The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5461 - 5480 of total 5937 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 15, 2014 - 03:22pm PT
I'm not nearly as impressed with your word blizzards as you. Enjoy.

I'll snipe when I want. 2nd amendment don't you know.

DON'T SHOOT ME MAN!!!!!!!1111111

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 03:29pm PT
I'm not nearly as impressed with your word blizzards as you.

Not much of an attention span, from all I've seen of you.

Sniping is so much easier, and more cowardly, than engaging face to face. Problem is that the word "sniping" implies being on target with precision. You're patting yourself on the back more than you're due to use that term.

And attention spans like yours are why we elect presidents now on sound bites. Americans virtually cannot follow a systematic argument anymore.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 15, 2014 - 03:46pm PT
Sniping is so much easier, and more cowardly, than engaging face to face.

Ah yes. Says the man with the concealed pistol.

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 04:27pm PT
LOL... nope, thus far it's always been open.

I'm just an open and transparent guy.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 15, 2014 - 04:29pm PT
Ahhhhhhhh! Brevity!

Thank YOU!

DMT
StahlBro

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Jul 15, 2014 - 04:31pm PT
So I guess you are admitting your statement here is pure bullsh*t. Now we are getting somewhere.

Jul 15, 2014 - 02:14pm PT

Finally our murder rate will resemble a civilized country's murder rate, not what we have now.

**It already does. So, job done.

Next....**Italic Text
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 05:05pm PT
So I guess you are admitting your statement here is pure bullsh*t.

Nope, that chart is what is pure bullsh*t.

But that's irrelevant, except to folks that just want to keep on fighting about this.

I've already said that I'm open to reasonable, non-federally-anchored gun laws. And I've offered a few suggestions.

So far no takers on further developing that approach.

Guess you anti-gun-nuts just want to fight.

On the Internet, of course.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Jul 15, 2014 - 05:36pm PT
More ideas?

Sure:

Call your State and Federal representatives explaining that you and a large majority of the population support something similar to what you've listed above. Ask them why they won't.

Vote against candidates that refuse to support such legislation.

Financially support and vote for candidates that will support it.

Stop suggesting that any such legislation will ultimately lead to confiscation of everyone's guns, followed by the announcement of martial law by the Federal Government.

TE




Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 15, 2014 - 06:16pm PT
Bad news Madbolter.... turns out you may have been born that way, nothing to do with hanging out with gangbangers after all. You Scotts Irish by any chance?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called "Open Peer Commentary": An article of major significance is published, a large number of fellow scholars comment on it, and then the original author responds to all of them. The approach has many virtues, one of which being that it lets you see where a community of scholars and thinkers stand with respect to a controversial or provocative scientific idea. And in the latest issue of the journal, this process reveals the following conclusion: A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology, and even traits like physiology and genetics.

That's a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics—upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests, and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway).

It is a "virtually inescapable conclusion" that the "cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different."

The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a "negativity bias," meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.) In the process, Hibbing et al. marshal a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of "a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it," as one of their papers put it).

In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-ideology-john-hibbing-negativity-bias
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Jul 15, 2014 - 06:42pm PT
As long as you lump people into nice categories of "left" and "right" you'll never have a realistic view of anything.

But that's what the regime wants you to do... so carry on...
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jul 15, 2014 - 07:23pm PT
"A civilized country's murder rate"?

Does anybody here know what Hiram Maxim's friend said to him that prompted him to invent the machine gun?
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 15, 2014 - 07:59pm PT
"When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my revolver"?
scrubbing bubbles

Social climber
Uranus
Jul 15, 2014 - 08:09pm PT
yeah, and don't forget all the armed militias that will RISE UP to counter the Illuminati and The New World Order and the Zionist Entity, and every other phantom that a paranoid guy sitting alone in his desert shack, wearing nothing but a pair of filthy reeking BVDs, can dream up in his feverish, sex-starved brain


frikkin gun nuts--get a life already !!!

Bargainhunter

climber
Jul 15, 2014 - 09:49pm PT
Madbolter,

My point with the commentary about the teardrop gang tattoo was to dispel the myth that a person with a teardrop tattoo is an imminent threat to you. If you aren’t involved in gang culture (e.g. appear as a rival gang member), then the guy wearing a Raider’s cap and sporting a teardrop tattoo and other gang tats who is waiting in line in front of you at the Yucaipa 7-11, holding bag of Funyuns and a Slurpee, poses no threat to you. He’s not going to take the stirrer out of your 24 oz Hazelnut coffee and stab you in the eye socket with it, despite how many gangland shows have appeared on TV.

So you can relax your grip on your .454 Casul and pull your hand out of your Patagonia briefs and perhaps think about cooler stuff on the way to Tahquiz like flashing the Vampire or hang dogging Paisano Overhang until you get it dialed.

Gang members are pathetic idiots and you give them too much credit. There isn’t a “ruthless Darwinian selection process” to join a gang, unless it involves a questionnaire asking if you are A) mentally retarded and B) excited about picking your nose all day. If you friend’s brother couldn’t make it into a gang, then sadly his cerebral palsy must have been too severe or he failed the complicated questionnaire listed in the previous sentence. I’m not here to make light of your friend’s brother’s tragedy, but people in gangs are many, many frijoles short of a full burrito.

Gang violence is primarily between gang members. Sure, innocent people can get caught in crossfire during any escalation of violence or crime but for the most part it’s trash killing trash. People outside of that culture aren’t really on the radar.

A few other facts that may interest people who haven’t been exposed to gang culture (aside from the media drama and Hollywood’s exaggerated silly portrayals) is 1) how young most gang members are (i.e. 13 years old), 2) how physically slight and unintimidating they are, and 3) how incredibly f*#king stupid they are. Most are functionally illiterate; the fact that some have figured out how to use toilet paper and others have learned how to eat their mashed potatoes and peas with a spoon instead of rubbing it all over their foreheads, is, based on their baseline cognitive impairment, impressive.

Tragically, gang bangers have embraced a persona that makes them feel important somehow which revolves around an ethos of senseless violence (e.g. killing another gang member from another neighborhood because he’s simply walking down the sidewalk) and cowardly shootings (e.g. drive byes and car to car highway shootings) that makes no rational sense outside of their narrow pathetic world but has it’s own reward system within the gang. The cost of this behavior to rest of society is high: incarceration, fear of violence, the expense of law enforcement etc., not to mention the cost of the wasted human potential of both the victim and perpetrator.

My point of bringing all of this up was simply to point out that a baldheaded tatted up latino dude in a wifebeater with teardrop tattoos should not make you get all paranoid and wound up. Relax. Chill out. Try being nice instead of openly hostile. If you feel the context is appropriate you could even ask him about the significance of some of the tattoos, but I suspect by your contempt and anger that this might pose a challenge. Many gang members are proud of their tattoos [like many people with fashion accessories that you may find silly (e.g. gauged ears)] and enjoy talking about them if you show genuine interest and aren’t a judgmental as#@&%e.

Perhaps your own tension and fear and misinterpretation of a threat can be replaced by an awareness and compassion that might help you be less angry and less confrontational. You create the world you see.

To get back to the theme of main thread (gun debate issues), and to respond to your point that “you apparently think it's much more of a problem/hassle to [conceal carry] do so than it actually is.” Yes I absolutely do! Even a loaded Glock 26 in an Uncle Mike’s undershirt-shirt holster is a pain. It’s heavy. I don’t feel mortally threatened to carry a weapon all the time as cheap insurance for the infinitesimal chance of really needing a gun to defend myself. Sure, I can imagine a scenario where one really needs a gun (and then you probably really need a gun), but I‘m not just not in those circumstance, ever.

I can also get angry and confrontational and am self-aware enough that having a gun might cause me to loose rational perspective and push things too far with tragic results. It’s also easy to mis-judge situations and perhaps use it against the wrong person, as was the case with a concealed carrier who witnessed the Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting and nearly shot an innocent guy who took the gun away from the shooter. Accidental discharges can occur too. I feel that most conceal carriers are not honest with the danger they pose to themselves and others by carrying a gun. Some can handle the responsibility, others, I’m not so sure.

I can understand those who feel they need/want to carry, but I think many are preoccupied with phantom fears and imagined threats that are blown way, way out of proportion, e.g. teardrop tattoos.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 16, 2014 - 01:45am PT
Bargainhunter,

You're still "profiling," lecturing, and presuming that you know my emotional responses toward gang members.

You still haven't explained how you think you know so much, which makes me wonder what you are hiding. Don't you think we should have the ability to assess your credibility?

For myself, I don't need that; I'm asking for others. For myself, I read your generalizations and know that you don't know what you are talking about.

I've personally known dozens of gang MEMBER individuals from a variety of gangs ranging from the Diablos to the South Side Mafia. I've known Latinos, blacks, and whites. I don't feel in the slightest threatened by them in general, particularly in non-turf places, such as amusement parks and other non-contested areas.

Your generalizations about their stupidity are, flatly, ridiculous. And your threat assessment generalizations are also, flatly, ridiculous.

I'm done responding to you because I don't care for your lectures, particularly when I know first-hand that your generalizations are unfounded and that you are lecturing to somebody besides me, because addressed to me, what you have to say is also unfounded.

Good day.
couchmaster

climber
Jul 16, 2014 - 07:47am PT
Thanks Madbolter. I'm with Judge Alex Kozinski’s view which is this:


"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Bottom line for me, I trust all of you, my friends, fellow citizens and relatives, more than the Government. Seems like an easy choice to me.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 16, 2014 - 08:08am PT
I too worry about the abstract threat of a government takeover more than the day to day reality if gun violence.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 16, 2014 - 08:10am PT
When the time comes that the army and government decide that elections are done with and it's time for dictatorship to restore America to her rightful place, the gun nuts will be on their side. Believe it.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Jul 16, 2014 - 08:11am PT
Bottom line for me, I trust all of you, my friends, fellow citizens and relatives, more than the Government.

I trust everyone around me that's why I carry a gun.

Makes sense.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 16, 2014 - 12:55pm PT
Thank you, couchmaster, and I also entirely agree with the "backstop" idea.

Of course, that gets Americans at most gun OWNERSHIP. It cannot ground the right of carry in public. On that note, this sentiment is very well-founded!

I too worry about the abstract threat of a government takeover more than the day to day reality if gun violence.

Dirtbag rightly notes that the right of ownership as "backstop" doesn't motivate the right of carry, which in the minds of many is synonymous with the "epidemic of gun violence."

Only the inalienable right of self defense (which government neither grants nor can take away) can ground the right of carry.

However, as with all rights, the government IS within ITS rights to regulate that right in such a way as to balance the inalienable right with the public welfare.

As I've argued repeatedly, I don't believe that there IS any "epidemic of gun violence" that needs huge steps and federal laws to "balance."

However, that said, I DO think that getting a carry license should be harder than it is. To whit....

My wife and I are finishing our CCW course tonight. Last night we spent hours listening to a state-licensed instructor, and I've been struck thus far by several things:

1) On the law, she is pretty clueless, which is shocking. I had hoped to gain far more knowledge than my own research has granted me. Not only does she not know as much as several of us in the class, on several important points she is outright wrong. So, she's of no legal help, and the laws MATTER!

2) This is a "basic pistol safety course" by name. It is indeed BASIC! It's virtually at the level of, "This is the muzzle, which is the end the bullet comes out of." And so on. Tonight we'll do our range test, which amounts to: "You'll need to get 80% of your shots on the paper at 15 yards." REALLY? On the paper, huh? You mean the man-sized paper?

Look, if you can't do FAR better than that, you have NO business carrying a gun in public!!! At 25 yards I can get 80% of my shots within a six-inch group, and I don't think of myself as AT ALL "good." My wife can do as well at 15 yards, and she's shot our gun during TWO sessions so far. ON THE PAPER?!??? Whaaaaatttt???

Seeing "the bar" one must get over to get a CCW in Colorado, I'm pretty appalled. Here's what it SHOULD be:

* You must have a CCW license to CARRY: open or concealed. Then your choice is tactical rather than simply that you open-carry because you can't or won't qualify for the CCW.

* The CCW should be pretty hard to get. You should be able to shoot AT LEAST as well as my wife can, and the course should include LOTS of law and tactical scenarios under the law. And the test should NOT be multiple choice with a caveat like this: "If you pass the test, it doesn't mean we'll sign off on your certificate, and if you fail the test, it doesn't mean we won't sign off on your certificate." The former should be true, but not the latter, and you SHOULD have to get at least 75% on a test like this!

* People that would moan about how this unduly raises the bar or that it will be too expensive for the "poor" to get would leave me cold. This is a DEADLY WEAPON, and you have to get over a higher bar than I've described to get a drivers license! And if you can't prioritize the time/expense to get GOOD with your gun and pay for such a certification process, you clearly are not financially responsible enough to be carrying in the first place.

* There should be mandatory insurance, such as auto insurance. When you carry, your risks of lawsuit and the need of criminal defense skyrocket! No standard policies, including "umbrella" policies cover these risks. If you are going to be a responsible carrier, you MUST be financially responsible as well.

* Finally, if the CCW bar was higher, at least like I'm describing, the cops could instantly know (as could the public) that the person they see with a gun is both COMMITTED and COMPETENT. As it stands, pretty much any goofball (and there are a couple in our class!) can get a CCW. In a "shall issue" state, the competency and responsibility bar should be MUCH higher!

Under such a model, the criminal element would already be at a legal disadvantage, which is precisely what we want to see.

So, yes, CARRY... but with competency, responsibility, and commitment. The right of self-defense CAN be balanced with the public welfare. And making such a license be "shall issue" but coupled with a quite high bar would go far toward achieving this balance.
Messages 5461 - 5480 of total 5937 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews