Mark Steel on NRA reaction to Boston bomb. Genius

Post Reply New Topic

No, actually I don’t have to accept anything.


You’re on an entirely different page than me. Probably in a different book for that matter.


No, it’s more like condescension with a teaspoon of snarkyness for flavor but you know that does not bother me since I am the proud embodiment of all things uncivil.

As for the academic study on self-control; no I don’t haven’t done a study and I don’t have someone else’s on hand to refer to since human behavior is not my field of endeavor.
Nonetheless I’ll still voice my opinion on the subject as I see fit. I don't go in for that dogma that one must have a study to refer to or be a scholar of a particular subject to have an opinion of their own. Read what you want into it.



My point was, not that it’ll do any good to reiterate or even clarify, is that we have that control in place already. It does not catch everything and nothing ever will catch everything. I don’t want to see the government get it’s mitts on any more in an ill-fated attempt to do what it can’t do.
It’s important to remember that you are an embracer of government and I am generally untrusting of government and see it as a necessary evil to be used sparingly.


It’s appropriate to meet force with force. We’ve been over this before.


I forgot what I even responding to. Always remember, though, that I can always toss in a rebuttal of some kind.


If you’re talking about debates in this forum I can say with certainly that the pro-gun side has at least brought rational points to the table. All I’ve seen from the anti-gun side is canned rhetoric that’s as old, stale, and flawed as the anti-gun movement itself.
If you've actually seen a valid anti-gun argument in these forums please copy and past the link to it here.


So how come you’re just now coming out as a gun owner??? There have been scores of these debates and this is the first I’ve noticed you admitting to being a gun owner.
I’ve had the displeasure of knowing enough anti-gun gun owners.
“Oh, I have a handgun for personal protection and I think people should have the right to that kind of protection BUT assault weapons really should be banned”.
Or
“I have guns and go shooting but I really think all guns should be registered”
I could go on but this is a sample the kind of nuttiness I’ve actually heard.
I spend a lot of time at the shooting range. Not just me shooting but I’m also a volunteer range safely officer so I get to hear a lots and lots unsolicited opinions and “facts”.


Ah yes! There it is; the “my dog is better than dog” taunt that I just knew you'd have to toss in here somewhere.
May as well arguing on the kindergarten playground.


As long as I fully agree that we need a Canadian to tell us how to run our country I bet you are willing.

You wish.

What's the rationale behind gun control other than giving the hand wringers something to feel good about?

I'll catch this debate again next time around. My IRL social life got busy!

Same rationale that's behind forcing bars to check ID of the people who might be underage - if you don't have the check, then the law is as good as useless. But, that wasn't the point you made - you said "Gun Control of any kind is an infringement" - which is the same argument as "the second amendment right is absolute". That statement has no basis in fact *or* law. No rights can be absolute in any kind of society - because by definition you are consenting to limit your freedoms in exchange for the benefits of society.

i disagree with analogy.
there is a diference between slight possible result and definate result.
only a miniscule portion of gun owners are criminals.however alchohol always gets gets people drunk.so keeping alchohol from people to young to handle its affects and keeping guns from everyone in order to keep guns from the dangerous 1% of the population is two different things

Any person on the No Fly list or who has relatives on the No Fly lists should not be allowed to purchase pressure cookers.

Whether you accept it or not, the law is the law.



This is likely the case. That doesn't mean that there isn't still a discussion worth having.



Fair enough. I like to frame my opinions based on evidence and scholarly literature. My intuition has been wrong often enough that I value research, but that's by no means obligatory.



I think it's a point very much worth repeating. At a fundamental level, a person's trust or distrust of government is going to be influenced by experience. If you are living in a jurisdiction in which goverment has done a poor job of implementation, your distrust is perfectly rational.

So why can't government do its job properly? Is it under-resourced? Are there legal impediments in its way? Are there lacunae in the regulations that are being exploited? If there are ways of making existing controls work better, what are they? I think that these are all questions that are worth asking.



I don't entirely disagree, but I do think that meeting force with force should be exceptional rather than typical. So there's the cultural gap between us.

Now the question is, which way are individuals in the body politic moving on this political question? Over the last 80 years, there has been a steady movement over to your side; but now I think it is poised to start moving back in the other direction.



Because the question of whether or not I am a firearms owner is entirely irrelevant to the question of what an appropriate regulatory framework is, or to the role that culture plays in the abuse of firearms. The question only became relevant when you made assumptions about my personal feelings about firearms.

It seems to me that you are engaged in an exercise of "playing the man, not the ball." By dismissing people as "anti-gun gun owners," you never need to engage in a substantive dialogue. You rely on the "no true Scotsman," fallacy.



There was nothing of the "my dog is better than your dog," in what I said. I said, "These are my views. They might be wrong, but I don't think that they are." How do you get, "my dog is better than your dog," from that?



I'm not telling you how to run your country. I'm making observations about how our two countries are different, and I think we both might learn from that.

Take from it as much or as little as you will. I know I will never persuade you, but that doesn't make the conversation valueless.

And here in the pressure cooker comes truth.

Everyone is wrong about gun control.

Regulations are needed, but the main problem is, some people rob other people's houses for a living, and even if convicted felons, who can not even handle a gun, will steal one.

Almost all the killing around here is drug related, and the gun was not legal. We turn up some that have been connected to shootings in Chicago, where stolen, then Memphis, Jackson, then in New Orleans.

Felons will not pass the background check, but they try.

Crime does not come from the brighter, it is trial and error from the least.

Long guns are rarely used in crimes. small hand guns are the favored weapon.

It is people control, and at least 10% of America should never have, touch, use, a gun, for anything.

On the other end, machine guns are legal, if you have the permit to buy one.

As someone trained at a white shooters camp, BSA, I got the merit badge, which calls for hitting what you aim at, safe handling, and cleaning. As a teen I carried a rifle around in a case on foot from the Scouts back and forth to my house.

Ten years later boys younger than me were carrying guns in Viet Nam.

I was trained by my uncle, who hunted snipers in the south Pacific. He taught me that one shot had better work. Only hits count.

Maintaining a gun culture come in useful in war. This includes hunting skills, one shot kills, and being at home in the woods.

It is a skill, and the other side is being a bullet catcher who clears mine fields by walking through them.

This is nothing you would learn in basic training in six weeks.

In Afganistan they drive to work in huge trucks that can be heard for ten miles. Even Elmer Fudd knew better.

A plan is always needed, for Sandy Hook, the police showed up in 22 minutes. At your home expect longer, and I grew up sixteen miles out in the country. The defense of you and yours is always on you.

My uncle did not think much of Government training. They taught to obey the government. That will not win wars.

It is the same with the self defense of you and yours, the police are there to write a report sometime later. Burgler or homeowner is all the same to them, just another body, some overtime.

Since they claim to be so great, we should send the Government and Police to Afganistan. One way or the other, problem solved.

Our wars are fought by twenty year olds, now conditioned to avoid weapons, and not defend their country. They get sent somewhere, kill a lot of civilians, chant USA#1, and wonder why they get killed.

After the fall of the government, the slaughter of the politically correct multicultural army, we will still have to defend our country, falling back on the skills of ages.

This is why it always falls on the People, to be the main defense of Their Nation. That is why a standing army is a threat. It is a false idea of defense.

It was a citizen army that slaughtered the Japanese back to Japan.

It was a Government Army that lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, and could not win Korea II.

War is an ugly business, and the only thing worse is losing.

Boston got bombed because the Government did not follow up on a strong report from the Russians.

The same was said of Pearl Harbor.

With all the arms being pumped into the Mid East, North Africa, the next front could be France.

A standing army will bankrupt the country.

All of these problems are very old, our ancestors knew them.

An armed population is the only security.

Consumption and serving of alcoholic beverages is an act and there lies the difference between that and an object.
Should we control water (ALL water) because there have been so many deaths by drowning?


And what benefits of society am I or anyone else reaping from gun control?
I don't know what your goal is here but it won't be reached with me. You claim to be pro-gun yet insist on shitpicking and handwringing over such inane details like this with others who are pro-gun just to try to get one up on them for whatever reason.

Okay then, let's control the acts of selling, using, hiring, or possessing a gun. Guns can continue to exist as long as nobody owns or uses them.

/\ /\ /\ /\

Last edited by Raptor on 01 May 2013, 3:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Whatever……


Look back over time and you’ll see that you and I have discussed all of the topics in these last few posts time and time again.
To what avail?




Everyone lives in a jurisdiction of poor job implementation by the government. Every ounce of efficiency you observe is only what’s been boiled down from pounds of inefficiency and bureaucratic BS.



You and I have discussed at length our personal experiences in working for the government both civil service and in my case as a contractor employee working directly with the a government agency in their house.


You do what ya gotta do at the time you cross paths with the wolf, not discus culture and fine arts or whatever with him.


Right now there a lot of people on the dole, a lot of it due to the recent economy, and that influences their judgment at the polls. I figure that will change sooner or later the only question is would be how the republicans accommodate that shift the next time.


It’s not irrelevant. Having a vested interest in something can add considerable weight.


It’s pretty much a black and white topic and I along with others have spent hours upon hours explaining it in this forum over the years. I’ll go as far as to say that it has a shade of dark gray at one end and light gray at the other but I’ll never agree that there is a third side to this.


Um, yes there was. You constantly imply that your government or even your country is better than mine. It doesn't take a genius to see the analogy.


Uh huh…..


It’s valueless but so are all the other gunz-r-bad debates we have here.
Oh well….

Arguing with strawmen is never a good use of your time; "bearing arms" has nothing to do with committing crimes, and no one here is advocating legalizing assault and murder, that's just silly. Not even a 2nd Amendment absolutist would argue that, and I doubt you'd be able to find someone who has actually made that argument in seriousness. I would actually like to see the brandishing, menacing, wielding, etc laws looked into, as they are often used to abuse open carriers, and tend to be vaguely written enough to qualify for review if nothing else.

Ahh, I took your usage of "poles" less literally than I should have. I would agree that were on different pages in the same chapter, but I wouldn't really characterize myself as arguing from the center, I'm more of a gun rights absolutist who happens to be able to make my case in a variety of ways, many of them more nuanced than the standard stuff you tend to see in these arguments.

I'm particularly interested in the part in bold. Given that you're arguing with me, I take it you're prepared to back up that assertion that "the gun culture" in America is responsible for a lot of crime? Some studies and citations, perhaps?



Who's crying? Also, it merely shows that I'm not interested in trampling upon the rights of tens of millions to save less people than are struck by lightening every year. Let's not forget that I've repeatedly proposed a policy that would save more lives than a complete firearms ban; ending the drug war. but I'm the cold blooded one because I oppose an infective policy that might save dozens of lives while proposing one to save millions...




So in a few more years, you think you'll have the proof... Okay.



I couldn't figure out what you were talking about here. Here's the unedited quote of me that you were responding to:

What part of my statement does your post refer to?



You prefer to step on millions to save dozens using ineffective government regulations. Got it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance


I'm worried about the continued erosion of civil liberties and privacy protections from an ever encroaching state, while you worry about a statistically rare crime that you're more likely to die falling out of bead in the morning than be affected by, and yet I'm the one with the mixed up priorities?



I have a right to self preservation, which includes a right to self defense, which necessitates access to the proper tools. Not sure I can simplify it further.

And there we have it. The intellectual capacity of Raptor's argument. The cupboard is bare.

And that's why the cultural shift is going to take place, because there aren't enough people like Dox47 to stop it.