The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[Huckleberry]

If the second amendment is to be interpreted as stated in the video then you must be content to live with punishing a shooter and living with the death toll for you will only be able to prevent mass shootings on those very rare occasions where a person with the right training happens to be in the right place at the right time.

I think we can and should do better as a society.

You're certainly free to have and hold your own opinion but if you're arguing for abolishing the 2nd amendment then you should feel comfortable saying so. You seem to here, but then it's rather vague.

Further, I think the video shows the "interpretation" is pretty ironclad. Unless you're counting nonsensical "interpretations" here, that should settle the matter.

 

[Yorzhik]

My analogy remains accurate: there are limits on rights.

Maybe it could be demonstrated if you can find a limit on the right to free speech by another analogy. As Rothbard showed you, the yelling fire in a theater analogy doesn't show a limit on the right to free speech.

But, really, you are so prideful and lazy that you couldn't possibly think hard enough to figure that out. You are a good example of a clown, which leads one to wonder why anyone would care about anything you say.

 

[Nick M]

You are a good example of a clown, which leads one to wonder why anyone would care about anything you say.

I mostly don't care. I read some of his posts, ironically, in the gun thread.

 

[Nick M]

One of these is not like the other.

Which one? The one with our without armed conflict?

This thread is not about war.

No, you said less firearms would be less violence. I simply showed that isn't the case. And it was easy. There were no murders before the cartridge? Did Cain do a drive by shooting?

What happens in a combat zone in no way resembles urban America.

From what I can see in Saint Louis, that isn't so, and is another misdirection.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Maybe it could be demonstrated if you can find a limit on the right to free speech by another analogy. As Rothbard showed you, the yelling fire in a theater analogy doesn't show a limit on the right to free speech.

But, really, you are so prideful and lazy that you couldn't possibly think hard enough to figure that out. You are a good example of a clown, which leads one to wonder why anyone would care about anything you say.

It only takes one example and that example has been given. The president is established.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Which one? The one with our without armed conflict?



No, you said less firearms would be less violence. I simply showed that isn't the case. And it was easy. There were no murders before the cartridge? Did Cain do a drive by shooting?



From what I can see in Saint Louis, that isn't so, and is another misdirection.

You didn't show much of anything. A war zone and St. Louis don't resemble each other at all. Spend some time talking to a combat vet and see what he has to say about it.

 

[Stripe]

I'm not on board with all of it, but how is it senseless to mandate a course in the safe use of a potentially lethal instrument?

I did not say it was.

In that light, training, certification and renewal make perfect sense to me.

Regulations might very well be justified. They are not justified by comparing guns to cars. Rules are justified if their implementation and enforcement is reasonable compared with the potential benefits.

Which regulations?

Probably all of them. Certainly all the ones liberals are demanding today. The problem stems from the reason they were promulgated to the message they put across. The reason they are made is a knee-jerk reaction to specific instances of violence, ignoring the overall problem and implementing worthless measures. What they teach is that people cannot be trusted or taught.

by your logic, it was designed to be picked up by an orangutan and used to shoot coconuts because it wasn't designed to distinguish

:rotfl:

:mock: Moon King.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Maybe it could be demonstrated if you can find a limit on the right to free speech by another analogy. As Rothbard showed you, the yelling fire in a theater analogy doesn't show a limit on the right to free speech.

Not the exact same thing as what you are talking about I suppose, but in terms of of property rights there are certainly limits. For example you can't let your yard get overgrown by weeds and look ugly because it devalues your neighbor's property value.

This is basically true across all rights: your rights end when you infringe on those of another law-abiding citizen's

 

[moparguy]

Many people think that having more guns in public is a good thing, that if more people were armed, those with bad intentions would be less likely to act. In theory, it sounds great. The reality of the situation is something altogether different.

Here is an article:
 Combat Vets Destroy the NRA’s Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

written by people who routinely use guns as part of their job. It raises some very important points about what happens to people when they are actually in a shoot out. Its very easy to shoot a paper target, but when that target is shooting back, and you know it, everything changes.

A few quotes:

" Retired Army Sargeant Rafael Noboa y Rivera, who led a combat team in Iraq, says that most soldiers only function effectively after they’ve been exposed to fire a number a times. “I think there’s this fantasy world of gunplay in the movies, but it doesn’t really happen that way,” he says. "

 Blair’s trainees run through a number of real-world scenarios—“force on force training” that’s designed to “inoculate” officers against the problems people naturally encounter in high-stress situations. That stress response, says Blair, includes “tunnel vision, audio exclusion and time dilation,” and one would expect people who weren’t trained in these situations to “freeze up or not know what to do, and to have difficulty performing actions correctly.”


 Weekend-long tactical training courses for civilians are growing in popularity. But these courses offer only a shadow of what’s required, says David Chipman, a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Chipman, who spent several years on the agency’s SWAT team, says, “Training for a potentially deadly encounter meant, at a minimum, qualifying four times a year throughout my 25-year career. And this wasn’t just shooting paper—it meant doing extensive tactical exercises. And when I was on the SWAT team we had to undergo monthly tactical training.”

It has long been my contention that people should not carry in public. It creates more problems than it solves. The 2nd amendment says that as part of a well regulated militia... What is a well regulated militia?

If you're going to carry in public, you had better have the training required to use your gun in a morally correct way in the hugely stressful and extremely time-constrained conditions that usually occur when you need to use them.

If your training hasn't involved you being shaky, scared, ramped up with adrenaline, in the crash after adrenaline has worn off, and making really hard life-changing decisions under the worst conceivable conditions ... eh ... don't carry.

Thankfully, those directly on scene have one HUGE advantage; they're there when the thing starts to happen, and thus know far better what's what and who's who than those who come later, even just a few seconds later.

 

[rexlunae]

:rotfl:

:mock: Moon King.

Admit it. You laugh every time you think of it.

 

[Granite]

You're certainly free to have and hold your own opinion but if you're arguing for abolishing the 2nd amendment then you should feel comfortable saying so. You seem to here, but then it's rather vague.

Further, I think the video shows the "interpretation" is pretty ironclad. Unless you're counting nonsensical "interpretations" here, that should settle the matter.

Absolutely no one here has argued for the 2nd Amendment's abolition, but some of you guys confuse sensibility with banishing firearms altogether. You don't seem capable of distinguishing between sense and prohibition.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You're certainly free to have and hold your own opinion but if you're arguing for abolishing the 2nd amendment then you should feel comfortable saying so. You seem to here, but then it's rather vague.

Further, I think the video shows the "interpretation" is pretty ironclad. Unless you're counting nonsensical "interpretations" here, that should settle the matter.

I haven't argued for abolishing the second amendment. More and more, people are complaining that guns are in the hands of those who should not posses them for any number of reasons: mental health issues, domestic abuse crimes or convicted felons. People are screaming to do something to get the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them but when somebody actually suggests doing something that has a chance at doing that and making sure that those who do have guns are qualified to know when and how to use them, they get lambasted for trying to abolish the second amendment.

 

[Stripe]

Absolutely no one here has argued for the 2nd Amendment's abolition, but some of you guys confuse sensibility with banishing firearms altogether. You don't seem capable of distinguishing between sense and prohibition.

Apart from the people who have advocated sensible legislation that has a shot at reducing crime, as opposed to the liberal agenda of just making rules for the heck of it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Apart from the people who have advocated sensible legislation that has a shot at reducing crime, as opposed to the liberal agenda of just making rules for the heck of it.

There is no such thing as "sensible legislation that has a shot at reducing crime." Criminals do not care about the law. It does not matter how many laws you put in place prohibiting something, they simply do not care.

Laws do not and can not prevent crime, they can only punish crime. This is even true of God's laws which is why Jesus came to save us from judgment under the law.

 

[Town Heretic]

I did not say it was.

Well, regulating them in the same fashion does where the regulations match up and one of the proposed regulations, the instructional bit, seemed like a good idea to me. Now if you mean overall, sure.

Regulations might very well be justified. They are not justified by comparing guns to cars. Rules are justified if their implementation and enforcement is reasonable compared with the potential benefits.

Okay. I don't have a problem with that.

Probably all of them.

I probably disagree with you then.

They don't let you have guns where you live, do they. lain:

Certainly all the ones liberals are demanding today.

I'd have to see specifics. If Stalin advocated for penicillin it wouldn't impact my thinking on the drug.

The problem stems from the reason they were promulgated to the message they put across.

Ultimately though, either an idea is a good one or it's rubbish. Some of those on the poster were rubbish and a couple seemed like objectively good ideas. If the point is to make responsible ownership of guns safer then, as a gun owner, I'm for it. Doesn't matter to me if Bernie Sanders or Sarah Palin comes up with the notion and it shouldn't to anyone else.

Gun safety courses? Absolutely a good idea. I don't want someone handling a boat without an understanding of how to do it safely. To have a lesser standard for a lethal instrument is insane.

The reason they are made is a knee-jerk reaction to specific instances of violence, ignoring the overall problem and implementing worthless measures. What they teach is that people cannot be trusted or taught.

Like I said, it's an idea to idea examination. Toss the bath water, but keep the baby. And that's where we need to rise above the partisan noise and make progress that makes sense and benefits everyone involved.

 

[chair]

it was a response to your statement that guns are designed to kill
guns are not designed to kill
they're designed to fire bullets
where you choose to have those bullets go is up to you

This is utter nonsense. When I handle a weapon, I hope and know that it was designed to kill. That is what they are for. The " I need a gun for self defense" argument is based on that.

 

[ok doser]

... it was designed to kill. That is what they are for...

then mine must be defective :idunno:

 

[Granite]

Has Stripe ever even stepped foot on American soil before? I wonder where he gets his expertise.

 

[Stripe]

Good laws

Good laws

If the point is to make responsible ownership of guns safer then, as a gun owner, I'm for it.

No rule ever makes anything safer.

What the rule does is to teach people.

Doesn't matter to me if Bernie Sanders or Sarah Palin comes up with the notion and it shouldn't to anyone else.

Or a right-wing politician like Huckabee. :up:

Gun safety courses? Absolutely a good idea. I don't want someone handling a boat without an understanding of how to do it safely. To have a lesser standard for a lethal instrument is insane.

Promoting understanding and safety is great. :thumb:

However, there has to be consideration over what is the best means to achieve that end. Making regulations — demanding that people go through a course — might create a spike in understanding, but there is good reason to believe that it would only be that — a temporary gain — before the notion that the safety issue has been "taken care of" creates apathy toward genuine learning.

People learn through rules via the fundamentals of what is promulgated: By that I mean a regulation that says you have to pass a test before you can use a gun teaches people they have to answer questions correctly and pay a fee before they will be accepted under the law.

This creates animosity toward the law, because there are those who will not meet its standards and there are those to whom the test would be childish.

A fundamental law, such as the death penalty for murder — along with its swift and public execution — teaches people that they must be good, while proper restitution and compensation laws teach that mistakes must also be accounted for. We do not have those. We have a myriad of regulations that change when we cross state or national lines that only encourage people to give up their right to self-defense.

The key is that adding to the regulations — they have already been shown ineffective — will only exacerbate the problems. The answer is to redact the fluff and implement good, foundational laws.

 

[Stripe]

Ah, the evolutionary argument of "you haven't been somewhere, therefore you are wrong" rears its stupid head.

Has Stripe ever even stepped foot on American soil before? I wonder where he gets his expertise.

Has Granite ever offered a useful post? Thought not.

Step out from behind your Plasticine wall and face those you fear like a man, ya great poofter.