DescentBB

perhaps, Lothar, you missed some earlier permutations of this discussion on the board. I've made the point before that the idea that armed 'good people' serve as a deterrent is an illusory crock of ★■◆● put forth by the extremists who lobby for your side. In a violent, criminal situaton, the criminal is the one who knows ahead of time what is going down, and in the realistic timeframe, the 'good citizen' generally cannot react in an effective manner. Worst case scenario is a group of panicked 'law abiding' citizens initiating a wild shootout, and creating more victims. There is VERY LITTLE evidence to support the idea that arming more people does a damned thing to deter violence. On the other hand, there is evidence to show that the more weapons are circulated in the general public, the black market for guns goes up because theft goes up.

callmeslick wrote:I've made the point before that the idea that armed 'good people' serve as a deterrent is an illusory crock of ★■◆● put forth by the extremists who lobby for your side. In a violent, criminal situaton, the criminal is the one who knows ahead of time what is going down, and in the realistic timeframe, the 'good citizen' generally cannot react in an effective manner. Worst case scenario is a group of panicked 'law abiding' citizens initiating a wild shootout, and creating more victims. There is VERY LITTLE evidence to support the idea that arming more people does a damned thing to deter violence. On the other hand, there is evidence to show that the more weapons are circulated in the general public, the black market for guns goes up because theft goes up.

Having "made" a point before doesn't mean your point is correct. Part of my pressing you to make it is so that I can disagree with it explicitly, instead of implicitly.

In the realistic timeframe, good citizens can and do react. I've seen footage, numerous times. Can you point to actual cases where citizens reacting has created a "wild shootout" scenario? Or is that a theoretical concern?

Can you point to evidence that the system I've suggested -- stronger regulations about private firearm sales, stronger regulations about securing one's own firearms, and elimination of "gun free zones" -- would increase the black market? Notice that nothing in my system increases circulation of guns in the general public. Fewer people have guns on account of tighter regulations -- but they have guns in more places.

Lothar, before we get too sidetracked here, I want to focus on the last paragraph above. If the things you say you advocate for were embraced and accepted en masse, maybe you would see results. But, the reality is that it won't happen that way. The press from your team is only for less 'gun free zones' with no restrictions, training, or commonsense regulation or background checks with transfers.
Yes, there have been examples of shootouts, and been countless examples of misjudgements resulting in deaths of innocent people. To my mind, I'd far rather see every public space be made 'gun free' and I'll retain my right to not go anyplace that chooses not to do so. Worth noting that despite wide variance, there is utterly no correlation between restrictions on public carry and likelihood of mass shootings, and, in fact(although I consider this more coincidental) most of our recent incidents have occurred in states which had relaxed gun laws in recent years. Connecticut quickly backtracked, too little too late.....one can only hope that the nation rethinks a lot of aspects of what are considered part of our 'culture', or, as Jon Stewart noted last night(see post elsewhere), we are really no different than the darkest corners of the Muslim world. Essentially, we embrace our own barbarity.

callmeslick wrote:

Isaac wrote:Woah woah woah, Slick. The last thing I want is a headed argument, because communication will break down.

There's a problem in your paragraph above. You want less gun crime overall, but we're talking about a mass killing. The solutions to solve mass shootings require different solutions than the general gun crimes committed. If anything, mass shootings are special cases that require a special solution. Your arguments against policy that helps the average criminal get a gun would not stop mass shooters in a country with people that will always buy guns no matter what restrictions are in place. So, we must make a distinction between street thugs that commit most of the gun crime and the mass shooter that commits the most horrific gun crime.

So, let's help each other here and focus on mass shootings for this topic or we'll go back into another generalized loop of the same old arguments.

my solutions were aimed towards both mass shootings(primarily) and gun crimes. No need to put one aside for the other, if the same set of rules help address both.

Pardon if the sounds a bit rude of me, but I'm trying to address your comment to the best of my ability. If you try to pass change that's not specific to anything what you have is a feel good law. Doing nothing is not an option, I think you'd agree. However, if you're not willing to do anything that makes sense to gun advocates like me, what hope do you have in convincing people that know more than I do? You've so far called my type insane for just wishing someone in that church had the ability to protect themselves. I'm not here to do the same. I'm actually trying to find some way to solve this kind of thing in an open forum like this. But calling everyone else wrong is not a good way to change minds or work with others. If you're not actually trying to find a solution outside your own beliefs of what's wrong or right, you might want to just quit talking to people about this, because you don't care enough about what others have to say.

Isaac wrote: You've so far called my type insane for just wishing someone in that church had the ability to protect themselves.

and, I was being polite. Actually, what I am trying to say to those who feel as you do is that you'd better all get behind some common sense restraints, many of which have been proposed, and at the same time cut your ties to spokespersons advocating blindly for more guns as the solution to gun violence, or you're going to find yourself politically in a position in which you have draconian regulations forced down your throats. Do you wish it to come to that? Because, with the NRA responses to each succeeding violent act being as insensitive as the one posted above, you are going to become part of a very marginalized group. You (gun owners) are already a minority, and the percentage of the population owning guns has been dropping for two decades(which likely relates to the rabid push by the industry for fear mongering). Eventually, there will be enough voters to render the gun lobby toothless, and Katy bar the door.

Lothar wrote:No, I am not. I am in fact talking about drastically reducing people using firearms to initiate violence.

the way to do this is to realize violence should not be glorified, and to demonize the perpetrator of violent acts.

There has been a disturbing trend in the last fifteen years. And it goes like this: a mass shooting occurs, every media outlet nation-wide reports on it for weeks on end, and the same points always come up: introverted; withdrawn; nice; no one saw it coming. It might help if those traits were not mentioned.

Ferno wrote:

Lothar wrote:No, I am not. I am in fact talking about drastically reducing people using firearms to initiate violence.

the way to do this is to realize violence should not be glorified, and to demonize the perpetrator of violent acts.

by and large, we don't do the former at all well in our popular culture, and while events like this bring out the latter, it falls on deaf ears to folks who make their living selling guns, or shilling for those that do(read, the NRA). Those folks would rather blame the victims, as I noted in the NRA board member's analysis above.

good to see that someone in Utah(Salt Lake City paper) gets the bizarre morality being expounded upon:

callmeslick wrote:If the things you say you advocate for were embraced and accepted en masse, maybe you would see results.

So why are you arguing against them? Or pretending they're not the arguments I'm making?

The press from your team is only for less 'gun free zones' with no restrictions, training, or commonsense regulation or background checks with transfers

Since when am I part of a "team"? Have I advocated for following a "team" position here? Why do you insist on responding to my words as if they carry with them the weight of everything the NRA has ever said, instead of letting me speak for myself? You get offended when people act like you're a generic supporter of the Democrat platform, so why are you acting like I'm a generic supporter of the NRA? Respond to what I actually advocate, not what you can twist my words into. (Also, I haven't lived in Utah in quite some time, I think Utah is a crazy place, and you should look up Mennonite Brethren if you want to see how wrong you are about trying to assign me to a team.)

there have been examples of shootouts, and been countless examples of misjudgements resulting in deaths of innocent people

Name three that match the criteria you set out above -- where a nutjob starts shooting, and ordinary citizens try to return fire and just make things worse. Since you seem to think "ordinary citizens shooting back will make things worse" is a compelling argument, surely you can come up with three examples to counterbalance the numerous examples of "unopposed lone gunman shoots up the place" or "armed citizens shoot back and kill the gunman" or "armed citizens shoot back and cause the gunman to flee".

To my mind, I'd far rather see every public space be made 'gun free' and I'll retain my right to not go anyplace that chooses not to do so

I'd rather see every public space allow both open and concealed carry. I don't think either is a realistic expectation, though there are other countries where you can see your vision realized.

I also think the shootings taking place in states with relaxed gun laws is interesting, but less pertinent than them tending to take place in "gun-free zones". They're not taking place at gun shows.

Where was the gun hero to save the day? Why did all those people get shot? I thought black people were all about guns.

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:If the things you say you advocate for were embraced and accepted en masse, maybe you would see results.

So why are you arguing against them? Or pretending they're not the arguments I'm making?

no, the one I'm questioning is the expansion of open carry. I see no justification or even valid reasons to expect greater safety, UNLESS the other components came well before the expansion. I stated that I don't feel that would be acceptable to your side of the debate.

I apologize for the perception that I am lumping you, and all open-carry advocates into one 'team', but, sadly, from a political perspective, you are all represented by the same loud(very loud) voice: the NRA. Until I hear a lot of people like you(and it can start with you) telling off the NRA publcly and letting them know that they don't represent your position, I have little choice if we're to debate natonal gun policies. I applauded, last week, Woody's public observation that the NRA had been misleading its followers on trade regulation changes proposed by the administration, but this issue is far more significant. As I noted, if you folks in the responsible camp don't speak up very strongly, you very much risk losing privileges you currently have, and all chance of getting further privileges down the road.

callmeslick wrote:I'm questioning is the expansion of open carry. I see no justification or even valid reasons to expect greater safety, UNLESS the other components came well before the expansion

I see reason to expect greater safety from expanded open/concealed carry, independent of the other components. I also see reason to expect the other components to contribute to greater safety, and I think they would be more acceptable to normal people (though perhaps not to the fringe) if presented as part of a package deal.

Until I hear a lot of people like you(and it can start with you) telling off the NRA publcly

For those missing the context, slick and I have privately been discussing the need for people to call out "their own side" when it goes off the rails, particularly within the context of this board itself.

While I'll speak out in favor of abolishing gun-free zones, I'm also a Mennonite Brethren (cmon slick, google already) who would never carry, and therefore not the most credible to call them out from "their own side". The NRA doesn't speak for me. The NRA guy who blamed the pastor for not arming his congregation certainly doesn't speak for me. And I would love to hear somebody who actually does carry say the same thing.

An untrained or little-trained person firing back at a gunman is much more likely to hit a bystander than the target, due to the fact they get tunnel vision and have almost no control over their adrenaline when in a very high stress event; such as being shot at

Lothar, I lived in East Central PA for 22 years, and have fished in upper Central PA for 30 years. I'm quite aware of the Mennonites, and respect the order in its various variations(as well as the far stricter Amish, who may have the last laugh on us all when we find ourselves unable to maintain an electrical grid). No need to google, I just felt no need to comment on your faith.

[quote="callmeslick"]

While people without guns rarely shoot anyone, they frequently get shot.

callmeslick wrote:

judging by commentary on the web, which this time is far more robust than even after Sandy Hook) that is getting sick and tired of 'we need more guns' and 'no one can prevent this sort of thing' in the face of the clear fact that every other civilized nation manages to avoid this on such a regular basis.

You must be reading different website than me. And would you be referring to a civilized nation like Norway where a crazed gunman killed 69 people.

callmeslick wrote:http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/nra-boa ... t.facebook

we've talked on here before about the need for 'sides' in various political/social debates to restrain the lunatic fringe. Every truly responsible gun owner should be publicly, loudly and effectively opposing this sort of insensitive stupidity. Of course, the fact that Woody tossed similar thoughts out to start the thread shows why my side is getting a little leery of that ever happening.

Is that any different than Hillary blaming "inflammatory" statements by Trump for the shooting?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/nra-boa ... t.facebook

we've talked on here before about the need for 'sides' in various political/social debates to restrain the lunatic fringe. Every truly responsible gun owner should be publicly, loudly and effectively opposing this sort of insensitive stupidity. Of course, the fact that Woody tossed similar thoughts out to start the thread shows why my side is getting a little leery of that ever happening.

Is that any different than Hillary blaming "inflammatory" statements by Trump for the shooting?

didn't read that she did, but then again, I don't follow her campaign as closely as you, fanboi that you seem to be. Links please?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

judging by commentary on the web, which this time is far more robust than even after Sandy Hook) that is getting sick and tired of 'we need more guns' and 'no one can prevent this sort of thing' in the face of the clear fact that every other civilized nation manages to avoid this on such a regular basis.

