Again and again and again... - Page 7 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 301Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #91 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-16-2016, 09:24 PM
Member
 
Catherine602's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 6,362
Re: Again and again and again...

Responsible gun owners know the anatomy and mechanics of their firearms, practice safe handling and practice firing regularly. They are the ones who are safer with a gun that without.

Gun purchasers, on the other hand, buy a gun, load it up and drop it into their purse or closet or anywhere within easy reach of children. These people are lunatics and the risk of death or injury to anyone within firing range is great.

Gun purchaser probably describes the great majority of people who arm themselves. When guns are as common as mobile phones, I am terrified that I, or someone I love, will be at greater risk of being shot accidentally by one of these lunatics.

Why are we required to pass a test to drive a car but not to own and fire a deadly weapon?


My magic wand would remove shame from sexuality for all! Anon Pink

Last edited by Catherine602; 07-16-2016 at 11:44 PM.
Catherine602 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-16-2016, 10:33 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,314
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by VladDracul View Post
As I stated, a mugger knowing you have a gun will make you a less likely target than a person they know is not armed. Recently a car jacker (at best) retreated from our friend when she slid across the seat and chambered a 9mm.

In respect to toddlers accidentally shot, in this neck of the woods there have been 5:1 more kids injured or killed by mother's texting and driving than by handguns. But its possible its an outlier.
I also believe a mugger not knowing if you have a gun, but knowing you might, will also make the mugger less likely to pick on you - or go mugging in your neighborhood period.
WorkingWife is offline  
post #93 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 01:52 AM
Member
 
Fozzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,661
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine602 View Post
Responsible gun owners know the anatomy and mechanics of their firearms, practice safe handling and practice firing regularly. They are the ones who are safer with a gun that without.

Gun purchasers, on the other hand, buy a gun, load it up and drop it into their purse or closet or anywhere within easy reach of children. These people are lunatics and the risk of death or injury to anyone within firing range is great.

Gun purchaser probably describes the great majority of people who arm themselves. When guns are as common as mobile phones, I am terrified that I, or someone I love, will be at greater risk of being shot accidentally by one of these lunatics.

Why are we required to pass a test to drive a car but not to own and fire a deadly weapon?
I have zero interest in gun confiscation and very little interest in outlawing any guns that are currently on the market, however I DO think one of the best things we can do is to require safety and marksmanship training & qualification prior to being able to purchase.

Darling it's better down where it's wetter, take it from me! --- Sebastian
Fozzy is online now  
 
post #94 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 08:53 AM
Member
 
Cletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 4,509
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by VladDracul View Post
Even on the best day trying to sell gun control based on gun accidents ain't gonna get much traction. For every kid/person killed in a gun accident someone is going to show you two killed by machinery, falls, backed over or locked in hot vehicles, drowned in home pools, etc. Hence you can't win that argument on its merit.
There's no argument to win. Let's just stipulate that it could be shown objectively that it was in fact overall statistically more dangerous to own a gun in most of the US than to remain unarmed.

Would that change anyone's mind? Not enough to matter. People are usually not that data driven. But it would be an actual answer to the question of whether or not a gun actually makes the collective "you" safer or only makes "you" feel safer. For most of the sane gun owners in this country, feeling safer is not necessarily a bad goal.

For any given individual there is no one-size-fits-all answer. If I lived in urban Detroit, I would probably carry. The answer for that person is almost certainly very different from the answer for someone living in rural Utah.
Cletus is offline  
post #95 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 08:59 AM
Member
 
Cletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 4,509
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine602 View Post
Why are we required to pass a test to drive a car but not to own and fire a deadly weapon?
Because we have an amendment to the Constitution for the latter. One that, in hindsight, might have been just a little too permissive.

Too bad it couldn't read

"A well regulated, trained Militia, capable of displaying proficiency in the knowledge of the responsibilities, dangers, and operations of Arms being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Cletus is offline  
post #96 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 09:29 AM
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,500
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozzy View Post
I have zero interest in gun confiscation and very little interest in outlawing any guns that are currently on the market, however I DO think one of the best things we can do is to require safety and marksmanship training & qualification prior to being able to purchase.
I assume you have the same position on ownership of a printing press or a blog, because of the dangers of hate speech.

Or does this rule apply only to the 2nd Amendment, not the whole Bill of Rights?

Always remember the LD motto: "Sex isn't important!!!"
tech-novelist is offline  
post #97 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 10:27 AM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,771
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sapientia View Post
If you don't live in a jungle, why the need to carry a gun?
Only where the violent crime rate is 0.0000000000 are there no victims of violent crime. That is the only place where there is never a need to defend oneself or one's family against violence.

When you can show me that place, I'll agree there is no need for me to carry a gun there.

Until then, you do live in a "jungle" as you put it, and you are either accepting the fact you could become a defenseless victim or you are in a serious state of delusional thinking.
Thor is online now  
post #98 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 10:39 AM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,771
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
(Necessary preface that I'm not taking an anti-gun position here, just discussing)

Does a gun ACTUALLY make you safer, or does it only make you feel safer? To answer that question, you have to consider the entire cost of ownership - including how likely it is you'll use the weapon in defense of self or other and how likely the weapon is to be used against you or, in the case of your immediate family, on someone else in your household.

Owning a gun is not all upside, even if it has positive benefits. Every toddler shot with the handgun from his mother's purse is an example of the downside. We can get into a stats and studies war on the topic (I won't engage in that), but it's not clear to me that for the average American the answer is objectively well known.
We are, for most of us, discussing marginal events when it comes to our personal situations. However, on a generalized basis the studies show that widespread lawful gun ownership and lawful concealed carry do confer a benefit to society in general by reducing violent crime.

But will I be the victim of a violent crime in my own neighborhood? Since I don't use or distribute illegal drugs and live in a middle class neighborhood my personal statistical risk of being victimized is very very low. One time I was targeted was by 3 non-white youths in DC after dark walking from a restaurant. Of course guns were very illegal back then in DC. My wife and I were very healthy and young, and having seen them and the setup in time we were able to escape.

Compare that to the chance of, for example, one of my young grandchildren finding a loaded gun in a home in the neighborhood. The accident rate for children in such situations is likewise negligibly small.

Yet if one is the victim of a violent crime or accident the rate is 100% and the consequences are enormous. I think most people truly misunderstand the scale of the risks and where they occur. The chance of a child being seriously injured or killed in a gun accident is extremely small, as is the chance of anyone being the victim of a mass public shooting. Yet the media and the gun ban crowd hype it up to the point that people have a fear far out of proportion to the actual risk.

Your child is at far more risk of serious permanent brain injury by riding a bicycle or skateboard. You are at far more risk of being hit by lightening than being killed in a mass public shooting.

What we can do is debunk a lot of the pop-media talking points about how much more dangerous it is to have a gun than not have one. Domestic homicide and suicide rates overall do not change. The famous yet false 47 times more likely to harm your family than kill an intruder argument is intentionally used to deceive the public and I hope everyone who hears that argument immediately realizes the person saying it is intentionally lying to them.

If, for you, the risk of owning a gun seems to high, don't own one.

If someone is going to make the argument that overall public safety is a problem due to lawful gun ownership, I'm going to jump all over them about bicycles, buckets, footballs, cell phones, and any number of other objects or activities with vastly higher accident rates. You can't call for restricting an object based on accident rate unless you're also calling for restrictions on objects with much higher accident rates.

Last edited by Thor; 07-17-2016 at 11:01 AM.
Thor is online now  
post #99 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 10:48 AM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,771
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
I've had one in my face 3 times as a convenience store employee.
Probably weren't your typical lawful gun owning conservative republican voting NRA members who pointed guns in your face.

That's where there is a huge disconnect in the gun control issue. People think that somehow controlling the behavior of law abiding people will reduce violent crime.

The number of otherwise law abiding citizens who convert to being violent criminals is exceedingly small. Violent gun crimes are committed almost exclusively by those with long criminal histories.
Thor is online now  
post #100 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 10:55 AM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,771
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
Because we have an amendment to the Constitution for the latter. One that, in hindsight, might have been just a little too permissive.

Too bad it couldn't read

"A well regulated, trained Militia, capable of displaying proficiency in the knowledge of the responsibilities, dangers, and operations of Arms being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That would make no difference.

First, "well regulated" means what you added. It means proficient at the tasks required of militia soldiers. Trained in maneuvers, accurate with their weapon, knowledgeable in the applicable areas necessary to be a good soldier.

Secondly, the operative clause is the one which gives the scope of the right being protected. The right is .... the right to keep and bear arms. Period. It is not the right to be a militia member. It is not the right of the state to raise a militia. It is not the right to bear military arms. It is not the right to bear sporting arms. It is the right to keep and bear arms.

Thirdly, the limitation placed on the government is that it Shall Not Infringe upon that right.

The preamble could have said "the moon being a satellite of the earth" without changing the scope of the right nor change the limitation placed on the government. All the preamble does is give the reason the right is being included in the Bill of Rights.

Thor is online now  
post #101 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 12:10 PM
Member
 
Fozzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,661
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tech-novelist View Post
I assume you have the same position on ownership of a printing press or a blog, because of the dangers of hate speech.

Or does this rule apply only to the 2nd Amendment, not the whole Bill of Rights?
The other rights aren't completely unfettered. Lawful assembly often requires a permit for demonstrations, etc. Freedom of religion doesn't allow for blood sacrifices.

I'm not talking about registration or a gun owner database here. I'm talking about passing a basic safety class before taking possession of a firearm. If you think that makes me a brownshirt, so be it.

Darling it's better down where it's wetter, take it from me! --- Sebastian
Fozzy is online now  
post #102 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 01:05 PM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,771
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozzy View Post
The other rights aren't completely unfettered. Lawful assembly often requires a permit for demonstrations, etc. Freedom of religion doesn't allow for blood sacrifices.
The right to keep and bear arms similarly does not allow for blood sacrifices. The right to free speech does not allow for intentional harm via inciting a panic or purposefully saying lies to harm someone.

Bad behavior results in legal consequences after one has been found guilty in court. Only via due process can rights be taken as per the 5th Amendment. Prior to that there is no authority for the government to restrict or take rights.

Since the law says the government may not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, any law or regulation which does so is illegal.
Thor is online now  
post #103 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 01:42 PM
Member
 
Fozzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,661
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
The right to keep and bear arms similarly does not allow for blood sacrifices. The right to free speech does not allow for intentional harm via inciting a panic or purposefully saying lies to harm someone.

Bad behavior results in legal consequences after one has been found guilty in court. Only via due process can rights be taken as per the 5th Amendment. Prior to that there is no authority for the government to restrict or take rights.

Since the law says the government may not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, any law or regulation which does so is illegal.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see a safety class as an infringement any more than I do an age requirement.

Darling it's better down where it's wetter, take it from me! --- Sebastian
Fozzy is online now  
post #104 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 03:11 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,314
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
The chance of a child being seriously injured or killed in a gun accident is extremely small, as is the chance of anyone being the victim of a mass public shooting. Yet the media and the gun ban crowd hype it up to the point that people have a fear far out of proportion to the actual risk.

Your child is at far more risk of serious permanent brain injury by riding a bicycle or skateboard. You are at far more risk of being hit by lightening than being killed in a mass public shooting.
Exactly. QFT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
What we can do is debunk a lot of the pop-media talking points about how much more dangerous it is to have a gun than not have one. Domestic homicide and suicide rates overall do not change. The famous yet false 47 times more likely to harm your family than kill an intruder argument is intentionally used to deceive the public and I hope everyone who hears that argument immediately realizes the person saying it is intentionally lying to them.
Exactly. That is what chafes my hide. Media and leaders (like the president of the united states...) keep quoting "statistics" that were never true and have been thoroughly debunked. They must know this, but they repeat the bald face lie regardless and the masses hear it and it just becomes part of their consciousness as conventional wisdom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
If, for you, the risk of owning a gun seems to high, don't own one.
Amen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
If someone is going to make the argument that overall public safety is a problem due to lawful gun ownership, I'm going to jump all over them about bicycles, buckets, footballs, cell phones, and any number of other objects or activities with vastly higher accident rates. You can't call for restricting an object based on accident rate unless you're also calling for restrictions on objects with much higher accident rates.
[QUOTE=Thor;16131585]
Exactly. But what people want to do is try to control other people based on what they FEEL rather than what actually IS.

It's understandable, because our feelings lie to us all the time. For example, I know I'm much safer in an airplane than a car, but I feel the airplane is going to either slam into the ground or start fishtailing out of control then burst into flames every time I'm in one that is landing.

But it's not acceptable to push for policy that controls others based on unfounded feelings and lies. At least not to me, as an American, who used to think she lived in a free country that celebrated individualism and self reliance.

@Thor (and others) Thomas Sowell has done some very easy to follow, eye opening writing on the truth of the history of gun laws and violent crime.

History:
Gun control myths - Thomas Sowell

Facts:
Gun control myths: part II - Thomas Sowell

Gun control myths: Part III - Thomas Sowell
WorkingWife is offline  
post #105 of 361 (permalink) Old 07-17-2016, 05:32 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,546
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
Only where the violent crime rate is 0.0000000000 are there no victims of violent crime. That is the only place where there is never a need to defend oneself or one's family against violence.

When you can show me that place, I'll agree there is no need for me to carry a gun there.

Until then, you do live in a "jungle" as you put it, and you are either accepting the fact you could become a defenseless victim or you are in a serious state of delusional thinking.
No, that's just a silly argument. Tell me, do you avoid going outside or where a titanium shield on the chance you might be hit by a micrometeor? You should. Your chances of that are much better than the stats you require^ to not carry a gun.

I do not live in a jungle. My country is very civilized. My family and my husband's family have lived here for generations and never suffered being a victim of a violent crime, much less one with a gun.

You clearly DO think you live in a jungle. Okay, I get that, but I still feel sorry for you.
sapientia is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome