Gun Nuts - Gun Haters

[John Q. Public]

Quote from ArchAngel:


Don't be shocked - YOU were being irrational and illogical.


If bank safes can be cracked, why would you presume that ANY private person would have a MORE secure safe? This is an example of how illogical your argument is. You irrationally presume to dictate the necessity for an individual to have totally undefeatable security or you will blame them for what someone else does with a stolen weapon.

However, you do not seek to affix the same necessity on automobile owners (there are more people killed by autos than by guns each year - a great many of them killed or injured by those driving stolen cars), poisonous materials that might be stored on a person's premises (e.g., rat poison, gasoline, etc.) but potentially used to harm others, etc.

At least if you applied your idea of ultimate responsibility in that way, you'd at least be consistent (albeit still irrational).


Reread the original post. It was "out of his possession for two years" because it was SOLD. Your original "compromise" suggested that even after selling the gun (and thuse out of his control), you expected the original owner to be held fully responsible for what someone else does with it. Again, totally irrational.


Unfortunately, you are no where near reasonable. Your premise that the gun must be sold only to a firearms dealer is counter to existing rules of personal property disposition. Do you similarly require a car owner to only sell their car to a licensed auto dealer?

On the other hand, if you wanted to stipulate that a person selling their gun must file a report with the state identifying who they sold it to (as many states require with the disposition of licensed automobiles) - THAT would be reasonable.


Wow, an actual fact - albeit laced with inane hyperbole. A weapon that is not in your direct control of course cannot be used by you. Then again, a car that is not in your direct control cannot be used by you either - so are they unnecessary?

Of course, if you're arguing that people should be permitted to carry their guns with them at all times...

But then again, we're not talking about "using" a gun that's not in the person's direct control. If a burgler is stupid enough to break into my house at night while I'm there - mores the pity for him, because the gun will be in my direct control.

If I am not in the house, the guns are not in my direct control - but they are also not just laying around on the kitchen table either.


While my guns are secured when I'm not there, your statement is also true of a myriad products or items that are also dangerous or lethal if misused.

Should you be thrown in jail for manslaughter if a friend of your child manages to nypass the anti-child device that you diligently placed on your kitchen cabinets - and subsequently drank a bottle of bleach?


What does that mean? Unfortunately, like most anti-gun fanatics, reasonable due diligence and precaution isn't sufficient. You expect absolute perfection in an imperfect world - but only as it relates to your single fanaticism, excluding all other potentially dangerous items that exist in everyone's homes.


Luckily, this is more idle hyperbole - since you have no power.

But what's really sad, until you and the rest of the extremists on both sides of this issue stop breathing all that ozone, there won't be much material progress in establishing reasonable nationwide rules.

Is there any point in trying to have a discussion about lethal firearms with a man who insists on making inane comparisons with guns and automobiles? I think not.

I seriously misjudged your wisdom. logic, and rationality. I will not be likely to misjudge them in the future.

It is pointless to address such absurd arguments, so I won't.

 

[John Q. Public]

Quote from ArchAngel:



ROFLMAO...alas, the irony of your post will no doubt be lost on those most in need of seeing it.

There is none - for no one has seriously suggested such a thing.

And is it not amusing to think that a disorganized band of ragtag Jews could have fought off a government that was taking down well armed and trained armies left and right.

But I know...details, details.

 

[dougcs]

Quote from John Q. Public:

Permit me to bring forth a compromise that I am sure both sides will endorse -especially responsible gun owners. In return, I will back off of any attempt to restrict or interfere with your owning a gun(s).

Should your gun be used against me or my family by, your child or spouse, or should you give, lend, sell, or lose your gun, or should it be stolen from your home, place of business, vehicle, or person, and I or my family suffer harm, then you will face the same charges as the user of your gun would face, up to and including 1st degree murder and the full penalty as proscribed by law.

Only an irresponsible gun owner would be opposed, since a responsible owner, fully aware of the harm and danger a gun presents in the wrong hands, would never permit his weapon to be out of his direct control in operating condition.

I look forward to receiving support from both sides of the issue.

This is not a compromise. First, a compromise implies both sides get something they do not have. At this point the gun owners have it all. So what do they get out of the deal?
Second, it is outright confiscation cloaked in the language of seemingly apparent reason. Therefore, IMO, the premise of compromise is simply not true.

