I see your point. I guess it comes down to someones comfort level. I used to go to the shooting range quite a bit as well as hang out with people that shoot. We used to destroy beer cans and old computers and refrigiraors among other items.

I said: “I must admit that it disturbs me to see people bringing guns to protests–like the fellow who had one strapped to his thigh when President Obama spoke in New Hampshire a few months ago.”

Dimensio responded: “Given that no individuals were harmed by the armed protester, it would seem as though your concern is not rational.”

************

I fail to see how my being concerned about people bringing firearms to protests such as the one I noted is irrational–just because no one was harmed. There are lots of unstable people around. Some may be carrying guns–or other weapons–for which they have permits. What if such an individual gets in an altercation/heated discussion at such an event and loses his/her temper/self-control?

Some of the folks I’ve seen at teabagger protests and at townhall meetings held by politicians give me pause for thought. Some are birthers. Some scream about death panels. Some appear to be really agitated.

************

You said: “In the case of packing heat, the majority of law abiding citizens who carry guns legally are not crazed killers, so there is nothing to fear from them.”

How am I supposed to determine if a person carrying a weapon at a protest is harmless or not? You know Gaia. I didn’t know the fellow with the gun strapped to his thigh.

There are violent crimes committed by people who–before they committed their crimes–were law abiding citizens.

I went back and read all of Dimensio’s posts and your posts.

He never called you irrational, he specifically stated that a particular view was irrational based on the facts of the matter. I believe that one can certainly be rational and have irrational views.

I consider myself to be a rational person, but I have an intense fear of spiders. I would rather be castrated than have a Tarantula crawl on my arm. Even knowing a Tarantula’s venom is no worse than a bee sting. I consider that to be irrational, I hazard a guess that you think it is irrational as well.

And that is exactly what Dimensio is saying, on a particular issue someones assessment does not add up to the facts of reality and is therefore irrational. He made no claim that you were irrational, i.e. mentally incompetent.

Another example is Pit Bulls, people think they are crazed baby killers and so are deathly afraid of them. I have a friend who owns a Pit Bull and that dog is one of the sweetest most gentle dogs I know. Do I give Pit Bulls a wide berth if I don’t know them, yes. Do I give Gaia (her name) a wide berth, no. It would be irrational to give the particular a wide berth but not the general.

In the case of packing heat, the majority of law abiding citizens who carry guns legally are not crazed killers, so there is nothing to fear from them. Should you see a gun owner using unsafe firearm handling then it is rational to avoid them like the plague.

In my opinion Dimensio answered every one’s queries in a polite and thoughtful manner, he was not afforded the same courtesy.

“By the way he [Dimensio] seemed pretty rational to me with the arguments he presented and all were clearly understood. You may not agree with them but I don’t think that gives you the right to imply that he is off his rocker as a means of rejecting his argument(s). Most totalitarian states use the same system to prevent dissent.”

And your response to me:

“What I object to is how people with opposing points of view are deemed mentally ill or racist (unless they truly are) if there is disagreement on an issue. I was responding to TomD.Arch’s implication that Dimensio was somehow mentally ill and therefore his argument suspect.”

************

Wasn’t Dimensio dismissing me in the same way by using the words “not rational” in his argument against opinions/concerns that I have expressed. I fully understand the meaning of “not rational” and what he/she is trying to imply about my ability to reason…my being of sound mind. Isn’t that what you allude to when you say that totalitarian states used that type of system to prevent dissent?

Another thing: There is a difference between stating something as a fact–and expressing an opinion, a thought, or feeling. In a number of my comments above, I used words like “think”–”wonder”–”seems.” I wasn’t claiming I was right–just expressing my personal opinions and feelings.

No one commenting here knows the reasons why I feel the way I do about guns. Some may think I reached my opinions using faulty logic or premises. Dimensio can claim my thinking/opinions/feelings/concens are irrational–as others are free to do. I would beg to disagree with them.

I should have been more specific to note that I was making reference to homicides committed with legally owned fully automatic firearms; obviously, suggesting that a prohibition or restriction upon the possession of such firearms would have prevented crimes committed with wholly illegally possessed firearms of that nature are entirely irrational. I have been able to locate two reports of homicides committed with a legally possessed fully automatic firearm since 1934. Roger Waller, a police officer in Dayton Ohio, used a fully automatic Ingram MAC-11 submachine gun to murder a police informant; as a police officer, Mr. Waller was one of the few individuals in the United States permitted to obtain a fully automatic firearm that had been manufactured after 1986. The second homicide was committed in Ohio by a Dr. Shou Chao Ho in the year 1996. I have obtained this data from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html; additional sources are referenced therein.

“(as an aside, are you using the legal term homicide or homicide as generic term for murder, because the two would have different implications in this discussion.”

While I should have specified that I was making reference only to criminal homicide acts, such a lack of clarification does not actually alter the accuracy of my statement; I have been able to identify only one occurrence of a justified homicide being committed with a fully automatic firearm, as Harold Fish was acquitted after being prosecuted following his use of deadly force against a violent criminal who threatened him with both a motor vehicle and a firearm.

” Which definition of “automatic weapon” you use is also an important thing to clarify)”

An “automatic weapon” is one that discharges more than one round of ammunition in sequence per trigger pull. Such firearms have been federally restricted since 1934.

“Do you think that the lack of homicides (as an aside, are you using the legal term homicide or homicide as generic term for murder, because the two would have different implications in this discussion. Which definition of “automatic weapon” you use is also an important thing to clarify) might have to do with the control placed on automatics by the various governments involved?”

Given the ability for criminal individuals to obtain legally banned products when desired, I suspect that it is the cost of obtaining such firearms — which may itself be influenced by current restrictions of such firearms, but this would be valid only after 1986 while there exists no data that rates of crime committed with such firearms were reduced after that time — as compared to the cost of obtaining other objects of equivalent or greater lethality combined with the relatively cumbersome nature of most fully automatic firearms (as typically such firearms are long guns) that are the main factors in their underrepresentation in violent criminal acts.

I did not take TomD.Arch’s post as such, he may have meant it that way and I think in your consistently good natured and optimistic way you are seeing the best side. I will follow your lead.

by the way Bron is fine, it is actually my childhood nickname which I wish I would have kept.

“Byron”

I actually agree with you on this issue. It’s like the sex offender list. Broad categories inevitably lead to people having labels that they shouldn’t.

Here’s the thing though: Your other arguments are severely flawed. I’ll just pick the most obvious.

“Automatic firearms have been used in less than five homicides since 1934.”

Firstly I have severe doubts as to the accuracy of your number, and claims require proof. For now I’ll just assume you’ve got a credible source for that claim (one which I’d LOVE to see). By considering the question as binary (are automatics dangerous, yes or no) you are falling prey to your bias. Do you think that the lack of homicides (as an aside, are you using the legal term homicide or homicide as generic term for murder, because the two would have different implications in this discussion. Which definition of “automatic weapon” you use is also an important thing to clarify) might have to do with the control placed on automatics by the various governments involved? I bet the number of people killed by moonshine is pretty low too. So perhaps automatic weapons are more dangerous, but thanks to the restricted assess to them, the danger towards the general population is negated (think tigers in zoos).

Bron,

I think Thom was offended by the use of reason as a cudgel against all criticism. His reason is just as biased towards his view as those opposing him are biased by theirs. I picked that example, but I could have also pointed out that things can be dangerous without killing, not all deaths are intentional, things can be used legally and still result in death.

The fact is, you’re both coming at this from the same place, so of course you both view his arguments as rational, that’s the way human minds work. Elaine views her arguments as rational too. There is are plenty of rational conclusions that are wrong because they are based off of faulty premises (just ask me to prove the moon is made of cheese).

owning slaves and gun control are similar issues in that an individuals rights are abused. It would at all times in human history be rational to oppose slavery. I doubt Dimensio would ever call you irrational to oppose such an institution based on his opposition to gun control. Now that would be irrational.

I was commenting on TomD.Arch diminishment of reason as a means for judging the merits of something. How else but with reason can one get to the truth about a subject?

I did not read all of his posts nor yours. The ones he wrote seem quite rational for his point of view.

What I object to is how people with opposing points of view are deemed mentally ill or racist (unless they truly are) if there is disagreement on an issue. I was responding to TomD.Arch’s implication that Dimensio was somehow mentally ill and therefore his argument suspect.

Since TomD.Arch is all for the abolition of reason, I suppose his point makes perfect sense.

I am willing to consider that my assessment of statements and positions are mistaken, if an explanation of the error in my reasoning — including an explanation detailing the actual rationale of a position that I have stated to be irrational — is provided.

You said: “If you express objection or “disturbance” regarding lawful and nonviolent individuals possessing firearms in a public location where such possession is not illegal that is of no rational basis, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that your concerns are not rational.”

The owning of slaves was once legal in this country. I guess if I had lived during those times and expressed feeling disturbed by slavery, you might have considered me irrational.

As for any further discussion on the topics of guns–I’m done. I’ve got work to do.

Playing devil’s advocate–just because someone uses words like “reason” and “rational” in an argument doesn’t necessarily presume that the person’s argument is either or both of those.

And just because Dimensio claims that I point I made was irrational, doesn’t make it so.

I guess I’d have to ask: Who determines what is rational and what is reasonable in this debate? And just because someone may quote statistics, that doesn’t necessarily prove anyhting. The statistics maye be correct; they may be incorrect. Statistics can be used–and abused.

Have you any actual argument to make against my statements?

I am unaware of any proposed Oklahoma state legislation seeking to remove current prohibitions on the possession of firearms within establishments where alcohol is served for consumption on the premises. I have searched for information regarding such a proposal, but my search yielded no results.

“as well as give Women the right to called it Justified Homicide if they killed someone when Pregnant.”

I have also been unable to locate any proposed legislation allowing for pregnancy, and no other factor, to be used as an affirmative defense either for an act of homicide or for an act of deadly force. The most similar measure that I have observed is a proposed law to permit the defense of an unborn fetus to be used as an affirmative defense for the use of deadly force against an aggressor. This legislation was proposed because of a case in Michigan where a pregnant woman was convicted of manslaughter after killing an attacker who stabbed her repeatedly in the stomach and, in so doing, caused a miscarriage; evidently prosecutors in the state of Michigan do not believe that a pregnant woman should be permitted to repel a violent attacker. However, this proposed legislation would not allow any act of homicide committed by a pregnant woman to be considered “justified”; as an affirmative defense, the woman must subsequently prove that she acted against an attacker whom a reasonable individual (as determined by law) would conclude would likely cause the woman to experience a miscarriage.

If you express objection or “disturbance” regarding lawful and nonviolent individuals possessing firearms in a public location where such possession is not illegal that is of no rational basis, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that your concerns are not rational.

Why, then, do you fear an individual who has violated no law, who has demonstrated no violent intent and who, following the event that you found to be “disturbing”, committed no criminal act?

“But maybe I should ask you why some people feel the need to bring guns into a house of worship.”

“Need” is not relevant. Moreover, if the “need” for a defensive firearm within a “house of worship”, or during travel to or from such a location, could be ascertained in advance, the most prudent course of action would be to avoid that particular location. Typically, individuals carry defensive firearms as a precaution against the unlikely, but nonetheless not impossible, occurrence that an unanticipated “need” for such a tool will arise.

” I can’t help but wonder if some men carry guns around because it helps to make them feel more manly.”

I am unaware of any rational basis for such speculation. Have you speculated similarly regarding women who carry firearms?

That I attempt to restrict the basis of my statements to the particular topic relevant to the discussion does not demonstrate that I am a “single issue” person.

Were this a discussion of the subject of the theory
evolution, and irrational religious objections to that theory, I would restrict the basis of my statements to the subject of evolution and to the scientific method. Were this a discussion of legal recognition of same-sex unions and the typically unreasonable, irrational and often dishonest objections to such recognition, my statements would relate to that particular topic, and not to other, unrelated, subjects of discussion.

Your assessment is not rational.

“Take a look at how/how often this “Dimensio” person uses terms like “reason” and passes judgment on what is “not rational.””

What else would you use to evaluate something?

I hope you don’t really believe that statement you just made. There goes 5,000 years of human progress down the drain. I would call that statement something else but I wont.

Actually you must be joking, there can be no other explanation. Or at least one that I would want to think about.

By the way he seemed pretty rational to me with the arguments he presented and all were clearly understood. You may not agree with them but I don’t think that gives you the right to imply that he is off his rocker as a means of rejecting his argument(s). Most totalitarian states use the same system to prevent dissent.

So that begs the question, TomD.Arch are you a totalitarian or just too stupid to present a rational argument against the 2nd amendment?

Praise the Lord;

Pay the Leader; and/or

Pay the Lady as in Jessica Hahn.

Oh, forgive me, I thought PTL stood for Praise The Luger!

Praise the Lord. I see that Gun Justice Shall Prevail. I think I knew that.

An NRA-backed law now allows those with a concealed weapons permit to bring guns into bars and restaurants in Arizona.

I have friends, hold on let me call them to make sure.

ring, ring. Conversation. Ok, back now.

Yes, I do have friends that have all sorts of weaponry. I don’t care for the guns, rifles or anything to do with them but I support there right to have them.

Now, if memory serves me correctly. I think OK was going to approve Concealed Weapons in a Bar as well as give Women the right to called it Justified Homicide if they killed someone when Pregnant. And you say people in Texas are bright. Yeah baby, just look North of the Red River.

I lived through several years as the mother of a teenage daughter. I learned how to survive those trying days by not arguing with her when I knew our discussions would be fruitless…and that I might end up with my eyeballs spinning in their sockets. That’s the reason I still have hair today.

I doubt anything I’d say to Dimensio would give him/her pause to consider why some individuals feel as I do. I don’t advocate that citizens have their right to bear arms taken from them. I do believe I should be able to express my concerns about where and what kinds of weapons people may be carrying in public places without being accused of being irrational.

Meep, Meep. rafflaw huh? You mean this is not free range ossification?

Yeah, I’m put it out here. But Yuk was the first thing that came to mind….

I said: “I must admit that it disturbs me to see people bringing guns to protests–like the fellow who had one strapped to his thigh when President Obama spoke in New Hampshire a few months ago.”

You responded: “Given that no individuals were harmed by the armed protester, it would seem as though your concern is not rational.”

*************

That’s your opinion. I’m an extremely rational person. It seems to me that you have a superior “I’m so much more rational than the folks who advocate any form of gun control” attitude.

BTW, if you had read my most recent comment carefully, you would have noticed that it was addressed to “rafflaw” and not to you.

************

I said: “And bringing guns to church???”

Your response: “What of such an action do you wish to discuss?”

I didn’t wish to discuss it with you.

But maybe I should ask you why some people feel the need to bring guns into a house of worship. I can’t help but wonder if some men carry guns around because it helps to make them feel more manly.

Your disagreement does not alter reality. The focus of this discussion is the proposed amendment regarding the restoration of firearms rights to a subset of veterans by Senator Richard Burr.

“Why is one regulation better than another?”

Such an inquiry requires a more specific frame of reference.

“Why when one right is abridged and it does not affect you that it is any less important? ”

I have made no such assertion of lesser importance. Your inquiry is based upon an undemonstrated premise.

“I would suspect that you like you GOP counterpoints are single issue individuals.”

I am unable to parse this statement. It does not appear to be an appropriately constructed sentence.

” Sometimes the box is only supposed open one way, but when you load too much shit in it it breaks out of the bottom or splits the sides.”

The containment of excrement is not relevant to the current discussion.

” Hence, what part of the constitution do you wish to selectively discuss? Gun Rights/Regulation(s)/Control/Abolishment?”

The current discussion relates primarily to the Second and the Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

” Why should Guns be regulated and Abortion not be so….”

