The Great Gun Control Debate

[mariomike]

10 year old girl seem to handle recoil better than the two grown men in the CNN clip.

I didn't watch it, but it reminded me of Charles Vacca,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Vacca

 

[pbi]

"When will CNN admit they are nothing more than a far-left activist group determined to attack conservatives?"

What? Really?

CNN is a business run for profit. It is part of corporate America, run by people who want to make lots of money. Like all MSM, they perform a useful purpose by counterbalancing the shrieking from the two outer wings of the political spectrum, (which immediately PO's those to the left and right of MSM) but IMHO it''s a huge leap to call them "left" because of that.

I think you will find that the "Left" in America (what there actually is of it...) regards all corporate media as shills for the One Percenters.

In my opinion people throw the word "left" around with total abandon, such that it apparently now means anybody who isn't a member of the Tea Party. I would argue that in the mainstream US political system there is no true "left": there are moderates and those slightly left of centre on some issues. The Communist Party is tiny and of zero importance.  There is no US equivalent to the NDP, which is the only real "left" party of any potential in Canada (sorry Greens: you'll just never get there...)

 

[Rifleman62]

Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 07:16:18
https://mediaequalizer.com/martin-walsh/2018/02/cnn-reporter-hits-gun-range-it-couldnt-have-gone-worse

"When will CNN admit they are nothing more than a far-left activist group determined to attack conservatives?"

mariomike: I posted a video from CNN that was related to the subj from the mediaequalier web page. . What the video showed was a media person who was speaking about wpns who, it looked like, never fired one. That was the point.

You quoted me "When will CNN admit they are nothing more than a far-left activist group determined to attack conservatives?". That is from the article, not me. I posted the link, heading and a descriptor.

I don't give a crap if it is a left or right web page. You apparently do. You have an endless repository of "stuff" to support your views and endless time to post. A counter post to every post that doesn't fit your view. Very time consuming. Well good on you. Most people here know your views as they know mine, but most don't feel the need to compulsory post endlessly.

 

[mariomike]

You quoted me "When will CNN admit they are nothing more than a far-left activist group determined to attack conservatives?".

No need to take it personally. I quoted your source - not you.

 

[Rifleman62]

OK, you quoted the source not me. But why do you feel the need to compulsively post about the source of the article when my post was about a reporter who obviously knows nothing about wpns but is airing his opinions about wpns? The video is a CNN video not mediaequalier.

 

[mariomike]

OK, you quoted the source not me.

Thank-you.

 

[Jarnhamar]

NEXT on CNN

Outrage! As CNN discovers children have access to high power Gatling guns. Thanks Trump!

Warning image may cause triggering.

 

[Loachman]

In that situation of the homeless guy with a knife and the potentially murderous old lady,

Clearly, I was unclear. Mea culpa.

She had no potential, mentally or physically, to be "murderous". I know her well. She was simply the nearest source of a defensive weapon (stout cane) if one quickly became required. I was in a good position to grab it and react within two or three paces of the potential threat. I kept a discreet eye on him until he had left, and continued to watch all of the entrances until Mass was over.

I reported this to the priests afterwards, of course, but there was no need to cause a scene at the time.

wouldn't you feel more comfortable in that church if you had a concealed gun? I'm pretty sure you would want one.

Then you presume incorrectly.

I have said, before, that if concealed carry permits were available here, I would get one, but would rarely (if ever) carry given the current threat level. I tend not to hang around likely target areas anyway - not out of fear, paranoia, or concern, but simply because such venues hold little to no interest.

don't you think it's kind of absurd to need self-defense weapons in a church? I'm not religious at all, but I know that a church is a place where people should be able to feel comfortable and trust each other.

That depends. In areas where churches are rarely, if ever, attacked, I feel no need. The churchgoers in Sunderland Springs apparently felt no need either, else at least one would have returned fire inside. A few of the survivors will have rethought their personal defence protocols as a result, though.

Yes, people should feel safe in a church (or synagogue, or mosque, or temple - or school). Sadly, a few find out that that cannot be taken for granted.

The church in Kingston that is the scene of my earlier tale is very large, it sees many tourists during that season, and is close to a particular area with many homeless people, who freely wander in and out. In general, they seem to be completely harmless, as this fellow may have been, despite his odd behaviour. But ... Either that guy, or another one, did enter the same church between masses, while it was therefore devoid of parishioners, a couple of weeks later, grabbed a flag pole and threatened a priest with the pointy end. Police were called, and an arrest was made.

To me, the need for interpersonal trust within a congregation should also be extrapolated beyond a church to the general population of a country.

There is no lack of trust between the parishioners in this Kingston church. Strangers are welcomed, but some can look a little sketchy. So far, there have been no major problems, and that will continue until there is one (which is hopefully, and most likely, never).

Trust among the general Canadian population is fine, as it is wherever I have been in the US. The general population is not a problem, however. It's the aberrant predatory few that exist in the same space, in varying concentrations.

It's clear that high-trust societies, especially those with effective gun control, have less of a problem with crime.

I completely agree that high-trust societies have less of a problem with crime. "Effective gun control", which does not even exist, has nothing to do with it. Cohesive societies have common customs and values, are naturally co-operative and supportive, and need few restrictions. I am not anti-immigrant at all, and not just because I am one myself, but high levels of immigration from societies with different customs, circumstances, and histories can break apart that cohesion. That can happen even without the influx of a criminal element which always seems to sneak in with the good folk and establish gangs within immigrant communities, especially the less-integrated ones. Certain western European and Scandinavian countries are experiencing that right now.

When we came to Canada, department stores had boxes of sporterized Lee-Enfields in aisles, bolts in, not secured to anything, and trigger locks had yet to be invented. Anybody could plunk twenty bucks down and walk out with one, and as much cheap ammunition as he wanted. Even a decade later, I could throw on a set of US Vietnam-era webbing, pouches stuffed with loaded thirty-round magazines, sling my AR15 on my back, and cycle over to a friends' house, meet up with another bunch there, and drive out to a local gravel pit where we would happily put a few hundred rounds each downrange. At least one in the group each time was a local copper who also liked to shoot; the police used the same pit for their own shooting. Nobody panicked, the police in general did not care, none of us shot anybody, nobody ever worried about crime, no school shootings occurred in Canada for a few more years, and the ugly "gun control" phrase had not yet been uttered.

That was a cohesive, trusting society. We have lost much since then (although, yes, gained a bunch too).

Also, would you rather the crazy homeless person in the church to be playing with a paring knife, or a handgun that he got in the back alley last night? Fortunately here in Canada, it's harder, although not impossible for that homeless person to get a handgun in that manner.

It's not that easy for them in the US, either, especially legally. And homeless people seldom have the free cash to by firearms.

I'm saying that should be the concern of the state. To protect citizens and keep the guns or any weapons out of "idle hands" as much as possible.

The police are there to protect society in general, not individual citizens within it. There is a difference. People who cannot, or will not, take responsibility for their own wellbeing and safety are frequently disappointed by the lack of government "protection" that is afforded them. "There is never one around when you need one". "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

The usual police response to a murderous attack is to draw chalk outlines around victims' bodies, take photographs, shine ultraviolet lights around, feed everything into an amazing computer system, and hopefully figure out who did it before the final commercial break.

That is no fault of the police. Criminals pick the time and place where they can attack in safety, with the minimum chance of police interference.

Governments have consistently proven their inabilities to "keep the guns or any weapons out of 'idle hands'."

And drugs, too.

"Gun control" cannot and does not influence crime rates, including homicide, rape, robbery, and assault anywhere. It focusses on those least likely to commit crimes and specific inanimate objects for which there is a wide array of possible substitutes while ignoring the high-threat predators. It is an expensive liberal feel-good sham that gets people killed and saves nobody.

Vermont had a 2015 homicide rate of 1.6. California's was 4.8. District of Columbia' was 24.2. Vermont is, and always has been, a constitutional-carry state - anybody not prohibited by federal law can carry either openly or concealed. The other two have stupidly restrictive laws, even more so than Canada's.

Homicide rates in Canada varied from 0.0 in PEI and Yukon to 14.84 in Nunavut, with a national average of 1.56 (almost the same as Vermont's) in 2012.

Oh, look - there's even a "Shot-in-the-Ass-O-Meter" for Chicago at https://heyjackass.com/category/2015-chicago-crime-murder-stats/, along with "Deadliest 'hoods" (because rates vary widely between different states, different counties and cities in each state, and different neighbourhoods in each city) and other statistics which go into far more detail than I've ever seen before.

"Gun control" has extremely little bearing. Deeper societal factors are far more influential. Crime patterns are very complex.

 

[angus555]

Then you presume incorrectly.

I have said, before, that if concealed carry permits were available here, I would get one, but would rarely (if ever) carry given the current threat level. I tend not to hang around likely target areas anyway - not out of fear, paranoia, or concern, but simply because such venues hold little to no interest.

Right, I didn't mean that to be against you personally. I just get the sense that guns provide average people with a sense of control, for which the vast majority of the time is unnecessary and problematic.
My point is more against the "everybody gets a gun" second amendment reasoning, where millions of undisciplined, overconfident, and oftentimes paranoid people end up with the lion's share of weapons.

I was definitely not trying to put you in that category. A quick look at your profile shows that you're definitely not the average person. ;D

 

[pbi]

NEXT on CNN

Outrage! As CNN discovers children have access to high power Gatling guns. Thanks Trump!

Warning image may cause triggering.

Heyyyyyy...where can you get one of those?

 

[Furniture]

Right, I didn't mean that to be against you personally. I just get the sense that guns provide average people with a sense of control, for which the vast majority of the time is unnecessary and problematic.
My point is more against the "everybody gets a gun" second amendment reasoning, where millions of undisciplined, overconfident, and oftentimes paranoid people end up with the lion's share of weapons.

I was definitely not trying to put you in that category. A quick look at your profile shows that you're definitely not the average person. ;D

That's an interesting view... The plebs shouldn't feel a sense of control in their lives? That sounds dangerously aristocratic.

The most paranoia I see is from people opposed to private gun ownership. If legal firearms were so dangerous we would see far more murders a by licensed firearm owners.

If this was about hardening a target, or allowing a response to a dangerous situation with anything but firearms it would be a non-issue. For emotional reasons people are afraid of guns and for that reason alone I fear we will never see a response to active shooters that is anything but sit in a locked room waiting to die.

 

[angus555]

That's an interesting view... The plebs shouldn't feel a sense of control in their lives? That sounds dangerously aristocratic.

I am a fan of meritocracy with equal opportunity.

It's funny when military people use the talking points of classical liberalism. Unfettered individual freedom and independence is relatively new in the world, and it contradicts old longstanding traditions embedded in military ethos.

[/philosophy_rant]

 

[Furniture]

I am a fan of meritocracy with equal opportunity.

It's funny when military people use the talking points of classical liberalism. Unfettered individual freedom and independence is relatively new in the world, and it contradicts old longstanding traditions embedded in military ethos.

[/philosophy_rant]

Not to derail this too far, but who decides on the "merit" and the "equality" of opportunity? I'm detecting a hint of university student with a dash of overconfidence in one's own "merit".

 

[angus555]

Not to derail this too far, but who decides on the "merit" and the "equality" of opportunity? I'm detecting a hint of university student with a dash of overconfidence in one's own "merit".

Definitely not. I'll be first one to tell people I'm inexperienced in many ways and unfamiliar of many things. I am only interested in the truth and adjust my expectations constantly. I would make a terrible politician.

 

[Jed]

What? Really?

CNN is a business run for profit. It is part of corporate America, run by people who want to make lots of money. Like all MSM, they perform a useful purpose by counterbalancing the shrieking from the two outer wings of the political spectrum, (which immediately PO's those to the left and right of MSM) but IMHO it''s a huge leap to call them "left" because of that.

I think you will find that the "Left" in America (what there actually is of it...) regards all corporate media as shills for the One Percenters.

In my opinion people throw the word "left" around with total abandon, such that it apparently now means anybody who isn't a member of the Tea Party. I would argue that in the mainstream US political system there is no true "left": there are moderates and those slightly left of centre on some issues. The Communist Party is tiny and of zero importance.  There is no US equivalent to the NDP, which is the only real "left" party of any potential in Canada (sorry Greens: you'll just never get there...)

In my opinion people throw the word 'right' around with total abandon. 

 

[Journeyman]

I was in a church in Kingston a few years ago and was closely watching an obviously-mentally-troubled homeless fellow take a paring knife out of his backpack and wave it around below pew level.

So we should be arming ministers as well as teachers?

 

[Furniture]

Or we could allow any citizen who is trained and willing to carry a firearm for the purposes of defending themselves and others.... If anyone(farmers, farmers mums...) who is trained can carry the need to make allowances for special groups(teachers, priests etc...) of armed people diminishes.

 

[pbi]

In my opinion people throw the word 'right' around with total abandon.

Yes. Equally true, and equally useless in reaching the point of intelligent discussion of anything: gun control, immigration, health care, taxation, the environment, etc.  The "debate" rapidly ceases to be about the issue at hand and becomes a bumper-sticker flame war.

 

[Journeyman]

Or we could allow any citizen who is trained and willing to carry a firearm for the purposes of defending themselves and others.... If anyone(farmers, farmers mums...) who is trained can carry the need to make allowances for special groups(teachers, priests etc...) of armed people diminishes.

Not the point;  your post simply continues reiterating the "yes" / "no" / "yes!!" discussion. 

I was specifically addressing the situation presented by Loachman.  Namely, it's quite simple in Florida for anyone (farmers, farmers mums...) to get firearms, yet people are arguing that teachers should be armed.  Applying that 'logic' to the church scenario presented, then priests should be armed.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thought alot about what you've said PBI.  Please excuse the rant

Left wing vs right wing bumper-sticker flame politics is annoying, for sure. Here's my views though why it's one sided when it comes to stuff especially like gun control.

Firearm ownership is traditionally a right wing thing right? One of the SOPs for the left seems to be to try and associate anything right wing with neo-nazis, racisim, misogyny.  Ben Shapiro points out that he needed 100 police officers to PROTECT him and the students at a talk so he can say conservative things without being assaulted. He's jewish but it's not Neo-Nazi's threatening him or even radical islamics, it's left wing students and protestors. They're quite happy to use violence to try and stop someone from speaking.  Milo Yanopolous is gay (and his husband is black). again, not neo-nazis or right wing hate groups tying to shut him down it's left-wing people.

What's that have to do with guns?  The traditional-left wants to ban guns. They also seem happy to use violence to stop right wing people from saying right-wing things. Is anyone surprised right-wing people don't want to give up their firearms? Is it a surprise they don't count on police to protect them? Police who get accused of standing back and letting shit happen like in Berkley Calf? Police like Scott Israel's deputies?

There is example after example of conservatives or right wing people getting their free speech attacked or shut down. We see a constant effort by the left and media to portray anything "right" with racism.

Remember that ghastly counter-protest the Canadian proud boys? Guys just stood there or tried to non-violently debate points?
Here's what happens when one of the Proud boys members died (not guys from the protest). The mother had to cancel the funeral because of the harassment she was getting.
https://www.dangerous.com/41874/leftists-celebrated-death-friend-made-grieving-mother-cancel-funeral/


The left is increasingly violent with any sort of right-wing views being attacked in the media, social media and especially educational faculties. Speakers need armed police officers to protect them to just talk. Yet left-wing racism is all over the place. From attempts at non-white viewings of movies to white-people-pay-more menus at restaurants.


I agree the left wing right wing bumper sticker bullshit is annoying but it's hardly a level playing field.

How many anti-gun politicians have been caught doing shit like this guy?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-yee/californias-senator-yee-indicted-on-gun-corruption-charges-idUSBREA331K720140404

SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A prominent Democratic California state senator and gun-control advocate was indicted by a San Francisco grand jury on charges of corruption and conspiracy to traffic in firearms, according to court documents released on Friday.

Gun control advocacy in the US isn't about "saving the children". Its about power and disarming political opponents and supporters.

Your profile says you're from Kingston (PBI). You could go so far as to say it's a military town with the base and RMC?
If I planned a public conservative speech and you planned a public liberal speech do you think we'd get the same reception, generally left alone to do our thing?
Or do you think one of us would get protests and people attempting to shut us down from speaking? How quick until the accusations of neo-nazis and racist comes out?


One of the only nice things about the Liberals in Canada so far, and so to speak, is that they're generally leaving firearm owners alone. They know they have us right where they want us, hand ringing and hoping to be left alone.

That said they're shitting the bed with so many other things that I think they may soon look at hammering gun ownership and pushing more significant (and unfounded)  gun control to try and solidify the left-wing voting base