Re: Milwaukee shooting at a Gurdwara

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:57 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
panini press wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
panini press wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:The key is proper firearms training, both in the case of Switzerland and in case of vast majority of legit fireArms users
In Switzerland, proper military training is mandatory before you get to keep a weapon at home. No such deal with gun-loving crazies in the US.

What's so special about military training again? Do you think straight shooting and gun safety are some exclusive domain knowledge of military? If you do, you have a very deep misunderstanding of America's gun culture as it practiced by majority of gun owners.
I didn't argue that there was something special about military training. My emphasis is on training. So any random crazy can't walk into a shop and busy an assault weapon that can fire many rounds without reloading.

This wade guy wasnt a random crazy..he owned weapons legally...also the same with that phd nut in denver..

Question is how do you protect against nuts in the society that are growing weirder everyday? Your answer is let's take everyone's guns away and leave ppl at mercy of police force..it's no more valid than the extremist position that says all guns should be available to every one

how about a modest change? how about reinstating the ban on assault weapons?

aside: the nut in denver wasn't a phd nut. in fact he seems to be angry because he was kept out of the phd program because he flunked his qualifying exam. that's not to say there aren't nuts with phds.

by Idéfix Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:59 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:Question is how do you protect against nuts in the society that are growing weirder everyday? Your answer is let's take everyone's guns away and leave ppl at mercy of police force..it's no more valid than the extremist position that says all guns should be available to every one

Wrong, my answer is let's take assault weapons away from civilians. Neither you nor Hellsangel has offered one reason why a law-abiding civilian might need such a weapon. I have no problem with people owning guns with less firepower which are designed for self-defense. Assault weapons are designed for offense, not defense.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:07 pm

another argument that's often trotted out against any form of gun control is that there are already so many guns that it's pointless to exercise gun control now. both recent incidents, the aurora one and the wisconsin one would argue against that. both massacres were inflicted using recently purchased guns.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:20 pm

panini press wrote:Neither you nor Hellsangel has offered one reason why a law-abiding civilian might need such a weapon.

and you are unlikely to get one. the trick is to always turn any conversation about gun ownership into a second amendment argument. it's a lot harder to answer specifics, and much easier to paint the other side as pinko liberals.

by ashaNirasha Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:22 pm

And also, somebody please advocate limiting the amount of ammunition that can be bought online. That guy in Colorado bought thousands of rounds of ammunition without even arousing suspicion.

by Idéfix Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:30 pm

ashaNirasha wrote:And also, somebody please advocate limiting the amount of ammunition that can be bought online. That guy in Colorado bought thousands of rounds of ammunition without even arousing suspicion.

Yes, there ought to be some monitoring of purchases of ammunition. Requiring a license for any purchases of ammunition may be a step too far for America, but monitoring large purchases, with anonymity breached only in cases of purchases exceeding some thresholds, would be a good compromise. Don't make it so easy for crazies to buy what it takes to kill a dozen people; keep it easy to do the legal thing (e.g. hunting) and make it difficult to do the illegal thing (e.g. mass murder).

by ashaNirasha Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:32 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
panini press wrote:Neither you nor Hellsangel has offered one reason why a law-abiding civilian might need such a weapon.

and you are unlikely to get one. the trick is to always turn any conversation about gun ownership into a second amendment argument. it's a lot harder to answer specifics, and much easier to paint the other side as pinko liberals.

I am even surprised that PP expects any sort of a reasonable response from HA. He hasn't given any indication that he has any opinions of his own all these years. And I understand. It's hard to form one, and express one, in one liners.

by Hellsangel Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:36 pm

ashaNirasha wrote:

I am even surprised that PP expects any sort of a reasonable response from HA. He hasn't given any indication that he has any opinions of his own all these years. And I understand. It's hard to form one, and express one, in one liners.

How sweet! You want me to share? You will be left with only the second part of your name.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:49 pm

panini press wrote:Yes, there ought to be some monitoring of purchases of ammunition.

there already is, if your name is mohammad. then you'll have the FBI on your ass in less than ten seconds.

by ashaNirasha Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:52 pm

Yeah, sure. Not less than 6 lines. It has to have answers to the questions that Max asked you and is dying to know.

What is your personal opinion on this? Don't you worry about the history of American Gun culture, the thought processes of all those in Texas, about trying to make us understand where it all comes from.

Not that the opinion won't be subject to debate, but it helps to know they are some working brain cells behind the links, you know.

I am shocked at some of the posts on this (or the other thread about the same issue). Some on the dumbest comments, beating rashmunesque ones, are on that.

Public Warning: PEOPLE, Get out of Texas! You don't know what it does to you.

by Hellsangel Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:56 pm

ashaNirasha wrote:

Public Warning: PEOPLE, Get out of Texas! You don't know what it does to you.

Hicksville, PA is better?

by ashaNirasha Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:00 pm

6 lines. Let's see.

by Hellsangel Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:01 pm

ashaNirasha wrote:6 lines. Let's see.

So persistent! So full of Hope! So cute!

by Idéfix Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:23 pm

Here is an interesting piece from Politico on the possibility of a federal ban on assault weapons.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/08/if-congress-wh-wanted-to-ban-assault-weapons-could-131451.html?hp=l2

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:23 pm

while it is somewhat understandable that the weight of a nearly 250 year history influences many americans' opinions on guns, it is incomprehensible why a recent immigrant who did not grow up with that history would readily buy into it uncritically.

by Hellsangel Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:27 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:while it is somewhat understandable that the weight of a nearly 250 year history influences many americans' opinions on guns, it is incomprehensible why a recent immigrant who did not grow up with that history would readily buy into it uncritically.

By that logic, is it ok for a second generation immigrant to buy into it?

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:00 pm

the operative word hellsu is "uncritically", not "recent immigrant". to state the obvious, anyone, recent immigrant or or not, is free to think as they like. what i meant is that it is human nature that it is difficult to be critical of things that are part of our cultural DNA. sometimes we rise above this difficulty. that's when social changes occur. not burdened with guns being part of one's birth culture, it should be easier for indian immigrants to ask critical questions about them. maybe you already have and answered it for yourself, but i haven't seen your reasoning in the recent discussions.

by Propagandhi711 Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:09 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:while it is somewhat understandable that the weight of a nearly 250 year history influences many americans' opinions on guns, it is incomprehensible why a recent immigrant who did not grow up with that history would readily buy into it uncritically.

That question exposes the intellectual burden of growing up in a restrictive orthodoxy which does not tolerate viewpoints and life experiences other than ones own.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:53 pm

looking in from the outside, from another frontier culture, from a man who did something about it in his country

by truthbetold Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:50 pm

I read as many posts as possible. Max still remains vanguard of gun control viewpoint with
A solid foundation of reason.
While i support max's position let me play devils advocate and present
Arguments from nra supporters.
Most of the legal guns are owned by white americans. What is the rate of white on white crime rate?
Drug gangs of blacks puertoricans cubans hispanics could get guns irrespective of any law. So would italian mafia russian gangs or motor bikers of white background. If you remove thesegroups how much gun voilence is there in rest of america?
prop - usa leads in mass murders with legal guns. Free availability seem to shape some of these shootings. What is wrong with reasonable accomadatipn?

by Idéfix Thu Aug 09, 2012 12:44 am

truthbetold wrote:If you remove thesegroups how much gun voilence is there in rest of america?

There is no way to surgically remove these groups from American society, or from its crime statistics. The fact is, most locks used on houses and cars can be picked. Does that mean we don't lock houses and cars? No, we do lock our houses and cars. The fact that determined criminals can get around controls doesn't mean you don't put controls in place. The idea is to make it difficult to do the wrong thing -- even for the mafia.

Here's another prescription that will reduce the influence of organized crime gangs: stop the war on drugs and legalize pot across the US. Eliminate the easy profits from the illegal marijuana trade, and you will immediately reduce the influence all manner of organized crime syndicates.

by Maria S Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:20 am

It's a good decision to open up the funeral services to the public- with open caskets and inviting media. Usually one would want privacy for families..but, think here it is different.

Nothing more powerful than seeing images-esp. tributes and raising awareness about different faiths- Americans really need to see/know.

http://news.yahoo.com/wisconsin-sikh-temple-reopens-doors-mourners-ready-memorial-221536956.html

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com