Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

So you are merely a word jumping, subject changing, slippery mouthed arguer, huh? I hope that you think that you are displaying extreme intelligence. You only fool yourself.
Any reply will be ignored. End of discussion on my part. Do what damage you think that you can. Enjoy your self-indulgence.
Good-bye.

Arlen wrote: So you are merely a word jumping, subject changing, slippery mouthed arguer, huh? I hope that you think that you are displaying extreme intelligence. You only fool yourself.
Any reply will be ignored. End of discussion on my part. Do what damage you think that you can. Enjoy your self-indulgence.
Good-bye.

Typical - you have nothing, so you go down THAT road. Look back through the thread, Arlen.

ZHawke wrote: Asking you again, Arlen: What DO conservatives think will stop the production of crazies?

You either ignored this question entirely, or you don't have an answer. Which is it?

I'll take a stab at it.

As a conservative, I live in the world of reality. I understand that there will always be hazards to my health that can not be "cured" by laws imposed by people in government. I believe there will always be animals that bite us or even want to kill us (I was once bitten by a rattlesnake). I believe that the sun will always burn me if I'm unprotected from it and that no matter what, there will always be some disease or sickness that can take me out no matter how healthy a life I lead. Knowing these facts, I can reduce the odds by protecting myself from them... what else can I do, wait for some law to protect me from all these hazards? Not in my world.

So what do I think can "stop the production of crazies", absolutely nothing. I don't believe humans can control human nature any more than we can control mother nature. Sure, we can help some people who are actually "crazy" with medications and or counseling, but help can never be there in even instance at the moment in time when help would make a difference. As for the people who are just plain evil or without a conscience that just want to kill someone, these are just a relatively small minority of humans who have always been here and will always be among us. There has never been a cure for these people and there will never be one in the world of reality I live in.

So with all the hazards I face every day, I accept that I can only use my best judgment and any available protections that are available to me... sunscreen, airbags, tall boots (for rattlesnakes), safety glasses, warm clothing, helmets, bug spray, a substantial car, etc.. What do I use to protect myself, my loved one's, and even a person I don't know from crazy people that I know will always be in my world? For them my protection will always be a gun, unless something better is invented. The fact that a gun is also used very often by the crazy people who can not be eliminated from society, really has no influence on whether I (a non crazy person) should use the same tool to protect myself from them.

With all due respect, Rick (and I do mean that with sincerity), why is addressing the hazards you face every day (your reality as a conservative), solely a "conservative" trait. As a "liberal", I believe I live in the world of reality as well. Every single hazard you listed would be addressed virtually the same way by a "liberal". I know I would do pretty much all the same things....perhaps with the exception of open or concealed carry in public. I simply do not see the need based on level of "threat" or perceived "threat".

Whether any of that is actually related to the original question is open to debate. The original question was how to stop the production of crazies. You answered that very well as far as I'm concerned....absolutely nothing will stop their "production". All that being said, would you also be willing to try and define what the word "crazies" means to you? Arlen obviously wasn't too happy with my response to his use of the word.

From my own perspective, the word "crazies" is derogatory and applies a stigma to those struggling with the myriad of maladies associated with that word. Having lived with, and cared for someone suffering from delusional paranoia with psychotic episodes, I can say with total veracity she feared the "stigma" that she believed went along with her illness with a level of fear that almost equaled her illness, itself. My point is that when I hear people throw words out, like "crazies" as one example, to describe an entire group of sufferers, the vast majority of whom will NEVER cause violence to another, much less consider doing so, I kind of tend to dig in my heals a bit.

So, when Arlen posed his "solution" of getting rid of all the "crazies", that's why I responded the way I did. It wasn't meant to demean him or to dismiss his question. Rather, it was my own very dismal, apparently, effort to try and help others understand that terminology, and the way it's used in conversations, should be carefully thought out beforehand. That's one of the reasons I respect your responses....you appear to me to try and do that. So, thank you.

