Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

[This Charming Manc]

You seem to not understand the reason why people argue for guns, the reason are mixed. I disagree with them but i do recognised the reasons.

I've picked up somewhere you are a fellow Brit and i will tailor my answer to that assumption. If i've got it wrong i'm sorry.

anyway the reasons;

• Some people think liberals are wrong on everything and will argue against anything liberal thinks is a good idea as a matter of principle - it's a minority but i'm sure some are like that.
• The 2nd amendment links freedom and guns in Americans mind in ways that a brits never is.
• As we don't own guns. Its easy for us to see gun ownership as a privileged which needs a strong valid reason for an exception. As Americans have a stronger history owning guns its more natural them to see it as a right not privilege.
• Individualism is much more prevalent in the american mindset, this extends to defending yourself and your family as an individual right and responsibility. Europeans are much more likely to trust in the police/state to defend our safety.
• In a society where criminals are armed as matter of course its hard to imagine a world where they are not.
• American is a large country with vast open spaces, it not always reasonable to expect the police to be 2 minutes away.
• There is a billion dollar industry who spend vast sums of money persuading politicians and the american public they are at risk if they don't have guns.
• In a country where there are 300,000,000 guns in circulation is scary when someone suggests putting yours down.

Now I don't think any of those arguments are valid, but they are enough to make me understand the position taken my many Americans is not without thought or reason.

I apologise to my american friends for talking about them in the third person, and yes that is how I honestly see things.

Doh, I'm not the one with the deficiency. It's those who can't imagine what the next step could be. The pro-gunners.

This thread is ridiculous from the beginning.

 

[everready]

Pro-gunners don't have the intelligence to realise that all their guns would not disappear over night if gun control laws were passed. This is nonsense. It would take decades of small steps to go from where they are now to say where the UK is now.

Not pro-gunners its pro-freedom.. If Susan had been allowed to defend her family and the patrons the killer would have been stopped dead in his tracks. Put yourself in that same situation with your friends and family celebrating your nine year old's birthday party what would you do? Madmen have walked the face of the earth since Cain and will continue to do so firearms or not.

everready

 

[jsanford108]

What are you testing?

Did you like that cartoon? Was it "An economy of words out of necessity," with some genius artwork added in?

 

[annabenedetti]

Did you like that cartoon? Was it "An economy of words out of necessity," with some genius artwork added in?

It certainly made a pithy point with few words and a pointed caricature, wouldn't you agree? There's a certain audience who'd see that and their immediate reaction would be "hell yeah!"

So I think it works, for the audience it was intended for. Do you?

 

[jsanford108]

It certainly made a pithy point with few words and a pointed caricature, wouldn't you agree? There's a certain audience who'd see that and their immediate reaction would be "hell yeah!"

So I think it works, for the audience it was intended for. Do you?

I agree that it made a pithy point, using few words, obvious caricature, etc. But I do not think that cartoons of opinion are genius or a necessary economy of words.

Sure, I admit, political cartoons are not my thing. I find that most of the time (not all), the points are made using poor taste, false statistics, or used for inciting division (one side will like it, while the other finds it angering). Yes, there are some I find humorous, such as depictions of Mohammad, but as a generality, I do not enjoy them. Just personal opinion.

 

[Rusha]

Doh, I'm not the one with the deficiency.

Glad that I have your word on that. Thanks.

It's those who can't imagine what the next step could be. The pro-gunners.

The next step *could be* ... losing the ability to properly defend your family and yourself from a violent aggressor.

This thread is ridiculous from the beginning.

And yet here you are posting in it ...

 

[This Charming Manc]

I understand the point, but I think the analysis is simplistic.

Murder rates actually a complex issues and I saw the same pattern s few years ago, and had to take that in consideration in my thoughts and arguments.

I saw a few factors that contribute to murder rate, but I think guns is a considerable one. Others are;

• Stability of Government
• Effectiveness of the criminal justice system
• Equity of wealth
• Presence of organised crime
• Presence of Gang culture

I think america is closer to Europe in those other aspects than the countries you are comparing america too. So we should expect murder rates the similar to Europe.

We don't they are vastly different, so the area where I see the vast difference is as regards gun ownership. Thus its the are i'm still willing to argue about it .

I believe you've missed my point here. America's problem with murder isn't because of guns, because every country on the earth has FAR less civilian owned guns that America does, and yet America is FAR from the world's murder capital. There are like 100 countries more dangerous than America wrt murder, and ALL of them have far fewer guns.

Murderers cause murders, guns don't. America's problem with murder, is because America has more murderers per capita living here than do " Australia, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, etc." (Try not to gloat.)

The number of civilian owned guns per capita in America has doubled over the past 50 years, and the murder rate is the same; guns do not murder, nor do guns create murderers. Taking guns away won't take away our murderers, and doubling the number of guns again over the next 50 years isn't going to create more of them either.

 

[annabenedetti]

I agree that it made a pithy point, using few words, obvious caricature, etc. But I do not think that cartoons of opinion are genius or a necessary economy of words.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Of course talent is variable, but there's genius out there. Not everyone can distill an idea down to a few words, and certainly not everyone can convert an idea into artwork. I've seen some really amazing cartoons, and some were were so simply drawn, and yet so eloquent.

Sure, I admit, political cartoons are not my thing. I find that most of the time (not all), the points are made using poor taste, false statistics, or used for inciting division (one side will like it, while the other finds it angering). Yes, there are some I find humorous, such as depictions of Mohammad, but as a generality, I do not enjoy them. Just personal opinion.

Okay, they don't have to be your thing, I'm not saying they should be. But if someone likes to post them, why shouldn't they? Why should they be denigrated for it? It's not like they're not also engaged in discussions, they're doing that too.

 

[jsanford108]

It certainly made a pithy point with few words and a pointed caricature, wouldn't you agree? There's a certain audience who'd see that and their immediate reaction would be "hell yeah!"

So I think it works, for the audience it was intended for. Do you?

For the record, I am not trying to "attack" you in any way; I just think that jgarden uses cartoons way too much. And when you came to defend, I figured that was because you agreed with the cartoon that was posted. Thus, my challenge of seeing if you "liked" an opposing view's ideal cartoon.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I would to, i'm not sure why i came back to TOL

Welcome to the discussion. Would you like to engage in a civil discussion?

Obviously, you can infer that my position is pro-gun. I would very much enjoy an open, honest, and rational discussion about gun control.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Of course talent is variable, but there's genius out there. Not everyone can distill an idea down to a few words, and certainly not everyone can convert an idea into artwork. I've seen some really amazing cartoons, and some were were so simply drawn, and yet so eloquent.

See, that is the beauty of opinion. I may not like the cartoons, but I will not ever try and take away your right to enjoy it. Even if I disagree with the cartoon's implications, false claims, etc. That is a freedom that should be enjoyed the world over. (Not trying to tie this in to the conversation topic, just pointing out that I am perfectly happy if you disagree on this topic).

Okay, they don't have to be your thing, I'm not saying they should be. But if someone likes to post them, why shouldn't they? Why should they be denigrated for it? It's not like they're not also engaged in discussions, they're doing that too.

jgarden has not contributed to the conversation. No matter what thread he (assuming male) shows up in, he always posts a cartoon, usually filled with false claims, and give the most basic, benign, false claim that could be found on any CNN report.

He never engages in conversations. Thus, patrick jane and I enjoying the joke that is jgarden's comments.

 

[This Charming Manc]

More seriously, time is an issue. I think i will be limited to occasional observations and points.

However my base position is;

• Mass gun ownership a serious inflates the numbers american killed every year compared to other similar democracies
• The freedoms the 2nd amendment seeks protect are enjoyed my many countries that don't have american guns laws or consequences
• Good universal gun legislation is effective in keeping weapons away from criminals
• Localised ordinances which don't deal with supply of weapons are ineffective
• A military grade weapons and handguns are primarily designed to kill people and should be in the hands of the military and law enforcement.
• Within an american situation there is a case for single shot rifles and shotguns for hunting and defence of isolated houses and communities
• With a starting point of 3,000,000,000 guns in circulation effective gun control will be difficult and slow process within the US.

Welcome to the discussion. Would you like to engage in a civil discussion?

Obviously, you can infer that my position is pro-gun. I would very much enjoy an open, honest, and rational discussion about gun control.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

I would to, i'm not sure why i came back to TOL

Great. Thus far in this thread, you are the only strict gun control advocate who seems to consider facts. So, would you rather me address your other posts? Or would you prefer to make your case in a comment directed at me, so that way we can progress with a fresh start?

 

[jgarden]

Any society that has to be constantly looking over its shoulder for fear that some disturbed "shooter" will conduct yet another massacre will eventually succumb to "combat fatigue!"

 

[musterion]

There goes Manc, believing in the fairy tale of the perfectibility of Man.

 

[jgarden]

... jgarden has not contributed to the conversation. No matter what thread he (assuming male) shows up in, he always posts a cartoon, usually filled with false claims, and give the most basic, benign, false claim that could be found on any CNN report.

He never engages in conversations. Thus, patrick jane and I enjoying the joke that is jgarden's comments.

:angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob:

1. With all due respect, I'm past that stage in life where I need to seek "patrick jane's" and "jsanford108's" approval!

2. Unlike "patrick jane" and other conservatives in this forum, I have not resorted to personal name-calling (jgarbage, Cartoon Boy) - nor have I reported it!

3. Most of "patrick jane's" posts are one liners of 10 words or less - there is no effort to engage in a meaningful dialogue, no research, no references, just a repetition of the same responses over and over.

4. If one takes the time to review my posts, they are all individualized - they are not mindless repeats!

5. "Patrick jane" has also stated that he can't be bothered reading the long responses of those with which he happens to disagree. the cartoons, with which he now finds fault, should help compensate for his short attention span!

6. Given some of the insults, name-calling, uninformed opinions and off topic posts coming from the conservative side, I find it "revealing" that they are taking such offense at a few cartoons - am I not being "politically correct?"

:angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob: :angrymob:

 

[This Charming Manc]

Not at all, the only fairy tails round here are the ones you tell yourself.

I'm fully aware of the fallen nature of man, I just happen top believe fallen man is less dangerous without guns.

You seem to be intent of defending systems which gives and imprefectable(??) man the maximum destructive power possible.

There goes Manc, believing in the fairy tale of the perfectibility of Man.

 

[musterion]

Not at all, the only fairy tails round here are the ones you tell yourself.

I'm fully aware of the fallen nature of man, I just happen top believe fallen man is less dangerous without guns.

So instead of taking away guns from everyone, the vast majority of whom have no intention of ever hurting anyone and don't, we will continue to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals who managed to get a hold of guns despite Democrat gun laws.

Now go solve your random stabbing, bucket bomb and acid tossing problems before you try to fix ours.

 

[jsanford108]

More seriously, time is an issue. I think i will be limited to occasional observations and points.

However my base position is;

• Mass gun ownership a serious inflates the numbers american killed every year compared to other similar democracies
• The freedoms the 2nd amendment seeks protect are enjoyed my many countries that don't have american guns laws or consequences
• Good universal gun legislation is effective in keeping weapons away from criminals
• Localised ordinances which don't deal with supply of weapons are ineffective
• A military grade weapons and handguns are primarily designed to kill people and should be in the hands of the military and law enforcement.
• Within an american situation there is a case for single shot rifles and shotguns for hunting and defence of isolated houses and communities
• With a starting point of 3,000,000,000 guns in circulation effective gun control will be difficult and slow process within the US.

Great post. I am very excited to have this discussion with someone other than the usual. So let us dive into discussion. No rush on making responses; I understand that most of us have lives outside of TOL.

Here is base position:

The US is one of the few countries in the world that have an assured right to gun ownership. This right was formed as a means of resisting oppressive governments, even if it was our own.

The very wording of the second amendment clearly states that it is a personal right to own a gun. This is for an individual's right to defend their life and freedoms. This right can be taken away if an individual has lost competence, such as being a criminal, psychologically unfit, etc.

All statistical evidence points to gun being mere tools, which prevent more crimes than for crime itself.

People are the source of evil intent, not guns. Guns do not kill people. They are tools used by evil people for evil intent; the same can be said of cars, knives, bats, etc. If a criminal cannot get a gun legally, they obtain one illegally; if the criminal cannot get a gun illegally, then they will use some other object to achieve their malicious intent.

Rebuttal to your points:

Mass gun ownership a serious inflates the numbers american killed every year compared to other similar democracies

Statistically, more people will inevitably mean more deaths, whether guns are present or not.

Now, I can assume you mean more deaths as a result of gun use. That can be argued. Sure, when comparing Australia, UK, Canada, and US, then yes, the US has more gun related deaths. But that makes sense, since it is the only one with the assurance of gun liberty. It is also the one with the highest population. As I pointed out before, more people equates into more deaths. The US is also higher in automobile accidents. Again, more people equals more deaths. I would say that philosophically, it stands for you to prove that guns are the directly responsible for the higher number of deaths, rather than the US having more criminals.

The freedoms the 2nd amendment seeks protect are enjoyed my many countries that don't have american guns laws or consequences

Which countries have such laws? The closest in guaranteed right is Mexico and Guatemala; both of which have much worse issues plaguing the countries than gun law.

Need evidence of this? http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/culture-politics-network/best-countries-gun-owners/ While not the most unbiased source, it is clearly aimed at pro-gun ideals. The difference between each country and the US is striking, as most, while allowing guns, do not consider it a right and can easily be revoked by the Governments.

Good universal gun legislation is effective in keeping weapons away from criminals

Do you have any facts and statistics to support this posit?

Localised ordinances which don't deal with supply of weapons are ineffective

In general, I agree.

A military grade weapons and handguns are primarily designed to kill people and should be in the hands of the military and law enforcement.

Agreed, except for handguns, as there is no difference in handguns, only in ammunition. And that is why that military grade weapons are illegal to non-military or law enforcement individuals.

Within an american situation there is a case for single shot rifles and shotguns for hunting and defence of isolated houses and communities

Can you make this case?

What happens when there are multiple intruders? What happens when the criminals invading one's home have illegal arms? What happens if the government comes to exterminate the citizens? This has happened before.

With a starting point of 3,000,000,000 guns in circulation effective gun control will be difficult and slow process within the US

What is "gun control?"

 

[This Charming Manc]

So instead of taking away guns from everyone, the vast majority of whom have no intention of ever hurting anyone and don't, we will continue to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals who managed to get a hold of guns despite Democrat gun laws.

Now go solve your random stabbing, bucket bomb and acid tossing problems before you try to fix ours.