Firearms and Freedom

[Tiassa]

If your government turned to tyranny, would you fight for freedom?

Let us be clear about the question: If the government turned to tyranny specifically against white, Christian males, would I fight for freedom?

The answer is a calculated gamble; personally, I'll worry about what to do when that sort of useless revolution arrives.

Thus far? Notice that women and people of color haven't killed all the white men, yet. The government doesn't need to turn to tyranny; it's already there.

No, really, think of it this way: Why did the Moroni Snack Club go to Middle of Nowhere, Oregon? If they really wanted to fight tyranny, they probably could have done so at home.

But it seems rather quite obvious that they didn't stage their armed insurrection at a police facility in Cleveland. Or New York. Or Baltimore. Or Seattle. Or anywhere else. They went out to Oregon to shit all over the Paiute.

It must feel great to hold a gun and dream about fighting against tyranny.

I would imagine it a bit scarier to actually take that gun and do so.

When the Second Amendment advocates relying on questions of tyranny actually do something about the tyranny we all endure every day―given how many of them enjoy privilege under that tyranny, such a day is not coming soon―perhaps the question will have seem more useful.

Who defines tyranny?

Because as long as the tyrannys aimed against people of color, non-Christians, and women, this firearms advocacy crowd doesn't seem interested in fighting back.

And in the current application, I would simply note that ignoring suppression of speech in order to demand answers to fantasy tyranny does not seem especially productive.

 

[Magical Realist]

One thing that is not discussed is, people who are afraid of guns, will see guns differently than someone who is not afraid. If you compared a good swimmer to someone who is totally afraid the water, which of the two will see the need to post signs and places fences near any water hole? People will project their insecurities, often assume everyone sees it the same way, so they feel a need to help others. This is not rational and should not be how culture makes decisions. One cannot depend on the irrational to see what is best for all.

Sex Education is taught in school so the children can be more objective to the pro's and con's of sex. What would happen is children were given gun education, so they can see the reality guns, and not guns in terms of irrational insecurities and propaganda? Why is one allowed and the other not, if the goal are smart children who can make good decisions?

I am not a hunter, nor do I own guns, not do I collect guns. However, I have, over the years, held and fired guns ranging from handguns, to hunting rifles to shot guns. Over the years I took advantage of the opportunity to play with guns, to touch reality, like a scientist, and not just live in communal fantasy. It was a little scary, the first time, due to preconceived expectations from propaganda and from irrational people. I learned that guns are not alive, but need a human to fire them. Much of my early fear was the gun just going off without me, which is not all that likely. It was not alive.

My current attitude toward guns is these inanimate objects can be dangerous, if one is not aware of how they work. A machine that stamps metal parts can be very dangerous, if you are afraid of it, and don't want to know how it works.. My suggestion is to be a scientist and touch hard reality. Then you compare this data to your learned expectations to get a more objective picture. Then will all the data in tow, you decide the path for you.

Liberalism appears to teach reverse cause and affect. They assume the killer with the gun is being led by the gun. If we get rid of the guns the killer can't be lead astray. If this was true, everyone would be afraid of a gun, since a gun might start to bully you, like the Serpent in the tree, and force you to do things you never thought about.

This type of collective fantasy is why you need to go near an unloaded gun, lift it up, to see it is not alive. Guns need humans to make all the choices for the gun. Guns are a means to end, not the master mind. The master mind begins in humans and often comes from the same place insecurities dwell.

I'm not afraid of guns. I trained in the military how to shoot one. What scares me is people who are themselves so scared of others and incapable of getting along with others that they think they need to carry a gun to feel safe. What scares me is the mentality that more guns distributed among the public equates to a safer world. It doesn't. It means people are resorting to violence to solve the problem of violence, and that's a fallacy. More guns = more chances to use a gun = more violence. If you live such a life that you need to carry a gun to feel safe, you need to think about changing how you live. Shooting someone isn't a solution to anything. It's the problem to begin with.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Neither does your opinion make for any fact, other than the fact of your opinion

which was my point: as you can't demonstrate that responsible gun owners are not punished, or that "actually expecting them to be responsible" is something we consider to be wrong
this is your opinion
not a fact of life - considering the sheer volume of gun owners i would say that the bulk of gun owners are responsible

The "responsible gun owner" who shot someone in a movie theater last year? Or how about the one who shot someone in a movie theater this year↱?

ROTFLMFAO
so... you are going to demonstrate that responsible gun owners aren't responsible by talking about criminals and stupid (or irresponsible) gun owners and then labeling them "responsible gun owners"????
this is exactly what you did last time when you linked the father who shot his son!
it is also NOT a representation of responsible gun ownership any more than linking any random male criminal incarcerated for pedophilia is representation of all males in the state of said criminal's birth!

that is the problem with making your argument, T...
if you want to show how responsible gun owners are not being responsible, then when you link something negative like the above, you are, by definition, linking a demonstration of an irresponsible gun owner!

Ok, so... take another example: just last week i entered a theater and watched a movie. I can state, with absolute certainty, that there were at least 13 armed CC carrying responsible gun owners.
nothing happened.

What I'm after is that every "responsible gun owner" is a "responsible gun owner" until one day they suddenly aren't.

so your argument is to punish those who are regularly responsible?
that doesn't make sense... taking the same logical thought process:
every responsible citizen is a responsible citizen until the day they become a criminal, therefore it stands to reason, using your logic, we should just incarcerate all people

same exact logic, same exact argument, same exact point

In the end, what the "responsible gun owners" seem to want is great license to be irresponsible.

nope.
you would have a better argument if all the gun laws on record were actually enforced as written... you know that, right?
this was a point i made to you last time

And out of all of them, there are only two I know who would accept my simple proposition: Have all the guns and bullets you want; you're accountable under law for every one of them.

more than two... this is actually part of the law, you know
what you don't like (and have noted in the past) is when criminals get into the mix

how can a "responsible gun owner" be held responsible for an action a criminal takes against him?

now, considering you ARE responsible for your weapon, ammo under the law, why are you arguing this point?
are you saying that everyone should be responsible for every bullet even if it gets stolen?
because that doesn't make sense legally, per the constitution, nor with common sense... it's like making a victim responsible for all the damage a car-jacker does after the theft of said vehicle!

Hey, I got one for you: Does the "responsible gun owner" have an obligation to make sure nobody is on the target range before shooting?

Yes, they do
in fact, the most basic of all safety measures is:
1- there is NO such thing as an unloaded gun
2- always make sure of your target and what is beyond it

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Why do I ask?

No reason↱. After all, they're "responsible gun owners". And then one day one of them wasn't.

one more point WRT your interpretations of "responsibility" and "Accident"

if you are driving down the road and you turn on your turn signal, and someone decides to pass you: are you responsible for the crash or is the passing vehicle responsible for overtaking on the left when you had a signal on?

reality: you would be responsible for not insuring the way was clear before turning

so who is the problem in the above scenario? the aggressive passing driver or you?
technically YOU are the fault, therefore problem. per the law, that is

however, most people would say the aggressive driver

lesson: don't let the actions of a few bad apples cloud your vision about the whole

EDIT: another good example that is also a good analogy
You are not advocating the removal of all CARS because of a few irresponsible DUI drivers, cell phone users, or because of the occasional accident that happens...
considering you are not focused on the TOOL being used in that situation, why focus on the TOOL being used in irresponsible gun owners?

it is not the TOOL that is at fault!

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

the following are points that i think should be talked about, so i removed the posters info and left them as just quotes

What scares me is people who are themselves so scared of others and incapable of getting along with others that they think they need to carry a gun to feel safe

ok... just wondering out loud...
isn't that the same kind of paranoia as being "so scared of others and incapable of getting along with others that they think they need to carry a gun to feel safe"????

What scares me is the mentality that more guns distributed among the public equates to a safer world. It doesn't. It means people are resorting to violence to solve the problem of violence, and that's a fallacy. More guns = more chances to use a gun = more violence.

so, considering that logic and applying it to a state where "The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 34" are armed Switzerland should have a much higher gun death/crime rate than any comparable sized population or area, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

and before you mention the whole "are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training" part, consider the current laws WRT concealed carry (requires training). Now, you can't actually train someone who lives in a society that will not allow you to train becuase it won't allow you to arm yourself...
nor can you train if the paranoid populace determines that any gun owner is "irresponsible" or can be a potential threat, therefore it must be prohibitively expensive to actually operate or use a gun (which would allow only the rich and specifically paid professionals to use firearms - which is where the problem starts)

now, i am NOT against training people in safety and use. i am prior service too. i've never been against the safe operation of a firearm.
But taking away a constitutional right isn't going to help people any more than making it insanely expensive will

If you live such a life that you need to carry a gun to feel safe, you need to think about changing how you live. Shooting someone isn't a solution to anything

i actually agree with this... and shooting someone is always a last resort situation that should only be considered in life threatening situations... judgement call... and law determines the legality after the fact

most responsible gun owners i know believe this way too, BTW

BUT - it also doesn't help those who are too poor to actually do anything about "changing how you live" though... consider that for a moment

choice:
1- a firearm for defense in a crime riddled neighborhood (depending on weapon: $50-$1,000)
2- Moving to another neighborhood that you can afford (moving costs can start with Gas money/transportation, deposits, cleaning/repairs of old place, etc...)

now, some people really don't make enough money to actually live on. Personally, i don't make enough to actually tax, per the IRS... so where would that leave someone like me living in, say... South Miami, or Chicago, or NYC... or LA????
not a real choice to tell the truth: i could save up for a firearm a lot faster than i could for a move

it isn't a good solution, but it may well be the only solution for some folk

.

which brings us full circle, really...

the core problem is not the tool... it is the violence being used by the person using the tool

 

[Magical Realist]

ok... just wondering out loud...
isn't that the same kind of paranoia as being "so scared of others and incapable of getting along with others that they think they need to carry a gun to feel safe"????

LOL! Point taken. But at least my fear is based on some actual evidence:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

now, i am NOT against training people in safety and use. i am prior service too. i've never been against the safe operation of a firearm.
But taking away a constitutional right isn't going to help people any more than making it insanely expensive will

Can we be sure those who carry guns are actually trained to use them? How would we determine that? Also, does the constitution guarantee the right to CARRY a gun? As far as I know there are many places where guns are banned. You can't get past airport security with a gun. Has any right been taken away? I don't think so. The need of passenger safety trumps any right to carry a gun. Why shouldn't the same logic apply to all public situations?

it isn't a good solution

, but it may well be the only solution for some folk

People can change their lives given the motivation. Moving isn't that expensive. A rented u-haul to a better neighborhood. Also you can change the people you hang out with, the places you go. I don't agree that just being poor means you need to carry a gun to be safe. If someone's going to shoot you it will happen way to quick for you pull out your gun anyway.

the core problem is not the tool... it is the violence being used by the person using the tool

People who don't carry guns are 100% less likely to use them. That much I know.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

But at least my fear is based on some actual evidence:

that's an article. or did you mean the study it discussed?
i will read the study and seek more information before i reply to it, ok?
thanks

Can we be sure those who carry guns are actually trained to use them?

No. but that is the question that should be addressed long before actually disarming the public, don't you think?
I mean, i don't know a single CC holder who isn't trained to use a firearm (it is a legal requirement to demonstrate proficiency)
I also don't know any gun owners not trained... i could use a LOT more range time but i'm poor...
Also note: my meat mostly comes from my shooting.

How would we determine that?

you know, that is actually a good question.
now... to get a hunting license around here as a minor you MUST not only obtain a certificate of safety but also demonstrate proficiency with a weapon (which includes safety).

Also, does the constitution guarantee the right to CARRY a gun?

some people say no... i think, considering the historical era and examples of the day would say YES, emphatically, as almost everyone carried a weapon during the authorship of said amendments.
now, some claim that whole "militia" part is the important part and that weapon owners should be a part of a militia... however, if you look (again) at the examples of the era of authorship, you see that militia were conscripted from the general public, and they also required you to bring your own gun, powder and ball. Militia also would buy your weapon, powder and ball... but it was then charged against you and you paid for it, making it yours.
Taking that and extrapolating it: if you want to build a militia from the public it must be armed to actually perform it's duties

now look at today: some claim that this should not be the case. but what is the option?
cops?
there is no guarantee that you will see one in a timely fashion, NOR is there a guarantee that anything will be done. and that is an important point... i had a drunk psychotic man running around my property threatening to kill my family and me... the cops said they couldn't do anything because said drunk claimed it was HIS property, so it was a court decision. it took them 13 minutes to respond (quite quick considering my rural location)...

what should i have done had i been unarmed?

As far as I know there are many places where guns are banned

and some of these are stupid, IMHO... but that is a different topic.

You can't get past airport security with a gun.

actually, it is easier than you think. you might not be able to get them specifically through the scans (depending) but that doesn't mean airports/planes are safe at all...
just sayin'

The need of passenger safety trumps any right to carry a gun. Why shouldn't the same logic apply to all public situations?

1- confined pressurized metal tube above the earth @ 25,000+ feet moving in excess of 300Mph is not the same as being "in public"... especially considering the whole pressurized tube thingy. Different story. LOL
also- it doesn't mean there aren't guns on the plane...

2- response time of an authority in a confined space with limited options is not the same as being in public with freedom of movement and far greater masses... see above argument about the drunk idiot.

self preservation is built into us from the start by nature. To limit that by hamstringing the general public is wrong... you wouldn't put Average Joe criminal in an MMA ring with Granny Muffinbaker would you?
which is a primary argument of the 2nd amendment - self preservation.

Moving isn't that expensive.

i disagree. it isn't expensive to you... so that is a subjective opinion that changes with every person
as i said, i am poor. i don't even make enough to pay taxes... where would i find the money for a move?
you say

A rented u-haul to a better neighborhood

but think on that just for a moment... just the cost of a SMALL u-haul truck or trailer...

I don't agree that just being poor means you need to carry a gun to be safe.

now, i didn't say that... i said that there is a financial argument that you are not considering
just think on that

If someone's going to shoot you it will happen way to quick for you pull out your gun anyway.

this is called an ASSumption...
this is not always the case: the best weapon you have is your brain...
taking that into consideration, tis better to be prepared than not
which leads us back to the weapon

I would rather have one and never need it than be told i can't have one and need it.

People who don't carry guns are 100% less likely to use them. That much I know.

no, they may be 100% less likely to use their own gun that they carry... but that doesn't make your statement true at all

this is like saying we need more gun laws!
- we don't actually use the laws we have! ...so why make more laws when we don't enforce the laws we DO have?

try this:
go to gang-central in LA, NYC, Chicago, Miami or any major city.
now, most gangs i've ever seen/been around require an initiation into said Gang, usually involving a felony
felons can't carry or own weapons (or congregate with other known felons, weapons owners etc)
by law, they are to be the "100%" who don't carry weapons who are "less likely to use them"

Now, while you are in Gang-Central... count the felons who are armed. and remember, by law, they are required to be the "100% who don't carry", they are not allowed to own a gun and are legally listed as not owning a gun, and they'll be represented as such in a "study" unless otherwise proven to be armed at the time of a study.

this makes several points:
1- we don't actually enforce the laws we have
2- those who shouldn't have them don't get them by legal means
3- the tool is not the problem; the user is
4- just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you aren't capable of or likely to use one

The problem is not the gun. its the violence and the people using the gun.

take care of the problem and the whole "right to own guns" is a non-issue because it will not be a problem

 

[Magical Realist]

No. but that is the question that should be addressed long before actually disarming the public, don't you think?
I mean, i don't know a single CC holder who isn't trained to use a firearm (it is a legal requirement to demonstrate proficiency)
I also don't know any gun owners not trained... i could use a LOT more range time but i'm poor...
Also note: my meat mostly comes from my shooting.

Why can't we provide some kind of test for gun carrying, like we have a test to drive a car?

Taking that and extrapolating it: if you want to build a militia from the public it must be armed to actually perform it's duties

This is the 21st century. Our govt already has a well-trained and well-armed militia called the National Guard. There is absolutely no reason to rely of farmer Billy Bob and his 8 cousins with their shotguns to defend the people. There was back in the old days. But times have changed. There is no need for anyone to have to bear arms other than hunting or protecting their home. The old militia argument no longer applies.

this is called an ASSumption...
this is not always the case: the best weapon you have is your brain...
taking that into consideration, tis better to be prepared than not
which leads us back to the weapon

I would rather have one and never need it than be told i can't have one and need it.

It's a reasonable assumption to think that carrying a gun is not near as protective as say wearing a bullet proof vest. At least you have a better chance of not being killed with a vest. Why don't gun carriers wear bullet proof vests if they're so worried about being shot it public? Seems it would fit right along with their whole paranoid mindset. Maybe they're really more interested in playing out some Bruce Willis movie fantasy of shooting terrorists and gang bangers than just protecting themselves eh?

no, they may be 100% less likely to use their own gun that they carry... but that doesn't make your statement true at all

A person not carrying any gun is not carrying any gun, whether it is their own or one stolen or borrowed. My rule applies equally well to felons who carry illegally. The logic is the same. If it is safer for society that a felon not be allowed to carry a gun, why isn't it safer for society for everybody not to carry a gun?

Oh and I checked on places where guns are banned. Bars and places that serve alcohol. The post office. All govt buildings. Hospitals. Schools. Even federal cemetaries. Why aren't the gun carriers complaining about these rules violating their constitutional rights? Unless ofcourse the very idea of carrying a gun in public is itself problematic and subject to regulation.

 

[Oystein]

I can't wait for a future when everyone is packing. We should start now to arm grade school children . . . get them used to it. Old folks dying in the hospital (in fact, anyone dying) should have a gun under their pillow . . . just in case. You never know. A wonderful development: In Texas, students on college campuses will be packing . . . yeeehaaa!! Guns at soccer matches and in bars is the epitome of smart legislation. There should be nowhere a gun can't go. Hey, that's catchy. "Nowhere a gun can't go". I wonder if I can find a bumper sticker . . . Amazon maybe?

 

[Bells]

EDIT: another good example that is also a good analogy
You are not advocating the removal of all CARS because of a few irresponsible DUI drivers, cell phone users, or because of the occasional accident that happens...

That is why there are laws against driving while intoxicated and driving while holding your mobile phone to your face and talking on it.

Do you understand how your argument is disingenuous?

Like your comments above about irresponsible gun owners. Those gun owners were responsible, until they did something and they became "irresponsible". Like the woman who kept her loaded gun in a handbag that is designed to keep her gun safe, and her young son took the gun out and shot her in the head while they were out shopping. Under most circumstances, people would assume keeping a gun in a specially designed handbag for "gun safety" is responsible. But she wasn't responsible, was she? Because she allowed her loaded gun to remain in the company of her child who ultimately killed her with it.

And that's the thing with "responsible" gun owners. It doesn't take much to make them absolutely irresponsible and the result of that is someone will either be injured or killed.

considering you are not focused on the TOOL being used in that situation, why focus on the TOOL being used in irresponsible gun owners?

The tool that should be focused on are the people themselves. It's why people who are caught drink driving and over the limit, often lose their right to drive a car. Yet in the US, the Constitution is being used to declare that even dangerous and mentally ill people have a "right" to own a gun. I'll put it this way, there is currently a case heading to the Supreme Court in the US, for domestic abusers to be allowed to own a gun. Apparently to many, smacking around and beating up one's spouse should not deny them their constitutional rights to own a gun. Despite the fact that guns in domestic violence situations is 5 times more likely to result in the gun being used against the victim of said domestic violence and killing them.

So would domestic violence offenders be responsible or irresponsible gun owners? I have to ask because if beating up one's spouse is not enough to discount someone from owning a gun, what is?

it is not the TOOL that is at fault!

It is the tool who wields the tool that is the problem and the question remains, how and why is the tool allowed to own and use guns to begin with. And having the tool be able to easily obtain "the tool" is the problem. And yet, people pitch fits at the mere mention of gun control to prevent 'tools' from being able to access guns.

i had a drunk psychotic man running around my property threatening to kill my family and me... the cops said they couldn't do anything because said drunk claimed it was HIS property, so it was a court decision. it took them 13 minutes to respond (quite quick considering my rural location)...

what should i have done had i been unarmed?

So you killed him?

How did your gun keep you safe? I am assuming you used your gun, yes? Shot him? Injured him with it? Surely you must have used it against him, yes?

this is called an ASSumption...
this is not always the case: the best weapon you have is your brain...
taking that into consideration, tis better to be prepared than not
which leads us back to the weapon

I would rather have one and never need it than be told i can't have one and need it.

You mean like Joe Zamudio?

"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.​

When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.​

The shooting in question is the mass shooting that left 6 dead and Gabby Giffords with life changing head injuries. And the people who disarmed the shooter were all unarmed. And there was Mr Zamudio, who not only nearly shot and killed an innocent and true hero who had tackled the gunman, but then also tackled the innocent bystander who had disarmed the shooter. Luck indeed.

Mr Zamudio was prepared and ready. He even took the safety off before he got to the scene of the shooting and he was ready to shoot and it was sheer luck that he did not shoot the innocent bystander who had tackled the shooter and disarmed him.

Does being prepared and ready factor in sheer dumb luck as well? Or is that agiven?

2- those who shouldn't have them don't get them by legal means

Of the last 75 or so mass shootings in the US, over 3/4 of the guns in the possession of the killers were obtained legally. Put simply, over 75% of the guns in the possession of mass shooters were legally obtained.

So you were saying?

 

[Dr_Toad]

I'm not going to try to address all the responses since my last, except for the idiocy of the obvious troll second above this. (Sorry, Stumpy. Had to edit, y'see?)

Do you live in an area where the kids can tell the difference between a gunshot and a backfire? Can you shoot, or are you scared of someone who can?

Do you really think legislation will save you? When trouble is at your door or in your frickin' house already, the police are only minutes away (or hours, if you live in many places that aren't cities.) from fumbling the clean-up.

Yes, the Texas "open carry" law is ridiculous. To be eligible you need to be 21, felony-free, employed at the same job (for some period of time that I don't remember right now), and pass the safety course. That excludes most students already.

Only fools "open carry" in an urban setting. Get a grip.

 

[Tiassa]

which was my point:

And you're missing mine. Or, perhaps, deliberately changing the subject; that's a common outcome of these discussons, too. For instance:

as you can't demonstrate that responsible gun owners are not punished, or that "actually expecting them to be responsible" is something we consider to be wrong
this is your opinion
not a fact of life - considering the sheer volume of gun owners i would say that the bulk of gun owners are responsible

You seem to be confused, and I don't say that as a pejorative; I really mean it.

Okay, so gun legislation enters the public discussion; the consistent rally cry against is that you can't punish "responsible gun owners". The problem with that is that the phrase, "responsible gun owner", is, practically speaking, meaningless.

To wit, you and I might be able to agree on what constitutes "responsible gun ownership", but that resolution means exactly nothing to the next person killed by someone who was a "responsible gun owner" until he forgot to check the chamber.

Consider the idea of proving a negative; it's not a rhetorically polite challenge. Accepting that, we might still look at the idea of a negative: Would you assert that no accidental shooting in the U.S. last year was committed by someone who had previously lamented the persecution of "responsible gun owners"?

This is the problem: Today, Bob is a "responsible gun owner". Tomorrow, someone is dead because Bob is no longer a "responsible gun owner". But we don't want to persecute "responsible gun owners" by prosecuting Bob for what was, you know, 'just an accident'.

This leads us to the next point:

so... you are going to demonstrate that responsible gun owners aren't responsible by talking about criminals and stupid (or irresponsible) gun owners and then labeling them "responsible gun owners"????
this is exactly what you did last time when you linked the father who shot his son!

Do you think that father counted himself among "irresponsible" gun owners before he killed his kid?

And this is the problem with your argument:

you would have a better argument if all the gun laws on record were actually enforced as written... you know that, right?
this was a point i made to you last time

‡​

more than two... this is actually part of the law, you know
what you don't like (and have noted in the past) is when criminals get into the mix

You have made a false argument.

Explain to me why, when a "responsible gun owner" becomes "irresponsible", that shooter should not be prosecuted.

When we do not prosecute these shooters, the message is clear: Expecting "responsible gun owners" to be responsible is an unfair punishment of "responsible gun owners".

Thus, when you ask―

how can a "responsible gun owner" be held responsible for an action a criminal takes against him?

―you're making yourself part of the problem.

now, considering you ARE responsible for your weapon, ammo under the law, why are you arguing this point?

Please explain why we don't prosecute every "responsible gun owner" who one day becomes "irresponsible"?

And then answer this: The man who accidentally killed his son, the shooters at the target ranges: Why should they ever be allowed to possess or operate a firearm ever again?

Because there is part of that we agree on:

Yes, they do
in fact, the most basic of all safety measures is:
1- there is NO such thing as an unloaded gun
2- always make sure of your target and what is beyond it

When we shrug and say, "It was just an accident, can't be helped," we leave these dangerously irresponsible people in the community with access to firearms.

You try to make these pressing arguments, but you have yet to address this.

Here, let me try to illustrate for you:

• Did you ever see the home video from the late nineties or early aughts when the cameraman takes a shotgun blast? The guy took his teenage son hunting, and wanted to film Junior's First Hunt. So he's up close to the line, just a hair behind it, left of the shooter. It's never clear to me how they flushed the birds, but those birds broke to the shooter's left; the kid selects his target, tracks it, tracks it, and shoots, maybe two degrees behind the line―the camera took the most damage, saving the father's life. This shit happens, and someone involved in that made a bad decision; personally, I would put it on the father for his camera position. As it is, the father isn't going to prosecute his own kid; besides, he wants the kid to learn to shoot better. Authorities aren't going to prosecute the kid, for obvious reasons, and they certainly aren't going to prosecute the father for standing in the wrong place. The thing is, this is the only version of this accident I've ever heard. That is, it's not the same as when Cheney shot his hunting buddy. It's not the same as the weird case I noted some years ago in which a hunter shot his friend because he thought the friend was a deer. And, honestly, we've got what, ten of these cases a year? Society will survive, especially when the stupidity is contained that way. You know, unlike the hunter who was cited for putting bullets into neighboring houses while shooting at deer from his yard.​

Compared to that, however, if the guy who killed his kid is responsible for his weapon and ammo under the law, why is he not prosecuted? If a shooter is so irresponsible as to not make sure the range is clear, why should he be allowed to ever handle a gun again? You say people are responsible for their weapons and ammunition under law; I challenge that premise on the observable fact that to many are being given a pass.

So let us consider an overworn trope you hauled out:

another good example that is also a good analogy
You are not advocating the removal of all CARS because of a few irresponsible DUI drivers, cell phone users, or because of the occasional accident that happens...
considering you are not focused on the TOOL being used in that situation, why focus on the TOOL being used in irresponsible gun owners?

it is not the TOOL that is at fault!

If I negligently kill someone with my car, the fact that I feel bad about it won't stop prosecutors from charging me.

You're right, though, it's not the tool at fault. I'm trying to hold the operator accountable; stop changing the subject.

Although I did want to ask:

if you are driving down the road and you turn on your turn signal, and someone decides to pass you: are you responsible for the crash or is the passing vehicle responsible for overtaking on the left when you had a signal on?

reality: you would be responsible for not insuring the way was clear before turning

so who is the problem in the above scenario? the aggressive passing driver or you?
technically YOU are the fault, therefore problem. per the law, that is

What state are you in?

†​

Do you realize you're making yourself part of the problem? The thing is that there is an abstract potential by which we can reach agreement; that is, there are circumstances you and I could agree on that would define "responsible gun ownership". And that's well and fine. Enforcing them? That's when we start hearing about "responsible gun owners", and how we shouldn't punish them; effectively, all they're asking is that "responsible gun owners" get a mulligan when they accidentally kill someone. And, you know, when we can give the dead a mulligan, too, I'll probably be more inclined to bargain.

Yet this thread is emblematic of the problem presented by the "responsible gun owner" argument insofar as the argument itself is irresponsible, desperate, and generally dubious. This thread opened on the observable premise that the "liberty" of open carry presented a demonstrable threat to other liberties, yet how much of your six posts in this discussion actually address that point?

Stop changing the subject.

"No accidents" is too much to ask of "responsible gun owners" in our society at present; and no two-bit stock political rhetoric about something else is going to change that reality.

And when all you can do is pretend thesis trumps reality, you're not helping your own cause; nor are you helping anyone.

And when "responsible gun owners" need society to take a pass on their occasions of irresponsibility, the phrase, "responsible gun owner", means exactly nothing.

 

[Magical Realist]

"Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn’t, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn’t worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. “We don’t have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,” Branas says. “This study is a beginning.”===https://www.newscientist.com/articl...un-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

This is the 21st century. Our govt already has a well-trained and well-armed militia called the National Guard. There is absolutely no reason to rely of farmer Billy Bob and his 8 cousins with their shotguns to defend the people. There was back in the old days. But times have changed. There is no need for anyone to have to bear arms other than hunting or protecting their home. The old militia argument no longer applies.

so where would the "training" for firearms come from then?

It's a reasonable assumption to think that carrying a gun is not near as protective as say wearing a bullet proof vest.

that depends upon the situation. you can't be proactive with a vest unless you take it off to bash someone over the head with it [jk]
a gun doesn't have to actually be used to be effective, either

Why don't gun carriers wear bullet proof vests if they're so worried about being shot it public? Seems it would fit right along with their whole paranoid mindset.

1- they're NOT very cheap
2- assuming that all gun owners are paranoid is like saying all vehicle operators are drunkards. don't judge the many by the mistakes of a few, please.

Maybe they're really more interested in playing out some Bruce Willis movie fantasy of shooting terrorists and gang bangers than just protecting themselves eh?

do i really need to point out the problem with this rant?
No one "wants" to kill another human... not even us soldiers. and those who do are the problem i am talking about: it still isn't about the gun - its about the violence

If it is safer for society that a felon not be allowed to carry a gun, why isn't it safer for society for everybody not to carry a gun?

1- felons (and criminals in general) by definition, do NOT obey laws, so by definition, a felon carrying a gun is already committing an illegal act. they worry about this like you worry about stepping on gum in a parking lot while rushing in to buy something important: only marginally, if at all
2- if everybody is disarmed, who will stop the armed criminal? you can't assume a cop will be there... even if you were to double the law enforcement budget or require them to triple their manpower, you will still have crime.
(this is actually a point i was trying to make, BTW... the problem is not the gun, but the criminal or violent mindset. until that is addressed, making more gun laws is like urinating into a fan... it might make you feel good for a minute, but is it really a good idea?)

Why aren't the gun carriers complaining about these rules violating their constitutional rights?

some do...
some of those places are a great idea... bars are a bad place to have guns. when mixed with alcohol, humans tend to have a habit of making very stupid mistakes and they also have poor judgement abilities.
Not sure why post-offices are off limits - unless it is based on the irrational behaviour of the past (going postal) and the overall gov't building protection thing... i do know why gov't buildings are off limits: because they tend to attract looney's

But that is the point, right?
that is also a good example of the issue: it's not the gun, it's the violence

 

[Magical Realist]

So where would the "training" for firearms come from then?

"Like the Army Reserve, the Army National Guard is made up of Citizen-Soldiers who train part time, close to home, until needed. Since 1636, each state has had its own militia. These became the foundation of today's Guard units (this was mandated by the Constitution in 1787). The Guard mobilizes to protect U.S. domestic interests in times of conflict or natural disaster and may be deployed internationally alongside full-time troops when the situation demands. Today's National Guard consists of approximately 384,422 troops from all U.S. states and territories."==http://todaysmilitary.com/joining/army-national-guard

No one "wants" to kill another human... not even us soldiers. and those who do are the problem i am talking about: it still isn't about the gun - its about the violence

Yet your whole life revolves around doing precisely that doesn't it? Shooting someone is a violent act, whether you want to do it or not. It's the same bloody result.

if everybody is disarmed, who will stop the armed criminal? you can't assume a cop will be there... even if you were to double the law enforcement budget or require them to triple their manpower, you will still have crime.

People with hands that can grab and tackle the shooter I imagine. That's what happened in Arizona with Jared Loughtner. That's what happens alot of times. Do you seriously think shooting a gun is the only way to defend yourself or to stop a shooter? You underestimate the power of an unarmed parent protecting their own child.

that is also a good example of the issue: it's not the gun, it's the violence

Carrying a gun gives people a sense of power and cockiness they normally don't have. Even the mere sight of a gun triggers more aggression in people. Here's a study on that that was already cited:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect

 

[Bells]

2- if everybody is disarmed, who will stop the armed criminal? you can't assume a cop will be there... even if you were to double the law enforcement budget or require them to triple their manpower, you will still have crime.
(this is actually a point i was trying to make, BTW... the problem is not the gun, but the criminal or violent mindset. until that is addressed, making more gun laws is like urinating into a fan... it might make you feel good for a minute, but is it really a good idea?)

When Gabby Giffords was nearly murdered and 6 other people were murdered in a mass shooting, it was unarmed people who disarmed the shooter. They didn't need more guns to make it safe. On the contrary, "more guns" nearly resulted in one of the innocent bystanders who overpowered the shooter being shot by one of the so called good guys with a gun. But here is some more information about who will stop an armed criminal..

Most of the media coverage of this report will no doubt focus on the FBI's claim that the number of incidents and victims totals of these shootings has of late been going up, with the annual number of incidents averaging 7.5 between 2000 and 2006, and jumping to an annual average of 16.3 between 2007 and 2013. The increase in casualties each year is even more dramatic, with the totals (not including the shooters) going from 247 between 2000 and 2006 up to just under 800 over the following seven years. It should be noted, incidentally, that the FBI defines an "active shooting" as an incident during which "both law enforcement personnel and citizens [my italics] have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses." Which is exactly what Wayne-o claims his gun-toting compatriots are all about.

Here's how these incidents ended. More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene. Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead. In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun.

The fact that 21 of these shooting situations were terminated by unarmed civilians as opposed to a single incident that ended because a good guy had a gun might come as a big surprise to the NRA, but for those of us who try to engage in the gun debate by issuing statements based on facts, this finding is consistent with other evidence that the pro-gun community chooses to ignore. ​

The report in question is a report compiled by the FBI on active shooters in America between 2000 and 2013.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

That is why there are laws against driving while intoxicated and driving while holding your mobile phone to your face and talking on it.

Do you understand how your argument is disingenuous?

do you understand how there are also laws against the use of violence against another, and especially the use of lethal force?
what about the laws stating that homicide is frowned upon?

Like your comments above about irresponsible gun owners. Those gun owners were responsible, until they did something and they became "irresponsible"

i will say this again, in case you missed it with T ... i do NOT in any way advocate for the suppression of the law because of empathetic idiocy (as in the prosecutor who didn't file charges against the man who shot his son with an "unloaded" gun).
There are laws for a reason. they are there to insure fair rule and enable as well as define punishment for violating said laws.
this applies to cars, guns and much more... if a gun owner is irresponsible (breaks the law) they should have to face the consequences. period
So can the "your argument is disingenuous" ...

And that's the thing with "responsible" gun owners. It doesn't take much to make them absolutely irresponsible and the result of that is someone will either be injured or killed.

like i said: if a "responsible gun owner" becomes irresponsible, then it is the fault of the offender
this is NO DIFFERENT than the same situation in a vehicle. if a "responsible driver" violates the law in a vehicle then they're subject to law... and they're also far more likely to kill someone considering the population and ownership of vehicles in the world... and the fact that most people find them "non threatening" , which actually makes them far more dangerous

The tool that should be focused on are the people themselves. It's why people who are caught drink driving and over the limit, often lose their right to drive a car. Yet in the US, the Constitution is being used to declare that even dangerous and mentally ill people have a "right" to own a gun.

1- it is very true that the focus should be on the people. i agree
2- i do not know of ANY law abiding citizen that advocates the arming of "dangerous and mentally ill people"... what you may be referring to is the definition of "mentally ill". does the definition mean anyone who you don't like? anyone who has ever at any time seen a psychiatrist/psychologist? anyone taking a medication that might be construed as treatment for a mental disease?
Some people advocate for the extreme's... if you even saw a psychiatrist/psychologist for any reason, you're "mentally ill" and thus you shouldn't have a firearm
there is a problem with that, though... most high-stress jobs require a visit to a psychiatrist/-ologist after a high-stress situation: Cops, Firefighters, EMT's, Rescue, Emergency Rooms, Military...
it is not an option for most high-stress jobs (and required by law in some jobs)... so every time you have an incident, are you going to fire the cop and hire a new one? are you going to dismiss your soldiers/sailors/airmen after a high stress incident because of the whole "mentally ill" and firearms issue?

So you killed him?

How did your gun keep you safe? I am assuming you used your gun, yes? Shot him? Injured him with it? Surely you must have used it against him, yes?

used my gun- yes
never fired a shot. never once had to do anything but draw it out and let the criminal know that, should he continue his course of action, he would be dealt with.
it was enough to defuse his rage, get him to leave and allow my family to be safe
not one shot. not one bullet used. no one killed. no one injured. no criminal act allowed to happen. everyone safe and still alive.
this is one of your worst problems/assumptions: just because a person is armed doesn't mean said firearm needs to be used with lethal force

The shooting in question is the mass shooting that left 6 dead and Gabby Giffords with life changing head injuries. And the people who disarmed the shooter were all unarmed. And there was Mr Zamudio, who not only nearly shot and killed an innocent and true hero who had tackled the gunman, but then also tackled the innocent bystander who had disarmed the shooter.

so... what you are saying is that you don't like what happened, so disarm everyone?
does the situation of a single incident justify the removal of rights to everyone?
if that is the case, then you should give up driving, turn your own car keys in and never allow your children to own a car either...

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

People with hands that can grab and tackle the shooter I imagine. That's what happened in Arizona with Jared Loughtner. That's what happens alot of times. Do you seriously think shooting a gun is the only way to defend yourself?

ok... lets look at that for a moment.
Now, i am a former soldier. and i know for a fact that a person who is untrained is by far more likely to seize up than "grab and tackle the shooter"... but lets actually ignore this for a moment and consider the options: which would be better and safer for you and the situation? being able to remove the threat from a distance or being right up on the threat with them fighting for control?

and no, i do NOT think shooting a gun is the only way to defend myself.

 

[Magical Realist]

ok... lets look at that for a moment.
Now, i am a former soldier. and i know for a fact that a person who is untrained is by far more likely to seize up than "grab and tackle the shooter"... but lets actually ignore this for a moment and consider the options: which would be better and safer for you and the situation? being able to remove the threat from a distance or being right up on the threat with them fighting for control?

and no, i do NOT think shooting a gun is the only way to defend myself.

Bells just cited FBI stats that say in 13 percent of shootings unarmed people DO disarm the shooter. So apparently people don't always "seize up." As for choosing to be close up or far away, that's not an option. We deal with whatever situation happens. But I know I haven't yet in my 56 years of life ever needed a gun yet to protect myself from anyone. And I don't plan to start carrying one either. The chances of encountering a shooter in public are just way too slim to worry about. I think the chances of dying by gunshot are about equal to dying in a car crash. It's not a big issue for me. I'm not going to stop driving my car. And I'm not going to start carrying a gun to shoot at some hypothetical shooter out there. I just don't need that sort of power over people. Call me "well adjusted."

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Or, perhaps, deliberately changing the subject;

nope

The problem with that is that the phrase, "responsible gun owner", is, practically speaking, meaningless.

no, it isn't. it has a clear meaning and it requires obeying the law. this means things like homicide & battery every bit as much as threatening, assault, or being stupid.
Your argument centers around the fact that, in the past, prosecutors have chosen not to actually file charges or prosecute an individual due to sympathy or some other reason (like the dad who shot his kid with the "unloaded gun" we talked about in another thread.)
That doesn't mean he didn't break the law... it means that he wasn't prosecuted, and it ONLY means that.

To wit, you and I might be able to agree on what constitutes "responsible gun ownership", but that resolution means exactly nothing to the next person killed by someone who was a "responsible gun owner" until he forgot to check the chamber.

then you and i don't agree... because if said owner kills someone because "he forgot to check the chamber", then, BY LAW, said individual should be charged with at least negligent homicide, and prosecuted. there is no "redefinition" on my part and there never will be. the problem you have is specifically with the choices of the prosecutors in each individual case... not with me or the law.
in other words... the law is specific and clear on that issue. the problem you have is with the individual idiot prosecutor

But we don't want to persecute "responsible gun owners" by prosecuting Bob for what was, you know, 'just an accident'.

i've said it a million times: the law is the law. your problem is with the prosecutor who chooses, for whatever reason, not to actually enforce the law.
i actually said this earlier in this thread... we HAVE LAWS that work... but they're not strictly (if at all sometimes) enforced!
that is where your problem is!

Do you think that father counted himself among "irresponsible" gun owners before he killed his kid?

what he considered himself as doesn't matter... the law is clear.
if he violated the law, then he should be prosecuted. like i said... we have laws that work, your problem is with them not being enforced

You have made a false argument.

Explain to me why, when a "responsible gun owner" becomes "irresponsible", that shooter should not be prosecuted.

When we do not prosecute these shooters, the message is clear: Expecting "responsible gun owners" to be responsible is an unfair punishment of "responsible gun owners".

false claim and irrational
1- i have never said that a person who violates the law should not be prosecuted for said violations
2- if a "responsible gun owner" becomes "irresponsible", then they're no longer "responsible", are they? and if they commit an act that is a ciolation of the law, they should be punished
3- when we don't punish offenders for violations, you generate a false claim then use that as your argument point to justify your paranoia...
i don't, and never, agree that an offender should get off because of [insert sympathetic argument].
and we discussed this at length elsewhere...

Thus, when you ask―
―you're making yourself part of the problem.

So... if a carjacker stole your car (and you reported it stolen).... and then committed a felony, you don't have a problem facing the same charges as the criminal becuase it was your car to begin with?
same situation... why hold a gun/ammo owner responsible for the actions of a criminal when said gun owner complied with the law?

Please explain why we don't prosecute every "responsible gun owner" who one day becomes "irresponsible"?

how the heck should i know? i am not a prosecutor... nor do i agree with the tactic
or do i have to copy/paste that a bazillion times for you... so quit assuming that i think it is a good thing, correct, or right

I've also said this a few times above: we have great functional laws
your problem is that they're not enforced... and you have a right to be angry about that. but blaming me (or responsible gun owners) is not going to auto-magically make things better... in fact, it exacerbates and inflames an already problematic situation because they're usually powerless to affect the situation

you are being intentionally obstinate towards me.
don't blame me (or responsible gun owners) for the stupidity of the prosecutor in any situation. I'm not blaming you for the drunk drivers who get anywhere from 3 to hundreds of second chances to kill someone with yet another DUI... even though prosecutors have the ability to do something!

Compared to that, however, if the guy who killed his kid is responsible for his weapon and ammo under the law, why is he not prosecuted?

ok, at this point, i don't know whether to copy/past the entire above or ...

What state are you in?

doesn't matter... i have had a drivers license from more than 10 states... and my current license is Commercial.Class A.

Do you realize you're making yourself part of the problem?

no, i am not. the problem is that you are assuming that i am:
1- trolling maybe?
2- one of the gun nuts who isn't rational
3- not taking law into consideration
there is likely more...