Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,903
|
Post by Dub on Jan 12, 2016 14:09:23 GMT -5
Wow! Twelve pages and counting. I'd no idea this issue would generate so much debate here.
It looks to me as though many who champion the NRA view of the second amendment aren't in favor of promoting guns, per se, but are really in favor of promoting freedom.
I don't own a gun* and have no desire to own one. Still, like Peter, I'm surrounded by gun owners and I don't worry that I or my family will be harmed by gun violence. I don't think having a gun in one’s home or on one’s person makes one safer. Probably just the opposite. Still, I have little desire to inflict my own view on my friends. I have friends who are major gun dealers and I have fired many different weapons at shooting ranges. I've always thought guns were wonderful examples of design and machining skill. That is until they started making them with stamped parts. And I'm actually a decent marksman, or was when I still had two eyes to use.
It's true that without guns there would be no gun deaths but that truism isn't really useful as a basis for policy. We need to understand that laws don't and can't protect us. Laws provide for punishment and may act as a deterrent to some but they don't protect us any more than life "assurance" keeps us from dying. It used to be understood that life is full of risk. More recently there has been a push to regulate the risk out of life. I think we may have gone overboard with that. It's good to make certain that employers aren't exposing employees to toxins like asbestos or PCBs but to create a society in which we try to make certain no one can be hurt by another seems a useless endeavor.
I think most states have laws restricting the length of knife blades, at least for pocket knives. And it's been at least sixty years in Iowa since you could legally buy a switchblade knife. Does anyone know whether those laws have made us safer or reduced the number of knife deaths?
* I actually own an antique .22 rifle that is a family heirloom but I'm sure it wouldn't fire.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 14:13:52 GMT -5
I would think there would have to be cases like that. And I would think there would have to be cases of women shooting themselves, shooting an innocent bystander, having their gun taken away by the rapist and getting shot with their own gun, and other outcomes. I don’t have any elderly women rape stats, though, but all those scenarios sound likely. Why do you ask? Because you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any social value to firearms.Until you do, and until you recognize that there are costs that go along with your proposed policies, you only have half an opinion. I’m not sure that’s true. I’d have to understand what you mean by “social value." I did say several times in this thread that I respect people’s right to own a gun. In the last gun thread I pointed out that I used to enjoy target practice. And I’ve said that I just don’t think the risks are worth the benefits. That’s not denying that there are benefits. Is it denying “social value?” You tell me.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 12, 2016 14:15:02 GMT -5
I think most states have laws restricting the length of knife blades, at least for pocket knives. And it's been at least sixty years in Iowa since you could legally buy a switchblade knife. Does anyone know whether those laws have made us safer or reduced the number of knife deaths? No, but it sure frustrates people trying to locate props for high school productions of "West Side Story."
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 14:16:12 GMT -5
Oh, I almost forgot. What’s this “half an opinion” stuff? I can remember the good old days when we used to scoff at people for having an opinion. A whole one. Have we lowered the bar?
Is half an opinion like half an asshole?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 12, 2016 14:28:51 GMT -5
Because you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any social value to firearms.Until you do, and until you recognize that there are costs that go along with your proposed policies, you only have half an opinion. I’m not sure that’s true. I’d have to understand what you mean by “social value." I did say several times in this thread that I respect people’s right to own a gun. In the last gun thread I pointed out that I used to enjoy target practice. And I’ve said that I just don’t think the risks are worth the benefits. That’s not denying that there are benefits. Is it denying “social value?” You tell me. Should Obama order his protection detail to disarm?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 12, 2016 14:30:34 GMT -5
Unless it's been abused I would think it would fire fine. With very few exceptions guns don't wear out. I have shot a bunch of .22s made in the 19th century.
The fact that guns don't wear out is what makes the 300 million a meaningless number as that only counts guns made after 1968 when guns were required to have serial numbers. A more accurate guess would be 2 to 4 times that many.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 12, 2016 14:38:22 GMT -5
In response to the kids getting killed. I've said before I count them just like anyone else who has died for our liberty from 1776 forward. Freedom isn't free, there are prices to be paid. Ah, I see, noble sacrifices for the cause, not stupid parents. Lots of things caused by stupid people are the result of liberty. When people are free there are always going to be some stupid ones. Some that do stupid things with guns, some who do stupid things with cars, some that do stupid things with soft drinks all of which may and sometimes do kill children, that's one of the prices of liberty. I grieve for all of them.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 12, 2016 14:38:27 GMT -5
Still, like Peter, I'm surrounded by gun owners and I don't worry that I or my family will be harmed by gun violence. I spent a couple of hours on Sunday shooting a Brazilian Jujitsu class at the dojo. Despite the fact that there is no striking or kicking, that is by far the most brutal martial art I know of. If one of these guys had reason to go after you with bad intentions, the likely outcome is that you would have multiple, large-joint (knee, hip, shoulder, elbow) dislocations within a matter of seconds. I spend a lot of time in the company of people who do stuff like this for fun. These are very serious people who dedicate themselves to defense of themselves and others. The funniest part of their class is that they all the while they are twisting each other into pretzel shapes, they are talking with each other, coaching each other and frequently laughing. Some are cops. Most aren't. As near as I can tell, most carry weapons. You will never be safer than in the company of these men, unless you intend harm on them or someone of whom they feel protective, in which case you are in real trouble. To Bill's point, I too hope that everyone who buys a gun does so with a deep sense of respect for the responsibility they are assuming. From the (very little) I understand of Iowa law, purchasing a handgun is not particularly easy. You first have to secure a "permit to purchase" from the local Sheriff, which is a process that takes at least some amount of time and effort. The average idiot can't walk into a gun store and buy a handgun, at least without going through some process first. Obtaining a concealed carry permit involves passing a mandatory class, including actual range time. Those classes may or may not be adequate, but they aren't nothing. Personally, my view is that every American should, as an obligation of citizenship, take it upon himself to have a basic understanding of firearm operation. That includes safety, marksmanship, etc. I think the more people choose to take on that obligation, the better off we will all be.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 12, 2016 14:43:21 GMT -5
I agree with that. Remember all men (that should be citizens but that's not the way the law reads) between 18 and 45 are a part of the militia and by law could be called up at any time.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 15:04:57 GMT -5
I’m not sure that’s true. I’d have to understand what you mean by “social value." I did say several times in this thread that I respect people’s right to own a gun. In the last gun thread I pointed out that I used to enjoy target practice. And I’ve said that I just don’t think the risks are worth the benefits. That’s not denying that there are benefits. Is it denying “social value?” You tell me. Should Obama order his protection detail to disarm? You didn’t answer my question about social value. Were you wrong in asserting that I steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the social value of guns, or does social value mean something other than what I addressed? As to your question on Obama’s protection detail, I don’t know why you’d ask that. I haven’t suggested that the police disarm themselves or that the military should disarm themselves. Is it because of granny? Because I said granny would probably be safer without a gun, is that supposed to mean that the Secret Service would be safer if they didn’t carry guns? In the hopes that this is a diabolically clever trick question, I’ll answer. No. I do not think Obama’s protection detail should disarm.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,903
|
Post by Dub on Jan 12, 2016 15:05:24 GMT -5
As a child going to YMCA and Boy Scout camps, one of the activities was the rifle range. We were given instruction in the operation of the rifles, safety around guns, and marksmanship. We were very carefully supervised and were called out at the slightest deviation from our instructed behavior. Neither we nor our parents ever thought much about it. It was just stuff we did. Stuff everyone did. Years later, hunting or shooting with friends, we always came down on anyone who wasn't practicing the gun safety we'd been taught as kids. We didn't think we were anything special, we just thought it odd that some people hadn't been exposed to any of that.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 12, 2016 15:05:31 GMT -5
So, if this guy didn't have a gun in his house, his daughter would be alive.
DUNCANNON, Pa. — A constable serving an eviction order at a central Pennsylvania apartment fired at an armed tenant but the bullet passed through the man's arm and fatally struck his 12-year-old daughter, authorities said.
The constable went to the apartment near Duncannon, about 10 miles northwest of Harrisburg, at about 10 a.m. Monday to enforce a district judge's eviction order, state police said Tuesday.
A man answered the door, closed it, then reopened it and exchanged words briefly with the constable, police said. He then pointed a loaded .223-caliber rifle that had been "slung and concealed along his body" at the constable's chest, police said. The girl was standing behind her father, authorities said.
The constable, investigators said, drew his own .40-caliber weapon and fired once, but the bullet went through the man's upper left arm and hit the girl. She was pronounced dead at the scene. Her name wasn't immediately released.
State police said the suspect's rifle was found "with a loaded chamber and a magazine containing 30 rounds."
In Pennsylvania, constables are elected officials with limited law enforcement powers. They serve warrants, transport prisoners and perform other duties for Pennsylvania's district courts, the lowest level of the judiciary.
The man being evicted, Donald Meyer, 57, was flown to Hershey Medical Center for treatment. He is charged with aggravated and simple assault, terroristic threats, and recklessly endangering another person. A phone listed in his name wasn't working Tuesday and court documents don't list an attorney who could respond to the accusations.
Apartment complex employees were at the scene to assist with and witness the eviction and provided statements to investigators, police said.
The Susquenita School District, while not commenting on whether the girl was a student in the district, said psychologists and guidance counselors were working with counselors to provided support to students and staff.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 12, 2016 15:10:32 GMT -5
Should Obama order his protection detail to disarm? You didn’t answer my question about social value. Were you wrong in asserting that I steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the social value of guns, or does social value mean something other than what I addressed? As to your question on Obama’s protection detail, I don’t know why you’d ask that. I haven’t suggested that the police disarm themselves or that the military should disarm themselves. Is it because of granny? Because I said granny would probably be safer without a gun, is that supposed to mean that the Secret Service would be safer if they didn’t carry guns? In the hopes that this is a diabolically clever trick question, I’ll answer. No. I do not think Obama’s protection detail should disarm. Ok, so since you agree that Obama's protection detail should be armed, then you acknowledge the value of being armed in general. The point I am making is pretty simple, really. No tricks. Say you think there are 1000 "units" of social harm caused by guns (ie, kids being accidentally shot, criminals committing murder, etc). I say there are 2000 "units" of social good provided by guns (ie, preservation of a culture of liberty, lawful self defense, crime prevention, etc). You are free to disagree. What you can't say is that there are zero units of social good provided by guns, and therefore you can't escape the reality that in exchange for eliminating the social harm you claim to want to eliminate*, you are also eliminating the social good. * And to be clear, I in no way agree with you that government has the capacity to eliminate that harm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 15:11:10 GMT -5
So, are you saying that only the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are considered "God given" and "unalienable" and the "rights" outlined in the Bill of Rights are not "God given" and "unalienable"? Or upon amendment, does the constitution not now consider the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights as having the same definition? I'm not a constitutional scholar and I don't pretend to know but it would seem to me that upon amendment, anything defined as a "right" would be ordained with the same sanctity. At least, if I was a lawyer, that's what I would argue. The rights given in the constitution are given by the people who agreed to the constitution. They support the concept that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, attributed to God in the Declaration of Independence, can only be had by a people free to exercise the rights granted to the people by the Constitution. The Constitution then is man's attempt to enable "God's" plan for man. Now, realize that the founders were mostly Deists who may have believed in a God but not in any specific church so they were speaking in nondenominational terms. The Declaration of Independence was about independence from the British monarchy but also from The Church of England. As to your last lines, God given rights can't be amended by man but the constitution can. I would state it somewhat differently. I would say that these rights were recognized and agreed upon as natural rights by these people and referred to as "God given" not so much as a religious statement but to make a point that man could not take them away. This, as I understand it, is the major difference between the successful American revolution and the failure of the French version. I would also hope that while the constitution can be amended that it can't be amended in such a way that these rights are taken from the people. That would certainly be a rationale for the 2nd amendment. Then again, I'm a Canadian who loves this country and would never think to try to change anything about the constitution. At least, until I'm a citizen. Then it's Canuckian Shariah baby! God save the Queen!
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 15:33:24 GMT -5
There a differences between different styles of martial arts and differences between different instructors within the same style. When we were in our 20s and 30s, my youngest brother was living and breathing martial arts. According to my brother’s instructor, if a guy on the next barstool raises his arm to order another beer, you should have put him flat on his back before he even got his mouth open. It’s all about reflexes and awareness of your surroundings. I made sure I didn’t make any quick movements while I was within striking distance of my brother in those days. Although after 30-ish years, I’ve never known my brother to get into a fight, much less take out some innocent sap on a nearby barstool.
Except that one time at Blarney’s Island. Blarney’s is a destination with only one purpose, which is to get good and drunk. There was a girl in a bikini with a top that tied in the back. In what seemed like a perfectly reasonable move to someone with too much to drink, my brother stepped up behind her at the bar and pulled one of the strings securing her top. The knot came undone, but with one deft, fluid movement, the girl grabbed her top to keep it in place, spun about, and tried to kick my brother in the balls. My brother blocked the kick. It all would have been over at that point but a guy in what looked like pajama bottoms who was apparently friends with the girl, jumped between the two of them and stood facing my brother, ready for action. I saw most of this happen from a few tables away, and body language alone told me that the two of them were about to get into a fight. I also saw bouncers converging from three or four different areas. I managed to break it up before the bouncers got there. With no punches thrown, the bouncers were content to ignore the situation.
It was the pajama bottoms on the other guy that escalated things. My brother was certain that there’s only one reason to wear pants like that, and that is to have freedom of movement while kicking. If the guy had been dressed "normally,” which would have been a swimsuit on Blarney’s Island, if the guy hadn’t looked like he was capable of inflicting real damage, my brother would have just walked away.
So anyway, other than that one time, I’ve always known my brother to keep a cool head.
He still likes martial arts, but he has enough bad joints to make regular practice a thing of the past. And maybe 20 or 25 years ago, walking out of a bowling alley on a rainy night after drinking too much, he stepped off the curb and got hit by a car, which sent him flying 20 or 30 feet, landing in a face plant. He still practiced martial arts after getting out of the hospital, but he no longer relied on martial arts for self protection. He started carrying a gun with him at all times.
That lasted until he got pissed off in traffic one day, pulled his gun, and was seriously considering shooting one of the tires of the offending car. He quit carrying after that.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 12, 2016 15:38:00 GMT -5
Blarney's (uric levels to kill a carp):
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 15:44:42 GMT -5
You didn’t answer my question about social value. Were you wrong in asserting that I steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the social value of guns, or does social value mean something other than what I addressed? As to your question on Obama’s protection detail, I don’t know why you’d ask that. I haven’t suggested that the police disarm themselves or that the military should disarm themselves. Is it because of granny? Because I said granny would probably be safer without a gun, is that supposed to mean that the Secret Service would be safer if they didn’t carry guns? In the hopes that this is a diabolically clever trick question, I’ll answer. No. I do not think Obama’s protection detail should disarm. Ok, so since you agree that Obama's protection detail should be armed, then you acknowledge the value of being armed in general. The point I am making is pretty simple, really. No tricks. Say you think there are 1000 "units" of social harm caused by guns (ie, kids being accidentally shot, criminals committing murder, etc). I say there are 2000 "units" of social good provided by guns (ie, preservation of a culture of liberty, lawful self defense, crime prevention, etc). You are free to disagree. What you can't say is that there are zero units of social good provided by guns, and therefore you can't escape the reality that in exchange for eliminating the social harm you claim to want to eliminate*, you are also eliminating the social good. * And to be clear, I in no way agree with you that government has the capacity to eliminate that harm. See? If you weren’t so argumentative, you’d realize that we are in nearly complete agreement. Your 1000 vs 2000 units are debatable, of course. Using your example, I’d just switch the units: 1k in benefits for 2k in risks. But we are in complete agreement about cost vs reward. Doing nothing and leaving things just the way they are has costs that we’ve already talked about in terms of gun violence. It also has rewards which come down to tangibles such as hunting and target practice, and intangibles like feeling safer and freedom. Enacting effective gun controls is the same. The costs are measured in some people feeling less free and less safe. The rewards are measured in reduced gun violence. The PROBLEM - the reason the two sides will never come to full agreement, is that the costs and rewards cannot be objectively compared. There is no 1000 units or 2000 units. It’s a mixture of tangible, intangible, subjective and objective factors, and no two people, even on the same side of the issue, are going to give the same value to each of the components.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 15:47:55 GMT -5
Blarney's (uric levels to kill a carp): That’s outside Blarney’s. Inside, you know you are in a fun place as soon as you step through the door and see the bras and panties hanging from the ceiling. They also have a pretty good sized outdoor area on raised docks or piers. Thinking about Blarney’s almost makes me want to drink again.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 12, 2016 15:49:07 GMT -5
That picture makes me think about quitting.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 12, 2016 16:07:52 GMT -5
Ok, so since you agree that Obama's protection detail should be armed, then you acknowledge the value of being armed in general. The point I am making is pretty simple, really. No tricks. Say you think there are 1000 "units" of social harm caused by guns (ie, kids being accidentally shot, criminals committing murder, etc). I say there are 2000 "units" of social good provided by guns (ie, preservation of a culture of liberty, lawful self defense, crime prevention, etc). You are free to disagree. What you can't say is that there are zero units of social good provided by guns, and therefore you can't escape the reality that in exchange for eliminating the social harm you claim to want to eliminate*, you are also eliminating the social good. * And to be clear, I in no way agree with you that government has the capacity to eliminate that harm. See? If you weren’t so argumentative, you’d realize that we are in nearly complete agreement. Your 1000 vs 2000 units are debatable, of course. Using your example, I’d just switch the units: 1k in benefits for 2k in risks. But we are in complete agreement about cost vs reward. Doing nothing and leaving things just the way they are has costs that we’ve already talked about in terms of gun violence. It also has rewards which come down to tangibles such as hunting and target practice, and intangibles like feeling safer and freedom. Enacting effective gun controls is the same. The costs are measured in some people feeling less free and less safe. The rewards are measured in reduced gun violence. The PROBLEM - the reason the two sides will never come to full agreement, is that the costs and rewards cannot be objectively compared. There is no 1000 units or 2000 units. It’s a mixture of tangible, intangible, subjective and objective factors, and no two people, even on the same side of the issue, are going to give the same value to each of the components. In summary, you are willing to leave the elderly woman defenseless to be raped and beaten because you think the social good you will otherwise create is more important. I'm not.
|
|