Skip to main content

View Diary: Armed Society, Polite Society (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The majority of gun owners? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, Miggles, shaharazade

    The majority of gun owners is a minority that is getting smaller by the day.  It's time for the level-headed among them to realize that their "attachment" to guns is causing massive harm to the society around them.  

    •  No ... (0+ / 0-)

      Crazy or careless people who have access to guns are causing harm to society.

      Just like crazy or careless people in cars cause harm to society.

      You don't fix the problem by banning cars.  You fix the problem by keeping crazy/careless people out of them.

      •  But you can't separate the two. (7+ / 0-)

        Until they start shooting, the crazies are most often no more or less crazy than anyone else.  Heisenberg cats.

        •  I'd argue that haven't really tried to yet (0+ / 0-)

          We prevent crazy people from doing all sorts of things.  Driving, operating heavy machinery, working for the military, etc.

          But a system needs to be in place so that people's faculties can be monitored prior to their use/purchase of a potentially dangerous item.  Just like a system needs to be in place to prevent those same people from getting their hands on dangerous weapons.

          •  That's just silly. My solution. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade

            If you had the prying rights, you could make a case for just about anybody manifesting craziness.  "Did you know she spends hours alone, writing comments on blogs for people whom she'll never meet?"  "Did you know, he sleeps in strange underwear?"  "Do you remember how tongue-tied she was as a child?"  "Do you remember the time he kicked the chair and the leg broke off?"  

            Here's my solution:  If somebody wants to own a gun, then that person is crazy.  Clear and simple.  Ownership denied.  And write it down explicitly on the driver's license.  

            •  You would be forcing your views (0+ / 0-)

              on society, without taking into account the other side's arguments or feelings on the matter.

              Again, it is arguments like this that allow the NRA to scare the beJebus out of gun owners by saying liberals want to take their guns away, regardless of circumstance.

              You are doing their work for them.

              •  Forcing my views on society? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shaharazade

                No.  I would be forcing them on a shrinking minority.  Happens all the time.  Gun-lust is an illness.  Get over it.  

                •  Imposing your will on others (0+ / 0-)

                  irresponsibly, without taking any interest in their concerns is nothing more then letting your uninformed, ideology run amok.

                  Most likely you fit into your own minority category:

                  You have never owned/fired a firearm.
                  You have never known a person that owns a firearm.
                  You have no idea about the laws/regulations that exist on a state and federal level that 99.9999% of gun owners follow adamantly.
                  You can't possibly think of a reason for a person to own a firearm.
                  You saw/heard about someone who did something terrible with a firearm and therefore:
                  You don't want anyone to own a firearm.

                  Oh yeah, you also have a tendancy to end your posts with something on the order of: insert pithy-liberal-talking-point-gotcha-catch-phrase .

                  I recommend you start talking to people who don't always hold your particular viewpoints and enjoy spouting them back at you.  You'll be better off.

            •  Did you know? (0+ / 0-)

              Did you know they belong to a  group that 'Baptizes' corpses?
              I think that groups' practice merits Groucho Marx's "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member"

              ~~~~~~
              Did you know?
              Groucho Marx could have said, "How the tea party started a party in my pj's I'll never know, but I incinerated the pjs asap."

        •  Yes you can. (0+ / 0-)

          And, trust me, there will be restrictions on anyone prescribed more than aspirin and bp medication.

          •  Bogus argument. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade, radical simplicity

            Gun deaths and mental illness have almost no correlation other than a handful of high-profile cases.  Again, from today's NYT article by R.A.Friedman, MD:

            In the National Institute of Mental Health’s E.C.A. study, for example, people with no mental disorder who abused alcohol or drugs were nearly seven times as likely as those without substance abuse to commit violent acts.
            Filtering the supposed crazies won't stop the problem.  
          •  No, I don't crazy statements from people (0+ / 0-)

            exhibiting the same level of paranoia about government as teabillies.

        •  This one thinks he's sane (0+ / 0-)

          (From an actual facebook thread over the weekend):

          I didn't say i'm open minded. Why am i not listening(i would rephrase that as why am i not buying uneducated jargon about subjects these very intelligent people know nothing about)...? BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT GUN CONTROL. JUST LIKE HITLER, JUST LIKE STALIN, JUST LIKE MAO. Search your heart real deep or better yet google for the meaning of brah, you could have fooled me for a surfer sorry.
          On most issues, he's very liberal. If you met him on the street and had an ordinary conversation, you would have no idea that he is absolutely convinced that there is no difference between sensible limits on guns and volunteering for a brief trip in a cattle car. He also believes that Obama is going to bring the shock troops in to round us all up, and we are in imminent danger of needing to fight the armed forces of the US with a rag-tag band of wanna-be's with hand-held weapons.

          So, how do you prevent the seemingly normal person on the street, who is a raging lunatic in private, from getting guns. He's certainly allowed to drive and use heavy machinery. I don't know whether he's in the National Guard, but a ridiculously high percentage of local young men are.

          We may keep a very small number of obviously unbalanced people from doing dangerous things, but we do absolutely nothing for people like this young man, who happens to own a not-so-small personal arsenal.

          •  'seemingly normal person on the street' (0+ / 0-)

            I believe many are also not always 'normal' on the street. I have overheard or conversed with seemingly normal people who suddenly blurt out an extreme "Final Solution" for the minor issue we were briefly discussing.

            When younger, I would respond by automatically stopping (cold) talking about the topic, and let the talk either die or move to another topic. These days I respond with a mild and sympathetic suggestion that the Final Solution might cause undesirable consequences

            I've seen this even though I live in an ideologically more diverse propaganda market than most of the USA. Those 'not normal'  people you (and I) have seen on the internet are sitting ducks for programming. They are Brown Shirts or Rwandans just waiting for detonation...

      •  Crazy or careless people who choose guns as (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        salamanderempress

        their implements of harm won't do as much if they can't get as many guns or shoot as many rounds.

        Trying to separate the implement from the person is flaccid reasoning at best.

        •  If you are arrested for a DUI (0+ / 0-)

          ...they take away your license.

          They don't outlaw cars.

          •  Irrelevant distraction or completely (0+ / 0-)

            unrelated, poor analogy? Either way, your comment is effectively void of any meaningful contribution to the discussion.

            •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

              Punishing other law-abiding citizens for the acts of one deranged person who doesn't follow the rules?  You don't see the analogy?

              How about this one: painkillers.  An abusable substance.  They inflict a cost on society.  Do you ban painkillers? No.  You regulate who can buy them and where.  Cigarettes.  Alcohol.  Texting-by-phone.  Do I really have to keep going?

              Back to your apparent view.  By your philosophy, you would be comfortable with having crazy people wielding something slightly less deadly.  And then what?  Outlaw that?

              Best to identify those that are the problem and take action to prevent them access to ANY weapon.

              •  I see the analogy--that's why I dismissed it as (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                deepbreath

                either irrelevant or an unrelated, poor analogy.

                You're committing two fallacies in your comment.

                In the first place you equate "harm with a high probability of death" to "inflict a (presumably financial, but including potentially other abstract 'harmful') cost." It's a completely different set of circumstances and conditions from using a tool designed explicitly to kill for its intended purpose.

                In the second you are deliberately mis-representing the gun control argument. Your straw-man is that gun control advocates argue that "we can eradicate violence by banning implements used to commit it." The actual argument is that "we can reduce as much as possible violence committed with guns by reducing the availability of certain categories of guns and ammunition." The argument (with a few exceptions) isn't even "ban all guns."

                So when you start out from a position of dishonest argument it's hard to take you seriously or feel like it's a productive use of time to engage you in rational discussion. It's unfortunate that your strawmen and irrelevant analogies are used so frequently.

                I'm a gun owner. I wouldn't support a blanket ban on firearm ownership or a repeal of the second amendment that made it possible. But I won't pretend, as you should not pretend, that "banning some guns and ammunition" is the same as "abridging [my] right to keep and bear arms." It just isn't.

                •  I see your point but, (0+ / 0-)

                  I've been reading several of the gun regulation/ban articles over the last few days here.  I would say that of the comments in each article that I have read, about half do in fact attempt to make the argument that:

                  ...we can eradicate violence by banning implements used to commit it.
                  In regard to your personal view that:
                  ...we can reduce as much as possible violence committed with guns by reducing the availability of certain categories of guns and ammunition.
                  I am simply taking your argument to its logical conclusion.  If there are no assault rifles, what will be the new weapon of choice for mass murderers?  The obvious remedy would be that if you really wanted to "reduce as much as possible violence committed with guns" then why allow any guns at all?  Personally, I don't believe a serial killer needs a gun to kill lots of people (man in China used a knife to stab 22 children and an adult).

                  If you believe this to be a straw-man, read some of your fellow poster's comments.  The straw-man army is pretty substantial ...

                  •  No, you're substituting an argument you (0+ / 0-)

                    made up and pretending I advanced it.

                    And your strawman argument is still littered with fallacies.

                    The new "weapon of choice for mass murderers" will be...an irrelevant distraction from this discussion. We aren't talking about hypothetical weapons that may be used for mass murder. We are talking about actual weapons that actually have been, and likely will continue to be, used for mass murder, and what can be done to prevent or mitigate that.

                    Moreover, the "man in China" you referenced didn't kill 22 people. He stabbed them. I haven't seen how many (or even if any) died. So you inadvertently help make my point: the gun control argument isn't "banning guns will prevent violence;" it's "banning some guns and ammunition will prevent or minimize the injuries and death caused by violence committed with some guns and ammunition." They are two completely different arguments, and yet you continue to insist they're both the former.

                    •  You just want to think of the here and now. (0+ / 0-)

                      I get that.  No hypotheticals.

                      banning some guns and ammunition will prevent or minimize the injuries and death caused by violence committed with some guns and ammunition.
                      Well yes.  This is obvious.  If there are no assault rifles, no one will be killed by assault rifles.

                      But do you honestly think, if assault rifles are gone, but the number of deaths by fire arms in this country doesn't decline, that the banning of assault weapons did anything other then change the implements crazy people utilize to commit murder?

                      My query (hypothetical because I'm making a point) is do you then decide to ban the next most dangerous firearm?

            •  Not irrelevant, but quite different (0+ / 0-)

              Vehicles: no matter the driver (if any), when cops find drugs in the vehicle, it gets confiscated. I don't think there's any law like that for guns.
              DUI: I think there is a battleground involving suing bartenders. I don't think there's some thing like that for vehicles. Vehicle makers are sued, but for different causes (complaints). and when vehicle sellers are sued, the causes are very different.

    •  Be careful what you wish for. (0+ / 0-)

      Undoubtedly some restrictions are going to come out of this event. The most significant change may come to those who take mood-altering prescriptions or have a person with emotional/psychological problems in the home.

      The proposal is likely to be that doctors will be required to report patients to the FBI who are under their care for psychological problems or who take anti-depressants, bi-polar medication or anti-psychotics. Those individuals will be refused permission to purchase or continue to own firearms.

      If you want a brave new world, you are likely to get more than you bargained for. Forget doctor/patient confidentiality. Your local gun shop is going to know that your family has 'issues'.

      •  And the alternative (0+ / 0-)

        is just taking all the guns away.

        Honestly, people who take long term mood altering prescriptions for which there are known side effects shouldn't be able to do a number of things.

        I believe a more surgical application of gun restriction, based on factors that appear to be the root cause of the recent rampages, is much better then universally restricting guns for everyone.

      •  That's an NRA talking point. (3+ / 0-)

        According to today's NYT (article by R.A.Friedman, MD):

        There is overwhelming epidemiological evidence that the vast majority of people with psychiatric disorders do not commit violent acts.
        And:
        Only about 4 percent of violence in the United States can be attributed to people with mental illness.
        The "laws against crazies" meme is a complete smokescreen and has almost nothing to do with gun-related deaths.    
        •  and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deepbreath

          The offending minority within both groups, gun users and psychologically troubled, are a small minority.
          Should the law choose to 'sacrifice' some of the majority in either group? Neither Group? Both groups?

          If the gun registry contains emotionally unstable people in its listings, does the database check who cohabits?
          To reduce privacy concerns, should the database not specify which type of disqualification?

        •  Coinceidently, there is also overwhelming evidence (0+ / 0-)

          ... that the vast majority of gun owners do not commit violent acts.

          Also, lacking in this analysis you cite is the number of these
          people suffering from psychiatric disorders that have access to fire arms ... or if their families had the decency/ common sense to keep them away from them.

          Next argument.

      •  How many drug/alcohol abusers (0+ / 0-)

        Tell their doctors that they're abusers? How many people who aren't habitual drinkers occasionally get rip-roaring drunk and turn out to be very nasty people while in that state? How many people get their firearms before a drinking or drug habit starts?

        In the mean time, no one in our family knows anyone at our local gun shop. If one of us walked in to buy a gun, how would they know if someone in the family had a problem?

        Yes, a doctor's report to the FBI could be helpful, but do we really want physicians reporting health information to the FBI?

        I appreciate that you're thinking "outside the box."

        I hope we can come up with a solution that does not require someone to have perfect information about the gun purchaser, because we'll never have perfect information about anyone (and if we ever do, that's a whole 'nother can of worms).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site