The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.

Page 16 of 24 [ 383 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 24 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jan 2015, 11:23 am

sonofghandi wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Thus far no one has been able to form a rational anti-gun argument and we've been at this for several years here on WP.

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "rational?"

The opposite of you......

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jan 2015, 11:31 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Raptor wrote:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

To me it's obvious what happened. These people spend too much time thinking about guns than perhaps they need to. You don't have to think about guns all the time and always be around one to be classified as a "gun person."

Anyone who has guns is a gun person.

For some of us it is our hobby and even an obsession. It cannot be helped and there is no harm in it other than spending way too much money on it.
And not everyone who owns a gun is a gun person. There's more to it than just possession.

Quote:

Anyway, the two year old child saw the parents with guns quite often, probably saw them shooting them, and he being a two year old, couldn't really understand the full implications of picking up a gun, pointing it and pulling the trigger. He had just seen it all around him and whether his parents let him fire a gun for the first time prior to this hasn't been stated.

At that age though, he is way too young to really understand what guns are and what they do. That much is clear.

And as far as always having a gun in your purse, it might not be a good idea because purses are one of the worse places to have a gun due to the fact they are so easy for others besides the owner to get into and that is one of the things gun owners are supposed to avoid, other people taking their weapons.

Agreed on the guns in purses practice but women will be women. I don't like the idea for a few reasons but I'm not willing to make laws regarding it. Again, sometimes s**t just happens and this is one such case.
Move past it.

There needs to be a law that says concealed carriers must have the gun on their person when they are out and about, not just in a purse or car glove compartment. This is not infringing upon anyone's gun rights it just says if you are going to have a gun on you at all times, you must do so responsibly and the best place for handgun is on one's person, in a holster with a strap.

If carriers cannot be responsible and accidents happen, then laws should be made addressing the issue.

A law for this, law for that, laws to regulate every facet of our existence when all is said and done. :roll:

You cannot take a gun into every place you go so it has to be left in the vehicle at times. Most concealment holsters do not have or need straps and if you knew anything about the subject you'd know that. Yes, what you're proposing here IS an infringement.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jan 2015, 11:49 am

ZenDen wrote:

Let me compare doctors to dining in a restaurant: I pick what I want to eat and the duty of the restaurant is to provide my request and be paid for their services. Am I interested in having my server begin questioning me about eating more vegetables? A moments thought tells you how presumptuous doctors are. They are merely paid servants, not gods as they would have you believe.

Amen on that. I keep my dealings with them to a bare minimum or less. I don't even like taking my dog to the vet.

cathylynn wrote:

Not!
The NRA has been a pro-gun rights entity since way before 1968. Being a dyed in the wool gun nut, I am interested in all things gun related and in some of the junk I've accumulated are some very old NRA magazines. Some of them date back to the 1940's and 50's. The mistake the NRA made back then was in compromising and endorsing some "common sense" gun laws. :roll:

Maybe they even helped draft them but I don't know for sure about that without going back and looking it up. They were pro-gun rights by the standards of the times and tried to play both sides.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

07 Jan 2015, 11:56 am

ZenDen wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

ZenDen wrote:

Actually Raptor the answer to this discussion lies somewhere else.

Whether a doctor, freely chosen by you to ATTEND TO YOUR MEDICAL ISSUES is doing the job you hired him/her for is the issue.

Many doctors feel they are closer to God and Ultimate Knowledge than the average citizen and feel they can make decisions for the masses. I don't remember authorizing any doctor to ask me such questions. They are presumptuous a**holes if they think they will father/mother me. Better they should attend to the hundreds of thousands killed, year after year, by medical "mishaps" or "physician errors"; when this number goes down to "zero" then I might be willing to talk about ME. The number of deaths caused by guns in the home is insignificant compared to those killed by doctors inadequacies (try asking your doctor about your concerns in this matter).

Nothing works better for doctors to deflect the concerns of physician inadequacy than making a huge "safety concern" and blaming others (who will be saved by these same wonderful doctors).

actually, this is a false dichotomy. doctors can (and are) address medical mistakes and gun preventive medicine at the same time.

You misunderstand.

Let me compare doctors to dining in a restaurant: I pick what I want to eat and the duty of the restaurant is to provide my request and be paid for their services. Am I interested in having my server begin questioning me about eating more vegetables? A moments thought tells you how presumptuous doctors are. They are merely paid servants, not gods as they would have you believe.

And unfortunately for us, doctors are one of the worst killers we know of. Hundreds of thousands of (documented cases) of people killed by medical doctors through their inadequacies, stupidity and carelessness. Are these the people I want to teach me how to live my life? I think not; at least not until these (self described) brilliant people clean their own house....who can trust them and their self serving "announcements" that change with the political "wind?"

I'm now in my 70s and I've seen and heard enough about doctors deadly mistakes to make me sick for another lifetime. I don't need some stuck-up fallible doctor to tell me how to live my life. Accepting being told how to live by these fallible people is foolishness. They have no credibility, outside the small bit they learned in school, in my opinion.

so you only take advice from the infallible? i guess you really don't even trust yourself, then. fewer people are killed by guns than by medical mistakes, but guns deaths are by no means insignificant. more folks die from smoking than from obesity. should we ignore obesity?

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

07 Jan 2015, 12:57 pm

I SAY:

"You misunderstand.

Let me compare doctors to dining in a restaurant: I pick what I want to eat and the duty of the restaurant is to provide my request and be paid for their services. Am I interested in having my server begin questioning me about eating more vegetables? A moments thought tells you how presumptuous doctors are. They are merely paid servants, not gods as they would have you believe.

And unfortunately for us, doctors are one of the worst killers we know of. Hundreds of thousands of (documented cases) of people killed by medical doctors through their inadequacies, stupidity and carelessness. Are these the people I want to teach me how to live my life? I think not; at least not until these (self described) brilliant people clean their own house....who can trust them and their self serving "announcements" that change with the political "wind?"

I'm now in my 70s and I've seen and heard enough about doctors deadly mistakes to make me sick for another lifetime. I don't need some stuck-up fallible doctor to tell me how to live my life. Accepting being told how to live by these fallible people is foolishness. They have no credibility, outside the small bit they learned in school, in my opinion.

YOU SAY:
so you only take advice from the infallible? i guess you really don't even trust yourself, then. fewer people are killed by guns than by medical mistakes, but guns deaths are by no means insignificant. more folks die from smoking than from obesity. should we ignore obesity?

I SAY:
I suppose you've gathered a different idea about doctors and their "infallibility" (your word). Do I trust my infallible self to not make mistakes?????NO! But then, I pay for my own mistakes while a doctor turns his back on the sufferer/deceased with "Oh well. There's always another patient and another fee to collect for my lifestyle to prosper." I've never met a doctor who, when it came down to it, wasn't in it for the money & prestige.

I find doctors no more credible, outside their specialty, than anyone. Perhaps less because of their biases and claims to infallibility (which they learn to express properly in medical school). Why do these "medical professionals" not heal themselves? Almost 100,000 deaths per year in the U.S. alone caused by medical mistakes. I'd like to hear some press from the AMA explaining this.

If they aren't smart enough to heal themselves why should I believe anything contentious they have to recommend? Hell, these are the same people, and profession, that supervised, and carried out, every filthy experiment on human beings ever devised and will sell their soul to any tobacco company or other that pays them enough.

I admit I'm fallible but I have my limits; apparently doctors as a profession do not.

cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

07 Jan 2015, 5:40 pm

ZenDen wrote:

some doctors, like i was, are in low-paying specialties like family practice and psychiatry and (shocking to you, i know) are in it to help people. one thing doctors are judged harshly on during their residencies is knowing their limits. this is overdone to the degree that doctors over-refer to specialists out of fear of missing something. all doctors make mistakes. many admit them. some are sued. truly bad doctors lose their licenses. i got $8000 back from a doctor who misdiagnosed me without suing him. i'm sure he didn't think he was infallible. i not only reported to my patients on my mistakes, but on those of my hospital, which caused the hospital to censure me and eventually cost me my license. i chalk it up to asperger's and being a poor navigator of hospital politics.

now i am a social worker making considerably less money, but i am happier because i still get to help people, but it's more low key. your bigotry toward the medical profession is astounding.

if you go to your doc for a sore throat, you most likely won't be questioned about smoking or guns. but if you go in for a complete physical, those things are part of the history.

cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

07 Jan 2015, 6:35 pm

ZenDen wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

up until 1968, the NRA was a gun safety group. then LBJ said "crime control is gun control." The NRA had been divided among hunters and radical pro-gunners. at the cincinnati convention, the splinter pro-gun group took over.

Gun control was stymied until clinton. after reagan and brady's shooting, the assault weapons ban and the brady background check bill were passed. the gunshow background check loophole passed in the senate by one vote -gore's. LaPierre lobbied the house and successfully navigated between sportsmen and guns rights activists. LaPierre called the government thugs and suggested that the only way to protect oneself from government storming one's house was having plenty of firepower of one's own. (paranoid - very unlikely- and unrealistic- you can't stop tanks and bombs with a gun). At this point President George H. W. Bush resigned from the NRA in disgust.

LaPierre apologized for saying anti-government things, but called folks wanting to close the background check at gun shows loophole anti-gun. the house voted against closing the loophole.

When Gore ran for president, the NRA campaigned heavily against him in ohio, w. va., and tennessee. exit polls in ohio showed that the gun issue was primary for 60% of the bush voter. these states lost gore the presidency. with gore in office, we would have likely avoided iraq and gotten ahead of climate change. So, the NRA is killing not only our country, but the world.

under G. W. Bush, the assault weapons ban expired. The NRA came out against licensing, background checks, and testing.

Then Obama was elected and Sandy Hook happened. LaPierre stated that, "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." so, in essence, we should solve gun violence with more guns.

Sandy Hook parents wanted to reinstate the ban on assault weapons and ban high capacity magazines. only a really bad hunter needs either of those. or a looney who thinks the government is coming to confiscate his guns. gun safety politicians told the sandy hook parents that the best they could hope for given the current NRA climate would be closing the gun show background check loophole.

Senator Manchin, given an A rating by the NRA for voting with them all the time, thought gun show background checks were a good idea. He was working on a bill with the NRA (supported by 90% of americans and 80% of households containing an NRA member). Then the 300,000 member gun owners of america put up a fuss that the NRA was soft, compromising. The NRA didn't want to look soft, so they backed out of the bill and started attacking Manchin (eating their own).

Gabby Giffords owned a glock 17. She tried to get background checks at gun shows. It was defeated in the senate after much NRA lobbying.

no national effort at gun control can be initiated in the current climate. the NRA calls folks who espouse gun safety anti-gun, an unfair smear which i've seen used in this thread. very few americans are against hunting. none of the gun safety activists are coming for your guns. this is a paranoia campaign to get your money to the NRA so they can remain the most powerful lobby in the country.

You say: "LaPierre called the government thugs and suggested that the only way to protect oneself from government storming one's house was having plenty of firepower of one's own. (paranoid - very unlikely- and unrealistic- you can't stop tanks and bombs with a gun)."

Would this be the same way "you can't stop tanks and bombs with a gun" that insurgents employ in the Middle East? Why would you think such a thing?

You say: "with gore in office, we would have likely avoided iraq and gotten ahead of climate change. So, the NRA is killing not only our country, but the world."

THE WORLD???? Aren't you letting your imagination run wild here? You have no facts and besides damage your overall argument. Foolish argument.

I won't comment further except to add your hyperbole brands you as anti-gun, even though you may not consider yourself such. From the gun owner point of view you're saying "I only want a little tiny reasonable bite out of your gun rights." You label yourself and thus become the leading edge of total gun confiscation, you assist their cause (although we understand from your words, you "didn't mean to.") Unwitting dupes are still unwitting dupes.

like george h. w. bush, i am pro-gun and anti-NRA.

our failure to see eye to eye on whether the NRA is likely to have hurt the whole world is not due to my over-imagination, but your inability to reasonably extrapolate. the same gore who wrote one of the definitive books on climate change would likely have accomplished steps to control it. gore was not a friend of paul wolfowitz and the neocons who convinced W to lie us into the iraq war. the world would almost certainly be better off had the NRA left gore alone in 2000. so, no hyperbole at all.

if you think closing the gun show background check loophole will do anything other than keep guns from criminals, you may want ti think again. the whole world is not a slippery slope. they will not be coming for your guns. to think they would is just paranoia. paranoia pushed by your unscrupulous friend, the NRA.

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

07 Jan 2015, 6:59 pm

cathylynn wrote:

...the same gore who wrote one of the definitive books on climate change would likely have accomplished steps to control it. gore was not a friend of paul wolfowitz and the neocons who convinced W to lie us into the iraq war. the world would almost certainly be better off had the NRA left gore alone in 2000. so, no hyperbole at all....

A United Kingdom court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconv ... mmock_case "ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contained nine scientific errors and thus must be accompanied by an explanation of those errors before being shown to school children. The judge said that showing the film without the explanations of error would be a violation of education laws."

As a former 2000 Gore/Lieberman national delegate, this court opinion, Gore's various sex-abuse complaints and his dating of other women despite never finalizing a divorce with his wife, Tipper, makes me question a lot of his personal and political lives. I wouldn't have described him as a credible alternative to Bush or almost anyone else. Just my opinion.

_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)

cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

07 Jan 2015, 7:27 pm

AspieUtah wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

it doesn't matter if the book wasn't perfect. gore would have done something positive about his pet issue, climate change. kennedy had dozens of mistresses and was a good president. it's a non-issue, a red herring. a real issue is that we wouldn't be facing ISIS now, 4000 US soldiers wouldn't have died, 50,000+ iraqis wouldn't have died had we not gotten into iraq, something gore is unlikely to have done.

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

07 Jan 2015, 7:41 pm

SAF.org wrote:

Following a year of organization, the Second Amendment Foundation Training Division (SAFTD) has embarked on the development of a program specifically directed at training the new and inexperienced shooters in the defensive use of pistols, shotguns and carbines....

Second Amendment Foundation launches firearms Training Division (January 5, 2015)
https://www.saf.org/?p=4991

The Second Amendment Foundation is the group that made possible the McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), opinion which determined that "the right of an individual to 'keep and bear arms' protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states."

sly279
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

07 Jan 2015, 11:45 pm

cathylynn wrote:

like george h. w. bush, i am pro-gun and anti-NRA.

you're pro guns that you like. and anti guns many others like.

so in my world that doesn't make you pro gun. much as someone who has black friends but thinks slavery was ok, isn't pro black people.

cberg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

08 Jan 2015, 12:13 am

The seventeen pages of petty bickering and whiny defensiveness in this thread richly exemplifies why I believe humans cannot be trusted with weapons. I'd believe every last gun nut about anything they said if they were the slightest bit capable of respecting opposing ideologues. The only ones responsible enough to stockpile weapons understand consensus, and even they invented friendly fire.

_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:

sly279
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

08 Jan 2015, 1:33 am

cberg wrote:

o.O

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

08 Jan 2015, 7:44 am

AspieUtah wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

You're quoting selectively there... that quote is proceeded by:

Quote:

On 10 October 2007, Mr Justice Burton, after explaining that the requirement for a balanced presentation does not warrant that equal weight be given to alternative views of a mainstream view, ruled that it was clear that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a "talented politician and communicator", to make a political statement and to support a political program.

and followed by

Quote:

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'"

Here is a list of perceived inaccuracies

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

08 Jan 2015, 9:25 am

cberg wrote:

To be fair, most of the insults have been lodged at the pro gun people on here, and I am objective about guns, not a gun nut exactly, so I am not taking sides. I would just like people to discuss this issue with civility.

Gun people believe what they believe but I think some of them could brush up on gun safety instead of dismissing accidents like these, use it as a learning experience and think of ways to have guns safely. If people were safer and respected weapons more, you wouldn't see people complaining about gun rights.

Sometimes it seems guns are treated more as big toys than the powerful weapons they are. People wouldn't let their two year old or perhaps even their ten year old child cut vegetables in the kitchen with a knife nor would they let them cook on stoves or grills for fear they might harm themselves and yet and yet...some of them would let them shoot these powerful weapons that are just as dangerous? It's true, they are as dangerous yet because they are guns suddenly they seem toy-like and we need to put them in the hands of kids, in some cases, not all. But some.

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

08 Jan 2015, 11:30 am

Investors.com: John R. Lott Jr. wrote:

Terrorism is forcing Israel to let civilians carry guns in even the most sensitive religious areas in the wake of Palestinian attacks in places from a sidewalk to the Kehilat Yaakov synagogue. Weapons have ranged from knives and guns to a car.

These attacks mirror the recent spate of "lone wolf" terrorist attacks around the world, including a hatchet attack in New York City, a beheading in Oklahoma and a shooting in Ottawa, Ontario. Yet Israel's response couldn't be more different.

[...]

President Obama has responded by beefing up security at federal buildings. But if announcing such increased security has any effect, it simply makes it more likely that other targets will be hit, as there are so many possible targets.

[...]

Last year, Interpol's secretary general, Ron Noble, noted that there are two ways to protect people from such mass shootings:

"One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves (should be) so secure that in order to get into the soft target, you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."

"You can't have armed police forces everywhere," he warned....

America Should Make It Easier To Carry Guns
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... z3OEzPEMrP

When the secretary general of Interpol accepts armed citizens for the immediate ameliorative effect they would have in life-threatening situations, it would appear that the worldwide debate about personal firearms is done.

Page 16 of 24 [ 383 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 24 Next

Jump to:

The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety. Post Reply New Topic

The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.