Fair questions from a guy near Sandy hook Update: guy not sand-hook father

[irishScott]

lol, no, I was just asking a question. I was also just asking a question when I wondered why I should care what he thought. I figured there were a lot of potential reasons. Maybe he was close to one of the kids that got killed, maybe his kid was in the classroom, I thought there might have been something to this.

But clearly that is not the case, just a douchebag whining about guns.

Don't worry, I won't bother you deep thinkers any more. You can have your gun masturbation thread back.

Oh, all right. So you actually need to have had your kid shot at the school to be able to talk about it. Just having a kid in close proximity to the same madman with a gun isn't good enough, no your opinion doesn't mean shit if that's all it is.

Seriously Blackjack? The guy has a daughter who goes to the school and was there at the time of the shooting. Once could argue that she only survived by luck because the gunman chose a different random classroom. I'd hardly call him a douchebag, and I think his opinion certainly carries more weight than either of ours.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

:HUGS:

 

[Cerb]

I did not watch youtube at work.

Better fear than death. The boyscout motto is "Be Prepared". So if you own a spare tire do you live in fear or are you just prepared for that eventual flat tire? You live in fear of flat tires dont you?

Someone in this thread does.
I also have pliers, a strap wrench, a big socket set, etc., in my car, so obviously, I must be afraid of a lot. Oh, I also carry a multitool and multiple flashlights on me. I live in fear of the corner I might not be able to see into, and the cable I might not be able to cut, and the computer I might not to be able to open, and...

:awe:

"The police cannot protect the citizen at this stage of our development, and they cannot even protect themselves in many cases. It is up to the private citizen to protect himself and his family, and this is not only acceptable, but mandatory."

With the exception of the fragment(s) beginning with, "and this," the above is indisputable fact, backed up by decades of solid data. It is not living in fear to accept reality as it is and prepare for it. The data is also there for disasters: you and your neighbors are going to have to manage for a bit before even a competent EMA organization can get help to you. The chance of needing your preparations is small, but the potential losses due to not having them could very well be great to the point of being irreplaceable.

I'm OK not being armed, given where I am in my life, right now. But, you can bet that if I had kids, I would take the time to become armed (getting guns and ammo would be the quick and easy part), just in case.

Dont remember the LA riots do you?

Only gun-rights-supporters, apparently including significant amounts of Korean immigrants, seem to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXPlCjr0Vw

I think his questions are fair; though he seems to be clinging to his guns out of fear...

Given the situation, I'd be OK with someone who's kid was just in a prone position, and is only alive due to luck, having a bit of fear over issues related to defense.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Oh, all right. So you actually need to have had your kid shot at the school to be able to talk about it. Just having a kid in close proximity to the same madman with a gun isn't good enough, no your opinion doesn't mean shit if that's all it is.

Seriously Blackjack? The guy has a daughter who goes to the school and was there at the time of the shooting. Once could argue that she only survived by luck because the gunman chose a different random classroom. I'd hardly call him a douchebag, and I think his opinion certainly carries more weight than either of ours.

Surely by now you realize the only people permitted to hold an opinion on the issue are liberal Senators from the opposite side of the country. After all they have more of a personal stake in the issue than the parent of a child at that school and they only want what's best for us.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Fear IS THE reason to own guns at all for home defense.

I carry one of these when I hike:

Not because I'm afraid I'll get lost or injured, but because being prepared hurts little more than my wallet...not my life.

I wear two of these when boarding (on pants leg, on arm) but I'm not afraid of being buried in snow, and I regularly do tree runs with a high risk of going into a tree well.

When will people learn that preparing for the worst doesn't mean you fear the worst will happen (or fear the worst) but rather feel that being prepared for it doesn't hurt. When someone was breaking into my apartment by taking the door down I sure as hell was happy to have a glock 21 in my hand, ready to kill if it meant saving my life. I wasn't afraid then, I wasn't afraid before and I'm not afraid now. I know that if someone breaks into my apartment when I'm home, they'll be chased out, or die.

