BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:45 PM

"I wouldn't be upset to have a nice guy rethink his position...."

Neither would I. Perhaps that is why I keep pointing out when someone makes false statements regarding guns or gun laws.


I do not see why it is OK to remove rights to "save lives" ( debateable point: already stated that the gun laws proposed do not reduce gun deaths) from gun violence, but wrong to remove rights to "save lives" from terrorist attacks.

Can someone explain why a terrorist has a greater set of rights than a law-abiding citizen?

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:15 PM

You are confusing one "set of rights" with another.

What has to right to a fair trial..etc...to do with the supposed 'right' to carry or buy weapons?


"...already stated that the gun laws proposed do not reduce gun deaths..."

We will probably never know, will we?

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:35 PM

Just what our founders intended certain "rights" to encompass is exactly the question. The world has changed in some respects, but not so much in others. Seems to me that the right to free assembly meant the same thing in the 18th century as it does today. Same with the right to face an accuser, and the right to know the charges. However, when the founders penned "the right to keep and bear arms", the 18th century firepower, firing rate, and concealability were quite different from today's. So, I see no hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:39 PM

Oh...BTW..

"...why I keep pointing out when someone makes false statements regarding guns or gun laws."

It's nice to keep the details straight, but let's not pretend that strict adherence to precise legal definitions are a defense against the argument that there are guns being sold that are WAY more than 'sportsmen'...etc. need, and that modifying 'legal' guns to illegal configurations is way to easy.

Telling us for the 37th time that we 'have' laws against doing certain things is not nearly enough.

You, Bruce, certainly know there are laws against jaywalking. And you certainly know the area on Viers Mill between Wheaton Plaza and the Metro station...right under the pedestrian bridge. The jaywalking laws were consistently ignored, with people crossing 6 lanes of high volume traffic...even in rush hour. The solution? That 7 ft. high steel fence that runs for a block. On Connecticut Ave. at Howard, just North of Knowles, right in front of the Safeway, it has been illegal for years to make a left turn or go straight across from either direction. Leaving the Safeway, there were 6 signs saying "RIGHT TURN ONLY"... they were ignored by folks who considered it just 'inconvenient'. They finally put up those plastic posts making ONLY left turns into Howard possible.

Sometimes it takes extraordinary measures to get people to pay any attention at all to the 'law'.

Now, when *I* am in charge, the gun 'laws' will not only be designed to be fair, but will have 7 ft. high barriers to supplement the "right turn only" sighs.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:06 PM

Just so other readers don't just say... "huh?..What's he babbling about... here's the anti-jaywalking fence, and the anti-left turn barriers.

It really does take some work to show that you MEAN the laws.... would that gun laws were that easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:08 PM

(Now I suppose Bruce will point out that the fence is not really quite 7 ft. high... *grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:11 PM

re fence-

please not the walkers in the picture, and the green light- so they do not have a "walk" signal, nor are they in the cross-walk, and are not legal...


So, tell me how well the law is working with the fence??

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:16 PM

LOLOL.. details........yeah, there are still illegal walkings being done against the signals, but at least at the corners, and not by the hundreds, and so far, I have not seen anyone climb the fence. It is progress.
Making many types of ammo VERY hard to get would be a type of progress also.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:36 PM

Bill D.,

I am puzzled that you aren't joining me on the lighter control bandwagon. I tried to apply, as closely as possible, the principles of gun control to this hot (heh)issue. If there are errors in my application of these principles, please point them out.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:44 PM

Hell, Kent, I solved that problem years ago...or so I thought! I don't smoke. Problem solved. No lighters.

Then I discovered that a lighter was handy in building plastic models, because you can use it to burn hardened crazy glue off the applicator. The applicater is an ordinary sewing needle with part of the eye cut off. This provides a little thingie at the end that is open-ended and it holds a teeny drop of crazy glue and voila! Part is neatly glued with no excess glue.

But then you use a lighter to burn off the congealed glue after the applicator gets plugged from repeated uses.

And that's just the beginning of the slide down the slippery slope! I live in fear of what may happen now that I am using lighters. My God, the worries I suffer!

Still, it has never occurred to me to call for a blanket ban on lighters...I would not want to put Bic out of business, after all.

Do you follow me? If you do, I have a loyalty oath you can sign and a coded ring for you, and I will send you instructions on a weekly basis as to just what your duties are. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:18 AM

Little Hawk,

Enough of the inflammatory (heh)language! You are nothing but a shill for the N.L.A. (or, even worse, the C.L.A., its brother to the north). We at Citizens for Lighter Control would never even dream of a blanket ban on lighters. We just want sensible lighter control and that's all we want. That and instant background checks for lighter purchases and that's all we want. That and lighter registration and making flints traceable by law enforcement and that's ALL we want! That and banning lighters that are too cheap and banning lighters that are too big and banning lighters that re-light too quickly and that's ALL WE want!! That and banning lighters in public buildings and limiting concealed carry permits for lighters and requiring that flints and lighters be stored separately and banning disposable lighters in D.C. and that's ALL WE WANT!!! No slippery slope there, you extremist lighter nut!

Your friend,

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:08 AM

Categories, Kent...categories! *grin* Did you ever study Venn diagrams? A little realistic labeling will show that the class of "stuff that can be used to start fires" has multiple entries that include several types of 'matches', as well as flints, magnifying glasses, camera batteries (ever watch Les Stroud on "Survivor Man"?), and rubbing sticks together.

You CLC members don't wish, I'll bet, to be doing luggage checks for tiny little bows & shredded tinder at airports. I thought not!

Well, at least you provide a few of the 'lighter' moments in this excessively serious discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:06 PM

posted by Bruce...'Can someone explain why a terrorist has a greater set of rights than a law-abiding citizen?'

Or why Vets, Constitutionalists, certain Christian church groups, are on the 'potential terror' lists??

Sounds like Germany 1937!

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 01:12 PM

Bill D.,

If Citizens for Gun Control can worry about guns and ignore ropes, axes, box-cutters, and cars, then Citizens for Lighter Control can worry about lighters and ignore matches, magnifying glasses, and rubbing sticks. Besides, WE don't have any pesky constitutional amendments standing in OUR way.

Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho!
Lighter control is the way to go!

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 01:51 PM

The statement "Can someone explain why a terrorist has a greater set of rights than a law-abiding citizen?" is a statement based on a popular myth of really outrageous proportions.

But it sounds great if you want to upset people and drive up their paranoia! ;-)

Try actually being an officially designated "terrorist" and find out what your set of rights are as you get zapped by a skyhawk missile, bombed by a smart bomb, held without charges or trial, invaded in force by the Israeli army, and waterboarded, attacked by German shepherds, and otherwise tortured by the CIA in hellholes like Guantanamo and some even worse (secret) places overseas.

Yeah, sure terrorists have "a greater set of rights" (rolling eyes)

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

(Gotta disagree with you strenuously on this one, GfS.) ;-D

The fact is, everyone's rights are suddenly and permanently abrogated when the $ySStem decides they're seriously in its way. Pray God that they never label YOU as a "terrorist".

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 01:59 PM

mmm-hmmm... doesn't seem like that pesky constitutional amendment 'stands in the way' of much of anything right now. But mebbe I'll write Sen. Barbara Mikulski and see if she'll sponsor an amendment against ALL fire-starting materials... I suppose we'll hear from the BBQ crowd pretty fast.

(Oh, I AM impressed with how you CLC guys can ignore categories, too.. ☺ ..

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:08 PM

Lighters are DANGEROUS, Bill! Hell, I wouldn't handle them at all if I wasn't totally clear on the fact that I am far more capable and brilliant and mature than 92% of the people out there. Or is it 98%? ;-D

There's only one disadvantage to being so great. It's sooooo lonely at the top! There's barely anyone left whom I can call a true peer except for William Shatner and, let's see....Marlon Brando? Woody Allen? And, um...hmmmm...

Hang on for a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:40 PM

Ok... I give up... I'll toss out all my lighters...and even matches. (Not that I use them 3-4 times a year, anyway)

I will go buy Smith & Wesson .38....

Then, when I want to start the BBQ grill, I'll go thru the neighborhood till I find someone who smokes, stick my gun under their nose, and force them to come light my charcoal.




makes as much sense as some of the ideas I hear...


Oh, and I think you need to specify that it is *Canadian* people that you are so much smarter than. Being smarter than Americans is no challenge....well, except for....ahem...

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:58 PM

Now yer talkin'! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 07:33 PM

This entire "lighter" line is nothing but a feeble attempt to divert attention from the real discussion... I mean, lets get real here... Ain't no comparison...

So now back to the subject at hand which is our society's ability to regulate who owns what guns...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 08:57 PM

Yes sir, Mr. Bobert,

And thank you for explaining so clearly and in such detail why it is reasonable to fight crime by regulating one tool (guns) but not by regulating other tools.

You are right too that the real issue is "our society's ability to regulate who owns what guns". I submit the following for your consideration: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you don't like that part of the Bill of Rights, why not amend the Constitution?

Obediently yours,

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:38 PM

I'm curious, Kent... do you see no ambiguity in the 2nd amendment? Many, many people, including many legal scholars, believe that the 'bearing of arms', was to be connected WITH the need for the citizenry to be part of a Militia in order to 'keep' the State free. In the 1770s, that meant taking your musket and joining a local group, and possibly a larger 'state' organized group.

That concept has very little to do with the way a modern state, after the time of the Civil War, needs to go about defending itself. We don't send riders to call all able-bodied men to grab their muskets (hand made) and powder and hurry to fend of the British. We need trained soldiers, using **standardized weapons**, manufactured and issued BY the state. And we sure do NOT need those soldiers, after their service, to keep those weapons and try to maintain them and keep a supply of high power ammo at home.
You see what I'm getting at? The Founding Fathers saw no need to explain what a militia was, or to worry about what happened to those muskets after the war. They had very little concern with street crime and had very little way to get 'police protection' to your house. It made sense...then... for home owners to have a rifle of sorts to defend againt attack...or bears... or to hunt for food.

(Why am I typing all this?..it should be obvious)

Anyway, during & after the Civil War, the very nature and needs of a 'Militia' changed, even as guns were rapidly changing and becoming more powerful and standardized by manufacturers. By WWI, with automatic weapons and real 'armies', there was little need for the old concept of 'militia'....and a LOT less need for every household, especially in cities, to maintain a personal arsenal.

But....we still had that pesky 2nd amendment that 'seemed' to grant everyone some sort of 'right'...even though the basic reason for having that right had changed radically. But, oh my! Guys who just liked playing with guns sure didn't want to hear ANY ideas that suggested a more modern view of things! And guys who figgered out that a life of crime was lots easier with stuff like Tommy guns to put up against small town banks.

Now, as we see, that almost 300 year old idea of what a "free state" needed for "security" is being interpreted by those who like big toys that go BOOM to mean....whatever they want it to mean. They HAVE a goal, and by god, everything will be interpreted to fit that goal....and you get slogans about ..."when they pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands." And it sure happens that way a lot these days...after they shoot up some innocent folks who never saw 'em coming.

Gee Kent... you ask "... why not amend the Constitution?"
And you KNOW why...because the gun lobby ties KEEPING their guns to getting anyone elected to get everything else done! And the piles of hidden, unregistered guns grows larger....probably larger than all the 'legal' guns.

And folks start remembering old lines about "shutting the barn door after the horse is gone." And politicians, even the ones who understand everything I said above!, shrug and promise not to mess with guns, so they have half a chance of getting other things passed.

Funny thing about guns....they don't even need to be actually pointed at us in order to hold us up.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:46 PM

Actually, Kent, I think the Constitution probably should be amended in that regard, because there is simply no way of recreating the militia of the 1770s in our present day society...unless you were to have a total social revolution here comparable to the Russian Revolution in 1917 or the French or American Revolutions in the 1700s....in other words, a complete overthrow of the existing order in the USA and its replacement with something radically different.

We have a largely urban and suburban society now of sedentary people who are devoted to consumer goods and shopping and TV and fast food, most of them have never even handled a gun in any useful survival way, and those people are utterly incapable of forming the sort of civil defense militia alluded to in the Constitution, and they are utterly uninterested in doing so anyway. They want to buy CDs and go to movies, for god's sake, not go out and hunt for their supper or defend their local municipality! They expect the police to do that for them while they watch "American Idol".

That's how unrealistic it is to expect those lines in the US Constitution from the 1770s to apply to our lives now. It's a pipedream. A fantasy. It's sheer nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:25 AM

For the sake of discussion, I will assume that the militia is hopelessly and permanently obsolete.

Stating a rationale for a thing does not imply that there are no other rationales. Stating a rationale for a thing also does not imply that the continuation of the rationale is a necessary condition for the thing's existance.

Suppose my wife married me for my youthful good looks. Suppose, in thirty years or so, I lose those good looks. The marriage wouldn't disappear just because the original reason for it disappeared.

Stating a rationale for a constitutional right does not imply that there are no other rationales. Stating a rationale for a constitutional right also does not imply that the continuation of the rationale is a necessary condition for the right's existance.      

Suppose the 1791 constitution of Lower Slobbovia stated, "The circulation of broadsides being beneficial for the transmission of ballads, freedom of the press shall not be infringed."   What would that mean for modern Lower Slobbovia? It would mean that freedom of the press shall not be infringed. The right wouldn't disappear just because, in Lower Slobbovia, ballads are now transmitted by 8-track tape.

A constitutional right doesn't disappear because one of its rationales disappears. It disappears only if the constitution changes or, if Mr. Jefferson was right about that whole "unalienable rights" thing, it never disappears at all.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:51 AM

Perhaps. I think if Jefferson could see the place now where he spent his days, he'd be stunned and probably horrified by how crowded, polluted, busy, and just plain bizarre it has become.

One of the really serious problems in human life, Kent, is that people tie themselves to very old documents (such as the Constitution or the Bible or the Koran or the Bagavad Gita or anything else that was written long ago) and they decide to give it total and unquestioned authority, and they try to apply it literally to a situation that is radically different from when it was written.

Would you agree that that can lead to problems?

The problem is in the literal approach, which is an approach taken by people who don't like to think. They'd rather just obey, so they get a book and some "leaders" think for them.

In that fashion some very crazy things have been done by successive generations of people.

Now...if you're enough of a thinker to look beyond literal interpretations of old documents to the core of what was meant philosophically, then you can find much of value there.

The Constitution was trying to prevent a system like the British monarchy from running the 13 colonies in an autocratic way. It was well designed for that purpose, and with high ideals. What we need now is similarly high ideals...and a whole new set of literal forms with which to clothe those ideals.

I think it would be wise to review documents like the Constitution about every 20 years and see if conditions have changed...and if they have, amend the darn thing so that it's up to date.

Otherwise you're following a fossilized form of thinking. Rather like a dinosaur. That can lead to problems.

Remember...it was a group of men who wrote the Constitution, and they did the best they could at the time, but men are not perfect. It was not the hand of God that reached down out of the sky and wrote it. It is not ULTIMATE authority...unless you say it is... and then it's only ultimate authority for you...as long as you believe it is. You have no more backup for that than someone from any other country (or religion) who believes in their old documents and rules. It's all stuff that people made up! All of it.

They may have been inspired (in many cases) by God...or they may not have been...not for me to say, but I know this: no one can prove they were, therefore no one can prove that any of it has ultimate authority over anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:56 AM

I agree that it is "wise to review documents like the Constitution... and see if conditions have changed" and amend them if they have changed. One problem with the gun control debate in the U.S. is that gun control advocates, in general, are not making a real effort to amend the Constitution.

One of the really serious problems in human life, Little Hawk, is that people refuse to deal with what very old documents actually say. Often they treat plain statements as if they were not plain.

The Second Amendment can be rejected. It can be ignored. It can be amended away. It may be outmoded. It may be absurd. It may be obsolete. Anyone who wishes may speak out against it. But, please, let's not act as if one side of the debate consists of those who take it "literally" and the other side consists of enlightened souls who do not. That is not the issue. What the amendment says is plain enough. The question is what to do about it.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:50 AM

"What the amendment says is plain enough."

Nonsense! That is the point. It is NOT plain, or the debate about what to do about it would be clearer....maybe not easy to reach a consensus, but if there were 2 or 3 sentences instead of one, defining 'militia' and which 'people', we could amend the amendment easier.

As to: "Stating a rationale for a thing does not imply that there are no other rationales."

Right...like I said above. Certain people, trained and registered, living in certain places, owning a few carefully defined categories of guns and limited to defined types of ammo...etc.

It's not difficult to explain....it's just that there are many, many who flatly don't WANT any controls that might interfere with their 'hobby' and obsession...no matter how much sense it makes to have more controls.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:06 AM

And as fir the lighter??? Columbine could not have been carried out with a Bik... And Virginia Teck wouldn't have happened with a Zippo... And bank robbers would get too far with a note passed to the teller that reads, "Fill the bag with cash 'caause I've got a cigarette lighter in my pocket..."

I measn, lets get real here...

Also, while we are getting real, I agree with what BillD has said there... The language of the 2nd Ammmendment when taken in its entirety is not at all plain and/or straight forward... It is ambigious at best...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:56 AM

A professor would not have been able to murder his ex-wife and two of her colleagues this weekend if he'd only had a BIC. He is now on the run, "armed and dangerous" as they say, leaving behind two small children now motherless and witness to her murder.

Two cops who answered a domestic disturbance would not be dead if the man who shot them, killed by cops himself after, had only a BIC. The list/killing is endless. I don't give a shit what was meant back when, what I care about is doing something about it NOW. Much of what BillD has suggested is specifics, workable, imo, and at least may offer some solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:41 PM

That's the problems, Kat... The pro-guns-at-any-cost folks don't thinl there is a problem... They must think that the reason that the US has a monterously high murder rate compared to other developed nations is that we have a greater share of bad people than those countries??? I know... It is completely unfathomable to folks who see the number of guns as the variable here and not the percentage of bad people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:10 PM

It would not be the percentage of bad people no matter what.

After a certain point, 2% is little different than 12%. When the population is large enough, and even ¼ of 1% use guns carelessly or criminally, we will get these sad headlines....well, 'part' of the sad headlines. Today, the major news channels carry only the most shocking, multi-shooting stories...or those with an 'interesting' twist.
You barely hear of the kid in a small town in Iowa who commits suicide with daddy's supposedly hidden 'defensive' gun....or the nervous holdup guy in Alabama who shoots a 7-11 clerk. You can go look up the totals, though....and the number of deaths & serious injuries are pretty shocking, no matter how you spin the percentages! It's a lot to accept, just so a bunch can kid themselves that they & their families are 'safer' with guns in the house.

Yes, there ARE, I say again, a certain % who can be trusted with guns, and whose life or job requires 'some' sort of extra help....but not millions.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:31 PM

Kent, you said, "But, please, let's not act as if one side of the debate consists of those who take it "literally" and the other side consists of enlightened souls who do not. That is not the issue. What the amendment says is plain enough. The question is what to do about it."

Good point! There are indeed some lazy minds and superficial thinking, as well as knee-jerk reactions aplenty on both sides of the debate (in society generally, I mean, not pointing the finger necessarily at individuals here).

As you say, the question is what to do about the second amendment and about how it is interpreted. That's a complex question, not a matter of black and white.

And that's why I have at times come down to some extent on both sides of this debate...as I so often do...because I see that it is not a simple matter of black and white. There is prejudice and misunderstanding on both sides of the divide, and that's nearly ALWAYS the case in such matters. There are also intelligent and reasonable people on both sides of the divide, which is also nearly always the case. It will be well if they would respectfully acknowledge each other's legitimate viewpoints rather than falling back on extreme rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 04:04 PM

Well, LH, that is the point... There is not a black or white manner in which to interpret the 2nd ammendment... As a gun control advocate I can live with that as a starting point of the discussion... I think most pro gun control folks can, as well...

But what we get from the other side is dogmatism... They wnat it 100% their way... Not 99% but 100%... This is where the problem is... The right wing is so used to getting everything they want that this is the only way to play the game... Hey, I'm not making a knee-jerk reaction but an observation... I resent being called a knee-jerker as do most folks who would like to see some sane restrictions on gun ownership...

I just don't buy the both sides scenerio as if there is that much complete stubborness or dogma on our side... I believe that we are reasonable people for the most part... It's the NRA suppporters who are 100% knee jerk and unreasonable... No make that 110% fir good measure...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 04:58 PM

110%....are those like that town in Florida a few years, who not only wanted to allow everyone to have a gun, but wanted to require then to? I don't think it stood up in court, but I have seen remarks from those who think 'most' people should be going about armed.

Interesting argument....that "if everyone HAD a gun, them bad guys would think twice!" They probably would...they'd think once about whether to rob or attack you, and again about the best way, so you didn't have a chance to use that 'defensive weapon'.

Who me? cynical? naaawwww...

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 05:07 PM

Never just assume that "they all think this way", Bill.

Remember, that's the mistake that your political opponents usually make too, only they make it in regards to you. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:08 PM

And, two were shot in a college dorm this weekend after which the shooter turned the gun on himself. This time they all survived.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:50 PM

"Never just assume that "they all think this way", Bill.

I don't....Do I have to put that disclaimer in every post? I try to make clear that 'enough' think that way to make it a very serious problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:57 PM

No, it just usually sounds like it, that's all....your rhetoric, I mean. I would never dream of implying that you actually mean to be that one-sided and stereotypical in your thinking. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 02:17 PM

*grin*... 'you hear what you expect to hear'...ok, I'll try to remember to clarify and use 'many' a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 07:59 PM

See, this is where the discussion usually goes... Someone puts out some ***reasonable*** ideas from where a discussion could lead and it's called "rhetoric"...

Man, I loves ya', LH, but you need to revisit the history of the gun debate... There is a lot less rhetoric on the side of those who would like a discussion to begin than you are implying... The mere implication marginalizes those of us who have been waiting decades for the NRA to shut up long enough to get a word in edge-wise... The entire debate has been one sided... The NRA's... It has the Congress of the United States scared to death to say one thing about gun control... And they do it by getting folks. like you, to parrot the same old cliches that we've heard for the last 30 years...

"Yeah, them folks wanta take yer guns away, Ralph"... Period...

I think it is disengenuois to thinking people toparrot NRA propaganda... The only rhetoric that I see is coming outta the NRA and thus...

...no discussion... Just shut the F up!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:07 PM

For what it's worth, I'll just point out, that my little parody suggested lighter control for the prevention of ARSON, not murder.

Believe it or not, even a stupid old libertarian like me has noticed that murder is rarely committed with a bic. Arson is, however, often committed with one.

My point is that, if we want to decrease a crime, we should work DIRECTLY toward that goal.

If I want to decrease arson, I shouldn't campaign for lighter control. Instead I should work DIRECTLY toward that goal. For example, I might advocate hiring more arson investigators or tightening sentencing guidelines for arsonists or reducing property taxes (to lessen the incentive to commit arson) or whatever. Trying to decrease arson by controlling lighters won't work, but would further decrease our liberties.

The same is true for murder. Since we want to decrease it, let's work DIRECTLY toward that goal.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:55 PM

"...if we want to decrease a crime, we should work DIRECTLY toward that goal."

???That sounds like a good **slogan**, Kent...but what does it mean in practical terms? I have made what I consider some practical, direct suggestions about how to reduce the possibility that guns (the very easiest way to kill) could be used, as well as other ideas not related to guns...including agreeing that we need some social engineering to get the IDEA of murder out of peoples heads, and to identify better those with anti-social ideas.
So,,,what are your ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:38 PM

Who needs rhetoric when you can have polemics.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 11:35 AM

So, Kent... I'm trying to figure if you, like a couple of other 'libertarians' I have met, are just playing Devil's Advocate in order to test those who have real opinions.
   If so, that process is entirely too close to what is often called 'trolling'.
   I disagree with my friend beardedbruce (and my friend Big Mick, who is usually in one of these discussions, but is busy these days) but they do have specific claims & details to offer, and we can go at each other about some real issues.
I find debating with you, however, kinda like 'tilting at windmills'. If you have more to say that resembles a personal opinion, fine...otherwise, I'll not bite further. (I've said most of it anyway.)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 02:53 PM

Once again, I agree with BillD and would remind that lighters are not engineered and manufactured for the express purpose of killing which is what guns are made for...there's no other use for a gun but to kill. There are no mythical legends or religious stories about "god" giving guns to humankind as there are myths about fire being brought on by some divinity. Fire is not just for killing. It is disingenuous to compare lighters to guns, just as it is when someone tries that old saw about cars, also not manufactured or engineered to kill.

A lighter would not have killed this young girl:

BROCKTON, Mass. — A fire chief in Massachusetts is investigating why it took nearly 20 minutes for an ambulance to arrive at the scene of a fatal shooting at a baby shower over the weekend.

The first call that 16-year-old Chantel Matiyosus had been shot as she left the shower in Brockton came in at 10:57 p.m. on Saturday.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 03:01 PM

kat,

The point is that lighters ARE made for the express purpose of starting fires- so to prevent arson they should be banned. the fact that sometimes there is a need to start fires can be discarded along with the fact that there is sometimes a need for deadly force as provided by a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 05:04 PM

B-bruce- do you really, really not see the the gross fallacy in that assertion?
You have assumed an unstated premise..(or maybe more than one)..such as, that starting a fire has the same societal value as firing a gun, or that 'lighters have little intrinsic value beyond committing arson', or that training in the use of lighters would help prevent arson....etc...etc..
You have tried to draw a metaphor which simply does not work...you are comparing non-relevant cases.
   I could make similar comparisons for ball-peen hammers, ball-point pens, bows, motorcycles, phonographs, asprin and whiskey...and you'd see the obvious flaws in those.
Guns ARE a special case...other than hunting, they are needed primarily to injure, kill or threaten other with death or injury....and a case case be made that they are not 'really' needed for hunting any longer.

But I KNOW that there are valid reasons, given the circumstances of modern society, for 'some' humans to have 'some' guns, for 'some' purposes....and I will NOT be dissuaded from my claims that society would be better off if all those 'somes' were severely limited. You seldom address that point, preferring to parse obscure points and correct little facts about law or details of gun construction which have little bearing on my basic assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 06:46 PM

Thanks, Bill. I am sure he understands the absurdity of his "argument." IT would be good if he actually came up with cogent suggestions concerning guns and reducing the deaths caused by their use. But, wait, what light by yonder window? Oh, someone is lighting a cigarette! Quick! Shoot them...they have deadly fire and mean to kill us all!!

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 07:59 PM

Yeah...well, Kat.. my reflex is to try to ponder the imponderable, make sense where little is to be found, peek behind the curtain in Oz and ask just what makes some of those cows sacred... *grin* (as you know, even YOU are not safe from my pokings..)

This issue however, is tougher than most to get into the real driving forces behind those who bewilder me.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 10:05 PM

Arsonists and murderers have very different needs, motivations and personality disorders... Yeah, when caught they both end up being housed together but that's about where the the commonalities end...

How do you spell "red herring"???

B~