Opinions/Discussions on Guns

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,583
Reaction score
20,035
I guess nobody is really interested in having a conversation any deeper than "let's ban guns" or "let's not ban guns" (or a million different variations on that same theme) in attempting to address the issue of why we have an ever increasing number of lunatics running around in our society hell-bent on killing people. Oh, well. Carry on with what makes you feel good, and forget about a conversation about any real changes in this sick culture that might actually make a real difference in addressing the real problems.

Having said that, if armed security guards at schools are such a "crazy" idea, I suppose everyone that thinks so would demand that the Sidwell Friends School where our illustrious President sends his kids, along with a number of others of the "elite" class, would get rid of the eleven (soon to be twelve) armed security guards that regularly patrol the school. They must think its a pretty good idea, or they wouldn't be doing it. I guess their kids must be more valuable than ours.

And if the president moved his kids to another school those guards would go with them. That part of the secret service is afforded to every president and their family and has been in place for decades, long before the great gun laws debate began.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
And if the president moved his kids to another school those guards would go with them. That part of the secret service is afforded to every president and their family and has been in place for decades, long before the great gun laws debate began.

Exactly it has to be that way for the president's children. If some say kidnapped the president's kids and held them for randsome they could potentially exort the most powerful man in the world. Plus the president no matter who it is will always have enemies. The president kids have to be protected because of all the variables that come with being the president.
 

NankerPhelge

WANKER
Messages
805
Reaction score
126
Tight for time, but just in response to the 2 immediately preceding posts. Not a "Johnny come lately" to this thread--I think it is you, not me, who needs to do a review. Also, so what that it is the Secret Service? The question is whether having properly trained armed people guarding our children while they are in school is a good idea or a bad idea, not whether it is Secret Service or some other guards. All I've seen is what a stupid idea this is. Must not be such a stupid idea if it works to protect the President's and other's kids.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Tight for time, but just in response to the 2 immediately preceding posts. Not a "Johnny come lately" to this thread--I think it is you, not me, who needs to do a review. Also, so what that it is the Secret Service? The question is whether having properly trained armed people guarding our children while they are in school is a good idea or a bad idea, not whether it is Secret Service or some other guards. All I've seen is what a stupid idea this is. Must not be such a stupid idea if it works to protect the President's and other's kids.

I'm okay with having a highly trained guard on duty at schools. Not okay with idea with giving teachers guns which Ohio and Utah are considering. The issue is funds if we can't get inner city kids decent text books how are we going to afford guards? I guess we could tax the heck out gun owners lol. Make it like a 10000% tax on any gun purchase, that would help a little.The Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare reinforced that Congress has the right to levy a tax on basically anything it deems practical.
 
Last edited:

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
First off, I'm a teacher. We are no different than the rest of the population. Teachers are split on the issue of carrying guns in school. I have colleagues that would willingly carry a weapon if they were permitted or required to do so. I also work with some exceptional kindergarten and first grade teachers that would leave the profession if teachers are required to carry a gun to school.

The reality is that when schools begin hiring security guards for the school they will do it in the same way they hire teachers, custodians, cooks, bus drivers, etc. They will hire the least expensive option available, not by choice but out of necessity. They operate on very limited budgets with multiple unfunded requirements.

Schools encourage experienced teachers to retire, not because they are incompetent, but so they can hire someone to work for the minimum salary permissible. They pay their un-certified staff (custodians, bus drivers, cooks, etc.) minimum wage without any benefits. What makes you think they would pay security guards any more than minimum salaries?

The president's children are protected by highly-skilled and well-paid secret service agents. Schools cannot afford to pay such highly-qualified people to stand guard at schoolhouse doors. If security guards are mandated, it will be without funding and the schools will do it on the cheap. Will they also be carrying automatic rifles capable of firing multiple rounds? That will surely make our kindergarten children and their parents feel safer.

A more realistic option is to keep the entire building locked up all day, letting no one in or out. However, even that is a poor option. A gunman could kill hundreds of children while they unload from their buses in the morning or load back up in the afternoon. The bottom line is there is no way to prevent these tragedies from happening. However, we can reduce the number of tragedies or the numbers killed at one time by placing some common-sense restrictions upon guns. Why do we need semi-automatic or automatic weapons capable of firing multiple rounds before stopping to reload? Shouldn't there be more restrictions on deadly weapons meant for killing than there are on automobiles or motorcycles that are meant for transportation? Shouldn't our law-enforcement personnel be carrying more powerful weapons than our criminals?

The bottom line is that the gun manufacturers do not want to give up the lucrative market in firearm sales. They are more concerned about their bottom line than they are about the lives of America's children. It's true that criminals obtain their guns illegally for the most part. It's about time we held the gun manufacturers responsible for the actions committed by criminals in possession of guns they manufactured. If it starts to hurt their bottom line they will be more willing to place some common-sense restrictions upon who can purchase a gun and what types of guns can be purchased.
 

Opus

Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
10
I'm not talking about taking away all guns.

Why wouldn't it be harder? It is not like these back alley channels for illegal guns are common knowledge among the general population. Will some of the baddies and crazies know and/or will find out about illegal gun outlets? Yes. The key word there being some. There are some who won't be able to access illegal gun sellers. We can argue all day about how much "some" is. You can't tell though 100% of crazies that got guns legally before will be able to get them illegally after we instituted a ban on semi-automatics and high capacity magazines. No we can not stop gun violence but if we can curb just a little I will consider that success. Now if you don't think saving just one innoccent child's life is worth you needing to have a gun that allows you pretend that you are with the special forces taking down ***** Bin ***** then I can't help you.

Banning semiautomatic weapons will only prevent new semiautomatic weapons from being used in the commission of a crime. Banning semiautomatic weapons will not prevent the sale of currently legal semiautomatic weapons/high capacity magazines between private parties. It will not prevent me, for instance, from taking my semiautomatic weapon with high capacity magazines to any gun store and placing it on consignment with that particular gun dealer. Guns are placed on consignment all the time with private gun dealers, gun stores and even pawn stores. This happens on a daily basis all over the country. The internet is also available for purchase. All I have to do is have the gun shipped to a gun dealer with an FFL (Federal Firearms License). I would simply walk into the gun shop and pick up my purchase. All currently legal semiautomatic weapons would be available in this manner. How is a ban on currently legal semiautomatic weapons going to stop someone from getting one in any of the ways I just described?

Now if you don't think saving just one innoccent child's life is worth you needing to have a gun that allows you pretend that you are with the special forces taking down ***** Bin ***** then I can't help you.

Here we go with the dramatics. You claim I don't care about one innocent child's life because I'm against banning currently legal weapons because personally I don't believe that ban would accomplish what the gun control crowd thinks it will. You don't know **** about me so don't try to talk down to me and try and make me look bad.

You do realize that the latest massacre was accomplished using only handguns right? Would a ban on currently legal semiautomatic weapons have prevented Sandy Hook? No, because the weapons he used are not on the list to be banned.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
The reality is that when schools begin hiring security guards for the school they will do it in the same way they hire teachers, custodians, cooks, bus drivers, etc. They will hire the least expensive option available, not by choice but out of necessity. They operate on very limited budgets with multiple unfunded requirements.

Ah yes...The cheapest bidder syndrome. As well if this is a federal initiative it will be riddled with things like set aside contracting, and political angel contract awards...this isn't even worth talking about at the federal level...simply because of our complete and total inability to consistantly procure services that are relevant, competent, and efficient...this spends money w/o a hope on this earth of doing a damned thing beneficial for our children.


These type of decisions belong at the state and local level, as does the funding, and oversight.
 

NankerPhelge

WANKER
Messages
805
Reaction score
126
Chicago averages what 500 gun murders a year?

Yeah, I was watching TV while walking on the treadmill tonight, and a big news story came on about Chicago reaching 500 shooting deaths this year. The video accompanying the breathless story was of guys, who looked a lot like me, going into gun stores and filling out all the paperwork, and purchasing guns, as if they were the reason for this statistic. I've been shooting for 48 years. Have had a concealed carry permit for 32. I've never shot anybody, and don't ever want to have to. Twice in that time, I have displayed my gun. One time, it saved my life. The other time, it saved the life of a woman who was being savagely beaten on a sidewalk at night by her deranged husband. People like me, or those who were being shown on this news story, or the guns we own, are not the problem. It is the isolated sociopathic morons that our society, based on a "morality" (did I say morality? Please forgive me!) of subjective relativism with no recognition of objective truth or objective good and evil, continues to produce in ever increasing numbers. This "philosophy" permeates every aspect of our culture. We can yak, yak about gun control or any other "quick" and easy fix all we want (like the laughable "fiscal cliff" debates). But until we are willing to take a hard look at the society we have created grounded in legal positivism, subjective relativism, and a complete rejection and disdain for any notion of objective truth and morality, we will not solve any problems, or save any lives, but will simply continue to turn out an ever increasing number of nut-bags who want to go out and kill others and themselves. The examples are endless. Hell, just for one, does anybody here have any idea what percentage of the population (both adult and children, for God's sake) that is currently taking prescribed medication for depression? But that's OK. We can always just pick out a bogey-man and devise a quick fix for all our problems. Works real well, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Yeah, I was watching TV while walking on the treadmill tonight, and a big news story came on about Chicago reaching 500 shooting deaths this year. The video accompanying the breathless story was of guys, who looked a lot like me, going into gun stores and filling out all the paperwork, and purchasing guns, as if they were the reason for this statistic. I've been shooting for 48 years. Have had a concealed carry permit for 32. I've never shot anybody, and don't ever want to have to. Twice in that time, I have displayed my gun. One time, it saved my life. The other time, it saved the life of a woman who was being savagely beaten on a sidewalk at night by her deranged husband. People like me, or those who were being shown on this news story, or the guns we own, are not the problem. It is the isolated sociopathic morons that our society, based on a "morality" (did I say morality? Please forgive me!) of subjective relativism with no recognition of objective truth or objective good and evil, continues to produce in ever increasing numbers. This "philosophy" permeates every aspect of our culture. We can yak, yak about gun control or any other "quick" and easy fix all we want (like the laughable "fiscal cliff" debates). But until we are willing to take a hard look at the society we have created grounded in legal positivism, subjective relativism, and a complete rejection and disdain for any notion of objective truth and morality, we will not solve any problems, or save any lives, but will simply continue to turn out an ever increasing number of nut-bags who want to go out and kill others and themselves. The examples are endless. Hell, just for one, does anybody here have any idea what percentage of the population (both adult and children, for God's sake) that is currently taking prescribed medication for depression? But that's OK. We can always just pick out a bogey-man and devise a quick fix for all our problems. Works real well, doesn't it?

I am calling Bullshit on this idea. None of this has anything to do with what an insane person does. This is another attempt to change the topic. If you want to have a debate about our failing mental health system then lets have it but this is complete bullshit. You sound like the people who are blaming violence like this on the fact that the US is becoming less religious. I would say that you are the one that is trying to avoid the real issue here.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Banning semiautomatic weapons will only prevent new semiautomatic weapons from being used in the commission of a crime. Banning semiautomatic weapons will not prevent the sale of currently legal semiautomatic weapons/high capacity magazines between private parties. It will not prevent me, for instance, from taking my semiautomatic weapon with high capacity magazines to any gun store and placing it on consignment with that particular gun dealer. Guns are placed on consignment all the time with private gun dealers, gun stores and even pawn stores. This happens on a daily basis all over the country. The internet is also available for purchase. All I have to do is have the gun shipped to a gun dealer with an FFL (Federal Firearms License). I would simply walk into the gun shop and pick up my purchase. All currently legal semiautomatic weapons would be available in this manner. How is a ban on currently legal semiautomatic weapons going to stop someone from getting one in any of the ways I just described?

Now if you don't think saving just one innoccent child's life is worth you needing to have a gun that allows you pretend that you are with the special forces taking down ***** Bin ***** then I can't help you.

Here we go with the dramatics. You claim I don't care about one innocent child's life because I'm against banning currently legal weapons because personally I don't believe that ban would accomplish what the gun control crowd thinks it will. You don't know **** about me so don't try to talk down to me and try and make me look bad.

You do realize that the latest massacre was accomplished using only handguns right? Would a ban on currently legal semiautomatic weapons have prevented Sandy Hook? No, because the weapons he used are not on the list to be banned.

It most definitely would, the ban would prevent the transfer of ownership through a sale. That means no you couldn't take it to a store and sell it and no you couldn't ship it to a dealer and it is pretty damn easy to have the internet searched for people selling assault rifles. Sigh. Now true, someone could still kill their parents and take their assault rifle and commit the shooting but it does take care of most of the issues that you posted. Again the ban would prevent the change of ownership as well not just making new ones or selling new ones.
 

NankerPhelge

WANKER
Messages
805
Reaction score
126
I am calling Bullshit on this idea. None of this has anything to do with what an insane person does. This is another attempt to change the topic. If you want to have a debate about our failing mental health system then lets have it but this is complete bullshit. You sound like the people who are blaming violence like this on the fact that the US is becoming less religious. I would say that you are the one that is trying to avoid the real issue here.

Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate response, which bespeaks the very idea of which I speak. So now, the dialogue has deteriorated to the point where a valid response is considered to be one that just says "I CALL BULLSHIT!" and then following up with purely conclusory statements of opinion. Ok. Have it your way. Good luck trying to formulate any real solutions to problems. You are obviously a lot more intelligent than me.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate response, which bespeaks the very idea of which I speak. So now, the dialogue has deteriorated to the point where a valid response is considered to be one that just says "I CALL BULLSHIT!" and then following up with purely conclusory statements of opinion. Ok. Have it your way. Good luck trying to formulate any real solutions to problems. You are obviously a lot more intelligent than me.

Really?

1. Your post had nothing in it about stopping this from happening again,
2. Your original post while maybe thoughtful had nothing to do with the topic at hand and contained 0 facts and 0 research or Hell anything to prove that it would help with these types of tragedies.
3. I will repeat, morals, objective or subjective right and wrong mean nothing to a person who is insane or has mental issues, you can try to rationalize this all you want but it doesn't. As I said in my post, how about we talk about our failing mental health system as that might actually help prevent these type of mass killings.
4. Objective truth and moral relativism is something we can argue someother time as it has nothing to do with mentally insane people commiting these types of crimes.

I never said that I was more intelligent then you or even belittled your intelligence, I just pointed out that you are making points about something completely unrelated to what a mentally insane person does and for you to try and connect them makes no sense.

So how about you actually make an arguement about something that could prevent this from happening again, along the lines of gun laws, our mental health systems and even if we should arm schools or not but all you did was change the topic to something that bothers you but has nothing to do with what happened and will not prevent it from happening again.
 

Opus

Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
10
It most definitely would, the ban would prevent the transfer of ownership through a sale. That means no you couldn't take it to a store and sell it and no you couldn't ship it to a dealer and it is pretty damn easy to have the internet searched for people selling assault rifles. Sigh. Now true, someone could still kill their parents and take their assault rifle and commit the shooting but it does take care of most of the issues that you posted. Again the ban would prevent the change of ownership as well not just making new ones or selling new ones.

Well it looks like I was wrong. I read the portion of the proposal detailing the specific weapons/magazines that will be banned. I guess I should do better research before I open my mouth. My bad.

I don't agree with the new proposal and I certainly don't agree with the government telling me what I can do with something I legally bought just because it may be used in the commission of a crime. It just boggles my mind that the government actually thinks that they can tell me "yes you own that weapon legally but we are forbidding you from selling it". In my opinion that is starting this country down a very slippery slope.
 
H

HereComeTheIrish

Guest
o-doyle-rules-billy-madison-costume.jpg
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Well it looks like I was wrong. I read the portion of the proposal detailing the specific weapons/magazines that will be banned. I guess I should do better research before I open my mouth. My bad.

I don't agree with the new proposal and I certainly don't agree with the government telling me what I can do with something I legally bought just because it may be used in the commission of a crime. It just boggles my mind that the government actually thinks that they can tell me "yes you own that weapon legally but we are forbidding you from selling it". In my opinion that is starting this country down a very slippery slope.

Just to point out they do that with many things that can be considered dangerous for example prescription medication.

To be fair to you I don't know if the new law will include what I said I was just pointing out that it would be extremely easy to regulate and to make it next to impossible to transfer ownership. In fact I would say the only way to make a ban work would be to do it just like I said.

Ok I just read Diane Feistein's quote and it said“On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons as well as large ammunition magazines, strips and drums that hold more than 10 rounds,”. I assume that transfer refers to change in ownership so I guess I was right.

Sorry if this is choppy as I am on my phone.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
I guess nobody is really interested in having a conversation any deeper than "let's ban guns" or "let's not ban guns" (or a million different variations on that same theme) in attempting to address the issue of why we have an ever increasing number of lunatics running around in our society hell-bent on killing people. Oh, well. Carry on with what makes you feel good, and forget about a conversation about any real changes in this sick culture that might actually make a real difference in addressing the real problems.

Having said that, if armed security guards at schools are such a "crazy" idea, I suppose everyone that thinks so would demand that the Sidwell Friends School where our illustrious President sends his kids, along with a number of others of the "elite" class, would get rid of the eleven (soon to be twelve) armed security guards that regularly patrol the school. They must think its a pretty good idea, or they wouldn't be doing it. I guess their kids must be more valuable than ours.

C'mon Nanker! This simple conflation is not going to help the converstion. An armed Secret Service detail, placed there to provide for the defense and escape of the presidents children is not comparible to having one armed guard in the school. Beyond politics, everybody wants their President and his family to be safe, it is a matter of national security and good execution of duties on the part of the President.

