Big day today in Texas (safer, moving, best)

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by LeagleEagleDFW

More recent studies are showing a support for tighter gun control laws - probably due to the fact that "active shooter" has become an almost weekly news item.

And simply because we hold different viewpoints doesn't mean I'm out of it. I don't object to gun ownership per se, or even to what you described - open carrying around your ranch. That's understandable. What concerns me and what I find disturbing is that so many people fetishize their guns and are somehow twistedly proud of their arsenal. If you feel a need to constantly have a gun on your person, that to me is a sign of some sort of illness.

I can't decide what's worse: these idiots that go around looking to pick fights about being able to carry a gun with business owners and other places, or the people that are somehow convinced that if they have a gun, they'll be the hero in case of a mass shooting or other violent crime. It's far more likely that they will cause even more harm than good, and get themselves shot in the process.

This weird fetish with guns is a uniquely American thing - that somehow you are less of a person or are being deprived somehow if you can't own and carry 50 different guns. It's a significant portion of the reason the USA is tops among developed countries when it comes to violent crime and gun deaths. People love to criticize Europe for "dem libs" and their policies (and justifiably, in some cases), but let's be open and honest - American is wildly out of touch when it comes to firearms policies.

1. We're going to have to disagree about the trajectory of gun control sentiment in The US. I read the polls and whatnot your claim that their is great interest in more gun control is nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

2. You're out of it on this topic in part because you've pre-decided that everyone who disagrees with you is a "moron", "redneck", "idiot","fetishist" and more. It's funny how people on your side of the political fence who decry stereotyping are the first to stereotype and you guys are always quick with the name-calling and verbal cheap shots. It's like you intend to derail rational discussion because you are afraid you will lose.

3. Who has been picking fights?

4. So far as violence goes. The US is number 1 in gun ownership among first world countries and by a lot. We are around number 110 in murder rate. Further, places like Plano have very high gun ownership rates and incredibly low violent crime rates..........Plano's murder rate per 100K people is usually around .04 and not all of those involve guns - I haven't looked the numbers up in a while but Dallas has lots of guns and a low big city gun murder rate. Other places like Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago have very significant gun controls in place and shockingly high murder rates. So clearly there is no 1 to 1 gun ownership versus murder relationship in The US.

5. I have more than 50 guns. I've never once tried to "carry" more than 1 at a time - except while hunting.

6. I carry a lot. Although there is broad disagreement as to what the number is........handguns are used somewhere between 1 and 2 million times per year as defensive tools without being fired.
I hope to never need to fire my weapon in anger or fear. In fact in all my years of carrying I've never drawn my weapon - never really even considered doing so either.

Stew over these Texas CHL crime rates and then consider that open carriers must be a CHLer as well. It's pretty clear your CHL/OC fears are politically based, emotional and baseless.
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CH...Report2013.pdf

[LeagleEagleDFW]

Originally Posted by EDS_

1. We're going to have to disagree about the trajectory of gun control sentiment in The US. I read the polls and whatnot your claim that their is great interest in more gun control is nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

2. You're out of it on this topic in part because you've pre-decided that everyone who disagrees with you is a "moron", "redneck", "idiot","fetishist" and more. It's funny how people on your side of the political fence who decry stereotyping are the first to stereotype and you guys are always quick with the name-calling and verbal cheap shots. It's like you intend to derail rational discussion because you are afraid you will lose.

3. Who has been picking fights?

4. So far as violence goes. The US is number 1 in gun ownership among first world countries and by a lot. We are around number 110 in murder rate. Further, places like Plano have very high gun ownership rates and incredibly low violent crime rates..........Plano's murder rate per 100K people is usually around .04 and not all of those involve guns - I haven't looked the numbers up in a while but Dallas has lots of guns and a low big city gun murder rate. Other places like Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago have very significant gun controls in place and shockingly high murder rates. So clearly there is no 1 to 1 gun ownership versus murder relationship in The US.

5. I have more than 50 guns. I've never once tried to "carry" more than 1 at a time - except while hunting.

6. I carry a lot. Although there is broad disagreement as to what the number is........handguns are used somewhere between 1 and 2 million times per year as defensive tools without being fired.
I hope to never need to fire my weapon in anger or fear. In fact in all my years of carrying I've never drawn my weapon - never really even considered doing so either.

Stew over these Texas CHL crime rates and then consider that open carriers must be a CHLer as well. It's pretty clear your CHL/OC fears are politically based, emotional and baseless.
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CH...Report2013.pdf

1) Agree to disagree.

2) Yes, I'm inherently suspicious of anyone who feels they have to own and/or carry a gun. People on "my side of the fence" are routinely derided, mocked, and criticized by people on "your side of the fence" who have no room in their minds for any type of middle ground - to them, it's either you fully support all gun rights, period, or you're a screaming liberal who wants to take away their guns.

3) Which article of recent days would you like me to point to? There have been quite few regarding open carry marches, people with plans to scrutinize each 30.07 sign with the intent of finding errors so they can harass and sue the businesses, not to mention threats to boycott and demonstrate at businesses that choose not to allow lethal weapons on the premises in the hands of the general public.

4) I can find any number of statistics that are wildly different than that. It all depends on where you go for them. The fact remains that, among developed countries, the US is very high, if not at the top, for violent crime.

5) OK, be infantile. That's obviously not what I meant. 50 guns is an absurd amount that no rational human being needs.

6) That's a highly suspect and inherently flawed statement.

Quoting CHL stats doesn't mean much. I don't support concealed or open carry in any way, shape, or form. If I had my preference, you would be allowed to own one handgun and one rifle, be required to pay at least $10,000 per gun per permit, be required to undergo yearly mental evaluations at your cost, and pay at least $2500 per year per gun to keep your permit. The cost of ammunition would also be quintupled, and ammunition would be even more highly regulated than guns.

Let's make gun ownership ridiculously difficult, because it's blatantly obvious that just having virtually unfettered access to guns isn't doing anyone any good except people who feel some sick need to hoard and carry guns.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Originally Posted by LeagleEagleDFW

Unfortunately for you, everyone gets a say. Fortunately for logic and intelligence, it seems like more people are slowly waking up to the fact that having essentially unfettered access to an arsenal is not a good idea. Public opinion is slowly shifting towards much tighter gun control laws, thankfully.

Unfortunately for you, the United States Constitution prevents you from having a say about my rights.

My rights supersede your feelings every single time.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Originally Posted by Tominftl

Don't forget to wear your holster in church. You can fend off the hypocritical bible thumpers...

Yeah because we all know that we'll never be put in a situation in a church where you might have to defend your life. I mean really, when was the last time we ever heard of someone getting shot in a church?

[Midessan]

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow

Unfortunately for you, the United States Constitution prevents you from having a say about my rights.

My rights supersede your feelings every single time.

Unless he/she invokes the "But I Don't Like Them" clause of the constitution.

[LeagleEagleDFW]

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow

Unfortunately for you, the United States Constitution prevents you from having a say about my rights.

My rights supersede your feelings every single time.

If you want to get into a deep discussion about Constitutional rights, I'm happy to do so, but the short answer is that you do not have unlimited rights with regards to gun ownership.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Originally Posted by LeagleEagleDFW

If you want to get into a deep discussion about Constitutional rights, I'm happy to do so, but the short answer is that you do not have unlimited rights with regards to gun ownership.

That doesn't change the fact that your irrational feelings are meaningless when it comes to my rights.

[LeagleEagleDFW]

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow

That doesn't change the fact that your irrational feelings are meaningless when it comes to my rights.

It's nor irrational to be suspicious of someone who feels some compelling need to carry around lethal weapons and celebrates being able to do so openly.

And again, your rights are not unlimited. You can sit there all day and say that what people think about guns is meaningless when it comes to your rights, but that's a silly position to take. What people think is entirely relevant. It's possible that the Second Amendment could be entirely revised or amended based on how people think and feel about it.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Because it would not take away all the other ways bad guys with size, knives, clubs, and cohorts would still be able to terrorize ordinary people. Rape, for instance, hardly ever requires a gun.

Now, as long as you're playing Harry Potter, if you could magically make everyone peaceable and friendly, you might have an argument.

It wouldn't take away all of the ways they could hurt people, but it would significantly reduce the power they have to hurt people. It is hard to imagine every gun death being replaced with a knife death. Surely there would be some, but it would almost certainly be a drastic reduction. The amount of aggregate harm being done would be far lower. Do you disagree?

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Midessan

I agree. The people in Texas who are not police or military but are licensed to carry firearms actually have lower crime rate than the police. So I would argue that they are the right hands. Does the magic in your hypothetical allow them to be armed also?

Yes, there are many guns in the right hands, but there are also many guns in the wrong hands. If my scenario were changed to include concealed carry holders in the gun owners group, of course I would choose that reality over the one we live in. However, that isn't a useful thought experiment because it doesn't put an actual gun owner in the position of determining whether he would be willing to give up his gun in order to assure that no bad guys have guns, which is the point of the experiment.

Originally Posted by Midessan

Would the magic in your hypothetical prevent a government like Nazi Germany from having guns, and only allow them in the right hands? If not then it is not hard to see why it may fail as a litmus test.

No, but there would be plenty of other governments that would have guns. It's hard to see how WWII would be any different in this thought experiment than it was in reality. Regular citizens with guns didn't play a big role in WWII.

Originally Posted by Midessan

Fair enough. I thought you were saying that anyone who "fails" your litmus test must be an unreasonable "enthusiast", but if that is not the case then we really have no disagreement.

I'm saying that anyone who fails my litmus test is being unreasonable in regards to the gun issue. I wasn't trying to call them an enthusiast or a mere gun owner or anything else.