Gun Fanaticism

[WinePusher]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 117 by Clownboat]

Clownboat: �We can't control others actions, only our own of course.�

TSGracchus: “Government is all about controlling the actions of others.�

Clownboat: �Non sequitur. You nor I are the government. Please notice that I did not say that governments cannot control others.

You said ''we�. Apparently your “wee� is smaller than mine. You see yourself as an outsider. I actually participate in government, voting, stating my opinions, and I have even, at times, served as a soldier, a juror and a bureaucrat. The theory, in the US, is that the people govern.

Clownboat: �Would you be willing to put signage up at your home noting that you have no guns on your property in a hope that others will follow your example?�

TSGracchus: “As a matter of fact I have a sign in my front window: Friends for Peace put out by the American Friends Service Committee. I have had it there for at least fifteen years.

Clownboat: �This is not an answer to the question I asked. You're 0 for 2.�

I answered it. You just didn't expect or like the answer.

Clownboat: �I would not want such knowledge to be known personally. I like the idea that criminals and even my own government to a degree are uncertain about my ability to defend myself and my family.�

TSGracchus: “Well, of course you wouldn't. The psychologists tell us that those who self identify as “conservative� are more fearful than liberals, and in this area at least, you reveal yourself as conservative.�

Clownboat: �And yet ironically, you avoided answering the question. How conservative/scared are you?�

Not very!

Clownboat: �What is wrong with a scared person owning a gun for example if it helps them cope with being scared? You're scared of guns so much that you would prefer others be scared in their own homes so you can be less scared of guns in general? If so, there is some irony/hypocrisy. Why would your fears trump others?�

A scared person is less reliable and less to be trusted with a firearm.
I am less afraid of guns than I am of being hit by a car. Even crossing with the light in the pedestrian lane, I always look both ways. But cars serve a purpose that doesn't usually involve mere amusement or killing. There are no lights, crosswalks or precautions that can protect from a bullet.

Clownboat: �So where do you stand? Would you be willing to make your lack of guns known to the general populace, or would you perhaps be a little trepidation about such knowledge being known to all?�

I doubt that the “general populace is all that interested in me. I think they would be more interested in who is armed.

TSGracchus: “I've got a sign.�

Clownboat: �Congrats. I have a shoe.�

I have two. Did you shoot off one foot?

TSGracchus: “Perhaps you realize that would make you a target for anyone wanting to pick up a firearm?�

Clownboat: �Correct. Even though I don't keep my firearms and my ammo in the same building, I still do not want that to be common knowledge for just this reason. You are pointing out a benefit for having an armed community. Criminals currently don't know who is armed and who is not. This is a deterrent. Deterrents to crime are good, yet you are arguing against one.'

But if there were no guns you wouldn't need a deterrent to gun crime. Moreover, by your own admission you are relatively helpless because of how your guns and ammo are stored.

TSGracchus: “Having a gun in the house, actually puts you and your family at greater risk. Don't take my word for it. Look up the statistics yourself.�

SClownboat: �So does having alcohol.�

I don't have alcohol either. It impairs judgment and balance.

What the statistics do show is that you are more likely to lose a family member to a gun fatality or injury than you are to use it in home defense. As I say, don't ask me for the statistics, because you will just ignore them. Look it up yourself if you are really interested.

SClownboat: �Perhaps your nose doesn't belong in someone else's home though? I don't have guns/ammo in my home, but I don't see how what I do in my home is any business of yours, nor the governments (within reason of course, as in actions that directly harm others).�

If what you are doing in your own home is putting others at risk, then it is a matter for public concern. Bullets can go through walls, floors, ceilings, doors and windows. Knives and clubs, even arrows, not so much!

SClownboat: �Chicago had over 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes last year and they have the strictest gun laws in the country.�

TSGracchus: “So, where do those guns come from? I am not aware that guns are manufactured in Chicago.�

SClownboat: �Irrelevant. You said fewer guns equals fewer shooting victims. I'm pointing to the stat above to show that your statement doesn't necessarily reflect reality.�

It is not irrelevant, because those guns had to be in Chicago to be used in gun crimes. If they can't be sold there and aren't manufactured there it merely shows that gun control cannot be addressed by local regulations.

SClownboat: �This seems to go against your claim that fewer guns mean fewer shootings. And again, this is because you can successfully take guns away from law abiding citizens like myself, but not from criminals.�

As long as “law abiding citizens�, by manufacturing, selling, or having them stolen, keep supplying the guns, criminals will get them.

TSGracchus: “So, all those shootings involved only three guns?�

SClownboat: �Who said such a thing? Your losing me.�

You do seem to get lost. I have noticed that. I keep having to point out the obvious: The guns had to be in Chicago before they could be used in Chicago. They had to be manufactured, probably legally, and sold, probably legally, at least the first time, before they found themselves in the hands of criminals. Still lost?!

There is an endless supply of guns purchased or stolen from legal gun owners and dealers outside of Chicago.

SClownboat: �And this point is what you continue to fail to understand. Getting rid of guns is a pipe dream. You strengthen my argument.'

Repeatedly begging the question and calling any attempt at regulation a “pipe dream� is not strengthening your argument.

SClownboat: �If we could magically poof all guns away, I would be all for it. However, in the world we live in, this seems like a pipe dream and untenable.�

TSGracchus: “You have indicated that you won't settle for anything but an instantaneous magical solution.�

SClownboat: �False, I have claimed that what you submit is a pipe dream. You have evidenced my claim for me by acknowledging all the endless supplies of guns.�

I will try to keep this simple. If we rigorously restrict the manufacture, sale, transportation, purchase, and ownership of guns there will be fewer gun deaths and gun crime. It will never be, perhaps, a perfect solution. But once wiping out small-pox was a pipe dream. (By the way, I don't smoke.)

TSGracchus: “That is not how the real world works. But: 'With Australia’s population steadily increasing, the nation’s homicide incident rate has fallen even more than the number of homicides — from 1.6 per 100,000 in 1995-96 (The year strict gun controls were instituted.) to 1 per 100,000 in 2013-2014, according to a government report on crime trends. That was the lowest homicide incident rate at the time in 25 years, as we mentioned earlier.'� – https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-c ... a-updated/

SClownboat: �I'm afraid that can be how the real world works. Again, you ignore Chicago with its strict gun laws.�

So, you're afraid because Australia really has found a way do deal with gun crime? I think you inadvertently revealed your true position: You don't want gun controls to work. You're afraid it does work.

SClownboat: �Therefore, I'm looking for ideas that would actually help.�

What does work, what has worked, is strict control of the manufacture, trafficking, and ownership of firearms.

TSGracchus: “You demand instant 100% control, but if it were provided you would almost certainly move the goal posts.�

SClownboat: �False. I reject your pipe dream for a better one. Why stop at getting rid of guns? Murders will still take place. Let's get rid of murders.

I don't think we have to stop at getting rid of guns. I think it is a good place to start.

TSGracchus: “You want your gun.�

SClownboat: �Yes, hunting and target shooting are things I find enjoyable. I'm a family man now though and rarely have time for either.�

I used to have a friend who found kiddy porn enjoyable. I knew another fellow found the IV injections of heroin enjoyable. The first went to prison, the second OD'd. I had a relative who got a thrill from shoplifting really worthless items. Society can forbid some forms of enjoyment.

TSGracchus: “By your own admission, you are afraid to live without it.�

SClownboat: �If I was afraid to live without guns, why is it that I store guns and ammo in different building? I have already told you that if an armed burglar were to come to my home, I would be at his mercy as I have no fire arms available to me (easily that is).�

And yet your main argument has been about self defense. Still, you do seem to understand that your guns are more a danger to your family than an intruder. Cognitive dissonance is a recognized phenomenon.

SClownboat: �You, it seems would prefer to argue against some caricature of myself where I'm a scared wannabe cowboy. Clearly I am not, I'm just a law abiding citizen that happens to own guns and keeps his guns/ammo in different buildings for safety reasons. Perhaps you just feel like you are right by imagining that I'm something that I'm not? “

That may or may not be clear to you. If you weren't a law abiding citizen you would probably still claim to be.

SClownboat: �If your able, can you address a couple things that Bluethread has pointed out?
As is the case with every commodity. Governments can not eradicate a commodity that is in demand. They can only determine how much of that commodity is exchanged in the open market and how much is exchanged on the black market.�

Even if I stipulate that a skilled machinist in a secret workshop can manufacture and sell firearms at very great cost and risk, will not scarcity and expense limit the supply?

SClownboat: �Show this statement to be wrong, and you pipe dream is more realistic.�

It doesn't have to be wrong, and I don't need to pretend that a perfect solution is possible.

SClownboat: �If you want to fight to outlaw guns in the hope that will rid society of gun violence, have at it.�

Thanks, but I didn't wait for your permission.

SClownboat: �I have just one question, what is it you are going to use to force people to give up their guns?'

Well, force probably would be counter productive: “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.� – Friedrich Nietzsche

Violence almost always breeds more violence.

I do think, that wielding social disapproval, it is possible that some future generation may see the last gun fan buried with his pistol clutched in his cold dead hand, and breath a collective sigh of relief. The sooner that happens, the better. Maybe could be a monument financed by public subscription! I would even allow you that honor.

[Clownboat]

You said ''we�. Apparently your “wee� is smaller than mine.

No, my 'we' in the context used was you, I, and other individuals that equal a 'we'.
For some reason, you thought that this 'we' was government. And you belittle me? If irony were a weapon, you certainly would not need any form of self defense.

As a side note, it would sure be great if you could learn how to use the quote tool on this forum.

You see yourself as an outsider.

Please debate my points and not the debater. I do not see myself as an outsider. I must assume you are projecting your own feelings.

A scared person is less reliable and less to be trusted with a firearm.

This does not address the question.
Why does your fear of guns trump others rights to feel secure in their own home by having this type of self defense?

I am less afraid of guns than I am of being hit by a car. Even crossing with the light in the pedestrian lane, I always look both ways. But cars serve a purpose that doesn't usually involve mere amusement or killing. There are no lights, crosswalks or precautions that can protect from a bullet.

No surprise. You have made it known that you think gun owners are wannabe killers. Therefore you only see one purpose when you see someone owning a gun and you cannot recognize that there are other reasons for gun ownership. Be sure your head is not too far in the sand as reasons like hunting, sport shooting and feeling safe in your own home will fly right over your head and you will continue to lump all gun owners as cowboy wannabe killers. A caricature you like to attempt to place people in it seems.

Clownboat: �So where do you stand? Would you be willing to make your lack of guns known to the general populace, or would you perhaps be a little trepidation about such knowledge being known to all?�

I doubt that the “general populace is all that interested in me. I think they would be more interested in who is armed.

Another dodge.
Readers, it seems that TSGracchus would prefer that the general populace was not aware that he is unarmed in his own home. I understand this, as I am also unarmed in my own home, but I don't want others to know this as the idea of someone possibly being armed is a deterrent. Without guns, this deterrent would not be in place. Now would we go the direction of Australia or Chicago? I don't know.

TSGracchus: “Perhaps you realize that would make you a target for anyone wanting to pick up a firearm?�

Yes, people 'knowing' that you don't have a firearm may cause you to be a target. Having some of the population armed is a deterrent. It also makes some people feel safe in their own homes.

Clownboat: �Correct. Even though I don't keep my firearms and my ammo in the same building, I still do not want that to be common knowledge for just this reason. You are pointing out a benefit for having an armed community. Criminals currently don't know who is armed and who is not. This is a deterrent. Deterrents to crime are good, yet you are arguing against one.'

But if there were no guns you wouldn't need a deterrent to gun crime.

Currently felons and anyone can buy parts to assemble their own gun.
And as Bluethread pointed out:
"As is the case with every commodity. Governments can not eradicate a commodity that is in demand. They can only determine how much of that commodity is exchanged in the open market and how much is exchanged on the black market."

Moreover, by your own admission you are relatively helpless because of how your guns and ammo are stored.

I have stated this over and over. When I used my guns, I was either shooting clay pigeons or putting food on the table. So yes, an armed intruder would have me at their mercy, but here is the thing, said armed intruder might think twice about breaking in to my home if he thinks I might have a gun under my pillow.

TSGracchus: “Having a gun in the house, actually puts you and your family at greater risk. Don't take my word for it. Look up the statistics yourself.�

Lots of things put us at risk, but guess what, that does not make things illegal or wrong. So your point is moot. If people want to assume some risk to feel safe or whatever in their own home, I feel that should be their right. Again, coming from someone without a gun with ammo in their home.

I don't have alcohol either. It impairs judgment and balance.

Do more people die due to alcohol or guns (outside of war)? Which one truly carries more risk, drinking alcohol or having a gun in your home? Are you OK with people drinking in their own homes? It does add risk, like guns. At what point do you keep your nose out of others homes? Just guns, or would the list go on?

What the statistics do show is that you are more likely to lose a family member to a gun fatality or injury than you are to use it in home defense.

This does not address guns as a deterrent and it does not address how guns make some people feel safe in their own home. Getting rid of all risks in other peoples homes is a pipe dream even you would have to acknowledge I would think.

As I say, don't ask me for the statistics, because you will just ignore them. Look it up yourself if you are really interested.

So much wrong out of you... I accept the statistic.
There are benefits that you are not addressing though, and many Americans are willing to have the risk of having a gun in their home as to deter a criminal or to provide them with a feeling of safety. Much to TSGracchus's dismay obviously.

If what you are doing in your own home is putting others at risk, then it is a matter for public concern.

Guns bring risk. Lots of things do actually. Guns act as a deterrent and provide some people with a feeling of safety in their own home. You are only able to see the risk it seems. This is on you. I may not feel a need to have a gun in the home, but I understand that others do and I want it limited what the government dictates as far as what we can or can't do in our own homes. I not gay either, but what business is it to regulate who we spend our time with in our homes?

It is not irrelevant, because those guns had to be in Chicago to be used in gun crimes. If they can't be sold there and aren't manufactured there it merely shows that gun control cannot be addressed by local regulations.

For the 3rd time. As Bluethread has pointed out: "As is the case with every commodity. Governments can not eradicate a commodity that is in demand. They can only determine how much of that commodity is exchanged in the open market and how much is exchanged on the black market."

As long as “law abiding citizens�, by manufacturing, selling, or having them stolen, keep supplying the guns, criminals will get them.

That is not the only way they will be able to get them, but yes, thank you for pointing out why getting guns from criminals is a pipe dream.

The guns had to be in Chicago before they could be used in Chicago.

This is not lost on me, but whatever point you are trying to make without saying it is. Any readers able to fill in the blanks? Remember, the supply is endless.

They had to be manufactured, probably legally, and sold, probably legally, at least the first time, before they found themselves in the hands of criminals. Still lost?!

Yes. You're telling me that the sky is blue, something I'm completely aware of, and then asking me if I'm still lost. I'm not lost on the sky being blue, I'm lost on what point you are trying to make without stating said point.

Saying that guns had to be in Chicago (the sky is blue) does not refute the point that guns WILL be in Chicago.

There is an endless supply of guns purchased or stolen from legal gun owners and dealers outside of Chicago.

Keep going, your strengthening my position.

SClownboat: �False, I have claimed that what you submit is a pipe dream. You have evidenced my claim for me by acknowledging all the endless supplies of guns.�

I will try to keep this simple. (Gee, thanks guy ) If we rigorously restrict the manufacture, sale, transportation, purchase, and ownership of guns there will be fewer gun deaths and gun crime. It will never be, perhaps, a perfect solution. But once wiping out small-pox was a pipe dream. (By the way, I don't smoke.)

Bluethread: "As is the case with every commodity. Governments can not eradicate a commodity that is in demand. They can only determine how much of that commodity is exchanged in the open market and how much is exchanged on the black market."

So, you're afraid because Australia really has found a way do deal with gun crime? I think you inadvertently revealed your true position: You don't want gun controls to work. You're afraid it does work.

Sorry, that is not my position.
As you admit, we have an endless supply of guns. Therefore, to think we can get rid of and endless supply of guns, especially in the hands of criminals is a pipe dream.

What does work, what has worked, is strict control of the manufacture, trafficking, and ownership of firearms.

Your position seems to be changing now from getting rid of all guns to stricter control. Welcome to the light side.

SClownboat: �Yes, hunting and target shooting are things I find enjoyable. I'm a family man now though and rarely have time for either.�

I used to have a friend who found kiddy porn enjoyable. I knew another fellow found the IV injections of heroin enjoyable. The first went to prison, the second OD'd. I had a relative who got a thrill from shoplifting really worthless items.

The people you surround yourself with is your issue, not mine. I would suggest you try to do better, but who you hang with is a risk YOU are responsible for. Do you need a government to tell you who you can hang out with in your own home? Perhaps?
Myself, I'm capable of owning fire arms responsibly and do not surround myself with the type of people you have or do. You made your bed, you sleep in it as they say. Stay out of my bed please.

And yet your main argument has been about self defense.

No, my main argument is that getting rid of our endless supply of guns is a pipe dream. Why you assault the ability to allow some Americans to have a gun to defend their homes with is something you should probably address though too, but that is not my main argument.

Still, you do seem to understand that your guns are more a danger to your family than an intruder. Cognitive dissonance is a recognized phenomenon.

I do not find my guns to be a danger to my family. Guns need ammo. I have hammers around the house that are more dangerous then my guns.
Your slander about cognitive dissonance is just that. Maybe you should go back to calling me a cowboy wannabe killer?

SClownboat: �If your able, can you address a couple things that Bluethread has pointed out?
As is the case with every commodity. Governments can not eradicate a commodity that is in demand. They can only determine how much of that commodity is exchanged in the open market and how much is exchanged on the black market.�

Even if I stipulate that a skilled machinist in a secret workshop can manufacture and sell firearms at very great cost and risk, will not scarcity and expense limit the supply?

No. As you have admitted, our supply is endless. Buying gun kits for self assembly will also always be a thing IMO.

SClownboat: �I have just one question, what is it you are going to use to force people to give up their guns?'

Well, force probably would be counter productive: “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.� – Friedrich Nietzsche

Violence almost always breeds more violence.

So Bluethreads question still stands and you failed to address how you would go about forcing the unwilling to get rid of their guns.

I do think, that wielding social disapproval, it is possible that some future generation may see the last gun fan buried with his pistol clutched in his cold dead hand, and breath a collective sigh of relief.

I see a person that foolishly thinks society will bend to their desires. Such thinking is just another pipe dream. We can only speculate where society will be in 100 years. Perhaps society will want less guns, perhaps they will want more...

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 119 by Clownboat]

Ok! You have admitted that guns don't make people safer, they only make people "feel" safer. But in fact, they reduce the safety of the populace as a whole.
I have repeatedly pointed out, and you have repeatedly ignored, that we (Society at large, not just you and other gun fans!) can reduce the number of guns in circulation, by controlling the manufacture, and traffic of firearms.

It is not that I am seeking to bend society to my will, it is that society is getting tired of gun fans, whether criminal, or not putting all of us at risk so that they can keep their deadly toys, designed only for killing.

Gun fans are like the old southern slave holders, declaring a doomed and evil way of life sacrosanct because of "rights". There is the real "pipe dream".

Since I can appeal to neither your reason, your empathy or your decency, I declare our discussion finished. Try not to shoot off your other foot.

[Clownboat]

Ok! You have admitted that guns don't make people safer, they only make people "feel" safer.

I have pointed out, and you ignored how having an armed populace is a deterrent. Therefore, guns do in fact make people safer and they also make some people feel safer.

But in fact, they reduce the safety of the populace as a whole.

Guns carry a risk, but to say they reduce the safety of the populace as a whole is not a matrix that has been measured as far as I know. How can we measure how many criminals have not committed burglary for fear of someone possibly being armed?

I have repeatedly pointed out, and you have repeatedly ignored, that we (Society at large, not just you and other gun fans!) can reduce the number of guns in circulation, by controlling the manufacture, and traffic of firearms.

False claim to say I have ignored this.
I have posted Bluethread's words about why I disagree with this to you 4 or 5 times now. Your charge against me is therefore disingenuous.

It is not that I am seeking to bend society to my will, it is that society is getting tired of gun fans, whether criminal, or not putting all of us at risk so that they can keep their deadly toys, designed only for killing.

This is an emotional statement devoid of any support. Apparently I have killed hundreds of clay pigeons.

Gun fans are like the old southern slave holders, declaring a doomed and evil way of life sacrosanct because of "rights".

Poisoning the well.

Since I can appeal to neither your reason, your empathy or your decency, I declare our discussion finished. Try not to shoot off your other foot.

Correct. You have failed on all fronts in this regard. I know it doesn't fit your cowboy wannabe killer caricature of me, but I have both of my feet. Sorry.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Be well...

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 121 by Clownboat]
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please report the command structure of the well regulated militia. If it has none it is not well regulated militia, it is just an armed mob.

�Americans own about 46 percent of 857 million civilian-owned firearms in the world, despite mining up 4 percent of the world's population, according to a new report from the international Small Arms Survey. The U.S. Has more guns than citizens, with an estimated 120.5 guns for every 100 residents. The nation with the second-highest firearms ownership rate, war-torn Yemen, has 52.8 guns per 100 residents.� – The Washington Post, as quoted in The Week, July 6/July 13, 2018 Volume 18 Issue 880-881

In spite of the fact that Yemen is at war, the U.S. has twice the deaths per 100,000 by gun violence as that unfortunate country.

"O say does that star spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land ruled by fear and the home of the slave?"

[Clownboat]

Guns carry a risk, but to say they reduce the safety of the populace as a whole is not a matrix that has been measured as far as I know. How can we measure how many criminals have not committed burglary for fear of someone possibly being armed?

I was mistaken, apparently this matrix was looked in to by the CDC.

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)

I have been trained to defend myself without the use of guns (of course at a severe disadvantage if facing a criminal with a gun). I have never felt the need to carry a weapon and as I have stated many times, my guns and ammo are stored in separate buildings. They are not available for home defense.

What I am not so cavalier about is taking the ability to defend oneself away from another human.

If there are about 30k gun deaths per year including suicides (closer to 12k - 16k if we don't include suicides I believe) and 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses as the CDC stated, then that really puts things in perspective for me.

Again, I don't feel the need to carry a firearm, but that's me. I understand that there are millions of people that feel their firearm is their way of defending themselves. Who am I or who are we to take the ability to defend oneself away from another human? (Violent people and such not included of course).

[Tired of the Nonsense]