Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: Keeping the next gerneration from becoming open carriers.....

  1. #1
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503

    Keeping the next gerneration from becoming open carriers.....

    I saw this on Youtube and couldn't decide if it was hurtful to the future of Open carry or beneficial because it profiles and trouble shoots the psychology of mass shooters.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6nXy5g6MlA

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Good luck with that.

    They can swim against the current, though. Heck, why should I care if they want to tire themselves out?

    Edit: As I said in my comment, anyone who differentiates "gun violence" from simple violence has already made their agenda – and lack of objectivity – evident.
    Last edited by marshaul; 10-16-2013 at 03:26 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Good luck with that.

    They can swim against the current, though. Heck, why should I care if they want to tire themselves out?

    Edit: As I said in my comment, anyone who differentiates "gun violence" from simple violence has already made their agenda and lack of objectivity evident.
    that's as silly as saying someone who differentiates "drunk driving" from simple traffic violations has an extreme agenda. gun violence is different then simply violence. when guns are used in violence fatality is is much higher, and guns allow one person to inflict violence in safety on large groups of unarmed people.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Good luck with that.

    They can swim against the current, though. Heck, why should I care if they want to tire themselves out?

    Edit: As I said in my comment, anyone who differentiates "gun violence" from simple violence has already made their agenda and lack of objectivity evident.
    You're a better man for tolerating 1:45 of the Narrative Fallacy.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    that's as silly as saying someone who differentiates "drunk driving" from simple traffic violations has an extreme agenda. gun violence is different then simply violence. when guns are used in violence fatality is is much higher, and guns allow one person to inflict violence in safety on large groups of unarmed people.
    Meh. This is an uninteresting argument. Maybe later...

    For now: I disagree.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    that's as silly as saying someone who differentiates "drunk driving" from simple traffic violations has an extreme agenda. gun violence is different then simply violence. when guns are used in violence fatality is is much higher, and guns allow one person to inflict violence in safety on large groups of unarmed people.
    Like fertilizer violence?
    Live Free or Die!

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Like fertilizer violence?
    Would likely fall under terrorism or using a weapon of mass destruction, or maybe arson depending upon how the fertilizer is used, but it would not be considered "simple violence" nor would anyone claim using a fertilizer bomb is no different then a DV suspect smacking someone around.... Both are violent, but they're different categories of said.

    Washington already considers gun violence to be different, hence we have the "hard time for armed crime" law and enhanced sentencing for possessing a firearm while committing a crime.... That law is written near exclusively to deal with "gun violence" so the discussion is already more then academic
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Too late all three of my kids OC one of them OCs an M-4 and an M-9 on occasion.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    that's as silly as saying someone who differentiates "drunk driving" from simple traffic violations has an extreme agenda. gun violence is different then simply violence. when guns are used in violence fatality is is much higher, and guns allow one person to inflict violence in safety on large groups of unarmed people.
    Oh, good grief. This is what happens when young'ns miss out on seeing it happen. And, conflate things.

    The term gun-violence and stiff sentences for crimes while armed with a gun are only indirectly related.

    The only people who harp on gun-violence are the anti-gunners. And, their game is not stiff sentences for crimes committed while armed with guns. Their game is gun control, or more precisely, gun denial--denying everybody the possession and use of guns.

    The tough-on-crime gun laws started, oh, back in the 1980s or so. As much as anything, these were promoted as being tough on criminals by going after them on another front, a way to give them longer sentences. Prior to that, about the only gun-related charge was carrying concealed, often a misdemeanor.

    The anti-gunners aren't much interested in criminal misuse. They howl about it as a justification; but you don't see them promoting stiffer sentences. Their focus is denying guns to everybody.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-17-2013 at 12:02 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Their focus is denying guns to everybody.

    That sums it up for me. +1
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  11. #11
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, good grief. This is what happens when young'ns miss out on seeing it happen. And, conflate things.

    The term gun-violence and stiff sentences for crimes while armed with a gun are only indirectly related.

    The only people who harp on gun-violence are the anti-gunners. And, their game is not stiff sentences for crimes committed while armed with guns. Their game is gun control, or more precisely, gun denial--denying everybody the possession and use of guns.

    The tough-on-crime gun laws started, oh, back in the 1980s or so. As much as anything, these were promoted as being tough on criminals by going after them on another front, a way to give them longer sentences. Prior to that, about the only gun-related charge was carrying concealed, often a misdemeanor.

    The anti-gunners aren't much interested in criminal misuse. They howl about it as a justification; but you don't see them promoting stiffer sentences. Their focus is denying guns to everybody.
    But that's never what I disputed, I disputed Marshauls contention that violence committed with a firearm is no different then violence committed without one, that statement is false.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    But that's never what I disputed, I disputed Marshauls contention that violence committed with a firearm is no different then violence committed without one, that statement is false.
    That's not what I said.

    I said anyone who is focusing on specifically gun violence, rather than the factors which engender violence itself (or ways to reduce violence itself) have made their bias, and agenda, clear.

    Guns are not a causal factor in violence. At best they are an allowing factor, and I would go so far as to say usually not even that.

  13. #13
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    That's not what I said.

    I said anyone who is focusing on specifically gun violence, rather than the factors which engender violence itself (or ways to reduce violence itself) have made their bias, and agenda, clear.

    Guns are not a causal factor in violence. At best they are an allowing factor, and I would go so far as to say usually not even that.
    They are a huge allowing factor. UK has a rate of violent crime almost double ours and a rate of homicide not even half of ours. Firearms are vastly more lethal then hands and feet and contact weapons. Studying the proximate causes of violence with firearms is certainly legitimate.

    In the Czech Republic most private citizens can own guns, they have owner licensing and registration, they had to in order to join the eurozone, but other then that there is little restrictions on what a citizen can own and any citizen can carry a concealed weapon if they have a self defense license, which is issued to all who qualify. Shall issue if you will. AR-15s, saturday night specials, handguns,SBRs, standard cap mags, all legal with no special restrictions.


    In Czech Republic violent crime is very rare and so is crime committed wi firearms.

    So no firearms are not a casual factor, but the differences between two progun countries (relatively speaking) show that there is a contrast and studying the differences of gun violence in our country when compared to ones with similar legal restrictions on guns is certainly legitimate, and no where in the lecture did I hear the lecturer advocate new gun control laws...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  14. #14
    Regular Member Tacitus42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tacoma,Wa
    Posts
    189

    Video Response

    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    I saw this on Youtube and couldn't decide if it was hurtful to the future of Open carry or beneficial because it profiles and trouble shoots the psychology of mass shooters.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6nXy5g6MlA
    "Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms." Josey Wales

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    They are a huge allowing factor. UK has a rate of violent crime almost double ours and a rate of homicide not even half of ours. Firearms are vastly more lethal then hands and feet and contact weapons. Studying the proximate causes of violence with firearms is certainly legitimate.

    In the Czech Republic most private citizens can own guns, they have owner licensing and registration, they had to in order to join the eurozone, but other then that there is little restrictions on what a citizen can own and any citizen can carry a concealed weapon if they have a self defense license, which is issued to all who qualify. Shall issue if you will. AR-15s, saturday night specials, handguns,SBRs, standard cap mags, all legal with no special restrictions.


    In Czech Republic violent crime is very rare and so is crime committed wi firearms.

    So no firearms are not a casual factor, but the differences between two progun countries (relatively speaking) show that there is a contrast and studying the differences of gun violence in our country when compared to ones with similar legal restrictions on guns is certainly legitimate, and no where in the lecture did I hear the lecturer advocate new gun control laws...
    Well, I'm glad I don't have to argue the point that widespread and lightly regulated gun ownership is not a good predictor for violence.

    This being the case, I see little value in differentiating "gun violence" from other violence as a matter of public policy.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    that's as silly as saying someone who differentiates "drunk driving" from simple traffic violations has an extreme agenda. gun violence is different then simply violence. when guns are used in violence fatality is is much higher, and guns allow one person to inflict violence in safety on large groups of unarmed people.
    Wrong....violence is violence murder is murder, it matters not whether the crime was committed with a gun or a baseball bat.

    A surprising amount of people survive being shot. Your statement caters to the anti's and is a ridiculous argument that the gun as a privilege class masquerading as gun rights folks use.

    Because more people may like to use the gun as a tool, does not mean it is "different".



    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    They are a huge allowing factor. UK has a rate of violent crime almost double ours and a rate of homicide not even half of ours. Firearms are vastly more lethal then hands and feet and contact weapons. Studying the proximate causes of violence with firearms is certainly legitimate.

    In the Czech Republic most private citizens can own guns, they have owner licensing and registration, they had to in order to join the eurozone, but other then that there is little restrictions on what a citizen can own and any citizen can carry a concealed weapon if they have a self defense license, which is issued to all who qualify. Shall issue if you will. AR-15s, saturday night specials, handguns,SBRs, standard cap mags, all legal with no special restrictions.


    In Czech Republic violent crime is very rare and so is crime committed wi firearms.

