The Seven Varieties of Gun-o-phobes

[JohnRich 4]

News:

The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate

"There is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

"In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories..."

Full story: JPFO.org

This is a good look at the psychology of gun-haters. I suppose it would be against the rules to name names and categorize resident gun-o-phobes here into those categories, but I think we've got at least one of each!

[shah269 0]

Very dumb question and I never got this, why isn't guns rights a local issue?

I mean I've been to Kansas......You could off load enough led to alter the mass of the earth in that god forsaken part of the country and hit no one.

But I live in NJ and one stray 22 could do some serious damage due to population density.

I for one like guns and enjoy target shooting even though I have never owned.
So just asking and not really trying to throw shit around or anything?

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[BIGUN 1,486]

Quote

Very dumb question and I never got this, why isn't guns rights a local issue?

Because the 2nd Amendment made it a federal issue.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But I live in NJ and one stray 22 could do some serious damage due to population density.

an aimed 22 can only do moderate damage. A stray one...no, not really. You'd have to be rather unlucky. A typical rifle round, otoh, can go through quite a few walls.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Very dumb question and I never got this, why isn't guns rights a local issue?

Because civil rights in general aren't a local issue and the US Constitution doesn't include an "except by the states" exemption to the second amendment prohibition on infringing our right to keep and bear arms.

Quote

But I live in NJ and one stray 22 could do some serious damage due to population density.

Sure. That's why most towns ban discharging firearms within city limits except as needed to protect people and in facilities with proper back stops to catch bullets.

Increased population density also implies more economic disparity and an increased crime rate due to that so people are more likely to need to protect themselves. A gun is the safest way to do that when assaulted (lowest risk of injury to the crime victim) and beats everything except running away when people are being robbed (complying with the attacker yields a 23.6% injury rate vs. 7.7% when defending oneself with a gun).

It's like alcohol and cars. Although drunk drivers can cause more damage with more cars and pedestrians around we don't place additional restrictions on alcohol sales or deny people drivers licenses in high population density areas. We just outlaw the destructive act itself.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Way to go John. You claim that you never meant the term "gun-o-phobe" in a pejorative sense, then you post crap like that? I could make up shit about "gun-o-philes" as failed cop wannabees, or narcissists enjoying the secret thought that they could take out half their workplace before anyone could blink an eye, and it would be about as accurate.

Your piece of crap troll bait (which I admit to biting on) leaves out a lot of people, such as the victims who have suffered great harm at the hands of an armed lunatic, and don't want anyone else to have to go through the same pain. Or the regular people who just want to be able to go pick up a pizza without feeling they have to look over their shoulder all the time lest some punk who feels empowered by his gun decide to relieve them of some cash, or maybe their life.

Lots of decent folks don't want to feel threatened all the time, don't want the responsibility of carrying and the associated implied responsibility of making split second live-or-die decisions, and resent being effectively barred from going into certain areas or being confined to their homes after dark.

For the record I'm no gun-o-phobe. But I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. I might not agree with them, but it's just stupid to continuously demonize everybody who disagrees with you.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Way to go John. You claim that you never meant the term "gun-o-phobe" in a pejorative sense, then you post crap like that? I could make up shit about "gun-o-philes" as failed cop wannabees, or narcissists enjoying the secret thought that they could take out half their workplace before anyone could blink an eye, and it would be about as accurate.

Your piece of crap troll bait (which I admit to biting on) leaves out a lot of people, such as the victims who have suffered great harm at the hands of an armed lunatic, and don't want anyone else to have to go through the same pain. Or the regular people who just want to be able to go pick up a pizza without feeling they have to look over their shoulder all the time lest some punk who feels empowered by his gun decide to relieve them of some cash, or maybe their life.

Lots of decent folks don't want to feel threatened all the time, don't want the responsibility of carrying and the associated implied responsibility of making split second live-or-die decisions, and resent being effectively barred from going into certain areas or being confined to their homes after dark.

For the record I'm no gun-o-phobe. But I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. I might not agree with them, but it's just stupid to continuously demonize everybody who disagrees with you.

Don

This post of yours has more crap than John's

The fact is regardless of the worthless emotional feelings you post about, no criminal will disarm himself because a law says he has to

No person will feel more in danger if the law abiding are alowed to carry

And NO ONE is denomizing anyone who wants nothing to do with a gun

But people like John and I will continue to demonize those who feel they have some need to take away a constitutional right just because it may make some feel better

sheesh dude

talk about crap

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

But people like John and I will continue to demonize those who feel they have some need to take away a constitutional right just because it may make some feel better

Whatever floats your boat, dude. As if calling people names ever helped to resolve anything.

You might want to brush up on your reading skills too, though you rarely let what people actually say get in the way of your pavlovian stimulus/response.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

But people like John and I will continue to demonize those who feel they have some need to take away a constitutional right just because it may make some feel better

Whatever floats your boat, dude. As if calling people names ever helped to resolve anything.

You might want to brush up on your reading skills too, though you rarely let what people actually say get in the way of your pavlovian stimulus/response.

Don

Me?

Show me where I called anyone a name

If you are posting to the word demonize
I borrowed that from your post

As for your rant?

I read it
Maybe you should

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And if you are talking about the gun-o-phone term?

I will think of your post the next time I am called a denier

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

...gun-o-phone ...

Be careful when you use that thing. It would suck to "terminate the call"... permanently.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Very dumb question and I never got this, why isn't guns rights a local issue?

It's a constitutional right, and therefore, no state can usurp those rights. Thus, states can't choose to ban gun ownership outright, just as they can't ban free speech or freedom of religion.

The Constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate guns within states. The federal gun laws are supposed to be only in the context of "regulating interstate commerce", where they do have authority - controlling how guns cross state lines. They've gone way beyond that... So when I sell a gun to someone in California, the feds require me to send the gun to a gun dealer in CA, who will then make the legal transfer to the new owner, with the background check, etc.

The states have their own gun laws, so there are many variations from one state to another, and thus, it is a "local" issue. In the California gun sale example, CA law requiree that I first get permission from the state attorney general (AG) to ship the gun to their state, and describe the gun to them. If the gun arrives at the gun dealer without the pre-approved AG permission, they can't accept the gun.

Most states exercise "preemption" for gun laws at the state level. That means that individual counties and towns within a state are not allowed to make laws more restrictive than what the state has. Many do anyway, because there's no real punishment for violating the state preemption. The idea there is to prevent a patchwork quilt of varying laws that would ensnare innocent citizens in their daily travels, and turn them into criminals because they didn't keep up with the dozens of different laws for the various areas through which they move. So, generally, gun laws are uniform state-wide, and you only have to worry about the variations when crossing state lines.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

...gun-o-phone ...

Be careful when you use that thing. It would suck to "terminate the call"... permanently.

Don

LOL

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Your piece... leaves out a lot of people, such as the victims who have suffered great harm at the hands of an armed lunatic, and don't want anyone else to have to go through the same pain. Or the regular people who just want to be able to go pick up a pizza without feeling they have to look over their shoulder all the time lest some punk who feels empowered by his gun decide to relieve them of some cash, or maybe their life.

The flaw in that kind of thinking is that it presumes that passing laws which limit gun ownership is actually effective at preventing criminals from getting guns. It isn't. The law-abiding gun owners are not the ones you have to worry about, and the criminals don't follow the law. So banning guns doesn't change your situation. There will always be armed criminals. Disarming the law-abiding does not change that.

Quote

Lots of decent folks don't want the responsibility of carrying and the associated implied responsibility of making split second live-or-die decisions...

And you have the absolute freedom to not carry a gun if you don't want to do so. I know of no-one trying to force others to carry guns. It's a personal choice. It's freedom.

Quote

... and resent being effectively barred from going into certain areas or being confined to their homes after dark.

These folks seem to fit the accompanying article's description of "The Fearful". See my first statement, above. The law-abiding guns owners are not the people you need to fear. And if an area is inhabited by criminal gun owners, then taking guns away from the law-abiding doesn't change that, and you would still have reason to fear those areas.

Quote

I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed.

Great! So let's concentrate on taking the guns away from THEM, and not the law-abiding.

Self defense story:
71-year-old former Marine presidential helicopter pilot thwarts two armed robbers:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/marine_subway_robbery_070702/

Would you deny this ex-Marine the right to carry a gun for self defense?

And since you mention that owning a gun might embolden criminals to commit crimes that they otherwise might not contemplate... How about the effect of concealed carry laws on the criminals? Might the possibility that their intended victims are armed, persuade some criminals to NOT commit crimes such as this one?

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

News:

The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate

"There is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

"In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories..."

Full story: JPFO.org

This is a good look at the psychology of gun-haters.

It's a good look at the psychology of JohnRich. Just about the only thing we can learn from that article is that you're a liar.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed.

Great! So let's concentrate on taking the guns away from THEM, and not the law-abiding.

Great idea. I look forward to reading your suggestions on making implementation of existing laws prohibiting gun acquisition by felons and the mentally ill more effective.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Skwrl 56]

Gosh... Such categories? Where do I fit with the "lost a loved one to gun violence, but own a handgun permit" and "think firearm ownership is OK, but is OK with some limited restrictions on some types of firearms?"

Do you think it's possible that - like so many other things in life - it's way more complicated and nuanced than the discourse makes it out to be?

Nah, name calling is way more fun. [Rolling eyes.]

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Show me where I called anyone a name

If you are posting to the word demonize
I borrowed that from your post

But do you know what it means?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's a good look at the psychology of JohnRich. Just about the only thing we can learn from that article is that you're a liar.

Oh my, that certainly looks like a prohibited personal insult to me. I don't think the little winky-face gets you out of that one.

Perhaps you should be more specific about what it is that you think I said that is untrue. I'm afraid you've provided nothing to which I can respond, and therefore the allegation is meaningless.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Show me where I called anyone a name

If you are posting to the word demonize
I borrowed that from your post

But do you know what it means?

Oh lookee whos posting now!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Great! So let's concentrate on taking the guns away from THEM, and not the law-abiding.

Great idea. I look forward to reading your suggestions on making implementation of existing laws prohibiting gun acquisition by felons and the mentally ill more effective.

That's your specialty, that you've been wailing about for years. I would think you should have come up with some concrete suggestions by now, other than your as yet non-existant future crime prediction machine.

Felons are already prohibited from gun ownership.
People adjudicated to be mentally ill are already prohibited from gun ownership.

What'cha got for us?

It seems that this story has hit a nerve, as many of the gun-o-phobes here are piling on. But there's still a few we haven't heard from yet. Bring it on.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Gosh... Such categories? Where do I fit with the "lost a loved one to gun violence, but own a handgun permit" and "think firearm ownership is OK, but is OK with some limited restrictions on some types of firearms?"

Do you think it's possible that - like so many other things in life - it's way more complicated and nuanced than the discourse makes it out to be?

Hey, I didn't write the article, and I've made no claim that it's perfect. But it does do a good job at describing many types of gun-o-phobes.

You sound a little bit like "The Elitists" and "The Authoritarians", whereby guns are okay for you, but not all guns are for everyone else.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Thank you for the detailed reply. Unfortunately you completely missed the point of my post. Not surprising that you and certain others would do so, as you are evidently so blinded by your hatred of "gun-o-phobes" that you can't read all the way to the end of a post.

Here it is again, with the important bits underlined this time so you (hopefully) can't miss it:
"For the record I'm no gun-o-phobe. But I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. I might not agree with them, but it's just stupid to continuously demonize everybody who disagrees with you."

I have no problem with the gentleman in the link you gave. I understand the second amendment, and I am aware that the "genie is out of the bottle" regarding guns in American society. I do not have access to a "nutter detector" and so I have no solution to the problem of keeping guns and nutters apart, but I do not believe the answer is to keep guns out of everybody's hands. I accept the argument that when guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns.

I do also believe that it is not unreasonable to wish for a less violent and dangerous society. I do understand why people would be seduced by the idea of simplistic solutions (take guns away) instead of the probably impossible task of changing human nature so everybody will be law abiding. I do not think it is helpful to caricaturize such people, or demonize them.

I recall a long time ago you posted about an incident in which your family was threatened, even hurt I vaguely recall, by an armed thug. Your response was (again going on old memory) to vow to never again be defenseless in such a situation. I deduce that incident had a big influence on your feelings on the issue.

This woman lost her husband, and her son was left permanently disabled, by a "nutter with a gun". Her response was to do everything she could to keep nutters (and pretty much everyone else) and guns apart.

Similar experiences, different reactions. Neither person is a demon.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Felons are already prohibited from gun ownership.
People adjudicated to be mentally ill are already prohibited from gun ownership.

.

Indeed they are. However, when people of your persuasion have knee-jerk opposition to any effective implementation of such prohibitions, the prohibitions become meaningless.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Skwrl 56]

I guess if not wanting the clearly mentally messed up to have guns because my ex-girlfriend call killed by such a guy (domestic violence dispute) makes me an elitist authoritarian in your world, then I find myself wearing that label as a badge of fucking honor.

But more to the point the taxonomy in the article is still simplistic and misleading and doesn't advance the discussion. Categorizing people is a great way to negate them (and tune them out).

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork