Guns

[DavidW]

Screw guns! What about texting while driving? Worse than drunks!

Using the cell phone while driving is illegal in NY right?  And I think it's not even the hands problem, it's just a matter of distraction.  Silly people!

[MN Dave]

Using the cell phone while driving is illegal in NY right?  And I think it's not even the hands problem, it's just a matter of distraction.  Silly people!

With texting, it's the not-looking-at-the-road-for-long-periods-of-time problem.

[ChamberNut]

Automatic Driver's Test  for people aged 70 or older, every two years.

[MN Dave]

Well, you DO know that the rules of the game include banishment to moronhood if you are not in complete agreement? It is a transgression of the unwritten law...

[karlhenning]

Automatic Driver's Test  for people aged 70 or older, every two years.

There've been several accidents (fatalities among them) in Massachusetts involving senior motorists.

[MN Dave]

TEXTING!

[DavidW]

There've been several accidents (fatalities among them) in Massachusetts involving senior motorists.

MA drivers are horrible a-holes, worst driving conditions ever.  Glad to not deal with that garbage anymore.

This smiley is my new favorite!

[DavidRoss]

Screw guns! What about texting while driving? Worse than drunks!

Hear, hear!  Not just texting, but cell phone use, period!  This has been bloody obvious to anyone paying attention since cell phones began to become commonplace in the mid-nineties and has been documented by several studies.

The word bigot is a perfectly good descriptor in use for the past 300 years:

(from Webster's)

BIGOT
   * Main Entry: big·ot
   * Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
   * Function: noun
   * Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
   * Date: 1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Using the word bigot to describe a person with those characteristics is not an insult, but a simple statement of fact.  One who refuses to give full and fair consideration to the facts regarding an issue but who clings to strong opinions about it--especially to the extent of demonizing those who don't share his prejudices--is a bigot by definition and by choice.  If he feels insulted by the thought that he might be a bigot, that suggests that his beliefs may conflict with his values.  If a reasonably thoughtful and rational person were to call me a bigot in relation to some issue (and it happens in essence on this site every time someone even questions a cherished tenet of the prevailing liberal orthodoxy), I would regard that as a challenge to examine the basis of my beliefs regarding that issue.  

I repeat--the issue of private gun ownership in a liberal society is among the most contentious matters we could discuss.  Rational discussion of the issue--as with every issue--requires full and fair-minded investigation of all the relevant facts.  When I did this in response to a challenge from a gun-rights advocate of my acquaintance, I was compelled to change my opinion and support the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms--and from all perspectives, including moral, legal, historical, practical, and public health.  And so, I think, must anyone else with the intellectual integrity to lays his prejudices aside and give open-minded consideration to all the facts--not just those convenient to his particular biases--for the facts do not support the claims of those who wish to deny others the right to private gun ownership for the sake of personal defense.

Don't take my word for it.  Investigate the matter for yourself.  But investigate with a commitment to learning the truth, whatever it may be, and not just for the sake of finding some "authority" who supports your prejudice.  Unless so informed, your views on the subject cannot be anything but sheer bigotry, i.e. obstinate, irrational, uninformed prejudice.

Finally, matters related to private firearms ownership vary from culture to culture--just like matters related to religion, diet, government, sexuality, architecture, and so on.  What do we call someone who presumes to judge customs of another culture by the standards of his own--especially when such judgment is made with an attitude of cultural superiority so smug that it doesn't even endeavor to develop a complete understanding of those customs within the cultural context where they are found?

[ChamberNut]

Uhh yaah, not so fast David.  The evidence is far from being irrefutable.  From what some have posted and linked as far as data is concerned, is totally different than the data Dan and others have posted.

A lot of conflicting 'facts'.  Who's right, who's wrong?  Do you know for sure David, that you are right on this?

[WI Dan]

      The evidence is far from being irrefutable. 

Give this a read, ChamberNut:  LINK

Cost is $12.95 at Amazon

If you still have any serious doubts, I'd be really interested to hear what they might be.

[WI Dan]

    I commend you for trying, Dan.  

That's what my viola teacher said, just before handing me a pair of drumsticks. 

[Florestan]

My issue is not with gun-ownership per se, but with the argument that it's a prerequisite for a free society.

First, in most Western European countries gun-ownership is strictly regulated in such a manner as to be practically forbidden. Does this make French, or Dutch, or Italian people less free than the Americans? I've asked this question here repeatedly and never got a straightforward answer.

Second, gun-ownership was widely spread in Germany and Spain in the Thirties; yet this didn't deter any extremist party, from far-left to far-right, to pursue their goal of getting absolute power.

Third, gun-ownership is widely spread today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and other countries ejusdem farinae, yet liberty is conspicuously absent there.

And fourth, if the last resort and pillar of liberty is violence, then any leader or party confident enough that they have force superior to that of their opponents can at any time try a coup. It happened before, it happens today and it will happen in the future.

So, IMO, in respect to liberty today, if the rule of law is absent, private guns are useless; and if the rule of law applies, private guns are redundant.

Self-defence is another matter and might provide a more convincing argument.

[Lethevich]

If agreeing with Florestan on this makes me a bigot, then I'm happy to be one 0:)

[DFO]

In the USA, possession and use of guns will never be banned because
americans love them, and it's part of the culture. Their history
was made with guns.

[WI Dan]

First, in most Western European countries gun-ownership is strictly regulated in such a manner as to be practically forbidden. Does this make French, or Dutch, or Italian people less free than the Americans? I've asked this question here repeatedly and never got a straightforward answer.

Yes.  Of course it does.  Yessiree.  No question about it.

[drogulus]

My issue is not with gun-ownership per se, but with the argument that it's a prerequisite for a free society.

First, in most Western European countries gun-ownership is strictly regulated in such a manner as to be practically forbidden. Does this make French, or Dutch, or Italian people less free than the Americans? I've asked this question here repeatedly and never got a straightforward answer.

Second, gun-ownership was widely spread in Germany and Spain in the Thirties; yet this didn't deter any extremist party, from far-left to far-right, to pursue their goal of getting absolute power.

Third, gun-ownership is widely spread today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and other countries ejusdem farinae, yet liberty is conspicuously absent there.

And fourth, if the last resort and pillar of liberty is violence, then any leader or party confident enough that they have force superior to that of their opponents can at any time try a coup. It happened before, it happens today and it will happen in the future.

So, IMO, in respect to liberty today, if the rule of law is absent, private guns are useless; and if the rule of law applies, private guns are redundant.

Self-defence is another matter and might provide a more convincing argument.

    I don't see any bigotry here. Perhaps the experts can show me.

    I think people ought to be allowed to own guns. I also think gun ownership ought to be regulated according to local circumstances. The rules in Minnesota might be different than the rules in Massachusetts. What would work best is stricter control of sales so states with liberal ownership rules can't "acid rain" their guns on the rest of us. This is a compromise between local tradition and the need of urban populations to restrict guns. In both cases it's a matter of culture.

    Cities like more porn/foreign films and fewer guns. I suppose there are rational as well as belief-based reasons involved. Self-defense in an apartment building means something different than self-defense in the woods because the proximity of bystanders matters. I don't know if this is a matter of proven danger as much as it is the tradition that says don't bring your guns to town. Perhaps it is both. Anyway it's not clear to me that the reasons for supporting gun ownership are more rational than the reasons for restricting it, nor would they have to be. The rational reasons don't have to be the reasons. Some people like guns, and if the costs are bearable they should be allowed to have them. The same applies for the controllers. The biggest problem is controlling the spillover.

Yes.  Of course it does.  Yessiree.  No question about it.

    Nossiree. The evidence that the liberty restrictions that gun control impose lead to other liberty restrictions caused by the absence of guns is nonexistent, which is exactly what Florestan is pointing out. That is the restriction that matters.

[WI Dan]

In the USA, possession and use of guns will never be banned because
americans love them, and it's part of the culture. Their history
was made with guns.

... and I'm sure pitchforks will never be banned in France, for the same reason.

Personally, I'm more comfortable with a .45 Colt at my side, but as they say, ... "To each his own".   

[drogulus]

First, in most Western European countries gun-ownership is strictly regulated in such a manner as to be practically forbidden. Does this make French, or Dutch, or Italian people less free than the Americans? I've asked this question here repeatedly and never got a straightforward answer.

     Democratic peoples like Americans and French and Dutch are free to define what freedom requires for them. Some Americans tend to think that unless you hang out on the edge like we do here, you aren't really free. So freedom for us means giving up the freedom to restrict (in the case of guns) or having the freedom to restrict (in the case of abortion). Traditions are not rational, so local ideas of freedom will not be either. The best you can do is make them more rational.

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes.  Of course it does.  Yessiree.  No question about it.

I think you are merely making an emotional response rather than a reasoned one. The question itself hasn't been answered because there is no answer. As such, the pressing of it is rather in the same vein as those posed by Robert Newman over and over in the Mozart Fraud thread. Florestan, as a modestly logical person, should know better than to repeatedly demand an answer to an unanswerable question. You, Dan, probably know that your answer is merely bogus rhetoric brought on by your frustration with his POV.

The violence in people will never be eliminated by the banning of firearms. It is not a question of freedom or even culture. It is the essential nature of humans, and it will not be bred out of us or prohibited out of us. And debates such as this one are not going to matter a damn in the outcome, whatever that may be. As long as there are sticks and stones, people will kill each other.



----------------
Listening to:
Christine Schornsheim -  Hob 16 45 Sonata #29  in Eb for Keyboard 3rd mvmt - Finale: Allegro di molto

[MishaK]

The violence in people will never be eliminated by the banning of firearms. It is not a question of freedom or even culture. It is the essential nature of humans, and it will not be bred out of us or prohibited out of us. And debates such as this one are not going to matter a damn in the outcome, whatever that may be. As long as there are sticks and stones, people will kill each other.

That's a little too absolute of a statement. You neglect the fact that different societies have had vastly divergent levels of violence at different points in time. So it is indeed possible to reduce violence to very much tolerable levels. There is also a qualitative difference between firearms and 'sticks and stones'. The latter are much harder to use effectively for murder. If that were not so, we wouldn't be having a debate about firearms.