dagblog - Comments for "Giffords Reaches 'Responsible Gun Owners' At Firing Ranges"

[Including your "I think I

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 07:03:01 +0000

[Including your "I think I would have to maybe shoot myself in the head with one of your guns and lose a couple thousand brain cells before I could talk on your level." comment above]

How about venting less?

Try another part of an Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech" - yet you can't legally yell fire in a theater, threaten the president, lie about somone in damaging ways, foment the overthrow of the US, use curse words on public radio, take over stage at someone else's event, and a number of other restrictions.

It's not "a miracle" there are limits - it's how our constitution has evolved in practice, balancing one freedom with the others.

And no, I wasn't saying shooting up cans with machine guns as distinct from defense should be constitutionally protected over say playing tennis or flying down mountains wearing a squirrel suit. I just noted it's a nice recreation, that someone's not a conservative loon just because they enjoy firing high powered or rapid fire weapons. Hell, half of mobile phone & console games are roughly equivalent to this, and half of our TV shows exploit this urge - we see a target, bang bang, next target.

If we want to make any progress on reasonable gun control, we can't use insult everyone without understanding them at all.

The Second Amendment is a

Orion — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 00:17:22 +0000

In reply to Oh come on now - there have

The Second Amendment is a very short paragraph. It guarantees gun ownership for anyone who doesn't have an obvious criminal record. That restrictions on gun ownership of any kind even exist is a bit of a miracle - because as the Second Amendment is written, any limits on gun ownership would be unconstitutional.

If you don't like that, Peracles, I'm sorry, but not liking reality won't change it.

At least there are no

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 07 Jul 2013 13:03:37 +0000

In reply to The next thing you're going

At least there are no restrictions on yelling, "RELAX, EVERYBODY, ITS ONLY SMOKE".

The next thing you're going

Verified Atheist — Sun, 07 Jul 2013 11:18:59 +0000

In reply to Oh come on now - there have

The next thing you're going to tell me is that we're not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, even though that right is guaranteed by the 1^st amendment!

Oh come on now - there have

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 07 Jul 2013 11:02:43 +0000

In reply to The couple supports the

Oh come on now - there have been restrictions on gun ownership for criminals forever. Just because Republicans are fighting reasonable control of guns doesn't mean Giffords is "trying to have it both ways" by supporting gun ownership and lack of access for criminals. It simply means she's a helpless Democrat who can't push jack through Congress to do anything about the latter. Can't blame her solely for the position Democrats are in.

You put "defend" in scare

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:55:45 +0000

In reply to I'm not sure where you're

You put "defend" in scare quotes and act like it's irrational fear. Some of the people I know had guns waiting for the government to start imposing martial law, but most had it to handle someone who'd sneak into their house or real dangers in bad neighborhoods.

"Why else would one ever own a handgun or any firearm other than a hunting rifle except for fear? - when I was a kid, shotguns and even a nice palm-held Baretta were a "blast" to fire. Can shoot skeet without killing critters. Hell, even the county fair had a shooting gallery - only fake tin ducks, get a stuffed bear! Hey, I even went to a range with machine guns once - rather cool but can damage your ears. Why is that fear? I consider it the thinking man's golf.

Sorry, not a helpful persuasive tack you're on.

I'm not sure where you're

Orion — Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:43:04 +0000

In reply to I haven't seen police or

I'm not sure where you're proving me wrong. Most people who feel an imperative need to own a handgun do so because they think it defends them from something that the police or Feds can't or won't. That's not even a judgment.

Fear is defined as "an emotion induced by a perceived threat which causes entities to quickly pull far away from it and usually hide." Paranoia is fear "often to the point of irrationality and delusion." I am not saying that all people who own guns are paranoid but I am saying that there is certainly an element of fear to people who think they need handguns in their lives.

I haven't seen police or

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:26:56 +0000

In reply to Many gun owners like to

I haven't seen police or soldiers carrying firecrackers for protection, nor farmers using firecrackers for hunting or killing off wolves preying on their livestock.

In one place I lived a while ago, the neighbor's front door had a bunch of bullet holes through it. Does owning a handgun seem valid then? There was a short period when hijacking cars by ATMs became popular - just let it go, lose your car & money & what not?

It's hard to get change by ridiculing everyone's concerns as paranoid. Actually it heightens the paranoia - when other people can't differentiate real dangers from fake ones, I figure they're about to do something really stupid and dangerous.

Many gun owners like to

Orion — Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:09:55 +0000

In reply to Why else would one ever own a

Many gun owners like to target shoot. Something about being human seems to lead people to enjoy aiming at something with something and trying to hit it. People also do it with arrows, they do it with darts, they even do it with basketballs. Who knows why, people just seem to find it fun.

Alot of people like to do alot of things. I like to shoot off fireworks. I don't understand why fireworks are illegal and guns aren't. I really do not understand that. Given the obvious serious threat guns pose to people's very lives, they may need to find other things to find fun - public safety is a little more important.

That human need is provided by video games, by arrows and by basketballs. The right to do that with a fast traveling lead bullet, at this point, doesn't seem like something worth fighting for.

Lumping all gun owners together and calling them irrational is inflammatory and insulting and untrue. Telling all gun owners they are driven by fear, an irrational fear of everyone else in the country is inflammatory and insulting and untrue. If you want to see change insulting people is unlikely to work.

What I said is that there is a very good possibility that most ownership of handguns is driven by a feeling that one needs to "defend" themselves - that there are people who are threatening to them. Alot of the pro-gun articles you've seen since the Sandy Hook massacre have gone that route. I don't think that's inflammatory at all.

Why else would one ever own a

ocean-kat — Sun, 07 Jul 2013 08:52:17 +0000

In reply to There may be some gun owners

Why else would one ever own a handgun or any firearm other than a hunting rifle except for fear?

Many gun owners like to target shoot. Something about being human seems to lead people to enjoy aiming at something with something and trying to hit it. People also do it with arrows, they do it with darts, they even do it with basketballs. Who knows why, people just seem to find it fun.

To want to see change on this issue is hardly inflammatory -

Lumping all gun owners together and calling them irrational is inflammatory and insulting and untrue. Telling all gun owners they are driven by fear, an irrational fear of everyone else in the country is inflammatory and insulting and untrue. If you want to see change insulting people is unlikely to work.