Has anyone's opinion been turned from anti to pro gun?

[WWFZD]

Are there any DU members who previously held either an anti gun or perhaps an undecided opinion regarding civilian gun ownership rights who through posting and reading debate on the guns forum changed their mind and now oppose gun control measures such as micro-stamping, purchase limits, handgun bans and the Assault Weapons Ban?

I'm just curious. I'm sure this has been addressed before on this forum but I'm relatively new here and don't recall having seen this addressed as a topic.

Thanks, Rob

[Birthmark]

1. Yup. Me.

It simply cannot be demonstrated that gun control works. For every piece of evidence supporting such laws there is an equally compelling piece of evidence indicating that the laws have NO effect.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dkf]

2. I'm not pro gun, but I'm also not as anti-gun as I used to be.

I just came to the realization that even though I feel personally uncomfortable having a gun around, for others it provides a sense of security that they feel uncomfortable without.

And in reading more on women who had TROs on their exes but who landed up killed, I realized that sometimes, you can't rely on the Govt to save you. I think 9/11 also changed my perspective a little in that acquiescing to hijackers and waiting for the cavalry doesn't always work.

I still think that some of this gun buying is overkill, but now are in the "whatever floats your boat" mode of thinking.

[xchrom]

3. not me -- i will always vote for gun control.

i will say that gun control groups have done a lousy job of getting their message out compared to the other side.

so things still run in one direction.

[benEzra]

6. I would respectfully suggest that they have indeed gotten their message out...

and that the problem is that it's the wrong message.

There is widespread common ground to be found on the concept that criminal misuse of guns is a Very Bad Thing.

However, the approach of the gun-control lobby has been to attempt to outlaw lawful and responsible ownership of the most popular guns, rather than narrowly focused proposals that would affect criminals only. THAT message is understandably repugnant to those of us who own guns that you want to ban.

The background-check-for-purchase idea was a good one, and the gun-control lobby ran fairly well with it. They got sidetracked on waiting periods and other petty harassment for a while, but on the whole, the current NICS point-of-sale background check is not considered an undue hassle by most gun owners. But they blew it when they decided the next step was to sharply curtail the lawful ownership of nonhunting guns.

[xchrom]

8. respectfully -- i think that's paranoia.

and i think mass gun ownership -- legal or illlegal speaks to a deep nihilistic addiction or compulsion on the part of the citizenry.

legal or illegal americans certainly have no problem with shooting each other up.

but you know -- whatever -- gun owners have the upper hand.

[maxidivine]

9. Bwaahahahahahhahaha!

Prove it!
Do you honestly think that legal gun owners have no issue with shooting people over parking spots and coupons?

Your paranoia is shining through your posts about how awful gun owners are. I bet all your evidence is anecdotal.

Prove me wrong.

[benEzra]

10. What's paranoia? Thinking that the gun-control lobby wants to keep their promises?

respectfully -- i think that's paranoia

What's paranoia? Thinking that the gun-control lobby means it when they promise to outlaw half the guns in my gun safe?

and i think mass gun ownership -- legal or illlegal speaks to a deep nihilistic addiction or compulsion on the part of the citizenry.

Then you must know very few lawful and responsible gun owners personally--or perhaps you do, and don't realize that they own guns.

legal or illegal americans certainly have no problem with shooting each other up.

Mostly illegal. According to the city of Chicago (no friend of gun owners, by any means), 97 percent of suspects in murders had prior arrest records. Ninety seven percent. Yet the primary target of the gun-control lobby is people like me, middle- and working-class adults with squeaky clean records (I've never even had a speeding ticket).

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/March08CrimeStats.pdf

Since the beginning of the year through March, 70 percent of the murder victims had prior arrests records and 97 percent of the offenders had prior arrest records. Sixty nine percent of the murders occurred outdoors and 31 percent occurred indoors.
Approximately 81 percent of murders involved firearms with the most common motive being gang related. Almost 30 percent of the murders were gang related and roughly 28 percent were the result of another type of altercation. At least 15 percent involved robberies and 11 percent were domestic related.

Statistically, lawful gun owners aren't the problem; many states with very high legal gun ownership rates have some of the lowest murder rates, and vice versa. I'm not arguing causation there, merely pointing out lack of correlation with the common "more lawful ownership, more murder" conjecture. Lawful ownership isn't the problem; criminal possession is.

but you know -- whatever -- gun owners have the upper hand.

For which I am thankful. I wish to retain the right to choose on that issue, thanks.

[beevul]

24. "americans certainly have no problem with shooting each other up".

"legal or illegal americans certainly have no problem with shooting each other up."

Umm...I'd say Americans have quite a problem with shooting each other up, because they're failing to get the job done.

80+ million gun owners:

In possession of 280+ million firearms.

And yet 13-ish thousand firearm homicides anually on a national basis. I am not saying those homicides are meaningless, but they damn sure don't mean what you and other gun control proponents seem to think they mean.

If a government were to send 80+ million people with 280+ million firearms into a shooting war, and only managed to kill 13-ish thousand people out of 300 million potential targets, it would be an epic failure of historic proportions.

[Tejas]

38. May I use that?

"Umm...I'd say Americans have quite a problem with shooting each other up, because they're failing to get the job done.

80+ million gun owners:

In possession of 280+ million firearms.

And yet 13-ish thousand firearm homicides anually on a national basis. I am not saying those homicides are meaningless, but they damn sure don't mean what you and other gun control proponents seem to think they mean.

If a government were to send 80+ million people with 280+ million firearms into a shooting war, and only managed to kill 13-ish thousand people out of 300 million potential targets, it would be an epic failure of historic proportions."



By the way, the analogy-police will be along shortly, have your papers ready!

:)

[beevul]

39. Feel free. N/T

[SteveM]

72. Analogy-police? Don't be so syllogism!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

66. Sounds to me that if 280 million shooters can only hit 13,000

targets, some training is in order.

[SteveM]

13. My goodness! Have you looked at MSM's gun-control history?

With the likes of WaPo, NYTimes, USAToday and CBS (among many, many others), the gun-controllers had a virtual free-ride for years. Trouble is, once the "research" of the anti-gunners was eviscerated, MSM was left holding the bag of stinky scholarship and has since backed off the issue or -- heaven forbid -- started showing "the other side" of the debate.

This may be hard to face for some "intellectually"-oriented liberals: they are responsible for some very lousy studies, largely penetrated by both conservative and liberal researchers. And I think a lot of liberal democrats now recognize that.

[madeline_con]

18. Do you think we need more/stricter gun laws, or...

do you see that there are always those who will break the law, and more laws won't change that?

[gorfle]

4. My Mom converted

My Mom always hated firearms. Now she accepts that they are the final recourse against tyranny.

[derby378]

5. My wife is still fairly pro-gun-control, but she has softened on a couple of debate topics

We still have the occasional chat here and there. And that's okay.

[old mark]

11. My wife.

She learned to shoot a revolver about 15 years ago. She really enjoyed it.
She has one of her own for the last several years.

mark

[maxidivine]

12. Mark

Why do I always feel good after reading your posts?

My fiance will only shoot my S&W 28 4" and 586 6", only with .38 Special, only if I put them in single-action for her, and she greatly prefers me to stand with her and help her hold it. It's adorable, but I'm hoping that as time goes by she will feel more comfortable with all aspects of firearm handling and will get more proficient. Ideally I'd like her to be competent and comfortable with her own CC permit and her own gun that she researched, tried out, and chose for herself. It will probably take some time though.

[iverglas]

14. maxidivine

My fiancé will only shoot my S&W 28 4" and 586 6", only with .38 Special, only if I put them in single-action for him, and he greatly prefers me to stand with him and help him hold it. It's adorable, but I'm hoping that as time goes by he will feel more comfortable with all aspects of firearm handling and will get more proficient. Ideally I'd like him to be competent and comfortable with his own CC permit and his own gun that he researched, tried out, and chose for himself. It will probably take some time though.


Yup. It sounded exactly that hugely dumb and obnoxious.

[maxidivine]

15. Why is that dumb?

Because it doesn't fit your notion that men with guns oppress the women in their lives, and if those women have their own guns it is because they were forced to by the male? And that women who are capable of protecting themselves from the human scum of the earth are clearly just being used by the gun owning males?

[iverglas]

16. you could try reading my post

And then you could try pretending that if you read that, written by a woman about her husband, you wouldn't think that either (a) he was too stupid to live, or (b) she was a harpy. Or both.

And if you don't think that a man who takes it upon himself to mould a woman to his taste the way you have described attempting to do with your fiancée isn't part of the problem ... well, I'd hardly expect you to, would I?

http://www.mvwcs.com/redflag.html

Warning Signs of an Abuser

Charm ...
Isolation ...
Jealousy ...
Emotional abuse ...

Control

Abusers are very controlled and very controlling people. In time, the abuser will control every aspect of the victim's life: where she goes, how she wears her hair, what clothes she wears, whom she talks to. He will control the money and access to money. Abusers are also very controlled people. While they appear to go into a rage or be out of control we know they are very much in control of their behavior.

Men who describe their wimminfolk as "adorable" when they simper and play helpless are, well, men who like helpless women. Gimme a real man any day.

[Callisto32]

19. Maybe you should read the post...

that you so happily mocked.

"...I'm hoping that as time goes by she will feel more comfortable with all aspects of firearm handling and will get more proficient. Ideally I'd like her to be competent and comfortable with her own CC permit and her own gun that she researched, tried out, and chose for herself. It will probably take some time though."

Sounds like he wants her to be more self-reliant to me. Hardly reveling in her being "helpless" as you suggest.

In fact, I would bet that this woman isn't helpless at all, just antsy about guns as many new shooters are, maybe even physically unable to pull the trigger on that revolver, in double action. My fiancee can scarcely pull the trigger on a double action revolver. She simply lacks the hand strength necessary to do so effectively. It goes bang, but only after some serious wobbling that pretty much ensures the target isn't hit.

Helping her hold it? Well, if she is a new shooter, this is actually a fairly common practice to help someone avoid picking up bad habits when it comes to how one holds the thing.

Both of these are big, heavy revolvers. She may not be able to hold them steady on her own due to a lack of physical strength. She could be a very slight woman of limited upper body strength. Holding a couple of pounds of steel and lead up at arm's length for any amount of time is tiring on those muscles.

Only .38's? Ever shot a full-house .357 magnum load? It's an experience, but it sure as shootin' ain't a FUN one... It is ESPECIALLY inappropriate for new shooters who may develop very bad habits, such as flinching, because of anticipation of high recoil. Meanwhile, if I couldn't teach on a .22 I would use a .38, they are easy to shoot and very gentle on the shooter. This is especially true when paired with the recoil taming weight of a full sized sidearm.

As for the having him cock the hammer, a lot of people are not confident enough in their own gun handling abilities to manually manipulate the hammer. Some do not like ever having to touch a hammer. This is why a lot of automatic pistols are equipped with a mechanical decocker.

Your main problem seems to be that a man said he found his fiancee adorable and that because she is adorable in a certain circumstance of which you disapprove, he is somehow showing signs of being abusive. This may come as a surprise, but men tend to find the woman with whom they are in love to be adorable pretty much all of the time. My own fiancee (wife, come Saturday)often laughs at me when I tell her she is cute while engaged in some common, everyday activity; say, the way she cocks her head when she puts her shoes on.

As for "simpering" if "simpering" is asking for help with something that you are new to or uncomfortable with, well, hell I guess I simper all the time. I prefer to think of it as admitting that I'm not perfect and need help with stuff.

My guess is that she is simpering about as much as the CCW holders among us "promenade..." about......


Edit: replaced period with question mark, oops.

[iverglas]

23. wow

Some would respond to all that by saying: Must have hit a nerve!

[Duke Newcombe]

25. I suggest you just declare...

The gun owner's equivalent of Godwin's Law regarding the previous poster and move on. It preserves one's sanity, don't ya know.

Duke

[Tejas]

40. o.t. - Callisto32, enjoy your big day!

No guns, no message boards, just you and your fiance on your wedding day. Congrats in advance, hope everything goes well.

prediction: she'll be able to out-shoot you at the range within 6 months!

[maxidivine]

60. Congrats Callisto!

And thanks, I can't imagine what kind of scene iverglas must have dreamt up from my post. Really shows her total lack of even the most basic knowledge of firearms.

And I tend to shoot more .38 through my revolvers than magnum loads, and I have never had any full-house loads to try out. Closest I've come to that is the commercial 158/1200ish FPS loads. not really what the round is capable of. I just find that the Highway Patrolman is very accurate and somewhat easier to shoot well when I stick to Specials. I will be getting a Kadet Kit for my CZ this summer, that will help tremendously and really help extend my range time and will (hopefully) be more fun for her.

Thanks for the post, it was helpful and probably informative to some people who have never fired before and thus susceptible to iverglas' man-rage that I dared help my fiancee or introduce her to something new. I wonder if any of her "co-vivants" have ever introduced her to anything new, or vice versa? Hopefully not, wouldn't want anyone "moulding" their partners right?

[iverglas]

61. "scene"? quel "scene"?

No scene. Just a common scenario.


iverglas' man-rage that I dared help my fiancee or introduce her to something new

Nah. I was all pissed off about the calibre of firearm you were using. Don't you understand anything?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

63. oooooh, lookie

A vulgar and pointless insult. Who would ever have expected such a thing from you??

[maxidivine]

64. Oh I know!

Here I am, well-known for smearing people and throwing insults like feces.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

22. do your guns give off brain waves?

Maybe you should stop listening to them. They seem to be confused. Either that or you live in some Puritan world where being "single" means not having relationships.

I guess you think not being the marrying kind means being a virginal spinster.

Let's just say ... not.

I do have pantyhose older than my current relationship. But then I haven't bought pantyhose in over a decade. Sigh, it seems my wild and crazy days are over.

You've apparently missed where I've mentioned how the person with whom I've been sharing living quarters these quite a few years now would grab your guns in a heartbeat. Not like me at all. I tolerate his little foibles. He does the cat farming.

Of course, I'm still mulling that offer of marriage I got here a couple of weeks back ... marriage for immigration purposes is an honourable thing. Although not necessary in Canada for quite some years now. Gay, straight, married, unmarried -- everybody gots equal rights up here, y'know?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Can't you take a joke.

I'd marry you if I wasn't already married. I love to argue.

David

[iverglas]

43. oh no, paco

Two proposals in the dungeon in one month. Well, propositions ...

Be still my beating heart!


But you all know: the heart in question belongs to Wickerman.

[pipoman]

75. I am sort of liking the lighter, though

equally condescending iverglas. I have appreciated your humor, though veiled in sarcasm, since your most recent return to your favorite club here at DU. :evilgrin:

[Tejas]

50. it would take half the trees in Canada

to come up with enough paper to print the pre-nups for that one on.

:)

[DavidMS]

74. George Bernard Shaw was right...

...is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/gbs.htm

Just about all the most partisan advocates on both sides suggest that guns have a magical quality (I believe that Academics who study this sort of thing call it Symbolic Language) and that given their own life experiences and circumstances of birth and early life indelibly inscribe upon them some views.

On one hand I see the need for firearms to put food on the table, for protection. On the other hand many people really aught not to have metal forks either. I have a friend who lives in Prince William County VA, happens to be gay and rents some rooms to other gay men (he needs the money to help pay the morgage). It makes quite a bit of sense for him to keep a shotgun. I have another friend who is a manic-depressive. Great guy who is just finishing up law school and taking the Patent Bar. He probably shouldn't have certain types of sharp pointy objects. Other people don't like guns for a verity of reasons be it class, that the neighborhood they grew up in is plagued by drug-trade gang related violence or a bad experience growing up.

As for me, I did pass up a firearms class on Saturday that was offered through Things To Do DC because it was timed badly and $150 could be better spent on all sorts of other things like my morgage. Its been an expensive last few months. If concluded I could safely and responsibly handle a gun, I would be sorely tempted to take up the hobby of target shooting.

I suspect that at the end of the day we undervalue where people come from and fail to properly attempt to understand exactly how people see things the way that they do. How they came to hold the beliefs that they do regardless of how well it meshes with reality.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Irreverend IX]

76. That's a really disgusting personal attack.

Your ability to psychoanalyze people based on a few dozen words of their writing continues to amaze me. It seems we've learned that the above poster is abusive, likes helpless women, and is trying to mold his fiance to his taste based on a short paragraph where he describes his efforts to teach her to shoot. That's just low. Do you think such underhanded tactics will convince anyone that your RKBA views are correct?

Posts like this exhibit a hateful prejudice toward gun owners that goes far beyond any rational view of firearms policy. You've insinuated-but never overtly stated-many times that anyone who supports permissive firearms ownership policies (or enjoys porn or prostitutes) is a right-wing troglodyte incapable of holding any progressive views. This is black-and-white thinking on par with the craziest religious fundamentalists, dividing the political world into good and evil and consigning anyone who disagrees with you to the latter side.

[iverglas]

77. ah, widdums

The poor menz.

Let me assure you that, despite your bizarre assertion:

Posts like this exhibit a hateful prejudice toward gun owners

what I said had nothing whatsoever to do with guns or their owners, other than coincidentally. Despite how some people do seem to think everything in the world does.

Nonetheless, unrelated to anything I said thought it was, you got this part right:

You've insinuated-but never overtly stated-many times that anyone who supports permissive firearms ownership policies (or enjoys porn or prostitutes) is a right-wing troglodyte incapable of holding any progressive views.

Yup.

I mean, you may have intentionally understated / oversimplified things, but I know what you meant. If you wanted to frame it without the fuzz, I'd agree with it outright.

[old mark]

21. I bought an old S&W Chief Special for my wife

a few years ago, and then saw an old Model 15 Combat Masterpiece which I bought for myself.
Shot both at the range.
She did not like the Chief, but put the Model 15 in her purse and I have not fired it since.

My wife is disabled, and when I was working she was home alone in a neighborhood that is not the best. She kept the Smith in a purse with a shoulder strap and carried it along throughout the house all day.

I am retired now after having 2 heart attacks, and she keeps the Model 15 S&W near her bedside.

mark

[spin]

26. The "S&W Chiefs Special" is a great gun...

for concealment. The Model 15 Combat Masterpiece is a fantastic gun for just about everything.

Women have an advantage when it comes to carrying a weapon concealed since they carry purses. A woman who is walking into what could be a dangerous area such as a parking lot at night can place her hand on the gun in her purse. If attacked at close range she can shoot through the purse to deter the bad guy.

Some purses are designed for concealed carry. For example check out:
http://www.corneredcat.com/Holster/purse.aspx
http://www.ccwsupply.biz/ConcealCarryPursesPage.htm

[atufal1c]

17. Mine did. I'm pro-victim and I don't think handgun bans are a liberal position.

A few years ago I decided that potential victims deserve then right to be able to defend themselves against victimizers. I defend the poor, the weak, and the downtrodden. Why wouldn't I give them a chance to defend themselves? How is it a liberal position to allow only criminals to have guns?

