Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) Can we assume that the guns that the bangers in Alpha's story were all illegal? None were acquired legally? Perhaps with fewer guns in circulation, fewer guns would have been available, and all the sudden 6 guns turns to 1 or something. You can't just assume that if you remove Alpha's gun you aren't removing other guns. And that's fine and i've said i'm in favor of some more restrictions and generally making it more difficult to acquire guns. But at some point that restriction starts impeding on my use of guns and my want to have some protection, whether you believe that want of protection is reasonable or not. For example, forcing me to keep my guns locked in a safe with my ammo locked in another safe is a bulls*** restriction to combat the .000000000000001% chance someone will steal that gun and use it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:44 PM) I have a basic instinct of survival. A part of that is "not wanting to be shot at with deadly weapons." Part of what we can do to reduce your odds of being shot at with deadly weapons is to...reduce the availability of deadly weapons. I don't have a basic instinct to shoot back. Good for you. But you don't have the right to force me to believe that. I'm good with a gun and I'm confident in my ability. I'm not someone who has never fired a gun before thinking I can take on 50 gang members like a video game.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:40 PM) I'll note again that, in Alpha's case, his gun made zero difference in the situation. But I'll also point out that I see the proliferation of guns in the streets as part-and-parcel of the same problem. We allow you and Alpha easy access to handguns, that means 'gangbangers' get easier access, too. I believe that if we had sane gun control laws, you wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about armed gangs roving the streets, or mentally disturbed children stealing their parents' guns and going on killing sprees. I'm not sure how you can say "so what?" to taking the statistically-more-likely-to-survive path of not having a gun, but I'll add that what you're saying seems to be exactly in line with the machismo vigilante mindset that's part of the problem as well. What good is it dying fighting if you could have lived otherwise? What good is it allowing more and more guns and 'mistakes' that lead to more Treyvon Martins and Jordan Davis's? Because it's easy to look at things after the fact and determine whether an act was smart or not. In the moment that s*** doesn't matter. I'm sure Alpha was scared as hell and felt slightly better about the fact that he had a shotgun to fight back with if it was truly necessary. I think it's an asshole move quite frankly to not only question that, but call him idiotic for thinking that way, which is what you're doing without being direct about it. And what are the statistics exactly? I haven't seen any numbers.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:36 PM) The key thing here...even if every element of data pushes you the other way, you would make the emotional choice. It's right there. Even if I could show you that having a gun makes you 5, or 10, or 100, or 1000 times more likely to be hurt/killed in that case...you'd rather take the hero/vigilante way out. Nothing can overpower the emotion, the dream of using the gun in a certain circumstance. That's why I keep calling it the vigilante fantasy. Except that's an inaccurate term because being a vigilante is more about revenge and actively seeking out justice as opposed to just defending yourself. What i'm talking about is the natural instinct to survive and to use any means necessary. It's not at all unreasonable to believe that you can do that if you have means to protect yourself. And I would suspect that again, most people would want to feel that way as opposed to being at the mercy of a person intending to do you or others harm.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 03:49 PM) 'Order at Universal Gunpoint' I've talked a lot about the presumption of goodness in our society. For instance, there needs to be some sense that the mere act of arming oneself might invest you with a particular hubris, that there will be side-effects from arming educators, that placing weaponry in our elementary schools affects our broader conception of ourselves as a society. One of the points of a democratic society is to put brakes on our most animal impulses--impulses which are universal across humankind. I think much of our recent firearm legislation -Stand Your Ground for instance--runs in the exact opposite direction. I wonder if Michael Dunn would have said one word to those kids had he not been armed. It assumes, as Jacobs puts it, an "absolute trust" in ourselves. Jacobs cautions against making law out of white elephant events, and I think that's generally correct. But I can not escape the fact that Nancy Lanza was, as far as we know, a responsible gun owner. She was following the theory of "more guns." Those guns were then used to kill her. I think it's more from the angle that if push comes to shove, yes, you'd much rather rely on your own judgment, flawed or not, to save your life, not be at the mercy of someone else shooting at you or your family with the intent to kill. There's an argument to be made about gun control and all that; but this basic premise of survival, i'm just not sure why people don't understand that. (and yes, I know this is an incredibly rare instance, but again, with life or death on the line, why wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry?) Are you really telling me that if you're Alpha from his story yesterday, that you'd PREFER not having a gun in that situation? You'd PREFER to be in your house with no protection whatsoever except a phone to call the police that may or may not take too long to arrive? Edit: and i'm sure the response is that by having the gun you're statistically inviting a slightly higher risk of something violent happening - but so what? Why would you want to rely on chance in that situation? If you make a mistake, you live with it because you live. If you die, well, you died fighting believing that your life was truly on the line.

The bomb took out most of the building so I think it's safe to assume it took out the cameras/equipment too. And I believe Carrie was promoted by Saul since he mentioned something about Estes being pissed off about it. Considering she ended up capturing Nazr, it would make sense that she would get promoted, even if she was/is banging an American terrorist. Which brings me to my other complaint - how is she going to explain leaving for a day or two? Season 3 just needs to be about Carrie and Saul trying to find Brody. And Brody should be a small character, much like Nazr was. Maybe near the end of the season bring him back, otherwise make it random video clips or pictures being analyzed by Carrie. My biggest issue with season 2 was the love stuff between the two of them. I could buy Carrie's side, but not Brody's. So the less of that stuff they show the better.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) who is saying this? I want links. I didn't mean to infer ALL guns in my prior post, but there's a new push now for gun bans in the wake of Newton. Look at this thread. People are talking about bans on guns left and right. Here's two senators wanting to reinstate the assault weapons ban even though the weapons used would have been legal to have under that law: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...eapons-ban.html

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:35 PM) That depends on how you want to frame this... I'd say we should include drunk driving as intentional uses of a car as a weapon, while it may not be their "intention", the fact they get in their car while intoxicated makes it exactly that. And if we include that, I bet there are far more of such accidents with cars than with guns. I also understand I'm stretching here to make an argument, but I think it's valid considering drunk drivers that kill people will get convicted of manslaughter. It was roughly 10-11k last year.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:30 PM) I care and I pointed out why its a terrible analogy. You just choose to completely ignore it and say "Well dumb people say things", yet you are not recognizing you are creating an argument from something a dumb person would say and then acting like someone in this thread is making that argument. Its boring. Are you not reading the headlines right now? It's not just dumb people responding. It's smart people who truly believe that proper response to these tragedies is to take away guns entirely.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:24 PM) That's because vehicles and guns are not the same thing with the same sort of benefits to society. We don't talk about that because that argument is infantile. Oh bulls***. At some point we just choose not to care because of the importance of the object at issue. Obviously you could give two s***s so of course it's a bad analogy for you. I do care, so it's a good one.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:23 PM) Jenks, not so sure about that, Read stories that involve an SUV in a crash, they almost always read 'A white SUV crashed thru a house today...', seemingly blaming the SUV. Lol, good point.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) Hmm what world is this? We blame drugs, we blame video games, we blame rap, we blame no religion in the classroom, we blame prostitutes, we blame gambling, we blame tv. Since when we do we blame the person, all Ive ever seen is blaming everyone else. Everything is now an "addiction", tomorrow well have "gun addicts" and we cant blame them because "they are addicted to guns and its a disease." I seriously dont know what world you are in where people ever take the blame. Idiots do this, rational people do not. When you get involved in a car accident, you don't immediately blame the vehicle. You blame the driver.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) But we do! We take all sorts of efforts to blame the cars when people die in accidents. We investigate to see if anything was faulty with the car. We require all sorts of training, we require all sorts of licensing, we require huge amounts of safety equipment in order to use the thing. We acknowledge repeatedly that an automobile can be deadly if used improperly, to the point that some would say we require too many safety features (thus raising the price). We blame the car all the time, and change the laws and regulations to make them safer. Great! Do that with guns. No one in this thread is saying not to. I've argued it won't make much of a difference, but go for it! However, we NEVER talk about BANNING vehicles because of the idiots that use them in the wrong ways.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) And yet you're the same one who explained earlier today why you wouldn't keep your guns locked. No, not everyone shoots someone by accident, not everyone's kid commits suicide. But not every gun owner has a group of black men break down their door and stand by while that gun owner gets off enough shots to become the hero...but we get that described in vivid detail here. We don't get it described in vivid detail how someone's 7 year old found their unlocked gun and blew their friend's face off. We don't get it described in vivid detail how someone's teenager has a runin with a bully and then winds up deciding that's not going to happen again, hurting themselves or the other kid. We get the hero fantasy described. Everyone feels good about that emotion. It's power, and we like power. But when something goes wrong...why that's just an accident. It can't be blamed on the product and we shouldn't do anything to make it safer. No, like everything else in life, when something goes wrong, we don't blame the product, we blame the person making the mistake. If you own a gun and someone accidentally gets shot, it's because you f***ed up and made a mistake, just like running a red light and hitting something with your car. It's not the cars fault, it's your fault for operating the car the wrong way. If your seven year old gets ahold of the gun, you made a mistake. If you have a teenager with a problem, and he gets your gun, you made a mistake. That doesn't make guns anymore dangerous because some asshole somewhere shoots up a school or some negligent gun owner allowed his kids to get his guns.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) So back to the question in the title of this thread? Is it time to revisit the 2nd amendment? For those who've been saying no, is there any scenario at all where you would consider doing so? When crime is eradicated and there is no more game to kill. Maybe then. You could talk me into banning certain types of weapons but with special permits/privileges. You could talk me into more education, certification, training, background checks, waiting periods etc. But at the end of the day, no, I will never stop supporting a right to bear arms.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) YEah, again, I can see why you'd be passionate about the issue. But let's say 6 bangers bust into your house with guns. If you are unarmed, we hope the worst is they steal some s***, maybe smack you with the gun, and leave. Worst case, everyone dead. Let's say these 6 bangers bust into your house and you draw a gun. I think the chances of everyone being killed raise substantially. I would think in that situation, however it plays out, you would (1) not care what happens to the miserable wastes of life entering his house, (2) support any effort by him to protect himself and his family.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:43 PM) And I note again the complete lack of consideration of any other way that gun could be used. Never a consideration of an accident, or a suicide, or shooting the wrong person. The only thing that matters is the vigilante fantasy. People consider accidents with guns all the time. That's why you practice gun safety. You act as though people with guns are irresponsible or something, like anyone with a gun eventually shoots someone by accident.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:16 PM) Yet we live in some strange fear where we rationalize easy and widespread access to dangerous weapons and fight against any sort of laws to restrict or regulate them, arguing instead that we need more guns in more places and more people should be carrying loaded weapons on them at all times. If guns weren't a much more effective means of killing things than cars or knives, they wouldn't exist. It's silly to argue that they are not extremely good at what they are designed to do. Please quote someone in this thread thats advocating for NO restrictions or regulations on guns. No one here, or publicly, does that. It's not a free for all and everyone involved, including the NRA crazies, understand the need for certain restrictions. And I never said they weren't good at what they do, but we don't go overboard trying to protect society from every potential object that can kill. Let's ban vehicles because we know 10k people a year are going to die from DUI's. Oh wait, no, that's acceptable. It's not some terrible boogeyman to blame and be scared of like guns.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:13 PM) His fear of being a victim of gun violence is no less ridiculous than the argument that we need quick and easy access to loaded weapons for self-defense. I'm pretty certain the odds would be better that you would need to defend yourself from a robbery or whatever than the odds for being a victim of an escalated public fight that turned concealed carry into a license to kill.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:03 PM) And therein lies the problem. You want to have quick access to a tool that is extremely dangerous. In all other circumstances it is completely reasonable to restrict quick access to something that is dangerous, but to some guns are the exception. To me they are not. Guns are just a nice bed time story to make you feel safe at night. The night time break in hypothetical is also one of the most dangerous. Its dark, you may have been sleeping, you are now going to arm yourself and make a difference? I just dont get it. I do not expect everyone to be like me, to simply accept that our lives are so random that having a gun likely wont matter. So I go to sleep at night without a gun. And if someone breaks in my house, I have some plans. Maybe theyll kill me, maybe Ill get them. Win some, you lose some. The problem with your justification "in my house" is that you are not willing to accept your gun can be taken from your house, where it becomes my problem. The easy access you desire, also means easy access for a child or criminal. But to answer your question, if I wanted to own a gun and somehow was fearful to the point where I wanted close easy access. I would keep the gun locked in a wall safe or nightstand next to my bed. And my problem with this has always been that there are an infinite number of dangerous objects that can be used, in the heat of the moment or deliberately, to kill. We all don't live in some strange fear of cars or knives or whatever. The ease of killing doesn't change the fact that if I wanted I can just run people down in my car. Or go around slashing people with a knife like in China.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) And here, of course, is the rub for anyone who wants to tell you that having these things is safe. A substantial fraction of the owners will find a way to justify whatever behavior you consider to be unsafe. And the end result is...people will die...But we're not allowed to do anything about it. Your fear of being a victim in the cross-fire of a public shootout at the local saloon is ridiculous.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 12:30 PM) What do you use your gun for? I hunt a fair amount. I have several shotguns and rifles, some at my place, some at my grandparents in Iowa. Occasionally do some sport shooting on their farm. The guns I keep at home were just left out (though somewhat hidden in between book cases in my basement ), unloaded with ammo nearby because that's where I keep it. Now with a little one I have a safe. I don't foresee ever using one in defense of my family or home. I never want to use one in defense of my family or home. But i'm not going to pander to someone else's fear of guns or the random use of guns by criminals/crazy people and let that prevent me from protecting myself and my family if the need arises.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:57 AM) This is premised on the fact that they did not store their weapons legally, which means that their actions were illegal, aka criminal. I thought you kept saying that there was no way to enforce people keeping their guns properly. So it clearly can be done. Whether or not we want it to be done, is a different argument. But that is where the argument should be, why do we not want people to have to lock guns up. Why do we want people to be able to easily transfer weapons to other people. Why do these have to be allowed? And drug dealer liability act wont make much sense if drugs were legalized. I want ready access to my gun in case of an emergency and I think a lot of gun owners add that to their list of reasons for having a gun. I get there's a reasonable restriction for having to lock up your guns if children are present in the home, but to lock them up all the time is too restrictive IMO. What if you live alone? You still have to buy a gun safe in the random chance your place gets robbed and someone steals your gun? We can legislate the hell out of everything. But history has shown that most of the time all you're doing is punishing the law abiding citizens at the expense of a relatively low change in whatever problem you're trying to cure. I'm fine making it more difficult to purchase guns. I'm fine having to take classes, be certified, wait longer periods of time, whatever. But once you start restricting my use of guns, in my own home no less, I think that goes above and beyond what is acceptable.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) If a gun you bought or owned is used in a crime, you go to jail for the period of the crime. You act like we cant make rules to stop this. We can make them, it just would require people to really man up about responsibility. To use something close to my heart. If they passed a law legalizing all drugs, I would be okay with a law that stated I was responsible for the actions of anyone who I gave drugs to, or who stole them from me. Its called taking personal responsibility. They already have that law. Drug Dealer Liability Act. Either way, that's an insane penalty. We don't do that in really any other setting when you're doing something legal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) Looks like the solution is to restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens. Technically, they are not actually law-abiding, but since we have no way to screen that, we need to reconsider the ease with which any non-criminal can obtain a gun. And I'm asking how. Presumably gang members use friends or family to get legally acquired guns. What restriction on those family members could be put into a law to stop that gun from getting to a gang member and being used? Gonna do a background check to make sure that the person doesn't have any gang member relatives?