Crybabies Favor Gun Control

[rDigital]

http://ohio.concealedcampus.org/2012/08/10/crybabies-favor-gun-control/

I frequently openly hypothesize that gun control advocates are really just projecting their own lack of self-control when they say the average citizen can’t be trusted with carrying a firearm for self-defense.

They’ll say they don’t need a gun because the police will protect them. They’ll say that citizens haven’t been trained or passed the mental screenings police have and aren’t able to carry a gun without endangering the public. High profile gun control advocates who hire armed security are, in my opinion, the epitome of that projection.

Projection bias who would have thought?

[Fridays Child]

1. What's your explanation for gun owners who support gun control?

[rDigital]

2. That depends on what kind of gun control they champion.

We already have many federal and state laws in place, they just aren't enforced very often or with much vigor.

[jonthebru]

66. OK then,

Frickin' enforce the damn existing laws already.
What the hell will it take for the correct action to be taken?

[rDigital]

71. Agreed. For whatever reason it seems like the ATF never goes after denied NICS purchasers.

They just send them a letter saying "Bad Kitty! Don't do it again!"

However if I shaved my rifle's barrel to less than 16" without giving them $200 dollars, they'd send to me ClubFed for 10 years.

Strange priorities, its almost like they don't care about the real criminals.

[spin]

8. I'm a gun owner and I support most of our current gun laws.

Basically I feel the gun laws in my state of Florida are very reasonable although I feel the "Stand Your Ground" law needs to be rewritten to remove any ambiguities or confusion.

Very few gun owners support no restrictions on gun ownership. We strongly dislike the criminal misuse of the weapons we use for target shooting, hunting and self defense. We often have a lot of money and time invested in our hobby and fully realize that when a firearm is used for crime or by a person with severe mental issues to commit a massacre, it threatens the imposition of draconian gun laws such as bans on certain firearms.

The problem with those who oppose gun ownership is that they do wish to greatly restrict the civilian ownership of firearms and instead of supporting improvements to existing laws or better enforcement, they favor draconian gun legislation. Also since many of those who wish strong gun control have little or knowledge of the subject, their ideas are often foolish and useless. "Feel good" gun laws accomplish little or nothing and only lead to further calls for more such gun laws.

I feel that both sides could actually work together to accomplish some good and actually reduce gun violence. Unfortunately that would involve compromise from both sides of the issues. "Compromise" is an endangered word in our society which is why we are failing to solve any of the major issues our nation faces.

[msongs]

2. corpses can cry? who knew except the gun crowd lol nt

[shadowrider]

4. Here's my take

[safeinOhio]

5. Right wing anti-control nuts and

NRA supporters love to use guns to scare liberals.

If a group wants to use a few extreme examples to make some generalizations, they also can be lumped with the extremest on the other side.

[rDigital]

6. Projection bias

Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 09:36 AM - Edit history (1)

seems to be a valid reason why antis are... so anti. They imagine what they would do if they had a firearm, and they project their failings onto those who responsibly take advantage of the RKBA.

There's nothing more elitist or 1%erish than wanting to deny the people their 2nd Amendment rights while the wealthy have their own private security armies and the police in their back pocket.

You're right though, that video isn't doing anyone any favors, but that guy doesn't speak for me.

[safeinOhio]

11. Ted IS a spokesperson for and

Elected to the board of directors by a majority of the voting members of the NRA. A fact, Jack.

[rDigital]

12. Cool story, bro.

No one speaks for me. Just me.

[Arctic Dave]

52. But you speak for people who wish not to live in fear of gun nuts?

Why do you wish to be a champion for the nutcases with guns?

[rDigital]

72. Every cause is going to have it's goofballs. That doesn't make the cause invalid by default. nt

[Starboard Tack]

13. Define anti!

"There's nothing more elitist or 1%erish than wanting to deny the people their 2nd Amendment rights while the wealthy have their own private security armies and the police in their back pocket. "

Do you equate not wanting guns in bars and classrooms with being anti 2A? If so, that would be projecting on a big scale.

Sounds like you're backing the extremists. Like so many here who think guns should be carried by "responsible" people, you concentrate on the angle of "rights" instead of asking yourself what kind of world you really want to live in. I want to live in a world where nobody routinely carries a firearm for self defense or any other reason, including and especially law enforcement.

[TPaine7]

16. Perhaps warp drive will be developed soon and you will get your wish.

I want to live in a world where nobody routinely carries a firearm for self defense or any other reason, including and especially law enforcement.

[Starboard Tack]

25. I already live in that world. I made my wish come true.

Didn't involve warp drive, just a change in lifestyle.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. So...

What's your secret? How'd you do it?

[Starboard Tack]

35. I choose my environment for starters.

I own nothing that cannot be replaced or that I care about enough to endanger my life or the life of others for. I live on the ocean, off the grid and only deal with people I like, which would be most of those I come into contact with. National politics has little bearing on my personal life.

[shadowrider]

36. You own nothing that can be replaced. Good. How about the guy who earns his living out

of his truck? Plumber? Construction guy? That truck and his tools disappear, his livelihood is gone. No way to support the family.

Your personal situation has no bearing on the lives of others. Some things are worth protecting, with deadly force if necessary.

[Starboard Tack]

50. I used to be that guy.

Worked as a contractor for a few years in NYC and had things stolen all the time, including my truck (by the city). Still wasn't worth killing anyone over. It's called rolling with the punches, rather than behaving like an asshole. Why stoop to their level?

[rDigital]

77. Property generally isn't worth using deadly force over

unless you would literally & immediately die without it (insulin pump, iron lung). An exceedingly rare circumstance in current US society.

[Starboard Tack]

82. Couldn't agree more.

[rl6214]

83. As a type one diabetic for 30 years and on an insulin pump for the past 4 years, you can live

without your pump.

[rDigital]

84. There's on less thing I guess.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. By "on the ocean"...

...do you mean on some type of watercraft docked at a marina?

[Starboard Tack]

51. No, I mean on a vessel either at sea or at anchor, depending on the day and the whim.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. What do you...

...for an ISP?

[Starboard Tack]

56. VZ Wireless

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

58. Cool

How far out does that work?

[Starboard Tack]

61. Depends on location. Between 10 to 50 miles.

I have a signal booster and 2 routers. One is MiFi, and can be raised up the mast when needed for better reception. Sailing off the west coast, we get a good signal about 80% of the time. The cell towers tend to put out stronger signals than in the city or on the interstate, where you are constantly switching from one tower to another.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. a friend was staying...

...In the marina @MDR and had great things to say about it.

Do you work from "home" too? I work from home and make periodic trips to the office.

[jonthebru]

67. Shit can still happen.

[Jenoch]

100. What if some lunatic

comes on your boat and attacks you with a knife? What would you do? Would you attempt to reason with the attacker?

If it were me, I'd like to have a double barrel .410 on board for situations such as I've described.

[Starboard Tack]

103. If I thought there was any likeliehood of being attacked I would have a shotgun on board

I'm not against defending one's home with a shotgun. Makes good sense. If you read my posts, you'll see that I oppose handgun proliferation and concealed carry without good cause.

[bad sofa king]

104. "I'm not against defending one's home... I oppose...concealed carry without good cause."

right, because there's no chance of being attacked on a city street of all places. People are only victims inside their homes so the right to self defense should end at the property line. Hilarious. I'm so glad we have already won this war.

[Starboard Tack]

105. The right to self defense is a basic human right.

The fact that I personally oppose the practice of indiscriminate carry has nothing to do with anyone else's decisions or rights. Enjoy your visit.

[bad sofa king]

106. you're all over the road here.

On one hand, you support self defense in the home with a shotgun; however, you're against "indiscriminately" carrying a concealed handgun for self defense on the street. Would you prefer everybody openly carry shotguns out on the streets? or just nothing at all? You concur that the right to self defense is a basic human right but, at the same time, you oppose the legal exercising of that right. It sounds to me like you're just generally forgainst firearms and self defense. You have a right to be ambivalent of course and I have a right to comment on it which I have now politely done.

[rDigital]

107. To be fair: The S. Tack is consistent. Every thread I've seen

his/her posts in. He has no problem with firearms in the home. He just doesn't want people carrying in publc, even most Police. He/SHe is both consistent and principled: that's rare on DU.

[Starboard Tack]

109. Let me clarify my position. Nothing ambivalent about it.

I am not against gun ownership or using a gun, "in extremis", for defense of the home or one's person.
I am against the indiscriminate carrying of guns in public. Indiscriminate, in this case, means habitual, thoughtless, for no specific reason except for the one in a million chance that it might come in useful as a tool for self defense.

One's right to self defense is a human right, a universal right, not some bullshit so-called right, written into a 200+ year old constitution and interpreted today as a "right" to walk around with loaded firearms for no specific reason, besides defending oneself from an imaginary attacker. Yes, it is legal in much of this country to behave in such a way. You may consider that behavior a "right". I consider it the height of foolishness.

BTW, I enjoy target shooting and have no aversion to guns, per se.

[bad sofa king]

113. One never knows if one will or will not need a firearm for self defense

until one needs a firearm for self defense; therefore, the only way to ensure that you have the firearm when you need it as opposed to needing it when you don't have it, is to have it at all times. This is especially true for those individuals who find themselves living in large violent cities. This, of course, means that one must be extremely cautious and mindful of the firearm safety rules. There are certainly idiots out there that should not be carrying a firearm. Here in Ohio, before you can carry a firearm, you must attend a 12 hour firearms safety course which includes a written test that must be passed and a range component that must be passed. I didn't really need the class but I recognize that some folks do. My wife needed it. Our instructor was clear, if at any time he witnessed an unsafe act of any kind, you failed and did not get your certificate which meant you didn't get your CCW permit. That's a reasonable firearm regulation to me.

I was reloading and target shooting with pistols and high powered rifles before I could drive legally. I spent 8 years in the infantry where I carried M16s, M249s and M240 LMGs, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, AT5 rocket launchers, land mines, and I operated a 25 mm Bushmaster cannon and a TOW missile launcher. I consider myself to be more than competent when it comes to handling weapons. I do recognize that not everyone is equally competent. Attending, at a minimum, a 12 hour safety class seems reasonable to me especially if it facilitates some kind of national CCW reciprocity.

[TPaine7]

45. So you live in a place where if law enforcement shows up,

they will be unarmed?!

I want to live in a world where nobody routinely carries a firearm for self defense or any other reason, including and especially law enforcement.

I think the coast guard, the local sheriff and any local police force where you live all routinely carry firearms, and you most definitely don't live on a planet where "nobody routinely carries a firearm."

If you aren't talking about a world that exists only in your head, I don't understand in what way your statement is remotely accurate.

[Starboard Tack]

47. Unfortunately, you are correct.

Though the local deputies do carry when on duty, I'm sure it is only because they have some rule about it. Kinda pointless where there is zero crime. I didn't say I lived in a perfect world, just pretty damned close. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone wearing a handgun. At least a month. But I am going target shooting tomorrow, which will be fun. It's been a while.

[rDigital]

20. I want to live in that world too.

We also have to protect our rights in the meantime. I'm not trying to be snarky, it sounds like we're on the same page as far as where we want things to be. Reality doesn't agree with us though. Some people still have violence in their hearts and it seems like they always will.

I think responsible people that carry are not changed by their environment. I don't think extending the right to carry to more places is extreme, especially for licensed or permit holders.

[Starboard Tack]

26. It isn't the right that bothers me, but the practice.

Having the right to do something and doing it are not one and the same. Before exercising a right, it behooves one to ask if it serves your core values and ideals. The way to keep a right is to use it judiciously.

[gejohnston]

21. I want to live in a world where

no one has a clear and present or preparedness need or reason to carry a pistol or spray. In that world, it would be perfectly legal, just not customary because everyone feels and is safe like Vermont and dare I say it............................... Yeah CJ Box is good, Craig Johnson is good, but Edward Abee was the most profound.

Here in Long Island/Queens South (In a few months it will go back to being Toronto/Hamilton South, in case you ever wondered about the Canadian flags flying in Florida trailer parks) never bothered to. Some people just assume I do because I carry keys, phone etc in a fishing vest and like Hawaiian shirts. Of course, if my situation changes, I will adjust accordingly. I have been in some pretty rough places in the US and abroad. The only place I would feel a need to carry are parts of Coral Gables where there are a lot of foreclosed and abandoned McMansions. When the rich folks moved out, some tropical invasive species like boas, Nile monitors , other big assed reptiles moved in and made themselves right at home.
Lots of fucking Nile monitors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_monitor

[safeinOhio]

14. How do you explain the largest group of voters

that support and vote for "anti" gun politicians? Most, of which, are large city mayors. Mostly white middle age men feel discriminated on only that one. Seems to be some kind of projection by white middle age men on being discriminated. The same people that have no problems at the voting booth, driving down the road at night in an expensive car or not being watched and followed around in stores.

[gejohnston]

15. because anti gun politicians are the only choice in the big cities

White, black, Democratic, Republican, Independent doesn't matter. That is the only choice, just like we have a choice of capitalist number one or capitalist number two. If you are a socialist, you are going to either sit home or vote for one of the capitalists. Just look at right wingers like Giuliani and Bloomburg.

[Jenoch]

18. Your post is

the first time I have seen Giuliani and Bloomburg (sic) described as 'right wingers'. They call themselves republicans and they certainly are not democrats but I would not consider them to be right wingers.

[gejohnston]

19. not social conservative nut cases

Sarah and Ricky, but on economics, unions, and just plain being authoritarian assholes, they seem pretty right of center to me. If they were less authoritarian, I would be nice and describe them as Bill Buckley traditional conservative.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

24. Mayor Bloomberg is not a right winger?

With respect to his background, Wikipedia says that he is the 11th-richest person in the United States and se is the founder and 88% owner of Bloomberg L.P., a financial data-services firm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

Is he the same Mayor of New York who adopted a policy of having his police stop-and-frisk (or feel-up) New Yorkers and New York tourists when the NY police have had no factual basis for believing that those being stopped-and-frisked had engaged in any criminal activity? In this year alone, the New York police made 203,500 of such stops in January, February and March.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021116251

It is somewhat difficult to imagine a more right-wing policy than this.

[Starboard Tack]

38. The stop and frisk policy was a mistake.

But that does not make him a right winger anymore than his wealth makes him one. The guy is a moderate conservative fiscally and a social liberal.
If you can't imagine a more right-wing policy, then you either have very little imagination or historical knowledge.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

43. Nonsense. The unconstitutional of the police to intimidate and humiliate ordinary Americans

without any basis for believing that they have engage in criminal activities IS A RIGHT-WING POLICY.

Such authoritarian right-wing policy cannot be excused on the grounds that "The stop and frisk policy was a mistake."

Nor can the adoption of the authoritarian right-wing policy be excused on the grounds of "his wealth."

He's "a social liberal"? A mayor of a major city has adopted a policy of having the police stop-and-frisk ordinary Americans who have neither engaged in criminal activities nor engaged in any conduct leading to a reasonable suspicion of engaging in criminal activities, is "a social liberal'?

Yea, as much as those who controlled the National Socialist German Workers Party were social liberals who created a police force to demand "Papers!" In fact, they may have been more liberal. Even they didn't instruct their police to stop-and-frisk (or stop-and-feel-up) innocent civilians.

You've got a mayor of a major city openly violating the Constitution and using his police to stop-and-feel-up law-abiding citizens. And it's just "a mistake"? And he's really a "liberal"? Give me a break.

[Starboard Tack]

49. You sound very extreme and quite emotional.

Comparing Bloomberg to the Third Reich is beyond Godwin's Law. Bye bye!

[gejohnston]

63. so he isn't homophobic

or a fundie, big deal. Supply side economics, union busting, and stop and frisk doesn't make him a liberal either.

[Jenoch]

75. He sure as hell

does not seem to be running NYC as a right-winger. He is the champion for gun control and that certainly is not part of the right-wing platform.

[gejohnston]

76. it is the urban platform

his police state spying on mosques, sending cops outside of their jurisdiction to spy on people, stop and frisk, union busting, is hardly a liberal platform.

[Starboard Tack]

59. Bloomberg has switched parties a couple of times. Independent right now

Definitely not RW. Nor is Giuliani, though I find him quite obnoxious.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

62. Bloomberg who has a policy of having the police stop-and-frisk ordinary Americans who have neither

engaged in criminal activities nor engaged in any conduct leading to a reasonable suspicion of engaging in criminal activities is definitely a right winger regardless of whatever political label that he is now adopting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021116251

[ileus]

7. but...but.....gunz KiLL PeOPle!

[Starboard Tack]

39. Wrong! People who carry guns kill people. They use the guns to do the killing.

Those who carry them and don't kill people are not using those guns for their intended purpose.

[ileus]

42. But a guns intended purpose is to save lives...

Are you claiming that by carrying a firearm and not killing people that I'm somehow not utilizing my self defense safety device properly?

[Starboard Tack]

44. Correct. You are deluded in thinking the intended purpose is to save lives

You may think that's the purpose, but it is not the manufacturers' intended purpose. I'm talking handguns here, assuming that is the type of firearm you carry.
By calling a handgun a "self defense safety device properly", you are either being extremely sarcastic or taking euphemism to the extreme.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

65. That's like saying that those who buy fire extinguishers for their home prior to having a fire,

although having peace of mind from having the option to use a fire extinguisher, are not using the fire extinguishers for their intended purposes.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Right. We see people carrying fire extinguishers all over the place.

The intended purpose of a fire extinguisher is to be kept in a structure or vehicle to be used in emergencies, not to be lugged around by some freak who thinks there might be a fire he might need to put out on his travels today.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

80. That's like saying that those who buy fire extinguishers for their homes are not using

the fire extinguishers for their intended purposes of providing protection for their homes but, as indicated by your sarcasm, are "carrying fire extinguishers all over the place."

You don't have a genuine belief that fire extinguishers should not be kept in the home for home protection. Nor do you have a genuine belief that anyone is lugging around a fire extinguisher by any person who thinks there might be a fire he might need to put out on his travels today.

You can't provide a bona fide argument based upon facts to support a position that firearms and fire extinguishers should not be kept in the home to provide home protection.

If you Google "home invasion" in the News section, you will find news items showing where homeowners were obligated to defend themselves in their homes against burglars, armed robbers, rapists, etc. That is a sufficient common occurrence. You can only believe that guns should not be maintained in the home by peaceful homeowners if you disregard the news.

[Starboard Tack]

81. Methinks thou art very confused

I support keeping fire extinguishers in homes and other structures. I also support keeping firearms in homes for protection.
I don't support carrying firearms in public without a valid and specific reason, which does not include being prepped for being mugged or attacked by some random thug.
Are we clear on this now?

[Jenoch]

9. "High profile gun control advocates who hire armed security are, in my opinion,

the epitome of that projection".

Rosie O'Donnell is the poster child of that hypocrisy.

[rDigital]

10. Like this?

[IMG][/IMG]

[PavePusher]

17. Hey, it's Hoyt's Dream Team! n/t

[Bragi]

22. Irrational fear of others drives gun culture /nt

[shadowrider]

23. Irrational fear of an inatimate object drives the anti-gun culture n/t

[Skittles]

27. fucking BULLSHIT

[shadowrider]

31. Heh

[Skittles]

54. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

PLEASE make sure you take your medicine

[Equate]

74. Struck a nerve, huh?

[Common Sense Party]

57. 100% correct

As the first reaction to your comment demonstrates.

[jonthebru]

68. well regulated,

The second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That says nothing about crazy frickin' lunatics owning thousands of rounds of ammunition and the firearms to deliver them killing large numbers of innocent people just because they are having a bad day.
Close the loopholes and fix the frickin' problem already.

Letting any maniac who has money buy a firearm is not "necessary to the security of a free state." In fact its the antithesis of that concept.

If our founders who wrote this magnificent document knew how screwed up the interpretation of this amendment has become they would have written it more concisely. Its up to us to do the right thing.

Frankly, it shows the selfishness and immaturity of our leaders and our national discourse.

[rDigital]

99. Hoplophobia is the name of the game. Antis will do anything to try and make it contagious. Nt

[Deep13]

28. No, we can live without our false sense of phallic power....

Whereas the need to be armed against imaginary enemies shows profound psychological insecurity.

[shadowrider]

32. Let me tell you something. My daughter was fucking RAPED BY THAT FALSE SENSE OF PHALLIC

power. She now carries and will blow away any mother f*cker that tries it again.

Don't preach to me about that shit.

Edit: I rarely, rarely curse, but that post pissed me off.

[Deep13]

33. My post was in response to the OP's dickish suggestion.

So you are convinced that she would have had time to get a shot off had she been armed before the attack. If he had the drop on her, the rapist would have had her and her gun and who knows what he would have done with it.

Most rapes are by someone close to the victim in a familiar surrounding--often the victim's own home, not in an alley by a stranger. How does a gun help there?

I'm not against CCW actually, I just thing its usefulness in preventing violent crime is greatly exaggerated.

[shadowrider]

34. I said she carries. It wasn't in the home, it was elsewhere. Don't you dare try to say she

maybe wouldn't have been able to defend herself. Her psychological scares are horrendous. Unless you've been through it, you have no clue and no right to express an opinion on such a horrendous act.

She will blow away anyone that even tries it again. On that, I guarantee.

[Deep13]

37. Your emotions have clouded your judgment.

I am well aware of the damage rape causes. I prosecuted rapists, including those who raped children, for eight years. So I should be indignantly lecturing you for your amateur reaction.

The damage done by sex offenses is irrelevant to this discussion. The need for a victim to defend herself--however pressing--does not mean that there is an effective means of doing so. There are some situations where a firearm would help and others were the victim would be supplying the means for her own murder.

[shadowrider]

40. Lecturing again? Have you a family member that's been through it? I doubt it.

I can assure you, the next guy that tries it will be wasted or she'll die in the attempt. What is your solution, lay back and enjoy it? There is no guarantee if she does that she'll live.

Tell me O wise one, what would you do or support as a parent in this situation?

[Loudly]

78. This is why Charles Bronson as Paul Kersey is so compelling.

Victimized by violent crime is enough to turn anyone into a vigilante.

Now she might very well be inclined to blow away anyone she saw committing violence.

Completely understandable.

But a Constitutionally protected "right" to the means of conveniently inflicting death?

That's asking an awful lot from a reasonable reading of Amendment No. 2.

[WinniSkipper]

111. Sounds like you were the type of prosecutor....

....who asked "What were you wearing".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. I would say...

...crybabies favor ever more gun control.

[Hoyt]

55. Then, I'm a crybaby who can leave my home daily without a gun.

Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Nor, do I need to arm my home like a militia compound. Would be nice if gun cultists would quit polluting society with more and more guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. :)

Everyone has an opinion. Feel free, buddy.

Have a nice day.

[rl6214]

85. Please provide a link to a definition of your (made up) term "gun cultists"

[Hoyt]

86. It's what this phone does to term "gun culture." I think phone is correct.

[rl6214]

96. Your definition of "gun culture" is made up as well

[Hoyt]

97. You are right, "culture" is not apt description for strapping gun on before venturing out.

[meanit]

46. Arms race

By allowing unfettered gun access for sane gun owners, we are also allowing every unstable right wing lunatic to arm themselves to the teeth.
We either stop the gun frenzy all together or out-arm the the lunatics. That seems to be the way it is going.

[Reasonable_Argument]

48. Gun access isn't unfettered

There are a multitude of laws that limit who can and cannot purchase a weapon.

[jonthebru]

69. Well regulated,

The second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That says nothing about crazy frickin' lunatics owning thousands of rounds of ammunition and the firearms to deliver them killing large numbers of innocent people just because they are having a bad day.
Close the loopholes and fix the frickin' problem already.

Letting any maniac who has money buy a firearm is not "necessary to the security of a free state." In fact its the antithesis of that concept.

If our founders who wrote this magnificent document knew how screwed up the interpretation of this amendment has become they would have written it more concisely. Its up to us to do the right thing.

Frankly, it shows the selfishness and immaturity of our leaders and our national discourse.

[rDigital]

73. It's written exactly how it's intended, but allow me to assist.

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

Mental health issues are the polio of our time. Violence is a symptom, we need to combat the disease and get these people help. Don't blame the object.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

70. Agreed... nothin' but a bunch of whining crybabies.

[TreasonousBastard]

87. I would have thought that some whiny-assed...

crybaby afraid he'll lose his guns has no idea where a lot of the anti-gun sentiment comes from.

Last night four kids were shot in Brooklyn by some asshole who rode off on a bicycle. I'm sure some hotshots will say that any armed adult in the area could take down a bicycle rider racing through traffic and pedestrians without sending a round through someone's window, but the people who actually live there and put up with this shit on a regular basis aren't so sure. What they are sure about is that while there might be guns in local apartments, nobody hunts and most of the gun ownership seems to be by the gangs and assholes who are big on drivebys.

In a driveby, btw, how easy is it to suddenly realize what's going on, who's doing it, and pull your piece to get an accurate shot at a Mazda racing away through city traffic? Anyone who has successfully done this without collateral damage, please post the video or at least reliable witness accounts.

So, we're talking real people with their real kids getting shot up and they're not talking "self-protection" because they've been there and it's all bullshit-- carrying a piece doesn't help when some asshole opens fire from a moving car or sneaks up from behind with a baseball bat. They are scared shitless of the guns on the street, very angry, and looking for a real solution.

I understand hunting and sport shooting, and even the usefulness of a ready gun if you live in the boonies, but I wish someone would understand the "constitutional right" of a five year old girl bleeding to death in a gutter from a gunshot wound to see her sixth birthday.

[gejohnston]

88. and who is committing these drive bys?

Not the same people who buy their guns at a legal gun store or gun show.
They are gangs taking care of business, the drug business.

[TreasonousBastard]

89. That didn't take long. The point I suspect I will have to keep...

pounding into heads here is that guns in some areas are NOT seen as good things and scare most people living there.

Have you tried going to one of those memorials and explaining things to the attenders?

[gejohnston]

90. Since I live in the boonies

I don't appreciate being scapegoated for something I don't contribute to.
I would be too blunt, like "the shit you stuff in your bong or put up the nose paid for those bullets." New York already has strict gun laws. The largest plurality of guns, on average about 14 years old, traced by the ATF are from New York.
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/trace-data/2011/2011-trace-data-new-york.pdf

[TreasonousBastard]

91. Who's scapegoating you for what? Aside from...

reading comprehension, that is.

My point is simply that there are a lot of people who are not whiny little shits who have a good case against guns in their world. Do you have something to say about the people who are the victims of violence, particularly gun violence, or just want to make snide remarks about New York?

[rDigital]

92. Appeal to emotion fallacy. Next time bring an argument. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

94. Appeal to dumbassery-- I wasn't making an argument, merely...

stating that there are people who have a rational problem with guns. With an example.

Do you have something to say about that to that or are you just going to paste all-purpose insults?

[rDigital]

98. Just pointing out the obvious, if you're offended I guess that's a plus or something. ; )

You seem to want to take away everyone's firearms and that makes me sad.

Also, all of your posts in this thread so far are of the straw man/emotional appeal/illogical derivative.

However, we can still be friends.

[gejohnston]

93. your reading skills suck

They have a good cause to do something about gangs and stop funding them by buying dope from them and stop whining about some guy in Montana. I have nothing against New Yorkers. I do have a problem with dumb asses who buy shit from the people who are killing each other and kids in the cross fire.

I am saying the average bong owner is more responsible for urban gun violence than I am. If anyone has a problem with reading comprehension it seems to be you.

[TreasonousBastard]

95. Speaking of reading skills-- who's talking about a guy in Montana? This is...

about Brooklyn and how its mindset is different from rural populations.

I'm also not talking about the causes of urban violence-- I am talking about the results of it and how it affects urban views of guns.

Can you possibly understand this without taking it as a personal insult?

Besides, you apparently know shit about Brownsville and how you get blooded in a street gang or why fights break out on basketball courts, so don't go there.

[Ashgrey77]

108. Nice way to demonize marijuana, and innocent pot smokers.

I hope you do know that not everyone who smoke the stuff buys it from cartel funded criminals or violent people. I think you are confusing crack and meth with weed. MJ should be legalized, the drug war is the problem, not the people that use drugs. The drug war is the REAL reason there is drug related gun violence in our inner cities.

[gejohnston]

110. you missed point

and I agree it should be legalized. Cartels do get a lot of their revenue from pot. Has more to do with demand based economies, I meant it in the same sense beer drinkers contributed to gang violence in the 1920s.

[bad sofa king]

115. if it wasn't drugs, it would be something else.

guns and ammo maybe? slavery? prostitution? murder for hire? robbery? something else.

[xxenderwigginxx]

101. Police training and mental screenings are completely effective.

You can tell by the fact that there is no police brutality or abuse of power.

[rDigital]

102. Yep, the Norway Shooter

, and I dare not speak his name, was psychologically evaluated for his purchase of a semi-auto rifle and other firearms. A whole lot of good that did. It's nothing more than "feel good" fluff for the antis with their head in the sand.

[4th law of robotics]

112. It'll be nice when psychology advances to the state

where a trained professional can determine with 100% accuracy the intentions of a person seeking a firearm after talking to them for 5 minutes (even with no prior displays of irrational violence).

At that point I will concede the need for mental screenings prior to purchasing a firearm.

[bad sofa king]

114. wasn't the fort hood shooter a psychiatrist?

and an officer in the US Army no less. How many background checks did he pass I wonder?