Over on TTAG the humor didn't last for long, I'm afraid. The poster said this.
Most of them can’t explain just why exactly relegating guns to the back of the bus is not a civil rights issue, but we’ll let that pass for the now…This inexorably led to comments which, one after another, proclaimed the terrible victimhood of the gun-rights crusader. Robert said, "The government should not be asking why we should be given certain freedoms, but why not."
What's your opinion? Do gun-free zones diminish the freedom of gun owners? I suppose, similar to the way my being prohibited from driving my car in the wrong direction on the freeway diminishes my freedom. It does make a certain sense. But it's the continual lamenting, the continual demanding that makes these guys hard to take. It's their total self-centeredness.
One thing we can no longer say, however, is that they have no sense of humor. As short-lived as it was, posting that video deserves proper humor recognition.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
OK, We have conflicting rights: property and "gun". Whose right prevails--the property owner or the gunowners?
ReplyDeleteThis creates an even more interesting paradox since US "Conservatives" talk about property rights, but they have to KowTow to the gun lobby to get the single issue voters to vote against their interests.
Fortunately, the single issue voter is far too stupid to see they are being had.
Another issue, gun free zones point out how unpopular the relaxation of gun laws actually is. It's the Occupy Movement applied to the Gun Safety issue.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find so funny is that in the instances they show in the film trying to make fun of the idea of a gun free zone - the store clerk for example, or the guy on the street, or the little old lady in her bed - in not one of those circumstances would it have been practical to blow away the bad guy, because he already had his gun out ready to shoot.
ReplyDeleteWould he have just up and left? Probably not, but taking the time to draw a gun on someone who already has one pointed at you is a losing tactic, one that will get you dead.
Yet every darned one of these gun nuts thinks they're going to be a superhero, that they are somehow magically - because this IS delusional, magical thinking, stupid thinking - going to get the drop on the bad guy and shoot him for daring to threaten him, take his money, whatever.
Upshot, pun intended, they end up dead or injured; mostly dead. And their precious (as in Gollum stroking the ring in the Tolkein trilogy) fetish weapon is one more inanimate object in the arsenal of a criminal.
The people who made the video think we're the dummies and they're the ones who should be laughing.
Quite the opposite. To anyone who is a critical thinker, it is clear that they are simply demonstrating their own delusional stupidity, their own fantasy world of a bad guy around every corner who somehow justifies their carrying around their inanimate object weapon, their equalizer.
Yeah, it equalizes alright. It dumbs them down to being even more stupid than the criminal.
Funny, yes - but not for the reason they intended when they made it.
And that makes it somehow even more amusing than if they were trying to be funny.
Laci - as I believe you have pointed out in the past, buildings that are open to the public sometimes already have their property rights diminished. For instance, restaurants open to the public are not allowed to keep out people based on race. If the government has decided that people have the right to carry concealed weapons, then why should a public facility such as a restaurant be allowed to block such people from entering?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Laci can answer that from a legal perspective. Let me answer it from one that uses critical thinking.
ReplyDeleteBeing black, or Jewish, or female, or handicapped, or gay does not put anyone else at risk of accidental or deliberate injury or death.
Weapons do. Banning people with weapons is in part a matter of personal preference of the property owner but it can also be a part of their cost of doing business.
One of the reasons that concealed carry on college campuses was a failure was that it would so drastically increase the college's insurance premiums. That cost would have been reflected in an increase in tuition costs to students.
There is no equivalent harm to having someone leave their firearm somewhere else. It is an optional thing.
Let me know how a person can do that with their status of being handicapped, gay, female, of a particular race/ethnicity, or religion.
As Jim observed, any business that is open to the public must accept all customers who follow the law. As long as gun owners are not being disruptive, they should be allowed to go about their business in public spaces. Now, if the owner of a private home wishes to rely on a "Gun-free Zone" sign, so be it.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
Quit being an idiot. Concealed carry on campuses isn't dead. More and more campuses are having to accept concealed carry. We will keep pushing until all do.
And as I've told you before, my handgun doesn't endanger you, unless you're threatening my life. Creating gun-free zones merely means that if I go in, I have to leave my gun in my car. How is that safer than keeping it in my holster? I'm being forced to leave it out of my control. But I do realize what your answer is: Don't carry it in the first place. Sorry, no deals.
You can carry anywhere you want to carry that allows you on the premises.
ReplyDeleteOr you can secure your firearm under lock and key, whatever it takes to do that.
The rest of us have the right NOT to be around your firearms, and don't have to trust your judgment - which many of us here do not, given your demonstrably bad critical thinking.
I don't see that changing any time soon where we have your choices forced on the rest of us.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteOther than speculation and supposition, what evidence do you have that I pose a danger to you when I have a handgun on my person? Don't cite anecdotes; give me hard evidence. There are some six million licensees in this country, plus the people in constitutional carry states who aren't required to have a license. Can you provide evidence that enough of them commit crimes with their guns to justify changing the rules or calling us unsafe? All you've ever given in the time that I've been reading here has been anecdotes and the numbers of total firearms deaths and injuries in a year. Show me that people with carry licenses are committing crimes with their guns. Show me that the number is high enough to demand a change.
And by the way, my money doesn't often get spent in Gun-free Zones. I also generally refuse to go into stores that have a sign banning large bags. If store owners don't trust me, why should I trust them?
Gun-free zones diminish the freedom of gun owners exactly like driving regulations diminish the freedom of drivers.
ReplyDeleteThe silliness that guns and owning them and carrying them are somehow sacred, inviolable activities is total bullshit. The NRA has been pushing that crap for decades and the present-day gun-rights activists are only repeating what they've heard from others.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteGun-free Zones aren't the equivalent of requiring people to obey traffic laws. They're like banning cars from the road. When I carry a gun, I have to follow the rules related to doing so. I have to keep it concealed, and I can only use it if my life or that of another innocent is threatened. That's akin to driving on the correct side of the road, stopping at red lights, and so forth. Follow the rules, and you get to drive on the road.
On your other point, none of my positions is derived from the NRA. We may agree on many points, but I reached my conclusions on my own, thank you.
Greg, you're usually more convincing than that. In both paragraphs you failed to persuade.
ReplyDeleteYou can't drive your car where cars are prohibited. Does that diminish your freedom as a driver? Sure it does, exactly like not being to carry your sacred talisman into the post office. The difference is you're not complaining and playing the victim about the driving limitation.
You say you're not influenced by the NRA rhetoric. That's a laugh.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteA gun-free zone is like a car-free zone. It is not like requiring drivers to stay on the appropriate side of the road (that's to include Laci in the comment).
As for the NRA, I arrived at my position without consulting their statements. Now, it's true that I read a lot of Jeff Cooper, but while he was a member and someone in the upper ranks of the organization at various periods, he also learned firearms through other paths. I also was educated by a colleague of mine in Nashville. He is an amature historian of Tennessee in the Civil War and Reconstruction periods, and we were in the same writers' group.
But, as always, your predjudices are more important to you than the truth.
Um, my friend is an amateur historian. Dang fingers got ahead of me today.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp has told me, Laci, Mikeb302000 and anyone else who speaks of safe, rational gun control that he will NEVER give up his gunz, that he will not submit to the statist thugz. It would follow, therefor, that if he was 'fronted by an authority figure and ordered to surrender his firearm that he would have to kill that authority figure 'cuz they be steppin' all over his rightz?
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp is not using "critical thinking"; his thinking is in critical condition.
I would like for someone to explain to me exactly how a "Gun Free Zone" is supposed to be useful.
ReplyDeleteIn any way at all.
As near as I can tell, they are exactly as stupid as that video.
Here is a thought. Suppose you had two gun owners. One was a normal person with a concealed carry permit and the other was an escaped murderer.
Both of them enter a G.F.Z. Which one is prevented from committing murder because of the GFZ?
A. Both
B. Neither.
C. The CCW Permit holder.
D. The escaped murderer.
Trick question. The CCW Permit holder was not looking to murder anyone, she was just taking reasonble precautions in a world where bad things sometimes happen.
The Escaped Murderer WAS looking to commit murder, and that silly GFZ sign did exactly dick to prevent him from murdering.
So, people who are prone to violence will not be stopped by a GFZ sign, and people who are Not Prone to violence are not the problem. So what the hell good is a GFZ to begin with? As far as I can tell, NONE.
Maybe I am missing something.
Tiger, none-- NOTE, NONE -of the incidents in the video are examples of where a concealed carry is going to help you, but where it IS more likely to get you as a gun carrying person, DEAD, or certainly injured.
ReplyDeletewhy? Because in every instance shown, the bad guy has a gun out and on you before you can react reasonably with YOUR firearm.
A gun free zone means that anyone other than law enforcement doesn't have a gun. What that does, among other aspects of this is to identify anyone who does come onto the premises as having unlawful intent. You don't need to worry nearly as much identifying the bad guys with guns from the good guys with guns.
