RE: Another church shooting

RE: Another church shooting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 5:07:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: Archer But you do seem to be calling for John Q's guns to be removed because someday he might shoot someone or himself. I said pretty clearly in my first post to this thread that I am not in favor of a ban on guns. I'm also not in favor of unrestricted gun ownership. Hard as it may be for some folks to grasp, those aren't the only two possible positions on this issue. Actually, it wasn't clear at all. To me, your position seemed to be one of advocating against guns overall, but you used a rhetorical method of trying to cover yourself against criticism. Kinda like a racists saying "But I have black friends ...". Parsing your original post on the subject, it seemed to be saying: "I like guns. I can handle guns. But all them other people need to have restrictions. They can't handle them, and I don't trust them." Perhaps that was not your intent, but that was how it appeared to me. So ... in the interests of clarification ... how much "gun control" do you really advocate? Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 6:59:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: Archer But you do seem to be calling for John Q's guns to be removed because someday he might shoot someone or himself. I said pretty clearly in my first post to this thread that I am not in favor of a ban on guns. I'm also not in favor of unrestricted gun ownership. Hard as it may be for some folks to grasp, those aren't the only two possible positions on this issue. This is exactly what happens every time someone advocates a sane and comprhensive gun -control view,The pro gun group immediately moves the conversation to "your not taking my guns".An amazingly successful strategy through the years,this has kept the conversation from going anywhere and is actually used quite effectively right on these very boards

kittinSol -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 7:00:47 AM)
Bingo.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 9:09:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: Archer But you do seem to be calling for John Q's guns to be removed because someday he might shoot someone or himself. I said pretty clearly in my first post to this thread that I am not in favor of a ban on guns. I'm also not in favor of unrestricted gun ownership. Hard as it may be for some folks to grasp, those aren't the only two possible positions on this issue. This is exactly what happens every time someone advocates a sane and comprhensive gun -control view,The pro gun group immediately moves the conversation to "your not taking my guns".An amazingly successful strategy through the years,this has kept the conversation from going anywhere and is actually used quite effectively right on these very boards A good way to diss someone who disagrees with you, without ever actually having to put forth any proof or real arguments. What kind of "gun control" do you think we should have? Please, be specific. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 9:14:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Bingo. Bingo Was His Name O

slvemike4u -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 9:29:22 AM)
Firm who exactly did I personally diss....if you disagree with what I said fine,that is your right,but please tell me again about the slippery slope theory,or the belief in "unfettered"gun ownership that some claim has a constitutional right.Why on these very boards I have read that the 2nd amendment protects a citizens rights to whatever fire arm he so desires whether or not he can defend the desire is a question they would rather notbe asked,indeed they claim no need to defend said desire. As to proof,I will let the bodies of the dead speak to my proof for the need for a good hard look at the gun culture in this country and since they do it so eloquently they can also handle my argument for same.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 11:10:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: Archer But you do seem to be calling for John Q's guns to be removed because someday he might shoot someone or himself. I said pretty clearly in my first post to this thread that I am not in favor of a ban on guns. I'm also not in favor of unrestricted gun ownership. Hard as it may be for some folks to grasp, those aren't the only two possible positions on this issue. This is exactly what happens every time someone advocates a sane and comprhensive gun -control view,The pro gun group immediately moves the conversation to "your not taking my guns".An amazingly successful strategy through the years,this has kept the conversation from going anywhere and is actually used quite effectively right on these very boards "every time someone advocates a sane and comprhensive [sic] gun -control view, The pro gun group immediately" Translation: The "pro gun group" is not sane. In effect, you are discounting all reasoning and argument from anyone who disagrees with you about what a "sane and comprehensive" policy actually is. Doesn't leave much room for discussion, even friendly discussion. "The pro gun group immediately moves the conversation to "your not taking my guns"" You totally discount the fact that most of the "gun control" plans are exactly that: an attempt to take away guns. In view of your categorization of "gun rights" people as "not sane" this makes this change in focus as some how sinister. Which it is not. "Gun control" advocates plans almost always end up meaning taking guns away from the most law abiding citizens. Yet you seem to think that pointing that out is someone underhanded, sinister or off-point. Firm

DomKen -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 11:18:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What kind of "gun control" do you think we should have? Please, be specific. No manufacture, import or transfer of ownership of firearms with an overall length of less than 30 inches with no accesories (folding/telescoping stocks etc.) to allow evasion of said requirement. Modification of a weapon to go below that minimum length is evidence of intent to commit murder or conspiracy to commit murder. No removable magazine or internal clip or revolver with a capacity of more than 5 rounds. No manufacture or sale of handgun ammunition, defined by ratio of length of the round to diameter of the round. All firearms manufactured with an internal RFID chip, designed to provide an unremovable serial number. Any grandfathered weapon confiscated for commission of a crime would be destroyed upon conviction or acceptance of a guilty plea. Handguns for military and police use would be manufactured under tightly controlled inventory management or procured from an overseas manufacturer.

slvemike4u -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 11:28:54 AM)
"every time someone advocates a sane and comprhensive [sic] gun -control view, The pro gun group immediately" Translation: The "pro gun group" is not sane. In effect, you are discounting all reasoning and argument from anyone who disagrees with you about what a "sane and comprehensive" policy actually is. Doesn't leave much room for discussion, even friendly discussion. "The pro gun group immediately moves the conversation to "your not taking my guns"" You totally discount the fact that most of the "gun control" plans are exactly that: an attempt to take away guns. In view of your categorization of "gun rights" people as "not sane" this makes this change in focus as some how sinister. Which it is not. "Gun control" advocates plans almost always end up meaning taking guns away from the most law abiding citizens. Yet you seem to think that pointing that out is someone underhanded, sinister or off-point. Firm 1)Your translation not mine....mine would be that in a very calculating way the strategy of pro gun advocates is to make the conversation a black and white issue,instead of one where civil discussion can take place.This is not the behavior of insane men this is a calculated and very successful method of forestalling any conversation 2) Please explain how a comprehensive gun control plan winds up stripping these "most law-abiding "citizens....Law -abiding tends to suggest,does it not,an ability to follow the law ,go through the process and happily own their guns.Any law with a snow-ball chance in hell of being enacted would have to,in order to have that chance,address the honest citizens desire to own a gun as well as the other honest citizens desire not to live next to an armory 3) what I do think is underhanded and sinister is the insistance that there is no room for discussion here,that the rest of us ,tired of the tragedys must simply accept the body-count the school shootings and keep our mouths shut...so as not to offend the"honest law-abiding"citizen who has a collection of weapons large enough to start an insurgency right here at home. 4) if your still feeling dissed ,there really isn't that much I can do for you I have seen too many tragedy's to move my position and heard too many cliche's from the pro-gun lobby to want to...

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 11:35:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What kind of "gun control" do you think we should have? Please, be specific. No manufacture, import or transfer of ownership of firearms with an overall length of less than 30 inches with no accesories (folding/telescoping stocks etc.) to allow evasion of said requirement. Modification of a weapon to go below that minimum length is evidence of intent to commit murder or conspiracy to commit murder. No removable magazine or internal clip or revolver with a capacity of more than 5 rounds. No manufacture or sale of handgun ammunition, defined by ratio of length of the round to diameter of the round. All firearms manufactured with an internal RFID chip, designed to provide an unremovable serial number. Any grandfathered weapon confiscated for commission of a crime would be destroyed upon conviction or acceptance of a guilty plea. Handguns for military and police use would be manufactured under tightly controlled inventory management or procured from an overseas manufacturer. Interesting proposal, DomKen. Regardless of what I may think of your politics, I will admit that you have the stones to actually put yourself on the line for what you believe. kudos. A few questions about your proposal ... Why 30 inches? Why 5 rounds? Why conviction for "intent to commit murder" if simply caught with a weapon that violates your proposed rule? What does this sentence mean? -> No manufacture or sale of handgun ammunition, defined by ratio of length of the round to diameter of the round. Does this --> Any grandfathered weapon confiscated for commission of a crime would be destroyed upon conviction or acceptance of a guilty plea. mean, for example, that if someone broke into my heavily protected house, held me and Treasure hostage while they used an acetylene torch to get into my locked gun case, and then used a "grandfathered" pistol to rob my neighbor ... that as soon as he was caught, or the gun was captured, it would be destroyed? Do you not see any legitimate purpose for the use of guns? I'm sure others will have comments. Thanks in advance. Firm

DomKen -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 11:58:20 AM)
30 inches lets people have rifles and shotguns for hunting and home defense. 5 rounds means no one can go out and buy an AR-15 and a couple of 30 round magazines for the purpose of committing mass murder. Every time such a person must stop to reload is another chance for the shooter to be stopped. I acknowledge this sort of thing can't be prevented 100% but it can be made much more difficult without adversely affecting hunters or people defending themselves. Modify a gun to go below the minimum length and you're pretty clearly planning to conceal it and that means your intent is either to kill or intimidate by threatening to kill. Handgun ammo is shorter than equivalent caliber rifle ammo, I know there are weapons made that are exceptions to the rule, and I couldn't remember the technical term for the length of the round. I know caliber is the diameter of the round or the length of the barrel as compared to the bore diameter but I cannot remember the term for the diameter to length ration of a round. Yes, it does mean that in that contrived situation or in any situation where the police confiscate a weapon that wouldn't be legal to buy that that wepon is destroyed if a conviction or guilty plea is the result. the goal is to get rid of handguns with simply confiscating all of them. Legitimate purposes for guns? Hunting, target shooting and home defense. None of those require handguns. Handguns, I've already heard all the rationalizations so don't bother, are intended to kill people and that isn't a legitmate reason to have the things around.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 12:00:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u 1)Your translation not mine....mine would be that in a very calculating way the strategy of pro gun advocates is to make the conversation a black and white issue,instead of one where civil discussion can take place.This is not the behavior of insane men this is a calculated and very successful method of forestalling any conversation So it's ok for gun control advocates to calculate ways to get their point of view heard, and their laws passed, but it's not ok for gun rights advocates to calculate ways to get their point of view heard and their laws passed? quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u 2) Please explain how a comprehensive gun control plan winds up stripping these "most law-abiding "citizens....Law -abiding tends to suggest,does it not,an ability to follow the law ,go through the process and happily own their guns.Any law with a snow-ball chance in hell of being enacted would have to,in order to have that chance,address the honest citizens desire to own a gun as well as the other honest citizens desire not to live next to an armory Because "law-abiding citizens" will obey the law. The people who are most likely to use guns in a hurtful or dangerous way will simply ignore the law. You seem to recognize this in your statement above, but don't recognize that the reason that any gun law "with a snow-ball chance in hell of being enacted" is the very "calculated" way that gun-rights advocates must approach the discussion. Most gun control advocates attempt to turn it into a moral issue, with gun owners and gun rights advocates as being somehow damaged, sinister, evil or mean, willing and joyful when they hear of another child killed by a gun. How do you respond to a personal attack? As well, most gun control advocates generally see it as a one dimensional issue, and ignore counter-evidence that supports gun-rights positions. "Get rid of guns! Crime will disappear!" In fact, the opposite is the documented case. Increased gun ownership, carry, and education ends up reducing crime, and making the common "law abiding citizen" safer. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u 3) what I do think is underhanded and sinister is the insistance that there is no room for discussion here,that the rest of us ,tired of the tragedys must simply accept the body-count the school shootings and keep our mouths shut...so as not to offend the"honest law-abiding"citizen who has a collection of weapons large enough to start an insurgency right here at home. There is plenty room for discussion, but most gun control advocates have but a single mantra: "Guns bad. Guns gotta go." It's a religious issue with them. I think gun education should start early, and be required (along the lines of driver safety classes, at least), and that guns be permitted to be carried by anyone with the required classes, and without a felony record. I think this would do more to stop criminal violence than any measure to limit access to guns. Would there still be accidents and "unfortunate" events? Surely. But do we give up cars just because an occasional teenager goes joyriding and kills himself and his buddies? Because and 80 year old with dementia drives up on the sidewalk and plows into 20 people? No. We have laws, and education, and we accept the utility of automobiles for our society. We should do the same for guns. But the problem is that you and most gun control advocates do not recognize any "utility" of guns. Since you do not recognize this utility, you can only ascribe bad motives and irrationality as the reasons for gun rights advocates position. So you see us as basically irrational, therefore discount any rational arguments, and get all pissy when we see you as emotional, irrational and have to finally just stand on the 2nd Admendment. That really makes you (generic) pissy and pissed off. And whiny. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u 4) if your still feeling dissed ,there really isn't that much I can do for you I have seen too many tragedy's to move my position and heard too many cliche's from the pro-gun lobby to want to... Your experiences are anecodatal in nature, and not necessarily sufficient for a change in public policy concerning gun ownership. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 12:18:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 5 rounds means no one can go out and buy an AR-15 and a couple of 30 round magazines for the purpose of committing mass murder. Every time such a person must stop to reload is another chance for the shooter to be stopped. I acknowledge this sort of thing can't be prevented 100% but it can be made much more difficult without adversely affecting hunters or people defending themselves. Why not 4 rounds? Four would still give sufficient rounds for hunting, and protection in most cases, and decrease the time required, and the people killed in a "shooting spree" type incident, wouldn't it? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Modify a gun to go below the minimum length and you're pretty clearly planning to conceal it and that means your intent is either to kill or intimidate by threatening to kill. I can conceal a 30 inch gun, easily, especially in the winter. Shouldn't we increase the length a little more? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Yes, it does mean that in that contrived situation or in any situation where the police confiscate a weapon that wouldn't be legal to buy that that wepon is destroyed if a conviction or guilty plea is the result. the goal is to get rid of handguns with simply confiscating all of them. In the above highlighted quote, I assume you meant "the goal is to get rid of handguns withOUT confiscating all of them? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Legitimate purposes for guns? Hunting, target shooting and home defense. None of those require handguns. Handguns, I've already heard all the rationalizations so don't bother, are intended to kill people and that isn't a legitmate reason to have the things around. Interesting. You acknowledge no reasons beyond those listed, and propose the complete ban on all handguns? Firm

philosophy -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 12:18:56 PM)
....the thing about gun culture in the US is that the debate has become so polarised that neither side makes sense any more. In the Uk a few years back we had a similar level of informed debate over fox-hunting. Both sides getting steadily less and less in touch with reality, in order to try and score points. The thing is, in the US, gun culture is just that....part of the culture. It has nothing to do with whether or not guns make you safe (pay for your own study and trumpet its findings), nothing to do with preventing crime, nothing to do with anything really. It all hinges on the fact that some people want their guns and will go to any lengths to keep them. Imagine some government in the UK trying to ban football. Or a government in Russia trying to ban vodka. Come up with any arguments you like, but the US will not be giving up guns any time soon.

kittinSol -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 12:23:20 PM)
Now, I'm really not into guns, but there are few things more attractive than a man who knows his technical stuff [8D] .

DomKen -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 12:30:55 PM)
The number of rounds is open to compromise. 10 rounds is, IMO, too many and single shot, again IMO, is clearly too few. Much more than 30 and you start getting into some of the shorter rifles. I bought my nephew a .22 rifle that was 30 inches long a few years back. But once again I'm open to some compromise as long as the goal remains no handguns or other easily concealable carryable firearms. Yes, I meant without. I'm not willing to have anybody trying to take hadnguns away from people who already leaglly own them that don't committ crimes with them. Yes, a complete and absolute ban on handguns in civilian hands. Selling something with no purpose but to kill people is unacceptable to me.

kittinSol -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 12:32:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Selling something with no purpose but to kill people is unacceptable to me. Not just to you - how can it ever be justified? Where does one stop, otherwise? 'Nukular' (to parody BabyB) missiles?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 12:34:14 PM)
~ Fast Reply ~ After yesterday's earthquake the subject of 'Earthquake Preparedness' kits came up. The longest debate wasn't regarding food, but whether you should have a hand gun or shotgun as an essential component. They were surprised to learn I had neither. Yet. Consensus is to have at least one of both and at least 100 rounds/shells. As we speak, my son's paint-ball gun, a tooth impaired Pomeranian/poodle, and a too friendly poodle/cocker spaniel, are the home's only defense. Of course, I could always pull out a few floggers, canes, and paddles from the dungeon; but what if they 'safe-word'! It points to the problem of control. In the event of a disaster, natural or man-made, predators will have guns. There is nothing illegal, substance or activity, which isn't being used or occurring as we speak. It's a fools mission to put the genie back in the bottle regarding guns. It's become a great campaign slogan used by either side to make a point on either side of the argument. I think the best 'solution' I ever hear came from a comedian (Chris Rock?) who said - make bullets cost $100/each and gun violence would go down dramatically.

kittinSol -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 12:35:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I think the best 'solution' I ever hear came from a comedian (Chris Rock?) who said - make bullets cost $100/each and gun violence would go down dramatically. Chris rocks, but I already hear the litany of pro-guns nutters as they whine against that too.

DomKen -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 12:39:00 PM)
Merc, If I was you, and you're commited to living where the earth moves when Beth isn't around, I would get a good pump shotgun and a box of ammo for your kit. A big earthquake could turn Cali into the wild west for a few days. A big intimidating shotgun doesn't take skill or a lot of practice to use and is a very strong deterrent. Also don't discount the dogs. I've seen dogs get very nasty when they thought their owners were in danger.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375