Loughner declined from the army, but passed a background check to buy a gun?

[skulldudes]

i'm just being cute

[Trimm]

I understand people's reason for being both pro and anti gun, so I won't argue either way. I'm personally pro-gun for those who have the training and responsibility to be able to safely own one. I own 2 for personal protection and two for target/range shooting as a hobby. It's a lot of fun. Not all of us gun-owners are reckneck idiots [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.].

To those who are anti-gun, I'll ask one question: When you are home asleep with your family and someone kicks in your back door, what will you do? I hope your local law enforcement has a quick response time.

Even anti-gun democrats own guns for personal protection: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/..._id=4494699056

[Kassel]

I have a 6 cell mag light (not even sure if its legal anymore ) under the bed, you know in case the lights go out...and a baseball bat in living room down stairs with easy access. I am Canadian so it would be rare that an intruder would have a gun, in fact more often then not its a teenager or a crack head. If they do have a gun, i help them load up my various electronics into their van then call my insurance agent. I am not really anti gun, just not pro gun, (am i allowed to be in the middle ?? maybe i am anti hand gun i really dont know)

[Nocte]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nocte's right. Arizona is a perfect example of how his theory works in the real world. We have probably the most lax gun possession laws in the country. You can carry a concealed weapon here without a permit. You can legally bring a concealed weapon into a bar or restaurant that sell alcohol.

So, Jared Loughner knew there was a good chance someone at that rally could be strapped and he could end up getting shot by his intended targets. So instead, he went "Naaaaaaaaaaaahhh!" and totally

a) chose not to do it in an area with gun laws like that; or

b) didn't want to shoot anyone anymore

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Nocte [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If I was a robber

I'm not Jared Loughner.

Of course, citizens' gun ownership isn't going to abolish crime. That you even implied that based on my post is a sign that you're running out of legitimate arguments.

Common sense and self-preservation ideals don't fully apply to mentally ill individuals who may be drawn to commit violent acts, but for the opportunistic criminals who prey on those weaker than them, gun ownership is an effective deterrent.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under the threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of these two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on an equal footing with a 200-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a (armed) mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat, it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong and the many, and that is the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then, there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party, inflicting overwhelmingly injury on the loser. People that think that fists, bats, sticks or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of the octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I do not carry it because I am afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Here is another short quote that makes the same point. I can’t remember who said it, so let’s just chalk this one up to anonymous:

"God didn’t make all men equal, Sam Colt did."

[john_savage1982]

"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[purist]

No shit you weren't, but you were still positing that crime (e.g., robbery) can be reduced by making access to guns more available and oversimplifying a complex problem. When caught on your canard, you proceeded to insert a series of extremely restrictive qualifiers you had neglected to specify in your initial post ("opportunistic criminals").

Try again.

[Nocte]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you proceeded to insert a series of extremely restrictive qualifiers you had neglected to specify in your initial post ("opportunistic criminals").

Pretty sure that's not what happened. Go read it again.

[Nocte]

Also, there's no reason to get crazy defensive about this. It's not as if they're going to write legislation based on this thread's discussion. None of this really matters, except to state our cases and realize that we don't agree.

[john_savage1982]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[john_savage1982]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]