Summations Only

I'm responding to the GET RID OF GUNS, PERIOD rhetoric on this very thread, along with the AMERICA IS FULL OF CRAZY PEOPLE rhetoric on this very thread, along with the GUN PEOPLE ARE PART OF A GUN CULTURE OF FANATICS AND FETISHISTS on this very thread. That's what prompted my post.But I'm also not going to say the people I described are NOT "gun nuts" as Percy describes gun nuts, because if you push them you'll find out that they too consider their guns to be necessary to their own personal safety, which seems to be the definition of a gun nut.But when this rhetoric I'm talking about gets flying it threatens the good gun owners too. The WWII vet is actually a liberal who would rather not give up his guns but would if the government required it. In other words although he may be a "collector" according to Percy's definition which is supposedly a safe category, he would expect to have to relinquish his guns. Where is he getting that idea if not from the liberal rhetoric, despite the assurances here that some categories are not going to be threatened? But also, he does consider his guns to be for personal security, so that makes him too a "gun nut" right? Even though as a liberal he'd feel obliged to give them up.ALL the good people feel threatened by the liberal rhetoric. Why is that if it's not meant to threaten them? Why not reassure them instead and emphasize that all you want is cooperation toward eliminating the mass killings and the other problems with guns?Why threaten the Second Amendment? Why talk about it as if it's got to go, it's an antiquated idea that no longer applies in a modern advanced society? Why keep saying guns are the problem, guns are the problem, if you really mean that guns aren't a problem in some circumstances but only in others?It's true I'm not paying that much attention to incendiary rhetoric on the pro-gun side, but the prevailing liberal rhetoric IS a major impediment if what you really want is reasonable solutions to identifiable problems and not just the elimination of all guns.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes. Yes. Yes and yes. (now I know how Ted Cruz feels as he's being grilled by Katie Couric) Yes I do, I actually think it's already started happening. This latest shooting, as most of the recent past shootings, have obviously been COPYCAT shootings, largely brought on by our sensationalizing news media. I haven't had a chance to watch a lot of news lately, but I've seen some, and there seems to be somewhat less of it. This shooters name and picture don't seem to be splashed all over the news reports quite as much as past shooters were. It's no surprise, it's so obvious to so many that ratings-seeking sensationalism inspires disturbed, attention seeking nuts to go for their hour of big attention. Not really, I'm not a fan of knee-jerk, feel good solutions. I don't have a solution for 40,000 or so traffic deaths per year either. I don't believe the government is the solution to every problem. I knew it!!! The Katie Couric "gotcha" question is here!! And the answer; nah, Cheney didn't kill anyone, as I recall, no one was even injured too badly. It was an accident. But I do think irresponsible liberals like Al Gore, who raised a lot of money from his "earth in the balance" book sales, should be required to donate a percentage of his profits to mental health research, since his prediction of polar ice caps being completely melted by 2013 was much worse than an accident, it was a blatent lie, told mainly to upset and scare people, particularly children, and mental health patients who might choose to go on killing sprees that target Christians, since Christians are linked to conservatism, and conservatives are linked to productivity that is associated with global warming.

The idea is simply that one, or two school officials, be it a teacher, a principal, or assistant principle, custodian, etc. that takes an interest in guns, to have one within fairly easy reach of his/her usual work area. Doesn't seem that bizzarre to me, when the alternative is a crazy person having plenty of time to casually walk around killing people with no fear of anyone else around being armed.

I'm basing it on what I saw 42 years ago in the reaction of people to the national 55mph speed limit. The government was not prepared to deal with how the people reacted. Speed limits are largely a joke in the U.S. even today because of it. OH NO, OF COURSE HE DIDN'T. He just asked people if they were Christians, then shot them when they said they were! I read your link. It's amazing to see the dances. They serve to make those on the far left feel good, but they're not very convincing to normal people. Not all at once, but they know their only chance is by incrementalism. Some of them try to imply that they don't support a total gun ban, as if they'd oppose the final step to a total ban. It's not honest.

I could point out some differences in the psychology between driving speed, which is a decision made every day and a decision to be generally a law abiding citizen based on making some one time decisions. But instead of going into detail, let me suggest that your logic here is not very rigorous. Actually, he shot them regardless of their answer to the question. You can find your own information by reading the news reports, but that truth is based on eye witness reports. That's your paranoia thinking and it completely explains your inability to make realistic comments based on what you read here. No matter what people post, you've already decided that unless it fits your personal viewpoint, that what you read is not really what the poster means. Small wonder that you manage to confirm your opinion by reading facts to the contrary of that opinion; exactly as you did when you decided that the facts confirmed that the gunman targeted Christians. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well, you're responding to views other than mine with considerable heat and capitals. Both camps, pro-and anti-gun control, contain their own diverse views, each individual view held with differing degrees of passion. Some folks on both sides speak intemperately, counterproductively.I don't want to go over your post point by point, but I do want to comment on the paragraph below, and one other thing. First, let me say that paragraph is one long slide to perdition.Perhaps you don't pay much attention to conservative media--Fox, Breitbart, etc. I do. There are no heretics there: they are coming for your guns, they'll never give up trying to take grandpa's Winchester. Terrifying rumors circulate by e-mail chains: Military training exercises conceal a plan to occupy Texas and herd Texans into Walmart camps! The refrain is constant; the right's complaint is echoed by other media, fired anew by each sensational mass murder. That chorus is joined and amplified by conservative politicians. Your liberal friend would have to live pretty high up in the hills not to hear that riot on the right.While speaking just for myself, I'd warrant a generic perspective among pro-gun regulation Americans in puzzlement, and it's that puzzlement which leads to thinking about cultural differences: How can they continue to block reasonable regulation when so many thousands are being killed? What can account for that fundamental difference?Understanding that requires accepting that many U.S. communities share some version of gun culture--hunting, military association, marksmanship, collecting, etc.-- and those communities are different from those who do not in important ways. Liberal multicultural tolerance often collapses inside the border. When intemperate individuals or organizations from those respective communities start screaming at each other, little gets done.But the left hasn't been screaming at the right on this issue in the terms the right fears. GOP legislators aren't blocking gun seizure laws. Proposals for improved gun regulation have been reasonable, accommodating the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment. But there has been no matching temperance on the right; indeed, the rhetoric there remains at a fever pitch, not just from individuals but from conservative media, organizations and politicians.So there we are. The bleed goes on, while one camp asks how you can trust someone who disrespects your culture, and the other wonders how you can work with someone who disrespects your dead.When someone tells me nothing can be done, I don't intend to threaten the 2nd Amendment--I'd neither propose nor support any change. But I do predict that the American people have a limited stomach for the slaughter of their own innocents, and if changing the amendment is what it takes even just to slow it down, that's eventually what will happen. It will come to pass as inexorably as same sex marriage.It's a tough nut from any angle, but that's no reason to reject reasonable attempts in Congress to stop at least some of the killing. The right actually won on the 2nd Amendment; the left now proposes change within an accommodation of that ruling. But the right refuses to declare victory and work for the common good.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

No superhuman powers are needed. In fact I believe even you might be capable of developing the needed skill. But Percy, I am not fool enough to claim superhuman powers. Again, why do you continue to post absurd caricatures of what I actually have posted.I did smoke for at least a half century and stopped about five years ago. No real reason, I just stopped.Yet it remains a fact that in over a half century no one has been harmed by my guns. And for others to misuse or mishandle my guns they would first need to be in possession of my guns and I don't much have to worry since there are laws to prevent that. And yes, I am laughing at your assertion.I have never said that guns are safe, I am not so foolish as to make that claim. Driving is dangerous. Skateboarding is dangerous. Lots of things are dangerous.If you feel threatened by my guns, then that is your problem, not mine.If you feel threatened by the prevalence of guns in the US, that is your problem, not mine.Fortunately in the US there is still no right to not feel threatened.

I specified in the scientific community. Science and atheism have been seamlessly blended only over the past few decades. Young people and many mentally unstable people could tell the difference much easier during the 1970's than they can today. Today, the scientific community, often indirectly, opposes morals, opposes conservatives, on subjects that further stir the emotions of unstable people, largely those who have been terrified by the global warming hoax. Most of them, no. They like to hunt, they like to target shoot. And they know something about American history, and world history. How history can repeat itself if nothing is learned from it. Or it will decline when the things that make them snap declines. Guns were just as available in the 1960's and 1970's as they are today, with the exception of today's background checks, gun free zones etc. that obviously aren't working at all. RAZD recently put this c/p up in one of his previous messages;

quote:

---

I grew up with guns. Country guns. Shotguns. .45s and .38s and beer cans on fence posts. That was back before public gun violence became a daily routine. If somebody got shot, it was a drug deal or domestic violence. There were guns all around me, practically under my pillow, and nobody got hurt. No one I know ever threatened another person with a gun. The few violent men I knew fought with their fists. Pulling a gun to settle a score wouldn't be worth the shame. Guns were for targets and critters. It seems like some kind of mythical world now.

---

To be fair, this may be somewhat of an exaggeration. But there were plenty of water guns, some of them pretty real looking, when I was in middle school in the late 1960's. No one raised an eyebrow then. Society has changed a lot more since then than has gun availability. 200+ years ago, John Adams said this;

quote:

---

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

---

We're seeing the proof. If mentally unstable people didn't see global warming scare tactics just about every time they turn on the news, maybe they wouldn't build up their hatred for conservatives/Christians. They probably don't see it near as much in the UK, because the U.K. isn't accused of causing it like the U.S. is. "Gun owners" fall into three distinct groups. Two of them are never involved in gun control in any way. One is the government, the police and military, and all that follows from that. Sounds at first like a small percentage of gun owners, but it's not. In addition to police and military, there has to be security for the president, his wife and children. There's congressmen, senators, in at least some cases, their wives and children. State politicians, governors. All the related government employees, some need armed security. The dept of homeland security, they recently received their billions of hollow point rounds. Then armed security branches out into the private sector, bank security, security for other private corporations. Limbaugh and Hannity get their lives threatened hundreds of times per year by Democrats, does anybody think they're not going to be able to get the armed security they desire?Group number two, criminals. Gun control only begins and ends with group number three, the law abiding public. Considering most gunfire in the U.S. is between the first two groups, claims that any more gun control is going to make much difference in gun violence doesn't appear to be honest to a lot of people. It would depend on the COST. Disarming only one of three groups of gun owners in the U.S. could have costs. Loss of liberty by people who are used to it has costs. Have you ever thought about how today's new car costs compare to new car costs of the 1970's? The average car cost in the 1970's was about $3500 to $4000. The median income then was about $9000 to $10,000. So a new car was about half the median income, and lots of people could afford them. Today the average new car costs about $30,000 to $35,000. That's about what the median income is today. So car costs have doubled, and lots of people who could afford them in the 70's can't afford them today. Could that be some of the frustration that RAZD blames free markets for? Government meddling can create frustration as well. A lot of people don't want all the frills on cars today. But they're forced to buy them, or do without completely. This is back to basics, it's been the subject of this really long thread. But my point here is to think about the societal changes that make people increasingly likely to use guns improperly. There has been practically no changes in the availability of guns since back when gun deaths weren't much of a problem in the U.S.

If you wish to lie about this subject, there is a thread on which it would be on-topic for you to do so.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi, Jar. Your spotless record on gun safety is commendable, and serves as an excellent example of responsible gun ownership. But it doesn't demonstrate that you are infallible. Nobody is infallible. Nobody can honestly say that they have total control over all the variables involved in owning and using a gun. And as long as you're not infallible, there is a risk. What you have done effectively is to argue that being good (but not superhumanly good) at mitigating risks is the same thing as having no risk.This makes you come off as overconfident and cavalier, which contrasts very sharply with your claim that you are exceptionally careful and cautious.

From the conservative rhetoric?

Sorry about the capitals. They aren't necessarily heat though. I should have used italics but they require *code* and three pairs of code is sometimes too much. I guess I could go for asterisks. I'll try to keep that in mind.Even though those capitalized opinions aren't yours, couldn't you please just acknowledge that they reflect the main tone of this thread and that it IS *liberal* and that my responding to it isn't just some off-the-wall reaction to some phantom liberal thing.You are right that I don't follow the conservative media much.And I can guarantee you that my WWII vet friend does not have a clue about what the conservative media are saying. His sources are all liberal. So if he thinks he might have to give up his guns he isn't getting the idea from Breitbart or Limbaugh.Now I'm too tired to answer the rest of your post. Later. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry to hear that. That's what I was hoping you could solve next.You do realize that solving problems is exactly the reason we have a government, don't you? There are some problems that happen everywhere and that individuals cannot solve. That is the purpose of government. And, of course, there are problems that even government cannot solve, especially when there are a bunch of assholes who are intentionally trying to fuck up everything that government is supposed to do. Wow! I wasn't sure I could pull it off, but you actually seem genuinely surprised that the question was right there in plain sight and you didn't see it until you got to the end. Nice deflection. Doesn't have shit to do with guns, but you do seem to have a short attention span. I think it is clear that someone is in serious need of help from a mental health care professional. I would not be surprised if you can get help paying for that, maybe even from Al Gore.

As a parent I am just heartbroken. It is just incomprehensible how you (I am deliberately generalizing) love guns more than you love your children. 11-year-old charged with murder in Tennessee 8-year-old's death - CBS NewsNo child should ever come across a firearm - living childhood without shooting anyone or anything is a real possibility and what Ive seen from my own kids, they do not suffer from it.Donald Trump probably thinks that if the puppy had been armed, this tragedy couldve been avoided...Honestly I cannot conceive the reasoning that introducing more and more guns would be a solution. The only thing that might be a solution to is to the cash-flow of gun manufacturers.

Which is exactly my point. The concept of teachers and students bringing guns into schools SHOULD sound bizzarre to you. You've got used to the outrageous idea that everyone can carry death around in their pockets as a right. That is not the alternative. The alternative is to do what every other civilised country in the entire world does - protect its citizens by controlling acces to guns.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.