Guns don't kill 12 y/o Trick or treaters....People do....

[Michael]

Dude, did you miss this statement?

Sounds to me like he's going to vote to ban firearms that he finds offensive, if afforded the opportunity. Perhaps I'm being a bit assumptive, but I doubt it.

No, thank you, I didn't. Dude.

First off, what AK has said here carries about the same level of force that most people express daily on topics they will never do anything more about than chat. There's a lot of behavior I think should be banned or very heavily regulated; I have that reaction to much of what I read in the news. Women forced into prostitution, children conscripted into armies, all manner of opportunism, selfishness, exploitation, and oppression make me sad, outraged, desperate, or infuriated and I'd want forcefully to prevent such evils from taking place. I also know I am going to do nothing about most of these things except possibly complain to others who won't do anything either, if I am stirred even to that mild form of action.

I don't know that our AK-47 is even going to be faced with a referendum on banning assault weapons, but let's say he is. Let's say he rushes into the voting booth foaming at the mouth - as we know is his accustomed manner - having elbowed his way to the front of the line, punched jaws en route to his goal, and that he slams his fist against the "Ban? Oh, Yes We Can!" button with all his force, stamping his jack-boot and uttering ancient oaths that shake the voting-booth curtains and fill the election inspectors with holy terror.

What greater effect will that have on the outcome of the referendum - that is, on his neighbors' access to certain weaponry - than if he had stayed in bed that day sucking his thumb? Zero. What if he doesn't stop there, but collars all passers-by and forces them to read his posts here, and forces them to repeat his arguments and forces them to admit they're being myopic and disgraceful if they don't? At best, or (to my gun-loving mind, worst), he'll persuade a local majority to his opinion, so that when you and I want to transport our stockpiles to the other side of where he lives, we'll have to drive around.

When AK actually assumes high public office as legislator, and exercises actual power to control your movements, and actually abuses that power, then (it seems to me) is when you'll have the moral right, and perhaps moral obligation, to demand that he support his views with facts rather than emotions. Till then, give the guy a break. He's being more honest than most, not harming anyone, and prompting some of us to rethink their positions. But, as is obvious, not forcing us to do so. Dude.

[mrmeaner]

I find it interesting that on this site the manner in which someone debates will be discussed as much as the topic itself. Nothing wrong, just interesting.

[Michael]

I realize that things are not as black/white as I once thought.

I may not agree with abortion, but I don't make statements that it should be outlawed.

The reason some people don't find that position tenable is that many who "don't agree" with abortion don't agree with it for the same reason that (I suppose) you don't agree with homicide, of which they believe abortion to be a species.

If the controversy were as black and white as you seem to have cast it here, you would find it acceptable to say "I may not agree with [insert any initiation of force or fraud against someone else] but I don't make statements that it should be outlawed."

For those many, many people who think that human life does, or even may, begin earlier than at birth, allowing individuals to be aborted is to permit the violation of their most basic human and civil right.

And I speak as one who would not prohibit abortion.

[Michael]

the manner in which someone debates will be discussed as much as the topic itself. Nothing wrong, just interesting

Oh, yeah?

[akflightmedic]

Do I lose points if I post how I spent my morning?

[Michael]

So the picture of you I posted just above wasn't enough?

[DwayneEMTP]

What is that saying? If you use the inverse ratio...the bigger the gun the smaller....? Hell, I can't remember...Nope, I got nothing.

Dwayne

[Eydawn]

Man, I don't know how I missed this thread.

First of all, I would like to say that I believe that guns are not nearly as dangerous as those with the judgment holding those guns. A gun by itself, whether an assault rifle or a BB gun, has no more damage and malice in it than a pencil. Or a baseball bat.

Now, the question becomes, do we trust the general American public, capable of acquiring firearms legally or illegally, to handle a gun with higher capabilities for mass damage? I think AK is siding with "no" on that question. MY question is, do we force those who have obtained said guns in the mindset that it may be necessary to defend oneself from and forcibly overtake our civil government to relinquish that right? Do we force them to turn to illegal avenues to acquire weaponry that would allow them to challenge a corrupt government?

I say we allow the public to arm themselves with this in mind. Before anyone jumps all over me, read on below...

The shock at the arsehole from the original article having a gun as a felon is quite laughable. You can put as many restrictions on guns as you like, you can outlaw certain types or certain days on which they can be carried and require proof of 7 generations of citizenship to purchase a gun, but you will just make it harder for normal citizens to own guns with which to defend themselves. The less savory elements of society will *always* be able to procure whatever it is they need to keep their illicit businesses running, whether that be drugs, guns, bribe money... so don't be shocked if a ban on guns doesn't result in removing them from the criminal pool.

As far as AK recognizing that he is responding emotionally to this issue, kudos to him. I would caution those reading that admission about making sweeping judgments on AK's character or ability to operate in the medical field, however; all of us as human beings are bundles of inconsistency and idiosyncrasy.

For example... I respond very emotionally to certain issues, I listen to gut feelings and weird feelings that come out of nowhere, and I don't always make consistent sense on any given issue; but I do interpret many things logically and without emotion. One can, for example (to steal this from a movie) believe that any chocolate eaten while floating in the bathtub has no caloric value and still teach high-schoolers with no aberration from normal curriculum.

AK can definitely respond emotionally to the issue of the legality of assault rifles and still approach medicine with the clarity necessary to do his job well. To say that one's idiosyncrasies in one area eliminate one's ability to be logical in another area is a non-sequitir.

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[Arizonaffcep]

Here's the problem with gun control things...it truly only prevents the law-abiding people access to the weapons. Which is good and bad, but a fully auto AK 47 in the hands of a law abiding citizen vs same weapon in the hands of a felon? Who would you rather trust? Who has easier access to the weapons because they don't get them through legal channels? We need to enforce the laws already on the books and get rid of the "black market" on guns. Once that happens, gun "control" will be achieved. Until then it's akin to pissing in the wind.

[Michael]

chocolate eaten while floating in the bathtub

That had better be a cool bath, or the chocolate will have to be sipped rather than chewed.

Remedial Quiz:

Complete the second sentence: Two peanuts were walking down the street. One was _________.