Originally Posted by Weave

Wow, Im shocked, shocked that a convicted felon was able to get a firearm...how unusual...of course there is no evidence at all that he acquired the firearm at a gun show, most likely he got it from another criminal who of course violated the law selling it to him.

Laws banning firearms will be about as effective as banning drugs for pretty much the same reasons. Given the success of criminal organizations have had at manufacturing forbidden recreational pharmaceuticals, I am certain they will have no trouble branching out into firearms and ammunition since they are continually improving the manufacture of submarines. It might be simpler for them to infiltrate the military of various governments and obtain firearms that way. It is very likely people will simply deal with the black market to obtain what they want in order to defend themselves.

A magazine ban will be useless because 30 round magazines are already being produced by 3-D printing. The prices for this technology are within the realm of purchase by individuals.

Originally Posted by Weave

And since you are so into showing irresponsible gun owners here is a good case of why guns are needed...
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...ntruder/nTm7s/

These kind of stories are very common but don't make the front page because it doesn't fit the agenda of the mainstream media. Women will be at a significant disadvantage in these kind of confrontations. So much for the liberals empowering women.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Maybe or maybe not.
Besides which "doing something about gun violence" isn't a uniform response:
Hundreds of Texas, Ohio teachers flock to gun training

That is the desensitized, counter-productive, self-defeating response; the response of fear and more violence.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

No, he said he (until recently) "worked with" which as I am sure he well knows is a lot different than being a soldier.

But then not a day goes by that I don't work directly with and speak with current and former members of the US military.

Sounds just like M&L's experience.

Nam stories can make for an okay historical record, these stories also happened a full 2 and a half turnings ago. That military is not this military just like that time is not this time.

And it is self-defeating to listen only to the stories of the present and neglect history and the wisdom of elders. It is especially self-defeating to forget the lessons of our greatest quagmire and most foolish military adventure, which should have taught us not to make war and empire no more; but didn't, thanks to the forgetfulness by Xers of the wisdom of boomer and silent experience.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sounds just like M&L's experience.

Indeed, but it sounds like I need to make this a bit more clear to you; my experience with the military says he is full of shit. That is unless you believe that there are legions of active duty and National Guard soliders (many of them gun owners themselves) who are willing to shoot at their own neighbors and their own families in enforcement of a gun ban... That certainly sounds like what you believe and you are certainly welcome to believe it. I can say with total certainty that I will never have to worry about soldiers coming to my house to disarm me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And it is self-defeating to listen only to the stories of the present and neglect history and the wisdom of elders. It is especially self-defeating to forget the lessons of our greatest quagmire and most foolish military adventure, which should have taught us not to make war and empire no more; but didn't, thanks to the forgetfulness by Xers of the wisdom of boomer and silent experience.

Oh I absolutely listen to the stories. I simply don't indulge the hubris that comes along with them, or more accurately, the hubris that comes along with your particular generation.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

...unless you believe that there are legions of active duty and National Guard soliders (many of them gun owners themselves) who are willing to shoot at their own neighbors and their own families in enforcement of a gun ban...

That's nothing particularly new. Hence the hundreds-year-old tactic of using forces from area A to occupy area B. I'm sure there are indeed legions of active duty and National Guard soldiers, themselves from another part of the country, who would be very willing to shoot at the terrorists, criminals, and crazies who are infesting your part of the country. And the best part is: none of them know which one of those subgroups you are. Heck, they probably couldn't tell your house from your neighbor's house without a map, or you from the kid who bags your groceries without their chain of command providing a handy list.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That's nothing particularly new. Hence the hundreds-year-old tactic of using forces from area A to occupy area B. I'm sure there are indeed legions of active duty and National Guard soldiers, themselves from another part of the country, who would be very willing to shoot at the terrorists, criminals, and crazies who are infesting your part of the country. And the best part is: none of them know which one of those subgroups you are. Heck, they probably couldn't tell your house from your neighbor's house without a map, or you from the kid who bags your groceries without their chain of command providing a handy list.

Exactly, that's one reason the Austro-Hungarian Empire lasted for so long... that and the secret police.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Rani

Trying to prevent further massacres by being ready to defend oneself and others is a very sensitized response.

No, extremely desensitized. Thinking that guns are a way to defend oneself is desensitized and foolhardy. Guns are far more likely to be used in quarrels and massacres than in defense. The sensitive response is to de-escalate the domestic arms race and take more guns off the streets (not by violent confiscation though).

However, I'm not sure I am opposed to trained, paid and/or government security guards in places that want them.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Indeed, but it sounds like I need to make this a bit more clear to you; my experience with the military says he is full of shit.

You can say that, and he would disagree.

That is unless you believe that there are legions of active duty and National Guard soldiers (many of them gun owners themselves) who are willing to shoot at their own neighbors and their own families in enforcement of a gun ban... That certainly sounds like what you believe and you are certainly welcome to believe it. I can say with total certainty that I will never have to worry about soldiers coming to my house to disarm me.

