Talk About Marriage banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
4041 - 4060 of 7438 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
Likewise, when dealing with a professional actor, a professional musician/radio host, and someone who'd worked with a president and since made a living via public speaking, I have a difficult time accepting the repeated use of that same phrase to be "slipping up" because they suddenly found themselves "standing in the spotlight."
What I actually had in mind with the term, "Slipping up" was straying onto (legally) thin ice via extempore as opposed to more scripted responses. In this regard, I'm neither an actor nor a trial lawyer, but nevertheless do not consider the two as even remotely comparable, The latter requires an intimate knowledge of law while the former seems to fall more along the lines of making a story believable at a human level.

A laymen might embarrass himself even on a casual thread like this via a sophomoric legal fallacy like dicto simpliciter but that would not escape the notice of a qualified critic, which I would suspect (I didn't actually see the interview myself) was essentially the fear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grayson

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,750 Posts
What I actually had in mind with the term, "Slipping up" was straying onto (legally) thin ice via extempore as opposed to more scripted responses. In this regard, I'm neither an actor nor a trial lawyer, but nevertheless do not consider the two as even remotely comparable, The latter requires an intimate knowledge of law while the former seems to fall more along the lines of making a story believable at a human level.

A laymen might embarrass himself even on a casual thread like this via a sophomoric legal fallacy like dicto simpliciter but that would not escape the notice of a qualified critic, which I would suspect (I didn't actually see the interview myself) was essentially the fear.
Gotcha. Thanks for that. As you probably surmised, I misinterpreted the "slipping up in the spotlight" comment more along the lines of a case of stage fright causing them to unconsciously retreat to the boilerplate language. And, probably understandably, I couldn't see three individuals who make a living at performance/public speaking all encountering such an event simultaneously.

I'd still say that, for three people who make/made their living at public speaking (at least one of which who did so on that very subject with regularity at the time), they would have been able to get the same idea across without the repetition of the same phrase that came across presenting an incongruity.

Or, maybe not.

Maybe the standard setup was just that...a standard setup from which they were not prepared to deviate. Maybe they just didn't realize that they were all going to end up using that same setup (and so frequently).

At the end of the day, it still came across as three fairly well-off celebrities with tremendous concern about people "climbing in their windows at night to kill them."
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,750 Posts
I wasn't hired by Moscow to disarm America. My job is to keep the peace in my town, to protect peaceful citizens from violent ones, and to serve my citizens, not the President, and not the Governor. If my citizens want grandpa disarmed they will let me know. My citizens understand the difference between a turd and a solid citizen and they expect me to know the difference. Like most every other cop on the face of the earth, I don't prosecute 90% of the violations I see. If I did, I'd keep my job a couple of weeks. I use the minimum government intrusion to get the job done. Driving 1 mph over the speed limit is a violation. You'd tolerate a police force that rousted every speeder? No discretion? No common sense? The guy taking his bleeding kid to the Emergency Room gets a ticket for 10 over the speed limit? It's neither desirable or even humanly possible to enforce every law without discretion. All citizens would end up in court or jail, probably every day. So, do I ignore some violations? Yeah, like every other cop on the face of the earth. You'd be hating life if we didn't.
I understand.

Loop secure.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
Sorry you feel that way. Seemed pretty clear to me that Boosler's response was regarding how frequently that specific phrase, ("When someone is crawling through my window at night to kill me..."), was used in such a short span of time. Perhaps it's boilerplate NRA phrasing, but when presented by three people numerous times in under 30 minutes, it can sound comical, wouldn't you agree?

ETA: Given the individuals in question, one would assume that they do not reside in crime-ridden war zones, thus making their repetition of, "When someone comes crawling through my window at night..." to be farcically incongruous.
{end edit}
So there have never been stalkers of celebrities? No celebrity has ever been killed by a nutjob or criminal? Is that your position? If so I'll work up a list for you of those who have had serious stalker problems and/or been the victim of a violent attack.

Since I never expected Charleton Heston to be in my home standing guard, I presume the only place he might have had an intruder crawling through a window would be in his own home. So his statement makes a lot more sense than talking about what he'd do if someone crawled into my window at night.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
Would you agree that some do fit such a description? (Note, I'm not saying they necessarily constitute the average gun owner. At the same time, though, I have to wonder why some of the open carry folks feel the need to be strapped with a rifle while getting a smoothie.)
The Rambo wannabe is a tiny minority of the gun community. They are widely derided by the wider community, usually being called something like "mall ninja". Just as with any community there are outliers.

When such a caricature is used to try to denigrate the other 99.999% of gun owners then it becomes offensive and dishonest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
Funny you should mention that when reacting so strongly to part of that PI episode. On the same episode, Heston began talking about gun ownership being a god-given right, and smirked as he leaned back saying, "And if anyone on this panel is qualified to know about that..." to which Boosler responded, "Honey, that was a role in a movie. You're not really Moses."



How so? By noting that a comedian made a joke about the frequency with which a particular phraseology was used in a very limited span of time?
Posted via Mobile Device
I suppose you missed the humor in Heston's statement.

The comedian was ridiculing the people in order to mischaracterize them as somehow paranoid or ridiculous. Right out of the Alinsky handbook, literally. That is offensive to me especially in the context of a serious issue and the attempt to take away basic human rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
I agree with this 100%

So, how do you solve the problem?

Stiffer jail sentences? The jails are overflowing and court rooms extended behond belief...It's no different here.
It isn't an easy or quick solution. It took us 50+ years to get here, and it will take generations to get us out.

In the short run, yes stiffer sentences with no time off for good behavior. Do the crime? Do the time. Violent crimes regardless if there is a gun involved should get serious time. I am strongly in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes, acknowledging we need stricter rules on what kind of evidence is sufficient, and a quick execution when the sentence is handed down.

Possession of a weapon as a prohibited person should have mandatory sentences. And let's stop the prosecutors from dropping charges, and lets make the sentences mandatory sequential, not concurrent.

We also need to get rid of the progressive philosophies which have driven poverty, fatherlessness, and dependence on handouts. This means real reforms throughout the system. Taxes, regulations, welfare, food stamps, etc. We have to reward work and accomplishment, not sloth and dependence. We have to insist men who father children are held accountable, or go to jail. Yup, support your child or go to jail.

Mass media needs to stop tearing down success. Certainly there are many in the rap hip-hop and gangsta culture entertainment businesses who are responsible for promoting destructive lifestyles. Idk how we throttle them, but if theres a way to do it we should.

Stop the war on drugs. Legalize substances for personal use. Regulate the distribution with minimal taxes, so as to eliminate the black market as much as possible. This will take the mind boggling profits out of the illegal drug trade. Drug gangs are a serious source of violent crime, and many criminal illegal aliens are here in the drug business.

Deport known criminal illegal aliens.

Enact nationwide Constitutional Carry. Any citizen not otherwise prohibited (i.e. not a convicted felon or adjudicated mental defective) can choose to carry any weapon anywhere anytime, with few exceptions. Prisons, mental hospitals, beyond security screening at the airport would still be off limits. But lets make it really dangerous to be a criminal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,750 Posts
So there have never been stalkers of celebrities? No celebrity has ever been killed by a nutjob or criminal? Is that your position? If so I'll work up a list for you of those who have had serious stalker problems and/or been the victim of a violent attack.
Did you notice, a few pages back, when I mentioned having to argue points that I'd never made? Here's an instance.

Did I say no celebrities have ever had stalkers? No, I didn't.

What I did point out was the apparent incongruity in three separate celebrities making use of the introduction "When someone comes crawling through my window to kill me..." multiple times in a short span (giving the impression that all three experience such an occurrence frequently), as it would seem to relate to your rejoinder that the crime rate is not zero.

Put another way, I was commenting that, despite the given that the global crime rate is not zero, all three gentlemen are unlikely to live in such a crime-ridden area that such frequent instances of homicidal intruders are unlikely.

Since I never expected Charleton Heston to be in my home standing guard, I presume the only place he might have had an intruder crawling through a window would be in his own home. So his statement makes a lot more sense than talking about what he'd do if someone crawled into my window at night.
Or, he (and Nugent and Liddy) could have spoken more generally: "If someone finds and intruder crawling through their window to kill them...," "When the victim of a home invasion...," just as a couple of examples. But, as I said to ocotillo, perhaps the use of what appears to be standard NRA wording with such frequency wasn't intentional, a byproduct of not normally putting forth the scenarios and argument as a group. Maybe they were just lazy. This long after the fact, there's no telling.

The Rambo wannabe is a tiny minority of the gun community. They are widely derided by the wider community, usually being called something like "mall ninja". Just as with any community there are outliers.

When such a caricature is used to try to denigrate the other 99.999% of gun owners then it becomes offensive and dishonest.
I would agree that it's disingenuous at the very least. Please indicate where I've put forth those outliers as examples of the average gun owner. If I've done so, it wasn't intentional. Although I freely admit that I may have used such caricatures as examples of extremists.

I suppose you missed the humor in Heston's statement.
Can't "miss" what's not there. As I recall, he delivered it in all seriousness.

The comedian was ridiculing the people in order to mischaracterize them as somehow paranoid or ridiculous. Right out of the Alinsky handbook, literally. That is offensive to me especially in the context of a serious issue and the attempt to take away basic human rights.
Again, I'm sorry you feel that way. But, I see your point...to expect a comedian to use humor (or, at least, an attempt at humor) in response to comments that could be seen to lend themsves to humor is certainly unthinkable.

Given your reaction to Boosler's "ridiculing" her fellow panelists, shall I assume you feel equally as strongly about Heston, on that same episode, ridiculing the Denver/Columbine residents who didn't appreciate the NRA convention's presence as, "sad little people standing in the rain, upset because no one agreed with them?"
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,750 Posts
It isn't an easy or quick solution. It took us 50+ years to get here, and it will take generations to get us out.

In the short run, yes stiffer sentences with no time off for good behavior. Do the crime? Do the time. Violent crimes regardless if there is a gun involved should get serious time. I am strongly in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes, acknowledging we need stricter rules on what kind of evidence is sufficient, and a quick execution when the sentence is handed down.

Possession of a weapon as a prohibited person should have mandatory sentences. And let's stop the prosecutors from dropping charges, and lets make the sentences mandatory sequential, not concurrent.

We also need to get rid of the progressive philosophies which have driven poverty, fatherlessness, and dependence on handouts. This means real reforms throughout the system. Taxes, regulations, welfare, food stamps, etc. We have to reward work and accomplishment, not sloth and dependence. We have to insist men who father children are held accountable, or go to jail. Yup, support your child or go to jail.

Mass media needs to stop tearing down success. Certainly there are many in the rap hip-hop and gangsta culture entertainment businesses who are responsible for promoting destructive lifestyles. Idk how we throttle them, but if theres a way to do it we should.

Stop the war on drugs. Legalize substances for personal use. Regulate the distribution with minimal taxes, so as to eliminate the black market as much as possible. This will take the mind boggling profits out of the illegal drug trade. Drug gangs are a serious source of violent crime, and many criminal illegal aliens are here in the drug business.

Deport known criminal illegal aliens.

Enact nationwide Constitutional Carry. Any citizen not otherwise prohibited (i.e. not a convicted felon or adjudicated mental defective) can choose to carry any weapon anywhere anytime, with few exceptions. Prisons, mental hospitals, beyond security screening at the airport would still be off limits. But lets make it really dangerous to be a criminal.
I was with you up to that last paragraph, Thunder God.

"Any" weapon? "Any?"

Seeing the guy in line in front of us at Chipotle with a rocket launcher strapped to his back should instill us with warm fuzzies? (Hyperbole? Maybe a little, but we've established previously that you feel any weapon should be available for purchase by any private individual if they have the financial means to do so. Since we're discussing your ideal means of reducing violent crime, we may as well accept your ideal weapon ownership ideas.)

Seeing a group of people walking along the street towards the mall with rifles slung over their shoulders shouldn't be cause for concern or to contact the police?

"Anywhere?"

Private business owners should be permitted to post the standard "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, to prohibit smoking, heck, to prohibit outside food and drinks...but they should be required to permit firearms whether they want to or not. Is that about the size of it?

One of your other points that I agree with in sentiment, if not specifics, is one we've discussed before, and went round and round with no resolution. We've discussed my wife's cousin who, when off her meds (which is most of the time), has stated that she believes family members (my wife and their mutual aunt among them) have been replaced by aliens and are plotting to kill her. We've discussed that her father has been unable to be awarded guardianship based on her mental problems because she's an adult who can nominally function normally if she takes her meds (which she doesn't). We've discussed how you believe that, absent such a court ruling, this woman who believes body-snatching, shape-shifting aliens pose an immediate threat to her should be allowed legal access to a gun. I can't agree with that.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,538 Posts
while true, what the murder rates w/o selecting the method? Oh, wait, they are actually pretty close. Oh, and if you take away the war on drugs and the murders due to drug dealing (very US specific), the rates in the US for total murders is ? Oh yeah, less.
This^ isn't even an argument. Again, Canada, UK and Australia control guns and have less gun violence. Also less murders, yep.

Must be a coincidence that after the gun laws were enacted in Australia they haven't had a single gun massacre?

How can you even still argue after the shootings that just happened? Those were children. The stats are clear. You have 9 times more *under 21* deaths than other civilized countries.

("f*ck off... ah liiike guns...")

Control the guns. Massacres go way down. Australia did it. Canada and UK control our guns. Why can't the US? Are you less civilized?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,538 Posts
Did you notice, a few pages back, when I mentioned having to argue points that I'd never made? Here's an instance.

Did I say no celebrities have ever had stalkers? No, I didn't.
He tries it with me also. It's a sign of being emotional instead of rational about a subject.

Problem for him neither of us are susceptible to misdirection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
Did you notice, a few pages back, when I mentioned having to argue points that I'd never made? Here's an instance.

Did I say no celebrities have ever had stalkers? No, I didn't.

What I did point out was the apparent incongruity in three separate celebrities making use of the introduction "When someone comes crawling through my window to kill me..." multiple times in a short span (giving the impression that all three experience such an occurrence frequently), as it would seem to relate to your rejoinder that the crime rate is not zero.

Put another way, I was commenting that, despite the given that the global crime rate is not zero, all three gentlemen are unlikely to live in such a crime-ridden area that such frequent instances of homicidal intruders are unlikely.

Or, he (and Nugent and Liddy) could have spoken more generally: "If someone finds and intruder crawling through their window to kill them...," "When the victim of a home invasion...," just as a couple of examples. But, as I said to ocotillo, perhaps the use of what appears to be standard NRA wording with such frequency wasn't intentional, a byproduct of not normally putting forth the scenarios and argument as a group. Maybe they were just lazy. This long after the fact, there's no telling.
Crime is very personal to the victim. A person who keeps a firearm for self defense will think about potential scenarios. When discussing these topics then it becomes a personalized thing. And, each person has their own opinion of how to deal with it. Ford vs Chevy. Shotgun vs pistol.

So it is normal to say "When ........ happens to me".

Additionally, frequently there is a position being taken that the person will not be an easy victim. When someone comes into MY house, they are going to face a hellstorm. Just the facts as they are. I don't know what will happen in your house, but I am stating what will happen in my house.

So when discussing these topics one uses generics, and perhaps even uses the first person's basic outline. The first guy says "when someone crawls through my window, I will ....". So the next guy uses that example, rather than saying "when someone pries open my garage door, I will ...."

You indeed repeated your position that these 3 people who have money and status must live in a very low crime area. The clear implication is that they really don't have any worries, and it is somehow out of the realm of reasonable for them to think of and then verbalize that there may be a lethal threat to them inside their own homes.

This is what you said:
Given the individuals in question, one would assume that they do not reside in crime-ridden war zones, thus making their repetition of, "When someone comes crawling through my window at night..." to be farcically incongruous.
So you do see it as farcical that while discussing firearms that these relatively wealthy people would discuss defending against a home invasion.


Can't "miss" what's not there. As I recall, he delivered it in all seriousness.
I guess that means you believe Heston believed he was God?


Again, I'm sorry you feel that way. But, I see your point...to expect a comedian to use humor (or, at least, an attempt at humor) in response to comments that could be seen to lend themsves to humor is certainly unthinkable.
Well if he wasn't ridiculing them he was showing his naive ignorance of the real threats to celebrities.


Given your reaction to Boosler's "ridiculing" her fellow panelists, shall I assume you feel equally as strongly about Heston, on that same episode, ridiculing the Denver/Columbine residents who didn't appreciate the NRA convention's presence as, "sad little people standing in the rain, upset because no one agreed with them?"
I haven't seen or heard the full context of his statement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
I was with you up to that last paragraph, Thunder God.

"Any" weapon? "Any?"

Seeing the guy in line in front of us at Chipotle with a rocket launcher strapped to his back should instill us with warm fuzzies? (Hyperbole? Maybe a little, but we've established previously that you feel any weapon should be available for purchase by any private individual if they have the financial means to do so. Since we're discussing your ideal means of reducing violent crime, we may as well accept your ideal weapon ownership ideas.)
Yup. While others might think it unnecessary, perhaps that person does see a reason. And if there is a serious unrest or riot going on, a rocket launcher might be just the thing to defend his home, business, and family.

Rocket launchers aren't very convenient to carry around, and the ammo is a bit expensive, so I don't think you'd see them in real life except under extraordinary circumstances.

Seeing a group of people walking along the street towards the mall with rifles slung over their shoulders shouldn't be cause for concern or to contact the police?
Nope. Unless they look like jihadists or Hell's Angels or are otherwise acting suspiciously.

"Anywhere?"
Anywhere that crime might happen, victims have a basic human right to self defense. No one has the right to take away that most basic right away from anyone else.

Private business owners should be permitted to post the standard "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, to prohibit smoking, heck, to prohibit outside food and drinks...but they should be required to permit firearms whether they want to or not. Is that about the size of it?
Any business which prohibits firearms should be legally and financially responsible for any harm to any patron on their property.

Basic civil rights cannot be denied by businesses under our current law. You cannot post a sign "No Jews" or "No Blacks". Bringing in outside food is not a basic civil right. RKBA is.

Businesses do have the authority to remove disruptive people, and if someone is causing a legitimate problem by openly carrying then the owner has the right to ask them to leave. But concealed carry is concealed and is never a disruption.


One of your other points that I agree with in sentiment, if not specifics, is one we've discussed before, and went round and round with no resolution. We've discussed my wife's cousin who, when off her meds (which is most of the time), has stated that she believes family members (my wife and their mutual aunt among them) have been replaced by aliens and are plotting to kill her. We've discussed that her father has been unable to be awarded guardianship based on her mental problems because she's an adult who can nominally function normally if she takes her meds (which she doesn't). We've discussed how you believe that, absent such a court ruling, this woman who believes body-snatching, shape-shifting aliens pose an immediate threat to her should be allowed legal access to a gun. I can't agree with that.
Posted via Mobile Device
We value freedom over government intrusion. That is our basic philosophy underlying all of our laws. If the law is faulty where you live, or if the judges are faulty, they need to be changed. But there is always a bias towards the individual's rights vs the collective. Without it, your rights, your freedoms, and every one else's are at risk to be removed at the whim of the state. There must be due process or else we live in a police state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
This^ isn't even an argument. Again, Canada, UK and Australia control guns and have less gun violence. Also less murders, yep.

Must be a coincidence that after the gun laws were enacted in Australia they haven't had a single gun massacre?

How can you even still argue after the shootings that just happened? Those were children. The stats are clear. You have 9 times more *under 21* deaths than other civilized countries.

("f*ck off... ah liiike guns...")

Control the guns. Massacres go way down. Australia did it. Canada and UK control our guns. Why can't the US? Are you less civilized?
Who are the victims and the perps of the under 21 murders? Where do they get their guns?

What percentage of non-natural deaths do the massacres make up? How likely is one to be the victim of a mass public shooting?

Compare that to the overall violent crime rate, and the overall murder rate. Look before and after the gun bans were enacted.

I don't think reality is what you perceive it to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
He tries it with me also. It's a sign of being emotional instead of rational about a subject.

Problem for him neither of us are susceptible to misdirection.
No, Grayson did not say that there never was a celeb with a stalker. But he did say that those men were farcical when stating it is possible their homes could be invaded.

I interpreted that to mean that Grayson, and others who agreed with the comic, are of the position that there is no real threat to these men, and thus they are being ridiculous, or farcical as it were, to verbalize it.

Do you think there is any chance of threat to a celeb? If so, is it farcical for the celeb to consider the threat? Is it farcical in the venue of discussing guns and gun control on a panel to verbalize that they have considered the possibility and will meet any such threat with great force?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,750 Posts
Crime is very personal to the victim. A person who keeps a firearm for self defense will think about potential scenarios. When discussing these topics then it becomes a personalized thing. And, each person has their own opinion of how to deal with it. Ford vs Chevy. Shotgun vs pistol.

So it is normal to say "When ........ happens to me".

Additionally, frequently there is a position being taken that the person will not be an easy victim. When someone comes into MY house, they are going to face a hellstorm. Just the facts as they are. I don't know what will happen in your house, but I am stating what will happen in my house.

So when discussing these topics one uses generics, and perhaps even uses the first person's basic outline. The first guy says "when someone crawls through my window, I will ....". So the next guy uses that example, rather than saying "when someone pries open my garage door, I will ...."

You indeed repeated your position that these 3 people who have money and status must live in a very low crime area. The clear implication is that they really don't have any worries, and it is somehow out of the realm of reasonable for them to think of and then verbalize that there may be a lethal threat to them inside their own homes.

This is what you said:


So you do see it as farcical that while discussing firearms that these relatively wealthy people would discuss defending against a home invasion.
Incorrect.

I have said - multiple times - that the repetition by the three of them, which conjures the image of such an occurrence frequently happening to them could be seen as a farcical. That repetition is what led to Boosler's remark. Not the suggestion that it could happen at sometime, but the suggestion that it happens to them so often.

I guess that means you believe Heston believed he was God?
No, but I do believe that he was saying he felt some special privilege to speak on the behalf of whatever supreme being might exist, presumably on the basis of having once pretended to deliver the Ten Commandments.

Well if he wasn't ridiculing them he was showing his naive ignorance of the real threats to celebrities.
Or, pointing out that they had (likely unintentionally) presented themselves as all frequently finding someone crawling through their windows to do harm.

I haven't seen or heard the full context of his statement.
I've explained it a couple of times, once a few pages back. I do, however, find it interesting that you don't find that to be enough context to comment, yet you find similar recounting of Boosler's comments on the same episode context enough to be outraged, offended, and spend several long posts to not only speak out about that offense, but to claim to know her motives and thinking behind her remarks.

Why the double standard?
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,750 Posts
No, Grayson did not say that there never was a celeb with a stalker. But he did say that those men were farcical when stating it is possible their homes could be invaded.

I interpreted that to mean that Grayson, and others who agreed with the comic, are of the position that there is no real threat to these men, and thus they are being ridiculous, or farcical as it were, to verbalize it.

Do you think there is any chance of threat to a celeb? If so, is it farcical for the celeb to consider the threat? Is it farcical in the venue of discussing guns and gun control on a panel to verbalize that they have considered the possibility and will meet any such threat with great force?
You are incorrect, Odinson. I did not say it was farcical that their homes could be invaded. I said that the repetition in a short period of three celebrities saying "When it happens...", thus painting a picture of frequent occurrences for all of them was farcically incongruous with their status and living conditions.

So, we now have me demonstrating twice within just a few minutes having to argue against a single point I didn't make.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
Why can't the US?
As I've already pointed out, the U.S. had a violent birth. -Arguably more so than either Australia or Canada. This resulted in a Bill of Rights that absolutely overflows not only with a fear of tyranny, but a willingness to fight it via an individual right to keep and bear arms. In 2008, this right was affirmed by our Supreme Court in a 150+ page majority opinion.

