My favorite part was probably this (Joel's answers in italics,) but it's all good:
4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
Yes.
5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
The question is incoherent. "Banning" requires no physical action at all, and is quite simple to do. Even Clinton managed it. If you mean confiscation, well, there you've got a problem. Were you really coming to me for suggestions?
22 comments:
That person is just too impossibly dumb to speak with about any of this.
Perhaps I could get interested as soon as she stops beating her husband.
"12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?"
Answer, in two parts:
12a. No, I don't believe all law abiding citizens are careful with their guns. As proof, point shooting is neither illegal nor always excercised (she *did* say "all")with any level of care whatsoever.
12b. I KNOW some law abiding gun owners WOULD shoot "anybody", if that "anybody" desperately needed to be shot. I myself would most certainly shoot "anyone" if I believed it necessary to do so in defense of me and mine. Twice, center of mass.
Criminals know that sme gun owners would likely do the same: it's called deterence.
The title of her post ("where there is an open mind...") is a koan.
The answer is: "Not Here". Pity she'd never allow this comment.
Strikes me as a "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" type of thing.
The fundamental position is one of how do I accomplish removal of all firearms when there is a legal precedent [2A] for permitting it.
The whole premise is one of failure of critical thought and bankrupt concepts. The result is corrupt data and falsehoods to be presented as objective facts.
As such the 20 questions are a ruse as the end goal stated cannot change.
The whole set of questions are Hobson's choice and the only answer is to not accept. The critical discussion it encompasses is actually a dilemma in that neither choice is optimal due to potential risks, in this case, proceeding in discussion is pointless. The argument or discourse referenced in this case is moot at best.
There is no possible outcome other than stalemate, not playing that game is better application of time and resources.
Eck!
japete said:
"Huh? totally missed this logic. I don't think there is any there."
japete would not know logic if it bit her in the butt. ...... and she's in "education" ..... that figures.
She doesn't know what words mean.
I'll play.
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html
I didn't follow the format. Sorry.
In principle, we all want the same thing: a safer society. The difference between pro- and anti-gun folks is that the former believe in individual responsibility and liberty (punish the guilty; leave everybody else alone) while the latter believe in trampling everybody's rights in a vain, fruitless, pointless effort to stop crime happening in the first place by eliminating the tools that criminals MIGHT use.
Ask the British how that's worked out for them. For that matter, ask the guards in any prison: crimes, including murder, occur there even though the inmates are denied ANY weapons and are under pretty strict control. Yet, the bloody-minded always seem to find a way.
I love how her idea of an open mind is someone who has firmly decided to agree with her. If that's logical, then I'm happy to not merit such a distinction.
Here's what I told her, doubt it will make a dent.
I have tried not to become involved in this, but feel that I must try to make a point. I realize that your dislike of guns has to do with events in your life. That is both understandable and reasonable, however, your focus on the tool or means that was used in these events is irrational. It was the "man" (and i use that term grudgingly) that caused this event. A gun did not cause this. A gun is an inanimate object, incapable of doing ANY action in and of itself.
I understand your reasoning that if guns didn't exist, it would not have happened, but that is flawed. If guns didn't exist, it wouldn't have happened with a GUN, but if the person was intent on murder, other methods are available. Men have found ways to kill each other since life began, and did do quite well before guns came along.
What needs to be addressed is not the tool used in murder, but the person using the tool. They are the threat, not the tool. Please allow me to ask you a personal question, and if you decline to answer I understand.
If another person with a gun had been there at the time of the tragedy, and was able to shoot him before he committed murder, would you still be so opposed to guns? If they had been used to save her life? What if SHE had one herself and was able to end the filthy animal?
You are blaming the loss of life on the gun, instead of the violent psychopath.
It is no different that banning cars because millions are killed with them, or because millions are killed when irresponsible people drink and drive and kill people. We don't remove CARS, we remove the people that MISUSED them.
I understand your grief. I have lost family to violence. I felt helpless. I felt the need to do something, ANYTHING to keep this from happening again to ANYONE, ANYWHERE! If I could save just ONE life it would be worth it...
So now I am an instructor. I teach responsible firearms ownership, and encourage safety training. I am determined to enable others to have the ability and the tools necessary to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones against murderous psychopaths. If I can save one innocent life, just one, I have done my job, and made my dead rest easier.
Please understand. By removing guns from honest, innocent people, you are removing their ability to properly save their lives. You are removing a chance that they might be able to fight back. You are helping to ENSURE that the psychopath with the gun will be able to murder whomever they want without fear. You are HELPING them....not the victims.
If you could go back and be standing there with a gun when the scum took her life and take his instead, wouldn't that be a good thing?
You can remove every dangerous thing from society you can imagine, and man would still kill with bear hands if inclined. A criminal will always ignore ANY law, by their very definition....
I am sorry for your loss, and will pray for you and yours. God Bless, and I hope that some day you will see your error.
I played, nicely. She removed my answers after posting them. Strange, and not strange at all.
I like Joel's answer to #17:
17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?
Mostly I stay away from cops.
Funny...and sadly, apt.
wv: fuljnk - Have they been in my garage? Or listening to my wife?
17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?
Mostly I stay away from cops.
I laughed until I went blind from tears of laughter... then thought more about it and got depressed.
Hi Tam,
Thanks for the links. Joel's answers are great reading.
You and Bobbi always find the coolest stuff on the Innertubes.
Dave
I went over to her site and took a quick look around, and decided to leave before it jellied my brain. She actually seems to believe that if you don't agree with her, or at least go along with her, you either don't mind or WANT lots of people getting shot. Kind of amazing; I think Huffman's followup has it.
japete said...
"I have provided facts to show that gun deaths take more lives than any other means in the U.S. I am concentrating on the U.S. and what is going on here. It is still true that gun deaths per 100,000 are higher in the U.S. than other industrialized countries."
---------------------
So fucking what... the US is different in a million other ways than other industrialized countries. There's a price to pay when your society / country as a whole isn't as homogeneous as some other industrialized countries. It can make it a place of great discovery and great danger. Part of the charm / curse of living in the US. Land of great opportunity, and a good place to get shot too. LOL!
Screw more gun laws, leave well enough alone and fire about 200,000 government bureaucrats, that would help more than anything else...
Given that
(1) gun owners make up 15% to 30% of the U.S. population,
(2) 2/3 of all homicides are committed by a gun owner
(3) less than 10% of all violent crime is committed by gun owners
(4) blacks make up about 12%-13% of the U.S. population
(5) 1/2 to 2/3 of all homicides are committed by blacks
(6) 25% of all violent crime is committed by blacks
would you favor gun control laws targeted at the sub-section of the population that commits homicide and violent crime at a greater per-capita rate than gun owners.
Eg, should blacks be prohibited from owning firearms, since targeting scarce resources would produce greater returns?
Disclaimer: figures pulled from 10 year old memory that I calculated myself, based on NCVS and UCR. May be off by a few percentage points, but unless things have drastically changed over the past decade, the point remains valid. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to update if needed. Extra bonus points for comparing the demographics of Canada and Great Britain to the U.S.
I have spent some time reading her preivious posts. I notice very few coments until the 20 questions. She reminds me of a woman I knew that was a MAD member seems she lost her daughter to a drunk driver (very sad). When she described the circumstances of daughter's abusive alcoholic boyfriend being the driver of the car the daughter was riding in it was clear no responsibility was assighned to the daughter for staying in the relationship or voluntarily getting into the car. I gather this womans sister served divorce papers on her estranged husband violating a restraining order she had obtained herself. Knowingly going into harms way, when the papers could have been delivered by a representative safely. Poor problem solving skills seem to run in the family. Not trying to insult just an observation. Sad stories both.
I too decided to play along, I even posted mine to her comments, but she didn't allow them to get published.
http://godgunspolitics.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/playing-with-the-antis/
I posted my responses to her questions as "Anonymous" on her page, to which she got into a little discussion with me. When I tried to respond to her questions, she blocked my comments. Later, someone came on and posted that us "gunloons" wouldn't answer her questions.
Classic stuff.
Post a Comment