Florida school board shooting

[mike777]

Guns exist implying someone will have them implying nobody should be denied the right to have them.

 

I don't wanna see people planting minefields on their garden to protect their families from bomb terrorists or having a tank in the garage in case the army turns over and rebels.

 

About self defence, there are many non lethal weapons that are able to defend yourself.

 

 

lets assume yes to answer fluffy questions....not no....

 

lets assume we prefer to kill and not say yes to fluffy questions.

[kenberg]

I will approach this dispute about guns obliquely, starting with driving.

 

I am 71 and headlights on a rainy night bother me more than they once did. I recall the relief I felt when my father gave up driving. At some point I suppose I must, but not, I hope, for quite a while.

 

How is the decision to be made?

1. Statistics based on the abilities of drivers as they get older? No way. I am me, not a statistical average.

2. An argument that I should give it up for my own good? Thank you kindly, but I will make my own choices about my own good.

3. Some test of my abilities, with the power to take away my license if the results show that I am a menace on the roads? This I can accept. Reluctantly of course, but I can see why it must someday be done.

 

Back to guns:

Telling people about statistics involving guns in the home gets you nowhere. Arguing that they are stupid for preferring to have a gun will get you nowhere. Addressing it as an issue of public safety, now there may well be room for negotiation. I offer Blackshoe as exhibit A. He will support some sort of training involving gun use. Implicit in this is the idea that someone who is too mentally incapacitated to successfully complete the training would not be allowed a gun. There is room here for discussion.

 

The guy across the street from me used his vacation time to take his wife and go to an NRA convention. Not my cup of tea, to put it mildly. But he will not be coming over to mow me down. He won't. Well, sure, anything is possible. I might be bitten by a rattlesnake the next time I hike in the Shenandoah, but the possibility is not one of my bigger fears.

 

There are people of the cold dead hands persuasion. Some for ideological reasons, and quite a few, I think, because they are involved in the gun industry. Anyway, no point discussing guns with them, they will not give an inch. But my father hunted, other guys I knew hunted, I hunted until, as I mentioned, I made the decision that for me it was a bad idea. All of these people would be open to reasonable discussion.

[mikeh]

The main rea of difference between the blackshoes and me is that the blackshoes seem to assume that people are always rational actors...and assumption that underlies a lot of conservative thinking, especially about crime.

 

There is abundant evidence and mush theoretical discussion to the effect that people are NOT rational. Indeed, many would argue that the prevalence of religious belief...faith over evidence...shows just how deeply rooted irrationality is in the human psyche. Oh..if you;re Christain, pretend I am speaking only of muslims, and vice versa.

 

Anyway, if I knew that everyone was rational, I'd say go ahead and let people have guns. It's the fact that everyone...and I mean everyone...may act irrationally in the 'wrong' circumstances that makes me thing that widespread gun ownership is a terrible thing.

 

We have the bklackshoes saying: a rational, trained gunowner won't use it inappropriately. We have the overwhelming consensus of psychological evidence asserting that everyone acts irrationally on occasion and frequently when under stress and I know whose arguments I prefer.

[Winstonm]

In order to defend oneself or one's family country, one will need the same tools overwhelming superiority as over the aggressor(s).

 

FIFY

[mike777]

The main rea of difference between the blackshoes and me is that the blackshoes seem to assume that people are always rational actors...and assumption that underlies a lot of conservative thinking, especially about crime.

 

There is abundant evidence and mush theoretical discussion to the effect that people are NOT rational. Indeed, many would argue that the prevalence of religious belief...faith over evidence...shows just how deeply rooted irrationality is in the human psyche. Oh..if you;re Christain, pretend I am speaking only of muslims, and vice versa.

 

Anyway, if I knew that everyone was rational, I'd say go ahead and let people have guns. It's the fact that everyone...and I mean everyone...may act irrationally in the 'wrong' circumstances that makes me thing that widespread gun ownership is a terrible thing.

 

We have the bklackshoes saying: a rational, trained gunowner won't use it inappropriately. We have the overwhelming consensus of psychological evidence asserting that everyone acts irrationally on occasion and frequently when under stress and I know whose arguments I prefer.

 

no in fact you miss the main point

 

The right to own a gun makes one safer or makes one less safer. The right to own a gun gives you more freedom or the right to not not let you own a gun gives you more freedom.

 

If you do not have the right to own a gun and it makes you safer and gives you greater freedom that is the main point.

[y66]

I will approach this dispute about guns obliquely, starting with driving.

 

I am 71 and headlights on a rainy night bother me more than they once did. I recall the relief I felt when my father gave up driving. At some point I suppose I must, but not, I hope, for quite a while.

 

How is the decision to be made?

1. Statistics based on the abilities of drivers as they get older? No way. I am me, not a statistical average.

2. An argument that I should give it up for my own good? Thank you kindly, but I will make my own choices about my own good.

3. Some test of my abilities, with the power to take away my license if the results show that I am a menace on the roads? This I can accept. Reluctantly of course, but I can see why it must someday be done.

 

Back to guns:

Telling people about statistics involving guns in the home gets you nowhere. Arguing that they are stupid for preferring to have a gun will get you nowhere. Addressing it as an issue of public safety, now there may well be room for negotiation. I offer Blackshoe as exhibit A. He will support some sort of training involving gun use. Implicit in this is the idea that someone who is too mentally incapacitated to successfully complete the training would not be allowed a gun. There is room here for discussion.

 

The guy across the street from me used his vacation time to take his wife and go to an NRA convention. Not my cup of tea, to put it mildly. But he will not be coming over to mow me down. He won't. Well, sure, anything is possible. I might be bitten by a rattlesnake the next time I hike in the Shenandoah, but the possibility is not one of my bigger fears.

 

There are people of the cold dead hands persuasion. Some for ideological reasons, and quite a few, I think, because they are involved in the gun industry. Anyway, no point discussing guns with them, they will not give an inch. But my father hunted, other guys I knew hunted, I hunted until, as I mentioned, I made the decision that for me it was a bad idea. All of these people would be open to reasonable discussion.

 

re: driving -- option 3 sounds good to me and yes I would support mandatory, rigorous rode safety instruction as a condition for getting a drivers license and for renewing every 10 years. I'll bet if you told your kids you were doing this every few years, they would appreciate it. I wish my dad would do this. I'll ask him what he thinks about this idea.

 

re: guns -- ditto. You'd think serious gun owners would be out there pushing for this. Over to you blackshoe.

[mike777]

"sounds good to me and yes I would support mandatory, rigorous rode safety instruction"

 

 

 

 

Again if taking away rights makes one safer and more free......I am for it.

 

If strict safety code makes one more safe and free I am for it.

 

-------------------

 

 

OTOH again we see people are willing to trade freedom for safety.

[Fluffy]

I am no expert on crime, but I think most people murdered by guns, are murdered by guns used by men. Is his because less women have guns?, or because less women go irrational?, maybe only allowing women to have guns would work better.

[y66]

This is off point, sorry. Just wanted to thank the "typically American" comment posters. As a result of trying to decipher that comment, I found out my library subscribes to OED online and I can access it for free. Talk about "make my day".

[ggwhiz]

because less women go irrational?, maybe only allowing women to have guns would work better.

 

1. She attacked an armed man with a purse.

 

2. As an Ex Husband, I wouldn't like that.

[hrothgar]

My position hasn't changed much over the last couple years

(or the last couple decades)

 

For what its worth, I don't have a problem with gun ownership. My father spent the Korean war working a a repair depot fixing sighting rifles. He still owns a few guns. I used to hunt with rifles and shotguns before I moved over to bow/spear hunting. I do have a major problem with fact that so many people in the US seem to have a fetish for guns. Furthermore, I think that its ridiculous that people are permitted to own what are (essentially) military grade weapons. I've always felt that something like the following was a reasonable compromise

 

1.Home defense:

 

People are permitted to own just about anything they want in the way of shot guns and bolt action rifles. (no fully automatic shotguns). Licenses and waiting periods are required

 

2. Hunting

 

People are permitted to own just about anything they want in the way of shotguns and bolt action rifles. Licenses and waiting periods are required

 

3. Target shooting:

 

The owners of a licensed shooting range can (pretty much) purchase whatever they damn well please. Anyone who wants to play around with a pistol, an automatic rifle, a machine gun, what have you is welcome to go and rent time at a shooting range. If anyone feels an “extreme” need to own their own pistol, they're welcome to buy one and store it at a shooting range.

 

I am pretty much trying to restrict ownership across two different dimensions

 

First: The ability of individuals to “conceal carry”. I think that conceal carry laws are a big mistake. I'd go a lot further and restrict people from being able to have easy access to pistols and other such weapons that can be easy concealed

 

Second: The ability to spew large number of rounds in a short period of time.

[kenberg]

Something like the above outline from Richard would, I think, have fairly broad support. I do think that someone who is going to have a gun in their home should be required to demonstrate that they have some knowledge of their legal responsibilities. Some time ago a woman who was in an ongoing dispute (not with me) was saying something like "I've got a gun and I'll just shoot first and ask questions later". It was all bravado in her case, she did not have a gun. But of course some people do and some of them have very unrealistic ideas of the circumstances under which they are allowed to use it. The result can be one person dead and another in jail.

 

A gun can be literally a life-saver, but the circumstances where it can be effectively used are very limited. Mostly, safe living consists of not doing things that are really pretty clearly stupid. Thinking that "Oh, I can do this, if there is trouble I have a gun" is a really bad approach. I don't expect disagreement from this thread's contributors, but it is a fact of life that some people think that way. An understanding of the limits of packing heat, even just the legal limits of what can be done, would really help.

[nige1]

Guns exist. So long as they exist, some people will have them (legally or not). So long as some people have them, it is folly to deny others that right.

yeah and everyone has the rights to have nuclear missiles in his home for the same reasoning lol.

Democracy implies that the man must take the responsibility for choosing his rulers and representatives, and for the maintenance of his own 'rights' against the possible and probable encroachments of the government which he has sanctioned to act for him in public matters.

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.

The USA is a democracy. If you don't want gunmen to shoot your family, you can vote for gun-control. If you feel strongly about the issue, you can even stand for election on that policy. Delay is deadly because of natural selection: those with guns are shooting those without them at an alarming rate. :(

Safer, in the short-term, to acquire a gun yourself and join in the fun. :) :)

As arms, guns are passé. Fortunately, as Fluffy says, the bill of rights protects the citizen's inalienable right to keep biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. :) :) :)

[hrothgar]

The USA is a democracy.

 

The United States is a Republic, not a democracy

[luke warm]

The United States is a Republic, not a democracy

i plan on keeping it a "republic" (wink wink)... even plan on having a senate

[JLOGIC]

I am no expert on crime, but I think most people murdered by guns, are murdered by guns used by men. Is his because less women have guns?, or because less women go irrational?, maybe only allowing women to have guns would work better.

 

lol good one