 

[irishScott]

The sad thing is, judging from a lot of responses I'm convinced about half the people here buckle their seat belts because they're directly afraid of getting into a wreck every time they drive. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The sad thing is, judging from a lot of responses I'm convinced about half the people here buckle their seat belts because they're directly afraid of getting into a wreck every time they drive. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

The problem, though, is that seat-belts aren't the cause of the danger seat-belts prevent.

 

[sigurros81]

I carry one of these when I hike:

Not because I'm afraid I'll get lost or injured, but because being prepared hurts little more than my wallet...not my life.

I wear two of these when boarding (on pants leg, on arm) but I'm not afraid of being buried in snow, and I regularly do tree runs with a high risk of going into a tree well.

When will people learn that preparing for the worst doesn't mean you fear the worst will happen (or fear the worst) but rather feel that being prepared for it doesn't hurt. When someone was breaking into my apartment by taking the door down I sure as hell was happy to have a glock 21 in my hand, ready to kill if it meant saving my life. I wasn't afraid then, I wasn't afraid before and I'm not afraid now. I know that if someone breaks into my apartment when I'm home, they'll be chased out, or die.

You misinterpret me, probably because I was trying to be philosophical. The fundamental motivation for us to protect ourselves is fear. Fear of our loved ones being hurt/killed, fear of losing our properties, fear of getting hurt/killed ourselves. If it wasn't for the fear of such things, we wouldn't be having the gun-control debates across the country at all. Fear is the driving factors in a lot of decisions that we make day to day.

 

[Genx87]

He has a great point about the security afforded the politicians at the hearing and not for his child or the children who were murdered at the school his child attends.

 

[irishScott]

The problem, though, is that seat-belts aren't the cause of the danger seat-belts prevent.

And my owning guns is not a cause of gun crime. Same can be said for tens of millions of gun owners.

 

[thraashman]

He has a great point about the security afforded the politicians at the hearing and not for his child or the children who were murdered at the school his child attends.

No, he at best has a mild point. Every single one of those politicians has their life threatened on a regular basis by people whose grip on reality is tenuous at best. Those politicians are hundreds of times more likely to be targeted than any child.

What people keep forgetting about the gun control debate is that it isn't about school shootings. The school shooting just brought the debate to the forefront. This is about gun violence in general. And there are many non-intrusive and simple changes that can be made that are supported by 80%+ of the populace that are being opposed by the NRA and those they've brainwashed.

 

[thraashman]

Oh, all right. So you actually need to have had your kid shot at the school to be able to talk about it. Just having a kid in close proximity to the same madman with a gun isn't good enough, no your opinion doesn't mean shit if that's all it is.

Seriously Blackjack? The guy has a daughter who goes to the school and was there at the time of the shooting. Once could argue that she only survived by luck because the gunman chose a different random classroom. I'd hardly call him a douchebag, and I think his opinion certainly carries more weight than either of ours.

In my senior year in high school an underclassman whom I used to ride the bus with and lived down the street from was abducted and murdered by gunshot to the back of the head as part of a gang initiation. So does that make me qualified to testify before Congress on gun control because I was close to a gun violence situation?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

And my owning guns is not a cause of gun crime. Same can be said for tens of millions of gun owners.

The legalization of seat belts does not bring with it the danger of car crashes.

The legalization of guns does bring with it the danger of gun crime.

If civilian ownership of guns was illegal, and ownership of one was treated as the crime "intent to kill"; then there would be very little gun crime.

Your right to defend your family from crazies with guns is the same thing allowing for the crazies to have guns. If gun control doesn't work, then why aren't any of the crazies with guns wielding automatic weapons, rocket launchers, or other completely-banned weaponry?

 

[irishScott]

In my senior year in high school an underclassman whom I used to ride the bus with and lived down the street from was abducted and murdered by gunshot to the back of the head as part of a gang initiation. So does that make me qualified to testify before Congress on gun control because I was close to a gun violence situation?

I said his opinion has more weight, not more validity. Anyone can make a pro-gun argument. To make one after your daughter has been directly threatened by gun violence shows a superior level of conviction when the knee-jerk reaction is "ban evil guns blarrgh!"

 

[momeNt]

The legalization of seat belts does not bring with it the danger of car crashes.

The legalization of guns does bring with it the danger of gun crime.

If civilian ownership of guns was illegal, and ownership of one was treated as the crime "intent to kill"; then there would be very little gun crime.