Now granted, if I could make it so that criminals COULDN'T have guns or weapons, I probably would, be okay with a ban. This despite the fact that you can be robbed, raped, or killed by someone without one.

But there are, what, hundreds of thousands, millions of guns floating around the U.S.? So that horse has already left the barn. So I say arm the people.

Now I am in favor of all types of training and qualification classes and restrictions and such.

But in the end, I believe that any responsible citizen has the right to own a gun.

I am pro-assault weapons ban (I think). Probably pro purchase limits, and totally against handgun bans as we have here in Sweet Home, Chicago.

If I had it my way, open-carry would be legal throughout the land tomorrow.

[WWFZD]

27. That is the essence of gun control

"How is it a liberal position to allow only criminals to have guns?"

Even the most authoritarian, far right (or left) anti-2A, inanimate object fearing and loathing gun banners know full well that all of the gun control schemes they've ever imagined will not stop criminals from obtaining weapons in the United States, as we know it. As if the issue was really crime anyway.

"I am pro-assault weapons ban (I think)."
I bet you just haven't thought that hard about it, it's useless:)


PS: Thanks everyone for responding

[iverglas]

28. it's sure the essence of something

"How is it a liberal position to allow only criminals to have guns?"

Eau de bullshit, I'd say.

Also de deceit, disrespect, dishonesty, disingenuousness, demagoguery and the most completely and utterly anti-democratic discourse.

Just exactly the sort of thing one expects to hear from ... how'd that go? ... the far right.

[WWFZD]

30. That's hilarious

A person' opinion, that differs from that of a right wing authoritarian, is, uh how'dat go? Oh yeah, it's "utterly anti-democratic discourse".

[iverglas]

32. a person' ... what, now?

A person' opinion, that differs from that of a right wing authoritarian, is, uh how'dat go?
Oh yeah, it's "utterly anti-democratic discourse".

The dogs may know what you're talking about. I have no clue.

What I was talking about was this, spoken by a third party and applauded by you:

"How is it a liberal position to allow only criminals to have guns?"

You can characterize that as "a person's opinion" (what I gather you were attempting to say) if you like, as I gather you are attempting to. You could also characterize it as a galosh's salamander. It wouldn't be either one, of course.

It's just a vile, poisonous piece of shit designed to bring contempt and hatred down on the heads of people who disagree, by portraying them as advocating something they do not advocate and that only a fool or villain would advocate.

How could a decent human being claim that someone had advocated that criminals be allowed to have guns, let alone that only criminals be allowed to have guns?

Answer:

MU.

The question cannot be answered, because a decent human being could not make such a claim.

[WWFZD]

33. Psi,

"The question cannot be answered, because a decent human being could not make such a claim."

So now I, and the person who initially made that claim, don't even rise to the level of "decent human being"? Only one who considers him/herself the alpha and the omega of the progressive spirit would make such a claim. It doesn't concern me one iota, but it seems to have bothered you immensely.

[iverglas]

34. yes, shoot me

I'm "bothered" by people who regard it as acceptable to substitute poisonous shit demagoguery for civil discourse in their public speech.

Just a neurotic, me.

[WWFZD]

35. I like you anyway, but then again I'm no phi beta kappa.

That poisonous shit demagoguery flows both ways on this forum as I'm certain you've noticed. And it always will.

Enough of the break, I'm taking the last examination for a difficult professional certification in one week. I can't wait until this is over.
Wish me luck.

[iverglas]

36. aw, do what I did

Just this evening I was telling the tale of writing the LSATs. It wasn't a big deal up here in the early 70s -- not every law school even required them. I'd certainly never heard of prep courses. I signed up, and then when the time came, I hitchhiked to Montreal, drank a couple of bottles of wine, got up in the morning and went and wrote the LSAT. Worked for me!

Anyhow, don't you start. I have one marriage proposal from this place under consideration already. And I know most of the boys here are secretly in love with me. Take a number. No need to worry about Greek letters; frat boys aren't welcome anyhow, no matter what the letters.

Reminds me of the newspaper personal ad me and 3 friends ran many years ago. It ended "no accountants or engineers need apply". Well, it was supposed to. It got printed as "no accounts or engineers". A few no accounts did indeed apply ...

But I still miss my DoNotRefill. Anybody know whether he's been around and not re-introduced himself to me? I'd hate to think I didn't recognize him.

[WWFZD]

78. That's a great story

The exam didn't go as well as the previous ones. I aced those but this one was tailored to my weakest areas, just the bad luck of the draw. I hope I squeaked by, that's all that's necessary.
Marriage proposal? hmm. Smart women are sexier there's no doubt about it. We'll have to meet first. Somewhere around the old Ambassador bridge - on the good side.
And I do get to keep my SKS, my XD and my S&W .357 right?

[iverglas]

79. I think

I'm going to have to stop hanging out in bad company.

On the good side of the bridge, I'm thinking you'd be faced with an either-or ... er ... proposition.

[WWFZD]

80. No you don't either

Good argument/debate makes for an exhilarating time.
The good side is relative. Detroit, Windsor I like them both, been to each many times, they didn't name it after the ambassador for nuthin.
I'll let ya know how I did, keep your fingers crossed, I'll need it on this one.:)

[atufal1c]

65. I'm replying late because I forgot I posted this.

Your response was pretty lame, though.

You're not actually dumb enough to think I mean that there are people that would actually hand a criminal a gun but refuse to give one to a victim, are you?

Are you really missing my point or are you simply disagreeing with it in an obnoxious and fucknutass manner?

Because I don't think my post warranted that kind of response.

[iverglas]

68. well hmm

You're not actually dumb enough to think I mean that there are people that would actually hand a criminal a gun but refuse to give one to a victim, are you?

Fascinating question. I have no idea why you're asking it, but I'm sure it's fascinating.


The one you did ask, to which I responded, was:

How is it a liberal position to allow only criminals to have guns?

I had no idea why you were asking that one, in the first place. And you haven't explained.

So I'll go with my original hypothesis.

It's just a vile, poisonous piece of shit designed to bring contempt and hatred down on the heads of people who disagree, by portraying them as advocating something they do not advocate and that only a fool or villain would advocate.

[atufal1c]

69. I think the people that are pro gun control are being foolish.

Not fools. Because I used to be one.

And while I feel I was clear before, let me try again:

Liberals are pro-victim.

Many victimizers have guns that they use against their victims.

Gun control laws do not stop victimizers from possessing guns.

Gun control laws do stop victims from possessing guns.

Gun vs. no gun often equals victim.

That is not pro-victim.

So how is being pro gun control liberal?

Better?

[iverglas]

70. I wouldn't know

So how is being pro gun control liberal?

I haven't been a Liberal since I was 16, and have never claimed to be a liberal.

I'm a social democrat, in the present circumstances.



I think the people that are pro gun control are being foolish.

Or at least so you say.

Not fools. Because I used to be one.

Or at least so you say.

And while I feel I was clear before, let me try again:

Liberals are pro-victim.

Whatever.

Social democrats acknowledge the duty to protect, with particular attention to vulnerable individuals and populations, and advocate public policies that increase individual and collective security and do not unjustifiably impair individual liberty.

Many victimizers have guns that they use against their victims.

In some places. I wonder what "many" is? Do you suppose it's like "much"? I've been told that "much" means "a majority", although that's obviously false.

It seems to me that you've stated a problem and then just skipped on over it.

Many victimizers have firearms. Gosh. Wouldn't it be nice if something could be done about that? Might it be a good idea to adopt policies that could reasonably be expected to do something about that?

Gun control laws do not stop victimizers from possessing guns.

No laws stop anything from happening. Why would anyone be surprised that gun control laws do not stop anyone from possessing guns?? Why would you state the obvious as if it were meaningful?

Some laws do have persuasive effect on some people. Do you speed in school zones? Maybe you woulldn't speed in school zones even if there were no laws prohibiting it, just because you're a decent human being. Some people might be slightly less considerate of others, but are persuaded to behave considerately by laws that provide for punishment if they don't. Potential loss of a driver's licence can persuade people on that borderline to behave considerately.

Laws prohibiting speeding in school zones aren't likely to deter chronic scofflaws from speeding in school zones. But then, laws against murder don't seem to persuade some people not to commit homicide.

Gun control laws stop some victimizers from possessing guns if they persuade the people from whom they would have got the guns not to transfer guns to them. Scofflaws may not obey laws prohibiting them from possessing guns, but many reasonably decent people and people with something to lose will obey laws prohibiting them from transferring guns to scofflaws.

Just look at what you skipped right over! The whole entire point of many gun control laws.

Gun control laws do stop victims from possessing guns.

Really?

To start with, who's a victim? Someone who has not been victimized, but thinks s/he might be? A bit of a conceptual problem there.

What gun control laws stop whom from possessing guns? In what circumstances?

Bit of a sweeping statement you've got there, doncha think?

Gun vs. no gun often equals victim.

That could be, although it's really just an unsupported assertion by you at this point.

The question would be where the "no gun" comes from. I suspect that in a large majority of cases it's personal choice. Nothing to do with gun control laws.

And it takes "gun" as its premise, when as we have seen you have simply disregarded the fact that the risk of the existence of that premise actually can be reduced, so in some cases your equation simply will not apply if appropriate measures are taken.

That is not pro-victim.

Er ... what is not "pro-victim"? Your carefully crafted sophistry?

So how is being pro gun control liberal?

Again -- I wouldn't know. But it's sure as hell social democrat.

Better?

Guess.

[atufal1c]

71. Nice. You've raised some some excellent points.

And they merit a response.

Problem is, I know that I've dashed off an inadequate answer to you, but I don't want to take the time to defend my arguments at the level at which you are prepared to defend yours.

Hell, I'm not even sure of exactly what I mean when I say I am anti-gun control.

So you win.

[SteveM]

31. "assault weapons" are now the most popular center-fire rifle (by sales) in U.S....

This outstrips bolt-action deer rifles, lever-action Winchesters and all other actions, combined. The AK-47-style and AR-15 carbines are semi-auto (a technology that has been around for over a century -- I own a semi-auto rifle made in 1905), and are of moderate power (they usually cannot penetrate body armor whereas the average deer rifle can), and are used in well-less than 3% of homicides in the U.S. They are becoming the rifle of choice for long-range target shooting (owing to improved accuracy, relatively inexpensive ammunition and mild recoil), and are readily adaptable to shooting accessories (bi-pods, scopes, laser sites, adjustable stocks, etc.). Increasingly, they are being chambered for deer-round calibers to enable hunters in the field.

They are NOT the weapon of choice by criminals: by far, the most popular gun used in crime is the .38 Special/.357 magnum family of revolver, followed by semi-auto pistols. There is little reason to ban these weapons (other than their "scary" appearance). Attempts to do so WILL bring out opposition whose effectiveness has been proven.

Ask your friends if they have a semi-auto carbine; eventually you will find one who does. Then see if he/she will let you examine the weapon. Perhaps, they will let you shoot it. I have fired an AK-47 "clone" (semi-auto). The recoil is quite mild and the ergonomics are superior when compared with a standard walnut and blue-steel deer rifle.

[maxidivine]

29. Assault weapons bans

I'm not so certain you are pro-assault weapons bans, since you have solid logical reasons for all your other statements, and it looks like you just haven't read up on what the term "assault weapons" actually means when it comes out of a politician or political groups mouth. It's a pretty meaningless term, except that it confers one message- that the person using it thinks it's a good idea to ban certain firearms and configurations of firearms based on their appearance, and probably isn't someone who has much firsthand firearms experience.

[Tejas]

41. point of novelty

People that are ignorant of firearms are no different than ones who have never driven a car but want them banned.

[iverglas]

45. point of nonsense

People that are ignorant of firearms are no different than ones who have never driven a car but want them banned.

Did you really mean to say that? I mean, you realize it makes no sense, other than as a gratuitous insult to people who are ignorant of firearms and have never done anything to bother you.

[Tejas]

46. calm down, we believe you

I've met people that hate cars and have never owned much less driven one. They are ignorant on the subject, and have had that pointed out to them, but they stand there like a stick in the mud and hate just the same.

I have a feeling you don't get out much, but tend to want everyone to believe you're an authority on the world outside your door.



*waits for more of your first-hand views of human nature LOL!

[iverglas]

48. try reading what you wrote

It made no sense.

People can go through their lives being ignorant of many things and cause no one any bother. I'm sure you're living proof on several scores.

It seems that someone got all excited and typed:

People that are ignorant of firearms are no different than ones who have never driven a car but want them banned.

when he meant to type something along the lines of

People that are ignorant of firearms AND WANT THEM BANNED are no different than ones who have never driven a car but want them banned.

- without that specification, the sentence was simply a gratuitous insult

- with that specification, the sentence is an attack on a straw foe


Either way, I guess ... hardly matters.

[Tejas]

51. once again, your specifications are speculations, quit wasting bytes n/t

[S_B_Jackson]

42. My sister....

was personally anti-gun...but allowed me to teach her children to shoot so as to teach them proper gun safety and so that they didn't make a mistake of ignorance. They enjoyed it, the next time, she went along to "supervise"...saw how much they enjoyed it. Tried it herself, was shocked to find that she enjoyed it and now is in the process of getting her NC concealed carry license.

[iverglas]

44. it's funny

was shocked to find that she enjoyed it and now is in the process of getting her NC concealed carry license.


I taught my then co-vivant to knit some years ago. (He was from Texas. Texan men do not knit. His father was a proper Texan: an alcoholic who reloaded.)

He enjoyed knitting. He knitted a lovely mohair afghan for his mum for Christmas.

And yet ... he never got the urge to shove a pair of knitting needles down his pants when we went to the mall.


Gunz just seem to give off these brainwaves ...

[S_B_Jackson]

47. Not terribly....

I know several Texas men that knit - I'm one of them who can knit well enough to darn my own socks - many of them are card-carrying cowboys who work cattle, oilfield roughnecks, and those who work offshore on the rigs in the Gulf. It's a useful skill, if one has the dexterity for it...and no one's ever been inclined that I know of to demand the surrender of the their Texas-issued man-cards.

I'll bet I could find any number of "proper" Canadians: alcoholics who shoot and reload as well. Any number of them to be found in NWT, Alberta, BC, Yukon, NS, etc...

