Arggg! Once again as I've spent ten minutes typing, poof all gone, and I must start over.
Your dismissal of things that sound like they came from the NRA is an example of the problem of partisan (that's not just political parties, but all ideologies) demonization of "other." Some of what they have to say is true. They are also, by far, th…
Arggg! Once again as I've spent ten minutes typing, poof all gone, and I must start over.
Your dismissal of things that sound like they came from the NRA is an example of the problem of partisan (that's not just political parties, but all ideologies) demonization of "other." Some of what they have to say is true. They are also, by far, the best source of firearm safety material and training for civilians. A significant number of people are abandoning the NRA and joining less compromising organizations like the GOA which are all about the political, like the NRA's ILA.
Most people are practical in seeking efficiency or ease. Certainly, it is easier to kill someone or yourself with a firearm. They are not required. We adopted my niece when she was orphaned as a result of my sister-in-law being brutally beaten to death (fists and feet) by her boyfriend. I doubt that gun prohibition would end suicide or violent crimes of passion.
I think that nature vs. nurture is more of a ration than an absolute. Some say that gendered traits are a social construct. There is probably some truth in it. China has banned actors and entertainers who are "sissified" because they think it contributing to the feminization of Chinese men. Having said that, I think that men are inherently more prone to violence than women. Taking tools away won't change that either. It might reduce the number of "weak" boys, bullied by the school's jocks, from taking a gun to school, but as sensationalized as such events are, they are rare. And of course there are other tools https://tinyurl.com/2ps39486
We require training and/or testing to drive a car and I am in favor of training and testing to go out and about with firearms. I am far too liberal to support "need" as a requirement.
I dismiss some of what you say as NRA propaganda because of the illogic, such as noting that if you got rid of all guns people would still kill each other, or that gun prohibition wouldn't end crimes of passion. You're absolutely right, but as Jon Stewart pointed out, enacting strict DWI laws didn't eliminate drunk driving but it reduced deaths by TWO THIRDS! Now what if we reduced the 40,000 deaths (don't care who pulled the trigger or why) cited in the Pew article by two-thirds? That brings the annual death by gun rate to *13,200*. I'd rather have zero gun deaths than 13k, but I'd much rather have 13k than 40k and likely growing. I'm also in favour of keeping in place our laws prohibiting murder, rape, stealing and child abuse. They haven't eliminated those problems but they've greatly reduced them.
Men will always be more violent than women, but they're *less violent* now thanks to feminism, progressivism, intellectual advancement, and technology. We may never eliminate rape but it went down over 60% before it began rising again in recent years (why, we can't be sure, but I suspect the breakdown of the American body politic and the pandemic making us all a little nuts, literally, although only the ones prone to violence to begin with will likely become *more* violent). And I'll remind you: I have not once called for a ban of *all* guns. I merely note the firm evidence behind the fact that the *proliferation* of guns is directly linked to higher rates of gun violence. I call specifically for *saner* gun laws that don't put them into the hands of every idiot who wants one. I don't worry about people like you, Dave. I don't worry about women either, regardless of how right-wing they are. If veterans or women start suddenly claiming more market share in killing people with guns, I'll start damning them too. Did you know recent studies are finding a strong link between men who commit active shooter killings (that's a better way to put it, actually) and prior history of domestic abuse? That wouldn't have helped your SIL but it would have helped all the women who WERE killed by gun-totin' partners. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/26/domestic-abuse-gun-violence-reveal
So yeah, I favour NOT allowing men with prior domestic abuse violations from owning guns.
Sometimes, dealing with folks who are very pro-2A feels a lot like JK Rowling must feel when she gets excoriated for claiming biology is real. How is it controversial for me to assert that only people who can handle the responsibility should have guns?
Here's the thing, Dave: The presence of guns in the house increases the likelihood that someone's going to die by it, the most common person being the white adult male by his own hand. Suicidal feelings are more often than not impulsive. Someone with a lot of longstanding suicidal feelings will act on them no matter what if they make a considered decision to kill themselves; but most are actually impulsive actions arising from recent events like a fight with a spouse or a lost job or some other traumatic event. This happened to a friend of mine who had a fight with her husband one night and went to bed, and found him dead the next morning. (Suicide by hanging, in the backyard. She found him.) Why the hell Bill (no guns in the house) was so hell-bent on killing himself is beyond all of us, but without a gun in the house most people will think about it, consider their options, but if they don't do it within the first hour they're far less likely to do it at all. With a gun, it's too easy in the heat of the moment to pick it up and shoot yourself; no planning required. (Most men in Bill's place would have given up, why he didn't is a mystery, but he's in the minority).
Dave, we don't disagree on much here, but I think your information on gun violence is a little outdated. Mine is, too, because things have changed a LOT in the last five years since Trump took office and further divided the US and then the pandemic happened. Do some research and make sure your information is up to date and also consider that at least a few of your arguments are easily discredited, while your history of being a combat veteran who owns a gun (probably more than one I'm guessing) and yet hasn't murdered anyone with them is your strongest talking point. I don't know how effective you'd actually be, frankly, armed at an active shooter site because I don't know whether you practice regularly - that's critical to being an effective 'good guy with a gun' which is why only 3% of armed shooters are stopped by armed 'good guys' - but if you do practice *regularly*, like one or more times a week, you might actually be an *effective* 'good guy with a gun' rather than someone who'd get shot before he had his gun out of his pants because he's out of practice and the bad guy isn't.
I'm with you on the 2A, Dave, even though I've never owned a gun. Let's bring rationalism back to the gun debate and fight the extremists just as we do in the culture wars.
A lot of gun owners fancy themselves as having nerves of steel and that they will respond to an armed attacker with cinematic control. They've shot at paper targets at the gun range so they're ready to face an armed attacker or be the heroic Good Guy if the opportunity ever arises.
This is pure conceit.
Law Enforcement officers on SWAT teams go through biweekly training sessions to maintain neural readiness and missing even one session means they will not go out on the next emergency.
In real life people's hands shake uncontrollably, they will even drop their guns, their target practice may as well have never happened.
Yes, the FBI report (I think it's about 10 years old at this point) that noted only 3% of armed men ever disarm a shooter, mass or not, is the one that notes that you need to train regularly, not just occasionally or, take some classes and that's the end of it. I talked to an Iraq/Afghanistan vet about this a few years ago and he noted how you have to train CONSTANTLY to move behind the freeze response, which too often happens when you don't have the 'muscle memory' to spring into action. You need to know *exactly how to move* or you will react, as studies of active shooter situations have demonstrated, that armed civilians more often than not get shot while fumbling to remove the gun from their holster or pants. Which is why a war vet, years or decades removed from combat, may be no more useful in an active shooter situation than a wannabe Rambo.
Arggg! Once again as I've spent ten minutes typing, poof all gone, and I must start over.
Your dismissal of things that sound like they came from the NRA is an example of the problem of partisan (that's not just political parties, but all ideologies) demonization of "other." Some of what they have to say is true. They are also, by far, the best source of firearm safety material and training for civilians. A significant number of people are abandoning the NRA and joining less compromising organizations like the GOA which are all about the political, like the NRA's ILA.
Most people are practical in seeking efficiency or ease. Certainly, it is easier to kill someone or yourself with a firearm. They are not required. We adopted my niece when she was orphaned as a result of my sister-in-law being brutally beaten to death (fists and feet) by her boyfriend. I doubt that gun prohibition would end suicide or violent crimes of passion.
I think that nature vs. nurture is more of a ration than an absolute. Some say that gendered traits are a social construct. There is probably some truth in it. China has banned actors and entertainers who are "sissified" because they think it contributing to the feminization of Chinese men. Having said that, I think that men are inherently more prone to violence than women. Taking tools away won't change that either. It might reduce the number of "weak" boys, bullied by the school's jocks, from taking a gun to school, but as sensationalized as such events are, they are rare. And of course there are other tools https://tinyurl.com/2ps39486
We require training and/or testing to drive a car and I am in favor of training and testing to go out and about with firearms. I am far too liberal to support "need" as a requirement.
The next time everything disappears on you, try hitting Ctrl-Z. Just recently learned that. It sometimes works, not always, may differ on platforms, but good luck. https://www.techwalla.com/articles/how-to-restore-deleted-text
I dismiss some of what you say as NRA propaganda because of the illogic, such as noting that if you got rid of all guns people would still kill each other, or that gun prohibition wouldn't end crimes of passion. You're absolutely right, but as Jon Stewart pointed out, enacting strict DWI laws didn't eliminate drunk driving but it reduced deaths by TWO THIRDS! Now what if we reduced the 40,000 deaths (don't care who pulled the trigger or why) cited in the Pew article by two-thirds? That brings the annual death by gun rate to *13,200*. I'd rather have zero gun deaths than 13k, but I'd much rather have 13k than 40k and likely growing. I'm also in favour of keeping in place our laws prohibiting murder, rape, stealing and child abuse. They haven't eliminated those problems but they've greatly reduced them.
Men will always be more violent than women, but they're *less violent* now thanks to feminism, progressivism, intellectual advancement, and technology. We may never eliminate rape but it went down over 60% before it began rising again in recent years (why, we can't be sure, but I suspect the breakdown of the American body politic and the pandemic making us all a little nuts, literally, although only the ones prone to violence to begin with will likely become *more* violent). And I'll remind you: I have not once called for a ban of *all* guns. I merely note the firm evidence behind the fact that the *proliferation* of guns is directly linked to higher rates of gun violence. I call specifically for *saner* gun laws that don't put them into the hands of every idiot who wants one. I don't worry about people like you, Dave. I don't worry about women either, regardless of how right-wing they are. If veterans or women start suddenly claiming more market share in killing people with guns, I'll start damning them too. Did you know recent studies are finding a strong link between men who commit active shooter killings (that's a better way to put it, actually) and prior history of domestic abuse? That wouldn't have helped your SIL but it would have helped all the women who WERE killed by gun-totin' partners. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/26/domestic-abuse-gun-violence-reveal
So yeah, I favour NOT allowing men with prior domestic abuse violations from owning guns.
Sometimes, dealing with folks who are very pro-2A feels a lot like JK Rowling must feel when she gets excoriated for claiming biology is real. How is it controversial for me to assert that only people who can handle the responsibility should have guns?
Here's the thing, Dave: The presence of guns in the house increases the likelihood that someone's going to die by it, the most common person being the white adult male by his own hand. Suicidal feelings are more often than not impulsive. Someone with a lot of longstanding suicidal feelings will act on them no matter what if they make a considered decision to kill themselves; but most are actually impulsive actions arising from recent events like a fight with a spouse or a lost job or some other traumatic event. This happened to a friend of mine who had a fight with her husband one night and went to bed, and found him dead the next morning. (Suicide by hanging, in the backyard. She found him.) Why the hell Bill (no guns in the house) was so hell-bent on killing himself is beyond all of us, but without a gun in the house most people will think about it, consider their options, but if they don't do it within the first hour they're far less likely to do it at all. With a gun, it's too easy in the heat of the moment to pick it up and shoot yourself; no planning required. (Most men in Bill's place would have given up, why he didn't is a mystery, but he's in the minority).
Dave, we don't disagree on much here, but I think your information on gun violence is a little outdated. Mine is, too, because things have changed a LOT in the last five years since Trump took office and further divided the US and then the pandemic happened. Do some research and make sure your information is up to date and also consider that at least a few of your arguments are easily discredited, while your history of being a combat veteran who owns a gun (probably more than one I'm guessing) and yet hasn't murdered anyone with them is your strongest talking point. I don't know how effective you'd actually be, frankly, armed at an active shooter site because I don't know whether you practice regularly - that's critical to being an effective 'good guy with a gun' which is why only 3% of armed shooters are stopped by armed 'good guys' - but if you do practice *regularly*, like one or more times a week, you might actually be an *effective* 'good guy with a gun' rather than someone who'd get shot before he had his gun out of his pants because he's out of practice and the bad guy isn't.
I'm with you on the 2A, Dave, even though I've never owned a gun. Let's bring rationalism back to the gun debate and fight the extremists just as we do in the culture wars.
A lot of gun owners fancy themselves as having nerves of steel and that they will respond to an armed attacker with cinematic control. They've shot at paper targets at the gun range so they're ready to face an armed attacker or be the heroic Good Guy if the opportunity ever arises.
This is pure conceit.
Law Enforcement officers on SWAT teams go through biweekly training sessions to maintain neural readiness and missing even one session means they will not go out on the next emergency.
In real life people's hands shake uncontrollably, they will even drop their guns, their target practice may as well have never happened.
Yes, the FBI report (I think it's about 10 years old at this point) that noted only 3% of armed men ever disarm a shooter, mass or not, is the one that notes that you need to train regularly, not just occasionally or, take some classes and that's the end of it. I talked to an Iraq/Afghanistan vet about this a few years ago and he noted how you have to train CONSTANTLY to move behind the freeze response, which too often happens when you don't have the 'muscle memory' to spring into action. You need to know *exactly how to move* or you will react, as studies of active shooter situations have demonstrated, that armed civilians more often than not get shot while fumbling to remove the gun from their holster or pants. Which is why a war vet, years or decades removed from combat, may be no more useful in an active shooter situation than a wannabe Rambo.
"Freeze response," thanks, that was the phrase I was struggling to remember.
That was the NRA a quarter century ago