Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 20:27:22 GMT
I'm probably going to be sorry in asking this but why did you feel the need to basically repeat your displeasure that someone doesn't want to play with you 2 days after the first time you expressed your displeasure? What are you hoping to prove? I mean you made your "point" the first time around. Bit puzzled by what you are trying to accomplish this time around. I didn't "repeat my displeasure" as you put it. I originally asked why she left the real conversation she said she wanted, in favor of complaining there was no way to have a real conversation. The next thing you see is my conclusion about it. Two different things, entirely. Sure you did. You worded it a bit different but the meaning is the same. However you answered my question and I have no interest in going down that rabbit hole with you today.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 20:30:18 GMT
I didn't "repeat my displeasure" as you put it. I originally asked why she left the real conversation she said she wanted, in favor of complaining there was no way to have a real conversation. The next thing you see is my conclusion about it. Two different things, entirely. Sure you did. You worded it a bit different but the meaning is the same. However you answered my question and I have no interest in going down that rabbit hole with you today. Knock it off, Krazyscrapper.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 20:32:46 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 20:42:28 GMT
Sure you did. You worded it a bit different but the meaning is the same. However you answered my question and I have no interest in going down that rabbit hole with you today. Knock it off, Krazyscrapper. Had to get the last word in didn't you.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jun 20, 2016 20:55:22 GMT
Knock it off, Krazyscrapper. Had to get the last word in didn't you. Did someone mention Mrs T?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 21:08:29 GMT
Had to get the last word in didn't you. Did someone mention Mrs T? You know I miss Mrs. T.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jun 20, 2016 21:14:21 GMT
Did someone mention Mrs T? You know I miss Mrs. T. No, but it's pretty well known that she loved to get the last word in.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 21:20:29 GMT
No, but it's pretty well known that she loved to get the last word in. I know. But she did it with such frustrating pizzazz!
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Jun 20, 2016 21:36:28 GMT
I know the article advocates repealing the 2nd Amendment and is not just suggesting strict gun ownership/control laws.
In regard to what some here have been discussing, though, I don't feel making gun ownership far more difficult to gain and maintain (than is now) is punishing all gun owners for the acts of a relative few. To me, it's common sense to make owning and operating a gun at least as difficult as owning and operating a car.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jun 20, 2016 22:03:47 GMT
Okay, I'll say it: Yes, I do think the second ammendment should be repealed, which doesn't necessarily mean I think guns should be banned.
(Among people I know, this is a popular opinion, but I write it here with a measure of trepidation.)
Also:
-The idea that only gun owners should decide/evaluate gun laws is totally mystifying to me. Legislators write or vote on laws every day about issues with which they might not have personal experience, e.g. drugs, abortion, education, parenting, health care, the military, food stamps, traffic rules, etcetera ad nauseum. (Related: I work with childless teachers who have been told they should not be teachers...)
-I think the argument that people are justifiably opposed to gun registration because they don't trust what the government might do in the future is specious. Is distrust of the government really the metric by which we want to evaluate potential laws? (Laws which are written and enforced by the, you know, government?) Really??? Are we willing to apply this metric to other laws, or is it just guns? If so, why?
-Can we please, please, please, PRETTY PLEASE lose the Chicago argument? We are surrounded by (six!) states with very different gun laws. Some of our suburbs are IN Indiana...and others are very close to Wisconsin. The refusal to ever acknowledge this "Yeah, but" is confounding.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jun 20, 2016 22:08:59 GMT
No, but it's pretty well known that she loved to get the last word in. I know. But she did it with such frustrating pizzazz! Ooops, I realise now that I mis-read your post as "You know, I know Mrs T" and thought you were unhappy that I was having a little pop at her because you were friends Well, it's late here, that's my excuse Frustrating, yes, I'll give you that, pizzazz, I'm not so sure
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 23:18:56 GMT
Okay, I'll say it: Yes, I do think the second ammendment should be repealed, which doesn't necessarily mean I think guns should be banned. (Among people I know, this is a popular opinion, but I write it here with a measure of trepidation.) Also: -The idea that only gun owners should decide/evaluate gun laws is totally mystifying to me. Legislators write laws every day about issues with which they might not have personal experience, e.g. drugs, abortion, education, parenting, health care, the military, food stamps, traffic rules, etcetera ad nauseum. (Related: I work with childless teachers who have been told they should not be teachers...) I can't speak for burningfeather, but I do believe her point was not that only gun owners should decide/evaluate gun laws, but that people are forming their opinion and/or making laws on items that they know absolutely nothing about. Therefore the laws and changes they propose will not have the desired effect. If those making laws want to make effective laws, they don't necessarily have to own guns, but they do have to know about them before they can do it properly. And those who're forming opinions don't have to own guns, but they do have to know the facts before they can make informed opinions. That's exactly why the founders of the country included the 2nd amendment, to protect against potential tyranny.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 20, 2016 23:31:31 GMT
You stated: So I believed you and had a real conversation with you. I respectfully addressed your claim that gun rights advocates are using semantics to shut down conversation. I showed you why that wasn't the case at all and backed it up with facts. Respectfully. When you dumped that respectful, real conversation to jump back on the "it's too hard to have real conversation here" bandwagon, I began to doubt you ever really wanted a real conversation. Then when you jumped ship to go join the bullying pile on of another gun rights advocate, you pretty much erased all doubt that you never really wanted "real conversation". {{sigh}} I cannot believe I'm even going to try to explain myself. I STILL believe that conversation is being shut down. Every post no, but it's clearly there. I do believe at the level of discussion here on this thread, semantics are in play--we (normal regular Jane's) don't need to have every single specification to identify what is/is not an Assault weapons to have a discussion here. especially since we are not those who are the ones making the final decisions on bills/legislature or the final determiner of what will end up being banned. I LIKED posts that said things I agreed with, why rewrite what others have posted when liking accomplishes the same thing? I liked what they said and agreed with it here. I think I was doing just fine reading and following the convo. As for me joining a bashing bully bandwagon, you can just knock it off. I am not bullying anyone. I am not being a bully and I'm sick of you even saying it. We are adults speaking their opinion, that is far from bullying. It seems perfectly fine for rainbow bunny to lie, insult and even gone on with her hate speech against gays and trans people, but you choose to defend that and pick on me. And you're doing it again--
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 20, 2016 23:53:09 GMT
Okay, I'll say it: Yes, I do think the second ammendment should be repealed, which doesn't necessarily mean I think guns should be banned. (Among people I know, this is a popular opinion, but I write it here with a measure of trepidation.) Also: -The idea that only gun owners should decide/evaluate gun laws is totally mystifying to me. Legislators write or vote on laws every day about issues with which they might not have personal experience, e.g. drugs, abortion, education, parenting, health care, the military, food stamps, traffic rules, etcetera ad nauseum. (Related: I work with childless teachers who have been told they should not be teachers...) -I think the argument that people are justifiably opposed to gun registration because they don't trust what the government might do in the future is specious. Is distrust of the government really the metric by which we want to evaluate potential laws? (Laws which are written and enforced by the, you know, government?) Really??? Are we willing to apply this metric to other laws, or is it just guns? If so, why? -Can we please, please, please, PRETTY PLEASE lose the Chicago argument? We are surrounded by (six!) states with very different gun laws. Some of our suburbs are IN Indiana...and others are very close to Wisconsin. The refusal to ever acknowledge this "Yeah, but" is confounding. I agree with your first and third points, but not with your second. As long as people call for the banning of gun ownership, people will fight against the government knowing how many guns they have. The government, whether federal or local, continually tries to police what I can and cannot do or taxes me on what they think is bad for me. Why would I trust it not to do that with my guns?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 0:23:54 GMT
You stated: So I believed you and had a real conversation with you. I respectfully addressed your claim that gun rights advocates are using semantics to shut down conversation. I showed you why that wasn't the case at all and backed it up with facts. Respectfully. When you dumped that respectful, real conversation to jump back on the "it's too hard to have real conversation here" bandwagon, I began to doubt you ever really wanted a real conversation. Then when you jumped ship to go join the bullying pile on of another gun rights advocate, you pretty much erased all doubt that you never really wanted "real conversation". {{sigh}} I cannot believe I'm even going to try to explain myself. I STILL believe that conversation is being shut down. Every post no, but it's clearly there. I do believe at the level of discussion here on this thread, semantics are in play--we (normal regular Jane's) don't need to have every single specification to identify what is/is not an Assault weapons to have a discussion here. especially since we are not those who are the ones making the final decisions on bills/legislature or the final determiner of what will end up being banned. I AGREE with you that conversation IS being shut down at times and from both sides. I'm a normal Jane just like you, but when I provide facts to the conversation and it doesn't mean the conversation is being shut down, unless the only conversation you wanted was total agreement. Hearing facts is good for conversation and opens up your mind to find a better way to accomplish our goals in keeping gun inflicted deaths down. Which is what everyone wants. I'm really not picking on you, you said you wanted real conversation, but just really made it look as if you don't actually want real conversation and I commented on it. Even now, by labeling the facts as nothing but semantics, you're saying you don't want to hear the facts if they disprove your theories and ideas of stopping gun deaths. What goes on with Rainbow, IS bullying. Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict. AND I've never, ever, not even remotely in some twisted way, defended hate speech. Ever. So you're definitely wrong in claiming I have.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 0:27:11 GMT
I can't speak for burningfeather , but I do believe her point was not that only gun owners should decide/evaluate gun laws, but that people are forming their opinion and/or making laws on items that they know absolutely nothing about. Therefore the laws and changes they propose will not have the desired effect. If those making laws want to make effective laws, they don't necessarily have to own guns, but they do have to know about them before they can do it properly. And those who're forming opinions don't have to own guns, but they do have to know the facts before they can make informed opinions. That's exactly why the founders of the country included the 2nd amendment, to protect against potential tyranny. link
Two comments. 1. You seem to be under the impression that anyone who writes laws concerning guns don't know or wouldn't take the time to know what they are writing laws for. As with any law written the lawmakers will take the time to know about what they are in the process writing laws about or bring in experts. Senator Feinstein can hold her own against any "gun expert". Check her past and you will understand why. Several states, including CA, have assault rifle ban on the books. Today the Supreme Court refused to hear the challenge to assault rifle bans in two states, CT & NY. This means the bans will stand. For the hell of it I went and read the one for CA. It's pretty comprehensive however to keep up with technology the CA legislature wants to broaden the law. If a law is ineffective it may be because it's poorly written. Or because the laws in areas around said law's area are different or nonexistent. Case in point. CA has stronger gun laws then NV. Folks from CA can go to NV get what they want weapon wise and because we are a free society drive their legal weapons in NV to CA where the weapons are illegal. And since there are no gun checks at the state border who's to know guns that were legal in NV are now illegal guns in CA? 2. A year ago I went to a book reading with some friends. The author had written a book about the plight of the Hungarian Jews at the end of WWII. Later we were talking about what she talked about and we agreed as time goes by people who lived the event die and as more time passes others forget. The attached link is for you Gia. Your last sentence had me dig up this article called the "The Second Amendment Hoax". For just about 200 years the accepted definition of the 2nd Amendment was for a well armed militia and not individual gun rights. The article lays it out. That was what I was taught in school and when I first heard the Supreme Court ruling on Heller my first thought was that was not what I had learned. The shift in the definition of the 2nd amendment started after the NRA "Revolt of Cincinnati" in 1977. You may want to check out the article.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Jun 21, 2016 0:34:22 GMT
Okay, I'll say it: Yes, I do think the second ammendment should be repealed, which doesn't necessarily mean I think guns should be banned. (Among people I know, this is a popular opinion, but I write it here with a measure of trepidation.) Also: -The idea that only gun owners should decide/evaluate gun laws is totally mystifying to me. Legislators write or vote on laws every day about issues with which they might not have personal experience, e.g. drugs, abortion, education, parenting, health care, the military, food stamps, traffic rules, etcetera ad nauseum. (Related: I work with childless teachers who have been told they should not be teachers...) -I think the argument that people are justifiably opposed to gun registration because they don't trust what the government might do in the future is specious. Is distrust of the government really the metric by which we want to evaluate potential laws? (Laws which are written and enforced by the, you know, government?) Really??? Are we willing to apply this metric to other laws, or is it just guns? If so, why? -Can we please, please, please, PRETTY PLEASE lose the Chicago argument? We are surrounded by (six!) states with very different gun laws. Some of our suburbs are IN Indiana...and others are very close to Wisconsin. The refusal to ever acknowledge this "Yeah, but" is confounding. I completely agree! Yes, I also think the second amendment should be repealed. And that doesn't mean banning all guns. Guns are not banned in Great Britain. They aren't banned in Australia. Yet anytime we start talking about this the people on gun rights side immediately start assuming we are talking about banning all guns. No we aren't. No one ever said that. There are many reasons for people to still have access to guns. One is for the farmers and ranchers who need them for protection out on their land from wild animals. Gun laws need to be much tighter. It is the only way to cut down on the carnage, the killing of men, women and children who lose their lives every day, month and year to guns. If these people were killed by anything else-bike accidents, a poison in a food, there would be a public outcry to investigate and either get rid of or make safer that item. But because it's guns it gets a pass. Cars are needed because they get us from place to place. Cars were invented for a purpose. Yes, people die in traffic accidents, but like another Pea said we have laws and we must obey them or we get stiff fines and jail time for not doing so. Guns were invented for one purpose-to kill. That is the difference. We have to decide who's rights are more important. Your right to defend yourself, or your neighbor's right to live. If you ask me a person's right to live trumps it. Any life is precious. Especially when you add in the studies that prove that having a gun in the home to defend yourself is more likely to be used in an accident resulting in you or a person in your family being shot, or that gun being taken from you by an intruder and used against you. Again, I'm not calling for a ban an all guns. I'm calling for tighter gun laws. If you want to buy a gun at the very least I think you should have to take a class and prove you know how to use it. And I think that class should have to be repeated very year. I also think there should be an extensive background check made before every purchase (no matter where the purchase is) and a waiting period of 2 weeks. I think there should be a ban on high capacity magazines. There really isn't a need for those in my opinion. While they might be fun at the gun range, then maybe they can only be available the gun range under strict laws for rental only or something like that. They shouldn't be available to purchase is what I'm saying. No one needs to own these, when it is clear that the main purpose is to quickly kill large groups of people. There are different interpretations of the 2nd amendment, and my interpretation isn't the one that was adopted and is currently being used now-that is that it is an individual's right to bear arms. I think it is time to repeal it. What I'd really like to see happen is what Australia did for their country after the Port Authur massacre in 1996. They completely changed their gun laws and since then the risk of dying of gun shot dropped by 50%. Suicides by gun also dropped by the same percentage. They haven't had a mass killing since. But I know that will never happen in this country, sadly. The NRA only cares about profits from gun manufactures and too many people selfishly will cling to their guns and not give them up voluntarily. And yes I said selfishly. It's already been proven that having a gun in your home is more likely to be used against you or in an accident to harm you or a family member. So while the 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms, that doesn't make it right. That's my opinion. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Debbie in MD.
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jun 21, 2016 0:34:35 GMT
Gia-I appreciate the responses and the discussion we have had amid the rest of the bouncing around.
Way back (a few days ago, lol) you wrote about the NRA and their goals. I do understand their goals, I just think it is upsetting that a group that is so powerful seems to be more focused on the rights of the second amendment rather than pulling back and looking at safeguards that could be put in place (that even many of their members want) that would protect more innocent citizens of the United States.
It seems to me that the hatred and distrust so many people have of the NRA is due to the fact that when there is a tragedy some of their spokespeople start saying there needs to be more guns. If I had a some kids in my class start stabbing each other with scissors, I would figure out a way to get the scissors away from them, not try and hand out more to the kids who don't have them.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 21, 2016 0:34:55 GMT
{{sigh}} I cannot believe I'm even going to try to explain myself. I STILL believe that conversation is being shut down. Every post no, but it's clearly there. I do believe at the level of discussion here on this thread, semantics are in play--we (normal regular Jane's) don't need to have every single specification to identify what is/is not an Assault weapons to have a discussion here. especially since we are not those who are the ones making the final decisions on bills/legislature or the final determiner of what will end up being banned. I AGREE with you that conversation IS being shut down at times and from both sides. I'm a normal Jane just like you, but when I provide facts to the conversation and it doesn't mean the conversation is being shut down, unless the only conversation you wanted was total agreement. Hearing facts is good for conversation and opens up your mind to find a better way to accomplish our goals in keeping gun inflicted deaths down. Which is what everyone wants. I'm really not picking on you, you said you wanted real conversation, but just really made it look as if you don't actually want real conversation and I commented on it. Even now, by labeling the facts as nothing but semantics, you're saying you don't want to hear the facts if they disprove your theories and ideas of stopping gun deaths. What goes on with Rainbow, IS bullying. Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict. AND I've never, ever, not even remotely in some twisted way, defended hate speech. Ever. So you're definitely wrong in claiming I have. Well I guess you're just all right all the time then and I should just shut up now. ANYTHING I post, you counter as wrong. Go ahead now, say that I don't want real conversation that I'm a bully ( I AM MOST CERTAINLY NOT--I have no power over her, I have not threatened her EVER, or intimidated her. You say that you don't defended hate speech, but you defend her every single day. You sure don't call her out on it when she does it. But I guess I'm wrong again, so what have you. You've singled me out of everyone else that finds her rhetoric ugly and hate filled .
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jun 21, 2016 0:49:09 GMT
I agree with your first and third points, but not with your second. <snip> The government, whether federal or local, continually tries to police what I can and cannot do or taxes me on what they think is bad for me. Why would I trust it not to do that with my guns? Well, I don't believe the second amendment guarantees residents unfettered access to guns or unregulated behavior when using them, so I think the government would have the right to regulate, and would trust them to do so. From your examples, though, it sounds like you perhaps have a Libertarian bent, so it makes sense that all these things would rankle. But we two-thirds agree, so there's that...
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 21, 2016 1:14:00 GMT
I agree with your first and third points, but not with your second. <snip> The government, whether federal or local, continually tries to police what I can and cannot do or taxes me on what they think is bad for me. Why would I trust it not to do that with my guns? Well, I don't believe the second amendment guarantees residents unfettered access to guns or unregulated behavior when using them, so I think the government would have the right to regulate, and would trust them to do so. From your examples, though, it sounds like you perhaps have a Libertarian bent, so it makes sense that all these things would rankle. But we two-thirds agree, so there's that... I definitely bend toward libertarian.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 1:31:04 GMT
Gia-I appreciate the responses and the discussion we have had amid the rest of the bouncing around. Way back (a few days ago, lol) you wrote about the NRA and their goals. I do understand their goals, I just think it is upsetting that a group that is so powerful seems to be more focused on the rights of the second amendment rather than pulling back and looking at safeguards that could be put in place (that even many of their members want) that would protect more innocent citizens of the United States. It seems to me that the hatred and distrust so many people have of the NRA is due to the fact that when there is a tragedy some of their spokespeople start saying there needs to be more guns. If I had a some kids in my class start stabbing each other with scissors, I would figure out a way to get the scissors away from them, not try and hand out more to the kids who don't have them. I appreciate the discussion you and I have had too. Even if you disagree with me, you are reasonable, logical and most of all respectful. Thank you for that. I disagree with the way you see the NRA's purpose, so we can just agree to disagree. But they aren't saying we need more guns, they're saying not to have spaces where everyone must be disarmed and everyone knows they are. There is a difference. And while your scenario is logical, you really can't compare children with scissors to a criminal mindset.
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jun 21, 2016 1:37:38 GMT
I appreciate the discussion you and I have had too. Even if you disagree with me, you are reasonable, logical and most of all respectful. Thank you for that. I disagree with the way you see the NRA's purpose, so we can just agree to disagree. But they aren't saying we need more guns, they're saying not to have spaces where everyone must be disarmed and everyone knows they are. There is a difference. And while your scenario is logical, you really can't compare children with scissors to a criminal mindset. To me that is a matter of semantics. What my takeaway from is it that if more people had guns, then they could defend themselves and others regardless of where the shootings take place. But honestly if you are in a crowded chaotic nightclub and people are screaming scared, and trying to escape I can't see a scenario where other people whipping out guns would have made the place safer. But I also logically know that nobody has a crystal ball, so either side saying one way or the other would have helped the outcome is a moot point.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 1:53:05 GMT
I AGREE with you that conversation IS being shut down at times and from both sides. I'm a normal Jane just like you, but when I provide facts to the conversation and it doesn't mean the conversation is being shut down, unless the only conversation you wanted was total agreement. Hearing facts is good for conversation and opens up your mind to find a better way to accomplish our goals in keeping gun inflicted deaths down. Which is what everyone wants. I'm really not picking on you, you said you wanted real conversation, but just really made it look as if you don't actually want real conversation and I commented on it. Even now, by labeling the facts as nothing but semantics, you're saying you don't want to hear the facts if they disprove your theories and ideas of stopping gun deaths. What goes on with Rainbow, IS bullying. Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict. AND I've never, ever, not even remotely in some twisted way, defended hate speech. Ever. So you're definitely wrong in claiming I have. Well I guess you're just all right all the time then and I should just shut up now. ANYTHING I post, you counter as wrong. I disagree with SOME points you make and I say why. I also agreed with some and say why. It's a back and forth discussion, I most certainly do not want you to shut up. I've been very respectful when conversing with you. Bullying is... or [to] aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, ... or by others, of an imbalance of social... power, WHICH DISTINGUISHES BULLYING FROM CONFLICT. That is most certainly what happens when Rainbow posts. Oh for Pete's sake, I don't defend her every single day. You're right, I probably should speak up when she says something inappropriate like that. I haven't because I saw that enough people were jumping on her and didn't want to add to it. You keep saying that, but as I've said before, you're not the only one I have said something to about it, I just happen to be having a conversation with you right now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 2:26:49 GMT
I appreciate the discussion you and I have had too. Even if you disagree with me, you are reasonable, logical and most of all respectful. Thank you for that. I disagree with the way you see the NRA's purpose, so we can just agree to disagree. But they aren't saying we need more guns, they're saying not to have spaces where everyone must be disarmed and everyone knows they are. There is a difference. And while your scenario is logical, you really can't compare children with scissors to a criminal mindset. To me that is a matter of semantics. What my takeaway from is it that if more people had guns, then they could defend themselves and others regardless of where the shootings take place. But honestly if you are in a crowded chaotic nightclub and people are screaming scared, and trying to escape I can't see a scenario where other people whipping out guns would have made the place safer. But I also logically know that nobody has a crystal ball, so either side saying one way or the other would have helped the outcome is a moot point. I honestly CAN see why you feel it's semantics, but as is said here often, words have meaning and the meaning IS different. I also agree with the way your scenario plays out isn't safe. But, if there were armed people (who weren't drinking and who weren't obvious security that got taken out in the beginning) someone MAY have been able to take him out. I also acknowledge, there's no guarantee that they would have been successful, or that with all the chaos someone innocent could have been hit. But, to say no one can have the chance to make the shooting of people stop as soon as possible, because somebody might get shot, makes absolutely no sense to me lots of people. Because they are already being shot at and the "good guy with a gun" could possibly make it stop.
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jun 21, 2016 2:43:36 GMT
I was poking around the inter webs and am still on the side that OVERALL the good guy with a gun being a savior idea is just that-an idea. Making less guns available overall (arming less people not more) is what will decrease gun violence. While I agree words have meaning, the way we interpret the same words is where we likely differ.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 4:19:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 3:31:20 GMT
I was poking around the inter webs and am still on the side that OVERALL the good guy with a gun being a savior idea is just that-an idea. Making less guns available overall (arming less people not more) is what will decrease gun violence. There are tons of examples to be found on line where people were protected by a citizen with a gun. I've even posted many. So have others. I can agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jun 21, 2016 12:54:11 GMT
Yes there are examples, but many many more examples of guns hurting/killing/maiming much more often than used to help others. That was my point-that OVERALL guns are not society's helpers. That doesn't mean I want to repeal the 2nd amendment or ban all guns, but to limit the type available and who can qualify for that responsibility. While I understand that it is a right to bear arms, I also understand that it is a right that comes with HUGE responsibility that comes down to life and death.
My friends (the vast majority who do not own guns) feel similarly. We don't want to ban all guns, but want stricter cintrol on who can own them, education, and responsibility for those who act in an irresponsible way with their weapons,
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 21, 2016 13:23:21 GMT
I was poking around the inter webs and am still on the side that OVERALL the good guy with a gun being a savior idea is just that-an idea. Making less guns available overall (arming less people not more) is what will decrease gun violence. There are tons of examples to be found on line where people were protected by a citizen with a gun. I've even posted many. So have others. I can agree with that. I could also show you where people lost their cool and shot someone. What is your point?
|
|