well said my friend..thanks for sharing..sigh

Left by Angel on April 17th, 2007

Hey Stout, where in that France article you linked does it mention gun-toting crazies?

Or, even the words Gun, Shoot, Murder, Kill or Massacre?

I saw it mention riot and violent protests, but I don’t see how that’s any example of how laws that tighten gun control still lead to shootings. Unless of course, you weren’t implying that. And if you weren’t, then why the link?

Just trying to see the tie is all.

But anyways, other than what I couldn’t see there…a good post nonetheless on why blame turns useless when it becomes America’s new pasttime for both parties and all peoples. If we abuse it, it loses it’s affect due to our triggerhappy finger pointers.

Careful though. Without blame, you’d be out of a website!

Left by Practical Radical on April 17th, 2007

You mean because she’s a female who drives?

Ha, but yeah…trust me, I hear you. Don’t assume I’m advocating the banning of the 2nd amendment, not that you have assumed. I just needed clarification because the Dodger game is at a current lull…despite them leading the majors with a 9-4, soon to be 10-4 record!

P.S. I love that you googled “France shooting and gun crimes” and only came up with an article from 2002.

Left by Practical Radical on April 17th, 2007

Expressions of compassion and support for those experiencing an actual first person loss from this totally irrational act.

After the momentary better them than me warm and fuzzy self-psych job, everyone else can quit this train wreck not soon enough. The aftermath is fast becoming uglier and as irrational as the actual event.

Consensus irrationality? KUM BA YAH MY ASS…

DAMN, our culture sucks…

GoingThere

Left by GoingThere on April 18th, 2007

One Instructor or student vetted with a ccw could have stopped this before it got so damn far.

Left by Opus Rex on April 18th, 2007

Hard to say it is ok for students to tote guns to class, but my thoughts are that teachers should have the right to have a concealed weapon permit and come to school packing if they so desire. We’ll never know if that would have definately made a difference in this circumstance, but it sure is a better option than the outright banning of guns from law abiding citizens.

Left by The Right Girl on April 18th, 2007

In only playing devil’s advocate, Right Girl, this 23 year old was a law abiding citizen (for the very most part) until it happened.

Left by Practical Radical on April 18th, 2007

Too bad he was the ONLY armed (but previously law abiding) citizen on campus that day. We should at least have the option of protecting ourselves.

Left by Smart-Lass on April 18th, 2007

While it is tempting to compare guns to cars, knives, bats, or other possible implements of death, I think the comparison is kind of unfair.

A gun is the most effective tool for killing another human being.

Had this guy decided to go on a rampage with a knife or even a car, it’s likely he wouldn’t have killed as many, though in the case of the car, he might have injured far more. The gun is what made him powerful, and what gave him the ability to deal so much death so easily.

But while everyone talks about the most effective killing machine, they only tell half the story. The malicious uses for guns.

You’re probably asking yourself what in the world could be a benevolent use for a gun? As I already stated, guns make it easy to kill someone. This can be a good thing if you are at the disadvantage. The old and frail can protect themselves from the young and strong. The 100 pound woman can protect herself from a 300 pound rapist. The few can protect themselves from many. And, as in this case, regular people just trying to live their lives can protect themselves from a deranged psychotic bent on murdering as many people as he can before turning the gun on himself.

It makes my blood boil when I think of all those students lined up against the wall, waiting for their turn to die; resigned to give their lives up without a fight. As far as we know, not a single one of them stood up. If only three had done so, it’s very likely the violence would have been stopped, gun or no. The victim mentality paralyzed these students. If someone takes on the responsibility of carrying a gun with them, they will not be able to think of themselves as a victim, and most would not be able to stand idly by while innocents die.

In these places of violence such as south france, give the defenseless people guns. Give them the power to defend themselves and their loved ones, and when those causing violence show up, they’ll know that their soft targets are much harder than they’d care to deal with. They’ll also know that what they might have thought was fun and games, now carries serious consequences.

It is said that we should let everyone have guns, or no one. We can’t stop guns. The experience in the UK, and Washington DC have proven this. Gun laws only disarm the law abiding. But, on the same note, if we were to wave a wand and get rid of all the guns in the world, we’d still have a crime problem. If we were to wave a wand and get rid of all the crime in the world, we wouldn’t have a gun problem.

