You are a gun control hypocrite if...

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by miloblithe

If someone made a movie about a rape (probably showing that rape was a bad thing), they would have made money off of rape. Would it then be hypocritical of them to oppose rape?

Show me a movie where the brutality of rape is shown in great vivid detail and where the rapists are made out to be the protagonists of the film.

[chown33]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Show me a movie where the brutality of rape is shown in great vivid detail and where the rapists are made out to be the protagonists of the film.

A Clockwork Orange.

[miloblithe]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Show me a movie where the brutality of rape is shown in great vivid detail and where the rapists are made out to be the protagonists of the film.

Wait. Looking quickly at some of those clips. Many of the protagonists in those clips are law enforcement officials/soldiers. Do you think most Americans in favor of gun control would suggest that the military and police should be unarmed?

Amy Poehler is a satarist. You might want to rethink arguing that her movies glorify violence.

Looks like one of the female actresses advocating gun control, her movie clip looked like her being a civilian who was shot in the back. Seems entirely consistent with gun control.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

I have to wonder what people like you would think about guns and what "hobby" you would have if guns had never been widely available in the first place. Pretty sad that people make a "hobby" out of something that is used to kill.

So if guns are "used to kill", how do we classify other things with potentially the same outcome?

If it's a culture you don't understand, that's okay. Not everyone does. But I would invite you to look into it further. Many people seem to think that gun culture is little more than a bunch of rednecks 'prepping up to kill'...this understanding of gun culture is lacking.

Originally Posted by samiwas

Like I said in another thread...I wonder how much of the US gun culture is based solely on the fact that it's a right that some people feel they must exercise. I can't count the number of times I ask someone why they are so infatuated with guns, and they say "it's my right and I wish to exercise that right".

I don't know many people who have said that and I've been pretty active in gun culture. I do know a lot of people who have said they 'enjoy' the hobby. Even if it is as what you are arguing, don't people do this with the 1st Amendment on a daily basis? Should we criticize that as well?

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by MrWillie

And how many people have lost their lives due to alcohol ? We still have drive up windows at daiquiri and beer stores in some places. People get 'lucky' every day (not kill someone), yet drunk driving is an epidemic, plus others that die from alcohol related illnesses.

I don't think you understand how that lacks any correlation. Especially given how strongly regulated driver licensing is in comparison to firearms.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

I don't think you understand how that lacks any correlation. Especially given how strongly regulated driver licensing is in comparison to firearms.

Have you purchased a firearm before?

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Have you purchased a firearm before?

Yes.

You are aware that the budget for the branch of government that contains the DMV in California alone is $19.9 billion and the ATF budget is only $1.12 billion? Are you seriously going to try and argue that it's more difficult to get a gun than a drivers license, and that motor vehicles are registered and controlled less well than guns? Perhaps you could position that a particular gun with a particular permit in a particular state is more difficult to obtain than a car and drivers license, but a similarly difficult case could be made for obtaining say a FIA Super Licence. Otherwise why would so many people be calling for guns to be regulated like cars? The average waiting time with a learners permit for a drivers license is what, six months? Eight? Compared to 0-14 days for a gun? You can't be serious.

Notwithstanding that it would be irrelevant anyways, since it was a red herring to begin with.

[angelneo]

Originally Posted by NickZac

So if guns are "used to kill", how do we classify other things with potentially the same outcome?

What other things which are used frequently in an average household that are designed to kill only?

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by NickZac

So if guns are "used to kill", how do we classify other things with potentially the same outcome?

Though an axe can be an effective weapon, it's primary job (apart from specialty throwing axes) is cutting wood. A knife is a cutting tool, as useful to cut twine or whittle a toy as stabbing. A bat is for hitting balls. A car is for transportation.

Those are primary, inherent purposes in the design of each object. Really, only the sword, the gun, and the bow* (and the club) are designed with the strict intention of killing things and their other qualities are an ancillary follow through of their original design.

In each case, they can be beautiful objects crafted masterfully. And, the practice of their use has shifted from the everyday to sometimes elegant training rituals, incredible sports, and the technocracy of those who design, build and enjoy them.

But, they were designed to kill. Every other object in modern life can be used to murder only through misuse. A hair-dryer is dangerous in the right hands, but a hair-dryer has a warning label on it that warns of electrocution risk.

Arguing that the gun's original intention was to shoot paper targets is like arguing that a calvary sword was designed to open champagne bottles. They both do them, to the terror and glee of those around you, but that's not their original intention.




*Note, this is not a holistic list. I didn't include poleaxes, lances, and various other weapons because it starts to get silly. There are lots of weird medieval weapons, but basically I think they break down into the above four categories.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

Yes.

You are aware that the budget for the branch of government that contains the DMV in California alone is $19.9 billion and the ATF budget is only $1.12 billion? Are you seriously going to try and argue that it's more difficult to get a gun than a drivers license, and that motor vehicles are registered and controlled less well than guns? Perhaps you could position that a particular gun with a particular permit in a particular state is more difficult to obtain than a car and drivers license, but a similarly difficult case could be made for obtaining say a FIA Super Licence. Otherwise why would so many people be calling for guns to be regulated like cars? The average waiting time with a learners permit for a drivers license is what, six months? Eight? Compared to 0-14 days for a gun? You can't be serious.

Notwithstanding that it would be irrelevant anyways, since it was a red herring to begin with.

Are you serious?

Licensing and control are two separate things. For the sake of this argument, let's not go there.

How does budget of two different agencies that have different duties, tasks, employees, etc. equate to any of this? When you purchased a gun, do you recall filling out BATF Form 4473? Did you recall the dealer going into the back and calling it in? Have you read the exclusions on the BATF form? If not, here you go.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

In some states, there are state-specific supplemental forms as well, some of which waive access to patient confidentiality. Does a license do this?

Have you heard of the BATF's 'Gun Squad'? If a firearm is delivered to someone who should not have purchased it, they don't send paperwork to your home...

If you want to argue making second-hand purchases go through a FFL, I can understand your point and I'd agree. But if you are talking about buying from a FFL, either the FFL you purchased a firearm from failed to follow the law or a Driver's License in CA is a helluva lot different than any state I've ever been to. Does the CA have the same licensing restrictions as specified on BATF 4473?

----------

Originally Posted by angelneo

What other things which are used frequently in an average household that are designed to kill only?

The OP of that statement said USED to kill. My firearms aren't used to kill, and I hope they never will be.

Originally Posted by hulugu

Though an axe can be an effective weapon, it's primary job (apart from specialty throwing axes) is cutting wood. A knife is a cutting tool, as useful to cut twine or whittle a toy as stabbing. A bat is for hitting balls. A car is for transportation.

Those are primary, inherent purposes in the design of each object. Really, only the sword, the gun, and the bow* (and the club) are designed with the strict intention of killing things and their other qualities are an ancillary follow through of their original design.

In each case, they can be beautiful objects crafted masterfully. And, the practice of their use has shifted from the everyday to sometimes elegant training rituals, incredible sports, and the technocracy of those who design, build and enjoy them.

But, they were designed to kill. Every other object in modern life can be used to murder only through misuse. A hair-dryer is dangerous in the right hands, but a hair-dryer has a warning label on it that warns of electrocution risk.

Arguing that the gun's original intention was to shoot paper targets is like arguing that a calvary sword was designed to open champagne bottles. They both do them, to the terror and glee of those around you, but that's not their original intention.

*Note, this is not a holistic list. I didn't include poleaxes, lances, and various other weapons because it starts to get silly. There are lots of weird medieval weapons, but basically I think they break down into the above four categories.

The OP said USED to kill. A lot of things are used to kill. I was not speaking to design as much usage.

There are firearms that are licensed for recreational purposes only, there are firearms built for recreational use only (they have no defense/hunting value), and there are buyers that purchase firearms for recreational purchases only as well. So a target rifle or target pistol has a primary design of shooting paper. There are axes made for self defense. There are knives made for self defense. There are other tools built for self defense. I understand your point as in other products that are built with defensive purpose started with a utilitarian one, where are firearms worked the other way around.

My point is that not all firearms are used to kill nor intentioned to kill. There is a large recreational shooting base. The comprise the people of gun culture. The impression the media paints of them is wrong, which was my purpose of noting on this topic.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by NickZac

...

My point is that not all firearms are used to kill nor intentioned to kill. There is a large recreational shooting base. The comprise the people of gun culture. The impression the media paints of them is wrong, which was my purpose of noting on this topic.

The .22LR used in Olympic competition is basically the firearms equivalent of an Épée. It's still a gun that's capable of killing someone and is patterned from other weaponry.

I also think that you make the same mistake about media you claim the media does with gun culture. There's a wide difference between a reporter grinding through FOIA requests with major governmental agencies, analyzing the results and then working through sources to understand a major issue and the cable news pundit who exposes his own prejudices and ideology as much as any actual information.

I'm not sure it "gun culture" accurately describes the seriousness of an Olympic shooter or game hunter, and the guys who light up beer cans on a Sunday afternoon with wild semi-auto fire.

Like car culture, gun culture certainly exists, but I'm not sure that either are sustainable or necessary.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by miloblithe

Wait. Looking quickly at some of those clips. Many of the protagonists in those clips are law enforcement officials/soldiers. Do you think most Americans in favor of gun control would suggest that the military and police should be unarmed?

If there is going to be widespread civilian disarmament, I would advocate for LEOs to be disarmed. If the people do not have weapons, than cops will not need them now will they?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by glocke12

If there is going to be widespread civilian disarmament, I would advocate for LEOs to be disarmed. If the people do not have weapons, than cops will not need them now will they?

Eventually, firearms could be issued when necessary, rather than carried by default, as is the case in the UK. But with 600,000 legally-bought guns stolen every year in the US, you have quite a long way to go before that becomes a reasonable option.

[miloblithe]

Originally Posted by glocke12

If there is going to be widespread civilian disarmament, I would advocate for LEOs to be disarmed. If the people do not have weapons, than cops will not need them now will they?

OK. But getting back to your original post, have you realized that the people in these commercials were not (at least by and large) being hypocritical?

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by miloblithe

OK. But getting back to your original post, have you realized that the people in these commercials were not (at least by and large) being hypocritical?

No.

[miloblithe]

Do you think Amy Poehler was being hypocritical, advocating for gun control, despite acting in satirical comedy where it looks like a girl scout is being irresponsible with a gun?

Just to clarify, here is what the word means:

1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by miloblithe

Do you think Amy Poehler was being hypocritical, advocating for gun control, despite acting in satirical comedy where it looks like a girl scout is being irresponsible with a gun?

Just to clarify, here is what the word means:

1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

It's also worth pointing out that being an advocate for gun control is not the same thing as being for a complete and total ban of all guns. Some of these people on the "let's keep all the guns" side of this debate fail to recognize that. Instead of trying to have a realistic talk about this, there are a few who come off paranoid, defensive, and victimized. It makes rational discussion difficult sometimes.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

It's also worth pointing out that being an advocate for gun control is not the same thing as being for a complete and total ban of all guns. Some of these people on the "let's keep all the guns" side of this debate fail to recognize that. Instead of trying to have a realistic talk about this, there are a few who come off paranoid, defensive, and victimized. It makes rational discussion difficult sometimes.

There are a lot of people on this forum who have some really good ideas on reducing non-SD deaths with firearms (yourself included). Many whom are not advocating banning/confiscation, but control through means that do not undermine the Second Amendment. There are a few people here though, who stereotype firearm owners and discuss banning/confiscation. They are no more helpful than the people who say "let's do nothing". IMHO the reduction in deaths is going to come from changes to people, not changes to firearms themselves.

----------

Originally Posted by hulugu

The .22LR used in Olympic competition is basically the firearms equivalent of an Épée. It's still a gun that's capable of killing someone and is patterned from other weaponry.

I also think that you make the same mistake about media you claim the media does with gun culture. There's a wide difference between a reporter grinding through FOIA requests with major governmental agencies, analyzing the results and then working through sources to understand a major issue and the cable news pundit who exposes his own prejudices and ideology as much as any actual information.

I'm not sure it "gun culture" accurately describes the seriousness of an Olympic shooter or game hunter, and the guys who light up beer cans on a Sunday afternoon with wild semi-auto fire.

Like car culture, gun culture certainly exists, but I'm not sure that either are sustainable or necessary.

The .22 LR (and even mag) has little value in self defense. The .18 calibers have even less value. The big calibers, such as the .500 SW Magnum, have no value to SD and little value to hunting due to lack of controllability. The big-bore rifles have virtually no value beyond novelty. Like car culture, there are many responsible individuals and some reckless ones. As far as what is necessary, we could debate that for a long period of time. We could go as far to debate if toilet paper or alcohol is necessary. But as far as sustainability goes, I believe it is once you change people. I enjoy recreational shooting greatly. I want others to enjoy it as well. I'm more than willing to look at ways to reduce deaths, but I am not willing to undermine the right to own a gun. Part of the reason I am not willing to restrict firearms is because 1) it is a right, and 2) I don't think concentrating on the firearms themselves will have nearly as much affect as concentrating on people.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

IMHO the reduction in deaths is going to come from changes to people, not changes to firearms themselves.

How do you change people?

Please explain.

[MrWillie]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

I don't think you understand how that lacks any correlation. Especially given how strongly regulated driver licensing is in comparison to firearms.

I sure do. People die in alcohol related deaths every day. It has nothing to do with having a driver's license. People with suspended licenses due to DUIs get behind the wheel of a car every day. Some are lucky, others, including their victims, are not.

My question is, how many innocent people are killed in alcohol related incidents every year (let's include the people killed by drunk snowmobilers or any other type of machinery) compared to innocent deaths by firearms ? (By innocent, I don't mean the operator, nor the person killed while committing a crime. )

Originally Posted by NickZac

There are a lot of people on this forum who have some really good ideas on reducing non-SD deaths with firearms (yourself included). Many whom are not advocating banning/confiscation, but control through means that do not undermine the Second Amendment. There are a few people here though, who stereotype firearm owners and discuss banning/confiscation. They are no more helpful than the people who say "let's do nothing". IMHO the reduction in deaths is going to come from changes to people, not changes to firearms themselves.

----------



The .22 LR (and even mag) has little value in self defense. The .18 calibers have even less value. The big calibers, such as the .500 SW Magnum, have no value to SD and little value to hunting due to lack of controllability. The big-bore rifles have virtually no value beyond novelty. Like car culture, there are many responsible individuals and some reckless ones. As far as what is necessary, we could debate that for a long period of time. We could go as far to debate if toilet paper or alcohol is necessary. But as far as sustainability goes, I believe it is once you change people. I enjoy recreational shooting greatly. I want others to enjoy it as well. I'm more than willing to look at ways to reduce deaths, but I am not willing to undermine the right to own a gun. Part of the reason I am not willing to restrict firearms is because 1) it is a right, and 2) I don't think concentrating on the firearms themselves will have nearly as much affect as concentrating on people.

A .22 pistol in the right persons hands is extremely deadly. Add a muffler and use subsonic rounds and its perfect for taking out a target in a crowded venue. 500 S&W is controllable, if your not afraid of a little recoil (I am not talking about rapid fire). Big bore rifles ? Where and what do you hunt ? The problem is lack of education. Go to some of these gun forums and the amount of FUD being generated is frightening. Most people on the 'net recommend the biggest you can handle, with the most rounds you can get. What is a good self defense weapon ? Where do you live ? I always recommend .380s, .38s, or .357 (with a .38 round when at home in a neighborhood), but I also believe you are responsible for the bullet. I wouldn't want the neighbor shooting at a potential rapist, and the bullet coming into my home.

Yes we have rights, but along with those rights we have responsibilities. Some people tend to forget that.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

How do you change people?

Please explain.

Compulsory education.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by MrWillie

My question is, how many innocent people are killed in alcohol related incidents every year (let's include the people killed by drunk snowmobilers or any other type of machinery) compared to innocent deaths by firearms ? (By innocent, I don't mean the operator, nor the person killed while committing a crime. )

Average from 2001-2005 was ~80,000.

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/DACH_ARDI/D...AA6CE5D7&F=&D=

For every 5 people who's death is linked to alcohol, 2 people are killed by firearms.

----------

Originally Posted by NickZac

Compulsory education.

For every adult in the United States?

What if I refuse to attend?

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Licensing and control are two separate things. For the sake of this argument, let's not go there.

For the sake of "this argument," this isn't my argument, MrWillie put forth the comparison. If you would like him to better define the terms of his comparison, and what exactly it's supposed to mean, that'd be great for the both of us.

Originally Posted by NickZac

How does budget of two different agencies that have different duties, tasks, employees, etc. equate to any of this? When you purchased a gun, do you recall filling out BATF Form 4473? Did you recall the dealer going into the back and calling it in? Have you read the exclusions on the BATF form? If not, here you go.

I purchased a firearm in Canada, I'm sure the procedure was quite different. I currently don't hold a license so I don't own any active firearms, but if I wanted to purchase again I'd need to take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (1 day course), pass an examination and wait for a license. If I wanted a handgun I'd have to get a special kind of Restricted Purchase and Acquisition License. I'm pretty sure I can get a Possession Only Licence grandfathered to me. Licensing while more lax than a drivers license still follows a similar route including expirations, and restricted firearms are registered (the current sitting government is intent on changing some of the registration requirements for long guns).

But again, this is only within the context of MrWillie's point (???) and not a greater statement about gun regulation.

Originally Posted by MrWillie

I sure do. People die in alcohol related deaths every day. It has nothing to do with having a driver's license. People with suspended licenses due to DUIs get behind the wheel of a car every day. Some are lucky, others, including their victims, are not.

My question is, how many innocent people are killed in alcohol related incidents every year (let's include the people killed by drunk snowmobilers or any other type of machinery) compared to innocent deaths by firearms ? (By innocent, I don't mean the operator, nor the person killed while committing a crime. )

How is this relevant? Are you suggesting that guns should be regulated like alcohol, that vehicles should be regulated like guns, that guns should be regulated like vehicles, that guns should only operate vehicles while intoxicated?

Originally Posted by NickZac

There are a lot of people on this forum who have some really good ideas on reducing non-SD deaths with firearms (yourself included). Many whom are not advocating banning/confiscation, but control through means that do not undermine the Second Amendment.

I don't think you can really do that. If there's going to be intellectual honesty coming from the proponents of gun control they need to accept that they want to change a fundamental part of the fabric of the United States. As I stated in another thread, the only way an intelligent discussion can be had is if people are willing to cop to the realities of their position. People who oppose gun control are advocating a position that freedom is worth a price paid in innocent blood. People advocating gun control similarly need to admit they want to change a big part of American culture (also the whole States rights thing), which includes willingly giving up a small part of everyone's freedom.

[dime21]

Originally Posted by glocke12

some interesting videos...

YouTube: video

and of course lets not forget the hollywood hypocrites who have literally made millions off of glamorizng guns and gun violence.

YouTube: video

Really hits home doesn't it? The same people that get paid $Millions to portray gun violence on TV and in movies are saying "demand a plan"? LOL. What a joke.

This is no different from gangster rappers making similar statements, while raking in the $Millions for their songs that glamorize violence.

But since when is "Hollywood = Rich Idiot Hypocrites" new news? Seems like par for the course.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by dime21

Really hits home doesn't it? The same people that get paid $Millions to portray gun violence on TV and in movies are saying "demand a plan"? LOL. What a joke.

This is no different from gangster rappers making similar statements, while raking in the $Millions for their songs that glamorize violence.

But since when is "Hollywood = Rich Idiot Hypocrites" new news? Seems like par for the course.

So once again, I state: Then I suppose you are calling Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Errol Flynn, and Clint Eastwood all hypocrites, right?

Simple yes or no would suffice. And I would like a response, please (though knowing your track record, I'll never see a response).

BL.