BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Peg
Date: 18 May 03 - 10:58 PM

Hey Jeff; it's "ad hominem."

And when someone posts a bunch of drivel calling upon citizens to arm themselves to the teeth rather than find ways to actually improve life in this country, then I think an attack is called for; particularly when he/she infers that anyone who thinks gun control is a good idea is some sort of bleeding heart...

Goody for you for "reconsidering your position" after ten years of careful study. Some of us "loud anti-gunners" (as you put it) have thought long and hard about it too, longer than you, even, and still think gun laws should be stricter.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ironmule
Date: 18 May 03 - 11:49 PM

Hi Peg

I never did take Latin, and although I looked up a bunch of words in the dictionary I keep next to my PC, I didn't look up that one (ad hominem).

I'm glad you see the point of my post, that honorable people can study a difficult question and differ on the best answer. I hope you also realize that I use you as an example of kneejerk reactions, rather than saying you're a kneejerk thinker. It's quicker to use an example than to double the size of an already long post to set up a teaching example (parable?).

As I see it, we have too many distractions from the "improving life" questions, because it suits politicians to keep creating "Us and Them" fights instead of really addressing serious problems. A problem wouldn't be serious if it was easy to solve.

The "Arming to the Teeth" side of things is not my experience with Carry Permit people. I mean real people, not the writers of idiot media on both side of this question. Some of the "Gun Nut Magazines" are every bit as objectionable to me as to you. All we carry permit people want is not to be victims. Our difference in thinking is our willingness to take concrete steps to prepare for the things we fear.   

I'll repeat what I regard as the most important part of my rant, that differences of opinion may be the result of ignorance, or the result of gullibility, but very few of the opinions we see on our forum are the result of evil intent. So, polite discussion of our differences is important to the growth of our cyber society. I always try to persuade, because I know that insults turn me off, and I don't expect to cause growth in others by insulting them.

Jeff Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 03 - 12:04 AM

Peg: Your position appears to be i'm right you are all wrong and have no right to an opinion unless it agrees with mine?

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: BlueJay
Date: 19 May 03 - 05:40 AM

Ironmule- Your arguments are thoughtful, but I still say we have too many guns in this country for our own good. I have been an avid shooter, and in the past I have owned quite a few guns. If someone gave me a gun now, I'd probably really enjoy a little target shooting.

But I don't think you can deny the fact that the more firearms available, the more accidents there will be. When I was about 10 or 12, I blew part of the top off of my dresser. I was trying to shoot a .22 into a phone book, (use a thick one), in my bedroom. Unfortunately I didn't understand that the scope I was aiming through was sighted for fifty yards rather than ten feet, hence the chunk out of my dresser. I shouldn't have even had my dad's gun, and I got the bullets on my own. Kids are very clever.

My friends and I, (about the same time), managed to get ahold of a few .22 pistols. We understood that shooting each other with standard .22 ammo was not an option, but we quickly realized you can pry the lead projectile off with a pair of pliers, dump all or most of the powder out, stick the shell into a bar of soap and have a stinging but not deadly projectile.

Boy we had fun, shooting each other with abandon. We quit after a potent charge landed a wad of soap through my shirt and into my right deltoid muscle. It healed, without my parents ever knowing. I still have the scar, looks just like a smallpox vaccine of old. Good thing no one got one in the eye.

I think it is undeniable that with more guns, there will be more gun accidents. More kids will get ahold of them and do stupid shit like I did.

In Denver, in the last month, two kids are dead and one in critical condition because they got ahold of their dad's firearms. That's the only real statistic I have. Is that a fair trade off for your right to own and carry as many weopons as you see fit? Or is it just "collateral damage"?

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 May 03 - 11:06 AM

I'm reminded of a Robert Heinlin book called "Tunnel In The Sky" { if I'm not mistaken the book belonged to my older brother Jeff aka Ironmule }. The protagonist is a teenager about to take a final exam to become some kind of Green Beret space cadet. He will be dumped on an unknown planet with the rest of his class to see if they are able to survive. He's allowed to take any kind of a weapon he wants to - anything. His sister - already a legendary Green Beret space cadet - suggests that he only take an extra knife.

When he asks why he shouldn't take some ultra powerful automatic weapon she tells him that the object of the test is only to survive. And if he takes a bigger weapon that he will be tempted to use it - and there is always something out there that is bigger, badder or faster than whatever weapon he could take with him. And it will make him overconfident.

Her point is that the "rabbit" that runs and hides will survive and the person that stands and fights is libel to be brave and dead.

For myself - I don't really remember a situation that I've been in where the most important piece of survival gear I could have owned wouldn't have been a good pair of running shoes.   

I try to stay out of bad parts of town, stay away from bad people, and have an effective alarm system in our house with a panic button. If someone should ever break in I plan to grab the baby and my wife and run like hell. And call 911. I'd rather be a live rabbit than a brave dead space cadet.

This is a personal viewpoint only and I respect other { esp my brothers } viewpoints other than my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ironmule
Date: 19 May 03 - 12:13 PM

I'm afraid that BlueJay's post is more supportive of my position than his own. None of the guns did anything wrong. It was the young gunners.

I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that Bluejay and his friends drove cars just as badly when they got drivers licenses, as they played with guns. They showed awful judgment in what and how to "play". There are many times more guns and people in the US than a century ago, but the accident rate is lower, because of the better training now in firearms safety. If you join a gun club, most make sure you've got a good understanding of firearms safety rules before they'll let you near their range. Every one I've had anything to do with preached safety and good judgement all the time.

Wesley lives in town where a 911 call gets a quick response. In the rural areas I prefer, my two 911 calls got 38minute and 41 minute waits before a Deputy arrived. So far I've been able to out-talk or run away from any trouble that sought me out, but I refuse to be a meek victim if I've got nowhere to run.

A related thought, about using inanimate tools with good or bad judgment; up until the huge increase in drug use in the sixties, more people were slashed with kitchen knives every year than got shot. Most of the fear of guns is fueled by dealer wars. FBI statistics label a dealer and his customer as "knowing" each other.   

Jeff Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Peg
Date: 19 May 03 - 01:25 PM

Ironmule; you sound pretty arrogant, but what the hell, it's a free country. You at least attempt to be articulate in your arguments and I respect that.


As to "kneejerk reactions," how is it possible for you to acknowledge that I have considered the issue but still react in an emotional and unthinking (and thus illogical and ill-considered) way?

Yes, this issue makes me emotional; there are a lot of needlessly dead people involved...and a lot of people blinded by their bloodlust and badly-repressed anger who want a weapon to hand just to make them "feel safer." This scares me. It should scare you to. Not every gun owner is responsible and emotionally stable. I should that would be obvious by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 May 03 - 03:54 PM

Peg - My brother doesn't need me to defend him but I can assure you he's one of the least arrogant people I know. I feel very sure this is one of those instances where the written word comes off colder sounding that a face to face conversation over a pint somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ironmule
Date: 19 May 03 - 04:35 PM

Peg, I guess the issue that I object to is the attempt to allay your fears by legislating the tool and not the tool weilder. I can show you several studies where criminals were asked why they chose the weapon they commonly used: fists, clubs, knives or guns. Basicly, they like taking from the weak. I can point to the current experience of Brittain, Australia, and Canada, who's gun control laws are stringent, and failing badly. They have sharp increases in violent crime, not the expected reductions.

Real safety comes from inside the person, and I have no idea how to change the criminally minded. They seem impervious to anything but fear. The penal system as currently arranged makes too many of them worse.

If, instead of teaching kids to use good sense when they handle a dangerous item,( barbecue lighter fluid, cars, guns) we try to take the danger out of the tools, we'll just have more of the creativity we see on Jackass TV. There's an estimated 250 million firearms in the US, and like the contents of Pandora's Box, it's too late to make them go away. What I fear is the waste that comes from letting the underlying problem keep getting worse while trying to treat unfixable symptoms. The problems arise inside people and can only be fixed there.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 May 03 - 04:46 PM

But Jeff - The argument can be made that laws are easier to change than people. There will always be some violent yahoos out there. I just hope that if I run into one that he has a club or knife than a gun. I can outrun a baseball bat. I can't outrun a .22, .38 or .44.

Feets don't fail me now..

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ironmule
Date: 19 May 03 - 05:00 PM

I wish we could just edit a post. I wasn't bothered by the arrogant comment, and as part of my posting policy on all the forums where you might find me, if I do feel a comment is insulting I ignore it completely. Too many internet threads devolve into childish "are too, am not" name calling. On the few occasions when I've had truly insulting comments aimed my way, I regard them as compliments in disguise, coming from the source that they do.

I expect Peg's accusation of arrogance is just a case of grabbing for an adjective and picking the first one that comes to mind. I do try to come off as cool and emotionless as possible when discussing a hot button topic. "Arrogant- making, or disposed to make. exhorbitent claims of rank, estimation, or importance; haughty" In trying to be precise and clearly understood, I probably do come off as haughty. And if the truth is to be told, I probably am a little arrogant, but I try to be catlike about it and cover it up when I make a mess. (BG)

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ironmule
Date: 19 May 03 - 05:33 PM

Laws are easy to change, but an ineffective law is a bad idea. How much contempt is there on this forum for stupid polititians, the dumb laws they've passed, messes they can make of our lives with poorly thought out laws.

I try to stay out of political threads but I've been in the mood for them the last few days. I did a very rare thing and originated one on the woodenboat forum. I hope the blue clicky works. both the right and left chimed in, and my long political discusion is down at the bottom of the page.
Wooden Boat Forum

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Peg
Date: 19 May 03 - 11:52 PM

Ironmule: I'm a writer by trade, so I try hard to do a bit more than just "grab for an adjective." You may disagree over whether it's an appropriate one, but it's not a thoughtless one...your assumption that I was using language carelessly is another example I would point to...of course you may think mentioning my professional qualifications as a writer to be "arrogant" but then, you have accused me of using language carelessly, so...(shrug) I can't win this one.

I agree with Wesley; human behavior is difficult to legislate. You yourslef admit it's difficult to change such a variable. Better to legislate the weapon, which is made for killing, and keep it out of hands too eager, or unskilled, to use it responsibly.

Yes, knives and rocks and broken bottles kill. But much more slowly...and only one person at a time usually...

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: kendall
Date: 20 May 03 - 08:50 PM

I don't trust anyone to carry a gun, with one exception...ME

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Dave Wynn
Date: 21 May 03 - 12:06 PM

Speaking from a position of limited knowledge of guns , I would think that if stringent gun laws were installed (as here in the UK)they would only be honoured by the decent majority. The criminal fraternity would ignore them (as in the UK)and so still carry guns and hope for not being caught.

Thus there would be fewer "decent law abiding citizens" carrying guns and more criminals. A little simplistic but it seem to have happened in the UK although I have no "damned lies" to prove it.

Spot

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 21 May 03 - 02:27 PM

The only effective way to limit guns is to ban ownership, sale, or possession of all guns and ammunition. Only if the mere ownership of the item is enough to confiscate it can legislation adequately reduce gun crime. Of course, that would be far too drastic to get past Congress, and the loss of jobs in the munitions industry would hurt the economy. It would also be very difficult to enforce, and would definitely exceed all but the most restrictive interpretations of the second amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST,Midchuck downstairs
Date: 21 May 03 - 02:47 PM

Following up on Forum Lurker's last post, I'm reminded of what Edward Abbey said somewhere. He pointed out that the bumper sticker, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is not quite correct.

The fact is that, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws and the government will have guns.

Which defines the two groups least to be trusted with guns, IMO.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: kendall
Date: 22 May 03 - 03:02 PM

Actually Lurker, some places in the USA have very strict gun laws. NYC has its Sullivan Law, Massachusettes and Connecticut also have such laws, but, when you live in a high crime area, you are more concerned about being murdered than being caught with a gun.
The only way to get rid of gun violence, is a major change in mind set. Do away with the "need" for guns, but, it is not realistic. As long as we have a criminal element, a gutless congress and a strong gun lobby, we will have guns. Get over it.