Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: OMG - common sense is trying to break out (guns & violence explored)

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    OMG - common sense is trying to break out (guns & violence explored)

    What Guns Do, and What they Don'tby Megan McArdle Dec 10, 2012 9:40 AM EST Guns make conflict more dangerous. But they don't make it more likely.http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...hey-don-t.html [snip]
    When various states debated "shall issue" concealed carry laws--essentially, rules making it legal for anyone who could pass a rudimentary background check to carry a concealed handgun--there were horrified predictions of the chaos that would ensue. Modern life gives us so many opportunities for frustration and rage, from bumper-to-bumper traffic to endless queues. Adding a handgun to this volatile mix was simply inviting mass disaster. And of course, anyone who meditates for a moment on their own dark heart can understand this fear. I'm pretty physically passive, and so squeamish that I find even very mild movie violence unbearable, but I too have fantasized about having a tank so that I could go after that testosterone-addled teenage jerk who just cut me off in traffic. God knows what's going through the brain of the testosterone-addled teenage jerk when it happens to him. It's so easy to imagine how putting a gun in peoples' hands could lead to a body in the road. But our imaginations, it turns out, are not a good guide to reality. None of this happened. Homicides did not rise after we legalized concealed carry, or ended the "assault weapons" ban. To date, holders of concealed carry licenses have not been involved in any more crimes than you'd expect from a group of people law-abiding enough to pass a background check. As Mark Kleiman wrote a few years ago, "There’s simply no evidence that keeping guns out of the hands of those currently eligible to own them under Federal law (adults with no felony convictions, no domestic-violence misdemeanors or restraining orders, and no history of involuntary commitment for mental illness) reduces the level of criminal violence. Nor is there evidence that allowing anyone who can pass a background check and a gun-safety course to carry a concealed weapon increases the level of criminal violence. "
    [snip]With several examples from "real life" Ms. McArdle delves into some of the reasons/excuses given for using/resorting to violence to resolve both real and imagined threats and slights. She clearly demonstrates that the mere presence/availability of a gun does not cause violence where it otherwise would not have existed. (Other than the anti-gun rights moonbats, did anyone ever think it did?)But will this change the thoughts and behavior of the anti-gun rights moonbats? I say, resoundingly, "No!" Not because (although many have alleged so) that the anti-gun rights moonbats are incapable of accepting facts. It is because the anti-gun rights moonbats are not interested at all in rights - about guns or otherwise - but because they are interested in establishing control, and especially in establishing control over those who would assert their independence and freedom from the State as the provider of all things, from food/clothing/shelter to protection from violence. Over here on this side of the discussion are the folks who understand that the State cannot protect anything from violence and that the Supreme Court's many rulings that the State does not even have an obligation to protect an individual from violence are both logical and correct. At best, the State can react to violence and through the application of a greater amount of violence stop the original violence. Over on the other side are those who, for any of a variety of reasons, will not accept personal responsibility and liability for their own safety. It's sort of like the passenger of a sinking ship who capsizes the lifeboats because if he cannot be saved then nobody else ought to be saved.stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Nonetheless, I think it's generally true that when guns are involved, potentially murderous conflicts are likely to turn murderous more often. When you are looking to kill someone, a gun is a great help, which is why we send armies into battle armed with great big rifles and not pieces of pipe. If there were no guns in the United States, I believe that the murder rate would probably be lower.http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...hey-don-t.html
    Anti-liberty and anti-citizen.

    But, she is a employee of Newsweek.But while I believe that the completed homicide rate would fall, I don't think that the attempted homicide rate would be lower.
    What?

    I'm pretty physically passive, and so squeamish that I find even very mild movie violence unbearable, but I too have fantasized about having a tank so that I could go after that testosterone estrogen-addled teenage jerk who just cut me off in traffic. God knows what's going through the brain of the testosterone estrogen-addled teenage jerk when it happens to him.
    Appears to me to be a member in good standing with the He-Woman Man Haters Club.

    Those boys are indeed damn fools. But it turns out that most adults men keep the idiot in them under wraps, not because they lack an adequate weapon, but because they have changed in too many ways: their brains have changed, they have more sad experience with where those confrontations lead, they have a better conception of the future (and better reasons to stay out of jail), and they have other measures of success which make it less necessary to prove that they're the toughest guy on the block. Putting a gun in the adult's man's hand doesn't make it any easier or harder to control that idiot; indeed, you could say that adulthood manhood is the point at which you can look at a gun in your hand and immediately think of all the reasons you should avoid using it.
    That highlighted in green is the only thing I agree with.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    When I saw that testosterone comment, I knew a woman wrote it. Scrolled up. Sure enough, a woman, probably a lefty.

    But, when lefties start arriving at some of the conclusions she did, we are making progress in getting folks to think logically, instead of emotionally, about firearms.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    When I saw that testosterone comment, I knew a woman wrote it. Scrolled up. Sure enough, a woman, probably a lefty.

    But, when lefties start arriving at some of the conclusions she did, we are making progress in getting folks to think logically, instead of emotionally, about firearms.
    Ka-Pow Ka-Pow on that post .. lol

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Anti-gun nuts don't have common sense.

    These wackos think removing guns from law abiding citizens is a good idea. They also think criminals buy their guns at gun shows.

    Until you can get the Anti's to admit that criminals don't obey the law, and get judges to stop returning dangerous criminals to prey on the public, there is no reason to argue with them.

    You would also need to get them to agree to accountability and personal responsibility for a person's actions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •