Let's see: A two against one debate, but David Burnett mops the floor with the other two. We're winning, and it surely is fun to watch those two gun grabbers get flustered by logic.
It's a matter of perspective, I suppose. Background checks only work on those who participate, and as we've pointed out to you, criminals will find a way around the system.
I have mixed feelings about background checks. Let's assume that even private sales required background checks. What's the point when criminals can readily acquire firearms illegally or people can say that someone stole their firearms (and then hand them over to a friend)? On the other hand why make it easy for criminals?
A friend of mine who is a confessed liberal had a good point about ex-convicts. Presently federal law prohibits a person with a felony criminal record from purchasing firearms. And yet we let them out of prison. Did they "pay their debt to society" or didn't they? If they did, why can they not purchase a firearm? If we as a society don't trust them enough to have a firearm, then why aren't they still in prison?
Exactly so, Capn Crunch. We do a lousy job at reforming convicts while we have them in prison, and then we let the dangerous ones out because the prisons are crowded with non-violent drug offenders.
I can sum up the pro-gun argument in two simple ideas.
First of all, citizens are the true "first responders". Law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once. Citizens have to take responsibility for their own security because no one else will. And fortunately, citizens by the droves are coming to this realization.
Second, even if you could magically make all the guns in the U.S. disappear overnight, criminals would have them again in a matter of days. Aside from the ease with which people could smuggle them across our roughly 18,000 miles of borders and coasts, our thousands of small machine shops in the U.S. could simply make nice new guns as fast as they were determined to produce them. Oh, and who needs smugglers or machine shops when about $20 worth of materials and a couple rudimentary tools available from any hardware store are all that you need to make a highly effective pistol or shotgun?
Gun control is impossible on it's face. It fails to protect the public and it fails to remove guns from the hands of violent criminals.
I think labelling citizens as first responders would be fine, but, more training and certification and some kind of screening process would be required for me to be totally ok with that. I was a medic in the Army and a civilian paramedic so I've worked with first responders who were better than professionally trained medics and then some that shouldn't be allowed with 100 yards of a scene. As an example, I came upon a wreck on my day off. I always kept a bag in my car so I started rendering aid. I was *physically* pushed away from a patient by a new first responder because he didn't know me and I wasn't in uniform. Needless to say he was relieved of his duties that day.
It all comes down to training. I trained first responders and I taught them everything I could do even thought they, legally couldn't do it just so I could trust them enough to cover my back.
I think the medical profession does it right with volunteer first responders but translating that into some kind of volunteer police force could be a legal nightmare.
Capn, gun control is impossible only if you consider total eradication of all guns its success.
In most sudden eruptions of gun violence even armed men nearby cannot intervene quickly enough. They'd have to be luckily in exactly the right place perhaps with gun drawn.You guys are kidding yourselves that your guns will help. Chances are they won't. And in the meantime they're getting stolen and misused and handled negligently. More harm than good, that's my idea.
I hear what you are saying. You are still missing the point. A citizen will almost always face an attacker without any emergency services personnel. The victim's affirmative actions to survive the attack and stay alive afterwards by its very definition makes them the true first responder, regardless of their background, profession, aptitude, or any training.
I am here to tell you that entrusting your well being to the criminal and then to emergency services is a bad idea. As my own first responder, my first response is to stop the criminal before his attack injures me or my family. If I can do that, I won't need emergency services. And a firearm is often the most effective tool for ending a criminal's violent attack at the earliest possible opportunity. Even if I sustain injuries while defending myself, I can do nothing to help myself or my family if the criminal is still a threat. For that matter emergency services cannot help either if the criminal is still a threat. Again, the most effective tool to remove the criminal threat is usually a firearm.
Thankfully we have a lot of experience that shows that armed citizens responding to criminal attacks are not causing dozens of injuries or deaths on a monthly basis -- at least not to innocent bystanders anyway.
I am glad to see that you realize total eradication of guns is impossible.
Responding to your comment ... there are certainly some instances where a criminal gets a drop on an armed citizen and the citizen's chances of avoiding injury diminish. In such dire situations an armed citizen has more options than an unarmed citizen and thus a better chance of surviving if they use their head. Further an armed citizen who can draw quickly almost always ends up getting the drop on the criminal. (For whatever reason, criminals never seem to expect their victims to fight back.) But how that plays out depends on lots of variables of course.
I can tell you this much: you rarely hear of an armed criminal killing an armed citizen in a shootout. (I have yet to find a documented instance although I am sure it has happened.) Nearly all citizens who are murder victims were unarmed. I can explain that in another post if you desire.
Al Jazerra isn't a terrorist organization. They are, in fact, a competent news agency. But it is interesting to watch foreign reporters try to understand American freedom.
Let's see: A two against one debate, but David Burnett mops the floor with the other two. We're winning, and it surely is fun to watch those two gun grabbers get flustered by logic.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe you really think that. His avoidance of the background check attack made him look bad. Even the cop beat him on that issue.
DeleteThe rest he was pretty eloquent, I'll admit, but the older man made the best points.
It's a matter of perspective, I suppose. Background checks only work on those who participate, and as we've pointed out to you, criminals will find a way around the system.
DeleteI have mixed feelings about background checks. Let's assume that even private sales required background checks. What's the point when criminals can readily acquire firearms illegally or people can say that someone stole their firearms (and then hand them over to a friend)? On the other hand why make it easy for criminals?
DeleteA friend of mine who is a confessed liberal had a good point about ex-convicts. Presently federal law prohibits a person with a felony criminal record from purchasing firearms. And yet we let them out of prison. Did they "pay their debt to society" or didn't they? If they did, why can they not purchase a firearm? If we as a society don't trust them enough to have a firearm, then why aren't they still in prison?
Exactly so, Capn Crunch. We do a lousy job at reforming convicts while we have them in prison, and then we let the dangerous ones out because the prisons are crowded with non-violent drug offenders.
DeleteCertainly you're not suggesting we keep every violent offender in prison for life, are you?
DeleteLonger sentences, yes, but not for life. And when they do get out, no guns. That's a good law.
I can sum up the pro-gun argument in two simple ideas.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, citizens are the true "first responders". Law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once. Citizens have to take responsibility for their own security because no one else will. And fortunately, citizens by the droves are coming to this realization.
Second, even if you could magically make all the guns in the U.S. disappear overnight, criminals would have them again in a matter of days. Aside from the ease with which people could smuggle them across our roughly 18,000 miles of borders and coasts, our thousands of small machine shops in the U.S. could simply make nice new guns as fast as they were determined to produce them. Oh, and who needs smugglers or machine shops when about $20 worth of materials and a couple rudimentary tools available from any hardware store are all that you need to make a highly effective pistol or shotgun?
Gun control is impossible on it's face. It fails to protect the public and it fails to remove guns from the hands of violent criminals.
I think labelling citizens as first responders would be fine, but, more training and certification and some kind of screening process would be required for me to be totally ok with that. I was a medic in the Army and a civilian paramedic so I've worked with first responders who were better than professionally trained medics and then some that shouldn't be allowed with 100 yards of a scene. As an example, I came upon a wreck on my day off. I always kept a bag in my car so I started rendering aid. I was *physically* pushed away from a patient by a new first responder because he didn't know me and I wasn't in uniform. Needless to say he was relieved of his duties that day.
DeleteIt all comes down to training. I trained first responders and I taught them everything I could do even thought they, legally couldn't do it just so I could trust them enough to cover my back.
I think the medical profession does it right with volunteer first responders but translating that into some kind of volunteer police force could be a legal nightmare.
Capn, gun control is impossible only if you consider total eradication of all guns its success.
DeleteIn most sudden eruptions of gun violence even armed men nearby cannot intervene quickly enough. They'd have to be luckily in exactly the right place perhaps with gun drawn.You guys are kidding yourselves that your guns will help. Chances are they won't. And in the meantime they're getting stolen and misused and handled negligently. More harm than good, that's my idea.
Jake,
DeleteI hear what you are saying. You are still missing the point. A citizen will almost always face an attacker without any emergency services personnel. The victim's affirmative actions to survive the attack and stay alive afterwards by its very definition makes them the true first responder, regardless of their background, profession, aptitude, or any training.
I am here to tell you that entrusting your well being to the criminal and then to emergency services is a bad idea. As my own first responder, my first response is to stop the criminal before his attack injures me or my family. If I can do that, I won't need emergency services. And a firearm is often the most effective tool for ending a criminal's violent attack at the earliest possible opportunity. Even if I sustain injuries while defending myself, I can do nothing to help myself or my family if the criminal is still a threat. For that matter emergency services cannot help either if the criminal is still a threat. Again, the most effective tool to remove the criminal threat is usually a firearm.
Thankfully we have a lot of experience that shows that armed citizens responding to criminal attacks are not causing dozens of injuries or deaths on a monthly basis -- at least not to innocent bystanders anyway.
MikeB,
DeleteI am glad to see that you realize total eradication of guns is impossible.
Responding to your comment ... there are certainly some instances where a criminal gets a drop on an armed citizen and the citizen's chances of avoiding injury diminish. In such dire situations an armed citizen has more options than an unarmed citizen and thus a better chance of surviving if they use their head. Further an armed citizen who can draw quickly almost always ends up getting the drop on the criminal. (For whatever reason, criminals never seem to expect their victims to fight back.) But how that plays out depends on lots of variables of course.
I can tell you this much: you rarely hear of an armed criminal killing an armed citizen in a shootout. (I have yet to find a documented instance although I am sure it has happened.) Nearly all citizens who are murder victims were unarmed. I can explain that in another post if you desire.
Sure, if you send it to me by e-mail I'll make a new post out of it.
DeleteMeantime, I'll keep my eye out for examples to disprove what you say. I'm sure we've already posted some on this blog.
Who cares what the terrorist fucks at al jazerra think?
ReplyDeleteAl Jazerra isn't a terrorist organization. They are, in fact, a competent news agency. But it is interesting to watch foreign reporters try to understand American freedom.
ReplyDelete"Freedom?" Bwaaahahahahahahaha
DeleteThat was good MikeB ... I am still laughing.
DeleteI assume that I should hear the "Bwaaahahahaha" with the voice of the Warner Brother's cartoon character Yosemite Sam?!?!?