I've also pointed out that a firearms culture started to develop in the U.S. during the Civil War era. Firearms manufacturers like Colt and Winchester become commonly recognized names and the weapons these companies produced became iconic.

Perhaps you've read the "Little House" books by Laura Ingalls Wilder as a child? A little known fact about Laura is that she carried a small revolver in her purse almost to the day she died. People in the U.S. came to accept self-defense with a lethal weapon as the natural order of things and this has become so ingrained in our culture, it is difficult to think in any other terms.

For example, in the early 1990's an American tourist accidentally wandered into a bad section of London. She was accosted by two thugs, who knocked her front teeth out with a beer bottle. This woman was arrested, prosecuted and only narrowly escaped imprisonment because during the course of that altercation, she had attempted to defend herself with a pocket knife. Again, this is not a criticism of the U.K. It's simply an observation about our cultural differences. Their way of thinking is alien to many, if not most of us in the U.S. and I'm sure the reverse is true as well.

So when you ask, "Why can't the U.S. [follow in the footsteps of the U.K., Canada and Australia]" I think you are greatly oversimplifying a complex problem. States and municipalities in the U.S. may regulate firearms, but outright prohibitions will likely be struck down. Even were that not the case, it is political suicide in a democracy for representatives to vote for legislation that their constituents strongly disagree with and rightly so.

It is therefore not as simple as passing a law.


Are you less civilized?
I would say yes, but not in the sense of being less educated or genteel. It comes down to differences in one's perception of civilization and how far its reach should extend.

Let me give you another simple example. When I go out my front door to run in the early mornings, there are very often urban coyotes either in my driveway or on my property. Urban coyotes are larger than their wild cousins by about half and are a nuisance because only the biggest and strongest of domestic dogs can even hope to stand up to one. Smaller family pets get carried out into the desert and eaten.

I've mentioned this to Brits and the responses are interesting because they illustrate basic differences in our perceptions. My friends across the pond typically say things like, "Why don't you call the government?" or "Why don't you call a pest control company?" Shooting a coyote if it growls and tries to circle around behind me rather than running away like it should is pretty far down the list of things that would occur to a Brit. And again, this is not a criticism. The U.K. is a different country with a different culture and therefore different laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,209 Posts
Discussion Starter #4,059
On Friday I am taking my relatives from the UK and my daughters to the local shooting education club to have a go. I am not anti gun. They should have an authentic American experience.

Guns are not safe or dangerous simply because they are in the hands of criminal or non criminals. The mentally ill don't fully know that they are not capable of managing their weapons. The children who find guns at home, don't understand. The road rage shooters don't drive out, saying today, "I will snap."

The policemen who shoot too hastily were not always thinking straight. America is flooded with guns and people are nervous. They are accidents.

Having easy access to guns without control of competence or mental health results in deaths and injuries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
You are incorrect, Odinson. I did not say it was farcical that their homes could be invaded. I said that the repetition in a short period of three celebrities saying "When it happens...", thus painting a picture of frequent occurrences for all of them was farcically incongruous with their status and living conditions.

So, we now have me demonstrating twice within just a few minutes having to argue against a single point I didn't make.
Posted via Mobile Device
So on a panel specifically there to discuss guns and gun control, wherein self defense and defense of home are a central component to the topic, it is farcical for several of the panelists to mention a particular type of crime.

Roger that.

It's only farcical if one doesn't think there really is a chance of such crime happening. Had this been 3 inner city single moms it would not have met your criteria because they wouldn't live in the same kind of places as the 3 men on the show? It would seem more likely the inner city resident might face violence, and thus it would be taken seriously.

So not farcical if 3 inner city residents say it, but farcical if 3 wealthy celebs say it?

So I don't think you really believe those celebs are at any risk. It is incongruous as you said, that they should consider it a real threat that someone could break into their home with ill intent.
 
4041 - 4060 of 7438 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top