Gun control/need to vent

[member1313]

There are very few things that get me angry in life, and one of them is gun control. Another are employees at retail outlets who give you a hard time when they somehow can't seem to perform their mundane duties without fail, but that's another story.

I have this friend I knew when she and I were young, and starting talking again last year when she found me on Facebook. Unfortunately, one of her close friends was one of the students killed at the Virginia Tech shooting. To make matters worse, she's a member of protesteasyguns.com, which is, frankly, just the Brady Campaign at a different URL. The kind of misinformation and ignorance spouted by this supposed "non-profit" group is just absolutely disgusting.

I feel weird; I'm not even 21 yet and I'm sitting here doing my absolute best to control my emotions because I knew if any of the men and women who fought for their civil liberties back in the 1700s were alive right now, they'd just shake their heads at us. Some people have turned into such ignorant, blind little sheep to the so-called pundits on any given news media that's it's disgusting. It's so bad, I'm having trouble finding words to express their stupidity.

Now, maybe it's unfair to say that someone is inherently "stupid" for not backing up their beliefs with logic and rationale, but let's be honest: people are signing away their rights left and right, and for what? For the "children"? I don't want kids hurt, and neither does any other sane individual, but we've gotten to be so pacifistic and politically-correct, I think the majority of the American population has completely forgotten how exactly this country came to be.

But hey guys, sign away your rights, and while you're at it, deny yourselves the means to ensure your own survival. It's the same as signing away your right to self-preservation. Being denied the means to exercise a given right is the denial of said right.

The worst part is that the vote of an uneducated, brainwashed, gun-grabbing ignoramus carries the exact same weight as mine. So basically some man or woman who decides guns are bad, and are tools of death, can move towards infringing on my rights just because that's what they think. Wonderful.

So anyways, I visited this Protest Easy Guns website earlier, and I went to their "facts" page. It's just links to the Brady Campaign, which by and large is just a compilation of references to studies that aren't cited, and biased data that isn't conclusive of anything. The stupid part is that most of the arguments they make actually make sense at first, but once you look at the logic, the argument quickly crumbles. I'm ashamed to be a member of a society where a man is almost assassinated, blames the tool used to commit said attempted assassination, and then devote his life to trying to deprive law-abiding citizens of the means with which to defend themselves.

And I'm sad to be from a country where the news media can, at will, constantly slander the gun community as a bunch of crazy rednecks who just like to shoot stuff. (Okay, to be fair, shooting stuff is fun.) A lot of people in this country actually think that having a gun in your home makes you more likely to be shot by it. A lot of people think that those of us who legally carry a concealed weapon think it's the wild west. (Actually, I find the "wild west" argument that gun control throws at us to be humorous.)

So where do you draw the line? I support my friend's right to believe what she wants, and I support her right to base those beliefs on nothing at all. I might even go so far to say I'd defend those rights with my life.

Sigh. Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't screw us over today. If they do, I'm moving to Alaska to build a log cabin.

Edit: Wait, does that case go before the Supreme Court today or is it next month? I've heard conflicting reports.

[wmenorr67]

I believe it is supposed to be going in front of the Supreme Court today.  I hope that they don't take to long to make thier decision and it is the correct one.  Be interesting to see what happens if they determine that the D.C. ban is unconstitutional.  Shouldn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that the rest of the stupid gun "control" laws are unconstitutional.

[member1313]

I don't think the Supreme Court will rule in favor of gun control, but if they do, I think a lot of people are going to be very angry. Hopefully the members of the Supreme Court know how to read. I can, and I know what the Second Amendment says.

[wmenorr67]

Well there are two questions at stake.

The first one is a no brainer and that is, "Does the Second Amendment guarentee an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own and carry firearms?"  The Supreme Court is pretty much on board saying that it does.

The second one is the tough one and what is really at stake and that is, "Is a ban on specific types of firearms a REASONABLE restriction of ones rights?"

I really think the same as some others have said and that is that the Court will actually send the case back to a lower court with guidance to rethink the original decision.

[Manedwolf]

1. Abolish most, if not all gun control laws for citizens, with possible exception of "violent felon may not possess".
2. Make the penalties for criminal misuse of firearms far, far harsher. Assault-with, or even carrying during a robbery, 20 to life.
3. Watch crime where a gun is misused fall off the charts. See far more "armed citizen stops rampage" headlines.

Makes sense to me. Not to the powers that be, unfortunately.

[seeker_two]

1. Abolish most, if not all gun control laws for citizens, with possible exception of "violent felon may not possess".
2. Make the penalties for criminal misuse of firearms far, far harsher. Assault-with, or even carrying during a robbery, 20 to life.
3. Watch crime where a gun is misused fall off the charts. See far more "armed citizen stops rampage" headlines.

Makes sense to me. Not to the powers that be, unfortunately.

I agree with 1 and 3, but not 2. Increase the penalty for the crime...not the tool. Why should killing/robbing/raping/possessing drugs/prostitution/speeding/illegally parking/littering with a gun be more than killing/robbing/raping/possessing drugs/prostitution/speeding/illegally parking/littering with another weapon or none at all?.... 

[vaskidmark]

Getting back on track with the OP's posed issues -

It has been suggested many times that the issue of gun control has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control.  The most popular argument seems to be that the folks in favor of controlling guns out of existence are afraid that they cannot control their emotions and their own responses to those emotions - that they are afraid of what *they* might do if they ever got their hands on a gun.  Being unable to ensure their own socially appropriate behavior, they project that fault onto the gun-owning population as well.

Another, less often posited tack, is that this cohort in fact does recognize that the world is a dangerous place, but sees that any and all attempts to date to eliminate that dangerousness have failed.  They see the instrumentality of evil, as opposed to the evildoer.  Eliminate guns and all will be well, and we can sing kumbya again.  They forget that if there had never been guns they would be opposing rocks, or pointy sticks, or rubber bands, or whatever else one human can pick up and use to kill another human.  They would never see that the problem is the evildoer.

In my humble opinion, the worst part of the Brady/PEG mindset is that they eschew personal responsibility.  (Sorry for the big word - it has a level of meaning that other words just do not carry.  I picked it for thast reason, not to show off.)  They, individually, are not responsible for how the world is, nor for fixing the problem.  They have hired *fixers* to do that - police and politicians.  Neither the police nor the politicians can be proactive, by their very nature.  The police will investigate a crime only after it has been committed.  Politicians will enact laws for our own good (seatbelts, smoke detectors, etc.) only after enough folks have failed to act on their own behalf.

stay safe.

skidmark

[Manedwolf]

1. Abolish most, if not all gun control laws for citizens, with possible exception of "violent felon may not possess".
2. Make the penalties for criminal misuse of firearms far, far harsher. Assault-with, or even carrying during a robbery, 20 to life.
3. Watch crime where a gun is misused fall off the charts. See far more "armed citizen stops rampage" headlines.

Makes sense to me. Not to the powers that be, unfortunately.

I agree with 1 and 3, but not 2. Increase the penalty for the crime...not the tool. Why should killing/robbing/raping/possessing drugs/prostitution/speeding/illegally parking/littering with a gun be more than killing/robbing/raping/possessing drugs/prostitution/speeding/illegally parking/littering with another weapon or none at all?.... 

Because that'll take care of the gangstas who stuff a fo-tay into their pants as a fashion item, and who have poor impulse control when someone disrespects them. They're the sorts who cause most of the casualties in the inner city, when they hit everything but their target. If they want to knife each other to death, I could care less.

[seeker_two]

1. Abolish most, if not all gun control laws for citizens, with possible exception of "violent felon may not possess".
2. Make the penalties for criminal misuse of firearms far, far harsher. Assault-with, or even carrying during a robbery, 20 to life.
3. Watch crime where a gun is misused fall off the charts. See far more "armed citizen stops rampage" headlines.

Makes sense to me. Not to the powers that be, unfortunately.

I agree with 1 and 3, but not 2. Increase the penalty for the crime...not the tool. Why should killing/robbing/raping/possessing drugs/prostitution/speeding/illegally parking/littering with a gun be more than killing/robbing/raping/possessing drugs/prostitution/speeding/illegally parking/littering with another weapon or none at all?.... 

Because that'll take care of the gangstas who stuff a fo-tay into their pants as a fashion item, and who have poor impulse control when someone disrespects them. They're the sorts who cause most of the casualties in the inner city, when they hit everything but their target. If they want to knife each other to death, I could care less.

To paraphrase Archie Bunker...."Would you feel better if they was being pushed out of windows?".....

Why not bust them for being part of a criminal organization? And why not give knifers the same penalties as shooters?  Dead is dead......

[christopher]

Your friend is all freaked out. She pry went looking for answers & found that site- stopeasyguns. She's going to be freaked out for awhile because that stuff just keeps happening & our "leaders" only solution is to disarm law-abiding citizens.
It's time to run all the crooks out of Washington, you're right if the founding fathers saw this mess they'd puke!

[Monkeyleg]

Your friend is one of the subtypes of anti-gunners: those who have been victims of crimes involving a gun or close to someone who was a victim. Her beliefs are grounded 100% in emotion and, as such, you'd have a hard time swaying her to your side.

If she ever reaches the point where she can discuss the issue rationally rather than emotionally, ask her to identify any gun control laws that work. There aren't any.

Every last gun control law can be shown to accomplish nothing by using stats from the US government. When you're ready, arm yourself with those.

[Perd Hapley]

Rob, you should try looking at this situation rationally, and without so much emotion.  Your friend is right.  After all, when we have reasonable gun control in this country, you will still be able to hunt with your traditional sporting arms.  You will just have to be robbed, raped or murdered from time to time.  And that doesn't happen very often, of course.   

[member1313]

But I can still shoot paper terrorists, right? Phew.

[MechAg94]

Regarding the mention of "Wild West", one point I would make is that the wild west was known for lack of law and order as much or more than the prevalence of guns.  It was the lack of law and order that made the West violent (if it was), not guns. 

[MechAg94]

Other than that, just try to be reasonable and hit on the underlying logic.  Be polite and reasonable and look to catch flies with honey.  Belligerence will get you no where. 

[member1313]

I've been trying to think of a way to try to show her my point of view without offending her. I understand she's upset; she has every right to be. If I lost a friend, I'd probably be a little bit upset, too.

[Manedwolf]

Leftists have taught people to convince victims to focus on the object, not the person misusing it to commit a crime.

[Perd Hapley]

I've been trying to think of a way to try to show her my point of view without offending her. I understand she's upset; she has every right to be. If I lost a friend, I'd probably be a little bit upset, too.

Could you ask her something like, "Don't you wish there had been some other students or teachers, there, who had guns?  They could have stopped him much sooner."

Or I guess you've probably already thought of that. 

Overall, though, you usually can't hope to change someone's mind with one line of argument, or in one conversation.  Take the long view. 

[member1313]

I thought of saying that, but I'm not sure if it'll get her upset thinking about her friend or not. :/

[wooderson]

Don't. Leave it (leave her) be.

You have nothing to gain from confronting the issue with her. She's not going to change her deeply held belief on this - so you need to decide whether or not you can let it drop and continue being her friend, or if you're unable to have friends who dislike guns.

[MechAg94]

I think I have to agree with wooderson.  If she is really that emotional over it, you aren't going to get very far without getting her upset and angry.  Best avoid the emotional trip wires.

[Manedwolf]

There's always thought-provoking questions, though.

Like "If someone attacked someone you knew with a baseball bat, would you be mad at the bat?"

[keeleon]

Why not bust them for being part of a criminal organization? And why not give knifers the same penalties as shooters?  Dead is dead......

All pro gun rhetoric aside, I think we can all agree that a gun is much more dangerous then a knife.  I have never disagreed with the antis that guns can be extremely dangerous and random in who they harm (homeboys don't always shoot straight, a knife is a little harder to "miss" with).  With a knife you can take out 1 or 2 people before other's know what is going on, and take you down.  With a gun you can take out many more before anyone realizes.  There is a lot more potential for reckless endangerment and compounded damage. 

That being said, I also believe that we should blame the person and not the tool.  And for the record, I actually think knife murders should have higher sentences because you have to be a much crazier mofo to kill someone with a knife then with a gun.  The sentence should be based on intent not necessarily damage caused.  "Attempted murder" always pissed me off because, what, you get a discount for failing?  If the intent to kill was there then, it should be the same.  Of course then you are on a slippery "thought crime" slope.

[member1313]

There's always thought-provoking questions, though.

Like "If someone attacked someone you knew with a baseball bat, would you be mad at the bat?"

I've always loved questions like that one.

"No, because a bat wasn't designed as a weapon! Guns were! Arrgh!"

[christopher]

Quote from: votestrike on March 18, 2008, 04:36:39 PM
What I propose is a third option. To stand up like men & say enough is enough. This November vote them all out!

Uhhhhhh...

I've never seen None of the Above on any ballot I've ever used in the past 38 years so how do you propose that we ...vote them all out!

The technical term is "velvet revolution". When East Germany, Poland, etc. refused to cooperate, the Berlin Wall came down & democracy was born without firing a shot.

Corrupt governments that have no public support (Congresses approval rating between 10 to 20% depending upon the poll, the presidents around 30%) are easier to "vote out" then we've been led to believe.