ZHawke wrote: With all due respect, Rick (and I do mean that with sincerity), why is addressing the hazards you face every day (your reality as a conservative), solely a "conservative" trait. As a "liberal", I believe I live in the world of reality as well. Every single hazard you listed would be addressed virtually the same way by a "liberal". I know I would do pretty much all the same things....perhaps with the exception of open or concealed carry in public. I simply do not see the need based on level of "threat" or perceived "threat".

Well since I never said it was only a conservative thing, I think we can put that one to rest... I only stated that I was a conservative and that in MY world, there will always be threats and I will use the tools available to me to mitigate them. Whether or not you think a certain threat is likely enough to take steps is your own option and I have no interest in swaying your thinking.

ZHawke wrote: would you also be willing to try and define what the word "crazies" means to you? Arlen obviously wasn't too happy with my response to his use of the word.

.

Sure, in the context of this discussion, I think the term crazy can be used to describe ANYONE who uses a gun against another human unjustly. In my world, anyone who aims a gun at another person and intends to kill them is indeed crazy unless they are in combat or are firing in self defense. If I could think of a better blanket term I would use that, but the word crazy has been used it countless other situations without insulting people with mental illnesses. "You must be crazy if you think I'd ever vote for Hillary"... of course I wouldn't mean that you had a mental issue, it's just a simple figure of speech. So if we spend all of our time dissecting and analyzing words, we're not really going to be able to discuss the actual topic, are we?

Rick wrote: Well since I never said it was only a conservative thing, I think we can put that one to rest... I only stated that I was a conservative and that in MY world, there will always be threats and I will use the tools available to me to mitigate them. Whether or not you think a certain threat is likely enough to take steps is your own option and I have no interest in swaying your thinking.

The implied message, if one wants to call it that, is that you did, in fact, imply it was a "conservative" thing.

Rick wrote: As a conservative, I live in the world of reality. I understand that there will always be hazards to my health that can not be "cured" by laws imposed by people in government.

That statement hardly leaves any room for those of us who consider ourselves to be "liberals". However, that's really not all that important in the overall scheme of things especially with regard to the tenor of the discussion here.

Rick wrote: Sure, in the context of this discussion, I think the term crazy can be used to describe ANYONE who uses a gun against another human unjustly. In my world, anyone who aims a gun at another person and intends to kill them is indeed crazy unless they are in combat or are firing in self defense. If I could think of a better blanket term I would use that, but the word crazy has been used it countless other situations without insulting people with mental illnesses. "You must be crazy if you think I'd ever vote for Hillary"... of course I wouldn't mean that you had a mental issue, it's just a simple figure of speech. So if we spend all of our time dissecting and analyzing words, we're not really going to be able to discuss the actual topic, are we?

Perhaps that is true. Perhaps not.

The reality is, at least in the context of this discussion, the term "crazies" was used with no further clarification as to what actually constitutes being "crazy". If one is to limit one's argument for removing those crazies from the equation vis a vis mass shootings, I believe one must also look at how that is to be done. Is it to be done before the fact, during, or after? That was also the question I was trying to ask of Arlen. It's simply too easy to offer up a blanket statement that removing the crazies will alleviate the problem. History has shown, as you've indicated in your previous post, that stopping the production of crazies is virtually impossible. What then can be done to at least try to address the problem of those "crazies" getting guns to wreck their havoc on the innocents among us? Lock them away? And that....that right there....is a subject for another thread.

Mental illness is an incurable disease. That's a statement of fact. If those with mental illness are intent on doing harm to others (by far, these types are in the minority of those who suffer from this malady), why should they be "allowed" to have access to the mode (guns) that will allow them to wreck that havoc in the first place? Reality is the gun lobby has been pretty vehement in opposition to anything and everything that might....just might....help in that regard.

Well, I feel like this discussion is going to go the path of previous ones (a bridge to nowhere), so how about we try some hypothetical fixes and see how that goes? Lets put crazy aside for a minute and just talk about the most common shootings that happen every day.

Hypothetical extreme #1. The federal gov't makes it illegal for anyone not in law enforcement to carry a gun outside of their home except for hunting with a proper permit. And of course, a comprehensive background check would be required.

Hypothetical extreme #2. Anyone who passed a background check and legally purchases a gun is automatically allowed to carry that weapon concealed, period.