    So no firearms are not a casual factor, but the differences between two progun countries (relatively speaking) show that there is a contrast and studying the differences of gun violence in our country when compared to ones with similar legal restrictions on guns is certainly legitimate, and no where in the lecture did I hear the lecturer advocate new gun control laws...
    Learn to learn and dig deeper. UK has had a historical lower rate of homicide it doesn't have anything to do with guns. New York restricted guns long before London so guns were more accessible in London, the fact that you are mugged and not killed in London but maybe in a different cultural setting doesn't mean the crime or death has anything to do with guns.

    You are right there are no casual factor with guns so why mention it? It may be cultural or that the penalties by the government less severe so the people are not as motivated by a governmental moral hazard to commit a greater atrocity.

    Making a leap that violence committed with a gun is different leads to erroneous anti gun thinking of "gun enhancements" which then demeans the crime committed against a person who is killed or raped or mugged without a gun.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Wrong....violence is violence murder is murder, it matters not whether the crime was committed with a gun or a baseball bat.

    A surprising amount of people survive being shot. Your statement caters to the anti's and is a ridiculous argument that the gun as a privilege class masquerading as gun rights folks use.

    Because more people may like to use the gun as a tool, does not mean it is "different".





    Learn to learn and dig deeper. UK has had a historical lower rate of homicide it doesn't have anything to do with guns. New York restricted guns long before London so guns were more accessible in London, the fact that you are mugged and not killed in London but maybe in a different cultural setting doesn't mean the crime or death has anything to do with guns.

    You are right there are no casual factor with guns so why mention it? It may be cultural or that the penalties by the government less severe so the people are not as motivated by a governmental moral hazard to commit a greater atrocity.

    Making a leap that violence committed with a gun is different leads to erroneous anti gun thinking of "gun enhancements" which then demeans the crime committed against a person who is killed or raped or mugged without a gun.
    + 1 you are dealing with the product of our public school system indoctrination and I predict you will not get very far it is a hard cycle to break. Lets stand back and let him have a bad experience or two with a Cop and then he may start thinking differently unless of course he blames himself, LOL
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    + 1 you are dealing with the product of our public school system indoctrination and I predict you will not get very far it is a hard cycle to break. Lets stand back and let him have a bad experience or two with a Cop and then he may start thinking differently unless of course he blames himself, LOL
    +1

    Or puts cops on such a pedestal that he'll rationalize any action by them as justified no matter how unconstitutional or anti freedom. Something in common with PALO, who of course is now a cop.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 10-17-2013 at 10:54 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Control education = control the future

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt is of educational policy

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Control education = control the future
    http://deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf 6.7 MB 700 pages chronological compendium of policy papers and commentary
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Wrong....violence is violence murder is murder.
    Actually, the Nazis (I know...Godwin's Law) found gun violence way too inefficient. To industrialize murder, they had to break out the IBM punch card machines, organize their resources, and basically make "killing factories".

    IMHO, anybody railing against "gun violence" as a special case is a tool of the antis.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    It's a big city/burbs thing.

    Another instance of indoctrinated vs. taught.

  23. #23
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    That's not what I said.

    I said anyone who is focusing on specifically gun violence, rather than the factors which engender violence itself (or ways to reduce violence itself) have made their bias, and agenda, clear.

    Guns are not a causal factor in violence. At best they are an allowing factor, and I would go so far as to say usually not even that.

    Did you watch the whole video? If so, do you have any critical thinking constructive criticism to impress us all with?
    Last edited by jsanchez; 10-19-2013 at 05:29 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    They are a huge allowing factor. UK has a rate of violent crime almost double ours and a rate of homicide not even half of ours. Firearms are vastly more lethal then hands and feet and contact weapons. Studying the proximate causes of violence with firearms is certainly legitimate.

    In the Czech Republic most private citizens can own guns, they have owner licensing and registration, they had to in order to join the eurozone, but other then that there is little restrictions on what a citizen can own and any citizen can carry a concealed weapon if they have a self defense license, which is issued to all who qualify. Shall issue if you will. AR-15s, saturday night specials, handguns,SBRs, standard cap mags, all legal with no special restrictions.


    In Czech Republic violent crime is very rare and so is crime committed wi firearms.

    So no firearms are not a casual factor, but the differences between two progun countries (relatively speaking) show that there is a contrast and studying the differences of gun violence in our country when compared to ones with similar legal restrictions on guns is certainly legitimate, and no where in the lecture did I hear the lecturer advocate new gun control laws...
    Hang in there Emn, don't let what these guys say bother you, they were once young, and they made their share of mistakes.

  25. #25
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    For those critical thinkers who want more of this good stuff here episodes 2 and 3 of the series


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jPmmLHH4Jg


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3wcriPMHqgg
    Last edited by jsanchez; 10-18-2013 at 10:22 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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