Guns

[DanTSX]

Precisely because it does exist.  I am always fascinated by the response having something to do with "inner city" violence or something like that.  Paper*Boy is always on about that. I'm not talking about New Haven, I'm talking about Sandy Hook where today,  on my way home from my brother's I passed the firehouse next to what was the school adorned with 26 lighted angels. Newtown doesn't even plow Dickinson anymore. The school was in a cul de sac and it is completely razed.
Why did Nancy Lanza need an AR 15? Why does anyone? Why can't there be a reasoned set of what guns may be kept for hunting, target, and self defense?
Even though I am overall happy to see Bill DeBlasio become mayor of New York,  the police work of the NYPD (and stop and frisk) has cut the murders in a city of 8 million to less than 350. Why not adopt better enforcement standards like NYPD to keep people safe?

Why not an AR-15?

Nancy wasn't the violent malcontent here, was she? 

As far as anyone can tell, her AR-15 was purchased for Adam.  Stored in the arms locker in HIS room.

Why does someone need a large caliber bolt action rifle with scope that can reach out and kill at 4x the distance what an AR-15 can?  These are especially popular with hunters.  But someone set up to kill innocents with one could easily re-purpose it as such in order to avoid being located.

Why does someone need a Ruger 10/22?  You can kill more people for much less money with a .22LR.

If we are going to suppose that gun are singularly meant to kill people, we really should include all of them, as they are all deadly and specialized in various situations.

Questioning why Nancy Lanza needed an AR-15 does nothing to honor those children.  Neither does questioning why I need one.  The question, as you pose it, would be to ask gun owners what they are doing with their guns on a constant basis as if this would catch Lanza in the act.  Is that correct?

[SciFiAuthor]

Precisely because it does exist.  I am always fascinated by the response having something to do with "inner city" violence or something like that.  Paper*Boy is always on about that. I'm not talking about New Haven, I'm talking about Sandy Hook where today,  on my way home from my brother's I passed the firehouse next to what was the school adorned with 26 lighted angels. Newtown doesn't even plow Dickinson anymore. The school was in a cul de sac and it is completely razed.
Why did Nancy Lanza need an AR 15? Why does anyone? Why can't there be a reasoned set of what guns may be kept for hunting, target, and self defense?
Even though I am overall happy to see Bill DeBlasio become mayor of New York,  the police work of the NYPD (and stop and frisk) has cut the murders in a city of 8 million to less than 350. Why not adopt better enforcement standards like NYPD to keep people safe?

Well, firstly, an AR-15 isn't a 50 caliber. So you want to illegalize something without it ever having been shown to be a problem, and is unlikely to ever be a problem, because YOU think that it should be. That's the same thinking that brought about prohibition, actually. Tea drinking old ladies that wanted to take other people's pot and booze.

I don't get emotional over things like Adam Lanza. He was mentally ill and had subjected himself to years of violent imagery and then snapped. He would have killed people anyway, whether by driving a car into a crowd or a pipe bomb. The latter two would have been quasi-excusable, and there would have actually been some sympathy for him for having been mentally ill. I remember seeing that effect during 9/11; attempts on the left to shift the debate away from Islamic terrorism to US foreign policy as though that might mitigate calls for restricting Islamic immigration or enacting anti-terrorism laws.

But since Sandy Hook involved a gun, and gun control being a pet topic, the debate is emphasized. Now, it is thought that by illegalizing AR-15's we will be able to 1. Get anything close to all of them turned in instead of the owners simply hiding them and 2. Impact the rising incidences of mentally ill people attacking crowded places. No, actually banning AR-15's won't do either, so the whole thing is moot. Thus the end result is lefties sitting in Starbuck's sipping lattes over laptops doing the social activism back pat. Trouble is, it wouldn't have solved anything. It's just laws tossed up in the air.

[SciFiAuthor]

Just like you glanced by the statement that you have said nothing new. Like it or not, irrational or not, lots of people see it differently than you or I do. I am willing, since they also have a voice, to listen to them. Yeah, there are those that just want to stir the pot, so do many in the NRA.

I glanced by it because it's not something anyone would normally ask and I figured you were just trying to deflect some way or another. But if you want me to address it, alright, why would I hold an opinion back because it's "nothing new"? Why would you even ask me to? Let's establish that, shall we?

[onan]

I glanced by it because it's not something anyone would normally ask and I figured you were just trying to deflect some way or another. But if you want me to address it, alright, why the would I hold an opinion back because it's "nothing new"? Why would you even ask me to? Let's establish that, shall we?

I guess because I have been posting about firearms for more than a year. I guess, because I have explained myself several times, only to have yet another nitwit come bursting forth blaming liberals with the same irrationality they accuse others of.

[Ben Shockley]

I guess because I have been posting about firearms for more than a year...

Then surely, onan, you ought to "get it" by now!!
It's like this: the pants-pissing paranoids --excuse me: the law-abiding Patriots-- of America need their guns --of whatever type they have a whim for -- to keep the damn government from coming and taking their guns!  If you take away their guns, they won't have anything to keep the government from taking away their guns.
Could anything be more logical?

[onan]

Then surely, onan, you ought to "get it" by now!!
It's like this: the pants-pissing paranoids --excuse me: the law-abiding Patriots-- of America need their guns --of whatever type they have a whim for -- to keep the damn government from coming and taking their guns!  If you take away their guns, they won't have anything to keep the government from taking away their guns.
Could anything be more logical?

Thanks Ben, it isn't until I am neck deep, I remember I was going to stay away from the politics threads.

[SciFiAuthor]

I guess because I have been posting about firearms for more than a year. I guess, because I have explained myself several times, only to have yet another nitwit come bursting forth blaming liberals with the same irrationality they accuse others of.

Yeah, that's just whining. I am not those other people and it's not my problem that they've annoyed you. Man up, either take me point by point and let's see what rationality is, or concede.

[DanTSX]

Then surely, onan, you ought to "get it" by now!!
It's like this: the pants-pissing paranoids --excuse me: the law-abiding Patriots-- of America need their guns --of whatever type they have a whim for -- to keep the damn government from coming and taking their guns!  If you take away their guns, they won't have anything to keep the government from taking away their guns.
Could anything be more logical?

It's not really a left/right issue.

It's more of a control freak issue.  Plenty of conservatives would like to asses the suitability of my whims as well as liberals.

I don't care if you are conservative or liberal as long as you are not trying to asses the suitability of my whims when I want to purchase firearms.  I am perfectly capable of assessing my needs and making my choices all on my own.  And I shouldn't have to quantify them to anyone any more than I would have to quantify my opinion of a social or even entertainment matter to anyone but myself.  Certainly I have a right to both.  And I have a responsibility to only myself for both.

[Ben Shockley]

... let's see what rationality is, or concede.

Author, I think I "rationally" reduced the hard-core pro-gun argument to it's basis above.  Does my reduction look "irrational?"  Of course.  So is gun-rights fundamentalism and the blatant paranoia underlying it.

[DanTSX]

Author, I think I "rationally" reduced the hard-core pro-gun argument to it's basis above.  Does my reduction look "irrational?"  Of course.  So is gun-rights fundamentalism and the blatant paranoia underlying it.

Is it blatant paranoia when there are multi-million dollar efforts with nearly half of the federal legislature actively pushing to decompose the the entire firearms market to what effectively amounts to "steel and wood" hunting rifles?

I think the 1994 assault weapons ban was threat enough.   

Are they trying to take our guns, as in actively seize them?  No.

Are they trying to redefine the guns that they will put up with as only useful for the purposes of hunting white tail or plinking tin cans, with a duly issued permission slip that we must jump through hoops for?  Yes.

They don't want our guns.  They just want the scary looking guns.  Why are they so scared of these particular guns?

[onan]

Yeah, that's just whining. I am not those other people and it's not my problem that they've annoyed you. Man up, either take me point by point and let's see what rationality is, or concede.

Trust me I know what rationality is. I also know that trying to define that characteristic by third and fourth hand recounts is impossible. To attempt to understand another's point of view in this kind of forum is at best, futile. The fact that you use a taunt of man up shows me you are already irrational.

You are in a simplistic sense delusional. You seem to define your outrage as liberal against conservative. That in and of itself is irrational.

All I suggested is there needs to be a conversation. You jumped into the fray with something akin to liberals are too emotional.

Man up... good one.

[SciFiAuthor]

Author, I think I "rationally" reduced the hard-core pro-gun argument to it's basis above.  Does my reduction look "irrational?"  Of course.  So is gun-rights fundamentalism and the blatant paranoia underlying it.

Just looked like oversimplifications of the standard talking points dressed up as an attack on the conservatives to me. I didn't see any substance, per se. For example, paranoia. Um, when you want to ban something in anticipation that something bad might happen, then you're also being paranoid. In such a case, how can you logically make an argument that one side is being paranoid when your position is unabashedly based in paranoia? That's rational?

[onan]

It's not really a left/right issue.

It's more of a control freak issue.  Plenty of conservatives would like to asses the suitability of my whims as well as liberals.

I don't care if you are conservative or liberal as long as you are not trying to asses the suitability of my whims when I want to purchase firearms.  I am perfectly capable of assessing my needs and making my choices all on my own.  And I shouldn't have to quantify them to anyone any more than I would have to quantify my opinion of a social or even entertainment matter to anyone but myself.  Certainly I have a right to both.  And I have a responsibility to only myself for both.

I think responsibility goes a bit further, but that's me. Other than that, I agree with you.

[Ben Shockley]

It's not really a left/right issue.

Interesting that you would infer anything like that from my sarcasm.

...I am perfectly capable of assessing my needs and making my choices all on my own.  ...I have a responsibility to only myself...

We get it, Dan.  You're a stand-up guy who would never hurt anybody who, in your judgment, didn't damn well deserve to get blasted by whatever hardware you might be entrusted with.
Okay.  So are you and equally responsible people to be entrusted with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver same?  Yes, I'm serious.  We know that you are responsible to yourself, and you yourself would never use the nukes on anybody who didn't, in your judgment, deserve to get nuked; same for people "like you."
How big a bang does Dan trust himself with?  How much killing power should Dan and other Responsible People get to control?  I understand the argument for a pretty high limit: after all, you are responsible to yourself, so what could possibly go wrong?

Seriously -- what does Dan think is the top limit for what weapons that Responsible People should get to control.  Name the actual dividing line for us:  people should be able to own this but not this.  In your response, please remember that any weapon named might be stolen and used by nasty non-self-responsible people.

[SciFiAuthor]

Is it blatant paranoia when there are multi-million dollar efforts with nearly half of the federal legislature actively pushing to decompose the the entire firearms market to what effectively amounts to "steel and wood" hunting rifles?

I think the 1994 assault weapons ban was threat enough.   

Are they trying to take our guns, as in actively seize them?  No.

Are they trying to redefine the guns that they will put up with as only useful for the purposes of hunting white tail or plinking tin cans, with a duly issued permission slip that we must jump through hoops for?  Yes.

They don't want our guns.  They just want the scary looking guns.  Why are they so scared of these particular guns?

Because they look all assaulty with the black stocks and mean looking flash suppressors!

[Ben Shockley]

They don't want our guns.  They just want the scary looking guns.  Why are they so scared of these particular guns?

Assuming that you're right: Why are you so determined to own what you describe as "scary looking guns."
That's not meant as a rhetorical "gotcha."  I honestly mean, why are you either so enamored of "scary looking guns," and/or particularly worried that anyone else might lose their "scary looking guns?"

[onan]

Is it blatant paranoia when there are multi-million dollar efforts with nearly half of the federal legislature actively pushing to decompose the the entire firearms market to what effectively amounts to "steel and wood" hunting rifles?

I think the 1994 assault weapons ban was threat enough.   

Are they trying to take our guns, as in actively seize them?  No.

Are they trying to redefine the guns that they will put up with as only useful for the purposes of hunting white tail or plinking tin cans, with a duly issued permission slip that we must jump through hoops for?  Yes.

They don't want our guns.  They just want the scary looking guns.  Why are they so scared of these particular guns?

And if the NRA spent one tenth of their outreach educating the ignorant on what and how the term "assault" came into being, explained how weapons are similar and their purposes similar, they would be miles ahead of where they are now.

[SciFiAuthor]

Trust me I know what rationality is. I also know that trying to define that characteristic by third and fourth hand recounts is impossible. To attempt to understand another's point of view in this kind of forum is at best, futile. The fact that you use a taunt of man up shows me you are already irrational.

You are in a simplistic sense delusional. You seem to define your outrage as liberal against conservative. That in and of itself is irrational.

All I suggested is there needs to be a conversation. You jumped into the fray with something akin to liberals are too emotional.

Man up... good one.

You were the one dolling up an ad hominem by magically comparing me to Heston with NO BASIS from which to do so. You were trying to paint me, and I'm calling you on it. You are avoiding taking me point by point for some reason. That indicates to me that I must have said something that did not compute and you couldn't think of a way to refute it, so you shifted off into the ether of ad hominem. So yeah, you started that shit, so man up and let's get into the details and see what's truly rational. 

[Ben Shockley]

...when you want to ban something in anticipation that something bad might happen, then you're also being paranoid. In such a case, how can you logically make an argument that one side is being paranoid when your position is unabashedly based in paranoia? That's rational?

Wrong.
I don't go through every day worried that someone will buy and own a gun.  I have absolutely no part of my self-esteem nor world-view tied up with whether or not anyone else owns or doesn't own a gun.  I have no vision that there is a conspiracy to give people guns.  In short, I am not fixated on it nor delusional about the issue, thus not paranoid.   Are those about the right criteria, Onan?

On the other hand, the gun-rights fundamentalists seem to be the opposite on all those counts.  They go through life worried about whether they can own certain guns and whether someone is going to take away their guns.  Their self-esteem and world-view is tied up with owning guns and the powers they believe that gun ownership gives them.   Most believe that there is a conspiracy to take away their guns and thus strip them of the powers that the guns give them.  Thus, they are fixated and delusional about it.

See the difference?

[onan]

You were the one dolling up an ad hominem by magically comparing me to Heston with NO BASIS from which to do so. You were trying to paint me, and I'm calling you on it. You are avoiding taking me point by point for some reason. That indicates to me that I must have said something that did not compute and you couldn't think of a way to refute it, so you shifted off into the ether of ad hominem. So yeah, you started that shit, so man up and let's get into the details and see what's truly rational.

oh ffs I was speaking in the general. I wasn't calling you chuck. Paint you... If I wanted to paint you, it would be obvious. I would say SciFi... you are just like heston. I am sorry you took it the way you did.

Stop making so many assumptions. I assure you I am not calling you names. Although at this point I want to.

[SciFiAuthor]

Wrong.
I don't go through every day worried that someone will buy and own a gun.  I have absolutely no part of my self-esteem nor world-view tied up with whether or not anyone else owns or doesn't own a gun.  I have no vision that there is a conspiracy to give people guns.  In short, I am not fixated on it nor delusional about the issue, thus not paranoid.   Are those about the right criteria, Onan?

On the other hand, the gun-rights fundamentalists seem to be the opposite on all those counts.  They go through life worried about whether they can own certain guns and whether someone is going to take away their guns.  Their self-esteem and world-view is tied up with owning guns and the powers they believe that gun ownership gives them.   Most believe that there is a conspiracy to take away their guns and thus strip them of the powers that the guns give them.  Thus, they are fixated and delusional about it.

See the difference?

You are in a thread discussing gun laws . . .

I don't know how that can imply a separation from the issue.

But that wasn't what I said. I said the argument against gun rights is paranoid in itself by its nature. If you want guns banned it's because you think something bad will happen in the future to such an extent that legislation is needed. That's every bit as paranoid as someone scared that legislation will be enacted. So no, there is no difference.

[Ben Shockley]

You are in a thread discussing gun laws . . .
I don't know how that can imply a separation from the issue.
...no, there is no difference.

There's a hell of a difference.
I have an opinion, which I am in here stating, but my life isn't built around it.
A lot of people with the opposite opinion do build their lives around it, or certainly state their opinion with a quasi-religious fervor that implies that they think it's a matter of life-and-death.
That's the difference.

[Kate the Bionic Uterus]

I'm not afraid of the government stealing my right to own and shoot guns... I'm afraid of the people that are afraid of the government coming to take their rights away from them... huh... wha?

[SciFiAuthor]

oh ffs I was speaking in the general. I wasn't calling you chuck. Paint you... If I wanted to paint you, it would be obvious. I would say SciFi... you are just like heston. I am sorry you took it the way you did.

Stop making so many assumptions. I assure you I am not calling you names. Although at this point I want to.

Why am I like Heston? He made the case that people would have to pry a musket from his "cold dead hands." I'd sooner cut my own lips off than make that argument. If I thought gun laws would work and weren't just some bullshit for activist types to pat themselves on the back over and think they accomplished something, then I would be the first person to hand over the goods and declare good riddance.

You guys think I'm a conservative. I'm not. I'm a Pragmatist. I would institute Marxist Socialism tomorrow . . . if it worked and resulted in the greatest prosperity for the most people. It doesn't. Likewise I would institute absolute libertarianism . . . if it worked, under the same auspices. It doesn't.

But to do anything meaningful will require people to stop fucking with each other. When someone advances the concept of writing a law that they know won't work and then places the root cause of the problem out of bounds in order to focus on a symptom, then they are simply out to fuck with the other side. That's counterproductive and won't solve shit.

[onan]

Wrong.
I don't go through every day worried that someone will buy and own a gun.  I have absolutely no part of my self-esteem nor world-view tied up with whether or not anyone else owns or doesn't own a gun.  I have no vision that there is a conspiracy to give people guns.  In short, I am not fixated on it nor delusional about the issue, thus not paranoid.   Are those about the right criteria, Onan?

On the other hand, the gun-rights fundamentalists seem to be the opposite on all those counts.  They go through life worried about whether they can own certain guns and whether someone is going to take away their guns.  Their self-esteem and world-view is tied up with owning guns and the powers they believe that gun ownership gives them.   Most believe that there is a conspiracy to take away their guns and thus strip them of the powers that the guns give them.  Thus, they are fixated and delusional about it.

See the difference?

I agree with your first paragraph. the second is a bit too broad. I am certain there is some truth to it. But I know lots of gun owners that are avid yet not all that concerned to any thought of losing their guns. But there are some, sure.

[SciFiAuthor]

There's a hell of a difference.
I have an opinion, which I am in here stating, but my life isn't built around it.
A lot of people with the opposite opinion do build their lives around it, or certainly state their opinion with a quasi-religious fervor that implies that they think it's a matter of life-and-death.
That's the difference.

No, I think you were just taking a poke at the conservatives. You're also attempting to take the argument on one end singularly, i.e. you don't build your life around it. That allows you to ignore liberals that do build their life around the idea of banning guns. But to the opposition, you apply a global rule of thumb, as though there aren't gun owners who support gun rights but don't build their life around it. That's rational?

[onan]

Why am I like Heston? He made the case that people would have to pry a musket from his "cold dead hands." I'd sooner cut my own lips off than make that argument. If I thought gun laws would work and weren't just some bullshit for activist types to pat themselves on the back over and think they accomplished something, then I would be the first person to hand over the goods and declare good riddance.

You guys think I'm a conservative. I'm not. I'm a Pragmatist. I would institute Marxist Socialism tomorrow . . . if it worked and resulted in the greatest prosperity for the most people. It doesn't. Likewise I would institute absolute libertarianism . . . if it worked, under the same auspices. It doesn't.

But to do anything meaningful will require people to stop fucking with each other. When someone advances the concept of writing a law that they know won't work and then places the root cause of the problem out of bounds in order to focus on a symptom, then they are simply out to fuck with the other side. That's counterproductive and won't solve shit.

I don't think you are heston. I should have constructed a better sentence. I am sorry.

I completely agree that many of the laws written regarding firearms are worthless. I also believe, that those laws go both ways. The problem as I see it is politicians are more concerned with getting reelected than understanding any issue (with rare exceptions). Again going both ways.

[Ben Shockley]

I agree with your first paragraph. the second is a bit too broad. I am certain there is some truth to it. But I know lots of gun owners that are avid yet not all that concerned to any thought of losing their guns. But there are some, sure.

Okay, but it's the nuts I'm specifically referring to, and they are most definitely worried about losing their guns --as evidenced by the very fact of their opposition to any gun control.  And the reasons behind that are what makes them nuts.

[onan]

Okay, but it's the nuts I'm specifically referring to, and they are most definitely worried about losing their guns --as evidenced by the very fact of their opposition to any gun control.  And the reasons behind that are what makes them nuts.

Yep, just go to any gun forum... you will see some pretty paranoid rants.

[Ben Shockley]

Yep, just go to any gun forum... you will see some pretty paranoid rants.

And as you undoubtedly know, there is no reasoning with the truly paranoid: the very absence of proof of the stuff they claim is, to them, further proof of just how diabolically clever the "conspiracy" is; the fact that the stuff they predict never happens is just proof that the "conspirators" --who really exist, you see-- were just scared off or made to delay things by THEIR (the paranoids') vigilance!
And the fact that gun fundamentalists (and specifically, those who see a big "gun grab" coming [but that never happens] every time a Democratic President is in office) fit this pattern tells me, for one, that they are loons.  Excuse the non-clinical terminology, but hey -- we're beyond clinicality; this is political, baby!