Those of us who have accepted that there exists evil in this world, know that there are only two ways to stop it. Lock it up and throw away the key, or kill it. When you don’t have the luxury of warning as in this case, there is only one way to stop it.

Left by existingthing on April 18th, 2007

Sorry for all the long comments, but you guys get my juices flowing!

Left by existingthing on April 18th, 2007

My my, Existingthing…between the image of a 300 pound rapist and your juices flowing, I couldn’t focus a darn on the rest of your ‘long’ comments.

Meet me again, it’s been 4 days already!

Left by Practical Radical on April 18th, 2007

No problem PR. I’ll keep lobbing them your way, and you can keep dodging them.

Left by existingthing on April 18th, 2007

Sorry existingthing. I didn’t know that I, rather than Stout, was your primary focus two posts in a row.

Anyways, does anybody think Virginia has gun laws that are more lax than other states…such as California? Would a compromise between extreme availability and extreme suppression do, or would that be too much to ask for in Robert E. Lee’s own state?

Left by Practical Radical on April 18th, 2007

PR - just a guess here, but I’d say every state in the union probably has more lax gun laws than California. (No offense to all you cali types but 9th circuit cases are used primarily for entertainment purposes in the rest of the country and are most emphatically NOT cited to our judges when we want to win a case.) Just curious how a self-described gun-toting libertarian such as yourself supports anything other than extreme availability.

Left by Smart-Lass on April 18th, 2007

Very cute, Lass. Though I believe in the 2nd Amendment, I’m not gonna argue that we should all have ak-47’s at our wish…so, nor would I argue extreme availability for ANY guns for our citizens and ‘legal aliens’. Where the libertarian comes into play is where I say that I believe all drugs should be available to all legal adults.  Oh, and the banishment of all religions.  Maybe that’s just Randish libertarianism, I don’t know.

I see you, as a ‘Conservative’, may want the U.S. to step up it’s border security, but you won’t budge when a law allows a legal alien to this country, such as Cho-Cho, to get a gun as easily as an American citizen. Oh wait, I stand corrected: A legal alien needs TWO forms of identification.

My bad!

Left by Practical Radical on April 19th, 2007

The attempt to draw ANY conclusions from this sad and unfortunate event is the very definition of sad and unfortunate. The forest and the trees observation comes to mind. This was an irrational act, WE did not faulter or fail, no one is responsible except this inDUHvidual. Yes, Gracie, the mentally unstable are responsible for their irrational actions, no one else pulled the trigger. The manner in which we hold them responsible is obviously different.

Use the same chemical process that allows you to view and enjoy various horror media content (Steven King, The Saw, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, …Living Dead etal).

Why even try to explain the unexplainable? I suggest, again, that it is a type of mass psychosis where we attempt to apply the rules of rational (us rational? hahaha I made a funny) life to an irrational event. Join the rush to an irrational consensus and secure our own little feel good moment (life).

Gun Laws? Counseling? Security? Mental Health Legislation? NOT!!!

Unfortunate shit happens,

GoingThere

Left by GoingThere on April 19th, 2007

PR-You’ve obviously missed my previously posted opinions on immigration. Once again, incorrect assumptions and an irrelevant diversion. Stout is right… we all come back to see what crazy shit you’ll say next. Nice try, though.

GT is completely correct. No explanation is sufficient for this and no legislation is going to prevent it from happening again.

Left by Smart-Lass on April 19th, 2007

Sorry Lass, I assumed you were a conservative.

I wouldn’t go out of my way to read your previously posted opinions. I just don’t take blogging that seriously.

GT is correct in a big way, I’ll admit, but not fully. That’s a do-nothing attitude, an ‘aw shucks there’s nothing we can do’ mentality that won’t solve anything. It won’t even spur debate that spurs change that spurs action that at least holds the possibility of preventing a future massacre.

Once again. I thought you were a conservative and left the talking and quitting to the dems.  Turns out, you’re just a Republican.

Left by Practical Radical on April 19th, 2007

Not a do nothing attitude just a do nothing stupid attitude. IMHO nothing is the only, intelligent and rational, anything and everything that can be done in this case. There are NO SOLUTIONS, save the trivial, self serving and alternate agendized. All of which will accomplish NOTHING of substance.

Get out of the cave oh testosterone challenged one, the “do nothing” option applies to more than economics. Just as economics has an inertia of existance, so does culture. This irrational act should do nothing to alter that inertia…

Having written that, our response to this event might explain the weather vaning stupidity exhibited on Wall Street…hmmm something more to dink about.

Irrational acts? How does one stop those without Thorazine in the drinking water? To paraphrase, is a gramme truly better than a damn?

As to being a republicrat, demoblican and/or a conservative?

think 1st (hope 52 cards are present)
act 2nd
beg forgiveness 3rd (as required)
quit Never

GoingThere

Left by GoingThere on April 19th, 2007

GoingThere, would you be against a nationwide law that demands at least a 2 week waiting period for all gun sales?

Left by Practical Radical on April 19th, 2007

How very interesting…

The EU decides to agree after “NEARLY” 6 years of negotiations to get serious about the thought police game.

msm says =>

Why now?

GoingThere

Left by GoingThere on April 19th, 2007

I hope that’s not your answer, GoingThere.

Left by Practical Radical on April 19th, 2007

I am against any federal/state law or policy that is a result of, or proposed in response to, the recent killings in Virginia.

I am against ANY federal or state law specific to the regulation of owning or purchasing a firearm outside of the federal constitution (2nd Amendment).

Simple-Me,

GoingThere

Left by GoingThere on April 19th, 2007

PR,

Though not direct, the EU thought police side show is unfortunately applicable to answering your 2 week waiting period for firearm purchases…

Yep 3 years for words, how many for heads of state saying the words? how many for cartoons?

Oh yeah another silly feel good do nothing law from the EU…genetics is a bitch.

GoingThere

Left by GoingThere on April 19th, 2007

Gotcha, I’ll take that as a complex No.

Left by Practical Radical on April 19th, 2007

Well said. Thing is with this nutter is that he planned the hell out of this and if he hadn’t been able to buy the guns legally he would have gotten them ILLEGALLY. And if he’d been kicked out of school, instead of VT it would have been a mall or a movie theatre.

I mean this guy was born an odd duck and just got worse with age. He was majorly antisocial, and severaly disturbed. And egotistical and angry at the world. That’s all, no excuses for him. Glad he killed himself.

Left by Jenn on April 19th, 2007

I’m convinced you are correct, Jenn…he would’ve found a way to get the guns illegally. Guess there’s no use in creating a law that would force such nutcases to go out of their way rather than taking the paved road to accessing a gun.

Left by Practical Radical on April 19th, 2007

After 1993, the World Trade Center began inspections of all trucks attempting to gain access to the underground parking.

After the USS Cole was bombed, the U.S. Navy increased the patrol radius of all ships in ports.

After the OKC Bombing and the embassy bombings in Africa, the federal government increased obstacles in getting trucks closer to Fed. buildings.

After 9/11, the FAA increased the strength of the locks on cockpit doors.

GT you are correct. We must measure our response appropriately. No matter what we do to increase our security, nutcases will find a way around our best measures. While we should examine methods of prevention, we must do so with the painful knowledge that we will not be able to prevent the evil goals of every evil man, and the cost of our failures will be great.

Left by Mr. Smart-Lass on April 19th, 2007

“go out of their way rather than taking the paved road to accessing a gun”

Actually, it’s not going out of his way. Illegal guns are less expensive, and easier to get. Had his medical history prevented him from legally obtaining a gun, do you think he would have just given up?

Whenever anyone talks about gun control, my short answer is this; “Gun control doesn’t work. Gun control doesn’t work. Gun control doesn’t work.” The only thing gun control does, is take guns out of the hands of the law abiding.

Left by existingthing on April 19th, 2007

I understand existingthing that all they need for the most part is determination and they will find a way. But to consciously choose to do NOTHING because we fear they will still find a way is simply quitting, giving up, throwing ones hands in the air and shouting there’s nothing we can do.

Mr. Smart Lass also has a fair point about what we do in reaction as attempts in preventing a like tragedy, but we can’t ignore the fact that non-incidents don’t go reported. We don’t know what good, if any (I’ll give you that), our responsive precautions bring us. I think it’s safe to say that if we had zero laws, that there would be a lot more violence and what we call crime. But there is, and for a reason. Yes, there’s a ton of crime committed every single day in every single community in this country, but if you respect police officers, you should respect their purpose.

