dagblog - Comments for "Book Review: Shooters"

Reading the following, I was

artappraiser — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:27:58 +0000

In reply to So do we chalk artappraiser

Reading the following, I was reminded of your hyperbolic prediction:: a fortified bunker like the Green Zone in Baghdad. Not exactly:

Democrats Quickly Resume ‘Congress on Your Corner’ Events
Jan. 14
[.....]
At each event, there appeared to be at least one police officer present — there were more than 20 at Ms. Berkley’s. For some lawmakers, that was unusual.
[.....]
Members of Congress have been in talks with the Capitoal Police and sergeant-at-arms about new security measures when they meet with large groups in their districts. In the past, some members have routinely relied on local police departments to patrol their larger meetings with constituents, while others have not had security at such events.
The Capitol Police and local law enforcement officials conducted a “threat assessment” this week in the Maryland district office of Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger, and “gave us some great tips on how to conduct ourselves at public events,” said Heather Molino, his spokeswoman. The congressman plans to attend a meeting to educate voters about the health care law on Saturday.
[.....]
In Chicago, Representative Mike Quigley held his “Congress on Your Corner” event on Friday at a library on the city’s North Side. Mr. Quigley said it was the first time he had ever had police officers, in plain clothes, at a community event. He said he had made the decision in part to make his staff feel safer. “For now, if it makes everyone feel better,” he said.
[......]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/us/15meet.html?ref=todayspaper

And reading the following I saw evidence of how your style of rhetoric on the issue is helping the NRA out in killing a high-capacity clip bill:

NRA: Anti-High-Capacity Clip Bill Just A Scheme To Impose 'Gun Ban'
.....An unattributed statement posted on the NRA website late Friday, written in the rhetorical style the powerful association has come to be known for, dubbed gun control supporters "gun ban advocates" and the proposals mentioned in the wake of the mass shooting "schemes."....
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/nra_anti-high-capacity...

Sure Barth I agree with these

Richard Day — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:29:58 +0000

In reply to I do not accept that a person

Sure Barth I agree with these tenets.

But the list calls for sanity.

But most repubs and almost all teabaggers will not accept sanity.

I am not kidding you. No

Resistance — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:32:34 +0000

In reply to I was using hyperbole and did

I am not kidding you.

No sooner had NCD and I have a disagreement, on a post dealing with the subject of gun control; he went to another post, I happened to make a comment on, having to do with the ongoing problem of comments being rejected.

A clear picture of stalking began to emerge. First it started as an insult, that I ignored, then NCD came back reedited the original and became belligerent and over the top hateful.

I gathered from his comments, about telling the school children that there friend died, because of something I believed. How many a degree of separation is there for deranged individuals to do the civic duty and save the children from someone like me.

If only he could breach the security of Dagblog, maybe he could instead of stalking me on an unrelated topic, he could just appear at my door? To try to show me he didn't shoot me, the gun did and with his snarky sneer "how do you feel about guns now, A hole, don't you wish you would have passed a law against them"?

At that point it appeared this person is a little deranged. How far would this person go in his mind of association? That we would be considered enemies, that stood in the way of his rational thoughts?

I was using hyperbole and did

Atheist — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:07:37 +0000

In reply to A threatening,

I was using hyperbole and did not mean to intend that NCD is literally like Nixon or Bush. Unless s/he has bothered to track down your real name, I think any accusations of stalking are also hyperbole.

Furthermore, I do not believe that NCD is irrational in general, or even wrong on the basics of this point in particular. My disagreement is that there are gray areas here that NCD does not seem willing to entertain.

A threatening,

Resistance — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:57:38 +0000

In reply to This might not be your

A threatening, irrational person, is beginning to emerge in the character of NCD and should be reported

He or she recently stalked me, on a post discussing problems with posting; a subject unrelated to the gun issue.

He/She absolutely has what appears to be a compilation of an enemies list.

If someone has the connections, someone with authority should be notified.

I could provide evidence such as Newton’s laws of physics and inanimate objects, but this person will not accept reason, therefore; I believe this person is unreasonable, irrational and possibly a threat.

An example from a quick

artappraiser — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:45:56 +0000

In reply to So do we chalk artappraiser

An example from a quick google: 5 dead, 12 injured:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/30/netherlands.queen.car/ind...

Your sarcastic answer about green zones tells me you are the kind who would like to pretend that life in western countries should go on as if we all live in Thornton Wilders' Our Town. Regulated automobiles and regulated firearms are not going to stop these kind of attacks on public gatherings, it's the reality of the world you live in, and there must be extra security measures involved. If you could snap your fingers and outlaw all firearms in this country, those extra security measures would still be needed. Not the least of which because the actual guns would still be out there, just on the black market.

Furthermore, you seem to see as your enemy many who obviously compare automobiles and guns in order to convince people to regulate guns like automobiles are regulated. You are the one who makes no sense. I happen to think if guns were regulated like automobiles that there would be fewer deaths from guns. Not no deaths from guns, just like with automobiles, which still cause many deaths, and not just all accidental.

You seem to be on a jihad to convince that guns are evil. What is that going to get you? Actually, the more I think on it as far as people with your attitude is concerned, the more I find the comparison useful. Using the "automobiles are evil and must be abolished" argument hasn't worked out very well as to practical results for environmentalists nor for crusaders against the mayhem they cause. Catalytic converter laws, gas guzzler laws, seat belt laws, air bag laws, drunk driving laws and traffic laws in general, those have gotten actual real results.

This might not be your

Atheist — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:38:58 +0000

In reply to So do we chalk artappraiser

This might not be your intent, but it seems like you're building an "enemies list" and declaring that commenters are either "with [you] or against [you]". As artappraiser suggests, that's not a very effective method for "winning friends and influencing enemies".

There are gray areas involved, and similarities exist between guns and lots of other things. Ignoring that does not help you.

So do we chalk artappraiser

NCD — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:54:43 +0000

In reply to We all get your point about

So do we chalk artappraiser up with Destor and Resistance as conceptualizing that guns and cars (and motorcycles now) are 'the same', or would modifying that belief risk increasing the discomfit of the gun lovers, and therefore be out of the question?

I suppose if Giffords had not met constituents in a fortified bunker like the Green Zone in Baghdad, complete with Bremer Walls of concrete, anti-aircraft defenses, checkpoints and armed guards she could have always been accused of lacking the most rudimentary caution according to your arguments.

That doesn't fly with me. The navel gazing rationales presented by some on this site is at times unbelievable. ciao!

We all get your point about

artappraiser — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:01:27 +0000

In reply to Destor23 - believer in

We all get your point about the strong symbolism of guns but reality-wise as far as attacks are concerned it strikes me as off-base. Actually, these days you've got to protection at large political gatherings or the like against not just guns, but speeding vehicles and vehicular bombs. Manhattan, Paris, London, et. al., these days all have all manner of vehicle barriers, from lowly cement planters or speed bumpgs to tire spikes to high tech electronic metal shields that rise up out of the ground in front of sensitive building, and bring more out when a VIP might be somewhere not well protected.

Seems to me Rep. Giffords meet and greet was just totally unprotected from attacks, vehicles as well as guns. Someone could have easily mowed her and a bunch of other people standing around her down with a car. And then there's the terminology of "this car came gunning towards the crowd."

You haven't watched any action suspense movies lately, have you? Nor paid much attention to invnovation of public attacks in general? Need I mention IED''s seem to have become a popular alternative where people are often searched for guns? Never parked in a Manhattan lot under a high rise after, oh, like the '93 WTC bombing, see them check under your car with a mirror before you go in?

Congresspersons now recognize that nowhere is LIttle House on the Prairie anymore and they've got to hold anounced meetings indoors in secured buildings or other secured areas, not outside in unsecured parking lots:

http://northport.patch.com/articles/giffords-shooting-to-change-how-cong...

That's not just about guns. That's about a changed world where everyone in the world can read on your website where and when you're going to have a public meeting next week, it's no longer a case of hanging an announcement up on the supermarket bulletin board.

You argument about the symbolism is fine, the one about the incredible damage guns to the lives of ordinary people is better--however, the latter can also be matched by car and motorcycle accidents.. But this one doesn't fly with me at all and I am all for more restrictions on gun ownership. I think your clear hatred of guns and willingness to rant about it isn't going to convince anyone that doesn't agree with you and therefore isn't going to take you anywhere you want to go. More likely, some of your arguments if made by many, will make gun lovers paranoid enough about what you want to do, and will work harder than ever to avoid any restrictions.

Destor23 - believer in

NCD — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 03:23:48 +0000

In reply to Neat. I grew up with guns

Destor23 - believer in Resistance's 'inanimate object theory' which equates guns and cars! Who would have guessed?

"Sure, they're dangerous but so are cars."....so is water if you drink too much at once. I knew someone killed by a tree, but I don't think guns are like trees.

Destor - Hey, can you wave cars in the air when the President is holding a rally in town to intimidate others and express your outrage? You said cars are dangerous, right? So waving a car should be as intimidating as waving a gun, right?

You could hold up a model of a GM Corvair (without seat belts) and perhaps scare some people familiar with its history. An AK-47 though would seem more effective. People now are out buying guns after this mass shooting, if an SUV rolls on a freeway do people rush out to buy SUV's the next day?

Guns and cars are not similar or comparable, they have nothing in common at all.