U.S. President's gun violence reduction proposal

[bytor2112]

Ahh, I see. Thank you all for defending the Constitution. Good night.

Well...defending the rights guaranteed by the Constitution that some are so eager to give up.

[NeuroTypical]

Adolphus Busch IV resigns NRA membership | ksdk.com

"I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision," he said.

I never get tired of hearing someone say "I don't understand it, therefore you are wrong" as if they just scored some sort of point or proved something.

Anyway, there is an answer for Busch's question. How do large cap magazines support the 2nd amendment? What on earth does one do with them?

One defends one's life and the lives of one's family in one's home against multiple aggressors intent on dealing out serious injury or death or worse.

The "why do you need that much" argument has a very good answer, although I don't know how convincing it is to some mindsets. I asked myself that question early on, and found a very good answer that satisfied me completely, from Col. Jeff Cooper. I suggest his "Principles of Personal Defense" pamphlet to anyone considering carrying a firearm. It is a very sobering eye-opener that stresses the severity of a situation where one would actually be using their handgun against another person. As he puts it: "...many men ... are simply unprepared for the fact of human savagery. They have not thought about it ... and they just don't know what to do. When they look right into the face of depravity or violence, they are astonished and confounded. This can be corrected."

Back when my wife and I helped put a felon behind bars, I struggled with the facts that he knew where we lived, that we have children, and that he may come for payback. As I considered my duty as head of the family to prepare against this known and valid threat, I saw myself in the way Cooper describes above. I had only a few small brief encounters with depravity or violence, and my reactions gave me reason to believe I need to make some changes. So I found Col. Cooper and his principles of personal defense, and I began learning and growing into someone who could effectively use a handgun to stop an attack from a bad guy.

Anyway, there are seven principles. Bigger, higher capacity, and more powerful firearms, used with knowledge and skill, help one carry out five of them more effectively.

And that's the answer to Busch's ignorance. If he would read the answer, then he would no longer be "simply unable to comprehend".

Edited April 19, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Guest]

Yep. Lots of laws made just because people simply cannot comprehend.

"What in the world do you need a Burmese Python for?". Ban it.

[Vort]

Yep. Lots of laws made just because people simply cannot comprehend.

"What in the world do you need a Burmese Python for?". Ban it.

Given how many problems pythons are causing in the Florida everglades, that might not have been a bad idea.

[Guest]

Given how many problems pythons are causing in the Florida everglades, that might not have been a bad idea.

And there it is!!! EXACTLY the kind of response I would expect from people who seek to ban guns! Because you know, we python enthusiasts are all stupid idiots who would just drop our stupid pythons in the everglades.

And it's a sobering thought that this comment came from Vort. Of all people.

Edited April 19, 2013 by anatess

[Windseeker]

Unfortunately it does not mention Burmese Pythons in the 2nd amendment.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Windseeker

[Windseeker]

Unfortunately it does not mention Burmese Pythons in the 2nd amendment.

[Guest]

Unfortunately it does not mention Burmese Pythons in the 2nd amendment.

Neither does it mention dogs, or cats, or cars, or tattoos, or computers. All of which contribute more to societal problems than pythons. And there's no possible way you can ever ban any of those. Why? Because... people understand them.

And that's my whole point. It's easy to ban something people don't bother to understand. I can go on and on and on about the amount of stupid surrounding the "python in the everglades" issue yet nobody cares to listen. Of course... hollywood says snakes are the devil... what else is there to know? This is the exact same problem with the gun issue, the pit bull issue, etc. etc. etc.

And here's my other point. I'll need my gun to keep your hands off my "pythons" (that is, anything you want to take from me because you don't bother to understand it).

Edited April 19, 2013 by anatess

[CrimsonKairos]

Trying to reduce gun-related crime by banning and confiscating the firearms of law abiding citizens, is sorta' like trying to reduce drunk driving fatalities by banning and confiscating the cars of sober drivers.

Makes sense to me (he said with a high-capacity magazine full of sarcasm).

[Vort]

And there it is!!! EXACTLY the kind of response I would expect from people who seek to ban guns! Because you know, we python enthusiasts are all stupid idiots who would just drop our stupid pythons in the everglades.

And it's a sobering thought that this comment came from Vort. Of all people.

But I didn't say all python enthusiasts were irresponsible. I said pythons were causing problems, which as far as I can tell is a true statement. Do you dispute this? If so, how do you refute the evidence presented elsewhere?

We have laws that prevent casual ownership of other exotic and/or dangerous animals such as large predatory cats. As far as I know, you're not allowed casual ownership of a pet elephant, rhinoceros, wildebeest, or Komodo dragon. I don't see why pythons should automatically be exempt from scrutiny.

And to tie this into the second amendment discussion: I don't think the second amendment was ever meant to guarantee private ownership of a thermonuclear device, a functioning anti-aircraft battery, or even an armed tank or a battleship. I agree that most of those seeking to restrict gun ownership are wrong-headed in their approach, but I am not convinced by the "anything goes" argument.

[Guest]

But I didn't say all python enthusiasts were irresponsible. I said pythons were causing problems, which as far as I can tell is a true statement. Do you dispute this? If so, how do you refute the evidence presented elsewhere?

No, just like you can't refute evidence that guns is a problem in downtown Chicago.

We have laws that prevent casual ownership of other exotic and/or dangerous animals such as large predatory cats. As far as I know, you're not allowed casual ownership of a pet elephant, rhinoceros, wildebeest, or Komodo dragon. I don't see why pythons should automatically be exempt from scrutiny.

Ownership of Burmese Pythons require a license. It is far from exempt from scrutiny... Well, that was before. It's banned now.

And to tie this into the second amendment discussion: I don't think the second amendment was ever meant to guarantee private ownership of a thermonuclear device, a functioning anti-aircraft battery, or even an armed tank or a battleship. I agree that most of those seeking to restrict gun ownership are wrong-headed in their approach, but I am not convinced by the "anything goes" argument.

I never advocated anything goes. I am merely commenting on this: "I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision,"... something somebody posted above (or the preceding page).

It's easy to malign people who make these types of statements (guns) yet they don't see how they do it themselves (pythons)...

Do you see what I'm saying?

Edited April 19, 2013 by anatess

[Dravin]

No, just like you can't refute evidence that guns is a problem in downtown Chicago.

Ownership of Burmese Pythons require a license. It is far from exempt from scrutiny... Well, that was before. It's banned now.

I never advocated anything goes. I am merely commenting on this: "I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision,"... something somebody posted above (or the preceding page).

It's easy to malign people who make these types of statements (guns) yet they don't see how they do it themselves (pythons)...

Do you see what I'm saying?

Vort's comment wasn't, "What in the world do you need a python for?" or "I don't see how pythons fit into pet ownership." It's more akin to, "Pythons are causing problems and banning ownership is a good idea." Which shifted to a gun context is most analogous to, "X type of guns are causing problems and banning ownership is a good idea." Which is not, "I don't see how X guns fit into your vision.", or to shift your python comment over to guns, "What in the world do you need a X gun for?"

Edited April 19, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest]

Vort's comment wasn't, "What in the world do you need a python for?" or "I don't see how pythons fit into pet ownership." It's more akin to, "Pythons are causing problems and banning ownership is a good idea." Which shifted to a gun context is most analogous to, "X type of guns are causing problems and banning ownership is a good idea." Which is not, "I don't see how X guns fit into your vision.", or to shift your python comment over to guns, "What in the world do you need a X gun for?"

THAT's what I'm saying! "Burmese Pythons are causing problems and banning ownership is a good idea" is a stupid statement! It's analogous to "Assault-type weapons are causing problems and banning ownership is a good idea"... when the people saying it have no idea what an Assault-type Weapon nor a Burmese Python is... beyond the "it can kill a lot of people" and "there's a python problem in the everglades".

[Windseeker]

Assault weapons don't slither into the everglades and make babies that wreak havoc on the natural habitat.

Python owners don't kill indigenous species, Pythons do.

...just saying

[Vort]

No, just like you can't refute evidence that guns is a problem in downtown Chicago.

Nor would I attempt to. Gun usage is undoubtedly a problem in Chicago.

I never advocated anything goes. I am merely commenting on this: "I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision,"... something somebody posted above (or the preceding page).

It's easy to malign people who make these types of statements (guns) yet they don't see how they do it themselves (pythons)...

Do you see what I'm saying?

My point was twofold. First, responding narrowly to your python example (and I didn't realize they were prohibited, though that knowledge would not have changed my answer), I meant only that banning python ownership was not a ridiculous or unthinkable idea, given the fact that they may cause devastation. Of course, any such risk would probably need to be demonstrated before it would make sense to start banning python ownership. But the mere idea of banning ownership of a python is no more absurd than the idea of banning ownership of a hippopotamus or a lion.

Second, as it relates to firearms, my point was that I disagree with the "anything goes" mentality. I agree that much or even most laws designed to curtail firearm ownership are wrong-headed, curtailing important freedoms while improving security only slightly, or not at all, or even making things less secure. We seem to lack the ability to speak in nuance; everything is either black or white, "guns == good" vs. "guns == evil".

Speaking in general terms, and not directly regarding our little tête-à-tête here:

I am perhaps often guilty of being overly hard on those who generally take my side in things, which is a shameful failing that I have tried for years to overcome. I tend that way because I am irritated and embarrassed by muddled thinking and illogic on the part of those with whom I mostly agree; I feel as if it weakens our cause. On the contrary, I expect stupidity from those with whom I disagree on substantive issues (e.g. fetuses are not human life? Which one aren't they, human or alive? Because I can demonstrate that they are both), so their illogic and dishonesty in confronting the issues seems more par for the course. You don't expect truth from liars any more than you expect poetry from pigs.

There is also the tangentially related issue of convincing those who disagree with "us" but who may be honest and well-intentioned people, simply ignorant either of the issues themselves or of the appropriate way to approach those issues. In such cases, I cringe that they may hear a poorly considered argument from "our" side and think it somehow representative of "our" thinking on the issue.

The problem with this whole line of thinking is: That is not how most people operate. The vast majority of people don't rationally consider all sides of an issue and then arrive at a reasoned decision. Rather, they follow (1) their prejudices and (2) their gut. Given that most people cannot get enough real information to make a perfectly reasoned choice, and that many of them would not (perhaps could not) process such information even if it were given them, this may not be a bad thing; consider the enormously complex and politically charged issue of global warming, and tell me honestly if you believe that one person in ten thousand truly understands the fundamentals of the issues involved and can provide cogent arguments to support his or her stand on the policies involved. I don't believe it.

The problem for me is that I have spent my life trying to understand how to consider things rationally and make knowledge-based choices, so I am ill-equipped to deal with people on a purely or even mostly touchy-feely level. In that sense, I am pretty much an anti-politician, in that I lack several of the most important personality traits that any successful politician requires.

I think "gun control" is largely an attempt to remove firearms from the hands of citizens. I think this is wrong-headed and will not solve the underlying cause of firearm violence; in fact, I think it often won't even solve the immediate problem, since in most cases criminals don't care much whether a given weapon is legal. But fully automatic rifles? I do not see how such ownership furthers our freedoms. Yes, in the extreme, when we are fighting our own government gone corrupt or foreign insurgency, machine guns might be very nice, assuming you know how to use them without killing yourself or your compatriots. But I don't particularly want my neighbors owning machine guns for exactly the same reason I don't want them owning a nuclear device. If only 1/10 of 1% of people are bat-poop crazy -- and I bet it's a much higher percentage than that -- that means one person in a thousand is a walking basket case. Put that much destructive power into the hands of the general population, and the crazies will surely bring us down.

I admit I might be wrong, but if I am, I would appreciate someone pointing out my flawed analysis or comparison, rather than just calling me stupid.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Vort

[NeuroTypical]

If only 1/10 of 1% of people are bat-poop crazy -- and I bet it's a much higher percentage than that -- that means one person in a thousand is a walking basket case.

Not really pertinent to Vort and Anatess' discussion, but I'd like to point out that you do an injustice to an accurate understanding of reality, when you mention the crazy but not the evil. In other words, in just about every community of more than a few thousand people, there is a tiny segment who are willing to kill you for what you've got. And not all of them are suffering from a mental illness.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent off the tangent. Back to the tangent.

[Vort]

Not really pertinent to Vort and Anatess' discussion, but I'd like to point out that you do an injustice to an accurate understanding of reality, when you mention the crazy but not the evil. In other words, in just about every community of more than a few thousand people, there is a tiny segment who are willing to kill you for what you've got. And not all of them are suffering from a mental illness.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent off the tangent. Back to the tangent.

Doubtless you are correct. I am disgusted by evil because I understand all too well what they are trying to accomplish, but I am afraid of craziness, perhaps because I don't understand it. What do you do with people who are untrustworthy but not dishonest? That's like little children, except these little children are adult-sized and can drive and vote. You can't just say "naughty, naughty" and send them to the corner. Like everyone else, during my lifetime I have had to deal with people who were obviously mentally ill, and I've never been particularly well-equipped to do so. In my life today, I don't have a lot of direct contact with people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness, so it's sort of a scary unknown for me. I did not mean to stigmatize those suffering from a debilitating mental illness, so if I've done so, please forgive me.

[Traveler]

Not really pertinent to Vort and Anatess' discussion, but I'd like to point out that you do an injustice to an accurate understanding of reality, when you mention the crazy but not the evil. In other words, in just about every community of more than a few thousand people, there is a tiny segment who are willing to kill you for what you've got. And not all of them are suffering from a mental illness.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent off the tangent. Back to the tangent.

Two of the points I made in another thread is that:

1. G-d will not do for man what man can do for himself.

2. G-d will do for man what man cannot do for himself.

If we have the ability to defend ourselves by gun ownership and we care not to so prepare ourselves then we are in grave error to expect G-d to defend us despite our lack of preparation. I would like to point out that when I offered the above points there was no dispute concerning those point though there was a dispute concerning another point.

What I find interesting in this whole discussion is if we look to the government to defend us - that government seems to think the best method is to first take steps to prevent the idea that a citizen ought to be able to defend themselves. In other words make everyone equally helpless and dependent on the government.

One thing I believe we ought to do is to enforce the laws already in existence. One time - very long ago some friends and I went target shooting. All was fine until I was visited by a police detective that informed me that one of the "friends" was an x-con (who BTW brought his own weapon) and by law could not own or use a gun. In being involved I was aiding and abetting a crime. Wow - I did not know a felon by law could not have a gun to go target shooting.

The whole problem is that for one; we want to do is rehabilitate previously incarcerated individuals. And I believe that means that we need to make THEM responsible. It is one thing when citizens knowingly assist in a crime and quite something else when they are used unwittingly by someone in commuting a crime.

By the very nature of even the concept of crime - the criminal will make efforts to use unwitting citizens to commit crimes. This is the very attitude we want to rehabilitate. What I do not understand is why in all the craziness of gun problems - would anyone consider laws to make unwitting citizens the criminal rather than the criminal in so using them?

Lets make laws that make sense and punish the specific individuals that commit crimes. Regardless of what-ever circumstance the greater emphases of the law should always be on the specific individual that obtains a gun to commit a crime - not the person that sold it.

The Traveler

Edited April 20, 2013 by Traveler