Like most anti-gunners, iverglas, you assign emotions and capabilties to an inanimate tool...left alone, a gun cannot load itself, cannot fire itself, it is simply an inert chunk of refined and shaped metal.

And yet ... he never got the urge to shove a pair of knitting needles down his pants when we went to the mall.
And well he shouldn't...no one wants to walk around with a pocket full of shredded meat...

As for my sister, I doubt that she's planning on shoving it down her pants....I mean she can't stand pantylines, much less the unsightly bulge of a Sig P225 at her waist...I think she's planning on a concealed carry purse...

[iverglas]

49. sure is

The part where you pretended not to get the point, anyhow.

[S_B_Jackson]

52. I didn't pretend anything, iverglas...

you draw a lame analogy between shooting a firearm and knitting...presume that I would deride the analogous Texan-knitter as what? - effeminate? - and that he never felt compelled to ram them down his jock and stroll about the streets.

I understood the point you were attempting to make and responded accordingly. And you seem to have gotten my point as well. :-)

[iverglas]

53. you had a point?

Blow me down.

As far as I could tell, it was that someone who took up a new hobby immediately became a paranoid self-centred cretin.

I disagreed, since in my experience it wasn't true.

Seemed simple enough.

[S_B_Jackson]

54. Indeed, I did....

but because I spoke straight-forwardly, and too, that I simply responded to the query posited in the OP...clearly it went right over your head.

My sister's anti-gun stance was one assumed from ignorance...she'd never shot a firearm, just knew she "didn't like them." Often times people assume such emotional positions absent any experiential input and find themselves pleasantly surprised when they approach a previously-scorned activity with an open mind and just try it. "It" being nearly any activity one wishes to think of be it shooting, golf, rock-climbing, or even...knitting. In my sister's case, When she saw her children shooting - safely, and under supervision - and enjoying it, she tried it and found that once she did so, that she rather enjoyed shooting...As one of my British colleagues put it once when he went shooting with myself and a couple of co-workers after work, "Now, that was exhilirating!..."

In my sister's case, I hardly consider it paranoid for a woman who lives alone with her children several states removed from her immediate family and who, at times, has felt threatened by her neighbor's pit bull dogs, as well as by a persistent ex-boyfriend, that it might be prudent for her to have in her home, and to be proficient in it's use, a firearm of some sort. And that after giving it some thought, that the option most suited to her needs was to undertake the proper training, and to obtain a concealed carry permit which would, co-incidentally, be useful on the long roadtrips between her home in NC and her native Texas to visit her family...each of the states between honors and recognizes as valid that NC permit....

Nor, is it self-centered to assume responsibility for the safety of one's children and one's self. The police cannot physically be immediately to hand everywhere at once, and it is a well-established principle of juris prudence that, unless someone has been placed into their custody, do they have any legal duty to protect any individual citizen.

Your experience is your own and I won't speak for it, but I would point out that it has little relevance to my own and has little application in my sister's.

[iverglas]

55. just once

I'd like to see an original thought from the crowd. Just once.

The talking points really do get just plain boring.

[S_B_Jackson]

56. Strange...

that's my thought every time I see your advocacy for policies designed to deny a basic civil liberty to others simply because you don't like it.

[iverglas]

57. yeah?

Well just imagine what I think every time I see you howling at the moon just because it's made of green cheese.


You folks surely do come up with some strange and contorted ways of calling other people stupid fascists. Just too bad you've never been able to substantiate your venom.

[S_B_Jackson]

58. Iverglas, had I intended to call you a fascist, stupid or otherwise,...

I'd have simply done so. Your body of work in this very forum is sufficient to demonstrate your preference for denying this civil liberty, with no need or requirement for any anger, vitriol, or venom.

Unless, perhaps, you're referring to your own intent?

[iverglas]

59. I'd like to think you know what I was referring to

advocacy for policies designed to deny a basic civil liberty to others simply because you don't like it.

A vicious personal attack based on nothing but your own penchant for deceit and demagoguery.

Anyone who seeks to "deny a basic civil liberty" to anyone simply because s/he doesn't "like" it ... frankly, I don't know how to characterize such a person.

That would be because such a person would be kinda like a Sasquatch. I've never met one, so I can't really say what s/he/it would be like.

I'm pretty sure, at least in the case of the person who seeks to "deny a basic civil liberty" to anyone simply because s/he doesn't "like" it, that s/he would be both stupid and nasty.

And I have no doubt whatsoever that this was the one and only purpose of what you wrote: to portray me as stupid and nasty. Are you actually going to pretend it wasn't??


I do wish you people would at least sort yourselves out on one thing.

Is firearms possession, according to you, a human right? a civil right? a civil liberty?

Do you have a clue what any of those expressions mean?

I'm pretty sure not.



typo fixed

[bossy22]

73. i did

about 4 years ago...