Parkland School Shooting
- Thread starter Hawk
- Start date
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Ok, just not sure what leads us to the conclusion that this formulation is anything other than a particularly closed loop of self-justifying reasoning.
People use guns all the time, just not for the reasons that you're ostensibly hoarding them.
The fact that I sleep with a charm over my bed must be the reason my kids haven't been stolen by the Wee Folk.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Huh?
They are almost always used for the reasons I gave, recreation, hunting, self defense.
Greater than 9,999 times out of 10,000 they are used for target shooting.
The vast majority of the remaining shots fired are during hunting, once in a great while they are used for self defense, and then a tiny, microscopic, almost immeasurably small percentage of shots are fired nefariously.
They are almost always used for the reasons I gave, recreation, hunting, self defense.
Greater than 9,999 times out of 10,000 they are used for target shooting.
The vast majority of the remaining shots fired are during hunting, once in a great while they are used for self defense, and then a tiny, microscopic, almost immeasurably small percentage of shots are fired nefariously.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
"The fact that I sleep with a charm over my bed must be the reason my kids haven't been stolen by the Wee Folk."
Malcolm X once advised everyone to leave a couple of lights on in the house at night to prevent break ins. He said this because when he was breaking into homes, those were the ones he avoided, due to not knowing if someone was up to use the bathroom and would shoot him.
I say this because if I can't convince you to keep a self defense weapon in a biometric safe by your bed at night, the light will at least do more to keep you safe than the charm will. That's because people that break in during the night are afraid guys like me with guns by the bed might be awake.
Malcolm X once advised everyone to leave a couple of lights on in the house at night to prevent break ins. He said this because when he was breaking into homes, those were the ones he avoided, due to not knowing if someone was up to use the bathroom and would shoot him.
I say this because if I can't convince you to keep a self defense weapon in a biometric safe by your bed at night, the light will at least do more to keep you safe than the charm will. That's because people that break in during the night are afraid guys like me with guns by the bed might be awake.
57Brave
Well-known member
At the suggestion of former U.S. congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona - who survived a shooting in 2011 - and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, Kraft loaned one of the team's two planes to fly about half of the families of the 17 of the victims of the Valentine's Day mass shooting at the high school, a handful of the students who were injured, and a group of students who would be performing a song at the march on Saturday in Washington.
A copy of the letter and a Patriots' cap was left on each of the students and families' seats on the plane.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
That's a bit disingenuous of you. I gave you a plausible reason why gun ownership could be "a deterrent to tyranny," and your response was, as you put it here, "it hasn't happened yet."
As for your objection about burglary vs. tyranny, I am not sure how you can deny that the possibility of being armed gives a person more defense against both. A burglar is going to be concerned about the possibility of one home being armed, a tyrant is going to be concerned about tens of millions of homes being armed.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
So instead of speaking about tyranny in the abstract, I'd ask you--jaw, sturg, thethe, whoever--to give me an idea of what, in more concrete terms, you mean by tyranny. What does that look like in America? What would justify taking up arms against the government?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
There's a hot one.
Runnin
Well-known member
Not unless he plans to rob houses at night for sport.
Control of the military would be infinitely more concerning. Citizens protecting the country with personal arms would only come in to play if there were little or no available active militia and the country were attacked from outside, like say, back in the 1700's.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
That partial response has me doubting your sincerity here, but that's cool. Let's simplify things. You enlighten us with a scenario that meets the Julio plausibility threshold and also provides an example of how it is easier to reduce the rights of a gun owning society than a society that does not have access to guns.
One that begins a plan to restrict our rights.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Times where people took up arms against government tyranny.
Ruby Ridge
Bundy family
Charles Dorner
Micah Johnson
Gavin Long
Just off the top of my head.
Let's see some examples of government tyranny of disarmed populations.
[video]https://youtu.be/B2j_7qBt0bY[/video]
Ruby Ridge
Bundy family
Charles Dorner
Micah Johnson
Gavin Long
Just off the top of my head.
Let's see some examples of government tyranny of disarmed populations.
[video]https://youtu.be/B2j_7qBt0bY[/video]
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Ordering a National Guard unit to arrest some protestors who are throwing bricks and flipping over cop cars is entirely different than ordering that same unit to engage their countrymen in a firefight.
The oaths that enlisted and commissioned soldiers in the Army take are different, but both start off nearly identically, with
"do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
That is because we aren't some banana republic with a standing army made up of conscripts that were handed a rifle. We have an all volunteer army that is expected and taught to conscientiously uphold and defend the nation and it's Constitution, not be a goon squad for a strongman.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I'll pass, due to an undefined plausibility meter.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
That was my interpretation of your response, in comparing guns to birth control. My assumption is that you believe that gun ownership has some kind of talismanic power--in contrast to birth control, which has an observable physical function which prevents pregnancy through some means. So I'm not sure, at the outset, how much I can buy that analogy. Saying "because so many of us in general own guns, none of us in particular are likely to need them" is ascribing the lack of a need to respond to government oppression directly to the widespread ownership of guns, isn't it? So it seems you're saying exactly what I suggested: tyranny hasn't happened...must be the guns. Hence my analogy about Wee Folk. No fairy attacks...must be the charms. So we need to clarify here, I guess: are you NOT saying that private gun ownership has prevented domestic oppression and upheaval? Are you NOT suggesting that it's is the higher purpose of the 2nd A?
So, private ownership of guns is the special sauce here. Not mature democratic traditions and generally robust institutions. Not good governance, not selflessness and sacrifice and love of country, not widespread prosperity. We can cut loose all the familiar tropes of American exceptionalism and just go to the gun store.