You must be reading different website than me. And would you be referring to a civilized nation like Norway where a crazed gunman killed 69 people.

well, interesting that you seem to be about the 15th person I have seen leap to the Norway example. Now, go and find me the OTHER mass shootings in Scandanavia(I'm giving you 4 countries here, because I'll toss in Denmark) over the past 10 years. We, on the other hand have seen 10 or more this calender year alone.

woodchip wrote:While people without guns rarely shoot anyone, they frequently get shot.

edit, read 'while' as 'white'.

Now, to rephrase the question. How come the statistics have clearly, consistently shown that gun owners are FAR more likely to be shot than non owners?

callmeslick wrote:I addressed that in the sense, Isaac, that your reasoning is completely illogical,

And here you go trying to enhance your position by belittling Isaac. Sad really.

callmeslick wrote:without creating a nationwide mandatory training system before anyone owns a gun.

There is a NRA program called Eddie Eagle that teaches gun safety to school kids. How about we make it mandatory to have all schools have this course?

callmeslick wrote:Frankly, you are just coming up with a more erudite version of the 'what society needs is more guns' argument. Sorry, but that has grown ever more tiresome, and holds so little intellectual merit as to not warrant further discussion. Unless you, as a responsible gun owner, are willing to put a LOT of pressure on your public spokespeople(ie-the NRA) and fight for mandatory registration of all firearms, mandatory background checks and a reasonable waiting period for all purchases and (this is likely a subject dear to me, but not all in my camp) criminal penalties for reckless storage and/or failure to report theft, your side is going to get overwhelmed and you will eventually get regulations forced down your throats that likely you and I might find a bit severe. Your call.

Keep dreaming.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:While people without guns rarely shoot anyone, they frequently get shot.

really? Smells like some serious paranoia there. Do you have some sort of evidence that unarmed white folks get shot more frequently than, say black, hispanic, Asian folks when unarmed? Or, would you care to explain how all statistics show that armed people in general seem to get shot more than unarmed ones?

I see you are now changing the field to "white" people. Poster never said anything about race. Then again all you ever do is change the debate field. And please show me where you get your statistics.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:While people without guns rarely shoot anyone, they frequently get shot.

really? Smells like some serious paranoia there. Do you have some sort of evidence that unarmed white folks get shot more frequently than, say black, hispanic, Asian folks when unarmed? Or, would you care to explain how all statistics show that armed people in general seem to get shot more than unarmed ones?

I see you are now changing the field to "white" people. Poster never said anything about race. Then again all you ever do is change the debate field. And please show me where you get your statistics.

my apologies. Have my reading glasses on now. A complete misread on my part. Will strike that reply now.

woodchip wrote:There is a NRA program called Eddie Eagle that teaches gun safety to school kids. How about we make it mandatory to have all schools have this course?

geez-o-pete!! The schools in this nation have enough issues teaching writing, literature, math and science. Why the hell would I wish to teach everyone how to shoot guns? Do you really think you want to push for that in say, downtown Detroit? Or anywhere? What the hell kind of nation do you wish to live in? That is a disgusting suggestion, to be blunt, and would mean our nation has come to one ugly end.

you cannot legislate morality. all the gun laws in the world would not have prevented any of these acts

callmeslick wrote: In a violent, criminal situaton, the criminal is the one who knows ahead of time what is going down, and in the realistic timeframe, the 'good citizen' generally cannot react in an effective manner.

I can list 100's of cases where you are wrong. Care to list a matching number showing your case?

callmeslick wrote:Worst case scenario is a group of panicked 'law abiding' citizens initiating a wild shootout, and creating more victims.

Care to show where that has ever happened or are you once again using fantasy to bolster your case?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:There is a NRA program called Eddie Eagle that teaches gun safety to school kids. How about we make it mandatory to have all schools have this course?

geez-o-pete!! The schools in this nation have enough issues teaching writing, literature, math and science. Why the hell would I wish to teach everyone how to shoot guns? Do you really think you want to push for that in say, downtown Detroit? Or anywhere? What the hell kind of nation do you wish to live in? That is a disgusting suggestion, to be blunt, and would mean our nation has come to one ugly end.

You keep posting about gun safety, yet when given a logical and common sense start, you pooh pooh the idea as untenable. So teaching things like "if you see a gun tell a adult" means America will come to a ugly end? Perhaps you should look up the program and see what it teaches before you fall back to your anti gun rhetoric.

My take on gun free zones is unchanged: they are one of the dumbest ideas ever in a country with about as many guns as people. Gun free zones basically operate on the honor system, but expecting honor from criminals and psychopaths is phenomenally stupid.

Since it really isn't possible to deter criminals or psychopaths, I'll take the next best thing, which is not going out of our way to do things that will actually attract them. A determined and calculating psychopath will often accomplish at least some of the goals they set out to do, this is a risk that we all must live with, we do not have a choice no matter how much control we attempt to exert through gun regulations, gun free zones, or any other similar motion. Short of locking everyone in the entire country in solitary confinement forever we cannot escape this risk, so I highly recommend giving up and not worrying or trying to do anything about it because it is an incredibly small portion of the risk we face daily.

callmeslick wrote: The press from your team is only for less 'gun free zones' with no restrictions, training, or commonsense regulation or background checks with transfers.

Do you even have the slightest clue as to what it takes to get a conceal carry license?

Gun safety is one thing, it mitigates precursors to accidents.

However, safety does nothing to address the problem at hand, which is both culture and a grotesque lack of proper training. This is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that everyone seems to be looking away from.

I would be satisfied if one of these heroic armed citizens of ours occasionally prevented a mass shooting. Would be even better if they could do it at least half the time. Alright gun advocates, put your money where your mouth is.

vision wrote:I would be satisfied if one of these heroic armed citizens of ours occasionally prevented a mass shooting

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/a ... 36,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/us/3- ... -held.html

http://www.5280.com/magazine/2012/12/je ... g?page=0,2

Common theme: in shootings in gun-free zones, people actually have to leave to get their weapon and then come back to confront the shooter.

Ok problem solved. Let's give everyone a gun along with their drivers license. The best thing we can do is start a cold war between citizens. I miss the days when you can argue with someone then have a duel at high noon.

vision wrote:Ok problem solved. Let's give everyone a gun along with their drivers license. The best thing we can do is start a cold war between citizens. I miss the days when you can argue with someone then have a duel at high noon.

While I acknowledge satire as potentially valuable in conversation, it has to contain enough elements of truth to be clearly analogous to an opposing position in some relevant way in order to be used to point out a flaw in said position. This comment is nowhere close. It doesn't address any point put forth by anyone on any side of this discussion, nor does it present a new point worthy of consideration. What did you hope to accomplish by making such a post, other than to avoid recognizing that people with firearms actually *do* occasionally prevent mass shootings and that perhaps you were overstating your case previously? Where do you find value in responding to a direct, relevant, and factual answer to your central point with a dismissive, content-free dodge?

I think the result he was going after is to defuse the situation a bit. Humor has always been an effective way to calm the waters.

Ferno wrote:I think the result he was going after is to defuse the situation a bit. Humor has always been an effective way to calm the waters.

Snark directed at someone who has just offered a counterpoint usually has the opposite effect.

well, don't let it get to ya.

not letting it get to me, just pointing it out so nobody mistakes it for a real contribution

Lothar wrote:not letting it get to me, just pointing it out so nobody mistakes it for a real contribution

I think all of us were able to tell that it was an off-handed comment when we saw it.

Seems like you are letting it get to you.

Just give teenagers the same amount of gun training as drivers education and let them get a gun permit with their driver's license. If you are responsible enough to drive deadly vehicle that kills thousands every year you might as well have a gun too. Problem solved.