Commenter ern had this to say: "Properly carried guns make environments safer, not less safe."
I responded with this:
What's your opinion? Are college campuses better off with the gun-free-zone policy or not? Are the pro-gun demonstrators out of line doing their protest there of all places?That would be true if every single concealed carry guy acted properly. But they don't.
The statistics you guys keep throwing around showing how low a percentage of CCW permit holders fuck up, are not trustworthy. The truth is some percentage is unfit and does wrong, the same is true of any group, and it's not that ridiculously low percentage you say.
That's what we object to, the percentage of gun owners who are not responsible and have somehow succeeded in acquiring a concealed carry permit anyway.
Please leave a comment.
Eventually, enough dead bodies will pile up creating enough outrage that people will say--enough, this is bullshit.
ReplyDeleteThe Second Amendment is an anachronism and there is no way that it protects anything as ridiculous as gun rights.
When the reason for a law ceases, the law should cease to be.
The reason:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
The guarantee:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But these people are not on the muster roll for any militia--they don't have a right to arms.
Unless these people are seriously proposing that the militia system is reintroduced, they can go fuck themselves.
BTW, ask Meleanie Hain how effective having a gun for protection was.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteThe justification isn't the right. The amendment says, because we need A, the people have the right to B, which makes A possible. We don't have to belong to A, though, to exercise our rights.
Mikeb302000,
I don't see how I'm any safer because I'm not allowed to have a handgun in a campus building. (In Arkansas, outside the building is no problem.) The person who is planning to commit mass murder doesn't care that he's also going to commit the crime of carrying a weapon on a campus. As it stands now, if someone decides to shoot up my campus, all I can do is hope for the best.
And by the way, note here that concealed carry on a campus isn't just for the students. I'm a member of the faculty with a license.
FatWhiteMan has left a new comment on your post "Pro-Gun Demonstration on VA Tech Campus":
ReplyDelete"Eventually, enough dead bodies will pile up creating enough outrage that people will say--enough, this is bullshit."
That is pretty much what they say when shall-issue CCW comes to a state, or carry in restaurants, or just about any other new carry law--except the bodies don't pile up and blood doesn't flow in the streets.
Here's something:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/StatsSummaries/snapshot.aspx
Now, we all know that colleged students do two things that they can't do in their parents' home--drink and have sex.
Drinking and having sex result in no small amount of criminal conduct.
Let's arm all of the college students, that's a great idea. I can't think of a better scenario than having, say, 20,000 or so students, armed, at a football game--especially if their previously undefeated team's dream season is derailed because of a blown call. 20,000 people, many of who's identity is closely tied to the athletic teams that they cheer are going to remain cool, calm and collected? Sure they are.
I can see it now, metal detectors on every dorm. If you aren't packin', you can't come in!
What a terrific idea, give deadly weapons to a demographic that has a record for being a bit, um, unruly.
Who would be "giving" guns to college students? Is there some kind of gun welfare program I don't know about?
ReplyDeleteHaving sex results in criminal conduct? WTF does that mean?
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHaving sex results in criminal conduct? WTF does that mean?
Are you seriously unaware of the incidence of date rape and sexual misconduct occurrences that are a problem on campuses, in conjunction with drinking?
from the web site:
http://www.campusrape.org/?cat=13
"Campus Rape Statistics
By Eva Feldman
Please go to these links to understand your risks for rape and sexual assault while enrolled in College. I believe the risks are significant and all to often young women do not find out until they become Victims.
Campus Rape Statistics
Please go to the US Department Of Justice link to see the research that supports the finding that as many as 1-4 women will be raped during their college careers.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf
DATE RAPE MYTHS AND FACTS PLEASE READ AND REPORT RAPE; SILENCE CHANGES NOTHING!!!
http://www.smartersex.org/date_rape/facts_myths.asp"
When the DoJ tracks a statistic, it is because it occurs in significant numbers.
Or perhaps you don't follow the news in your area, local, state, regional or national?
Alcohol typically is involved in these cases of sex-related crimes.
That is not to say all use of alcohol in colleges is illegal, or that all of it results in violence or crime. Or that all sex in college is criminal.
But there is an intersection of the two which results in notably higher statistics of crime than occur in the average population across other demographics.
Why don't you know this stuff Anonymous?
We should probably ban alcohol if it's causing so many problems.
ReplyDelete"Eventually, enough dead bodies will pile up creating enough outrage that people will say--enough, this is bullshit."
ReplyDeleteAre you arguing in favor or against concealed carry with this statement? I mean a large number of bodies piled up on the Virginia Tech campus, but I don't think concealed carry permit holders were responsible for that were they?
Those who oppose allowing concealed carry on campus always point to how much college students drink, but let's try some facts first. How many college students have concealed carry licenses? Those that do will have gone through the same background checks and (in most states) training that the rest of us have. In addition, why does no one mention the idea that some of those carriers will be faculty?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about flooding campuses with a bunch of guns. It's just about letting those of us who have already been given a license to exercise that license in one more place.
Mike, Your comment got trapped in the spam filter, I just released it.
ReplyDeleteLaci, the Supreme Court has ruled the Second Amendment an individual right (as are ALL the rights in the Bill of Rights). Deal.
The problem comes with states like Florida who will give anyone a gun, without training, without even demonstrating they have much of a pulse.
ReplyDeleteStudents could, if people like you had your way, send off for a concealed carry permit with a cereal box top and a check and get one, training and background check be damned.
Who is given a gun by the state of Florida? Are you talking about police officers?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, not a gun, but a cc permit is easily obtainable in Florida, even if you don't live in Florida.
ReplyDeleteAsk Laci about how that worked in a PA case where a criminal had a permit from Florida.
Yeah that's because philly's may issue scheme discriminates against blacks.
ReplyDeleteBut maybe laci could copy and paste the entire article for me...
We should probably ban alcohol if it's causing so many problems.
ReplyDeleteWe already limit alcohol on campus, but this is a demographic which is largely uncooperative with that restriction, and at the same time, all too often singularly irresponsible, and even violent, in their use of alcohol.
Or do readers here think most of the crowd rioting over the firing of coach Paterno in PA had not indulged in alcohol? One of the more interesting observations I heard about that riot was that it was largely male, which I thought was interesting. I'm not sure that is typically the case with sports-related rioting or not.
So why just limit something so harmful and abused? Why not ban it?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteIs it all right if I just call you 'dumbfuck', since I never know which of you sockpuppets I'm talking to? Good, thanks.
Dumbfuck;
Alcohol is regulated, to the extent possible on all SUNY campuses. No one under 21 is allowed to have, buy or drink alcohol on campus. The penalty for a violation is anything up to and including dismissal from the program.
In a city of about 15,000 there are a lot of bars, many of them catering to college students. ID's are checked--fwiw--and the state liquor commission runs "stings" on a fairly regular basis. Despite all of those policies, young students get drunk and sometimes violent.
Morons that want to see students armed in schools have not even got shit for brains, there's just a vacuum between their ears.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI don't know when you applied for a Florida license, but I have one, in addition to my Arkansas license. Florida required me to demonstrate training and to submit to a background check. The only loose aspect of their system is that they give licenses to qualified applicants, regardless of residency. I don't see a problem with that.
"Alcohol is regulated, to the extent possible on all SUNY campuses. No one under 21 is allowed to have, buy or drink alcohol on campus."
ReplyDeleteHandguns are regulated the same way.
Is this an appropriate protest? Hmm, let's see... It's the site of one of the most horrific shootings in modern American history, the student body is overwhelmingly against guns on campus, and survivors of the shooting are strong proponents of stricter gun regulation, and none of the protesters is in any way related to the shooting. This is a crass and heartless demonstration.
ReplyDeleteWhen survivors of shootings and relatives and friends of victims use their experience as example for the need for stricter gun control, the gunloons say they are "dancing in the blood of victims." But when the gunloons use a shooting site for an open carry protest, with no other relationship to the shooting, somehow it's valid? These guys need to get lost and crawl back to their hidden, insurrectionist arsenals where they belong.
Sounds like the underage students are getting booze from law abiding drinkers. Anyone who legally drinks shares guilt whenever ethanol kills someone. Do you disagree?
ReplyDeleteI will not resort to childish name calling as you have.
Demobear,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't really answer the question. Why don't you support a ban on booze, considering how many people are killed by it?
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteIt's more disrespectful to guarantee helplessness among the next group of victims.
Baldr Odinson,
ReplyDeleteWould you say the same thing about the white college students who went to Mississippi to protest racial injustice? They weren't related to anyone involved and the situation didn't apply to them.
Civil rights are civil rights.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBaldr,
It's more disrespectful to guarantee helplessness among the next group of victims.
Most of us don't need a firearm to be resourceful and effective. Only the gun loons are helpless little victims waiting to happen.
Elaborate...
ReplyDeleteYou don't need a firearm to be effective against what?
ReplyDeletedg - then why didn't one of the resourceful people at VT protect the others from this shooter?
ReplyDeleteJim said...
ReplyDeletedg - then why didn't one of the resourceful people at VT protect the others from this shooter?
In the first place, what would have stopped this shooter, who had his weapon out and was using it, from shooting someone who had their weapon holstered, allowing the shooter to kill them and take away their weapon? And what makes you think that any concealed carry student would have had a clear shot instead of endangering other students?
And you seem to miss the facet of this discussion that most colleges and universities are NOT approving carrying by their students or staff for insurance reasons - insurance companies don't wish to trust the judgment of a bunch of gun loons any more than I do.
What WAS effective in minimizing the loss of life and of injury was not having more people with more guns. It was the communication with law enforcement, it was locking rooms, it was evacuating students out of harms way.
What would have been even more effective would be to have kept a gun out of the hands of this dangerously crazy person in the first place.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteYou don't need a firearm to be effective against what?
Many of the situations where people like you incorrectly perceive a threat, where resorting to a firearm is their solution rather than either a non-violent solution or a less lethal solution.
Dangers of Gun Use for Self-Defense
Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.47
Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.48
A study reviewing surveys of gun use in the U.S. determined that most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.49 "
http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp
Colin had several minutes to draw, take cover and fire against a threat. Hard to see how they'd be worse off.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteColin had several minutes to draw, take cover and fire against a threat. Hard to see how they'd be worse off.
If it had been that easy, the SWAT teams who had the benefit of better weapons and body armor would have stopped him sooner than they did.
"In the first place, what would have stopped this shooter, who had his weapon out and was using it, from shooting someone who had their weapon holstered, allowing the shooter to kill them and take away their weapon?"
ReplyDeleteFrom the accounts I have heard, alot of the students tried to hide in classrooms. The shooter forced open at least one door. I think there was definitly time to set up an ambush for the shooter such that as soon as the door was opened, an armed citizen could have shot him. Of course we will never know since non of the victims were armed. What we do know is that none of the unarmed victims were able to stop themselves from being shot.
What does Swat's offensive role have to do with a student's defensive actions?
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou should give more details about your citations. The Legal Community Against Gun Violence is hardly a neutral and unbiased source. They're against private gun ownership.
What does Swat's offensive role have to do with a student's defensive actions?
ReplyDeleteWell, the fact that SWAT teams are trained and the average student is a danger to himself and others might be a big one.
The Legal Community Against Gun Violence is hardly a neutral and unbiased source
And Most of the Pro-gun people are neutral and unbiased sources???
Is that why they come up with legal and historical bullshit to buttress their positions? And then if they do accept those realities sound like idiots as they try to explain away reality?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
ReplyDeleteAccording to this account the SWAT team did not do anything to stop the attack, Cho simply killed himself without being confronted by any armed resistance. And it was several classrooms where he was able to force his way in (classroom doors were not lockable) and kill several students in those rooms.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI've never denied the facts. I've explained to you that on the basis of different values, we interpret the facts differently.
Without seeing the method of gathering and interpreting the data, I have no way of assessing the cited study. What was the sample size? Were gun owners asked how long they have owned their guns and how much practice and training that they have? Were the police the ones who declared a homicide justifiable or not, or was that left up to the courts?
I don't just take numbers at face value, since I know how they can be manipulated to say many things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
ReplyDeleteAccording to this account the SWAT team did not do anything to stop the attack, Cho simply killed himself without being confronted by any armed resistance. And it was several classrooms where he was able to force his way in (classroom doors were not lockable) and kill several students in those rooms.
Certainly the SWAT teams were effective in containing the gunman, and were better suited to stopping the gunman, by having better weapons, trained snipers, and body armor. All of that is superior to students trying to shoot the gunman in the existing confusion.
The more people with guns in the mix, the harder for the proper authorities to sort it out. The proximity of the armed authorities was certainly a factor in the decision of the gunman to turn his weapons on himself. He clearly was not going to be leaving the campus to go anywhere else, given the response.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSounds like the underage students are getting booze from law abiding drinkers. Anyone who legally drinks shares guilt whenever ethanol kills someone. Do you disagree?
I will not resort to childish name calling as you have.
November 14, 2011 8:19 PM
Anonymous said...
Demobear,
You didn't really answer the question. Why don't you support a ban on booze, considering how many people are killed by it?
November 14, 2011 8:39 PM
Actually, dumbfuck, I do support a total ban on alcohol amongst the college students who are too young to use it legally. As for banning it completely, I got not problem with that. I enjoy my bevvies, but I can easily live withouth them. Tell ya what, you give up your guns, I'll go on the wagon-- I'm pretty sure I won't have to stop drinking.
You won't call me names, oh, gosh I feel so bad about that, dumbfuck.
Certainly the SWAT teams were effective in containing the gunman, and were better suited to stopping the gunman, by having better weapons, trained snipers, and body armor. All of that is superior to students trying to shoot the gunman in the existing confusion.
ReplyDelete7:15 a.m.: A 9-1-1 emergency call to Virginia Tech campus police reported a shooting at West Ambler Johnston Hall, leaving Ryan Christopher Clark, the resident advisor, dead and Emily Hilscher fatally wounded in Room 4040,[46] which housed Hilscher.[47][48][49]
9:50 a.m.: After arriving at Norris Hall, police took 5 minutes to assemble the proper team, clear the area and then break through the doors.[63] They used a shotgun to break through the chained entry doors. Investigators believe that the shotgun blast alerted the gunman to the arrival of the police.[36] The police heard gunshots as they enter the building. They followed the sounds to the second floor.
9:50 a.m.: A second e-mail announcing: "A gunman is loose on campus. Stay in buildings until further notice. Stay away from all windows" was sent to all Virginia Tech email addresses. Loudspeakers broadcast a similar message.[58]
9:51 a.m.: As the police reached the second floor, the gunshots stopped. Cho's shooting spree in Norris Hall lasted 9 minutes.[64] Police officers discovered that after his second round of shooting the occupants of room 211 Norris, the gunman fatally shot himself in the temple.[65][66]
Two hours and thirty-six minutes later the police find Cho dead.....
They were completely ineffective in "containing' him he left campus mailed a package to NBC News, returned to campus chained all the exits to the building closed, shot 60 people, and only killed himself after he heard gunfire not his own.....
Way to put a happy face on police ineffefctiveness....
I think it was Greg, way upthread, who trotted out the old argument which goes like this: if a mass murderer intent on killing masses of people decides to do so on a college campus, he won't mind breaking the comparatively minor law of bringing a gun into a gun-free zone.
ReplyDeleteThat ridiculous argument presumes that gun control folks are so naive and stupid that we think otherwise. We don't.
What we're concerned with are all the incidents that would occur in between the mass shootings. In spite of their reluctance to admit it, some CCW permit holders do bad things with their guns. These would take a variety of shapes, and our contention is they would far outweigh any good that those guns might do.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteYes, I did say that the mass murderer wannabe won't care that it's illegal to carry a gun on campus. This article is about a campus on which that very thing happened. My argument is that the good people of the campus deserve the opportunity for an effective response.
"Eventually, enough dead bodies will pile up creating enough outrage that people will say--enough, this is bullshit."
ReplyDeleteFunny, because as shall-issue CCW has become widespread throughout the U.S. over the last 25-30 years the exact OPPOSITE of what you state above has occurred.
Sucks that reality has proven you wrong, huh?
Reality Sucks?
ReplyDeleteLet's see--how many of these CCW laws have been passed by popular referenda? I believe Missouri's failed to pass a referendum, but the legislature jammed it down people' throats.
In fact,I believe most of these laws have been done by legislatures using parliamentary tricks to pass the bills against popular opinion.
There is only so many dead bodies that can pile up before people take notice and get upset.
Unless American are truly a pathetic people.
If you are correct, then the American public is truly pathetic and gets what it deserves.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteHowever the concealed carry laws were enacted, forty states now have good laws. Why don't you answer the point that Anonymous made? Those states haven't experienced the huge numbers of deaths that are always predicted. What about that?
I genuinely hope that I will never be so fearful of the world that I live in that I think a gun is something I can't live without. Then again, I don't actually think a lot of the Gregnonymous Type 2A's are just scared. I think that they're scared and pissed and they WANT to be able to kill people that don't act the way they think that they should act.
ReplyDeleteThe scales are tipping, boys. Each year about 100,000 people are killed or injured with guns. Don't you think most of their friends and relatives are moving towards our side? How many more years will it take before the public opinion falls clearly and strongly with us. Not too many, I would think.
ReplyDeleteAbout the 49 states that allow concealed carry, Laci provided a good insight into that. Just like you guys like to claim all 80 million gun owners as your own, when in reality many of them are for gun control, in the same way you keep pushing that 49-state crap as if all the people in all those states agreed with your nonsense.
You want it to be one way, but it's the other way. Marlo.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteYou know my name. I'm not opposed to anonymous comments, but I do sign my own. I'm not scared, and while I'm angry about some aspects of our current system, I think that anyone who compared the language that you use to what I use would come to a different judgement about who's boiling with rage here.
Mikeb302000,
The number isn't forty-nine. There are forty states that are on our side. Since Florida joined our side in 1987, states have consistently come our way. Once they do, they don't go back.
You have to have a gun and I'm the one that's scared?
ReplyDeleteI have received a few threats form yahooz with gunz over the last couple of years. They get screen capped and filed. Lots of people who haz teh gunz DO threaten people who don't haz 'em. I've never threatened to kill anyone with a gun, nor have I threatened to do violence of any sort to people I disagree with, no matter how disagreeable it might get. The guyz with the gunz have threatened and actually killed millions of folks that they disagree with.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteWhere exactly did I threaten you? I said that your comments make you look enraged. I said that an outsider looking at our two comments would hardly call you rational. But I did not threaten you. You have no cause to worry about me.
WTF is your problem, Greg Camp? If you threatened me we would not be having an academic discussion about it.
ReplyDeleteYou, and a number of other gunzloonz have told me that I'm afraid. You're wrong. Other gunzloonz have threatened me, I did not accuse you of doing so.
This:
"You know my name. I'm not opposed to anonymous comments, but I do sign my own. I'm not scared, and while I'm angry about some aspects of our current system, I think that anyone who compared the language that you use to what I use would come to a different judgement about who's boiling with rage here."
I'm not "boiling with rage", you idiot. I'm angry that people like you have the chutzpah to think that their own precious "rights" trump mine and everyone else's. You want to carry your guns everywhere, including places where people do NOT want them to be. You piss and moan about how it's YOUR right to do so. You selfish, self-centered jerk. You care not one bit that what you're doing is offensive, in the extreme to many people. But you care enough about getting caught out that you want to carry your guns under your shirts AND, if you're like the idiot who claims he carries them into major sports venues, to places where policies prohibit them.
You guys flat out don't give a fuck about what other people want. You don't give a fuck that you make other people uncomfortable when you insist on flaunting YOUR rights. You're gonna have your gunz, no matter what. What a childish, insecure way to go through life. Not that you'd ever be in my home, but if you were you'd be frisked at the door. I don't allow guns in my house, unless they're mine or in my custody, temporarily.
I think that you really need to go somewhere that people shoot at each other a lot, to get it out of your system; someplace where the gunz ARE the law. I'm sure you'd enjoy it, as long as you were on the shooting end instead of the shot end.
Greg, The point is that even in those concealed carry states, many people don't agree. Just like among the 80 million gun onwers, you're attitude is not the norm.
ReplyDeleteAbout the fear factor, I'm not the one who is afraid to leave my house without a gun. That's you.
I was struck by the fact that while Greg doesn't carry his phone everywhere because he didn't grow up doing so... he carries a gun everywhere.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure he grew up where most people didn't carry a gun at that time any more than a phone, and that to do so would have been considered odd, rude,and oh yeah - dangerous.
Cell phones are for the most part a real improvement, an advance, particularly for emergencies. Photo and video capable phones have recorded some amazing footage.....and, admittedly, a lot of dumb stuff too.
And yes, people talking in some circumstances can be annoying. But they are an overall improvement, and I wouldn't want to go backwards technologically.
None of those things can be said about people carrying more guns. Yet Greg expects us to see his choice to carry a gun but not a phone which he would use as reasonable or even a desirable thing.
It's not.
"I'm pretty sure he grew up where most people didn't carry a gun at that time any more than a phone, and that to do so would have been considered odd, rude,and oh yeah - dangerous."
ReplyDeleteWe have Greg's own comment, on the "Toy guns" post about his not being allowed to have ANY toy gunz as a child. I guess that means he didn't grow up with Colt .45 1911 under his shirt, either.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteAgain, compare the language that the two of us use and tell me who looks rational and who looks enraged and uneducated.
Dog Gone,
Any piece of technology has a mixture of good and bad uses. Call me a Luddite, but I just don't adopt the latest new thing just because it's new. A telephone is a device of limited utility for me, and there are many times when I prefer to be without.
To everyone,
How does the presence of a handgun concealed on my person inherently violate your rights? You have the right not to be harmed, all things being equal. But I'm not harming you. Nor are most of the other licensees. The number of those licensees who use their guns to commit crimes is far too low to justify your claim that the mere presence of my handgun is a harm.
Greg, the example of shooting a firearm at an inhabited building is given as an example of recklessness in law school.
ReplyDeleteThe presence of an object which can injure and kill up to a distance of 2 miles in an inhabited area presents a danger--no matter how good, or innocent, your intentions are.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI asked how the presence of a handgun harms you. The presence, not the use. When it's in its holster, a handgun is an inert object.
Now, the only way a bullet can travel the distance that you named is if I point the gun upward at an angle between 30 and 45 degrees, let's say, and fire it. That's what people do in Hollywood. That's what some fools do to celebrate. It happens to be illegal in some places and irresponsible most of the time. I don't do it.
Your insistence that my handgun is inherently a harm is dependent on the worst possible behavior with it. As I've said before, there's a lot more Thomas Hobbes in that attitude than Thomas Jefferson.
Greg, what part of a firearms is a weapon which is intended to injure or kill if used correctly do you not fucking understand?
ReplyDeleteThey are not fucking playthings.
Are you truly a shit for brains who likes to look smart by talking about a bunch of philosophers that you probably have never read, because you fucking well don't understand them?
Furthermore, to whip them out to try to weasel your way out of the FACT that you are AN IGNORANT, SHIT FOR BRAINS DOES FUCK ALL TO BUTTRESS YOUR POSITION.
Is that in simple enough terms for you to understand?
Or do I have to work to make myself as stupid as you are for you to understand that?
As I said, I support your right to be a part of a well regulated militia, especially if you have a drill instructor drilling into your head how dim you are, Greg.
Ferrago, the fuck they have.
ReplyDeleteYou directed this to Laci, but heck, he and I are on the phone with each other long distance (guess we're not as Luddite as you are) so I'll take a whack at this.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't have it, you cannot use it. Use is predicated on having it; it is not simply an inert object, it is a weapon.
That you are prepared to use it by having it with you requires that I trust your ability to correctly determine when such use occurs.
Based on what you have written here, and what others like Anonymous has written here about carrying despite prohibitions on private property about doing so makes me deeply distrust your personal judgment. Nor am I content to trust a complete stranger with the capacity to use deadly force, given the number of incidents in the news on a daily basis of people doing so when they should not. This applies equally to crimes of passion and dumbass accidents like the stadium shooting where the guy blasted himself in the leg.
Further the very concept of a society that relies on individuals getting into shooting fights with each other presupposes that we do not rely on law enforcement to deal with crime but instead take the law and law enforcement into our own hands. THAT is a fundamental philosophy which both endangers and offends me.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYou make assertions. When I challenge them, you respond with a torrent of curses. Where did I say that a firearm is a plaything? I have never claimed that, nor do I treat them that way.
I do have to question your reasoning skills, since you can't distinguish between a dependent and an independent clause in a sentence. I don't have to be part of a militia to exercise my rights.
Dog Gone,
Do not conflate me with Anonymous, whoever that is. I am not a danger to you, and I am not harming you. Being offended is not the same as being harmed. If it were, a whole lot of people would have dropped dead a long time ago. I get offended at the stupidity and fallacies in commercials, for example, but I'm all right.
Waaay up thread, Robert Farago said:
ReplyDelete"Laci, the Supreme Court has ruled the Second Amendment an individual right (as are ALL the rights in the Bill of Rights). Deal."
A few comments ago, Laci responded:
"Ferrago, the fuck they have."
Hmmm. Which is it?