year by criminals and lunatics. This is not theory.

Bring me the statistics and then we'll talk. The fact of the matter is that per the FBI's UCR, total firearms use in homicide is down significantly from a decade ago, as in the numbers for 2014 are slightly over half that of the numbers in 1995.

I am not trying to convince any gun owner that they are wrong to own a gun, and I am not fool enough to believe that guns are going away. I'll play the foil of the liberal pussy if you like (BTW, I find the term "liberal" as offensive as "hobbyist", not that you used it). What I would like is for gun owners to own that part of the gun culture they don't want to take responsibility for, the part that leads to all these mass shootings.

What do you mean by "take responsibility for"?

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 01:03 PM

Why does this have to be about voting?

The federal government stepped in and abolished the "Jim Crow" laws of the south due to infringement of rights. What do you think is protected by the second amendment? How much regulation would be too much? The bill of rights was not passed piecemeal it was a collection of rights so presumably we could have a similar action by the federal government for the second amendment.

Where do you see this line? The notion of rights must have some meaning.

Certainly, and everyone has their two cents. I am in the minority on this, but I personally see no justification for allowing people to own more than a few guns, a limited range of guns, and a minute quantity of ammo, with some credible exceptions carved out for hunters and sportsmen. I won't try to articulate how that would work, because I simply don't know. I know that it works in other countries, however.

The 2nd Ammendment lays out a very simple right: You may own a gun. It even lays out a reason: to serve in a militia. (Interestingly, it mentions nothing about hunting, although restricting hunting in those days would have been preposterous and did not bear mentioning in the law.)

But let's also remember: their guns were not our guns, their culture was not our culture. A massacre like Orlando was literally IMPOSSIBLE in 1776. It would have taken a brigade of soldiers to do the damage that one idiot can do today with a single weapon. And yet we casually allow anyone with a grudge to arm themselves like Terminators. Well, guess what? They act like Terminators too.

Chris Rhines

06-22-2016, 01:06 PM

My experience with gun-control advocates tells me that the term "conversation" is a code-word they use to mean "acquiescence".

scw2

06-22-2016, 01:06 PM

What I would like is for gun owners to own that part of the gun culture they don't want to take responsibility for, the part that leads to all these mass shootings.

These mass shootings you refer to... are you talking about those that result in a media/political circus like after Orlando, or gang-related shootings?

JAD

06-22-2016, 01:06 PM

I won't deride at all your desire to be a self-reliant Minuteman.

Starting when?

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 01:08 PM

There is when you make the decision about what discussion is necessary, and the public disagrees with you.

That's twice that someone has responded with skepticism that there is even the need for a conversation about mass shootings in this country. I'm detecting a bit of Ostrich syndrome.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 01:09 PM

What I would like is for gun owners to own that part of the gun culture they don't want to take responsibility for, the part that leads to all these mass shootings.

If that's what you need, then sure. From all gun owners, for you:

-We are the people who encouraged mentally ill people to stop taking their meds and steal firearms.
-We are the people who encourage that the Quran and Hadith be followed to the letter.
-We are the president who called Isis "The JV Team" and said that we shouldn't take them seriously. We don't take people who follow their orders during Ramadan and pledge allegiance to "The JV Team" seriously either.
-We double check to make sure that every mentally ill person has "that thing that goes up" on their gun before they start shooting.
-We make sure that guns aren't locked up by the parents of mentally ill children. We issue fines if they lock their guns up.

warpedcamshaft

06-22-2016, 01:09 PM

That's twice that someone has responded with skepticism that there is even the need for a conversation about mass shootings in this country. I'm detecting a bit of Ostrich syndrome.

You came to a gun forum to troll... what did you expect. Neither side is going to convince one another here. Surely, you must see that.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 01:10 PM

My experience with gun-control advocates tells me that the term "conversation" is a code-word they use to mean "acquiescence".

I made a point in another of my responses that I don't expect anyone to surrender anything without expecting me and my "side" to yield something as well. So far, of course, the majority of responses have implied that there isn't even a problem. Obviously I have my work cut out for me.

Scal

06-22-2016, 01:10 PM

So basically, "Where are all the moderate Muslims gun owners!?"

You're tedious. If you watched John Oliver's segment on the NRA, one of the points he made that I fully agree with is that the NRA is good at mobilizing single issue voters who show up in great numbers. Politically active gun owners care about this stuff ALL THE TIME, not in a short attention span having knee-jerk way in response to a mass shooting. Public support for gun control is a mile wide and an inch deep. The only places it passes are in states with a solid democratic majority in state legislatures.

There is no credibility on the side of people who want gun control for most of us. We're fresh out out of good will or wanting to compromise.

rauchman

06-22-2016, 01:11 PM

In the final analysis, however, my bottom line would be this: guns are a weapon designed for killing.

Let me start off by saying I applaud you having the stones to be in this conversation, and being civil in your arguments. You've obviously entered a firearms biased forum expressing opinions that, expectedly, wouldn't be called popular here.....but, at least to me, you're not being condescending and snarky, as others who come here from your perspective, can be. Cool. From what I've read of your posts, you're frustrated with the mass killings and think something should be done. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from your perspective your connecting the violence of the mass shootings to the availability of weapons like the AR15.

In relation to the bolded section above which quotes you......

It is precisely the idea that a gun is designed for killing, that makes it effective. I don't hunt, I dabble with sport shooting and I practice my gun craft. I am a peon compared to many on this forum in regards to gun craft. But........ it is the idea that I am at least somewhat proficient with this tool that is designed for killing, that gives me comfort with the idea of protecting myself / family from aggressors who would want to harm / kill .....because it is designed to kill. It is the tool that gives parity to violence....because through the purposeful action of the hand that holds it, it can deliver violence including death. I'd be really surprised if an aggressor would give equal respect to something that wouldn't deliver this level of violence, if the aggressor even respects that much.

As others have mentioned, please take some time and immerse yourself in this forum, as it really is one of, if not the best firearms related forums in inexistence. I don't fault you for this since you don't "know", but I think you have assumptions regarding guns that are incorrect. Example.... just a few posts ago Josh Runkle made mention of an assumed yearly bullet consumption, and from your reply...well, I don't think you would have ever conceived of someone shooting that much ammo. My yearly bullet consumption is closer to 5k, but I would guess even that number would be considered very high for a person not versed in firearms. In reality, I should be shooting more like 20k / year or more. Competency of firearms, or rather, attempting to master accuracy, the draw, speed shooting, a whole litany of various aspects that go into shooting, like anything else, require thousands of rounds....thousands of repetitions, just like playing an instrument, just like martial arts......anything you want become good at. Also, shooting is a skill that degrades over time and must constantly be practiced / maintained. I hope that you now better understand why something like a bullet tax would meet stiff resistance from people on this forum, including myself.

As mentioned, it seems like you're sort of asking the gun community, specifically, members of this forum..."what do you suggest we as a nation do to stop the mass shootings"?

I've kind of soul searched this one a bit as well, and I really don't think additional legislation, such as AWB, bullet tax, etc., would do make one iota of difference to these mass killings. Please note, I'm purposely not saying mass shootings, but rather mass killings because that is what they are. Someone bent on killing doesn't need an AR15 to cause this level of violence. I'd argue, it's a less efficient way of mass killing as compared to IED's and what not. God help us when IED's become all the rage with mentally unbalanced people or the home grown terrorist. I'm actually surprised the IED thing hasn't become more common, especially since the Boston Marathon event. The hesitation from the gun community, and I agree with this, to get on board with things like banning people from buying firearms who are on the terror watch list and what not, are because the government doesn't always get it right....and of more importance, you're talking about a Constitutional right. You're talking about denying someone their Constitutional right based on an assumption of guilt without being tried in court. Gotta tell ya, in that context, that doesn't sit well with me.

Solutions.....

I hate to say it, but I don't think there is an all encompassing easy answer. Society has evolved during my lifetime of 46 years to fuel the extremes, and as a result, more extreme events happen in society. I have no idea what answer to give as a nationwide solution, but I can say for myself and my wife, we both make the choice to be responsible for ourselves as much as we can. This includes having the credible ability to defend ourselves. While I live in NJ, a state that is a "shall issue" state, where rumor has it, there haven't been any CCW permits issued since 9/11/01, I try to be "ready" at least at home, and while out in the world....be aware of threats and what not.

Again, thanks for your civil discourse.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 01:11 PM

You came to a gun forum to troll... what did you expect. Neither side is going to convince one another here. Surely, you must see that.

I see no trolling here. I have been perfectly polite and the responses have been equally polite.

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 01:12 PM

Certainly, and everyone has their two cents. I am in the minority on this, but I personally see no justification for allowing people to own more than a few guns, a limited range of guns, and a minute quantity of ammo, with some credible exceptions carved out for hunters and sportsmen. I won't try to articulate how that would work, because I simply don't know. I know that it works in other countries, however.

The 2nd Ammendment lays out a very simple right: You may own a gun. It even lays out a reason: to serve in a militia. (Interestingly, it mentions nothing about hunting, although restricting hunting in those days would have been preposterous and did not bear mentioning in the law.)

But let's also remember: their guns were not our guns, their culture was not our culture. A massacre like Orlando was literally IMPOSSIBLE in 1776. It would have taken a brigade of soldiers to do the damage that one idiot can do today with a single weapon. And yet we casually allow anyone with a grudge to arm themselves like Terminators. Well, guess what? They act like Terminators too.

And now you've gone and proven that all you have are opinions and very little in the way of justification for any of it. Your ideas about gun control very clearly do nothing to prevent mass-shootings (guess what, you could easily carry out a Orlando-scale shooting with a rifle, one handgun, and anywhere from 100-500 rounds, a relatively small quantity even for a backyard plinker). Furthermore, you don't know that what "works" in other countries works here, because those countries are not at all like the US, where the cat has long been out of the bag when it comes to firearms ownership. I would also contend that many countries with restrictive firearms laws but poor enforcement of said laws are not exactly big success stories, with a number of relatively violent South American countries serving as examples.

Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not in fact line up with Supreme Court interpretation. Guess what, plain-text interpretation of historical documents is wrong more often than it's right.

As for hyperbole like "And yet we casually allow anyone with a grudge to arm themselves like Terminators. Well, guess what? They act like Terminators too," I am seriously disappointed. Does buying an AR-15 make you a bulletproof robot?

rauchman

06-22-2016, 01:13 PM

Chris Rhines

06-22-2016, 01:13 PM

warpedcamshaft

06-22-2016, 01:14 PM

DeathRay... Please read this (right after Sandy Hook):

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/

Robinson

06-22-2016, 01:14 PM

The 2nd Ammendment lays out a very simple right: You may own a gun. It even lays out a reason: to serve in a militia. (Interestingly, it mentions nothing about hunting, although restricting hunting in those days would have been preposterous and did not bear mentioning in the law.)

This continues to be just about the worst argument the left puts up, and with great frequency. If the right to keep and bear arms mentioned in the 2nd Amendment related only to militia service, and the militia is deployed and controlled by the government, there would be no need for the Amendment in the first place. The Bill of Rights is not a list of things that citizens are permitted to do by the government. Rather, it is a list of restrictions placed on the government. The 2nd Amendment represents a line the government is not to cross, intended for personal defense, yes, but primarily to ensure that the citizens of this country will never be outgunned by the government. And before you say it, the professional military doesn't enter into this argument since US law prohibits its use in a domestic law enforcement role.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 01:14 PM

Again, thanks for your civil discourse.

Thank you, Rauch.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 01:17 PM

But let's also remember: their guns were not our guns, their culture was not our culture.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Who said you could speak freely on the Internet! I mean, when the first amendment was written, they only intended that people within the sound of your voice, locally, could hear you. I mean, should you really be allowed to have so much power? Congress never considered that a random person would be able to have so much power when they wrote the first amendment. I mean, should you have to be licensed and limited to what you are allowed to say, especially considering how many people you can influence? What if you caused a whole classroom of children to commit suicide? I mean, that's just too much power for one person to hold! It really needs to be regulated.

Tell you what. You want us to give up the Second Amendment, and then you'll make a sacrifice in exchange. What Amendment to the Constitution do you want to live without?

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 01:20 PM

I made a point in another of my responses that I don't expect anyone to surrender anything without expecting me and my "side" to yield something as well. So far, of course, the majority of responses have implied that there isn't even a problem. Obviously I have my work cut out for me.

The fact is that your "side" has nothing to give that we want. You are not trading us our rights, the default state should be possession of said rights until someone makes a sufficient argument for restrictions. This is an argument that has been made in a variety of contexts (I first heard this in context of marijuana legalization) so it's not just a nutty gun owner thing.

Furthermore we are not so blind as to not see that people are killed by firearms, but as has been stated multiple times, there are better windmills to tilt at if your true intention is public safety and not simply an emotional overreaction to violence. Is there a problem? Yes, in that any death is a problem. Is gun ownership the most salient problem in the US? Not in my understanding of the statistics.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 01:24 PM

Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not in fact line up with Supreme Court interpretation. Guess what, plain-text interpretation of historical documents is wrong more often than it's right.

As for hyperbole like "And yet we casually allow anyone with a grudge to arm themselves like Terminators. Well, guess what? They act like Terminators too," I am seriously disappointed. Does buying an AR-15 make you a bulletproof robot?

I would say that a majority of these killers have, indeed, turned themselves into inhuman machines with nothing to live for and a hard-on of hate. I would be interested to go back and watch the Terminator and see if Arnold's body count was greater or less than Omar Mateen's.

Several people have zeroed in on the AR-15 angle. If you scope back, you will see that the first thing I wrote is that weapons like AR's (which I see no useful purpose for) are demonized to avoid mentioning the more present threat of handguns.

Interesting thing about opinions: everyone has one! I once heard a person point out that even if each Founding Father had written a dissertation on each Ammendment for clarity's sake, it would be worthless, since you would need dissertations on the dissertations to know what they really thought.

The Supreme Court may be composed of legal scholars, but they are essentially just exalted grammarians.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 01:29 PM

Tell you what. You want us to give up the Second Amendment, and then you'll make a sacrifice in exchange. What Amendment to the Constitution do you want to live without?

Since I am not asking for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, that would be a moot point.

However, let me tie that in with your observation about the era of the Founding Fathers. Fast forward to today. Let's say that the gun culture of now was exactly as we know it to be, but there was no 2nd Amendment, and Congress decided that it was time to write one. Given the circumstances of how guns are used today, their power and the nature of today's police and army, do you think this new 2nd Amendment would be worded just like the current one, which was written in the age of flintlock rifles and one bullet per minute?

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 01:36 PM

Since I am not asking for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, that would be a moot point.

However, let me tie that in with your observation about the era of the Founding Fathers. Fast forward to today. Let's say that the gun culture of now was exactly as we know it to be, but there was no 2nd Amendment, and Congress decided that it was time to write one. Given the circumstances of how guns are used today, their power and the nature of today's police and army, do you think this new 2nd Amendment would be worded just like the current one, which was written in the age of flintlock rifles and one bullet per minute?

Does it matter? With all due respect for democracy, public opinion is not always right. If we were to start all over with the Constitution right now I honestly don't think many of the most important Amendments anywhere from the 1st to the 10th would remain as they are. That doesn't invalidate them.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 01:38 PM

Furthermore we are not so blind as to not see that people are killed by firearms, but as has been stated multiple times, there are better windmills to tilt at if your true intention is public safety and not simply an emotional overreaction to violence. Is there a problem? Yes, in that any death is a problem. Is gun ownership the most salient problem in the US? Not in my understanding of the statistics.

With respect, I think you are losing ground on the "emotional overreaction to violence" angle. Are we wrong to be appalled at mass shootings? At their frequency and insanity?

We speak of a "gun culture", but that is often reduced (usually by NRA types) to a spotlight on the citizens who own and enjoy guns for salient purposes. But the gun culture is the entire environment of gun ownership and use, including the black market, the commercial angle, the lobbyists, the medical and financial consequences for the the wounded and their families, and the balance between the good of owning guns versus the bad of how they are deployed on a daily basis.

That is the complete picture of the gun culture, and we can no longer allow our perception of gun ownership to be reduced to the people who never use guns for bad reasons. The "bad guys with a gun" also shape the argument.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 01:38 PM

The 2nd Ammendment lays out a very simple right: You may own a gun. It even lays out a reason: to serve in a militia.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5923

"5923.01 State militia membership - limitation of troops.
(A) The Ohio organized militia consist of all citizens of the state who are not permanently handicapped, as handicapped is defined in section 4112.01 of the Revised Code, who are more than seventeen years, and not more than sixty-seven years, of age unless exempted as provided in section 5923.02 of the Revised Code, and who are members of one of the following:

...

(D) The unorganized militia consists of those citizens of the state as described in division (A) of this section who are not members of the Ohio organized militia.

..."

Ok, so, at least for my state in Ohio. Everyone between 17 and 67 who is not handicapped is part of the Militia. I'm sure many other States have similar laws.

So, what's the issue? I'm a member of the Ohio Unorganized Militia. Not by choice, but by law.

Peally

06-22-2016, 01:39 PM

If we wrote the constitution tomorrow with modern society we'd have one big useless piece of shit of a document, and that's not even mentioning the 2nd or any firearms whatsoever.

People are retards. Thankfully the founders factored that tidbit into their projects a bit.

shane45

06-22-2016, 01:41 PM

With respect, I think you are losing ground on the "emotional overreaction to violence" angle. Are we wrong to be appalled at mass shootings? At their frequency and insanity?

We speak of a "gun culture", but that is often reduced (usually by NRA types) to a spotlight on the citizens who own and enjoy guns for salient purposes. But the gun culture is the entire environment of gun ownership and use, including the black market, the commercial angle, the lobbyists, the medical and financial consequences for the the wounded and their families, and the balance between the good of owning guns versus the bad of how they are deployed on a daily basis.

That is the complete picture of the gun culture, and we can no longer allow our perception of gun ownership to be reduced to the people who never use guns for bad reasons. The "bad guys with a gun" also shape the argument.

So by your logic, should we start outlawing religions that produce said mass shooters?

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 01:42 PM

Does it matter? With all due respect for democracy, public opinion is not always right. If we were to start all over with the Constitution right now I honestly don't think many of the most important Amendments anywhere from the 1st to the 10th would remain as they are. That doesn't invalidate them.

I think it does matter, since weapons are a form of technology. The new nature of that technology is one of the critical elements of the current crisis.

There is also something to be said for what I would call a grotesque indifference on the part of gun manufacturers as to how widespread the misuse of very powerful weapons has become. I do not think the Founding Fathers anticipated anything like the vulgarity of the crime we have today, much less the means by which these crimes are committed, or the willingness of industry to profit from it.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 01:42 PM

Sure, I know a few politicians. None of consequence.

I meant, despite your vague answer, do you work for or volunteer for a specific politician. If so, that should be disclosed during the conversation.

There's a difference between gaining "political ammunition" and having a genuine discussion in which parties politely disagree. I'm more than happy to have polite discourse where we disagree.

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 01:44 PM

With respect, I think you are losing ground on the "emotional overreaction to violence" angle. Are we wrong to be appalled at mass shootings? At their frequency and insanity?
At the risk of coming off like Spock, yes. Maybe I am jaded for having grown up in the "age of mass shootings" but I honestly doubt that many people advocating for firearms restrictions are sincerely trying to prevent mass shootings. Much of the legislation I have seen proposed has no real relevance to what actually happened, and while it is very much a stereotype that politicians exploit tragedies for personal gain, this stereotype accurately reflects what I have been seeing for a long time. As for frequency and insanity, frequency can easily be quantified and when the statistics are examined the impact is simply not as meaningful as many claim. Insanity is totally arbitrary and I could argue that dying pointlessly in a drunk driving accident is similarly insane.

We speak of a "gun culture", but that is often reduced (usually by NRA types) to a spotlight on the citizens who own and enjoy guns for salient purposes. But the gun culture is the entire environment of gun ownership and use, including the black market, the commercial angle, the lobbyists, the medical and financial consequences for the the wounded and their families, and the balance between the good of owning guns versus the bad of how they are deployed on a daily basis.
That is the complete picture of the gun culture, and we can no longer allow our perception of gun ownership to be reduced to the people who never use guns for bad reasons. The "bad guys with a gun" also shape the argument.

Fair enough, but my point is that even if we in the gun culture own those individuals, the stats simply don't support the overriding focus on guns at the expense of other issues. If the Democratic Party redirected the energy they spend on guns to education, poverty, health, and foreign affairs I think that would be a much more intelligent tack.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 01:44 PM

So by your logic, should we start outlawing religions that produce said mass shooters?

That does not follow at all from what I said. I am asking for gun owners to assume a more complete picture of what the gun culture actually is, rather than only the parts they enjoy. Non-owners are, after all, expected to appreciate the hunting/sports/self defense aspect as if that is all there is to guns.

nycnoob

06-22-2016, 01:49 PM

A massacre like Orlando was literally IMPOSSIBLE in 1776. It would have taken a brigade of soldiers to do the damage that one idiot can do today with a single weapon.

Please remember that at Lexington and Concord the British Regular Army was coming for the privately owned cannons (among others weapons) and in the Carolina's other powder raids had already seized privately owned battle ships. The militia was no controlled by the states this was a far more decentralized affair. Historically, you are just wrong.

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 01:52 PM

Please remember that at Lexington and Concord the British Regular Army was coming for the privately owned cannons (among others weapons) and in the Carolina's other powder raids had already seized privately owned battle ships. The militia was no controlled by the states this was a far more decentralized affair. Historically, you are just worng.

This. This was an age where private individuals could literally own and operate naval vessels armed in a manner comparable to ships operated by national navies.

shane45

06-22-2016, 01:55 PM

nycnoob

06-22-2016, 01:56 PM

C. Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)
21

The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." {[In Story's Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840), the following two sentences are also added:] One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.}

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

From

JPFO: sources-volokh.htm (http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z2/sources-volokh.htm)

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 01:57 PM

Fair enough, but my point is that even if we in the gun culture own those individuals, the stats simply don't support the overriding focus on guns at the expense of other issues. If the Democratic Party redirected the energy they spend on guns to education, poverty, health, and foreign affairs I think that would be a much more intelligent tack.

If what you are saying is that the violent use of weapons could be curbed by a focus on other issues, I would be more tahn happy for Republicans (if we want to divvy up blame based on party) to put forward a program that dealt with those underlying symptoms in a convincing way, showing how this would curb gun crimes and especially mass shootings. So far, I have heard nothing.

The drunk driving comparison keeps coming up. People loaded on booze are practically the definition of "insane", as they are not in their right minds. This is why disallowing them to operate vehicles is a no-brainer. But are you suggesting that the mass murderers are not acting out of some sort of insanity?

nycnoob

06-22-2016, 02:01 PM

All of this is a very old notion, but people do not read their history.

And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free.

The Prince

by Nicolo Machiavelli

CHAPTER XII (http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince12.htm)

How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries

This section is clearly about weapons of war being owned by citizens.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 02:02 PM

To NYCNOOB-- These points stick out:

"It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, "

and:

"...among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see."

If you would like to argue, then, that the 2nd Amendment should be attended by a law enforcing its function as a means for keeping the mass of the people trained and ready for combat so that we don't need a large standing army, but also so that we do not allow the public to own any kind of weapon without reason, then this would be the shape of a compromise I might support.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 02:02 PM

Are we wrong to be appalled at mass shootings? At their frequency and insanity?

What is their frequency?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/

warpedcamshaft

06-22-2016, 02:04 PM

Citing the article I linked earlier gives an interesting angle (15,000 police officer survey):

What do you believe is the biggest cause of gun violence in the United States:

While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values.

shane45

06-22-2016, 02:04 PM

Peally

06-22-2016, 02:08 PM

Remember folks, if you don't like the US or its scary guns you can always up and fucking move. In fact, please do.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 02:09 PM

Deathray, to put it frankly, I do not care what non owners think or believe or appreciate because I understand this is a Republic, the 2nd amendment is incorporated, and it is not up to voters or politicians to decide my rights. I also understand freedom isn't free. If you are to have a free society there will be a price to society for said freedoms. Furthermore, I firmly believe the further you try to restrict these freedoms the more you see the side effects of doing so. If you analyze your logic and my question, I think you will indeed find the intersection of the logic. But I digress, I believe Josh asked you for full disclosure. I too would prefer that information before discussing further.

With respect, it is only up to voters and politicians to decide your rights. The Constitution is, after all, fungible, as is all law everywhere.

As to your other point, if the suggestion is that I am writing from some politician's office, I resent the....

(hold on...text from Hillary. Bitch wants her donut. BRB!)

nycnoob

06-22-2016, 02:10 PM

If you would like to argue, then, that the 2nd Amendment should be attended by a law enforcing its function as a means for keeping the mass of the people trained and ready for combat so that we don't need a large standing army, but also so that we do not allow the public to own any kind of weapon without reason, then this would be the shape of a compromise I might support.

I think you are too focused on this notion of centralized control of the militia. It never worked that way.
It was about preventing the government from forcing its will on the populous. Remember the Army used
to be used as a police force and riot control as well.

Who gave the order at the north bridge to start the revolution? What were Paul Revere's orders from the militia for Lexington an Concord?

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 02:11 PM

warpedcamshaft

06-22-2016, 02:15 PM

I would, however, plant my flag on the "violence breeds violence" hill.

I will agree with you there...

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex _of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

Chris Rhines

06-22-2016, 02:19 PM

That does not follow at all from what I said. I am asking for gun owners to assume a more complete picture of what the gun culture actually is, rather than only the parts they enjoy. Non-owners are, after all, expected to appreciate the hunting/sports/self defense aspect as if that is all there is to guns.
You can ask. I'm going to decline. I don't play the pomo guilt-by-group-membership games.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 02:19 PM

But the logic of the left is that outlawing buses, trucks, RV's or any really large vehicle makes sense so that if a drunk driver disobeys the law then at least it would be in a small vehicle....

If you want to determine if your gun bias is an issue, consider the happyland club killing where the implement used to kill 87 people was gasoline and chains. If you remained focused on the perpetrator that commited the crime and not the gas, then I suggest that if you then focus on the weapon used in Orlando, then it is nothing more than an anti gun bias.

Really what I'm saying is that Omar Mateen, Dylan Roof, Adma Lanza... these guys were gun owners too. They owned the guns they used as completely as anyone who keeps a in a glass case and never touches it. Guns are weapons, weapons are built to kill (not drive), and they used their weapons for their intended purpose.

You can kill people with pipe bombs, fire, bricks, and yes, people use all these things and more. But guns are the things built to kill and are sold with reckless abandon and used just the same (IMHO). If you want people to stop pointing fingers at you, then by all means get your house in order, because it looks like you have a problem there, and the neighbors are calling the cops.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 02:20 PM

The drunk driving comparison keeps coming up. People loaded on booze are practically the definition of "insane", as they are not in their right minds. This is why disallowing them to operate vehicles is a no-brainer. But are you suggesting that the mass murderers are not acting out of some sort of insanity?

Well, here is why I brought up the drunk driving argument:

The drunk driver is considered to be a normal individual before he/she/they are drunk. Only after "becoming" "insane" (using your word for sake of argument) are they a threat. When it comes to guns, you want to preemptively prevent the threat from "insane" people by removing cars. Like: we don't know who's gonna get drunk and drive, so, no more cars. Or: similarly, let's limit the type of car that someone has, so they can't kill people.

Some other people would say, let's focus on the alcohol, or the "root cause" of the "insanity", which in the case of mass murder would be "actual insanity"/psychiatric problems.

Then, there's a third type of person, which would be me. That person says: drunk drivers are the price of having the freedom for individuals to go out and make their own choices in regards to drinking. So, I choose not to drive at midnight near the bar scene, and I avoid driving as much as possible during holidays and long weekends. Similarly, I avoid going to places where crime happens as much as possible, and I avoid gun free zones, because they are target areas. I chalk up the occasional mass murder within society to be a similar tragedy to drunk driving deaths (which far, far, far outnumber gun deaths). And, I choose to accept them both, equally as the price for freedom.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 02:24 PM

As to your other point, if the suggestion is that I am writing from some politician's office, I resent the....

(hold on...text from Hillary. Bitch wants her donut. BRB!)

I wasn't asking if you were writing from their office. I was asking a simple question about whether you were employed by or volunteering for a specific candidate. A simple yes (and details of so) or no will suffice.

I'm not accusing you of anything. Just asking for disclosure, if that is the case, but you seem to be avoiding...

JAD

06-22-2016, 02:29 PM

I would, however, plant my flag on the "violence breeds violence" hill.

It is my earnest endeavor to see that it does.

{jfc}

Chris Rhines

06-22-2016, 02:30 PM

Really what I'm saying is that Omar Mateen, Dylan Roof, Adma Lanza... these guys were gun owners too. They owned the guns they used as completely as anyone who keeps a in a glass case and never touches it. Guns are weapons, weapons are built to kill (not drive), and they used their weapons for their intended purpose.

You keep saying this like it is some kind of profound insight. It's not.

Of course guns are designed to kill. That's why I own them. I suspect that everyone on this board owns at least one gun for the express purpose of killing those who might attempt to harm them.

You can kill people with pipe bombs, fire, bricks, and yes, people use all these things and more. But guns are the things built to kill and are sold with reckless abandon and used just the same (IMHO). If you want people to stop pointing fingers at you, then by all means get your house in order, because it looks like you have a problem there, and the neighbors are calling the cops.

If you truly believe that guns are "sold with reckless abandon," in the United States, then I'm going to charitably believe that you are just misinformed (as opposed to willfully dishonest.) Guns are heavily regulated at both the federal and state level.

Joe in PNG

06-22-2016, 02:36 PM

Tamara

06-22-2016, 02:47 PM

I would, however, plant my flag on the "violence breeds violence" hill.

That's pretty much why I carry a gun, yes.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 02:55 PM

Then, there's a third type of person, which would be me. That person says: drunk drivers are the price of having the freedom for individuals to go out and make their own choices in regards to drinking. So, I choose not to drive at midnight near the bar scene, and I avoid driving as much as possible during holidays and long weekends. Similarly, I avoid going to places where crime happens as much as possible, and I avoid gun free zones, because they are target areas. I chalk up the occasional mass murder within society to be a similar tragedy to drunk driving deaths (which far, far, far outnumber gun deaths). And, I choose to accept them both, equally as the price for freedom.

Your "drunk driver" comparison puts the focus on the wrong element. It is not the alcohol that kills, it is the vehicle. We then must ask: what use the vehicle? The vehicle exists to move people. Since it serves a purpose we cannot live without, we do not eliminate the vehicle, we try to reduce the opportunities for it to be misused. When we try (and fail) to outlaw alcohol, we then come to terms with the fact that where there is alcohol, there will be car accidents.

Now take guns: What use guns? To kill people. We know that to try and outlaw guns would be a failed endeavor, so again, we must find a way to allow guns to be owned for their intended purpose of killing people at the right times while reducing their misuse to the fewest possible opportunities.

I would argue that our "gun culture" is structured for the maximum use of guns to kill people at the wrong times. That is the reason for this debate.

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 02:57 PM

Really what I'm saying is that Omar Mateen, Dylan Roof, Adma Lanza... these guys were gun owners too. They owned the guns they used as completely as anyone who keeps a in a glass case and never touches it. Guns are weapons, weapons are built to kill (not drive), and they used their weapons for their intended purpose.

You can kill people with pipe bombs, fire, bricks, and yes, people use all these things and more. But guns are the things built to kill and are sold with reckless abandon and used just the same (IMHO). If you want people to stop pointing fingers at you, then by all means get your house in order, because it looks like you have a problem there, and the neighbors are calling the cops.

The design intent argument is illogical. If you look directly at outcomes it becomes quickly very obvious that the design intent of any given object is only one factor of many that influences its "deadliness." Going back to the FBI UCR data, fists and feet have killed more people in the US than rifles. Sugary or calorie dense foods were never designed to kill people, but given the state of American health, you could argue that they have a bigger negative outcome than many weapons. Ultimately, if you have the stats, it is smart to look directly at the numbers rather than guess wildly at what they are based on some kind of perceived design intent.

nycnoob

06-22-2016, 02:58 PM

Now take guns: What use guns? To kill people. We know that to try and outlaw guns would be a failed endeavor, so again, we must find a way to reduce the misuse of guns to the fewest opportunities that still allow guns to be owned for their intended purpose of killing people at the right times.

And John Lott has done yeoman's work showing that this is accomplished by putting them into as many hands of non felons as possible.
Have you read his work? Have you read any of the statistics on this subject or is this all about your feelings?

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 03:00 PM

Now take guns: What use guns? To kill people. We know that to try and outlaw guns would be a failed endeavor, so again, we must find a way to allow guns to be owned for their intended purpose of killing people at the right times while reducing their misuse to the fewest opossible pportunities.

I would argue that our "gun culture" is structured for the maximum use of guns to kill people at the wrong times. That is the reason for this debate.

How so? I fail to see how "gun culture" promotes the "maximum" use of guns to kill people at the wrong times. If that were really the case we would be handing out machine guns in psych wards and in prisons, which is obviously not the case. This is very clearly a hyperbolic statement.

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 03:02 PM

One of the concepts behind the US Constitution is the Separation of Powers. This is the idea that one part of the Government does not have a monopoly on power.
We have seen, time and time again, what happens when a government has a monopoly on force- heck, just ask yourself if you are totally comfortable with the idea of a Donald Trump holding an absolute monopoly on power.

Thus, the Second Amendment provides a balance of force- the official government forces on one side, and the population on the other. The Founders looked at the example of the Roman Empire, and had a right terror of the possible dangers of professional standing armies. Note the corrupting influence of the Praetorian Guard in their role as king maker.

By arming the populace, you short circuit this possible road to tyranny. Please do remember that the true mass murders of the 20th century were accomplished by official government agents acting according to their governments orders. Remember also that quite a few of those tyrannies were liberal and democratic not long before.

This is very true. Many people who mistakenly claim that firearms solely exist for hunting, recreation, and maybe self-defense are deficient in their knowledge of history. It is remarkable how many of the wonderful liberal democratic nations now used to be autocratic, militarily ruled states. It is also remarkable how many peaceful democratic nations can quickly become autocratic, militarily ruled states. The idea that it cannot happen in the US is normalcy bias. Furthermore, pointing to how the armed US is democratic and relatively peaceful doesn't mean that an unarmed US would be the same.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 03:02 PM

If you truly believe that guns are "sold with reckless abandon," in the United States, then I'm going to charitably believe that you are just misinformed (as opposed to willfully dishonest.) Guns are heavily regulated at both the federal and state level.

Too much ink has been spilled in the debate over "regulation" for me to add something new. The fact remains that, regulated or not, guns are so prolific that anyone who wants one for purposes of mischief can get one easily. That is why my argument is focused on the ammunition, which cannot be obtained or replenished so easily, if we put our minds to it.

nycnoob

06-22-2016, 03:07 PM

That is why my argument is focused on the ammunition, which cannot be obtained or replenished so easily, if we put our minds to it.

But wait, I thought you agreed that the second amendment was a bulwark against tyranny? How is it going to work with controls on ammo?

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 03:09 PM

Too much ink has been spilled in the debate over "regulation" for me to add something new. The fact remains that, regulated or not, guns are so prolific that anyone who wants one for purposes of mischief can get one easily. That is why my argument is focused on the ammunition, which cannot be obtained or replenished so easily, if we put our minds to it.

Except you don't need very much ammunition to commit a crime. Many criminals are caught with empty pistols, or a half loaded gun and no spare ammo. Even to commit a mass shooting, you would not need very much ammo. The amount of rounds fired in the Orlando shooting is 202 rounds last I checked, including both Mateen's shooting and the law enforcement response. That is less ammo than many people here shoot in a week. In fact, some people here shoot 3-4 times that in a single week, every single week. Furthermore, unless you have a better way of doing background checks on individuals there is simply no way to preemptively limit ammo purchases in a manner that doesn't infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

Joe in PNG

06-22-2016, 03:10 PM

This is very true. Many people who mistakenly claim that firearms solely exist for hunting, recreation, and maybe self-defense are deficient in their knowledge of history. It is remarkable how many of the wonderful liberal democratic nations now used to be autocratic, militarily ruled states. It is also remarkable how many peaceful democratic nations can quickly become autocratic, militarily ruled states. The idea that it cannot happen in the US is normalcy bias. Furthermore, pointing to how the armed US is democratic and relatively peaceful doesn't mean that an unarmed US would be the same.

Ponder how just many countries in the past century that either became dictatorships, or were conquered by dictatorships, or were run as dictatorships by colonial powers.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 03:11 PM

But wait, I thought you agreed that the second amendment was a bulwark against tyranny? How is it going to work with controls on ammo?

As long as the cops and army are similarly limited, I see no problem. England and Australia seem to be pretty peaceful and democratic.

Peally

06-22-2016, 03:13 PM

Serious question: why exactly are you here?

nalesq

06-22-2016, 03:14 PM

If what you are saying is that the violent use of weapons could be curbed by a focus on other issues, I would be more tahn happy for Republicans (if we want to divvy up blame based on party) to put forward a program that dealt with those underlying symptoms in a convincing way, showing how this would curb gun crimes and especially mass shootings. So far, I have heard nothing.

"Ordinary" violent crime committed with firearms and the one-off lone nut job mass murder spree are totally different issues. Others have already pointed out that DOJ stats show the former has actually diminished steadily and significantly in the last 20 years or so, just as firearms in the hands of private citizens has increased significantly, and the vast majority of the types of firearms used in these crimes are not what even gun prohibitionists would categorize as "assault weapons." It's therefore disingenuous to continue to use "ordinary" violent crime as an example of Why We Need To Do Something Dramatic About Guns.

And incidentally, the most obvious way to reduce ordinary violent crime seems to be aggressive policing and stiff penalties for convicted offenders, particularly with repeat customers, neither policies of which seem to be in vogue anymore with the current zeitgeist.

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 03:15 PM

As long as the cops and army are similarly limited, I see no problem. England and Australia seem to be pretty peaceful and democratic.

Except the cops and army in England and Australia are not similarly limited to their civilian populace. If they were, they would not be very good at anything (some cops here would argue that by and large, their cops aren't). In the end you are simply hoping that democracy and peace prevail, and are throwing away the deterrent nature of firearms ownership.

Joe in PNG

06-22-2016, 03:19 PM

However, in 1940-41, England was just a few miles from not being democratic, and was certainly not peaceful. The homeguard had to drill with broomsticks, as there weren't enough guns to go around.
In 1942, Australia likewise was pretty dang close to no longer being peaceful and democratic. Lots of Diggers were pretty much tossed right into the hell of the Kokoda Treck with almost no training at all.
And let's not forget all the peaceful and democratic countries who just got in the way of Germany twice within the past century.

Chris Rhines

06-22-2016, 03:27 PM

Too much ink has been spilled in the debate over "regulation" for me to add something new. The fact remains that, regulated or not, guns are so prolific that anyone who wants one for purposes of mischief can get one easily. That is why my argument is focused on the ammunition, which cannot be obtained or replenished so easily, if we put our minds to it.
This would do nothing to inconvenience rampage killers (who are generally planning to die at the end of their rampage, and hence have no issues with spending money like water) or professional criminals (who, as a rule, don't do protracted gunfights.)

It would do a good job of chilling the competitors, trainers, and high-volume recreational shooters (such as myself) who make up the backbone of the gun culture, with the added bonus of making it more expensive to bring new shooters into the sport.

I hope that this demonstrates why I have no interest in having a "conversation" with you or your allies. You just can't seem to be honest about what you want, or why you want it.

shane45

06-22-2016, 03:28 PM

Your "drunk driver" comparison puts the focus on the wrong element. It is not the alcohol that kills, it is the vehicle. We then must ask: what use the vehicle? The vehicle exists to move people. Since it serves a purpose we cannot live without, we do not eliminate the vehicle, we try to reduce the opportunities for it to be misused. When we try (and fail) to outlaw alcohol, we then come to terms with the fact that where there is alcohol, there will be car accidents.

Now take guns: What use guns? To kill people. We know that to try and outlaw guns would be a failed endeavor, so again, we must find a way to allow guns to be owned for their intended purpose of killing people at the right times while reducing their misuse to the fewest possible opportunities.

I would argue that our "gun culture" is structured for the maximum use of guns to kill people at the wrong times. That is the reason for this debate.

This entirely ignores those saved by firearms. Additionally there is a reason that the media went silent after Obama had the CDC investigate the number of deaths from "assault weapons". It was because the evidence was that the percentage was so insignificantly small it didn't support any negative position. Suicide accounts for roughly half of all gun deaths. Do you think that statistic would change if a suicide pill was readily available? I DO!

And Im sorry but although many politicians and votors think they decide 2nd amendment rights and in fact do get away with illegally infringing on said rights at times, this is incorrect. One only needs to look at states whose laws are overturned because of the incorporation of the second to see this in action.

jc000

06-22-2016, 03:31 PM

Serious question: why exactly are you here?

Because he / she / it keeps being fed?

I guess some people enjoy the debate. I certainly wouldn't want to see an increase in people coming here with no interest in guns other than enjoying the attention that their ill-informed mental masturbation brings them.

It's really a waste to engage with people like this. I'd say the lines have been pretty well drawn in the sand at this point. Our ideas will be strong enough to continue to live on, or they will not.

I have no interest in discussing "ammunition taxes" or anything of that nature. My right to defend myself is not up for debate.

DeathRay

06-22-2016, 03:33 PM

However, in 1940-41, England was just a few miles from not being democratic, and was certainly not peaceful. The homeguard had to drill with broomsticks, as there weren't enough guns to go around.

Broomsticks or boomsticks... neither matters much against tanks!

Hey, it's been a great chat, but it is now officially eating into my day. Thank you all for your courteous discourse. Let's pick this up after the next mega-shooting in the Fall!

Eyesquared

06-22-2016, 03:36 PM

Broomsticks or boomsticks... neither matters much against tanks!

At the risk of making assumptions about your background, maybe you should listen to the vets here on that...

Hey, it's been a great chat, but it is now officially eating into my day. Thank you all for your courteous discourse.

See you.

Let's pick this up after the next mega-shooting in the Fall!

Nevermind, I'd rather not. Have fun being snide and ineducable.

Joe in PNG

06-22-2016, 04:18 PM

Broomsticks or boomsticks... neither matters much against tanks!

I just love this argument, because it shows one really don't know a thing about warfare. Not. One. Sodding. Thing.
Note that the French had tanks in Vietnam, and the Viet Minh didn't. The Americans had tanks in Vietnam, and the Vietcong didn't. The Soviets had tanks in Afghanistan and the Afghani's didn't.
Do we really need to go into our current successes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the former Yugoslavia, and other locations?

The funny thing about tanks is that the crews have to come out sometime. Tanks unsupported by infantry are pretty vulnerable- the Russians learned this the hard way in Finland.

May I suggest looking at the history of the 101st Airborne in Bastigone. The Germans had tanks, and the paratroopers rushed into combat didn't. They hardly had ammo for their rifles, but they were able to stop the Germans.

hufnagel

06-22-2016, 04:27 PM

Broomsticks or boomsticks... neither matters much against tanks!

Hey, it's been a great chat, but it is now officially eating into my day. Thank you all for your courteous discourse. Let's pick this up after the next mega-shooting in the Fall!

Based on this i'm glad I skipped from page 6 to page 16, and didn't bother to read all of the in between; pretty sure it would have induced a migraine from the stupidity.

I will end with this though (based on the last post I *did* read)...

F**K YOU... and the horse you rode in on! :D

https://m.popkey.co/a071fa/3RLvb.gif

LittleLebowski

06-22-2016, 07:50 PM

I'm glad it's gone.

punkey71

06-22-2016, 08:03 PM

I resisted engaging because I know no matter how much a gun grabber says "common sense" or "compromise" or "conversation", they ultimately want one thing - confiscation/prohibition.

Period.

The Connor boy knew what he was taking about - he just didn't know he was talking about hoplophobes.

https://youtu.be/zu0rP2VWLWw

fixer

06-22-2016, 08:46 PM

The matter at hand is not ethnicity but religion. The jihadist problem draws from the religion of Islam, which is (understandably) treated as alien by the vast majority of Americans who simply don't know how to have a polite conversation about a foreign religion without it threatening our our traditional Christian outlook. It is 9/11 and what has happened since that has forced this conversation, otherwise we would all still be in a "live and let live" mode.

We have freedom from religion as much as we have freedom of religion.

We can have all the conversations we want; we can't force a reformation; we can have assimilation or not have it--we are free to worship as we see fit. This means when someone is bent on declaring jihad (an artifact of a religion called Islam) and killing unbelievers--we all have a right to protect ourselves from that religion.

Orlando shooting would have been impossible in 1776.

This is a distracting truism. Orlando didn't exist yet; gay night clubs didn't exist yet; airplanes and automobiles didn't exist yet; and yes a semi auto rifle did not exist yet.

The Islamic terrorist could have just as easily back in 1776, as they could now, wait until there is a crowded church and set fire to it. With the help of some blocked windows and doors you could easily surpass Orlando's death toll.

I mean really...9-11 would have been impossible in 1776 too but I'm not out and about agitating for plane control or restrictions on religion or restrictions on really tall buildings.

I know you don't like the fact that guns kill, but what about humans? Face it, humans kill each other for the dumbest of reasons--and we have a special knack for it.

SLG

06-22-2016, 08:55 PM

I really enjoyed the part about how those of us in the gun culture have a problem and need to own it. Criminals are not in our gun culture any more than Jihadis are in the Muslim Culture. Wait, bad example.

What I mean is, should we expect all Muslims to identify culturally with Jihadis, and "own them"? What about Christians? They are in a religious culture, just like Muslims. Should they own the Jihadis too?

Does owning a Harley Davidson make me a part of outlaw biker culture?

Need I continue?

I have friends and relatives that identify as leftists. I'm all for their freedoms as much as mine. However, I'm right, where they are just...Left. :-)

eta: I meant to say how impressed I was with most of the arguments put forth by the members here. Civil, accurate, well written and interesting. Still useless in dealing with leftists, but nonetheless, I give you guys two thumbs up. Also, while I'm at it, I am continually amazed at the intellectual dishonesty (maybe ignorance) that the left brings to the discussion. Maybe that's not the best term, so please feel free to correct me. What I mean is that, again, we see people more than happy to wade into a "discussion", in the hopes of fixing some "problem" they are convinced about, yet they lack even the most basic understanding of the technical aspects of the items they are discussing.

If this was a discussion about oil, and you didn't know what fracking was, would anyone listen to you? No, because you opinion on the matter would be worth absolutely nothing. But when it comes to guns, everyone on the left knows better. They must all be Zen masters, or something.

Which brings me to the "problem" our country is having. I think any crime is a tragedy, especially for the victims and their families. It is hard for most people when the victims are young. I would have given up a limb or two, just to be present in the school in CT that day.

Having said that, our country does not have a mass shooting epidemic. Or any other epidemic related to guns. The actual numbers of innocent people killed in this country each year is very small when you compare it to almost everything else. Preventable heart disease? Drunk driving? Suicide? Drowning?
It's sad when someone is killed, but it does not make it an epidemic, and it does not mean we should have the audacity to think we can change human nature by restricting the rights of the Free, here in the land of the Brave. Life is tough and it is dangerous. Suck it up.

hufnagel

06-22-2016, 09:33 PM

We have freedom from religion as much as we have freedom of religion.

We can have all the conversations we want; we can't force a reformation; we can have assimilation or not have it--we are free to worship as we see fit. This means when someone is bent on declaring jihad (an artifact of a religion called Islam) and killing unbelievers--we all have a right to protect ourselves from that religion.

This is a distracting truism. Orlando didn't exist yet; gay night clubs didn't exist yet; airplanes and automobiles didn't exist yet; and yes a semi auto rifle did not exist yet.

The Islamic terrorist could have just as easily back in 1776, as they could now, wait until there is a crowded church and set fire to it. With the help of some blocked windows and doors you could easily surpass Orlando's death toll.

I mean really...9-11 would have been impossible in 1776 too but I'm not out and about agitating for plane control or restrictions on religion or restrictions on really tall buildings.

I know you don't like the fact that guns kill, but what about humans? Face it, humans kill each other for the dumbest of reasons--and we have a special knack for it.

The movie 'The Patriot' popped into my head upon reading the above highlighted.
It amazes me how many people don't realize it's INCREDIBLY EASY to obtain materials to do far greater damage (property and loss of life) than what occurred in Orlando. ex: Oklahoma City.

hufnagel

06-22-2016, 09:34 PM

Mr Pink

06-22-2016, 09:35 PM

I teach firearms in Northern Virginia and also travel. If you're ever near one of my courses, you may attend for FREE! You have your point of view, but the only way for you to see the "other side" is to become educated. www.Green-Ops.com

That does not follow at all from what I said. I am asking for gun owners to assume a more complete picture of what the gun culture actually is, rather than only the parts they enjoy. Non-owners are, after all, expected to appreciate the hunting/sports/self defense aspect as if that is all there is to guns. Prior to 9/11, Statistically speaking the majority of “mass shooters” were democrats (or their parents). Does that mean democrats should “assume a more complete picture”? Of course not, as that would be silly. Just as he does not represent all Muslims, he does NOT represent all gun owners.

Certainly, and everyone has their two cents. I am in the minority on this, but I personally see no justification for allowing people to own more than a few guns, a limited range of guns, and a minute quantity of ammo, with some credible exceptions carved out for hunters and sportsmen. I won't try to articulate how that would work, because I simply don't know. I know that it works in other countries, however. Limits on constitutional rights? How about limiting the amount of words you use in free speech? Or maybe, with some credible exceptions carved out for journalist or rich politicians?

You should read the writing of our forefathers. Try the Federalist papers and some other arguments of those who wrote the constitution and how they defended the right of individuals to bear arms and protect themselves against tyranny and criminals.

Your "drunk driver" comparison puts the focus on the wrong element. It is not the alcohol that kills, it is the vehicle. We then must ask: what use the vehicle? The vehicle exists to move people. Since it serves a purpose we cannot live without, we do not eliminate the vehicle, we try to reduce the opportunities for it to be misused. When we try (and fail) to outlaw alcohol, we then come to terms with the fact that where there is alcohol, there will be car accidents. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens aren’t used to kill people…they are used to prevent good people from being killed. Guns protect our borders, our neighborhoods, our way of life, our presidents, our children in school, etc…After guns the most common instruments used in murders is the knife. Should we only regulate guns or ammo? How about blades and sharpening tools?

I would argue that our "gun culture" is structured for the maximum use of guns to kill people at the wrong times. If the Orlando shooter didn’t represent all Muslims, then why should he represent the entire “gun culture”?

The fact remains that, regulated or not, guns are so prolific that anyone who wants one for purposes of mischief can get one easily. Have you tried to buy a gun? If regulating guns won’t work, then what makes you think that regulation ammunition will work? There will always be a way for criminals to access ammo (I can show you how to make ammo). It would only make it harder for the “good” guys to buy.

England and Australia seem to be pretty peaceful and democratic. I have been to England and have several British friends. They are a VERY violent society and I only ask that you go to one of their soccer matches (football). My buddy (mate) has explained to me that knives are the weapons of choice there. As some medical professionals will explain, you’re more likely to die from a knife wound than a bullet wound. My Australian friends have also moved here for a reason.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 09:48 PM

Reflecting back on this thread later today made me think of a quote from Robert Heinlein:

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay-and claims a halo for his dishonesty."

JAD

06-22-2016, 09:56 PM

Great job in this thread, Josh.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 10:06 PM

Great job in this thread, Josh.

Gracias.

I've really enjoyed reading many other posts here today.

Josh Runkle

06-22-2016, 10:37 PM

I teach firearms in Northern Virginia and also travel. If you're ever near one of my courses, you may attend for FREE! You have your point of view, but the only way for you to see the "other side" is to become educated. www.Green-Ops.com

I wish all gun owners were this classy! We could change the US if we all each influenced one non-gun person to at least become neutral about guns.

Ed L

06-22-2016, 10:48 PM

(BTW, isn't it refreshing that arch-communist Bernie Sanders is the most pro-gun candidate in the race?)

As I am responding to this, I am only on page 7 of a 17 page thread, but I am sure someone has already pointed out that Bernie has called for a ban on all non-sporting firearms. Trump is more pro-gun at this moment.

In hindsight, I may not finish reading this thread, so my response is of dubious value.

I am amazed that someone came here to discuss Milo Yiannopoulos, someone who I had never heard of before a few days ago, and whose videos I have still not watched.

Edited to add: never mind, time wasted.

Lex Luthier

06-22-2016, 11:28 PM

I think that fellow came here to troll. Anyone else notice how he switched from one tactic and point to another- as if he was trying to get someone-anyone- to bite, and refused to let himself get pinned down?

But I'm no detective. I bet our resident ones could put together a little list of "tells".

That last little bit of snark negated any goodwill I might have held.
And yeah, the collective punishment attitude and demand that folks who think along our lines about rights have to give something up...
It would not surprise me if he was going to use any positive answer he got as justification for whatever BS he was proposing elsewhere. "See? Even cops and soldiers say..."

Josh Runkle

06-23-2016, 12:47 AM

Drang

06-23-2016, 12:50 AM

I think that fellow came here to troll. Anyone else notice how he switched from one tactic and point to another- as if he was trying to get someone-anyone- to bite, and refused to let himself get pinned down?
If I hadn't put him on ignore early on I probably would have linked this sooner: The Internet Arguing Checklist – Monster Hunter Nation (http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/09/20/the-internet-arguing-checklist/)

Do you ever find yourself arguing with liberals on the internet? Are you tired of people telling you about how awesome free healthcare is for the economy? Or how you should just shut up and pay your fair share because crack whores need iPhones too? Or how we should ban the super ultra-deadly assault rifle AR-15 shotgun Glock? Or been asked why do you hate old people, you cismale gendernormative fascist, hatey-McHaterton-hatey-hate-hatemongering racist?

Have you grown frustrated because arguing with the willfully ignorant is like repeatedly punching a really dumb cactus?

Well, I’ve prepared a handy checklist so you can accurately predict what your willfully ignorant statist will spout next! Have fun with this, as you can follow your friends arguments and play bingo with these. If you are new to internet debate, just find any kerfuffle on Facebook and see how long it takes for you to check most of these off. It is fun for the whole family!

JAD

06-23-2016, 05:58 AM

I think he's a cartoonist from upstate New York without much gun (or "gun culture") experience and a dislike for Milo.

That's a shame -- being a cartoonist can be a dangerous gig these days.

fixer

06-23-2016, 06:41 AM

I really enjoyed the part about how those of us in the gun culture have a problem and need to own it. Criminals are not in our gun culture any more than Jihadis are in the Muslim Culture. Wait, bad example.

The left has a monopoly on a few things:

Feelings
Social Justice
Creating adversaries
Defining culutre

It is instinctive for the left to invent a 'class' and then ascribe to it attributes and characteristics that they can either manufacture solidarity to or rail against as 'enemy'.

In other words, defining what culture is for 'gun culture' (and any other culture) is a domain that that have usurped with impunity.

This behavior of the left is as appalling as it is infuriating--and time and again it is a winning play in politics and public policy.

Also, while I'm at it, I am continually amazed at the intellectual dishonesty (maybe ignorance) that the left brings to the discussion. Maybe that's not the best term, so please feel free to correct me. What I mean is that, again, we see people more than happy to wade into a "discussion", in the hopes of fixing some "problem" they are convinced about, yet they lack even the most basic understanding of the technical aspects of the items they are discussing.

Leftist thought resembles and stems from more of a faith than anything else. Once this becomes clear you can see why there is an amorphous and arbitrary approach to 'solving' problems.

Hambo

06-23-2016, 07:01 AM

What I mean is that, again, we see people more than happy to wade into a "discussion", in the hopes of fixing some "problem" they are convinced about, yet they lack even the most basic understanding of the technical aspects of the items they are discussing.

This isn't limited to discussions on guns. Most people see a 20 second bit on the news and consider themselves sufficiently informed about any number of complex topics. It's really hard to educate people when their brains are trained to shut off after anything longer than a Brawndo commercial.

BaiHu

06-23-2016, 07:43 AM

Well this thread took a wild turn. I finally just caught up as I didn't want to wade in and say anything as I knew it was "taken care of".

At least he was relatively polite in his discussion despite some of his backhanded snark.

A round of applause to you all. It must be frustrating for a neo-leftist, anti-gun, magical thinking, SJW to hear a calm, rational, logical thinking group of gun owners write articulate and respectful answers. Let's hope he doesn't go to some other forums or your work here will have been for naught.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

LittleLebowski

06-23-2016, 07:51 AM

I think he's a cartoonist from upstate New York without much gun (or "gun culture") experience and a dislike for Milo.

I believe his distaste for Milo comes from Milo not toeing the liberal line.

LittleLebowski

06-23-2016, 08:13 AM

II am continually amazed at the intellectual dishonesty (maybe ignorance) that the left brings to the discussion. Maybe that's not the best term, so please feel free to correct me. What I mean is that, again, we see people more than happy to wade into a "discussion", in the hopes of fixing some "problem" they are convinced about, yet they lack even the most basic understanding of the technical aspects of the items they are discussing.

If this was a discussion about oil, and you didn't know what fracking was, would anyone listen to you? No, because you opinion on the matter would be worth absolutely nothing. But when it comes to guns, everyone on the left knows better. They must all be Zen masters, or something.

A sportswriter weighs in:

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/745698315979874304

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/745734767094697984

Peally

06-23-2016, 08:27 AM

This world is in need of a severe STFU pill for so, so many people...

BaiHu

06-23-2016, 08:43 AM

A sportswriter weighs in:

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/745698315979874304

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/745734767094697984

https://youtu.be/zrWoG8IckyE

LittleLebowski

06-23-2016, 09:04 AM

Attention, SLG and everyone else who doesn't Twitter.

You don't have to Twitter in order to enjoy this guy: https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog

Visit his page once a day or so and thank me.

Tamara

06-23-2016, 09:15 AM

That's a shame -- being a cartoonist can be a dangerous gig these days.

Oh, well played, sir!

LittleLebowski

06-23-2016, 09:28 AM

That's a shame -- being a cartoonist can be a dangerous gig these days.

Like button mashed firmly.

SAWBONES

06-23-2016, 11:03 AM

Now take guns: What use guns? To kill people.

...I would argue that our "gun culture" is structured for the maximum use of guns to kill people at the wrong times That is the reason for this debate.

I have nothing to say that hasn't been said, but I'll chime in anyway.

"Gun culture" isn't structured, either inadvertently or purposefully, for any such thing as "maximum use of guns to kill people at the wrong times.".

Freedoms unavoidably permit the possibility of abuses. Those intent on the en masse killing of unarmed "non-combatants" will attempt to accomplish such with or without firearms. Firearms simply are not an essential factor in the "killing many innocents in a short time" equation.

It's my perception that most of those on this forum are interested in guns primarily for the sake of their abilities to kill or to otherwise stop (with or without killing) the predations of the sociopathic strong upon the weak (usually this means self & family for those who are not LE), and to preserve the protections which the Second Amendment affords against forcible governmental coercion of US citizens.

These are important and valid purposes.

Admittedly, many people in our coddled modern society simply don't think clearly about such things and don't really want to think seriously about such things...until they've been victimized. Dealing with genuine violence face-to-face however has the effect of starkly clarifying issues of personal protection, where armchair political pipe-dreaming and "Monday morning quarterbacking" do not, and solutions to problems of unwarranted violent aggression are not going to be found in intellectual discussions or in more "rule making", but rather in effective and forceful defense.

This is so obvious to many here that contrary opinions seem naive.

Ed L

06-23-2016, 05:38 PM

I think he's a cartoonist from upstate New York without much gun (or "gun culture") experience and a dislike for Milo.

Any way we can get him to draw Mohamed?

Gray222

06-23-2016, 06:36 PM

Any way we can get him to draw Mohamed?

Careful now, he might get PTSD by moving his pencil in that direction a little too fast...

hufnagel

06-23-2016, 06:37 PM

http://manybrightdots.com/twg23/pictures/sota/memes/captjrl11201211342aptopix_mideast_i.jpg

I've been SO WAITING for someone to give me an opening to post this. :D

David S.

06-23-2016, 07:06 PM

Dilbert Blog: Why Gun Control Can't Be Solved in the USA (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa)

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”.....

HT: TSM (http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2016/06/put-down-your-gun-so-i-can-shoot-you.html)