Your right to defend your family from crazies with guns is the same thing allowing for the crazies to have guns. If gun control doesn't work, then why aren't any of the crazies with guns wielding automatic weapons, rocket launchers, or other completely-banned weaponry?

As to bold, their production and sale was never for public consumption, it's an invalid argument.

Owning guns and owning rockets are two different things, rockets are not present in enormous amounts in the USA. Look at Afghanistan and the amount of weapons dumped there during the 80s, rockets, mortars, etc are all heavily used there.

If we could go back in time and rewrite history so that guns were controlled similarly to how more advanced weaponry was controlled when it was first developed, your argument may make a lot more sense. That is not the case, so the argument is moot.

 

[irishScott]

The legalization of seat belts does not bring with it the danger of car crashes.

The legalization of guns does bring with it the danger of gun crime.

If civilian ownership of guns was illegal, and ownership of one was treated as the crime "intent to kill"; then there would be very little gun crime.

Your right to defend your family from crazies with guns is the same thing allowing for the crazies to have guns. If gun control doesn't work, then why aren't any of the crazies with guns wielding automatic weapons, rocket launchers, or other completely-banned weaponry?

The legalization of guns to me does not bring with it the danger of gun crime. Same can be said for tens of millions.

Given the current supply of guns, making civilian gun ownership illegal would simply disarm civilians and cost innocent civilian lives. Gun crime from criminals might be somewhat reduced, but would remain significant.

No, my right to self defense with guns is not the same as allowing for crazies to have guns. That is why we already have laws on the books that if you are adjudicated mentally insane you cannot own a gun, and stronger measures are being entertained.

As I said, those things were banned under the NFA long before tens of millions of Americans owned them. As it stands, you might as well try to ban Apple Pie because it's not healthy.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

As to bold, their production and sale was never for public consumption, it's an invalid argument.

Owning guns and owning rockets are two different things, rockets are not present in enormous amounts in the USA. Look at Afghanistan and the amount of weapons dumped there during the 80s, rockets, mortars, etc are all heavily used there.

If we could go back in time and rewrite history so that guns were controlled similarly to how more advanced weaponry was controlled when it was first developed, your argument may make a lot more sense. That is not the case, so the argument is moot.

The legalization of guns to me does not bring with it the danger of gun crime. Same can be said for tens of millions.

Given the current supply of guns, making civilian gun ownership illegal would simply disarm civilians and cost innocent civilian lives. Gun crime from criminals might be somewhat reduced, but would remain significant.

No, my right to self defense with guns is not the same as allowing for crazies to have guns. That is why we already have laws on the books that if you are adjudicated mentally insane you cannot own a gun, and stronger measures are being entertained.

As I said, those things were banned under the NFA long before tens of millions of Americans owned them. As it stands, you might as well try to ban Apple Pie because it's not healthy.

I'm on board with the pragmatic issues surrounding gun illegalization and confiscation. My questions are aimed at the theoretical level for thought/discussion purposes.

I'm thinking that there isn't a very good argument to be made for gun ownership on a theoretical level, as the "well armed populace" argument falls apart the moment we aren't allowed to be as well equipped as the military... That and the case-study of the civil war.

 

[RampantAndroid]

You misinterpret me, probably because I was trying to be philosophical. The fundamental motivation for us to protect ourselves is fear. Fear of our loved ones being hurt/killed, fear of losing our properties, fear of getting hurt/killed ourselves. If it wasn't for the fear of such things, we wouldn't be having the gun-control debates across the country at all. Fear is the driving factors in a lot of decisions that we make day to day.

On the same philosophical level, I disagree - it's not fear that motivates my preparedness, but rather knowledge of what the worst is and what I can do to avoid it. I don't equate knowledge of a possibility to fear of a possibility.

 

[xj0hnx]

No, he at best has a mild point. Every single one of those politicians has their life threatened on a regular basis by people whose grip on reality is tenuous at best. Those politicians are hundreds of times more likely to be targeted than any child.

What people keep forgetting about the gun control debate is that it isn't about school shootings. The school shooting just brought the debate to the forefront. This is about gun violence in general. And there are many non-intrusive and simple changes that can be made that are supported by 80%+ of the populace that are being opposed by the NRA and those they've brainwashed.

This is bullshit, pure unadulterated bullshit. If it were just about "gun violence" then there wouldn't even be talk of banning "high capacity magazines", or AR-15's and other "military assault weapons" because their role is a negligible percentage of the majority of gun crimes.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I'm on board with the pragmatic issues surrounding gun illegalization and confiscation. My questions are aimed at the theoretical level for thought/discussion purposes.

I'm thinking that there isn't a very good argument to be made for gun ownership on a theoretical level, as the "well armed populace" argument falls apart the moment we aren't allowed to be as well equipped as the military... That and the case-study of the civil war.

How does it fall apart?

First off, it IS legal for us to own explosives and rockets. Second off, automatic fire isn't really "better" - better for suppression, sure...but I bet you that 50 armed citizens could take on a squad of the US Army or Marines. We don't lose the ability to resist by losing "fun" mode.

Moreover, automatics never really were legal here, between the 1930s and 1940s NFA, they're restricted. If you even TALK about making a gun full auto you get what, 15 years in prison?

 

[thraashman]

This is bullshit, pure unadulterated bullshit. If it were just about "gun violence" then there wouldn't even be talk of banning "high capacity magazines", or AR-15's and other "military assault weapons" because their role is a negligible percentage of the majority of gun crimes.

And that argument has validity. Both sides are making this about something it's not. Mass shootings are a small fraction of gun related deaths in this nation. The banning high capacity magazines idea is a knee jerk reaction. The debate needs to focus on decreasing gun violence in general. And there are very easy ideas out there to do that. Universal background checks should be the first step focused on, accountability of gun resellers should be another (a study released in 2000 showed that approximately 60% of illegal guns traced back to 1% of gun dealers), actually letting the ATF enforce laws ... The Daily Show had a good bit a few weeks back on how neutered the ATF is thanks to the NRA lobby.

Now the assault weapons ban is an interesting one. Once the ban was lifted, assault weapons did start to show up more in crimes and when the ban was in effect assault weapons did decrease in frequency of use in crime. However it is still a small percentage of crimes they were used in and it didn't actually decrease in crime, just what was used was different.

 

[sigurros81]

On the same philosophical level, I disagree - it's not fear that motivates my preparedness, but rather knowledge of what the worst is and what I can do to avoid it. I don't equate knowledge of a possibility to fear of a possibility.

I suppose our definition of fear differs but I think we are on the same page.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Oh, all right. So you actually need to have had your kid shot at the school to be able to talk about it. Just having a kid in close proximity to the same madman with a gun isn't good enough, no your opinion doesn't mean shit if that's all it is.

Seriously Blackjack? The guy has a daughter who goes to the school and was there at the time of the shooting. Once could argue that she only survived by luck because the gunman chose a different random classroom. I'd hardly call him a douchebag, and I think his opinion certainly carries more weight than either of ours.

This. Blackjack is just another ATPN libertroll. Ignore him and hopefully he'll go away.

 

[momeNt]

Gun violence is symptomatic of a larger problem.

Most of the gun violence is symptomatic with gang and drug problems - gangs crop up due to drugs and the profit that can be made by dealing them in cities, desperate people gravitate to that. Give those desperate and needy a better option than dealing drugs by legalizing it and I imagine most of the violence would subside. There will still be desperate people that once were gang members that continue to not integrate, they may rob banks or do home invasions, but the gun deaths would still be lower because many home invasions and bank robberies do not end in death.

Mass killings with guns are symptomatic of mental health issues. - Most likely caused by America's addiction to hormones in food and our unnatural consumption of mammal milk far beyond infancy.

 

[xj0hnx]

And that argument has validity. Both sides are making this about something it's not. Mass shootings are a small fraction of gun related deaths in this nation. The banning high capacity magazines idea is a knee jerk reaction. The debate needs to focus on decreasing gun violence in general. And there are very easy ideas out there to do that. Universal background checks should be the first step focused on,

Universal as in non FFL having access? That's something that many people have wanted for a while, but it has not been forthcoming. That's on the ATF, and it will only help those that partake of the service. If it could be automated, or online that would be a lot better than overloading the ATF phones.