Further, a gun free zone applies to people coming to that location; it does not restrict the owner of the premises from having a firearm if they so choose, say behind a counter, or in a cash register.
In the case of a church, for example, the very essence of a house of god as a sanctuary of peace is defined by requiring weapons not be brought in.
There are a few nut job crazy churches that are big on pushing a god given right and encouraging firearms in the pews - but they're as wacko as the David Koresh whack-a-doodles, not main stream religions.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteMurder is against the rules of many religions, but that doesn't stop a murderer from shooting up a church. A gun-free zone is effective only at disarming the people who weren't going to be a problem in the first place. It's that simple. We'll translate it into Foucault's French for you, if that'll help you to understand.
Greg, je pense que tu ne peux pas parler français. Ne fais pas les offres que tu ne peux pas accomplir.
ReplyDeleteGreg, tu es tres bete.
Tu ne comprends pas le concept de "gun free zones".
Le meme avec le francais.
Even without "knowing" how to speak French, there were enough cognates and context to understand everything you wrote. I gather only non-gun owners were too stupid to be able read your French, or even if I couldn't read it, use an on-line translation.
DeleteI was referring to Michel Foucault, a philosopher whose writings are particularly dense in their structure.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, when you speak to me, you should use the "vous" pronoun, since we're not friends.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou make a fair point about the scenarios shown in the video...ie...the bad guy has his gun out first and thus has the drop on any potential ccw'ers. In that kind of case attempting to draw a gun from concealment and use it is not likely to be helpful.
...Unless you can distract the BG. Or get to cover and draw or something else gives an opening to pull your piece.
But as far as a GFZ goes, I think you are missing the point.
You stated "A gun free zone means that anyone other than law enforcement doesn't have a gun."
- No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means you arent supposed to bring a gun to that premises.
A Sign on a Wall cannot physically stop Anyone from bringing a gun anywhere. We have all been told not to do certain things and we have all gone and done them anyway. A sign designating a place a GFZ is no more effective at stopping someone from bringing a gun there than a Speed Limit sign is at stopping a teenager from speeding.
You also mentioned in another post:
"Yet every darned one of these gun nuts thinks they're going to be a superhero, that they are somehow magically - because this IS delusional, magical thinking, stupid thinking - going to get the drop on the bad guy and shoot him for daring to threaten him, take his money, whatever."
No I dont think it's "magic" or that I will be a superhero. What I think is that it gives me a chance to defend myself. It may not be perfect, it may not work in all cases. But its better than giving up.
If a criminal breaks into my house without alerting anyone and is standing over my bed before I become aware of them, then in that case you are quite correct. I am screwed. But, if said criminal rattles to door handle, or a breaks a window while breaking in, that will probably alert my Dog, who will then alert me. If the dog barking doesn't drive off the intrepid home-invader, then having a pistol pointed at him (and maybe fired) will.
Getting back to GFZ's, you want Magical thinking?.... how about believing that simply posting a sign that designates a place a GFZ is going to prevent a crazy person or a criminal from doing whatever the heck they want.
Unless you are going to physically control access to a place by way of fences, security guards and metal detectors, then putting up a sign for GFZ is a Waste of a sign.
To think otherwise is most certainly (to borrow another phrase) "Delusional, magical stupid thinking".
I'm not a criminal, but if I was I don't think I'd be walking around advertising the fact. I would size up potential victims and then do what seemed prudent (re: my personal safety) and acting from that premise. Of course I am not an idiot, which many criminals seem to be, so there is that. Otoh, I'm not about do something that seems foolish--with or without a gun--whereas a lot of the gunzloonz actually intend to push the envelope--cuz' they got teh gunz.
ReplyDeleteOne thing you don't realize, and I gather thankfully so, is that people who are concealed carrying are not telling you that they are concealed carrying, which is the whole point of concealed carry. You probably have met numerous people who do conceal carry, and haven't yet been shot nor killed by any of them.
DeleteA GFZ only prevents lawful citizens from carrying, those that are the least likely to do you harm. And if a criminal came into a GFZ with a gun, by the time you realized it, it would be too late.
Of the campus/school shootings where the shooter didn't kill themselves, they were only stopped by an armed person. In Virginia several years ago, a shooter killed a professor and a student. An off-duty police officer had to run to his car in the parking lot to get his gun and run back to confront the shooter. In the meantime the shooter killed another student before the police officer shot the shooter. If the officer had been allowed to carry on campus, an innocent life would've been spared.