tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post9047789049463672152..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Florida Boy Shoots Himself in the HeadAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-59198180467308419942009-04-28T16:46:00.000+02:002009-04-28T16:46:00.000+02:00You guys often talk about convincing fence-sitters...<I>You guys often talk about convincing fence-sitters. Do you think that could apply to me as well? Is there a fence-sitting type of gun owner who might be convinced by my argument?</I> <br /><br />Of course. People are different, and draw different conclusions from the same situations--that's why we as a species have devoted so much time and effort to inventing new ways to disagree with each other. ;) <br /><br />For what it's worth, I'm talking to you, not your readers. I'm very, very confident that my opinion is backed by the stronger argument (of course I would be--If I didn't I wouldn't hold this opinion), but that doesn't mean I'm definitely right. And even if I <I>am</I> right, that doesn't mean you'll definitely end up agreeing with me. But at the very least, discussion lets us understand each other better. I know more about how you see the world and what's important to you, and I think you know more about why people like me own guns and what some high-profile gun laws actually <I>do</I>. Even if we can't come to an agreement, we end up in a better place than you assuming that all gun owners are tiny-dicked men who want to be Rambo and me assuming all gun control advocates are shrill soccermoms who obsess over everything they think might hurt their babies.elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-89522774748830408392009-04-28T09:19:00.000+02:002009-04-28T09:19:00.000+02:00Sevesteen said "...don't you think that if state s...Sevesteen said <I>"...don't you think that if state statistics existed that damned licensed carry, at least one of the 48 states with licenses would publish those stats?"</I>That's a good one. Let me keep it in mind as we go forward. There may be an explanation, but I honestly can't imagine what it would be.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-86853455515422959452009-04-27T19:41:00.000+02:002009-04-27T19:41:00.000+02:00Sevesteen - I posted the FL CCW stats AND the TX s...Sevesteen - I posted the FL CCW stats AND the TX stats for MikeB. They didn't seem to matter.<br /><br /><I>Mike W., Are you saying that you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is either wrong or unable to make a sound decision because they're too emotional to do so?</I>Yes and no. I am certainly not always right. That said, if you blatantly deny FACTS because they conflict with how you FEEL, then yes, you are both wrong and unable to make sound, rational judgments on the issue at hand.<br /><br />Sometimes things are straight black and white. Skye's protege for example continually denies the stated purpose of the 2A, even when shown proof. Skye continually denies that Obama is anti-gun, even when shown a myriad of factual evidence.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-75180777774968797092009-04-27T18:08:00.000+02:002009-04-27T18:08:00.000+02:00people, and there are millions of us, look at the ...<I> people, and there are millions of us, look at the same facts you do but see a different reality. These are people who are rational and intelligent but come to a completely different conclusion than you do.</I>You have said that you are not well-versed on some of these issues. It took quite a while for you to understand that the definition of an assault rifle was fairly meaningless. I don't think it was a conclusion you enjoyed admitting, but honesty compelled you. <br /><br />Most of the rest of gun control is similar--Logical sounding claims that don't stand up to detailed examination. Many, many people have changed to a pro-rights stand after getting the details, even people who don't want their own gun.<br /><br />The people who decide against gun rights generally do so after a personal tragedy rather than a detailed examination of facts. Sarah Brady, Toby Hoover (the spokesman for Ohio's loudest anti-gun group) Skyewriter...<br /><br />You also have a fairly extreme tendency to discount facts that don't support your views--you won't accept Texas's stats on how law abiding CCW holders are, claiming that Texas is biased. I suppose this is possible, but don't you think that if state statistics existed that damned licensed carry, at least one of the 48 states with licenses would publish those stats?Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-87157091851875219632009-04-27T14:46:00.000+02:002009-04-27T14:46:00.000+02:00"Weer'd says there's another possibility and that ..."Weer'd says there's another possibility and that I fall into it. That's the evil malicious guys who have ulterior motives and lie."<br /><br />Well you've read the facts and laws, and know your statements are incorrect.<br /><br />You've had all your points refuted so much that you abandon them and change the subject. You routinly ignore or moderate questions that you don't want to answer.<br /><br />What would you call that?<br /><br />There is such a thing as right and wrong.<br /><br />Not allowing gays to marry. Wrong. Killing somebody for stealing a loaf of bread, WRONG. Denying people the tools for self defense is no different.<br /><br />You're wrong, MikeB. And not only can't you refute that, you won't even attempt to refute it.Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-62707882485715638422009-04-27T12:03:00.000+02:002009-04-27T12:03:00.000+02:00Mike W., Are you saying that you're right and anyo...Mike W., Are you saying that you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is either wrong or unable to make a sound decision because they're too emotional to do so?<br /><br />Weer'd says there's another possibility and that I fall into it. That's the evil malicious guys who have ulterior motives and lie.<br /><br />I think both you guys missed another possibility, one in which I really do fit. This is the one where people, and there are millions of us, look at the same facts you do but see a different reality. These are people who are rational and intelligent but come to a completely different conclusion than you do.<br /><br />An example is the way we see individual accountability in young criminals differently. Another example is what we consider a "significant" percentage when talking about law-abiding gun owners going bad, or the overall percentage of gun crime compared to total number of guns.<br /><br />There are many examples right here in the pages of this blog. My point is I can accept that you guys see a different reality than me and that you're arguing for the most part in good faith. Can't you accept the same from me?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-1925591601293932922009-04-26T19:23:00.000+02:002009-04-26T19:23:00.000+02:00Mike - No, I don't. The only people I see who tur...Mike - No, I don't. The only people I see who turn anti-gun are those who have suffered a personal loss and are basing their conclusions on emotion and irrational thought.<br /><br />Anyone who can look at the issue honestly, rationally, and with an open look at the facts should come to a pro-gun conclusion.<br /><br />I started as pretty much ambivalent about guns, but once I took an honest, detailed look at both the facts as well as the issue from a Constitutional standpoint I became very pro-gun. <br /><br />I think it just depends on the person. Some people are logical, rational thinkers, others are very emotional in their thought processes. <br /><br />Some in the 2nd group have their minds made up because they're guided by "feelings." For them no amount of verifiable truth will change their minds. Those aren't the people I try to reach. They're unable and unwilling to think rationally about the issue, so nothing I can say will ever make them see the truth.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-81001423219584265212009-04-26T09:11:00.000+02:002009-04-26T09:11:00.000+02:00You guys often talk about convincing fence-sitters...You guys often talk about convincing fence-sitters. Do you think that could apply to me as well? Is there a fence-sitting type of gun owner who might be convinced by my argument?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-57293589612359796432009-04-25T00:01:00.000+02:002009-04-25T00:01:00.000+02:00"You are a nasty liar!"
"Your claim about gun own..."You are a nasty liar!"<br /><br />"Your claim about gun owners isn't true because..."<br /><br />Same basic idea. One version concentrates on the content, the other is personal. <br /><br />I'm not really trying to convince Mikeb here. I'm trying to convince fence-sitters. Either way, polite but firm is more likely to work.Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-55971714134073167362009-04-24T17:14:00.000+02:002009-04-24T17:14:00.000+02:00Sev,
I disagree with you about MikeB not attackin...Sev,<br /><br />I disagree with you about MikeB not attacking individuals.<br /><br />What he does is use generalities to attack individuals. Those "gun owners who bear responsibility" are my friends, my family, people I've met online..they are individuals.<br /><br />And MikeB continually throws us under the bus and then gets upset when the absolutely same logic is applied to him and people like him.<br /><br />I agree there is a line between trying to show a positive side of gun owners, but also sometimes it is important to point out the hypocrisy, the lies, the tactics of the other side.<br /><br />If we allow MikeB to frame the debate and limit it to terms only acceptable to him, then we might as well turn in our firearms now.<br /><br />He's said that in the past, that he believes gun owners should be working with gun control people to get rid of our guns.<br /><br />Sorry while sometimes impolite it is sometimes necessary to show the behavior of others for what it is - hypocritical.Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-30032364575787191772009-04-24T17:06:00.000+02:002009-04-24T17:06:00.000+02:00There are two issues here--politeness and effectiv...There are two issues here--politeness and effectiveness.<br /><br />I came here via Weer'd, based on his claim that it is one of the few places where an anti allows debate. I'd like to see that continue--I'd rather argue with an anti than preach to the choir. <br /><br />Some of the comments seem designed to trigger moderation to allow "I told you so--antis are scared to allow free speach!!!" responses. <br /><br />I don't see MikeB attacking individuals, he is arguing about gun owners in general. I've called him on ignoring questions he doesn't have good answers for, and unless he changes, I'll likely do it again. I will absolutely attack his arguments, and his failure to back them up. I think Weer'd has gone the farthest in attacking MikeB personally, rather than his mistaken ideas. <br /><br />If MikeB indicates that I or my views are not welcome here either by telling me or moderating me, I'll leave--Continuing to shout where you are unwelcome is generally counterproductive. We need to reinforce the image of responsible gun ownership, not "angry man with a gun".Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-66693906476563916462009-04-24T16:14:00.000+02:002009-04-24T16:14:00.000+02:00Sevesteen,