In fact, a good example of how stupid the idea of arming every school is, can be found in the dozen agent detail. 1,200,000 highly trained guards to defend the public schools, and still the Secret Service has had a few lapses over the years . . .

Here is the number of people interested in banning high capacity magazines"



December 27, 2012

Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws, Still Oppose Bans

Support for strengthening gun sale laws has surged 15 percentage points since 2011
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., Gallup finds 58% of Americans in favor of strengthening the laws covering the sale of firearms, up from 43% in 2011. Current support for stricter gun laws is the highest Gallup has measured since January 2004, but still not nearly as high as it was in the 1990s.

These results are from a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Dec. 19-22, just days after the Newtown tragedy. Gallup's prior measure of Americans' attitudes toward new gun laws was conducted in October 2011. Since then, there have been several other mass shootings in the U.S., including one in July at a Colorado movie theater that left 12 dead and more than 50 wounded. More recently, a gunman killed his boss and four others at a factory in Minneapolis in September, and in August a U.S. Army veteran opened fire in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, killing six.

Perhaps as a result of these events, the new poll also finds that a record-high 47% of Americans favor passing new gun laws, up from 35% in 2011. Since Gallup first asked this question in 2000, majorities have consistently preferred enforcing the current laws more strictly without passing new laws.


Opponents of Assault Rifle Ban Still Outnumber Proponents
Two aspects of the Newtown shooting that have been a focal point of recent discussions about gun laws are the semi-automatic rifle and high-capacity ammunition magazines used by the shooter. Several state and federal lawmakers have already announced that they will seek to ban both from the commercial market.

Nevertheless, Americans' views on the sale of assault rifles are unchanged. The slight majority, 51%, remain opposed to making it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles.

Notably, the 44% in favor of assault rifle bans in response to this trend question is nearly identical to the 42% Gallup found favoring assault and semi-automatic bans in a Dec. 18 poll. In that survey, participants responded to a question asking about possible approaches to preventing mass shootings at schools, similar to the shooting that occurred Dec. 14 in Connecticut.

Americans Favor Limits on Gun Show Sales and High-Capacity Magazines
A significantly higher percentage of Americans -- 62% -- do favor banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines, generally defined as those that contain more than 10 rounds. Also, nearly all Americans -- now 92%, up from 83% in 1999 -- favor laws that require people attempting to purchase guns at gun shows, including gun dealers, to undergo background checks.

Opposition to Handgun Ban Hits Record-High 74%
Despite Americans' willingness to strengthen gun laws in the wake of Sandy Hook and other deadly mass shootings, Gallup finds public opposition to a broad ban on the possession of handguns at a record-high 74%. Conversely, the 24% in favor is the lowest recorded since Gallup first asked the question in 1959.

Bottom Line
Americans favor new legislation to limit gun sales, presumably to help prevent the kind of gun violence that became all too familiar in 2012. This is seen in increased support for making the laws covering the sale of firearms more strict, and for passing new gun laws. However, views toward banning semi-automatic guns or assault rifles are unchanged, and -- possibly reflecting Americans' desire to defend themselves given the rash of high-profile gun violence -- a record-high 74% oppose preventing anyone but the police or other authorized officials from owning a handgun.

Survey Methods
Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Dec. 19-22, 2012, with a random sample of 1,038 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cellphone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cellphone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, cellphone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

View methodology, full question results, and trend data.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Politics, Economy, Wellbeing, and World.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
I am calling Bullshit on this idea. None of this has anything to do with what an insane person does. This is another attempt to change the topic. If you want to have a debate about our failing mental health system then lets have it but this is complete bullshit. You sound like the people who are blaming violence like this on the fact that the US is becoming less religious. I would say that you are the one that is trying to avoid the real issue here.

How do you call bullshit on an idea? Nanker is a respected, longtime poster, and a pretty good friend of mine. I don't always agree with his points but I have the respect to not call names or throw feces.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tNNXVpk72uA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Well it looks like I was wrong. I read the portion of the proposal detailing the specific weapons/magazines that will be banned. I guess I should do better research before I open my mouth. My bad.

I don't agree with the new proposal and I certainly don't agree with the government telling me what I can do with something I legally bought just because it may be used in the commission of a crime. It just boggles my mind that the government actually thinks that they can tell me "yes you own that weapon legally but we are forbidding you from selling it". In my opinion that is starting this country down a very slippery slope.

You mean like how they don't tell you that you can't sell the Xanax or Oxycontin that you legally obtained through a prescription?
 

Opus

Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
10
You mean like how they don't tell you that you can't sell the Xanax or Oxycontin that you legally obtained through a prescription?

If you can't see the difference between selling prescription medicine and selling legally obtained weapons to a gun store or pawn shop then I don't know what to tell you. Yes, it is illegal to sell prescription medicine. One of the reasons that it is illegal to sell medication is because there are no safeguards in place to track the medicine from one party to the other. And yes, I know it happens all the time. Selling a weapon is just a bit different. I could illegally sell the weapon to a private party, that is true. However, if I wanted to consign my weapon to a gun dealer or gun store there is paperwork that must be completed to track the weapon. I can't just walk into a Cabela's, a Gander Mountain or a pawn shop and give them my weapon to sell for me without telling them who I am. And yet the government wants to prevent me from doing exactly this.

Nice try though.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Please stop being logical; it will ruin the discussion.

Because, lord be praised, C-Man, we would have to admit this thing about guns keeping people safe, a sub theme of the John Wayne westerns, (the ones where you can have a gun shot out of your hand by a .45 and be back to the quick draw before you know it) and the marketing division of Freedom Arms, (the NRA.) It of course is a lie that you can protect yourself or anyone else adequately with a gun.

It is built upon the lie that America was built by rugged individualists. That is a lie, and I can prove it. I knew men when I was a child that knew the original mountain men. They knew the lie of the "Old West". They knew what really happened at Wounded Knee an hundreds of other places, from Mountain Meadows, to Little Big Horn.

It is also a lie that Americans want unregulated guns today. Nobody wants the government to tell us how to live our life, but most reasonable citizens are willing to allow regulation of them to provide public safety. The only people who cannot admit this are those that are lost in the fantasy that a good man with a gun can protect an unspecified number from an unspecified threat, at any random time of day or night, at any time in the future . . .
 

irish1958

Príomh comhairleoir
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
112
Exactly. I was watching "A Christmas Story" with my grandchildren and was going to post about Ralphie's fantasy of forcing the "bad guys" to retreat and then give up against Ralphie's red rider BB gun when BobD (#950) beat me to it.
That is exactly the problem.
Here is a thought experiment: imagine you are a 64 year old retired cop employed by a school with three floors and dozens of windows. You are armed with your old 38 service revolver, which you fire once a year to be "qualified." Unfortunately, you forgot to take your prostate pills and after your sixth cup of coffee you are spending 20 minutes out of every thirty in the basement faculty lounge trying to take a leak. Meanwhile, a twenty year old psychopath with body armour and two assault rifles with 100 round drums crashes through the front door and charges up the stairs to the third floor where his exgirl friend is teaching 24 first graders.
Will the cop stop him?
 

brandonnash

New member
Messages
214
Reaction score
9
Or we can take the other side and leave that retired officer with his non existent service revolver (no one uses those anymore, don't try saying they do) and let him sit at home. He watches the news and sees that once again a psycho shoots up his girlfriends classroom then kills himself just as police show up, just as they always do. He wonders to himself, "if I were there could I have saved lives?". Possibly, but we will never know because even with tons of gun laws in place we still have these shootings, especially to places where the shooter can do his evil completely unopposed.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Would you say its the government's job to help mentally ill people or its the government's job to help insure mentally ill people can't get their hands on guns? or both?
 

irish1958

Príomh comhairleoir
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
112
The problem is that psychopaths are not necessarily mentally ill. Steve Jobs, for example, displayed many traits, as did (and do) many other successful people, which are clearly psychopathic. Bobby Fischer was another.
 

NankerPhelge

WANKER
Messages
805
Reaction score
126
C'mon Nanker! This simple conflation is not going to help the converstion. An armed Secret Service detail, placed there to provide for the defense and escape of the presidents children is not comparible to having one armed guard in the school. Beyond politics, everybody wants their President and his family to be safe, it is a matter of national security and good execution of duties on the part of the President.

In fact, a good example of how stupid the idea of arming every school is, can be found in the dozen agent detail. 1,200,000 highly trained guards to defend the public schools, and still the Secret Service has had a few lapses over the years . . .

Here is the number of people interested in banning high capacity magazines"

Bogs,

I have seen you use this term "conflation" many times, but I am sorry to say I have never been able to figure out just what you mean. Although I know what the word means, I sometimes disagree with your application of the concept to some points of view with which you disagree. That's really just an aside, though. My main point is a follows:

I don't think the fact that the Secret Service is part of Sidwell's armed security force diminishes the fact this school, as part of its standard operating procedure knows that the best way to protect those kids from threats is with trained armed guards at that school. That is why others of the Washington D.C. elite (including NBC's David Gregory) send their kids there. They know that the kids will be protected.

It is also the reason why armed guards and some armed teachers are in every school in Israel. They also know that the best way to protect children from nuts who want to kill them, be they terrorists or just insane maniacs (like we have here) is to have a good guy with a gun to face the bad guy with the gun, not just some good person standing there (to quote a line from the Godfather) with nothing but his dick in his hand. I guess you can call this "conflation" or whatever other flaw of logic you may see, but I think the NRA is absolutely correct to say the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Hell, if that weren't the case, we'd send our soldiers to war armed with pious platitudes to use in reasoning with our enemies. And whether they are people trying to kidnap the President's kids, terrorists trying to kill Jews, or insane psyhcopaths intent on killing as many kids in as dramatic a fashion as possible, they are armed enemies. Doesn't matter, our kids deserve realistic and effective protection from these kind of enemies, not just another stupid government program, another few gun control laws to add to the over 20,000 that already exist, or more political wrangling over yet another civil rights issue. I abhor the fact that our society has come to this, but the fact is, it has and so we have to deal with where we are at.

Which, once again is the point I have been trying to make in this thread that obviously pkt77242 doesn't get and thinks is just bullshit (thanks for defending me, by the way). The very fact that we are having this debate, and that the necessity of putting armed guards in schools to protect our children is worthy of serious discussion, should, in my opinion, cause every one of us to do some real deep soul-searching as to why our society has gone in this direction. When my father was a kid in the late 40's, he and his buddies would all get on the school bus with their .22 rifles so they could go squirrel hunting right after school. They would put them behind the bus driver in the first seat, and when they got to school, they had to put them in their lockers. Nobody ever got shot, and nobody ever got bent out of shape, because nobody ever even dreamed of the idea that one of these kids was going to go nutso and start shooting his classmates. All I am saying is that this shooting, all the other ones, and all the other ever-increasing crazy violent **** that goes on really deserves a much deeper conversation about core issues that nobody seems to want to address. Just yesterday, I read that someone broke into the house of a 76 year old lady in Elkhart, Indiana, and savagely stabbed her to death for no apparant reason. This kind of **** happens all the time. Is the best we are going to be able to do is to start a debate about butcher knife control? Sometimes I think so. It seems that we, as a society, have lost the will and moral fortitude to really look at ourselves in the mirror and try to understand how the things we value and promote are really, in so many instances, just not all that good and can be directly and empirically related to the increasing number of ill-adjusted, depressed, mentally ill, directionless, and purely evil people who you have worry about committing these heinous types of acts. So, we can blah blah gun control and blah blah more governmental programs for the mentally ill and blah blah economy and on an on and on. But, my opinion is that so long as we live in a society where we, AS A MATTER OF LAW AND POLICY, devalue life, treat matters concerning it as matters of convenience and as commodities to be bought and sold, continue to diminish the importance of the nuclear family as the core building block of a healthy society, promote violence, promote instant gratification as the only value worth striving for, devalue the idea of commitment (and I don't mean the way recruits "commit"--what a laugh--there is no "de-commitment" to a true commitment), marginalize religious beliefs and immediatly deride and impugn any person who brings the idea of God into the public square, and on and on and on, we are just giving feel-good lip-service to the issues of the day, and not really doing anything to truly solve the core problem of the sick society we have created that turns out **** and filth and death in ever-increasing quantity. Pkt77242 doesn't think anything I have said is on the topic. I respectfully disagree--if the topic is trying to solve the problem of a society that produces psychos going into schools and killing kids, then I think I am more on topic than debates about the peripheral, but easy and temporary "solutions" that seem to be the hot topics of public debate. Some good evidence of that is that "gun control" and "violence in movies" and "mental health treatment programs" is all our politicians can talk about. And we all know how good they are at addressing real problems and finding real solutions.
 
Last edited:

no.1IrishFan

Well-known member
Messages
6,279
Reaction score
421
I've been involved in this conversation/debate for a while, and my viewpoints have been clearly expressed. Even though this video does not explicitly represent either side(it's not suppossed to), it does give one of the best examples I can find for peace, worldwide or at home.

Many people think this song was written exclusively as an anti-war song. It was not! It was written about the overall violence in the world.

If we could just grasp what John is saying and apply it, well...Imagine.

Last post in this thread.


On a final note....thanks a lot Yoko!!!!


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RkZC7sqImaM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
Bogs,

I have seen you use this term "conflation" many times, but I am sorry to say I have never been able to figure out just what you mean. Although I know what the word means, I sometimes disagree with your application of the concept to some points of view with which you disagree. That's really just an aside, though. My main point is a follows:

I don't think the fact that the Secret Service is part of Sidwell's armed security force diminishes the fact this school, as part of its standard operating procedure knows that the best way to protect those kids from threats is with trained armed guards at that school. That is why others of the Washington D.C. elite (including NBC's David Gregory) send their kids there. They know that the kids will be protected.

It is also the reason why armed guards and some armed teachers are in every school in Israel. They also know that the best way to protect children from nuts who want to kill them, be they terrorists or just insane maniacs (like we have here) is to have a good guy with a gun to face the bad guy with the gun, not just some good person standing there (to quote a line from the Godfather) with nothing but his dick in his hand. I guess you can call this "conflation" or whatever other flaw of logic you may see, but I think the NRA is absolutely correct to say the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Hell, if that weren't the case, we'd send our soldiers to war armed with pious platitudes to use in reasoning with our enemies. And whether they are people trying to kidnap the President's kids, terrorists trying to kill Jews, or insane psyhcopaths intent on killing as many kids in as dramatic a fashion as possible, they are armed enemies. Doesn't matter, our kids deserve realistic and effective protection from these kind of enemies, not just another stupid government program, another few gun control laws to add to the over 20,000 that already exist, or more political wrangling over yet another civil rights issue. I abhor the fact that our society has come to this, but the fact is, it has and so we have to deal with where we are at.

Which, once again is the point I have been trying to make in this thread that obviously pkt77242 doesn't get and thinks is just bullshit (thanks for defending me, by the way). The very fact that we are having this debate, and that the necessity of putting armed guards in schools to protect our children is worthy of serious discussion, should, in my opinion, cause every one of us to do some real deep soul-searching as to why our society has gone in this direction. When my father was a kid in the late 40's, he and his buddies would all get on the school bus with their .22 rifles so they could go squirrel hunting right after school. They would put them behind the bus driver in the first seat, and when they got to school, they had to put them in their lockers. Nobody ever got shot, and nobody ever got bent out of shape, because nobody ever even dreamed of the idea that one of these kids was going to go nutso and start shooting his classmates. All I am saying is that this shooting, all the other ones, and all the other ever-increasing crazy violent **** that goes on really deserves a much deeper conversation about core issues that nobody seems to want to address. Just yesterday, I read that someone broke into the house of a 76 year old lady in Elkhart, Indiana, and savagely stabbed her to death for no apparant reason. This kind of **** happens all the time. Is the best we are going to be able to do is to start a debate about butcher knife control? Sometimes I think so. It seems that we, as a society, have lost the will and moral fortitude to really look at ourselves in the mirror and try to understand how the things we value and promote are really, in so many instances, just not all that good and can be directly and empirically related to the increasing number of ill-adjusted, depressed, mentally ill, directionless, and purely evil people who you have worry about committing these heinous types of acts. So, we can blah blah gun control and blah blah more governmental programs for the mentally ill and blah blah economy and on an on and on. But, my opinion is that so long as we live in a society where we, AS A MATTER OF LAW AND POLICY, devalue life, treat matters concerning it as matters of convenience and as commodities to be bought and sold, continue to diminish the importance of the nuclear family as the core building block of a healthy society, promote violence, promote instant gratification as the only value worth striving for, devalue the idea of commitment (and I don't mean the way recruits "commit"--what a laugh--there is no "de-commitment" to a true commitment), marginalize religious beliefs and immediatly deride and impugn any person who brings the idea of God into the public square, and on and on and on, we are just giving feel-good lip-service to the issues of the day, and not really doing anything to truly solve the core problem of the sick society we have created that turns out **** and filth and death in ever-increasing quantity. Pkt77242 doesn't think anything I have said is on the topic. I respectfully disagree--if the topic is trying to solve the problem of a society that produces psychos going into schools and killing kids, then I think I am more on topic than debates about the peripheral, but easy and temporary "solutions" that seem to be the hot topics of public debate. Some good evidence of that is that "gun control" and "violence in movies" and "mental health treatment programs" is all our politicians can talk about. And we all know how good they are at addressing real problems and finding real solutions.


Is this the other side of the spectrum of conservative thought?
 
Top