Oh the Irony

[ddub47]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-appreciation-day-five-injured-at-three-different-gun-shows-20130119,0,2727285.story

[barmar]

Gun Appreciation Day: the day they should learn to appreciate how dangerous guns can be.

[kenberg]

Back in the 70s there was Human Kindness day, which also produced some irony. I recall it vaguely, but an Internet search produced the following:

http://articles.wash...ton-monument-dc

Do you remember Human Kindness Day? I remember very clearly my father driving us in the car through D.C. when a cop came up to our car and said, "Roll up your windows and lock your doors. It's Human Kindness Day." Whenever I bring it up to others who lived here in the '70s, I get blank looks.

[/Quote]

Yep, that's the way I remember it.

 

Maybe they could hold Gun Appreciation Day and Human Kindness Day at the same time and the same place. I will arrange to be elsewhere.

[blackshoe]

Gun Appreciation Day: the day they should learn to appreciate how dangerous guns can be.

Guns are not dangerous. People are dangerous.

[cherdano]

Just goes to show what happens when Obama is plotting to take away the guns - everybody rushes to buy some, even those who have no idea how to handle one. The gun control zealots have blood on their hands!

[BunnyGo]

Guns are not dangerous. People are dangerous.

 

Sure they are...Just the same way:

 

1) Knives

2) Explosives

3) even Cars

 

are dangerous. Just because someone won't (usually) be hurt when used correctly, does not mean the items are not "dangerous". There is potentially danger around these objects (more so than most other objects). It doesn't mean we shouldn't use them, but we should be wary when using them. And just because these objects do not have agency, does not make them not dangerous.

[blackshoe]

Objects are dangerous only insofar as people use them dangerously. It is the people, not the objects, that are the problem. So the solution to the problem lies with the people, not the objects. Guns, knives, cars, 2-by-4s, bottles of bleach, prescription medications, non-prescription medications, magazines, books, buildings, construction equipment, hammers, nails, rocks, whatever it is, by itself it's not dangerous.

 

The current and soon to come anti-gun legislation is one of two things: a knee jerk reaction that won't fix anything, or a seizure of the moment by people with an agenda. Or both.

[cherdano]

This argument is really ridiculous. Guns are designed to kill people. They are designed to make it easy to kill people. Cars are not designed to kill people, and it's not easy to kill someone using a car.

 

They may be legitimate arguments against gun control. This bullshit isn't.

[cherdano]

P.S.: My views on gun control are fairly moderate compared to my political views overall. But the more I hear from gun advocates, the more I start to evolve into a gun control zealot.

[mgoetze]

Guns are not dangerous. Ammunition is dangerous.

[Fluffy]

I am rewatching some A-Team TV series these days, and after watching them it is so obvious that guns are not dangerous.

[BunnyGo]

Objects are dangerous only insofar as people use them dangerously. It is the people, not the objects, that are the problem. So the solution to the problem lies with the people, not the objects. Guns, knives, cars, 2-by-4s, bottles of bleach, prescription medications, non-prescription medications, magazines, books, buildings, construction equipment, hammers, nails, rocks, whatever it is, by itself it's not dangerous.

 

The current and soon to come anti-gun legislation is one of two things: a knee jerk reaction that won't fix anything, or a seizure of the moment by people with an agenda. Or both.

 

Is there *any* thing that does not have agency in this universe that you would describe as "dangerous"? If not, then we are using the word completely differently (and I suspect that one of us uses it in a way most people will not due to political reasons).

 

Edit: trying to reframe a view of the world by simply changing what words mean (as opposed to agreed reality) does not make me feel that the pro-gun people have the nation's best interests in heart. Like cherdano, I'm not particularly "liberal" on gun control issues, but listening to what strongly pro-gun advocates say makes me worry I should be.

[cherdano]

This thread reminds me of a story. And I mean that literally, I hadn't thought of this in 10 years or more.

At some point during high school (I guess we must have been around 16), a friend of mine got injured at this thumb by another friend using his father's air gun. Not serious injury. I wasn't there, but it happened something like this: friend A had the gun in his hand, aiming at something. Friend B, making a joke or something ("Don't shoot, don't shoot!") put his hand in front of the gun. Friend A pulled the trigger, not anticipating this movement.

At the time I thought "How irresponsible by each of my friends - you don't put your hand in the way of the gun shot, even if it's just an air gun, and you don't pull the trigger unless you can be sure that no one can be in the way." Now, of course, my thoughts would start with someone else - we fairly responsible as far as 16-year old guys go, but still, which moron of a father would let his son and friends play with his gun?? Wtf?

 

It would be nice to be able to think of gun owners as more responsible than these 16-year olds, but I am starting to have my doubts.

[hrothgar]

Here's a (potentially) interesting observation.

 

Traditionally, when I saw debates over gun ownership, there seemed to be a consensus that individuals wanted to carry guns in order to

 

1. Protect themselves against their fellow citizens

2. Hunt

 

Now-a-days, much of the (high profile) discussion seems to involved some presumed right that citizens have to protect themselves against the government.

 

This argument strikes me as

 

1. "Novel". I am pretty well read and I never heard any such arguments during my formative years

2. Reprehensible. Individual citizens don't get to use the threat of violence to opt out of those portions of the legal code that they dislike

 

I think that its possible to reach a reasonable accommodations surrounding self defense and hunting. However, I don't think its possible or desirable for a sovereign state to abandon its monopoly on violence.

[Codo]

Yes I really need my AK 47 and my 2000 shoots of ammunition just for hunting and as a part of selfdefence in the subway of New York...

[blackshoe]

Here's a (potentially) interesting observation.

 

Traditionally, when I saw debates over gun ownership, there seemed to be a consensus that individuals wanted to carry guns in order to

 

1. Protect themselves against their fellow citizens

2. Hunt

 

Now-a-days, much of the (high profile) discussion seems to involved some presumed right that citizens have to protect themselves against the government.

 

This argument strikes me as

 

1. "Novel". I am pretty well read and I never heard any such arguments during my formative years

2. Reprehensible. Individual citizens don't get to use the threat of violence to opt out of those portions of the legal code that they dislike

 

I think that its possible to reach a reasonable accommodations surrounding self defense and hunting. However, I don't think its possible or desirable for a sovereign state to abandon its monopoly on violence.

The idea that citizens may need to protect themselves against the government has been widespread in two periods in this country's history: the late 18th Century, when the country was founded, and the last fifty to sixty years. In the latter period, the idea started small, but has grown and is still growing.

 

I had a friend who used to predict that the country would not last another twenty five years. He died about nine years ago.

 

Would you argue that Jefferson was wrong when he wrote the Declaration of Independence?

[hrothgar]

The idea that citizens may need to protect themselves against the government has been widespread in two periods in this country's history: the late 18th Century, when the country was founded, and the last fifty to sixty years. In the latter period, the idea started small, but has grown and is still growing.

 

I had a friend who used to predict that the country would not last another twenty five years. He died about nine years ago.

 

Would you argue that Jefferson was wrong when he wrote the Declaration of Independence?

 

Traditionally, the classic examples of this line of thinking are

 

1. The Civil War

2. The Whiskey Rebellion

 

both of which would seem to have been long settled. (My high school history class spent quite a lot of time covering both of these topics)

 

As for Jefferson, I'm old enough to recall those heady days before 2008 when the second amendment wasn't viewed as an individual right.

I very much look forward to returning to such interpretations of the Constitution.

[billw55]

It helps to substitute the word "weapon" for the word "gun". I think it is obvious, even to the most rabid gun advocate, that not all weapons should be legally available to the general public. There is a gradient involved. How damaging does a weapon have to be, for banning it from ordinary citizens to be acceptable? I am pretty sure we don't want just anyone to own a nuclear bomb for example, or nerve gas bombs, etc. How about a fighter plane, should I be able to buy one if I am rich enough? An attack submarine? A tank? Rocket launcher, machine gun, etc ... ? Eventually there has to be a cut off between what we do and do not allow common citizens to own.

 

So Blackshoe, where exactly is the line? (I am not taunting you, just genuinely curious). Fully automatic, burst fire, semi automatic, caliber limit, magazine limit ... what is the upper limit weapon you are advocating for?

[barmar]

Guns are not dangerous. People are dangerous.

All other things being equal, a person with a gun is more dangerous than a person without one.

 

The incidents at the gun show were all accidents. Except for car accidents, there are few other ways for humans to cause such severe accidents.

[mgoetze]

The incidents at the gun show were all accidents. Except for car accidents, there are few other ways for humans to cause such severe accidents.

Seems a little uncreative. Several more ways spring to my mind, e.g. accidental electrocution.

[barmar]

Accidental electrocution? How often does that happen? You have to first expose some high voltage wires, how do you do that accidentally? Are you talking about wires breaking (e.g. during a storm) and falling on a passerby? That's not a person causing the accident, it's more like being struck by lightning.

[barmar]

Also, I said "few other ways", not "no other ways". And those few other ways are unlikely to be as potentially destructive as guns and cars. You might accidentally electrocute yourself or one other person, but it would be pretty hard to accidentally electrocute several people at once, as you can with guns and cars.

 

The other important distinction is the balancing the need for the activity in which the accident might occur. It's acknowledged that car accidents are one of (if not the) most common causes of injury and death. But driving in cars is practically a necessity in modern life. Similarly, it would be completely impractical to stop using electricity, we have to live with the potential of electrical shocks.

 

Guns, however, are not a necessity. Even if you believe that gun ownership is a right, what is the need to have loaded weapons at a crowded event like a gun show? Put the weapons and ammunition on opposite sides of the trade show floor, so they'll never get together and cause harm. I guess the sellers want to be able to demonstrate the weapons, or buyers want to be able to "test drive" them. But is this really a venue where such activities should be encouraged? There are plenty of examples of hunters accidentally shooting each other (e.g. VP Cheney), and they're not crowded together. Firing loaded weapons in a crowd seems like asking for trouble. It's like drunk driving: you're not guaranteed to get into an accident, but the probability is higher and there's no good reason to allow it.

[mgoetze]

Are you saying it's not an accident if it's caused by negligence? Also, nowhere did I claim the probability is anywhere in the same ballpark, I'm just saying there are a lot of different types of ptentially lethal accidents.

[billw55]

I managed to teach my kids the difference between accident and negligence by the time they were about 10 years old.

[mgoetze]

I'm not saying they're the same word, but the way I use the word "accident", negligence is one of the possible causes.