The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[Town Heretic]

...generally speaking, people have poor character and ill intent.

Can't agree with you. If most people were the way you see them the world would be a pyre. But it only takes a few insects, as the song goes, to damage a lot of grain.

Thus should not rely on a test as the foundation of gun safety.

It's not about relying. I never suggested it. What I have said and what is, again, demonstrably true, is that being taught how to safely handle a gun will have an impact on gun safety for all of us, just as being taught how to safely operate an automobile or boat positively impacts safety on the roads and rivers, respectively.

Who would you tend to trust more behind the wheel; a 15-year-old who grew up on a farm, or a city kid who had passed a test?

The kid who passed a driving test that included actually being observed behind the wheel and understanding how to interact with traffic, without knowing more. Else, it doesn't impact my point about our being safer and the practice, licensing and training being a sound idea.

 

[Yorzhik]

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

"The president is established" is probably your biggest admission on TOL ever. :darwinsm:

The only analogy you gave was wrong, and you didn't provide an example. So being the nice guy I am, I'll just give you the answer: Everyone has the right to defend themselves, whether they've been trained by the state or not. What we find, in every case, is that the state becomes more and more onerous with its requirements because it is interested in lording it over the people, not keeping them safe (apart from the analogy of beef cows being kept safe for the slaughter). So in the context of this thread, since the right to defend one's own life is absolute, one has a right to use a gun to even the field against a stronger attacker regardless of the rules the state may impose.

 

[CabinetMaker]

"The president is established" is probably your biggest admission on TOL ever. :darwinsm:

It only takes one examp,e to establish the precident and that has been accomplished with yelling fire in a theater. There are other examples. For instance, hate speech is not protected speech. Inciting people to riot is not protected speech.

The only analogy you gave was wrong, and you didn't provide an example. So being the nice guy I am, I'll just give you the answer: Everyone has the right to defend themselves, whether they've been trained by the state or not. What we find, in every case, is that the state becomes more and more onerous with its requirements because it is interested in lording it over the people, not keeping them safe (apart from the analogy of beef cows being kept safe for the slaughter). So in the context of this thread, since the right to defend one's own life is absolute, one has a right to use a gun to even the field against a stronger attacker regardless of the rules the state may impose.

what you say is false. For instance, convicted felons are not allow we'd to own or handle guns. People with restraining orders against them are not allowed to own or handle guns. Quite obviously the right to defend yourself with a gun is not absolute.

Note also that the right to keep and bear arms does not automatically covey the right to use them. See post 239.

As I have said, the precident has been established. We can, and do, limit peoples rights.

 

[Stripe]

If most people were the way you see them the world would be a pyre.

Well, we have rampant homosexuality, end-of-the world freaks demanding money for their nonsense and millions of babies murdered every year.

You tell me.

It's not about relying. I never suggested it. What I have said and what is, again, demonstrably true, is that being taught how to safely handle a gun will have an impact on gun safety for all of us, just as being taught how to safely operate an automobile or boat positively impacts safety on the roads and rivers, respectively.

Via a test.

Tests do not achieve all this stuff.

The kid who passed a driving test that included actually being observed behind the wheel and understanding how to interact with traffic, without knowing more. Else, it doesn't impact my point about our being safer and the practice, licensing and training being a sound idea.

A simple answer shows my point. Obviously a test does nothing to guarantee safety behind the wheel.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, we have rampant homosexuality, end-of-the world freaks demanding money for their nonsense and millions of babies murdered every year.

So, sin in other words. Always have had that. Wasn't that long ago that wars and disease were killing off most of whole populations.

Via a test.

If you need a surgeon do you go to a licensed one?

Tests do not achieve all this stuff.

Tests reflect knowledge and training that does.

A simple answer shows my point.

Actually it rebutted your point.

Obviously a test does nothing to guarantee safety behind the wheel.

Tests reflect knowledge and training that do. And that's why firearm certification/training is a pretty good idea.

 

[Stripe]

So, sin in other words. Always have had that. Wasn't that long ago that wars and disease were killing off most of whole populations.

Saying that people have always been bad doesn't do much to support your notion that people are generally good.

People are generally not good, which eliminates your appeal to character to support a test as something that might help society.

If you need a surgeon do you go to a licensed one?

You are suggesting that gun control is propagated by making people pass a test. A test does not develop care and responsibility; it determines how well a person can respond to the artificial situation put in front of him. People can learn how to pass a test. Being able to pass a test is not what we want.

Tests reflect knowledge and training that does.

They can be a measure of that. However, they become rote. They should never be relied on to teach responsibility and care.

Actually it rebutted your point.

To be fair, you did not answer my question.

 

[Town Heretic]

Saying that people have always been bad doesn't do much to support your notion that people are generally good.

It wasn't meant to. I was responding to your contemporary illustration by noting that it's simply reflective of a condition that has been present with man throughout his existence in social compacts. Are you saying that most people in any age could be described as, generally speaking, lacking good character and being characterized as possessing ill intent?

People are generally not good

An unproven assertion. Some people demonstrably aren't. That's one reason we have prisons. It doesn't follow that everyone belongs in one.

And it has, literally, nothing to do with the point that safety training will make people, in general, safer.

, which eliminates your appeal to character to support a test as something that might help society.

I never made an appeal to character. That's your sidebar, only in the negative.

Here's my claim: instruction/certification has demonstrable and beneficial effects. That's why your surgeon will be licensed and why you can't operate a vehicle here without passing both a written and practical examination, tests.

You are suggesting that gun control is propagated by making people pass a test.

Nope. I've simply said that safety instruction and certification with handguns is a good idea, a great starting place to make everyone a bit safer.

A test does not develop care and responsibility

Didn't say it did. Rather, it indicates a level of knowledge and ability in relation to a subject, in this case it would be firearm safety.

it determines how well a person can respond to the artificial situation put in front of him.

That sounds ominous, but where you fail to point your gun at someone else or release or engage the safety isn't really germane to understanding either, by way of.

People can learn how to pass a test.

And learning how to pass this one would involve understanding how to safely use and maintain a firearm.

Being able to pass a test is not what we want.

It is if we want people to be able to safely use and maintain their firearm.

They can be a measure of that. However, they become rote. They should never be relied on to teach responsibility and care.

We drill soldiers not so they'll weary of being responsible, but to ingrain responsibility right down to the muscle memory of how they respond.

To be fair, you did not answer my question.

To be objective, you hadn't asked a question. My answer rebutted a declaration.

 

[Stripe]

You hadn't asked a question.

Sure, I did:

Who would you tend to trust more behind the wheel; a 15-year-old who grew up on a farm, or a city kid who passes a test?

 

[Town Heretic]

Sure, I did:

Not at the point of the quote you used, no. And where you did, well, I'll get to rebutting that in a moment.

Who would you tend to trust more behind the wheel; a 15-year-old who grew up on a farm, or a city kid who passes a test?

Then your original complaint is mistaken, because I answered you directly on the point.

Here's that question and my answer, with linkage:

...Who would you tend to trust more behind the wheel; a 15-year-old who grew up on a farm, or a city kid who had passed a test?

The kid who passed a driving test that included actually being observed behind the wheel and understanding how to interact with traffic, without knowing more...

In response to that you wrote, oddly enough:

A simple answer shows my point. Obviously a test does nothing to guarantee safety behind the wheel.

Empirical data and common sense both refute you, as did my answer.

But you know that, which is why you don't go to an unlicensed surgeon when or if you need surgery and why soldiers are certified in their practices with deadly weapons, etc.

 

[Yorzhik]

It only takes one examp,e to establish the precident and that has been accomplished with yelling fire in a theater.

Only because you are so woefully inadequate when it comes to understanding what Rothbard said.

There are other examples. For instance, hate speech is not protected speech. Inciting people to riot is not protected speech.

Yay! There you go. See? That wasn't too hard.

"Hate speech"... that's not a real thing. That's a made-up thing to impose one's view on other innocent people. It's exactly the kind of unjust imposition on rights that the gun regulations you want to impose accomplish.

Inciting people to riot is not an imposition on speech, but is only prosecuted as an accessory to the riot.

what you say is false. For instance, convicted felons are not allow we'd to own or handle guns.

Bad example. If the felon has paid their dues, then they should be allowed to defend themselves and have a gun. If they haven't paid their dues, then they are part of our current broken justice system which skews what people are able to do.

People with restraining orders against them are not allowed to own or handle guns. Quite obviously the right to defend yourself with a gun is not absolute.

People with restraining orders should be allowed to defend themselves as much as anyone else. You should stop bringing up stupid laws that violate rights as good reasons why rights should be violated. Thus the right to defend one's self remains absolute.

But, of course, you won't understand the above paragraph. So the question is, do you remain ignorant and obtuse because you are lazy? prideful? or is it a mix of both?

Note also that the right to keep and bear arms does not automatically covey the right to use them. See post 239.

As I have said, the precident has been established. We can, and do, limit peoples rights.

Post 239 is a good example of bad law messing up people's rights. I've answered that post in this one... but again, you are either too lazy or prideful to understand.

Perhaps you do understand and are just evil. I'd rather not consider that as a possibility, though.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Only because you are so woefully inadequate when it comes to understanding what Rothbard said.


Yay! There you go. See? That wasn't too hard.

"Hate speech"... that's not a real thing. That's a made-up thing to impose one's view on other innocent people. It's exactly the kind of unjust imposition on rights that the gun regulations you want to impose accomplish.

It was made up by the people oh this country therefore it is a real thing. You may not agree with it but that matters not. If you partake of hate speech, you can be prosecuted and you cannot use free speech as a defense.

Inciting people to riot is not an imposition on speech, but is only prosecuted as an accessory to the riot.

Again it proves the point: free speech does not mean that you can say anything you want.

Bad example. If the felon has paid their dues, then they should be allowed to defend themselves and have a gun. If they haven't paid their dues, then they are part of our current broken justice system which skews what people are able to do.

It is an example that the people of this country can and do limit rights found in the constitution. It does not matter if you agree or not, the fact is, gun ownership can be and is restricted.

People with restraining orders should be allowed to defend themselves as much as anyone else. You should stop bringing up stupid laws that violate rights as good reasons why rights should be violated. Thus the right to defend one's self remains absolute.

As I said in my original post, the right to defend yourself with a gun is not absolute. You can defend yourself without a gun.

But, of course, you won't understand the above paragraph. So the question is, do you remain ignorant and obtuse because you are lazy? prideful? or is it a mix of both?

I understand that you don't agree with the laws we have created to regulate gun ownership. Is the right to gum ownership so absolute to you that you would sanction gun ownership by people who are mentally unstable and highly like to use a gun to shoot ip a school?

Post 239 is a good example of bad law messing up people's rights. I've answered that post in this one... but again, you are either too lazy or prideful to understand.

Post 239 looks at the reality of the situation. People are using guns to kill first graders and college students and any number of others. Why shouldn't society act to stop those shootings? Note that stop does not mean to prosecute the offender, it means to get the guns out of their hands.

Perhaps you do understand and are just evil. I'd rather not consider that as a possibility, though.

A Christian who wants a gun to kill in order to defend his property is evil. A Christian who considers killing an intruder is the first course of action is evil. I am neither of those things. Attempting to say that gun ownership has anything at all to do with God is evil.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I find myself fascinated by the issue of gun control.

On the one hand we have the car. Here in America nearly everybody drives. Cars are designed to keep the occupants as safe as possible during a collision. Cars are designed to safely transport us from point A to point B. But because you can die in a car, because you can kill others with a car we have determined that you must be licensed first. To obtain that lesson you must have somebody teach you how to drive the car and what the rules and laws of the road are. You must then pass two tests, a written exam that shows you understand the rules and laws and a practice exam to prove you can handle a car.

Now we have the gun. The gun, from its earliest incarnation, is designed to kill. Used either for hunting or in war, a gun is intended to kill whatever it is pointed at. All you need to do is go to the store and buy one, assuming you pass a background check. But there is no requirement to learn the rules and laws associated with using a gun. There is no requirement to learn how to properly use your gun. There is no requirement to prove that you know the laws and the proper use of your gun. We also have an entertainment media that always shows that problems are solved by using a gun.

Why is it we will regulate access to something that is designed to keep people safe yet leave completely unregulated that which is designed to kill?

 

[Stripe]

Empirical data and common sense both refute you, as did my answer.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[chair]

then mine must be defective :idunno:

There is something defective, but most likely it is not your gun.
What gun do you own?

 

[Delmar]

This is the problem of good people with good intentions and no training. Now she is facing charges.

As well she should!

 

[Town Heretic]

You didn't answer my question.

Sorry, but if you have a question you didn't feel was answered you'll just have to tell me what it was. I put the question you asked that led directly to the quote and highlighted the answer/rebuttal.

So if you want a conversation, fine. But coy and couched isn't that and I'm disinterested in game play on the point.

For the rest who might happen by, before Stripe started this sort of odd side bar I made an offer for a genuine dialog about reasonable efforts to reduce gun violence and help gun owners be as safe and prepared as they can be. I made it as a gun owner who respects his weapon and the right, but who also understands we aren't doing every reasonable thing we can do to make those weapons as safe in the hands of their owners as they can be.

Toward that end, while rejecting a few notions set on the table, I was looking at weapon safety training and certification, which strikes me as an empirically sound notion. I noted the positive impact of regulations mandating theoretical and practical testing for car and boat owners and the straight forward proposition that a gun owner versed and certified in the safe use and maintenance of his weapon would make for a more responsible and safer gun owner.

I had that sort of training, first by my grandfather as a hunter and later by the ROTC. I can say without question that the training I received helped me to learn a proper respect and approach to my role as a gun owner. I am much more likely to be of help if needed, better prepared to use my weapon to protect myself, property and others and less likely to harm someone needlessly, mistakenly, because of that training.

So it seems like a reasonable place to begin the conversation. :e4e:

 

[Delmar]

Do you just add random verses to the end of your sentences?

You should also read the article, it primarily addresses issues of training.

Educating people on the wisdom of training is a good thing.

 

[Delmar]

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

Here is a silly quote from that article...

 for every lethal shooting in defense of life or property—guns are used to commit 34 murders and 78 suicides, and are the cause of two accidental deaths, according to an analysis of FBI data by The Washington Post.

Apparently using a gun to stop a crime without actually killing the bad guy doesn't count. :bang:

 

[kmoney]

Who would you tend to trust more behind the wheel; a 15-year-old who grew up on a farm, or a city kid who had passed a test?

Hard to answer but for the sake of conversation I'll go with the farm kid. Now, who would you trust more. A city kid who didn't pass a test or a kid who did pass a test?

I don't think the contention is that passing a test is any kind of guarantee but if people are going to be on the road it is nice to know that they passed a written and practical test first.

 

[kmoney]

http://www.guns.com/2015/10/06/suspect-shot-in-the-mouth-while-brutally-beating-elderly-man/
I'm glad this guy is alive and wasn't deprived of his right to self defense by an overly burdensome process.

What is the definition of overly burdensome? Are you implying that if there was some sort of registration and licensing then this guy wouldn't have been able to do it and would have been without a gun?