Monday, March 18, 2013

A Heated Debate Among 'Friends' About Gun Control

March 7, 2013

This pic was posted by a friend. It's clearly not a real sign - just a Photoshopped statement about gun control, specifically addressing the friction between Chicago and nearby Indiana. It was the start of a heated conversation among 'friends'.
There's previous context to this conversation from earlier posts that are not included here. And one of the active participants in the 'debate' apparently deleted all his comments before this conversation was captured. (Maybe one of them de-friended the other. I don't know.) The result is what appears to be mostly a one-sided antagonizing argument. I wish I could show the rest.
Sums it up......
  • RC:
    There are plenty of heavily armed Illinoisans. Unfortunately, few that I hang with, though, and those certainly make us all unsafe.
    March 8 at 5:00am
  • RC:
    Hey GG: Many of your fellow passengers are already carrying weapons. They are just the folks of a mind not to give a shit about laws and regulations. And you'll feel unsafe by the addition of a few more that care about such distractions?
    March 8 at 5:04am
  • RC:
    My children are among your fellow passengers, my friend, so its not like I don't give a shit as I drive around the suburbs. I do also recognize that the people with guns now (1) have no training, except that provided, perhaps, by the El Rukn Academy; and (2) by their lawlessness, reflect the judgment of a retarded gnat. I also know that EVERY ONE of the crazies in the news stopped (or were stopped) ONLY by good guys with guns.
    March 8 at 5:19am
  • RC:
    Hey! Maybe this is like your "voter fraud" logic yesterday. Are you afraid that only Democrats may be affected by gun regulations? Actually, you may have something there! I think you're right!
    March 8 at 5:21am
  • RC:
    We're not lucky enough to have enough good guys with guns around to stop all the crazies. However, the Sandy Hook goof killed himself at the sound of sirens. And if anyone in your neighborhood without a sheet was so inclined, perhaps someone could have intervened to stop those crimes. And if you were faced with it, at least you could have a chance to protect yourself.
    March 8 at 5:24am
  • RC:
    WHO SAID "WHITE" guys with guns???????? Your hyper-sensitive, politically correct, self-hating and apologetic slip is showing, as usual.
    March 8 at 5:26am
  • RC:
    And the Sandy Hook asshole blew his own brains out when he heard the cops coming. He was stopped when he faced good guys with guns. As was the guy in Tucson, Columbine, NIU and just about every similar tragedy. And, " Too many ignorant, unbalanced, drunk, stupid, trigger-happy, untrained white guys with guns now"????? I guess we're ok with plenty of ignorant, unbalanced, drunk, stupid, trigger-happy, untrained guys or ANY color with guns now.
    March 8 at 5:34am
  • RC:
    We disagree. Surprise!
    March 8 at 5:34am
  • BN:
    R, it's getting too easy to disprove your conservative notions. Today's example,

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sean-mccutcheon-officer-gun-suspended.php?ref=fpblg
    March 8 at 1:23pm
  • RC:
    Did you actually read the article, or just the headline? That "disproves" nothing.
    March 8 at 1:30pm
  • RC:
    Even Barney prevented some crimes, as I recall.
    March 8 at 1:33pm
  • BN:
    Implicit in the powerline blog analysis, and your citation of it, is the belief that lowering suicide by gun rates doesn't count. As a fellow Roman Catholic and Loyola Law grad, I'm surprised you feel this way. Apparently, society should not play a role in preventing suicide. At least in your mind and powerline blog's opinion. Furthermore, this study doesn't even involve accidental shootings. May I assume that you feel accidental shootings should be prevented.

    If gun-control in Chicago has failed, it's probably due to weaker gun laws in surrounding cities and states. It's hard to see how concealed carry laws change this.
    March 8 at 1:59pm
  • BN:
    GG, you just don't realize that what you need is RC, or other calm, cool, well armed weapons expert just like him, surrounding you to keep you safe. R and those like him never panic, are never surprised, always possess perfect situational awareness, never misfire their weapons, etc.
    March 8 at 2:04pm
  • RC:
    You guys are absolutely unrealistic. Just like the Obama Administration, you are flatly making things up to fit "the message" and your distorted view of the world. The law abiding are not and will not be the problem. I think you're just afraid that if more good guys are armed out there, a few extra democratic voters might be deterred from spreading the redistribution of wealth message you softballs are so fond of espousing. You know…taking from the wealthy 7-Eleven proprietors and giving to the unemployed.
    March 8 at 7:17pm
  • RC:
    And you know what, GG? Stop whining about your dangerous neighborhood. From election results, your neighbors think and vote as do you. I am sure your pacifist attitude will prevail.
    March 8 at 6:52pm
  • RC:
    And again, besdes this clown in South Africa, what are the "too many legal gun owners shooting themselves, pulling them out in domestic situations, shooting at the wrong people" to which you refer? You are making that bullshit up as you go. I was trained and carried a weapon daily on my job throughout law school. I sat next to you some nights wearing a holster.
    March 8 at 6:56pm
  • RC:
    Want more examples of your made up bullshit? Here's some: "the same "good guys with guns" routinely misuse THEM, as we both know,........" Cops all-too-often pop unarmed, non-threatening guys because they think they can." My God! No wonder you guys all worship an administration that takes poetic license with every topic, to fit the message and serve "the greater good." Screw the entire bunch of you....you all deserve the milieu you foster.
    March 8 at 7:05pm
  • ME:
    Wow, there's an incredible amount of ignorance, denial, strong bias, generalization, stereotyping, etc. being displayed by the gun control advocates in this conversation. I don't know what world they think you live in, but it bears no resemblance to either the world they do live in or the one they want to live in.
    March 8 at 7:27pm
  • ME:
    Typical of gun control "yahoos", borrowing their term, they provide very little data, very few statistics that hold up to actual analysis and base their judgments on whatever they find that kinda, sorta supports their predetermined positions, daring not go any deeper because they kinda, sorta know they can't.

    As someone who sometimes has to analyze data and statistics in my professional life, "all too often" doesn't quite cut it for me.

    I've never heard of PowerLine before but did read the cited article a few minutes ago. I find it hard to believe that intelligent people, as I believe RC's friends must be, would criticize PowerLine for being "pro gun" but aren't equally critical of the obvious bias of the report that the article dissects. I think it's been asked, but I'll ask again. Did you read the article? It was done by an "anti-gun activist". I'm sure there was no bias there - strictly objective analysis. I did read a previous article about this study yesterday, by CBS News, I believe. Even in that bland article it admitted that the study's findings of 'more gun laws equals less gun deaths' could be due to other factors not accounted for in the study and one or two were given.

    A VERY strong correlation that shines again here is that gun control advocates use only macro numbers that serve their arguments. Their gun rights opponents are willing to talk data to a MUCH further degree, and do, because the macro numbers used by gun control advocates are almost always misleading and a finer and more careful analysis does support legal firearms ownership and even concealed carry licensing, to say nothing of open carry.
    March 8 at 7:38pm
  • ME:
    I grew up in Chicago when, I believe, it was illegal to own a handgun in the city. It was common knowledge that if you wanted to purchase a firearm legally, you went to Niles. If you wanted one illegally, you went to Maxwell Street and found one on the black market.

    I knew a teenager who carried a handgun to and from his Catholic high school because of the neighborhoods he had to travel through to get there. He never once pulled it out for the commission of a crime or to intimidate or because he was insulted or had his feelings hurt.

    There were unlocked firearms in the house my siblings and I grew up in, both rifles and handguns. My brother and I knew where they were, and yes, we sometimes looked at them and touched them. But we never pointed them at anyone. We never played with them. We never took them outside the house. We were taught from a very young age to respect them.
    March 8 at 7:47pm
  • ME:
    I'm a military veteran, trained in the profession of arms, though I was never one of our "warfighters" in the infantry. I first learned how to use and respect firearms from my father, another military veteran. It was reinforced by the Boy Scouts. I received more in-depth training from the military. And I've chosen to enhance my knowledge and proficiency by attending training, going to shooting ranges and watching videos online produced by people who know more than I do. I've begun the process of training my children to use firearms carefully and to respect them.

    I am a concealed carry licensee and have friends licensed to carry in multiple states. Some have military or police backgrounds. Some have only the training they've received from their friends and partners. I've never known a single one to misuse their firearms.

    Don't excuse me or my military or police friends because we have formal firearms training. Most people have no idea how much or how little that training actually is. Yes, there are boot camps and academies where weeks for formal training are provided. But what does that training consist of? Some of it is very practical, hands-on and pertinent. Some is much less so. And what happens after those intense programs of instruction? Police and military alike complain that they don't get enough firearms training. it's often reduced to an annual re-qualification that can take between a day and a week. The margin of knowledge, training and expertise between a person 'well trained and qualified to carry a firearm' and the average person on the street is much thinner than most people realize.

    And that margin can easily be overcome by training that is available to citizens in every state. The NRA, in particular, actively promotes gun safety and that goes beyond 'this is the dangerous end'. The people I've known who pursue concealed carry permits understand and accept the responsibility that comes with firearms ownership and carrying. They seek knowledge and proficiency within their means.

    Police and NRA instructors who give classes on concealed carry are professional and teach more than how to fill out the forms. They talk about a WIDE variety of topics, including: making decisions about when to draw and when not; when to shoot and when not; what other defensive means might be available to you before you draw your firearm; what to carry; how to carry; when to carry; what ammunition to use; what will happen after there's been a shooting and the police have arrived; how to engage with a police officer when you're carrying legally and you're pulled over for a traffic violation; and more.

    Firearms owners and concealed carry licensees are not the "yahoos" and vigilantes you so easily label us as.
    March 8 at 8:07pm
  • ME:
    You are surrounded by firearms everywhere you go. The obvious are law enforcement and military; and the acknowledged criminals who are well armed. The less obvious and perfectly legal are the concealed carry licensees. The even less obvious are the otherwise law abiding people who are carrying regardless of the legality of doing so in their respective locale. Some are licensed to carry in their home state but not while they're traveling. Some haven't been able to get licenses because of the ridiculous bans that have existed in places like Chicago, DC, and California. Guess what, people other than convicted or would-be criminals carry there too because they understand their right to defend themselves and value the option of being able to do so more highly than the opinions of overzealous law makers who prefer by edict to make them or their families or friends victims of violent crime.

    And some of these (law breaking) people who are carrying without a license are the very same police officers we're told to put our faith in and wait for in an emergency. Do you think police officers leave their firearms at home when they're traveling to places where they're not legally entitled to carry? Do you think they register their so-called "assault weapons" where they're legally required to do so?
    March 8 at 8:15pm
  • ME:
    Here are 2 incidents of concealed carry licensees who did have an opportunity to shoot an armed attacker and murderer and chose not to - exercising the judgment not credited to "yahoos" who carry firearms.http://www.examiner.com/article/clackamas-town-center-shooter-faced-down-armed-civilian

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/brad-kozak/think-conceal-carry-didnt-play-a-role-in-giffords-case-think-again/

    Additionally, I have a personal friend who lives in the Oakland area. He's been robbed at gunpoint standing in front of his own house. He's been approached by other armed criminals. He carries his firearm with him when he can but is frustrated because the governing laws between his house and his place of work put him in a position where sometimes he's within his legal right and sometimes he's breaking the law with no change in his behavior. He has brandished his pistol when confronted with a gun and neither party fired a shot and no robbery or assault took place.

    Those stories don't make the news because many of them, including his, don't even get reported to the police. Stories of people using their firearms to protect themselves or others rarely make the mainstream media news. There's either not enough drama or it doesn't suite the media's agenda. You have to look at alternate sources to see how frequently they happen.
    March 8 at 8:31pm
  • RC:
    I love how you zealots extrapolate from isolated incidents to support general propositions that fit "The Movement." Liberals are like zombies marching in unison. The only movement that logic inspires is in my bowels.
    March 8 at 10:57pm
  • RC:
    Balanced my ass. That "balanced" approach has brought about the gridlock in Washington, lead by your exalted One and his "let's have dinner together for the cameras but it's my way or the highway" negotiation tactic.
    March 8 at 11:08pm
  • ME:
    And your point is...? If this happened as reported in the article, the off-duty police officer committed a crime when he "got in to an apparent shouting match with a man in the group then fired a gun multiple times".

    You clearly don't trust anyone's j    udgment who carries a firearm, so what is your proposal, to repeal the 2nd Amendment and outlaw ALL firearms in the hands of citizens, even those in the hands of law enforcement? Shall we disarm the military too, or can you tolerate that violence and loss of life?

    Police officers have been known to commit rape and deal drugs too, on and off duty. How shall we deal with those crimes? Shall we castrate all men so they have no desire to rape? Shall we outlaw drugs? Oh, wait...
    March 8 at 11:09pm
  • RC:
    That's the plan, don't you see ME? An unarmed citizenry wholly dependant upon the government....sound familiar?
    March 8 at 11:11pm


===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
California Firearms Blogs
Illinois Firearms Blogs


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)