Another good editorial on dialog

[wmw999 2,589]

From EJ Dionne Jr of the Washington Post.
link here

Basically he's saying that if you magnify every argument and division, you lose credibility, because how will people know when you're really upset? Unless you're just high strung and irritable all the time (or an asshole), in which case why should people listen to you?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

From EJ Dionne Jr of the Washington Post.
link here

Basically he's saying that if you magnify every argument and division, you lose credibility, because how will people know when you're really upset? Unless you're just high strung and irritable all the time (or an asshole), in which case why should people listen to you?

Wendy P.

I agree with what you say here
Yet you do the same thing in another thread when you talke about guns
What do you really believe?

"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

Yet you do the same thing ...

So which one are you, Marc? High strung and irritable all the time, or ... ?

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)

[champu 1]

If you're referring to this post of her's then you're missing the point of the article and actually demonstrating the problem it's describing.

First you have to accept the fact that you and Wendy just maybe don't have all that different of a stance on firearms or what might be a reasonable way to address some of the issues related to, but perhaps not caused directly by, firearms ownership.

If you're always putting up an "I smell a rat" attitude where you fly off the rails if someone even sounds like they aren't as hardline as you are then that causes people to stop hearing anything you say on the matter.

[rushmc 23]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Yet you do the same thing ...

So which one are you, Marc? High strung and irritable all the time, or ... ?

Don

I know what you are but what am I?

"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]

champu

If you're referring to this post of her's then you're missing the point of the article and actually demonstrating the problem it's describing.

First you have to accept the fact that you and Wendy just maybe don't have all that different of a stance on firearms or what might be a reasonable way to address some of the issues related to, but perhaps not caused directly by, firearms ownership.

If you're always putting up an "I smell a rat" attitude where you fly off the rails if someone even sounds like they aren't as hardline as you are then that causes people to stop hearing anything you say on the matter.

Yes, that was her post
I dont think I missed her meaning

Overall, the general theme by many here is that the police are generally violent much of the time and then, some are inserting that they have to be because this society is armed

Both of those premises are wrong
To allow those to perpetuate those lies does not help get to the real issues
Until that time, the rest is all politics meant to be used for political gain

The article Wendy linked to is something that I can agree with. And it fits nicely into what I post here and the posts you and Dan refer to in this thread

If anyone missed it
1The police are not killing and generally doing bad stuff to anyone or any race generally speaking
2 Guns have nothing to do with point one (on either side of the debate)

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

To allow those to perpetuate those lies does not help get to the real issues

Then why not state what you think the real issues are?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

To allow those to perpetuate those lies does not help get to the real issues

Then why not state what you think the real issues are?

Liberal welfare policy that perpetuates government dependency

and the Milwalkee county WI county sherif says it better than anyone

https://www.google.com/search?q=Milwaukee+county+WI+sheriff&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=910&noj=1&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=GqqhVLbLI4X1yASNmICgAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg

What do YOU think is the problem?

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***

Quote

To allow those to perpetuate those lies does not help get to the real issues

Then why not state what you think the real issues are?

Liberal welfare policy that perpetuates government dependency

and the Milwalkee county WI county sherif says it better than anyone

https://www.google.com/search?q=Milwaukee+county+WI+sheriff&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=910&noj=1&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=GqqhVLbLI4X1yASNmICgAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg

What do YOU think is the problem?

I think the problem is significantly more complex than "Liberal welfare policy".

If such a policy were the truly the real issue, countries such as Canada and most, if not all, European countries would be far worse off. After all, they are downright socialist or communist in your mind.

The problems the US faces are not the result of simply one political policy.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

To allow those to perpetuate those lies does not help get to the real issues

Then why not state what you think the real issues are?

Liberal welfare policy that perpetuates government dependency

and the Milwalkee county WI county sherif says it better than anyone

https://www.google.com/search?q=Milwaukee+county+WI+sheriff&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=910&noj=1&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=GqqhVLbLI4X1yASNmICgAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg

What do YOU think is the problem?

I think the problem is significantly more complex than "Liberal welfare policy".

If such a policy were the truly the real issue, countries such as Canada and most, if not all, European countries would be far worse off. After all, they are downright socialist or communist in your mind.

The problems the US faces are not the result of simply one political policy.

then what is the problem IYM ?

BTW
This IS the real question
And the whole premise of white cops killing blacks regualarly is one of the supporting tenants to that lie

So, in that area, I really look forward to your assesment of the real issues involved

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

[wmw999 2,589]

I'm not saying that disagreeing is wrong. It's the stridency with which the disagreement is expressed. Starting a post with all caps, or with "bullshit" (which is actually how you started your answer, and what made me remember the editorial), would be, to me at least, examples of more strident disagreement. Something like "what an interesting point, but I disagree and here's why" would be, again to me at least, an example of being more strident.

But perception sometimes isn't intention

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

I'm not saying that disagreeing is wrong. It's the stridency with which the disagreement is expressed. Starting a post with all caps, or with "bullshit" (which is actually how you started your answer, and what made me remember the editorial), would be, to me at least, examples of more strident disagreement. Something like "what an interesting point, but I disagree and here's why" would be, again to me at least, an example of being more strident.

But perception sometimes isn't intention

Wendy P.

I was replying more to the content related to the link
I missed your point

But now?

Point taken
Well stated

but you did say it would take something like or worse than a Sandy Hook to deal with guns (if I understood you correctly) This infers that guns are part of the problem
With this I vehemently disagree (this was in the other post and maybe looking at both posts took me off track from the point you were trying to make here)

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

[wmw999 2,589]

Guns are just as much a part of gun violence as cars are a part of traffic fatalities. Unless you contend that all of those people would die violently anyway, either by close contact weapons, or by walking and bicycle accidents. Personally, I think police are more concerned about armed suspects in the US than in most European countries is because of the increased likelihood of their being armed, and that's due in large part to the ready availability of firearms. But it could be some other reason, I suppose, or it could be a good thing in someone's world view that police seem to be more concerned about armed suspects than they used to be.

You might have missed the part where I said that guns are part of the picture. It's their ever-present nature that I have more of a problem, simply because the only real deterrent against someone who is crazy or otherwise likely to become violent arming themselves seems to be the rest of society trusting them, or else waiting for the first victim to fall so that other armed people can try to take them out. I'll bet that most concealed carry folks think they're above-average shots, just as most drivers think they're above-average drivers.

The issue with cars is real too; tens of thousands die in accidents annually. I think we accept those too easily, too. People still drink and/or text and drive, they drive when they're exhausted, when they're angry and or want to use the car to teach other drivers a lesson. I'm not suggesting that either be abolished. But we have speed limits, drivers' licenses, stop lights, directional travel, and mass transit; all are designed, either in part or in whole, to reduce the danger to people from others' cars. With guns, some states have actual skill required for a concealed carry license, many have easily-dodged laws against felons owning guns, and a few states have tried to regulate guns even more. But it's nothing like the amount of regulation of cars, is it?

Those are my current thoughts. Of course, you'll probably point me at a website showing how the two ARENT AT ALL THE SAME and I'm just an emotional liberal. I read at least one of those websites before posting this, and let it influence my logic.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

Guns are just as much a part of gun violence as cars are a part of traffic fatalities. Unless you contend that all of those people would die violently anyway, either by close contact weapons, or by walking and bicycle accidents. Personally, I think police are more concerned about armed suspects in the US than in most European countries is because of the increased likelihood of their being armed, and that's due in large part to the ready availability of firearms. But it could be some other reason, I suppose, or it could be a good thing in someone's world view that police seem to be more concerned about armed suspects than they used to be.

You might have missed the part where I said that guns are part of the picture. It's their ever-present nature that I have more of a problem, simply because the only real deterrent against someone who is crazy or otherwise likely to become violent arming themselves seems to be the rest of society trusting them, or else waiting for the first victim to fall so that other armed people can try to take them out. I'll bet that most concealed carry folks think they're above-average shots, just as most drivers think they're above-average drivers.

The issue with cars is real too; tens of thousands die in accidents annually. I think we accept those too easily, too. People still drink and/or text and drive, they drive when they're exhausted, when they're angry and or want to use the car to teach other drivers a lesson. I'm not suggesting that either be abolished. But we have speed limits, drivers' licenses, stop lights, directional travel, and mass transit; all are designed, either in part or in whole, to reduce the danger to people from others' cars. With guns, some states have actual skill required for a concealed carry license, many have easily-dodged laws against felons owning guns, and a few states have tried to regulate guns even more. But it's nothing like the amount of regulation of cars, is it?

Those are my current thoughts. Of course, you'll probably point me at a website showing how the two ARENT AT ALL THE SAME and I'm just an emotional liberal. I read at least one of those websites before posting this, and let it influence my logic.

Wendy P.

I will not respond to the other countries parts of your post as they have no bearing to me
Our constitution is what it is and even though you called it a social experiment ( I think) this so called experiment was based on decades of real world experiences of those who did not want to be controlled by a government but rather, have the people in control of said government. Sadly we are at the later today but. is another thread

To continue, your premise is still based on the idea that white cops are regularly killing blacks on a regular basis. And that maybe, just maybe, guns being in public hands plays a part in this? This whole idea is based on a panoply of lies.
If guns were involved to the level of causation you imply, (based on the shear numbers being bought on a daily basis) then we would be having shoot outs everywhere in this country yet we dont. The CDC and the FBI show us that cops killing blacks and shootings in general have been declining for years and continue to decline
Hmm, interesting thing huh

I am glad though that you said neither guns nor car should be regulated away from people but, it is trying to be done with both
For different reasons? Maybe, maybe not

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

[normiss 898]

Car regulation is by far more strict than gun ownership.

We would be well served to require secure storage of weapons with severe penalties when a stolen weapon is used in a crime.

[rushmc 23]

normiss

Car regulation is by far more strict than gun ownership.

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

[normiss 898]

Does the gooberment inspect your weapons every year?
Does the gooberment require you to insure your weapons?
Does the gooberment require you to take a test to obtain a weapon to operate your weapons?
Can you be penalized for improper weapon usage?

Your turn I suppose.

[rushmc 23]

normiss

Does the gooberment inspect your weapons every year?no, neither does it my car
Does the gooberment require you to insure your weapons?car insurance is liability insurance. I do not have to insure my car but rather the impact of what I may do with it so this is a straw man
Does the gooberment require you to take a test to obtain a weapon to operate your weapons?I have to train to get a permit to carry. I have to go through a back ground check to get a car? Do you need a back ground check to buy a car
Can you be penalized for improper weapon usage?it is called prison

Your turn I suppose.

"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]

normiss

We would be well served to require secure storage of weapons with severe penalties when a stolen weapon is used in a crime.

So, you should be liable if someone steals your car, gets drunk, runs over and old lady when leaving a liquor store robbery?

Really?

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

[normiss 898]

rushmc

***Does the gooberment inspect your weapons every year?no, neither does it my car Not sure by the way you said that, but some places do require vehicle inspections. I wish this state still did.
Does the gooberment require you to insure your weapons?car insurance is liability insurance. I do not have to insure my car but rather the impact of what I may do with it so this is a straw manTechnically I suppose that's true, but you can't operate the vehicle on roads without insurance. Tags, registration, up to license can be suspended if you try.
Does the gooberment require you to take a test to obtain a weapon to operate your weapons?I have to train to get a permit to carry. I have to go through a back ground check to get a car? Do you need a back ground check to buy a carI don't need a background check to buy a gun. I said operate, not carry.
Can you be penalized for improper weapon usage?it is called prisonWe need to enforce this more. Your kid takes your weapon to school and kills, you should be charged with murder.

Your turn I suppose.

[turtlespeed 226]

wmw999

From EJ Dionne Jr of the Washington Post.
link here

Basically he's saying that if you magnify every argument and division, you lose credibility, because how will people know when you're really upset? Unless you're just high strung and irritable all the time (or an asshole), in which case why should people listen to you?

Wendy P.

Not.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 23]

So, you should be liable if someone steals your car, gets drunk, runs over and old lady when leaving a liquor store robbery?

Really?

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

To continue, your premise is still based on the idea that white cops are regularly killing blacks on a regular basis.

You kep sayin that, but you have really been the only one making that statement.

Violence is a problem. Violence between civilians, and violence between police and civilians, in both directions, is a problem.

Guns play a role in this. Saying guns could not possibly be a problem is just as stupid as saying that banning guns would solve any problems.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

To continue, your premise is still based on the idea that white cops are regularly killing blacks on a regular basis.

You kep sayin that, but you have really been the only one making that statement.

Violence is a problem. Violence between civilians, and violence between police and civilians, in both directions, is a problem.

Guns play a role in this. Saying guns could not possibly be a problem is just as stupid as saying that banning guns would solve any problems.

I am not the only one saying that. I may be the only one saying it here however.
Also, the data shows me to be correct but I am not the one that has to prove the assertions
The anti-cop nuts are saying that we have a problem with white cops killing unarmed blacks and infer that this is happening regularly
It is NOT happening often at all.
As for the guns, a tool and nothing more. Guns are not playing any role any more than a car does in drunk driving
Guns are just the political play you and others try to use to push and agenda

Now I will ask you again
As you have told me that I have not identified the issue
And
I have asked you then what you think the issue(s) is/are and you have yet to answer

And saying violence is the problem is not an answer

So, do you have an answer???

We know from the numbers (from the CDC and the FBI reports) that more guns in the population do NOT increase crimes with guns. This is a fact

If you do not agree then I will ask yet again
To show me all these incidents where white cops are killing unarmed blacks regularly
If you are correct it should be easy to do


The whole problem with this debate and your position is that it is emotional. You have been pulled in by the rhetoric and have not taken time to look at this. You are just following the crowd
That crowd is being led by the way, by the likes of Sharpton and Jackson
Nice pair to follow don’t you think?

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

[grimmie 186]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/