Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Sepiatone

OT: A moment of silence and prayer

Recommended Posts

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}...

> I believe that bans never help. I believe they are always superficial reactions by people who do not understand underlying causes. One need only look at historical attempts to ban Bibles, alcohol, marijuana and many other things to see that bans simply do not work.

SansFin: first, I want to say that I was touched by your personal story about your special marksmanship talent. I remember your telling us on another thread about how you had a slight tremor in your hands sometimes, and that it was actually because of this tremor that you were able to become such a skilled target shooter. It is a skill that can only be admired, and I respect you for it. I do understand why you favour personal gun ownership, and I do not disagree with this. Within reason, and your situation is certainly within reason.

 

Second: to address your statement (quoted above) - The word "ban" carries some heavy connotations, almost always negative ones. It's a "loaded" word ( hey, a pun!)

I was not advocating the outright "banning" of gun ownership. In fact, to me the phrase "ban" in this instance is irrelevant. "Ban" makes it sound like it would be something outside the ordinary, like "banning" the sale of oranges or something.

I agree with Valentine X's carefully considered suggestions. And I do think that any kind of gun that can fire off many bullets in a very short period of time, "assault" weapons, weapons and guns that are meant only for military use, should not be available to the ordinary civilian. This wouldn't be so much a "ban" as the simple employment of common sense.

 

I've said it before on this thread, as have others, but it bears repeating: there is no reason for a non-military person to use such a weapon, much less have it in their possession.

 

 

Third: I don't see the comparison between assault weapons and the other things you cite, in your declaration that "bans never work".

While it can be argued that alcohol and drugs can kill, obviously they don't "kill" the way a mega-gun does.

Alcohol, marijuana, other drugs, books, ...these things are all associated to a greater or lesser degree with pleasure, and with social interaction. Granted, the injudicious use of drugs etc can cause tremendous harm, but usually mainly to the user.

When Prohibiton was introduced in the 1920s -eg, the banning of alcoholic beverages- it was a foolish law, destined to not work, because alcohol was (and still is, like it or not) completely woven into the fabric of American social life. Drinks played a major part in many social occasions. The same cannot be said for guns. People don't say to each other when planning a party "Oh, don't forget to bring your gun" the way they say "don't forget to bring a bottle of wine" ( or beer, whatever).

Let's hope that guns do not play a part in most people's lives the way alcohol ( or even, for some, marijuana) does. So I do not think the comparison really applies.

 

Edited by: misswonderly on Dec 19, 2012 11:50 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}

> I want to say that I was touched by your personal story

 

I thank you for your kind words.

 

> I do think that any kind of gun that can fire off many bullets in a very short period of time, "assault" weapons, weapons and guns that are meant only for military use, should not be available to the ordinary civilian. This wouldn't be so much a "ban" as the simple employment of common sense.

 

I am sorry to say that I see in this the proverbial slippery slope.

 

It is within my lifetime that any United States citizen could own any weapon which they could afford. It was a thing we admired and it was one of the things which made the United States sound as if it was a wonderful place to live.

 

Ownership of fully automatic weapons here now carries great restrictions and places a great burden on a prospective owner to show they are capable of many aspects of ownership and justify their intentions.

 

I believe that is all perfectly reasonable.

 

Ownership of semi-automatic weapons with large clips is now being questioned.

 

Many believe this is perfectly reasonable.

 

Some semi-automatic weapons have clips which hold only a few bullets but which can be changed quite quickly. They will surely be the weapons of choice for disturbed people who are not able to acquire assault rifles.

 

It will seem reasonable in the wake of tragedy to ban semi-automatic weapons with clips.

 

Semi-automatic weapons which must be reloaded manually were a standard military weapon for many years and it takes little practice to reload them quickly. It is not at all difficult to make stripper clips which reduce reloading time significantly. Some disturbed people will surely use them.

 

It will seem reasonable in the wake of tragedy to ban all semi-automatic weapons.

 

A pump shotgun with an extension which can be made with ease at home can be fired nine times in less than fifteen seconds. Many disturbed people will find the experience particularly exhilarating because the physical action stimulates adrenalin flow.

 

It will seem reasonable to ban all weapons which are not single-shot and the reasoning that a good hunter never needs more than a single shot to bring down their prey will reinforce the arguments.

 

It is the nature of single-shot weapons that they are much smaller and lighter than multi-shot weapons. A disturbed person could carry with ease twenty or more single-shot pistols in loops on a bandoleer.

 

It will seem reasonable to ban all weapons which weigh less than twenty pounds in order to prevent such a thing from happening.

 

I could go on until the result is that a young boy wishing to hunt rats will have to haul a fifty pound rifle which is nine feet long and he will have to stop between shots to mix the saltpeter, charcoal and sulfur so he can reload and fire another .177 caliber shot.

 

Each step is reasonable.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

It is perhaps more important to ask how you will insure that the line you drew will remain there. It is the very nature of society that abridgments of freedom creep constantly forward and are never reversed until there is a revolution..

 

> there is no reason for a non-military person to use such a weapon, much less have it in their possession.

 

I am sorry to say that I must contradict you. One obvious example is that wild boars are a menace in many places. Hunting them to reduce the spread of disease, property damage and risk to human life is a public service. I read shortly after I arrived here that a hunter had been maimed when he and a friend went hunting them with standard hunting rifles and they were attacked by a pack. Or is it 'herd'? Rapid fire and a great amount number of rounds is very important in such situations.

 

Another obvious example is that it is well known that going into bear country involves risk. Hikers and campers can reduce the risks significantly by learning proper techniques. They can never eliminate all the risk because bears will at time go rogue and attack with no provocation. Carrying a rifle so large that it is capable of stopping a large bear with one shot is cumbersome, expensive and requires training. A semi-automatic with a large clip is lighter, shorter and the number of rounds available compensates for lack of marksmanship and the normal high levels of fear in such situations.

 

There are many other types of activities where what is termed: 'assault rifles' are the best possible choice and perfectly reasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard much about the Proverbial Slippery Slope, and am curious to see one. I must admit, though I have looked diligently, I have yet to see one, unless it be the one descending into indiscriminate slaughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote}

> I have heard much about the Proverbial Slippery Slope, and am curious to see one. I must admit, though I have looked diligently, I have yet to see one, unless it be the one descending into indiscriminate slaughter.

 

Capuchin tells of being in the woods after a heavy rain. Deer tracks were deep in the soft ground. He followed them until they began down a hill where they were soon wiped out by a deer's-rear-end wide smear in the mud leading to the bottom of the hill. He has said it is the funniest thing he has never seen.

 

Cigarettes were so very popular that they were promoted by the government. Then a select few began to vilify them. They were soon subject to separate tax. Then they were regulated. It is now that it is illegal in some areas to smoke in your own home.

 

Soft drinks are very popular. A select few have begun to vilify them. They are now subject to separate tax in some areas. They are being regulated in some areas. It is inevitable that they will eventually be outlawed.

 

I will suggest that if you are truly interested in seeing such progressions that you study regulations instituted by the Soviet in the 1920s and 1930s.

 

Each and every measure was done in the spirit of the greatest good for the greatest number. Any inconvenience, hardship or abridgment of freedom experienced by some individuals was dismissed as insignificant in light of the supposed benefits. Any who opposed new restrictions were labeled unenlightened, rabble-rousing and dangerous.

 

I am not speaking of the great confrontations or sweeping reforms. There was a very much more important slow erosion of rights and freedoms which took the people from freedom from the Tsar by revolution to the tyranny of the Soviet one small step at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody think something may happen tommorow, something out of the norm? Honestly, I'm going to be a little apprehensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mayans don't know anymore than the many nutty preachers & shaman that have predicted the "end of the world" during my six decades on this planet. I wouldn't worry if I were you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}

> The Mayans don't know anymore than the many nutty preachers & shaman that have predicted the "end of the world" during my six decades on this planet. I wouldn't worry if I were you.

 

I believe many people overlook a wonderful reason for saying that the world will not end: you can say: "I told you so" if it does not end but no one will be around to say it to you if their prediction comes true and the world does end.

 

I believe also that the entire situation has been greatly misunderstood. It is the end of the Mayan calendar. Our calendar is ending ten days later. I wish all to remember how they felt the morning after a good New Year's Eve party. I wish all to imagine how much grander that party would have been if it had been in celebration of a span of 144,000 years rather than a mere 365 days. The Mayans may have known that no human could live through such a hangover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, still looking.

 

>Capuchin tells of being in the woods after a heavy rain. Deer tracks were deep in the soft ground. He followed them until they began down a hill where they were soon wiped out by a deer's-rear-end wide smear in the mud leading to the bottom of the hill.

 

A good point, demonstrating the ability of an intelligent, capable human being to descend a slope under control, knowing where to stop.

 

>Cigarettes were so very popular that they were promoted by the government. Then a select few began to vilify them. They were soon subject to separate tax. Then they were regulated. It is now that it is illegal in some areas to smoke in your own home.

 

And a good thing, too. Only it was not a slippery slope, it was a long hard slog uphill against strong well-funded opposition from tobacco companies that distributed misinformation about them leading to massive horrors and death. The only legal killer in America today still deadlier than guns.

 

>There was a very much more important slow erosion of rights and freedoms which took the people from freedom from the Tsar by revolution to the tyranny of the Soviet one small step at a time.

 

Lenin and the Communists did not promise freedom, nor did they institute it at any time. All they promised was Peace, Land, Bread. In fact it was the Tsarist regime, aware of its increasing untenability that introduced democratic reforms and liberties, all to no avail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know wether this is true, but someone was saying the mother was trying to get the son comitted somewhere, which could explain his motivation. But why the kids? This was on some rag show after the news, and I wasnt listening closely as to who was saying this.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A lot of MY point, sansFin, WAS that a lot of people who own handguns have no business owning them. I distincly recall two stories heard on the news sometime ago:

 

 

A man woke up to see what he thought was a BURGLAR lurking at the foot of his bed. He pulled his pistol from under his pillow and SHOT HIMSELF IN THE FOOT!

 

 

Another man thought he heard a house breaker in his living room. He snuck out, pistol in hand, saw a shadowy figure moving through his living room, and emptied his clip into his TEEN-AGED SON!

 

 

I noticed that either by design, or oversight, you chose NOT to address the notion that many of the criminally minded obtain their handguns through burglaries.

 

 

There once was a kid in my grade school every guy thought was cool because he had his own shotgun, and his Dad would often take him duck hunting. My understanding is he STILL goes duck hunting, and an aquaintance of mine told me the guy is a serious opponent to relaxed handgun laws.

 

 

Gun laws need to be seriously reviewed. Some, with good intention go too far as to how they allow possession. My niece's husband has a long time friend who, when 17, got caught breaking into a car to steal the radio. As the radio was an "after production" Alpine stereo, worth over $100, the guy was charged with a felony. Over the last 27 years since, he obtained his GED, went to college and eventually became a Methodist minister. He has a desire to get back into duck hunting, but by Michigan law, he can't even purchase a 20 gauge shotgun due to his nearly 30 year-old felony conviction!

 

 

Background checks, while able to do SOME elimination of possibly dangerous individuals, fail miserably in the case of those with criminal leanings lucky enough to have never been caught and therefore will never raise a red flag in a criminal background check.

 

 

This "gun control" issue seems to have no easy or clear cut resolution.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only reason I even reply to your initial post was that I admit I have very strong feelings when people use terms like 'prevent'. i.e. will NOT happen. On many topics people will push a 'this change would prevent X' agenda since that carries more political appeal than 'this change would reduce the damage of X'. But rarely do laws prevent things. Again, that doesn't mean these laws shouldn't be passed but I see no reason to oversell their impact on society.

 

If fact on issues like gun control it is the NRA that will use the 'it will NOT happen' line to their political advantage. I.e. the NRA will try to show that even with stronger laws it CAN still happen and thus there is no need for stronger laws. Thus overselling impact often backfires on those pushing for change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sepiatone wrote:

<< A man woke up to see what he thought was a BURGLAR lurking at the foot of his bed. He pulled his pistol from under his pillow and SHOT HIMSELF IN THE FOOT!

 

Another man thought he heard a house breaker in his living room. He snuck out, pistol in hand, saw a shadowy figure moving through his living room, and emptied his clip into his TEEN-AGED SON! >>

 

Well these stories are simply human error and mistakes. Shooting yourself in the foot - I think that will be a (ouch) wakeup call for that guy to get proper firearms training. The guy accidently shooting his own son is tragic but this is not something premeditated like a person going out to kill someone. The gun control argument is not exactly geared toward such events.

 

People today knows plainly well that text messaging and driving are our newest headaches. Why not ban cellphones that are causing more deaths on the road. By the way cellphones have been mistaken for guns when some are accidently shot by the police when they are told to drop it and hesitate.

 

Even police with all the training still make human errors Should they be prevented from carring guns?

 

Please don't mix accidents with true crimes.

 

Shoot, ban snow shovels because they might bring on a heart attack if not properly used.

 

Ban ladders because so many falls off them.

 

Shut down power plants because people are electocuted.

 

Ban airplanes because they can crash.

 

Ban boats because they can sink and drown people.

 

Ban spave travel because rockets can blow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Mike00 wrote:}{quote}Does anybody think something may happen tommorow, something out of the norm?

 

Yes. People on these boards will actually be polite to one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had this in my head for the last 3 or so years, will something happen December 21st? Call me whatever you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what NASA says (and from the replies to your post about this, the majority of folks here agree with NASA):

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote}

> A lot of MY point, sansFin, WAS that a lot of people who own handguns have no business owning them.

 

I am sorry to say that I do not understand the concept of making a 'point' of such an obvious thing.

 

There are people who have driven more than a million miles and have not had a single motor vehicle accident. There was a person who backed her new car into another car at the dealership and then scraped fenders with her insurance agent's car when she went to his office and then backed into a police car when an officer stopped to investigate the accident.

 

I believe the common phrase in currency is: "you can't fix stupid". :)

 

> I noticed that either by design, or oversight, you chose NOT to address the notion that many of the criminally minded obtain their handguns through burglaries.

 

I did address it because it is a tangent.

 

Many of the prescription drugs which are available illegally were stolen from patients. Are we to control that by not allowing people to have medicine in their home?

 

Many years ago there were men who would hit a policeman on foot with their car. One of them would take the policeman's weapon when he was down and they would drive away. I believe they acquired nearly fifty pistols in that way in a year.

 

Criminals who want weapons but are kept from purchasing them illegally will find a way to fill their need. People are inventive and people who do not have regular employment have more time to think of things to do.

 

> Gun laws need to be seriously reviewed.

 

I believe that the ones in place now need to be enforced.

 

I have read of a case near here in recent times wherein a person was arrested for selling illegal drugs. He was sent to prison for ten years and it is likely he will be out in five years. He was previously a felon and he had an illegal weapon in his possession when he was arrested. The prosecutor choose to use that as a bargaining point to make the man plead Nolo Contendere to the drug charges.

 

I believe the prosecutor should have enforced the laws as they are written. The charges which could have been brought totaled many more than a hundred years. A competent prosecutor and a fair judge should have been able to put the felon in prison for at least thirty years.

 

Such action would have removed a serious criminal from society for much longer and it would have made at least a few other criminals consider whether they need to take such a risk.

 

> This "gun control" issue seems to have no easy or clear cut resolution.

 

"If it was easy, anyone could do it." :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree with you you, Sepia, that there's no easy solution. But there is an illogical way of arguing these days that says, if a proposed solution to a problem doesn't fix the problem 100%, don't do it. That of course is ridiculous. That's the argument of the people who don't want any further controls. By entending their faulty logic, one might say, don't have any laws that prohibit murder, or robbery, because those things will still take place, even with laws and controls against them.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you posted here and it relates to why I reacted strongly when someone says something to the effect of "solution X will prevent events like this (e.g. mass killings) from happening". For most social issues solutions can only minimize the issue; i.e. reduce the negative impact.

 

Thus even calling changes to public policy a "solution" is folly since the term solution implies some type of permanent, complete and total fix.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}

> But there is an illogical way of arguing these days that says, if a proposed solution to a problem doesn't fix the problem 100%, don't do it.

 

There is an analogy which I feel is appropriate. It is sad to say that the proper version of it is copyrighted so I must paraphrase the concept. I hope you will forgive my poor writing:

 

You live in an old house.

There are many rats.

You begin action by throwing things at the rats.

They do not go away.

You buy a pellet pistol with which to shoot the rats.

It annoys them but they do not go away.

You buy a small pistol to shoot the rats.

That deals with the rats you can hit but you miss some.

You buy a larger pistol.

The ones you miss come back.

You equip your pistol with a laser so you are more accurate.

You kill more rats.

They have large families so there are always more to replace the dead.

You decide you need a cannon.

 

You see that the rats have made holes to come into your rooms.

You put heavy objects in front of the holes to keep them out.

The rats make new holes.

You put heavier objects in front of the new holes because the things you used to cover the old holes did not prevent new ones.

The rats make new holes.

You decide to buy a cement mixer so that you can cast immovable blocks to cover the old holes in hopes that it will prevent new holes.

 

It is so very obvious to you that the cause of your woes is rats that you dismiss suggestions that the rats merely indicate greater problems.

 

You believe that any person is a heretic if they suggest that you suspend your war with the rats and devote your time, energy and resources to repairing the house so that rats will not have places of easy entry and easy access to food and good places to build nests and easy passage through rotting walls.

 

I believe that is the state of the gun control debate now.

 

There are people who wish to use bigger guns against the problem by creating more encompassing laws. They wish to block access by creating superior restrictions.

 

There are people who believe that the only permanent solution is to reduce the problem by concentrating on education and instilling self-responsibility and reviving the concept of moral discipline so as to mend what has degraded over many years. They see more far-reaching laws and more severe restrictions as further damaging that which needs to be repaired.

 

I believe that such large debates have more than two sides which adds to the complexity of the problem.

.

I am sure there are people also who believe that rats are God's creatures and you are unenlightened if you do not gladly and with joy share your home with them.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the way to look at this is in the context of illness. We can minimize lung cancer if we don't smoke; we can minimize heart issues with good diet and exercise. But those good things we can do are not "solutions," they can just decrease our risk. Alot of other issues are at play. I think it's the same with social ills, like murder, etc. There are no "solutions," but there are measures that can be taken to decrease the volume of incidents.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Mike00 wrote:

> }{quote}I've had this in my head for the last 3 or so years, will something happen December 21st? Call me whatever you want.

Look at the good side - you won't have to worry about when we're going to get the April 2013 TCM schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...