Abortion is not relevant to the current discussion.

**********************

Sorry to disagree with you on this matter. But I am not. Why is one regulation better than another? Why when one right is abridged and it does not affect you that it is any less important? I would suspect that you like you GOP counterpoints are single issue individuals. Sometimes the box is only supposed open one way, but when you load too much shit in it it breaks out of the bottom or splits the sides. Hence, what part of the constitution do you wish to selectively discuss? Gun Rights/Regulation(s)/Control/Abolishment?

Given that no individuals were harmed by the armed protester, it would seem as though your concern is not rational.

“I think I’ll also feel less comfortable when visiting a National Park knowing that some other visitors there may be carrying firearms.”

It has always been possible that other visitors to National Parks were in possession of firearms. A recent alteration in federal policy, however, means that a subset of these individuals will be doing so legally, rather than illegally.

“How about being able to have concealed weapons in a car near a school in South Carolina?”

This is an entirely reasonable measure. What aspect of this measure do you wish to discuss?

“And bringing guns to church???”

What of such an action do you wish to discuss?

I believe that most extant federal firearms regulation is sufficient. I am opposed to additional federal restrictions on firearms, such as the often proposed “assault weapons ban”, and I oppose the unreasonable regulation that has been applied in some states.

” Why should Guns be regulated and Abortion not be so….”

Abortion is not relevant to the current discussion.

Automatic firearms have been used in less than five homicides since 1934.

” The fact is that without ridiculously easy access to automatic weapons, if Person A gets pissed off at Person B, they can still (maybe) kill Person B with a knife or a baseball bat or whatever.”

Civilian access to automatic firearms is heavily regulated in the United States. If you are unaware of this, then you have conducted insufficient research upon the subject that you are discussing to credibly propose any measures.

“I am with you on this one. I guess I am a “gun stealing Hippie” like you. It has been 30 plus years since I have been called a hippie, but I wear it as a badge of honor.”

************

Although I noted in an earlier comment that I wasn’t a hippie when I was young, I have long been an adherent to the postion that making love is better than making war.

I must admit that it disturbs me to see people bringing guns to protests–like the fellow who had one strapped to his thigh when President Obama spoke in New Hampshire a few months ago. I think I’ll also feel less comfortable when visiting a National Park knowing that some other visitors there may be carrying firearms.
How about being able to have concealed weapons in a car near a school in South Carolina? And bringing guns to church??? Good Lord, preserve us!!!

So…maybe I am a hippie now. I’m gonna go get me some beads and grow my hair long again.

I am lost on your position. Are you for Gun Control or not? Why should Guns be regulated and Abortion not be so….

Sounds good. Try that rationalization out on the families of victims where multiple people died at the hand of a single gunman with an automatic weapon. The fact is that without ridiculously easy access to automatic weapons, if Person A gets pissed off at Person B, they can still (maybe) kill Person B with a knife or a baseball bat or whatever. But Persons C through H (that just happen to work at the same place as Person B) don’t get cut down in a hail of auromatic gunfire as collateral damage.

Have you an actual rational argument to offer in opposition to Senator Burr’s proposed amendment?

I have, in fact, viewed the initial posting that has resulted in this discussion. As I have noted, objections to Senator Burr’s proposal are based upon a false premise, and the headline itself is demonstrably incorrect; either the author of the headline has conducted no research of Senator Burr’s proposal or the author of the headline is lying. Senator Burr’s amendment would eliminate a policy that allows for the abridgment of a civil liberty without the application of due process. Veterans who are judicially ruled to be “mentally incompetent” would remain, by federal law, legally ineligible to possess firearms. It is disturbing that individuals such as yourself believe that Constitutionally protected rights should instead be subject to revocation and abridgment without the application of due process.

Civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms are heavily restricted in the United States. Such firearms are very rarely criminally misused. There exists no rational justification for a complete prohibition on civilian ownership of such firearms. Either you have failed to adequately research the subject that you are addressing or you are intentionally advocating a fundamentally unreasonable position.

A prohibition on handgun ownership in the United States would demonstrably constitute a violation of the Second Amendment of the United States of America. Such a prohibition would also be exceedingly difficult to effectively enact, as it would require a means of accounting for all extant legally owned firearms in the country and arranging a system of compensation for their confiscation following the massive expenditure of legal fees required to first maintain such a prohibition through exhaustive and inevitable legal challenges.

“There are TOO MANY GUNS in our society, which wouldn’t neccessarily be a problem execpt that our culture nowadays is such that the first thing a person thinks of when someone looks at them cross-eyed (or even if someone just THINKS they’re being looked at cross-eyed) is to grab a gun and shoot the offending party. And then shoot a few other folks that weren’t even involved in the first place.”

There exist more than two hundred and fifty million firearms owned amongst approximately eighty million civilians in the United States. As fewer than twenty-thousand homicides are committed per year (as has been the case since 1996), it can be established that even if every individual homicide was committed by an individual firearm owner (a demonstrably incorrect assumption; multiple homicides may be committed by a single individual, and approximately half of all homicides in a given year are not committed with a firearm), it would indicate that less than 0.25% of all firearms owners have engaged in the action that you claim to be common. As this appears to be a fundamental premise of your argument, it would seem as though the very foundation of your argument is invalid.

“I full well realize I’m in the minority, but that doesn’t make me wrong.”

You are correct. It is the fact that your statements are demonstrably false that make you “wrong”.

Your comment relates neither to the current discussion nor to my specific statement.

I believe that you have fundamentally misunderstood the intent of Senator Burr’s amendment. Senator Burr’s amendment is intended to prevent an individual’s right to keep and bear arms from being arbitrarily revoked without due process. It is not intended to allow individuals who are mentally defective to possess firearms, it is intended to grant individuals the right to a judicial hearing prior to the revocation of their rights for such a reason. I do find it somewhat disturbing that a number of individuals are evidently in support of current executive policy, established by former President George W. Bush, that allows for the abridgment of a civil liberty without the application of due process, as must be the motive of those who are opposed to Senator Burr’s proposal. Individuals who are judged in a court of law to be “mentally defective” would be prohibited from possessing firearms, and Senator Burr’s amendment would not alter this fact; while the Brady Campaign is attempting to claim that Senator Burr is seeking to alter a federal law that has been extant and unchanged since 1968 they are, as is common for the organization, lying.

“I’d add the Republican Party to your list given your criteria.”

The Republican Party does not constitute an advocacy organization for a single, specific position.
***********************

So who is in charge? Oh thats right, no one is in charge that is apparent. Just ask Cheney. He cannot recall. But then why does the GOP honor certain people for certain things. Me thinks they have maybe the Wizard in charge. Dorothy, get me outta here.

It doesn’t make you wrong, it makes you unrealistic about the history of firearms development. None of the Founding Fathers ever heard of a “machine gun” and bullets were something you made around the camp fire. Hell, I’m pretty sure Jefferson and Adams would have been appalled by the very idea of a machine gun, but I also don’t think that would have changed his opinion about a government monopoly on weaponry – a common feature in some of the less progressive states of the time. It is no accident that many martial arts weapons are developed from modified farm tools. It’s because in many societies, the standard model was/is top down oppression by those who control(led) the manufacture and distribution of armour and weapons. This in turn necessitated improvisation by the “peasants”. And if you think some poor Japanese farmer wouldn’t have much rather had a sword to fight that rogue samurai terrorizing them instead of a couple of wooden sticks he’d been using to thresh grain (the origin of tonfa)? I’m thinking he’d have rather had the biggest sword he could have gotten a hold of in order to keep the bad guys from taking his stuff and/or killing him and his people.

Yeah, hand guns and fully automatic weapons are bane upon the world.

But you can’t uninvent them.

I submit the next best option to secure liberty is what the Founding Fathers did in leveling the playing field to a certain degree. Would they have done things differently had they known about the future of firearms? One would hope. But hope is often a futile exercise when applied to the past.