arma virumque cano (et alia)
Da da da da! Captain Strawman!
Where's the strawman? You definitely one who's priorities suck.
Actually, No. My first response was, "Oh No! Another one! There? What happened?" And to pray for a low number of dead and wounded--And that for their OWN sake, not for any reason related to the stuff we discuss on here--and for a quick resolution with the capture/incapacitation/death of the shooter.
As for your question about where the strawman is--Really? Do you really need me to point it out? That your whole implication that those of us in favor of gun rights would think like this is a strawman?
Maybe you also need me to point out that the second sentence of your reply ads a nice ad hominem into the discussion.
Simon, even if it's true what you said about your first reaction, which I have some doubts about, but even if it's true, don't you think many of your fellow gun-rights activists react exactly like the post says?
Mikeb, you really do love your strawmen, don't you?
Nope. Because we're human beings and decent folks, despite all of your slanders and implications to the contrary--including your repetition just now about how you don't really believe me.
Greg, in spite of Simon's denial, I believe many gun owners and almost all gun-rights advocates react exactly like the post says. That's no strawman.
Mike believes it REALLY HARD and that makes it REAL!!!Beg the question much?
Alternative view:If your first reaction to shootings is to think "Let's impose more restrictions on everybody who doesn't shoot people!"your problem solving skillsDO NOT EXIST
That's where you're wrong, Kurt. You lawful gun owners who don't shoot anybody are the source of nearly every single gun used to shoot people. You don't want universal background checks and you don't want safe storage laws in the home. You want to have the least restrictions you can and the result is guns flow continually and freely from you guys to the criminals. This is why proper gun control laws are mainly directed at you and guys like you.
That's where you're wrong, Kurt.Um, no--that's one of the places where I'm precisely correct.You lawful gun owners who don't shoot anybody are the source of nearly every single gun used to shoot people.Um, no (again)--I have been the source of precisely zero guns used to shoot people.This is why proper [Ha!] gun control laws are mainly directed at you and guys like you."Gun control" laws are "mainly directed at" peaceable gun owners like me because "gun control" is a favored policy of collectivists, and collectivists favor collective punishment, based on "collective responsibility." Decent, rational people, of course, do not.
That "each man is an island" bullshit is just more stupid rhetoric, Kurt. You love the tough talk, shit that you've heard other fanatics say that you think sounds cool. The fact is you live in the society of other men an women and what you do and what you preach so forcefully affects them. Like it or not, you personally are part of a large group called gun owners and you're part of a smaller group called gun-rights fanatics. And all you guys are related to criminal gun owners like so many first cousins.
I will never shrink from facing responsibility for my own actions. I will also never become stupid enough to accept responsibility for the actions of others.
Mikeb, that's exactly why we resist you. You see us as being akin to criminals. When you start off by being insulting, why do you expect people to listen to what you say next?
You ignore a centuries old proven fact, laws do deter people from committing crimes.
That's nonsense, Kurt. You spend most of your time preaching extreme gun-rights philosophy. Contrary to what you said about taking responsibility, you don't even want to know what your highly-charged words and eloquent rhetoric does to your readers. Like it or not, that's on you. You're doing serious harm in the world.
. . . you don't even want to know what your highly-charged words and eloquent rhetoric does to your readers.Actually, I'd love to think my writing is anywhere close to as influential as you apparently believe it to be.In reality, though, I am pretty small potatoes in the gun rights advocacy community. This new gig with JPFO might expand my reach a bit, if it lasts (it's definitely helping with my ammo and beer budget), but I'm still pretty obscure, and likely to remain that way.
If your first reaction to a shooting is, "Oh, good, another opportunity to violate the rights of Americans," your priorities as a human being suck.
Yet if your first response is more gun control that's perfectly OK? MikeZ
Yes, it is. That's the right reaction.
Why isnt the right response to mourn the victims and to see that, these are terrible events, in a highly flawed world that we live in, but the reality is that the masses cannot be punished for the acts of a few. Punish the one who takes the lives, not those who wish only to protect them.Mike Z
Wow, MikeB! You're actually going to admit that that is your First response, before any concern, horror, pity, prayer, or even thinking of happy positive thoughts in their direction.Before any concern for the victims, a concern to enact gun control!
And you guys used to get all upset when we charged you with blood dancing...
Mikeb, ever the opportunist, looking for ways to violate our rights.
The reason my first reaction is not for the victims is because, thanks to you gun-rights fanatics, these shootings are so commonplace now that I've become inured to them. My first reaction is for proper gun control laws that would prevent future tragedies. Then, I think about the poor victims and their families.
Ah, yes--the fact that your first reaction is not to grieve for the victims, but instead to wish for the power to inflict more "gun control" on we the people isn't your fault, but the fault of this mythical concept of yours of "gun rights fanatics."Tell me, Mikeb, couldn't these hypothetical "gun rights fanatics" of yours, whose initial reaction to a shooting is concern over the next onslaught of forcible citizen disarmament efforts, say the same thing--that such efforts on the part of you and your ilk to exploit the victims of a shooting are such a predictable consequence that defeating those efforts is their first priority?
What the Fuckiddy fucking fuck?!? I figured you'd throw in something nuancing the above statement and claiming you thought of victims first, but here we have you admitting they're a secondary concern...and then trying to blame US for You being a shitty person?Seriously?Words fail me in describing what a cop out that is. Take responsibility for your own actions and reactions, Mike, and suck it up.
If you have become inured to them as you say and your first response is now more gun control, you are indeed a sad human being, but again your agenda is all that matters to you. When I heard about the shooting politics was the last thing on my mind. But unfortunately your agenda being self justifying it was the first thing on your mind. For people like you, a lack of a shooting means gun control is working and therefore we need more, a shooting means there isn't enough gun control and we need more. Again we are in a position where lives are simply a means to and end for you. We mourn the victims, and wish they had been able to protect themselves, as we find ourselves again in a situation where once confronted with the armed resistance the shooter took his own life. But again, by your own admission we find that the victims are not your first priority but your agenda is.MikeZ
Nice try, guys, but like most of your attempted gotchas, this one is bullshit. There is no fault, therefore there is no attempt to blame you maniac gun nuts. My first reaction is what it is and it's a perfectly natural one given the frequency of gun misuse in our society. That happens to be your fault, but don't get all defensive about it.
And again I ask, Mikeb, how would this hypothetical gun rights advocate who does think first in terms of the inevitability of people like you exploiting every high profile shooting to justify further attacks on gun rights, be morally any worse than the person whose initial reaction is to make those attacks?Carolyn McCarthy introduced an 11-round and larger magazine ban bill within hours of the Virginia Tech shooting. She had been lurking with that legislative abomination, just waiting for a big enough pool of blood to dance in.Have another smoke, McCarthy. Have the whole pack, the whole carton, a whole truckload, of the highest nicotine, highest tar, unfiltered cigarettes you can find. Do the world a favor.
I'm getting a good chuckle out of your last comment, Mike:"There is no fault, I'm not blaming you guys, but it does happen to be your fault."
I'm getting a good chuckle out of your last comment, Mike:"There is no fault, I'm not blaming you guys, but it does happen to be your fault."Now he'll probably accuse you of being "defensive." Of course, he clearly does much prefer that people be kept defenseless.
According to the reports this guy had mental problems. My first thought was what if a mental background check was necessary and stopped him from getting that gun?
If your first thought is, "how can we use this to ban something?", your priorities suck even more.