Now with either extreme, will people who are ready, willing, and able to shoot another person for whatever unjust reason going to be more or less likely to do so, or would either scenario make no difference in the minds of criminals?

Rick wrote: Well, I feel like this discussion is going to go the path of previous ones (a bridge to nowhere), so how about we try some hypothetical fixes and see how that goes? Lets put crazy aside for a minute and just talk about the most common shootings that happen every day.

Hypothetical extreme #1. The federal gov't makes it illegal for anyone not in law enforcement to carry a gun outside of their home except for hunting with a proper permit. And of course, a comprehensive background check would be required.

Hypothetical extreme #2. Anyone who passed a background check and legally purchases a gun is automatically allowed to carry that weapon concealed, period.

Now with either extreme, will people who are ready, willing, and able to shoot another person for whatever unjust reason going to be more or less likely to do so, or would either scenario make no difference in the minds of criminals?

Hypotheticals can also be likened to "Chicken Little" scenarios.

First, your "extremes" are more of a bridge to nowhere than anything I've posted thus far. All I'm trying to say is any "fix" proposed must also be accompanied by realistic analyses (plural) of contributing factors. Simplistic "fixes" like the ones you've proposed take us down a road to the bridge that ultimately goes nowhere and gives an already pre-determined answer.

So, given the parameters you've provided, and staying strictly within those parameters, the pre-determined answer is that, no, either scenario will make no difference in the minds of criminals.

That being said, why would they in the first place because criminals don't obey the laws anyway, right?

To continue this game in the opposite extreme, why not simply "unfetter" the 2nd Amendment in its entirety? That should solve all the problems of gun violence with the mere stroke of a pen should it not? Would that scenario realistically make any difference in the minds of criminals?

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: Well, I feel like this discussion is going to go the path of previous ones (a bridge to nowhere), so how about we try some hypothetical fixes and see how that goes? Lets put crazy aside for a minute and just talk about the most common shootings that happen every day.

Hypothetical extreme #1. The federal gov't makes it illegal for anyone not in law enforcement to carry a gun outside of their home except for hunting with a proper permit. And of course, a comprehensive background check would be required.

Hypothetical extreme #2. Anyone who passed a background check and legally purchases a gun is automatically allowed to carry that weapon concealed, period.

Now with either extreme, will people who are ready, willing, and able to shoot another person for whatever unjust reason going to be more or less likely to do so, or would either scenario make no difference in the minds of criminals?

Hypotheticals can also be likened to "Chicken Little" scenarios.

First, your "extremes" are more of a bridge to nowhere than anything I've posted thus far. All I'm trying to say is any "fix" proposed must also be accompanied by realistic analyses (plural) of contributing factors. Simplistic "fixes" like the ones you've proposed take us down a road to the bridge that ultimately goes nowhere and gives an already pre-determined answer.

So, given the parameters you've provided, and staying strictly within those parameters, the pre-determined answer is that, no, either scenario will make no difference in the minds of criminals.

That being said, why would they in the first place because criminals don't obey the laws anyway, right?

To continue this game in the opposite extreme, why not simply "unfetter" the 2nd Amendment in its entirety? That should solve all the problems of gun violence with the mere stroke of a pen should it not? Would that scenario realistically make any difference in the minds of criminals?

In my "chicken little" scenarios, did you miss the "comprehensive background check"? NOWHERE did I even come close to your ridiculous "unfettered" second amendment scenario.

I was trying to find out if either of my hypotheticals would make any sort of difference in gun violence. I'm not asking for factual evidence since both have never been tried, just looking for your gut feeling based on your view of human nature.

My view of scenario #1 would give criminals who could care less about the law even more security in knowing that only criminals ( or gun law breakers) would be carrying guns. Would it make much difference in the amount of gun crime? Maybe a little bit higher but probably not much different imo.

In scenario #2, if criminals knew that any non-criminal/ non-mentally disabled would be able to carry, I think criminals would think twice about robbing, raping, terrorizing, etc. when they know that anyone around them could be carrying. I think that extreme would be much more productive than the first which only helps to empower the law breakers.

But my guess is that you think the good people who decide to carry would be a harm to society and would be likely to cause more harm than good. That's the part I'd like to see argued with facts and common sense reasoning.

Rick wrote: In my "chicken little" scenarios, did you miss the "comprehensive background check"? NOWHERE did I even come close to your ridiculous "unfettered" second amendment scenario.

Didn't say you DID come anywhere close to anything, Rick. That's YOUR interpretation, not mine.

You posed some hypotheticals. I posed a hypothetical. What....now I'm not allowed to counter with anything?

This is why debating these kinds of issues, even with you, goes down rabbit holes every single time. I'm not required to play solely by YOUR rules in any way, shape, or form. Nor are you required to play by mine.

While I WILL try to answer your questions and respond to your hypotheticals, I am NOT in any way, shape, or form restricted from posing my own questions and hypotheticals. My only request, in this regard, is that you also choose to reciprocate with the same level of respect I give you.

And, to respond to the "ridiculous" assertion you made regarding an "unfettered" 2nd Amendment, there are those, as we speak, who are pushing very hard for doing just that. The push is on to allow anyone anywhere access to gun purchases with no licensing requirements, no background check, and, probably most importantly, no training whatsoever in safe usage. The push is also on to allow open and/or concealed carry anywhere and everywhere. So, how is that not "unfettered"?

Rick wrote: I was trying to find out if either of my hypotheticals would make any sort of difference in gun violence. I'm not asking for factual evidence since both have never been tried, just looking for your gut feeling based on your view of human nature.

And, I responded, right? Or was my response not what you were looking for specifically?

Rick wrote: My view of scenario #1 would give criminals who could care less about the law even more security in knowing that only criminals ( or gun law breakers) would be carrying guns. Would it make much difference in the amount of gun crime? Maybe a little bit higher but probably not much different imo.

In my liberal reality, scenario #1 ain't gonna happen. If the Federal govt. were gonna do that, they'd have done it already. To play along with the hypothetical, though, if the Federal govt. were to actually make guns illegal except under the terms you've specified, a couple things would necessarily occur, especially given the outrage exhibited by so many so often whenever anything at all is proposed to try and help curb gun violence in this country:

1. Gun confiscation followed by, you guessed it;
2. Civil war.

Neither of which is practical in any sense of the word.

My opinion is that all those gun loving rebels would rise up and stomp out that tyranny with their own weapons before the gun grab could even begin. This would be followed by the Federal govt. raining down the might of the military on those rebels full force, unless, of course, the military decided that the Federal govt. was wrong and that the rebels deserved their support, in which case we'd have a coup, in which case.....

Criminals in scenario #1, if what I posit were to come to pass, would have no more, and no less, "security" under those conditions than anyone else, really. That, in and of itself, would make them pretty much irrelevant, IMO.

Rick wrote: In scenario #2, if criminals knew that any non-criminal/ non-mentally disabled would be able to carry, I think criminals would think twice about robbing, raping, terrorizing, etc. when they know that anyone around them could be carrying. I think that extreme would be much more productive than the first which only helps to empower the law breakers.

Because we're dealing in opinion here, and not factual evidence, I would counter that this would merely give us a gun lover's Utopia. I've heard your argument before in many different settings, and I remain unconvinced arming everyone, even with the restrictions you've placed upon gun ownership in your scenario, would do any good whatsoever. My opinion.

Rick wrote: But my guess is that you think the good people who decide to carry would be a harm to society and would be likely to cause more harm than good. That's the part I'd like to see argued with facts and common sense reasoning.

Now, there's an assertion that has no bearing whatsoever in reality. You're going to have to define "good people who decide to carry" a whole lot better before I'll buy into this one. Facts and common sense reasoning have, in fact, been offered previously. They simply did not fit your world view or the world views of others who share your position on this issue.

From what I've gathered from you in our discussions, you seem to believe that being armed somehow "prepares" you for the inevitable. Preparedness is a good thing in the scheme of things. Over preparedness can also be an issue that can cause more harm than it will do good (and I've posted on that, previously, as well).