I have explicitly stated a number of times that I am not in favor of soldiers enforcing a gun ban by shooting at their neighbors; you missed that I guess. You need not worry, unless you are some kind of a nut like the guy in the video who threatens to kill people randomly if any gun laws are passed, and is organizing an armed rebellion.

Oh I absolutely listen to the stories. I simply don't indulge the hubris that comes along with them, or more accurately, the hubris that comes along with your particular generation.

But you are fine with the hubris of your own. I'd rather we each work to trim a little of our hubris.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That's nothing particularly new. Hence the hundreds-year-old tactic of using forces from area A to occupy area B. I'm sure there are indeed legions of active duty and National Guard soldiers, themselves from another part of the country, who would be very willing to shoot at the terrorists, criminals, and crazies who are infesting your part of the country. And the best part is: none of them know which one of those subgroups you are. Heck, they probably couldn't tell your house from your neighbor's house without a map, or you from the kid who bags your groceries without their chain of command providing a handy list.

Oh there would be some willing to go to those lengths for sure, but not all and generally speaking very few from the National Guard.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You can say that, and he would disagree.

And he is welcome to.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have explicitly stated a number of times that I am not in favor of soldiers enforcing a gun ban by shooting at their neighbors; you missed that I guess. You need not worry, unless you are some kind of a nut like the guy in the video who threatens to kill people randomly if any gun laws are passed, and is organizing an armed rebellion.

Actually what you have explicitly stated a number of times is that you consider executing those whom you imagine are "breaking the law" to be a-okay and have shown that you have a really broad interpretation of what "breaking the law" means.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But you are fine with the hubris of your own. I'd rather we each work to trim a little of our hubris.

You first.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Actually what you have explicitly stated a number of times is that you consider executing those whom you imagine are "breaking the law" to be a-okay and have shown that you have a really broad interpretation of what "breaking the law" means.

I'm against capital punishment. But if the police need to enforce the law, and they encounter resistance, they have the right to defend themselves. I don't have a broad interpretation of what "breaking the law" means. That is up to the courts anyway.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm against capital punishment. But if the police need to enforce the law, and they encounter resistance, they have the right to defend themselves. I don't have a broad interpretation of what "breaking the law" means. That is up to the courts anyway.

And civilians have the right to defend themselves.

Of course it's easy to say you are against capital punishment but when you make consistent statements calling for police to storm houses and kill... One has to question what your beliefs actually are. More questions arise when you appear to have little knowledge of what the laws even are.

So yeah, your routine off-with-his-head remarks do ring as pretty hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Galen

Laws banning firearms will be about as effective as banning drugs for pretty much the same reasons. Given the success of criminal organizations have had at manufacturing forbidden recreational pharmaceuticals, I am certain they will have no trouble branching out into firearms and ammunition since they are continually improving the manufacture of submarines. It might be simpler for them to infiltrate the military of various governments and obtain firearms that way. It is very likely people will simply deal with the black market to obtain what they want in order to defend themselves.

A magazine ban will be useless because 30 round magazines are already being produced by 3-D printing. The prices for this technology are within the realm of purchase by individuals.

The traffickers in illegal weaponry will also become pariahs just as are drug traffickers. Criminals can be clever.

Massacre clips are easy to produce. Getting caught with one will be good for quick arrest.

These kind of stories are very common but don't make the front page because it doesn't fit the agenda of the mainstream media. Women will be at a significant disadvantage in these kind of confrontations. So much for the liberals empowering women.

Anyone with a conscience is at a disadvantage in dealing with a committed criminal who is as "free" from the restraint of conscience. So maybe we need to change many of our ways so that we aren't so crudely materialistic and that our hedonism isn't so destructive.

Originally Posted by The Rani

No kind of "thinking" is desensitized.
Being desensitized has to do with feelings. It describes people who lack emotional responses to pain and suffering.
A teacher who wants to carry a gun to prevent a nut from killing his/her students has very strong emotional reactions to pain and suffering.

Such a teacher is desensitized. That means (s)he doesn't care (feel) enough to think the issue through, to know that that is not the answer. Simply reacting to violence in fear and more violence (carrying a gun is violent) is not being sensitive to what has happened. Sensitive feeling is not emotional reaction.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

And civilians have the right to defend themselves.

Such "rights" are determined by the laws in particular states and nations, and are always restricted.

Of course it's easy to say you are against capital punishment but when you make consistent statements calling for police to storm houses and kill... One has to question what your beliefs actually are. More questions arise when you appear to have little knowledge of what the laws even are.

So yeah, your routine off-with-his-head remarks do ring as pretty hypocritical.

I might be inaccurate or unsure of what the laws are, and I implied as such. But I make no such "routine/consistent" remarks. You have no basis to draw conclusions from my response to the idiot who made public threats to randomly kill people and organize an armed uprising. That you continue to do so, certainly raises questions about you. Are you going to do what he did?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Call a cop a "pig", and you go unmolested.

But once upon a time, call a cop a "pig" and the result would have been a ruptured spleen, courtesy of said cop's nightstick - and in those bad old days "mug" was a noun denoting something you poured coffee into, not a verb denoting something that could happen to you if you walked down the "wrong" street at the "wrong" hour; and "crack" was something on the Liberty Bell, not something certain people smoked.

And I'd like to ask all of these anti-gun effeminists this: How did O.J. Simpson manage to off his ex-wife and her boyfriend? He didn't even need one round - let alone 30.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The traffickers in illegal weaponry will also become pariahs just as are drug traffickers. Criminals can be clever.

They are such pariahs that their customers are making them very wealthy. As I investigate further it becomes clear that respectable bankers appear to have no problems interacting with them as well. Government officials such as customs agents don't seem to be avoiding them and governments are involved despite their public statements to the contrary. These pariahs appear to be getting along just fine.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Massacre clips are easy to produce. Getting caught with one will be good for quick arrest.

The United States has a prison population that dwarfs what are normally considered very tyrannical governments which suggests that, contrary to conventional wisdom, we have one as well. From all of the available the imprisonment strategy hasn't worked out all that well with drugs so how well. It is reasonable to expect that such a strategy will be about equally as effective with this particular prohibition.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Anyone with a conscience is at a disadvantage in dealing with a committed criminal who is as "free" from the restraint of conscience. So maybe we need to change many of our ways so that we aren't so crudely materialistic and that our hedonism isn't so destructive.

Given the differences in size between that lady and her assailant, it is unlikely she would have survived that confrontation without a firearm. Her only mistake in that situation was using a wimpy 38 and having only six shots. If there had been more than one assailant there, she would be dead because it took six shots to stop the attacker and she hit five out of six times, an excellent hit ratio under such stressful conditions. This is why having ten or more rounds in a magazine is a good idea, so that you have a chance when there are multiple attackers. Come to think of it, there are many Korean business owners who found firearms with large magazines very helpful in saving their livelihoods and their lives during the LA riots in 1992.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Such a teacher is desensitized. That means (s)he doesn't care (feel) enough to think the issue through, to know that that is not the answer. Simply reacting to violence in fear and more violence (carrying a gun is violent) is not being sensitive to what has happened. Sensitive feeling is not emotional reaction.

Eric, you're playing in the Rani's sandbox. I tend to think she may have more insight on this than you do.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But once upon a time, call a cop a "pig" and the result would have been a ruptured spleen, courtesy of said cop's nightstick - and in those bad old days "mug" was a noun denoting something you poured coffee into, not a verb denoting something that could happen to you if you walked down the "wrong" street at the "wrong" hour; and "crack" was something on the Liberty Bell, not something certain people smoked.

And I'd like to ask all of these anti-gun effeminists this: How did O.J. Simpson manage to off his ex-wife and her boyfriend? He didn't even need one round - let alone 30.

Somewhere buried in this comment, there is a point, but I missed it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Somewhere buried in this comment, there is a point, but I missed it.

Perhaps the point was that I liked liberals a lot better before they developed this blanket disdain for the use of force, in any context (starting about 45 years ago).

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Perhaps the point was that I liked liberals a lot better before they developed this blanket disdain for the use of force, in any context (starting about 45 years ago).

Gee, maybe if cops would go back to being the friendly guy in blue walking his beat rather than the thugs they are today they would not get called pigs.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Oh there would be some willing to go to those lengths for sure, but not all and generally speaking very few from the National Guard.

It's nice that you think so. But trust me -- the Utah National Guard in Pennsylvania would be a foreign occupying force. Nor does it stretch the imagination in the slightest to envision how Alabama and Mississippi National Guardsmen would behave if they were called into California to "suppress an insurrection of gangbangers".

There are, indeed, sure to be at least a handful of individuals in the military with the capacity to empathize with those their superiors declare (with reason) to be 'enemy'. There always are. But that's one reason why trigger-pullers are sought among the ranks of teenagers and held and indoctrinated in such an insulated manner. It works.

Originally Posted by Odin

Gee, maybe if cops would go back to being the friendly guy in blue walking his beat rather than the thugs they are today they would not get called pigs.

Ask a pair of men who wanted to share a romantic walk in the park back in those days just how friendly that guy in blue was, walking his beat. I bet you wouldn't be really terribly surprised at all.

The enforcement organs have always engaged in the kind of stuff you dislike -- because they have always been able to get away with it. It's just that these days, the class of their victims is somewhat broader than it used to be. And the firepower they wield rather a lot greater.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I repeat ... DIMINISHED EMOTIONAL RESPONSIVENESS.

And psychologists like Jung have repeatedly pointed out that emotion is not feeling. It is automatic response. A fearful, automatic response such as arming yourself is not a sensitive response at all. A sensitive response is to wake up from this madness and domestic arms race. It is to see that more guns mean more violence. It is to see that people are being killed, and that means we need to control guns. Murder is already against the law, but there are also other things that are needed, and Obama is taking the lead on those things too. Bravo.