The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[Granite]

And apparently it's intractable. I'm amazed at how deeply ingrained it is, and how resistant people are to any assertion that it's unrealistic!

"One day I'm gonna be a hero! And kill somebody! And not get in trouble for it!":jump:

 

[GuySmiley]

People keep proving this fantasy CabinetMaker's talking about remains alive and well.

Like this woman, who got to live out her fantasy.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

 

[GuySmiley]

Another woman, living the dream!

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2014/11/27/edmonds-home-intruder-shot/19573067/

 

[bybee]

And apparently it's intractable. I'm amazed at how deeply ingrained it is, and how resistant people are to any assertion that it's unrealistic!

My goodness! How very superior you are! You and your ilk passing judgment and condemnation on all of us ordinary peasants must be dislocating your shoulders with all of that unctuous self-congratulatory back patting!

 

[ok doser]

Like this woman, who got to live out her fantasy.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

Another woman, living the dream!

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2014/11/27/edmonds-home-intruder-shot/19573067/

those things dint really happen

not in granite's and purex's universe

 

[Granite]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/62795887.jpg

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Wow! What planet are you living on?!?! I call it bribery because that's exactly what it is. Just because the legislators taking the bribes made it legal doesn't make it magically disappear. And it hasn't been going on for a century, it's only been going on with impunity for about the last 30 years. And now it's far worse since the Supreme Court made it legal for corporations to pay for political campaigns. We are living in a full on oligarchy, now, where a few very wealthy business conglomerates can own every candidate in an election, so that it makes no difference who we elect. And they will control whomever we elect throughout their time in office if they want to be able to run for re-election. We also have lobbyists that are ex-legislators being paid millions of dollars by corporate sponsors to promise the current legislators millions of dollars when they leave office to write and pass their sponsor's pet legislation. Which they do, routinely. In fact, it's gotten so bad that the lobbyists actually write the legislation themselves, and simply hand it to their willing congressmen or senator to get passed into law, in most cases without them ever even having read it!...

You have a very dark view of the world, I'm afraid.

...Stanford did a study recently to determine the relationship between the will of the American people and the actions of the American legislature and found that there is now NO MATHEMATICAL CORRELATION AT ALL between what the American people want or don't want in terms of legislation, and what the legislators are actually passing into law. NO CORRELATION AT ALL. Democracy in the U.S. is statistically dead. Our government is now completely controlled by a very small number of very wealthy elite. And if you don't understand this, or stand in flat out denial of it, then I don't know how to communicate with you, because you have created your own reality...

I believe it. They must have been comparing Chomsky's favorite "public opinion polls" with new and reformed legislation. Chomsky has the same concerns with how things are done now.

I disagree with the premise though, that if public opinion polling doesn't correlate to legislation, that somehow our form of government is "statistically dead." The reason I disagree, is because whenever public opinion polling disagrees with your own view, you think that the public is duped! So therefore, since you believe the public is so easily swayed, why would you care if public opinion polling doesn't correlate with legislation? If it did, you would hate the result just as much, and claim that the public has been duped. You're basically saying both these anyway . . . .

...Are you seriously asking me what's wrong with paying politicians to rig the system so that gun manufacturers can increase their profits from gun sales to potential killers?...

Since I don't hold the view that this is what's happening; no, that's not what I'm asking.

...Because it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to buy off a majority of congressmen, and the families of the victims of gun violence don't have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend buying politicians. Nor should they have to if we were living in a democracy. The whole point of having a government is that they protect us from each other, and from outside threats. If our governments for sale, as it currently is, they are not protecting us from anyone who can pay them off. And they aren't. They aren't protecting us from the oil conglomerate, or the health care conglomerate, or the banking conglomerate, or the arms conglomerate. And as a result we are being systematically robbed, and in some instances killed by these conglomerates and their limitless greed; though unnecessary wars, pollution, poverty, and political corruption...

OK, I'm not sure what to say to you here. Your view is like that of those living in a land governed by organized criminals. All along, I've been saying that our problem is organized crime, and you're saying now that our government itself is organized crime.

I don't accept that. I don't think a lot of other Americans do either.

...You don't seem to understand that democracy is dead when politicians are owned from the moment they choose to run for office until long after they leave. If you try to run for a seat in the Congress with a gun regulation platform the gun manufacturer's lobby and the NRA will sponsor your opponent's campaign and spend millions to see you defeated. And if you win, they will continue to fight you your entire time in congress, so that you will not be able to get any of your preferred legislation passed, and they will sponsor your opponent again if you run again. They have very deep pockets and they don't play fair and if you buck them they will stop your political career before it begins, or soon thereafter. Which is why you almost never hear any politician speak against the gun lobby. And the rare few who do are either lame ducks or living in New Hampshire...

Plenty of politicians speak out against the gun lobby; and all the time. As a matter of fact, they speak out explicitly against the "gun lobby" and "the NRA." Almost as if they're not afraid to do so. In fact, nobody's afraid to speak out against them.

But what they will not speak out against, is the Second Amendment, which is just cowardly.

As far as being contested in their political goals --yeah, that's a sign of a functioning republic. Are you suggesting that certain issues should be able to skirt or bypass due process? That's also already in what we're doing, the President can do things on an emergency basis and deal with the law later.

And, as for not playing fair: they are playing fair. Legally, lobbying is free speech, and is a form of petitioning the government, both mentioned explicitly in the First Amendment.

...Then they are not a population flooded with guns. Because when a population is flooded with guns, and has no or little rule of law, then gun violence rules. If you don't understand this, it's because you're trying very hard not to...

Actually there are plenty of country's with plenty of firearms and lower murder rates than the Central and South American nations, who are plagued by murder.

In the U.S. in the 1920s, when organized criminals became prominent, it wasn't a weak rule of law but alcohol Prohibition that prompted them. It is the same today with narcotic/drug prohibition; only that most of the organized criminals are basing their operations outside the U.S. So those country's, where they are located, are experiencing the brunt of the violence, and only some of it dribbles across our border, but it is a significant amount.

...frankly, the fact that you can't understand that the U.S. government is being corrupted to the point of having become an oligarchy tells me that you only see and understand what you want to see and understand about the world. And that troubling...

You're clearly troubled, sure, but you're looking at the world through dark-colored lenses. Everything is working the way it was designed to work over 200 years ago, and that's really saying something for our founders; how well they thought through the lessons of history, and how to build a government that would stand the test of time, and so far I'd say that they were spectacularly successful. We alone are the world's economic leader, and unless Europe ties the knot with themselves to become a single nation, that's the way it's going to stay. And, we do spread democracy, although not through military campaigns, although I doubt that W.W.I. was inconsequential in Europe moving toward democracy themselves and away from royalty as time went on.

...Organized crime is what results when a country has no rule of law. Organized crime is rule by violence...

And this is what you think we have here, right? That's what you mean by saying that our government is bought and paid for? I just can't accept that. Things would be different if this is what is going on.

...It has nothing to do with geography. A nation us either ruled by laws or it's ruled by violence. The United States is ruled by laws, but our laws are now for sale to the highest corporate sponsor. And so we have no rules governing guns, and our society is consequently flooded with them. We do have the rule of law, generally, so we are not a society ruled by violence, but we are nevertheless a very violent society because of all those guns...

So just like that, you dismiss the effect that organized criminals just south of our border have upon our country?

Why?

...Not just easier, but also more likely. The more guns there are among a population of humans, the more gun deaths there will be, because guns make killing people fast and easy to do. Plain and simple. And if there is also no rule of law, or a weak rule of law, then the violence will become the rule of law, and gun death will become commonplace. It's just common sense...

Except for all the country's with plenty of firearms and lower murder rates than the South and Central American country's that have less firearms.

...Since the population is already awash in guns, the solution is that we need a very strong rule of law to minimize the violence. We need to regulate who can legally own guns, and who can use them, and how and when. Eventually, over time, there will be fewer and fewer of them around, because they will be a nuisance to own...

You're just against the Second Amendment, so just admit it. If you had your druthers, you'd repeal the Second Amendment.

I'm not offended, I just want you to not confuse yourself.

...As the regulation of guns takes hold, you will have less and less to fear...

I am not afraid.

And the regulation of firearms has been going on now for almost 100 years, and there remains plenty to be afraid of, if you are so inclined. Regulating firearms hasn't solved anything. Which is why this thread even exists.

...And frankly, the likelihood of you being attacked by the angry drunk or terrorist now is minuscule, unless he is you, or a member of your family, already, and you have a gun in your house...

Then why even bother changing anything? I mean, besides repealing the Second Amendment.

...Stop whining and do what's right, and do what will work...

That's exactly what we're talking about here.

...This isn't all about you...

Nor is it all about you.

...It doesn't matter who's fault any of this is. It matters that we do what needs to be done...

Agreed.

...This is mostly BS. Terror is a determinant of the victim. There are no terrorists, or everyone is a terrorists, depending of your fear level...

That's very open minded of you, but I'm talking about terrorism as it's used in common parlance, and as it's defined on Wikipedia. There is a pretty fine line between terrorism and not-terrorism.

...This isn't a fear issue, it's a pragmatic issue. The more guns there are in a population, and weaker the rule of law, the more gun violence there will be. This is a given. So if we want to minimize the gun violence, we need to strengthen the rule of law, and shrink the number of guns out there. It's that simple...

Then you are probably in support of our war on drugs, because that's about strengthening the rule of law in those Central and South American countries where the most murders per capita are happening, and this violence bleeds over our southern border.

...The best way to do that in the U.S., while maintaining the second amendment right to bear arms (to the degree that this is possible), is to regulate gun ownership and use with an effective and enforced set of regulatory laws...

Then it's not possible to maintain the Second Amendment R.K.B.A. Because we've been regulating firearm ownership more and more, and the number of firearms keeps going higher and higher.

...You seem to be working very hard at not seeing this. To be honest. Because all sorts of reasonable possibilities have been offered on this and the other gun threads...

Maybe because I know that "all sorts of reasonable possibilities" have already been tried, and found to not be the magic bullet that you seem to think still exists.

There is no magic bullet here. There is repeal the Second Amendment . . . and that's it. You can't permit the R.K.B.A. and keep the number of firearms down. Americans buy firearms for any number of reasons, but the 1 common denominator in all these purchases is the Second Amendment. There is no Second Amendment in many modern countries, and so there are also no firearm purchases.

...We don't have to. All we need to do is determine the likelihood of abuse. That isn't that difficult. People who are likely to abuse guns will likely have already abused them, or will have already abused other rights in relation to public safety. Like driving drunk, stalking, domestic disputes, public intoxication, a history of emotional outbursts and odd behavior, and so on...

Anything that pops up on a criminal background check will prevent someone from purchasing a firearm from an F.F.L. dealer. So I.O.W., we're already doing this.

...They can also be tested as part of the licensing process...

What kind of testing?

...Forget it. That cat's already out of the bag, anyway...

Huh? Which law enforcement agencies already have access to my medical records?

...The only thing that has ever protected anyone from "the bad guys" is the rule of law...

Sweeping generalization that ignores the dozens of cases every year where Americans have successfully defended themselves and their neighbors/families from bad guys, with firearms.

...Because the rule of law is the force of unity. It is the good people banding together and outnumbering the bad guys. And it works because there are far fewer bad guys in the world. And even though the bad guys are vicious, and willing to do whatever they want to get what they want, they are always vastly outnumbered. So the good people unite, and create laws and police to enforce those laws, and the bad guys are kept at bay...

Our founders knew this, and ratified the Second Amendment.

...The solution to gun violence is not more guns...

I never said that it was.

...It's having an effective rule of law. That's how good people protect themselves. It is through anarchy that the bad guys always win.

And writ large, we protect ourselves with our police and with our military, and on a personal, individual level, we protect ourselves with firearms, the right of which to keep and to bear is explicitly protected in the Second Amendment, which proceeds from the inalienable right to live, with which we are all endowed by our Creator.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

The problem is that the chances of an intruder coming into your home with the intent to harm you are far smaller then the chances that they will break into your home while you aren't there and take your gun. You could put the gun is a safe, to try and stop that from happening, but then you'd have to get it from the safe to protect yourselves with it, which would probably take more time then you'd have if that feared intruder broke into you home intending to harm you.

Also, the odds of you shooting yourself with the gun are significantly greater than the odds of an armed intruder coming in to shoot you with his. So the actual facts involved in having guns in the home for self-protection just don't correspond to the fantasy we all seem to have about it. Because bringing the gun into the home actually increases the chances of someone in the home being shot with it, rather than decreasing their chance of being shot by an intruder.

The chance of being killed in a car accident also greatly increases if you actually ride in cars.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

And apparently it's intractable. I'm amazed at how deeply ingrained it is, and how resistant people are to any assertion that it's unrealistic!

What we all find unrealistic is that we can depend upon the government to protect us in our second (not hour) of need.

And the conflict we have here is that, in order for the government to fulfill this need that we all have in order to exercise our right to live, the government must become the enemy of our other rights, especially . . . well, especially all the other rights that we have.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[LoneStar]

First, it is an amendment right. Second, there is a rise in distrust of government who currently are using force, in courts and often with physical force as well, to enforce their agendas over and against the people they are supposed to serve. They are literally serving minority interest over the interests of the majority and have been for some time. They didn't/don't care what we vote or would vote. They no longer 'represent' the people they are supposed to serve. They represent small entitlement-minded interest groups against the bulk of society.

Because of that, I believe defending one's self is at the top of a lot of citizens' minds.

Sums it up.

 

[PureX]

What we all find unrealistic is that we can depend upon the government to protect us in our second (not hour) of need.

You seem to have been kept quite safe so far. And the truth be told, you have no reason to suspect that you will not be protected with the same efficiency in the foreseeable future. So what is it, exactly, that you are so afraid of? I mean realistically, not in some paranoid fantasy of terrorists attacking your town, or government black-ops helicopters shooting at your house?

And the conflict we have here is that, in order for the government to fulfill this need that we all have in order to exercise our right to live, the government must become the enemy of our other rights, especially . . . well, especially all the other rights that we have.

How did you manage to become an adult without learning that this is the purpose of having a government? This is what governments do, and are for: to balance your individual rights with everyone else's, and everyone's individual rights with the needs and responsibilities of society as a whole. And that to perform this function, government will have to tell you where your right to do as you please will have to stop, so that the equal rights of everyone else can be equally respected. And will have to tell you what your responsibilities to the well-being of society as a whole, are, and will coerce you to live up to them.

Telling you "no" is what governments are for. And we have all … I mean all human being throughout all human history, … have all determined that living together, under an organized system of "government" is far, FAR preferable to living every man for himself, and every man against every other, like dumb animals. Which is what results when we do not band together and organize and limit ourselves for the benefit or all.

How can you be an adult human being and not understand this most basic principal of social cooperation???

I just don't get it.

 

[exminister]

Gun owners,
Remember when you were young how excited you were to get your learners permit and the schooling to learn to drive? It's a government deal and you don't get your car taken away without just cause.

I am not clear on NOT wanting any training for guns. If it was something I wanted I would at least see it as a hobby or have some excitement in learning how to use and clean my gun(s). In fact years ago I did get into guns and got training, went to shooting ranges and a good friend sat with me and gave me his wealth of knowledge. I would gladly have a record of that training certified by local governments. And would have no problem renewing it.

I am learning to Scuba now. That requires training and certification. No dive shop or adventure tour will allow me to scuba without proof of certification. That isn't even government controlled.

So why the fear and not the excitement to really get to know your gun and the proper way to handle it? Local government could easily work with local gun shops and shooting ranges. It would be a boost to that economy and could well build life long friendships. That I have found in my motorcycling experience. Got license, took training, joined local clubs, now have friends for life.

Just seems strange that training is being fought so hard.

For those of you gun owners that get training, join local clubs and have fun with the hobby I thank you.

 

[Yorzhik]

I never asked if you stopped beating your wife or anything resembling it. Here is what I asked:

Should a person with a "mental condition" that would strongly predispose them to committing a mass murder, or any murder at all, be allowed free access to guns?

Ah, so, you were asking if I stopped beating my wife. Answer in the affirmative, and I want crazy people to shoot people. Answer in the negative, and I become a tyrant like you.

Here's a better idea:

Give us an example of someone with a "mental condition" that would predispose them to committing mass murder, or any murder at all, who hasn't done so yet. You know, just as an example of the kind of people that we need to disallow them defending themselves.

And don't give us "people like Elliot Rodger" or something vague like that. Give us the name of the next "Elliot Rodger" so you can show us that you were right and how stupid we are for not listening to you.

And P.S. - I'm betting you won't recognize you asked me a "wife beater" question even though I demonstrated that you did that very thing.

 

[Yorzhik]

Gun owners,
Remember when you were young how excited you were to get your learners permit and the schooling to learn to drive? It's a government deal and you don't get your car taken away without just cause.

I am not clear on NOT wanting any training for guns. If it was something I wanted I would at least see it as a hobby or have some excitement in learning how to use and clean my gun(s). In fact years ago I did get into guns and got training, went to shooting ranges and a good friend sat with me and gave me his wealth of knowledge. I would gladly have a record of that training certified by local governments. And would have no problem renewing it.

I am learning to Scuba now. That requires training and certification. No dive shop or adventure tour will allow me to scuba without proof of certification. That isn't even government controlled.

So why the fear and not the excitement to really get to know your gun and the proper way to handle it? Local government could easily work with local gun shops and shooting ranges. It would be a boost to that economy and could well build life long friendships. That I have found in my motorcycling experience. Got license, took training, joined local clubs, now have friends for life.

Just seems strange that training is being fought so hard.

For those of you gun owners that get training, join local clubs and have fun with the hobby I thank you.

I love training. And I would encourage anyone that would shoot a gun to get some and keep getting more. But the proposal is whether the state should determine some people should not be allowed to have a gun based on what the state considers "crazy"... all in the name of stopping mass shootings.

The answer is, don't let the state do that. Because normal people will be listed under what the state considers "crazy" and people will die because they aren't allowed to defend themselves. Also, gun free zones should be made liable for any shooting.

 

[Granite]

Ah, so, you were asking if I stopped beating my wife. Answer in the affirmative, and I want crazy people to shoot people. Answer in the negative, and I become a tyrant like you.

Here's a better idea:

Give us an example of someone with a "mental condition" that would predispose them to committing mass murder, or any murder at all, who hasn't done so yet. You know, just as an example of the kind of people that we need to disallow them defending themselves.

And don't give us "people like Elliot Rodger" or something vague like that. Give us the name of the next "Elliot Rodger" so you can show us that you were right and how stupid we are for not listening to you.

And P.S. - I'm betting you won't recognize you asked me a "wife beater" question even though I demonstrated that you did that very thing.

This is an easy question, Yorz. Should someone with schizophrenia have a gun?

Or you can just keep weaseling around it.

 

[exminister]

This is an easy question, Yorz. Should someone with schizophrenia have a gun?

Or you can just keep weaseling around it.

For Yorz to aid answering Granite question


One Symptom
Hallucinations. These usually involve seeing or hearing things that don't exist. Yet for the person with schizophrenia, they have the full force and impact of a normal experience. Hallucinations can be in any of the senses, but hearing voices is the most common hallucination.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/schizophrenia/basics/symptoms/con-20021077

 

[Yorzhik]

For Yorz to aid answering Granite question


One Symptom
Hallucinations. These usually involve seeing or hearing things that don't exist. Yet for the person with schizophrenia, they have the full force and impact of a normal experience. Hallucinations can be in any of the senses, but hearing voices is the most common hallucination.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/schizophrenia/basics/symptoms/con-20021077

Did you know Schizophrenia is on a spectrum. What is the dividing line in that spectrum where people on this side are allowed to defend themselves, and on the other are not allowed to defend themselves.

Also, can you say that schizophrenia is the 1, single, and only condition that revokes a person from being allowed to defend themselves? Or are you going to start adding other conditions as soon as a blanket admission of schizophrenia is granted?

At least, give us the line in the spectrum, and why that is not a subjective line, and then I can answer the question.

 

[exminister]

Did you know Schizophrenia is on a spectrum. What is the dividing line in that spectrum where people on this side are allowed to defend themselves, and on the other are not allowed to defend themselves.

Also, can you say that schizophrenia is the 1, single, and only condition that revokes a person from being allowed to defend themselves? Or are you going to start adding other conditions as soon as a blanket admission of schizophrenia is granted?

At least, give us the line in the spectrum, and why that is not a subjective line, and then I can answer the question.

This is an easy question, Yorz. Should someone with schizophrenia have a gun?

Or you can just keep weaseling around it.

Here is an example

Person A has the worst case of schizophrenia known. Can he buy a gun?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Ah, so, you were asking if I stopped beating my wife. Answer in the affirmative, and I want crazy people to shoot people. Answer in the negative, and I become a tyrant like you.

Here's a better idea:

Give us an example of someone with a "mental condition" that would predispose them to committing mass murder, or any murder at all, who hasn't done so yet. You know, just as an example of the kind of people that we need to disallow them defending themselves.

And don't give us "people like Elliot Rodger" or something vague like that. Give us the name of the next "Elliot Rodger" so you can show us that you were right and how stupid we are for not listening to you.

And P.S. - I'm betting you won't recognize you asked me a "wife beater" question even though I demonstrated that you did that very thing.

It's not the wife beater fallacy. The wife beater question explorers the underlying assumptions we make without even realizing we make them. If you ask me if I have stopped beating my wife, the truthful answer is no. What you do with that answer reveals more about you than about me.

As to my question, it is a real world question. There has been at least on case in the news where a doctor raised concerns about patient with police that went ignored. The patient later did use a gun to kill people. There are questions regarding the mental condition of the Aurora theater shooter who was under a psychiatrists care. I saw an article recently where, I believe it was Klebold, was sociopathic. In the real world these things do happen. I can't give you the name of the next killer because I am an engineer and I am not trained to recognize, let alone treat, mental disorders. I would hazard to guess that there is more than one doctor that has a patient that they are more than just a little concerned about.

So, if you knew that a person had a mental predisposition that would make them highly likely to start killing people, would you support their right to purchase all the guns they want?

 

[Yorzhik]

Here is an example

Person A has the worst case of schizophrenia known. Can he buy a gun?

Ah, so, you were asking if I stopped beating my wife. Answer in the affirmative, and I want crazy people to shoot people. Answer in the negative, and I become a tyrant like you.

This demonstrates the logical fallacy of your question. You should read more about Logical Fallacies: The Loaded Question at The Fallacy Files

So, if we are to have a conversation, isn't it reasonable that you dispense with the logical fallacy first?