How To Scare The Shit Out Of Many American Gun Advocates: (Page 3)

CYCLONE_FAN
CYCLONE_FAN: I recall when that nut job Rosie O Donnell went on a rampage against guns. She said that no one should be able to own a gun EXCEPT her body guard and was serious about it. Bahaha.

For the record you cant ban guns because then only the criminals would have them.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Sixties,

Regarding your last post...

When I was 3 years old, I was in Disneyland and shook hands with Walt Disney. Do you believe that?

Is it that you only believe what someones says if it is verifiable? reasonable?

.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

No, I believe that. That's believable. It's plausible.

If one of the UFO guys said that too, I'd also believe them.

But when someone says something that is far less plausible, I'm far less likely to believe it.

It's a matter of plausibility.

12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

I can understand that. I should have taken pictures.

.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

(laughs)

I just got off the phone with Mr [name withheld]. He seemed like a nice guy, and was certainly patient with me.

I read your essay to him. The nature of the conversation was such that it wouldn't have been practical, or polite, for me to have ticked off the various points of your story, and gotten verification of each of them. He was courteous enough to allow a stranger on the phone to invade his day with a request to listen to me reading your essay, and while I would have like to have gone over it point by point, he was already being kind enough to not just hang up the phone. So much as I would have liked to take it point by point with him, I didn't have it in my heart to do so.

But here's a rough summary of what he told me:

He's a collector. He owns machine guns.

No Gatling gun. He specifically said that. He also made a point to say that the assertion that he was frequently visited by the local police, in the context in which you described (or any other context, I suppose) is also incorrect.

After listening to your essay read to him, it was his perception that the point you were making was that it's fairly easy to receive the sort of weaponry you described via FedEx. He specifically wanted to dispute that. He elaborated at length on how difficult it is to go through the process of legally obtaining automatic weapons, etc.

Other than that, he thought that while the encounter very likely took place, much of what was described isn't as it was.

It's a pretty vague response, both by him, and as a result, by me, but be that as it may, I wasn't willing to intrude any further into the guy's life and take any more of his time.

(Edited by StuckInTheSixties)
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Previous comments by you regarding my 30 minute memory one afternoon from 20 years ago,

“…This story is like one of those that I'll come across in here about someone's personal encounter with a UFO…” "Which is more likely - that this story is true, or not? I gotta go with "or not."

Davidk14 said, "The problem you have with my post is that you did not ever have the extraordinary experience what I did that day."

You responded, “That's kind of the same thing that the UFO guys say. Actually, it's EXACTLY the same thing they say.”

“The information you sent me is anything but verification of your story. Perhaps you could get him to pose with his room-o-weapons with a sign saying something like "David was right in his Wireclub forum post..." That would be totally convincing.







So Sixties, you decided to actually call this person to verify the accuracy of a 30 minute memory from 20 years ago.

Is it plausible that many of his responses to you a complete stranger, was to protect as much of his privacy as well the information about his vast inventory? Especially regarding a memory from a 30 minute viewing, 20 years ago? With that said, is it not plausible that my memories of that "extraordinary experience" were most likely accurate?

Thanks for being as honest as possible.
.
12 years ago Report
0
dvustimmer
dvustimmer: SITS.I love that. You just dismiss everything that does not placate your opinion. "Well that's an extreme example...." It happened? Fact is, not every criminal mind is an utter moron that just shoots everything up. A person can be very smart, very wise, but at the same time be absolutely blind to the obvious. How many rapes happen at gun point, how many rapes happen at knife point, how many rapes happen because someone slipped someone else a drug? So it's not all about guns. That is very very narrow and flawed.

Statistical analysis (seeing how you favor that) of those situation of rape might get you to thinking crimes against others do not always happen as much as you think at the point of a gun.

As far as the thought police statement, let me therefore reword the second phase more point blank as you stated you did not understand the second part. Once someone uses a weapon illegally, they therefore need to be limited in their freedoms from that point on until the day they die. At point, they have become a known danger to the public.

I can't help but ask, are you serious? By curing a symptom you cure a disease? That's madness and cutting off your nose in spite of your face stuff. Do I really need to go out there in news land for you and copy and paste links example after example of crime that has happened via use of a weapon excluding guns? Can you just admit what your actual agenda here is.

