|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 16:26:39 GMT -5
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. Please. Did you really not understand what I wrote? I’m saying the elderly woman is safer without the gun. I’m not leaving anyone to be raped. Knowing that the stats suggest she is more likely to harm herself or other innocents, anybody BUT the supposed rapist, she would be better off without a gun. If she is concerned about rape, I think she should carry pepper spray.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 12, 2016 16:31:57 GMT -5
I spent a couple of hours on Sunday shooting a Brazilian Jujitsu class at the dojo... Sheesh! You know, it's guys like you that give gun owners a bad name!
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 12, 2016 16:36:18 GMT -5
I spent a couple of hours on Sunday shooting a Brazilian Jujitsu class at the dojo. I don't really care where a dojo shaves himself.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 12, 2016 17:34:54 GMT -5
I’m saying the elderly woman is safer without the gun. Then why isn't the President safer without an armed security detail?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 17:55:20 GMT -5
I’m saying the elderly woman is safer without the gun. Then why isn't the President safer without an armed security detail? Training. You’ve been asking questions you don’t really need me to answer. For a while there I thought you were laying traps, but there don’t seem to be any. Maybe it’s that you think there are large, gaping holes of hypocrisy that I’ll stumble into all on my own? Unless you believe that the elderly woman is on the same level with the Secret Service solely because she had the high moral standards of gun ownership, it’s ridiculous to compare the two. Did you watch the video I posted on the other gun thread about trained and untrained citizens who came under a surprise terrorist attack? I’m guessing the answer is no, and since you’ve been reluctant to answer any of my questions, I’ll go with that. The video showed what you can expect from most people when caught by surprise. They perform poorly. Their physiological responses work against them. They followed up the trials interviewing (I believe) SWAT team members who explained that only extensive, ongoing training UNDER STRESS can prepare you to deal with situations like that, and that if you discontinue training for even a month or two, you’ll lose what you have. A one hour or even one week training class from the NRA or YMCA will not prepare you to deal with a surprise assault. It’s why we so rarely hear about an assault being stopped dead in its tracks from gun toting good ol’ boys and grannies. It’s why we never hear about mass shootings being stopped cold by 2nd Amendment patriots. The Secret Service should be armed. The police should be armed. The military should be armed. The citizenry can also be armed, but don’t expect the last group to thwart an attack. They’re not qualified. Most of the last group will own their guns and never see an attack of any kind. If their gun is used to kill another human, it most likely will be a suicide, an accident, or a murder.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 12, 2016 18:11:10 GMT -5
It has to be. You can't suddenly generalize your claim right in the face of the very people who disprove it. No, you misunderstood. Make it about Kris. He counts. So do you. So does Jeff, Peter, Doug and anybody else who’s weighed in on this thread in favor of guns. I’m making it easy for you. Of the whole lot, who has shown evidence of grieving over accidental gun deaths in the last ten pages? Show me. Well I started at page ten as that's where I left off, and I see I'm being used as an example, so I'm going to address that even though I haven't read up to page thirteen yet. Am I saddened by those cherry-picked stories that Bill posted? Absolutely. I have a son and reading stories like that make me think about my own son and how horrible it would be if a tragedy like that occurred in my life, and I also think about the anguish those families are most certainly experiencing. I see families going through dying and death of one of their members pretty much weekly, and I'm an empath so their pain, in a small way, becomes my pain. Do stories like that make me rethink my stance on guns and gun ownership? No. Not one bit. But that in no way indicates callousness or poor reasoning. What stories like that DO do, is reinforce my knowledge that firearm ownership is serious business and I have a serious responsibility to take steps and makes plans to avoid getting into situations like that. (For example, I would not try to 'clear' my own premises if I suspected an intruder. I'd take up a defensive position, call 911 and holler out that the police have been called, that I have a gun and that whoever is there needs to identify themselves or GTFO of my house.) Am I the typical gun owner? I don't know the answer to that, I can only speak for myself. However, I do consider myself an ambassador and do my best to provide a good example to others. Likewise, when I hear about traffic fatalities I don't throw away my car keys but I do think "there, but for the grace of God, go I" and try to learn something from the incident to avoid having a similar accident myself. I don't generally drive on holiday weekends, or at 'bar time', I don't drink and drive, I buckle up, I try to avoid following too close or engaging road ragers, and other things. Likewise, I don't pretend my gun is a license to go to seedy bars or stand up to assholes or other things that would increase the likelihood of being involved in a gunfight. So, use me as an example in this thread, I'm absolutely fine with it. But be accurate and avoid assumptions about what's in my head and heart.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 12, 2016 18:25:02 GMT -5
Kris, I dunno if "cherry-picked" applies here -- I posted three stories today on SH about tragic deaths involving guns in the home/business place. I didn't go looking for them. They were on the Star Trib website today and I ran across them as I did my continual scanning of the home page, which is part of my job.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 12, 2016 18:28:49 GMT -5
Kris, when you catch up on the unread pages you’ll see that I didn’t drag you into this, Millring did.
Your comments don’t surprise me. Before asking John to show any evidence of anyone expressing grief over accidental gun deaths, you were the only one I thought might have. I don’t know if you did or not since I didn’t go back and reread through everything. If you know you did, feel free to point it out.
Again, my point was never that you guys don’t care. Your analogy to cars in this latest post is probably a good one. We all care about car deaths. We may get shaken up when someone we know dies in an accident or as we pass by a horrific crash on the side of the road. So we’re more careful in the way we drive. We may slow down. We may be a bit more courteous or at least slower to anger about perceived wrongs. But generally, the effects are temporary. We stuff the information away somewhere, and continue on with our usual habits.
That might all sound obvious, but consider what we’d do if we were REALLY concerned about car deaths. We might take public transportation. We might refuse to drive in snowy or other dangerous conditions. We might stay home rather than plan for a vacation by car. In short, we would change our behavior permanently to decrease the chance of getting in an accident.
That’s cars. Guns seem to operate a little differently where perceived threats make some of us want to get further away from guns (me), while others (you) react by embracing guns even more.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 12, 2016 18:58:56 GMT -5
I didn't drag. I pushed.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 12, 2016 19:36:51 GMT -5
Which is to say, we can lament the tragedies that Bill listed. They are horrific. But if our answer is to say "no guns", then we are also leaving a lot of innocent people unable to defend themselves. Unless you are prepared to tell us how many innocent elderly women you are ok seeing raped and beaten in pursuit of your agenda, you only have half an opinion. By the way, I did not post those two stories to fan flames here. I should have made my intentions known. I posted them because, in alignment with the initial post and concerns about people buying guns they can't handle or know too little about, I seem to be seeing more and more stories like this. We have had several home gun fatalities in MN in the past year or so, and I am not talking about the deliberate shootings. This would be a great time for the NRA to step up and heavily promote gun-safety classes, offer tips on safe storage of weapons, etc. Point #1: You're seeing more of these stories because the media believes that's what sells. Point #2: The NRA in fact HAS stepped up and promoted gun-safety classes, tips on safe storage and "etc." However, the media is very unlikely to show anything that puts the NRA in a positive light because it does not fit their agenda. My very first gun-safety class was taken when I was 12 or 13, was put on by the MN DNR in cooperation with the NRA (using some of their training materials and points). The NRA has composed a list of the 4 tenets of gun safety, which are (and I'm paraphrasing here slightly as I don't recall them ver batum): 1. All guns are always loaded. 2. Never point any gun at something you are not willing to destroy. 3. Know your target, and what lays beyond it. 4. Keep your finger off the trigger (out of the trigger-guard) unless and until you have made the decision to shoot and your sights are on target. But, you never here about those unless you attend an NRA-affiliated function or read their materials. And, so many people have convinced themselves that the NRA are really just KKK members in different clothing that their knee-jerk reaction to anything NRA is to ignore it or insult it. How many of you anti-gun folks have heard of the Eddie Eagle Program? Well, let me tell you about it. It's a programm designed for school-age children about how to be safe in homes that have guns and how to be safe if they stumble across a discarded gun in a playground or vacant lot (when I grew up, vacant lots WERE our playgrounds). Again, there are four steps. If you find a gun: STOP. DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT. The NRA has made press kits and kits for school that have stickers, coloring books, plush dolls and other things to engage kids' attention and to teach them in a simple way that they can retain. Eddie Eagle presentations are put on by trained law-enforcement officers in cooperation with interested volunteers. eddieeagle.nra.org/www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIEBrb_wRYc
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 12, 2016 19:39:27 GMT -5
Yeah, but they don't support gun control so none of that stuff counts.
It's the audacity of the left. Unless you go along with their assessment of problem and solution, you are not doing anything. It's how nearly every debate is framed.
"Women's issues" unless you are for abortion, you are anti-woman -- no matter how many women may also be anti-abortion.
"Racism" unless you are for affirmative action (ironically believing that blacks are so inferior that they need a hand up) you are a racist.
"Gun violence" unless you are for gun control and confiscation, you can't possibly care about people who die in gun violence.
If you control the language, the debate is already won.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 12, 2016 20:05:25 GMT -5
Kris, I am sorry, but no, no, no. Those stories are reported because they are NEWS, just as if it is NEWS if a homeowner immobilizes an intruder with his gun, which the media also report. I have been in this business for 40 years, and I have never once seen evidence of a news story being played up, or played down, because it did not meet some supposed position on guns.
Sure, the cable TV channels do this stuff, talk radio does this stuff, but I promise you, those three stories I posted today do NOT exist because "the media believes that's what sells." They exist because they meet the clear and important definition of basic local news coverage, as practiced for centuries.
And as for the media supposedly ignoring NRA gun safety programs -- the fact that a program has existed for X number of years is not a news story. What I was suggesting earlier is that if the NRA really wanted to fight the alarming number of accidental and other ill-advised shootings in this country, it would spend some of its own ample money to run some TV and other media ads to say "HEY! WE HAVE THIS GREAT FIREARM PRIVILEGE IN THIS COUNTRY, AND MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE BUYING GUNS THESE DAYS, BUT PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, KNOW THAT A GUN IS NOT SOMETHING YOU TUCK ONTO YOUR PERSON LIKE A CELLPHONE INTO A POCKET -- THIS IS SOMETHING YOU NEED TO TRAIN VERY CAREFULLY TO USE, SOMETHING YOU NEED TO STORE AT HOME OR IN YOUR WORKPLACE WHERE IT CANNOT BE ACCESSED EASILY AND YOU NEED TO USE IT WITH THE GREATEST CARE IN THE EVENT OF A LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION."
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 12, 2016 20:41:03 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. Not quite, Bill. I think you're committing a logical fallacy. The fact that that guy had a gun in his house did not lead to the shooting by the constable that killed the girl. The fact that that dumbass decided to confront a law enforcement officer with a gun (knowing that his daughter was behind him, or at least home at the time) provoked the constable to fire his weapon in self defense, which unfortunately resulted in her death. Had he come to the door and allowed himself to be apprehended, like a man, his daughter would still be alive. That guy is 100% responsible for his daughter's death, because of what action he took, not because of what he owned. I've been pulled over for speeding, while legally carrying a pistol, with my wife and son in the car and none of us got shot by the cop because I did what I was told and accepted the reprimand for speeding that I was given.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 12, 2016 20:46:50 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. Not quite, Bill. I think you're committing a logical fallacy. The fact that that guy had a gun in his house did not lead to the shooting by the constable that killed the girl. The fact that that dumbass decided to confront a law enforcement officer with a gun (knowing that his daughter was behind him, or at least home at the time) provoked the constable to fire his weapon in self defense, which unfortunately resulted in her death. Had he come to the door and allowed himself to be apprehended, like a man, his daughter would still be alive. That guy is 100% responsible for his daughter's death, because of what action he took, not because of what he owned. I've been pulled over for speeding, while legally carrying a pistol, with my wife and son in the car and none of us got shot by the cop because I did what I was told and accepted the reprimand for speeding that I was given. I didn't say that the presence of the gun LED to the shooting. I was just stating the obvious -- if this douchebag had no weapons in his house, his daughter would be alive.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 12, 2016 20:50:33 GMT -5
Kris, you should join JPFO. (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) No you don't have to be Jewish. America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 12, 2016 21:01:21 GMT -5
Kris, I am sorry, but no, no, no. Those stories are reported because they are NEWS, just as if it is NEWS if a homeowner immobilizes an intruder with his gun, which the media also report. I have been in this business for 40 years, and I have never once seen evidence of a news story being played up, or played down, because it did not meet some supposed position on guns. .... Bill, I'm sorry, but yes, yes, YES! The news media absolutely spins crime coverage. Especially TV but also print media. Your 40 years in the industry do not prove whatsoever that it doesn't happen, if anything it shows that you're either part of it or are so invested in the narrative that it seems objective, to you. The media, the Strib included, loves headlines like TERROR IN THE HEARTLAND, MASSACRE AT THE MOVIES and other such gripping phrases. After a TV news story about a horrible accident or heinous crime and during the segue into the next piece one anchor will shuffle their notes and say to the other something like "it sure makes me sick" or "I can't believe this stuff happens" and if you know anything about TV news you'll know that nearly everything is scripted, including those segue comments. The media, all forms, has to choose what to print or run each day, they don't report ALL the news that happened in their coverage area that day, in every town that has more than one stop light more happens everyday than you can cover in 19 minutes (half hour news program minus commercials) or in however many pages are in the Strib that haven't already been sold as advertising space. So, they run with the juiciest stories and they present then in a way that intends to pull readers/viewers from the other media outlets that are competing to report the same stuff.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 12, 2016 21:05:01 GMT -5
Kris, when you catch up on the unread pages you’ll see that I didn’t drag you into this, Millring did. I know that, and I'm not upset about my name being brought up. I had to select one of the five or so posts in that series that discussed my name and just picked one. We're cool. In fact, I'm glad that after a little bit of ruffled feathers in the earlier pages, this thread has gotten back into some good debate.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 12, 2016 21:07:06 GMT -5
I see, Kris. Well, thank you for your learned, cogent, and well documented analysis. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 12, 2016 21:12:44 GMT -5
I didn't say that the presence of the gun LED to the shooting. I was just stating the obvious -- if this douchebag had no weapons in his house, his daughter would be alive. You're still doing it. That's like saying "it's obvious" that if there were no trees then black people would never have been lynched during the Civil Rights struggle. That guy could've had a hundred guns and some live grenades in his house and his daughter would not have been killed. Or, to put it another way, he could've come at the constable with a kitchen knife and she still would've been killed by the constable's bullet. It wasn't the gun, it was the actions of the said douchebag that got her killed.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 12, 2016 21:16:24 GMT -5
I see, Kris. Well, thank you for your learned, cogent, and well documented analysis. I stand corrected. Oooo, sarcasm. That must mean you think you're so right that my opposing view is not worth a respectful response. Just when I thought this thread was embracing civil and intelligent discussion....
|
|