Welcome Guest | Sign In
ECTNews.com
E-Commerce Times TechNewsWorld CRM Buyer LinuxInsider
Discussions

TechNewsWorld Talkback

 
ECT News Community   »   TechNewsWorld Talkback   »   Re: NRA vs. Gun Control: A Process Argument



Re: NRA vs. Gun Control: A Process Argument
Posted by: Rob Enderle 2012-12-24 07:04:56
See Full Story

At the core of any major political argument like gun control or abortion is power. If you believe in Argumentative Theory, these battles are less about actually doing the right thing and more about one side or the other gaining social status. For instance, right after the Newtown event, Twitter came alive with gun control advocates calling anyone on the other side any number of unacceptable names. This behavior had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with appearing superior and using a tragic event to drive that superiority.


Re: NRA vs. Gun Control: A Process Argument
Posted by: oneluvsurfer 2013-01-11 09:05:02 In reply to: Rob Enderle
The problem is uneducated media that has no clue what they are talking about. Besides the rediculous comment that just because it's semi auto it's not a good hunting rifle I won't even bother with, do a little more research before you spout off that which you do not know. In my research coming from military, police officers, etc.. semi auto rifles of the .223 caliber actually pose the lowest risk of over penetration. The projectile is small and is known to tuble in the first object it hits. Handguns actually have the greatest chance at over penetration and don't have the stopping power of a rifle. Why do you think that police use these rifles when they have the time to get a better weapon??? They only carry pistols because they are easy to transport on their person. 2ndly, the stopping power of a .223 round is much greater than a pistol round. It has 2-3 times the power of a pistol round. Do some research on velocities and ft/lbs and talk to some people with actuall experience in shooting people. Just look at the recent case of the woman in GA that shot the intruder in the face and neck 5 times with a .38 revolver and he still maded it out to his car. My point is, if you are going to be a journalist, learn how to do some research before you add to the real problem of ignorance and have no clue what your talking about.

Re: NRA vs. Gun Control: A Process Argument
Posted by: LonnieB 2013-01-02 13:25:14 In reply to: Rob Enderle
So far, all the discussion has been directed at the facilitaion and results.
Not the real cause of these mass shootings...mental illness!

A gun is, after all, a mass of metal that has been arranged and fabricated to perform a specific function...push a lead pellet down a rifled tube with the intent of hitting what it was pointed at.
Notice..no soul was built into the gun. No rational thinking. No moral judgement.
Those are left to the most fallible part of the whole equation...PEOPLE.

If a gun is broken, it simply won't work. (It can be used as a club, though.)

If a person is broken, there is no telling what they will do. They will kill if that is what their malfunctioning brain tells them to do.
If they can get a gun, so much the easier. If not, then their diseased mind will work out another method. (In gun-controlled England swords and crossbows have gained popularity.)
Killers kill. What they use is ultimately irrelevent, since dead is dead!
Regulate all the law-abiding folks you want. Nothing will change. Continue to try the same thing over and over (passing laws) and see how that works for ya! (Isn't that the definition of something?)

So here's abumper sticker I'd like to see:

"Save lives. Register the mentally ill!"

Re: NRA vs. Gun Control: A Process Argument
Posted by: Jeremy2487 2012-12-26 17:18:53 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Let's let the dead rest in peace.

To be honest i was pretty annoyed when i first read this. I've given it a 2nd read and though that the points were OK. But I had to ask myself why was I annoyed. The answer, on reflection is simple. I don't come to a tech website to read about gun violence. I'm not saying responsible discussion should not take place, but their is a time and a place. I've not learned the murderers name and I've avoided reading about too much of the details(why do i need to know?). I have taken the time to make a donation to help the victims and should the time come where as a citizen, I need to vote on a gun law or for a politician who will put those laws in place, I will continue to educate myself to the extent that i will make a wise and informed choice.

I cannot help but feel that the only reason this article was posted (in a website were it is very oddly out of place ) is to help keep TechNewsWorld trending in google searches in a time where far to many people are interested in using the victims of this massacre for political cannon fodder.

Re: NRA vs. Gun Control: A Process Argument
Posted by: RobEnderle 2012-12-28 12:40:14 In reply to: Jeremy2487
Not true really, I pick the topic and feel strongly that this one was more important this week than any other I could come up with. Feel very strongly in protecting both children and freedoms. Also feel strongly that both sides efforts will currently hurt more children and remove more freedom. It is interesting to note that you are actively avoiding looking at the details yet plan to make an informed choice. If you don't do the former you can't do the latter.

Re: NRA vs. Gun Control: A Process Argument
Posted by: Kagehi 2012-12-24 08:21:29 In reply to: Rob Enderle
Wow.. Interesting mix of misinformation:

"The two that the gun control folks don't want you to look at are Switzerland and Israel. Both have very high gun densities and low gun crime."

Yes, lets look at this countries:

Israel first - everyone is trained, because everyone is presumed to be "in their military". There is no "private" ownership of guns, there is just, "You will serve, unless you can't for some reason, and therefor we will issue a gun, and make damn sure you a trained not to shoot yourself in the foot with it." Also, unless you missed it, they have a more or less constant war going on, so if someone decides to shoot at someone, or blame someone for their problems, they just need to look across the borders.

Now, Switzerland - Hmm. Lets see.. Tight, vastly tighter, regulation that the US has ***ever*** had, mandatory training, mandatory registration, you can't so much as give away, never mind buy, a gun, ever, in any situation, without someone in the government knowing it traded hands, and verifying that the person who its going to has been trained in it, and, oh yeah... there is an increased rise in new laws, which mandate that such guns be stored in armories, for use only at target ranges, or for military use, should a war break out, and ***not*** kept in your own house.

Finally, your assuming, without good cause that this woman's guns where locked away, had trigger guards, etc. Most of the states don't a) require that, or b) have any damn way to enforce it. And, beyond that, it still wouldn't matter, because even if you had one lying around on every surface, someone that knows where your guns are, could still get to them before you could. So, short of everyone having a conceal carry permit, and wearing one 24-7, then.. well, no, that still doesn't work, because it assumes you will react faster than they do, since they would have one too, and every single case like this becomes nothing more than a movie western shootout, with the one that draws faster being the winner. But, heh, self defense lawyers would have a lot of simple cases, "They shot first, I was defending myself.", would be true 100% of the time, regardless of who the intended murderer, and victim, was.

No, the simple truth is, your, "These are the best examples of places with high gun ownership.", examples are **nothing** like the US, in any way shape or form, and what they do, is apposed by the very people holding them up as examples. Worse, all evidence suggests that trying to protect yourself with one, unless you, somehow, can get to it first, and no one else knows where it is, or can guess, isn't just stupid due to the steps taken to make them safer, it is just plain stupid **period**.

Seriously.. Do people like the author of this article, or the NRA for that matter, actually think we are all just going to take their word on what is going on, without checking to see if their poster nations for "gun ownership" actually a) do what all the stupid shit we do in the US, with respect to ownership, purchase, trade, and what we often laughably call "training", or b) actually allow the same sort of, often unregistered, ownership, at all?

For that matter, do the people claiming that these are great examples of why nothing is wrong with the insane mess we have in the US bother to look either?

Re: NRA vs. Gun Control: A Process Argument
Posted by: hakke 2012-12-24 18:59:09 In reply to: Kagehi
Wow, interesting lack of reading comprehension:

"Israel first - everyone is trained, because everyone is presumed to be "in their military". There is no "private" ownership of guns, there is just, "You will serve, unless you can't for some reason, and therefor we will issue a gun, and make damn sure you a trained not to shoot yourself in the foot with it." [...]

Now, Switzerland - Hmm. Lets see.. Tight, vastly tighter, regulation that the US has ***ever*** had, mandatory training, mandatory registration..."

If you actually bothered to read the article, you'd see that the author is NOT using these two countries to argue that the status of guns in the US is okay. He's arguing EXACTLY what you are: that the US ought to learn from these two countries and institute similar systems in order to make guns less of a liability and more of an asset.

Re: NRA vs. Gun Control: A Process Argument
Posted by: RobEnderle 2012-12-28 12:36:25 In reply to: hakke
Exactly right. This goes to the core of the real problem. Folks on both sides are so biased they aren't even reading what I said, the voice in their heads is louder. Thanks for stepping in!

Re: NRA vs. Gun Control: A Process Argument
Posted by: chuck2669 2013-01-10 15:00:34 In reply to: RobEnderle
Exactly misleading, as is your shameful premise, that something needs to be done about 'guns'. As are your misleading examples of 'how it is so much better elsewhere'. Let's look HERE instead! Chicago, almost completely disarmed by law, has highest number of murders by people that don't follow the law. A similar result is seen around the world when guns are confiscated and self defense is denied to the 'law abiding'. No more gun laws, please. We have over 2000 anti-gun laws. Let's start making murdering (not killing, murdering) someone a capital offense that is carried out within 60 days of sentencing. Stop warehousing murderers. If murderers are truly insane and that means that they are incapable of knowing that murder (premeditated) is wrong, then lock them up if you must but never let them out again except to be buried after they die in custody. Otherwise perhaps the more humane thing to do, for humanity’s sake, is to euthanize them.
Jump to:
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ RSS