Don't you find it offensive that MikeB...Sevesteen,<br /><br />Don't you find it offensive that MikeB continues to imply that as gun owners we are responsible for morally heinous acts?<br /><br />What is wrong with asking the same type of question to MikeB?<br /><br />I missed Weer'd's statements so I don't know what he said about MikeB this time, but shouldn't people be allowed to defend themselves?<br /><br />If MikeB starts continually attacks people, shouldn't he have to live with the response it generates?Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-23080341018484369392009-04-24T15:07:00.000+02:002009-04-24T15:07:00.000+02:00Weer'd
I wish you would stick to the issues and r...Weer'd<br /><br />I wish you would stick to the issues and refrain from personal attacks. You aren't helping.Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-80361654315426183602009-04-24T14:51:00.000+02:002009-04-24T14:51:00.000+02:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-47327910091907704592009-04-24T14:48:00.000+02:002009-04-24T14:48:00.000+02:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-7148113641802576612009-04-24T13:48:00.000+02:002009-04-24T13:48:00.000+02:00Weer'd, You're welcome to comment here, but I won'...Weer'd, You're welcome to comment here, but I won't allow any more of your gratuitous attacks. They have nothing to do with the discussion. <br /><br />And, you know what? It's not that I get angry about your remarks, it's simply that I've asked you to refrain from this type of thing. These are my wishes. Sorry.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-71055142382870567092009-04-24T12:22:00.000+02:002009-04-24T12:22:00.000+02:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-31857599884588455152009-04-24T12:03:00.000+02:002009-04-24T12:03:00.000+02:00MikeB,
Your bias is showing again, you might want...MikeB,<br /><br />Your bias is showing again, you might want to adjust your slip.<br /><br /><I>But training a child to be a proficient killing machine, I'm sure always describing it as defensive only, is sick</I>I was just at a meeting where the Rifle team from TCU gave a presentation. These ATHLETES spend hours a day practicing Air Rifle and Small Bore Rifle and they don't think of themselves as becoming "proficient killing machines".<br /><br />They think of themselves as Olympic Caliber athletes. Why is it that pro-ignorance people like you can never see the SPORTING side of shooting?<br /><br /><br />Once again you display your ignorance and bias for all to see.<br /><br />Congratulations.Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-23232554645664615242009-04-24T10:26:00.000+02:002009-04-24T10:26:00.000+02:00Bob asked, "If hunter safety courses reduce huntin...Bob asked, "<I>If hunter safety courses reduce hunting accidents, then requiring education in school should, note should, reduce accidental deaths, right?"</I>I would like to see firearms safety techniques taught to kids in school. Much like the controversial sex-education business, I think this could be a good thing. Some kids are going to experiment with sex and some kids are going to be exposed to guns, so education in both these areas is good.<br /><br />The link Mike W. provided brings up another question. I'm talking about safety training above, not firearms use training. It strikes me as obsene to teach kids to use guns. The five-year-old who plays cowboys and indians is fairly innocent and although it might not be the best educational play-acting, I wouldn't worry about it. The eleven year old girl who practices killing imaginary adversaries at the shooting range with live ammunition, in my opinion is a sick display of parental misjudgment. I feel pretty much the same way about what a lot of adult gun folks do, that it's sick and damaging to themselves and society to go around with adversarial thoughts in their minds. This especially applies to the concealed carry guys, of course. But at least here we're talking about adults. As adults I realize there's a certain amount of freedom to make these kinds of choices. But training a child to be a proficient killing machine, I'm sure always describing it as defensive only, is sick.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-59080022476829817582009-04-23T22:33:00.000+02:002009-04-23T22:33:00.000+02:00By the way mike, if you think "kids & gun...By the way mike, if you think "kids & guns don't mix" you might want to check out 11 year old McKenzie.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/<br />watch?v=2B2rKj4eZgo&<br />feature=related<br /><br />Here she field strips and reassembles an AR-15 in 53 seconds.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irykjLjuKo8&feature=relatedMike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-4658312275093525062009-04-23T16:57:00.000+02:002009-04-23T16:57:00.000+02:00...we're here not to get Mike to change his tune, ...<I>...we're here not to get Mike to change his tune, but to make it obvious that his MO is to plant his feet to the dirt, and his head in the sand, as well as make the other side clear for any curious onlookers.</I> <br /><br />I don't know that you're accomplishing that. I'm coming in here sympathetic to you and <I>agreeing</I> with you, and I come away with much more sympathy for MikeB, who presents himself as very patient and seems to have evolved his opinion on a couple issues in the last few days. Maybe Mike's obstinately refusing to listen to other voices. Maybe he just isn't convinced by your arguments. I honestly don't know. <br /><br />You guys are dead right, as far as I'm concerned, and I understand that MikeB's talking about abridging our rights; that makes it an emotional situation for me, too. But the hard-ass routine is making you guys come off like jerks, even to a guy who's completely on your side. <br /><br />I'm not gonna presume to tell you what to do. But in your shoes, I'd like to think I'd either try to present my point another way and see if that had an effect, or accept that somebody's wrong on the internet and move on. The "angry gun owner" stereotype is as unfair as the "angry black man" stereotype, but it's just as common, too. If a fence-sitting onlooker wanders in here and sees all these comments from you guys, it's as likely to confirm his stereotypes as to educate him. :\elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-11969289563781616292009-04-23T15:27:00.000+02:002009-04-23T15:27:00.000+02:00Well Michael, there hasn't been a question raised ...Well Michael, there hasn't been a question raised here that hasn't been rased dozens of times in the last half-year or so.<br /><br />Either they don't get answered, or they are answered, and Mike then igores his own answer in his next commentary, or he gives contradictory answers, and again resturns back to square one.<br /><br />Remember, this is a man who has said that there is NO data that could ever be presented to make him change his tune.<br /><br />It's religion not ideology.<br /><br />I think I can speak for Bob as well that we're here not to get Mike to change his tune, but to make it obvious that his MO is to plant his feet to the dirt, and his head in the sand, as well as make the other side clear for any curious onlookers.Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-21150700382610558742009-04-23T14:49:00.000+02:002009-04-23T14:49:00.000+02:00MikeB,
Fair enough. You narrowly avoided Viet N...MikeB, <br /><br />Fair enough. You narrowly avoided Viet Nam in the Marines around the same time my dad narrowly avoided Viet Nam in the Navy. ;) <br /><br />I ask mainly because, while I _don't_ think there's a necessary conflict between supporting gun restrictions and supporting gun training, in my experience familiarity with guns tends to erode support for gun restrictions. It seems like whenever I take a mild anti- or neutral-gun person through gun safety and let them handle my firearms, they lose a lot of the fear and mistique that I think fuels most (but obviously not all) popular support for gun control. <br /><br />Take a whole generation of Americans and expose them to what guns really are and how they really work, and I'll bet you'll see the utter death of gun control as a motivating political issue. I strongly suspect this is the real reason why intelligent, calculating organizations like the Brady Campaign attack the NRA's child safety education programs. <br /><br />Of course, there's a certain selection bias here: every shooter knows that anti-gunners who give guns an honest chance turn into pro-gunners... Just like all anti-gun activists are dead certain that every shooter who loses a loved one to "gun violence" will realize the error of his ways and go anti-gun. People are obviously more complicated than that, as you yourself demonstrate.elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-1702357482812168132009-04-23T14:39:00.000+02:002009-04-23T14:39:00.000+02:00You respond to Michael, great but then ignore the ...<I>You respond to Michael, great but then ignore the very responses you asked for, why?</I> <br /><br />Lack of response isn't the same thing as ignoring. MikeB's made it clear that he reads every response, and people don't always have a reply right away. <br /><br />Sometimes a really good argument will change the way a person thinks about the issue, and sometimes it won't--and even when it does, it can take a while for the idea to percolate. We're all grown-ups here, and I think we can just say our piece, assume that the other party will ask if he has any questions, and leave it at that. Demanding responses right now doesn't generally help get your point across any better. :)elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-36108617606051571482009-04-23T12:21:00.000+02:002009-04-23T12:21:00.000+02:00MikeB,
Why avoid addressing the issues raised in ...MikeB,<br /><br />Why avoid addressing the issues raised in the comments?<br /><br /><br />You respond to Michael, great but then ignore the very responses you asked for, why?Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.com