The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy
- Thread starter CabinetMaker
- Start date
Of course it could go wrong. After all, people will be administering it so it can be abused or mistakes will happen or any number of other things. On the other hand, if it stops another Sandy Hook or prevents you from shooting a mentally ill person who never should have had a gun, that is a good thing.
I read what you said. You created a straw man using the scariest language you could think of to scare people into your point of view. A prison state is not a logical conclusion to an enhanced concealed or open carry license.
Incarceration is reserved for people who break laws. If a person is not fit to carry a gun in public, they don't get the license. If a person presents a reasonable risk they cannot buy a gun until they no longer present a risk. If somebody illegally carries a gun deserves to pay they price fir breaking the law.
I note you never answered a question about how you carry your gun for self defense. It plays into this. If somebody comes into a situation where they want to draw their gun then where is that gun? It's concealed, how fast can they draw it? Is a round chambered? Is it cocked? Do you think you will be more or less venerable while you are trying to get your gun if the shooter sees you?
Or misses and accidentally shoots a student.
This is not a fact, it's an assertion.
I am afraid this may be answered soon.
You provided a passage. That passage did not provide God's direction to kill as a first line of defense. Does that mean it is wrong if you kill somebody who attacks you? No. But there will be a question of motive. Was it something you had to do or was it something you wanted to do. God will know.
yes. Nobody was arrested under my proposal either so...
As other rights do not involved the use of a tool specifically designed to kill when used as designed a functioning properly, the right to bear arms is unique and warrants unique scrutiny.
Call me any name you wish, it matters not. I propose due process so that rights of one are weighed against the rights of many.
I don't know if you are or aren't. I have no reason to believe that you are, but I think you would really like to be.
If you wish to respond to my entire post I will respond to you.
I read your whole response. It was a straw man.
Maybe you should start carrying a knife then. If they are more dangerous than guns then they must be better for self defense.
As noted above, you have posted scripture, you have not posted scripture where Gid tells us to kill 'em all and let Him sort out the dead.
Right, your premise has been that a psych eval can root out someone like the next Sandy Hook killer. I get it.
And what has been obvious from the start is that it won't root out the next mass shooter. Once security is seen, it no longer works. Crazy people are smart enough to avoid the triggers that have them lose their right to self defense. And if they trigger all the triggers, they will simply do what Adam Lanza did.
Or there is another alternate outcome. The psych eval will be so broad that it will trigger on just about anything. In fact, since the psych eval cannot actually stop another mass killing, the ONLY outcome will be a broad brush that basically stops most citizens from being able to have guns.
And to prove that a psych eval cannot stop the next mass shooting, all we need to do is show that with a great deal of time and money currently spent looking for the next mass shooter (and there's a lot of resources currently expending doing just that), we cannot name that person.
A prison state is precisely the only conclusion to psych evals on whether someone is allowed to have a particular right. Once a psych eval is the required permission to be allowed to defend yourself, then a psych eval will be required for permission to speak freely, to associate freely, to move freely. All these other things are just as dangerous to society, if not more dangerous, than allowing people to defend themselves.
And incarceration is simply the revocation of the right to move freely and associate freely and speak freely.
How I carry my gun has nothing to do with your question. Do you even read what you write? I answered the question completely, and you ignored it. You claimed guns turn most defenseless people into targets and that isn't about me; that's about "most defenseless people." So you need to provide evidence that not just one person, but "most defenseless people" are a liability with a gun.
Either come up with the evidence or admit you overstated your case.
As a first line of self defense? It absolutely does.
The point being that you cannot restrict someone's rights based on a profile.
Each right is unique. That's how there can be a hierarchy of rights. That one is best exercised using a gun makes no difference. The right to freely move is best exercised by use of a car. And when lasers get good enough we won't use guns. Having a tool used when exercising a right is irrelevant to the exercising of that right.
But you cannot, as you admit, figure out who these "one's" are. In fact, these "one's" you speak of can very well be just about everyone.
The rest of your quote included NOT A MASS SHOOTER:
| At a shootout in LA a number of years ago there were two shooters and a large number of police returnin fire. How many guns do you want around your family if you are out on the town and a gun fight breaks out? Who do you want to be holding those guns? |
You didn't respond to my quote, and now you have the gall to demand that I respond to every irrelevant passage you post in your quotes?
When I asked for the people armed at mass shooting events, you said "1 or two." Either show us these 1 or two people at mass shooting events or admit you wanted to change to non-mass shooting events because you know a truthful answer will defeat your argument.
I clearly answered. I even bolded it for you. And, no, it wasn't a straw man unless your definition of "straw man" is "this defeats my argument so it's not something I'm going to answer."
Gun free zones in the old west were as much a mistake then as now. They didn't work then, like they aren't working now. So the real question is, why, when the state set the precedent for gun free zones, did it not expand instead of contracting?
You are the one that is saying knives are better than guns. It's you that needs to show how a psych eval for a gun shouldn't include knives.
That's because the question was scripture that showed the right to self defense, not a scripture that said "Gid tells us to kill 'em all and let Him sort out the dead."
So admit that you added "scare" to the threatening of one's life just to change your argument because you know a truthful answer will defeat your argument.
There are many misrepresentations and straw men in the above paragraphs. If you look at what I have said, I have been discussing people who wish to carry guns in public, not hunters or target shooters or mounted shooters, people who actually want to carry guns around other people. his does leave some rather large holes as the Sandy Hook shooter stole his grandmothers guns to do what he did.
No, its just you, yet again, creating a straw man. I never said anything about incarceration nor about permanent loss of rights.
I reject your attempted redefinition of the word incarceration.
I am sorry to see that you fail to recognize that the act of attempting to draw, **** and get your gun on target makes you a conspicuous target.
Not even a little bit. It is just you torturing scripture to make you feel better about your willingness to kill.
With guns, it is time to re-examine that. People need protection from people like you who actually seem to relish the idea of becoming the heroic gunslinger.
Each right is unique thus each right can be limited under certain conditions. Your right to free speech is not absolute.
I don't need to name names, that is why I propose due process.
You attribute things to me that I did not say and then argue against those statements, that is the very definition of a straw man.
The main problem with your reasoning is that it is wrong. In the gun free zones murders dropped because nobody had a gun. Gun free zones must have been very effective because people quit carrying guns. If having a gun with you for defense is such a good thing, why did people quit carrying guns?
No, I don't. I am addressing the unique qualities of a gun that knife does not possess. Had you every created that list regarding the differences between knives and guns you might understand the argument.
That scripture does not show it. You failed.
If somebody pulls a gun on you, will you be scared? The word scare does not change the question at all.
I haven’t had time to engage in 2 threads at the same time lately, but I’d like to get back to this one. Especially in light of the attacks in Paris.
I’m sure all the victims in Paris would have been thankful for at least 1 person who could have returned fire even if all their training consisted of learning how the gun worked at the gun shop counter when they bought the gun, and even if the person had Aspergers.
That being said, it’s a good idea to go back to an overall look at what CM is proposing. He’s proposing licensing that includes training and a psych eval if anyone wants to carry a gun outside of their own home to somewhere other people might be. In his view, this is not disallowing someone to defend themselves because they can pass the training and psych eval to carry in public, and they have no restrictions if they don’t carry in public.
This is a bad idea on many levels. The devil is in the details. The details being exactly how much training and what kind of psych eval would insure that no-one would mishandle their gun in public.
The only way to determine how much training and what the psych eval should evaluate is by how bad it is relative to not licensing. The good news is that we have a lot of data on people being able to get guns without these requirements. And what we see from the data is that there simply isn’t a problem with people mishandling their gun because they lacked the training or because they didn’t have the right psychological make-up. Sure there are instances of people that thought they knew what they were doing with a gun and ended up making things worse, but these instances are far outweighed by people protecting themselves because they could easily obtain a gun without more training than what they were comfortable with, and without the state deciding if they had the correct psychological make-up.
But one may counter that training is good and keeping the guns out of the hands of people that cannot handle a gun psychologically is good. And we’d all agree in theory. But there are a few problems that negates this argument. An obvious problem is that if some training is good, then more training is better and if some psychological stability is good, then more stability is better based on the same argument. And this will always be true since there will always be shootings, and as long as there are shootings, there will always be a proposal for more training and more rigorous psych eval. It will never end. This is especially troublesome for the psychological argument since, as CM has pointed out, the evaluation is a black box that only a few humans-as-gods can understand. And thus we must, according to human nature, end up with a training and psych eval that is so restrictive that almost no one can have a gun in public.
Another problem is that just like the Jews in Germany, Hitler did not remove their guns, their ability to defend themselves by laws he made, but by using the laws that were already on the books, many of which are identical to the laws CM is proposing. Giving the state this blank check to restrict guns from any political enemy they see fit isn’t just a proposal in bad form, but knowing history would be downright irresponsible.
Another problem is that guns in private situations, in the home, won’t require such training or psych eval. But that won’t do, as making guns available unrestricted if one promised to keep them out of public would always end up in public somewhere. Everyone will simply say the gun is for in-home use and buy without restriction, and if they use the gun in public it would simply have to be used properly; for instance a thug tries to rob a store at gunpoint and a customer that has his in-home gun on him used it to remove the thug either by chasing him away or actually shooting him. That person would, even without training or psych eval, be exonerated because the defense of human life would take precedence over licensing… or would it? That’s the madness of the proposal. The person would not be exonerated because the state will always prefer protecting its own rules over the protection of human life. What would really result is the training and psych eval be applied to guns even if they carry the promise not to be carried in public.
Then there are mass shootings. Despite these shootings actually not being a real threat mathematically at the present time, they are used as clubs to ram restrictions down the throats of people that would use a gun ethically. And since the data, again, shows that unrestricted gun access does not result in the kinds of problems listed above (it is the antidote to these problems obviously), appealing to mass shootings is counter-productive. And beyond that, just ask any of the people in the Paris shootings if they would have preferred someone with a gun, sans license, to be available to shoot back at the terrorists. And the good thing is that more people that might have a gun, the better this scenario plays out, relative to licensing where more invites more death if taken to its logical conclusion of attempting to make the nation a gun free zone.
Thanks. Read it, laughed at her. However, it is not germane to the situation.
This is why he is proposing it.
If that is what you think then it is obvious you haven't followed what I have said at all.
Bullets pass through soft targets and even certain hard targets before moving on to the next. Like President Kennedy and Governor Connally.
Did they throw grenades inside the venue? I haven't been watching the last two days. And not all AK magazines are 30 rounds. Some are 40.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
true, and i haven't been following it at all, just what makes the radio coverage
still they got the exact reaction they needed - panic and compliance
What the present day American Christian church member believes about cowboys would be interesting to study.
There are people still alive who grew up in Texas or in the states of the Great Planes West who had experience with real cowboys. And real cowboys did not run around getting into gun fights. But they believed they had the right to defend themselves against anyone who tried to harm them, and most of them, growing up in rural areas, were familiar with guns.
W. S. James (1898) said that under the influence of a free, wild life, the Texas cowboy grew to be self-reliant. These are not traits of an urban conformist. Walter Prescott Webb in The Great Planes (1931) said that the great distances and sparse population of the West encouraged self-reliance. And Webb said that the people of the Great Planes West were "lawless," not meaning they were all outlaws, but that they were nonconformists who were not easily dominated and controlled.
Self-reliance, resourcefulness and independence are American personality traits that have been under attack by the Transformational Marxist Left for several decades, so that now, 2015, those traits are alien to many Americans, including church members.
There are people still alive who grew up in Texas or in the states of the Great Planes West who had experience with real cowboys. And real cowboys did not run around getting into gun fights. But they believed they had the right to defend themselves against anyone who tried to harm them, and most of them, growing up in rural areas, were familiar with guns.
W. S. James (1898) said that under the influence of a free, wild life, the Texas cowboy grew to be self-reliant. These are not traits of an urban conformist. Walter Prescott Webb in The Great Planes (1931) said that the great distances and sparse population of the West encouraged self-reliance. And Webb said that the people of the Great Planes West were "lawless," not meaning they were all outlaws, but that they were nonconformists who were not easily dominated and controlled.
Self-reliance, resourcefulness and independence are American personality traits that have been under attack by the Transformational Marxist Left for several decades, so that now, 2015, those traits are alien to many Americans, including church members.
At least two suicide bombers.
:think: Well....Actually, the 40 rounders were designed for use with the RPK....Not that it matters since they interchange magazines. The only real differences between an AKM and an RPK are the heavier trunion and longer barrel on the RPK.
lain: Okay...I'm done now.
:
Or they had more than one magazine each.
I have no doubt that they carried more than one magazine each.
Like it's already been pointed out though the 7.62X39 is renown for it's penetration and even the 5.45X39 will sail though close range, soft, densely packed targets like the situations presented.
It would be a nightmare to try and forensically figure out all the possible trajectories of all of the bullets which were flying that night. :nono:
Noted. I have no experience with an RPK.
Most people don't...Like I said it's just an AKM ( Which is an AK-47 with a more modern stamped-steel receiver.) with a longer barrel, a heavier trunion, and I think it also has thicker sheet steel for the receiver. It also has a different stock, & bipod for prone fire. But in operation they are essentially identical. The 75Rd drum magazine was also initially developed for it too...I think. :think:
It was designed right after the AK-47 by Kalashnikov himself and was initially used as a squad auto...Until the RPD was developed. :juggle: