Reasonable Gun Restrictions by ANTHONYT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Reasonable Gun Restrictions

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Monday, October 15, 2012 03:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 26769
PAGE 6 of 6

Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:27 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I never did get organised to respond to this, Anthony. What a truly awful thing to have to go through. I can understand why you responded the way that you did."

And yet people go through this kind of thing without guns. What do they do? They talk to neighbors (Say, my wife is having a problem with ... did you ever have a problem like that? Do you suppose we could help each other out?) Get a dog. Set up cameras. Talk to the neighbor. Worse case (and this is a real life example of a family deliberately targeted and terrorized by a gang with repeated robberies, kidnapping, extortion at gunpoint and knifepoint and threats against the family), tell the police and move.

Maybe the aim of having a gun is to not feel helpless and afraid. Maybe it's to arm yourself against real and imagined threats. Maybe it's to be a Man of Consequence doing Consequential Things. Maybe they are a prop for some imagined potential act of heroism.

But they're not the only answer. People can and have done other things about their personal safety, about their neighbor's safety, and about their political safety, that didn't involve guns.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:34 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

agreed, of course.

but if my neighbour did have a gun, a drinking problem and hated my wife, i can imagine it would be a pretty terrible situation

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:47 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

FWIW

Having observed a fair bit of drunkenness, I suspect that drunks tend to not restrict their hateful behaviors to one potential target. I think they are generally unable to maintain that kind of focus in their inebriated state. There were probably other targets of threat, and a potential for neighborhood cooperation. But we'll never know, b/c that was an avenue AnthonyT never explored, b/c he. had. a. gun. And stopped looking for anything else.

But aside from that, he argues for guns as the universal hammer for the ever-present nail. Political unhappiness? Get a gun. Oppression? Get a gun. Lack of fun? Get a gun. Insecurity? Get a gun. Hungry? Get a gun.

In fact, except for atomic bombs, there is not a single gun, or indeed weapon of any type, he thinks should be restricted. In his mind a society where the people who can amass the biggest baddest weapons and have the best chance of being in control is just the kind of society he wants.

There are a lot of personal, social and political problems he's posed with weapons of all types as the ultimate answer.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2012 8:37 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

My next door neighbour hates my dog and he starts drinking early in the day. His alcoholism means that he operates at a very primitive level a lot of the time, responding aggressively to minimal stimuli, and he is difficult to reason with. Luckily he does not own a gun and uses language and the odd stick to vent his rage around the fact that my dog will sometimes bark.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 3:00 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

AnthonyT

I will address you one last time over this b/c I indeed find you to be a sick fuck when it comes to guns.

"Your logic is flawed. All people rehearse = all people rehearse using a gun first in all situations. No. People who rehearse using a gun first to solve all of their problems are sick people. Do you dig it, Kiki?"

That's not what I argued - strawman much? B/c you've done it all over this thread and this is just one instance. Your opening post was full of it, of innuendo and of unsupported claims.

PEOPLE rehearse using their guns.

Now, I'm going to make this personal. PEOPLE rehearse using their guns. PEOPLE rehearse using weapons. As you have done, quite a lot. You've thought of all the reasons to use guns and other weapons. Thought very long and hard about all those reasons, all the ways, all the weapons. You've thought about tanks and artillery and fighter jets as toys be be used for fun. Handguns to be used for when 'they' come to round people up. Guns as personal protection. Rifles for entertainment hunting, b/c killing is such fun. Any weapon as political expression. Guns as a symbol. Bombs as entertainment. Bombs as boobytraps for home defense. And that's just the first page of this thread.

You've thought very long and very hard about all the ways-reasons-weapons why you want. You want.

And thought very very little about alternatives.

Now your proposal to being 'reasonable' about weapons is that government should ensure registration and competence, except you don't trust the government to keep the list. After that your 'reasonableness' trails off.

Having reviewed the thread and the arguments you've made, your singular focus on weapons as answers to life's challenges is striking.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 3:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KIKI... I would say that, on the average, MEN think of using guns, not "people". Women even shy away from using guns for suicide because they can't help but feel sorry for those who have to clean up the mess afterwards.

Men? Not so much.

As far as Tony and weapons is concerned, like I said, he has this "cold, dead hands" thing going. Guns specifically (and weapons in general) are his security blanket. He won't give them up, or even BE reasonable about them, so don't expect him to change his mind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 3:44 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I see that the rational, logical contributors here- those not swayed by emotion, have designated me a sick fuck with a gun.

What can I say to that?

Thank you all for visiting this thread. I appreciated the discussion. Have a wonderful day.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 3:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TONY: Guns really are your security blanket. Please, do think about that. You have a deep emotional attachment to guns specifically and weapons in general, but except for a very few specific instances guns simply are not the answer to a lot of our problems. And BTW, I have sat on a friend's porch in the dark with a loaded gun, waiting for an armed stalker to show up. I and four other people ringed our friend's house. WHY was a stalker even allowed to purchase a gun??? I've also been a crime victim a couple of times over, but I would much rather have an outright ban on guns than have to live in a society where guns are more likely to threaten me day to day than help me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 4:15 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I see that the rational, logical contributors here- those not swayed by emotion, have designated me a sick fuck with a gun."

No. I said you were a sick fuck when it comes to guns. Get it straight.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 4:21 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I see that the rational, logical contributors here- those not swayed by emotion, have designated me a sick fuck with a gun."

No. I said you were a sick fuck when it comes to guns. Get it straight.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

Hello,

Thank you for the clarification. Have a nice day.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 4:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You see KIKI how name-calling doesn't work? Apparently you have so entirely given up on talking to TONY that you don't mind him closing his ears to anything you (or anyone else) might say to him on this topic... or on other topics, too, for that matter. As far as I'm concerned there are two people on this board I absolutely don't mind alienating, because nothing is going to change their minds anyway. TONY isn't either of them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 4:39 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

One of my really big faults among many faults large and small is that I have no patience and I get pissed-off easily. And then I always hope that from honesty might come some fruit. But what I know is that it's better to keep communication open by being diplomatic. So I'm torn between what I really want to express with a faint hope it might be useful or is at least honest, and what I see as a form of more useful lying.

WYSIWYG. It's the best I can do at the moment.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 4:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think the temptation is to smack someone verbally, hoping that shock will generate a moment of clarity. Yanno, like in the movies when someone smacks a hysterical character. But I have to say that I don't believe I have ever verbally smacked anyone into clarity, and whatever moments of clarity I may have had never came from the shock of being smacked. All I ever got in either direction (smacker/ee) was defensiveness, hurt, and anger. I try to remember that, but often forget.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 4:58 AM

CAVETROLL

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
...Yanno, if you think about it, governments have caused more deaths than individuals ever did.

...Yanno, if you think about it, religions have caused more deaths than individuals ever did.

...Yanno, if you think about it, economics have caused more deaths than individuals ever did.

FTFY

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 5:16 AM

CAVETROLL

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

...Your hangup on permissions and rights is illogical, and your arguments ridiculously dramatic over-reach. The Australians, and every other country, have the right to write their own laws irrespective of our wild west mentality making people like you believe they "should" have the right to own a gun. You know little or nothing about Australia, so what you believe is your opinion only. In my opinion, the Australians have it right more than we do.

Sure, the Australians have the right to determine their own laws. Just as we do. I was trying to compare and contrast us with them. I just think you don't understand the difference. Or, just don't care.

Feel free to support whatever causes you like. Just as I will assuredly be supporting organizations fighting to stop further gun restrictions and roll back failed gun control policies.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 5:36 AM

CAVETROLL

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

The clerk WHO IS ACCEPTING YOUR APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO PURCHASE A GUN. The clerk at the local government office, not the clerk at the gun shop. Permission. Do you understand that you have to ask PERMISSION to purchase a gun, because you do not have the RIGHT to purchase a gun. Maybe you'd like to ask for the government's PERMISSION to buy a book or use the internet? Since you could conceivably no longer have the RIGHT to free speech? Maybe you'd like to ask the government's PERMISSION to attend a church service, hold a sabbath, sabbat, esbat or khutbah? Since you could conceivably no longer have the RIGHT to religious freedom?

I am amazed at the number of people who do not understand the difference between rights and permissions.

You don't need the clerks permission, you need to satisfy the conditions of the law. A bit like getting your drivers licence or building permit.

Does the government need to show a reason why your application was denied? No? Then you need the clerk's permission. Feel free to look up shall issue versus may issue.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 5:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
In fact, except for atomic bombs, there is not a single gun, or indeed weapon of any type, he thinks should be restricted. In his mind a society where the people who can amass the biggest baddest weapons and have the best chance of being in control is just the kind of society he wants.

There are a lot of personal, social and political problems he's posed with weapons of all types as the ultimate answer.

I'm afraid I feel the same. Not the name-calling, as that's the last thing I would think of calling Anthony, but I've mentioned that "wall" and guns are one of the biggest stones in it. I knew at the very beginning of this thread that nothing would change Anthony's mind, and any MENTION of the fact that nothing would change his mind would alienate him, as has been the case.

I don't know why--except that the times I've come up against the wall have always been around the individuals RIGHT to something--but it's certainly frustrating. Even knowing how it would end, I made a valiant attempt to debate the issue with him, because it doesn't hurt to try. With a mindset like that, as I saw, Anthony can come up with any argument to any point mentioned, even if it's an argument which isn't logical or doesn't apply...such as it being government "whim" which might deny one a gun. There is always an argument to be made, logical or not, if one's mind is closed to debate.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do, Anthony, because in about 99% of the things discussed here, I respect your opinion highly. But when it comes to issues like this--ESPECIALLY guns--you have a mindset which cannot be gotten beyond. I don't know why; the only things I can think of is your strong feelings about individual rights and your past, but I'm both surprised you apparently can't even SEE that you have a block and that you're not able to see beyond it.

The "gun" and "no gun" thing is unfair. There are certainly gun advocates here, yourself the major one when it comes to this thread, and I believe there are one or two "no gun" people. But the vast majority of people you've been debating are in favor of gun RESTRICTIONS--because guns are a dangerous weapon and kill many people in this country, not a simple hobby, and in many of our opinions, wouldn't solve a revolution or even many times be effective in self-protection. So limiting such items seems like a logical thing to many of us, like not allowing people to stockpile weapons (which you didn't debate honestly, instead took refute in minutae), not allowing people to have semi-automatic weapons or buy massive amounts of ammo over the internet, and especially the idea of gun registration, which I happen to think is the very best first step. There is no giving of any quarter, and it's bound to frustrate people to the point of anger.

I know you say existing laws, etc., should be enforced as a first step, and that's fair. But ti seems like when restrictions are suggested, you have disagreements with almost all of them. When you go on to saying people should have the right to own tanks as an outgrowth of the Second, I don't see how you can't see that you're the one reacting from emotions, not logic.

It's easy to dismiss people into two classes, but it's not true. There are at least three classes here, and actually all shades of grey in between. It bothers me when you say things like

Quote:
Based on Niki's feedback so far, and her unreachable ideal of a world with no guns

I never said that; I never even seriously considered it, and I explained why. And FYI, my ideal was NEVER a "world with no guns"...such a thing doesn't exist and never would, so it can't be a "goal", reachable or not. I expressed a fantasy; if I worded it wrong, I apologize. It's the same as fantasizing our government coming and taking all our guns--and don't tell me that might be other than a fantasy, because a) it's never happened and b) it's impossible. The government knows that and, no mater who comes to power, would never even try.

The ones with the more illogical, emotional responses here are more those who are pro-gun, including you. "Putting limitations on a right is still infringing on it" isn't logical, nor is the idea of a 5-day waiting period for the news. That's just one small example; I'm not going back through the thread, but I noted them when I read them. People owning tanks is one that stuck in my head, as well.

I'm not sure if you're serious when you say, with regard to the rifle pictured, "I wonder if gun control advocates would class that as an assault rifle." Obviously they wouldn't--even I can see that you'd have to "cock" (or whatever the relevant term is) it before each firing; so why would you even ask such a thing?

Your blindness is apparent in so many things; your vision of "government whimsy" with regard to a perfectly reasonable set of laws--you SEE it that way, but the odds of it happening are so small that it's not a valid argument. I don't think you can even see that.

Quote:
I think you'll find that 'gun people' do not trust 'non-gun people' to know what the hell they are talking about in regards to guns. I think you'll find that 'gun people' rightfully worry that 'non-gun people' have knee-jerk reactions to guns and invoke law without any serious understanding of the subject matter.

Can you not imagine that people who want reasonable restrictions on guns (NOT "non-gun people) don't trust "gun people" to know what the hell they are talking about with regard to gun restrictions? That gun people have knee-jerk reactions to ANY restriction of guns and invoke their rights without any understanding of the subject matter? To me, it is definitely knee-jerk to argue against reasonable restrictions, and absolutely knee jerk to respond constantly with guns as a way to threaten the government, OR to respond to government infringement of rights. Yet to you it is only us who don't know what the hell we're talking about and have knee-jerk reactions. I'm pretty sure you can't see the other side, and envision all your points as objective and reasonable, but I'm afraid I don't see it that way.

As to what is people's points, I can only speak for myself. As far as I'm concerned, I outlined my points, my ideas of reasonable restrictions, beginning with gun registration. You're against that, again because the government might abuse the privilege; I don't see that as a valid argument, but I see registration as a valid concept to keep track of at least SOME guns and to prosecute those whose weapons are not registered. You accepted virtually none of my suggestions (aside from enforcing the laws we have now), and argued at length about the mere concept of people being able to buy massive amounts of ammo off the internet. Your argument consisted entirely of the inconvenience to gun owners, which to you seems to totally outweigh the idea that eliminating same would help make more difficult things like the Aurora shooting. You firmly believe that the former trumps the latter, which to my mind is illogical. How many hobby gun owners buy massive amounts of ammo off the internet? As opposed to how many with criminal intent? Yet to you it's black and white, apparently. You argued minutiae when it came to "stockpiling", even tho' I have little doubt you actually know precisely what it means.

None of this will probably have any impact on you. At best, I could wish you would at least see that your arguments have, more than anything, been to question a detail to death (i.e., stockpiling) and/or to argue that the right to own guns, however many, whatever kind, trumps almost any measure intended to minimize the proliferation of dangerous weapons. I wish you could see things from a different perspective, but I have no hope of that happening.

Interesting article, Magons; while I agree with the basis of the argument wholeheartedly, I don't see any of the factors he lists as changing, so for me, yet again, minimizing SOME of the things which make these mass killings easier is the only semi-solution I can come up with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2012 11:55 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Does the government need to show a reason why your application was denied? No? Then you need the clerk's permission. Feel free to look up shall issue versus may issue.

Government departments all have complaints and appeals processes, and most industies, even private ones, are held accountable by an overseeing body such as an ombudsment.

What keeps democracy 'democratic' isn't a bunch of people waving guns, but systems and laws which check power AND are accountable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:57 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

80 people a day

"Wisconsin, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine. We all know these place names and what happened there. By the time this column appears, there may well be a new locale to add to the list. Such is the state of enabled and murderous mayhem in the United States.

With the hope of presenting the issue of guns in America in a novel way, I’m going to look at it from an unusual vantage point: the eyes of a nurse. By that I mean looking at guns in America in terms of the suffering they cause, because to really understand the human cost of guns in the United States we need to focus on gun-related pain and death.

Every day 80 Americans die from gunshots and an additional 120 are wounded, according to a 2006 article in The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Those 80 Americans left their homes in the morning and went to work, or to school, or to a movie, or for a walk in their own neighborhood, and never returned. Whether they were dead on arrival or died later on in the hospital, 80 people’s normal day ended on a slab in the morgue, and there’s nothing any of us can do to get those people back.

In a way that few others do, I became aware early on that nurses deal with death on a daily basis. The first unretouched dead bodies I ever saw were the two cadavers we studied in anatomy lab. One man, one woman, both donated their bodies for dissection, and I learned amazing things from them: the sponginess of lung tissue, the surprising lightness of a human heart, the fabulous intricacy of veins, arteries, tendons and nerves that keep all of us moving and alive.

I also learned something I thought I already knew: death is scary. I expected my focus in the lab to be on acquiring knowledge, and it was, but my feelings about these cadavers intruded also. I had nightmares. The sound of bones being sawed and snapped was excruciating the day our teaching assistant broke the ribs of one of them to extract a heart. Some days the smell was so overwhelming I wanted to run from the lab. Death is the only part of life that is really final, and I learned about the awesomeness of finality during my 12 weeks with those two very dead people.

Of course, in hospitals, death and suffering are what nurses and doctors struggle against. Our job is to restore people to health and wholeness, or at the very least, to keep them alive. That’s an obvious aim on the oncology floor where I work, but nowhere is the medical goal of maintaining life more immediately urgent than in trauma centers and intensive-care units. In those wards, patients often arrive teetering on the border between life and death, and the medical teams that receive them have fleeting moments in which to act.

The focus on preserving life and alleviating suffering, so evident in the hospital, contrasts strikingly with its stubborn disregard when applied to lives ended by Americans lawfully armed as if going into combat. The deaths from guns are as disturbing, and as final, as the cadavers I studied in anatomy lab, but the talk we hear from the gun lobby is about freedom and rights, not life and death.

Gun advocates say that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The truth, though, is that people with guns kill people, often very efficiently, as we saw so clearly and so often this summer. And while there can be no argument that the right to bear arms is written into the Constitution, we cannot keep pretending that this right is somehow without limit, even as we place reasonable limits on arguably more valuable rights like the freedom of speech and due process.

No one argues that it should be legal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater; we accept this limit on our right to speak freely because of its obvious real-world consequences. Likewise, we need to stop talking about gun rights in America as if they have no wrenching real-world effects when every day 80 Americans, their friends, families and loved ones, learn they obviously and tragically do.

Many victims never stand a chance against a dangerously armed assailant, and there’s scant evidence that being armed themselves would help. Those bodies skip the hospital and go straight to the morgue. The lucky ones, the survivors — the 120 wounded per day — get hustled to trauma centers and then intensive care units to, if possible, be healed. Many of them never fully recover.

A trauma nurse I know told me she always looked at people’s shoes when they lay on gurneys in the emergency department. It struck her that life had still been normal when that patient put them on in the morning. Whether they laced up Nikes, pulled on snow boots or slid feet into stiletto heels, the shoes became a relic of the ordinariness of the patient’s life, before it turned savage.

So I have a request for proponents of unlimited access to guns. Spend some time in a trauma center and see the victims of gun violence — the lucky survivors — as they come in bloody and terrified. Understand that our country’s blind embrace of gun rights made this violent tableau possible, and that it’s playing out each day in hospitals and morgues all over the country.

Before leaving, make sure to look at the patients’ shoes. Remember that at the start of the day, before being attacked by a person with a gun, that patient lying on a stretcher writhing helplessly in pain was still whole."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 14, 2012 9:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Beautiful, Kiki; are those your words? But it's kind of a waste to bring this thread back, as nobody will ever change the mindset of those who are pro-gun, no matter what. They'll most likely never think in the terms suggested; closed minds needn't think of individual suffering. They only think in terms of black and what: that everyone who believes in ANY kind of limitation on guns therefore wants to take away all their guns.

I'm sad to see this thread brought back up, given the pretty predictable outcome, but your post is eloquent and I agree wholeheartedly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 14, 2012 10:08 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

No, not my words. But I ran across the posting and thought about the time I did spend in various ERs, and it seemed appropriate.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 14, 2012 10:24 AM

OONJERAH

Niki may be wrong about closed minds.

As a kid, I loved the cowboy movies. You couldn't live out west without a
gun -- too many varmints. "The Man from Snowy River," my favorite scene
is where they are all chasing the brumbies. Riding the range at a gallop,
the wind in your hair. A good horse race, so exciting!

BUT guns make a bigger impression, as they should.
"Shane" with Jack Palance as the pure evil assassin, Jack Wilson.
Practically the first thing he does is off an innocent, inept sod buster.
Shane (Alan Ladd) had put his guns away; but with Wilson around, we
know he's gonna have to get 'em out again. I anticipate the showdown
with great excitement. It was a fine showdown; I was pleased, gratified.
(This was the movie that really earned Palance the academy award.)

The romance and heroism of a good western convinces me that Yes! We
do need our guns. I have been willingly brainwashed to this view. I love
gangster movies too.

Yet, I never took guns for granted. Never owned a gun or wanted to.
Because I didn't trust myself with it. Not that I thought I'd shoot anyone
... did I? Guns require responsibility. You have to keep them clean; you
have to keep them in a safe place. You have to, day by day, be responsible
for your gun, not an idiot about it. I know first hand that it's easy to fail
in that responsiblity.

I don't pay much attention to guns in real life. To me, guns = movies. Fun!
===========
"Gun show organizer [Edward Fleury] found not guilty in boy's Uzi death

"This was meant to be an educational event for people and unfortunately
this terrible accident happened," [I think it educated me.]

"Christopher's father, Charles Bizilj, was present at the time of the
shooting and videotaped the entire incident. Parts of that tape were
shown to the jury, which also heard emotional testimony from the father.
The trial lasted 10 days.

"I ran over to him. His eyes were open and I saw no reason for him to be
on the ground. And I tried to talk to him and he didn't respond. I put my
hand behind his head to try to pick him up and there was a large portion
of his cranium missing. And I put my hand against the back of his head,"
Charles Bizilj told members of the Hampden County jury.

"while Fleury helped organize the show, he wasn't directly responsible and
hadn't actually given guns to the children there."
===========

As I understood it at the time, it was Christopher's father Charles who gave
him the uzi. So if I live in a country where half of us are nuts or stupid, and
most of us are hung up on gun romance, maybe we oughta NOT have guns.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." And our megalomaniac,
military-industrial-complex-run government.

Most civilized countries are not so gun crazy as the USA, and it seems to be
working for them.
That's my thought for the day.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:35 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
So if I live in a country where half of us are nuts or stupid, and most of us are hung up on gun romance, maybe we oughta NOT have guns.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." And our megalomaniac, military-industrial-complex-run government.

Most civilized countries are not so gun crazy as the USA, and it seems to be working for them. That's my thought for the day.

Another "amen" for the day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 3:19 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Those 80 Americans left their homes in the morning and went to work, or to school, or to a movie, or for a walk in their own neighborhood, and never returned. Whether they were dead on arrival or died later on in the hospital, 80 people’s normal day ended on a slab in the morgue, and there’s nothing any of us can do to get those people back.

Well, actually about 44 of those people stayed home and committed suicide, but that doesn't make for as good a story.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE