The Great Gun Debate

[nututhugame]

Again, I don't know man. In these political atmospheres, respecting a curve of understanding amongst those whom with you disagree, basically equates to making concessions to things you do not support and dumbing down to keep it easy on the ears of the politically sensetive. That kind of thing is what brought us the two major parties and the way things are now. Not too long ago some famous president completely switched parties, told a reporter to shut up(literally) at one point, and things of the like... and was loved for it.

I think it has a lot more to do with the two major parties having control over media, not allowing a Paul or Nader to get even close to the TV and debate time. They can't have Ron Paul embarrassing their star player on national TV.

I think he does have solutions as well, they just don't include the government being involved in and ruining everything. One major solution of his is bringing all troops home. That'd save a bundle. If that seems isolationist, i'm cool with it. I don't see why that is unreasonable. He wants the fed to be audited like everyone else. Can you imagine the dirty little secrets that would let out? The heads of powerfull men would be flying all over the place.

 

[EnglishGolfer]

This post is completely ridiculous.

I see you're taking the easy way out, as usual, by ignoring a perfectly good point. Granted it was somewhat inflammatory, but the point was that you can't commit the ultimate crime if you don't have the tools to do so. Why do you refuse to accept the logic? People are reactionary, emotional and inherently flawed so why on earth should they all be armed? Our police force recently looked again into whether they should carry guns and THEY voted resoundingly against them. One of the main reasons for this was that in the heat of the moment it is difficult to assess a situation logically and coolly. Maybe I could have used a better hypothetical example previously, but my point was the same.

 

[eclark53520]

I see you're taking the easy way out, as usual, by ignoring a perfectly good point. Granted it was somewhat inflammatory, but the point was that you can't commit the ultimate crime if you don't have the tools to do so. Why do you refuse to accept the logic? People are reactionary, emotional and inherently flawed so why on earth should they all be armed? Our police force recently looked again into whether they should carry guns and THEY voted resoundingly against them. One of the main reasons for this was that in the heat of the moment it is difficult to assess a situation logically and coolly. Maybe I could have used a better hypothetical example previously, but my point was the same.

Your logic is flawed. You expect laws to stop criminals that, by the very nature of the word criminal, don't follow laws.

Your police force can choose to do whatever they wish. How does that impact me or my choices? It doesn't.

You need to get over your 'we
're better' complex and realize that not everyone has to or even wants to emulate you or your country.

I thought the liberal mindset was tolerant? I, nor any of my law abiding gun carrying fiends, have done anything wrong.

As for your childish and purposefully inflammatory story posted before, I have already responded to it once. No i wouldn't shoot, it wouldn't even cross my mind. I know its hard for you to believe, but Im a normal human being that will walk away from all fights. Im not interested in fighting anyone for any reason. Threaten my life, or the lives of my family, and I will defend myself or my family. Period. If you don't put my life in danger, you have zero to worry about, regardless of how disrespectful you are to me.

I don't know how many times i have to explain that. If you don't believe me, that's fine. Quit asking me about it then.

 

[nututhugame]

I wonder how obnoxious someone would have to be before the pro gun lot would consider using it. I mean if they were right up in your face telling you how wrong you are, how ignorant, how stubborn and how simple minded you appear. Just imagine it, they're getting all animated about it - but not in a threatening way. Imagine your friends were there too and this person just talked over you every time you tried to make your counter argument. And what if they even pushedyou physically ?

I think that if it was on your hip and some mouthy Piers Morgan-like gobsh1te was embarrassing you, then you'dbe considering it .

Personally I'd be considering punching them in the face, but that would be the worst and most violent thing that I could consider let alone do. Unfortunately in life there are a huge number of morons, but what's even worse is that many of them have guns.

I think you are Piers Morgan. You're here taking on the guns on a second front... the internet. It's not going to work as well for you here because you can't yell over people here like you do on tv. I'm going to change the channel now like I do when I see you on tv. Good day.

 

[Wi-Golfer]

John/Zaphod, good to see you back here.

Dogfish, I think blunt is what this country needs. People don't want the truth, they want to be whispered sweet liitle lies and then go to sleep happy. I think the absolute blunt truth with no bs is exactly what's needed, unfortunately none of these pussified will ever do that because all they are concerned with is re-election and keeping the $$$ rolling into them. term limits for every single office in the USA would solve a lot of these issues, maybe then we would get people actually interested in helping the people and there would be no reason to bs because you would have a 2 term limit for everyone.

 

[nututhugame]

Hell to the yeah. Term limits. And when they are done they go back to civilian life. And no nice retirement or insurance after they are done taken right off the backs of taxpayers. It should be a public service of no longer than two terms, not a friggin career.