This is about guns and you wanting more restrictions on them period. You don't like the supreme courts ruling, you don't want guns to be avalible period?

If I'm wrong on that, please feel free to correct me. I could be wrong. You asked a question, I answered in full and in in unequivocal fashion. I think the supreme court got it right. I think the 2nd amendment is not outdated and it does not need revised. Is that what you believe?
12 years ago Report
0
introspec
introspec: Stucko, my good man, please define ( in your inimitable words )"gun advocates"...
Therein lies crux......
Please limit definition to 5 or so short sentences.........thanks, and best...........
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

dvustimmer says:
"SITS.I love that. You just dismiss everything that does not placate your opinion."

I don't think I do that, but I can understand why you might think so. I don't just throw my opinions around carelessly. I actually spend time trying to think these opinions of mine out carefully, considering what the opposing arguments are, etc., so I don't often find much reason to change those opinions and statements I make. But occasionally, there will be reason to do so.

One of those happened only on the previous page of this topic.

~~ I was under the impression, an erroneous impression, that “criminals are the biggest cause of the trouble associated with guns.” (That was the wording I used in the initial post of this thread.)

~~ You challenged that assertion.

~~ I checked, assuming I would come up with statistics to back up that asserttion.

~~ I found, instead, that my assertion was incorrect. I acknowledged that, and offered a corrected version of my initial statement.

Now, if I was inclined to “just dismiss everything that does not placate [my] opinion, I could have simply ignored the fact that I’d gotten something wrong. It likely would have been just lost in this blizzard of verbiage in this post. But I didn’t. I was wrong, and acknowledged I was wrong.

dvustimmer says:
“Fact is, not every criminal mind is an utter moron that just shoots everything up.”

I haven’t said that. I haven’t implied that. If I have, please copy/paste it to show me.

dvustimmer says:
“How many rapes happen at gun point, how many rapes happen at knife point, how many rapes happen because someone slipped someone else a drug? So it's not all about guns. That is very very narrow and flawed.”

I haven’t said that. I haven’t implied that. If I have, please copy/paste it to show me. The focus of this thread is on firearms. That is what I have been dwelling on. While I have dwelled on that, I haven’t said, nor implied, that other weapons can also be used by criminals. Several times now you’ve made that assertion. It’s simply not so. If it is, copy/paste my words to that effect.

dvustimmer says:
“Statistical analysis (seeing how you favor that) of those situation of rape might get you to thinking crimes against others do not always happen as much as you think at the point of a gun.”

My focus hasn’t been in making comparisons in the number of crimes relative to the weapon. It has, on occasion been on the severity of the impact that guns have upon society relative to other weapons. That’s quite different.

dvustimmer says:
“I can't help but ask, are you serious? By curing a symptom you cure a disease? That's madness and cutting off your nose in spite of your face stuff. Do I really need to go out there in news land for you and copy and paste links example after example of crime that has happened via use of a weapon excluding guns?”

Again … my focus hasn’t been in making comparisons in the number of crimes relative to the weapon. It has, on occasion been on the severity of the impact that guns have upon society relative to other weapons. That’s quite different.

dvustimmer says:
“Can you just admit what your actual agenda here is.”

My agenda??? Please, tell me what you think my agenda is.

dvustimmer says:
“This is about guns and you wanting more restrictions on them period.”

Correct, but only to a point. I’ll repeat this again:

I advocate mandatory documentation of the "chain of ownership" for all firearms. This would essentially plug the so-called "loopholes" through which most illegitimate firearms pass from legitimate, law-abiding use and ownership into criminal use and ownership. This would cause a minimum of imposition on law-abiding gun owners.

It's much harder to take steps to prevent a law-abiding gun owner from becoming a criminal without far more severe impositions on law-abiding gun owners, but reasonable steps, albeit very imperfect steps, can be taken there, as well in the form of a "waiting period" between when a gun is purchased, and when possession is transferred to the next owner.

(Didn’t we actually agree on this?)

I have other concerns, as well. While I touched on a few in that post that referred to those crazy positions taken by the NRA, I’ve focused mainly on the two concerns listed above.


dvustimmer says:
“You don't like the supreme courts ruling …”

There are MANY Supreme Court rulings I disagree with, pertaining to all sorts of things. I’m sure there are rulings you also disagree with.

So what?

dvustimmer says:
“you don't want guns to be avalible period?”

Where have I said ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT? In any of the writings I’ve made in these forums, I have REPEATEDLY used the following phrase, or perhaps a variation of it with a minute, insignificant difference in the wording:

~~ … while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns …~~

I actually made a count. I used that terminology no less than fourteen times over the course of the three pages of this thread (and many times in other threads).

How can you read that and make the assumption that I “don’t want guns to be available period”?

You even QUOTED me using that terminology. So how can you make the assumption that I “don’t want guns to be available period”?

dvustimmer says:
“I think the 2nd amendment is not outdated and it does not need revised. Is that what you believe?”

It can’t be “revised.” Our constitution doesn’t work that way. But I understand your question. It’s not so much that it’s “outdated.” I think that the way it was written was incredibly ambiguous. If it wasn’t, the meaning wouldn’t be argued about all the time.

12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Introspec says:
“please define ‘gun advocates’...


It’s admittedly a pretty vague phrase. But I’m referring to those that like guns, own guns, are enthused about guns, are protective of their rights pertaining to guns, etc. (Two sentences.)


12 years ago Report
0
introspec
introspec: Good terse reply, Stucko..........and, thanks..
Criminals might also 'advocate' guns.............
However, you were prob just getting ball rolling on interesting subject....well done...intro
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

It was a straightforward question with a fairly simple answer.

Serious criminals certainly tend to "advocate" guns. That's why it's important to make it difficult for them to convert their advocacy into usage.

Conversely, that's why it's important not to make it easy for them to convert their advocacy into usage.

12 years ago Report
0
dvustimmer
dvustimmer: SITS, "The question" orignally in the post you pose as I'm sure you well realize is boardline oxymoron slanted at firearms as opperative. If the intent was to make it hard to answer, the question accomplishes that. How do you limit a class (criminals) firearms without limiting another class (law-abiding) firearms. There really is only one answer. It's not to focus on firarms as so much as it is to focus on the criminal. The question if understood implies just and only that.


12 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: I'd have to say luridity is right; you're presenting a false dichotomy. Funnier still, when presented with a legitimate opinion that doesn't fit with your original posts predictions, you shrug it off and push it to another thread.

This thread is a farce, 60.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:
dvustimmer says:
"The question" orignally in the post you pose as I'm sure you well realize is boardline oxymoron slanted at firearms as opperative."

Here's the original (flawed) question:

~~ Since criminals are the biggest cause of the trouble associated with guns, how can we reduce criminal access to guns while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns?

And the modified version:

~~ Since criminals are a significant cause of trouble associated with guns, how can we reduce criminal access to guns while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns? ~~

I have no idea what you mean by "as operative," but whether or not that question is an oxymoron would depend on your bias. The only way that question could be considered an oxymoron would be if one feels ANY effort to reduce criminal access to guns amounts to depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns. That's an absolute position held by very few. Most people are willing to accept SOME restrictions. Since you consider it to be a "borderline oxymoron," that implies that you are not willing to accept much in the way of restrictions. Yet you agreed with the idea of a mandatory documentation of the chain of possession, and also agreed with the idea of a reasonable waiting period. Those positions are far more tolerant of restrictions than many gun advocates have, certainly far more tolerant than the NRA.

So I don't understand that comment. It appears to contradict your earlier comments.

dvustimmer says:
"If the intent was to make it hard to answer, the question accomplishes that."

That wasn't the intent. The intent was to see what sort of responses would come of it, to see what readers would say.

dvustimmer says:
"How do you limit a class (criminals) firearms without limiting another class (law-abiding) firearms."

You can't. It's either no limitations whatsoever, or limitations so some degree that affect all.

There are three positions, two of which are absolute ...

~~ No limitations whatsoever
~~ Complete limitation (IE: banning all firearms)

... and the third ...

~~ something between those two absolute positions.

dvustimmer says:
"There really is only one answer."

Wrong. There is only one answer for those that take either of those two extreme positions. For everyone else there are countless answers, depending on your personal point of view.

dvustimmer says:
"It's not to focus on firarms as so much as it is to focus on the criminal. The question if understood implies just and only that."

Well, see, right there you've contradicted yourself. (My emphasis added in CAPS)

On one hand, you say:

~~ "There is really only ONE answer." That position is absolute. "One answer" is one answer (one of those two absolutes).

But then you say:

~~ "It's not to focus on firearms as SO MUCH as it is to focus on the criminal." The phrase "SO MUCH" is indeterminate. It's not absolute. "So much" can be interpreted in countless ways.

I think I understand where you're coming from with that, though. I think you're suggesting that efforts should be made to focus only on criminals, and otherwise, completely leave everyone else to do whatever they want (which contradicts your earlier stated willingness to tolerate "chain of ownership" documentation and "waiting periods" ).

The objection I have with that approach is that it only addresses the problem AFTER the problem has occurred.

A person is convicted of crimes, and has, therefore, become a criminal, thus should have their access to guns restricted. Fine.

The only problem is that leaving everyone else to do whatever they want makes it EASY for criminals to get around those restrictions and commit firearm-involved crimes. I don't want it to be EASY for them. I want it to be HARD for them.

So I suggest the mandatory documentation of the chain of ownership. It's a measure that, I think, provides the best and fairest compromise between making it hard for criminals to get around those restrictions, and not making it hard for non-criminals to go about their law-abiding business.


dvustimmer says:
"The question" orignally in the post you pose as I'm sure you well realize is boardline oxymoron slanted at firearms as opperative."

Here's the original (flawed) question:

~~ Since criminals are the biggest cause of the trouble associated with guns, how can we reduce criminal access to guns while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns?

And the modified version:

~~ Since criminals are a significant cause of trouble associated with guns, how can we reduce criminal access to guns while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns? ~~

I have no idea what you mean by "as operative," but whether or not that question is an oxymoron would depend on your bias. The only way that question could be considered an oxymoron would be if one feels ANY effort to reduce criminal access to guns amounts to depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns. That's an absolute position held by very few. Most people are willing to accept SOME restrictions. Since you consider it to be a "borderline oxymoron," that implies that you are not willing to accept much in the way of restrictions. Yet you agreed with the idea of a mandatory documentation of the chain of possession, and also agreed with the idea of a reasonable waiting period. Those positions are far more tolerant of restrictions than many gun advocates have, certainly far more tolerant than the NRA.

So I don't understand that comment. It appears to contradict your earlier comments.

dvustimmer says:
"If the intent was to make it hard to answer, the question accomplishes that."

That wasn't the intent. The intent was to see what sort of responses would come of it, to see what readers would say.

dvustimmer says:
"How do you limit a class (criminals) firearms without limiting another class (law-abiding) firearms."

You can't. It's either no limitations whatsoever, or limitations so some degree that affect all.

There are three positions, two of which are absolute ...

~~ No limitations whatsoever
~~ Complete limitation (IE: banning all firearms)

... and the third ...

~~ something between those two absolute positions.

dvustimmer says:
"There really is only one answer."

Wrong. There is only one answer for those that take either of those two extreme positions. For everyone else there are countless answers, depending on your personal point of view.

dvustimmer says:
"It's not to focus on firarms as so much as it is to focus on the criminal. The question if understood implies just and only that."

Well, see, right there you've contradicted yourself. (My emphasis added in CAPS)

On one hand, you say:

~~ "There is really only ONE answer." That position is absolute. "One answer" is one answer (one of those two absolutes).

But then you say:

~~ "It's not to focus on firearms as SO MUCH as it is to focus on the criminal." The phrase "SO MUCH" is indeterminate. It's not absolute. "So much" can be interpreted in countless ways.

I think I understand where you're coming from with that, though. I think you're suggesting that efforts should be made to focus only on criminals, and otherwise, completely leave everyone else to do whatever they want (which contradicts your earlier stated willingness to tolerate "chain of ownership" documentation and "waiting periods" ).

The objection I have with that approach is that it only addresses the problem AFTER the problem has occurred.

A person is convicted of crimes, and has, therefore, become a criminal, thus should have their access to guns restricted. Fine.

The only problem is that leaving everyone else to do whatever they want makes it EASY for criminals to get around those restrictions and commit firearm-involved crimes. I don't want it to be EASY for them. I want it to be HARD for them.

So I suggest the mandatory documentation of the chain of ownership. It's a measure that, I think, provides the best and fairest compromise between making it hard for criminals to get around those restrictions, and not making it hard for non-criminals to go about their law-abiding business.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Lipton says:
"I'd have to say luridity is right; you're presenting a false dichotomy. Funnier still, when presented with a legitimate opinion that doesn't fit with your original posts predictions, you shrug it off and push it to another thread."

I disagree with the business about the "false dichotomy." My reasoning was stated above.

I see no reason why different facets of the same subject can't be examined in different threads.

(Edited by StuckInTheSixties)
12 years ago Report
0
dvustimmer
dvustimmer: SITS, your right, we probably are very close in traceablity, waiting periods.... when it comes to a gun. Your a very interesting person to debate with. Speaking of dichotomy, I'll have to disagree to agree. It seems to fit in this case. In the end, we are about at the same place, but from very different perspectives probably.


12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

I appreciate that.

I suspect that you think I am far more "anti-gun" (for lack of a better way to put it) than I am, IE, your statement "you don't want guns to be avalible period?” To the contrary, I don't want that at all, or anything like that.

12 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: But you do wish to restrict people from purchasing guns. Regardless of your intent and reasons, your goal in this issue IS to restrict people.

I'm always in the camp that any and all laws have unintended negative consquences
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: LiptonCambell says:
"But you do wish to restrict people from purchasing guns. Regardless of your intent and reasons, your goal in this issue IS to restrict people."

Would you allow ANY PERSON to purchase ANY FIREARM under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES?

LiptonCambell says:
"I'm always in the camp that any and all laws have unintended negative consquences"

That probably is so.

However if the unintended negative consequences are slight, and the intended positive consequences are great, society benefits.

(Edited by StuckInTheSixties)
12 years ago Report
0
the real slim DEEPy
the real slim DEEPy: criminals buy their guns on the black market. if you illegalize guns, ONLY criminals will be armed, for they care not of gun laws or gun bans
12 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: >>>Would you allow ANY PERSON to purchase ANY FIREARM under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES?

Nope! They gotta be an adult!

Funny how you cry foul when people misrepresent your opinion in extremes("I haven’t said that.", but you instantly jump to that when talking to others.

>>>However if the unintended negative consequences are slight, and the intended positive consequences are great, society benefits.

And for some, even the most basic of gun control have left citizens without the means to protect themselves when they normally would be armed. Such a minority is atrocious, and unacceptable.
12 years ago Report
0
the real slim DEEPy
the real slim DEEPy: criminals would actually perfer for guns to be illegalized, it would 1. maximize black marke profit and 2. create a defenseless populus which to exploit. its the same withmarijuana. dealers perfer weed to be illegal for it maximizes black market profit. the best way to crack down on the black market is to legalize harmless substances such as marijuana, this would take much profit away from the cartels and organized crime gangs., thus, allow them to buy less black market guns.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Lipton says:
"Nope! They gotta be an adult! Funny how you cry foul when people misrepresent your opinion in extremes"

I wasn't representing your position with that question. It was simply an attempt for me to get a better idea of your position. I need more information to do that:

Would you allow ANY ADULT to purchase ANY FIREARM under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES?

Lipton says
"even the most basic of gun control have left citizens without the means to protect themselves when they normally would be armed. Such a minority is atrocious, and unacceptable."

I assume that the "citizens" you're referring to are regular, law-abiding citizens, not convicted criminals, the insane, etc. An examination of my posts shows that I don't advocate disarming citizens, or otherwise leaving them "without the means to protect themselves when they normally would be armed."

(Edited by StuckInTheSixties)
12 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: >>>Would you allow ANY ADULT to purchase ANY FIREARM under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES?

They would have to have identification proving their age. I can't think of anything else at the moment, but I'm pretty sure thats that.

>>>you're referring to are regular, law-abiding citizens, not convicted criminals, the insane, etc.

Life can be hard for some convicts- dangerous, even. As for the insane, I'm pretty sure that if they're released, it means they are not harmful to themselves or others....

>>>An examination of my posts shows that I don't advocate disarming citizens, or otherwise leaving them "without the means to protect themselves when they normally would be armed."

And I'm stating that, despite your insistence that you won't, I and no doubt many others feel it will be one of those unintended consequences.

For example- what is your opinion on the concealed carry laws? Should someone be allowed to carry a concealed weapon?

12 years ago Report
0