<p>Kluge is right, there is no sense in debating with irrational people. I’m going to go watch the tennis, now. </p>
<p>“I also note that at least one person on this thread wasn’t particularly interested in the lives of gang members or, seemingly, of their victims”</p>
<p>Because this debate was originally about what to do about stop mass murders from occurring and whether teachers should be armed, not street crime and gang violence.</p>
<p>Or, like me, a person who had only a sharp knife, while the LA riots were raging. If looters or arsonists had made an attack on my home, I would have been defenseless. </p>
<p>Since then, although I am still not a gun owner, as I don’t know how to properly handle one, I have much more sympathy for those who are. And pure contempt for the Hollywood left who condemn gun owners and then make millions on violent movies.</p>
<p>Oh, emilybee - I think it would have made a tremendous difference if they all would have shot their oppressors. A tremendous difference.</p>
<p>I’ll bet if you were to ask most of the survivors today if they would have preferred to be able to fight back with a gun, they would say yes.</p>
<p>And evidently, Hitler thought it would have made a difference. He passed a weapons law, adding further restrictions, especially for the Jews and foreigners, to the laws previously adopted by the Weimar Republic.</p>
<p>“I’ll bet if you were to ask most of the survivors today if they would have preferred to be able to fight back with a gun, they would say yes.”</p>
<p>Aren’t Israel’s current policies predicated from those experiences - Attack first, justify later? They are armed for every kind of scenario.</p>
<p>“A good way to tell if your argument is valid is to put yourself in the shoes of a jew in Germany during WW2, and ask yourself if you’d rather have a gun to defend yourself or not.”</p>
<p>Since I am Jewish and know/known many survivors I would say having a gun would have absolutely, without a doubt, lead to certain death.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well then it’s a good thing you don’t speak for everyone since you’re definitely in the minority on your opinion.</p>
<p>So if you had a gun, you would not have used it anyway? Even knowing that you might die? I would have. But of course, I’m seeing things in retrospect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You also have to consider that even if you know you’re going to die, killing a few nazis in the process will prevent more jews from dying in the long run since there would be less nazis killing people.</p>
<p>Recent posts are similar to what happens when I try to discuss citizen gun rights with DW’s relatives:</p>
<p>Them: The government has gutted 2nd Amendment rights as prelude to confiscation.
Me: When do expect that to occur?
Them: Anytime … it could happen anytime.
Me: And you need fully automatic weapons, why?
Them: You don’t think they’re gonna come in ones and twos do you? They’ll come in waves like they did in Waco.</p>
<p>Start with a false premise, and everything that follows must be true.</p>
<p>Well, as luck would have it a new Pew Research poll came out today that addresses public opinion on guns and gun control. There is broad public support for several gun policy proposals.</p>
<p>[In</a> Gun Control Debate, Several Options Draw Majority Support | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press](<a href=“http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/]In”>In Gun Control Debate, Several Options Draw Majority Support | Pew Research Center)</p>
<p>Since we are all commenting on an education-focused site, I thought it might be worth pointing out some of the differences among people of different education levels. Turns out that the more educated people are, the more likely they are to support various gun-control measures. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The poll covers many other differences across gender, political and other lines.</p>
<p>The 75% usually wins. They elected the government too.</p>
<p>Speaking of false premises …</p>
<p>… when did the Supreme Court say it was constitutional for Zimmerman to chase an unarmed black kid down and shoot him dead? Keep a gun in your house, sure, that’s vetted. But taking that gun downtown to hunt troublemakers? I must have missed that SCOTUS ruling.</p>
<p>Cromette and Zoosermom, I don’t have an emotional reaction one way or the other. I don’t “hate” guns; I’ve thought about buying a gun, assessed the risks and benefits and decided it made no sense for me in my situation. I’m not desperate, despite Zoosermom’s overheated accusation - and I have no fear invested in this either way. I’m just assessing the arguments I see. And the pro-gun arguments I see always lead back to the same hero fantasy - “I’ll fight the bad guys with my gun and win.” I think that’s unrealistic on many levels.</p>
<p>I don’t see that kind of fantasization among gun opponents. It’s not an equivalency - any more than banning knives because people can kill with them is an equivalent of banning guns. (In fact, making that argument is more evidence of immature reasoning. “I know you are but what am I” is not exactly the apex of reasoned logic.) Being able to rationally assess the risks and benefits of different courses of action is the test of mature thinking. Gunners fail that test. And that’s an observation that’s got nothing to do with fear or emotion - it’s just what I see when I read their words.</p>
<p>^ you only see one fantasy - fight the bad guys and win? Such a lovely fantasy - must be made in hollywood.</p>
<p>Some people want to preserve their ability to take care of themselves and their families, while others want to rely only on the government to do that for them. Which sounds more rational?</p>
<p>Yes, some people envision a day when they have less to fear from their neighbor than they do some foreign invader.</p>
<p>So, Bay - you figure you’re going to shoot the bad guys, correct? That’s why you have a gun, to “take care of yourself and your family.” The Connecticut shooter’s mom had guns - how did that work out for her and her family? George Zimmerman had a gun - how did that work out for everyone? A few pages back I posted a link to a story about a nice man from rural Northern California who used a gun to protect his family - and now he’s dead, even though the burglars were just trying to get away when he started shooting. Didn’t turn out well.</p>
<p>So, no, your position doesn’t sound rational to me. It sounds like the kind of wannabe heroic posturing that would not be out of place on a bumper sticker. It is, in fact, exactly what I’m talking about - the essentially adolescent fantasy that a man (or woman) will pull out her trusty gun and shoot the bad guys - and that nothing bad will happen with that lethal weapon, like a member of the family using it to commit suicide, or you or someone else in your family getting chemically imbalanced for one reason or the other and shooting somebody - probably somebody else you know. Or you shoot someone you think needs shooting, and it turns out it’s just a kid out to buy Skittles and iced tea. Or they shoot back, and you die.</p>
<p>No, doesn’t really sound really rational to me. Sounds to me like you’re exaggerating your own abilities and minimizing the likelihood that something might go wrong.</p>
<p>Things go wrong.</p>
<p>Changing the subject slightly. Background checks including mental health background checks. AIUI, since Virginia Tech, states have been supposed to put together data bases of those with mental health problems that make them unsuitable to be gun owners. Some states have not complied. </p>
<p>The gun show loophole is really a phrase meaning that private sellers do not have to do the background check. Let’s say private sellers are required to do background checks on those they are selling to. Since millions of people own guns, wouldn’t that give almost anyone access to background records including mental health records of anyone else? Am I missing something here? It’s one thing for a limited number of gun stores to have this access, but for anyone?</p>
<p>Using the Pew stats, looks like there is insufficient national support for a federal law banning much of anything. So, the states can do as their citizen voters want. Some states will have more police and armed teachers and school employees on campus and some won’t.</p>
<p>Isn’t that the way the system of government was designed to work?</p>
<p>quote:
Some people want to preserve their ability to take care of themselves and their families, while others want to rely only on the government to do that for them. Which sounds more rational?</p>
<p>I take care of my family and I don’t need a gun to do so.</p>