Should we regulate “dangerous” weapons, or “dangerous” people”?

This should be the last post on guns and gun control for some time, barring any compelling news on the subject.  People recognize there is a violence problem in America, well, not really, the number of violent crimes have been on the decline for years.  But the perception is there due to the kinds of headlines we read and news stories that lead.  What is currently at the fore is to what degree if any more strictly regulating “assault weapons” (broadly defined, you can be sure) is the answer.

What leads the discussion with those of a liberal bent is how dangerous guns are, that the inanimate object ought to be regulated and not necessarily the people — in whom the malicious intent lies.  Assuming it is reasonable to regulate the inanimate object, on what grounds do we base the regulation?

hammers

 

Given that statistically hammers, knives, fists, feet, and clubs are responsible for more murders than “assault rifles/weapons”, if we are going to regulate inanimate items based on the actual danger and harm they cause, and not mere potential harm and danger, it makes more sense to regulate hammers and blunt objects (i.e., clubs, sticks, ax handles et. al.) doesn’t it?  So if liberals are actually concerned with the safety of the citizens then the scariness of the murder weapon should be irrelevant.

Thinking about discussions with liberals on this issue, when I or another conservative being up the fact that cars, knives, pencils, etc. can all be misused to kill, they always come back with the purpose of the weapon.  I just don’t see how a thing’s purpose is relevant if our goal is to diminish the number of victims which have suffered harm by it.

So to the liberals who would like to see stricter regulations on guns, or bans instituted, why?  If you want to curb the victims, shouldn’t we regulate the ones that cause the most real damage, for cogency’s sake?

Comments

  1. sally1137 says:

    Cut down all the trees, too. Tree branches can be used as weapons!

  2. Beware assault rifle owners, I have a hammer! You are doomed!

  3. Isu,

    You liberals can skirt reality all you want, but the fact remains that if you think regulating weapons is the key to reducing violence, then you must consider regulating hammers & clubs.

    But you won’t say that because you haven’t yet realized that you sound ridiculous anyway. Go ahead and go all out. Might as well.

  4. TerranceRAH.

    You are the ones who sound ridiculous equalizing a rifle and a carpenter hammer.
    A hammer IS NOT a weapon.
    A rifle IS a weapon.
    Of course, you can use a hammer as a weapon and a rifle as a hammer, but that’s a misuse of the object.
    Banning hammers is not weapon regulation.

    • Isu

      But the point is more people are murdered with non weapons than with actual assault weapons. It stands to reason therefore if its reasonable to regulate the inanimate object which kills, we should regulate the objects which kill the most. So if there are things that kill more people than assault weapons, why are we concerned with them and not the real “problem”?

  5. John.

    I don’t think assault weapons (semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms) are the real problem. Any other semi-automatic firearm has the same killing effectivity.

    “But the point is more people are murdered with non weapons than with actual assault weapons.”

    The fact is that in USA more people are killed with firearms than non firearms.

    “It stands to reason therefore if its reasonable to regulate the inanimate object which kills, we should regulate the objects which kill the most.”

    Then, fireams.

    But I’m not supporting a flipping regulation on killing statistics, but in the killing power of the object itself, mainly when its specific purpose is to kill.

  6. “But I’m not supporting a flipping regulation on killing statistics, but in the killing power of the object itself, mainly when its specific purpose is to kill.”

    Even though an automobile does not have the “specific purpose to kill,” it has more “killing power” than an “assault” rifle. Cars kill more people than “weapons.” Where is the support for an automobile ban?

    My guess why liberals (I wish they had never co-opted that label- they are not really Liberal in the classical sense because they do not believe in popular sovereignty) are so irrationally attached to gun control is that they love government more than liberty. They love government handouts, whether for themselves or to those they think deserve the charity from the “rich.” They love government over-regulation of things they hate, like guns, logging, oil drilling, 20-oz sodas. They love government regulation of people, like forcing us to purchase health insurance, pay for abortions, provide contraception, eat healthily.

    Government is the sovereign god to people like Isu. They worship at its altar and support their priests every election and seek to force their religious morality on the rest of us. (I know I will lose the focus of my argument right there because most of the “liberals” pride themselves in their belief that they do not have a religious faith. Yet, they do religiously worship big government and preach its doctrine.)

    “Liberals” like Isu do not see a need for the people to have firearms because they do not fear their government. They worship it. Banning automobiles is not on the table because automobiles do not threaten government authority like the firearm does. (But, you wait. When “liberals” continue to implement their utopia, the freedom to travel will be taken. “Liberals” then will support a ban on automobiles.”)

    The right to individually bear firearms is not about hunting or even personal self-defense, although those are subsumed in the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is about securing an arsenal in the hands of the people in order to strike fear in government officials that their lives could be taken by a well-regulated militia that is under the guidance and control of an accountable civil authority. We the people have a collective right in our state governments to put our federal government officials in fear of violence for their “long train of abuses and usurpations.”

    “Liberals” do not fear the “long train of abuses and usurpations” because they worship tyrannical authority. (Just look at all the celebrities and politicians that fawn all over Hugo Chavez, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, the Muslim Brotherhood, the French Revolution, etc.) “Liberals” fear their liberty-loving neighbors more than their power-hungry politicians.

    “Liberals” say they want gun control because they don’t want the bloodshed. And they may sincerely feel that way. But what is at the heart of their support for gun control is not love of men, but hatred for them.

  7. While the gov’t is planning on banning “assault” rifles, they are meanwhile acquiring a huge stash of ammunition for “Homeland Security.” And I mean a HUGE stash. And they want to disarm the public at the same time. But I better not dare to suggest there is something nefarious about that – I might be called a conspiracy theorist.

  8. Okay, first of all, the “hammer” threat red herring: According to Snopes (the Fact Checking website), this report that more people are killed by “hammers AND clubs” than “rifles” is simply false.

    If you spread out the charge from “hammers” to ALL blunt instruments (baseball bats, clubs, golf clubs, hammers, frying pans, etc, etc) and limit the “fireams” to only rifles, MAYBE you’re getting closer to a similar number, but it’s apple and oranges, it’s a playing with (and twisting of) statistics, not strict facts.

    We should use our reasoning: Don’t listen to sources that twist stats for cheap political points.

    Secondly, as the question being raised: We do BOTH, not either or.

    Just as with cars, explosives and other dangerous items, we regulate both the item AND the people using the item.

    Want to drive a car that is twenty feet wide? You can’t do it! Not on public roads, anyway. We REGULATE how large a car can be, how much it can pollute, how it runs, what speeds it goes. We REGULATE the item itself.

    THEN, we also regulate the drivers – telling them how fast they can go in what conditions, requiring them to have licenses and insurance and demonstrate competency.

    Reasonable people expect us to regulate both the item and the individual. We recognize that with vehicles and WE ALL HAVE AGREED, we recognize that with arms, as well. WE ALL (mostly? – not sure about some here, since they won’t state straightforwardly their answer) agree that we DON’T WANT all “arms” freely available to all. We restrict nukes, missiles and bombs. We regulate guns that shoot explosives.

    The question remains, NOT, “Do we want to regulate/restrict ‘arms’…?” but “We AGREE ‘arms’ should be restricted/regulated, as well as the people who use them… but what are reasonable restrictions to have in place and what aren’t?”

    • Dan are you accusing the FBI of twisting stats? It seems clear that blunt non weapon instruments are responsible for more murders than assault rifles, which is the point, and what I said. There is no twisting.

  9. John.

    “but its purpose is never to murder, that’s the pivotal difference.”

    Sorry John, but the purpose of a thing is given by its design. A weapon is designed to kill whereas a car is designed to transport.

    It’s not your wanna be purpose. A rifle has the same effectivity to kill disregarding that kill is a murder or not. They don’t have “law safe locks”.

  10. I guess I’ll have to go with the FBI on this between 2005 and 2009 more people were killed by blunt objects than rifles. But lets not forget “assault rifles” are a subset of rifles. So, if one bans “assault rifles’, the effect on the number of killings with rifles” will be small. As usual, we’re back to pointless emotion based non-solutions. I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation as to why the millions of folks who own rifles, shotguns, machine guns, pistols and revolvers legally and without killing or injuring anyone, should have their rights restricted due to the acts of a tiny minority. Seems almost contrary to how our society has operated for the last 220 years or so.

    One other thing that interests me is that there are folks who believe that the legal system is designed to prevent crime. We have a system that is designed to investigate and punish crime, not prevent it. This whole ban inanimate objects because some tiny percentage of them might possibly misused again seems contrary to how US society has operated.

  11. So, DON’T try to prevent crimes from happening, only react and punish afterwards?

    That does not seem rational, to me, if that is what you’re suggesting.

    I believe – for many rational reasons – that crime prevention is much preferred to crime punishment. Of course, not to the degree that we remove all liberties (ie, throw everyone in prison in order to prevent possible crime), but reasonable steps.

    We regulate cars and say, “THIS size is the size that can be on our roadways,” or “THESE are the parameters that must be met to be a ‘safe’ and ‘roadworthy’ vehicle.”

    We regulate people and say, “You have the freedom to drive BUT ONLY if you demonstrate competence at it and get a license to do so.”

    This is only rational, to me.

    For what possible rational reason would we not regulate/have reasonable limits upon both items and people?

  12. The suggestion about “more people killed by hammers and clubs” argument is vacuous because it is including a whole range of items (ie, “blunt objects”) and suggesting that category (“all blunt objects”) is somehow worse than the one category (“rifles” or “assault rifles”). You’re comparing GROUPS of murder weapons vs ONE TYPE of firearm.

    If we look at “hammers” vs “assault rifles,” that would be an apples to apples comparison.

    Beyond that, hammers are reasonable needs that people have in every day life. “Assault rifles,” however that is defined, are not. Now, a type of rifle that is used for hunting IS a reasonable every day item and I’m not speaking of banning those, but a reasonable proof of responsible use – ie, licensing and age/mental requirements – is reasonable to me. Like with cars.

    Why would it not be?

  13. Dan,
    I’m so glad that your opinion on what is and isn’t rational doesn’t carry any weight. While I agree that in theory preventing crime is preferrable, in reality, a crime isn’t a crime until after it is committed. While I might want, or even be planning, to whack you upside the head with a hammer. There is no crime until the hammer actually hits you. You might feel differently, but in the US we don’t punish folks for something they haven’t actually done. You certainly don’t expect a police officer to patrol your yard 24/7 to prevent burglaries do you. The justice system in the US is designed to investigate crimes after they have been committed, and to punish the perpitrators. Not to prevent crime.

  14. Oh, and by the way, the SUpreme Court disagrees with you too.

    BTW why do you keep ignoring the fact that I have agreed with your premise that some restrictions are reasonable? You keep asking me things like “For what possible rational reason would we not regulate/have reasonable limits upon both items and people?”, yet I’ve already agreed that some restrictions are reasonable.

    You keep ignoring the fact that the number of people killed by blunt objects is significantly higher than those killed by rifles. Regardless of the hyperbole in the title, it’s clear enough that the post is referring to the FBI category including hammers compared to the category of rifles. Further, you ignore the fact that of the number of killings in the rifle category, only a % of those are “assault rifles”. So since all blunt abjects are not hammers and all rifles are not assault rifles the comparison seems to be as reasonable as possible given the limits of the categories.

    Oh and now we’re back to you getting to decide what are “reasonable needs”, Who gets to decide what someone else needs. Who are you to tell some guy who owns an AR based hunting rifle that his choice is wrong? For that matter what qualifies you to determine what type of rifle is suitable for hunting. Maybe we should ban the AR based crossbow as well.

  15. Sorry for the multiple comments, but I keep getting interrupted.

    Dan, some questions. You keep mentioning hunting as a something you appear to believe constitutes a “legitimate” use of a firearm, in your reasoned, rational opinion are there any other any other “legitimate” uses for firearms in general or rifles in specific?

    Right now, in my garage, there sits a rifle. It is/was used by the US military at one time. It has a 10 round detachable magazine. The bore size is essentially the same as the current standard issue military cartridge? Does this constitute an assault rifle in your opinion? Even though I’ve never used the rifle for anything remotely illegal, nor am I mentally ill, nor have I ever been convicted of a felony, would you suggest that either the rifle or myself should be restricted in any way?

  16. Dan, who claimed he has no fear of his neighbor, apparently does if he feels that they should be regulated. He hasn’t addressed that disconnect as yet.

    I find it terribly ironic that people like Dan will speak against legitimate concerns regarding, say, islamic radicals, as paranoid or judgmental, while having no problem assuming his fellow man is incapable of responsibly owning serious weaponry. Apparently WE are the real threat to gentle souls like himself. Not gang-bangers or terrorists.

    Is this an accurate assessment, Dan? If not, why not?

  17. Dan,

    You’ve been thoroughly e-slapped by Craig and others, but nobody has yet asked why you continue to compare cars and guns, as though there is a hidden amendment that gives one the right to own and drive a car on public land.

    You accuse John of making an apples-to-oranges comparison regarding hammers and rifles, but fail to recognize your own false analogy. The stench of your hypocrisy is undoubtedly grotesque.

  18. Craig…

    why do you keep ignoring the fact that I have agreed with your premise that some restrictions are reasonable? You keep asking me things like “For what possible rational reason would we not regulate/have reasonable limits upon both items and people?”, yet I’ve already agreed that some restrictions are reasonable.

    It is/was a rhetorical question. The answer, for me and you (and I suspect everyone else – although they keep kicking back against it) is, “Yes, of course we should have limits/regulations on both.” My asking a rhetorical question is not to suggest that you don’t agree with me. Indeed, as I’ve stated repeatedly, I SUSPECT WE ALL AGREE. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I’ve already agreed that we all agree?

    Terrance: Tell me one simple fact here: How many people were killed by hammers each year over the last ten years? How many were killed by rifles?

    You can compare individual instruments/tools/items or you can compare groups, but you can’t rationally compare a group to a single item and say, “see? More people are killed by Group A than Item B.” It’s an apples to oranges comparison.

    Do we have a problem or any rational reason to think that hammers should be regulated? I can think of none.

    Do we have a rational reason to think that rifles should be regulated? Yes, because rifles are much more like cars than hammers: The potential for harm from them – especially to others – is much greater.

    Cars and firearms are comparable in there potential for causing great harm if used improperly.

    One other direct question, Terrance: Do you think cars should be wholly unlimited and not regulated in any sense?

  19. Dan,

    Perhaps if you didn’t address rhetorical points specifically to me it would clear up confusion.

    As usual, I eagerly await your answers to some specific questions addressed specifically to you. I’m sure you are composing complete and rational answers as we speak.

    Please forgive me if I’m being impatient.

  20. Dan,

    Sorry, just had this thought, I’m hoping you’ll correct me if I am remembering incorrectly.

    I seem to recall that you have previously argued against increased (or any) regulations or restrictions on drugs. Am I correct?

  21. No, I’ve argued for the decriminalization of some drugs. That is not to say that I support NO regulations on them, far from it. You are misremembering.

  22. Thanks, one down several to go.

    Just to be clear, you have suggested lowering restrictions on drugs that are dangerous when used/misused. Which also add to the misuse of things like vehicles and weapons, while arguing for increased regulation on firearms.

    One more question, which I’ll patiently wait for an answer to.

    Are you suggesting that the existing laws that regulate firearms are inadequate and that there should be more laws/regulation?

  23. I’m suggesting we currently have a very bad violence problem. I don’t informed enough to know whether or not we have a problem with not enough regulations/limitations or if we just need to do a better job of enforcing existing laws.

    My only point in all this is that we can and should enact reasonable limitations/restrictions on items/tools that have demonstrated a potential for causing harm to others. A point which you agree with in general.

  24. While your response raises several questions on my part, I’ll refrain out of respect for you. Until you can find the time to answer the questions on the table, and deal with the un-responded to stuff I’ll hold off on additional questions. I hope you find that helpful.

  25. You can compare individual instruments/tools/items or you can compare groups, but you can’t rationally compare a group to a single item and say, “see? More people are killed by Group A than Item B.” It’s an apples to oranges comparison.

    And yet when Craig factually stated that all guns are not assault-weapons, you didn’t care too much to respond. When Craig factually stated that all rifles are not assault-weapons, you didn’t care too much to respond. Why is that?

    Why not regulate all objects that could reasonably be consider a club? Come on, Dan, we’re talking about people’s lives here! We must do something!

  26. My parents are ill and I’m spending most of my free time helping them and, thus, I have limited time, friends. Craig, I may or may not find time or energy to get back to your questions.

    Since I am quite aware, Terrance, that not all guns are assault weapons, and since I never made that claim, I’m not sure what your point is, other than just blind belligerence, perhaps?

    My point stands, as far as I can see.

    Craig…

    Just to be clear, you have suggested lowering restrictions on drugs that are dangerous when used/misused.

    Just to be clear, I’ve advocated decriminalizing marijuana so that it can be regulated like tobacco. I don’t know that I would call that “lowering” restrictions. I’d call it decriminalizing it (ie, moving from an all-out ban to a legal product) to a regulated drug with rational restrictions on it.

  27. Dan,

    As I said, your response raises numerous questions that I would hope to hear answers to. I completely understand that you have other responsibilities, and would not suggest that answering questions here should take precedence. However, I know how important it is to you that others answer your questions, and knowing that I have chosen to give you the space to answer at your convenience. I certainly hope that your folks your folks get better and that you will be able to have time to address the issues you’ve not addressed and to answer the unanswered questions. Until then I’ll not add any additional questions, although your responses certainly generate them.

    I certainly hope that your life will permit you to address these issues.

  28. And I’ll await an answer to my question regarding the fear Dan has of his fellow man that he needs to regulate what types of weapons they are legally entitled to own. If I’m paranoid in suggesting that I fear my neighbor less when I am armed, then why is he not paranoid to impose regulations on me. Why be afraid of me and where is your faith and trust in God as it pertains to protection against law abiding people owning weapons?

  29. Since I am quite aware, Terrance, that not all guns are assault weapons, and since I never made that claim, I’m not sure what your point is, other than just blind belligerence, perhaps?

    It seems to me you’re in favor of limiting firearms rather than limiting violence. Let’s find out.

    Since you and your pal Isu have made an issue out of the “rifles/hammers/clubs” comparison, let’s refine the scope to exclude such a broad category. Fair enough?

    FBI Expanded Homicide Data:

    From 2005 – to 2009, rifles accounted for a total of 2.064 murders. From those same years, knives and cutting instruments accounted for a total of 9,280 murders.

    Now, rifles is a broad category, Dan. It can include AK 47s, M16s, M4 Carbines, Rimfire, centerfire, black fire, automatic, semi-automatic, pump, bolt, lever, et cetera…Similarly, knives and cutting instruments can include steak knives, kitchen knives, pocket knives, letter openers, et cetera…So this is a fair comparison. This is – how did you say it, Dan? – an apples to apples comparison.

    Now my question is this: Since I’ve proven that cutting instruments are used more often than rifles to murder – that they pose a greater hazard to the general public when they fall into the wrong hands – shouldn’t they be subject to greater regulation? Should little Timmy be allowed to carry a pocket knife? If you work for the Post Office, should you be allowed a letter opener on your desk?

    The problem is not an abundance of guns or any other weapon, Dan. The problem is the liberalization and secularization of society. The cultural rot brought on by the radical left in the 60s, 70s, continuing on today is mostly responsible for the violence we see today.

    Wipe the froth away from your mouth, Dan. Think about how much society has changed.

    Our culture now celebrates the slaughter of unborn children as a civil right.

    Our culture tells us that if you, Dan, feel like wearing your sister’s panties, we have to call you Denise.

    Our culture tells us that God is not welcome in our schools. It’s no longer appropriate to factually state that Western culture owes its existence to Judeo-Christian values .

    We cannot wish someone a Merry Christmas, for we may offend their delicate sensibilities.

    It’s okay to glorify violence on the silver screen, but not okay to show Charlie Brown’s Christmas to kindergartners.

    It’s okay to blame everything on the white man, but not okay to say that blacks are, on average, poorer than whites and commit crime at a much greater rate. We’re not allowed to be honest with people so that they can finally take responsibility for their own actions. No, no. We have to lie to people for fear of offending them.

    Our culture is rotting, Dan, thanks to liberalism. But don’t pay any attention to me, because:

    I’m a racist because I believe one should earn their keep.

    I’m a bigot because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

    I hate women because I believe little babies have the same right-to-life as the rest of us.

    I’m a zealot because I believe in “freedom OF religion” rather than “freedom FROM religion.”

    I’m a violent extremist because I believe in the Second Amendment.

    I’m an anarchist because I believe in the Tenth Amendment.

    I’m an awful conservative.

    Well, that’s fine. But let me tell you something. Liberals can take their labels and shove them so far up their ass they’ll never again see the light of day. YOU PEOPLE are responsible for Sandy Hook. Not us, Dan. You people. You people that have cheered and clapped like seals at the destruction and deracination of society…

    I have no respect for liberals whatsoever. None.

  30. one of the most idiotic things i have ever read

  31. btw, w/o liberalism we’d still have slavery, no social security, child labor, people dying from eating bad food, etc. ad nauseum. step out of the stone age

  32. Andy,
    Because of liberals there still is slavery – slavery to the government. Social Security is an abomination to the Constitution – more slavery to the government; it is the individual’s responsibility to prepare for retirement, not the government’s. It was Christians who fought against child labor – conservative Christians. People still die from eating bad food – or get horribly ill or have other problems; but it wasn’t liberals who did anything but began restricting what size of drink I could have, or whether McD’s should be forced to serve salads with their fat-food, etc.

    Yep. liberals – seeking government control of our lives from the cradle to the grave. But liberals do their best also trying to prevent babies from even getting to the cradle as the murder them in the womb, and they also do their best to get you to the grave early via euthanasia.

  33. Slavery to the government?
    LOL.

    Then, having an regular army is an abomination to the Constitution – more slavery to the goverment; it is the individual’s responsibility to defend oneself, not the government’s.

  34. Again, if one looks at the actual facts you might find that the Republican party was the party that ended slavery, who provided the votes to pass civil rights legislation, etc.

  35. Craig,

    “Facts? I have a set of my own,” says the liberal.

  36. “Again, if one looks at the actual facts you might find that the Republican party was the party that ended slavery, who provided the votes to pass civil rights legislation, etc.”

    You might find that the Republican party was the one that “enslaved” states goverments to federal one.
    It was the party wich supported high wages, etc.

  37. Isu,
    I’ll forgive you lack of knowledge of the US governmental system, but I have to point out the obvious. At the point the constitution was written and adopted the Republican party did not exist.
    Yes, the Republican party does support high wages, shouldn’t everyone? I was unaware that high wages were a bad thing.

  38. Your man making your case at that link sounds a bit like a crazy bully.

    Just sayin…’

    Having said that, IF it’s the case that murders using knives outnumbers murders using rifles, I’d say you’d have the beginnings of a reasonable argument. I’ll give you that. I don’t want to register knives, but rifles do seem reasonable to register to me. The reason is the potential for harm (similar to the potential for harm with vehicles).

    But if it’s the case that knife murders outnumber rifle murders, I’ll give it to you that this is a point in your favor. It’s not the whole argument (rationally speaking, I don’t think that knives pose the threat that military style rifles or motor vehicles do), but it is the beginning of one.

    Go in THAT direction if you want to not sound crazy like the guy on the link, not arguing that because a right is enumerated in the Bill of Rights that it means it is an unlimited right.

  39. Dan,
    Hope things are going well with your family.

    Still patiently hoping for some answers when you have the time.

  40. Craig

    “I’ll forgive you lack of knowledge of the US governmental system, but I have to point out the obvious. At the point the constitution was written and adopted the Republican party did not exist.”

    I already knew that.
    That has nothing to do what I meaned.

    “Yes, the Republican party does support high wages, shouldn’t everyone? I was unaware that high wages were a bad thing.”

    Some greedy employers do think otherwise.

  41. Sorry, “That has nothing to do with what I meant”.

  42. Isu,

    Quite honestly, your comments are making less and less sense. You suggest that the Republican party had something to do with the constitutional structure of the US, when there was no Republican party at that time. Your words clearly indicate that you do not understand the founding documents/structure of the US. Then you say that you meant something else, without any explanation of what you actually meant. Your comment about high wages also makes no sense in this context. The republican party is definitely for high wages, that are a result of the free markets setting wages. Even the greediest employers will pay whatever wages are necessary in order to ensure a successful business. Maybe a bit more research on how things are in the US would help you to make comments that are more in context with the discussion

  43. Craig,

    “Quite honestly, your comments are making less and less sense. You suggest that the Republican party had something to do with the constitutional structure of the US, when there was no Republican party at that time. Then you say that you meant something else, without any explanation of what you actually meant.”

    That was not the point.
    It was talking about the Glenn’s “slavery to the government” nonsense. Look my first post.

    “Your comment about high wages also makes no sense in this context. The republican party is definitely for high wages, that are a result of the free markets setting wages.”

    My comment has the sense that today’s republicans are not the same than the original ones.
    They were against free markets and stood for high tariffs.

    High wages are not result of free markets. My wages have been relatively lower than my parents ones whereas our market has become more free.

    “Even the greediest employers will pay whatever wages are necessary in order to ensure a successful business.”

    Some employers got me (and my workmates) the sack to change us for chinese lower wages. The “high wages” are not necessary to them.

    “Maybe a bit more research on how things are in the US would help you to make comments that are more in context with the discussion.”

    How then? Is there “slavery to the goverment”?

  44. Isu,

    I’m sorry, but you keep making less and less sense. It seems as though you are confusing Glen’s comment regarding his opinion that individuals can become slaves to government with the US federal system where the states are subordinate to the federal govt. Those are two completely different things.

    I’m not sure why you would think that some other day’s republican party was against free markets.

    I’m not sure why you would think that your personal financial situation has any bearing on wages and free markets in the US. Not that you are necessarily wrong, but to extrapolate from your situation to a conclusion about free markets seems a bit of a stretch.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but free market wages are set according to supply and demand in the labor market. When an employer needs labor, they will pay whatever they need to in order to find the employees they need. It is entirely possible that your job is a job where there is a ow demand for people who do what you do. This might explain your situation. But to draw any large scale conclusions from your situation seems a bit much.

    I believe that Glen was using the term in a metaphorical sense. I also believe that you may be having trouble differentiating between literal and metaphorical in English.

  45. “I’m sorry, but you keep making less and less sense. It seems as though you are confusing Glen’s comment regarding his opinion that individuals can become slaves to government with the US federal system where the states are subordinate to the federal govt. Those are two completely different things.”

    Nope.
    It’s a matter of levels. The relationship is the same.

    “I’m not sure why you would think that some other day’s republican party was against free markets.”

    Do you know what “tariffs” are? Restictions to markets.

    “I’m not sure why you would think that your personal financial situation has any bearing on wages and free markets in the US.”

    You talked about free markets. That US is not the only one, did you know?

    “Not that you are necessarily wrong, but to extrapolate from your situation to a conclusion about free markets seems a bit of a stretch.”

    I am not the only one. It’s not my bubble.

    “Sorry to burst your bubble, but free market wages are set according to supply and demand in the labor market. When an employer needs labor, they will pay whatever they need to in order to find the employees they need.”

    But the need is not a high wage, but the lowest one.

    “It is entirely possible that your job is a job where there is a ow demand for people who do what you do. This might explain your situation. But to draw any large scale conclusions from your situation seems a bit much.”

    But, why is the demand is low?
    Lower wages means less consumption and therefore less demand.

    “I believe that Glen was using the term in a metaphorical sense. I also believe that you may be having trouble differentiating between literal and metaphorical in English.”

    I was using it in the same sense than Glenn. I used the term between quotation marks, didn’t you notice?

    And what is the real sense?
    Subordination? Wait, no. You said they were “completely different things”.

  46. Isu,

    This is making less and less sense in the context of this thread. I cannot speak for Glen, so I can’t help you with your confusion in that sense.

    I’m sorry that you don’t seem to understand the relationships of the US states to the federal govt. I’m also sorry you seem to have trouble with the difference between subordinate and slavery. The problem is this is not the time or place for civics 101.

    Once again given that the Republican party did not exist when the US govt was funded primarily by tariffs, I fail to see any relevance. The fact that you want to tie the Republican party to things that came before the party existed, makes understanding difficult. Further, what in the world do tariffs have to do with this topic anyway.

    As far as the wage stuff. IN the US high demand for qualified workers leads to high wages, low demand or low skilled workers leads to low wages. The bottom line is employers will pay as much as they have to in order to attract qualified employees. Because qualified employees help the employer make a profit.

    Agree or disagree, I really don’t care at this point. I’m done with the digression.

    I do still hope Dan can find the time to address the stuff he hasn’t.

  47. Craig

    “This is making less and less sense in the context of this thread. I cannot speak for Glen, so I can’t help you with your confusion in that sense.”

    You say you can’t speak for Glenn but you say implicitly that I confuse what Glenn says. That’s plainly rethorical nonsense.

    “I’m sorry that you don’t seem to understand the relationships of the US states to the federal govt. I’m also sorry you seem to have trouble with the difference between subordinate and slavery. The problem is this is not the time or place for civics 101.”

    I don’t confuse subordinate and slavery. It was not me who said “slavery to the goverment”.

    “Once again given that the Republican party did not exist when the US govt was funded primarily by tariffs, I fail to see any relevance. The fact that you want to tie the Republican party to things that came before the party existed, makes understanding difficult. Further, what in the world do tariffs have to do with this topic anyway.”

    I was talking about the tariffs that republicans promoted agaits free market, not about colonial tariffs. You mess up things.

    “As far as the wage stuff. IN the US high demand for qualified workers leads to high wages, low demand or low skilled workers leads to low wages.”

    That’s a different point. I was talking about high or low wages at the same qualification level.

    “The bottom line is employers will pay as much as they have to in order to attract qualified employees.”

    That can be a low wage for a qualified employee.

    “Because qualified employees help the employer make a profit.”

    And low skilled workers don’t?
    They also help the employer make a profit.

    “Agree or disagree, I really don’t care at this point. I’m done with the digression.”

    I disagree, as you can see.

    • Let Glenn speak for Glenn. This is what I stated: Because of liberals there still is slavery – slavery to the government.

      The liberals want the nanny government to control everything about our lives from the cradle (if they don’t abort you) to the grave (and they want to hurry you there if you are not productive). They want to tell you how large a soft drink you may buy, what type of light bulbs you can use, and the welfare system has kept the black population down as if they are no better than slaves. The liberals want to decide what kind of cars you drive, defend animals to the point of causing harm to people (thereby worshiping the creation), decided who you should sanction (be it illegal aliens, same-sex fake marriage, etc), that if your children are a bit undisciplined they should be on drugs, etc, etc, etc.

      The entitlement mentality in this nation has made the people slaves to the government, which is why this government is so deeply in debt. THAT’s what I mean by slavery to the government – people looking to the government for all their answers. “Massa, what do I do next?”

  48. Looking back for these questions that you consider unaddressed, I find…

    1. Who gets to decide what someone else needs. Who are you to tell some guy who owns an AR based hunting rifle that his choice is wrong? For that matter what qualifies you to determine what type of rifle is suitable for hunting?

    I’m not qualified to make that decision. Nor am I qualified to make decisions on specific regulations about engine sizes in automobiles or tire requirements or gasoline additives.

    There is a world of decisions out there that I do not have enough information on which to make an informed decision. That’s why we have legislators who research the matter (ideally) to make an informed decision. I defer to those with more knowledge.

    Having said that, I would suggest it not wise to defer to those who have a personal or profit-based agenda. Therefore, deferring to the NRA or Rifle manufacturers’ opinions would not be wise, to me.

    2. in your reasoned, rational opinion are there any other any other “legitimate” uses for firearms in general or rifles in specific?

    Sure. Target practice, personal protection (although I find that to be a rather dubious/questionable idea, I support those who desire one for that purpose – given reasonable education and registration and parameters), for collection/historical purposes.

    Just as there are legitimate uses for poisons, for explosives and drugs. I just want them reasonably regulated.

    3. [my rifle] has a 10 round detachable magazine. The bore size is essentially the same as the current standard issue military cartridge? Does this constitute an assault rifle in your opinion?

    I am not informed enough to make this decision.

    Even though I’ve never used the rifle for anything remotely illegal, nor am I mentally ill, nor have I ever been convicted of a felony, would you suggest that either the rifle or myself should be restricted in any way?

    I think reasonable limitations/regulations ought to be in place for firearms, explosives, poisons, drugs. I am open to discussion on what is reasonable, but certainly think something should be in place, as opposed to unlimited/unrestrictured/unregulated access to any and all firearms, explosives, poisons and drugs.

    Do you disagree?

  49. And Craig, observing Glenn’s latest craziness, I think Isu rightly considers it crazy. You’d have more credibility if you would say so, as well, rather than defending your crazy-sounding comrades.

    • Dan,
      Would you care to explain what is “crazy” about me? Do you deny that people are being made slaves to the government? Oh, wait, I forgot – what was I thinking!?!?! You’re a LIBERAL!!! And liberals are the slaves and don’t even recognize it. And I’m the one who’s crazy?!?!?

      You are a JOKE!

  50. Glenn,

    As individuals in a society, we are restricted to regulations. Some you agree, some you don’t. But there is no individual slavery if the individuals choose the goverment.

    Your point is as flawed as saying that regulation against abortion is women slaving (I have been accused of that).

    • Isu,
      You don’t get it, do you? The point is that liberals are demanding that the government take care of them in every way conceivable! They want the government to be the nanny. That’s why these regulations are being adopted – not because they benefit the country, but because everyone seems to think they should get something from the government trough (“entitlements”) and in order to do so they will sell their freedoms. When people accept the law telling them that they cannot buy a soft drink of more than 32 Oz (as in NY). THAT is indeed enslaving themselves to the government.,

  51. Glenn…

    The point is that liberals are demanding that the government take care of them in every way conceivable! They want the government to be the nanny.

    This should be easy enough to solve, Glenn. PROVIDE SUPPORT for this ridiculous sounding claim – one that makes you sound like a lunatic, divorced from reality – or admit that you misspoke.

    Demonstrate that “liberals” want these regulations adopted so they/we can be “take care of in every way conceivable,” with some actual specific support – direct quotes, please – or admit that there is no evidence to support it and you misspoke.

    Demonstrate that we don’t actually believe that these regulations are reasonable protections of liberty rather than a giving up of liberty or admit that you misspoke.

    Put up or shut up.

    • Dan,

      You pretend you have no idea what I’m talking about, but my proof is the daily news. If you are too ignorant of the entitlement mentality in the USA, then it isn’t my job to tell you. And it is only the liberals who have promoted this mentality – the whole welfare, affirmative action, diversity, enviro-nazi, abortion mentality fuels this stuff. The “regulations” so-called by you are rules forcing the government into every part of everyone’s lives.

      Slavery to anyone is still slavery. Slavery has a meaning, including being in bondage to someone. When liberals like you expect the government to take care of everything from cradle to grave you have enslaved yourself to the government. OBAMACARE is part of that slavery.

      And your constant harping about same-sex fake marriage having any legitimacy at all proves who the crazy person really is here.

  52. Glenn, slavery has a meaning. To try to modify it to mean, “people allowing more regulations in their lives than I prefer in mine” is to modify it to meaningless and deman ACTUAL slavery. It’s similar to someone saying “marriage is like rape…” No, it’s not, not in any meaningful way.

    It’s one thing to engage in hyperbolic/rant-y sort of language if you know and acknowledge that you are exaggerating greatly to make a point. It’s another thing to confuse slavery and regulations as if they were ACTUALLY sort of equivalent.

    The one is poetic license, the latter is crazy-sounding. As is the suggestion that your fellow citizens, Christians and neighbors who disagree with you about this regulation or that regulation “want to have a nanny state…”

    By that shallow and dim-witted criterion, then YOU want a nanny state because you want to regulate marriage in a way that doesn’t allow adults to decide for themselves who they will marry. YOU conservatives want a nanny state by the way you want to regulate/criminalize drugs.

    Disagreeing in good faith about which regulation is good to what degree is not in any meaningful way comparable to slavery nor does it mean those who disagree with you “want a nanny state…”

  53. uh-huh.

    “enviro-nazis.” “regulations=slavery.” “liberals want a nanny state.” “regulations=bondage.” “welfare=slavery.” “diversity=slavery.”

    I hope one day the veil comes off your eyes, Glenn, and you can embrace the light, embrace grace and reason.

    God bless you, my poor, deluded fellow, and God forgive you…

    • Dan,
      Why is it you always, always misrepresent your opposition?! Are you really that unable to read and comprehend?

      While regulations can put people into bondage (i.e. all the “regulations” of the early 1800s), that is not what I said about the regulations, nor did I say diversity = slavery. I stated that the “diversity” mentality is part of the mentality that has led this country into its current entitlement mentality. And welfare certainly ends up being slavery to the government when people would rather accept welfare than get a job. If you think that isn’t true, then try looking at the big cities with the most welfare and the problems endemic in them.

      Liberals are the ones who want all the nanny-state rules, and that is a fact anyone reading the daily news can admit to – if they are honest.

      You are the one with a veil, the one who is self-deluded.

  54. Dan,

    Thanks for the answers. I appreciate them. I do find it a bit unusual that you admit that you aren’t informed enough to give specific answers, but you do appear to believe you are informed enough to determine that we don’t have reasonable restrictions on firearms.

    You also didn’t address the issue of prevention rather than investigation of crime.

    I have no idea what the whole “Glen is crazy” thing is, and really don’t see any reason to involve myself. He’s an adult and can speak for himself.

    Now, the questions generated in the mean time

    “I’m suggesting we currently have a very bad violence problem.“

    This may or may not be the case, however you haven’t laid any actual foundation to suggest that guns actually have any sort of causal relationship with this violence problem. Nor do you seem to be willing to regulate any other possible causes, or at least you aren’t willing to admit/discuss what other casues need to be regulated.

    Are you suggesting that guns are the only cause of this “violence problem”?
    Are you suggesting that guns are the primary cause of this “violence problem”?
    You seem a bit obsessed with vehicles, how do they fit in as a cause of this “violence problem”?
    Are there any other inanimate objects that contribute to this “violence problem”?
    What else would you regulate/restrict besides guns and vehicles that might curb this “violence problem”?

    “I don’t informed enough to know whether or not we have a problem with not enough regulations/limitations or if we just need to do a better job of enforcing existing laws.”

    If this is the case, why wouldn’t you take the time to educate yourself before suggesting that we need more/different restrictions of guns?
    Since you have now admitted ignorance on this issue why would you assume that we need “reasonable restrictions” as opposed to assuming that the reasonable restrictions exist and that they should be enforced more effectively?
    Is it possible that no matter how reasonable the restrictions are, that there will still be people who refuse to abide by those restrictions?
    How effective have previous “reasonable restrictions been at reducing this “violence problem”?
    Why should we not restrict ALL implements used to commit violent acts, why pick and choose?
    If we should NOT restrict ALL implements used to commit violent acts, on what basis should we choose what should be regulated.

    My only point in all this is that we can and should enact reasonable limitations/restrictions on items/tools that have demonstrated a potential for causing harm to others. A point which you agree with in general.

    You have this strange default position of ignorance as to whether or not reasonable restrictions already exist, why would you not actually do the research to find out before calling for restrictions to be enacted?
    Are you aware that CT is one of the states with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation?
    What would you add that would have stopped Lanza?
    You are aware that before Lanza broke any gun laws, he had already committed murder?
    If the laws against murder weren’t enough to stop him, why would one more gun law?
    When you have someone who is so evil/mentally ill that they will commit suicide in order to avoid arrest for their crimes, what law can you suggest would possibly deter them?

    As before, I realize this is a lot, so I’ll be patient until you have time to deal with them.

  55. Craig…

    you do appear to believe you are informed enough to determine that we don’t have reasonable restrictions on firearms.

    I have not said that I think we have unreasonable restrictions, only that I believe that restrictions can be reasonable and opposition to any and all restrictions is unreasonable. I have not made any declarations about our current restrictions nor have I said that we need more.

    My main concern in all of this latest hubbub is the problem we have with violence and concerns about our approach to mental health, not restrictions on guns. ALL I have said is that the notion of gun restrictions is not any more unreasonable than restrictions on explosives, poisons, drugs and vehicles.

    Your problem in all of this – at least in part – is not standing up to and denouncing the lunacy of people like Alex Jones and Glenn, here. Until you all on the more conservative side start shouting down and separating yourselves from the loonies, you all will tend to be painted with a broad brush.

  56. Dan,
    Your insistence that the answer is enacting “reasonable restrictions” would certainly lead one to conclude that you find the current regulations somehow lacking. As to the “violence problem” I have asked you several questions to try to ascertain what exactly you mean by that, and would like to reserve comment until I have more information from you.

    “Your problem in all of this – at least in part – is not standing up to and denouncing the lunacy of people like Alex Jones and Glenn, here.”

    Why. Why should I be responsible for what others say. Is it not enough somehow that I speak for myself. I didn’t ask for Alex Jones or Glen to speak for me, nor do they. The fact that you, or folks like you, can’t, won’t, or don’t want to take the time to deal with individuals as opposed to a group is a problem for your side. The fact that you are content to believe that these people in any way speak for me seems to show that you would rather take the easier road and broad brush, rather than take the time to differentiate between different people.

    ” Until you all on the more conservative side start shouting down and separating yourselves from the loonies, you all will tend to be painted with a broad brush.”

    How about you all on the left dealing with people as individuals rather than groups, I know it takes a little more effort, but it can be very rewarding. Instead of assuming that all conservatives are some monolithic loony bloc, you could acknowledge that the right is made up of a number of individuals who (while they might agree with others) often express their own views on a given topic and should, out of basic respect if nothing else, be dealt with in that way rather than making negative assumptions. Why should I be any more responsible for what someone else is, than you should be responsible for not taking the easier path and choosing to broad brush. You have made the choice to broad brush. You have made the choice to make unfounded assumptions about individual conservatives, based on your preconceptions.

    Finally, if you’re not willing to denounce those on your side, I fail to see how you can credibly ask anyone else to do what you seem unwilling to do.

    Again, I’ll patiently await your answers to the questions on the table, and hope that you will do me the courtesy of dealing with me as an individual, not simply as a part of a group.

    Thanks for your courtesy.

  57. Dan,

    Before you suggest that you have no one on your side to denounce. In one of the two threads here I posted a quote from a frequent commenter on your blog who is overwhelmingly supportive of your positions. This gentleman is in the process of seeking signatures on petition to revoke the second amendment. I originally posted this to debunk your claim that you knew no one on your side who wanted to ban guns. You chose not to respond in that context, nor did you denounce the extreme position taken by one of “yours” on the left. I think that any reasonable person would agree that repealing the 2nd amendment to the constitution is a pretty extreme position. Certainly in relation to your position that more “reasonable restrictions” need to be passed.

    Also, according to the FBI while firearms ownership doubled between (I believe) 1990 and 2000 both murder and violent crimes fell by 49%. Maybe guns aren’t the problem.

  58. Craig…

    Your insistence that the answer is enacting “reasonable restrictions” would certainly lead one to conclude that you find the current regulations somehow lacking.

    I have never “insisted” that “THE answer” is in enacting reasonable restrictions. Rather, I have consistently said only that it is not unreasonable nor unconstitutional to have restrictions on firearms, explosives, toxins and vehicles. That is all I have said, if you read more into it than I have said, I apologize for the misunderstanding but I made no such inference.

    Look at my words and you’ll see.

    To be clear, I don’t know that there is any answer in additional firearms restrictions. My suspicion – at least as far as these mass killings go – is that we would be better off focusing on mental health issues and ways to support our mental health systems and school systems as regards to mental health.

    I’m only saying that I’m not knee jerk opposed to the suggestion of restrictions. I’m willing to look at the specific recommendation and ask, “Is this something that will help or not?”

    Are you? If so, then we’re in agreement.

    Craig…

    As to the “violence problem” I have asked you several questions to try to ascertain what exactly you mean by that, and would like to reserve comment until I have more information from you.

    ? I thought it was fairly obvious: We have had multiple very public and horrendous school shootings. That is a serious problem. WHY are there people so disturbed that killing children seems an option? What can we do to stop these mass killings?

    In addition, we have a serious problem in many of our inner cities of young men killing other young men, as well as innocent bystanders. What can we do to address this violence effectively?

    We have a murder by firearm rate of nearly 3 out of 100,000, as compared to the UK’s .02/100,000, Norway’s .05/100,000, Poland’s .09/100,000 Ireland’s .5/100,000, Israel’s .09/100,000 and Japan’s .01/100,000.

    We have a murder rate of 4.8% compared to Israel’s 2.1%, Australia’s 1%, France’s 1.1%, Spain’s .8%, Canada’s 1.6%, Japan’s .4% and UK’s 1.2%.

    We have a violence problem, just by looking at the murder rate. It is compounded in atrocity by the number of those killed who are children/young adults.

    Now, to be sure, we compare very well to third world countries, thank God, but that is not where we want to be, in my opinion. I’m sure yours, too.

  59. Thanks, waiting for answers to my questions when you have a chance.

  60. Of course in Switzerland, the rate of gun ownership is high, while the murder rate is low. There is no correlation between the presence of guns and murder by gun. The correlation is between the murderer and his sense of morality.

  61. Gleen.

    “The point is that liberals are demanding that the government take care of them in every way conceivable! They want the government to be the nanny.”

    I think you are exaggerating.
    In general, regulations are made to protect people. If they are reasonable or effective that can be argued.

    “That’s why these regulations are being adopted – not because they benefit the country, but because everyone seems to think they should get something from the government trough (“entitlements”) and in order to do so they will sell their freedoms.”

    If they do benefit the people, they do benefit the country.
    There are some freedoms that must not be allowed, such as driving a tank by the roads.

    “When people accept the law telling them that they cannot buy a soft drink of more than 32 Oz (as in NY). THAT is indeed enslaving themselves to the government.”

    I have checked and, that is close to a liter!
    If you drink that much while eating, you do really need a nanny since you cannot restrain yourselves.

    • Isu,

      I do not exaggerate. Spend some time reading the newspapers.
      Many regulations in the USA are not made to protect anything but special interests.
      Entitlements only benefit the one who gets them and not the rest of the country.
      Your mentioning of driving a tank down the road is asinine and typical red herring by liberals.
      Typical liberal deciding how much fountain drink someone should drink. You are hopelessly brainwashed.

  62. marshalart

    It cannot be said there is no correlation between the presence of guns and murder if other parameters which also affect the outcome are not alike.

  63. Craig, I’m not sure what other questions you’re looking for (since a large part of your points have to do with a misunderstanding of my actual positions), but let me take a stab at a couple…

    Why should I be responsible for what others say. Is it not enough somehow that I speak for myself.

    Conservatives have an image problem. The loud, bullying, obnoxious and irrational/emotional folk seem to be your spokespeople. The Alex Jones and Glenns of the world seem to be the one speaking on behalf of conservatives.

    I am fully aware that there are more responsible conservatives out there (my parents, myself when I was more conservative and many other dear folk I know personally), but these more reasonable folk are being drowned out by the loud and angry Glenn’s and Jones’ of the world. Before you all can be taken seriously, you have to start shouting down the loud and irrational ones, or at least separate yourselves clearly from them.

    That’s why you should respond clearly to and against these folk, so you can be taken more seriously and so we know that you are not in allegiance with the crazy ones.

    For my part, I DO and HAVE denounced folk on “my side,” who/when they get more crazy. For example, I have pointed out that I think the “ban guns” approach and shrill cry is not a rational answer (and pointed out that there are quite few in the real liberal world who are actually making that call).

    • Dan

      Its not that Alex Jones is the only one speaking up, its that you conflate every conservative voice into Jones. That’s the liberal narrative, that conservatives are Alex Jones, therefore when talking about the issue, you cite Jones and not the more reasonable voices.

    • Before you all can be taken seriously, you have to start shouting down the loud and irrational ones, or at least separate yourselves clearly from them.

      The inherent asininity of Dan’s philosophy on life is displayed yet again. He attempts to justify his position by begging the question. He assumes the right isn’t taken as seriously as the left. But this assumption is demonstrably false.

      In the 2010 mid-term elections, conservative Republicans trounced both their liberal Democrat and Republican opponents. Is that something a group regarded as quacks and wackos would accomplish? And the fact a greater percentage of Americans classify themselves as “conservative” than “liberal” is yet another factoid Dan fails to consider.

      Dan starts his philosophizing whenever he lacks credible answers to reasonable questions. Typical liberal.

    • Dan,
      by comparing me to Alex Jones you have proven yourself once again to be a first class fool.

      Just what is it that I have said that you think is out of mainstream American thought? What is I have said that is so “crazy”? Absolutely nothing. Your writing is nothing less than libel – you are a first class liar.

  64. These other questions have been answered, but I’ll repeat myself…

    Are you suggesting that guns are the only cause of this “violence problem”?

    Nope, never have. Look at my words.

    Are you suggesting that guns are the primary cause of this “violence problem”?

    Nope, never have. Look at my words.

    You seem a bit obsessed with vehicles, how do they fit in as a cause of this “violence problem”?

    Vehicles are inherently potentially dangerous, as are firearms, explosives, poisons and drugs. They are all analogous in that sense.

    What part of that are you not understanding or disagreeing with?

    Look, shovels and explosives are both used for digging operations. But shovels are not reasonably especially potentially dangerous (even though they could be and probably are used as murder weapons) and no one would suggest regulating them. Explosives are, thus they are regulated.

    What part of that are you not understanding or disagreeing with?

    Are there any other inanimate objects that contribute to this “violence problem”?

    The regulations for some objects is related to their great potential danger if used improperly, moreso than for reasons of our violence problem.

    What part of that are you not understanding or disagreeing with?

    What else would you regulate/restrict besides guns and vehicles that might curb this “violence problem”?

    Answered multiple times.

    What part of that are you not understanding or disagreeing with?

  65. Dan,

    Your perception of whatever conservative image problem you perceive means nothing. You can choose to deal with actual individuals and their actual positions, or you can choose to broad brush all conservatives with the ones you find offensive. You seem to be here in this discussion coming from a position of ignorance regarding what laws actually exist, yet you choose not to educate yourself. I know it can be difficult, but try to deal deal with people as individuals rather than as some homogenous group.

    Still a few questions unanswered, and at you still haven’t explained why you disagree with SCOTUS. But, seriously, thanks for the answers, such as they are.

  66. Craig, I keep answering your questions, do you mind answering each of mine?

  67. John, Jones is the one I’ve heard recently. But I can cite Terrance and Glenn as coming across as irrational and making emotion-based/non-sensical/rant-y sorts of points (with varying degrees of foam coming from their mouths).

    I can cite you as repeatedly ignoring reasonable questions and thus making you appear to be one of the irrational ones. I can cite many of the louder voices in the conservative community. You all DO have an increasing credibility problem, believe it or not (and I can cite many more rational conservatives to support this point).

    Craig, I have been speaking of guiding principles – ideals which apply whatever the specifics are. This is the starting point one should have before jumping willy nilly into decision-making. We need to verify that all sides are starting from a point of reason and principle to best make our collective decisions.

    Do you disagree and think that guiding principles are unimportant?

    I have not addressed specifics because (and read closely so you can understand exactly what I AM saying), NO SPECIFICS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP.

    When a specific proposal is floated, then we could discuss the relative merits of that proposal, but until such time as a specific idea is proposed, I find it more rational to speak of underlying principles.

    Agree? Disagree?

  68. Craig, you mention I’ve not answered a Supreme Court question.

    Here is the sum total of what I can find where you’ve mentioned the SCOTUS…

    Oh, and by the way, the SUpreme Court disagrees with you too.

    And your last…

    Still a few questions unanswered, and at you still haven’t explained why you disagree with SCOTUS.

    That isn’t a question. That is a vague and wholly unsupported charge referencing I-know-not-what. You’ll have to be more specific than that if you want me to address a concern. Fair enough?

  69. And just to point out that I’ve specifically addressed the specific question being raised here, I’ll repeat my first comment’s salient point:

    as the question being raised: We do BOTH, not either or.

    Just as with cars, explosives and other dangerous items, we regulate both the item AND the people using the item.

    That is the reasonable answer to this question, I think most reasonable people would agree.

    The question isn’t whether we regulate people or objects, the question is: WHAT regulations are reasonable? and to address that, we’d need to look at some specific regulations, seems to me.

  70. Dan,

    From the beginning in this thread you have been consistent in suggesting that we need reasonable restrictions on guns. I don’t disagree. However, the tone of your point is that we need these restrictions. When pressed you freely admit that you are ignorant of what restrictions are actually in place. Any reasonable person would be led to believe that you are advocating new/additional restrictions without knowing what restrictions are currently in place.

    When I pointed out that the role of the criminal justice system is primarily to investigate and punishh crime, you respond with how you feel about that notion. When I pointed out that the SCOTUS disagreed with your whimsical feeling derived notion, you chose not to counter that. You chose not to explain why you thnks the SCOTUS is wrong in ruling that there is no expectation that the police can prevent crimes. Again, perhaps your are just taking the left wing line without actually researching thinsgs.

    You complain that I shoudl decry the folks on the right that you find to be somehow lacking, while not taking the opportunity to specifically denounce one of your most frequent commenters/supporters when given a direct quote from him. Again, it seems like you are quicker to demand that those on the right do things that you are to lead by example. I have freely and frequently pointed out my disagreements with those on “my side”. What I won’t do, is bow to your desire that I denounce the folks who you find offensive. In case you hadn’t noticed, there are plenty of blowhard lefty vioces all over the media. Check out the MSNBC evening line up. How about you jump on Bill Maher and suggest that he pay up.

    I’ve asked you specific questions, and you’ve answered some, occaisionally with something more than vague generalities. You now introduce the concept of guiding principles as a way to make your vagueness somehow more thoughtful, great. How can you apply your guiding principles while your remain ignorant of the current situation.

    I’d be thrilled to hear some specific things you think should be done. I’d be thrilled to hear the specific laws that you think aren’t working. I’d be thrilled to hear what you think should be done to stop this “violence problem” that isn’t already being done. I’d be thrilled for you to stop cherry picking countries when you compare rates of violent crimes. The fact that you specifically exclude Africa makes it sound like you almost expect the folks there to be violent. It’s almmost as if you are suggesting that those folks just aren’t quite as enlightened as we are. While we’re at it let’s talk about the violence being perpetrated by followers of the “religion of peace”, we’ed certainly want to exclude those sorts of things from our comparisons.

    According to the FBI violent crime rates have been steadily declining for the last 5 years. The statistics show a pretty compelling trend that even as gun ownership increased, violent crime decreased. Your response is to compare the US to selected other countries. Not a necessarily compelling argument, but obvioulsy enough to fit the talking points.

    Look, it’s obvious that you see some failings in the current system, let’s hear your solutions. It’s easy to talk about we need to do X, Y or Z, it’s more complex to actually propose specifics. Maybe you agree with Eric Holder that we just need to brainwash people. Because that’s certainly a reasonable proposal.

    As far as answering your questions, I believe I’ve addresses them, If I’ve missed something I will happily address it. It’s curious that you don’t seem to be nearly as patient when you want answers, as you are when someone else does.

  71. Missed questions:

    Vehicles are inherently potentially dangerous, as are firearms, explosives, poisons and drugs. They are all analogous in that sense.

    What part of that are you not understanding or disagreeing with?

    Look, shovels and explosives are both used for digging operations. But shovels are not reasonably especially potentially dangerous (even though they could be and probably are used as murder weapons) and no one would suggest regulating them. Explosives are, thus they are regulated.

    What part of that are you not understanding or disagreeing with?

    I’ve addressed the question being asked in this post. You appear to agree with me in principle.

    I’ve rather patiently chased multiple rabbits all over the place not directly dealing with this post, answering off-topic question after question. I think I’m done.

    If you have a specific question about a specific regulation and John doesn’t mind going off topic, I’ll be glad to address it. But the post here is speaking of general principles: Do we regulate dangerous people or dangerous items? I answered that question. To address specific concerns about specific regulations, SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO RAISE THEM.

    Thus far, no one has done this, not that I see. I don’t find it helpful to give specific answers to vague wonderings. That isn’t whimsical, that is rational.

    If you have a question about a specific regulation, feel free to ask.

  72. Craig, it’s off topic, but…

    it’s obvious that you see some failings in the current system, let’s hear your solutions.

    Keeping in mind that there are multiple aspects of violence (mass violent acts done by disturbed individuals like in Connecticut, local crime-directed violence, local drug-crime violence, spousal/familial violence, etc) My solutions/approaches would include…

    * increasing support for/awareness of mental health concerns.
    * increase educational/awareness/preventative efforts at combating spouse/familial abuse; increase support for families in general.
    * end the war on drugs.
    * improve efforts at rehabilitating ex-convicts… having job opportunities so that they don’t return to a life of crime is a big deal…
    * encourage stronger communities, more “porch-time,” more people walking/less driving (violence that occurs in urban settings are often crimes of opportunity – if more people were walking and otherwise outside and there were fewer times of isolation, there’d be less opportunities for random violent acts) – these actions can be done at the individual level, but support at the community level – gov’t and private – would improve the approach.
    * review how weapons of mass destruction/firearms wind up in the hands of the mentally disturbed and find ways to decrease those opportunities
    * this is a rather complex issue involving multiple concerns of liberty – for one thing, a person may acquire firearms while they’re not exhibiting signs of mental disturbance… how can we respect patient privacy and yet find ways of raising red flags when a person is experiencing a lack of control and move to remove weaponry from their reach? I don’t know that anything is currently in place to deal with this and would be open to ideas.

    For starters.

  73. Dan,
    Thanks, it seems as though you are much more concerned with dealing with mentally ill people and people convicted of crimes, than you are with regulating inanimate objects. While, this seems slightly at odds with your original position, I actually think it is a fairly reasonable place to start.

    As far as your missed questions, I’m not sure what your point is. I would agree that all of your examples of dangerous objects are only dangerour to the extent they are misused. A car sitting in a driveway is not inherently dangerous, a stick of dynamite laying on the ground is not inherently dangerous, a rifle in a gun rack is not inherently dangerous. None of these thinsg is particularly dangerous when used properly. What makes them dangerous people who misues them. The things you mention are tools, no more no less. Each and every day I am required to give my volunteers a safety briefing that describes the dangers inherent on a construction site and how to avoid them. Guess what, it works. Tools don’t hurt people, tool users do.

    I think I asked this before, but didn’t get an answer. How do you deter someone like Lanza who is so unconcerned with human life that he is willing to kill himself after his crime? Are you suggesing that we need to make it easier to involuntarily commit someone?

    While I appreciate the fact that you have given some specific answers, I would be interested in what you percieve to be the failings in current law, and whether those failings are, absence of laws or regulations or failure to enforce existing laws.

    I’d be interested to know how you explain places like Chicao or DC (democratic strongholds for decades), that have draconian gun laws, yet large numbers of violent crime. Or conversly, Switzerland. Every adult is required to have a fully automatic military issue rifle and amunition in their home, yet their violent crime rate is miniscule. How many Africans die from machete’s rather than guns? Howm many Africans die because those in power won’t distribute food aid?

    Would you seriously want to prevent the GA woman from protecting herself and her children from the crowbar wielding intruder who broke into their house?

    What else should be regulated to curb this violence problem?
    Movies? TV? Video Games? Music? Divorce? Drugs? Abortion?

    Speaking of drugs. When you suggest ending the war on drugs, how do you think that will stop violence? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that one of most dangerous situations one could find with a vehicle is a driver who is impared. Are you really suggesting that it is a good thing to increase the number of intoxicants that are legal?

  74. Craig…

    While, this seems slightly at odds with your original position

    My ACTUAL original position was, “It is not unreasonable or unconstitutional to restrict items like firearms, vehicles, explosives, poisons, drugs…”

    You appeared to have fabricated what my position was, as opposed to what my actual position was/has been. You AGREED with my actual position, but then, extrapolated out a NON-actual position for me based on not anything I’ve said, but rather, your perceptions and what you read into what I said.

    As I’ve said before to others many times, you would probably do well to stick to what I’ve actually claimed rather than reading into what I’ve read and guessing what my position is.

    As to misused object and dangers, ANY object that is misused is potentially dangerous. However, MOST items don’t need any serious oversight.

    But most of us find it reasonable to regulate SOME items because of a greater potential risk.

    No one is very concerned about regulating bicycles, because the risk factor is small.

    Everyone (nearly) agrees that automobiles ought to be regulated, because the risk factor is significantly greater.

    No one is concerned about regulating shovels, because the risk factor is small.

    Everyone (nearly) agrees that explosives ought to be regulated because the risk factor is great.

    Where SPECIFICALLY do you disagree? It is my estimation that nearly everyone agrees that vehicles and explosives are reasonably regulated, EVEN THOUGH proper use of either is generally safe. Do you disagree? Do you think these items need no regulation? I thought we were already past that and in agreement that some items can reasonably be expected to be regulated, yes/no?

  75. Craig, I’ll answer some more of your questions, I would appreciate your responses to mine, as well…

    I would be interested in what you percieve to be the failings in current law

    I find it problematic that people who appear to be mentally disturbed have easy access to firearms. I support looking into ways to cut down on that access.

    Do you disagree?

    Craig…

    How do you deter someone like Lanza who is so unconcerned with human life that he is willing to kill himself after his crime?

    I don’t think we have sufficient access to/support for mental health services. I would advocate making that more easily accessible/more rapidly deployed in cases where someone appears to be “losing it.”

    Here is a source for many scholarly articles on “rampage violence” – Research is always a good thing, it seems to me, so that we can make better informed decisions.

    Do you disagree?

    Craig…

    Are you suggesing that we need to make it easier to involuntarily commit someone?

    No. Are you?

    I am suggesting we have better safety nets in place and better procedures in place as to what to do when it appears someone is at risk of violence.

    Do you disagree?

    I am not of the mind that there are easy solutions and we would benefit from multi-tiered approaches, looking to make improvements in home lives/better support for families, in our schools, in our mental health communities and in our communities, in general.

    What would you like to see done in response to violence in general and “rampage violence” in particular?

  76. My American Thinker article that was spawned from my comment above can be read here:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/gun_control_and_the_paradox_of_liberty.html

  77. Glenn

    “I do not exaggerate. Spend some time reading the newspapers.”

    Which ones? Conservative or liberal ones?

    “Many regulations in the USA are not made to protect anything but special interests.”

    Since you brought up soft drinks limitation at meals, which is the special interest about it?

    “Entitlements only benefit the one who gets them and not the rest of the country.”

    That’s not true. It makes the entitled ones less likely to rob others and more likely to purchase others products or services.

    “Your mentioning of driving a tank down the road is asinine and typical red herring by liberals.”

    It’s not asinine. It’s most likely that there is someone who can afford a tank and would like to drive it, but restrained to so because being restricted by law.

    “Typical liberal deciding how much fountain drink someone should drink.”

    Typical of your kind letting someone drink a fountain until exhaustion.

    “You are hopelessly brainwashed.”

    Better brainwashed than braindirty.

    • Isu
      I read the papers in circulation – and the majority of them are liberal and left-wing.

      The soft drink rule was helping the special interest groups who are making money off of gov’t programs about obesity. Sort of like the whole “man-caused global warming” scam and the rules are enriching those who claim “alternative” energy sources which have yet to pan out. (by the way, global climate change is not caused by anything man does – it is cyclical and history proves that we go from warming to cooling trends. It wasn’t that many decades ago that the front covers of Time and Newsweek were worried about global cooling.)

      Your dream about those who get the entitlements is just that – a dream.

      For your information, there are many people in the USA who own tanks and half-tracks and participate in many parades, use them for movies, “re-enactments” etc. A major restriction is that they have to have rubber pads in the tracks to prevent street damage. Other than that, I haven’t seen any laws restricting personal use of tanks.

      Why is it anyone’s business how much soft drink a person consumes?!?!?! Why is it the government’s business at all? I knew a young lady who drank two 6-packs of Diet Pepsi every day at work, and she was still skinny as a rail – no obesity problem with diet drinks. But by the NY law she couldn’t buy a cup over 32 oz! That is what is asinine. What’s next, a law saying a box of doughnuts can’t have more than ten?

      You’ve been brainwashed and your brain IS dirty with all the garbage you’ve taken in.

  78. Dan,

    Your initial position was that the restrictions should be placed on inanimate objects, now in the measures you propose you focus almost exclusively on people (mostly the mentally ill), I hope you can see that this could appear to be a shift in your position. Hence I use the phrase “this seems slightly at odds with…”, this is clearly not putting words in your mouth or a fabrication of your position.

    No, I disagree that inanimate objects should be restricted. I have been quite clear that the uses of said objects can/should be regulated or that the users of said objects should be subject to training/licensing.

    I don’t agree. Current law restricts the access of mentally ill people to firearms. I understand that you are uninformed regarding current laws. I fully support enforcing current laws to the fullest extent before adding any new laws/restrictions.

    You really haven’t said anything that anyone can agree/disagree with. But perhaps if you did some research, you might be able to address these issues in a more informed way.

    Yes, I think that it should be easier to involuntarily commit someone. I wouldn’t want to rely on the mentally ill person seeking out treatment on their own. Sometimes the family/community needs to step in,

    I’ve suggested a number of factors that I believe contribute to the level of violence in our society, and asked what you would suggest be done to deal with them.

    Part of the problem is that you seem to want to ignore the 20 year trend toward lower violent crime numbers. Coupled with a significant increase in gun ownership, it seems as though the trend is going in the direction even with the current laws/restrictions.

    Questions answered.

  79. John, it was your blog post that spawned my comment above that led to me writing that article. So, you have a connection with American Thinker!

  80. John, DogTags, neither of you are aware that AmericanThinker is poorly written and thus not a suitable source for information or rebuke of liberal thought. I know this because Dan Trabue and his virtual homies have told me so.

    Tags,

    Kudos on the article. Well done. Maybe Dan can tell us if it is well written. In the meantime, as it relates to some comments above, while reading your article, i noticed this video. Seems that of the two, Jones isn’t any more or less goofy than Morgan. Check it out.

  81. Marshall – The link to your video didn’t work.

  82. Glenn,

    Try this. If it doesn’t work, go up to the link posted by DogTags in his comment of January 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM. After reading his fine article, look to the right of the page where six videos are posted. It is the one referring to fact checking about guns.

  83. Glenn,

    “I read the papers in circulation – and the majority of them are liberal and left-wing.”

    It isn’t that way in my country.

    “The soft drink rule was helping the special interest groups who are making money off of gov’t programs about obesity.”

    On the contrary!
    Soft drinks put on weight due to their sugar content.

    “Sort of like the whole “man-caused global warming” scam[…]”

    I don’t want another discussion issue.

    “Your dream about those who get the entitlements is just that – a dream.”

    It’s not a dream, it’s a reality. My last job was a proof of that.

    “For your information, there are many people in the USA who own tanks and half-tracks and participate in many parades, use them for movies, “re-enactments” etc. A major restriction is that they have to have rubber pads in the tracks to prevent street damage. Other than that, I haven’t seen any laws restricting personal use of tanks.”

    So you already know a restriction: rubber pads.
    Using them in parades and movies are exceptional uses. You haven’t seen any laws restricting on road using of tanks, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    “Why is it anyone’s business how much soft drink a person consumes?!?!?! Why is it the government’s business at all? I knew a young lady who drank two 6-packs of Diet Pepsi every day at work, and she was still skinny as a rail – no obesity problem with diet drinks.”

    No problem? Therefore “making money off of gov’t programs about obesity” is pointless.
    In my opinion, the target of that law are soft drinks with sugar.
    6-packs of Diet Pepsi? Wow! She must have caffeine instead of blood.

    “But by the NY law she couldn’t buy a cup over 32 oz! That is what is asinine.”

    Well, I think that law and its purpose are not well outlined.

    “What’s next, a law saying a box of doughnuts can’t have more than ten?”

    If you eat so many doughnuts for a meal you have a serious problem. The ones who pay medical insurances will also have a problem.

    “You’ve been brainwashed and your brain IS dirty with all the garbage you’ve taken in.”

    I’m an independient thinker.
    A brainwashed person is, for example, a conservative who repeats like a parrot what conservative media says.

    • Isu,
      Your responses to me demonstrate that you are NOT an independent thinker, but instead soak up all the liberal ideology. I have no idea what country you live in, but you don’t seem to be used to having the freedoms we are used to in the USA.

  84. Glenn

    “Your responses to me demonstrate that you are NOT an independent thinker, but instead soak up all the liberal ideology.”

    You demonstrate you lie since you ignore, for example, my anti-abortion responses.

    “I have no idea what country you live in, but you don’t seem to be used to having the freedoms we are used to in the USA.”

    Which freedoms are you talking about?
    Of course, we don’t have the freedom of having firearms because we chose not to give criminals free and/or easy access to such weapons.
    Here is no party which stands for that right because people don’t ask for it.

  85. Dan has been pretty insistent the in order to have any credibility at all conservatives must denounce those who he considers to be extreme. While, I personally find this to be a pretty arbitrary standard, if consistency means anything then it should be equally applied to both sides.

    Yet, Dan, when confronted with two of his blog commenters/supporters who want to eliminate the second amendment the closest he can get to denouncement is the following.

    “…people saying “revoke the second amendment” is not a winning argument, seems to me.”

    Does that sound like denouncing to anyone? Dan is pretty generous in throwing out negative adjectives against those who disagree with him, but when it’s his homeboys he gets (un)surprisingly namby pamby in his criticism.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: