[Vision2020] The N.R.A. at the Bench

[Andy Boyd]

I hate to say this, but ultimately guns are only part of the problem, it's
our society in general. Quite frankly that's the only difference between the
US and other industrialized nations.  Gun control or ammo control is only
part of the solution to the problem, the other is our culture that creates
this problem.  It needs to be dealt with from both sides and it's not easy.

 

Arming teachers is ludicrous.  How can more guns be the answer in a
civilized society.

 

Guns don't kill people, people kill people and people without guns don't
kill people with guns.

 

Case and point is the incident in China

 

Andy Boyd

 

From: Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 3:23 PM
To: Gary Crabtree
Cc: Andy Boyd; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The N.R.A. at the Bench

 

These points are mystifying, Gary! In as much as there is an argument here,
it is an argument for gay marriage, abortion, drug legalization -- you name
it. If the real reason is "who decides what we need?" and "The government"
is NOT the answer, then why have laws at all? Let's be honest: you are in
favor of more restrictions to human behavior than I am! That's why I find
this response mystifying.

Answer: for protection. We form governments and have laws in order to
protect the life and interests of citizens. Andy noted that, in terms of
civilized governments, we lead the rest (a) gun violence and (b) easy access
to firearms. Might there be a connection? If so, then I think that there is
reason to consider better control of certain firearms. Unless you are an
anarchist and don't believe in laws at all, you have to concede that there
is some merit to this argument. Joe

On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
wrote:

I really don't know why I persist in this discussion. It's not as though
these types of rifle are going to be wished out of existence by the earnest
ideologue who believes in his heart of hearts that it would make any real
difference but, here goes.

Need. Do people need ANY firearm? Probably not. After all it's not mandatory
that we hunt or protect ourselves or our loved ones much less shoot for
recreation. Of course we don't need automobiles either. Taking public
transportation would be  adequate to get to and fro. We don't need steak and
wine and lobster etc. a nice gruel enhanced with all the vitamins and
minerals we require would be sufficient to meet our nutritional needs. We
most assuredly don't need all the variety in clothing available, a one piece
coverall in what ever color was cheapest to produce would really be enough
protect from the elements (this assumes that you really need to be protected
from the elements) And then there is housing. All the different houses,
apartments and condominiums are a waste. Government provided tenements or
barracks would give everyone a place to sleep and store their totally
unnecessary belongings.

 

The better question would really have to be who decides what other people
need. Do you want me to decide for you what you should and shouldn't have? I
think we know the answer to that one.

 

g

 

g

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Andy Boyd <moscowrecycling at turbonet.com>
wrote:

Ok, research does show a decrease in violent crimes using AW starting with
the gun ban and continuing after it was lifted.

That being said I would still like to know why someone would need this type
of weapon.

Of all 'developed' nations we have more violent gun crime then all other
developed nations combined so how do you suggest limiting these types of
crimes?  Will arming teachers help? More guns equals less crime?

Andy Boyd

 

From: Gary Crabtree [mailto:moscowlocksmith at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:31 AM
To: Andy Boyd
Cc: Art Deco; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The N.R.A. at the Bench

 

"Since the assault weapons ban has been lifted, there have been more violent
crimes."

 

 

I can't speak to "violent crimes" over all as I don't know how it's defined
but gun violence is down. The assault weapons ban had zero effect on gun
crime.

 

"I don't wish to take away all guns. And I don't imagine the benefits, they
are real."

 

Since you are willing to take away many thousands of guns to solve a problem
that reflects less than two percent of gun violence, how many guns would you
be willing to ban to prevent over sixty two percent? Suicide by firearm only
requires but a single shot. Why would any sane American believe that once
one class of firearm was made illegal that others wouldn't soon follow?
People such as yourself will always have a rationalization for taking away
the rights of others

 

g

 

 

 

g

 

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Andy Boyd <moscowrecycling at turbonet.com>
wrote:

Since the assault weapons ban has been lifted, there have been more violent
crimes.

 

 

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121228/b3729b05/attachment.html>