Re: Warning: May Contain Political Opinion and Anti-Gun Commentary

The tragic Tuscon shooting has provoked a lot of political commentary about the role of partisan speech as a provocative element in the events. Although the statements by many (usually Tea Party representatives) seem to suggest that polemic and inflammatory speech has occurred "on both sides" of the political spectrum, it seems clear to me that all statements are not created equal and that the reactionary wing of the Republican party has made statements that seem to endorse violence against the "overreaching" Federal government by whatever means necessary. This sort of approach has been almost the exclusive territory of the far right which seems to view guns as an effective mechanism for political change. This is not a new approach by the Right and is just another extension of the armed resistance philosophy which was expressed by some Republican politicians who implied support for the attack on an IRS office some months ago when an individual flew a plane into a building. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/18/scott-brown-terrorism-yawn/

Interestingly, there are beginning to be discussions and suggestions on how politicians can protect themselves from violent attacks and certainly these will include increased restrictions on access to politicians, further restrictions of weapons on federal property or in the proximity of elected officials, metal detectors, and armed guards. It is time we stemmed the flood of handguns and assault weapons into our society. Surely this attack is further evidence that there are too many guns in the wrong hands.

When will we get serious about guns and approach the easy availability of handguns in a country that is awash in firearms? Certainly there will be comments that the assault occurred because there were too few guns and that this society needs more weapons to prevent this sort of attack. This inverted logic would argue for the elimination of child safety caps on drugs (fewer poisoning will occur if there are more toxic drugs available to teach children not to take medications), argue for the storage of gasoline in glass containers (people will handle gasoline more carefully if it is in fragile containers), and we should all carry our own container of acid to protect against crazed individuals who might throw acid.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter
When will we get serious about guns and approach the easy availability of handguns in a country that is awash in firearms? Certainly there will be comments that the assault occurred because there were too few guns and that this society needs more weapons to prevent this sort of attack.

Arizona is an "open carry" state where it's legal to carry a fully loaded and unconcealed firearm in a holster without a permit. There aren't a lot of legal hoops for one to carry a firearm there, but I would still think most people would feel uncomfortable carrying a loaded weapon. That it was easy enough to carry loaded weapons certainly didn't help to prevent this particular attack.

Minor correction:

Arizona is a "carry concealed without a permit" state. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/07/29/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html

Makes it easier to carry out suggestions put forth by ultra right wing rhetoric.

---

Old Dude

Quote
mrcondron
Minor correction:

Arizona is a "carry concealed without a permit" state. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/07/29/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html

Makes it easier to carry out suggestions put forth by ultra right wing rhetoric.

I realized that concealed carry without a permit was the new law after I'd posted. In fact I recall when this became law.

For the most part I'd hate to see what untrained people would do trying to return fire in a crowded place. It's a lot easier to pop off a firearm when unconcerned about human life. Trained law enforcement has a hard enough time. I've heard that they'll often hesitate to fire for fear of hitting a bystander.

It's simple math; get more guns out there and MORE of these attacks will happen, not less.

Rediculous you ignore human nature, by saying that you assume every person is a homocidal maniac that cares nothing about their life or anyone else's.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

From my understanding only 4% of the people labeled insane in Arizona were blocked from owning guns. That is a problem.

There is no question that we have constitutional rights to own a firearm but there must be sensible legislation that prevents certain people in society from owning them. The NRA recently fought a law that would prevent those listed on the Terrorist Watch list from owning or purchasing a firearm. Common Sense should prevail



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2011 12:04PM by LeeVining.

If I were in that situation I'd rather that the odds be that there are guns in the hands of law abiding responsible gun owners around me than just the nutcase with one. Maybe if there was someone carrying legally nearby it wouldn't have been the massacre that it was and we wouldn't be spending years and millions of dollars prosecuting the nutcase. Just sayin'.

Quote
calipidder
If I were in that situation I'd rather that the odds be that there are guns in the hands of law abiding responsible gun owners.

Most emotionally and mentally compromised individuals are law abiding until the decision to fire the weapon in anger or delusion.

.

Quote

around me than just the nutcase with one. Maybe if there was someone carrying legally nearby it wouldn't have been the massacre that it was and we wouldn't be spending years and millions of dollars prosecuting the nutcase. Just sayin'.

Apparently we need to have an event with amateurs firing away with collateral damage to uninvolved bystanders to discourage this concept. The key issue is handgun possession by the sane and trained, not anyone who can legally carry a firearm under current regulations. I would say, carry a stick and some pepper spray or a TASER if you need personal protection. I am not at all reassured by the presence of armed vigilantes. Once a weapon is fired, no one can control the projectile.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
calipidder
If I were in that situation I'd rather that the odds be that there are guns in the hands of law abiding responsible gun owners around me than just the nutcase with one. Maybe if there was someone carrying legally nearby it wouldn't have been the massacre that it was and we wouldn't be spending years and millions of dollars prosecuting the nutcase. Just sayin'.

Think about that for just a second. Think. What would happen if you had the one nut with a gun and 20 untrained idiots with guns too? You would have had at least twice the dead, most from "friendly fire."

You missed the part where I said "law abiding responsible gun owners". I know many of them, and they are far from "untrained idiots". In fact, if I would want anyone around me in those situations I'd want someone who had been through responsible gun training and practice including keeping a cool head and a steady hand in stressful situations.

ETA: Not too long ago I felt the exact way you do. Then, for several reasons, we became a gun owning family. I decided to educate myself and become a smart and responsible gun owner. It completely opened my eyes. I have yet to meet anyone who fits any of the negative stereotypes I was absolutely certain about before exposing myself to such a community.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2011 07:32PM by calipidder.

Quote
calipidder
You missed the part where I said "law abiding responsible gun owners"

As I mentioned, this is a self-defining bit of tautology. As soon as a gun owner uses a gun in a way that is a crime or which someone considers unacceptable, they become criminals or irresponsible. Many "law abiding responsible gun owners" have loaded weapons within reach of children because "their children are educated about guns and would never touch them". Many people would consider that behavior appropriate-- given that I have personal experience treating more than 200 gunshot victims over the years at a major trauma center, I have heard all the excuses and rationalizations for gun injuries and deaths and I consider most "responsible" gun ownership behavior unacceptable. It is stunning to me how many gun advocates have personal stories related to guns that involve suicide, accidental discharges, gun injuries or gun related deaths and yet consider these to be just a part of life in a gun-filled society. Why are places that must be kept safe (airports, banks, bars, schools) associated with prohibitions on guns? Common and widespead carry of guns is simply a recipe for tragedy.

The issue is really a traffic problem. At some point there are too many cars on the roads under unsafe conditions. We have reached that point in this society with regard to guns. We do not need more guns to make us safer. We need better control of when, who, where and how guns can be used and probably, in the long run, fewer guns.

Unfortunately, every time a suggestion is made to implement rationale gun restrictions, pro-gun constitutionalists think that their "right" (actually a privilege) has been violated. To make guns easily available to the "law abiding responsible gun owners" we have lowered the bar so much that essentially anyone can buy a weapon (gun shows, private sales, gifts, theft). Too bad there cannot be a discussion on the subject that is not inflamed by personal prejudice and self interest yet looks at the the gun violence problem as a public health issue.

Adequate statistics would, almost certainly, demonstrate the many problems associated with "low threshold" gun ownership (ownership by individuals that do not have the intellect, emotional maturity, common sense,ethics, or motivation to handle guns judiciously) and allow us to talk more rationally and factually about the issue.

Statistics and an adequate study of guns/ gun use in the US probably will never occur. Why? -- because of the efforts of the NRA. The NRA has repeated block attempts to even gather information about gun ownership, use, storage, training, brandishing, assaults or accidents that would be essential to understanding how guns impact society. So much for an organization dedicated to "responsible gun ownership".

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter
Many "law abiding responsible gun owners" have loaded weapons within reach of children because "their children are educated about guns and would never touch them".

Not in California. By definition such people would be non-law abiding.

Quote
eeek

Quote
Frank Furter
Many "law abiding responsible gun owners" have loaded weapons within reach of children because "their children are educated about guns and would never touch them".

Not in California. By definition such people would be non-law abiding.

That is a good legal concept. I don't know if simply storing the guns in a locked unit is sufficient to comply with the California law. Even those that comply with the gun safety storage laws by locking the guns have been found, in at least one study, to be frequently misguided about how inaccessible the guns are to children. There is an extreme fascination with guns among the young and many children know the combination to the parents' gun locker or where the "gun key" is stored. Anyone interested would probably find the article via Pubmed by searching "handgun AND children AND accessibility".


edit: see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16651499 for article on misconceptions that parents have about the access and knowledge children have about guns.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2011 07:18AM by Frank Furter.

Quote
Frank Furter

Quote
eeek

Quote
Frank Furter
Many "law abiding responsible gun owners" have loaded weapons within reach of children because "their children are educated about guns and would never touch them".

Not in California. By definition such people would be non-law abiding.

That is a good legal concept. I don't know if simply storing the guns in a locked unit is sufficient to comply with the California law. Even those that comply with the gun safety storage laws by locking the guns have been found, in at least one study, to be frequently misguided about how inaccessible the guns are to children. There is an extreme fascination with guns among the young and many children know the combination to the parents' gun locker or where the "gun key" is stored. Anyone interested would probably find the article via Pubmed by searching "handgun AND children AND accessibility".


edit: see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16651499 for article on misconceptions that parents have about the access and knowledge children have about guns.

I'm not 100% sure that California law **requires** that guns are required to be locked and unloaded in households with children. Some people feel that they need them for self protection and keep them loaded and ready. What California law has are criminal legal consequences should a child get to a weapon and use it. The laws do require that a lock be sold with every gun, but I don't believe there could be prosecution simply for having a loaded weapon in a house where there are children.

I live in CA and I recently purchased a firearm. To abide by state law I must keep my pistol locked. In fact I was not even able to leave the shop with it until they included what they called "A California lock" on the weapon. It is a bright red cable lock that is inserted down the magazine chamber rendering the gun useless. What would you do about all the gangs and assorted criminals who don't give a damn about gun laws. You going to talk to them and ask them nicely to put down the AKs? Really?

That is correct.

Perhaps we would be more inclined to take your anti-gun speach serious if you did not hide behind a rediculous name? Huh doctor?

Quote
rick56
Perhaps we would be more inclined to take your anti-gun speach serious if you did not hide behind a rediculous name? Huh doctor?

Perhaps rick56 could be taken seriously if he used proper grammer and spelling.
(KeepingThemHonestly Yours)
The Marmots

What does any of this have to do with Yosemite?

Quote
rick56
What does any of this have to do with Yosemite?

Read all the threads containing the opinions of the board members relative to the new open carry law passed by the US congress and you will see.

---

Old Dude

Quote
rick56
Perhaps we would be more inclined to take your anti-gun speach serious if you did not hide behind a rediculous name? Huh doctor?

Perhaps we'd be more inclined to take guns nuts seriously if they didn't dig up three month old threads to start fights. Huh, Gun Nut? (n.b. the comma)

Quote
calipidder
You missed the part where I said "law abiding responsible gun owners". I know many of them, and they are far from "untrained idiots". In fact, if I would want anyone around me in those situations I'd want someone who had been through responsible gun training and practice including keeping a cool head and a steady hand in stressful situations.

You still would have a considerable amount of "friendly fire" casualties. I sincerely doubt many "law abiding responsible gun owners" could keep a cool head in a firefight. Sure, they could kill a paper target at 50 yards, but in a stress situation I wouldn't trust them with my life.

Quote

ETA: Not too long ago I felt the exact way you do. Then, for several reasons, we became a gun owning family. I decided to educate myself and become a smart and responsible gun owner. It completely opened my eyes. I have yet to meet anyone who fits any of the negative stereotypes I was absolutely certain about before exposing myself to such a community.

I educated myself and there are no guns allowed on my property. They are more likely to kill me than any one else.

The murder rate in Los Angeles has consistently gone down year after year, in fact, most major cities the rate has decreased. http://www.lacountymurders.com/pyear_stats.cfm This site goes back to 2005, 433 murders took place that year. Last year, it was 233. That's a pretty significant decrease. If you input each year on that site, you will see that it went down each year.

That has to say something. But all the doomsayers out there claim crime is running rampant.

Quote
hotrod4x5
The murder rate in Los Angeles has consistently gone down year after year, in fact, most major cities the rate has decreased. http://www.lacountymurders.com/pyear_stats.cfm This site goes back to 2005, 433 murders took place that year. Last year, it was 233. That's a pretty significant decrease. If you input each year on that site, you will see that it went down each year.

Crime rates have been decreasing for quite some time, but that has nothing to do with guns. Remove more guns from circulation and that murder rate will go down even further.

Quote

That has to say something. But all the doomsayers out there claim crime is running rampant.

Bottom feeding Conservative politicans have their sycophants convinced that there is a growing crime rate and that it's all the fault of Liberals that want to take away your guns. Conservatives/Right Wingers/Republicans want people to be scared and paranoid. They get more votes that way.

Quote
LeeVining
From my understanding only 4% of the people labeled insane in Arizona were blocked from owning guns. That is a problem.

Insanity is a legal definition. It has nothing to do with mental illness, is not a diagnosis any doctor, psychiatrist, or therapist can give, and can only be put on someone by the legal system, so it follows that to be labeled insane one must have prior interaction with the legal system. There is also no such thing as "crazy."

If you mean that mentally ill people cannot own guns, that is an entirely different thing.

I don't have a gun but I know how to use one, since I was taught early on by my hunting family. I recognize their usefulness as a tool, but unfortunately, there are plenty of people who misuse tools. Fertilizer, chemicals from the drug store, various drugs, knives, and other means of being dangerous would no doubt be their fallback position in the absence of guns. The notion that only criminals will have guns if they are outlawed is beside the point - people who are determined to do damage to other people in some misguided idea of being righteous and entitled to do so will always be among us and will justify abortion clinic bombings, running cars through buildings, homemade shrapnel bombs, or any other means of furthering their "cause" as they see fit. If one tool is not available they will find another. The real problem is not the item being used but the intent behind its use.

I live in a California city where gangs crop up daily and you walk across several gang territories within a few blocks - they have no trouble getting guns despite all the laws in place, their age (under 18), and the interventions that the rest of us put into action to attempt to address the problem of gangs. It is not a gun problem but a social problem - gangs are the new family for kids whose parents each have two jobs and cannot manage to control the kids (or are gang members themselves and are raising the kids in kind, or addicts and checked out completely, or any combination thereof), who are exposed to gang members in schools. They become sophisticated little liars who know how to work the system to their advantage. People are afraid of gang violence - every once in a while, someone unaffiliated gets hit by a stray bullet in a drive by shooting - but by and large they do not rampage around killing anyone but other gang members. Which is not an argument for gangs - it's what it is. People who are socialized to violence and to work around the larger social contract. NRA members socialize their kids to guns in a different manner, hopefully more responsible manner than gangs.... I was socialized to believe guns are there for use in self defense and for hunting.

The root of problems like Laughlin are in society - what we do with the minority of mentally ill folks who are prone to such behavior. Letting them have unchecked freedom isn't working very well. Yet it would hardly be good to return to the institutions of the past where the mentally ill were judged unfit and locked away with no personal freedoms at all despite their nonviolent symptomology. Something needs to change, all right.

Quote
hotrod4x5
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

This trite statement is usually followed by some comment that "criminals will always get the gun they want". That would mean that in comparable societies, a similar proportion of criminals will always get a gun to commit a crime. However, this conclusion is an unsupported cliche that is disproven by the incidence of gun use by criminals in Canada vs gun use in the United States. Handguns are used much less in Canada than in the US by criminals committing the same types of crimes. Criminals use the weapons that are available, and there are more than 200 million guns in the US.

