Today in "Sell More And Do Nothing"

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no indication whatsoever that the possession of a gun reduces instances of home invasion, that the use of a gun a person does possess in a home invasion is common, or that the odd use of a possessed gun in a home invasion changes the outcome of the event.  

I think that gun rights advocates might do better to stick to explanations that don't involve the fantasy of shooting at someone, on principle.  Anecdotal, but I find that people who are very much against the idea of gun ownership at the outset soften their views if you stick to a calm and rational exploration of gun ownership.  We own guns because we like shooting guns.  Yes we understand that guns are dangerous.  No we don't like shooting at people.  No we aren't going to get into a firefight in the middle of a city block.  

This isn't Mosul.

[Drich]

I am consistent look at every instance where I elaborate and defend my point. 

I simply made an open statement allowing each of you according to your own character fill in the blank so to speak meaning to fill in the narrative for yourself. For example you want to see the worst in me so you assigned me the worst possible interpretation. Other options would have been to react as your peers have. asking question as to what I meant or to defend how it is i saw to blame them... when I revealed my meaning they for the most part understood and took my word.

Oh, so you speak in riddles and I’m tasked with trying figure out what the hell you actually mean? You’re not my mentor, Drich, and that’s not how two adults have a rational discussion. I responded to explicitly clear text that you typed. The fact that you chose to use inflammatory language for the purpose of getting a rise out of people is not my responsibility, it’s yours, and I have every right and obligation to respond to the exact words that were quoted, whether you meant them or not. You’re not my damn sensei. Say what you mean, or STFU. And, bear in mind that saying things you don’t actually mean just to rile folks up constitutes trolling behavior around these parts.

I do not speak in riddles. I speak openly often time in general and then as we discuss it narrows to a point. What I intentionally did here was to take a topic and forced you to look at it from a different perspective. not only that I made you look at how you analyze and judge others. You may not like the fact that I did not allow you to float through the conversation on automatic pilot with your brain off, but isn't this the point of these discussion boards?To induce thinking in way you are not accustomed to.

Why do I do this? because that is the way the bible works. You may see the bible the same way in that it speaks in riddles or it condemns itself. when in truth you are just floating though a reading with brain off and auto critic on.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is every silly thing you do somehow connected to magic book?

[onlinebiker]

There's no indication whatsoever that the possession of a gun reduces instances of home invasion, that the use of a gun a person does possess in a home invasion is common, or that the odd use of a possessed gun in a home invasion changes the outcome of the event.  

I think that gun rights advocates might do better to stick to explanations that don't involve the fantasy of shooting at someone, on principle.  Anecdotal, but I find that people who are very much against the idea of gun ownership at the outset soften their views if you stick to a calm and rational exploration of gun ownership.  We own guns because we like shooting guns.  Yes we understand that guns are dangerous.  No we don't like shooting at people.  No we aren't going to get into a firefight in the middle of a city block.  

This isn't Mosul.

Of course there' s no evidence ....

Why?

The old newspaper adage - if it bleeds, it leads.


When someone gets shot - for whatever reason - it gets reported - to the police and by the media.

When someone prevents a crime with a gun - as far as reporting goes - nothing happened. Nothing happening doesn't sell newspapers.

[LadyForCamus]

You make the mistake of thinking I've never faced violence before.

You make the mistake of thinking that not having a gun is the same as being unprepared.

You make the mistake of thinking that having a gun makes you brave.

You make a lot of mistakes.

Boru

If you're so unafraid - why are you calling for more regulation?

Because you' re such a tough guy?

Sure - THAT makes sense.



How exactly are you prepared? You got stern words for an assailant?

---

My father is an NRA loving, gun toting, “we don’t call 911”, “I’m gonna protect my family”, type of guy. He keeps a loaded pistol in his and my mom’s house for “protection”. Two summers ago, the family and I were out visiting. That weekend happened to be the weekend that my two year old learned how to climb out of the crib. I’ll never forget walking into the kitchen to tell my parents that Christopher had gotten out of the crib that morining and my dad saying, “whoa, I better get that gun out out of dresser drawer.” Guns don’t automatically equal safety. My son could have been killed that weekend in the name of “protecting the family”. It still makes me sick to think about it.

There hasn' t been a toddler in my house for 50 years. Not applicable.

I wasn’t speaking to you directly. I was making a point that gun doesn’t necessarily equal safer.

[LadyForCamus]

Oh, so you speak in riddles and I’m tasked with trying figure out what the hell you actually mean? You’re not my mentor, Drich, and that’s not how two adults have a rational discussion. I responded to explicitly clear text that you typed. The fact that you chose to use inflammatory language for the purpose of getting a rise out of people is not my responsibility, it’s yours, and I have every right and obligation to respond to the exact words that were quoted, whether you meant them or not. You’re not my damn sensei. Say what you mean, or STFU. And, bear in mind that saying things you don’t actually mean just to rile folks up constitutes trolling behavior around these parts.

I do not speak in riddles. I speak openly often time in general and then as we discuss it narrows to a point. What I intentionally did here was to take a topic and forced you to look at it from a different perspective. not only that I made you look at how you analyze and judge others. You may not like the fact that I did not allow you to float through the conversation on automatic pilot with your brain off, but isn't this the point of these discussion boards?To induce thinking in way you are not accustomed to.

I don’t know who you think you are, and I don’t know who you think I am. I was a direct care worker in a residential treatment facility for children and adolescents with psychiatric problems, so don’t even start with that condescending, “I’m going to cure you of your ignorance on the subject” shit.

I’m talking locked-down, violent, heavily medicated children. I had to restrain children on a daily basis. I was punched, spit on, kicked, bit, attacked with a jumbo thumb tack, and humped. I cared for a girl who put broken glass in her parents’ salad, and Benadryl in her baby sister’s milk bottle. I cared for a 7 year old boy who tried to stab his father in the dark with pinking shears, a 4 year old boy with diagnosed anti-social personality disorder who tried to drown his father in a pool, and twin sisters who stabbed each other. I worked along side therapists, social workers, and parents of all breeds; foster, adoptive, and biological. I am well versed on complexity of this issue, thank you. So, you can take your “different perspective” and shove it up your ass. 

Why do I do this? because that is the way the bible works. You may see the bible the same way in that it speaks in riddles or it condemns itself. when in truth you are just floating though a reading with brain off and auto critic on.

The Bible is a silly fairy tail written by illiterate goat herders who lived two thousand years ago and there is no rational reason to take it seriously. Thanks though.

[onlinebiker]

I do not speak in riddles. I speak openly often time in general and then as we discuss it narrows to a point. What I intentionally did here was to take a topic and forced you to look at it from a different perspective. not only that I made you look at how you analyze and judge others. You may not like the fact that I did not allow you to float through the conversation on automatic pilot with your brain off, but isn't this the point of these discussion boards?To induce thinking in way you are not accustomed to.

I don’t know who you think you are, and I don’t know who you think I am. I was a direct care worker in a residential treatment facility for children and adolescents with psychiatric problems, so don’t even start with that condescending, “I’m going to cure you of your ignorance on this subject” shit. I’m talking locked-down, violent, heavily medicated children. I had to restrain children on a daily basis. I was punched, spit on, kicked, bit, attacked with sharp objects and humped. I cared for a girl who put broken glass in her parents’ salad, and Benadryl in her baby sister’s milk bottle. I cared for a 7 year old boy who tried to stab his father in the dark with pinking shears, a 4 year old boy with diagnosed anti-social personality disorder who tried to drown his father in a pool, and twin sisters who stabbed each other. I am well versed on complexity of this issue, thank you. So, you can take your “different perspective” and shove it up your ass. 

Why do I do this? because that is the way the bible works. You may see the bible the same way in that it speaks in riddles or it condemns itself. when in truth you are just floating though a reading with brain off and auto critic on.

The Bible is a silly fairy tail written by illiterate goat herders who lived two thousand years ago and there is no rational reason to take it seriously. Thanks though.

To be fair - goatherders did not write the Bible.

It's parts were written by educated but devious bastards, who were looking to control the population so they could live off of others efforts.

The goatherders were mostly an  illiterate bunch - who didn' t mind putting in a days work.....

[LadyForCamus]

I don’t know who you think you are, and I don’t know who you think I am. I was a direct care worker in a residential treatment facility for children and adolescents with psychiatric problems, so don’t even start with that condescending, “I’m going to cure you of your ignorance on this subject” shit. I’m talking locked-down, violent, heavily medicated children. I had to restrain children on a daily basis. I was punched, spit on, kicked, bit, attacked with sharp objects and humped. I cared for a girl who put broken glass in her parents’ salad, and Benadryl in her baby sister’s milk bottle. I cared for a 7 year old boy who tried to stab his father in the dark with pinking shears, a 4 year old boy with diagnosed anti-social personality disorder who tried to drown his father in a pool, and twin sisters who stabbed each other. I am well versed on complexity of this issue, thank you. So, you can take your “different perspective” and shove it up your ass. 


The Bible is a silly fairy tail written by illiterate goat herders who lived two thousand years ago and there is no rational reason to take it seriously. Thanks though.

To be fair - goatherders did not write the Bible.

It's parts were written by educated but devious bastards, who were looking to control the population so they could live off of others efforts.

The goatherders were mostly an  illiterate bunch - who didn' t mind putting in a days work.....

Fair point. 😛

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no indication whatsoever that the possession of a gun reduces instances of home invasion, that the use of a gun a person does possess in a home invasion is common, or that the odd use of a possessed gun in a home invasion changes the outcome of the event.  

I think that gun rights advocates might do better to stick to explanations that don't involve the fantasy of shooting at someone, on principle.  Anecdotal, but I find that people who are very much against the idea of gun ownership at the outset soften their views if you stick to a calm and rational exploration of gun ownership.  We own guns because we like shooting guns.  Yes we understand that guns are dangerous.  No we don't like shooting at people.  No we aren't going to get into a firefight in the middle of a city block.  

This isn't Mosul.

Of course there' s no evidence ....

Why?

The old newspaper adage - if it bleeds, it leads.


When someone gets shot - for whatever reason - it gets reported - to the police and by the media.

When someone prevents a crime with a gun - as far as reporting goes - nothing happened. Nothing happening doesn't sell newspapers.

That's an interesting theory, but studies have been done on the subject and people do report the use of their guns.  

The calm and rational explanation for this data..is that gun owners aren't actually interested in "defending their homes" with their guns, and that those who are often find that there is no opportunity to do so.  Further, that when someone does do so because they do have the opportunity and do legitimately intend to use their guns for that purpose, things go pretty much as they would when..for example, the lights suddenly come on in a house that a burglar thought was empty, or the residents call the cops. Moe often than not, a person with guns doesn't use their gun, they simply announce that they own a gun...which..obviously, you don't have to have a gun to do, and which people without guns -also- do. Unless the people breaking into your house are assassins, it's entirely unclear what the use of the gun would bring to the situation - while the risks associated with owning a gun and with using a gun in your home are a known known.

We own guns, because we like shooting guns. Not because we intend to shoot people with them, which is a terrible idea.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There's no indication whatsoever that the possession of a gun reduces instances of home invasion, that the use of a gun a person does possess in a home invasion is common, or that the odd use of a possessed gun in a home invasion changes the outcome of the event.  

I think that gun rights advocates might do better to stick to explanations that don't involve the fantasy of shooting at someone, on principle.  Anecdotal, but I find that people who are very much against the idea of gun ownership at the outset soften their views if you stick to a calm and rational exploration of gun ownership.  We own guns because we like shooting guns.  Yes we understand that guns are dangerous.  No we don't like shooting at people.  No we aren't going to get into a firefight in the middle of a city block.  

This isn't Mosul.

Well said. This is precisely the point.  People who own guns because they enjoy hunting and sport shooting aren't the issue.  Responsible gun owners who don't think they're John McLane or Harry Callahan are also not the issue.  The issue is gun accessibility by people who shouldn't have access to guns.

I don't have a problem with gun ownership.  I have a problem with some of the philosophies about gun ownership.

Boru