The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.

Post Reply New Topic

You've demonstrated yourself to be anti-gun at least in this thread. "I like to shoot guns but want all these restrictions and think they are a health concern" is anti-gun. It's not about the guns themselves or whether or not shooting is enjoyable but the right of people to own them and be armed.

The NRA is not without it's faults and I find those faults frustrating. First is screaming the sky is falling every time some anti-gun politician opens their mouths followed by a fund drive. They do this seemingly constantly . That and some of their figureheads go on record saying stupid things. Those are the two big things.
On the plus side they do actually provide firarms safety training on a huge scale. They are also the largest and strongest pro gun rights organisation in the world.


Al Gore is an anti-gun politician plain and simple. One of the useful services the NRA does is to identify his kind but it's the voters, not the NRA, that do the voting.


What's with this continual jabbering about some "gun show loophole" from the antis?
There is no such animal. Ive been to lots and lots of gun shows but recall no loophole. Sellers at gun shows are usually FFL dealers and are never exempt from following the law at gun shows or wherever else. The private individuals peddling and trading their own stock are doing nothing special that they couldn't do from their own homes.It is not illegal for an indifidual to sell or trade thier private possesions. They are not taking advantage of any "loophole".

Too late, they've already been invented.


Challenge: Find an ideologue with respectable argument on this subject.


By consensus you probably mean compromise.
What would compromise get us?
What has it gotten us?
For what reason would we compromise other than to temporarily appeased the simpleminded and wannabe dictators?

In my state, at least, every gun show complies with state and federal laws which provide that any gun seller who sells fewer than a certain number of guns may do so at the show so long has the seller doesn't sell more than the law allows. Beyond that limit, a seller is presumed to be in business as a seller and must, therefore, comply with laws requiring background checks. Most sellers I have ever seen at shows either have their own NICS background-check computer connection, or borrows one from a neighboring merchant. So, in Utah, we respect that one show attendee might strike up a legal conversation with another attendee about a certain kind of firearm and offer to sell that kind of firearm legally and personally out in the parking lot or back at the seller's residence. The only condition placed on that type of sale is that the seller must record and keep proof of sale with the buyer's basic information where both parties sign the proof of sale and claim that both individuals are legally able to buy, own and sale firearms; a kind of "honor system" akin to selling a motorcycle to a neighbor.

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.[/quote]

Then I say:
You extol yourself and your x-profession (really?????) but don't answer my points or objections. Why is this?

It's because I'm obviously right about the profession you protect. Drs. have been shown to sell out under any circumstances you can imagine: From taking money from tobacco companies to lie about the harmful effects of tobacco, to injecting chemical agents to see how well they injure people (for the government) to running Medicare and insurance scams all over the country.

You don't answer the above because you know it's all true but you'd rather whine about others. I'm not saying all doctors are bad and you may have been the best doctor in the world, but your ability to help others has demoted you to social worker (details?).

You say: "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."

And this the type of experience on which you base the GOOD character of the profession? Instead of the crass and emotionless in the profession you blame Asperger Syndrome? It's obvious you have your priorities skewed. You should have been more of a greedy ass, then perhaps you'd have fit in better.

Doctors as a profession seem like ordinary greedy N.T.s, no better of worse but perhaps a little more greedy and careless (considering their occupation). Certainly no one entitled to tell me what I must do.

I'm sorry you got busted down to social worker. I'm happy you're happy about this. But that doesn't make you any more right about things you know little about (although doctors DO like to pontificate ). Try instead arguing from a position of knowledge. Guessing about Gore or any other such stupidity is merely you giving in to your emotions instead of addressing the facts.

P.S. "psychiatry" is not a low paying profession. Who told you that? I have relatives making more than you can imagine and local psychiatrists live in the largest homes in our town. Perhaps you compare others to specialists who enter their field to maximize their earnings? Another telling trait.

Then I say:
You extol yourself and your x-profession (really?????) but don't answer my points or objections. Why is this?

It's because I'm obviously right about the profession you protect. Drs. have been shown to sell out under any circumstances you can imagine: From taking money from tobacco companies to lie about the harmful effects of tobacco, to injecting chemical agents to see how well they injure people (for the government) to running Medicare and insurance scams all over the country.

You don't answer the above because you know it's all true but you'd rather whine about others. I'm not saying all doctors are bad and you may have been the best doctor in the world, but your ability to help others has demoted you to social worker (details?).

You say: "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."

And this the type of experience on which you base the GOOD character of the profession? Instead of the crass and emotionless in the profession you blame Asperger Syndrome? It's obvious you have your priorities skewed. You should have been more of a greedy ass, then perhaps you'd have fit in better.

Doctors as a profession seem like ordinary greedy N.T.s, no better of worse but perhaps a little more greedy and careless (considering their occupation). Certainly no one entitled to tell me what I must do.

I'm sorry you got busted down to social worker. I'm happy you're happy about this. But that doesn't make you any more right about things you know little about (although doctors DO like to pontificate ). Try instead arguing from a position of knowledge. Guessing about Gore or any other such stupidity is merely you giving in to your emotions instead of addressing the facts.

P.S. "psychiatry" is not a low paying profession. Who told you that? I have relatives making more than you can imagine and local psychiatrists live in the largest homes in our town. Perhaps you compare others to specialists who enter their field to maximize their earnings? Another telling trait.[/quote]

i never said psychiatry was a low-paying profession. it's a low-paying medical specialty. psychiatrists make less than engineers, who have four years of training, compared to 12 for a shrink. people who are in medicine for the money don't do family practice, pediatrics, internal medicine, or psychiatry. these specialties tend to be populated by do-gooders.

Well... since folks are willing to jam words in my form field to push their agendas I think I'm done here. If you're calm enough to stop arguing, only then are you calm enough to responsibly hoard weaponry. Have a wonderful war!

For engineers and medical workers wages please see the Dept. of Labor. Perhaps this will change your mind.

You seem to be using your emotions here. How is it you know the many thousands of individuals personal reasons for choosing a particular branch of medicine? If it's logical there should be a reference online supporting your claims.

As I said earlier, some discussions rely on facts, not an individual's poorly remembered thoughts from the past.

If you want to get your panties in a twist, go for it. But don't delude yourself these thoughts/emotions have anything to do with reasoned debate. Since you are unable to discuss without personalization I judge you to be the winner. End of (my) discussion.

For engineers and medical workers wages please see the Dept. of Labor. Perhaps this will change your mind.

You seem to be using your emotions here. How is it you know the many thousands of individuals personal reasons for choosing a particular branch of medicine? If it's logical there should be a reference online supporting your claims.

As I said earlier, some discussions rely on facts, not an individual's poorly remembered thoughts from the past.

If you want to get your panties in a twist, go for it. But don't delude yourself these thoughts/emotions have anything to do with reasoned debate. Since you are unable to discuss without personalization I judge you to be the winner. End of (my) discussion.

That mish mash was my feeble attempt at removing some of the garbage (unending repetitions) in my reply and then my subsequent clumsy attempt at patching in the missing info. (what a goof-up) Sorry to upset you.

But just so I understand: People who argue (in your opinion) shouldn't own weapons?

Shame on you George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al. Perhaps if they'd not had guns to back their contentions there may have been a more "gentle" revolution?

And you feel arguing with words is somehow related to war? I'd like to hear your logic.

i went to the dept. of labor site. seems as though psychiatrists make much more now (180k)than they did twenty years ago when they still did therapy (75k). electrical engineers make 90k. so, on that small point, you are correct. all i am saying is that for those who are in it for money, there are much more lucrative branches of medicine to choose from.

and who are you to judge all those thousands of doctors for the mistakes of a few? plus, many of those medical mistakes you cite are made by pharmacists and nurses, so you are inflating your indictment of doctors. some mistakes are the result of inefficient systems, not really particularly anyone's fault. electronic medical records, for example, will prevent some medication errors.

i'm not extolling doctors. i have known my share of egotistical, even sadistic physicians. but you have vilified an entire profession via your bigotry and probably jealousy. i am defending those i know. i doubt my sample is so skewed as to be meaningless. i know dozens of doctors, some of whom i would trust with my life, some i would not. all my friends in med school went into pediatrics. they liked and wanted to help kids. internists tend to want to solve puzzles. shrinks are fascinated by the mind. jocks go into orthopedics. sure, not everyone in these fields follows the mold, but the general principle is a general principle because it's generally true. docs joke about these things among themselves. they are generally accepted. not just my opinion. note that i never said all ARE do-gooders. i said TEND TO BE. so you are assuming i'm overgeneralizing without basis.

One point:

What does other people and what they own have to do with me?

Aren't we in the West harbingers of personal freedom, where we aren't guilty or judged negatively by law until we actually do something bad?

What right does anyone have to force me, someone who hasn't done anything bad in his life, what I can or can't own? If I do something bad with it, then yeah, take it from me.

Here in the U.S. we like to boast of our "freedoms." But what we don't brag about is freedoms taken. Considering there are a finite number of "freedoms" to begin with, each small loss is something that will never be replaced, making us all a little poorer forever. Most wouldn't mourn the loss of an individual's right to choose the caliber of their hunting weapon (etc.) so it goes unnoticed and/or forgotten by the general public.

But "some" don't forget these types of things and realize when freedoms are taken they're seldom recovered. Which is one reason gun enthusiasts are so adamant about retaining the choice of magazine size after losing this right, through a legislative "trial", during the previous 10 years.

What we've learned since the beginning of this country is there are always others who are willing to sacrifice your liberties for their own reasons. We remain vigilant as should all who think of themselves as patriotic Americans.

I hope this helps delineate the argument for others.

It appears that the wisdom of the Second Amendment is spreading worldwide in creative ways.

Not to rain on anyone's parade but I did watch a show on History 2 called Shootout. When you look at a show like that, you have to wonder...it had marshals and outlaws shooting each other in the wild west...with many others getting shot in the process just from all the bullets flying everywhere during the gun battle between the gang and the marshals. Why no one else bothered to shoot members of the gang I have no idea because lots of people had guns resting on their hips or in their wagons, attached to their saddles, resting on gun racks in their houses. Instead, cumulated in a dramatic gun fight in a town with plenty of collateral damage. If we had all these armed people shooting each other in a public place, it could have a similar outcome - others getting shot besides the bad guys.

Another segment featured these two bank robbers in Los Angeles, California, armed to the teeth with semi automatic weapons they modified into automatic and they had plenty of tactical gear like bullet proof vests and protection. So, they ended up shooting several police during a gunfight on the streets of LA, every cop's worse nightmare. What can you do in these situations, when they have all kinds of protections and the Bushmasters and everything else at their disposal to keep on shooting?

These are a couple of the worst examples of irresponsible behavior with firearms.

Quite true. But, in most states, citizens have the espressed rights to protect themselves, their families and friends, and their property from criminal intrusion. This, of course, doesn't extend to the gang activities that you described, but for most law-abiding citizens, it is a protected ability.

When you consider that it's kinda vague. For one thing, it talks about a well regulated militia. What does that even mean? It would have been easier if they would have penned something like, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed so that everyone can protect themselves.
Otherwise, it suggests we should all be gangs kinda.. Militias. Sorry, but that's what it implies...and it doesn't make a distinction between criminals and non.

And what exactly does "well regulated" mean? If our right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed upon, how can anyone justify regulating?

Seriously, that amendment seems to elude to everyone, "people" which would mean anyone with homo sapien dna, can roam around in packs with guns showing to secure a "free state" which suggests you are protecting yourself from anyone who wants to take your freedom away. Again, it's very vague unless you can figure out exactly what is implied by "freedom" because it is an exceptionally vague term.
That's all it says, pretty much. It doesn't say bad guys cannot have guns unless you can figure out what they meant by well regulated and if you can figure that out, the part about the rights of "people" to keep and bear arms cancels the part about regulation out...