Debate about Gun Control

[Classic-Xer]

(07-10-2016, 06:17 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-10-2016, 02:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Bob, I don't have issues with your so-called values. I'm sure that we have similar values. I have issues with your politicians and whether or not they truly represent certain values or if they're just using values to get ahead.  I have at least three sets of values. I represent American values (classical liberal values). I have moral values. I have personal values. I get the impression that you have one set of values and that's it. I get the impression that progressive values are it as far as your values go. Although, when I press you a bit, I learn you have values we do commonly share. Values that are at odds with the progressive values that you stand for. In short, I don't like your politicians. I don't like the bulk of your base. I don't like the people your party attracts. PB is pathetic. Eric is a self centered leach. Odin is an issue waiting to happen. Hilary Clinton is Hilary Clinton. Kerry is a weasel. Al Sharpton is worthless piece of shit. Liberal today ain't what means and you're tied it. White American and portions of black America, brown America, yellow America, gay America, female America have had with your people. A large enough group to cut ties, remove the Constitution and the flag and reestablish and move on. You'll have a choice to make when this begins to happen during the 4t.

This one takes some answering.  Sorry if I go on at length, look at it from multiple angles, and the angles sometimes conflict with one another.  Well, sorta sorry.  That's kind of what I do.

Elites seek power and wealth.  It's what they do.  They hang out with one another, make friends with each other, and make deals with each other.  In other words, power corrupts.  Liberals distrust conservative politicians.  Conservatives distrust liberal politicians.  We will be making progress when liberals and conservatives come together to distrust all politicians.

At this point, I can complement the conservatives in that they have rejected their establishment business as usual politicians and are at least trying for something radically different.  The radically different I can approve of.  That the choice is Trump....   Not so much, but I'll leave that alone for the moment.

Conservative politicians give lip service to smaller government.  Progressives give lip service to government serving the working People.  Both are admirable goals.  The bases on both sides are reasonable in looking for these things.  Neither is happening, not to anywhere near the extent that I would like.  To a great extent, each flavor of politician is blocking the other, making it hard to keep promises made to either base.  I'd like to see more creative cooperation in working together to get closer to doing both.  What I'm seeing is the use of the other party as an excuse for not doing as promised.

To a great extent, this is because the political elites are serving the monetary elites rather than either base.  Campaign contributions from wealthy donors is seen as a better path to gain and keep power than serving the base.  This is apt to continue until and unless we have a major values shift.  Accepting contributions from major donors has got to be viewed as a sign of corruption, a disqualification from serving in office.

The Republicans have traditionally been the party of the Robber Barons.  While the parties have flip flopped on many issues, with at one point the Republicans being the party freeing the black people, and at another time their being the isolationists, some things change, with the Democrats flip flopping on such issues right with them.  Still, the Republicans have always been with the Robber Barons.  If anything is changing recently, it is that both parties are currently serving the Robber Barons.  Both parties -- well, Sanders did buck the trend somewhat -- are in bed with big money.  This is not a good thing for Everyman.

I've been watching the various partisans on the forum accuse the other side's politicians of being, dirty, rotten, corrupt, divorced from service to the people and being otherwise vile and unspeakable, and I can agree whole heartedly with most of it.  Going in either direction.  I'd like to see more emphasis on politics, less emphasis on personal vilification.  I don't want to spend a lot of time reading about bad personal habits or personalities.  I'm more concerned with how politicians drive policy, less about them as people.  I'm not in love with Hillary, nor do I assume that all Republicans are in love with Trump.  That our current political system nominated two people very much disliked for good reason by lots of folk is very very problematic.  As much as I dislike our two presumptive nominees, I dislike the process that made them our presumptive nominees even less.  The insider elites have got a system of locking out anyone who might rock the boat down pretty good.

Jefferson's self evident truths are close to the heart of my political values.  People will suffer corruption and tyranny while it can be suffered, but have the right to revolt when it becomes intolerable.  Just how intolerable is intolerable?  When does Jefferson cease to be a founding father embodying stability, democracy, Rights and all our American virtues, and when do we remember Jefferson the revolutionary?  Is now the time to water the Tree of Liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants?  You have clearly reached your Popeye Point.  Enough is enough, and enough is too much.

I don't know that the country is with you yet.  We have the beginnings of a spiral of rhetoric and violence, but the spiral is centered on systematic government mistreatment -- including fatal mistreatment -- of minorities.  It isn't centered on economic inequality.  I'd like to see it embrace both.  We are also early on in the spiral.  We are no where close to where the Sons of Liberty went before the Revolution, John Brown before the Civil War, or even the Communists leading up to and during the Great Depression.

In a way, I'm almost encouraged by the spiral.  The corrupt elites aren't apt to give up their self serving system without a threat of violence, a threat that they could lose their position entirely.  I half anticipate that they will give ground in the presence of a viable threat, but will continue to resist calls for change otherwise.  The ballot box might be mighty, but it is clearly not mighty enough.  The voice of the people has be divided and neutralized.  In an abstract and distant way, yes, the Powers that Be need to know that what they have been doing is unacceptable.

This doesn't mean I'm going to go out, buy a bunch of firearms, and try to find the physical address of various 4T posters.  They aren't the enemy.  No matter how much some of them irritate, violence at this point doesn't seem the correct way to end the irritation.

In general, I'd like to see a more nuanced, less partisan, view of the crisis.  Folk on both sides are buying in to much to the unraveling values.  They have decent ideas of what ought to be done.  The have biased false demonized views on what the other faction wants to do.  An awful lot of energy is being spent trying to convince the other guys that they are bad guys.  Good luck with that.  Everyone is equally dedicated to the principle that they are on the side of the angels.  I see no angels here, and few true devils.  I don't see attempts to demonize as overly constructive.  Folks are pretty much immune to seeing themselves as vile demons, no matter what vile image of them you have imagined and might even believe in.

Both sides have seen some stuff that is real and should be pursued.

Is anyone against a small effective government that really helps those who really need help, tries not to interfere too much with people's lives, and is not in the business of enriching those already rich?  Is there are way to pursue virtues rather than try to work up as much misunderstand and rage as possible to those caught under the other jaw of the trap?

I'd like to think so.  At least, I'd like to think we could do better.

Until the Clinton's are politically rejected and discarded like the Bush's were rejected and discarded on the other side, I don't think so. Government checks are powerful incentive to cling to LBJ's vision and the so-called blue values imposed on others. Good luck keeping up when half the country wants out. To put this in a perspective you can understand, you are the EU and I'm Britain.

[Bob Butler 54]

The conservatives have done a good and persistent job of demonizing Hillary.  You have certainly bought into it.  I'm less inclined to pay attention than most when someone from one faction is demonizing someone on the other.  To much self interest and hate.  I haven't the time for it.

If she is as bad as they say, the progressives can catch up with the conservatives in terms of rejecting their establishments and perhaps we might get a real choice in 2020. I almost hope she is that bad.  More likely, she will be as smooth and bland a piece of teflon as her husband, and not build up the sort of anger to put the Establishment truly at risk.

I'm not the EU.  I'm just one guy expressing an opinion.  You're not Britain.  You are talking up a spiral of rhetoric and violence, but the country hasn't caught up with you yet.  Some say that MLK understood Malcolm X's violence and rhetoric, and that the threat of violence behind the peaceful protests were a large factor in the civil rights movement.  In that spirit, it is a good sign that some sabers are being rattled today.

As far as I'm concerned, rattle away.  Try to rattle in the right direction.  The progressives are not all what your vile stereotypes suggest we ought to be, no more than you are what they try to claim you are.  When progressive posters insult and abuse, do you recognize yourself in their insults?  Are you what they think you are, what they say you are?  I assume not.  Assume the willful misunderstanding and urge to demonize is just as pervasive going in both directions.  

Meanwhile, it seems early to actually draw the saber and start running folk through.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-10-2016, 08:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The conservatives have done a good and persistent job of demonizing Hillary.  You have certainly bought into it.  I'm less inclined to pay attention than most when someone from one faction is demonizing someone on the other.  To much self interest and hate.  I haven't the time for it.

If she is as bad as they say, the progressives can catch up with the conservatives in terms of rejecting their establishments and perhaps we might get a real choice in 2020. I almost hope she is that bad.  More likely, she will be as smooth and bland a piece of teflon as her husband, and not build up the sort of anger to put the Establishment truly at risk.

I'm not the EU.  I'm just one guy expressing an opinion.  You're not Britain.  You are talking up a spiral of rhetoric and violence, but the country hasn't caught up with you yet.  Some say that MLK understood Malcolm X's violence and rhetoric, and that the threat of violence behind the peaceful protests were a large factor in the civil rights movement.  In that spirit, it is a good sign that some sabers are being rattled today.

As far as I'm concerned, rattle away.  Try to rattle in the right direction.  The progressives are not all what your vile stereotypes suggest we ought to be, no more than you are what they try to claim you are.  When progressive posters insult and abuse, do you recognize yourself in their insults?  Are you what they think you are, what they say you are?  I assume not.  Assume the willful misunderstanding and urge to demonize is just as pervasive going in both directions.  

Meanwhile, it seems early to actually draw the saber and start running folk through.

I've been telling you what I can see happening in the future if we continue this trend. I'm 50 years old. I'm very familiar with the Clinton's and the crap associated with them. Lying to the public and involvement in shady deals is not an issue for them. I wasn't playing video games or watching Barnie or crawling around on the floor during the 1990's. I was watching Clinton's weaseling out of scandal's. I've watched uppity liberals blabbing to one another for many years. Blabbing about people and issues they're clueless about. I've been them watching on TV and talking with the same clueless types here. I watched as a federal building was blown up and as a group of radicals and their little kids fried to death in Waco. I watched some poor Cuban kid was ripped from a loving home in Florida home by FBI agents armed with assault rifles. I can't wait to relive it again.

[pbrower2a]

A Reagan appointee wrote the decision that declared that Elian Gonzalez had to return to his one living parent, his Commie father. The opinion, as I understood, began to the effect  "as much as I loathe the regime of Fidel Castro"...

A few months later someone who had taken a child away from his custodial mother and taken him to Cuba where he thought that the child would be safe from American authority to return him to the USA, Fidel Castro made a decision that the child was to be returned to the custodial mother in the USA. Fidel Castro so long as he was El Maximo Lider  observed all legal decisions involving child custody. One wins some and one loses some.

Those were too easy and right decisions, one by the Clinton Administration and one by Fidel Castro.

[Galen]

(07-10-2016, 04:42 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 06:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 05:48 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: The gun fanatics say that gun control is "prohibition," and then trot out the reasons why prohibition doesn't work. Irrelevant straw man. Or they think that banning military weapons is violating our rights. Both non-starters. Gun control is not gun prohibition, and military weapons are different from civilian guns.

I am not advocating prohibition, at least not in the foreseeable future, or by forcible confiscation. But that will not stop the gun fanatics from claiming that I am.

Some of that is just argument about the definition of a word.  Do you want the government to prohibit stuff?  If so, you can reasonably be said to favor a prohibition.  Check your dictionary.  I'm using a common definition.

The other part is fact.  Did alcohol prohibition work well in the 1930s?  How has the war on drugs been doing?  How well have recent attempts to keep bad guys from getting weapons worked?

Putting laws on the books is one thing.  Enforcing them is another.

It's not about the definition; that can't be disputed. You can't say that alcohol prohibition has ended, and then say gun control is prohibition. Not and still be in accord with reality. Drinking is NOT allowed for everyone and under all conditions. To think so is not to be concerned with facts. So the argument that prohibition does not work is a pure straw man, and does not deserve consideration in this debate.

The end game as you have made abundantly clear is in fact prohibition.

[Eric the Green]

(07-10-2016, 11:42 PM)Galen Wrote:

(07-10-2016, 04:42 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 06:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 05:48 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: The gun fanatics say that gun control is "prohibition," and then trot out the reasons why prohibition doesn't work. Irrelevant straw man. Or they think that banning military weapons is violating our rights. Both non-starters. Gun control is not gun prohibition, and military weapons are different from civilian guns.

I am not advocating prohibition, at least not in the foreseeable future, or by forcible confiscation. But that will not stop the gun fanatics from claiming that I am.

Some of that is just argument about the definition of a word.  Do you want the government to prohibit stuff?  If so, you can reasonably be said to favor a prohibition.  Check your dictionary.  I'm using a common definition.

The other part is fact.  Did alcohol prohibition work well in the 1930s?  How has the war on drugs been doing?  How well have recent attempts to keep bad guys from getting weapons worked?

Putting laws on the books is one thing.  Enforcing them is another.

It's not about the definition; that can't be disputed. You can't say that alcohol prohibition has ended, and then say gun control is prohibition. Not and still be in accord with reality. Drinking is NOT allowed for everyone and under all conditions. To think so is not to be concerned with facts. So the argument that prohibition does not work is a pure straw man, and does not deserve consideration in this debate.

The end game as you have made abundantly clear is in fact prohibition.

As I have made clear, only when and if the people want it, by a large enough majority that there won't be gun lovers crying "from my cold, dead hands!"

Not likely in my lifetime or yours. And my ideas are irrelevant; the gun control activists include gun owners like Gabby Giffords. Prohibition is not their proposal.

[Eric the Green]

(07-10-2016, 06:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-10-2016, 04:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's not about the definition; that can't be disputed. You can't say that alcohol prohibition has ended, and then say gun control is prohibition. Not and still be in accord with reality. Drinking is NOT allowed for everyone and under all conditions. To think so is not to be concerned with facts. So the argument that prohibition does not work is a pure straw man, and does not deserve consideration in this debate.

Again, check your dictionary.

So you admit that alcohol prohibition is current law, then?

Not to mention car prohibition, and cigarette prohibition too.

[Galen]

(07-10-2016, 11:55 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(07-10-2016, 11:42 PM)Galen Wrote:

(07-10-2016, 04:42 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 06:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 05:48 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: The gun fanatics say that gun control is "prohibition," and then trot out the reasons why prohibition doesn't work. Irrelevant straw man. Or they think that banning military weapons is violating our rights. Both non-starters. Gun control is not gun prohibition, and military weapons are different from civilian guns.

I am not advocating prohibition, at least not in the foreseeable future, or by forcible confiscation. But that will not stop the gun fanatics from claiming that I am.

Some of that is just argument about the definition of a word.  Do you want the government to prohibit stuff?  If so, you can reasonably be said to favor a prohibition.  Check your dictionary.  I'm using a common definition.

The other part is fact.  Did alcohol prohibition work well in the 1930s?  How has the war on drugs been doing?  How well have recent attempts to keep bad guys from getting weapons worked?

Putting laws on the books is one thing.  Enforcing them is another.

It's not about the definition; that can't be disputed. You can't say that alcohol prohibition has ended, and then say gun control is prohibition. Not and still be in accord with reality. Drinking is NOT allowed for everyone and under all conditions. To think so is not to be concerned with facts. So the argument that prohibition does not work is a pure straw man, and does not deserve consideration in this debate.

The end game as you have made abundantly clear is in fact prohibition.

As I have made clear, only when and if the people want it, by a large enough majority that there won't be gun lovers crying "from my cold, dead hands!"

Not likely in my lifetime or yours. And my ideas are irrelevant; the gun control activists include gun owners like Gabby Giffords. Prohibition is not their proposal.

Don't give me that shit.  Everybody with a working brain knows that you would impose a gun ban if you could get away with it.  Truth is, the whole gun control movement is attempt to get a ban on the installment plan.  When you read their own material they make that pretty clear.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-10-2016, 09:25 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I've been telling you what I can see happening in the future if we continue this trend. I'm 50 years old. I'm very familiar with the Clinton's and the crap associated with them. Lying to the public and involvement in shady deals is not an issue for them. I wasn't playing video games or watching Barnie or crawling around on the floor during the 1990's. I was watching Clinton's weaseling out of scandal's. I've watched uppity liberals blabbing to one another for many years. Blabbing about people and issues they're clueless about. I've been them watching on TV and talking with the same clueless types here. I watched as a federal building was blown up and as a group of radicals and their little kids fried to death in Waco. I watched some poor Cuban kid was ripped from a loving home in Florida home by FBI agents armed with assault rifles. I can't wait to relive it again.

There was a spiral of violence associated with the conservative militia movement building in the late Bush 41 and early Clinton 42 years.  The FBI and BATF had aggressive rules of engagement and the militia movement was escalating in their resistance to government.  Waco and OKC were the peak of that.  Clinton 42 change the federal agency’s rules of engagement, emphasizing patience, talking folks down and avoiding use of force.  While I was seriously concerned with the conservative militia and fundamentalist spiral of violence, it ceased with the Clinton change in rules of engagement and OKC.  I give Clinton more credit than blame in ending that particular spiral of domestic violence.  I’m a bit concerned that the police are getting more aggressive these days, that the escalation will return.

As Pbrower said, legit custody calls were made by Castro and the US Judiciary.  In the minds of someone partisan, the blame somehow got shifted around.  If someone wants to hate someone, they will find an excuse.  There are real reasons to dislike Clinton 42.  You are dwelling on some fine non-reasons.

I am displeased with both the Republican’s pathetic attempts to create scandals and 42’s contempt for such scandals.  The Republicans at the time were no better than 42.  The conservatives have had and have continued to have their fair share of sex scandals.  The difference is that they tried to make political hay of the idea they were holier than others.  Ever since Nixon was taken down, there has been an urge to take out a Democratic president.  No matter that no one has been as crooked as Nixon was, impeach away.  

42 judged the mood of the country was such that the Republicans would look more like prudes playing politics than serious folk trying to run the country well.  He was more or less right, but his arrogance in sneering at the scandal pushers put Gore in a weaker position to hold the White House.  That let Bush 43 in.  That threw away everything 42 had done to restore the economy, restore faith in government, quash failed states, and form lasting alliances to check large scale crimes against humanity.  While 42 survived his arrogance and willingness to flaunt social mores while he was in office, they destroyed his legacy by enabling Bush 43’s borrow and spend neocolonialism.

Ah, yes.  Bush 43.  Richard Nixon.  Politicians lying to the country?  No, I’m not pleased with it.  Not pleased at all.  Catch em at it.  Publicize it.  Scream it from the rooftops.  Remember it when they’re up for reelection.  I just don’t think the progressives have any monopoly on it.

There is a tendency for partisans of all flavors to be outraged with the actions of the other side while giving their own people a free pass.  You’ve been going back and forth with the progressives here long enough to be aware of this, and you’re no different from them in that respect.  I don’t seem to be making a difference in your approach, and will soon be just let it go.  Partisans can squabble at each other all they like.  If you’re having fun, go at it.  I’m just not that much inclined to join y’all in the mud.

I can even sympathize somewhat with a notion that the time for violence may be soon.  The time for endless bickering and political stalemate is surely running its course.

But as I said to Kinser when he was in his Communist phase, violence and revolution are pointless if one doesn’t have a plan to replace the old regime with something better.  Violence can kill, destroy and impoverish, but to what end?  We need functional checks against the greed, arrogance and folly of the elites.  Violence is a plausible last resort.  Have all other approaches exhausted?  Not yet, but we’re getting there.  Have we got a solid idea of what ought to be done better once violence has succeeded?  I haven’t seen it.  Replacing the old elites with new elites isn’t apt to do much without a stronger leash on the new elites.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-11-2016, 02:48 AM)Galen Wrote: Don't give me that shit.  Everybody with a working brain knows that you would impose a gun ban if you could get away with it.  Truth is, the whole gun control movement is attempt to get a ban on the installment plan.  When you read their own material they make that pretty clear.

I would have worded it differently, but yah.  If you're in the mood to fence with Eric, feel free.

[playwrite]

(07-08-2016, 02:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 10:50 AM)playwrite Wrote: I don't think there's a single police-at-fault shooting that involved their use of any military weapons platforms like an AR-15 style weapon.  As far as I know, every one of these events, including the recent LA and MN shootings, were with standard issue handguns.  The police bring out the military hardware once an event has escalated.

I have big problems with local police force having military weapons platforms as standard issue.  I just got back from Paris, FR, and the police fire teams with military issue were patrolling all over the place.  Given their situation, that's understandable, but it is a mood killer - do we want that here?  On the other hand, I want the police to be able to outgun the bad guys.  Solution, take the military platforms out of the hands of civilians - this is not rocket science.

There are some who oppose SWAT teams with full military kit serving search warrants in the middle of the night, leading off with flash bangs thrown into the house at random.  One of the more notable incidents had the flash-bang land the baby's crib.  Some jurisdictions do this in response to rumors of pot being grown in a house.  The people sleeping inside can't really be expected to respond rationally after a sudden awakening.  Things go wrong too often.  Local jurisdictions can afford to accept free military surplus equipment, but they can't afford the expensive training required if you want the missions to go well.  PBS did a recent series of programs on the problem.  The primary thing I took away from it is that if you can't afford to train your people in paramilitary missions in a civilian environment, you shouldn't hand out the weapons or launch the missions.  Otherwise, mistakes happen.  A lot.

Another factor that came up in the PBS specials is lawyers.  Make a mistake, you can get sued big time.  Thus, if a police officer makes a mistake, you can't admit to anything having gone wrong.  This reinforces the Blue Wall of Silence.  As a result patterns of mistakes that happen often are not being publicized.  Training cannot be improved to train officers to avoid the common mistakes.  The failure to accept responsibility or admit fault when fault obviously exists results in distrust and resentment by the public.

This should be considered an almost separate issue from many of the other problems.  It is generally accepted and traditional that officers can use deadly force if they feel threatened.  The recent LA an MN incidents had cops that felt threatened when the civilian had a gun but was making absolutely no attempt to use it.  This sort of situation comes up with little to no notice.  As a result, the police will have only their side arms available to respond.  It's not at all the same situation as the midnight search assault. A good part of the answer may still be better training that many police departments don't think they can afford.

Not rocket science, but wishful thinking won't get it done, either.  Better training would help a lot, but are we willing to pay for it?  Having superior firepower immediately available, assuming one is trained to use it, isn't a bad idea.

Not much to disagree with here unless it is attempting to imply that most armed confrontations with police involve SWAT teams - just the fact that the "S" stands for "special" makes that a silly notion - and thereby a roundabout way of getting the typical refrain that a ban on ARs would not stop all confrontations or the common cold.

It is also likely that police training would be different if confrontation with individuals with ARs was moved from the need-to-assume category to the not-likely category - maybe there be more attention to training on the proper placement of flashbangs.

[playwrite]

(07-08-2016, 04:29 PM)taramarie Wrote: The "croc" has actually blocked Playwrite. The reason is so no one has to see anymore of that nonsense. Eric posts interesting and thoughtful things nor is he a dick like Playwrite although we have our disagreements. Which is also a factor why i have put Playwrite on ignore and not Eric. Playwrite has nothing interesting to say and when he says anything it is childish drivel verging on the authoritarian side. So you guys will no longer see us bang heads anymore. He will forever be on ignore and as i am not interested in what he says that will be it. Life is too short for all of that.

Whether you ignore me or not, I will still point out the inanity of your position on gun control.  I don't think anyone is going to miss the further inanity of your response to my critique.

[playwrite]

(07-09-2016, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:06 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:02 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I realize this topic gets heated but could everyone avoid gratuitous personal insults.

Thank you. I also have put Playwrite on ignore so that will not continue.

I know what you mean.  Playwrong is right up there with Eric the Obtuse for his ability to ignore reality.   As a previous poster noted Switzerland is not a very violent place despite the fact that the citizens have fully automatic weapons.  Indeed, my understanding of the situation reminds of what the Militia Act of 1798 required of Americans.  Given how small they are it doesn't surprise me that they would go with the militia solution to supplement their defense.

One would think that even the most obtuse of the "good guys with guns" would stay in their holes a tad longer after 10 highly trained, armed policemen were taken down by a single bad guy in about 10 minutes in Dallas.

[playwrite]

(07-09-2016, 03:32 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:16 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:06 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:02 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I realize this topic gets heated but could everyone avoid gratuitous personal insults.

Thank you. I also have put Playwrite on ignore so that will not continue.

I know what you mean.  Playwrong is right up there with Eric the Obtuse for his ability to ignore reality.   As a previous poster noted Switzerland is not a very violent place despite the fact that the citizens have fully automatic weapons.  Indeed, my understanding of the situation reminds of what the Militia Act of 1798 required of Americans.  Given how small they are it doesn't surprise me that they would go with the militia solution to supplement their defense.

Yes culture and history also plays a part in a relationship with guns. I found the commentary very interesting as that had not been part of the original picture before and only gave us part of the story of the swiss and guns.

In my experience when someone decides on violence as a solution to their problem then they will find the tool.  Firearms are simply a tool like any other.

BUT, they don't "find" rocket launchers, flame throwers, tanks, and ICBMs, do they?

If they can only find a 10-round pistol, they are not going to shoot 10 armed policemen. 

This is not complicated.

[playwrite]

(07-09-2016, 03:48 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:32 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:16 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:06 PM)taramarie Wrote: Thank you. I also have put Playwrite on ignore so that will not continue.

I know what you mean.  Playwrong is right up there with Eric the Obtuse for his ability to ignore reality.   As a previous poster noted Switzerland is not a very violent place despite the fact that the citizens have fully automatic weapons.  Indeed, my understanding of the situation reminds of what the Militia Act of 1798 required of Americans.  Given how small they are it doesn't surprise me that they would go with the militia solution to supplement their defense.

Yes culture and history also plays a part in a relationship with guns. I found the commentary very interesting as that had not been part of the original picture before and only gave us part of the story of the swiss and guns.

In my experience when someone decides on violence as a solution to their problem then they will find the tool.  Firearms are simply a tool like any other.

I saw some commentary from some folk from Switzerland who had gone to the black market to buy ammunition which is what i tell people here that would happen in America but they do not listen. It opens up a market to someone. Someone will eagerly cash in.

So what?

People willing to break the law is going to be exceedingly smaller than the number of people who can now legally access an unlimited supply of military weaponry.  That's  both because of the penalties that will scare their lives and to the relative high-costs in a black market.

Apparently, these rather simple facts are difficult for some to grasp.

[playwrite]

(07-09-2016, 05:40 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 05:12 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 04:15 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 04:05 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:48 AM)taramarie Wrote: That happens with pretty much everything. Ban something and they will find a way to get it.  Government edicts can only go so far.  My great-grandmother pointed that out to me when I was a kid.  She also called the police crooks which is a major condemnation coming from a Victorian era women who didn't use obscenities.  Which tells you how long this sort of crap has been going on.  The cell phone camera and YouTube just make it so obvious that it is hard to ignore.

Agreed. I take it your great grandmother was a lost generation member? She sounds like she had a wise head on her shoulders. Yes I made the comparison to alcohol prohibition but the kiwi knows squat apparently.

Yes, she was Lost.  Even by my time there were not very many of them left.  The Boomers ignored them but you have no idea how much trouble she saved me from.  Twenty-three years dead and she is still worth listening to and I can't say that about many of the living.

The kiwi is telling them that their Utopia is not possible which is something they can't handle.  So they decide to ignore reality. Consider the following quote:

      The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.

                - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

This is the mentality you are dealing with.

Yes it is impossible to talk to people who put idealism over reality. I am for idealism.....if it is DOABLE. If not it is a complete waste of time and money. They also have to consider that in some places the culture is different. Here in NZ for instance sure we have guns and we have murders. We have a black market (particularly in weed as it is still not legal here) but we do have a different outlook when it comes to guns. Think of my reaction when i saw people carrying them around with them in SA. People there were ok with it. They thought it made them safe. But in my own country it is viewed in the opposite way. Someone carrying one would be viewed as dangerous. People go ape shit and go into lock down if they see a person marching in somewhere with one (which is illegal). Culturally we are way more sensitive to seeing a firearm on someone and view it quite differently (due to our laws) than America which has a very different history connected with guns and their 2nd Amendment right. It won them their independence from the British and the Nazi threat for instance and is their 2nd Amendment right. It is viewed as a problem solver and security. Here, security for some but mainly a sign of danger. Our laws could be created due to a different history, culture and mindset. Over in America....I highly doubt it. As some Americans tell me....."over my dead body they will. They will have to pry it from my cold dead hands before I hand it over." Now for tighter regulations that even gets them jumping up and down. I would like to know what kind of regulations they are considering. As a non American I do not hear of everything so I have only heard about tighter regulations but that is it. For a country that demands its freedom especially when it comes to free speech and guns forgive me if i am skeptical about the work-ability of such laws without someone making big in the black market!

Gee, I thought with the ban on grenade launchers, we would have achieved utopia. 

No one seems to be using grenade launchers for mass killings.  I guess I should be happy.  But instead I'm so disappointed that utopia didn't fall from the sky.

[playwrite]

(07-09-2016, 06:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 05:40 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 05:12 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 04:15 AM)taramarie Wrote: Agreed. I take it your great grandmother was a lost generation member? She sounds like she had a wise head on her shoulders. Yes I made the comparison to alcohol prohibition but the kiwi knows squat apparently.

Yes, she was Lost.  Even by my time there were not very many of them left.  The Boomers ignored them but you have no idea how much trouble she saved me from.  Twenty-three years dead and she is still worth listening to and I can't say that about many of the living.

The kiwi is telling them that their Utopia is not possible which is something they can't handle.  So they decide to ignore reality. Consider the following quote:

      The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.

                - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

This is the mentality you are dealing with.

Yes it is impossible to talk to people who put idealism over reality. I am for idealism.....if it is DOABLE. If not it is a complete waste of time and money. They also have to consider that in some places the culture is different. Here in NZ for instance sure we have guns and we have murders. We have a black market (particularly in weed as it is still not legal here) but we do have a different outlook when it comes to guns. Think of my reaction when i saw people carrying them around with them in SA. People there were ok with it. They thought it made them safe. But in my own country it is viewed in the opposite way. Someone carrying one would be viewed as dangerous. People go ape shit and go into lock down if they see a person marching in somewhere with one (which is illegal). Culturally we are way more sensitive to seeing a firearm on someone and view it quite differently (due to our laws) than America which has a very different history connected with guns and their 2nd Amendment right. It won them their independence from the British and the Nazi threat for instance and is their 2nd Amendment right. It is viewed as a problem solver and security. Here, security for some but mainly a sign of danger. Our laws could be created due to a different history, culture and mindset. Over in America....I highly doubt it. As some Americans tell me....."over my dead body they will. They will have to pry it from my cold dead hands before I hand it over." Now for tighter regulations that even gets them jumping up and down. I would like to know what kind of regulations they are considering. As a non American I do not hear of everything so I have only heard about tighter regulations but that is it. For a country that demands its freedom especially when it comes to free speech and guns forgive me if i am skeptical about the work-ability of such laws without someone making big in the black market!

In a very real sense the question you have to ask is not: Do you trust the government of today but rather the one of tomorrow?  History is filled with examples of governments that were benevolent that later became oppressive and tyrannical.  Famous last words: It can't happen here.  The Germans felt that way in the during the Weimar regime but that gave way to the Nazi era and that did not end well.  I like to think of the Second Amendment as a canary in the coal mine.

Consider the following graph of trust in the federal government:


I was born in 1965 throughout the entirety of my life trust in the major institutions of the US has been generally down and I don't see the general trend changing. While there have been upswings the general trend has been downward and you have seen how its enforcers regard the little people.  Under such circumstances would you trust them with a monopoly on force?  Governments under stress tend to get very abusive.

This is the problem that we face.  Bankrupt governments are also notorious for not being able to provide security for their people.  By any historical measure the US Federal Government is bankrupt even if most of its citizens are incapable or unwilling to recognize this fact.  Such governments are also notorious for abusing their citizens and it seems unlikely that the US will be any different.  To my mind the only way to prevent such an outcome is to deny them such a monopoly on the use of force.

Consider what the the following link from the University of Hawaii:
   https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

I know that there are many here who think that the kiwi doesn't know anything but you are willing to look at the data and that puts you seriously ahead of Eric the Obtuse and Playwrong.  I understand your position on the matter but I provide the data for others to look at so they may understand the conversation if they choose.  The fact that you understand the general case of what government prohibitions tend to do means that you have a better insight into human nature than most of those who are older than you.

There is an idea that a fourth turning leads to an increased trust in the usual institutions but that doesn't take into account the end of empires.  I am fairly certain that the American Empire which got its start in 1898 is about to end and it will not be quick or painless.

Oh, yea, there it is - 'we need are military weapon platforms to take on our government.  Yes, we want to be able to kill our brothers, sisters, kids and grandkids who are in our military and police forces and everyone from dog catchers to governors in the government that are repressing us.  Why, we're so fired-up we'll take over remote bird sanctuaries (the ones with gift shops at least)!'

You two bright lights should get a room and do some binge watching of futuristic despair movies - you are moneymaking machines for Hollywood.

[playwrite]

(07-09-2016, 03:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 02:51 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 06:29 AM)Galen Wrote: to taramarie --

In a very real sense the question you have to ask is not: Do you trust the government of today but rather the one of tomorrow?  History is filled with examples of governments that were benevolent that later became oppressive and tyrannical.  Famous last words: It can't happen here.  The Germans felt that way in the during the Weimar regime but that gave way to the Nazi era and that did not end well.  I like to think of the Second Amendment as a canary in the coal mine.

Consider the following graph of trust in the federal government:


I was born in 1965 throughout the entirety of my life trust in the major institutions of the US has been generally down and I don't see the general trend changing. While there have been upswings the general trend has been downward and you have seen how its enforcers regard the little people.  Under such circumstances would you trust them with a monopoly on force?  Governments under stress tend to get very abusive.

This is the problem that we face.  Bankrupt governments are also notorious for not being able to provide security for their people.  By any historical measure the US Federal Government is bankrupt even if most of its citizens are incapable or unwilling to recognize this fact.  Such governments are also notorious for abusing their citizens and it seems unlikely that the US will be any different.  To my mind the only way to prevent such an outcome is to deny them such a monopoly on the use of force.

Consider what the the following link from the University of Hawaii:
   https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

I know that there are many here who think that the kiwi doesn't know anything but you are willing to look at the data and that puts you seriously ahead of (distorted handles redacted).  I understand your position on the matter but I provide the data for others to look at so they may understand the conversation if they choose.  The fact that you understand the general case of what government prohibitions tend to do means that you have a better insight into human nature than most of those who are older than you.

There is an idea that a fourth turning leads to an increased trust in the usual institutions but that doesn't take into account the end of empires.  I am fairly certain that the American Empire which got its start in 1898 is about to end and it will not be quick or painless.

1. What matters is that the debt not rise faster than the population. It may seem paradoxical, but the currency in your wallet and the money in your bank account is all government debt. That debt is easy to transact -- far easier than gold.

2. Of course I would distrust a Trump administration -- so much that if my job did not depend upon remaining in the USA I would have an extended "workation" in some other country. I understand that New Zealand is very nice. Contrast Australia, which has some of the most dangerous wildlife, and South Africa, which has some very dangerous people.

3. The solution I see is to cut out the crony capitalism and reduce the role of the federal government to welfare, law enforcement, and defense. Except for some work on the Census I have gotten nothing from the federal government without paying for it. Census pay? At least I worked for it as if for a private employer.

4. An empire in decline? First the society must go undemocratic, and government by lobbyist is not democracy.

5. Hitler was a freakish situation. American minorities are far better organized than was the model minority (the Jews!) of Germany. We know what a dictatorship looks like from film clips of Germany, a country with obvious similarities of culture to the United States, between 1933 and 1945.

We do not have a recent hyperinflation. We do not have a recent, crushing defeat that polarized the nation between doves who wanted no more war and hawks seeking to settle scores with other nations. Gutter racism is socially unacceptable socially. It's telling that the people who use religious and racial slurs are the same people who use copious four-letter words. In short, such people lack impulse control.

The money in my wallet and bank accounts and wherever else it's located is mine. The same applies to him. Whether it's government debt or not isn't going to matter to us or anyone who has money. The question is, do we answer the call or do we ignore the call when big government needs more money. What happens then? Questions Democrats should be asking themselves considering their going to be in up to their necks. Do we lend a bunch of self centered, lying, stealing, low life cheats wearing fancy clothes who have been insulting us for years or do we say good bye as their going down. Do you think I'm going to feel bad when Playdude jumps out a window? I think you continue pumping up the blacks as your pissing down on whites. LIBERAL WISDOM AT IT'S BEST.

I realize that you'll never comprehend this, but WTH -

What you said is akin to telling us the oxygen in your lungs is yours and you don't care about the oxygen in the air around us, and the air around us better watch out or you might not give your oxygen back.

There are babies that will actually hold their breath until they turn blue and pass out.  It really freaks out the parents, but the docs just tell them there's no harm, ignore it and the baby will grow out of it.

[playwrite]

(07-09-2016, 06:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 05:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Switzerland according to the stats I've seen has more gun deaths and violence than other developed countries, although the USA is far ahead of Switzerland in that dubious distinction. Americans and Swiss alike are fools to allow citizens to have military weapons. I'm not sure just what exactly the Swiss are allowed to have tho; not taking Galen's word. I imagine though that if Swiss citizens are part of the "militia" which is their armed forces, then they are well trained and regulated. Our militia here in the USA? We've seen pictures of them....

People might want to visit Wiki's list of countries by international homicide rate.  I plucked out a few numbers in homicides per 100,000 population.

Switzerland 0.5 in 2010

Europe as a whole, 3.0

The United States, 3.9 in 2013

The US Virgin Islands, 52.6 in 2010    !!!

Switzerland is often mentioned by the gun rights activists as it is extreme case of a heavily armed country having a very good homicide rate.  Israel is another such country often mentioned.  The militia system can work, and did work in the United States as well for quite some time.  What it isn't is a model that can be copied trivially.  Switzerland has an unusual culture.  The militia system has been part of it for quite some time.  Putting Switzerland's military structure and weapons laws in place in a country without their culture and traditions isn't apt to result in the sort of homicide numbers Switzerland sees.  I also can't see a country moving to a militia system unless there is a threat that is well answered by a militia.  Even in rural areas in the United States with strong gun cultures, do you think people will want to give up weekends to train up when there are no real threats suitable for a militia response?

I'd note that the United States isn't that far behind Europe in this point.  At one point we were around 10, significantly higher than Europe, and a lot of the gun prohibitionist propaganda was written in that time.  Some don't keep up with the numbers and continue to say we're well behind Europe.  Homicide rates are not determined solely by gun policy.  Drug, race and wealth inequality are major factors, often dominating gun policy.  In fact, the homicide rate for non-blacks in the United State is entirely compatible with Europe.  We're right smack dab in the center of their bell curve.  Our problem is drugs, race and wealth inequality, not gun policy.

And what is it with the US Virgin Islands?  A quick trip around the web says they have large drug problems.  Again, people shouldn't look at homicide rates and blame everything on gun policy.  Drugs, economics and race shouldn't be ignored.

The issue that I am concerned with is the increasing mass killings of people completely unconnected to the killer(s).  I am not pushing a civilian ban on military weapon platforms to stop all homicides, crime, illegal drug use, suicides or the common cold. 

There are a myriad of reasons why these mass killings are initiated in some places and not in others that has nothing to do with gun restrictions, but the gun restrictions are ways to limit the carnage where and when the killings are initiated.  The right ingredients for mass killings being initiated may not happen in Switzerland, but should they, the ready access to automated weapons will likely mean very high kill numbers.

[pbrower2a]

(07-11-2016, 02:48 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-10-2016, 11:55 PM)Eric the (insult redacted) Wrote:

(07-10-2016, 11:42 PM)Galen Wrote:

(07-10-2016, 04:42 PM)Eric the (insult redacted) Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 06:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Some of that is just argument about the definition of a word.  Do you want the government to prohibit stuff?  If so, you can reasonably be said to favor a prohibition.  Check your dictionary.  I'm using a common definition.

The other part is fact.  Did alcohol prohibition work well in the 1930s?  How has the war on drugs been doing?  How well have recent attempts to keep bad guys from getting weapons worked?

Putting laws on the books is one thing.  Enforcing them is another.

It's not about the definition; that can't be disputed. You can't say that alcohol prohibition has ended, and then say gun control is prohibition. Not and still be in accord with reality. Drinking is NOT allowed for everyone and under all conditions. To think so is not to be concerned with facts. So the argument that prohibition does not work is a pure straw man, and does not deserve consideration in this debate.

The end game as you have made abundantly clear is in fact prohibition.

As I have made clear, only when and if the people want it, by a large enough majority that there won't be gun lovers crying "from my cold, dead hands!"

Not likely in my lifetime or yours. And my ideas are irrelevant; the gun control activists include gun owners like Gabby Giffords. Prohibition is not their proposal.

Don't give me that shit.  Everybody with a working brain knows that you would impose a gun ban if you could get away with it.  Truth is, the whole gun control movement is attempt to get a ban on the installment plan.  When you read their own material they make that pretty clear.

1. It is a test of citizenship that we obey laws that seem absurd, difficult, or frustrating, and even personally unjust. If we have a democratic process we have the right to seek legal change in statutory law. Only when those laws compromise a basic right do such laws merit civil disobedience, devious evasion, or even violent resistance depending upon the nastiness of the system.  

2. Most of us have some qualms about taking firearms away from people with legitimate uses. Law enforcement is obvious enough: this isn't England, where most of the police are unarmed. Sport hunters and sport target-shooters are the most defensible users of firearms.

Defense of a household? I suggest what may be the nastiest of all predatory animals, something with sharp claws and teeth, a horrible bite force, keen senses, extreme potential for aggression, intelligence, cunning, power, strength, speed, agility, and voracity. It knows our behavior as well as any other large predator except ourselves. Did I just defame your beloved dog? All that keeps a dog from being a man-eater (dogs are unfussy enough as eating machines that they would eat human flesh if it were offered to the dog) is its good behavior. Its affection or your caution prevents it from doing a full Big Cat or bear attack upon you. Threaten the dog's territory or anything for which the dog has affection, and it might as well be a bear or a Big Cat if one allows for size. Even a Yorkie can cause the level of flesh damage that poorly-placed gunshots can do. Self-extrication from a dog attack is exceedingly difficult; pound-for-pound, the dog is the most powerful and strongest mammal, and a dog a third your size will win the struggle.

Dogs rarely attack the wrong person during a threat, and they can often force changes in the behavior of a human threat. Dogs have keener night vision than you do and sleep less soundly than you do. To a burglar (and many burglars are rapists) the bark of a dog might as well be the roar of a leopard, and canine aggression is an instinctive (and wise) fear. All that the dog needs is affection for you, and you are safe; an intruder or stalker might find himself facing a bear or The Other Big Cat. A man's home is his castle and his dog's jungle; a dog is as savage in his defense of his 'jungle' as a Bengal tiger in the Sundarbans.

But heck, even a house cat has the potential to do great bodily harm to a threat to someone threatening a loved one. A mini-leopard jumping onto someone's head can maul one badly. I have seen a news report of such an incident; the victim was a burglar.

3. People who live where guns might be necessary for survival should have guns unless they are reasonably barred from having them. I know of some very liberal people who live in bear country. They have guns. If I lived in bear country, then I too would have a firearm. Bears are similar to dogs except for being much less social (dogs are really wolves, and a wolf pack and a human family have similar structure, which explains why dogs fit well into human families)

4. We have elections that can stop us liberals if we go down the slippery slope from banning guns and levels of ammunition suited only for criminal (including terrorist) use to favorite weapons of hunters and target shooters. I am satisfied with the idea that a hunting license is a gun license. Gun ownership is rightly a privilege.