From Ohio Gun, Knife, and Military Shows...
LOADED FIREARMS ARE NOT PERMITTED ON THE GUN SHOW PREMISES. EXHIBITORS AND PATRONS ARE REQUIRED TO EXAMINE EACH FIREARM, REMOVE CLIPS AND BE POSITIVE THAT THE FIREARM IS NOT LOADED BEFORE ENTERING THE GUN SHOW PREMISES.
From Gunshow.net
Because attendees will be handling their weapons inside the show, we ask that for your safety, please ensure all clips and weapons are empty before entering the show. Double check inside the chamber of all weapons! Patrons who bring loaded clips or weapons into the show may be refused entry. Purchase your ticket, get your hand stamped, and then proceed to the Gun Check table. Always point your weapon in a safe direction (up or down) and never put your finger on the trigger. Remove all clips first and show the attendant that they are empty. Open the chamber on your weapons so the attendant can verify that the chambers are clear. If you do not know how to open your weapon please inform the attendant and they will assist you. Never try to operate a weapon you are not familiar with. Never try to reload your weapon while inside the show. You must be 18 or over to enter or be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. You must be 21 or older to purchase, sell or handle a handgun and 18 or older to purchase, sell or handle a rifle or shotgun inside the show. No exceptions. Class 3 weapons must be accompanied with the proper documentation.
So, gun shows are actually gun free zones? Seems to me like my prediction about someone losing it at a gun show is even more possible than I thought with all these defenseless people. I do love the part about possibly not knowing how to open your weapon, though:)
83 comments:
They are not Gun Free Zones as by definition there are guns there. You just can't have them loaded in the show. Outside the show there are plenty including police officers. I can tell you have never been to one.
Well, I actually disagree with 6kings.
It's just like when Mark said an armoury is a 'gun full zone', just because there are guns there.
If a gun isn't loaded it's just a junk of metal. If the people can't use a gun to protect themselves, by rule, then it is a gun free zone.
And Mark, claiming that because it is a gun free zone your prediction that someone will commit a mass shooting at one is more likely - proves the lie to your claim of the 'gun free zone lie'.
I've never been to a gun show but it seems to me that if they aren't loaded inside the show, then aren't gun shows as "safe" as schools without guns? Imagine the uproar from the Gun Cult if schools decided to allow guns but only if they followed the same rules as gun shows. What a bunch of pussies would the howl of derision.
My prediction stands based on Gun Cult statements. If only bad guys breaks the law, then what's to stop them from bringing an armed weapon into a gun show? What's to stop a mentally ill person who refuses to give up their gun from going into a gun show and shooting the place up?
My prediction stands based on Gun Cult statements. If only bad guys breaks the law, then what's to stop them from bringing an armed weapon into a gun show? What's to stop a mentally ill person who refuses to give up their gun from going into a gun show and shooting the place up?
Now I'm confused Mark.
That statement pretty much sums up the entire problem with 'gun free zones' as posited by what you term the 'gun cult'.
With you making the SAME EXACT STATEMENT as the side of the problem you deride for making the SAME EXACT STATEMENT, I have only one thing to ask - what the hell are you talking about when you proclaim the 'gun free zone lie'?
And by the way, since you've never been to a gun show, nor probably a gun store, also probably never received gun safety training you probably have no idea why gun shows have these rules in effect.
Hint: it's not a 'gun free zones make us safe' rule. It's a difference between what would be considered a hot range and a cold range.
what the hell are you talking about when you proclaim the 'gun free zone lie'?
I'm simply repeating back that you guys always say (see: voices in my head). So are gun shows "gun free zones?" And are they just as "safe" as schools? Why aren't you complaining about them?
I've never been to a gun show
You really should have stopped there. It would have been a factual statement that no one would dispute. But of course you couldn't.
My prediction stands based on Gun Cult statements.
Some day I hope you find a medication that stops the voices in your head.
I'm simply repeating back that you guys always say (see: voices in my head).
You neither quote us correctly or restate accurately what was said to you. In short, nothing gets past those voices.
Why aren't you complaining about them?
For fuck's sake.....
ALREADY ANSWERED. See above, re:cold range vs. hot range. See also re: "you probably have no idea why gun shows have these rules in effect."
You should have just kept your mouth shut to have not proven, again, THAT YOU DON'T LISTEN.
I'm simply repeating back that you guys always say
WE say, exact quote, "gun free zone LIE?"
Or is it more accurate that you add in the "lie" part?
So again - What the fuck are you saying, and what the fuck is the lie?
And because you're almost utterly ignorant of gun shows, I'll be generous and assume you really aren't aware of how unpopular such policies are in the case of CCW pieces. For pieces that are being taken to be sold, they damned well better be unloaded before being handled, and the best way to do that is check them at the door. In some cases, it's been a choice of either putting such policies in place or having to shut down, due to local political pressure and/or insurance costs. People are there to buy or sell firearms, and guess what? Not everyone is really familiar with every make or model of firearm. Especially one they may have picked up recently or inherited and are looking to sell.
But between the armed security guards, cops, and readily available ammunition that could be very quickly loaded, I think there's a reason there's never been a mass shooting at gun show. There have been a (small) handful of accidental shootings over the years, and it wouldn't surprise me if one or two happened at the door when going through this process. It wouldn't surprise me if one was an off-duty cop, for that matter.
See above, re:cold range vs. hot range.
So, is a cold range as "safe" as a school that is a gun free zone?
So again - What the fuck are you saying, and what the fuck is the lie?
Answer the question above. Yes or no?
I think there's a reason there's never been a mass shooting at gun show. There have been a (small) handful of accidental shootings over the years, and it wouldn't surprise me if one or two happened at the door when going through this process. It wouldn't surprise me if one was an off-duty cop, for that matter.
I'm going to remember this when my prediction comes true.
Each of you is going to have to face a very real and very stark fact: Americans are irresponsible with guns. Up until this point, it has not affected any of you personally. When it does, you finally feel as rotten as I do every time it happens.
And then maybe you will change.
GD, Gun Free Zones are specifically places that do not allow even possession of a gun, loaded or not, just to nitpick. :)
So to M's question: So are gun shows "gun free zones?"
They are not.
And are they just as "safe" as schools?
Safer for what? Mass shootings?
Yes. Quantifying that is probably not easy but it is really just a dumb question to begin with. Just like this stupid hypothetical:
If only bad guys breaks the law, then what's to stop them from bringing an armed weapon into a gun show? What's to stop a mentally ill person who refuses to give up their gun from going into a gun show and shooting the place up?
Nothing, just like there is nothing to stop anyone from doing anything they want at any time almost anywhere. Why not ask other stupid stuff like what is to stop a madman from poisoning the water supply of Los Angeles? or what stops a madman from blowing himself up in a market?
If people want to break the law, they are free to do so and nothing is going to stop it. There are things you can do to mitigate the damage but this is not a police state...yet.
There are things you can do to mitigate the damage but this is not a police state...yet.
Yes, there are...like having gun free zones. If guns aren't allowed in certain areas (as is Constitutional and explained quite well by Scalia in Heller), the authorities have the power to prosecute those who bring them in said areas. Further, if there were a more comprehensive policy to prevent mentally ill people from obtaining firearms, that would further mitigate the problem.
Americans are irresponsible
Sure, which is why in addition to not having guns, they shouldn't be allowed to vote without being properly instructed by The Party, or procreate without permission (and instruction), or raise the children they create (without constant official oversight) or post utterly idiotic statements to the Internet (unless approved by the central Talking Points Committee).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/questionable-cause.html
Though honestly, you aren't grasping the point of that entire site.
How so? Your comment above is textbook slippery slope.
If guns aren't allowed in certain areas (as is Constitutional and explained quite well by Scalia in Heller), the authorities have the power to prosecute those who bring them in said areas.
Great! Right after a criminal decides to enter a 'gun free zone' and blast away. Great thought process and exactly why gun free zones don't work - they only target people who follow the law. You really aren't following are you?
At this point, I don't think GD really needs to write anything at all as 6Kings here has perfectly illustrated the gun free zone lie and the idiocy that follows it.
You do understand the concept of laws and why we have them, 6Kings? Having a law stops some people from doing stupid things. This is particularly true with things that can cause harm to people in public areas. If guns were allowed everywhere, the number of accidents, injuries and deaths would increase. Why do you insists on believing in the fantasy that all people who own guns are perfectly responsible with them? Just because you are doesn't mean everyone is and that's why there needs to be laws in place. And before you fall into slippery slope like juris did and bitch about how no one gets to do anything anymore (stomp stomp stmop...slam...fuck you dad!), grow the fuck up.
Further, a criminal with a knife stabbed away in an area with someone armed with a gun so that pretty much shoots the other side of this down the toilet. Time and again, short sighted people like yourself think you understand the criminal mind and you do so in a massively simplistic way. You ascribe your own personality to that of a criminal and how he or she thinks, making the mistake in thinking they are rational enough to actually understand what a "gun free zone" is in the first place.
Your comment above is textbook slippery slope.
Not even close. Ad absurdum yes, slippery slope, no. You see, you really don't understand that site.
Having a law stops some people from doing stupid things.
No M it doesn't. It provides for the punishment for someone that does that, but it does nothing to prevent it.
So, is a cold range as "safe" as a school that is a gun free zone?
Your question doesn't make sense - they are different purposes. A cold range is used, as is a 'cold' gun show for what is called administrative purposes. Guns a handled and manipulated and in order to follow rules of gun safety they a maintained as 'cold'. There is disagreement whether this is actually a good thing, for various reasons that have nothing to do with the way you are using the word 'safe'.
Answer the question above. Yes or no?
I asked first. But I answered now your turn - what the fuck are you claiming by saying 'gun free zone lie'?
6kings, I understand what you are saying and I agree, technically. But Mark bloviated once about a shooting at an armoury and tried to claim that since the place was a 'gun full zone' it proved his claim of a 'gun free zone lie'. I'm trying to figure out exactly what the hell Mark means when he pushes this meme, and since he's easily confused by minutiae and shades of gray I am trying to eliminate those shades from places where guns are present - but since they are, say locked in a safe or something, not being able to be used by the people present.
Further, a criminal with a knife stabbed away in an area with someone armed with a gun so that pretty much shoots the other side of this down the toilet.
The only thing that proves is that you created a straw man and are arguing that someone actually claimed that having a good guy with a gun in a particular place would somehow automatically prevent a bad guy from doing something.....
Nobody claimed that. Your 'good guy with a gun lie' meme is built upon a strawman.
So is, I believe, your 'gun free zone lie' meme, but I can't yet figure out what exactly you believe that means (because you won't answer what it means).
Having a law stops some people from doing stupid things.
Define what stupid things you expect to be stopped by which 'some' people by enacting a gun free zone in a particular place.
You see, you really don't understand that site.
Fine. Explain why and how. Simply saying that's the case doesn't make it so.
No M it doesn't. It provides for the punishment for someone that does that, but it does nothing to prevent it.
Don't you think there are some people out there who stop and think twice before doing anything because it's against the law?
Your 'good guy with a gun lie' meme is built upon a strawman.
Actually, you're correct but that's only because the good guy with a gun is a strawman if you think about it. It's a fugazi...
I can't yet figure out what exactly you believe that means (because you won't answer what it means).
If you believe differently from Wayne LaPierre, explain the details of those differences. He thinks that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Yet we have proof that isn't the case.
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/214576953/911-call-captures-school-employee-talking-down-gunman
We have proof now with this recent incident of school violence that an armed security guard didn't stop a guy with a knife. The fact that it was not a gun free zone or that there was a good guy with a gun had no bearing on whether or not he attacked the school, thus the lie.
But I've already explained this and you are, once again, just being a dick and avoiding making any assertions of your own to keep the focus on me.
Define what stupid things you expect to be stopped by which 'some' people by enacting a gun free zone in a particular place.
Uh...not bringing a loaded gun into a school as an ordinary citizen and accidently having it hurt someone?
You do understand the concept of laws and why we have them, 6Kings?
That's funny right there. I seem to grasp them better than you do.
Having a law stops some people from doing stupid things. This is particularly true with things that can cause harm to people in public areas.
Some people is the key. How about the ones who actually do harmful things? Yes, your argument just fell apart. You aren't addressing the criminal element at all, just the ones that follow laws, which we aren't worried about anyway.
Why do you insists on believing in the fantasy that all people who own guns are perfectly responsible with them? Just because you are doesn't mean everyone is and that's why there needs to be laws in place.
I don't believe all are responsible. BUT the big difference is that you can't legislate responsibility and I am aware of it. It seems you are not.
In fact, almost every city in the country has laws against firearm discharge within city limits. Yet, how are accidents and criminal shootings still happening? Don't they know your maxim that laws stop people from doing stupid things? How come your maxim isn't true?
I seem to grasp them better than you do.
Really? Because you seem to want less of them and think that magic unicorn dust prevents people doing bad things.
Some people is the key. How about the ones who actually do harmful things? Yes, your argument just fell apart.
The question is how many more of those some would do bad things if there wasn't a law. Even if it is one, that means that someone would be harmed or killed because of YOUR naivete and belief in magic unicorn dust. Note that I am more concerned about the safety of people as opposed to winning arguments, being adolescent, and whining about authority and laws.
BUT the big difference is that you can't legislate responsibility and I am aware of it.
I'd say that the changes in drinking and driving laws show that you can. They also show what you can do with the people that keep breaking those laws as you mention above. Of course, this is the heart of the matter. If we were to take away all of the laws that you guys don't like or think are unnecessary, what do you think our country would look like? Would it truly be safer?
Fine. Explain why and how.
You want me to explain to you your own willful ignorance?
I might as well try teaching a pig to sing.
Don't you think there are some people out there who stop and think twice before doing anything because it's against the law?
Some? Sure. But not anywhere near a majority. That you think that is even remotely possible says so, sooo much about you.
The fact that it was not a gun free zone
What do you mean is was not a gun free zone? It's a school - it's a gun free zone.
.not bringing a loaded gun into a school as an ordinary citizen and accidently having it hurt someone?
So, the gun free zone, by your own admission, is not designed to do anything to prevent bad guys from walking in and shooting the now unarmed people within the gun free zone? Is that accurate?
The fact that it was not a gun free zone or that there was a good guy with a gun had no bearing on whether or not he attacked the school, thus the lie.
Why are you claiming it wasn't a gun free zone? By your own words a gun free zone is only supposed to prohibit 'ordinary citizens' from having guns. Unless you think a 'real' gun free zone can also keep cops out?
And to repeat - 'stop bad guy' does not equal 'prevent bad guy'.
What do you mean is was not a gun free zone?
Was there a good guy with a gun there? Yes, there was. I've said the same thing all along, GD. If schools want to have police officers or trained security personnel in their buildings, I think that's great. Thus, they are not really gun free zones and you should feel safe, no?
So it is your contention that there is no such thing as a gun free zone in America?
Look Mark, you don't get to just make things up as you go along.
A gun free zone is a place where nobody except law enforcement/authorized only ones are allowed to carry arms.
As such, that school most definitely is a gun free zone.
Further, your terminology as applied to your meme of the 'gun free zone' lie has to use the same, accepted definition - because the 'gun cult' is using that same definition.
Further, further - the 'gun cults' argument re: gun free zones can be summed up as a 'victim disarmament zone' whereas the normal people (who tend to be the victims of violence in said zones) are prevented by rule or law from having the best tools (i.e. guns) available to defend themselves from attack. Thus leaving them at the mercy of the attacker and the luck of hoping one of those 'exceptions' to the gun free zone is able to save the day in time before the victim succumbs to the tender ministrations of the attacker.
So no, I don't feel safer just because there is a couple freaking cops hanging around a school. A nice brittle shell of false security filled with a soft creamy center of victims is the reality of what you describe.
Look Mark, you don't get to just make things up as you go along.
Why should he change now?
I'm just going to respond in this thread because we are having the same conversation in the other one.
A gun free zone is a place where nobody except law enforcement/authorized only ones are allowed to carry arms.
But I thought LaPierre was talking about the police and armed security personnel...that they were good guys with guns. Isn't that what you guys have been telling me?
the 'gun cults' argument re: gun free zones can be summed up as a 'victim disarmament zone' whereas the normal people (who tend to be the victims of violence in said zones) are prevented by rule or law from having the best tools (i.e. guns) available to defend themselves from attack.
And there we have it...the loss of control which drives you guys bananas. Here's a clue for you, GD: you are not in control of every aspect of your life. Sometimes, other people are. Now go stomp up and down your hallway for a few minutes and get it out of your system.
All better?
Has it ever occurred to you that the police, armed security or the military might do a better job of protecting not only yourself but others? I'd certainly rather have them protect me and my children than gun bloggers and commenters. This speaks to the very heart of your massive insecurity and inferiority complex. You simply can't stand the fact that there are some people...some people in the government...that know more about your best interests. Tsk Tsk...such a problem with authority...what happened with your parents, GD?
leaving them at the mercy of the attacker and the luck of hoping one of those 'exceptions' to the gun free zone is able to save the day in time before the victim succumbs to the tender ministrations of the attacker.
What a fucking fantasy! No wonder you don't like to comment. It reveals so much:) And the flowery and dramatic language...I actually laughed out loud when I read this. How would the Alex Hribal situation played out differently if that school was not a gun free zone? Arm all the children as well?
This is why when we look at school violence we have to look beyond the caveman mentality of opening up gun free zones to anyone who wants to carry a gun. I'd like to prevent spree shooters from having a break with reality in the first place, wouldn't you? This is primarily a mental health issue
Are you really so stupid that you can't see YOU are relying on a good guy with a gun to stop the bad guy with a gun.
Of course I am. That's what they are trained for and submit to regular evaluations to make sure that they are better at handling crises like this than armed citizens. This isn't any different than you and I telling a soldier that we rely on him or her to protect us from threats, both foreign and domestic, right? You really have a dim view of police officers. Why?
That right there torpedoes your 'lie' meme.
Ah, you're just pissed off because the gun free zone lie is BS. Spree shooters don't stop to think if the areas where they are attacking are armed or not. We've seen example after example of spree shooters who attack places with armed security personnel. They aren't right in the head, GD. Having open arms everywhere isn't going to cause a mentally unstable person to stop and think because they aren't thinking in the first place. Now you want to allow those people to walk around freely in public places such as schools with guns as well? Stop using these attacks as a way to placate your control issues and insecurity. That's the last thing we need is to kowtow to hysterical and emotion filled paranoids.
I've also shown that a good guy with a gun isn't the ONLY thing that can stop/prevent/whatever a bad guy with a gun. There are other tools to stop these shootings other than arming everyone and allowing an open gun policy everywhere.
Does that mean that if the army has guns then the peoples right to keep and bear arms is being fulfilled?
No. And I would once again refer you to Scalia's decision in Heller which perfectly illustrated the 2nd amendment and its limitations.
So now you're moving the goalposts.
The question was asked of you what exactly was the 'gun free zone lie'.
Your response was that since cops can be anyplace, anyplace that is called a gun free zone is a lie. THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF YOUR ARGUMENT.
You didn't mention anything about Wayne LaPierre, or anything else, regarding that so-called lie, so don't start now. Unless you want to 'redefine', specifically what you mean by 'gun free zone lie'.
You were asked, specifically, what you meant by 'good guy with a gun lie'.
You response was that, well I'm not exactly sure. You seem to think the 'good guy with a gun' statement means that a good guy with a gun will prevent any bad guy from doing any bad thing with a gun.
I showed you a quote, that you completely ignored, that implies no such thing.
Then I presented to you the fact that you indeed rely upon good guys with guns to do exactly what that quote states good guys with guns do.....
And after much deflection you are now telling me that "of course" you rely upon them? No shit? Then tell me again WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS LIE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
All the rest of your bull shit is nothing more than bull shit - because YOU ARE NOT ARGUING THAT WHICH YOU CLAIM WERE THE LIES.
So, forget insulting my 'flowery' language and insisting you know all about my 'fantasies' and engage yourself back to the topic - which is WHAT EXACTLY ARE THESE SO CALLED LIES YOU HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OF.
So now you're moving the goalposts.
I'm simply going off the information you have given me. Cops are good guys so it's not really a gun free zone, is it? LaPierre is the one who offered the good guy with a gun line and it was explained to me that that meant police and security. That's not the case?
You were asked, specifically
You response was that, well I'm not exactly sure.
Straw man, again, because you got caught in your bullshit and are hoping to avoid explaining how the good guy with a gun and the gun free zone are actually simplistic and dishonest. So, it's time to get the focus back on me and not the issue, right?:)
As is usually the case, you are hoping to avoid the simple facts. The bowel blowing over a "gun free zone" is dishonest because there are armed security personnel in place where there have been spree shootings. Didn't deter the gunmen. So, it has to be armed gun bloggers that will deter them, right? The bloviating about good guys with guns is BS because I've shown that it's not the ONLY thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun. Again, the answer is armed gun bloggers, right?:)
Explain to me why spree shootings happened at Fort Hood (twice), Kirkwood City Hall (where the shooter took a cop's gun), Columbine, and the Navy Yard...just to name a few...when there were armed security personnel there. Why weren't these shooters deterred? If only gun rights activists were there....
Explain to me how good guy armed with ONLY a Dell computer talked down a shooter. I thought it was ONLY a good guy with a gun.
I'm simply going off the information you have given me.
No you're not. You are changing the subject. We are discussing WHAT YOU TERM THE LIES.
good guy with a gun and the gun free zone are actually simplistic and dishonest
Except your definitions are the bullshit. You explanation of what were the lies are shown to be not in line with what ANYBODY SAYS.
The bowel blowing over a "gun free zone" is dishonest because there are armed security personnel in place where there have been spree shootings. Didn't deter the gunmen.
Show anywhere, here or at the NRA that claims that is the case. As I said, I presented a quote that you completely ignored.
The bloviating about good guys with guns is BS because I've shown that it's not the ONLY thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun.
"The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun."
Wayne LaPierre - 2011
Compare and contrast those two statements. Emphasis on finding where that implies 'only'.
.when there were armed security personnel there. Why weren't these shooters deterred?
Again, show where people claim any deterrence, let alone 100% guaranteed deterrence.
Explain to me how good guy armed with ONLY a Dell computer talked down a shooter. I thought it was ONLY a good guy with a gun.
The one thing in common with all your arguments here is that they are ALL OF YOUR OWN MANUFACTURE. That's why I keep asking you to show anyone OTHER THAN YOURSELF, that is actually making them.
Emphasis on finding where that implies 'only'.
Don't you always caterwaul at me with "who are you going to believe, me or your lying camera?"
Again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjrdDAcaQq0
1 minute, 10 seconds.
Having trouble understanding English?
It's not the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun. How about stopping the bad guy from even considering getting a gun in the first place if they are mentally ill?
Again, show where people claim any deterrence, let alone 100% guaranteed deterrence.
Well, LaPierre said "the only thing." That means sole...as in, nothing else. Are you really sticking by this idiocy?
The one thing in common with all your arguments here is that they are ALL OF YOUR OWN MANUFACTURE. That's why I keep asking you to show anyone OTHER THAN YOURSELF, that is actually making them
http://www.partycrashertshirts.com/Only-Thing-To-Stop-A-Bad-Guy-Good-Guy-With-A-Gun-T-Shirt
How about stopping the bad guy from even considering getting a gun in the first place if they are mentally ill?
Ok, how do you propose to do that?
Specifically - how would you have prevented Jarod Loughner from buying a gun.
Otherwise, you're just lying about wanting to solve this.
I think we need to completely overhaul how we treat the mentally ill in this country. It starts with removing the stigma associated with it and we haven't moved aggressively enough towards this end. There should be a massive PR campaign that shows it's as normal as going to the dentist. If our culture starts to shift and embrace treatment, you are going to see less people having breakdowns and shooting people. Sort of like how you see people with better teeth than you did 50 years ago, right?
Having trouble understanding English?
Are you having trouble understanding English?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg_uy9_2a1U
23:40
Well, LaPierre said "the only thing." That means sole...as in, nothing else. Are you really sticking by this idiocy?
As long as you continue to stick by your idiocy....
LaPierre said "the best thing." That DOES NOT mean sole...as in, not the only - just the best.
There should be a massive PR campaign that shows it's as normal as going to the dentist
Don't you also think that people who get treated should have their rights restricted?
So yeah, as normal as going to the dentist, with a few cops coming to ransack your house afterwards right?
Oh, a t-shirt represents ALL of the 'gun cult's' monolithic views?
Get serious.
LaPierre said "the best thing." That DOES NOT mean sole...as in, not the only - just the best.
So, he changed from "only" to "best." Wise, considering the corner he (and the gun cult) had painted themselves into:)
You guys are still left with a problem, though. Basically, you are surrendering and saying that these people can't be helped and the best way to help them is when they are actively shooting...by shooting them. Think about that for a minute. Doesn't it strike you as very childish and simplistic? Wouldn't it be more effective to stop him from even considering to go on a shooting spree in the first place? Prevention would be a far more effective tool especially with the majority of gun related deaths (gang violence, suicides).
Don't you also think that people who get treated should have their rights restricted?
So yeah, as normal as going to the dentist, with a few cops coming to ransack your house afterwards right?
Good grief. GD, no one is coming to get you. Seriously, dude...
People aren't forced to go the dentist. They go because they want to have good teeth. Since we still have a stigma associated with mental health treatment, people don't go as much and we end up more spree shooters than we should have. If the stigma was gone, we'd have more people voluntarily seeking treatment and less (but probably not zero) spree shooter and violence.
Getting back to the issue of gun free zones, how long has it been since you spent a decent amount of time at a school?
I think we need to completely overhaul how we treat the mentally ill in this country...
So I take it you aren't answering my question.
I particularly like the bit about removing the stigma since you equally intend to remove some of the rights of the mentally ill.
I did answer the question, juris. What part are you having trouble understanding?
You guys are still left with a problem, though. Basically, you are surrendering and saying that these people can't be helped....
"Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence. As we noted then, “the time is at hand to seek means by which society can identify, treat and temporarily isolate such individuals,” because “elimination of the instrument by which these crimes are committed cannot arrest the ravages of a psychotic murderer."
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/mental-health-and-firearms.aspx?s=%22mental+health%22&st=&ps=
Next?
Good grief. GD, no one is coming to get you. Seriously, dude...
So you don't recognize your own words?
1: YOU want to take guns away from people who get voluntary treatment.
2: You want to 'destigmatize' getting treatment.
Those two concepts are conflicting. And statement number 1 would be accomplished how? Oh yeah, by having cops come to the persons house and taking the guns. Good grief, it's not paranoia to state that certain actions will happen if those certain actions ARE PART OF THE PLAN YOU PRESENTED.
I think the fog of paranoia is preventing you from seeing the benefits of what I am presenting here. If people voluntarily submit to mental treatment, wouldn't it also stand to reason that some might see the logic in not being able to have firearms? I think some could be persuaded to not have guns around when they are being treated for mental health issues.
Further, if they are so dangerous that they are potentially harmful to themselves or others, doesn't that fall into your category of not being out in public? That also means no more guns for people like this.
Think about the bigger picture here. If the stigma surrounding mental treatment is taken away, it won't even occur to some to even buy a gun in the first place. They will be in a better place mentally, right?
Getting back to the subject of gun free zones, do you think gun shows that force unloading of weapons are "being left at the mercy of the attacker and the luck of hoping one of those 'exceptions' to the gun free zone is able to save the day in time before the victim succumbs to the tender ministrations of the attacker." That was the point of this post. And you still haven't answered whether or not you have spent any significant time at a school recently. Until you do, any points you make about gun free zones are completely ignorant.
I did answer the question, juris. What part are you having trouble understanding?
The part where you would stop Jarod Loughner from getting a gun. You didn't answer that at all.
If you don't have an answer, that is okay, just say so. Of course that will kinda kick in the ass the idea that you want to actually keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
I think some could be persuaded to not have guns around when they are being treated for mental health issues.
Ah, so that is your solution - talk to them and hope.
Okay. That won't actually stop someone mentally ill from getting a gun but at least you feel like you tried.
I particularly like the bit about removing the stigma since you equally intend to remove some of the rights of the mentally ill.
And, of course, he's already classified the NRA, us, and any other group or person concerned with protecting 2nd Amendment rights from infringement as nut-cases, cultists, paranoids, and more, so he's quite clear on who he thinks ought to be disbarred from the use of weapons.
It's okay Larry, it isn't like he is going to have the state force us to give up our guns - he's just going to try to talk us into giving them up.
Strangely he seems to think that would accomplish something (other than annoying a lot of therapists and their patients).
Why would Jared Loughner not be changed by this?
I think we need to completely overhaul how we treat the mentally ill in this country. It starts with removing the stigma associated with it and we haven't moved aggressively enough towards this end. There should be a massive PR campaign that shows it's as normal as going to the dentist. If our culture starts to shift and embrace treatment, you are going to see less people having breakdowns and shooting people. Sort of like how you see people with better teeth than you did 50 years ago, right?
It's not possible at all? Why?
Ah, so that is your solution - talk to them and hope.
Okay. That won't actually stop someone mentally ill from getting a gun but at least you feel like you tried.
It's okay Larry, it isn't like he is going to have the state force us to give up our guns - he's just going to try to talk us into giving them up.
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/214576953/911-call-captures-school-employee-talking-down-gunman
What a fool you are, juris. If it can be done in the middle of a potential spree shooting, it can be done in a much calmer situation. ir probably has many times. We just don't here about it in the news. Imagine how much easier it would be for people to get treated if there wasn't a stigma. It wouldn't even occur to them to buy a gun in the first place. Certainly, it wouldn't stop everyone but it would stop more than now and that's a good thing, right?
Honestly, you must suffer from such insecurity and inferiority (and you certainly aren't alone) that it pushes you to be so disdainful of any suggestions to solve the problem of gun violence.
It's not possible at all? Why?
Silly me, I thought you were going to be serious. You got me, you got me good.
I think the fog of paranoia
Paranoia? Shall we rehash what you want? Your words: "If someone voluntarily submits themselves for psychiatric treatment, especially if they are suffering from PTSD and in the military, they should lose their ability to obtain a firearm."
Gosh, LOSE THEIR ABILITY? That doesn't sound very much like politely asking them to volunteer now does it? Are you modifying your earlier thoughts about this?
if they are so dangerous that they are potentially harmful to themselves or others, ...That also means no more guns for people like this.
Already no guns for people like this.
If the stigma surrounding mental treatment is taken away,
I asked you this earlier, if you were to be punished for seeking treatment - then you aren't really taking the stigma away are you? Do you want to encourage people to seek treatment or do you want to discourage it? If you were to lose your teaching license because you sought treatment, would you be more or less likely to seek treatment?
And you still haven't answered whether or not you have spent any significant time at a school recently. Until you do, any points you make about gun free zones are completely ignorant.
You forget who you're talking to. I have an intimate awareness of security protocols. I've designed and implemented a wide range of security plans for both public and private entities. I know the strengths and weaknesses, abilities and limitations of pretty much any such arrangements you could describe. In short, while you need to have been in that school in order to have the merest passing understanding of what is going on - I understand it on a professional level. In other words, I don't need to spend time in a school to know about security. Your being in a school, and thinking you know jack about security only shows your ignorance.
I have an intimate awareness of security protocols. I've designed and implemented a wide range of security plans for both public and private entities.
Fine. Outline a plan that would be more acceptable to you than gun free zones. How would it work? Anyone can bring a loaded gun into a school or government building? Would they even be checked? Would it be similar gun shows that don't allow loaded weapons (which I note you are avoiding) or not?
How would it work?
No, no, no. YOU FUCKING DECLARED that the mentally ill should not have the ability to get guns - not just that they should be talked to about the inadvisibility of that.
You do NOT get to throw this back on anyone else until you have an answer as to how you would STOP the mentally ill from getting guns.
First of all, juris, I can pretty much do whatever I want. It's my blog so if you don't like it, go post somewhere else. I engage with you guys because it's my responsibility as site owner and I feel sorry for you. The fact that none of you have the courage to actually formulate plans or policies of your own and only criticize mine is something that needs to be corrected if actually give a shit. Personally, I don't think you do and you just like to argue in blog comments because you lack a social life.
Second, mental health is not a black or white issue. If someone voluntarily submits to therapy and they tell the therapist they have a bunch of weapons and they want to shoot up a school, then yes, their guns should be taken away. Why would you not want that?
If someone says they are depressed because someone close to them died and they informed the therapist they had a gun and were thinking about killing themselves, that would be a different situation. This would be an example of where the therapist could ask the person to voluntarily relinquish their guns.
Of course, these are only two examples. Everyone is different and each case should be weighed according to the danger the individual presents to himself or others. And not everyone coming into therapy is going to own a gun..in fact, less people do these days anyway.
Third, you aren't understanding what I am saying because you trapped in the "win the argument" meme with a dash of "scawee state syndrome." If society shifts so significantly that mental health is no longer a stigma, some people who previously may have purchased guns to commit violence won't get them. Others who have them won't be as likely to melt down and use them. So, the issue of taking them away won't even come up.
It's been awhile since I asked this but what happens again if some people get their guns taken away? Freedom dies? They can't protect themselves from a government that could turn them into a shit stain in less than a second? Their defense in repelling the near constant and daily attacks they experience on a daily basis would be eroded? Zombies?
Juris, I'd like to see you and the others seriously reflect on your issues with control. You really don't have as much as you think. Deal with it.
... tell the therapist they have a bunch of weapons and they want to shoot up a school...
...informed the therapist they had a gun and were thinking about killing themselves....
Sigh. Another example of you not listening.
BOTH those examples fall under "danger to themself or others" AS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED. A person who is a danger to themself or others gets to be involuntarily committed (doesn't matter if they came in voluntarily to begin with - they have to be placed on a 'hold' if they are a danger, otherwise they can leave the treatment). If they are involuntarily committed, guess what, they lose their guns......
So is your whole thing here built upon similar bullshit? Are you going to keep moving the goalposts? Are you going to define exactly what you mean? Are you still sticking with your original 'taking away guns' or your more recent 'asking them to give up their guns' or your even more recent modification to 'taking away some and asking to give up others'?
Would it be similar gun shows that don't allow loaded weapons (which I note you are avoiding) or not?
Uhhm, yes you are an idiot. I am not avoiding. I answered the first part of that question earlier in this thread. The second part I already explained to you that these are fundamentally different for reasons that you not only do not understand, but appear to wish to remain ignorant upon. IF you wish to stop being ignorant, ask us why a gun show places these rules in effect, and for what purpose they are supposed to be affecting.
Outline a plan that would be more acceptable to you than gun free zones
I thought you claimed gun free zones were lies?
Fine, let's see....uhhmmm....no gun free zone.
First of all, juris, I can pretty much do whatever I want. It's my blog so if you don't like it
True enough, and I will continue to call you on your sophomoric bullshit until you ask me to leave. Ain't freedom grand?
then yes, their guns should be taken away.
The weathervane school of public policy - wait, let me check which way the wind is blowing just this moment. Did I say something about a principle involved - no, never heard of such a thing, have you?
"scawee state syndrome."
Does this have some meaning in English?
Freedom dies?
Yes, it does. Not just because it doesn't affect me, or perhaps you. You are making a perfect example of Martin Neimõller's plaint.
reflect on your issues with control.
You, yes you mother fucker really ought to reflect on your persistent projection. Ya see, this is when I think that you might not actually be a decent human being in person and that all the problem is in communication over the Internet. I'd like to think it is only a communication issue - but I sure as hell could be wrong.
Fine, let's see....uhhmmm....no gun free zone.
Wow. Some expert you are. That's your plan? Anyone can bring loaded weapon into a school or government building? I should have realized it would be that simplistic and childish.
I will continue to call you on your sophomoric bullshit
Considering that's all you are capable of doing, I guess that means I will continue to show very little respect for your views.
You, yes you mother fucker
Well, I guess I was right about that one. At least you have your gun to make you feel better...:)
First you want to take away guns, then you want to ask someone to give them up, then you want to take them away.
Any way the wind blows...
That's your plan? Anyone can bring loaded weapon into a school or government building? I should have realized it would be that simplistic and childish.
Well fuck me Mark. Aren't you the one who claims to be all full of shades of grey?
Don't you think you ought to consider that BEFORE outlining a plan for something, you should DEFINE what you are attempting to accomplish? Perhaps my plan wishes to attempt to accomplish something other than yours.
Maybe before being a dick you should consider that YOU DIDN'T DEFINE WHAT PROBLEM YOU ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS. And further, since you didn't define what you are trying to address, your attempt to besmirch my solution is worthless - as even your criticism DOES NOT ADDRESS WHAT PROBLEMS ARE OR ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN MY SOLUTION.
Now, if you want to stop being a dick and start being serious - if you want a plan start by telling me what you wish to accomplish.
But I'm not trying to change the law on gun free zones, GD, you are. My only adjustment to current laws would be to house a police office in every school. This would serve many more purposes than protecting against potential spree shooters (drugs, bullying, safety instruction etc). That's what we have at our school and what my children have in their district.
So, how would you change the law and implement a policy to allow armed civilians in schools and government buildings? What problems do you anticipate having? See, I don't think you have really thought this through and, as most adolescents do, run your mouth without thinking.
I'm being very serious here. You claim that gun free zones inhibit your freedom and increase your chances of being a victim. How do you weight that with the inevitable accidents that will occur as a result of armed citizens in schools?
But you are the one who claims that gun free zones are lies and that that good guy with a gun that you just said you wanted in every school - is also a lie.
You don't seem to make a lot of sense.
how would you change the law and implement a policy to allow armed civilians in schools and government buildings? What problems do you anticipate having? See, I don't think you have really thought this through and, as most adolescents do, run your mouth without thinking.
I'm being very serious here. You claim that gun free zones inhibit your freedom and increase your chances of being a victim. How do you weight that with the inevitable accidents that will occur as a result of armed citizens in schools?
You already have armed civilians in schools now. The only difference is you don't have the law-abiding armed civilians in schools now.
I'm being very serious here. You claim that gun free zones don't inhibit freedom and decrease the chances of accidents. How do you weight that with the inevitable higher victim toll that will occur as a result of defenceless people in gun free zones?
See Mark, what's your priority? I don't see your reasoning as making any sense - what have you accomplished by 'decreasing the chances of accidents' by only decreasing them in a very small area for a very small percentage of time for a very small sub-set of the population? The people in that gun free zone aren't there all the time and the rate of firearms accidents is already very low.
On the other hand the rate of spree shooters is also very low - but you're willing to spend hundreds of millions a year to combat them. And the worse thing about that plan is that those hundreds of millions won't be as effective in defending against that problem as simply not having the gun free zone would be.
Here's a thought experiment for you. Would you be ok with allowing teachers to carry guns in schools? No restrictions or training requirements - also not mandatory, but simply open to their own decision whether or not to have a gun. If not, why?
But you are the one who claims that gun free zones are lies and that that good guy with a gun that you just said you wanted in every school - is also a lie. You don't seem to make a lot of sense.
Ah, the ol "you don't make any sense" game with a dash of straw man...snore...happens every time you work yourself into a corner, dude:)
but you're willing to spend hundreds of millions a year to combat them.
Where did I say that? Nowhere. It doesn't cost any money to change society's attitude about mental health. All it takes is people willing to talk more about it and engage with people who need help.
I see an awful lot of focus on me and a lot of "yous" but no "I's" This proves that you don't really have any serious credentials when it comes to security concerns in schools and don't have any sort of workable plan. It's just a lot of talk, isn't it, GD?
I get why you only criticize and keep the focus on me while never offering anything of your own. It's tough to try to solve these problems and there are no easy answers. When you stand behind something and it fails, you can't duck the responsibility. But when you offer nothing and are only a a critic, you somehow never "fail" and can sort of duck the responsibility...just like all teenagers do.
Of course the problem with this is the American voting public. You don't win elections when you offer nothing of your own. Honestly, that suits me just fine:)
Ah, the ol "you don't make any sense" game with a dash of straw man...snore...happens every time you work yourself into a corner, dude:)
Oh screw you Mark, YOU don't make any sense. I have asked you over and over and over to explain exactly what you mean when you claim the lies - YOU refuse to explain. It's not my fault that you don't make any sense when you won't explain yourself. Ain't no corner on my part.
Where did I say that?
"My only adjustment to current laws would be to house a police office in every school."
It's just a lot of talk, isn't it, GD?
You don't want to talk about what I propose - you dismiss it out of hand. Not a lot of reason to continue there is it?
HEY DICKHEAD - STOP CREATING EASY VICTIM ZONES. PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE GUNS AND YOUR PLANS DON'T STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING. THE ONLY THING YOUR PLANS DO IS DISARM PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
IS THAT TOO FUCKING HARD OF A PLAN FOR YOU TO FUCKING FOLLOW?
Are you are seriously going to continue to keep conversing so dishonestly as you did in this reply?
And I notice you refused to answer the thought experiment. That shows almost as much as any answer would have.
I'm being very serious here.
Interesting slip there M.
YOU don't make any sense.
Of course I do. Either you don't understand what I am saying because you are stupid (unlikely) or you are just being a dick and fucking around with me (likely) in the hopes of "winning"...something you think you have "lost." Anytime you want to test how much sense I make in a forum of critical thinkers, you name the place and I will be there. Thus far, you and the other commenters have refused and it makes your words absolutely without merit. You won't be able to pretend anymore like you do here, GD, will you?
You don't want to talk about what I propose
What proposal? All I see is Markadelphia obsession over and over again. And out and out lying. You want to be taken seriously as a credentialed security consultant. Stop spewing gun blog propaganda and offer something intelligent. Your ALL CAPS paragraph more or less proves my point...sorry, points, as in all of them:)
All I see is Markadelphia obsession over and over again.
Narcissism.
And out and out lying.
And projection.
Very, very sad.
I'd like any of you to answer a very simple question. If armed citizens are allowed in areas now restricted and there is a spree shooter on the loose, how will anyone be able to tell who the good guy is and who the bad guy is?
how will anyone be able to tell who the good guy is and who the bad guy is?
That would be the guy shooting people.
So I was trying to figure out what made me so mad at your comment. Then I figured out that not only were you spending an entire post (now two of them) castigating me for having a post that only focused on you, while spending your entire post focussing on me, but also that you were castigating me for focussing on you - when I was doing no such thing.
That's pretty much a ballsy dick move, and it rightly pissed me off.
But then I thought about it some more, and realized I was wrong. I shouldn't have been mad.
Think about it, I've said many times, and you have shown many times that you have poor reading comprehension. If that's the case then you probably truly believe that my post was doing nothing more than focusing on you.
A person with poor reading comprehension could easily see that in a conversation between two people that are debating the relative merits of two opposing positions. A conversation where it would be normal to see one person referring to the position of the other person as something like 'your plan' or 'the position you take' or 'what you prefer'. Such a person with a reading comprehension problem (and especially a person who may be a bit narcissistic) could easily see these phrases as themselves being the subject and not the position that is being referred to.
So we have here a case where this is such. You believe a phrase such as "You already have armed civilians in schools now" is an attack upon you. In reality it is an attack upon the position that you are taking. That is the point of such a debate that discusses the merits of differing positions. The focus of that phrase is not "YOU", the focus is the plan that you support. Because "YOU" don't have armed civilians in schools, the plan you support - that is supposed to keep armed civilians out of schools - has armed civilians in schools. The "PLAN" is the focus, not "YOU".
Let me rephrase an entire paragraph - taking out all "YOU" and NOT CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE PARAGRAPH AT ALL, other than to make it read rather dully and anonymously.
what's the priority of gun free zones? I don't see the stated reasoning as making any sense - what has the plan accomplished by 'decreasing the chances of accidents' by only decreasing them in a very small area for a very small percentage of time for a very small sub-set of the population? The people in that gun free zone aren't there all the time and the rate of firearms accidents is already very low.
Now, is that paragraph focusing on you, or is it a discussion on the side of the issue you have been supporting? And since it is a discussion about the issue you have been supporting, and you and I have been debating the two sides of that issue then it isn't unreasonable - in fact it would be expected for the purposes of ease of conversation - for the issue to be referred to in terms such as I used and not the stilted tones used in the rephrased paragraph.
So, to get back to the point of this post (which unlike the other is actually focused on you), I was wrong to be mad at you. I was wrong because you can't help it. You can't help it because you are practically illiterate.
So sorry. But in the future, learn to read.
That would be the guy shooting people.
But how can one tell if it's a good guy taking down a bad guy or not? Everyone is armed and no has uniforms or anything. Clearly, your plan has some very serious flaws in it and this is one of them.
How about your plan for litigation as a result of accidents that will happen. Who is responsible? The school district? Or the person who is carrying the gun?
You believe a phrase such as "You already have armed civilians in schools now" is an attack upon you.
I don't take anything personally, GD, and I get you are picking apart my argument and not me personally. It still doesn't change the fact that you aren't making one of your own and are obsessed with style and critique of my argument with no substance of your own. I know why you only focus on my argument (if that's a better way to put it) as opposed to saying something like, "I disagree, here's why, and here's what I'd do differently based on evidence" with substance as opposed to a critique of style. You do it because you know your solutions for this and other issues are very weak.
And then there is this...
http://www.straight.com/news/dr-cynthia-boaz-14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans
combined with logical fallacies all the mickey frikkin' time.
Me or my arguments or style or whatever is not the problem here. We can find it out pretty easily where the issue is in a forum of critical thinkers and no posse.
Me or my arguments or style or whatever is not the problem here.
No, never. You have never, ever held an incorrect, ill-informed opinion or mis-stated anything. Never. You are lying when you say that you have changed because that would mean you had previously been wrong, and you are never wrong.
And you never fail to communicate your ideas clearly, ever. You are the most perfect communicator that mankind has ever known - or ever will know.
Narcissism squared.
juris, all your comment essentially says is that I am right more often than you care to admit and you don't like it because you have the emotional age of a 12 year old boy.
And, of course, you are projecting. The conservative ideology requires no fault ever otherwise it's a boiling pit of sewage, hence the anally rigorous standard you hold me to constantly. Do you think that if I'm wrong about a few things that I then magically become wrong about everything?
that I am right more often than you care to admit
Yes, every single time/issue - you are right. You really are never wrong and there is no need for your false modesty.
You can always be counted on to double-down, no matter how foolish you will look.
Is this the part where you try to get me to come up with a list of mistakes I've made?:) Tsk tsk, juris, still believing the TSM straw man about me being an idiot.
Considering, though, that you issued the Imperial Declaration
Yes, every single time/issue - you are right.
when there are posts like this on here...
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/06/happy-to-be-wrong.html
I'd say you maybe need to pay more attention:)
Yes M on A VERY FEW trivial points you have conceded error. Never when you have misrepresented facts or the opinion of the person you are discussing something with.
That is the whole voices in your head thing - you listen to that instead of what I or another person actually in conversation with you have said.
You want to know why I say you are a narcissist? It is because that is exactly how you present yourself. I keep assuming that you aren't that way in real life, that this is just an online quirk.
BUT I SURE AS HELL COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THAT
Funny how you so rarely caveat your speculations thus.
That is the whole voices in your head thing - you listen to that instead of what I or another person actually in conversation with you have said.
I listen to what you guys say, note that is essentially right wing propaganda repeated by in the bubble pundits and pols, and you get pissed about it. Oh well. Perhaps you shouldn't support their point of view so much and draw more of a distinction in your assertions. That could easily be accomplished if you ceased obsessing at me and my arguments and made your own:)
Post a Comment