Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
27 online now:
kjsimons, Theodoric (2 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,865 Year: 16,901/19,786 Month: 1,026/2,598 Week: 272/251 Day: 43/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 662 of 834 (844844)
12-06-2018 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 661 by DrJones*
12-05-2018 9:15 PM


Re: Hey you gun control nuts, deal with this!
DrJones writes:

Is it common for gun owners to keep their lockboxes in their bedroom?

I haven't done a survey but seriously, what room in your house do you spend the most time?

I work at home, so my bedroom isn't where I spend the most time, but that's beside the main point, and I'd like to stay focused on that. I'm guessing you asked which room I spend the most time in because since the bedroom is where people sleep that's where most people spend the most time, and that's where you'd most likely be if your house is broken into. Just from reading articles about gun shootings, the nightstand seems to be a very common place to keep an unlocked firearm.

...what room are you most aware of the comings and goings?

This seems off-topic, but answering anyway, our kids are grown up now, but even when the house was full of kids I don't think I was ever much aware of where anyone was unless they were in the same room or an adjacent room. I guess if I'd had rooms I didn't want the kids in that I would have put locks on them.

I come from a big family, there were always kids running around the house, but my parents always knew when someone was in their room when they shouldn't be.

This seems off-topic too, but again answering anyway, we only had two kids, and we didn't care if they went in our bedroom.

Do you think it likely she has lockboxes?

maybe she does, maybe she doesn't we can't tell either way.

Which way would you bet? A survey found that 55% of homes with both children and firearms kept the firearms in an unlocked place (Statistics on Guns in the Home & Safe Storage). If 55% of homes with children don't lock up their guns, how many homes without children do you think lock them up? It's gotta be more, right? So again, which way would you bet?

It's premature for you to rail against her for being unsafe when we know only the barest of facts.

Gun people always find reasons why it's premature to reach conclusions or take action. If she had her guns locked up, great, good for her, she was using the least unsafe method to keep guns in her house. It still focuses attention on the fact that far too many people don't store their guns safely, in fact see it as ruining a gun's value for home defense.

Given the number of posts I've made to the gun control threads about children finding guns, I have my doubts.

how many news stories are there about children being unable to get their hands on their parents guns and nothing untowards happens? they don't write stories when nothing happens.

And they don't write stories about all the car accidents that didn't happen, so I guess we shouldn't be concerned about auto safety, either.

Sorry to be skeptical, but you've read ICANT's stuff

yes and i think ICANT is being unsafe and irresponsible.

He has lots of company, and he's only extreme in the way he expresses himself. There's really no difference in actual danger between ICANT, who says outright that a gun is no good for home defense if it's locked up, and someone else who says sheepishly, "Yeah, I suppose I should keep it locked up," but then never does.

you've read Jar's open carry stuff,

I have no problem with legal, safe open carry. And i have no reason to think Jar is being unsafe.

It's an unsecured gun in a public place and represents a hazard.

How many people have keys or know where the keys are or know the combo or whatever? In other words, how many people can open them?

none

It is really unusual for people to be that careful and secretive and disciplined and close mouthed.

I'm a responsible adult.

If you're the standard then there are very few responsible adults out there. Unless you live your life isolated from people, I don't believe you.

You are a very unusual person if you don't share passwords

I've shared my Netflix password, but that's it.

Congratulations on being so incredibly security conscious, but the point isn't how amazing you are but that, keeping in mind the bell shaped curve, the majority of people are just average Joes and shouldn't have guns because they haven't achieved the high degree of safety awareness and practice as you.

. For example, do you and your wife both know the password for your joint checking account?

I'm single and live alone.

You say single and not widowed or divorced, so I assume you've never been married and don't have kids, which makes you nowhere near typical. By age 35 around 80% of people have been married at least once. Around 80% of people have at least one child during their lifetime. I was assuming you were typical and so was asking you rhetorical questions that I thought would make points, but you're not typical, so forget that approach.

The articles were pretty clear that the escaped convict broke in, grabbed a knife sharpener, then marched upstairs, probably to find some non-orange clothes in the bedrooms.

and without knowing how long that actually took it's premature to jump to the conclusion that she wasn't storing her gun in a safe manner.

Ah, yes, it's premature, even though the Washington Post article said it was "moments" (a word whose definition you didn't seem to know), and this article from the azfamily.com says, "An inmate who had escaped minutes earlier from a county jail in South Carolina was shot and killed by a woman after he kicked in her back door, the local sheriff said."

She had little time, and most people who have guns for home defense don't lock them up. Let's make a bet, loser has to post a message from the opposing viewpoint. The odds are against you (my guess would be around 4 to 1), but since you probably don't believe that I'll give no odds.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by DrJones*, posted 12-05-2018 9:15 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 663 of 834 (845685)
12-18-2018 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 661 by DrJones*
12-05-2018 9:15 PM


Re: Hey you gun control nuts, deal with this!
Well, it's been a couple weeks and there hasn't been a single mention in the news about whether the woman kept her gun locked up. That's she's licensed for concealed carry received a great deal of mention, which is apparently required in South Carolina in order to own a handgun (which makes no sense if you keep the gun in your house, but I digress). Her homicide of escaped convict McLaughlin was ruled justified under South Carolina's Protection of Persons and Property Act.

I assume this is the last we'll hear of this, so we'll never find out if she kept her gun locked up.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by DrJones*, posted 12-05-2018 9:15 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 664 of 834 (845720)
12-19-2018 9:09 AM


Nearly 40,000 Killed by Guns in US Last Year
The New York Times yesterday reported that nearly 40,000 people died from guns in the US last year, the highest in 50 years. Naturally other things being equal the raw numbers will increase each year as the population increases, but deaths also rose percentagewise, rising to 12.0 per 100,000 people in 2017 from 11.8 the previous year. It was the third consecutive year that the rate rose. Two-thirds were suicides, which is the case every year, but it is now the 10th leading cause of death.

Significantly, and as is true every year, mass shootings contributed only a small percentage of the total. Gun deaths mostly occur in ones and and twos.

Let us not forget:

quote:
In 1996, under pressure from the N.R.A., Congress stripped the C.D.C. of its budget to study the health effects of shootings and prohibited the agency from advocating or promoting gun control.

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 665 of 834 (846122)
12-29-2018 4:32 PM


New Info on Parkland Mass Shooting
The BBC article Florida school shooting: New video shows 'blunders' reports that arriving deputies at Parkland did not rush toward gunfire as they'd been trained:

quote:
"Since Columbine, officers are taught to rush toward gunshots and neutralize the killer. But the first Broward deputies don't rush in," the Sentinel reports, referring to the 1999 Colorado school shooting that left 13 people and two perpetrators dead.

The newspaper uses diagrams and body-cam footage to show the police delays outside the building.


Question for all you law enforcement people who are against improved gun control and against the banning of assault weapons: If you're afraid to rush toward gunfire (a very sensible reaction in my opinion), then why aren't you in favor of reducing the number of guns in our midst?

It's one thing to make brave gun talk from the safety of a training program or a shooting range, but when the time comes how many of you will actually rush toward gunfire? I'm sure many of you have wives and children at home, and what would it do to them were you to die? Did it never occur to you that you might think about that as you ponder whether to rush forward? Did you never think that when you experienced the reality that it might be far different than the training, and that losing your life would be a very real possibility? Will it ever become obvious to you that more guns and more deadly guns just make your jobs more difficult and dangerous?

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2018 7:58 PM Percy has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5805
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 666 of 834 (846127)
12-29-2018 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 665 by Percy
12-29-2018 4:32 PM


Re: New Info on Parkland Mass Shooting
It's one thing to make brave gun talk from the safety of a training program or a shooting range, but when the time comes how many of you will actually rush toward gunfire? I'm sure many of you have wives and children at home, and what would it do to them were you to die? Did it never occur to you that you might think about that as you ponder whether to rush forward? Did you never think that when you experienced the reality that it might be far different than the training, and that losing your life would be a very real possibility? Will it ever become obvious to you that more guns and more deadly guns just make your jobs more difficult and dangerous?

The officers at Parkland sounded undertrained in my opinion. Plus, standard practice has changed over the years. For instance, most departments taught that if you if you have a barricaded subject that you contain, contain, contain and call SWAT out. The old rationale was that there was too great of a risk to hostages who might feel panic, feel cornered, and execute people in desperation.

The new standard is prioritized by:

1. Stop the Killing: go in immediately to prevent more people from being executed. As we see with mass shootings, the shooters often are motivated by as killing as many people as humanly possible in as little time as humanly possible. There is no longer room or time for containment.