Your statement that "only irresponsible gun owner would be opposed" is not true either. Since the only realistic way to meet the so called compromise is to not own any guns. IMO, the only people who will suport this are ones who do not now own guns.

A more reasonable approach to reducing violence by gun is to "fingerprint" all new guns and their owners making it easier to trace a bullet to its source. Or, requiring electronic locks that permit only the owner capable of firing the weapon. Although it is debateable either of these like many of the other attempts at this issue would work either. Unfortunately, the statistics I've looked at support almost any position on gun control, depending on whose statistics you look at.

The only way any reasonable person could meet this "compromise" without undue risk is to give up any guns they own since the possibility of theft, etc while small is still finite, and the punishment so severe that the risk/reward is too high. The risk is essentially infinite while the reward is trivial. I do not know many reasonable people who would take that. This reminds me of some option strategies that are touted as 95+% accurate but have a average win/ avg. loss ratio so bad that when that infrequent loss occurs it wipes out the hundred or so winning trades that preceeded it.



DS

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from John Q. Public:



Do you have any idea how stupid and potentially risky to your wealth and or freedom a remark such as the one suggesting you would like to shoot me is?

Tell you what I am going to do. I will accept a public apology, and quickly, or I will haunt your stupid ass by demanding that Baron ban it. And should he refuse, there will be hell to pay. You will learn that one does not go around threatening people.

Now on to your second item. No one suggested taking away guns. Did they? No, but unable to deal with the subject at hand, you attempt to change it.

BTW - in case you think that I am kidding, try me. I will hear from you within 24 hours with an apology, or we won't be troubled with you any longer.

LOL. You crack me up. Dude, you can't suppress free speech. You are a first amendment worshipping liberal, you know that. And my comment was not a threat. Don't be so ignorant. Do you realize the comments you made towards me on other threads were slander and I could probably have a field day in court with you. You go ahead and talk to Baron and ask him if he is interested in censoring free speech on this website. I already know what his answer will be.

Why don't you calm down and re-read "It takes a Village", by Hillary Clinton. That will make you happy. LOL.

 

[ArchAngel]

Quote from John Q. Public:
Is there any point in trying to have a discussion about lethal firearms with a man who insists on making inane comparisons with guns and automobiles? I think not.

I seriously misjudged your wisdom. logic, and rationality. I will not be likely to misjudge them in the future.

It is pointless to address such absurd arguments, so I won't.

I must agrer - further discussion on this subject (at least involving you) is indeed pointless.

By cloaking yourself in the (ill fitting) facade of reasonableness and pretending rationality while at the same time proposing your axiomatically absurd "compromise" and dismissing out of hand any rational discussion on the subject - you present an interesting psychological conundrum which some university grad student might do well studying. Hey, you could be famous, like that woman Sally Fields played many years ago, what was her name - Sybil.

Alas, I was mistaken in attempting a dialogue with you on this subject since it is quite clear that you have no desire (perhaps no ability) to discuss this multi-faceted issue rationally and reasonably.

Unfortunately, the "I'm right and everyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid" perspective that you clearly convey is a pathological trait of those blinded by zealotry.

I fear that while I came prepared for a battle of wits, I found my opponent wholly unarmed. Too bad. This is one of those topics that could well benefit from a rational and reasonable examination of its aspects and applicable methods.

But this is America and even the demonstrably witless are entitled to their opinion - some even become Senators and Presidents - so we all must at least honor your right to hold even an extreme and illogical opinion as yours.

And since this IS America, if necessary, I will defend your right to be a flaming myopic fool with all my available firepower.

Cheers.

Now if someone other than JQP has something sane to add, perhaps we can have a real discussion of this issue.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from John Q. Public:



I will haunt your stupid ass by demanding that Baron ban it. And should he refuse, there will be hell to pay.

BTW - in case you think that I am kidding, try me. I will hear from you within 24 hours with an apology, or we won't be troubled with you any longer.

Wouldn't your comments fall under harassment my liberal friend? And then the second part, wouldn't that be a threat? Hmm, harassing me then following that up with a threat, interesting. Make sure you mention that to Baron. LOL.

GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God bless America and the 2nd amendment!

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from Maverick74:



Wouldn't your comments fall under harassment my liberal friend? And then the second part, wouldn't that be a threat? Hmm, harassing me then following that up with a threat, interesting. Make sure you mention that to Baron. LOL.

GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God bless America and the 2nd amendment!

The 2nd amendment doesn't apply to E.T.

This forum is not a democracy, Baron is King, what he decides is law. Speech is not free here, a price is paid for abuse.

Even with the 2nd amendment, you cannot freely yell fire in a public place where there is no fire and expect to go unpunished. There are certain rules that apply to the freest speech.

I suggest that unless you meant what you said, you simply explain that it was a joke....in bad taste perhaps, but still a joke. That is, in my opinion, the reasonable thing to do.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from ARogueTrader:




Even with the 2nd amendment, you cannot freely yell fire in a public place where there is no fire and expect to go unpunished. There are certain rules that apply to the freest speech.

What I said is not the same thing as yelling fire. Will you please get a life. Me telling someone I would like to pay them a visit is not the same thing as creating panic and hysteria in a public place where people could be trampled and killed.

Are you that dense? Why don't you read "It takes a village" again for the 5th time too.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from Maverick74:



What I said is not the same thing as yelling fire. Will you please get a life. Me telling someone I would like to pay them a visit is not the same thing as creating panic and hysteria in a public place where people could be trampled and killed.

Are you that dense? Why don't you read "It takes a village" again for the 5th time too.

I am not threatening you. I am asking you kindly to behave in a more adult manner.

We can all have political opinions, we can disagree strongly with someone else's opinions.....but this is still a community of traders, and there should be some degree of mutual respect among us, even if we don't agree with someone's political beliefs.

An apology or explanation is in order, in my opinion, out of civility if nothing else. This is not a liberal versus conservative thing, is is common courtesy.

You often hear heated exchanges on the floor of congress, but no one threatens physical violence without repercussions.

This intense bitterness and hatred between Americans of different political perspectives has got to stop.

Stop for a moment, take a deep breath, and try to be more humane and stop calling people names all the time. There are better ways to get your message across.

 

[John Q. Public]

Quote from dougcs:




This is not a compromise. First, a compromise implies both sides get something they do not have. At this point the gun owners have it all. So what do they get out of the deal?
Second, it is outright confiscation cloaked in the language of seemingly apparent reason. Therefore, IMO, the premise of compromise is simply not true.

Your statement that "only irresponsible gun owner would be opposed" is not true either. Since the only realistic way to meet the so called compromise is to not own any guns. IMO, the only people who will suport this are ones who do not now own guns.

A more reasonable approach to reducing violence by gun is to "fingerprint" all new guns and their owners making it easier to trace a bullet to its source. Or, requiring electronic locks that permit only the owner capable of firing the weapon. Although it is debateable either of these like many of the other attempts at this issue would work either. Unfortunately, the statistics I've looked at support almost any position on gun control, depending on whose statistics you look at.

The only way any reasonable person could meet this "compromise" without undue risk is to give up any guns they own since the possibility of theft, etc while small is still finite, and the punishment so severe that the risk/reward is too high. The risk is essentially infinite while the reward is trivial. I do not know many reasonable people who would take that. This reminds me of some option strategies that are touted as 95+% accurate but have a average win/ avg. loss ratio so bad that when that infrequent loss occurs it wipes out the hundred or so winning trades that preceeded it.



DS

Let's try this again, since you and others seem to have a problem in understanding what I have proposed.

There is a key phrase all of you seem to be overlooking. It goes something like: disable the firearm. Render it inoperable by removing a key part, or parts when the gun is not in your direct control. As an example, a revolver without it's chamber is of little use.

Here is the bottom line. Every gun in this nation started out as a legal firearm. However through unscrupulous dealers, careless or irresponsible gun owners, hundreds of thousands if not millions of guns have, shall we say, fallen in to the wrong hands. This must stop. Well you may have a right to be armed, but I have a right to be protected from irresponsible gun owners. A gun owner who insured that his weapon could not be fired when not under his control loses none of his rights or privileges, does he?

I know of no gun, be it a hand gun or a long gun that cannot be broken down in seconds. Do you? Than what's the beef?