Police state(ment)

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

The average home in the US is full of lethal weapons.

The lethal weapon that I am worried most about is a vehicle
100-year-old driver hits 11 people, including nine children, yeah the 'brakes failed', the old folks always say that. It turns out they have their foot firmly on the throttle.

[Mathew]

Originally Posted by retina

And then after surgery and six months of recovery I would enact laws to ban guns.

retina,

Would you please clarify? Is this another one of your intents? Is this akin to a celebrity creating a charity/movement when something happens to themselves or immediate family? Or is this post legitimate?

Powder:With no sarcasms, no deceptions, no exaggerations, or any of the other things people use to confuse the truth.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Mathew

Would you please clarify? Is this another one of your intents? Is this akin to a celebrity creating a charity/movement when something happens to themselves or immediate family? Or is this post legitimate?

Everything I do is intended to be evil, of course, I'm surprised you asked. But in that particular posting I was merely trying to point out that often the only way to get politicians to change things is when it becomes personal to them and they suddenly realise what the issue is all about.

[Xyzzy]

And then after surgery and six months of recovery I would enact laws to ban guns.

Although it appears you are playing the role of the mayor, why don't you work towards more sensible gun laws now?

FWIW, despite the NRA's extreme stance on any gun legislation, we have no problem accepting the following:

• Bolt rifles only, magazine capacity 5+1, any caliber.
• Semi-automatic handguns, magazine capacity 7+1 or 8+1, any caliber.
• Revolvers, 5, 6 or 7 shot, any caliber.
• Over/Under (sporting) shotguns only.

But, we are certain such a suggestion would fail due to both sides being unwilling to compromise.



PS - Also, whatever rules apply to civilians apply to law enforcement officers. We are surrounded by local town deputies who are armed to the teeth and itching for something to happen. We are more worried about them than the "bad guys".

Naturally, we'd have to find a way to get rid of all the noncomplying guns.

[garo]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Although it appears you are playing the role of the mayor, why don't you work towards more sensible gun laws now?

FWIW, despite the NRA's extreme stance on any gun legislation, we have no problem accepting the following:

• Bolt rifles only, magazine capacity 5+1, any caliber.
• Semi-automatic handguns, magazine capacity 7+1 or 8+1, any caliber.
• Revolvers, 5, 6 or 7 shot, any caliber.
• Over/Under (sporting) shotguns only.

But, we are certain such a suggestion would fail due to both sides being unwilling to compromise.

Sensible compromise. I would also require anyone wanting to own a gun to take gun safety courses.

[davieddy]

The problem with this thread is that it keeps getting overtaken by events
:(

D

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

accidentally shoot yourself in the yingyang. (= Willie, to the Brits).

Most of us Brits can list a copious number of synonyms/euphemisms.

[KyleAskine]

Originally Posted by garo

Sensible compromise. I would also require anyone wanting to own a gun to take gun safety courses.

This is a nonstarter simply because it's a fundamental right laid out in the constitution. This requirement would be unconstitutional. It isn't like driving, which is not a right guaranteed in the constitution.

But I am not saying I disagree.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by KyleAskine

This is a nonstarter simply because it's a fundamental right laid out in the constitution. This requirement would be unconstitutional. It isn't like driving, which is not a right guaranteed in the constitution.

So do just as the NRA does, quote only the "right to bear arms" bit, but ignore the "well-regulated militia" bit which precedes it?

The right to free speech is also not absolute, you know. All of these "rights" are circumcised (or intended to be so by the farmers) by attendant responsibilities.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by KyleAskine

This is a nonstarter simply because it's a fundamental right laid out in the constitution.

But you would have the right to bear arms - the ones Xyzzy listed. I'd bet the Supreme Court would be happy with that.

[AES]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

The average home in the US is full of lethal weapons. Why are there not thousands of reports of people being stabbed by kitchen knives, bludgeoned by rolling pins and things like that?

Maybe because, in the USA, guns are mysterious (magic?) objects? Maybe because our media is full of gun-related violence?

We keep a loaded Colt 1911A1 .45ACP (The only handgun worth owning, BTW.) sitting on a table at home. It isn't even for personal defense purposes, although we are very very skilled in its use. It is there to prove a point. Our son knows where it is, and if he wants to shoot it, or break it down and examine how it works, or whatever, all he has to do is ask. The mystery is gone. It is a tool, just like a hammer or a pair of tongue-and-groove pliers. If deadly weapons were the problem we would have to eliminate half of the stuff in our home! (We also keep the ultimate weapon, loaded, in another room. When the Apocalypse comes we do not need a military weapon. A Ruger 10/22 .22 rifle will do everything we need to to feed ourselves as we hide out in the mountains.)

And people who hide things who think their kids cannot find them? The kids know where they are. And they are even more intrigued because of the hidden item's forbidden nature. The key, we think, is open dialog with your child. Tell the truth and be brutally honest. There is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Shooting someone is not reversible. You cannot hit "reset" and play the game over. And playing games involving guns, whether it is "Cowboys versus Indians" (How tragically sad!) or "Cops versus Robbers" (Which is which anymore?) or any of those ultra-realistic video games, is just plain wrong. (See the Jeff Cooper stuff below.)

The video games make us sick. They are so real we cannot watch them. And yet every family we know thinks nothing of letting their kids play them. If you have not seen how violent they are, or how desensitizing they are, you need to check into them. It is shocking. Oh, it is just pretend play? Whatever.

You probably won't meet (in Arkansas) anyone more peaceable than we are. Yet, we own a gun. It is a right granted to us by the Constitution. It is a tool with a specific job. It is not a high-capacity assault weapon. It holds 7+1 rounds. We use it for bullseye shooting competition, and for proving our point that guns don't kill people. People kill people. If we were ever presented with a situation where we needed to employ deadly force, 1 or 2 rounds would suffice. How likely is it that we will be attacked by a platoon of home invaders? Seriously! We are befuddled by the need for guns that can hold 20 or 30 or 100 rounds. When we served in the Army we called that thought process "spray and pray" or "shoot them all and let $DIETY sort them out". In our opinion, that is scary thinking.

Jeff Cooper sums up responsible gun usage very clearly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Co...irearms_safety

Finally, the mere ownership of a gun changes the dynamics of how one thinks. Theoretically we could escalate any confrontation to a higher level with the use of a gun. However, having the gun is a great responsibility, and we find ourselves "willing to lose" to avoid escalation. No argument is worth taking a life.

Sorry for rambling!

Thank You. Personal responsibility is rarely affirmed; much less this well articulated in our current social media era.