I didn't count them, but right away there were the usual pro-gun thoughtless knee-jerk remarks. For example:
I am a professor, and was on another university campus when I heard of yesterday's VT incident. I immediately felt quite vulnerable. Had that happened on my campus, I would very much have wanted to be in possession of gun that I could use to defend myself, my colleagues, and my students.
and the classic:
We will never know how concealed carry could have stopped Cho, but we are absolutely certain of the results of no concealed carry.
My idea about guns on campus is like my belief about concealed carry in general and even guns in the home, they do more harm than good. The pro-gun crowd loves to overlook that armed people in the vicinity of an berserk killer rarely can stop the shooting in time, and sometimes, as in the most recent case, lose their own lives.
Cho is often hailed as an example of the failure of gun control systems because he bought his guns legally. But, the problem in that case was too lax laws as far as the mental health reporting goes. Same with Loughner. And he provided a shining example of Arizona's most bizarre policy of "Constitutional Carry."
I believe certain voices in the gun-rights community take their cue from the NRA and the gun manufacturers in purposely highlighting incidents which justify their fear-driven choice to be armed. Although these incidents are anecdotal and even rare, they are dramatic and convince other weak, insecure and fearful people that having a gun is the right idea. Common sense goes out the window and we have an ever-increasing spiral of people justifying their own behavior by convincing others.
The end result is The United States is the laughing stock of the entire developed world. Jokes are made about us and lots of people are dying.
The other fallacy of the pro-gun argument is the distinction between law-abiding gun owners and criminal gun owners. Of course they're different in certain respects, no one denies that, but the thing that ties them together like fraternal twins is the gun. All of those guns start out the legal property of somebody and due to the shabby mish-mash of so-called gun control laws in the country they flow unabated from the law-abiding twin to the criminal twin. Naturally the good twin raises up his hands in feigned innocence and proclaims no responsibility for this.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteI've offered to agree with comprehensive background checks, but the point here is that gun control advocates always ask for new laws, but never indicate what they're willing to give in return. Will you agree to universal carry, except for places like nuclear plants? This is the problem: Until your side shows some willingness to give up something, why should we? Compromise doesn't mean that one side loses and the other side wins.
Greg, It's not a negotiation or bargaining session. We're trying to determine what's right and what's wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut that's exactly what politics is. Both sides believe themselves to be right. To get anywhere, either one side wins all or there's a compromise.
ReplyDeleteUnderstand: My side believes that we're right.
Let that sink in. We're not evil; we're not malicious. We believe that we're right. We're not faking it. We're not merely being selfish about our own interests. We believe that gun rights are right for everyone.
So do we win, or do we have to make a compromise with you?
"Let that sink in. We're not evil; we're not malicious. We believe that we're right. We're not faking it. We're not merely being selfish about our own interests. We believe that gun rights are right for everyone."
ReplyDeleteNo, actually, you should let this sink in. Your selfish cowards who don't give a flying fuck what anybody else wants as long as you can haz teh gunz. And you're crybabies, to boot.
GC writes:
ReplyDeleteUnderstand: My side believes that we're right.
Yes, you have a belief; you don't have a FACT to support that you are right because you find the high number of gun deaths and injuries acceptable. Sane, fact based, reality based people do not find these abnormally high numbers compared to other civilized, free, safe, developed comparable societies.
You find this acceptable even when faced with the steady decline in crime, particularly violent crime statistics.
You aren't REALITY based in your belief.
Let that sink in. We're not evil; we're not malicious.
Yes. You are evil if you believe - as you have expressed - that it is acceptable to shoot someone when lethal violence is avoidable.
You are evil when you try to dehumanize people to justify shooting them.
You are evil when you are ignorant and don't give a god damn about mens rea.
We believe that we're right.
Yes, but that is not a reasonable belief rooted in reality, so NO, we don't have to give it credence or respect. You are delusional, you are irrational, you are emotional. And not in a good way.
We're not faking it. We're not merely being selfish about our own interests.
We don't care if you are faking your delusions; the part we don't respect is the delusional aspects of your thinking.
We believe that gun rights are right for everyone.
Yes, and that includes criminals, blind people who cannot conform to the rules of gun safety, and people who are dangerously crazy. You are in favor of no regulations or penalties on securing guns. You are in favor of untraceable sales of guns which facilitates gun transfers to criminals and others who should not have weapons.
But most of all you are selfish, because you routinely puff out your chest and put your PREFERENCES over the right of other people to be safe from all the gun violence that hurts and kills people, destroying their lives.
So do we win, or do we have to make a compromise with you?
I vote for none of the above, I vote for YOU LOSE.
It's just a matter of time; trends are not with you, worldwide. I'd remind you of slavery. We were behind the rest of civilized countries - you know, like ENGLAND - in getting rid of it.
Instead, the backwards regressive fail-to-adapt and evolve set made bogus claims about the constitution, mostly the 10th amendment, before we ended slavery. You know - just like you guys do with the 2nd amendment. And the courts wrongly held with the founding fathers and slavery, in Dredd Scott, just like the modern SCOTUS blew it on some of their rulings.
Got it? No? We'll keep explaining it to you until you do.
I forgot to mention - slave owners were also big on claiming THEY weren't evil either.
ReplyDeleteExcept that the hindsight of history says they were.
Ya gotta love history - but to love it, you first have to KNOW and understand it.
You DON'T.
I agree with democommie, although I would put it a bit more gently.
ReplyDelete"Your selfish cowards who don't give a flying fuck what anybody else wants as long as you can haz teh gunz."
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteProve to me, solely on the basis of facts, that human beings ought to exist.
It can't be done. We want to exist, and that's the only justification.
Prove to me that democracy is better than other forms of government, based again solely on facts.
It also can't be done. We want individual rights, but no facts insist that this is the only way to do things. The Chinese, for example, are doing well with a different model.
My point is that facts are available to all and known by anyone who pays attention. Prove to me, based solely on the facts, that the number of gun deaths in this country is either too high or too low or just right. The facts tell us what is, not what ought to be.
I agree that fewer deaths would be good. I don't think that your proposals would get us there, and I don't think that they would be good for this country. The facts of other countries are significantly different from ours.
GC writes - badly -My point is that facts are available to all and known by anyone who pays attention. Prove to me, based solely on the facts, that the number of gun deaths in this country is either too high or too low or just right. The facts tell us what is, not what ought to be.
ReplyDeleteNo Greg, I don't think anyone believes that more deaths than less is acceptable.
Other countries HAVE demonstrated that changes in the laws regulating guns DOES reduce those deaths.
That it might inconvenience you, but save the lives of other people is not a difficult balance to achieve, and there is pretty much NO credible argument otherwise.
Certainly nothing you've written here or elsewhere argues successfully otherwise.
THIS is one of your most specious, failed arguments:
I don't think that your proposals would get us there, and I don't think that they would be good for this country. The facts of other countries are significantly different from ours.
While other countries have SOME differences from this country, and from each other, the remarkable success of changing gun laws to be more restrictive in markedly eliminating gun deaths is a common denominator to all of them.
So, for you to claim differences as an argument, you have to show how those differences are somehow more pertinent or significant than the differences between all of those other countries where changes making gun ownership more restricted were successful.
Your citation of differences between countries fails to make that argument. It is stupid on the face of it.
Gun deaths are bad.
Fewer guns and more restrictive gun ownership consistently .
That this is a causal relationship is clear from the changes in the gun death and injury and crime stats in those countries, before and after.
You have made fuck all of a persuasive case that there are differences HERE which would cause that not to be true in this country.
You are intellectually dishonest in your arguments. What this really comes down to is you don't want it, not that it would not reduce gun deaths and injuries and crimes with guns.
You are clearly putting YOUR convenience with spouting a lot of bullshit propaganda lines about 'our freedoms' ahead of the freedom of all the people in the statistics not to be shot.
I don't think that is a reasonable balancing of competing freedoms.
YOU don't have a credible argument it is. So you tap dance around it with fake arguments and a lot of crap.
I want those people who enjoy guns for shooting sports and hunting to have them,and collectors.
ReplyDeleteIf you want one for home defense, and you keep it secure so that other people cannot access it, including thieves and burglars, but especially children and teens, and if you are accountable for seeing that your weapon is not used by others for harm, I'm happy.
That you need to have your weapon on your person at all times because of a highly unlikely event where you might need it is crap, it is pure bullshit.
First, you appear to have poor judgment and understanding of when that event occurs. Second, you appear to have a grandiose idea of what you can and cannot accomplish with a firearm in self defense, an unrealistic idea.
Third, your fear of such an event, when it is so unlikely, in and of itself puts your judgment in question. A fearful person is more likely to misinterpret a situation as a threat than a more secure and confident person.
That a sense of having taken a precaution makes a person behave in a more risky fashion is evident from any number of psychological studies - the one I posted yesterday being one example of the many.
I suggest before you try to argue this that YOU Greg read about risk assessment and risk behavior a bit further.
Like your comment that there is no nuance of bi-sexuality in Renault, your opinion tends to be ill-informed consistently. Teacher, do your own damned homework.
"Prove to me, solely on the basis of facts, that human beings ought to exist."
ReplyDeleteWhy? WTF does that have to do with handgun regulations?
Just a guess, democommie, that like his demented reference to people as goblins, it is part of his failing attempt at moral justification.
ReplyDeleteIf we can't morally justify people should live, then we don't need to get too upset when gun lunatics kill them.
Unless the person being killed is themselves a gun lunatic.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you've failed to answer a direct question. I asked you to prove, solely on the basis of facts, that a number of outcomes are desirable. You have not done so. The point is that one cannot prove those on facts alone.
You also again insist that I can't be responsible with my concealed handgun. But you haven't explained how you could. Do this for all of us: Write an article that explains the safe and responsible carrying of a handgun, when it is acceptable to use one in self defense, and what justifies allowing anyone to carry a handgun. You talk around the subject all the time. Give us your straightforward answer to that.
Democommie,
Dog Gone demands facts to support every argument, even ones that aren't about factual claims. I was showing her an argument that cannot be decided on the basis of facts alone.
I'll be happy to explain why I am safe and you are not, Greg.
ReplyDeleteJust as soon as you respond to those pesky earlier questions you were asked.
Otherwise, I stand by having done so previously (multiple times) illustrates I'm not hiding anything.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI have answered your questions. What do you think remains unanswered?
And again, you could offer a link to save time. But you won't. Frankly, you're the most obstinate and disagreeable person I know. You hang on to the smallest matters and worry them to death, all the while ignoring the major points that people raise here. You make demands that we answer questions that we've answered. In fact, what you're doing is waiting for us to give up so you can claim victory. That's not how reasoning works, but it is exhausting.
"You make demands that we answer questions that we've answered. In fact, what you're doing is waiting for us to give up so you can claim victory. That's not how reasoning works, but it is exhausting."
ReplyDeleteAnother one of your many FUCKING LIES, Greg Camp.
You refuse to answer questions by both me and dog gone (I'll let Laci The Dog deal with your lying to him). You CHOOSE, frequently to flounce off of a thread when it's become obvious that you're talking through your ass about any number of subjects.
You're a fucking crybaby in addition to being a liar. IOW, it sucks to be you.
I have answered your questions. What do you think remains unanswered?
ReplyDeleteThere is an increasing laundry list of them, Greg. You continue to fail to distinguish between credible sources and bullshit.
I'm still waiting for you to provide for example, a credible historical reference that carrying a firearm in a belt is in any way historically accurate, or that the people in the old west were stupid enough and sufficiently unfamiliar with firearms to have their fingers on the trigger as you do in your photo.
This goes not to a small point, as you would posit, but rather to the issue of gun fantasies versus reality and fact, to an attitude that glamorizes guns in a way that they never were in history.
You keep trying to pretend to yourself that I raise only small points but that is incorrect.
I clearly address large topics on their own, and small points as they exemplify problems with the pro-gun position on those larger issues.
You make the claim that the photo is inspired by Wild Bill Hickock, and that it represents an historic method of carrying a firearm.
I argue it does not, and provided you with examples of cavalry carry, the use of holsters for that kind of draw- not so-called 'mexican carry'. I researched photos of Wild Bill and other historic figures of the era, and found precisely two staged publicity photos with Wild Bill with anything remotely like that. Both photos - one that you used, of him alone and one in a group of other well known figures from that era who were highly publicizes also show other historically inaccurate things like an unsheathed knife and are clearly studio portraits to publicize something.
NOTHING else, not photos, not historic illustrations of any kind from that era show anything like that. Nor did any historic analysis or paper on weapons from the 19th century mention anything like that - quite the opposite.
You sources, like Ayoob and Chic Gaylord make unsupported claims for the term Mexican carry, but those too are unsupported by any history or credible source. It demonstrates they make shit up, and that you gunloonz swallow it without critically assessing it or fact checking -- another important point in my challenging the gun loonz position.]
You try to blow it off as nothing, but that lack of critical fact checking of your gun-loon heroes is significant. There is too much of what they claim that is bullshit, and you never bother to find out what is fact and what is fiction.
Shame on you. And then you wonder why some of us don't fawn and drool when you bring up Ayoob, Gaylord, or Jeff Cooper. You moan we don't give them the blind adoration and respect you do.
THAT would be why. Because you don't fact check them, and I do, and fact checking shows them making shit up.
And again, you could offer a link to save time. But you won't.
You are correct. I won't. But that is not the same as refusing to answer your questions, yet you keep claiming it is. I simply am withholding making that easy for you until you satisfy what I have asked of you. You haven't done that yet.
Frankly, you're the most obstinate and disagreeable person I know.
I can outstubborn a Dachshund; compared to that, you're easy. I'm currently outstubborning a very naughty poodle shitzu mixed year old puppy that I hope to turn into a good working service dog for his owner's special needs daughter. Not rewarding failed behavior is part of that. I am stubborn by profession, LOL! I make it into a working virtue.
You want it? You have to work for it.
You hang on to the smallest matters and worry them to death, all the while ignoring the major points that people raise here.
ReplyDeleteNO. I do not. You just dislike that I fact check people you want accepted blindly. You would prefer to ignore that what I do very much DOES address those larger issues. So either you're too stupid to understand - a possibility - or you are intellectually dishonest - another possibility - or both.
I am quite clear when I focus on a small point to relate it back to the larger. You are simply wrong.
You make demands that we answer questions that we've answered.
No. You don't. Laci and I and others here ask you to produce credible sources, sources that meet the same standards we apply to ourselves. You haven't. When asked to provide the legal case you claim to have with a citation of the case, you don't - you give us the Ay-boob. Not the same thing.
Just one example of many that form a pattern of those failures.
In fact, what you're doing is waiting for us to give up so you can claim victory. That's not how reasoning works, but it is exhausting.
Not at all. If that was what I was doing I would not reply, I would not poke you with a sharp stick pointing out that you had not answered. If that was the case I'd simply change the subject.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou've just demonstrated my point. You spend pages going on about a photograph of me that I've told you is one picture for a limited purpose. I've told you where I got my information. But it doesn't matter. It's my picture. One of you chose to use it without my permission. I didn't offer it for discussion. You go on and on and on about it, when I've told you why I made it and what my sources for that were. I've told you that it's of no matter, since I'm not submitting it to a historical journal. I needed a picture for Facebook. It's that simple.
As I said, I'm not submitting it for scholarly review. That being the case, I don't have to justify the photograph to anyone.
Now, are you going to answer my questions? Will you acknowledge that not every question can be answered with facts? Will you explain why you see yourself as qualified to carry a handgun, when the rest of us aren't?
GC writes:
ReplyDeleteI've told you where I got my information. But it doesn't matter.
Actually it does matter.
If you follow gun loonery, and do a google search for 'Mexican carry' or belt carry without a holster, you will find that there is a huge following of that fallacy (or should I write 'phallus-y' among gun loons.
And many of those describe themselves as practicing that custom NOW, not as an historic re-enactment, and they self-describe themselves as exercising their 2nd Amendment rights with concealed carry permits.
Which is why I distrust that you and your concealed carry buddies are as safe as you would have us believe.
Further, unless I missed it, you did not provide a credible historic source for your claims of imitating a period of U.S. history gun practice.
It's my picture. One of you chose to use it without my permission. I didn't offer it for discussion.
You posted it at a publicly viewable site, to which you link. We did not need your invitation or permission for any purpose under Fair Use.
You should have noticed how poor your sources were and not used it, for any reason. And I've outlined above why it is bad, and why it has a larger reason for discussion. You appear unsafe, and stupidly inaccurate. All you demonstrate is that you are a dangerous nut job who doesn't know fact from fiction.
As I said, I'm not submitting it for scholarly review. That being the case, I don't have to justify the photograph to anyone.
I think if you are going to tell us how much you know about guns, and how safe you are, you DO need to justify it.
It makes the point for our side wonderfully. For your side, not at all.
"As I said, I'm not submitting it for scholarly review. That being the case, I don't have to justify the photograph to anyone."
ReplyDeleteNobody is asking you to justify, snookums. In any case, pointing and laughing at someone who looks ridiculous also requires no justification.
You had to have a picture for your blog and the photo you used is the only one you could find? Or was it just the least ridiculous?
In fact, what you're doing is waiting for us to give up so you can claim victory.
ReplyDeleteNO, Greg, that's what you are doing.
You say inane things in the hope of tiring us out.
But, Greg, you can't bury the truth.
As I have pointed out, your position does not withstand intellectual scrutiny.
Of course, you are incapable of proper intellectual scrutiny.
Seriously Greg, do you really think promoting yourself looking stupid and doing something stupid, is a good choice?
ReplyDeleteDo you really want to show how little you understand about firearm safety OR firearm history, and then expect anyone to take you seriously for ANYTHING you write?
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteThat was wonderfully simultaneous smacktalkingness. Poor Greg Camp, he is bereft or verklempt or maybe he's both.
So rather than answer the questions that I've asked, Dog Gone, you continue to complain about my answers to your questions. Perhaps I'll accept your sources or your arguments, if you'd actually give them. But you won't. You cling to commentary about one photograph and refuse to respond to legitimate questions about your own practices. I'll ask my questions again:
ReplyDelete1. Do you acknowledge that there are arguments that cannot be settled on the question of facts alone?
2. What qualifications do you have to carry a concealed handgun?
3. How is it that you were able or are able to carry in a responsible manner?
I've answered your questions. You haven't answered mine. Neither has to like the other's answers, but I have given you what you have not returned.
Greg asks:
ReplyDelete1. Do you acknowledge that there are arguments that cannot be settled on the question of facts alone?
Only if you are arguing with an idiot who doesn't accept facts.
2. What qualifications do you have to carry a concealed handgun?
3. How is it that you were able or are able to carry in a responsible manner?
She doesn't have to answer those questions.
I will answer for myself though.
I began shooting when I was 6 years old and received several marksmanship awards.
Firearms training was part of my miltiary service and I carried concealed while off-duty in Ulster.
I was subject to the rules of engagement which I posted.
GC:I've answered your questions. You haven't answered mine.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't answered ANYTHING adequately.
I have answered your questions, just not in a convenient format.
I'll be tickled pink to make those answers more conveniently accessible here for you just as soon as you provide credible quality responses.\
I know Laci is still waiting for a legal citation; I'm also waiting for you to explain how it is you've concluded I don't know what other customs are in friends expressing affection, or how that pertains to Casablanca, and American movie made for American audiences.
To name just a few examples.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI've explained my comments about friendship in that comment thread. If my answers to you aren't satisfactory, then so be it. At least I gave you an answer. As I said, you have given me none. I probably won't like your answers, either. But you could give them to me.
Laci the Dog,
Those are good answers. I'd be happy for you to have a license. We go through training as well.
Here's a question for you: Prove to me with facts alone that human beings have the right to exist.
And before Democommie has a stroke, understand that I believe that they do.
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteI've explained my comments about friendship in that comment thread.
You've brought in CS Lewis, you've brought in teaching your students about how other cultures express affection.
yada yada.
What you haven't explained is how that specifically pertains to what is on the screen in Casablanca.
I am also waiting for you to explain your comment that apparently I need to be instructed like your students do in how other cultures express affection.
I have provided you the original sources for the notion that Renault is bi-sexual with a certain interest - sexual interest - in Rick.
I referred you to those sources and made it easy for you to find the information,including page numbers and titles.
It is not "my idea" concept or observation, although after hearing it, I found it persuasive. That is why I refer you to the originators.
However I do have my doubts you are capable of admitting when you are wrong.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you do know about other cultures--I don't care. C.S. Lewis discusses the various meanings of words in Greek that get translated as love in English. It's a small point--forget about it. You named sources, but I'm not going to spend time and money hunting them up, just because you like them. Give me a summary to let me know if they're worth my effort.
You put it that I was wrong because you have to ALSO teach your students about how other cultures express friendship and affection.
ReplyDeleteThat 'also' means you thought YOU were schooling me in these things.
So I'd like you to explain why you feel either you are qualified to educate me on that topic, and why I need you to do so.
Now you say you don't care.
Do we have to start translating not only foreign languages, but Gregisms or Gregish?
Is"Perhaps you do know about other cultures--I don't care. you way of saying you CAN'T justify that statement, you were wrong, and that when you are called on to back it up or back down, you don't have the intellectual honesty or courage to do either? In short, you just can't admit when you are wrong, can you?
That last line was a rhetorical question.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou were suggesting that Rick and Captain Renault have bisexual elements in their relationship. I offered the idea that it was merely friendship and that what to an American might look erotic would be to other cultures not so much. I don't know what you know about other cultures, nor do I care. I actually made all of these remarks in a response to Mikeb and not to you, but you butted in, nevertheless. I imagine that Mike knows. I said that I have to explain this idea to my students.
What we have here is a typical example of how you work. I make a comment to someone else; you take it personally and flood the page with irrelevancies; you demand that I explain myself and refuse to answer any questions until I do.