Guns for everyone. Guns for all.

[sr71plt]

Says the man with 3 times the number of posts than me. Yeah you don't stick your fat ass where it don't belong, too often.

And it's worth it as long as it makes you whine like this.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

This message is hidden because sr71plt is on your ignore list.

 

[DeYaKen]

Yeah, I don't get his point or did I laugh. The comic is an asshole who knows nothing about anything.

On my coffee table lays my Model 1911. I keep yelling at it to kill someone. So far it has refused. I'm think about retiring it, maybe the Glock will listen to me.

Since you need it explaining :
The guy in the audience was right people kill people. However without the means to kill someone he/she is less likely to do so. However, give the person the means to kill someone and you immediately increase the likelihood that he or she will do so. It may even be by accident.

Since you need every last detail explained the comic was using the phone as an analogy for a gun.
I gave you my phone now you are more likely to call someone.
if I gave you a gun you would become more likely to shoot someone.
I do hope you understand now.

 

[Handley_Page]

I gave you my phone now you are more likely to call someone.
if I gave you a gun you would become more likely to shoot someone.

The logic does not necessarily follow.
However:
if I gave you a gun you would become able to shoot someone.

Now it is a possibility.

 

[Katiecat]

An intruder beaks into your house and kills doggy woggy with a Saturday night special.

First they'd have to get into the house. She's alert and she's loud. And she can be rather intimidating.

Yes, someone could shoot her. But they won't take her away from me and kill me with her. No one I love will use her to commit suicide. So...I'll take my chances with "doggy woggy".

I do know how to use an ax, not just an ax handle. I wouldn't like to try to use just an ax against an armed opponent, even an opponent armed with a Satuday night special.

I know how to use an ax, as well. But I can swing the ax handle pretty easily with one hand even in close quarters, and if someone is that close, it can break ribs, a knee, or a skull.

A handgun should be locked away, when not ready for use. Mine is kept on a night stand, as the only item stored on that nightstand.

A loaded gun on a nightstand is not locked away. You must not have children in your home. Ever.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Since you need it explaining :
The guy in the audience was right people kill people. However without the means to kill someone he/she is less likely to do so. However, give the person the means to kill someone and you immediately increase the likelihood that he or she will do so. It may even be by accident.

Since you need every last detail explained the comic was using the phone as an analogy for a gun.
I gave you my phone now you are more likely to call someone.
if I gave you a gun you would become more likely to shoot someone.
I do hope you understand now.

Yeah, I got it, it's still not funny nor is it a good analogy.

 

[sr71plt]

The logic does not necessarily follow.
However:
if I gave you a gun you would become able to shoot someone.

Now it is a possibility.

It's also most likely if it isn't possible otherwise.

 

[Katiecat]

Here's what I heard here: blah, blah, blah...I didn't understand.

I'm sorry, I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. Maybe this will help:

You said your thumb was a deadly weapon.

I said that your thumb might be *used* as a deadly weapon, but that's not typically what thumbs are for.

You said baseball bats are deadly weapons.

Baseball bats are typically used to play baseball. But if someone comes into a business carrying a baseball bat, and don't look like they have any intention to play baseball, then I have to assume they may intend violence with the bat.

Guns are used for home defense, target practice, and hunting. If someone walks into a business with a gun, it's not their home, it's not a shooting range, and unless there is a ten point buck running the cash register, we have to assume they aren't there to hunt.

And if you could leave without being detected, while your outside safe and sound calling 911 and then waiting for the police to show up, the people inside are being robbed and battered, if not killed.

A man points a gun at you, you have seconds to respond, what do you do?

Too late your dead.

I'm not Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickock. I'm not going to whip out a gun and start shooting at other armed people in a room full of innocent bystanders. And just because another customer in the business has a gun, how do you know they have decent aim or even half a brain?

As often as necessary. Any why do you assume they will carrying a rifle? I haven't read the entire law yet, but I believe it just applies to people that can carry concealed weapons, so I would believe that would be handguns, not rifles.

I don't believe I said they would be carrying rifles. But that's what we are seeing in the pictures.

How do we have any idea if these guys have good judgment, common sense, or even know how to shoot straight -- especially under stress? They don't look like trained soldiers or police officers to me. They could be any yahoo with money to blow at a gun show.

I actually will not be excising my right to carry openly. I will continue to carry concealed. Let them gamble if I'm armed or not.

That's good. Just because someone has one, no matter how proud they are of it, doesn't mean they need to flop it out in public, stroke it lovingly, and wave it around in people's faces. What if it goes off accidentally? What a mess that would be Better to maintain the mystery and make people wonder what you might be packing.

 

[oggbashan]

It is difficult, if not impossible, from the UK to judge the arguments about guns in the US.

...

The continuation of this thread hasn't enlightened me at all.

 

[Katiecat]

The continuation of this thread hasn't enlightened me at all.

Yeah, hasn't enlightened me, either. Please just know that not all Americans own guns, like guns, or want guns.

But hopefully, you already knew that.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I'm sorry, I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. Maybe this will help:

You said your thumb was a deadly weapon.

I said that your thumb might be *used* as a deadly weapon, but that's not typically what thumbs are for.

You said baseball bats are deadly weapons.

Baseball bats are typically used to play baseball. But if someone comes into a business carrying a baseball bat, and don't look like they have any intention to play baseball, then I have to assume they may intend violence with the bat.

Again, blah, blah, blah. So, what you are telling me is you don't understand the concept. Too bad for you.

Guns are used for home defense, target practice, and hunting. If someone walks into a business with a gun, it's not their home, it's not a shooting range, and unless there is a ten point buck running the cash register, we have to assume they aren't there to hunt.

Only for home defense. Ah I see the problem, you still don't understand about personal safety. Good luck.

I'm not Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickock. I'm not going to whip out a gun and start shooting at other armed people in a room full of innocent bystanders. And just because another customer in the business has a gun, how do you know they have decent aim or even half a brain?

Yep, you're not either of them. I don't know about others, only what I'm capable of, that's why I wouldn't use deadly force until the last possible second.

I don't believe I said they would be carrying rifles. But that's what we are seeing in the pictures.

Every time you mentioned someone carrying a weapon, you said "over the shoulder" which implies a rifle or shotgun.

How do we have any idea if these guys have good judgment, common sense, or even know how to shoot straight -- especially under stress? They don't look like trained soldiers or police officers to me. They could be any yahoo with money to blow at a gun show.

In order to obtain a carry license in Texas, you must first go to a safety class and a carry class. Then you have to pass a test. In order to carry you have to go to school and pass the test. Most concealed carry owners are ex-police, ex-military. I am both. I know when I am legally able to use deadly force. I was also a marksman in the military. With a handgun, M16, 75mm recoiless rifle. Handguns, K38 Combat Masterpiece, Browning 9mm High Power, Berretta M92 9mm, actually, almost any handgun I pick up. Yes, I'm that good.

That's good. Just because someone has one, no matter how proud they are of it, doesn't mean they need to flop it out in public, stroke it lovingly, and wave it around in people's faces. What if it goes off accidentally? What a mess that would be Better to maintain the mystery and make people wonder what you might be packing.

Haha, yeah, I don't do that. And that's exactly what I said I was going to do. As for others...that's their problem. They'll be the ones stopped and checked for their license.

 

[Katiecat]

Again, blah, blah, blah. So, what you are telling me is you don't understand the concept. Too bad for you.

Oh no, I understand the concept perfectly. You do, too. You just don't want to admit it.

Only for home defense. Ah I see the problem, you still don't understand about personal safety. Good luck.

Thanks, I've had good luck so far. Just got back from the grocery store, and I didn't have to pull out an Uzi, flamethrower, or broadsword. Even though soda was on sale for a really good price! *whew*

Every time you mentioned someone carrying a weapon, you said "over the shoulder" which implies a rifle or shotgun.

Isn't this called a shoulder holster?

In order to obtain a carry license in Texas, you must first go to a safety class and a carry class. Then you have to pass a test. In order to carry you have to go to school and pass the test. Most concealed carry owners are ex-police, ex-military. I am both. I know when I am legally able to use deadly force. I was also a marksman in the military. With a handgun, M16, 75mm recoiless rifle. Handguns, K38 Combat Masterpiece, Browning 9mm High Power, Berretta M92 9mm, actually, almost any handgun I pick up. Yes, I'm that good.

I never doubted or commented about your personal experience or ability with a gun.

Do you think these folks have the same experience and expertise you do? Do you believe they passed a safety class and are licensed?

 

[robertreams]

"The biggest fallacy and the most fatuous lie is that 'war is good for business.' It is only good for the devil downstairs. Considering that I don't believe in the good Lord, or his evil counterpart I'm left with the unpalatable truth is the realisation that without a devil pulling our strings, is that a 'human' being would think war is good for business. However when the book of the world is writ, it will always be remembered that there is nothing more deluded than a righteous man, and nothing as dangerous as the lust for riches and the chasing after trinkets and gold.

Myself?... I'd rather toil in the filth with the 'salt of the earth and sleep the sleep of the honest tired and the truly righteous, that of the little man or woman, toiling not for world changing or epic gains, but scratching a living for themselves and their families and communities.

For if they are the meek I hope they survive to inherit the earth when the mad, righteous and rich fools have wiped themselves clean off this world, this earth, our home."

B&W are those your words? You wax so beautifully, poetic almost. And I love what you say.

 

[DeYaKen]

The continuation of this thread hasn't enlightened me at all.

No it hasn't and I take your other point that I and many others will never understand the desire to fill one's house and car with artillery. I am genuinely puzzled by this. We Brits are tempted to say that it is all because of the availability of guns in the US yet Switzerland is a free gun society and the same culture does not exist there.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Oh no, I understand the concept perfectly. You do, too. You just don't want to admit it.

Thanks, I've had good luck so far. Just got back from the grocery store, and I didn't have to pull out an Uzi, flamethrower, or broadsword. Even though soda was on sale for a really good price! *whew*

Typical liberal.

Isn't this called a shoulder holster?

It is, but the weapon isn't carried over the shoulder, but under it.

Do you think these folks have the same experience and expertise you do? Do you believe they passed a safety class and are licensed?

If they live in Texas they are required to be licensed and pass the safety class.

Do the have the experience and expertise? Probably more than you are willing to admit.

Do they have the same experience and expertise as me? Doubt it, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

It's the same with assholes. Everyone's an asshole until they prove otherwise.

Have a nice day.

 

[Katiecat]

Typical liberal.

You've been offered the opportunity to have a reasonable, sensible discussion about guns, and yet you resort to the same tired circular arguments -- "Guns! Because....guns!" It's a lot like trying to have a conversation with a religious Fundamentalist.

I'd say "typical conservative", but you know, I had higher hopes. I'm sure there's an irony in here, somewhere.

It is, but the weapon isn't carried over the shoulder, but under it.

Really. And this matters....how? I've posted numerous pictures of open carry supporters with guns over their shoulders, posing with them in their hands, slung across their backs, in shoulder holsters, and shoved down their pants. Most were rifles. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the law only applies to handguns? Do you have a problem with people walking around in public with rifles?

If they live in Texas they are required to be licensed and pass the safety class.

Do the have the experience and expertise? Probably more than you are willing to admit.

Do they have the same experience and expertise as me? Doubt it, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

So, the six year old child, the woman grocery shopping with a pistol down the back of her pants, the guy holding the child's hand with the rifle pointed at the kid, and the demonstrator holding the rifle pointed at the person next to him....they've taken safety classes? And...passed?

That doesn't say much for the safety standards of Texas.

And you trust their experience and expertise? You think it's safe to let these folks walk around with loaded weapons in public? Interesting.

It's the same with assholes. Everyone's an asshole until they prove otherwise.

Have a nice day.

Ah, now this explains much. I think that everyone is another human being, worthy of respect and capable of carrying on a reasonable, intelligent conversation, until they prove otherwise.

You have a nice day, too, Zeb.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I'd say "typical conservative", but you know, I had higher hopes. I'm sure there's an irony in here, somewhere.

And yet, I'm not a conservative.

Can you say the same about being a liberal?

 

[Katiecat]

And yet, I'm not a conservative.

Can you say the same about being a liberal?

True -- although the majority of conservatives are gun rights supporters, they aren't the only ones. From what I've read of your posts, it comes across as written by a Republican or a Libertarian.

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal"
John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

Yep, I'm a liberal. Typical? Oh I hope so. If so, I consider myself in very good company.

 

[rjordan]

True -- although the majority of conservatives are gun rights supporters, they aren't the only ones. From what I've read of your posts, it comes across as written by a Republican or a Libertarian.

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal"
John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

Yep, I'm a liberal. Typical? Oh I hope so. If so, I consider myself in very good company.

Count me in. I'm not affiliated with any party, but I'm most definitely a liberal. It's encouraging that JFK's definition of a liberal still holds.

There is nothing there about being anti-war or anti-guns. That's how it should be. I come from a family of career military, my grandfather was career Army, my uncle was career Navy, my dad was career Army, and, though I chose not to make it a career, I served in the Army. Some wars are necessary, military weapons are necessary.

What isn't necessary is letting every yahoo who wants one have weapons designed solely for killing people. NRA (Wayne Le Pew) even wants the mentally ill and domestic abusers to be able to have guns because mental illness and domestic abuse are in the eye of the beholder. That's what happens when we let sociopaths dictate gun policy.

It's been an interesting discussion, but it ends like all gun control discussions.

rj

 

[Zeb_Carter]

True -- although the majority of conservatives are gun rights supporters, they aren't the only ones. From what I've read of your posts, it comes across as written by a Republican or a Libertarian.

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal"
John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

Yep, I'm a liberal. Typical? Oh I hope so. If so, I consider myself in very good company.

Too bad that was the '60s, it's now 40 years later and the world has changed, people in that world have changed, the meaning of liberal has changed. What it's changed to, is still being defined by asshats.

 

[sr71plt]

Too bad that was the '60s, it's now 40 years later and the world has changed, people in that world have changed, the meaning of liberal has changed. What it's changed to, is still being defined by asshats.

I agree. It's reactionary knuckle draggers like you who try to redefine it.

 

[rjordan]

Too bad that was the '60s, it's now 40 years later and the world has changed, people in that world have changed, the meaning of liberal has changed. What it's changed to, is still being defined by asshats.

Well, I have to agree with you that asshats are constantly trying to define liberals. Fox News, Asshats R Us, has been trying to define "libruls" since their beginning. They did a pretty good job of making it a pejorative in circles where banjos and guns rule. But liberals still define it the way JFK did 58 (not 40) years ago. He won the Pulitzer for Profiles in Courage in 1957 when he was a Senator.

You should read it and compare the bios of past senators with what is laughingly called a senator today.

rj

 

[sr71plt]

He won the Pulitzer for Profiles in Courage in 1957 when he was a Senator.

Ummm, except that Ted Sorenson, not JFK, wrote Profiles in Courage. Just another one of Joseph Kennedy's slight of hands in getting at least one of his sons into the White House.

 

[rjordan]

Ummm, except that Ted Sorenson, not JFK, wrote Profiles in Courage. Just another one of Joseph Kennedy's slight of hands in getting at least one of his sons into the White House.

The point wasn't who wrote the book. The point was about liberalism as defined in the book 58 years ago. But I'm well aware of Ted Sorensen and the controversy involving the Pulitzer. Sorensen probably wrote the definition that KatieCat quoted, as well as many of the famous lines from JFK speeches. It doesn't diminish what was said.

BTW, it's sleight of hand.

rj

 

[sr71plt]

The point wasn't who wrote the book. The point was about liberalism as defined in the book 58 years ago. But I'm well aware of Ted Sorensen and the controversy involving the Pulitzer. Sorensen probably wrote the definition that KatieCat quoted, as well as many of the famous lines from JFK speeches. It doesn't diminish what was said.

BTW, it's sleight of hand.

rj

It seemed the major point you were making, by the wording of your post, was the JFK wrote the book. And, you're right, it's sleight of hand.

I think the Roosevelts would laugh at your idea that liberalism was defined by JFK, though.

None of this makes me not laugh at Zeb's assertion that he isn't a conservative of some far, far right, crazy reactionary stripe.