Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Larry Pratt Insists It's the Gun-Free Zone That's the Problem
This discussion illustrates perfectly the difference between the gun-rights and the gun-control sides. The pro-gun folks won't budge on issues like background checks and gun availability while the gun-control side is willing to consider everything.
The opposition to universal background checks makes them really look bad. Don't you think? Plus, the insistence that gun free zones are somehow to blame lends an element of the absurd to their position.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Show me one example of gun control freaks being willing to budge. Here's a deal: universal background checks for universal carry. Will you budge, Mikeb?
ReplyDeleteIt's ridiculous to turn it into a negotiation. We're suppose to be striving to find what's best for the country, in good faith. Are you really that self-centered that you think it requires your getting something out of the deal?
DeleteMike - if we have universal background checks, then only those deemed acceptable by the government would be getting weapons. Why would it matter where they were allowed to carry those weapons?
DeleteMikeb, what's best for this country is exactly the matter of debate here. You don't have the only position on that question. As strongly as you believe in your ideas, we believe that ours are right. You keep saying that we're selfish and evil because we insist on protecting gun rights. We see gun rights as a fundamental element of what's best for America.
DeleteIf you'd ever stop seeing us as wicked, you'd make more progress. I doubt that you're capable of letting go of your prejudice, though.
You're doing it again, Greg.
Delete"You keep saying that we're selfish and evil because we insist on protecting gun rights."
"If you'd ever stop seeing us as wicked, you'd make more progress."
"Evil" and "wicked" have never been typed by me when referring to you.
So are you, Mikeb. You're not acknowledging the implication of your words. You called me "self-centered." Isn't selfish a synonym of that? You said that your proposals are in the best interest of the country. What kind of person opposes the best interest of his nation? Below, you say that half of all gun owners--that's about 50,000,000, by the way--don't deserve to own their guns. Why would that be?
DeleteCan we get past the point of denying the clear implications of what someone says?
When I'm at my most gracious I see it this way: It represents a fundamental difference in views. To one group it's obvious that the problem lies with firearms. To the other, it's equally obvious that the problem lies with the legal restrictions on ownership by the law abiding. It is this difference that makes negotiation so difficult, though I suggest it's neither impossible nor undesirable. Each group proceeds from a different basic premise. Thus, from the gun control side, we have comments like "It's ridiculous to turn it into a negotiation. We're suppose to be striving to find what's best for the country, in good faith." That statement suggests that the only possible answer that's good for the country is one favored by gun control advocates, as if there is no possibility at all that those on the other side could possibly be bringing a meaningful alternative to the table. I submit to you that it is this attitude, in part, that frustrates gun rights advocates. I further submit that historically, though they did not like it, gun rights advocates have either compromised on gun control legislation or had it rammed down their throats anyway. It amazes me, in light of this, that gun control folks have the temerity, the gall, to act surprised when their gun rights counterparts say either "this time you need to compromise, too" or even "no more".
ReplyDeleteThere's no attitude here, man. Your side brings plenty to the table, arming more good guys INSTEAD of trying to reduce gun availability to the bad guys. Our side says lets do background checks on all gun sales. Your answer, it's a waste of time.
DeleteIt's clear to me that your side of this debate is not operating in good faith but only to maintain an agenda.
Pot, meet Kettle.
DeleteWe give reasons why we dislike your proposals or think that they won't work, yet you maintain your agenda too.
Mikeb, above, I just offered universal background checks for something I want. You won't even agree to this offer.
DeleteFascinating. You seem to truly believe that acceptance of your suggestions in their entirety is the only way to be operating in good faith. Once again, you would have us accept that our choices are 1)compromise what we believe to be best or 2)have it rammed down our throats anyway. "No attitude"? Really? But, let's ignore that for now. I have a question (I have lots of those...my kids hate it). For the sake of argument, let's say all gun owners nationwide rush to accept all your recommendations. Further, for the sake of argument, lets say they produce the desired results. Do you see yourself, not all other gun control advocates for whom I understand you cannot speak, suggesting more gun control legislation at that point? Further, what is your answer to that question if those recommendations don't work?
DeleteCorrection: The last sentence should begin "Even further".
DeleteSpeaking for myself, I think I would be satisfied with the recommendations I've made. I figure it would exclude about half the existing lawful gun owners and greatly diminish the flow of guns to criminals.
DeleteIf it didn't I guess I'd pack up and go home. Cat blogging, maybe.
So, what do I think? I think that US gun control history is replete with examples of one piece of "reasonable" gun control legislation after another, none of which, individually or collectively, have made a significant difference in reducing crime. Each time, we are told that this newest one, this latest and oh so reasonable piece of legislation will do what others have failed to do.
ReplyDeleteWhat do I think? I think we have a sufficient history of comments by pro gun control folks to justify the conclusion that they will be truly happy only when they have effectively or even totally disarmed the American populace.
What do I think? I think our decades long flirtation with ever increasing amounts of gun control and its subsequent failure to provide its promised benefits has proven its fallacious basis. Given that, it's difficult to assume those gun control advocates who are well versed in that history are being completely honest.
What do I think? I think people fail to realize that liberty is both unspeakably precious and incredibly fragile. It is lost, often, not in one fell swoop, but little by little and bit by bit. Jefferson put it this way in "A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge": "Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny..." Now, I'd be really happy if everyone who reads this would resist the temptation to suggest I'm suggesting revolt, violence, assassination, rioting or anything of the sort.
Conservative activist tries to get reporters to advertise their gun-free homes.....
ReplyDeleteHahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://nosilencehere.com/?p=3092
Anyone who argues that Gun Laws don't inhibit crime is either disingenuous or stupid. What Law, in and of itself, has ever stopped a crime?
ReplyDeleteWhat we need is a culture change and enforcement.
We have allowed the NRA as the media arm of the Gun Makers to strip any gun regulations away because of Profit.
Gun Makers need to be held potentially liable for the outcomes of their products use.
Gun Owners need to prove they have positive control of their weapons twice a year.
Otherwise Gun Makers will just keep flooding us with their weapons of mass murder.
As an aside on the Guns in school. What do the responsible gun owners think is going to happen? Are teachers going to be carrying AR-15s with a tac sling all day long will they just have pistols. What minimum level holster will they be mandated to have? Will their be a armory in every school building for storage what about clearing barrels? Where does the teacher keep it while going to the bathroom?
Gene,
DeleteI have a plethora of concealment holsters so that, depending on what I'm wearing, I can conceal the gun that I have on me in such a way that it isn't seen (mostly for the comfort of others) and isn't accessible by those who still notice it because of the slight bulge. The best for this are tuckable models so that someone would have to pull your shirt out of your pants before they could get to the gun.
I don't think you'd find any argument from any of us against requiring teachers use one of these types of holsters if they were authorized to carry.
Regarding cleaning, that's when most negligent discharges happen, both for every day citizens and for police. Require that all such maintenance be done at home. Require that the gun not be removed from the holster at school. It won't go off if you're not handling it. Pull it out to show it off or something, and lose your job.
As for the Bathroom question--they keep it with them to prevent unauthorized access. Is it tricky to keep it off the dirty floor and to tuck in over it? Yeah, but those with a permit have already figured out how to deal with those problems, and if the holster required is a proper one, it keeps the trigger covered so that they don't accidentally trigger the gun when pulling up their pants and tucking in their shirt over it.
There are answers to these questions and ways that we could allow this and it be done safely.
Preposterous
DeleteGene, since when has the NRA stripped away any gun regulation? There are still plenty of gun laws, many of which I'd be glad to see stripped. But given your comments about holsters and carry, you show that you know nothing about the subject. How about keeping silent with regard to regulating something about which you're ignorant?
Delete