The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.

Post Reply New Topic

That's not what you did, however, you attempted to turn an isolated tragedy into an indictment of "gun culture", which as Raptor pointed out, is something you've done before.



Neither does the observation I was commenting on, though as poor Steve demonstrates, people who swim with stingrays are much more likely to be killed by them than those who do not; stunning insight, right?



Was there any indication that the woman in question was involved with any sort of "gun culture"? If not, it's a red herring at best, and looks an awful lot like a smear. There's also the question of what you mean by "gun culture", but that's an issue for another day.



If you'd stuck to that from the start, there wouldn't have been any problem.

I most certainly did not indict "gun culture."

As I explained already, someone brought up how careless people are with cars and I just stated what I believe to be true. People would suffer if their cars were taken away due to the fact they wouldn't be able to get to work very easily thus they wouldn't be able to earn a living as easily.

Taking away guns would not cause as much widespread hardship. I didn't say anyone was actually going to do that. Can't you see this is hypothetical?

How are you capable of discerning which one of the two would cause the most hardship other than subjective examples (that everyone can give)?

The amount of variables one would have to factor in would be staggering.

(People got around just fine with horses before cars.)

It's always a rout since they have never and can never bring any valid point to the table. They lose the argument the moment they start it. I feel like a cat batting a blind mouse around each time.

And of all the "disturbing headlines" to chose from it's it's just a coincidence that the one you chose happened to involve a gun, eh?


Coulda fooled me......


Apples to oranges....



The fact that you people even think it's even remotely possible to take away the guns speaks volumes. The pitiful "War on Drugs" should be a shining example of the inability to simply take away or ban anything there is enough of a desire and market for.

I do not carry a gun, and I am not really concerned about who does. I am not afraid of guns, and I am less afraid of black people, with or without guns.

Ironically, the first gun control laws were actually promoted by the NRA in order to keep black people from owning guns. I don't care two bits about guns, but I have wanted to bloody up the nose of every NRA member I have ever encountered.

Actually, the National Rifle Association of America acted in its early years in ways which closely resemble today’s civil-rights groups. A longtime friend of mine, lawyer and writer Dave Kopel, was an assistant attorney general for the state of Colorado. His research and subsequent commentary shared here describes the evidence that the NRA had its roots in protecting black Americans from the Jim Crow laws that pervaded the former confederate states during the late 19th century and into the 20th century.


Strangely, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, the individual who wrote the article to which you linked, approached me years ago when he wrote his book, Gunfight, offered to give me an advance copy of the book and asked for my review of it. The book was his attempt to bridge the gap between Second Amendment advocates and gun-control advocates. I was as kind as I could be in my review (which was never used in the book's promotion), but found many times where Winkler either misunderstood constitutional basics and contemporaneous interpretations, or obfuscated them intentionally. I couldn't in good conscience whitewash his book's mistakes, but found it laudable that he was willing to (at least claim to) find the mistakes that "both sides" of the gun debate have made.

On the matter of the NRA acceptance and protection of black Americans since it founding, Kopel has the better argument and evidence. Winkler's commentary conflates facts and blames both sides of the debate when his facts suggest otherwise. In my opinion, this isn't something that a self-described Second Amendment agnostic would do.

As I have written here, I am no fan of the NRA. But, neither am I willing to lie about its past.

Last edited by AspieUtah on 03 Jan 2015, 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The science actually supports background checks.

You lose.

You dopes always miss the most effective argument against tighter gun restrictions: cost. The gun laws that we currently have in force in the US are not bad for return on investment. However, a more extreme set of restrictions would be costly to enforce.

It sounds on the surface like this could be vulnerable to the argument that can't put a dollar value on life until you take into account that money that could be spent on gun bans could also be spent on cancer research or community education aimed at reining in youth violence.

When you take into account that there is only a limited amount of money available to be spent, a moderate stance on gun control starts looking a lot wiser.

Raptor,

I found it disturbing because it involves a two year old child killing a parent which is something most of them cannot do unless they have access to firearms.
I have always heard stories about young children getting their hands on guns and shooting themselves or another child but never one where they killed their own parents. So, I am wondering, will everyone who owns a gun finally wake up to better security for their weapon after this case? You would think it would alarm any parent who has a handgun with a light trigger.

The accomplished southern historian I am married to, who is sitting about ten feet from me, recalls no such thing. I will drill him on the details when we go shopping for provisions later.

Maybe you should spend a little more than 2 months on the site before telling us "dopes" what we always miss, as the cost of gun control has been brought up numerous times, which you'd know if you'd done even a smidgeon of research before opening your mouth. I even did the work for you, posting the link to an older thread where cost is explicitly mentioned.

Let's all be nice because I don't want my topic closed. I must insist. NO INSULTS!

You can argue about gun safety but please, no calling anyone names.

Never mind on the wait. His internal alarm woke him up for his Gunsmoke.

Robert F. Williams obtained a charter from the NRA to start his gun-club, but this would have had nothing to do with the views of the NRA's General membership.

The NRA simply did not participate directly in the politics of skin color, and there was nothing to say a Klansman could not have applied for a similar charter.

Background checks arealy are the law at least for dealer transfers.
BTW; saying you have science to prove something doesn't mean diddly. Have you ever heard of junk science?


We dopes are at least aware that we have a ton of gun control laws on the books. To claim otherwise is usually the cry of the ignorant that there are is no gun control in the United States and the streets are running red with blood.

If you don't want to be lectured or insulted, then don't wax arrogant about how you are going to create a "rout." Do you realize how ridiculous that kind of rhetoric makes you sound? Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad had greater humility and better sense.

The point of this thread is to try to raise awareness and I hope, at least, it will do that. It's not really about gun control. More about educating people to be more careful. I did not start this thread as a platform for gun control v. none.

I started this thread in hopes people would think, where is my gun? Is it in a good location?