I was staying away from this thread for a couple reasons. Mainly because no matter what I, or anyone says, regardless of qualifications, will be able to sway someones opinion.
Yet you still continue to introduce anti-gun rhetoric and attempt to steer others toward your belief at any opportunity.
Any extreme opinion is based on "jumping to conclusions". It's hard to use common sense when one is foaming at the mouth.
Good lord, is that a self deprecating remark? Or, are you saying everyone else is wrong that doesn't agree with you while insulting anyone who dares express it?
And people wonder why there is such a debate on gun control.
You mean you weren't foaming or jumping to conclusions with this remark? Or, at least, provoking an argument and feigning outrage at positions contrary to yours?
I hope you're joking, cause I wasn't.
Do you really think that moron should've ever been allowed near a gun? Sure, the moron is probably dead, but that kid is eff'd for life. And if that had happened here in the U.S., the cost to society is for sure. That kid would never be able to hold a job or be in any way normal, and the odds of him going postal one day are probably even.
How can you say you didn't jump to conclusions with these remarks? Have you checked yourself for foam?
Example; The Republicans have said repeatedly that the Democrats will take away all your guns if given the chance. Where does it say that?
It's recorded history!
We've been over this very point before, don't you remember?
http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=47852.msg541979#msg541979There is a long list of direct quotations from party members, which you conveniently ignore.
Any attempt by the Left to propose any "keep guns away from morons" legislation is touted by the radical Right as just that.
You like to use the word moron (mostly used as an insult and create a divide) and implies that all that would keep guns is just that. While that may actually apply to a small, tiny segment, I really think you mean ignorant. If that is indeed what you mean, I partially agree, and we have the government (and media) to thank for trying to keep people ignorant about the true nature of guns.
There's about 200 million guns in the U.S. nation. Assume you are King Stan and know that it is impossible to secure and remove these guns or face being beheaded at the attempt. Do you favor making all of your populace ignorant about how these these guns are used, promoting accidents and unsafe behavior? Or, do you favor education about how a powerful tool functions and what it's capabilities are so they can be employed safely and properly?
What do you think is the most effective way for the general populace to safely cope with the existence of that many guns? Remove the curiosity and potential mishandling of the firearm by education and distributing factual information? Or, let them find out through personal experimentation/tradgedy and watching fictional for-entertainment video scenarios?
We have a government run public education system that does NOT educate about a tool that is clearly pervasive in society. Instead, what is taught is that that all guns are evil and "forbidden fruit", shrouded by mystery and fear.
What child's curiosity is going to be quelled by that? And what child who actually learns about the realities of firearms will then begin to doubt the other "so-called" facts foisted upon them by the "educating" government? Aren't you fostering mistrust of authority and general disregard for their "teachings"?
So before we go too much farther, let me express my opinion on the bigger subject of gun control. While I am clearly a Democrat, I would be one of those "gun totin' Democrats". Except for the fact that I sold all my guns at the beginning of a depressive state I entered a few years back. I figured I would live longer if I couldn't eat a bullet. I'm better nowadays, and could see myself owning a handgun again one day.
The fact is you are a not gun owner and one who seeks to restrict/deny others from having a gun under some unspecified pretense.
Further, if you're "approval authority" reads your note, you would be considered unworthy to own unless you could prove your mental stability was permanent and you wouldn't have a relapse? Or, do you think it will be alright because you are loyal to the party in power? (This actually has a good chance of working, btw.)
The other reason I was staying away from this thread is that it exposes other sides of people in a way not so appealing. Respect is lost when someone spews hate like that has been stated here.
I have to agree. I share a similar viewpoint that is not in your favor. It would have been far better NOT to instigate a forum debate that has already been divisive in the past. Who was it that used this occasion to repeat past inflammation?
And to answer some of that...
Lloyd, you don't know me at all.
I only know what you have written. Which reads like the rhetoric forwarded by the many anti-gun groups and supported by many Democrat platforms. These platforms particulars, by the way, are why I switched from being a democrat to a Republican. I don't actually like Republicans. I just now see them as a slightly lesser of the two evils vying for total control of a subservient populace.
You've said some hateful things, things I would never say to anyone. But let me answer some of your comments.
You mean hateful, like calling someone who owns a gun a moron?
Quote
I wonder. Are you the pious one on who we rely to judge each and every person's merit for individual property ownership?
Jumping to conclusions again?
No. I don't see it that way. Your statement... "Do you really think that moron should've ever been allowed near a gun? " ...implies an approval authority which would control who is allowed the "right" to own a gun. This, of course, diminishes the concept of an "inalienable right" and relegates it to granted privilege status. My query was about whether you thought you were qualified to make the determination of who was a "moron" and who wasn't. You had clearly labeled someone using 40 seconds (about) of surveillance as a moron. Is that as much time as you would need to determine if anyone was a moron?
Is anyone who is alcohol impaired a moron (in your opinion, of course)?
The democrats have been eroding away people's gun rights for some time now. Even going so far as redefining guns that looked like machine guns as actual machine guns to an ignorant (by intention) public. Machine guns have been strictly controlled since 1934. But now, "assault weapons" include semi-auto look-alikes (and some standard hunting rifles) that even the current administration has determined the public doesn't "need" because they somehow look "evil". How is this NOT an incremental "gun grab" attempt?
Quote
Since it is possible for morons to operate autos, kitchen knives, chainsaws, bottles of gasoline, Bleach, Ammonia, and an almost endless list of items that are capable of maiming or ending life, why aren't those items included in you soapbox speech?
While these items are dangerous, each one has a main purpose that isn't to kill people. Guns have 2 purposes. To put holes in people and targets.
No, your definition is faulty. The purpose of a gun is to enforce the wielder's will upon someone or something else. In the case of persons, it actually doesn't even have to be discharged to do that. Often the threat alone will alter behavior in others. If an officer draws on you, are you more or less likely to comply with the officer's will? I dare say the officer uses the gun more often as a threat than with an actual discharge. It is only on rare occasion that discharge is an actuality. And, in either case it is still being used as a tool for enforcement of will.
This same deterrent is available to the ordinary citizen and is used far more often to prevent crime than to cause it. Most incidents are not even reported or recorded if the firearm wasn't discharged. But, here's one I happened to find recently:
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20100429/VALLEYNEWS/100429843&parentprofile=searchThere are far more righteous citizen incidents like this one to find if one has the will to look for them. They don't make the front page or main line news, as there is little sensational value.
It's equivalent to your car taking you to work for the 507th time without running down any pedestrians (due to a homicidal driver). Hey it's just the tool being used for its intended purpose. What's "news" about that?
Quote
60 million U.S. gun owners didn't kill anybody today.
Here in D.C.(10 minutes away from my house on a good day), there were 6 shootings on Saturday. One fatal. I'll bet that there isn't a day that goes by that some gun owner(and we're not counting police) kills somebody. There are way too many morons here in the U.S. to back up your statement.
Oh contraire!
Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against
criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13
seconds.151 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that
they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.
Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.
Fact: The rate of defensive gun use (DGU) is six times that of criminal gun use.152
Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.
Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.153
Fact: Of all forms of firearm homicide, 13% are civilian legal defensive homicides.154
Fact: For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.
Fact: When using guns in self-defense, 91.1% of the time not a single shot is fired.155
151
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995,
152
Crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics - National Crime Victimization Survey (2005). DGU
statistics: Targeting Guns, Kleck (average of 15 major surveys where DGUs were reported)
153
Critical Incidents in Policing, FBI, 1991
154
Death by Gun: One Year Later, Time Magazine, May 14, 1990
155
National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000
I don't hate you Stan. I hate the ignorance and rhetoric professed on the subject.