Of course the next statement is "a gun is just a tool" and "a gun alone never killed anyone" that attempts to dismiss the availability of guns. A gun crime cannot occur without a gun. Furthermore, children that do not have access to guns will not cause death or injury from handguns. We need to have a social awareness of the public health risks imposed by the "love of unregulation" and belief in "frontier justice" with regard to handguns and assault weapons that seems to have infected our entire country. How many more mass actions with weapons need to occur before we recognize that restricting gun ownership to the sane and trained needs to be the goal of our society?

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Way more people are killed each year by stupid asshats behind the wheel of their cars than by guns and do we see people losing their driving "privilege" because they are a danger? Most of the time no.

I agree that if you outlaw guns only the criminals will have guns, and not meaning because they have a gun the are criminals... I was educated about guns when I was young and had my own guns in the closet. I knew that it was a deadly weapon and treated it accordingly. I did come across guns at some of my friends house and they would take them out. I told them to put them away or I would leave, a person is still dead wether it was accidental or purposefully.

Its interesting that AZ allows concealed carry without a license, if more people at the rally had guns do you think as many people would have been killed? Just a thought... I know that in Alaska you knew that everyone had a gun and that did influence the behavior of a lot of the criminals, hell even normal encounters with people we a lot more civil and friendly.

I like owning guns, for hunting, self defense and just in case society goes by-by. Oh yeah, if society collapses my plan is to head to Yosemite, who else has had this thought???

Edit: In Alaska I was required to go through a program before I could hunt anywhere, that taught me a few things that I didn't already know. I do believe education and training should be required before owning a gun, I am military trained and I plan to educate my children when they reach the appropriate age.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2011 02:30PM by Wickett.

Quote
Wickett
Way more people are killed each year by stupid asshats behind the wheel of their cars than by guns and do we see people losing their driving "privilege" because they are a danger? Most of the time no.

The problem with that trite argument is that cars are not desinged to kill. Guns are.

Quote

I agree that if you outlaw guns only the criminals will have guns,.....

I know of no one trying to outlaw guns. That's just a bunch of NRA BS.

Quote

I like owning guns, for hunting, self defense and just in case society goes by-by.....

More family members are killed by guns in the house than are saved.

Quote
Wickett
Way more people are killed each year by stupid asshats behind the wheel ofjavascript:editor_tools_handle_quote() their cars than by guns and do we see people losing their driving "privilege" because they are a danger? Most of the time no.

It is hard to conceal a car. I do not have much difficulty distinguishing traffic accidents from gun violence. However, if you want to make a comparison, we can discuss the registration of handguns and timed licensing of owners with periodic retraining and retesting of skill as well as periodic inspection of handgun storage and condition. A gun tax would be useful as well. I would not have any objection to those changes.

Quote

I agree that if you outlaw guns only the criminals will have guns,

Compare the gun use in crimes in Canada vs the US. Fewer guns are available easily and fewer guns are used for similar categories of crime in Canada vs the US. (approx. 10% in Canada and 20% in the US, if I remember correctly)

Quote

Its interesting that AZ allows concealed carry without a license, if more people at the rally had guns do you think as many people would have been killed? Just a thought... I know that in Alaska you knew that everyone had a gun and that did influence the behavior of a lot of the criminals, hell even normal encounters with people we a lot more civil and friendly.

You may want to check the firearm death statistics in Alaska. It is at or near the top in deaths per 100,000.

Quote

I like owning guns, for hunting, self defense and just in case society goes by-by. Oh yeah, if society collapses my plan is to head to Yosemite, who else has had this thought???

The issue is not to eliminate guns, but to make some rational efforts to reduce gun related violence. The prevailing idea by gun advocacy groups appears to be that more guns will result in a safer society. Hard to follow that logic, when you think how many folks with compromised judgment, emotional instability and frank psychosis exist in our society. By that logic, we should arm all the rival gangs in LA or Bakersfield and they will stop shooting each other! Maybe more guns in Mexico will reduce the gun violence in that country!

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Never owned a gun and never will. I'm in my 50's and have a daughter. Grew up in a bad neighborhood and live in a rich neighborhood now. Never in my life have I remotely felt the need to protect myself with a gun. I too have educated myself and know the odds are much higher for me or a family member to be killed if we own a gun. Simple choice.

The Arizona tragedy would not have been averted if everyone there was carrying. The lunatic fired off something like 36 rounds in 15 seconds. By the time everyone pulled out there weapons all they would have done was shot more innocent bystanders and possibly the heroes that tackled the nut.

I'm realistic that there will always be guns although I'd gladly support the ban of all handguns in this country. All I ask is that everyone should have to be trained and re-certified every 4 years or so - just like we have to do to drive a car. The NRA would never allow that to happen though as safety is not a priority to them. Weakening gun laws seems to be more important to them. I would feel better knowing that all these people out packing in public were trained but I know they are not. I acknowledge that there are many responsible gun owners out there. The question is would you want non law enforcement people pulling out their weapons and firing them in a public place in the interest of public safety? How about if your child was at a public event and you weren't there? Keep the guns at home where you have a right to protect yourself and possibly getting yourself killed. It will make me feel a whole lot safer in public.

One of the people at the rally did indeed have a gun on himself, had it drawn, and was psyched and ready to shoot the assailant. He was stopped in the nick of time by another person at the scene telling him that the person holding the assailant's weapon was one of the group that had disarmed him. The armed bystander said in retrospect that he should not have pulled his gun as he could very well have shot the wrong guy.

---

Old Dude

Quote
Frank Furter

Quote

I agree that if you outlaw guns only the criminals will have guns,

Compare the gun use in crimes in Canada vs the US. Fewer guns are available easily and fewer guns are used for similar categories of crime in Canada vs the US. (approx. 10% in Canada and 20% in the US, if I remember correctly)

My figures are not quite correct, at least according to this report from the Canadian Center for Justice Statistics:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2001011-eng.pdf

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
AlmostThere

I don't have a gun but I know how to use one, since I was taught early on by my hunting family. I recognize their usefulness as a tool, but unfortunately, there are plenty of people who misuse tools. Fertilizer, chemicals from the drug store, various drugs, knives, and other means of being dangerous would no doubt be their fallback position in the absence of guns. The notion that only criminals will have guns if they are outlawed is beside the point - people who are determined to do damage to other people in some misguided idea of being righteous and entitled to do so will always be among us and will justify abortion clinic bombings, running cars through buildings, homemade shrapnel bombs, or any other means of furthering their "cause" as they see fit. If one tool is not available they will find another. The real problem is not the item being used but the intent behind its use.

I agree that there is a certain pragmatic and opportunistic feature to crime. To my thinking, that would argue for making easily concealable and/or high capacity weapons more difficult to obtain. Certainly if easy to use explosive items such as grenades or certain forms of dynamite were readily available, those would be mass murder weapons. It makes me wish for the bad old days of "Saturday Night Specials" -- at least the injuries were likely to be smaller and less serious with 22 cal. projectiles from those guns.

Quote

I live in a California city where gangs crop up daily and you walk across several gang territories within a few blocks - they have no trouble getting guns despite all the laws in place, their age (under 18), and the interventions that the rest of us put into action to attempt to address the problem of gangs. It is not a gun problem but a social problem - gangs are the new family for kids whose parents each have two jobs and cannot manage to control the kids (or are gang members themselves and are raising the kids in kind, or addicts and checked out completely, or any combination thereof), who are exposed to gang members in schools. They become sophisticated little liars who know how to work the system to their advantage. People are afraid of gang violence - every once in a while, someone unaffiliated gets hit by a stray bullet in a drive by shooting - but by and large they do not rampage around killing anyone but other gang members. Which is not an argument for gangs - it's what it is. People who are socialized to violence and to work around the larger social contract. NRA members socialize their kids to guns in a different manner, hopefully more responsible manner than gangs.... I was socialized to believe guns are there for use in self defense and for hunting.

The interests of those that want easy access to handguns for personal and legitimate use has resulted in a social condition where there is easy availability for those who should not have those weapons. I don't see it as a social problem that cannot be controlled or a social problem related to inadequate parenting. The social value that needs to change is the concept that I can carry a weapon anywhere and anytime regardless of my skill, mental capacity, or emotional state, or the type of weapon. There is collateral damage to that convenience. What baffles me is the reasoning that leads to the thinking that the wider presence of weapons in society. What other crime or public health problem do we approach by making the tool of the crime or cause of the health injury more available? Should we reduce graffiti by making spray paint more accessible? Should we reduce date rape by making flunitrazepam more accessible? I am not calling for a ban on weapons, but it certainly seems that stronger and more adequate regulations and enforcement in many other countries have resulted in fewer problems than we have with gun violence.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter
I don't see it as a social problem that cannot be controlled or a social problem related to inadequate parenting. The social value that needs to change is the concept that I can carry a weapon anywhere and anytime regardless of my skill, mental capacity, or emotional state, or the type of weapon. There is collateral damage to that convenience. What baffles me is the reasoning that leads to the thinking that the wider presence of weapons in society. What other crime or public health problem do we approach by making the tool of the crime or cause of the health injury more available? Should we reduce graffiti by making spray paint more accessible? Should we reduce date rape by making flunitrazepam more accessible? I am not calling for a ban on weapons, but it certainly seems that stronger and more adequate regulations and enforcement in many other countries have resulted in fewer problems than we have with gun violence.

I see it as a societal problem, period. Because we clearly have one, and cannot figure out what to do about it as a society. If we could agree what to do, it might be done. If all we can do is argue the problem into the ground we get nowhere. As has been happening....

I don't think we should be able to carry guns anywhere, any time. But I am at a loss to see where it's going to change - if we're cutting educational budgets and public safety budgets and public health budgets, where are the enforcers for the new and improved gun regulations coming from?

I am doubtful and rather regretful that there is enough $$$ in support for a lot of change...

Quote
Frank Furter

Quote
Wickett
Its interesting that AZ allows concealed carry without a license, if more people at the rally had guns do you think as many people would have been killed? Just a thought... I know that in Alaska you knew that everyone had a gun and that did influence the behavior of a lot of the criminals, hell even normal encounters with people we a lot more civil and friendly.

You may want to check the firearm death statistics in Alaska. It is at or near the top in deaths per 100,000.

I've seen some that claim it's the highest in the country (depending on year), with only DC higher. Although DC had that handgun ban for years, they're absolute awash in guns brought in from Virginia via straw purchases.

Arizona is also near the top of the list.

Quote
Wickett
I like owning guns, for hunting, self defense and just in case society goes by-by. Oh yeah, if society collapses my plan is to head to Yosemite....

Coeur D'Alene and/or Hayden, ID would be more appropriate.
The area is a haven for similar people.

One small sample can be seen in paragraphs 10 -12:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123,0,7161951.story

What does any of this have to do with Yosemite or backpacking? Mr. Moderator you might want to rename this the
left wing progressive rant site. Its nothing to do with Yosemite, I find all your arguments rather boring and tired. I'm out of here.

Quote
rick56
What does any of this have to do with Yosemite or backpacking? Mr. Moderator you might want to rename this the
left wing progressive rant site. Its nothing to do with Yosemite, I find all your arguments rather boring and tired. I'm out of here.

Those people that can read are able to readily identify this section as the "General Discussion" forum.
Good! Bye!
(WackosBelongInArizonaly Yours)
The Marmots

Quote
rick56
What does any of this have to do with Yosemite or backpacking? Mr. Moderator you might want to rename this the
left wing progressive rant site. Its nothing to do with Yosemite, I find all your arguments rather boring and tired. I'm out of here.

Read this:

http://yosemitenews.info/forum/read.php?1,6213,6227#msg-6227

and this:

http://yosemitenews.info/forum/read.php?3,22733,23052#msg-23052

and this:

http://yosemitenews.info/forum/read.php?3,22983,22983#msg-22983

and your question may get answered.

---

Old Dude



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2011 03:26PM by mrcondron.

I am always amazed that individuals who cannot even use a spell checker and who seem driven to display taunting belligerence frequently argue for wider availability of personal firearms. Just my opinion, but I think that those with poor social skills, labile emotions, and impulse control would be in a category that should have LESS access to deadly weapons.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan