jkwilliams Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Both are desirable: deterrence and defensive capability. Having a greater number of law-abiding citizens who are armed can promote both goals, in my view. It might, if we could trust armed citizens to act reasonably and safely. Otherwise, we're just putting more guns out there, creating more opportunities for someone to snap and start shooting. I don't know what the answer is, but I can see big problems with having more and more guns in more and more places.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I say arm the children. I don't think ambushing and humiliating people in the mass media contributes anything positive to the public discourse. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900024780/puppy-pistol-utah-gun-rights-activist-says-she-was-duped-by-sacha-baron-cohen.html 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It might, if we could trust armed citizens to act reasonably and safely. Otherwise, we're just putting more guns out there, creating more opportunities for someone to snap and start shooting. That's why I used the modifier "law-abiding." As I pointed out earlier, concealed-carry permits entail mandatory training.
jkwilliams Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I don't think ambushing and humiliating people in the mass media contributes anything positive to the public discourse. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900024780/puppy-pistol-utah-gun-rights-activist-says-she-was-duped-by-sacha-baron-cohen.html No one was holding a gun to these folks' heads (pun intended) when they went on record advocating arming 4 year olds. There are plenty of responsible gun-rights advocates, but I have no problem in exposing the nut jobs.
jkwilliams Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That's why I used the modifier "law-abiding." As I pointed out earlier, concealed-carry permits entail mandatory training. I'm aware of that. The problem, of course, is that an armed person ceases being "law-abiding" the moment he or she snaps and starts shooting. As I said, I don't know what the answer is, but I don't see the logic behind having more people with more guns in more places. 1
ttribe Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It might, if we could trust armed citizens to act reasonably and safely. Otherwise, we're just putting more guns out there, creating more opportunities for someone to snap and start shooting. I don't know what the answer is, but I can see big problems with having more and more guns in more and more places. The thing is, there are very many armed citizens who do carry responsibly and you never know it until they have to intervene in a dangerous situation. I'm not aware of a single instance of a mass or crazed shooter also having a history of conducting himself or herself as a responsible carrying gun owner immediately prior to said incident. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just looking for information. Full disclosure - I have CC permit and carry from time to time. Edited July 27, 2018 by ttribe 4
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I'm aware of that. The problem, of course, is that an armed person ceases being "law-abiding" the moment he or she snaps and starts shooting. If someone is going to "snap," he'll do it whether or not guns are outlawed in schools or elsewhere. I just hate the idea of my kids being sitting ducks for a maniac who enters the school because all of the faculty, staff and administration, are either forbidden or lack the inclination to arm themselves. Quote As I said, I don't know what the answer is, but I don't see the logic behind having more people with more guns in more places. I think the logic has been explained here more than once. You, of course, are free to reject it.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: No one was holding a gun to these folks' heads (pun intended) when they went on record advocating arming 4 year olds. There are plenty of responsible gun-rights advocates, but I have no problem in exposing the nut jobs. Do you really think this poor woman profiled in the Deseret News piece who was victimized in this instance is a "nut job"? I have even greater contempt for predatory, tabloid-style "journalists" than I do for "nut jobs."
jkwilliams Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Do you really think this poor woman profiled in the Deseret News piece who was victimized in this instance is a "nut job"? I have even greater contempt for predatory, tabloid-style "journalists" than I do for "nut jobs." He's not a journalist. Good heavens, it's Sacha Baron Cohen, not Brit Hume. Yeah, I read the story, and it's silly for an adult to say "he made me" do it. Do you think he "victimized" Bernie Sanders, too, or just this poor woman?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: He's not a journalist. Good heavens, it's Sacha Baron Cohen, not Brit Hume. Yeah, I read the story, and it's silly for an adult to say "he made me" do it. Do you think he "victimized" Bernie Sanders, too, or just this poor woman? The difference being that Sanders is very much a public figure. Should someone be humiliated in public just because (s)he has an opinion and doesn't have the street smarts to recognize a predator when she sees one? Did you read the Deseret News piece? Edited July 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The difference being that Sanders is very much a public figure. Should someone be humiliated in public just because (s)he has an opinion and doesn't have the street smarts to recognize a predator when she sees one? I'm sorry, but you don't need street smarts to not go on camera advocating arming 4 year olds. And this woman has a video series, does public speaking and TV interviews, and has published a number of gun advocacy articles. It's not as if she's some poor, naive random citizen duped by a predator.
USU78 Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If someone is going to "snap," he'll do it whether or not guns are outlawed in schools or elsewhere. He's still unlikely to snap inside a biker bar. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I'm sorry, but you don't need street smarts to not go on camera advocating arming 4 year olds. And this woman has a video series, does public speaking and TV interviews, and has published a number of gun advocacy articles. It's not as if she's some poor, naive random citizen duped by a predator. Yeah. Let's string her up.
Amulek Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 3 hours ago, ttribe said: The thing is, there are very many armed citizens who do carry responsibly and you never know it until they have to intervene in a dangerous situation. I'm not aware of a single instance of a mass or crazed shooter also having a history of conducting himself or herself as a responsible carrying gun owner immediately prior to said incident. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just looking for information. Full disclosure - I have CC permit and carry from time to time. I'm not sure how you determine how someone was conducting himself immediately prior to an incident, but there have definitely been shootings, including mass shootings, perpetuated by people holding valid concealed carry permits. The guy who shot up the Washington Navy Yard several years back is one such example - though, technically, he didn't use a concealed weapon to carry out the shooting. He carried out his attack with a shotgun that he purchased after passing both a state and federal background check. In my experience though, the overwhelming majority of concealed carry holders are, in fact, reasonable, well-adjusted, "good guys." (Present company included). 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, Amulek said: I'm not sure how you determine how someone was conducting himself immediately prior to an incident, but there have definitely been shootings, including mass shootings, perpetuated by people holding valid concealed carry permits. The guy who shot up the Washington Navy Yard several years back is one such example - though, technically, he didn't use a concealed weapon to carry out the shooting. He carried out his attack with a shotgun that he purchased after passing both a state and federal background check. In my experience though, the overwhelming majority of concealed carry holders are, in fact, reasonable, well-adjusted, "good guys." (Present company included). There have been police officers who have turned bad and committed murder. We gotta get guns out of the hands of police officers.
jkwilliams Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yeah. Let's string her up. Oh, brother.
Calm Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 On 7/25/2018 at 11:37 PM, Thinking said: It seems that he wanted to get caught, and that he had some sort of conflict (real or imagined) with Bert Miller. My heart goes out to Miller's family. https://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/obituaries/charles-everett-bert-miller/ I have heard that the family desires privacy, just as an FYI.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 4 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I'm sorry, but you don't need street smarts to not go on camera advocating arming 4 year olds. And this woman has a video series, does public speaking and TV interviews, and has published a number of gun advocacy articles. It's not as if she's some poor, naive random citizen duped by a predator. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yeah. Let's string her up. 35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Oh, brother. What ever happened to "life is more pleasant when you don't think the worst of people"?
Calm Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I'm sorry, but you don't need street smarts to not go on camera advocating arming 4 year olds. And this woman has a video series, does public speaking and TV interviews, and has published a number of gun advocacy articles. It's not as if she's some poor, naive random citizen duped by a predator. People have a hard time saying no to those they feel indebted to or sympathetic towards. They had paid for her flight, etc. so she probably felt an obligation there to help. They then keep telling her it has been approved by authorities and she was helping. Reminds me of the Milgram study where they got people to apply painful shocks because authority figures assure them it was a good thing and didn't really give them time to think. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment I don't think such punks are ethical. I also think as a public speaker on the subject, she should have been better prepared on how far she was willing to go because she would likely get challenged and need to explain her own position. No one comes out looking good here, imo. Edited July 27, 2018 by Calm
Calm Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What ever happened to "life is more pleasant when you don't think the worst of people"? In no way did jkwilliams' response parallel your comment "string her up". His position has never been expressed in the black and white one of " string her up" or "don't think the worst of people". 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 8 minutes ago, Calm said: In no way did jkwilliams' response parallel your comment "string her up". His position has never been expressed in the black and white one of " string her up" or "don't think the worst of people". The "string her up" was pure sarcasm. I think most people are able to recognize that. As for the other, I'm referring back to what jkwilliams said in a post a few weeks ago. An attitude that she deserves what she gets after being ambushed and humiliated on nationwide television conflicts in my view with the philosophy of not thinking the worst of people.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Calm said: People have a hard time saying no to those they feel indebted to or sympathetic towards. They had paid for her flight, etc. so she probably felt an obligation there to help. They then keep telling her it has been approved by authorities and she was helping. Reminds me of the Milgram study where they got people to apply painful shocks because authority figures assure them it was a good thing and didn't really give them time to think. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment I don't think such punks are ethical. I also think as a public speaker on the subject, she should have been better prepared on how far she was willing to go because she would likely get challenged and need to explain her own position. No one comes out looking good here, imo. She was gullible and unwise. There can be little question about that. Does that make her deserving of ambush and humiliation in front of millions of onlookers? Hardly. ETA: Interesting reference to the Miligram experiment. And quite aptly applied. Edited July 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What ever happened to "life is more pleasant when you don't think the worst of people"? I don’t think the worst of you or anyone else. Where is that coming from?
jkwilliams Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 22 minutes ago, Calm said: People have a hard time saying no to those they feel indebted to or sympathetic towards. They had paid for her flight, etc. so she probably felt an obligation there to help. They then keep telling her it has been approved by authorities and she was helping. Reminds me of the Milgram study where they got people to apply painful shocks because authority figures assure them it was a good thing and didn't really give them time to think. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment I don't think such punks are ethical. I also think as a public speaker on the subject, she should have been better prepared on how far she was willing to go because she would likely get challenged and need to explain her own position. No one comes out looking good here, imo. I’m not condoning Cohen’s actions, but I have a hard time saying she’s some kind of victim.
Calm Posted July 27, 2018 Posted July 27, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The "string her up" was pure sarcasm. I think most people are able to recognize that. And probably most understand that doesn't do much for a discussion since it tends to distort. Edited July 27, 2018 by Calm
Recommended Posts