The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:28 am

DCB wrote:Would the minimal four (or whatever) training really have helped if any of the people in Oak Creek had been carrying? Color me skeptical. I kind of doubt that training includes "how not to shit your pants and become paralyzed with fear when you suddenly find your house of worship under attack by a crazed shooter". Or, "how to safely identify and disable the attacker in a crowded building without hurting bystanders".

Guns don't defend people. People with proper training and preparation defend people.


No amount of training or even previous experience will necessarily prevent a person from crapping their pants or becoming paralyzed with fear.

"People with proper training and preparation defend people." You seem to be overlooking the fact that the first person on the scene with what you regard as "proper training and preparation" got leveled by the perp and put into the hospital in critical condition. But it's kind of cute how you are so willing to surrender your protection to another person who may or may not be there.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14150
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:34 am

I don't know and I don't care, but here's a word you've used yourself: risk. Whatever we do we're taking a risk: traffic crash, plane crash, fire in a crowded place, pedestrian or bike wreck, strange diseases being passed around, having a sudden stroke, weird emanations from cell phones, pesticides, you name it.

Anybody who thinks they can make enough countermoves to avoid all that is delusional, as you'd agree. Are you never going to eat food from a restaurant to avoid food poisoning? Are you never going to receive medical care because you might be exposed to HIV? Are you never going outside because a mosquito or tick might infect you with West Nile or Lyme? Are you never going to have children because one of them might die? Are you never going in a building because an earthquake could cause it to topple and crush you? Are you never doing anything at all because it could cause cancer?

Risk of being attacked is in the same category. Many of us elect to just keep living our lives. A few of us make one or more of these potential disasters the centerpiece of their reality. Apparently, the most likely personal disaster is a fatal car wreck, but nearly everyone goes in or around cars. What causes a person to fixate on one type of disaster over another is likely a matter of personal history.

If you choose to make gun attacks the centerpiece of your reality that's perfectly fine. Another person might make it medical problems, and receive a lot of EMT training to be in readiness. My dad was like that and I know of two instances where he saved someone's life (there might have been more -- he wasn't a talker). So if you sincerely want to save lives, you could take that route. Another person (like me) might just decide to live well in each day and assume something's going to get us all at some point. One person's insane risk is another person's totally irrelevant physical-plane randomness.

I'm not sure trying to convince other people that your own personal risk-issue is paramount is a fruitful pastime. Plenty of people have phobias and neuroses that take up a great deal of their time. If I obsessed about getting, say, cancer, I could spend half my time avoiding chemicals, getting tests, or taking supplements. Could you talk me out of it and convince me getting all wrapped up in guns is healthier? I doubt it.

I think the record on this forum shows this is one discussion that's not going much of anyplace.

Edited a bunch of times because I did not want to get too mean but I still wanted to make my point.
Last edited by snoqueen on Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:11 am, edited 4 times in total.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4366
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:41 am

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:You have no weapons on you. A guy is shooting at you with a gun from across the room. What defense does ninJaMan pull out of his bag of tricks?
Is this one of those riddles where we get to ask you "yes" or "no" questions and then at the end, we find out the shooter was jman's mom or something? 'Cuz I love those.

OK, I'll start: "Is the bag of tricks bigger than a breadbox?"

No, no, no. You totally missed it, Prof (and leave Mom out of this).

I have no weapons. But "ninJaMan" pulls out his .50 cal and takes out the shooter. Therefore, guns save lives. QED.

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jjoyce » Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:48 am

Nothing about this, the recent tragedy in Colorado, or any other instance of gun violence is "cute." The rhetoric surrounding most of these events, in abundant and disappointing evidence on this board, is tired.

We get it: Some of you are gun advocates. Some of you are gun opponents. The ensuing debate is meant to paint those who hold the opposite view as stupid, immoral, dangerous, "cute," or something else.

Am I the only one who finds that kind of chatter on a day like today incredibly insensitive and disrespectful to not only those who have died, but those whose jobs require that they walk around every day with deadly weapons strapped to their bodies, constantly wrestling with the morality of actually using them?

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4366
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:05 am

jjoyce wrote:Nothing about this, the recent tragedy in Colorado, or any other instance of gun violence is "cute."

I couldn't agree more. But you're the one that created THE gun thread, despite these gun-related topics deserving to be discussed distinctly.

Sadly, tragedies of varying sizes and shapes happen every day. So far they haven't stopped this world from spinnin'. Should the "chatter" wait 'til tomorrow? Next week? What is the appropriate waiting period?

What makes it insensitive today and not on a day when an 8 year old child dies of a shot to the head? Or a day when a spouse is gunned down in jealous rage?

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:42 am

jman111 wrote:Therefore, guns save lives. QED.


Thanks for that admission and for agreeing with me that the people at the theater were defenseless. I knew you'd come around.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:43 am

jjoyce wrote:Nothing about this, the recent tragedy in Colorado, or any other instance of gun violence is "cute."


I never said those things were cute, did I? But his childlike dependence on the police is cute, in a sad sort of way.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4366
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:57 am

Dangerousman wrote:the Taliban could take control of the USA

oh, this is fun

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:04 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Free speech and press are limited by libel and slander laws, although libel and slander can't kill.


I guess it never dawned on you that the Second Amendment was designed with killing in mind? Not criminal killing, but killing nonetheless. There's a time and place for everything and the Second Amendment protects the ability to do it when that time and place occur.

And think about this: The limitations on free speech and press limit the illegal activity only, not the instruments of those crimes. There's no law limiting your ability to own a printing press, a typewriter, computer, or megaphone. How would you like it if California outlawed a long list of models of computers? Or limited the operating speed of your computer? Or said that your megaphone couldn't have an output of more than 75 decibels? Or you were legally allowed to only post on this forum once a month?

I wouldn't mind direct answers to my questions for once.
Last edited by Dangerousman on Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:05 pm

jman111 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:the Taliban could take control of the USA

oh, this is fun


How is it possible? You have less than nothing.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4366
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:10 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
jman111 wrote:Therefore, guns save lives. QED.


Thanks for that admission and for agreeing with me that the people at the theater were defenseless. I knew you'd come around.

What was that about "less than nothing"? Your reliance on out-of-context quotes is "something"?

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23924
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:27 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Free speech and press are limited by libel and slander laws, although libel and slander can't kill.


I guess it never dawned on you that the Second Amendment was designed with killing in mind?

That was my point. Yet you don't want any limitations of those weapons that kill.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:28 pm

jman111 wrote:What was that about "less than nothing"? Your reliance on out-of-context quotes is "something"?


What do you expect to get when you avoid answering my question like the plague? Are you going to answer it, or STFU?

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:31 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Free speech and press are limited by libel and slander laws, although libel and slander can't kill.


I guess it never dawned on you that the Second Amendment was designed with killing in mind?

That was my point. Yet you don't want any limitations of those weapons that kill.


Well, answer the question: Do you think limitations on the instruments of speech and press would be good public policy, or constitutional?

You're the one making a comparison between 1st and 2nd Amendment limitations. Despite your reliance on it, there's really NO comparison is there?

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23924
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:49 pm

Dangerousman wrote: Do you think limitations on the instruments of speech and press would be good public policy, or constitutional?

You're the one making a comparison between 1st and 2nd Amendment limitations. Despite your reliance on it, there's really NO comparison is there?

Bullhorn use is already limited with regulations concerning time and place. They are constitutional. Yet you think citizens should be allowed to possess chemical and biological weapons.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest