Skip to main content

View Diary: I Don't Want to Hear It (174 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  firearms (7+ / 0-)

    You shouldn't take it personally.

    Perhaps the poster you reply to is aware that gun owners in one study were over 4 times more likely to be injured or killed by a gun compared to non-owners.  Perhaps the poster is also aware that the gun owners who actually had a chance to use their gun against an assailant were over 5 times more likely to come to harm themselves.

    Or perhaps the poster was referring to suicidal teenagers preferring firearms about 43 percent of the time.

    Or maybe the poster saw this bold claim:  A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times.

    Basically, people who oppose the proliferation of arms in our culture are concerned about the collateral damage.  People are going to make harmful choices and mistakes.  We'd just like those bad choices to not be so easy to carry out without planning and effort.  Too many gun owners, sellers, manufacturers and advocates, the people most able to do something about reducing gun violence, are unable or unwilling to address their part, collectively, in the problem.  

    Perhaps that's because the little research that happens despite the NRA's best efforts, all point to a high correlation between availability and misuse, which inevitably leads us to consider making guns generally less available.  

    For my part, I'd like to see, at a minimum:

    (1) All gun sales including between private parties should require a background check, a 30 day waiting period, and a license.

    (2) License would require training, and perhaps a medical/psych evaluation.  License required for the purchase of ammunition.  License expires periodically and must be renewed, with training as a requirement.

    (2) A minimum age for a license somewhere above 25, as the murder rate is highest among 18-24 year olds.

    Yes I know there will be flouting of the law.  The point is that many of us, including gun owners, prefer a nation of laws over the alternative.

    •  I would be perfectly ok with most of that... (0+ / 0-)

      The waiting period is onerous, though. But licensing of the individual is something I would actually prefer, provided that registration of the firearm is not required.

      This would ensure that the person is fit, without enabling future confiscation of arms.

      •  Onerous? Why? What's the big rush? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paulie200, shigeru, splashy

        Want a house?  Mortgage application, approval and closing takes time.  Anyone protesting that?  Why are guns so importantly different?

        ...

        The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

        by JVolvo on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:05:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because there is no reason to make me wait... (0+ / 0-)

          Especially since, as I already own a weapon, the purchase obviously has nothing to do with committing a crime of passion.

          •  The controls aren't aimed at you personally but (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo, Liberal Heretic, splashy

            at the truly dangerous, such as members of terrorist groups, right wing militia, psychotics and other mentally ill folks. Anyone truly interested in the preservation of civil society would be happy to wait a month to get a firearm, to mandate safe storage of same, and mental health checks. Given the terrible state of mental health services in the US and the fact that most of these mass shootings are by the deranged and damaged some real controls are needed.

            If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849

            by shigeru on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 01:18:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep. Notice how they often default to "Me Me I I" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              UntimelyRippd, splashy

              when we just want the gun killings to stop.  

              It's. Not. About. You.

              The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

              by JVolvo on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:34:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  These laws would affect me, (0+ / 0-)

                I have every right to consider their impact upon me and other law abiding individuals, and contrast that to the affect they may have on crime.

                If I find that scale to be out of balance, I would be foolish not to protest.

                •  Yeah. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo

                  You'll be affected.

                  Boo fucking hoo.

                  To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                  by UntimelyRippd on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:37:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Boo fucking hoo? (0+ / 0-)

                    That's your response when someone points out that they don't want to be punished for something they didn't do?

                    You are the reason a calm discourse on this issue is almost impossible here.

                    •  Every law and regulation that restricts my (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Liberal Heretic, splashy, JVolvo

                      freedom to act on the basis of what might happen rather than what I intend to happen "punishes" me for something I didn't do.

                      Generally, such laws and regulations are in place exactly because a rather small percentage of the population needs to be restrained from behaving with extreme stupidity and/or selfishness. That's how civilization works, unfortunately.

                      Grownups understand that.

                      Adolescent boys do not. Adolescent boys instead talk about being unfairly punished. Adolescent boys think speed limits are unfair -- why should they punished just because some lame-o can't control his car at 100mph. Adolescent boys think DUI is unfair. "I didn't hit anything. Why should I be punished because somebody else killed someone while drunk?" Et fucking cetera. Clue to adolescent boys: The universe is neither just nor fair. The universe doesn't care about you. It isn't structured to ensure that you get what you "deserve". The universe only "is". Deal with it.

                      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                      by UntimelyRippd on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:43:45 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  But, (0+ / 0-)

              The controls, as I've mentioned in the past, would not effect those people- at best it would inconvenience them, and they would simply purchase privately.

              It is not worth the burden that it would place upon law abiding citizens. There are limits to what I accept as a reasonable barrier to the obtaining a firearm, and waiting for a month is one of those limits.

              •  We should also control private, gun show, and (0+ / 0-)

                Internet gun sales. And sorry, but if one wants more than 1 revolver, bolt action rifle, or 12 gauge one should be required to store them off-site and securely. Hell even in the army, except in combat zones one must lock up one's weapons in an armory. Reasons are that the army knows that the risks of guns in the hands of non-combat zone soldiers greatly outweigh the potential benefits. Such things as potential for theft, use in fights and use by drunk soldiers really add to the risks in non-combat areas. Sorry, but IMAO there is no useful reason for assault weapons, 50 cal sniper rifles and the like in home storage facilities or in airports, banks, schools, hospitals or bars.

                If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849

                by shigeru on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 01:19:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  "onerous" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splashy

        Because heaven knows, actually waiting a few weeks for a gun is a deprivation no human ought to suffer.

        It is exactly this kind of "what I want, when I want it, and fuck the children" thinking that makes it impossible to find common ground on this issue.

        Jesus.

        It's a fucking gun. If you're in a hurry to get one, then you've got a bigger problem than a waiting period.

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:36:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What if there is a bigger problem? (0+ / 0-)

          What if the gun is being purchased by a woman who has a violent ex-boyfriend who keeps calling and driving by the house?

          What if the gun is purchased by a father who owns the house next to one that was just targeted for a burglary?

          What if good people get hurt because people like you, in your ignorance, didn't think there was any viable reason for them to obtain a weapon quickly?

          As to the "fuck the children" crock: This is a not a zero-sum game. The options are not "Neo Control does not get to purchase a weapon in a timely manner OR lots of children die."

          First of all, a waiting period wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook. Period. Second, my obtaining a weapon in a timely manner does not increase the risk to any child anywhere, and until you can show that I am a potential danger (that burden is upon you) I oppose any effort to make it more difficult to purchase a weapon than it already is.

          •  Yeah!!! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashy

            Oh, and also: what if the terrorist knows where the ticking time bomb is? Can we torture him then, huh, huh, can we can we huh?

            Like I said, if you're in a hurry to buy a gun, you've got a bigger problem than being in a hurry to buy a gun. This remark by you is a full-on exhibition of the fantasy that each of us can reasonably claim full responsibility for application of deadly force in pursuit of our own personal safety. You think it's perfectly reasonable for a frightened woman with no weapons training, never mind tactical security training, to bring home a gun under the illusory impression that doing so makes her safer. It's a fantasy, dude, and the fact that you entertain it tells me that, in fact, you are not nearly as careful, stable and responsible as you think you are. Comment by comment, your arrogant self-assurance with respect to your capabilities and capacities reveals that you are precisely the sort of person I do not want to be keeping and bearing arms.

            "Until you can show that I am a potential danger ..." (Emphasis mine).

            Right there, you contradict your "not a zero-sum game" statement. You've made it clear. False positives are worse than false negatives, and you're willing to sacrifice any number of your fellow-citizens to that principle.

            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:35:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ooookay... (0+ / 0-)
              Oh, and also: what if the terrorist knows where the ticking time bomb is? Can we torture him then, huh, huh, can we can we huh?
              You just compared purchasing a gun to torture. Think about that for a moment...
              Like I said, if you're in a hurry to buy a gun, you've got a bigger problem than being in a hurry to buy a gun. This remark by you is a full-on exhibition of the fantasy that each of us can reasonably claim full responsibility for application of deadly force in pursuit of our own personal safety.
              Not all of us, but the vast, vast majority of us. And it's a pursuit that very rarely results in harm.
              You think it's perfectly reasonable for a frightened woman with no weapons training, never mind tactical security training, to bring home a gun under the illusory impression that doing so makes her safer. It's a fantasy, dude, and the fact that you entertain it tells me that, in fact, you are not nearly as careful, stable and responsible as you think you are. Comment by comment, your arrogant self-assurance with respect to your capabilities and capacities reveals that you are precisely the sort of person I do not want to be keeping and bearing arms.
              I think the woman should obtain training as soon as possible, but yes, I think that the prospect of staring down an armed woman would give a girlfriend-beater some pause. The use of the weapon is often not necessary, as you can deter a cowardly attacker through  it's mere presentation- which is the ideal way to resolve an issue where a gun is needed.

              As to my confidence with firearms, I'm a veteran. I've fired literally thousands of rounds in training, and I have carried concealed overseas during deployments. I have had to deescalate a situation where two parties were armed and angry at one another. I know what I'm doing. You seem to think that knowing what you're doing isn't possible, and I find it ironic you think cops and troopers should have guns then...

              "Until you can show that I am a potential danger ..." (Emphasis mine).

              Right there, you contradict your "not a zero-sum game" statement. You've made it clear. False positives are worse than false negatives, and you're willing to sacrifice any number of your fellow-citizens to that principle.

              Who said anything about sacrificing others to a principle? I said that until I was shown to be unfit to hold a weapon, I should be allowed to do so. It is incumbent upon others (to include the government) to evaluate the individual's fitness, and not merely ban possession based upon the unfitness of the few. Determining what fitness is I am up for debating, but we have the capability to do so, and so long as that is the case I will not accept your ignorance of my abilities as a reason to disarm.

              I was saying that you should not paint with a broad brush, especially when you're using the wrong color.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site