Should I be flattered?

Awalk is back and going strong, putting up a rather large amount of words about how he percieves "pro gun" people to debate.

Should I be flattered? If anything, I'm baffeled ... more than a full (IRL) pages worth of writing, and not a single link!? It's my fault really ... no seriously, such behaviour should have ceased to surprise me ages ago.

A universal standard for weapons?

So, me and that "awalk" character* have been arguing this over, over at Marilyns;
Should we treat all weapons the same? He sais that because I "push guns like a dealer pushing crack cocaine", while at the same time supporting arms controls, I am flip flopping.

Arms controls? I don't know for sure what he means, but I suppose he means nuclear arms and the like.
Is there anybody here that honestly thinks we should treat handguns and nukes the exact same way? ... anyone? nobody at all? Oh wait, there's one, "a walk along mingo creek" apparently does, and if you don't, he'll call you a flip-flopper.

Me, I treat different items differently, because, there's not the same, they're different.
A kitchen knife is not the same as handgun, is not the same as a nuke.
Demanding the very same cotrols on all of them would be rediculous!

Can you imagine being required to be 21 years of age before being able to buy some cutlery? Or how about anybody without any felonies/domestic abuse charges (and some other minor things) to be able to purchase a multi-megaton nuclear warhead?

There's a lot of good and effective laws out there that regulate dangerous items. A lot of people use explosives for their profession. they can be licenced to purchase and use these explosives, storing them requires a mandated, safe storage facility. It strikes me as common sense that explosives must be stored differently from your forks, spoons and knifes, which likely rest very close to your stove, do they not?
Would you store explosives in that same spot?
Common sense dictates that each dangerous item should be assessed in a fitting manner. And while one item may be freely available to the general public, others aren't.

Dinner knives are ok, gravity knifes and switchblades? Illegal in many places.
Lye based drain cleaner? No problem! Methamine and acetic anhydride? Heavely controlled due to their use in the production of illicit drugs.

Guns? Ai, there's a rub.
It is very difficult to define what makes one gun dangerous, and other guns very dangerous ... or rather, what guns have high abuse potential/incidence and which ones don't.
Barrel length, muzzle energy, caliber ... none of these are positive factors by which to say: this must be banned.
The USDOJ's study "guns used in crime" lists a series of low-powered, small caliber handguns with tiny magazines as the weapons most often traced by the ATF (in 1995**), evil black "guns that look like assault weapons" aren't even mentioned in the top-10. While a third of the criminals question claims to have had a "military style, semi-automatic rifle in his poseesion at some time, no mention is made of anybody carrying one on a crime scene, or one being used to kill a policeman***.
I hardly think that mandating all guns have "12 or more rounds" magazines and increased power will cut down on firearms fatalities (nor am I inclined to see 10/22's get outlawed)

Dealing with violent crime is an important task that awaits, and while it is not the best way, regulating weapons in an effective way may be part of the solution. This may include new laws and restrictions, this may be the revocal of others. At any rate, the action taken must fit the situation we're dealing with.

In closing: when Walgreens cards you and records your name when buying a meth-precursor, but doesn't even blink when you pick up a bottle of aspirin ... are they flip-flopping, or just using some plain ole common sense?


* I don't know if he's a great troll, or if he acually believes/means the things he sais
**Anybody got recent figures?
***There is a listing for .22 rifles in the list of policemen getting killed, ranking sixth with 4.4% of the fatalities, no thoer mention is made of rifles in that line-up.

What an amazing coincidence!

Earlier this morning, Awalk snapped at me for ignoring Europe (Once again, the US has 5 times the murder rate of western Europe...)
This afternoon, a fellow from a forum dealing with weapons links me to a very interesting blog page that deals with just the comparison between murder in the USA, and the UK.

Some selected parts:

• when you remove the firearm stats, the US would still only slip down a few spots on the international rankings. We would still beat the UK, Canada, Australia, and pretty much all of Europe even if you don't remove any other countries' firearm stats.

• (concerning the effects of gun legislation on the murder rate)
  
• as you can see in the graphs, the fatal stabbings fell more than the rate of fatal shootings. Last I checked, however, the background checks doesn't apply to knives..

  But, yea, either way, the US beats the UK in the stabby category.

  Naturally, one could argue that could be because of their silly "knife control" laws or something. So next up, let's look at the blunt objects graph to the right. This category includes things like baseball bats, hammers, heavy rocks, and what have you. Yet despite the much ballyhooed availability of guns in the US, our murderers still use the caveman method twice as often as their counterparts in the UK.

So ... guns are the problem?

a walk in the park, a long one.

So, over at Marilyns, I am STILL making conversation with this awalk character, which has been cutting into my blogging time rather badly.

Discussion is going on in three separate threads, the ones with a massive amount of replies compared to the other ones.
The discussion about guns in schools is still pretty "clean", the other two (one used to be about waterboarding, the other was about the valentines day shooting)
Unfortunately, whenever I ask a question (the kind that pins the guy down) He refuses to answer becasue of a comment Yuri made.

If you want to read my recent writings, I suggest you head over and check it all out. Keep your manners if you choose to reply though, Marilyn runs a neat and civillized blog, let's keep it that way.

Times square bombing

New York was shook by a bombing on Times square, probably targetted at a recuitment office for one of the branches of the military.

I've said this before and I'll say this again: the internet is riddeled with infomation on producing explosives, some of which is accurate.

It is impossible to eliminate every single way for people to harm one another, it is vital that we try to instill some kindness into humanity. It is not so much "how" someone wreaks havoc, much more "why". School shooters don't commit their atrocities "because they can", they are ill, filled with hate or just trying to go down in a blaze of glory.

It's those first two that are the greatest threat, because they will go to any ends to do their damage.
Or for Awalk: I've long realized that removing guns from society (or just NYC) will make society safe.

When gun grabbers run.

Some people can be debated with quite well, regardless of a difference in point of view, they are open to differing ideas, and willing to discuss them.

Badthing is one of those people. Though I do not agree with her, I love commenting on her posts, and I like to read her replies too.
One of her recent posts got a massive amount of replies, a lot of them from "awalk", a typical "I use big words, so I'm more credible than the next person" gun grabber.

So, at the end of over 170 responses, she sais:

• have a feeling this thread has seen its day. I do want to offer some advice.
  
  Keep pressure on pro-gun....do not let them wiggle out. Stay on the topic of weapons...endlessly.
  
  Also frame the debate as a full topic covering weapons both large and small. Do not allow them to sink FURTHER into systemic causations making debate harder. The reason why systemic causations are so deadly is that they are hard to address! So when they give very weak causations, drive them back into a debate covering a wide range of weapons.
  
  They will endlessly - ENDLESSLY- seek to run for weaker causations….so just framing the debate might take DAYS….heck, weeks. Once they have accepted your frame……fire at will at targets in the open.
  
  Also frame your debate in terms of freedom and rights. For example, arms control is an embrace of the citizen’s right to address their tools when the tools are a method of harm.
  
  They will eventually break and come out with some of the most freakish things on this planet.
  
  Also pro-gun supporters often debate in a very structured manner(think armored tank) They endlessly use the same terminology and the same jingoisms, so to speak. For example, how many times have you heard, “guns don’t kill…people kill” or a similar phrase?
  
  Or the term "Law abiding?"
  
  New outlooks, terms or methods of debate really hinders their ability (think flexible fast tank killer) For example, the word “causation” really freaks them out. They have not come up with a collective jingoism to address “causation” as of yet. They basically do not know how to handle the term.
  
  What is a systemic causation?….read the book “Whose Freedom” If you get the book, you will understand the thinking of conservatives on a very fundamental level.
  
  Or you can email and I will send you a short rendering.
  
  Good day all……I am off to the wild blue.
  
  I likely will not be back....I just want to straighten a few things out...and defend a peson who I think is kind hearted.
  
  best wishes....peace always.

Selected reading:

• Keep pressure on pro-gun....do not let them wiggle out. (...) Good day all……I am off to the wild blue. I likely will not be back

This showcases two characteristics of her kind of "debater". She chickens out when confronted by a seasoned debater (me), after being called out on the factual correctness of her ramblings. She doesn't find the time to address a couple of simple question, but does manage to write a 344 word "goodbye note", and then accuses her adversairies of wiggling out. Hypocrisy at its best.

• For example, the word “causation” really freaks them out.

When you don't actually have a point to make, use big words and hope the other side (who you all know are uneducated rednecks) will be intimidated.

This is what you're up against: bigoted people who look down upon you as uneducated, single minded fools who know nothing else but to repeat NRA mantras.