Anyways... back to guns. The NRA is calling for armed officers in every school. You will have different opinions on this depending where that opinion is coming from. Schools in the inner cities like Chicago, Baltimore, DC, etc... would probably love to have a police substation in their schools for a lot more reasons than massacres. Rural-ish type places didn't feel that need till now. None of them/us want to feel that need.

 

[zaphod]

Yo WiGolfer....Glad to see your are still fearless in speaking your mind clearly.

I would like to relate a story.

Today I met with our County Extension Agent. The conversation revealed he has an adapted son
( now18 y.o.) with Asperger's syndrome. Yep the same as the Connecticut school shooter. The son is brilliant in some manners yet as a cornerstone of Asperger's socially impaired. Aspergers could be defined as someone with either normal intelligence or at times specialized brilliance. The primary deficit is the lack of empathy of others. The ability to recognize visual clues of a glad or sad of human facial expression often is lacking. The notion of the joy of watching a football game with others completely foreign. Truly an island. Think "Rain Man" as an extreme case.

I will relate 2 points of the fore mentioned conversation to the Libertarianism discussion.

1st == Personal Responsibility.
The County Agent reflected "Why were their guns readily available in a house where an Asperger afflicted son lived?" The mother was an avid shooter and took her son to the range. But did not clearly think through her situation. We talk of the 26 school victims but she is the 27th, buried today.

The County Agent just completed filing for and receiving custodial care of is now ADULT son. A necessary event as Governmental agencies provide assistance to minimally to moderately impaired Asperger afflicted minors. But the shield goes away at adulthood. The world can be cruel and cold to man whose mind may function outside of a social average. Whether or not dangerously. Perhaps society maybe more dangerous to him.

2nd == Intrusive Projected Governmental Authority
During the Custodial Hearing the Judge tried to negate the Constitutional voting rights of the son. He is not a Felon! Born on United States soil! Generally if you met him in the grocery story you would not give the event a passing notice. Money needed to be spent upon retaining his rights as a citizen. Granted a citizen a bit out of the norm. But whose is to say you or I have not strayed from normal at one time. Actually the son is abnormal one amazing way. He is politically active, campaigning passionately for selected causes.

The story is similar to the cause so eloquently championed in the movie "LINCOLN".

These are real issues Ron Paul would be passionate about. Not the text book theory espoused in formal Political Debates.

Libertarianism seems foreign because it relies upon the idea all citizens must display PERSONAL INTEGRITY and RESPONSIBILITY. Only then can governmental intrusion be curbed. Chicken and the Egg. Which one needs to be the former and the latter?

BTW...The argument the NRA presented today insuring the armed guards would have prevented the school shooting incident assumes a normal rational thinking shooter. Being armed may reduce the count of victims but to presume a deterrence to the event is a stretch in this case. Is ten deaths less tragic than 26? I'm not saying armed guards are not an option. I am saying do not over reach the protection afforded. Simply put its a bit of gauze to slow the bleed.

 

[EnglishGolfer]

Just a little YouTube clip from some of your countrymenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlUSo7otKJ4&feature=youtube_gdata_player


I'd also like to point you in the direction of @davidfrum on Twitter and what he's tweeted in the last 24hours

 

[MCDavis]

Geez, take a few days off and this thread triples in length!

I didn't read everything from page 8 to page 24, so this may have been said already:

I saw some mentions about today's society. One thing I notice is how prevalent killing video games are with the kids. I have fought hard not to have them in our house, and I've lost to a degree: my boys have Call of Duty, but nothing else. Premise is that COD is military based, not just random death for fun. They are not allowed anything else in our house. Doesn't mean they don't see it elsewhere, but they are growing up knowing our feelings on it. And, they won't be allowed to play online with random people ever.

I think part of this is that you can play a game, watch a movie, tv show, etc and basically be shown that it's fun and cool to just commit random acts of violence. I really believe this is one of the problems with our society: too much acceptance of crap. And this spreads into everything: kids not winning and losing in sports, every child must get a trophy, students being given 15 chances to pass 1 test, students not having to pass their classes to be moved up to the next grade (yes, this happens regularly), violence and drugs in the video games, the whole "baby daddy" thing that's actually accepted in some places...the list goes on and on.

Do I think strict gun control will solve our problems? No, I really don't. I think parental controls and responsibility from birth (raising them right) and controlling what our children are exposed to a little better would do a better job than gun control. And I don't mean sheltering children, I mean being smart about what they're allowed to do. And frankly, I have no issue with part of that being a child learning the correct way to handle a gun, and the correct reasons to use a gun.

Oh, and I wasn't raised with guns, I'm not/never have been a hunter, I owned 2 handguns for a few years and then sold them. I'm not an NRA member and probably never will be.

 

[eclark53520]

Geez, take a few days off and this thread triples in length!

I didn't read everything from page 8 to page 24, so this may have been said already:

I saw some mentions about today's society. One thing I notice is how prevalent killing video games are with the kids. I have fought hard not to have them in our house, and I've lost to a degree: my boys have Call of Duty, but nothing else. Premise is that COD is military based, not just random death for fun. They are not allowed anything else in our house. Doesn't mean they don't see it elsewhere, but they are growing up knowing our feelings on it. And, they won't be allowed to play online with random people ever.

I think part of this is that you can play a game, watch a movie, tv show, etc and basically be shown that it's fun and cool to just commit random acts of violence. I really believe this is one of the problems with our society: too much acceptance of crap. And this spreads into everything: kids not winning and losing in sports, every child must get a trophy, students being given 15 chances to pass 1 test, students not having to pass their classes to be moved up to the next grade (yes, this happens regularly), violence and drugs in the video games, the whole "baby daddy" thing that's actually accepted in some places...the list goes on and on.

Do I think strict gun control will solve our problems? No, I really don't. I think parental controls and responsibility from birth (raising them right) and controlling what our children are exposed to a little better would do a better job than gun control. And I don't mean sheltering children, I mean being smart about what they're allowed to do. And frankly, I have no issue with part of that being a child learning the correct way to handle a gun, and the correct reasons to use a gun.

Oh, and I wasn't raised with guns, I'm not/never have been a hunter, I owned 2 handguns for a few years and then sold them. I'm not an NRA member and probably never will be.

You and I should really go golfing sometime.

 

[Slingblade61]

This is quite long, it fits my thoughts on the matter exactly.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

 

[Wi-Golfer]

And of course we now have the asshats on the various websites that sell guns who are marking them up to damn near double what they are worth.

 

[BigJim13]

Geez, take a few days off and this thread triples in length!

I didn't read everything from page 8 to page 24, so this may have been said already:

I saw some mentions about today's society. One thing I notice is how prevalent killing video games are with the kids. I have fought hard not to have them in our house, and I've lost to a degree: my boys have Call of Duty, but nothing else. Premise is that COD is military based, not just random death for fun. They are not allowed anything else in our house. Doesn't mean they don't see it elsewhere, but they are growing up knowing our feelings on it. And, they won't be allowed to play online with random people ever.

I think part of this is that you can play a game, watch a movie, tv show, etc and basically be shown that it's fun and cool to just commit random acts of violence. I really believe this is one of the problems with our society: too much acceptance of crap. And this spreads into everything: kids not winning and losing in sports, every child must get a trophy, students being given 15 chances to pass 1 test, students not having to pass their classes to be moved up to the next grade (yes, this happens regularly), violence and drugs in the video games, the whole "baby daddy" thing that's actually accepted in some places...the list goes on and on.

Do I think strict gun control will solve our problems? No, I really don't. I think parental controls and responsibility from birth (raising them right) and controlling what our children are exposed to a little better would do a better job than gun control. And I don't mean sheltering children, I mean being smart about what they're allowed to do. And frankly, I have no issue with part of that being a child learning the correct way to handle a gun, and the correct reasons to use a gun.

Oh, and I wasn't raised with guns, I'm not/never have been a hunter, I owned 2 handguns for a few years and then sold them. I'm not an NRA member and probably never will be.

I basically agree with what you say on video games. That point was discussed on Meet the Press last week. David Brooks pointed out that when mass shootings like this happen, most times the shooter has no history or very little history of video game play.

Not sure what, if anything, that proves. In my lifetime both TV (cable and network) and video games have become infinitely more violent, that I have seen with my own eyes and I can't imagine it helps anything.

 

[MCDavis]

You and I should really go golfing sometime.

I'd love it!

This is quite long, it fits my thoughts on the matter exactly.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

It is long, but I read/scanned most of it. I'm sure if I truly read it all, I would agree with about 99.9% of it (can't say 100% without doing the full read).

I basically agree with what you say on video games. That point was discussed on Meet the Press last week. David Brooks pointed out that when mass shootings like this happen, most times the shooter has no history or very little history of video game play.



Not sure what, if anything, that proves. In my lifetime both TV (cable and network) and video games have become infinitely more violent, that I have seen with my own eyes and I can't imagine it helps anything.

Even if they don't play the games, just the overall increased exposure to that mentality that it's cool. Also, as pointed out in Sling's link, the fact that these nuts become stars in the media. Not stars to us, but in their mind, getting their name on every newscast in the country makes them famous.

 

[BigJim13]

More gun control may not be the answer, but I don't think arming teachers is either. There is something wrong about having to send our kids to school with armed gurards. Maybe it's the generation I grew up in, having armed guards everywhere is the vision I have in my head when I think of Communism. Somebody watching every move, every little thing you do.

I know I am not articulating that well. Regardless, it won't ever happen.