Omaha Doctor calls for assault weapons ban


PDA






HGUNHNTR
December 20, 2007, 01:36 AM
I saw this story on the news tonight gang. I am thoroughly and utterly disgusted that so called "experts" are allowed to spew lies out over the public airwaves. Disgusting.
Please take the time to let your voice be heard via the email section.

The doctor who has treated Von Maur shooting victim Fred Wilson spoke candidly Wednesday about social issues that came out of this tragedy, like mental health care and the availability of assault weapons.

"I have no anger whatsoever toward him, no anger whatsoever toward Robert Hawkins." While Fred Wilson spoke about forgiving the mall shooter, his doctor used this tragic example as a reason why the weapon the shooter used, an AK-47, should be banned.

"Basically the faster the bullet is going the more damage it does, that's a basic, physical principle,” says Nebraska Medical Center Trauma Medical Director Dr. Joseph Stothert. “These are very high velocity weapons that are only meant to destroy tissue and kill people."

Nebraska Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha couldn't agree more. "I agree with the doctor, there is no good reason to have assault weapons for protection, for hunting."

"They're involved in many cases with that horrible, horrible, horrible destruction and death, from Columbine to Westroads. I don't know how much more we need to know."

Ashford says banning assault weapons on a state level won't work, it must be on the federal level, like the 10-year ban passed in 1994 that ended in 2004.

Still, the senator has drawn up two proposed bills on gun control he'll introduce in the next legislative session. "Ensure that firearms are safely stored in the home, that the weapons that are stolen from the home are reported to police officers." Both were issues in the mall shootings.

Ashford's other proposed bill deals how we buy guns. "A bigger issue is, should we be selling assault weapons without background checks."

Senator Ashford says he is happy to see support from Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey and Police Chief Thomas Warren. Fahey is even part of a national coalition of mayors against illegal guns.

Channel 6 News called area guns stores for a comment, but no one would talk. We also reached the National Rifle Association, which offered no comment.




http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/12647971.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Omaha Doctor calls for assault weapons ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Regolith
December 20, 2007, 01:48 AM
I don't think I've seen so much ignorance displayed since...well, since the last anti-gun article I've read.

I wonder if they'd piss their pants if told that the average hunting round has just as much or more energy than the 7.62x39?

Oh and this:

Ashford's other proposed bill deals how we buy guns. "A bigger issue is, should we be selling assault weapons without background checks."

Makes me laugh. Unless they're trying to ban FTF transfers (which is probably the case), they're astoundingly ignorant about the law.

v35
December 20, 2007, 02:03 AM
Dr. Stothert is as qualified to opine about guns as much as the NRA is qualified to critique surgical procedures and standards for medical care.

Shut up and treat the sick, doc.

Prince Yamato
December 20, 2007, 02:04 AM
"I have no anger whatsoever toward him, no anger whatsoever toward Robert Hawkins." While Fred Wilson spoke about forgiving the mall shooter, his doctor used this tragic example as a reason why the weapon the shooter used, an AK-47, should be banned.

"Basically the faster the bullet is going the more damage it does, that's a basic, physical principle,” says Nebraska Medical Center Trauma Medical Director Dr. Joseph Stothert. “These are very high velocity weapons that are only meant to destroy tissue and kill people."

So basically, you'd rather blame the gun than the insane kid. You just misdiagnosed the problem... "doctor"...

Also, a gun that wasn't designed to destroy tissue and kill would be an inhumane weapon. Is said doctor indicating that we should only severely wound people... that's cruel.

BobbyQuickdraw
December 20, 2007, 02:04 AM
30-06 and .308 both have a higher muzzle velocity than the 7.62x39 and are very close to the .223.

Winchester 73
December 20, 2007, 02:06 AM
Stupidity squared.
This is no hope for fools such as these.
As pointed out the .270,.280,.308 ,30.06,not even to mention the 45-70,.338,.375,.416,.458 ad infinitum have much more power as hunting rifles.
There is no coping with this type of insanity.
The Doctor and the Senator both need to be tranquilized and quietly put to sleep.ASAP.

koginam
December 20, 2007, 03:47 AM
It was the AMA in Australia that was a leading force behind the Australian gun grab. Our own AMA has been very active in banning guns here as well.

Soybomb
December 20, 2007, 04:16 AM
Nebraska Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha couldn't agree more. "I agree with the doctor, there is no good reason to have assault weapons for protection, for hunting."

"They're involved in many cases with that horrible, horrible, horrible destruction and death, from Columbine to Westroads. I don't know how much more we need to know."

Ashford says banning assault weapons on a state level won't work, it must be on the federal level, like the 10-year ban passed in 1994 that ended in 2004.
Now lets see 1994 to 2004....the columbine shooting was 1999. Did the Senator just prove himself wrong in the same few sentences?

Regolith
December 20, 2007, 04:18 AM
Now lets see 1994 to 2004....the columbine shooting was 1999. Did the Senator just prove himself wrong in the same few sentences?

I'll take "yes, the senator is an idiot" for $2000, Alex.

MachIVshooter
December 20, 2007, 04:24 AM
Now lets see 1994 to 2004....the columbine shooting was 1999. Did the Senator just prove himself wrong in the same few sentences?

You'll notice that when the Brady Bunch talk of the need for a new AWB, they will NEVER bring up Columbine, as it clearly displays that the exact firearms banned were not only available smack dab in the middle of it's legislative lifespan, but that they were obtained by persons prohibited by section 922 (x) of Title 18 USC.

Brady/VPC/HCI will only dig up cases involving "assault weapons" before '94 and after '04. They could lose what precious little support they still have if they're blindly trusting supporters were to realize that *gasp* gun control doesn't work.

Robert Hairless
December 20, 2007, 05:28 AM
Dr. Joseph Stothert commits a serious breach of medical ethics known as a boundary violation when he misuses his professional position to convey his personal opinion about matters not within his professional competence.

The boundary violation in this instance is the statement of his personal opinions that "the weapon the shooter used, an AK-47, should be banned" and that they "are only meant to ... kill people."

Dr. Stothert's conclusion that the rifle "should be banned" is a political and social assertion, not a medical opinion.

His assertion that the rifle is "only meant to ... kill people" is an absurdity based on a belief that he has omniscience. A rifle is not meant to be anything other than a rifle. Only a profoundly ignorant person confuses a rifle with a bullet. And inanimate objects have no intentionality: neither the rifle nor a bullet fired from it has the intent to kill anyone at all. A person shooting a bullet out of that rifle might intend to kill a person with it, or he might intend to kill a mad dog who is attacking a child, or he might intend to shoot a paper target. People have intent. Objects do not.

Complaints need to be lodged against Dr. Joseph Stothert with his employers, licensing boards, and his professional associations for his boundary violations and abuse of his position. Dr. Joseph Stothert should be banned from the practice of medicine because there is no way to predict other personal opinions he might confuse with it.

Gunner4h1r3
December 20, 2007, 06:35 AM
Hell, Harris and Klebold never used an AK, they used a couple of shotguns and a Tec-9.

I agree with the above posters about the doc being stupid, along with the senator. when will these people realize that gun restriction laws do absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.

Standing Wolf
December 20, 2007, 07:20 AM
"I have no anger whatsoever toward him, no anger whatsoever toward Robert Hawkins."

In plain English, he has refused to take a moral position.

Cannonball888
December 20, 2007, 09:04 AM
"I have no anger whatsoever toward him, no anger whatsoever toward Robert Hawkins."
Because it's the gun's fault. It made him do it. :barf:

Deanimator
December 20, 2007, 10:09 AM
In plain English, he has refused to take a moral position.

Which is called "moral COWARDICE".

RoadkingLarry
December 20, 2007, 10:37 AM
Since it is well documented that far more people are killed by way of medical mistakes made by doctors tan are killed with guns I propose a ban on doctors.

As a side note the number of people killed with guns include a fair number of folks well deserving of termination due to being killed during the comission of a crime, either by LEO or civilian. How many of those accidentaly killed by Doctors were deserving of death?

GeezerwithGuns
December 20, 2007, 10:42 AM
Yes indeed, banning them really works (not). Columbine gets trotted out every time some tragedy happens, but it is never, ever mentioned that the 1994 AWB was in effect at the time and these two criminals broke a total of 20 existing gun laws. If ever there was proof that gun laws don't work - here it is.

OpFlash
December 20, 2007, 10:58 AM
Hell, Harris and Klebold never used an AK, they used a couple of shotguns and a Tec-9.

Don't know about the tec-9 but they had a shotgun and a highpoint 9mm carbine.

OpFlash
December 20, 2007, 11:08 AM
The antis use whatever argument they think will fit the tragedy du jour to blame the gun. This Dr. Stothert is making a big deal out of the speed of the bullet because a rifle was used. He'd be making a big deal about high cap mags if a tec-9 9mm was used. He'd be making a big deal out of ....um, ugly black guns if a high point 9mm was used (they only hold 10 rounds). No mention of the common denominators though - the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger, the degradation of society that places corporate success and material goods over effective parenting, and our ineffective justice system that won't string the guy up in public.

Liko81
December 20, 2007, 11:17 AM
It was the AMA in Australia that was a leading force behind the Australian gun grab. Our own AMA has been very active in banning guns here as well.

Makes sense; they're the ones who have to clean up the mess when bullets collide with bodies. The AMA for instance was instrumental in the withdrawal of the Black Talon from market; that's a particularly nasty round that puts the doctor at risk as well as the patient. I could totally understand that move... this however is, as you say, a doctor abusing his title, which infers a learned man, to speak out against a subject in which he is NOT learned. Any Browning rifle action hunting rifle, or even a lever-action, would have done the same or more damage. I'm not sure if the AWB would have made 10-round clips for the SKS difficult or illegal to possess, but even during the ban, semi-auto rifles designed for hunting were widely available.

nobius
December 20, 2007, 11:37 AM
The AMA for instance was instrumental in the withdrawal of the Black Talon from market; that's a particularly nasty round that puts the doctor at risk as well as the patient.

Please explain.

From what I remember, the Black Talon was simply a black moly or teflon coated JHP.

The current SXT ammo is the same round without the coating. What was/is the risk to the doctor and or patient that is unique to the Black Talon?

Grizzly Adams
December 20, 2007, 11:38 AM
We down here in the south have a phrase for the good doctor, " he doesn't know his a$$ for a hole in the ground!":fire:

K-Romulus
December 20, 2007, 11:40 AM
What would the poor MD have done if Hawkins had used a SHOTGUN like that Utah mall shooter did? Holy body count, Batman! :eek:

The Unknown User
December 20, 2007, 11:44 AM
This guy is about as intelligent as Kellerman with his stupid 43:1 ratio.

jack the toad
December 20, 2007, 11:45 AM
I think there should be a ban on certain Omaha doctors. Where's the figures about how many die from dr. malpractice each year compared to gunshots?

rluening
December 20, 2007, 12:03 PM
I just checked this out and posted a comment on wowt.com. The mods there don't care for a lot of my comments, so it may or may not make it to the public.

In 2000, 2001, and 2002 malpractice deaths ran about 195,000 per year. In those same years _all_ firearms related deaths (according to the CDC) were between 29,600 and 30,500 per year.

Gotta run to a meeting. I should be able cite sources later today if needed.


/rl

mbt2001
December 20, 2007, 12:10 PM
Still, the senator has drawn up two proposed bills on gun control he'll introduce in the next legislative session. "Ensure that firearms are safely stored in the home, that the weapons that are stolen from the home are reported to police officers." Both were issues in the mall shootings.

Law 1 is cannot be enforced... So while a good suggestion, just means that victims will become criminals at a faster rate.

Law 2 same as above

How would either of these stopped the mall shooter?

Why don't we pass a law that makes it illegal to go into the mall with an AK??

WHO DO THEY THINK ENFORCES THE LAW? IS ZEUS AND HIS LIGHTENING BOLT ON THE CITY PAYROLL? These laws would only make sense if the word omnipresent is thrown in somewhere.

RNB65
December 20, 2007, 12:15 PM
I love some of the low road, knee-jerk responses in this thread. The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members. You may not agree with his politics, but don't question his intelligence.

I disagree with Robert Hairless' assertion that this is a professional boundary violation. A boundary violation occurs within the context of a specific doctor-patient relationship when the physician violates that relationship by inserting his own personal needs and desires into the relationship. Publically declaring assault rifles to be a public health issue and supporting a ban is not a boundary violation as long as it occurs outside the context of a doctor-patient relationship.

Let there be no doubt that I disagree with his opinons. But using insults and flawed arguments is not the proper way to debate and dispute those opinions.
-

Owens
December 20, 2007, 12:20 PM
Granted the Dr. is verey intelligent. In Surgery. Obviously knows little about firearms. On that plane, I venture to say that most THR members are more intelligent than him.

The Dr's. reaction is what I would call 'knee-jerk'. It's the same old, won't hold water argument that we've heard time and time again.

Coronach
December 20, 2007, 12:25 PM
The AMA for instance was instrumental in the withdrawal of the Black Talon from market; that's a particularly nasty round that puts the doctor at risk as well as the patient. I could totally understand that move... Is this a misread attempt at sarcasm, or do you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about?

Mike

Coronach
December 20, 2007, 12:29 PM
I love some of the low road, knee-jerk responses in this thread. The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members. You may not agree with his politics, but don't question his intelligence.The problem is that, for any given contentious social issue, you have blisteringly intelligent people falling on both sides of it. Intelligence does not equate to being correct. He might not be an idiot, but he is clearly ignorant. The doctor is doubtless a very skilled surgeon, but he clearly 1. does not understand firearms or firearms issues and 2. does not believe that individual freedom trumps "collective safety".

Mike

PS Yes, the main reason that "collective safety" is trumped is that it is a deadly myth, but some people refuse to believe that.

siglite
December 20, 2007, 12:36 PM
when will these people realize that gun restriction laws do absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.

They will not, and this is touched upon here:

The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members. You may not agree with his politics, but don't question his intelligence.

Well... they had me in the special egghead classes at school too. According to the state, at the time, I fit under the same intellectual qualification as you assert the good doctor does. And using my special egghead powers of deduction, if we rule out ignorance, as you seem to wish, then that leaves us with one other explanation for the man's position and asinine assertions.

Malice.

MakAttak
December 20, 2007, 12:47 PM
I love some of the low road, knee-jerk responses in this thread. The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members. You may not agree with his politics, but don't question his intelligence.

I disagree with Robert Hairless' assertion that this is a professional boundary violation. A boundary violation occurs within the context of a specific doctor-patient relationship when the physician violates that relationship by inserting his own personal needs and desires into the relationship. Publically declaring assault rifles to be a public health issue and supporting a ban is not a boundary violation as long as it occurs outside the context of a doctor-patient relationship.

Let there be no doubt that I disagree with his opinons. But using insults and flawed arguments is not the proper way to debate and dispute those opinions.
-

Well, I have no doubt that I am at least as intelligent as the good doctor.

I will not question his mental capacity, but apparently he is not smart enough to know when he does not know.

Amazing how many people fall into this category. (It's an epidemic in this country)

MD_Willington
December 20, 2007, 01:17 PM
IIRC isn't 7.62*39 slower than a most hunting rounds...

How is an AK clone more dangerous than a BAR or Remington Semi-auto, both the BAR and the Remington are chambered for more powerful rounds, that have a larger bullet selection.

In most cases it seems like the people shooting places up with a semi-auto cambered in 7.62*39 are just using plain old ball ammo...

rluening
December 20, 2007, 02:38 PM
... I submitted a comment to wowt.com citing my sources for the statistics that show medical malpractice killed 6 times as many people as firearms in the years 2000 - 2002, but the moderators didn't post it. Several anti-gun comments have been posted since then, though.

I'm not surprised. Some people just don't want to face hard evidence when it conflicts with their beliefs.

I tried.

/rl

Liko81
December 20, 2007, 03:33 PM
From what I remember, the Black Talon was simply a black moly or teflon coated JHP

Is this a misread attempt at sarcasm, or do you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about?


The Black Talon is not simply a Teflon-coated TMJ; though that's part of why it's a very effective round, there's more to it.

From FirearmsTactical.com:
When Ranger Talon expands, its copper jacket peels back to form six sharp claws. These claws protrude outward just slightly beyond the smooth outer edges of the mushroom-shaped lead core shoulder.

Upon impact with flesh Ranger Talon performs identical to conventional hollowpoint bullets. However, as it penetrates and slows it does not suffer a decrease in effective bullet diameter. This is because tissue that stretches and flows around the smooth shoulder of the mushroom-shaped lead core comes into contact with the sharp copper jacket claws and is lacerated.

A Black Talon is so named because when it hits, it expands into a claw-like arrangement of "talons", each of which are razor-sharp. That's half the purpose of the Teflon; to cover what will become the edges of the talons until the bullet penetrates, at which time the jacket sloughs off and the talons are exposed. The other half is to increase penetration just that tiny bit more by decreasing barrel friction (increasing muzzle velocity) and easing initial penetration.

I have seen this round fired and retrieved from ballistic gel, and even if the bullet does not stay in one piece (as it is designed to do) the fragments are no less sharp. A doctor in the emergency room poking around in the wound is quickly going to find a deep cut in his finger if he drags it against one of the edges, as surely as if he'd sliced himself with a scalpel. He's now become a blood brother with his patient, putting both at risk for infection from the other, not to mention an injury such as that immediately removes that doctor from treating the patient, a deep cut can make a doctor unable to perform his duties for days or even weeks until the cut heals, and if severe enough the damage could be permanent and end a doctor's career. No other bullet on the market poses quite that level of danger not only to patient but to medic.

Before you say that no doctor would be stupid enough to poke a finger around in a bullet hole, I remind you that many procedures normally undertaken on gun shot wounds such as staunching bleeding organs/blood vessels, inserting a chest tube, or just simply removing the bullet when you don't know that it is a Black Talon would all be done with at least some poking around with bare hands; it's faster, more precise and less damaging to remaining tissue than using tools. And if the ER doctors don't poke around, the surgeons will; they don't bother with tools for simply moving or rotating organs for a better view. A leftover fragment that the ER missed (that's not their job; the ER docs makes sure the patient will survive long enough for surgeons to fix the damage) poses just as much risk if contacted as the rest of the bullet would.

Removal of the bullet requires forceps or a clamp, which requires the doctor to be able to see the bullet to avoid pressing it further in while probing (made difficult by the average amount of blood present in a bullet wound and the depth of penetration due to the Teflon), and extraction of the bullet also causes more damage to the patient on its way out. The Black Talon is, in short, a very nasty slug, and the controversy, not the least of which came from the AMA, prodded Winchester to withdraw it from the market. The Black Talon itself is no longer made but you can find it, and similar ammos are made that avoid the "Black" connotation.

Next time you try to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, I advise you to know what you're talking about yourself. The Black Talon recieved a lot of negative media attention as causing an "unsurviveable wound" or being a "golden bullet" that gave the doctors no chance to save a victim; in criminal hands such a bullet would be a clear danger to the public. This is not that bullet and I never said it was; its incremental effects on a wound over an ordinary JHP are minor and deal with turning temporary cavity into permanent cavity. However, that does NOT mitigate the damage the bullet DOES do and the danger the bullet poses to those trying to remove it without knowing what it was.

keeleon
December 20, 2007, 03:38 PM
... I submitted a comment to wowt.com citing my sources for the statistics that show medical malpractice killed 6 times as many people as firearms in the years 2000 - 2002, but the moderators didn't post it. Several anti-gun comments have been posted since then, though.

I'm not surprised. Some people just don't want to face hard evidence when it conflicts with their beliefs.

I tried.

/rl

Please cite your sources I'd love to have this info.

Justin
December 20, 2007, 03:51 PM
I love some of the low road, knee-jerk responses in this thread. The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members.

Which makes it all the more distressing that the good doctor is spouting utter nonsense. He really ought to know better.

Gillster
December 20, 2007, 04:00 PM
I love some of the low road, knee-jerk responses in this thread. The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members. You may not agree with his politics, but don't question his intelligence.


Nope, just means he's got more formal education. In 20 years in hospitals I've met brilliant doctors and not so brilliant doctors and docs who could recite every lab value range they ever learned but couldn't find their car in the parking lot.

HGUNHNTR
December 20, 2007, 04:09 PM
A Big Thank You to everyone who has taken the time to post comments thus far. I know THR is full of very knowledgeable people, capable of constructing some enlightening comments. Thanks Again.

bluestarlizzard
December 20, 2007, 04:13 PM
gillster, thank you for bringing that up. a higher degree does not nessasarly make a person more intellegent. also i have meet people who are pure geniuses in there feild, but couldn't talk intelligently about ANYTHING else.

Cosmoline
December 20, 2007, 04:17 PM
If I was Fred Wilson and saw my MD using my own injuries to further his political views and "forgive" the shooter, I'd sue the POS six ways from Sunday. A doctor has no right to discuss such matters in public. It's possible he had Wilson's approval, but if not he's way over the line. Never trust a doctor.

The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members. You may not agree with his politics, but don't question his intelligence.

This is hilarious. I've deposed dozens of trauma surgeons. While I respect their craft, it does not require any more than average intelligence. Nor does above average intelligence preclude an individual from being amazingly stupid.

Grizzly Adams
December 20, 2007, 04:29 PM
I love some of the low road, knee-jerk responses in this thread. The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members. You may not agree with his politics, but don't question his intelligence.

_____________________________________________________________
These are very high velocity weapons that are only meant to destroy tissue and kill people."

Nebraska Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha couldn't agree more. "I agree with the doctor, there is no good reason to have assault weapons for protection, for hunting."

If he is so intelligent why does he show such ignorance by making statement like the ones above. You telling me that we don't use high velocity weapons to kill deer? Or do the high velocity weapons that we use on deer not destory tissue? Or are only high velocity ammo use in assault weapons?

Or is it because since he is a trauma surgeon it puts him in a special class? I know that because of his position the ignorant and uninformed will pay him more attention then the average citizen such as you and I.

He may be intelligent but sure doesn't have the common sense God gave a piss ant!

Coronach
December 20, 2007, 04:47 PM
A Black Talon is so named because when it hits, it expands into a claw-like arrangement of "talons", each of which are razor-sharp...I deleted the rest of the original post, but I'm responding to it, generally.

The ballyhooed Black Talon round does nothing that your standard modern defensive HP does not do. The breathless hyperbole of FirearmsTactical aside, I have seen many a non-Black Talon round pulled from gel or people with edges sharp enough to slice flesh. The hysteria surrounding the round has less to do with its performance and more to do with media ignorance; it is the original "cop-killer" bullet.

Allegedly, the Ranger SXT round, which replaced the Black Talon, is basically the same round with a different colored jacket and the nickname "Same eXact Thing", but that could very well be internet legend. One way or the other, there is nothing more magical, menacing, or dangerous about the BT round than any other well-designed modern hollow point.

Mike

Deanimator
December 20, 2007, 04:51 PM
I love some of the low road, knee-jerk responses in this thread. The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members. You may not agree with his politics, but don't question his intelligence.

I have every right in the world to question his intelligence, do now, and will continue to do so.

He's the same kind of arrogant ponce as William Shockley or Noam Chomsky. In their overweaning pride and arrogance the three of them presumed that their apparent expertise in one subject automatically translates into expertise in another unrelated field.

Shockley believed that his knowledge of electronics made him equally expert in genetics and racial theory. In fact, he was nothing more than a racist quack.

Chomsky thinks that his work in linguistics qualifies him as some kind of genius in international relations, when in fact his facile "analyses" ought to embarass a 10th grader who uttered them.

And now this individual with FAR lesser IRRELEVANT qualifications than the aforementioned poseurs comes to try the bait and switch with his medical training exchanged in a laughably incompetent sleight of hand for the sort of "expertise" on firearms that a slack jawed yokel might acquire through a steady diet of "The A Team", John Woo films, and playing too much "Doom". He is not only collossally ignorant, he is so astonishingly arrogant, the massive, overwhelming condition of his own ignorance does not in any way intrude upon his consciousness. It's like a man sitting upon the rotting carcass of a blue whale, enthralled by the delicate aroma of an orchid.

Oh no, my friend. I not only will impugn his intelligence, simple decency DEMANDS it.

JohnL2
December 20, 2007, 05:02 PM
In aviation, you get into trouble because of a series of bad decisions or ignoring things that shouldn't be ignored until they compound and eventually kill you.
That is how I view the Nebraska massacre.
It is so easy to blame the weapon. It was Robert's fault. He made his decision. Yes, he was troubled. But Robert made his decision.

Liko81
December 20, 2007, 05:20 PM
I have every right in the world to question his intelligence, do now, and will continue to do so.

Probably, but it's not his intelligence you should question, but his wisdom. Intelligence is book smarts; knowing that you know stuff. Wisdom is world-smarts, which includes knowing that you DON'T know stuff.

And why would a very in-depth personal knowledge of what a bullet does to a human target, which one would think he'd have treating a victim of the Omaha shooting, be irrelevant to the topic of firearms? How does this doctor somehow not have the qualification to say that the bullet and weapon used by the shooter was more powerful, damaging and deadly than another weapon would have been? In fact, how can anyone not see that a 7.62 Soviet with an inch and a half of powder behind it is going to do significantly more damage than a 9mm or even a .45ACP handgun bullet, which are your average GSW culprits?

Now, given all that, the conclusions they draw are all wrong. I don't know if the good doctor has ever seen a hunting accident with a .308, or worse, an intentional shooting with a .308. A 7.62 Soviet round even though the diameter is the same is going to pale in comparison; it's designed for low-recoil rapid fire on human targets, while a .308 is a hunting round designed to put maximum power into each shot and put down far more resilient creatures than the human animal. The military-design weapon is NOT the problem; if it were, there are far bigger problems hanging over the mantles and in the closets of every big-game hunter in the country. The problem is the intention of the person shooting the weapon, and there is no law you can enact and enforce proactively to make being or becoming insane a criminal offense. We bar the crazies we can find, but there's a strict legal definition, and the shooters making the headlines are very aware of the difference between right and wrong. They are insane by any common sense definition of the word; picking up a gun and shooting as many people as you can definitely qualifies in most people's minds. But those crazies are sociopaths, the proactive detection of which is slightly beyond modern science.

RoadkingLarry
December 20, 2007, 05:37 PM
The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members.

That may be the most insulting thing I've read today.

While I can respect his skills as a trauma surgeon (if he's any good, I don't know)just because he had the financial wherewithal and the determination to make it through med school and internship and residency does not automatically infer some god like degree of intelligence. I've known two doctors that honestly did not know how to change a plain old household light bulb. They were good doctors but outside of their field of specialty (medicine) they were dumber than dirt. My dentist is a very good dentist and we have developed a bit of a personal relationship and I like and respect him but he can't even log into a Windows XP computer. Don't equate an advanced skill set and extended education with some higher level of intelligence and that us mere mortals are less bright (it may just be projection).

I said that to say this, far too many folks look to doctors and lawyers well, not so much lawyers, and other graduate level educated people as being somehow smarter and therefore better than the average Joe,(well it just isn’t so). Now when these “better than me” people tell us how the world works too many go along because they’ve always been lead to think these guys are so much smarter. Like as not they are just a bunch of paid shills for whatever special interest group they are railing about.

These people are out of there field and should not be deified.

strat81
December 20, 2007, 05:43 PM
My letter, please critique:

I’d like to begin by expressing my deepest sympathies for the victims of the Westroads Mall atrocity.

During a recent report on Channel 6 News, WOWT-TV, several uninformed, ignorant statements were made by Dr. Joseph Strothert of the Nebraska Medical Center. Dr. Strothert stated that, “The faster the bullet is going the more damage it does.” That statement, while not inherently false, disregards several aspects of terminal ballistics. The speed of a bullet is not the sole factor in determining how a bullet performs when it hits its target. Bullet weight, diameter, and construction are all just as important as velocity when determining the effects of a bullet on tissue.

Such blanket statements threaten and condemn several venerable hunting cartridges such as the .223 Remington, .243 Winchester, .270 Winchester, .308 Winchester, and .30-06 Springfield which expel bullets from their cases at speeds much higher than the 7.62x39mm cartridge used by the Von Maur killer. Conversely, many popular handgun cartridges such as the 9mm Luger, .45 ACP, .38 Special, and .357 Magnum propel bullets much more slowly than the killer’s. However, no one would contest the lethality of those rounds, or those fired from any gun. It is also unlikely that the events at Von Maur would have been less tragic if the killer was using a firearm chambered for a slower cartridge. Velocity is only part of the equation: a bowling ball can cause severe damage to human beings even at speeds relatively slow compared to bullets.

The point is that Dr. Strothert is unethically and immorally preying on the ignorance of the public. The general public is not expected to fully understand bullet velocity, caliber, and expansion but Dr. Strothert, through a lie by omission, has sought to confuse the public and place misinformation in their heads.

The good doctor then goes on to say, “These are very high velocity weapons that are only meant to destroy tissue and kill people." He apparently sees no difference in using a firearm to take a life in cold blood and using a firearm to protect human life from an aggressor. In the event of a home invasion, a rifle might be an appropriate choice to protect one’s family and Dr. Strothert is in no position to dictate how the public may or may not defend their loved ones from those that wish to cause harm to them. His above statement also shows complete disregard for athletes and competitors who participate in various forms of shooting sports such as silhouette and bullseye competition. Viewed another way, a firearm is just a tool. It may be used for protection, aggression, recreation, or putting food on the table. In that way, a rifle is no different than a hammer, a knife, or a baseball bat. While I am sure that Dr. Strothert is an intelligent man and capable physician, his area of expertise is medicine, not criminal justice or ballistics. He should stick to healing people rather than spreading half-truths.

In the same report, Omaha Senator Brad Ashford proceeded to call for more gun laws. Senator Ashford seems to be operating under the assumption that criminals obey laws. By definition, a criminal does not obey the law; that is what makes them a criminal. The Von Maur killer broke several laws on that fateful day: murder, attempted murder, assault, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, theft by unlawful taking, unlawful discharge of a firearm, and disturbing the peace. Would more laws have stopped him?

Sen. Ashford called for a ban on assault weapons at the federal level like the 10-year ban that expired in 2004. He said, "They're involved in many cases with that horrible, horrible, horrible destruction and death, from Columbine to Westroads. I don't know how much more we need to know." Sen. Ashford should know that the Columbine Massacre occurred in 1999, right in the middle of the ineffective ban. The killers in that attack also broke other federal laws including the National Firearms Act of 1934 and The Gun Control Act of 1968. The senator also said, “A bigger issue is, should we be selling assault weapons without background checks.” The Von Maur killer stole the weapon: Is the Senator proposing a background check on thieves before they steal firearms?

Sen. Ashford has apparently drawn up bills to "Ensure that firearms are safely stored in the home, that the weapons that are stolen from the home are reported to police officers." How does the Senator plan on enforcing these laws? Does he intend to violate the Fourth Amendment and have police engage in warrantless searches of homes looking for improperly stored weapons? Both laws would only come into play after the fact, after an attack has occurred. Perhaps the Senator should work on a bill making it illegal to shoot people in a crowded mall. Because more laws means we’re all safer, even if criminals break laws.

Let us digress into fantasy for just a moment. Imagine a world exactly the same as ours but with one difference: no guns. No one has a gun at all. There are still good guys and bad guys, but neither of them has a firearm. However, people will still die:

- May 18, 1927: Andrew Kehoe killed 45 people and injured 58, most of them children, after he bombed the local school in Bath, Michigan.
- 1933 – 1945: Approximately 11 million Jews and others deemed “undesirable” were killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Most died in gas chambers while others were subject to Nazi experiments or died from various diseases.
- April 6, 1976 – December 12, 1978: John Wayne Gacy confesses to 33 murders of young men and boys in the Chicago, IL area that he choked with a rope or board while he sexually assaulted them.
- July 7, 1986: Juan Gonzalez attacked passengers on the Staten Island Ferry in New York City with a machete. Two were killed and nine were injured.
- March 20, 1995: Members of Aum Shinrikyo killed twelve, severely injured fifty, and caused temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand people after they unleashed Sarin gas in the Tokyo, Japan subway.
- April 19, 1995: The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK was destroyed by a bomb planted by Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh, resulting in 168 deaths and 800 injuries.
- July 27, 1996: Two people died and 111 were injured when a bomb was detonated in Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, GA by Eric Robert Rudolph.

This small sample serves to show that deplorable acts of violence can and do occur without firearms.

I do not proclaim to have all of the answers. Everyone is looking for someone to blame in the wake of this atrocity while it seems the person to blame was the perpetrator of this vicious act. The police, his family, the mayor, the state legislature, Congress, the mall, the store… none of them were at fault. You cannot prevent these things unless you want to trample the rights of all citizens. The Second Amendment was never about hunting and never will be. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I'd like to send it to some of the bigger Nebraska newspapers such as The Omaha World-Herald, Lincoln Journal-Star, Grand Island Independent, and Kearney Hub. Let me know what you all think.

Soybomb
December 20, 2007, 05:59 PM
*snip*
Removal of the bullet requires forceps or a clamp, which requires the doctor to be able to see the bullet to avoid pressing it further in while probing (made difficult by the average amount of blood present in a bullet wound and the depth of penetration due to the Teflon), and extraction of the bullet also causes more damage to the patient on its way out.
*snip*
Next time you try to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, I advise you to know what you're talking about yourself.

Speaking of that, black talons did not have a teflon coating, they had winchester's black oxide coating known as lubalox on them http://www.winchester.com/news/newsview.aspx?storyid=220

Upon impact with flesh Ranger Talon performs identical to conventional hollowpoint bullets. However, as it penetrates and slows it does not suffer a decrease in effective bullet diameter.

Which really is no different for any sharp edged bullet including the old fashioned full wadcutter.

Liko81
December 20, 2007, 06:02 PM
While I can respect his skills as a trauma surgeon (if he's any good, I don't know)just because he had the financial wherewithal and the determination to make it through med school and internship and residency does not automatically infer some god like degree of intelligence.

Spoken like a man who has absolutely no clue what it takes to get through medical school. It's not all money and determination. You can't learn all that is required to get your M.D. without a serious head on your shoulders. My dad has a Ph.D from MIT in Inorganic Chemistry. His undergrad was Mathematics. He got a full ride National Merit scholarship because he was not going to college otherwise; he was the second child and my grandparents could only pay for the first. My dad is one of the most intelligent people I know. And he gave up on being a doctor two years into a pre-med track because the anatomy courses kicked his ass. There are over 200 bones in the human body; the exact count depends on age and other factors. A doctor has to know every last one at every stage of growth to have passed that course, as well as full musculature, every nerve trunk in the body, and every lobe of every organ. That's just anatomy; when you start covering diagnostic medicine you must practically memorize the symptoms and treatments of thousands of diseases even if odds are you'll never encounter it in your life. And here's the kicker; YOU CANNOT FORGET ANY OF IT. Would you be able to pass your college vector calculus exam tomorrow?

You are exactly right that the man's use of his authority is misplaced, and whetever he knows about medicine or even what a gun does to humans does not translate to politics. I do not question your intelligence, knowing very little about you with which to form an opinion; however, do not EVER make the mistake of pooh-poohing a doctor or a lawyer as only being one because he had the money to buy his degree. Odds are that doctor or lawyer is FAR more intelligent than you. He has to be; lives are on the line and if a solution is not arrived at in time, the cost is VERY dear. He cannot consult a book, a website or a table of facts if the patient is in convulsions or the client is facing a needle for a crime he dd not commit.

mdao
December 20, 2007, 06:04 PM
Probably, but it's not his intelligence you should question, but his wisdom. Intelligence is book smarts; knowing that you know stuff. Wisdom is world-smarts, which includes knowing that you DON'T know stuff.

Strongly disagree.

Intelligence is the ability to reason and comprehend. His intelligence can be called into question as his reasoning on this matter is suspect. Blaming an inanimate object while absolving the perpetrator for such a heinous crime is logically absurd.

Knowledge is expertise gained through education and experience, or what you've labeled "book smarts". While there is little doubt that Dr. Joseph Stothert has quite a bit of knowledge in the field of trauma surgery, his comments display significant ignorance on the subject of which he is speaking, firearms and public policy relating to firearms.

Your definition of wisdom is workable. And yes, he shows an amazing lack of wisdom by making a logically defective public statement about an area he clearly shows a lack of knowledge in.

Odds are that doctor or lawyer is FAR more intelligent than you.

Odds are your estimation of the intellectual skill sets and capabilities necessary to become a doctor is incorrect. It'd be a fair bet that your dad is significantly more intelligent than the majority of doctors. Anatomy courses don't exactly stress intellectual capability.

Lone_Gunman
December 20, 2007, 06:17 PM
I am a general/vascular/trauma surgeon, and have operated on many people who have been shot. The Black Talon is no more dangerous to the surgeon than any other hollowpoint he may have to remove. I have removed some of pretty much all brands of hollowpoints at one time or another. If they expanded at all (which usually they don't), they produced sharp edges. Any bullet that fragments or expands will have sharp edges, and can cut the surgeon trying to remove the bullet if he handles it carelessly. I have never been cut by any of them, because I pay attention to what I am doing while removing them, but its always a possibility. I would be no more afraid of removing a Black Talon than anything else. I have never heard of an actual documented case where a surgeon or other medical provider was injured by a Black Talon while removing it. If someone knows of this actually happening, I would love to see a reference. I believe this was simply a story made up by anti-gunners to help spread fear of the Black Talon cartridge in order to get it removed from market. The hyperbole and fear mongering that goes on with respect to the Black Talon is ridiculous. Obviously, some of the people in this thread have bought into this fear, and while I respect their right to have an incorrect opinion, I think they are completely wrong, unfounded, and simply don't know what they are talking about.

Also, someone brought up the issue of boundary violations. Specifically someone felt that the trauma surgeon violated his boundary of medical practice by publicly stating he was against assault weapons. I think his viewpoint is misguided and wrong. But what he did was not a boundary violation for a couple of reasons. First, he was not practicing medicine at the time he said it. He was speaking to media, and he has as much right as anyone to speak his mind politically. I resigned my membership in the AMA because of that organization's position on firearms. I am a very outspoken proponent of firearms ownership. I publicly encourage people to arm and defend themselves. I have just as much right to do this as anyone else, because I am first and foremost a US citizen. The doctor in Omaha has just as much right to express himself, even though i believe he is wrong and probably a fool. Context is critical. For example, it would be a boundary violation to ask a woman out on a date if you were seeing her in your office as a patient. If you saw the same woman in a bar, a doctor could ask her out, and its not a boundary violation. Everything a doctor does is not directly involved in the practice of medicine.

Second, the medical community, and no one else, decides what is and is not a boundary violation. The liberals that have invaded and taken over organized medicine have decided that guns are a public health problem, and therefore are fair game to criticize from a medical standpoint. We here know this is a fallacious viewpoint, but it doesn't really matter because they are the ones who get to decide what a boundary violation is and is not.

I assure you that if you tried to sue the doctor over this as a boundary violations, the AMA would line up "experts" from coast to coast who would proclaim that it was not a boundary violation.

Deanimator
December 20, 2007, 06:36 PM
And why would a very in-depth personal knowledge of what a bullet does to a human target, which one would think he'd have treating a victim of the Omaha shooting, be irrelevant to the topic of firearms? How does this doctor somehow not have the qualification to say that the bullet and weapon used by the shooter was more powerful, damaging and deadly than another weapon would have been? In fact, how can anyone not see that a 7.62 Soviet with an inch and a half of powder behind it is going to do significantly more damage than a 9mm or even a .45ACP handgun bullet, which are your average GSW culprits?

Well, alrighty then.

Your comments quoted above call into question your ability to comment meaningfully on HIS comments.

"Inch and a half of powder"? What KIND of powder? Stick? Ball? Flake?

Why should I assume that a .311 FMJ is going to do MORE damage than say a 117gr. Aguila IQ out of a .45acp? And at what range? And out of which firearms?

His "knowledge" of firearms is akin to that of the fellow who fancies himself an ichthyologist because he eats a lot of caviar.

Tell me, does a 7.62x39mm ball round from a Kalashnikov do more damage (at what range?) than a 170gr. softpoint out of a 7.92x57mm VZ33 bolt action police carbine?

His knowledge of firearms (and apparently yours as well) appear informed by little beyond TV and press releases from VPC and the Brady Center.

You are attempting to defend disinformation when you apparently understand neither that disinformation nor the information which was abused to produce it.

Apparently, he and you would be perfectly content to see sociopaths bring 16" Winchester Model 1895 carbines in .30-06 into shopping malls (which make AKs look like airguns)... unless you want to ban ALL rifles? If so, please pay us the repect of being candid about that desire.

Eagle103
December 20, 2007, 06:38 PM
Let's see. Hospital infections kill around 103,000 people each year.
http://www.hospitalinfection.org/essentialfacts.shtml
Add another 195,000 deaths caused by medical errors (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice) and you get a total of nearly 300,000 supposedly preventable deaths caused each year by the medical community.
According to the CDC the total number of all types of firearms related deaths hovers around 30,000 per year. Of that total about 2/3 are suicides. That leaves around 10,000, of which a small percentage are caused by "assault rifles".
Maybe the good doctor should should worry about his own house first.

RNB65
December 20, 2007, 06:42 PM
These people are out of there field and should not be deified.

I'm not deifying anyone. But I do respect them. I work in an academic medical center and regularly deal with trauma surgeons, neurosurgeons, cardiac surgeons, and specialists in every field of medicine you can imagine. Yes, most of them are arrogant as hell. Many of them are dense as doorknobs and couldn't tell you the difference between a lug nut and a hole in the ground. And some of them are so single-minded that they are severely lacking in basic common sense. But don't mistake their arrogance, eccentricities, lack of commons sense, and lack of knowledge in certain areas for a lack of intelligence.

There is only a very tiny percentage of people alive who are capable of completing a medical school/residency program and I have high respect for those who do, no matter what their politics or how good or bad they may be as physicians. Intelligence is very subjective, but no one with an average IQ is capable of completing med school, residency, and becoming a successful physician. Average don't cut it.
-

marksman13
December 20, 2007, 06:45 PM
Liko81, are you in the Brady Camp? Your comments sound an awful lot like trolling. Trying to rationalize the irrational are we?

I don't believe that learning the human body is no more difficult than learning any other complex system, be it mechanical or electrical. The reason doctors are so well paid and well respected is because of what is at stake when they work. No disrespect to any doctors, but I just don't put doctors on a pedestal.

rluening
December 20, 2007, 07:11 PM
Let's see. Hospital infections kill around 103,000 people each year.
http://www.hospitalinfection.org/essentialfacts.shtml
Add another 195,000 deaths caused by medical errors and you get a total of nearly 300,000 supposedly preventable deaths caused each year by the medical community.
According to the CDC the total number of all types of firearms related deaths hovers around 30,000 per year. Of that total about 2/3 are suicides. That leaves around 10,000, of which a small percentage are caused by "assault rifles".
Maybe the good doctor should should worry about his own house first.

Eagle103 seems to have found the same sources I did.

CDC firearms related deaths can be found at:
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

My quote of 195,000 hospital related deaths can be found at:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php

My comment still hasn't shown up at wowt.com...

/rl

Dr. Peter Venkman
December 20, 2007, 07:13 PM
Nothing more than "as a medical doctor, I am qualified to talk to you about ballistics."

What a load of crap. I have to clean my shoes because I stepped in it.

alan
December 20, 2007, 07:17 PM
One wonders as to why the doctor's call for such legislation. Has there recently been any misuse of "assault weapons" real assault weapons, not "lookalikes" in Omaha?

If it turns out to be that the good doctor is simply "agin guns", his choice to so be, then he should clearly state his prejudices/position, so that all can clearly see from whence he comes.

Grizzly Adams
December 20, 2007, 07:22 PM
Thanks Lone_Gunman. Now this is a surgeon that has both intelligence and common sense. He has no hidden agenda. He as taken a stand and made it plan where it is. Not hidding behind his profession.:fire:

I LIKE IT!
December 20, 2007, 07:31 PM
What's up with these doctors?

I don't care how good your memory(intelligence) is if he can't see
that laws mean squat to criminals he is blind.

my .02

Liko81
December 20, 2007, 08:52 PM
Liko81, are you in the Brady Camp? Your comments sound an awful lot like trolling.

No, I am not in the Brady Camp. I like my handguns as much as the next person and I do not believe guns are the cause of violent crime, or that banning them will make America into Utopia. I do not however advocate a "they're wrong because they're antis" position on every anti-gun statement made, as many on this board do. Those who are anti-gun are not unintelligent, knowledgeable, or otherwise unqualified mentally to speak on the subject. To say so is an insult to the majority of the people in this country, who either do not support gun rights, or who support them much the same as they support gay rights; You can do it, they just don't want to see it. If you think an argument's wrong, PROVE IT. Deconstruct the argument and refute the claims instead of resorting to put-downs.

I don't argue against the RKBA; I argue against ignorance, and gun nuts can be just as guilty as antis. I also argue for rights other than, as well as including, the RKBA. The irresistible force meets the immovable object every day in political discourse, especially concerning the BoR. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE. The laws you oppose, and the Brady Bunch itself, exist so that infamous heinous crimes can never happen again, and thus peaceful, law-abiding citizens much like yourselves who DON'T feel the need to carry have a good likelihood of living out their lives having never been proved wrong. I'm sure you, even though you carry, have the same sentiment; if you died of natural causes having never had to fire a shot in anger, that would be your ideal situation. The same drive gave us Son of Sam laws (profits from criminal activity are forfeited to victims), Amber Alerts (immediate nationwide alerts on every TV and highway sign for child abductions), Jessica's Law (tough punishments for sex offenders including making rape of a child under 12 a capital offense), and Teri's Law (domestic abusers are held without bail). The Brady Bunch has the same drive to make murders using firearms, unarguably an attractive mix of ease, range, shock value, and repetitiveness, a thing of the past. That in and of itself is laudable. I disagree with their focus. Ban guns and criminals use knives. However, the opposite holds true as well; give everyone guns and criminals use bombs.

Therefore the Brady Bunch is wrong only in that they focus on guns and not criminals. However, if you will not entertain the fact that the Brady Bunch might have a point, even though they follow it to the wrong conclusion, then all you're doing when you dismissively insult the arguments and those who raise them is patting yourself on the back, and quite frankly making yourselves sound very much like the stereotypical survivalist civil libertarian "i don't need no government" gun nuts that the Bradys use to show "civilized people" that pro-gun arguments come from the fringes of society. It's unintelligent-sounding, insulting to the majority of Americans, and self-defeating.

The RKBA is not a globally-recognized right. Citizens of many countries, including our own, look at the RKBA as an antiquated remnant of an unorganized, "frontier-law" nation. The assault weapons you wish to protect possession of and free access to appear all the time in the hands of terrorists, religious extremists, murderers, drug lords, dictators, and the forces loyal to the above. When an M4 or an AK-47 appears on the streets of a U.S. city, no matter whose hands it is in, s*** is hitting the fan. They are icons of all that is hated by peaceful law-abiding citizens. To defend them sounds to an anti a lot like "rationalizing the irrational". To argue against permits for concealed carry, while at the same time recognizing that having a permit shows you have demonstrated sufficient proficiency and situational knowledge to safely carry a handgun in public, sounds a lot like implying that you do not think such proficiency or knowledge is necessary. To argue against "gun-free zones", trumping a property owner's right to control said property with the all-important RKBA, sounds a lot like "I want to be Gary Cooper". Using the philosophy of "anything can be a weapon" to attempt to reduce gun control arguments to absurdity sounds a lot like "I don't know the difference between a gun, whose primary purpose is to kill things and break stuff, and a kitchen knife whose primary purpose is to chop vegetables".

I support the RKBA. But I realize that the RKBA is the SECOND AMENDMENT. It was neither included in the original document, nor did it trump the list of the freedoms our Founders guaranteed. There are more important things on that document than to give you the right to have a gun wherever and whenever you want, with no restrictions as to type, size, caliber, ammo capacity, muzzle energy or the explosive or armor-piercing capability of the bullet. For example, how about the very first sentence appearing on the Constitution, the reason it was written and the basis for EVERYTHING ELSE on that parchment. You're too busy "providing for the common Defense" and "securing the blessings of Liberty" to realize that the government must also "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare". The government must balance ALL FOUR THINGS, in addition to forming "a more perfect Union" and "establishing Justice".

Let's pretend for a minute. Any firearm of any type and caliber in production is legal to own and carry; you can own anything you want, can carry it anywhere you want, whenever you want, however you want. In addition, thanks to your blessings of the Fourth Amendment, you cannot be stopped or searched unless the police have reasonable suspicion you have or will commit a crime. You have that right, and so do criminals, whether convicted or otherwise, because unless the officer knows a criminal personally or see them doing something wrong, they can do nothing but assume that a person walking down the road with an M4 has broken and is breaking no laws of any kind. Until they start emptying those 30-round mags out the muzzle of an MP5. The police are the local authority; they have a mandate to protect the general welfare, and that means they must be able to overcome criminals. If the police have to have the same armament as the 4th Light Cavalry Brigade to do their job, it is impossible for them to fulfill their general mandate of ensuring tranquility and promoting welfare; a tank rolling down your street on the way to the ghetto is neither tranquil nor a sign of your good welfare. If you then say, 'ok, I then need a machine gun for my own defense against criminals', what about two at a time? Or ten? Or twenty? Do you then form a posse and take these criminals out? You are now talking about turning the streets of East Detroit into Fallujah, armed civilian brigades against criminal gangs. And believe me, as bad as the gang problem is there, a battle fought between dozens or even hundreds of civilians armed with automatic weapons, with a lot of heart but no military training, would be like nothing any U.S. city has seen since the 1870's. It is untenable; you most certainly would not want to live in a world where the Second Amendment was the supreme law of the land.

If you want pro-gun words out of my mouth, chew on these: Guns are equalizers. It is limits on guns that MAKE them equalizers. If Auntie Sue sleeps with a .357 under her pillow she can aquit herself well against one or two robbers, even if they have guns of their own, but not against one or two robbers with automatic weapons. If automatic weapons are legal to own, they WILL be owned, they WILL be stolen, and they WILL be used by criminals against law-abiding citizens, even law-abiding gun owners. Assault rifles have a very distinctive profile; they are the icon, as I said, of military and paramilitary regimes past and present, and one seen in a public place in suburban America is disturbing even to many gun owners. THEY can be owned, THEY can be stolen, and THEY can be used against someone whose personal firepower pales in comparison. To ban them at least limits their proliferation amongst criminals even though it does the same to law-abiding citizens. That levels the playing field; you have a handgun, so does the criminal. You are on equal footing, no matter if you're 4'11 95lb Auntie Sue or 6'4 300lb Vinnie the Cargo Van. Limits or restrictions on type, caliber, power, firing rate, and ammo increase the odds that your average armed civilian isn't outgunned by a criminal, because the weapons a criminal can get easily are the ones a lawful citizen can get, and forepower exceeding that of what is lawfully available is difficult, even if possible. By contrast, allowing them everywhere sets off an arms race that may have no limit; if it's legal to own an M60, somebody probably will. And so will a criminal, having stolen it from a law-abiding citizen. And that bodes ill for someone who, like Auntie Sue, cannot afford, cannot feed, cannot control, and/or cannot see the need to own an M60 and thus just sleeps with a .357 under her pillow. If a good night's sleep is only bought with superior firepower, only Number 1 is going to sleep soundly in his bed, surrounded by armed guards with The Button on his bedside table.

AndyC
December 20, 2007, 08:53 PM
The doctor's opinion is an almost texbook example of a logical fallacy in the form of an Appeal to Authority. He is not an authority on firearms that I've ever heard of, therefore his opinion is merely that, and not fact.

benEzra
December 20, 2007, 08:56 PM
In fact, how can anyone not see that a 7.62 Soviet with an inch and a half of powder behind it is going to do significantly more damage than a 9mm or even a .45ACP handgun bullet, which are your average GSW culprits?
Not if the 7.62x39mm bullet is typical thick-jacketed eastern bloc ammunition, particularly FMJ. Some of the material at the following link pertains to now-banned steel-core FMJ, but would be similarly applicable to most bimetal jacket FMJ.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt

That 86% of the wounded survived is not surprising to those who are familiar with the relatively mild wounding characteristics of the Ak-47 military round (3)....Many AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no greater damage than that produced by nonexpanding handgun bullets. The limited tissue disruption produced by this weapon in the Stockton schoolyard is consistent with well documented data from Vietnam (the Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team collected approximately 700 cases of Ak-47 hits), as well as with controlled research studies from wound ballistics laboratories (2-4).

Certainly your statement would be true of a softpoint hunting round, a Hornady VMAX load, or perhaps Sapsan FMJ (fragile), but not most of the cheaper FMJ or quasi-JHP plinking stuff, I suspect.

(liko81)

If the police have to have the same armament as the 4th Light Cavalry Brigade to overcome the weapons used by criminals on the streets, it is impossible for them to fulfill their general mandate of ensuring tranquility and promoting welfare; a tank rolling down your street on the way to the ghetto is neither tranquil nor a sign of your good welfare. If you then say, 'ok, I then need a machine gun for my own defense against criminals', what about two at a time? Or ten? Or twenty? Do you then form a posse and take these criminals out? You are now talking about turning the streets of East Detroit into Fallujah, armed civilian brigades against criminal gangs. And believe me, as bad as the gang problem is there, a battle fought with automatic weapons which everyone would have, and need, to provide for their own defense as well as the common defense, is like nothing any U.S. city has seen since the 1870's.

If you want pro-gun words out of my mouth, chew on these: Guns are equalizers. Limits on guns MAKE them equalizers. If Auntie Sue sleeps with a .357 under her pillow she can aquit herself well against one or two robbers, even if they have guns of their own, but not against one or two robbers with automatic weapons. If automatic weapons are legal to own, they WILL be owned, they WILL be stolen, and they WILL be used by criminals against law-abiding citizens, even law-abiding gun owners. Assault rifles have a very distinctive profile; they are the icon, as I said, of military and paramilitary regimes past and present, and one seen in a public place in suburban America is disturbing even to many gun owners. THEY can be owned, THEY can be stolen, and THEY can be used against someone whose personal firepower pales in comparison. To ban them at least limits their proliferation amongst criminals even though it does the same to law-abiding citizens. That levels the playing field; you have a handgun, so does the criminal. You are on equal footing, no matter if you're 4'11 95lb Auntie Sue or 6'4 300lb Vinnie the Cargo Van. Limits increase the odds that your average armed civilian isn't outgunned by a criminal. By contrast, allowing them everywhere sets off an arms race that may have no limit; if it's legal to own an M60, somebody probably will. And so will a criminal, having stolen it from a law-abiding citizen. And that bodes ill for someone who, like Auntie Sue, cannot afford, cannot feed, cannot control, and/or cannot see the need to own an M60 and thus just sleeps with a .357 under her pillow. If a good night's sleep is only bought with equal firepower, very few will get a good night's sleep.
Just who is advocating repealing the restrictions on automatic weapons?

Liko81, I agree with you on pragmatism in debating the RKBA issue. But giving in on the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch would be giving away most of what we have left. It has nothing to do with "automatic weapons" or "weapons of war," and everything to do with outlawing the most popular civilian rifles and shotguns in America, and restricting ALL guns to pre-1860's magazine capacities.

BTW, the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was initially created for one reason, to build momentum for a ban on handguns. From the 1980's Josh Sugarmann (VPC) strategy paper that launched the assault weapon hoax:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

(A)ssault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of America's gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America's gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby for the following reasons:

* It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an "old" debate.

Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

* Efforts to stop restrictions on assault weapons will only further alienate the police from the gun lobby.

Until recently, police organizations viewed the gun lobby in general, and the NRA in particular, as a reliable friend. This stemmed in part from the role the NRA played in training officers and its reputation regarding gun safety and hunter training. Yet, throughout the 1980s, the NRA has found itself increasingly on the opposite side of police on the gun control issue. Its opposition to legislation banning armor-piercing ammunition, plastic handguns, and machine guns, and its drafting of and support for the McClure/Volkmer handgun decontrol bill, burned many of the bridges the NRA had built throughout the past hundred years. As the result of this, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee was formed. The Committee now favors such restriction measures as waiting periods with background check for handgun purchase and a ban on machine guns and plastic firearms. If police continue to call for assault weapons restrictions, and the NRA continues to fight such measures, the result can only be a further tarnishing of the NRA's image in the eyes of the public, the police, and NRA members. The organization will no longer be viewed as the defender of the sportsman, but as the defender of the drug dealer.

* Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.

Although the majority of Americans favor stricter handgun controls, and a consistent 40 percent of Americans favor banning the private sale and possession of handguns,[129] many Americans do believe that handguns are effective weapons for home self-defense and the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms.[130] Yet, many who support the individual's right to own a handgun have second thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and "plastic" firearms—a weapon that poses such a grave risk that it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right.

The surest way to facilitate an eventual handgun ban would be to capitulate on the "assault weapon" issue. Given that 200 or fewer murders a year are perpetrated with rifles characterized as "assault weapons," compared to around 7,500 murders/yr committed with handguns (something like a 35:1 ratio), don't think that the anti's won't come after you just because you throw the tens of millions of black rifle shooters under the bus.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

The gun-ban lobby is more vulnerable on the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch than they are on handgun bans simply because of the dishonesty involved in the "black rifles are a menace to society" position. Rifles are not a crime problem in this country and never have been.

Travis McGee
December 20, 2007, 09:17 PM
http://www.tomeaker.com/FReepers/reader1.jpg

Travis McGee
December 20, 2007, 09:19 PM
Liko: Yeah, you are a troll. For sure.

Cosmoline
December 20, 2007, 09:20 PM
I do not however advocate a "they're wrong because they're antis" position on every anti-gun statement made,

I don't see that on this thread at all. People criticize him for making stupid comments about the high velocity and power of an intermediate cartridge. And for the audacity to "forgive" a madman when he wasn't even there. The man is arrogant and wrong, MD or no.

The laws you oppose, and the Brady Bunch itself, exist so that infamous heinous crimes can never happen again, and thus peaceful, law-abiding citizens much like yourselves who DON'T feel the need to carry have a good likelihood of living out their lives having never been proved wrong.

The Brady Bunch exists to further an anti-gun agenda. Specifically, they seek to force Congress to enact a series of laws which would turn moi into a felon overnight. They have never done anything that would stop "infamous heinous crimes." Such crimes continue and will continue, because such criminals don't give a wetslap about Sarah Brady's nonsense or any gun laws.

Want a law forcing parents to keep firearms locked up from their crazy children? Fine. But look what happened up here a few weeks back, when one such crazy child simply hacked his parents up with a machete and stole his father's revolver. Laws don't cure criminal insanity, though a well placed bullet can make the whole problem moot.

If automatic weapons are legal to own, they WILL be owned, they WILL be stolen, and they WILL be used by criminals against law-abiding citizens, even law-abiding gun owners.

Ah, fully automatic weapons ARE legal to own. Provided you get the tax stamp. When was the last time anyone did anything criminal with a Class III? Apart from our lovely government, that is. And what do full autos have to do with anything? You seem to be laboring under the same delusion that our brilliant doctor friend had. The weapon used in the mall shootings was not full auto. Do you understand this?

As far as the woman with a .357 under her pillow, she would be completely outgunned by an intruder with a 12 ga or a .30'06. She would likely be toast against an intruder armed with grandpa's thuddy thuddy. Are you proposing to ban any firearm with a cartridge equal to or more potent than the .30/30?

grampster
December 20, 2007, 09:23 PM
Heh. Travis, in the pic above is that "Longarm" of the law?

Uhhh, I'm also preparing to start badgering you about when the final book of the trilogy is gonna be out.
My neighbor just finished my copy of The Reconquista and he's getting antsy for the sequel too. I told him the only way he gets it is by purchasing all 3 as a package deal. :evil::D

I agree with your last comment.

Geno
December 20, 2007, 09:28 PM
Liko said:

Odds are that doctor or lawyer is FAR more intelligent than you.

Wow... :scrutiny: wow... :eek: wow... :rolleyes: Just a minute. Wow. That about covers that part.

Re: machine guns, security etc...(pause)...Liko...have you ever "lived" under a military dictatorship?!?! I'd bet my favorite assault rifle that you haven't. Tell you what, go live under a dictator for a few months then come back and make some more posts about machine guns, safety, etc. See, when only the dictator's thugs have firearms, you don't sleep very durned well.

I am saying that as a voice of experience. Wait until at every bus stop, the <<carabineros>> board the bus with a .45 ACP Uzis, and walk through the bus, Uzi at head-level...pointing at the passengers as they "inspect" them. Tell me all about your knowledge and expertise with machine guns, Liko. Then, I'll tell you about mine. Can you talk about living "under-the-gun", how about in-front-of??

God bless these free states of the USA!!! I sleep much better knowing that I can defend my own home if need be, instead of cowering in the corner. Your posts, if not being a troll, reflect a serious lack of reflection and research. They are not based in reality.

Doc2005

bluestarlizzard
December 20, 2007, 09:50 PM
liko, comparing the legalization of automatic weapons with an arms race between the cops/good law abiding folk and the criminals is pretty far fetched.
weapons are only as good as the hands that are holding them. so if autie sue is a great shot under pressure, i bet she would win in the fight pitting the .375 against the AK.
you are falling into the trap that certain guns are "bad". you are just hiding your fear behind an attept at a reasonable statement and babble about a "bad image".
i do not credit the brady bunch with any respect because they never 'played fair'. they use lies and misinformation to predjadice people against guns. i wouldn't nessasarly say their stupied, either as their underhanded techniques tend to work.
liko, not only are your words precariously balanced to fall on the antis side, but they are insulting the gunnies on this board. i am a intelligent, philosophical, well read, college educated young women, and i don't apprecitate being told that i am ignorant and that i don't think.

Eagle103
December 20, 2007, 09:54 PM
Given that 200 or fewer murders a year are perpetrated with rifles characterized as "assault weapons," compared to around 7,500 murders/yr committed with handguns (something like a 35:1 ratio), don't think that the anti's won't come after you just because you throw the tens of millions of black rifle shooters under the bus.

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Thanks benEzra. I was looking for those numbers but couldn't find them. It's interesting how the antis always cite the 30,000 firearm deaths (including suicides) instead of a more realistic 10,000. It's also interesting (to me anyway) that 1/3 of murders don't even involve a firearm.

300,000/200 means you are 1,500 times more likely to die of a hospital related problem than an "assault" rifle.

ROMAK IV
December 20, 2007, 10:08 PM
I think we are missing the whole point, the Doctor is quoted because his opinion coincides with the agenda of the news source, not because of his "intelligence" or expertise in balistics. The whole article is intended to persuade the ignorant to support the ban of certain firearms.

Yes, I do have a problem with the doctor's comments on firearms, but I don't think it exceeds to the point of breaching professional boundries. The breach of professional and ethical boundries occurs when police chiefs, like Los Angeles Chief Bratton often does, when they make political statements about firearms laws. When professional organizations do so, it is also a breach of ethics, so it is unethical for the AMA to suport gun bans, as well as for individual doctors to recommend or ask about guns in the home. I especially get angry with police chiefs, who are appointed by politicians, yet are suppose to be serving the public. Military members aren't allowed to advertise their political opinions, why are police chiefs allowed to do so? Anyway, the intention of quoting them is to persuade the public to support bans.

I also hate to see at least one of you fooled by this kind of propoganda. A person's intelligence has nothing to do with it. There are always professionals willing to testify to facts when politics are involved. In fact, it is something that liberals who are pushign an agenda count on. As you may remember Ann Coulter took big hits for criticizing the wives of certain 9-11 victims when they became politically active and had an agenda. From gun control to global warming, certain professionals and victims are quoted to push an unpopular agenda. How can anyone criticize a truama doctor? How can anyone criticize someone who lost their husband in the World Trade Center? Who can anyone criticize Michael J. Fox? In this case, as with all of these, counter points by other victims and professionals are ignored, or what is frequently happening, the opposing professionals are impugned for their views.

In this case, the doctor has it wrong! The chances of the rifle actually being an "AK-47" are nil. The rifle was probably some AK clone, made legally during the AWB. As we also know, all sales to private individuals do have a background check required, unless they have a CCW. The idea about "designed to kill" is so much garbage, as a rifle which didn't kill wouldn't be much use to anyone. Discussing "terminal balistics" with the ignorant, is pretty much a waste of time because the emotional plea has already been made. The doctor also uses the often liberal tactic of moral relativity so common with the issue of gun control. Yes, the shooting of 8 innocent people shopping for Christmas in a mall IS a horrible tradgedy. But what about a police sniper taking out a terroist holding school children as hostages? Or you having to use deadly force to defned your wife and children, or husband and children if that is the case? Does rival drug dealers killing each other rise to the level of the mall shooting? I think not, yet we are supposed to veiw tham all as being equal. It may seem equal to a doctor patching them up, but it is far from the truth. I find it very insulting and outrageous to be compared the equal of a serial killer, because I choose to take responsibilty for my personal safety and the safety of my family by owning a gun.

And the idea of "forgiving the attacker"? Why? What gives the Doctor the right to forgive someone for murdering eight people because he lost his job at McDonald's because of his need to commit larceny? If he had only killed himself before killing the other eight people. Then it would have been a tragedy, then he would warrent forgiveness. Instead, there are people who like criminals and have a need to show them mercy. That's fine until they are aquitted of crimes they actually committed, or released back into society to kill again. The killer did nothing to the Doctor, and it's not his place to forgive or not forgive him, and besides, he's dead and it's an empty gesture. It's an attempt at moral superiority for the doctor to do so, and a sign of contempt towards society. A society doesn't punish criminals out of "revenge" any more than I would kill an intruder out of hatred. It's a matter of expediancy, and law and order. Without enforcement, laws really don't exist. Most of us try to respect and follow most of the laws because we are responsible and law abiding. When laws are passed that are unenforcable, not only will the criminals not follow then, but they undermine the society because we generally will. Because of this, most gun control laws are oppressive because they prevent people from legally defending themselves. Naturally, these same people who promote these laws deny the utility of using the same type guns to defend themselves.

I won't repeat it here, and don't have the website at hand, but a Jewish man has a website that describes how each specfic "Assault Weapons Feature" that was used as an excuse to ban certain semiautomatic firearms, actually enhanced a weapon for defensive use. Likewise, the 7.62 x 39 round shot from an "AK-47" is identical in performance if it is shot from a CZ bolt action. In fact, it is likely to be more accurately fired from the latter weapon. This is why I object to Mitt Romney, who declared on last Sunday's Feac the Nation that it was acceptable to ban fireamrs based on their "lethality". Confusion among the public concerning soft points, Full metal jacketed, and other types of projectiles is used or misused to th full extent. If FMJ bullets pentrate better, then they are called cop killer bullets, if hollow point or others expand and result in greater trauma, then they are designed to cause suffering.

As can be seen, the so called and self proclaimed defenders of the First Amendment aren't too tolerant of presenting ideas that conflict with their propoganda. They want to only present one side, their side, of the issue. They will also use people who unprofessionally use their professional credentials as advocacy for that view, and hope to influence the lazy and ignorant.

marksman13
December 20, 2007, 10:30 PM
Liko, I don't think I have ever seen someone as blind as you to the facts. The Brady's don't want your assault rifles. They want everything you own with a barrel. Like you, they have decided that "black rifles" are not politically correct. Tell me, what would an SKS or civilian AK or an AR do that a Remington 742 wouldn't do in the same caliber? I do believe that you are a troll, a long-winded and committed troll, but a troll nonetheless.

Liko81
December 20, 2007, 11:03 PM
liko, not only are your words precariously balanced to fall on the antis side, but they are insulting the gunnies on this board. i am a intelligent, philosophical, well read, college educated young women, and i don't apprecitate being told that i am ignorant and that i don't think.

Nor do I. Yet when someone says something on the news that I, until very recently, would have agreed with, and in some cases as I have demonstrated still do, and the very next post calls him/her, The Brady Bunch, and everyone who thinks that way by association fascist, unintelligent, appeasing, collaborators, un-American, or similar slights on my pride as an American-born citizen, as has happened many times since I found this board, that tends to be more than slightly insulting too. I tend to like them to explain themselves, but all I get is more of the same, more forcefully than before because hey, I'm right here! the good doctor isn't going to read this board, but I sure as hell am. Gun rights is a war of words, and words can never be to everyone's taste especially when politics are discussed. As is obvious from this thread, I take my licks when I cry foul on a dismissive, illogical, or otherwise unsound rejection of a stance deemed anti-gun. It's not just 2A rights, though this board generally stick to such issues. Republicans, of which the majority of my family outside my immediate family generally support, are very fond of criticizing anything or anyone "liberal" or "leftist" as "un-American". It's a throwback to when liberals were equated with the ultimate leftists, so much so that the term "Un-American" and those who the Republicans in power decided fell under that term were given to a special committee of Congress. If anything is antiquated and totally unnecessary about political thinking in this country, it's the pattern of thought that anyone who disagrees is an evil, cancerous blight on Our Great Nation and must be excised. News Flash: I'm American. I'm liberal; my thoughts on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage are libertarian (i.e. it's their business and not government's), and such leanings, with the far-right Neo-Cons in power, paint me as leftist. HOWEVER, I'm a gun owner, and believe it or not, I'm pro-Second Amendment. I don't want my guns taken any more than I, or you, want your guns taken. I'm a proponent for instance of open carry in Texas, one of only 6 states in 50 that do not allow some form of open carry. However, I'm also a realist; unlicensed open carry will probably not happen, so if the compromise of licensed open carry comes along, as is currently the case in 13 states, I will take it.

Here's another news flash; nobody's always right. I'm not. You're not. Nor are most facts, opinions, or other statements unilaterally and eternally right. In addition, a statement doesn't have to be wholly true or wholly false. "Guns are evil" may be a false statement logically, but it doesn't negate the fact that a majority of Americans think that way, and even if it's totally fallacious to act on an ad populum argument, that happens to be exactly the way decisions are made in this country. "Guns kill" is also false in the literal sense. Load and chamber a pistol and set it down on a bench and you will die of old age long before the gun goes postal and kills everyone in the area. That does not negate the fact that a firearm is one of the best-suited tools for that particular job in the hand of someone so inclined. ANYTHING can be a weapon from the keys in your pocket to a stick of dynamite, but very few objects can be picked up, held in one hand, in one self-contained package, and with the pull of a lever can virtually instantaneously end a life at 25 yards, no specialist training required. In fact, it requires training for a person NOT to end up doing that unintentionally.

I personally do not think guns are evil. I think if I could afford to own an AR-15 or an AK-47 it would be nice to have for a variety of reasons. It happens not to be a high priority; a Mossberg HD shotgun would definitely be higher on my "gotta-have guns" list, being cheaper, more powerful, and less threatening in profile (only face-on). I merely state that many people are uncomfortable around guns, and all the more so when the silhouette of said weapon used to be, and still is, the icon of our greatest enemies, seen on the news every night for the last 40 years in the hands of people who would party tomorrow and for a long time thereafter if the U.S. ceased to exist tonight. Or, alternately, a silhouette of a weapon normally in the hands of people that, even though they're on our side, are still very deadly, war-oriented people, capable of taking life, in some cases as easily as if were a video game. Quite frankly, people are anti-death. People dying under the age of 80 is a shame and a terrible loss; people dying under the age of 40 is a tragedy. Guns are a very high-profile cause of death, and guns of a design normally seen only in war are equated with war, and hated as much as we hate war. To reject that fact is to discount popular sentiment, which is, to be frank, unintelligent. It doesn't matter if popular sentiment is "wrong" by every logical definition. It also doesn't matter if the uneducated call an SKS or other AK clones AK-47s; it, like the 1911, has become more a design than any one manufacturers model cornforming to those specs. The fact remains there are more voters out there who would rather you didn't display your 1911 on your hip in public than those who think otherwise. And that percentage of the population vastly increases and becomes vastly more vocal when you start talking about military-design rifles. I don't say "give up" if you want your military-design rifles; I say you're going to have to come up with a more persuasive argument than "it's just a gun" in order to convince the squeamish, much less those who have lost loved ones to such a weapon. I defy you to tell the mother of a child who died, or the wife of a husband, or the husband of a wife, lost in that Omaha mall that it wasn't the gun what did it. And I defy you to tell them there was nothing that could have been done; he would have shot SOMEONE before a CHL could have drawn and fired (the CHL prohibition in that mall being, of course, the only logical reason he was able to kill so many). They will probably be able to think of a very visible, very well-suited tool without much assistance that, if removed from society, would end these tragedies forever. We as gun owners have to appeal to emotion (yet another fallacious argument), appeal to statistics, and appeal to what to us is blatantly obvious common sense; that one gun, or class of guns, or guns in general, are merely the tool, and there are MANY others that could be used that have absolutely no place in civilized society.

P.S. And I definitely wouldn't mention "there are more powerful weapons in the hands of most hunters".

bluestarlizzard
December 20, 2007, 11:12 PM
so, liko, your saying that we shouldn't care that the public doesn't understand that a gun is a gun and let them make public policy based on an false understanding about the guns in question?

marksman13
December 20, 2007, 11:45 PM
Liko, your argument makes sense to the anti-gun crowd and the politically correct crowd, but it just isn't going to fly here. People on this board are concerned with facts and logic. No amount of emotional plea will convince me that I need to give in to the anti's attempts to take my big scary guns. If we give up on one issue we may as well give in on every issue. That is where this is headed my friend. You can not compromise with an enemy which desires only your total destruction. The Brady's and the politicians supporting them don't care about making the American people any safer. They are simply pushing a political agenda. Unfortunately, many Americans have bought into these ridiculous beliefs. The only way to win the fight is by refusing to compromise, pushing legislation of our own, and re-educating the American people in the ways of the gun. Compromise over gun control benefit only the antis.

Liko81
December 21, 2007, 12:06 AM
so, liko, your saying that we shouldn't care that the public doesn't understand that a gun is a gun and let them make public policy based on an false understanding about the guns in question?

No. Quite the contrary, if you'll read the post and not just look for ways to chip away. I'm saying you SHOULD care, very deeply, that the majority does not hold your opinion, if you as a gun owner want decisions made by that majority to benefit you. But the arguments I hear in response to a gun crime are a broken record:

- It's not the gun's fault...
- If others had guns they could have stopped it...
- A gun is just a tool...
- Guns protect people...
- The Second Amendment...

These arguments are quite simply not working. They appeal to logic, and logic, though the strongest argument and one of the only unassailable arguments, is the last thing people are expected to apply when a gun crime happens. A death is a highly emotional event, and when guns are defended as not being the cause, and when you advocate to the contrary that having more of them in the area would have been a good thing, you defend the very thing that, in the eyes of victims and the general public, enabled a killer to be as deadly as he was. If this were the National Explosives Association and the arguments were along the lines of "Bombs don't kill people..." you would not have many supporters after someone used a pipe bomb to kill 50 schoolchildren. The argument that other bombs could have stopped a bomber is ludicrous, and even though the argument stands up when you talk about guns, people are looking at high-powered rifles, and indeed any firearm commonly used to murder, as we would regard bombs used for that same purpose. We want as few of them in our society as we can get away with, restricted to licensed professionals, who would be required to account for every last ounce of plasticene or C4 and every detonator used in a demolition.

...Wait, we do that. And nobody complains about the RKBE. An explosive, most in the army would say, is definitely an armament. Our guns are heading that direction; to be kept only by licensed professionals who must account for every weapon and every last cartridge spent.

If you want to keep assault rifles, and as you say, if we want to keep anything that has a barrel, then there need to be more intelligently-thought-out responses than some variation of "It's not the gun". That's a simple refutation of the opposing position, and that doesn't help people understand what it actually WAS: a senseless act committed by an emotionally lost person on the borders of what we would call sanity. The gun may have been a tool, but I'll say it again; even if it was not technically an AK-47, it looked like one, and the first question is "how did he get a Russian assault rifle?", the obvious answer being they're widely available as hunting weapons and he stole his Dad's legally purchased rifle. The two solutions arrived at by that answer are both anti-gun; you secure your firearms at all times, or you don't own AK-47s.

You guys and the good doctor may BOTH be right; It wasn't the kid himself, nor the gun in his hands. An ordinary kid does not wake up one day, pick up a gun and start shooting. An ordinary kid does not wake up one day, build a bomb and take it to show & tell. Now I mention it, an ordinary kid doesn't do anything out of the ordinary. These are not ordinary kids, and what they do before such an act, which happens over many weeks or even months, MUST have been visible to someone. If the argument was that he was a good kid, then the onus should be on finding out where he went wrong so that it won't happen in future. If the argument was that he was a bad kid, the onus should be on figuring out why the kid wasn't already or still in juvenile hall or prison. And in both cases the onus should equally be on finding out how a troubled kid got access to whatever he used to kill, and why nobody noticed anything out of the ordinary, or if they did, why they didn't say anything. Focus on the kid; the argument that he could have used anything to kill himself and others is simple enough to grasp, but by itself it is does not help. It MUST be followed by an appeal to find the cause, otherwise you are simply reinforcing the focus on the means. An argument to find the cause is both logical AND emotional, and it places focus EXACTLY where it should be without immediately placing blame. It's the kid, but the kid wouldn't have done this without good reason. Find that reason, and fix it.

If you stand firm and bleat the party line, you are nothing more than a brick wall, and it's actually easier than the analogy might indicate to destroy a brick wall with a good solid blow. Instead, you have to absorb and redirect the blow where you want it to go. As gun owners we will face blows. But to simply stand there and take it is to be a building being torn down by a wrecking ball.

Robert Hairless
December 21, 2007, 12:20 AM
RNB65:

I love some of the low road, knee-jerk responses in this thread. The man is a trauma surgeon, which means he's more intelligent than probably 99% of THR members. You may not agree with his politics, but don't question his intelligence.

Besides me, which other members of The High Road are less intelligent than a trauma surgeon? Are there any people in addition to trauma surgeons whose intelligence should not be questioned?

Most of us like to do the right thing but of course we need to know the rules first. Is it okay to question your intelligence or are you among that 1% of the people here who are as intelligent as a trauma surgeon?

Are the remaining 99% more or less intelligent than the chief trauma surgeon of Victoria, Australia, Thomas Kossmann, who is under investigation now on a charge of multiple frauds? Or are Australian trauma surgeons less intelligent than American trauma surgeons and don't count?

Does Texas count? Dr. Larry Gentilello complained that trauma residents have been performing surgery without proper supervision on poor and uninsured patients at Parkland Memorial Hospital, which doesn't sound intelligent to me but might to real smart people like trauma surgeons.

I'm so dimwitted that I make distinctions. It appears to me that trauma surgeons are competent to develop information in their areas of special competence. But it does not appear to me that trauma surgeons have any special competence to set political or social agendas, and it seems wrong to me if they identify themselves as trauma surgeons when they state views that imply a connection between the two.

I do think that trauma surgeons have the right to express their political views. I do not think that trauma surgeons have the right to associate those views with either their professional affiliations or their training as trauma surgeons. Many professions recognize that it is unethical for a professional to cross that boundary. It surprises me that trauma surgeons are free to do so. Perhaps that's because they are so intelligent.

Perhaps a trauma surgeon might find that a great many patients required immediate surgery as the result of automobile crashes and that most of them had alcohol in their bloodstream at the time. Who could object to that trauma surgeon demanding a ban on automobiles and alcohol as well as on drunk driving? Few of us are smart enough to make that objection even if our own meager intelligence leads us to conclude that automobiles aren't "meant to kill people" and alcohol isn't "meant to kill people," and that all blame lies with only with those who abuse alcohol and drive. It seems to me that it's essentially rather stupid to sort of mush essentially discreet factors together into a Ban Stew, but then I am reminded of the prohibition against questioning the intelligence of a trauma surgeon.

A Certified Public Accountant I know has stated that all doctors are charlatans, registered nurses are merely their lackeys, and that the entire medical profession is incompetent. He based his professional opinion on working through many of their financial affairs. The Licensed Realtor who was present at the time agreed on the basis of her own dealings with them. A Concealed Weapons Permit instructor volunteered that his experience was that they know nothing about firearms and are too arrogant to take instruction because they are convinced that they are more intelligent than other people. I disagreed, of course, but what am I to make of a situation in which representatives of three professions have come to the same conclusion? I am too dimwitted to challenge them and the bases for those conclusions, so maybe they're right.

It's good to see you object to "some of the low road, knee-jerk responses in this thread." Tell us how to behave. That's how we learn.

Larry Ashcraft
December 21, 2007, 12:31 AM
Liko87,

You seem to be of the opinion that a little bit of the RKBA may be negotiable. Maybe assault weapons, or maybe, something else.

I disagree.

None of my rights are negotiable.

None.

Period.

DENALI
December 21, 2007, 12:35 AM
I'm somewhat in agreement with Liko81. You need to study your opponent's posistion before attacking it! I've posted in several different threads pertaining to just this sort of episode and as a former mental health professional I feel that I'm uniquely qualified to do so! The majority of Americans are clueless as to mental health care and the same can be said as to there knowldge of firearms and the 2nd Amendment, and as such they are vulnerable to emotional but well coordinated socialist attacks. Therefore these are the logical starting points for committed well prepared riposte!!!

siglite
December 21, 2007, 12:47 AM
You guys and the good doctor may BOTH be right; It wasn't the kid himself, nor the gun in his hands.

I'm sorry. But I just can't find validity in someone who would type the above. It WAS the kid himself. Period.

The mounting lack of personal responsibility in this country is appalling, and a clear signal of our decline into obscurity. However, some folks in this thread (and the good doctor) are clearly experts. They're experts at misdirection. Instead of focusing on the kid as a monster and the factors that made him that way, sure, let's blame the guns.

It's really that simple. The. kid. pulled. the. trigger. Apparently, it takes a rocket trauma surgeon scientist to divert a forum full of intelligent people from such a simple, plain as day fact. FACT. Yes, you read that. FACT. THE KID PULLED THE TRIGGER.

It's not the rifle.

It's not the bullets.

It's not a flash suppressor.

THE KID PULLED THE TRIGGER.

This doctor's a moron. Period. His words are indefensible. My ten year old son can take him apart.

There's some truly artful and skilled trolling going on in this thread. Bravo.

Liko81
December 21, 2007, 01:20 AM
None of my rights are negotiable.

Suit yourself. Advocate violent overthrow of the Bush Administration. Yell fire in a crowded theater. Invoke Satan or the Spirits of the Wood in a Catholic church. Call me the N-word (I dare you). It's your right under the First Amendment to freely express yourself with any word, anywhere.

Rights conflict. Period. Your free and untethered right to free speech can endanger my health, safety and welfare. My life, liberty and property must therefore trump any of your rights under the Constitution, 7 days a week. The right of the government to continue to exist, which I guarantee you it will fight for, also trumps your rights. Those restrictions apply to ANY right, including the RKBA; if your right, or the general right of individuals under the RKBA to own a particular weapon endangers me, my loved ones or my property, that weapon will be prohibited and removed from society. Also, if your right to keep and bear arms threatens the government or any of its agencies or agents, at any level, your weapons will be taken from you, and resistance will be met with deadly force. That means if you can outshoot a SWAT team, you are a threat and will be dealt with accordingly. The government must defer to the people, but it must also exist; without government there is anarchy.

Now, it's not "me" whi has the problem with your right to have a military rifle. It's my neighbor, or his neighbor, or whoever else thinks a particular weapon poses a clear and present danger to life, liberty or property simply by existing. There are some weapons for which that danger can be clearly articulated and which have already been banned. Your right to own a fully automatic FN P90, for example, was "negotiated" away a decade before the gun was even invented. I personally don't think a high-powered semi-automatic rifle poses a clear and present danger to me no matter what it looks like. It's the guy using it in a public place who poses a clear and present danger. Antis say the problem goes away with an AWB. I disagree; I've seen enough suicide bombers to know that a guy who has nothing left to lose will find any way he can to take as many with him as possible. But you can't deny that if military rifles were banned and not grandfathered for civilians, the percentage of crimes committed with them would drop drastically. It's not the answer; the last AWB proved it, but boy is it attractive to someone who sees no need for them in daily life.

Therefore, to combat any threat to your RKBA, you must be able to convince my neighbor and his neighbor that a gun is no more or less than a gun; it acts according to the will of its handler. The handler, therefore, is criminal. "Guns don't kill people..." is true, but so cliche'd that it has a ready answer: "yeah, but the gun sure helps". The solution to the problem is however still to reduce occurrences of criminal activity with any weapon or no weapon. Why do people become criminals? School shooters, snipers, and the various mall gunmen can clearly be defined as insane. That abandonment of reason for madness did not happen overnight, and somebody had to be aware of it who did not think anything of it before it was too late. You can blame the shooter; that's where blame for any such action should rest, but I assure you, IT DID NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT; somebody knew about it, somebody could have reported it, somebody could have stopped it. For others its financial or a simple matter of survival; you cannot get what you want, or need, and so you steal it. That problem is solved with simple opportunity, but unless the government brings back the Depression-era programs like the WPA and the CCC, and make "alternative careers" like drug dealing and pimping unprofitable, you're not going to tackle even a percentage of that problem. You can still however start looking for when good kids go bad. You can turn kids around, even when they're on the brink. Some cannot be saved however, and those that survive their first criminal act will not find themselves looking at blue sky for a long time. If any of this had been done, Omaha would not have happened in the first place. The kid would be in a mental hospital getting counseling, or in prison. Either way, he is no longer a danger to society.

Lone_Gunman
December 21, 2007, 01:22 AM
A Certified Public Accountant I know has stated that all doctors are charlatans, registered nurses are merely their lackeys, and that the entire medical profession is incompetent. He based his professional opinion on working through many of their financial affairs. The Licensed Realtor who was present at the time agreed on the basis of her own dealings with them. A Concealed Weapons Permit instructor volunteered that his experience was that they know nothing about firearms and are too arrogant to take instruction because they are convinced that they are more intelligent than other people.


As I mentioned before I am a general/vascular/trauma surgeon. Here is my take on the above comments, most of which I agree with, but there are certain things to consider.

I agree many, possibly even most, doctors know very little about financial matters, real estate, etc. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, their training provides absolutely no education in these areas. There are no classes in medical school about how to run a business.

Additionally, medical school is an 18 hr a day job. Residency is much worse than that. When I was a surgical resident, we were on every other night call, and what that meant was you arrived at about 5 AM on Monday morning, and worked until about 8pm Tuesday night. So out of 48 hrs, you were in the hospital 40 of the those hours. This lasted for 5 years. The point of all this is, there is not a lot of time to pursue other interests.

Then when you get out of residency, and enter practice you are in the unusual situation of having more money than spare time. So doctors tend not to negotiate well on purchases like cars and houses. I know doctors who have paid full MSRP for cars, and who have actually paid more than asking price for houses. It is absurd, but they do it, and the main reason is they don't think they have time to negotiate, and don't have time to learn the market. Its been especially interesting to see doctors from California and the North East move to the south, and be willing to pay California prices for land and houses in small town Georgia.

Also, I would like to state for the record that in general, surgeons are much more likely to be pro-gun than pediatricians, psychiatrists, and most of the non surgical specialties. Also, almost all of the trauma surgeons I know are decidely pro gun. When you deal with society's worst in the ER, you tend to develop a certain paranoia that is palliated somewhat by the presence of cold steel in your waistband.

It think the Omaha trauma surgeon, who I don't know and have never heard of, has as much right to speak his mind on the issue as anyone else. He is wrong. But I wouldn't ask him not to express his opinion to the media. The issue of boundary violation is not applicable, as the liberals in charge of organized medicine have decreed this is a legitimate talking point for physicians when the AMA declared guns a public health problem.

Deanimator
December 21, 2007, 03:11 AM
P.S. And I definitely wouldn't mention "there are more powerful weapons in the hands of most hunters".
Why? Because it would irresistibly compel anti-gunners to admit that they want to ban THOSE too, giving away the game and arousing the ire of the hunting lobby?

There isn't a common deer hunting rifle that isn't at LEAST as powerful as an AK type rifle; and most are far MORE powerful.

I don't NOT tell the truth because it makes things uncomfortable for liars.

Deanimator
December 21, 2007, 03:16 AM
You need to study your opponent's posistion before attacking it!
Been doing it since 1986. I can play them like a violin.

I usually know what they're going to say before they do and can get them to say [usually something embarrassing or incriminating] just what I want them to to defeat their own arguments.

They're as predictable [and dismally dishonest] as Holocaust deniers, and use the SAME lame tactics.

Robert Hairless
December 21, 2007, 03:48 AM
What we have here, Lone Gunman, is a failure to communicate.

I keep saying that Joseph Stothert most certainly is entitled to proclaim his opinion about the AK-47 or anything else he has in mind. As you put it, he "has as much right to speak his mind on the issue as anyone else." We agree completely on that subject.

I also believe that Dr. Joseph Stothert has the right to express his professional opinion on any subject which he is professionally competent to assess in that capacity.

But when Joseph Stothert the citizen assumes the role of Dr. Joseph Stothert the medical director of Nebraska's Medical Center Trauma Center to express his personal opinion on political matters he exploits that platform to gain authority for his personal opinions by masquerading them as professional opinions. That is unethical and it is an abuse of his positions as a medical doctor and as a medical director. Moreover he does it intentionally, with the aim of misleading people into confusing the two. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't see the distinction, because he's probably much too intelligent to be concerned about such matters.

My own inferior intelligence, however, leads me to conclude that it is impossible for either of those Joseph Stotherts to know what any firearm means to do. I figured that out on my own by dissecting numerous firearms of many kinds, including some AK-47 rifles. I have not yet found one with a brain or a soul, or any intelligence at all.

I also have doubts that the maker of each and every AK-47 tells it to go out into the world and kill people. I've met Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov and although I readily admit to a language barrier that made subtleties of communication difficult, I don't recall him saying "I meant for the AK-47" to run around committing murders.

Not to demean Dr. Joseph Stothert's intelligence, which of course is impossible for a dunderhead to do, I doubt most sincerely that he even knows what an AK-47 is or that he knows the difference between a real AK-47 and what passes for one among civilian gun owners, or could tell the difference between either of those versions and any of the many variants if they all ran up and bit him in his superior ass.

Dunderhead that I am, what I see in the quoted statement from Dr. Joseph Stothert, Medical Director and so on, is evidence of a man who is out of his depth and doesn't have the brains or the humility to know it. He makes a statement about the effect of a particular bullet without stating its caliber and generalizes from it to one rifle from which it could be fired. Is Dr. Stothert talking about a 7.62 X 39 cartridge or a 5.45 X 49? Is he really talking about an AK-47 of some kind or an AK-74 or other bad rifle?

In fact such things don't matter at all to Dr. Joseph Stothert, Medical etc., because he's really talking about something he calls "high velocity weapons." High velocity weapons must be any weapon that flies through the air very fast. Look up in the sky on some clear spring day and you, like Dr. Joseph Stothert, might see the flocks of AK-47s winging their way through the air en route to their breeding grounds.

That's much of the problem with medical doctors who violate the boundaries of their professional competence: they talk real stupid about things they don't know, and don't know they don't know, and they are applauded for it by those whose special interests they serve.

I do know that the AMA declared guns a public safety problem. The AMA is a bunch of doctors who don't know what they don't know, and don't care either. It's not unusual.

It impresses me not at all that the noted and much more distinguished physician Dr. Karl Brandt, Commissioner for Health and Sanitation, was joined in his political opinions by a great many equally distinguished medical doctors such as Dr. Karl Gebhardt and Dr. Joachim Mrugowsky, or that all of the distinguished medical organizations endorsed and sponsored their conclusions. I understand that their professional judgment was supported by years of intensive scientific research and that they were more intelligent than 99% of the people in The High Road.

Nevertheless they violated the boundaries of the medical profession when they concluded that Jews are untermenschen who lead lives unworthy of life, can be used as unwilling subjects for medical experimentation, and should be exterminated from the face of the Earth as quickly as possible. They were hanged, only not before they murdered many people and spurred other physicians to assist in the murder of still others.

Of course they had the right to express their personal opinions and of course they had the right to express their professional opinions. But either they couldn't recognize that the two were distinct or they could recognize the distinction and didn't care. I'm not sure why anyone would think it matters.

The AMA is not the same as the medical associations in Nazi Germany and the medical doctors in the United States are nothing like those Nazi physicians. I know that. I can see that the countries are different and the years are different and I know that the "American Medical Association" is spelled differently.

But it's violating the boundaries of medicine by twisting it for political reasons and encouraging its members to do the same, and they are doing it.

"Basically the faster the bullet is going the more damage it does, that's a basic, physical principle,” says Nebraska Medical Center Trauma Medical Director Dr. Joseph Stothert. “These are very high velocity weapons that are only meant to destroy tissue and kill people."

As for a doctors' long, hard struggle for five years, I sympathize so much that I am willing to lend any physician the sympathy chit a kind Army chaplain gave me about fifty years ago. I've had a rough life too, though, so it's only a loan and I'll want it back. It has been of such comfort to that I advise all medical doctors and everyone else who feels sorry for himself to acquire one of their own. If I had one to spare I'd give it as a gift but I never went to the Chaplain's office to get another one.

ArfinGreebly
December 21, 2007, 04:00 AM
Well, the man certainly can sling words. Prolific, even. Makes specific responses more difficult and time consuming. I will post any (coherent) argument I might formulate separately.

From Post #20

Makes sense; they're the ones who have to clean up the mess when bullets collide with bodies.
False. They only fix the patient. There are many people who clean up the mess.

The AMA for instance was instrumental in the withdrawal of the Black Talon . . . a particularly nasty round that puts the doctor at risk as well as the patient.
False. Debunked.


From Post #36

A Black Talon is so named because when it hits, it expands into a claw-like arrangement of "talons", each of which are razor-sharp. [. . .] The other half is to increase penetration just that tiny bit more by decreasing barrel friction (increasing muzzle velocity) and easing initial penetration.
False. Debunked. Extensively.

Before you say that no doctor would be stupid enough to poke a finger around in a bullet hole, <. . .>

<. . .> The Black Talon is, in short, a very nasty slug, and the controversy, not the least of which came from the AMA, . . .
False. Debunked -- by a surgeon no less.


From Post #47

Probably, but it's not his intelligence you should question, but his wisdom. Intelligence is book smarts; knowing that you know stuff. Wisdom is world-smarts, which includes knowing that you DON'T know stuff.
Glib. Self-serving definitions.

<. . .> while a .308 is a hunting round . . .
What an odd thing to say. Given the history of the .308 round, that is.

<. . .> But those crazies are sociopaths, the proactive detection of which is slightly beyond modern science.
No. It requires observation and recognition and a refusal to engage in denial. Not a whole lot of science required.

Post #51 is essentially a defense of doctors' intellects. Summary: people who achieve PHds in very specialized fields are smart -- probably smarter than "you" -- because they have to be.

Meh. Essentially appeal to authority, with a cool red herring twist. Lawyers are smart. Whoopee. (They're also frequently dishonest, especially those in politics and those who litigate, because it isn't about truth, it's about winning and power.)

Smart dishonest people do not make the world better and have no business making policy for others. Smart-but-only-in-my-speciality people are practically iconic. They, too, need to butt out of public policy.

From Post #63

<. . .> I do not however advocate a "they're wrong because they're antis" position on every anti-gun statement made, as many on this board do. Those who are anti-gun are not unintelligent, knowledgeable, or otherwise unqualified mentally to speak on the subject.
Maybe not, but they are dishonest. Again, being "smart" is not a qualification.

To say so is an insult to the majority of the people in this country, who either do not support gun rights, or who support them much the same as they support gay rights; You can do it, they just don't want to see it. <. . .>
Uh, no. To call the ignorant ignorant is not an insult. To call the dishonest dishonest is not an insult. To distort the words of the law and pretend to believe the lie thus engendered is dishonest. "Mentally qualified" or not, when you lie to me, I'm going to call you on it. Don't expect me to be polite.

I don't argue against the RKBA; I argue against ignorance, and gun nuts can be just as guilty as antis. I also argue for rights other than, as well as including, the RKBA. The irresistible force meets the immovable object every day in political discourse, especially concerning the BoR. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE.
Nah. Self-serving sophistry.

The laws you oppose, and the Brady Bunch itself, exist so that infamous heinous crimes can never happen again, and thus peaceful, law-abiding citizens much like yourselves who DON'T feel the need to carry have a good likelihood of living out their lives having never been proved wrong.
This is just straight-up crap. The Brady crowd does not exist for any such reason. It's about power and control. Remember, like you intimated earlier, they aren't stupid. They have to know that what they're doing can't work, thus their stated motives are false. And they're lying. And I'm not buying. And not willing to be polite about it either.

The same drive gave us Son of Sam laws (profits from criminal activity are forfeited to victims), Amber Alerts . . ., Jessica's Law . . ., and Teri's Law . . . The Brady Bunch has the same drive to make murders using firearms, unarguably an attractive mix of ease, range, shock value, and repetitiveness, a thing of the past.
No, that's not their drive. And if you actually believe it is, then you have been well and truly fooled.

That in and of itself is laudable. I disagree with their focus. Ban guns and criminals use knives. However, the opposite holds true as well; give everyone guns and criminals use bombs.
Patently absurd. Simple speculation.

Therefore the Brady Bunch is wrong only in that they focus on guns and not criminals. However, if you will not entertain the fact that the Brady Bunch might have a point, even though they follow it to the wrong conclusion, then all you're doing when you dismissively insult the arguments and those who raise them . . . It's unintelligent-sounding, insulting to the majority of Americans, and self-defeating.
Actually, no. They DON'T have a point. Their entire point is disarming the population to change the balance of power and control. It has nothing to do with crime.

That's THEIR red herring.

The RKBA is not a globally-recognized right. Citizens of many countries, including our own, look at the RKBA as an antiquated remnant of an unorganized, "frontier-law" nation.
Which is wrong-headed and very sad for them.

The assault weapons you wish to protect possession of and free access to appear all the time in the hands of terrorists, religious extremists, murderers, drug lords, dictators, and the forces loyal to the above.
Lovely mis-characterization. Guilt by association. Note, the WEAPONS are guilty by association. Nice.

When an M4 or an AK-47 appears on the streets of a U.S. city, no matter whose hands it is in, s*** is hitting the fan.
What a bizarre thing to say. At all.

They are icons of all that is hated by peaceful law-abiding citizens. To defend them sounds to an anti a lot like "rationalizing the irrational".
Translation: guns are scary. Make them go away.

To argue against permits for concealed carry, while at the same time recognizing that having a permit shows you have demonstrated sufficient proficiency and situational knowledge to safely carry a handgun in public, sounds a lot like implying that you do not think such proficiency or knowledge is necessary.
Starting to get squirrelly here. You generalize that which cannot be generalized. I object to permits. Period. I may use the fact that I had to endure a lot of crap (to get a permit) to my own ends, and this is not a conflict, it is a form of judo. When confronted with force that can do you harm, use what you can of it to your own advantage. The permit process interferes with the exercise of a right, and is anathema.

To argue against "gun-free zones", trumping a property owner's right to control said property with the all-important RKBA, sounds a lot like "I want to be Gary Cooper".
Okay, that's just silly.

Using the philosophy of "anything can be a weapon" to attempt to reduce gun control arguments to absurdity sounds a lot like "I don't know the difference between a gun, whose primary purpose is to kill things and break stuff, and a kitchen knife whose primary purpose is to chop vegetables".
And that's just plain dishonest.

I support the RKBA. But I realize that the RKBA is the SECOND AMENDMENT. It was neither included in the original document, nor did it trump the list of the freedoms our Founders guaranteed.
Wow. That's worse than just ignorant, it's false on its face. The amendments, uh, you know, like, AMENDED the constitution, and were REQUIRED for its ratification. Yes, the Second Amendment DOES trump other stuff. That's what amendments do. And if your argument is that it doesn't "trump" the rest of the BoR, that's a fine strawman, but also nonsense.

There are more important things on that document than to give you the right to have a gun wherever and whenever you want, with no restrictions as to type, size, caliber, ammo capacity, muzzle energy or the explosive or armor-piercing capability of the bullet.
Another red herring. Life is more important than free speech. Big deal. It doesn't invalidate free speech.

For example, how about the very first sentence appearing on the Constitution, the reason it was written and the basis for EVERYTHING ELSE on that parchment. You're too busy "providing for the common Defense" and "securing the blessings of Liberty" to realize that the government must also "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare". The government must balance ALL FOUR THINGS, in addition to forming "a more perfect Union" and "establishing Justice".
Uh, don't forget, the amendments occur LATER and add a bias that says, "while all this other stuff is true, thou shalt not mess with the guns, dude."

<Long exposition omitted.> And believe me, as bad as the gang problem is there, a battle fought between dozens or even hundreds of civilians armed with automatic weapons, with a lot of heart but no military training, would be like nothing any U.S. city has seen since the 1870's. It is untenable; you most certainly would not want to live in a world where the Second Amendment was the supreme law of the land.
What makes you think that? The Second Amendment already IS the supreme law of the land. Further, your imaginary world where the presence of guns leads to epidemics of violence? Pure unfounded speculation.

If you want pro-gun words out of my mouth, chew on these: Guns are equalizers. It is limits on guns that MAKE them equalizers.
And THIS statement is truly scary. Partly because it's untrue, and partly because it's socialist thinking. Looks to enforce equal outcomes.

If Auntie Sue sleeps with a .357 under her pillow she can aquit herself well against one or two robbers, even if they have guns of their own, but not against one or two robbers with automatic weapons. If automatic weapons are legal to own, they WILL be owned, they WILL be stolen, and they WILL be used by criminals against law-abiding citizens, even law-abiding gun owners. . . . [snip] . . . And that bodes ill for someone who, like Auntie Sue, cannot afford, cannot feed, cannot control, and/or cannot see the need to own an M60 and thus just sleeps with a .357 under her pillow. If a good night's sleep is only bought with superior firepower, only Number 1 is going to sleep soundly in his bed, surrounded by armed guards with The Button on his bedside table.
Blather. It is from this fabric that the emperor's new clothes are made.


From Post #75

However, I'm also a realist; unlicensed open carry will probably not happen, so if the compromise of licensed open carry comes along, as is currently the case in 13 states, I will take it.
And hopefully continue to strive for elimination of the licensing process.

Here's another news flash; nobody's always right. I'm not. You're not. [. . .] In addition, a statement doesn't have to be wholly true or wholly false. "Guns are evil" may be a false statement logically, but it doesn't negate the fact that a majority of Americans think that way, and even if it's totally fallacious to act on an ad populum argument, that happens to be exactly the way decisions are made in this country. "Guns kill" is also false in the literal sense. Load and chamber a pistol and set it down on a bench and you will die of old age long before the gun goes postal and kills everyone in the area. That does not negate the fact that a firearm is one of the best-suited tools for that particular job in the hand of someone so inclined. ANYTHING can be a weapon from the keys in your pocket to a stick of dynamite, but very few objects can be picked up, held in one hand, in one self-contained package, and with the pull of a lever can virtually instantaneously end a life at 25 yards, no specialist training required. In fact, it requires training for a person NOT to end up doing that unintentionally.
Guns are dangerous. People are afraid of them. We should allow them to be regulated to keep them happy.

You may have forgotten that the whole reason for the BoR was to prevent tyranny of the majority. And the 2nd is insurance.

I personally do not think guns are evil. I think if I could afford to own an AR-15 or an AK-47 it would be nice to have for a variety of reasons. It happens not to be a high priority; a Mossberg HD shotgun would definitely be higher on my "gotta-have guns" list, being cheaper, more powerful, and less threatening in profile (only face-on).
The emotions of other people determine how I choose to defend myself.

I merely state that many people are uncomfortable around guns, and all the more so when the silhouette of said weapon used to be, and still is, the icon of our greatest enemies, seen on the news every night for the last 40 years in the hands of people who would party tomorrow and for a long time thereafter if the U.S. ceased to exist tonight. Or, alternately, a silhouette of a weapon normally in the hands of people that, even though they're on our side, are still very deadly, war-oriented people, capable of taking life, in some cases as easily as if were a video game.
Guilt (of an inanimate object) by association. Look, the exercise of a right isn't a matter for "approval" by people who frighten easily or who are confused about symbols.

<rambling appeal to emotion omitted> . . . We as gun owners have to appeal to emotion (yet another fallacious argument), appeal to statistics, and appeal to what to us is blatantly obvious common sense; that one gun, or class of guns, or guns in general, are merely the tool, and there are MANY others that could be used that have absolutely no place in civilized society.
Many others? Other what? Other guns? Other tools? Sorry, but this lacks coherence, so it's hard to respond.

From Post #83

Suit yourself. Advocate violent overthrow of the Bush Administration. Yell fire in a crowded theater. Invoke Satan or the Spirits of the Wood in a Catholic church. Call me the N-word (I dare you). It's your right under the First Amendment to freely express yourself with any word, anywhere.
The term for this kind of hyperbole and theatrics is "trolling."

He didn't imply any such thing.

Rights conflict. Period.
That's a false assertion.

Your free and untethered right to free speech can endanger my health, safety and welfare. My life, liberty and property must therefore trump any of your rights under the Constitution, 7 days a week.
Arguing the strawman.

The right of the government to continue to exist, which I guarantee you it will fight for, also trumps your rights.
Now, you see, that's just WRONG. The government doesn't have rights. It has powers. And those are supposed to be limited.

Those restrictions apply to ANY right, including the RKBA; if your right, or the general right of individuals under the RKBA to own a particular weapon endangers me, my loved ones or my property, that weapon will be prohibited and removed from society.
Rights don't endanger. Mens rea endangers. Quit ascribing motive to inanimate objects. It's dishonest.

Also, if your right to keep and bear arms threatens the government or any of its agencies or agents, at any level, your weapons will be taken from you, and resistance will be met with deadly force.
Yeah, we know that. Nonetheless, that's precisely why we have the Second Amendment. To keep government in check. The fact of government's assuming unto itself unwarranted authority doesn't change that, rather it emphasizes the need.

That means if you can outshoot a SWAT team, you are a threat and will be dealt with accordingly. The government must defer to the people, but it must also exist; without government there is anarchy.
And government by force is tyranny.

Now, it's not "me" who has the problem with your right to have a military rifle.
Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding . . .

It's my neighbor, or his neighbor, or whoever else thinks a particular weapon poses a clear and present danger to life, [. . .] Antis say the problem goes away with an AWB. I disagree; I've seen enough suicide bombers to know that a guy who has nothing left to lose will find any way he can to take as many with him as possible. But you can't deny that if military rifles were banned and not grandfathered for civilians, the percentage of crimes committed with them would drop drastically. It's not the answer; the last AWB proved it, but boy is it attractive to someone who sees no need for them in daily life.
So, it's not you. It's your neighbor who's an idiot. Yet, here you stand, instead of educating your neighbor, you're arguing his case to us.

You have accepted and adopted the thinking processes of an enemy of liberty.

Therefore, to combat any threat to your RKBA, you must be able to convince my neighbor and his neighbor that a gun is no more or less than a gun; it acts according to the will of its handler. The handler, therefore, is criminal.
Or YOU could convince your neighbor.

"Guns don't kill people..." is true, but so cliche'd that it has a ready answer: "yeah, but the gun sure helps".
Thank you, Eddie Izzard.

The solution to the problem is however still to reduce occurrences of criminal activity with any weapon or no weapon. [. . .] IT DID NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT; somebody knew about it, somebody could have reported it, somebody could have stopped it.
Which has precisely nothing to do with the right to be armed.

For others its financial or a simple matter of survival; you cannot get what you want, or need, and so you steal it. [. . .] If any of this had been done, Omaha would not have happened in the first place. The kid would be in a mental hospital getting counseling, or in prison. Either way, he is no longer a danger to society.
See above.

ninjashoes
December 21, 2007, 04:32 AM
I agree most peopel are uncomfortable around guns but not in Texas.

ryan in maine
December 21, 2007, 04:44 AM
Robert Hairless: Look up in the sky on some clear spring day and you, like Dr. Joseph Stothert, might see the flocks of AK-47s winging their way through the air en route to their breeding grounds.

Epic.

ArfinGreebly
December 21, 2007, 04:55 AM
I was going to write something substantive, but I fear I am, sadly, too intelligent to get it right.

I am cursed with superior intellect, and have no hope of fielding a valid thesis on this subject.

I will therefore bow to the inferior intellect of Robert Hairless.

Would that I, myself, could match his inferiority.

Dude. I am not worthy.

mekender
December 21, 2007, 08:11 AM
- May 18, 1927: Andrew Kehoe killed 45 people and injured 58, most of them children, after he bombed the local school in Bath, Michigan.
- 1933 – 1945: Approximately 11 million Jews and others deemed “undesirable” were killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Most died in gas chambers while others were subject to Nazi experiments or died from various diseases.
- April 6, 1976 – December 12, 1978: John Wayne Gacy confesses to 33 murders of young men and boys in the Chicago, IL area that he choked with a rope or board while he sexually assaulted them.
- July 7, 1986: Juan Gonzalez attacked passengers on the Staten Island Ferry in New York City with a machete. Two were killed and nine were injured.
- March 20, 1995: Members of Aum Shinrikyo killed twelve, severely injured fifty, and caused temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand people after they unleashed Sarin gas in the Tokyo, Japan subway.
- April 19, 1995: The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK was destroyed by a bomb planted by Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh, resulting in 168 deaths and 800 injuries.
- July 27, 1996: Two people died and 111 were injured when a bomb was detonated in Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, GA by Eric Robert Rudolph.

- September 11, 2001 thousands of people die after multiple airplanes are hijacked by persons wielding box cutters... the planes are subsequently intentionally crashed into large buildings in the middle of high density population centers

also dont forget the unibomber attacks, and almost every serial killer, with 2 exceptions... the DC "sniper" (he wasnt a true sniper) and the son of sam... almost every other serial killer has use methods other than firearms

bluestarlizzard
December 21, 2007, 08:17 AM
by the by, Liko.
i may be an unintelligent, ignorant redneck, so forgive me for slowing you down.... but what exsactly IS your argument to KEEP your RKBA rights? i really want to know....

Deanimator
December 21, 2007, 08:28 AM
by the by, Liko.
i may be an unintelligent, ignorant redneck, so forgive me for slowing you down.... but what exsactly IS your argument to KEEP your RKBA rights? i really want to know....
Sounds like the ones they tried in Britain and Australia....

ArfinGreebly
December 21, 2007, 11:39 AM
So, following last night's hasty deconstruction . . .

It occurred to me that our new friend, Liko81, isn't so much proposing that we "give in" to the desires of those who want to take our guns, but rather lamenting that we have such poor arguments with which to persuade them.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

There was a lot of verbiage to sort through, so it's just possible that I missed the main thrust.

Given this assessment, and without using a (verbose) structure of "I support RKBA, but [opposing viewpoint] and [discussion & exposition] and therefore [reasons why we're doing it wrong]" I would be interested in seeing, as two completely separate (brief) statements of 1) what you personally believe is the scope and nature of the right to keep and bear arms -- not expressed as the views of a third party, and 2) what is the best approach to persuading those who would infringe upon this right to cease such infringement and instead support one of the original civil rights.

We're striving for clarity here, so the portmanteau approach to discussion will not serve this end.

Anyway.

Gotta head out to work.

Deanimator
December 21, 2007, 12:00 PM
It occurred to me that our new friend, Liko81, isn't so much proposing that we "give in" to the desires of those who want to take our guns, but rather lamenting that we have such poor arguments with which to persuade them.

Seems more to me that he wants us to argue on their terms, without hint of irony.

As I've said elsewhere, if you concede the terms of debate, you concede the debate itself...

Tommygunn
December 21, 2007, 12:21 PM
My life, liberty and property must therefore trump any of your rights under the Constitution, 7 days a week.

None of our rights conflict with those. You are setting up a false comparison. You don't "yell fire in a crowded theater" because the results would be dangerous to the people running to the exits in fear and trampling each other as they fell. Your life isn't endangered by anyone else's rights because there is no right to endanger you. The fact I may own a gun, be it a kentucky Longrifle or a machinegun doesn't endanger you. If I had either and aimed it at you I'd be endangering you; but my right to own said gun doesn't give me the right to aim it at you.

Rights conflict. Period.

No they do not. (Oh, and, uh, "period.") It's been said my "right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." Every individual owns rights. They are circumscribed only by the existential ends they're intended to protect. My right to own a firearm doesn't conflict with any of your rights. What I do with it, should I be a dishonest person, might conflict with your right to life or property, should it turn out I was a thief or murderer. But then, I don't need a gun to kill you or rob you, so that is really on me and not the inanimate object.


The right of the government to continue to exist, which I guarantee you it will fight for, also trumps your rights.
Oh, really?

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it."

I guess the Founding Fathers had other ideas .....
Although I do agree with one thing; the govt. will certainly fight to try to preserve its own continued existance. Things don't happen easily; even the British didn't surrender sovereignty over America without a fight.

Deanimator
December 21, 2007, 12:35 PM
You don't "yell fire in a crowded theater"
No, you don't "yell fire in a crowded theater" THAT'S NOT ON FIRE.

And even if you do create a false alarm, you're punished AFTER THE FACT. The Constitution looks unkindly on prior restraints.

So he's wrong on multiple levels... as though we didn't know that already.

Tommygunn
December 21, 2007, 12:39 PM
No, you don't "yell fire in a crowded theater" THAT'S NOT ON FIRE.

And even if you do create a false alarm, you're punished AFTER THE FACT. The Constitution looks unkindly on prior restraints.

... and I never said otherwise. In point of fact, most crimes I can think of are punished after the fact. If we could punish crimes that were going to happen tomorrow, we'd be living in a movie like "Minority Report."

30 cal slob
December 21, 2007, 12:41 PM
i guess not many of you have open carried a loaded EBR in Virginia.

yeah. in public.

:neener:

Liko81
December 21, 2007, 12:54 PM
That in and of itself is laudable. I disagree with their focus. Ban guns and criminals use knives. However, the opposite holds true as well; give everyone guns and criminals use bombs.

Patently absurd. Simple speculation.


Really? It happened in Israel; civilians started carrying weapons to protect against Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah gunmen, and so those groups started employing suicide bombers. If a guy wants to kill a bunch of people and doesn't care what happens afterward, a gun is only one tool. That was my point; neither disarming NOR arming everyone will solve the problem of mass-murdering gunmen; they will either be mass-murdering gunmen shooting fish in a barrel with an illegal weapon, or they will be mass-murdering suicide bombers. That is not speculation; it has happened and is happening.

FourTeeFive
December 21, 2007, 12:54 PM
Many of the comments left by the general public in response to the article are more disturbing than the article!

Deanimator
December 21, 2007, 01:06 PM
That was my point; neither disarming NOR arming everyone will solve the problem of mass-murdering gunmen;
Then what WILL provide a ***100%*** effective solution?

While you ponder THAT, what's likely to provide a higher percentage of success in the meantime, total helplessness or the means to defend oneself. Of course there are plenty of people who seem to prefer KNOWING they'll be MURDERED if nobody can fight back, to the nebulous POSSIBILITY of them being WOUNDED if somebody can...

Sage of Seattle
December 21, 2007, 01:45 PM
As I mentioned before I am a general/vascular/trauma surgeon.

Hey, Lone Gunman, how does it feel like to be vastly smarter than 99% of THR members? Oh, and please, if you could possibly do so, phrase your response with words that have as few syllables as possible, so the unintelligent members such as myself who are not trauma surgeons can understand.

:neener: (j/k)

Oh, and as for Liko81, I was going to do a point-by-point rebuttal, but I see that Arfin already did a superb job, as has Robert and the rest of you. I, like many others, read Liko81's posts carefully and (dare I say) intelligently giving the benefit of the doubt.

I do not believe that he will respond in ways other than those meant to obfuscate.

The interesting thing that I gleaned from his posts can be summed up as follows: "We have logic, history, and rationality on our side, but people in general are too stupid to understand so we're forced to argue from a purely emotional standpoint to sway as many people as possible to our way of thinking. You see, if we argue exactly like those who have NO history, logic, or rationality, then we can win! Yay us!"

As has already been pointed out -- umm.... no. I guess that the unintelligent members of society and THR tend to think that arguing from emotion is dishonest, intending only to convince based on how a thing is perceived and not what it really is.

My belief is that if one can take emotion OUT of certain events that happen in life, it makes it far, far easier to deal with.

grampster
December 21, 2007, 02:12 PM
"I do know that the AMA declared guns a public safety problem. The AMA is a bunch of doctors who don't know what they don't know, and don't care either. It's not unusual." (Robert Hairless, highlite mine)

Powerful truth there. A college professor of history I had back during the Jurassic Period once exclaimed that "Knowledge is when you know that you don't know." Wish more edumacated folks would have taken his class.

Liko81
December 21, 2007, 03:11 PM
Given this assessment, and without using a (verbose) structure of "I support RKBA, but [opposing viewpoint] and [discussion & exposition] and therefore [reasons why we're doing it wrong]" I would be interested in seeing, as two completely separate (brief) statements of 1) what you personally believe is the scope and nature of the right to keep and bear arms -- not expressed as the views of a third party, and 2) what is the best approach to persuading those who would infringe upon this right to cease such infringement and instead support one of the original civil rights.


K.

1.) The "existential ends" (scope and nature) of the RKBA are basically twofold; to provide for yourself (hunting) and to protect yourself and those around you (personal defense). I understand the presence of entertainment value, but the Founders did not give you the fundamental right to plink, or for that matter to collect. It is, though undoubtedly very positive, only a side effect of the RKBA which has the main purpose of providing for the common defense, and by so doing promoting the general welfare.

Therefore, you have the right, and I fully support that right, to own whatever gun you feel is necessary to accomplish those ends. If that is no gun because you rely on a monitored alarm and the police a block away, fine. If you feel you need military-derived rifles in strategic places around your home, fine. I however have the right by free speech to question the circumstances by which you feel you need those arms to the degree you have them for said existential ends, and why you chose arms in lieu of other devices that would also ensure security or provide for yourself.

Quite simply, you have the right to own arms, and I have the right to challenge your need based on my stated purpose of the RKBA to own your particular choice of arms. You can, in kind, challenge my stated purpose of the RKBA or accept it and defend your need under it; both are valid rebuttals and reasoned discourse can proceed from there. However, to do neither does not rebut the challenge, and in debate, if you cannot refute a challenge your position is weakened. If you can't explain WHY you need the gun, or explain WHY my interpretation of the RKBA is wrong, all you're doing is Constitution-thumping, arguing by repetition that you are right. I hear a lot of that on these boards, and it DOES NOT WORK.

2.) Complex question; let me first state what it is NOT; The best approach to persuade those who are against guns is likely not going to be made on a general level or in the general case. It is not going to be to "firmly stand your ground". I've used the analogy of a brick wall; a brick wall looks strong and impenetrable, but no wall is immovable and no wall is indestructible. Even one built to deflect damage from one angle is vulnerable from another angle.

A better defense, though counterintuitive, is analagous to a wall that is firm but yielding; it absorbs and redirects force directed against it, and returns to its original shape and place. A bowling ball of sufficient speed will smash through a brick wall with significant damage to both; a mattress will absorb and redirect that force, and remain largely unaffected as will the bowling ball.

How is this applied to arguments levied against guns? Concede, then refute and redirect, and by so doing you regain your original position and possibly even gain ground while the argument focuses elsewhere. Any one of these three, if done by itself, is damaging. Conceding alone is simply giving up ground. Refuting presents an assailable solid wall, and redirection makes you look like you want to ignore the issues. When someone shoots up a mall or school with an AK clone, immediately saying "Guns don't kill people" accomplishes exactly nothing. It presents a solid wall of verifiable, unassailable fact that any emotional argument to the contrary will tear apart in the eyes of the public. Immediately blaming the kid and only the kid, who is beyond retribution, accomplishes exactly nothing; it does not appease those who are rightly enraged at the act and does not contribute any possible solution; how are you going to prevent this from happening in future? Each kid who does it has paid the ultimate price before the DoJ got their hands on him, and justice after the fact is the only recourse of a truly free society. The nation's discussions on this topic are not a moderated debate where the rules of logical argument apply and are enforced. A fallacious argument sounds perfectly reasonable, and to refute it your argument must not only sound reasonable but must sound MORE reasonable than the fallacious one, and pointing out the fallacies is only part of it.

You first have to concede the logical point that a high-powered semi-automatic rifle is a very powerful, very deadly weapon and its use by those who are ignorant or uncaring of the consequences has obviously tragic consequences. To concede that fact does not harm your position; to ignore, discount or refute it on the other hand is damaging to your credibility and the strength of your argument. THEN, you state your argument that the gun itself is not the problem. You are still going to meet resistance; you must, although they are both logical fallacies, appeal to the masses and to emotion, because the Brady Bunch is highly adept at doing same. A logically unassailable argument ("a gun with nobody at the trigger will never kill anyone"), made with what is perceived to be an uncaring tone will, in the public forum, simply be ignored in favor of one that appeases the anger and hurt felt by the public. That's the position the Brady Bunch has you; they coddle and appease, and thus appear to be "in tune" with the public, as opposed to the gun lobby, who bleats the party line and, it often seems, refuses to acknowledge public sentiment that people have been murdered by a man with a gun, and the public doesn't want it to happen again. Any such acknowledgement usually comes across as a one-sentence or one-clause preface to an argument that then begins with "but".

How do you appeal to emotion and the masses? Redirect. It's the kid's fault, and the kid, if he hadn't offed himself, should have been responsible for the consequences, but a kid driven to do something this horrific is NOT in his right mind, would NOT have done it under different circumstances, and DID NOT decide to do this all of a sudden on the morning of the shootings. THAT's where you direct focus; why did he do this, and how was he not noticed and stopped before he did? Yes, that's going to give him more media attention, but to ignore the killer is to ignore the real problem. It's dismissive simply to call him insane (we aren't all criminally insane; something drove him to it), and naive to think that fame is all that drives people like him. It is also dismissive to say that the particular gun he had did not in some way contribute to the fear and therefore the damage, however intangible, he was able to cause. This was an act of terrorism, and it succeeded admirably; people want to be safe, and will entertain any and all options that appear to ensure it. You therefore have to give them that.

Longer than I wanted it to be, but the main points (I hope) are obvious so Arfin can skim it without getting the wrong idea. I support RKBA, and I oppose restrictions that prevent me the gun owner from buying, keeping and using the firearms I feel are necessary to protect myself and, if it were necessary in my case, to hunt for my food. The weapons I feel are necessary are less... "controversial" than the weapons at issue here ("assault weapons"), and frankly if assault weapons went away the only effect to me personally is that handguns would become the front line, a line I will defend ferociously. For others here military-design rifles are a line that, if crossed, DOES affect them personally, and if you give me a logical argument that will appeal to the masses I will throw whatever weight I have behind it. I can defend my choices; that should be the only test for me and indeed for anyone to own X firearm, but "because I can" is NOT a valid reason for owning a firearm of any kind, and the Second Amendment, by its stated text, did NOT have that intention. You MUST have a better argument than that, that makes the Second Amendment applicable in the eyes of the public the same as it was 200 years ago, and not just BECAUSE it was applicable 200 years ago, that defends your right to X firearm, or indeed to X number of firearms. That will be difficult, but it must be done.

Deanimator
December 21, 2007, 03:17 PM
I understand the presence of entertainment value, but the Founders did not give you the fundamental right to plink, or for that matter to collect.
The Founders GAVE us NO rights. They RECOGNIZED and EXPOUNDED UPON certain rights, one of which was the right to OWN PROPERTY.

Have you begun to notice by now that every time you say something, contained within it is its own refutation?

To own the terms of debate is to own the tactical highground.

How are things down there in Dien Bien Phu?

Sage of Seattle
December 21, 2007, 03:55 PM
Hold up, guys.

The more I think about what Liko81 is saying, the more uncomfortable I feel. And I guess because I'm feeling uncomfortable, that's a good thing, because that source of discomfort means that maybe my stance on the RKBA isn't really strong. If I really thought the 2nd was unassailable, then I would have no doubts, right?

I dunno. What he's saying is really starting to make sense and that's kinda scaring me a little. Maybe I've ignored what the fundamental issues are in favor of "cold, hard fact" and not understanding that we're dealing with other human beings here. We all have feelings, right? Those feelings need protecting just as much as our physical bodies do, at least, that's how I see it. All of our "inalienable rights" have limits on them, so we can all live in as much peace and harmony as possible.

So, therefore, to be sure that I can remain true to myself and what I feel and also protect myself from possible harm, I think we need to ban Liko81.

It's for the children.




[/sarcasm]

ArfinGreebly
December 21, 2007, 04:24 PM
That in and of itself is laudable. I disagree with their focus. Ban guns and criminals use knives. However, the opposite holds true as well; give everyone guns and criminals use bombs.

Patently absurd. Simple speculation.


Really? It happened in Israel; civilians started carrying weapons to protect against Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah gunmen, and so those groups started employing suicide bombers. If a guy wants to kill a bunch of people and doesn't care what happens afterward, a gun is only one tool. That was my point; neither disarming NOR arming everyone will solve the problem of mass-murdering gunmen; they will either be mass-murdering gunmen shooting fish in a barrel with an illegal weapon, or they will be mass-murdering suicide bombers. That is not speculation; it has happened and is happening.
Y'all seem to be confused about the meaning of "criminals" in the above.

People participating in asymetrical warfare (declared or not) are not "criminals" in any conventional use of the word. They are soldiers. The siege of London by V2 bombs and Henkel overflights was not "criminals using bombs." Dresden was not rival gangs with explosives. And the IRA's "indiscriminate" bombing of targets in the UK was not random bad guys blowing stuff up. All of these acts were organized behind a cause.

Your example of suicide bombers is really beyond the scope of this discussion. Really, it would get a better treatment if addressed separately.

I will say this though: suicide bombing only works against an enemy that's willing to sit still and allow itself to be bombed, i.e. a "civilized" enemy. I'm pretty sure that would have been a dead-end approach had it been tried in Stalin's Russia or if someone were to give it a fling in China. When the default response to crap like that is extermination, it fails as a strategy.

ArfinGreebly
December 21, 2007, 04:37 PM
Quite simply, you have the right to own arms, and I have the right to challenge your need based on my stated purpose of the RKBA to own your particular choice of arms. You can, in kind, challenge my stated purpose of the RKBA or accept it and defend your need under it; both are valid rebuttals and reasoned discourse can proceed from there. However, to do neither does not rebut the challenge, and in debate, if you cannot refute a challenge your position is weakened. If you can't explain WHY you need the gun, or explain WHY my interpretation of the RKBA is wrong, all you're doing is Constitution-thumping, arguing by repetition that you are right. I hear a lot of that on these boards, and it DOES NOT WORK.
Ya got a thought framing error there, fella.

It's not the Bill Of Needs, it's the Bill Of Rights.

A right doesn't require justification.

Why do you need to question my right? If you can't justify your need to "freely speak" about my rights, then you should, as the saying goes, STFU. You see, it doesn't commute.

This is the same kind of rationale that fuels reasoning like, "if you have nothing to hide, why won't you let us search your house?" Also see, "if you aren't guilty, why are you refusing to talk?" And later, "hey, your patriotism is pretty suspect if you won't quarter these troops at your home."

I don't -- and mustn't -- question your need to read porn. Neither will I question Hustler's need to publish it.

And I see no merit at all in trying to justify my "need" for arms. If the need isn't evident to you, that is truly your problem, and not mine.

My exercise of my rights is not predicated on your perception of my needs.

That would be socialism.

Sorry, I don't do socialism.

ROMAK IV
December 21, 2007, 05:35 PM
Liko, I think I see what you are trying to prove, but you aren't even on the same wavelength. I have no problem, from a personal level, with you being a liberal, but like most liberals, you ignored the points made by the previous posters, and ignore points that have been made since. I am sorry you feel hostility towards "neo-cons, but as a certifiable, religious right wing zealot, I can tell you that the Bush administration IS NOT, extreme right wing.

As liberals go, most, not all are anti-gun. If you are not, then that is a good thing, not a bad thing. If our arguments aren't going to sway certain people, so what? Are we to compromise the truth in exchange for popularity? The meaning of the 2nd Amendment wasn't really questioned, until early in the 20th Century, so why am I supposed to give ground to untruthful statements? Yes, guns kill! So what? There are people that can never be convinced, so why even bother with them? I try to educate those truely ignorant of the subject who believe everything they are told on the News with the exception of Fox. Gun Control, if it is really so popular, is popular out of ignorance and a 40+ year disinformation campaign. Gun Owners are demonized as if they are mass murderers themselves or at best stupid klutzes that sell guns to criminals and give guns to children. Former Clinton Administration officials will trash the Bush Aministration for Not talking to Iran, yet brag about CLinton "standing up to the NRA", like it is worse then the Iranians. The Brady Camaign will rant on about gun safety and training for the purpose of banning guns. Facts are facts. The so-called "assault rifles", that is, the semiautomatic ones that are claimed to be so dangerous are STILL seldom used in crimes, irregardless of the aledged "easy availability" and glorification of these types of firearms. In fact, if there is a news report about a certain crime, it will, more often than not, be blamed on an "assault weapon" or AK-47 no matter what the actual weapon was.

So, like I already pointed out, the Doctor's comments are untruthful for the purpose of promoting the antigun agenda. They imply a certain conclusion NOT based on the facts. That, my friend, is propoganda. While it isn't illegal to tell a lie to the news media and for them to print it, It is unethical and does harm to the country. In my world, the doctor would be counseled by the hospital regarding political comments of any kind. And the newroom would be repremanded for presenting such a one-sided article. But we know that won't happen, since they don't tend to provide an open forum for comments. We do here, that is why you are being tolerated.

Liberals also tend to have, like I already said, a problem with Moral relativity. I cna tell you most assuredly, that the American public in general, does not, and that is why it is so necessary for the reporting of these incidents to be one-sided. Who would normally have sympathy for a mass-murderer? The UnaBomber wasn't executed. He lived! When these scumbage that commit crimes like this kill themselves at the end of their crime, they do the society a favor. I can just see the damage that would have been done to this society, if the Omaha shooter had surrendered. Some big lawyer would have taken the case for free, in order to promote his own carreer, and it would have ended up that He was the victim, not the people he shot. And liberals and the Doctor have the nerve to compare me defending my home with a cold blooded killer? Outrageous! And to the people that would believe them, you are really stupid.

And furthermore, there isn't really that much choice in the matter. If you are a male, and are "drafted" as part of a legal military call-up of the "militia", you DON't have a choice to refuse. In the same light, the federal government doesn't "have a choice" not to follow the 2nd Amendment. It is nobody's business, especially the federal government's what type of gun I buy. The machine gun ban that began in 1934 and was instituted in 1986, is unconstitutional. We have people, that believe the Supreme Court has the final say in the Constitution. It doesn't. Many of those people believe that out of ignorance, or they believe that because the Supreme Court has acted in a way that they agree.

ROMAK IV
December 21, 2007, 05:39 PM
And to add, if the government can limit the caliber, capacity, ect. of your firearms, the 2nd Amendment is useless. And if only one side is allowed to voice their opinion, the First Amendment, at least the "free speech" part, is meaningless. After all, the Soviet Union had free speech as long as you didn't criticize the government. In the US, free speech has made a rebound BECAUSE of the Internet, and talk radio.

AndyC
December 21, 2007, 06:00 PM
Liko, I think the best paper yet written on countering anti-gun sentiment is this - Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality (http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm)

bluestarlizzard
December 21, 2007, 06:20 PM
liko, i hate to burst your bubble but a valid reson for owning "assault rifles" is "i want one" being that i have a right to PERSONAL PROPERTY.
i won't even get it to your whole use of that nonsense term 'assault rifle'.
your right, arming folks may make lunatics resort to diffrent methods of mass murder. However the united states is not the same as Israel. point of fact, our continent has not been in a constant state of warfare since the middle ages, like the middle east.

Liko81
December 21, 2007, 07:01 PM
I won't even get it to your whole use of that nonsense term 'assult rifle'

You'll notice that's the first time I'd used it in several posts; I agree, it's misleading. I used "military-design rifles" quite a bit in earlier posts but it sounded too much like a euphemism, and it's also too specific. The antis want to ban "assault weapons". Whatever "assault weapons" are, they are the weapons at stake, and the Brady Bunch have a definition of that term whether you think the term is undefineable or not.

Liko, I think the best paper yet written on countering anti-gun sentiment is this - Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

Very good read. It has some of the points I was trying to make; the culture of victimhood leading to groups who nurture that culture for their own ends, the fact that simply repeating pro-gun rhetoric in the face of anti-gun sentiment isn't going to convince anybody, and in fact just the opposite, and the fact that changing the antis' minds is not going to be done by general discourse. I'll have to remember the more specific tips she gave; that's good stuff.

How are things down there in Dien Bien Phu?

Translated: I'm a liberal hippie socialist. Or worse, communist. Textbook ad hominem argument, stereotypical gun nut statement. Very constructive, and very conducive towards getting me to listen to what you have to say or to pay any attention to you at all. [/sarcasm] Did you READ the part in previous posts where I said I argued against ignorance, and that I didn't care for the arguments of gun rights advocates in part because they generally included insult and general slights on my status as a "true" American? Read that above article AndyC posted the link to; I think you'll find something in it where it says if you are rude, arrogant, or belittling, all you do is prove the antis' point. I don't care if you're trying to change anyone's mind, and if you're not you're doing well, because your dismissive, insulting tone serves only to make your opposition dig in their heels. Why on earth would they want to agree with someone who treats people like you do?

bluestarlizzard
December 21, 2007, 07:13 PM
deleted

ArfinGreebly
December 21, 2007, 07:26 PM
so on our 'home ground' we can't insult the people who think we are all wacked out, murdering [ psychopaths ] ? we can't vent because we get treated like second class citizens out in the daily world soley because we choose to own a gun?
Well, no, actually, we don't insult people here.

We don't do ad hominem attacks. That's for undisciplined emo-boards.

We argue the merits. Emotions are, when turned loose in argumentation, a kind of effluent that we try to avoid here.

[ I ] bet everyone on this board has [ received ] major insults based on our intrest in firearms. Liko81, not only are we fighting for our rights, we are [ demeaned ] by those same people who you are [ defining ].
And this would be true, but . . .

so if we feel like blowing off a little steam by insulting them on OUR message board before going off in to the real world where we work like hell to get them to JUST [ listen ] to what we have to say for FIVE minutes, i think thats our [ perogative ].
Well, no, not really. This isn't "our" message board so much as it is Oleg's board, and Oleg gets to make the rules. One of his rules is that we don't insult.

If you're gonna "blow off steam" you need to keep it clean and keep the gloves up.

Just a friendly reminder.

bluestarlizzard
December 21, 2007, 07:33 PM
arfingreebly,
i never insulted. i just defended the person who made the snid remark. i apoligies for geting overly hyped up. i can see why they typed that. i really can.

Cosmoline
December 21, 2007, 07:39 PM
you have the right to own arms, and I have the right to challenge your need based on my stated purpose of the RKBA to own your particular choice of arms.

If I have a RIGHT to own arms, then the question of NEED becomes a matter of personal choice. If I must justify my NEED to the state, then I don't really have a RIGHT at all but a mere PRIVILEGE.

If you can't explain WHY you need the gun, or explain WHY my interpretation of the RKBA is wrong, all you're doing is Constitution-thumping, arguing by repetition that you are right.

If there is a right to keep and bear arms, then there is no requirement to explain why I need to keep and bear them.

Now if all you're doing is questioning whether X firearm is the proper choice for Y person in Z circumstance, that's fine. But the legal forum is not the place for such debate. Nor was Herr Doktor in this example merely making a tactical argument.

You first have to concede the logical point that a high-powered semi-automatic rifle is a very powerful, very deadly weapon and its use by those who are ignorant or uncaring of the consequences has obviously tragic consequences.

Nobody is claiming that the weapon in this case is anything but a deadly weapon. What we are pointing out is that if the meager 7.62x39 is too potent a round for civilian consumption, then every hunting rifle in the nation should be made illegal as well. We are disputing emotional claptrap with facts. I see nothing wrong with that. It's just this sort of argument that won me over from my old position as an anti.

I think we are at our worst when we appeal to emotions on our own side. This is seen in broad proclamations about how we're planning to shoot the JBT's and so on. The facts are on our side. Logic is on our side. These are the tools we must use. There will always be a core on the other side that refuses to comprehend and gets violently upset when we raise factual arguments, but this is all the more reason to keep hammering them home over and over and over again.

I do agree that we should not base our arguments on how firearms will prevent crime. Nor should we rely on statistics. Crime has so many causes and these causes vary so much from region to region and town to town that trying to figure out exactly what role the gun laws play is nearly impossible. There are places where literally every single household has multiple high-powered firearms that haven't had a murder in decades. There are other places with widespread gun ownership that have gangs shooting at each other. And there are places with draconian gun laws that have gangs shooting at each other. THe RKBA does not require policy arguments to support. It is about an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Even if it can be proven that liberal gun laws = more crime, it would not matter. The state has no right to seize my iron unless I do something to justify such seizure as a specific criminal sanction, and they convict me of it.

For example, I have little doubt that a government edict prohibiting anyone from speaking to anyone else on the street or in bars, would reduce the number of violent altercations and make the streets "safer." But it would also be a clear infringement on the First Amendment rights to assembly and expression.

Liko81
December 21, 2007, 07:51 PM
so on our 'home ground' we can't insult the people who think we are all wacked out, murdering psycho paths? we can't vent because we get treated like second class citizens out in the daily world soley because we choose to own a gun? i bet everyone on this board has reseaved major insults based on our intrest in firearms. Liko81, not only are we fighting for our rights, we are demeaneded by those same people who you are definding. so if we feel like blowing off a little steam by insulting them on OUR message board before going off in to the real world where we work like hell to get them to JUST listin to what we have to say for FIVE minutes, i think thats our perogitive.

Sure, but consider this; I came on to this message board a new gun owner looking to get information about shooting, defense tactics. What I got on a regular basis was the same anti-liberal **** that I as a Texas Democrat have had to live with for the last 20 years. You think you've been dumped on, try saying you think it's time for the Repubs to get out and let someone else clean up the mess they've made of our foreign and domestic policy, not to mention the U.S. budget. Repubs dump on Dems for high spending and big government, yet it's Republicans who give us the Patriot Act, the DHS, and if you go back a bit further the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities. Repubs say the RKBA is fine with them, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendments don't apply; neither do the Hague or Geneva Conventions.

I am a gun owner; I have also been pushed more towards the antis' camp by what I have seen here than I've ever been. THESE are the people who own guns? They're exactly the kind of puffed-up, deaf, arrogant, rude, and hateful people the Brady Bunch say they are! They're not trying to raise gun awareness; like any other fringe group they simply want to hate anyone who thinks differently. These are not the people whom I want possessing guns anywhere near me. This may be your "home turf", but here's a stunner: it's the Internet. Nothing's private here. You think I found you guys because someone gave me the speakeasy's password? The Bradys can take every last insult, and hateful comment and plaster it front and center on THEIR website, painting anyone who said anything that could be taken out of context as radical, treasonous, fascist, racist, sexist, and otherwise biased in favor of the evil RKBA. Every word you say here that you wouldn't say in public can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. I seriously don't want to be identified with people this rude, arrogant, and hateful. I as a gun owner know plenty of people who own guns and yet respect the views of those who do not like them, and those are the people I want to congregate with. Oh don't think I'll just disappear; it's your prerogative to take an ad hominem stab at someone speaking against guns, and it's my prerogative to call you out each and every time you do it. You think you've seen a troll? You've seen nothing. And if you ban me, all it does is prove my point; this forum simply exists to hate, not to listen to anything other than your own noise.

Cosmoline
December 21, 2007, 08:00 PM
These arguments are quite simply not working.

And I wanted to address this claim as well. Can you back it up? We've had a number of very high-profile mass shootings in the past few years, indeed all the way back to Columbine. Where is the new federal anti-gun law? If our arguments have been failing all these years, how is it we've experienced a true revolution in the right to carry movement, overturning a century of established law in most states in the nation? How is it we're turning the tide on the once universally-accepted doctrine that the Second Amendment only protects a state's right to arm its militias?

I think we're winning.

BRASSM
December 21, 2007, 08:02 PM
:banghead:Forget the facts, his mind is already made up.
You can't confuse the really determined stupid with the truth.:banghead:
I doubt that there is anyone on THR that doesn't know the ballistics of the 7.62 x 39 vs 5.56 x 45, we all know the facts, we aren't dealing on emotion. As an engineer that's how I make my decisions. Did you ever wonder how the competition thinks [or doesn't].

bluestarlizzard
December 21, 2007, 08:18 PM
"You think you've been dumped on, try saying you think it's time for the Repubs to get out and let someone else clean up the mess they've made of our foreign and domestic policy, not to mention the U.S. budget. Repubs dump on Dems for high spending and big government, yet it's Republicans who give us the Patriot Act, the DHS, and if you go back a bit further the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities. Repubs say the RKBA is fine with them, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendments don't apply; neither do the Hague or Geneva Conventions."

where did this happen on THR? did someone slam liko for not liking the republican party?
liko, i don't like the republican party either, i also don't like the democrates. one wants to take away my right to choice and the other wants to take away my enforcement of my right to choice. i belive (i know i've seen someones signature) that their are many on this board that have different overall political beliefs. in fact i'm pretty sure that the only real commen denomiater is the fact that we all (well, most of us) support and belive in our second amendment rights.

Sage of Seattle
December 21, 2007, 08:22 PM
I am a gun owner; I have also been pushed more towards the antis' camp by what I have seen here than I've ever been.

Then by all means, give up your guns.

You don't seem to realize the irony in you coming to a board, any board, whose members hold logic and rationality over emotion and irrationality and arguing to those members that they should abandon reason in favor of emotion when presenting thier "side" in firearms debate while using NO logic or reason of your own.

You must not have lurked over here on THR for very long if you think that the members here have treated you with nearly the same level of invective and hyperbole that the "anti" crowd has done, time and time again, much of which has been pointed out in this very thread. That doctor heavily implied that by the mere fact of you being a gun owner, for example, you are either a criminal or will become one eventually. Where is your anger and sense of injustice when that is said about you?

Oh, wait. Of course. That doctor is not really talking about you, right? Just the rest of America's gunowners that you merrily paint after you pick up that broad brush the doctor is slinging ignorantly around.

You want to argue emotion? Why don't you respond to what I said upthread then? I went right down to the level of emotion, just like you wanted. I decided that, all logic aside, you were a threat to my way of thinking. Of course, I doubt very much you see how much people rely on logic and reason and how little emotion has to do with effecting decent public policy.

I for one, really don't wish you to be banned. I merely said that to make a point which is most likely lost on you, but I know others picked up on it and that's good enough for me.

Also, this

Every word you say here that you wouldn't say in public can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

doesn't make any sense to me. Whatever gave you the idea that THR is private?

I as a gun owner know plenty of people who own guns and yet respect the views of those who do not like them

Do you share those views as well, and should we respect them?


Oh don't think I'll just disappear; it's your prerogative to take an ad hominem stab at someone speaking against guns, and it's my prerogative to call you out each and every time you do it.

Feel free to do so. I won't mind and I'm sure others here won't mind as well. You will be called on your illogic and rhetoric too, in turn, if I feel like it.


You think you've seen a troll? You've seen nothing.

So you admit that you're trolling?

siglite
December 21, 2007, 08:37 PM
I am a gun owner; I have also been pushed more towards the antis' camp by what I have seen here than I've ever been.

I don't think anyone's pushing you anywhere. I think you're sitting right next to the campfire over there in the Brady drum circle. Of course, from my point of view, your threat to go join the anti camp elicits a "good riddance" response. We have enough enemies of freedom as it is. We can live without them as "the enemy within."

THESE are the people who own guns? They're exactly the kind of puffed-up, deaf, arrogant, rude, and hateful people the Brady Bunch say they are!

Pretty virulent insults you're slinging there. The thing is, I've seen no such arrogance or rudeness directed at you. I think you mistake poking holes in your twisted logic for personal attacks. It's not our fault that your arguments are weak and easily torn to pieces by the forum members here, who, clearly are so intellectually inferior.


They're not trying to raise gun awareness; like any other fringe group they simply want to hate anyone who thinks differently.


What shadows of boogeymen are you seeing? I've seen nothing in this thread that indicates hatred by anyone. What I have seen is your arguments torn to shreds. Repeatedly. How does your inability to present logical arguments which can stand up to logical scrutiny equate to "fringe hatred?"

These are not the people whom I want possessing guns anywhere near me.


It is my suspicion, that you don't want anyone possessing guns anywhere. Perhaps only trauma surgeons are intellectually qualified? Is it ok if they own guns near you?

This may be your "home turf", but here's a stunner: it's the Internet. Nothing's private here. You think I found you guys because someone gave me the speakeasy's password? The Bradys can take every last insult, and hateful comment...

The only insults and hateful comments I've seen thus far have come from you, and are quoted above.

and plaster it front and center on THEIR website, painting anyone who said anything that could be taken out of context as radical, treasonous, fascist, racist, sexist, and otherwise biased in favor of the evil RKBA.

Now who's painting with a narrow minded brush? What treason, fascism, racism and sexism have you found in this thread? Are your biases perhaps bleeding through? Once your position and arguments have been soundly trounced by any member here willing to take the trollbait, are insults like this all you have left?


Every word you say here that you wouldn't say in public can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.


Rest assured I would say anything I've said in this thread on a soapbox in downtown DC, my state capitol, at my place of employment, at my church, or any other public place.

I seriously don't want to be identified with people this rude, arrogant, and hateful.


I think you have your parties mungled. You just called US narrow minded, treasonous, racist, fascist. Along with "rude, arrogant and hateful." Yet, I see absolutely no basis in fact for any of these false charges. Who should be disassociating themselves with whom here?

I as a gun owner know plenty of people who own guns and yet respect the views of those who do not like them, and those are the people I want to congregate with.


You'll find these people here: http://www.bradycampaign.org. I think you'll find like-minded folks there.


Oh don't think I'll just disappear; it's your prerogative to take an ad hominem stab at someone speaking against guns, and it's my prerogative to call you out each and every time you do it.


Ah.... have to love the first amendment. Gee, what protects your prerogative?


You think you've seen a troll? You've seen nothing. And if you ban me, all it does is prove my point; this forum simply exists to hate, not to listen to anything other than your own noise.

That sounds sort of like a threat. Why would you threaten us? Has someone threatened you?

Deanimator
December 21, 2007, 08:44 PM
Translated: I'm a liberal hippie socialist. Or worse, communist.
*I* am a liberal, and none of that disengenuous "classical liberal" nonsense either. I'm for civil liberties, civil rights, affirmative action where NEEDED, etc. I don't care if two guys or two girls get married. I think that labor unions USED to be important before they became so thoroughly corrupt.

You on the other hand sound like an authoritarian, with all of this talk of "needs" and unseemly eagerness to adopt the verbiage of those who don't believe in rights, merely privileges.

And as far as Dien Bien Phu goes, that's just another reference that went over your head like an SR71. It was the FRENCH who were "down there" in Dien Bien Phu. The Vietminh took the high ground, held it and won decisively. Given the choice, you would pick for gun owners the role of the French, the role of immobile TARGET. Doesn't seem like anybody's buying THAT...

XavierBreath
December 21, 2007, 09:48 PM
What Dr. Joseph Stothert said was not a boundary violation. It's as if our members have learned a buzz word and are applying it to anything a physician says that they do not agree with, without understanding the concept of a boundary violation. What Dr. Joseph Stothert did was not a boundary violation. In fact, his statements do not appear to be a HIPPA violation either.

I agree that many people speak authoratively about subjects they hold a rocky knowledge of, and in so doing, their lack of knowledge is displayed for all to see in their flawed arguments. Dr. Joseph Stothert's argument is flawed because he is unknowledgeable regarding firearms. His argument looks ignorant and silly to those of us here. If we present counter-arguments using boundary violations and HIPPA violations as our premise, then we had better understand boundary violations and HIPPA. If our premise is false, so is our argument, and it appears to be just as silly, ignorant, reactionary and ineffectual as Dr. Stothert's argument.

I'm attaching a photo of an expanded Black Talon bullet. Let's take a look at it.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=69550&d=1198288698 http://thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=69551&stc=1&d=1198288840

You will note that jacket does have some very sharp protusions. Surgeons and scrubs do probe gunshot wound channels with fingers protected only by a couple of Bio-Gel gloves. There is always the risk of being lacerated. In reality though, the laceration risk is present with any bullet, including round nose lead. Lacerations can occur with glass, metal shards, bone fragments, or any other hard and pointy object in the body. Black Talon bullets do not have a monopoly on this on the job hazard, and the removal of the Black Talon from the marketplace did not remove the danger from blind probing of wound channels.

I have never read or heard of any documented case of medical or emergency personnel being "stuck" by a Black Talon bullet. If there is a documented case, I would like it to be presented here.

Not all physicians are anti-gun or swayed by the politics of their professional organizations. Let's not condemn all physicians and other health care professionals here.

Visit Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws (http://www.dsgl.org/default.htm) to learn more. Don't be put off by the name of the group, read the mission statement (http://www.dsgl.org/mission.htm) and a few of the searing letters they have written in opposition to the gun lobby's take-over of the AMA, the APA and the AAP. If you are a physician, nurse or other health care professional, consider joining DSGL (http://www.dsgl.org/joinus.htm), and helping to fight the opposition among us in health care.

A Certified Public Accountant I know has stated that all doctors are charlatans, registered nurses are merely their lackeys, and that the entire medical profession is incompetent. This is quite a statement. I assume the CPA is uniquely qualified to judge the professional competence of all health care professionals. His statements say more about him than anything else. If you believe him, your trust in his opinion is misguided and says quite a bit about yourself.

Now don't go claiming old Xavier is anti-gun and anti-RKBA. I think my record on gun issues pretty much speaks for itself. I think the care and service I provide for my patients speaks for my professional competence. I may make a mistake balancing my checkbook from time to time, but I would like to see a CPA assist with a total hip or knee before he calls me a charlatan surgeon's lackey.

benEzra
December 21, 2007, 09:50 PM
Sure, but consider this; I came on to this message board a new gun owner looking to get information about shooting, defense tactics. What I got on a regular basis was the same anti-liberal **** that I as a Texas Democrat have had to live with for the last 20 years. You think you've been dumped on, try saying you think it's time for the Repubs to get out and let someone else clean up the mess they've made of our foreign and domestic policy, not to mention the U.S. budget. Repubs dump on Dems for high spending and big government, yet it's Republicans who give us the Patriot Act, the DHS, and if you go back a bit further the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities. Repubs say the RKBA is fine with them, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendments don't apply; neither do the Hague or Geneva Conventions.
Liko81, you misread a lot of us if you think we're repubs. I'm a center-left independent and a longtime member of Democratic Underground. I agree with you on the abuses of the current administration.

Having said that, I think you overestimate the power of the "assault weapon" meme. The way to successfully fight that bait-and-switch is to shed light on it, not to capitulate and treat the most popular civilian rifles in America as something worthy of shame, or their owners (who outnumber hunters, if I run the numbers correctly) as worthy of second-class status.

Here's how to address the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch:

(1) most gun owners aren't hunters;
(2) actual "AK-47's and Uzi's" are tightly controlled by existing law, and have nothing to do with bans on "assault weapons";
(3) civilian rifles aren't a crime problem at all (all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides annually, per the FBI;
(4) modern-looking small-caliber rifles are much more popular than the Bradyites would have you believe;
(5) threatening to ban people's guns is a really, really dumb idea politically; and
(6) banning rifle handgrips that stick out is really not as important as the REAL issues facing the country.

I have over 5600 posts on DU, and I think I can say that you are being harder on "assault weapon" owners than most DU'ers would be. Check out the following thread (not so much my initial post, but the downthread discussion):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x97165

(No trolls, please; repubs/conservatives feel free to read, but please don't post, as DU is a private site, not an open forum.) I think you overestimate the power of the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch. The worst thing you can do is to not challenge it, IMHO.

BTW, one more thing...

http://i10.tinypic.com/6gxnsk7.jpg

The outlook for gun owners is not nearly as hopeless as the Bradyites and CNN would like you to believe...

siglite
December 21, 2007, 10:55 PM
While on the subject of people talking outside their areas of expertise...

In fact, his statements do not appear to be a HIPPA violation either.

I agree that many people speak authoratively about subjects they hold a rocky knowledge of, and in so doing, their lack of knowledge is displayed for all to see in their flawed arguments. Dr. Joseph Stothert's argument is flawed because he is unknowledgeable regarding firearms. His argument looks ignorant and silly to those of us here. If we present counter-arguments using boundary violations and HIPPA violations as our premise, then we had better understand boundary violations and HIPPA.

The first time I read "HIPPA" I thought, "eh, I'll give him that one as a typo." But the following two times indicated that you don't really know much about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

So it seems we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

XavierBreath
December 21, 2007, 10:56 PM
I am a gun owner; I'm glad that you are a gun owner. take a non-gun owner out shooting and introduce them to gun ownership.

I have also been pushed more towards the antis' camp by what I have seen here than I've ever been. THESE are the people who own guns? They're exactly the kind of puffed-up, deaf, arrogant, rude, and hateful people the Brady Bunch say they are! They're not trying to raise gun awareness; like any other fringe group they simply want to hate anyone who thinks differently. These are not the people whom I want possessing guns anywhere near me. I'm sorry your experience at The High Road has been unpleasant and unproductive. Often we benefit more from what we read than from what we write. When we place our beliefs up front for consideration, we must be prepared for them to be considered and rejected. Opposition to constitutional rights based on whether a person disagrees with your opinions is well.......Problematical in the United States.

This may be your "home turf", but here's a stunner: it's the Internet. Nothing's private here. You think I found you guys because someone gave me the speakeasy's password? The Bradys can take every last insult, and hateful comment and plaster it front and center on THEIR website, painting anyone who said anything that could be taken out of context as radical, treasonous, fascist, racist, sexist, and otherwise biased in favor of the evil RKBA. Every word you say here that you wouldn't say in public can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. Not necessarily. A well formed argument is irrefutable. Not all arguments here are well formed, but the Bill of Rights is. The anti-gun lobby has ample supply of misinformation, smoke and mirrors and financial support. I suppose they could cherry pick through a thread like this for a few random examples, but they could do that almost anywhere.

I seriously don't want to be identified with people this rude, arrogant, and hateful. I as a gun owner know plenty of people who own guns and yet respect the views of those who do not like them, and those are the people I want to congregate with. Oh don't think I'll just disappear; it's your prerogative to take an ad hominem stab at someone speaking against guns, and it's my prerogative to call you out each and every time you do it. You think you've seen a troll? You've seen nothing. And if you ban me, all it does is prove my point; this forum simply exists to hate, not to listen to anything other than your own noise.There is an easy solution if you don't want to be identified with The High Road. Leave.

I'm reminded of a quote from Quine and Ullian in their book, The Web of Belief:
“The desire to be right and the desire to have been right are two desires, and the sooner we separate them the better off we are. The desire to be right is the thirst for truth. On all counts, both practical and theoretical, there is nothing but good to be said for it. The desire to have been right, on the other hand, is the pride that goeth before a fall. It stands in the way of our seeing we were wrong, and thus blocks the progress of our knowledge. Incidentally it plays hob with our credibility rating.”

Siglite,
I may have gotten the acronym wrong, but since you challenged me on it, please provide an example of where Dr. Stothert violated HIPAA. I assure you, while I may have misspelled the acronym, I fully understand the concept of a patient's right to privacy. I am not a policy loving bureaucrat. I am a practitioner. I really do not care what HIPAA stands for, I care about what the act says, and my responsibility as a professional to abide by it in practice and in spirit. Call this a case of the pot calling a kettle black if you like, but in so doing, you are simply participating in yet another cheap ad hominem attack on this thread.

siglite
December 21, 2007, 11:35 PM
While the HIPAA privacy rule is not my specialty, I think it's certainly questionable if Dr. Stothert violated the rule by identifying his patient, diagnosis, and the treatment. HIPAA security IS my specialty, and I seem to recall DHHS casting a very wide net with the definition of "individually identifiable."

From the final HIPAA privacy rule, viewable at: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/regtext.html

Health information means any information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium, that:

(1) Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer, school or university, or health care clearinghouse; and

(2) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual.


Now, I'm no lawyer, but it sure looks like discussing the treatment of an individual's gunshot wound, or even identifying that individual, or making references to his injuries would certainly apply.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on this particular instance. Dr. Stolthert may have kept things sufficiently vague to avoid a violation of the rule, but it sure doesn't look like it to me.

siglite
December 21, 2007, 11:39 PM
And as a follow up, also found in the same rule:

Protected health information means individually identifiable health information:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, that is:

(i) Transmitted by electronic media;

(ii) Maintained in any medium described in the definition of electronic media at § 162.103 of this subchapter; or

(iii) Transmitted or maintained in any other form or medium.


Like I said, DHHS casts a very wide net with this definition.

XavierBreath
December 22, 2007, 12:03 AM
Siglite,
You assume Dr. Stothert asked Fred Wilson to speak with him. The fact is, Fred Wilson may have asked Dr. Stothert to share the podium. It may have been a mutual agreement. There is no indication that I can discern that Dr. Stothert spoke about Fred Wilson's specific injuries without his consent or otherwise. Perhaps there is another video I am unaware of.

In the video clip presented, his statements are certainly debatable, but it does not appear to me that any HIPAA violation occured.

siglite
December 22, 2007, 12:12 AM
That's true, but it's all speculation. Because we are all aware who the good Dr. is talking about, someone, somewhere, has released protected health information. Maybe the doctor himself, maybe the hospital, maybe a PR spokesman FOR the hospital.

But the presence of a release is speculation. Though, I do grant some validity to the speculation, because without Mr. Wilson's consent, such a disclosure would be colossally stupid. Most hospitals (thankfully) are generally smarter than that (or at least getting there) when it comes to PHI. It may be safe to say "surely they aren't that stupid." But then we look at Dr. Stothbert's position on "high velocity weapons" and, well... it becomes questionable again. :D

Robert Hairless
December 22, 2007, 12:22 AM
XavierBreath:

This is quite a statement. I assume the CPA is uniquely qualified to judge the professional competence of all health care professionals.

It is his professional opinion as a Certified Public Accountant and he has intimate knowledge of their financial affairs. I don't claim that he is uniquely qualified to make such judgments. In the United States of America many people are qualified to make them.

It is not only the opinion of the Certified Professional Accountant. I notice that you do not challenge the judgment of the Licensed Realtor. Her condemnation of these people is unassailable. She is familiar with their behaviors in real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, and management, and her conclusion is a professional opinion too.

They speak within the boundaries of their own professional competence and they draw reasonable conclusions based on what they know. Their extrapolations are much more rational and convincing than that of the trauma surgeon who claims to deal with people who have been wounded by a high velocity AK-47.

It's their opinion and they have as much right to their opinion as anyone else.

XavierBreath
December 22, 2007, 12:22 AM
Dr. Stothert did not, in this video clip speak about Fred Wilson's injuries, treatment, or even mention his name. The Nebraska Medical Center apparently provided a forum for Mr. Wilson, judging from the backdrop. They may have done the same for any patient wanting to speak out. Hospitals have provided forums for transplant patients, experimental treatment patients, the first New Year's baby, and other patients at their request. Perhaps that is a HIPAA violation. If it is a violation, can you show the ruling as you have previously?

Yes it is speculation that Mr. Wilson may have asked Dr. Stothert to speak with him. It is also speculation to say Dr. Stothert asked Mr. Wilson.

If there is a complete video of this press conference where Dr. Stothert violates HIPAA regulations, provide a link.

Robert,
While a CPA may be able to accurately judge a physician's or a registered nurse's individual financial competence, and a real estate broker may be able to judge their dealings in the real estate, leasing and management business, extrapolating the conclusion that "all doctors are charlatans, registered nurses are merely their lackeys, and that the entire medical profession is incompetent" is not only quite a stretch, but it is insulting.

I am a registered nurse. I am NO physician's lackey, and I am quite competent at my work. I take exception to that statement comdemning me and all of those in my profession. This may be the opinion of your friends, and you may even hold it yourself, but as I said, making these kind of blanket statements shows more about the speaker than those about whom they are speaking. Much like Dr. Stothert has done.

siglite
December 22, 2007, 12:36 AM
I have no such link. But it seems we're both speculating. And the fact that we're both speculating, (as, I think we both have some level of expertise on the subject matter) indicates that the question is valid.

I've never stated once that I believe that Dr. Stothert has unequivocally violated the HIPAA privacy rule. I simply point out that the question is valid. And, I did take a jab at you for claiming expertise on a rule you repeatedly misspelled, in the context of people talking outside their areas of expertise.

I've gleaned from your post that you're most likely a doctor and probably a surgeon. Since 2001, when I started doing HIPAA security consulting, I have YET to run across a doctor that knows much at all about HIPAA privacy or security beyond the basic compliance classes most organizations require of them. These awareness classes and courses are very rarely taught by physicians. I've never once seen a physician in so much as a two doctor practice disseminating any portion of the HIPAA privacy or security rules to his staff. That is always done by attorneys or infosec professionals with a propensity to groking and interpreting legalese such as myself. There's a reason for that. The rule's a monster. Compliance is a $%#$. And honestly, I don't want a physician that understands all of HIPAA. If he does, he's spent entirely too much time studying the wrong stuff. I'd much rather he spend all his time keeping up with the latest medical advances and reviewing the nightmarish pile of information that no doubt is required to get through medical school and residency.

But the bottom line, I think I was safe to call you out on "HIPPA." I don't think you're an expert on it. And there was some irony in your discussion of it as if you were, when talking about the validity of people's opinions outside their areas of expertise.

Surely you see the irony? If not, oh well. At this point, we've drifted pretty darned far from the OP.

Robert Hairless
December 22, 2007, 12:42 AM
Liko81:

I came on to this message board a new gun owner looking to get information about shooting, defense tactics. What I got on a regular basis was the same anti-liberal **** that I as a Texas Democrat have had to live with for the last 20 years.

I can help you.

Although you came on to this message board a new gun owner looking to get information about shooting and defense tactics you are posting in the section for "General Gun Discussions." You're in the wrong section. You need to scroll down to the "Strategies and Tactics" section.

I apologize to you for the behavior of everyone in this forum and for gun owners everywhere in the United States. I keep telling them not to disagree, especially not with me, but they just never listen. Even the moderators disagree with me. I'll tell them not to disagree with you but I don't think they'll listen.

Fortunately even the moderators here can accept good, logical reasoning. XavierBreath, for example, has just acknowledged a recognition that Dr. Stothert misspoke and revealed more about himself than those about whom he is speaking. That's good enough for a reasonable man.

You might have hit on the only sure way to straighten out these disagreeable people. Divest yourself of your guns and become a member of The Brady Campaign. That will teach them all a lesson they won't forget.

I had considered taking back my bat and ball because they won't let me be the captain of the forum baseball team, but my mom said I would look childish.

So I have decided to hang around a few more years until I grow up. My mom says that if I listen to people I might learn something. I know she's wrong but she's the real owner of the bat and ball so I guess I have to do what she wants.

Your friend,

Robert Hairless

P.S. Be sure to write when you open your Christmas presents and let us know what you get. I want a pony and a Red Ryder BB Gun. Mom says she's afraid the pony will poke me in the eye and the BB gun will leave droppings in the house. That's moms for you. I am thinking of running away from home and joining the circus. Maybe you will see me if The Brady Campaign has a circus outing some day. I will wave to you. I hope you will wave back.

P.P.S. You know that web site, Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, that XavierBreath has mentioned? I found it a while back as I was traipsing through various boundaries and I found it pretty interesting. It has big words but I can get through them with the help of online dictionaries.

Don't forget to wave. I will miss you.

If you enjoyed reading about "Omaha Doctor calls for assault weapons ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!