Prevention. At least, the attempt of.

People will always find someway to hurt others when they’re crazy enough to try. But there hasn’t been a second Oklahoma City Bombing, a second 9-11, nor a second Columbine…state laws vary, so this Virginia Tech incident can’t be claimed to be a mirror image to Columbine.

We have to try anything and everything to prevent anything and everything terrible, without taking away our freedoms. Waiting periods and background checks do not take away our 2nd amendment rights, they simply emphasize that it’s a privilege to have such a freedom. If we don’t, we live in a country where we willingly choose not to learn from past mistakes.

Left by Practical Radical on April 19th, 2007

Consciously choosing to do nothing is not quitting. Doing NOTHING is the goal. “Shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed.” You got an argument? Take it up with the constitution. If you’ve got an idea to make us safer that doesn’t infringe upon the rights of all the other citizens of America, by all means present it, and if it makes sense, I’ll vote for it. You can’t limit the rights of the many to protect them from the few. As for the “fear” that crazies will always find a way, it’s not irrational as most fears are. Washington DC banned guns completely. No guns allowed. NONE. And they were the murder capital of America even though they had more police officers per citizen than any other large city. Saying that they’ll find a way isn’t giving up; it’s accepting reality. If everyone was under 24 hour surveillance we’d have no crime problems. We’d have no rights, but do the ends justify the means in your mind? Even if we suspend reality, my previously mentioned “wand waving” statement remains, crime is the problem, not guns.

If waiting periods do not take away our right to keep and bear arms, please tell that to the murdered victims of stalkers and disgruntled ex-spouses. Victims who tried to get a gun when they realized their life was in danger, but were told to come back in 10 days only to be murdered in that time. Excuse me for stating the following so bluntly, but waiting periods kill people. But do they save lives? We didn’t always have waiting periods, and the streets weren’t exactly running red with blood. The idea that someone would get angry, get in their car, drive to a gun store, and dole out four to six hundred dollars, and drive back to commit a “crime of passion” always confused me. Most crimes of passion are committed with whatever is available at that moment.

As for background checks; do I think the government should be allowed to apply a litmus test of their choice to determine whether or not you bear inalienable rights? I don’t think I have to answer that. The only past mistakes we’ve made were putting stock in gun control, and after seeing it fail over and over, adding more gun control under the premise that it wasn’t working because there just wasn’t enough or we didn’t wait long enough.

The framers had a vision of this country. Once we started taking guns away from law abiding citizens and restricting their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones, problems arose that would not exist were the framers’ vision kept true. I honestly believe that if 1/20 of the population were free to be armed where ever and whenever, this would be a different nation. You’re free to think what you want about what that nation would be, but I think it would be a better one.

Left by existingthing on April 19th, 2007

Actually existingthing, you should take it up with the constitution. The 2nd Amendment is the only Amendment with the word “regulated” in it.

You say: “You can’t limit the rights of the many to protect them from the few”, but then say “please tell that to the murdered victims of stalkers and disgruntled ex-spouses.” So you want to potentially risk the lives of the many to protect the few? Ok then.

I don’t know who you are arguing with in your example of Washington D.C.’s high murder rate despite them not allowing guns. No one here, as far as I can tell, is suggesting we take away guns from ANYbody, except, I’ll say, the mentally deranged. Along with background checks, we need to input all voluntary and involuntary individuals into the database that checks our backgrounds. That needs to change, obviously. Criminals and crazies, I’m sorry, in my opinion, do NOT “legally” deserve a right to bear arms. If you disagree, then you are part of the problem.

Do the streets have to run red with blood before you accept the logic that suggests we analyse as best to our small yet significant ability that someone is more of a threat to society than someone else? Or would you prefer that we stop recording everyone’s backgrounds no matter how vile they may be? If that’s what you want, ok. Join the anti-Patriot Act if you don’t want any freedoms sacrificed for safety.

I believe, for the umpteenth time, that Americans should have the right to purchase a gun/guns. But the 2nd Amendment reads “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This was written in the 1700’s. Said militias are what we now refer to as the police. THEY are how we, 99% of the time, defend ourselves (You may argue that militias still have a place in this country, but there’s more of the ‘few’ you mentioned).

“You can’t limit the rights of the many to protect them from the few”? Then stand by your words and make a solid point that doesn’t cover all convenient bases, however contradictory. A reminder: MANY were killed this past monday by less than a ‘few’. In a state that makes it very easy for anyone to obtain a gun, no less.

And by the way, as I said in the last paragraph of the last blog, background checks and waiting periods do not limit the rights of any law-abiding citizen considering the end result. You still get what you want, and while you wait, you can call the cops, buy another weapon, or stay at a friend’s house. Or best of all…since you’re convinced it’s so easy for the determined: They can go get one illegally.

Left by Practical Radical on April 19th, 2007

The second Amendment addresses two parties, the militia, and the people. They are separated by a comma. For use of a comma, check dictionary.com. As a side note, 2nd Amendment is also the only Amendment with the phrase “shall not be infringed” in it.

I’m not sure you understood what I was saying. I said that gun control killed those victims, that argument is in line with my previous statement that one should not take rights from the people to protect them from the few. This is what gun control is about, taking rights away with the failed promise of protection. Your seemingly failed interpretation of my argument aside, you say: “So you want to potentially risk the lives of the many to protect the few?” I think I require clarification. I think what you’re saying is that having no gun control risks everyone’s lives, and protects the few people who could benefit from it? Please correct me if I’m wrong. If this is your argument, I don’t think it’s appropriate because you’re assuming that gun control is 100% targeted at criminals, and that no gun control could only benefit criminals. This idea is wrong since gun control affects tens of millions of gun owners in America in their ability to purchase guns at their leisure, and to carry guns to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Mentioning Washington DC’s murder rate was to establish that banning guns doesn’t work. The idea that more gun control will keep guns out of the wrong hands has been soundly defeated. This was the point of yours I was addressing.

If thinking “shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed” means I’m part of the problem, then I guess I’m part of the problem then. But be careful, because when “criminals and crazies” can be denied their rights, I guarantee you the government’s definition of “criminals and crazies” will expand over time. Well-meaning legislation combined with incrimentalism has denied many honest citizens their rights.

As for the streets running red with blood, if someone has proven themselves a threat to society by infringing on the rights of others by murder or theft, they deserve to be locked up. I’m not talking about anarchy here. But those that are locked up must be locked up with one of two clear intentions; to rehabilitate, or to remove from society. If someone has proven themselves worthy of being removed from society indefinitely, then so be it. If someone is to be held until rehabilitation, then hold them until rehabilitation. But once they are rehabilitated in the truest sense of the word, don’t they deserve their rights back? If they don’t, are they really rehabilitated? Right now we have probation and reduced sentences that are mainly in place because of overcrowding in the prisons. Is this the right way to handle the problem?

The idea that the local police serves as a militia is, frankly, hilarious. If you don’t already see why, then I don’t think I can help you. Despite what you think, the police do NOT “defend” you. 90% of the time all they do is write reports after the crime has been committed. It’s the truth, ask a cop. If you call the police and tell them that someone is going to kill you tonight they’re going to tell you to hide from them, and call if they show up to kill you. The police have NO legal obligation to protect you. The supreme court has found this many times. People place too much trust in the police.

My point doesn’t conveniently cover all the bases. My point results in those who may have malicious intentions being free to legally obtain a firearm. My point can result in criminals obtaining guns. But my point allows those who aren’t criminals to buy guns freely and carry them freely which is meant to counteract the negatives. As for you comment about the state of Virginia, yes, guns are easy to obtain in Virginia. But that didn’t matter because there were NO GUNS allowed on campus. This didn’t stop one loser from harming many, it only stopped the many law-abiders from being able to protect themselves from one law-breaker.

You said “…background checks and waiting periods do not limit the rights of any law-abiding citizen considering the end result.” The point is not to legislate and regulate as much as you can without stepping over the constitutional barrier. Yes, people do get their guns, and in many states there is no waiting period, but I see no reason to legislate up to the limit on any of our rights just for good measure. It only means that the next step will cross the line. On the same token, background checks and waiting periods do not limit the ability of criminals to obtain guns either. So who are we really legislating against?

Calling the police is fine, but saying someone in fear for their life should stay at a friend’s house is low. Why should someone live in fear when they shouldn’t have to.

By the way, please don’t mistake my tone, I’m really enjoying this debate and being challenged :)

Left by existingthing on April 19th, 2007

At this point, I’m sure you and I are the only ones reading our comments here.

I appreciate the time you’re taking for the debate, I really do. But when you address part of what I say and not all of it because it points out one of your contradictions, such as “Calling the police is fine, but saying someone in fear for their life should stay at a friend’s house is low. Why should someone live in fear when they shouldn’t have to,” I don’t feel compelled to reciprocate in length.

I mentioned that if that person who’s supposedly suffering from the waiting period really wants one, they can go buy a gun illegally as you so often argue when it’s to your benefit. Or they can borrow one from a friend in the meantime (said meantime is very short if it’s a month or less).

My point is, with the waiting period, by your own arguments, someone can get a gun if they want to so badly. That takes away your disgruntled ex/stalker victim exception. And without that exception, these waiting periods hurt no one no matter how many times you repeat “Who do they really help/hurt?”

Obviously I’m the only one between us, or even on this website, who thinks the government should at least pretend to be responsible by making laws that, as you are convinced, might help nothing. I’m not convinced of that. We have a war on drugs, that’s failing and likely will continue to fail at all times. Does that mean you’d advocate that the government come out and say “We give up. We will never win the war on drugs. We admit it. Good luck!”?

We can assume all we want how easy just anyone can get ahold of a gun, but personally, I don’t know how to get one illegally. I don’t know anyone that’d sell one illegally. And I’m not sure this Cho-bastard, who was apparently an extreme loner, had better connections than I do.

I guess you think I’m the only one without a known connection. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I disagree that someone can get one illegally if they really want to, but I don’t think it’d be as easy and risk free as you’re making it out to be.

Left by Practical Radical on April 19th, 2007

I don’t think calling the police and fleeing your residence are the same or similar arguments. You call the police because you are in imminent danger, you stay at your friend’s house because you’re afraid and must hide (for how long???). This is why I took the statement as two suggestions. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Law abiding people are called law abiding people because they don’t break the law, nor do they wish to. To a law abiding person, a felony conviction can ruin the rest of their life. Criminals rack up felonies and prison stays regularly and don’t get turned down for that great CPA job because they picked up a gun illegally because they feared for their safety. When it comes down to the possibility of being murdered, or committing a felony, some people will commit the felony but most will just (mis)place their trust in the police.

I maintain that all citizens have the right to keep an bear arms, and arguing about how the best way to apply restrictions to that right is not something I feel I should even spent time doing. Arguing that people’s rights aren’t really infringed because they can just break the law doesn’t make sense to me.

If you don’t mind the government pretending to be responsible, let them pass pretend laws. While they’re doing their best to make common sense gun laws, people are dying. Why are you advocating more laws even if they don’t work? What kind of libertarian are you again?

Do I think the government should give up on the war on drugs? Yes yes yes. I’m a little surprised that you seem to support it. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government gets to decide what you do to yourself? So long as you aren’t infringing on the rights of others by theft or violence, you should have the right to do whatever you want to yourself. “My body, my choice” as they say. The government should not and does not have the authority to protect me from myself. When prohibition was repealed the government pretty much said, “We give up. We will never win the war on alcohol. We admit it. Good luck!” What they didn’t mention how much they contributed to the rise of organized crime, and the lives lost in the turf wars between rival bootlegging gangs. Parallels abound.

Cho had apparently been planning this for some time. He was obviously motivated. I have no doubt that he would have been able to otherwise obtain a gun had he tried hard enough. But even if he had not been able to do so, and decided to carry out his attack via arson or homemade bombs, the fact remains that criminals ARE obtaining firearms, regardless of your or Cho’s inability to do so.

“I guess you think I’m the only one without a known connection. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I disagree that someone can get one illegally if they really want to” I don’t have a connection either, but if I needed to violate the law in order to get a gun to protect the lives of my loved ones, I’m fairly confident I’d be able to. But that’s really just speculation.

“…but I don’t think it’d be as easy and risk free as you’re making it out to be.” Now I’m confused. I’ve argued that criminals can obtain guns illegally, yes it’s easy, and yes it’s mostly risk free. But if you’re claiming that obtaining a gun illegally is risky, why were you advocating victims obtain a gun illegally as one of your recommendations in your second paragraph. You said that though someone might have the right to have a gun, if they’re suffering a 10 day waiting period they need only break the law. But now you’re saying you think it’s likely a risky endeavor?

As for the possibility of borrowing a gun from a friend to cover the 10 days during which you are waiting, I don’t think anyone should have to depend on anyone else for their personal safety.

I’m struck by what you’re trying to argue. You’re admitting that law abiding citizens could be placed in a position of danger by gun control laws, but you’re advocating circumventing the very law you’re supporting? You’ve even admitted that the laws don’t stop criminals. Why are you supporting the law if you know it doesn’t work and that it hinders law-abiding citizens?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and in the government, it’s paved with good intentions and little bits of the constitution.

Left by existingthing on April 19th, 2007

And don’t forget, by far the most common places where it is ‘easy’ to get an illegal firearm are places like D.C., or South Central, or Detroit. Basically, the ghettos. However, in those places, most of the shootings are gang related…and I’m sure you’ll agree that except for the accidental innocent by-standers that get caught in the middle, I couldn’t care less about a thug losing his life because he was proud to live the Thug Life.

Where it’s NOT nearly as easy, is in the middle to upper class neighborhoods. Take out that exception of yours I previously mentioned, and the need for a gun, rather than the simple desire (that most 2nd amendment advocates have) decreases dramatically. But guess what: That’s where these massacres take place! Much to the implied perspective your arguments hold is the strong irony that it’s these neighborhoods, dominated by non-black and non-hispanic peoples, that need these waiting periods and background checks the most. These would be the small towns with big eyes and ears watching and listening to their community. A lot harder than the previously mentioned areas to get a gun illegally without risking the wrong (right?) person raising an eyebrow as a witness.

You white people, man. You whites and you asians. You’re all to blame. Y’all have good priorities for the racist-most part but then snap and kill without honor. The thugs? Why, they kill with honor…but have poor priorities. If I sound contradictory considering how happy I am that these gang folk kill themselves after pointing out their honor in murder, I’ll explain in three words: I’m white too.

However, you are morbidly misinterpreting much that I say. I use your arguments against you not because I believe in them, but because I’m trying to help you make your points on a stronger foundation. You see that as me contradicting myself, but those arguments you think I’m trying to make are not sincere on my part at all. That is not their purpose (e.g. purchasing guns illegally, war on drugs, anything and everything I’ve pointed out to you where you contradict yourself but don’t address, etc.).

And, I’ve never said what kind of libertarian I might be. I playfully told Smart Lass that I was one, but I don’t believe in such labels because there’s no such one that encompasses ANYone.

Also, I never hinted my position, in this last post, where I stand on the war on drugs. That’s not the subject here. It was an example of laws that don’t seem to be effective.

Have a good one now, I’m very bored of this debate. No offense, but we beat it to death and nobody persuaded anybody of anything.

That road to hell thing is a cute cliche, but empty as far as I can see. There’s no hell, and “good men who do nothing…” comes to mind against your view on good intentions.

Left by Practical Radical on April 19th, 2007

Sooooo… you were arguing with me for the purpose of contradicting me?

I was under the impression we were having a debate, inwhich I argue my points and opinions, and you argue yours. Apparently while I was arguing my points you were just arguing.

Why refrain from stating your position, and actually mislead others of your position and claim you were just doing it to help me prove my point? You claimed I was making convenient arguments, but it’s pretty freaking convenient of you to make all the arguments you want and then say you were just kidding without having to address my counterpoints.

Excuse me, but what the fuck are you doing?

Have an argument like an adult or let your opponent that you’re not really participating and just messing around.

Left by existingthing on April 19th, 2007

I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings, existingthing. I guess you’re more liberal than I am! Ha!

Left by Practical Radical on April 20th, 2007

Not more liberal, just more adult.

Left by existingthing on April 20th, 2007

:(

Left by Practical Radical on April 20th, 2007

“Ghhhhod, frickin idiots”

420!

GoingThere

Left by GoingThere on April 20th, 2007

Glad to amuse, GT! ;)

Left by Practical Radical on April 20th, 2007