2. Stop the Dying: As long as there is not an active threat immediately in front of you, triage those patients and get them to safety. You cordon off a safe zone to triage the wounded.

I can't speak for other departments but I've yet to see anyone exhibit traits of unreasonable cowardice. Whenever a gun call comes out, usually multiple people assign to those calls and race to the scene.

I think most departments probably do a good job of weeding out people that just don't have right temperament to be able to reliably respond to those kinds of calls.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by Percy, posted 12-29-2018 4:32 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 667 by Percy, posted 12-30-2018 9:35 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 667 of 834 (846136)
12-30-2018 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 666 by Hyroglyphx
12-29-2018 7:58 PM


Re: New Info on Parkland Mass Shooting
Hyroglyphx writes:

The officers at Parkland sounded undertrained in my opinion.

This parallels arguments in the religious threads: They weren't good Christians.

Plus, standard practice has changed over the years.

And gun control hasn't changed in any meaningful way. And the gun death rate has climbed. Until the gun nuts acknowledge that guns are the problem and not training or criminals or not enough guns or whatever else cockamamie excuse they come up with, America will continue to be the leader of western civilization in gun deaths.

1. Stop the Killing: go in immediately to prevent more people from being executed. As we see with mass shootings, the shooters often are motivated by as killing as many people as humanly possible in as little time as humanly possible. There is no longer room or time for containment.

I've got a better idea to stop the killing: take away the guns.

2. Stop the Dying: As long as there is not an active threat immediately in front of you, triage those patients and get them to safety. You cordon off a safe zone to triage the wounded.

I've got a better idea that removes the need for triage: take away the guns.

I can't speak for other departments but I've yet to see anyone exhibit traits of unreasonable cowardice. Whenever a gun call comes out, usually multiple people assign to those calls and race to the scene.

The Broward county deputies did exactly that: when notified of the ongoing Parkland shooting they raced to the scene. Where they milled about outside doing nothing.

I think most departments probably do a good job of weeding out people that just don't have right temperament to be able to reliably respond to those kinds of calls.

You're living in fairytale land. There is no way to identify heroes and cowards in advance.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2018 7:58 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 668 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-31-2018 11:35 PM Percy has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5805
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 668 of 834 (846232)
12-31-2018 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 667 by Percy
12-30-2018 9:35 AM


Re: New Info on Parkland Mass Shooting
And gun control hasn't changed in any meaningful way. And the gun death rate has climbed. Until the gun nuts acknowledge that guns are the problem and not training or criminals or not enough guns or whatever else cockamamie excuse they come up with, America will continue to be the leader of western civilization in gun deaths.

Go to Syria or Mexico, which outlaws private ownership of firearms and then tell me how outlawing firearms makes any meaningful change. The problem has always been why people feel compelled to kill in the first place, not the chosen instrument.

I've got a better idea to stop the killing: take away the guns.

Tell me how you'd plan to go about doing that. There's more guns than there are people in the US and half of the citizens won't go quietly. So tell me how that works in actuality before offering me pie in the sky fantasies.

The Broward county deputies did exactly that: when notified of the ongoing Parkland shooting they raced to the scene. Where they milled about outside doing nothing.

Okay, how would Percy and his limitless supply of testosterone-laden balls handle such a situation?

You're living in fairytale land. There is no way to identify heroes and cowards in advance.

Oh, so, is the police force filled with cowards or filled with hotheads, cuz you seem to change depending on which way the wind blows?

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Percy, posted 12-30-2018 9:35 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 669 by Percy, posted 01-01-2019 9:11 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 669 of 834 (846241)
01-01-2019 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 668 by Hyroglyphx
12-31-2018 11:35 PM


Re: New Info on Parkland Mass Shooting
Hyroglyphx writes:

And gun control hasn't changed in any meaningful way. And the gun death rate has climbed. Until the gun nuts acknowledge that guns are the problem and not training or criminals or not enough guns or whatever else cockamamie excuse they come up with, America will continue to be the leader of western civilization in gun deaths.

Go to Syria or Mexico, which outlaws private ownership of firearms and then tell me how outlawing firearms makes any meaningful change.

Boy, way to be wrong two different ways. Syria and Mexico are not countries of western civilization (measured economically, of course). And both Syria and Mexico permit gun ownership. Remove the incorrect parts and you said nothing.

The problem has always been why people feel compelled to kill in the first place, not the chosen instrument.

Yes, we know this is your fantasy.

I've got a better idea to stop the killing: take away the guns.

Tell me how you'd plan to go about doing that. There's more guns than there are people in the US and half of the citizens won't go quietly. So tell me how that works in actuality before offering me pie in the sky fantasies.

So your argument isn't that guns aren't responsible but that there's no practical solution. Yet somehow other countries have managed to implement strong gun ownership laws, so it can't be as impossible as you say.

The Broward county deputies did exactly that: when notified of the ongoing Parkland shooting they raced to the scene. Where they milled about outside doing nothing.

Okay, how would Percy and his limitless supply of testosterone-laden balls handle such a situation?

What is wrong with you? Is it that having no effective response to what I actually said you have to respond as if I've said things I haven't? It was you that said this in Message 666:

Hyroglyphx in Message 666 writes:

The new standard is prioritized by:

1. Stop the Killing: go in immediately to prevent more people from being executed.

I opposed what you said, arguing that rational people with families and loved ones and love of life would be highly motivated to not rush toward gunfire, and the Broward County deputies followed their feelings instead of your insipid guidelines and did not rush toward death, not to mention toward a situation where they have only one valid target (who won't necessarily be easy to identify because of the possibility of "a good guy with a gun") while the perpetrator has everyone as a valid target. I applaud their decision. The situation was already placed beyond their control by the insipid gun laws that make it possible for an individual to kill many people in a very short period of time.

You're living in fairytale land. There is no way to identify heroes and cowards in advance.

Oh, so, is the police force filled with cowards or filled with hotheads, cuz you seem to change depending on which way the wind blows?

You keep saying this though I have told you again and again that I don't believe the problem of police attacks on the very people they're empowered to protect is because of bad apples. I believe the police population reflects the same qualities as the general population, and that they make mistakes of action and judgment, just like everyone else. But the problem is exacerbated because they have guns.

If you can only rebut by making stuff up then why rebut at all? Wouldn't it be better to wait until you can think of stuff that is actually true?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-31-2018 11:35 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 670 by NosyNed, posted 01-01-2019 11:24 AM Percy has responded
 Message 673 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-06-2019 11:14 PM Percy has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 670 of 834 (846242)
01-01-2019 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 669 by Percy
01-01-2019 9:11 AM


How Do you Get from Here to There?
So your argument isn't that guns aren't responsible but that there's no practical solution.

I'm across the 49th up north where we have pretty strict gun laws and, as you've noted, a lot less killing and, I think, suicide.
But maybe Hyro has a point: How do you get from where the US is with people like Hyro and ICANT in it to where we are in Canada. Your political system is on the edge of breakdown so how do you do what Australia did with the gun numbers Hyro points out, the power of the NRA, and people like Hyro running around?

I'd like to see you fix it all but I honestly don't know how you get there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 669 by Percy, posted 01-01-2019 9:11 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by Percy, posted 01-02-2019 9:50 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 671 of 834 (846268)
01-02-2019 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 670 by NosyNed
01-01-2019 11:24 AM


Re: How Do you Get from Here to There?
NosyNed writes:

But maybe Hyro has a point: How do you get from where the US is with people like Hyro and ICANT in it to where we are in Canada.

As long as the Supreme Court decision stands that decided that the militia so prominently mentioned in the 2nd amendment has no bearing on the right to keep and bear arms, people like Jar and ICANT and Hyro will continue to feel empowered to ignore the consequences of widespread gun ownership or blame them on other factors. This does make implementation of effective gun control a tough row to hoe. I don't know how we get from where we are to where we have to be.

Your political system is on the edge of breakdown...

I was saying to my wife last night, "Hitler is often mentioned when speaking about Trump, but the comparison is usually dismissed as overreaching. I don't know that that's true. Hitler came to power with a minority of the vote, just like Trump. Hitler used his party's brownshirts to create enough political chaos and uncertainty in Germany so that governments kept falling, and aided by his nationalist rhetoric his party eventually became the largest block in the Reichstag (but not a majority). Hitler was charged by President Hindenberg to form a government with himself as Chancellor, which he did. Hitler then was able to use a crisis (the burning of the Reichstag, which did not burn down, though the fire did cause serious damage) to declare a national emergency during which he was able to get the legislature and president to grant him what amounted to dictatorial powers. Trump has no brownshirts, but he does have the ability to create chaos and turmoil. He only needs a crisis to follow the same path as Hitler."

My wife responded, "Please stop talking."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by NosyNed, posted 01-01-2019 11:24 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 672 by Diomedes, posted 01-02-2019 1:54 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 674 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-06-2019 11:38 PM Percy has responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 902
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 672 of 834 (846271)
01-02-2019 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Percy
01-02-2019 9:50 AM


Re: How Do you Get from Here to There?
As long as the Supreme Court decision stands that decided that the militia so prominently mentioned in the 2nd amendment has no bearing on the right to keep and bear arms, people like Jar and ICANT and Hyro will continue to feel empowered to ignore the consequences of widespread gun ownership or blame them on other factors. This does make implementation of effective gun control a tough row to hoe. I don't know how we get from where we are to where we have to be.

My suggestion is with baby steps. Outright bans on weapons won't occur in the USA like they did in the UK or Australia due to the Constitution. However, there are appropriate actions that could be taken if they were presented in a cogent and logical fashion.

From my perspective, the two big issues relating to gun violence in the USA are:

1) Insufficient background checks for gun ownership. Especially for individuals that suffer from various mental illnesses. Most Americans concur with better background checks, even many gun owners.

2) Inner city crime between gangs and overall gang violence. This one is a little harder to deal with, but some suggestions here would be:

- End the drug war. It is fueling the crime between gangs since most of that violence is related to turf wars between drug traffickers. You'll get the added bonus of mitigating the border issues as well.
- Tackle the Black Market. Most guns used by gang members are obtained illegally. Focus on that source of weapons and ammunition.
- Stiffer penalties for individuals that use a gun in the commission of a crime. Have mandatory minimum sentences for violent offenders who used guns in their crimes. And if anyone wants to know how you make room in the prisons, see my first item: end the damn drug war.

These are just my thoughts, but I think pragmatic solutions could be advocated along those lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Percy, posted 01-02-2019 9:50 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5805
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 673 of 834 (846463)
01-06-2019 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 669 by Percy
01-01-2019 9:11 AM


Re: New Info on Parkland Mass Shooting
Boy, way to be wrong two different ways. Syria and Mexico are not countries of western civilization (measured economically, of course). And both Syria and Mexico permit gun ownership. Remove the incorrect parts and you said nothing.

First of all, Mexico is a part of western civilization, but that's a total non-sequitur either way. What does western civilization have to with your argument? Your argument hinges on banning guns in order to curb violence. You seem to believe there is a direct correlation. Common sense and statistics prove otherwise. Let me know how that's working out for the citizens of Syria and Mexico, both of whom sanction heavy restrictions on firearms. Between that and some European countries with unrestrictive gun laws (Switzerland comes to mind) their incidences of murder, let alone murder by gun, are very low. So obviously there is something else at play that you are conveniently glossing over.

quote:
The problem has always been why people feel compelled to kill in the first place, not the chosen instrument.

Yes, we know this is your fantasy.

What does that even mean?

So your argument isn't that guns aren't responsible but that there's no practical solution. Yet somehow other countries have managed to implement strong gun ownership laws, so it can't be as impossible as you say.

When you compare apples to apples and not apples to Chevrolet's. America is so inundated by a gun culture. Secondly, what kind of people tend to be in law enforcement... the people who fanatically hate guns or have an appreciation for them? Do you honestly believe someone swiping a pen tomorrow is going to disarm the majority of America? Ban gun ownership and watch the homicide by gun rate skyrocket to unprecedented levels within the hour of its legislative passing. Therein lies the cruel irony of it all.

I opposed what you said, arguing that rational people with families and loved ones and love of life would be highly motivated to not rush toward gunfire, and the Broward County deputies followed their feelings instead of your insipid guidelines and did not rush toward death, not to mention toward a situation where they have only one valid target (who won't necessarily be easy to identify because of the possibility of "a good guy with a gun") while the perpetrator has everyone as a valid target. I applaud their decision. The situation was already placed beyond their control by the insipid gun laws that make it possible for an individual to kill many people in a very short period of time.

All I did was explain that there has been a recent shift in tactical response concerning active shooter situations. My reason for mentioning it is that there may have been different training protocols to explain why one department set up containment while another rushed in. That was my only point.

You keep saying this though I have told you again and again that I don't believe the problem of police attacks on the very people they're empowered to protect is because of bad apples. I believe the police population reflects the same qualities as the general population, and that they make mistakes of action and judgment, just like everyone else. But the problem is exacerbated because they have guns.

And you've also explicitly stated in previous conversations that you believe SWAT teams should be armed with guns to handle scenarios exactly like the one's you're describing. So, again, which is it?

If you can only rebut by making stuff up then why rebut at all? Wouldn't it be better to wait until you can think of stuff that is actually true?

No, the issue appears to be that you misunderstood what I was saying and why I was saying it.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 669 by Percy, posted 01-01-2019 9:11 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by Percy, posted 01-07-2019 10:10 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5805
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 674 of 834 (846464)
01-06-2019 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Percy
01-02-2019 9:50 AM


Re: How Do you Get from Here to There?
As long as the Supreme Court decision stands that decided that the militia so prominently mentioned in the 2nd amendment has no bearing on the right to keep and bear arms, people like Jar and ICANT and Hyro will continue to feel empowered to ignore the consequences of widespread gun ownership or blame them on other factors. This does make implementation of effective gun control a tough row to hoe. I don't know how we get from where we are to where we have to be.

Maybe I've never really shared the heart of my contention. It's not that I am incapable of seeing a connection between guns and gun deaths any more or any less than I can see a connection between motor vehicle deaths and motor vehicles. It's not that I'm out to protect the gun. I recognize a gun to be a tool with one true purpose... and that's killing.... and killing, by and large, is ugly... and we tend to abhor ugly things. I get it. That is not lost on me.

My problem with your argument, however, is that it is naively simplistic. You are treating the symptom instead of treating the disease. A gun cannot will itself. It requires people, with deliberation or malice aforethought, to commit a murder. You don't want to consider why one nation peacefully can coexist with guns only to be used defensively and why another has murder rates off the charts by using them offensively. The reality is that one culture is sick and the other is not... the gun is an afterthought. But for you, it's the only thought.

War is fought with weaponry... its an ugly reality, but its also the only reason you aren't a German-speaking Nazi right now.

The staunch reality is that criminals, by definition, are people who do not obey the law. So when you pass sweeping legislation, who are you really impacting and who are you really empowering? And that's the irony, Percy, that for whatever reason you just refuse to even consider.

Its not about the gun. It never has been. Its about leveling a playing field marred with people who will, if given the chance, prey on others if something can be gained from it.

War is ugly, but sometimes necessary. Guns are ugly, but sometimes necessary.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Percy, posted 01-02-2019 9:50 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by Percy, posted 01-07-2019 2:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 675 of 834 (846467)
01-07-2019 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 673 by Hyroglyphx
01-06-2019 11:14 PM


Re: New Info on Parkland Mass Shooting
Hyroglyphx writes:

Boy, way to be wrong two different ways. Syria and Mexico are not countries of western civilization (measured economically, of course). And both Syria and Mexico permit gun ownership. Remove the incorrect parts and you said nothing.

First of all, Mexico is a part of western civilization,...

Way to be wrong again. The idea is to compare likes to likes, and Mexico and Syria are not like us and Western Europe and Australia and so forth, too poor in one case, too war-torn in another. See List of Western countries to see which countries are economically western. Mexico and Syria are not among them. Syria isn't even a country of western civilization no matter how you measure it, culturally, politically or economically. Just how wrong you want to be is up to you, but it might work better if you stopped writing off the top of your head.

By the way, Mexico has a lower gun death rate than the United States, so you were crazy to even introduce Mexico as an example since the actual figures argue against your position.

Concerning gun death figures for Syria, I only did a cursory search and couldn't find any, probably because of the war, but any figures from a region where civil order has broken down wouldn't tell us anything meaningful about the effect of their gun laws.

...but that's a total non-sequitur either way. What does western civilization have to with your argument? Your argument hinges on banning guns in order to curb violence.

And you, my friend, are very confused. You should read the context I provided. I quoted what I said when you so insanely responded that Mexico and Syria were countries of western civilization, and I wasn't talking about banning guns in what you were replying to. What I said was that America will continue to be the leader of western civilization in gun deaths as long as gun nuts continue to stand in the way of effective gun law reform.

You seem to believe there is a direct correlation.

Of course there's a correlation between number of guns and gun deaths. Here's a scatter plot of gun death rate versus gun ownership rate by country, The higher the gun ownership rate the higher the gun death rate.

And here's a plot of the same data, but by American states. Again, the higher the gun ownership rate the higher the gun death rate.

The correlation doesn't get any more obvious than that.

Common sense and statistics prove otherwise.

You obviously have neither common sense nor statistics on your side. Look, I get it, you like guns, and having not studied the issue you just assume that the facts of the world back you up without actually knowing what those facts are.

Let me know how that's working out for the citizens of Syria and Mexico,...

How many times do you want to be wrong about this? Economically Mexico is not a country of western civilization, it's gun statistics argue against your point anyway, and Syria is not a country of western civilization no matter how you cut it.

Between that and some European countries with unrestrictive gun laws (Switzerland comes to mind) their incidences of murder, let alone murder by gun, are very low. So obviously there is something else at play that you are conveniently glossing over.

Look once more at the scatter plot of countries. You called attention to Switzerland's unrestrictive gun laws, and unsurprisingly Switzerland comes closest to the United States. How about that!

The problem has always been why people feel compelled to kill in the first place, not the chosen instrument.

Yes, we know this is your fantasy.

What does that even mean?

It means that it is a fantasy that America has more gun deaths because America is a more murderous people. American has more gun deaths because too many people have guns who should not.

So your argument isn't that guns aren't responsible but that there's no practical solution. Yet somehow other countries have managed to implement strong gun ownership laws, so it can't be as impossible as you say.

When you compare apples to apples and not apples to Chevrolet's. America is so inundated by a gun culture.

Yes, of course this is true. We all understand that. The gun nut culture is why our gun death rate is highest among the countries of western civilization.

Secondly, what kind of people tend to be in law enforcement... the people who fanatically hate guns or have an appreciation for them?

You're the law enforcement guy, so why don't you, for a change, bring some facts into the discussion and tell us what percentage of people in law enforcement advocate more guns among the public. You don't actually have to look anything up, you could just think about this for a minute. Ask yourself why cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore, etc., have periodic gun buyback programs? Obviously someone in their respective police forces believes that reducing the number of guns among the public is a good idea. Actual studies are inconclusive about whether the programs are effective.

Do you honestly believe someone swiping a pen tomorrow is going to disarm the majority of America? Ban gun ownership and watch the homicide by gun rate skyrocket to unprecedented levels within the hour of its legislative passing. Therein lies the cruel irony of it all.

I suggest you employ your scaremongering on people dumb enough to believe it. Better yet, drop the scaremongering and bring some facts to the table.

I opposed what you said, arguing that rational people with families and loved ones and love of life would be highly motivated to not rush toward gunfire, and the Broward County deputies followed their feelings instead of your insipid guidelines and did not rush toward death, not to mention toward a situation where they have only one valid target (who won't necessarily be easy to identify because of the possibility of "a good guy with a gun") while the perpetrator has everyone as a valid target. I applaud their decision. The situation was already placed beyond their control by the insipid gun laws that make it possible for an individual to kill many people in a very short period of time.

All I did was explain that there has been a recent shift in tactical response concerning active shooter situations. My reason for mentioning it is that there may have been different training protocols to explain why one department set up containment while another rushed in. That was my only point.

That wasn't your only point. Why don't you go back and actually read what you wrote (Message 666) before making false claims about it. For one you called the Broward County deputies undertrained, which is both true and unfair. The vast majority of police and deputies across the country are woefully undertrained, undermanned and underarmed when it comes to dealing with situations like Parkland, Sandy Hook, the Pulse nightclub, etc. Maintaining the necessary high level of training and readiness across well over a million officers scattered across jurisdictions all over the country isn't possible or affordable.

For another you confused two different types of situations, a hostage situation, which would call for one set of tactics, and a shooter firing into a crowd in a nightclub, classroom, or school hallways, which would call for a different set of tactics.

You keep saying this though I have told you again and again that I don't believe the problem of police attacks on the very people they're empowered to protect is because of bad apples. I believe the police population reflects the same qualities as the general population, and that they make mistakes of action and judgment, just like everyone else. But the problem is exacerbated because they have guns.

And you've also explicitly stated in previous conversations that you believe SWAT teams should be armed with guns to handle scenarios exactly like the ones you're describing. So, again, which is it?

What part of the English language don't you understand? As I've said a number of times, the general police population is not competent for handling situations involving guns. They prove their unworthiness to be carrying guns everyday (see the Police Shootings thread). Only special units should be armed.

If you can only rebut by making stuff up then why rebut at all? Wouldn't it be better to wait until you can think of stuff that is actually true?

No, the issue appears to be that you misunderstood what I was saying and why I was saying it.

I understood you very well. You not only erred in nearly everything you said, you added to it in this post.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-06-2019 11:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 677 by Theodoric, posted 01-07-2019 4:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 676 of 834 (846489)
01-07-2019 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 674 by Hyroglyphx
01-06-2019 11:38 PM


Re: How Do you Get from Here to There?
Hyroglyphx writes:

As long as the Supreme Court decision stands that decided that the militia so prominently mentioned in the 2nd amendment has no bearing on the right to keep and bear arms, people like Jar and ICANT and Hyro will continue to feel empowered to ignore the consequences of widespread gun ownership or blame them on other factors. This does make implementation of effective gun control a tough row to hoe. I don't know how we get from where we are to where we have to be.

Maybe I've never really shared the heart of my contention. It's not that I am incapable of seeing a connection between guns and gun deaths any more or any less than I can see a connection between motor vehicle deaths and motor vehicles. It's not that I'm out to protect the gun. I recognize a gun to be a tool with one true purpose... and that's killing.... and killing, by and large, is ugly... and we tend to abhor ugly things. I get it. That is not lost on me.

I don't believe you. One paragraph of sanity doesn't nullify all your error-filled and callous paragraphs. If this is what you truly believed and understood then you would be working toward agreement on approaches to reducing gun deaths in this country. Instead what you've offered has been excuses for why people should be allowed to wield firearms, misconceived comparisons about utility using examples like knives and cars, scare tactics about how we'll all be at the mercy of criminals and all dead shortly after our guns are taken away, fairy tales about how the mass murders wouldn't have been mass murders if people had just acted correctly or if police had just responded correctly or if police weren't undertrained, or responding by repeatedly mischaracterizing what I actually said, and just getting your facts wrong like about suicides and which countries are western (Syria? Really?).

My problem with your argument, however, is that it is naively simplistic. You are treating the symptom instead of treating the disease. A gun cannot will itself. It requires people, with deliberation or malice aforethought, to commit a murder. You don't want to consider why one nation peacefully can coexist with guns only to be used defensively and why another has murder rates off the charts by using them offensively. The reality is that one culture is sick and the other is not... the gun is an afterthought. But for you, it's the only thought.

And this proves that your first paragraph wasn't sincere, because you're right back to insanity and nonsense like (not in so many words) "Guns don't kill people. People kill people," and "The US is just a murderous country."

War is fought with weaponry... its an ugly reality, but its also the only reason you aren't a German-speaking Nazi right now.

Why are you saying this nonsense? I never said I wanted to take guns away from the military. Are you daft?

The staunch reality is that criminals, by definition, are people who do not obey the law. So when you pass sweeping legislation, who are you really impacting and who are you really empowering? And that's the irony, Percy, that for whatever reason you just refuse to even consider.

There you go again, saying that if they take away our guns we'll all be at the mercy of criminals and crime will run rampant. Scare tactics again. It isn't that I refuse to consider it. It's that I've provided evidence that you're wrong, and you've provided no evidence that you're right. You just keep repeating it as if you think the more times you say something false the less and less false it becomes.

It's not about the gun. It never has been. It's about leveling a playing field marred with people who will, if given the chance, prey on others if something can be gained from it.

It's about the gun. See the scatter plots in my previous post.

War is ugly, but sometimes necessary. Guns are ugly, but sometimes necessary.

There you go replying as if I'd said something I didn't. I never said guns are always unnecessary. I've proposed special armed police units, and said hunting rifles are okay. But because ownership of firearms by the general public causes higher death rates, guns shouldn't be generally available.

The fact is that your first paragraph is a paragon of dishonesty. You don't really see a connection between guns and gun deaths. What you really see is that guns are all that stand between us and the criminal hordes. You're not really balking at defending the gun but are offering one defense of the gun after another. You don't really see a gun as a dangerous instrument but as a guarantor of safety. Everything you claimed wasn't lost on you is absolutely lost on you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-06-2019 11:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019