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

jsanchez · Oct 16, 2013

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

marshaul · Oct 16, 2013

Good luck with that. :lol:

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.

EMNofSeattle · Oct 16, 2013

marshaul said:
Good luck with that. :lol:

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.

marshaul · Oct 16, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
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.

gogodawgs · Oct 16, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
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?

EMNofSeattle · Oct 16, 2013

gogodawgs said:
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

Jeff Hayes · Oct 16, 2013

Too late all three of my kids OC one of them OCs an M-4 and an M-9 on occasion.

Citizen · Oct 17, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
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.

Jeff Hayes · Oct 17, 2013

Citizen said:
Their focus is denying guns to everybody.

That sums it up for me. +1

EMNofSeattle · Oct 17, 2013

Citizen said:
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.

marshaul · Oct 17, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
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.

EMNofSeattle · Oct 17, 2013

marshaul said:
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...

Tacitus42 · Oct 17, 2013

Video Response

jsanchez said:
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

[video=youtube;5hfYJsQAhl0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/video]

marshaul · Oct 17, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
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.

sudden valley gunner · Oct 17, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
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".

EMNofSeattle said:
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.

Jeff Hayes · Oct 17, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
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

sudden valley gunner · Oct 17, 2013

Jeff Hayes said:
+ 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.

Dave_pro2a · Oct 18, 2013

Control education = control the future

Dain Bramage · Oct 18, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

OC for ME · Oct 18, 2013

It's a big city/burbs thing.

Another instance of indoctrinated vs. taught.

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

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member