Then we all should have no freedoms then by your logic. After all any man is one drink short of a rapist or of choking someone to death and you need a weapon for neither. You might be one drink short of a killer, I prefer to stay clear head and armed.Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well pleaseThat's never been my experience, in which there's a very fine line between a "law-abiding citizen" who gets too drunk one night, and a "criminal." I also notice that, again in my experience, the majority of self-labelled "law-abiding citizens" are also generally people who flagrantly speed on the highways and cheat on their taxes, so evidently "the law" isn't as neat a category as people like to present it to be.
I'm still interested in hearing a clearly stated answer on this question:
Do you think criminals should have free and clear access to guns?
Then we all should have no freedoms then by your logic. After all any man is one drink short of a rapist or of choking someone to death and you need a weapon for neither. You might be one drink short of a killer, I prefer to stay clear head and armed.Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well pleaseThat's never been my experience, in which there's a very fine line between a "law-abiding citizen" who gets too drunk one night, and a "criminal." I also notice that, again in my experience, the majority of self-labelled "law-abiding citizens" are also generally people who flagrantly speed on the highways and cheat on their taxes, so evidently "the law" isn't as neat a category as people like to present it to be.I'm still interested in hearing a clearly stated answer on this question:
Do you think criminals should have free and clear access to guns?
Citizen Betts, it would appear that it isn't only right-wing conservatives who divide people into "criminals" and "law-abiding citizens." Care to comment?
And yet, right up until that moment when he leaves the gun unattended somewhere he shouldn't, you and Andrew_R and DarkLightHitomi would vociferously defend him as a "responsible gun owner". Meanwhile, I have a sneaking suspicion that some of you (probably Andrew_R, maybe DLH) would treat certain disadvantaged youth populations as "criminals waiting to happen." Which is the bitterest of hypocrisies.
Only in that they are clearly from the wrong side of the fence in the 99% debate. Not the nice people who 'generally do the right thing' like speeding who don't ever intentionally endanger peoples lives... you know those good wholesome folk, no those disadvantaged kids are just one of the crimewaves ready to happen.
Citizen Betts, it would appear that it isn't only right-wing conservatives who divide people into "criminals" and "law-abiding citizens." Care to comment?Then we all should have no freedoms then by your logic. After all any man is one drink short of a rapist or of choking someone to death and you need a weapon for neither. You might be one drink short of a killer, I prefer to stay clear head and armed.Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well pleaseThat's never been my experience, in which there's a very fine line between a "law-abiding citizen" who gets too drunk one night, and a "criminal." I also notice that, again in my experience, the majority of self-labelled "law-abiding citizens" are also generally people who flagrantly speed on the highways and cheat on their taxes, so evidently "the law" isn't as neat a category as people like to present it to be.I'm still interested in hearing a clearly stated answer on this question:
Do you think criminals should have free and clear access to guns?
I'm pretty sure Irontruth was using "criminals" in the legal sense - as in: do you believe that those convicted of crimes (particularly violent crimes) should retain the same right to own a firearm as those who have not been convicted?
In this case, the distinction is valid in the same way that it's valid to examine whether it's okay to enact felony disenfranchisement laws.
What isn't valid is to pretend that the world is divided into two static groups of "criminals" and "law-abiding citizens". It gets even worse when you use that division to pretend that anyone who falls into the first group is a total anarchist with no respect for legal authority or morality, and that anyone who falls into the second group has the utmost respect for the law and would never commit a crime of any kind. It's almost painful to see people act like that's the case.
Fair enough.
I'm totally opposed to felony disenfranchisement laws, btw.
Fair enough.
I'm totally opposed to felony disenfranchisement laws, btw.
I am, too.
|
Then we all should have no freedoms then by your logic. After all any man is one drink short of a rapist or of choking someone to death and you need a weapon for neither. You might be one drink short of a killer, I prefer to stay clear head and armed.Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well pleaseThat's never been my experience, in which there's a very fine line between a "law-abiding citizen" who gets too drunk one night, and a "criminal." I also notice that, again in my experience, the majority of self-labelled "law-abiding citizens" are also generally people who flagrantly speed on the highways and cheat on their taxes, so evidently "the law" isn't as neat a category as people like to present it to be.I'm still interested in hearing a clearly stated answer on this question:
Do you think criminals should have free and clear access to guns?
And i have told YOU repeatedly that it is not going to happen. you get me a genie to make criminals unable to touch guns and im all for it. short of that you will disarm far more potential victims than perps.
|
|
And yet, right up until that moment when he leaves the gun unattended somewhere he shouldn't, you and Andrew_R and DarkLightHitomi would vociferously defend him as a "responsible gun owner". Meanwhile, I have a sneaking suspicion that some of you (probably Andrew_R, maybe DLH) would treat certain disadvantaged youth populations as "criminals waiting to happen." Which is the bitterest of hypocrisies.And both of those are examples of irresponsible gun owners from the start. Not because we're all human and accidents (however unfortunate) can happen, but because these are examples of irresponsible behavior. If you carry a firearm (no matter if it's concealed carry or open carry), then you must be aware of that firearm at all times. And when you pick up a firearm, especially if you intend upon cleaning it, you must visually AND physically check that firearm to see that it is unloaded...
The people in these two examples clearly did not do these very basic things, and while I obviously do not know any more than what was said in those reports, their actions were indicative of complacent behavior around their firearms, which in itself, is very irresponsible...
Better hypocrisy, most that are so anti gun are so pro criminal. Every man is innocent until he is not. Be as harsh on the guilty as you want but do NOT punish the innocent just in case. Yes poor city people are most likely to become criminals, its a fact. all are still innocent until they are not
And i have told YOU repeatedly that it is not going to happen. you get me a genie to make criminals unable to touch guns and im all for it. short of that you will disarm far more potential victims than perps.Then we all should have no freedoms then by your logic. After all any man is one drink short of a rapist or of choking someone to death and you need a weapon for neither. You might be one drink short of a killer, I prefer to stay clear head and armed.Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well pleaseThat's never been my experience, in which there's a very fine line between a "law-abiding citizen" who gets too drunk one night, and a "criminal." I also notice that, again in my experience, the majority of self-labelled "law-abiding citizens" are also generally people who flagrantly speed on the highways and cheat on their taxes, so evidently "the law" isn't as neat a category as people like to present it to be.I'm still interested in hearing a clearly stated answer on this question:
Do you think criminals should have free and clear access to guns?
That isn't what I asked you.
Do you think criminals should have free and clear access to gunss?
What kind of criminals?
The kind that are the opposite of law-abiding citizens or the kind that are felons that have served their debt to society?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am, too.Fair enough.
I'm totally opposed to felony disenfranchisement laws, btw.
Well, I think we've gotten up to five things that we agree on.
1) Racism is bad
2) Sexism is bad
3) Anti-gay bigotry is bad
4) Kinects are probably not being used to spy on people
5) Felony disenfranchisement laws are bad
Yay common ground!!
Now, get your hands off my guns.
Doodlebug, can I ask what type of guns you own, and which you worry about being confiscated by the Plutocracy? (I find this is a topic where hypothetical questions and statements do more harm than good.)
I myself have two rifles (a .22 and a .30-06) and a shotgun, and nothing I've seen from any administration to date has lead my to believe that confiscation will ever be a concern.
It was a joke. I don't own any guns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't mean to put you on the spot, thanks for the answer.
Here on the Dice Estate only the noble classes are allowed to carry; I'm glad to see you comply with that. I've heard that White Knight Doodlebug lets the lower classes arm themselves within his holdfast, but that place is a figurative and literal mess.
My father and sister are, respectively, former New Hampshire State Skeet Shooting Champion and former New Hampshire State Ms. Junior Skeet Shooting Champion (don't mess with my sister), although I doubt their guns would be in violation of any proposed gun control laws.
My hetero life partner owns an AR-15. Maybe two. I'm not that interested in guns (as opposed to the right to own them).
My Arab terrorist friend owns enough assault rifles to storm a U.S. embassy. Ironically enough, he purchased them all legally.
I dislike the term "assault weapon", and it sounds like you too dislike the term as well. However, California has managed to make the term so pervasive that I'm afraid that even if you and I were standing face to face holding this conversation in private, that I'd still use that term when referring to that particular group of semi-automatic firearms.
I know I've been putting on a little weight but I would hope you would realize that i am not California.
I'm not advocating for a ban based on aesthetics. Arguing against me as if i were is a straw-man, plain and simple.
As for your question (and again, I know you're not going to like nor agree with my answer)...
I'm a philistine. If i have to choose between people living and something looking cool i'm going to go with living every time.
|
|
And i have told YOU repeatedly that it is not going to happen. you get me a genie to make criminals unable to touch guns and im all for it. short of that you will disarm far more potential victims than perps.Then we all should have no freedoms then by your logic. After all any man is one drink short of a rapist or of choking someone to death and you need a weapon for neither. You might be one drink short of a killer, I prefer to stay clear head and armed.Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well pleaseThat's never been my experience, in which there's a very fine line between a "law-abiding citizen" who gets too drunk one night, and a "criminal." I also notice that, again in my experience, the majority of self-labelled "law-abiding citizens" are also generally people who flagrantly speed on the highways and cheat on their taxes, so evidently "the law" isn't as neat a category as people like to present it to be.I'm still interested in hearing a clearly stated answer on this question:
Do you think criminals should have free and clear access to guns?
That isn't what I asked you.
Do you think criminals should have free and clear access to gunss?
Should? no. Is it reality for any law to effect them without undue screwing over the rest of us, also no.
Chapter XX: The Working of British Justice
"During the days of 1848 England stood apart, unshaken, apparently unshakable. Her reformers were already in power, and though the radical Chartists caused some propertied spines to shiver, no one ventured to forbid their English right to speak their minds. The nearest thing to a national guard in Britain was the appointment of 15,000 special constables (including Louis Napoleon) for the day of April 10, 1848, when the Chartists were to present a huge petition to Parliament. On the same day came the nearest thing to a barricade: the clerks of the foreign office blocked up their windows with bound volumes of The Times. The Chartists were allowed to have a meeting but not a parade, but they accepted this limitation meekly. The Duke of Wellington had soldiers ready in case the petitioners should catch revolutionary fever from across the Channel, but he kept his troops hidden so as not to provoke anger--this in spite of the fact that Frenchmen marveled how a tiny contingent of British soldiers could control a large mob, so unused were British civilians to the handling of guns."
-this in spite of the fact that Frenchmen marveled how a tiny contingent of British soldiers could control a large mob, so unused were British civilians to the handling of guns."
Say the French? of ALL people...
They must just have all been afraid of Wellesley...
Should? no. Is it reality for any law to effect them without undue screwing over the rest of us, also no.
That isn't what I asked you.
Do you think criminals should have free and clear access to gunss?
You are making the claim that gun control laws are guaranteed to make life worse for the general, law abiding citizens?
A slight detour away from criminals vs law-abiding citizens - presented without any comment but sadness.
A slight detour away from criminals vs law-abiding citizens - presented without any comment but sadness.
Gun rights advocates will point out that pools kill more people every year than that.
Except pools can also be a tool for health, fitness and learning the valuable skill of swimming.
Guns are only useful for shooting people, animals or things.
|
Gun rights advocates will point out that pools kill more people every year than that.
Except pools can also be a tool for health, fitness and learning the valuable skill of swimming.
Guns are only useful for shooting people, animals or things.
I understand what you are saying, but we teach pool safety, and so that somehow softens the death toll from pools, because you have something to point to and say: "See, we're doing something about that! We're teaching people how to be safe around the pool."
What would be so wrong about doing this with firearms? Why can't we teach people the safe handling of firearms and to respect them, instead of making them something to be avoided?
But alas, you need not answer that, I'm afraid I already know your answer...
What's my answer then?
Because based on what you just wrote, you have no clue what my response to that is.
|
|
What's my answer then?
That we could do that AND tighten gun control at the same time?
With every reasonable thing that has been suggested so far by the pro-gun people here, the response has been: "Great we should do that AND tighten gun control!" The "AND" is always there. It's like there is nothing that the pro-gun crowd can suggest that would satisfy those that advocate further gun control short of fully supporting further gun control...
We want to keep our AR-15’s; you’ve decided we shouldn’t have them, and therefore there is NOTHING (at least that I have seen or heard thus far) that we can say or do that will make you change your mind (and that’s the royal you, and not you personally Irontruth); and yes, the reverse is true to an extent, but some of us, like myself, are willing to make a compromise (like my magazine lock suggestion that went largely ignored).
No, my response would have been about how pools actually serve a useful function that doesn't require the killing or maiming of a living thing (or threatening to do so).
A gun's only purpose is to kill or maim (or threaten to do so).
|
|
A slight detour away from criminals vs law-abiding citizens - presented without any comment but sadness.Gun rights advocates will point out that pools kill more people every year than that.
Except pools can also be a tool for health, fitness and learning the valuable skill of swimming.
Guns are only useful for shooting people, animals or things.
Tell that to hunters that hike hours, very healthy, to catch healthier meat than you can buy. And never will a swimming pool or the ability to swim help you survive a violent confrontation. Never will a pool fend off a rapist.
|
|
No, my response would have been about how pools actually serve a useful function that doesn't require the killing or maiming of a living thing (or threatening to do so).
A gun's only purpose is to kill or maim (or threaten to do so).
To target practice for fun kills or maims nothing. Also killing is NOT a bad thing. Meat needs to be killed. Better a rapist killed than another victim made. But you prefer the victims unarmed we have noted.
Please quote where I said I PREFER victims unarmed.
Also, please quote exactly where I said killing is always bad.
Also, every "use" of a gun you just listed is already included in what I said, outside of target practice... which the utilitarian purpose is to make you better at the other uses of a gun.
Everything you listed includes either harming someone/something, or threatening to do so. A gun's only purpose is to cause harm. This is a fundamental fact the pro-gun likes to dance around.
Yup, a hammer's only use is to hit things. Tools are often designed with only a limited number of uses. Doesn't make them less of a tool or less useful for those things they are designed to do. If you want to build a house, use a hammer not a gun. If you want to scare off a wild animal, a gun might be a better option. The right tool for the right job.
To target practice for fun kills or maims nothing.
Looks like you missed the "useful purpose" clause. Target practice is essentially trying to get better at killing or maiming things.
Also killing is NOT a bad thing.
Generally speaking, it is. I think that, all else held equal, you would agree that it is better to live than to die. Now, there may be certain cases where it is better to kill something (or someone) than allow them to live, but those are the exception rather than the rule.
Meat needs to be killed.
You know we don't actually slaughter our livestock with AR-15s, right?
Better a rapist killed than another victim made.
Yes, we all know what your conception of justice looks like.
|
To target practice for fun kills or maims nothing. Also killing is NOT a bad thing. Meat needs to be killed. Better a rapist killed than another victim made. But you prefer the victims unarmed we have noted.No, my response would have been about how pools actually serve a useful function that doesn't require the killing or maiming of a living thing (or threatening to do so).
A gun's only purpose is to kill or maim (or threaten to do so).
Frankly, I would prefer the victims unharmed.
The problem I see with your line of reasoning is that you suppose that, if guns are widely available, victims will be able to defend themselves by killing the offenders.
But if everyone has guns, it is the person who shoots first who has the greatest chance to kill the other.
Victims do not shoot first.
|
|
To target practice for fun kills or maims nothing.Looks like you missed the "useful purpose" clause. Target practice is essentially trying to get better at killing or maiming things.
Also killing is NOT a bad thing.Generally speaking, it is. I think that, all else held equal, you would agree that it is better to live than to die. Now, there may be certain cases where it is better to kill something (or someone) than allow them to live, but those are the exception rather than the rule.
Meat needs to be killed.You know we don't actually slaughter our livestock with AR-15s, right?
Better a rapist killed than another victim made.Yes, we all know what your conception of justice looks like.
Hunter's use guns, not farmers. I assumed you were smart enough to get that.
Yes, my idea of justice is more dead monsters and less suffering of innocents. I have to assume yours is the reverse
|
|
Please quote where I said I PREFER victims unarmed.
Also, please quote exactly where I said killing is always bad.
Also, every "use" of a gun you just listed is already included in what I said, outside of target practice... which the utilitarian purpose is to make you better at the other uses of a gun.
Everything you listed includes either harming someone/something, or threatening to do so. A gun's only purpose is to cause harm. This is a fundamental fact the pro-gun likes to dance around.
No we know that the purpose of a gun is to put a hole in things at a distance. we just disagree that some things need shot.
-this in spite of the fact that Frenchmen marveled how a tiny contingent of British soldiers could control a large mob, so unused were British civilians to the handling of guns."Say the French? of ALL people...
Poor Frenchies...they need bailing out in two World Wars and everybody forgets that they kicked Eurotrash ass for nigh on a millennium.
As for their 1848, which has gotten short shrift both in this thread and in the "History Is Cool" thread, from Wikipedia:
"Between 23 June and 26 June 1848, this battle between the working class and Cavaignac came to be known as the "June Days Uprising." Cavaignac's forces started out on 23 June 1848 with an army composed of from 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers of the Paris garrison of the French Army.[24] Cavaignac began a systematic assault against the revolutionary Parisian citizenry, targeting the blockaded areas of the city.[25] However, he was not able to break the stiff opposition put up by the armed workers on the barricades on 23 June 1848. Accordingly, Cavaignac's forces were reinforced with another 20,000–25,000 soldiers from the mobile guard, some additional 60,000 to 80,000 from the national guard.[26] Even with this force of 120,000 to 125,000 soldiers, Cavaignac still required two days to complete the suppression of the working-class uprising.
In February 1848, the workers and petite bourgeoisie had fought together, but now, in June 1848, the lines were drawn differently. The working classes had been abandoned by the bourgeois politicians who founded the provisional government. This would prove fatal to the Second Republic, which, without the support of the working classes, could not continue. Although the governmental regime of the Second Republic continued to survive until December 1852, the generous, idealistic Republic to which the February Days had given birth, ended with the suppression of the "June Days."[1]"
The people's flag is deepest red/It shrouded oft our martyred dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold/Their heart's blood dyed its every fold
Edited with a facepalm.
No we know that the purpose of a gun is to put a hole in things at a distance. we just disagree that some things need shot.Please quote where I said I PREFER victims unarmed.
Also, please quote exactly where I said killing is always bad.
Also, every "use" of a gun you just listed is already included in what I said, outside of target practice... which the utilitarian purpose is to make you better at the other uses of a gun.
Everything you listed includes either harming someone/something, or threatening to do so. A gun's only purpose is to cause harm. This is a fundamental fact the pro-gun likes to dance around.
I'd actually advocate hunter's rights, just so you know.
I'm willing to preserve gun owner's rights, I just want to find a way to reduce the number of illegal guns. Are you trying to defend illegal guns? It would seem like if you own/carry a gun because criminals have guns, that you'd also be willing to consider things that might take the guns out of the criminals hands... that way when he comes at you with a knife, you (with your gun) will have a serious advantage.
Hunter's use guns, not farmers. I assumed you were smart enough to get that.
That's a pretty solid assumption there, Andrew_R!
How much of the United States' annual meat consumption is derived from animal products shot and killed by hunters, do you think?
Yes, my idea of justice is more dead monsters and less suffering of innocents. I have to assume yours is the reverse
Absolutely, Andrew_R. I mean, what other possible explanation could there be?
And never will a swimming pool or the ability to swim help you survive a violent confrontation. Never will a pool fend off a rapist.
Likewise nobody has ever walked into a cinema, inflated a portable pool, filled it with water and then forcibly drowned a dozen people.......
How much of the United States' annual meat consumption is derived from animal products shot and killed by hunters, do you think?
I don't know, do you?
A quick google search doesn't reveal much, but I did get this:
American hunters donate 2.6 million pounds of meat
I do know that after my father was laid off in the nineties, he often supplemented the bounties of our table with game, and I knew his fellow members of the local Fish and Game association to know that other members of my community did so as well.
And while I doubt that many of them were shot AR-15s, in the middle of a many-year recession, do you really want to come off looking like a yuppie douchebag and add class snobbery to your list of gun control arguments?
How much of the United States' annual meat consumption is derived from animal products shot and killed by hunters, do you think?
I don't know, do you?
A quick google search doesn't reveal much, but I did get this:
Given that the United States' annual meat consumption is upwards of 83 billion pounds, I think the country would somehow manage to weather that particular loss. That donated, hunted meat barely accounts for three one-thousandths of one percent (0.003%) of what we eat each year.
Mind you, donations are wonderful and fighting hunger is a worthy cause. But I'm not going to let Andrew_R pretend that the ability to hunt game is somehow vital to our survival, or that it comes anywhere close to justifying unrestricted ownership of firearms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hunter's use guns, not farmers. I assumed you were smart enough to get that.
Just a small comment - farmers in Australia have guns. One of the ways to keep kangaroos / foxes / rabbits under control is to shoot them. Which they are able to get under permits and within the laws in Australia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people's flag is deepest red/It shrouded oft our...
One of my favourite songs, may I recommend the great Billy Braggs version?
On a side note Comrade, the bayonet is the only weapon with a worker at either end.
How much of the United States' annual meat consumption is derived from animal products shot and killed by hunters, do you think?
I don't know, do you?
A quick google search doesn't reveal much, but I did get this:
Given that the United States' annual meat consumption is upwards of 83 billion pounds, I think the country would somehow manage to weather that particular loss. That donated, hunted meat barely accounts for three one-thousandths of one percent (0.003%) of what we eat each year.
Given that that article was talking about hunted game that was given away, do you have any idea "how much of the United States' annual meat consumption is derived from animal products shot and killed by hunters"? I admitted I don't, do you?
I already said I doubt much of it was bagged with AR-15s. Do you think that dismissing the concerns of the (mainly white, mainly rural) population that does supplement it's diet with hunting, in the middle of a 5-year-and-counting recession, is really a great gun control tactic?
I mean, I think it's great. I think it will help keep the rural, white folk mad at gun controllers as elitist, petty-bourgeois yuppie douchebags and it'll make it less likely that Congress will ever pass any gun control legislation. Hopefully long enough for us to use our AR-15s to overthrow capitalism.
Please, Citizen Betts, keep it up.
On a side note Comrade, the bayonet is the only weapon with a worker at either end.
Turn the guns around!
Vive le Galt!
Just a small comment - farmers in Australia have guns. One of the ways to keep kangaroos / foxes / rabbits under control is to shoot them. Which they are able to get under permits and within the laws in Australia.
Hunters in Australia also have guns, which they are entitled to permits for so that they may continue to pursue their hobby - and indeed a paid hobby too as pest controllers, imagine that, the Govt is happy to PAY recreational hunters who clear pests like wild pigs!
The deal is that you have to actually prove you are a Hunter by being part of an organised legitimate hunting group and have a log showing you actually hunt at least a couple of times a year.
Same with being a recreational range shooter, the range stamps your book and you are golden.
Permits? Stamped books?! What is this, a dictatorship?!?