guns and…

lattes?

just ran across this story starbucks (yes, the coffee company) unwittingly found itself in the middle of the age old dispute between American gun owners and gun control advocates, and wants none of it. if nothing else, a very interesting situation. currently, it is legal in 43 states to openly carry [properly licensed] weapons.

here’s a very insightful post by a “career law enforcement officer(the comments at the end are also worth reading).

what do you think?

*UPDATE*

found this article; gives a little more background to the starbucks article.

gun control advocates vs...

gun owners.

*images from unknown sources.

Advertisements

8 responses to “guns and…

  1. **reposted from facebook**

    Personally, I think handguns and automatic weapons like assault rifles have no business in the hands of private citizens. I honestly don’t believe the founding fathers thought the American public had the right to own weapons whose sole purpose was to cause harm to other humans. I think gun advocates (believe it or not I am one) should be satisfied with owning rifles and shotguns, at least those ‘arms’ have utility other than taking the lives of other humans…oh, and I think if there were stricter penalties for owning such weapons, like say cutting off your trigger finger, then I don’t think the public would have to worry about unsavory characters owning them either.

    Like

  2. **reposted from facebook**

    wow, cruel and unusual punishment.

    when the founding fathers wrote in the 2nd amendment, available to the market were firearms on par with armaments of national armies. they had the understanding that if a government entity cannot easily outgun the citizenry, then they could not oppress the people on a whim.

    i wouldn’t say everyone should be entitled to a patriot missile system but handguns and semi-auto rifles need to be available to the public for at least the potential of self-defense. think of all the law-abiding citizens of Germany that were left without recourse in 1940s. from patriots for a well-to-do republic straight to criminals of a dictatorship with a stroke of a pen. a hunting rifle vs. an MP40 was no match. neither is remington vs. and M16.

    it would be naive to believe that the USA is somehow immune to the historical pitfalls of other nations.

    Like

  3. **reposted from facebook**

    i think you both have your points – personally, i am pro-gun ownership.

    it might be a worn out argument, but as a woman, i am seriously considering owning a gun for my own protection, whether it be from sexual deviants, thieves, or the government. less importantly but no less relevant, neither a rifle or shotgun fit in my purse; they are also much more expensive, which won’t last in this type of [free] market. some people already melt & mold their own bullets; what makes you think they won’t make their own guns, especially if they can do it for a profit? …or even more dangerous, for a cause? the government would be wise not to encourage citizens to stop buying from big companies, which we all know are easier for the government to control, er… regulate.

    i think it’s too slippery of a slope to try and separate types of guns. a gun is a gun is a gun, and to be honest, if i were to get shot, it’d be more humane to shoot me with a handgun than a shotgun. slow. painful. wheezing. death. besides, i’m sure an individual skilled with a knife (or letter opener) or even a handy axe swinger could do serious, fatal damage. what constitutes a weapon? is it really the object itself, or the person behind it, that is the danger? i think a good way to meet in the middle would be to institute stiffer requirements for the licensing of a handgun (required # of hours/ability level at a range, educational courses, yearly check-ins to prove the gun hasn’t “disappeared”…etc.) , and more detailed, up-to-date records on purchases and sales of each handgun, like VINs on cars. there is, of course, still the black market – which i think both sides can agree needs to be cleaned up.

    Like

  4. The simple and scary truth about being a woman owning a firearm for ‘self protection’ is this (the same thing I told my mother when she got her’s) you have no idea if the attacker is capable of snatching that gun from your hand and using it against you. And besides, everyone say they can but when it comes right down to the situation are you truly capable of pulling that trigger and taking someone else’s life? Because there’s a good chance that the guy mugging you can and will if you hesitate.

    Gun laws do nothing but limit law abiding citizens. Enforcement is the key here and the only way to wake up criminals to the fact that it’s not ok to use guns is to go to extreme measures. I feel the same way about sex offenders. Get caught once, get a vasectomy. Do it again, get your dangle danged off.

    How many folks would even attempt it if that were the penalty? Same goes for the trigger finger idea…

    —–second response——–

    Gloria I wouldn’t have you as a dear friend any other way!

    As for your argument, in no sense of my comment did I intend your being a woman as being the problem in the scenario. I have said similar things to male friends of mine who carry pistols in their trucks ‘just in case.’ I think it’s absurd to carry a firearm created solely for the purpose of killing humans is my main argument. In retrospect I understand the confusion and apologize for it, the handgun for ’self protection’ aspect was meant to be the leading point. I should have emphasized that point more so as to have myself better understood rather than seen as some sexist a-hole, which you know I am not.

    I AM a gun advocate, but you are correct in the necessity of clarification in what is considered a ‘gun’ in this discussion.

    To me, I think it is perfectly fine to own a rifle or shotgun. They both serve purposes associated with hunting and hunting is a fantastic way to spend time with family, learn/teach about conservancy (not all hunters kill every time they venture into the wild), amongst other very positive aspects. I was raised in a family that taught me the lessons of proper firearm safety and control.

    However, it is rare to see the use of a pistol for hunting purposes. And the use of semi-automatic and fully-automatic weaponry whilst hunting is highly frowned upon in said community.

    And while Evan seems to prefer to live in a world where everyone is out to get him and it’s kill or be killed I see the world for what it is; an ever changing landscape of humans trying to create communities in which they feel safe and can thrive.

    America is past the time of ’survival-mode.’ We have no rational need to fear our government turning into a militarized war-machine bent on oppressing us like Evan’s skewed view of historical Nazi Germany.

    Therefore, taking into account both points (no utility in positive teaching and no need for stocking up on weaponry to protect ourselves against a military coup) handguns and automatic weapons truly have no place in the civilian community.

    Here’s the bottom line: bad people are always going to exist whether we outlaw the crap out of them or not. The black market exists because there are individuals who refuse to follow the laws set forth for the common man and wish to purchase items that would otherwise be outlawed. Bad people are going to get their hands on weapons they shouldn’t own no matter how tight we think our laws are. However, if we showed them that we are through putting up with their bs and enforce those laws with stricter penalties then that will turn the tide.

    Rational, law-abiding citizens would have no need to fear stricter laws, neither. I currently have no fear of jail time because I follow all laws associated with firearms set forth already. But those who would choose to threaten the safety of this community would be warned to heed the laws lest they suffer the stricter consequences.

    Mowing down police officers in a coffee shop didn’t happen because the man was fearful of going to prison for a life sentence. I don’t think it would have happened if the consequence of limb removal were struck in his heart though.

    Like

  5. i don’t feel like you responded to the majority of points i brought up in regards to your initial points (rifles and shotguns = ok, but not handguns…etc.)

    i also feel like the argument you’ve used is extremely flawed. let’s ignore the fact that you apparently believe even after an equal amount of education/range time, women are a) more likely to be disarmed than men, b) less capable of shooting someone in self-defense than men, and c) your scenario precludes the possibility of a female assailant. how many links to news articles can you find on the internet, right now, of instances where homeowners (regardless of gender) were disarmed and shot with their own weapons by intruders? i would wager that there are no more, if not less, than stories of homeowners who saved themselves by successfully scaring off or even killing an attacker. it would be more acceptable for you to have concerns in regards to age – but i can tell you this; my friend’s 50+ year old uncle can shoot better than i can (and makes his own bullets), and i am much, much, much more likely to hesitate to kill a rabbit than a large male stranger lunging at me in the middle of the night in my own house. it’s called survival instinct – i don’t stop to think about killing someone in the face of looming death! your assumptions are not only unfounded, they are simply that: assumptions! you cannot assume women/children/old folk are less willing or capable to defend themselves. there are many other variables (who knew atticus finch was such a good shot?). if the argument for not doing something because it might backfire were a reasonable basis for making decisions, we would be doing nothing, all the time. “i’m hungry, and i want a burger. someone could come by and snatch my burger from my very hands, or a bird might shit on it mid-flight, or someone next to me might sneeze on it… i guess i shouldn’t buy one…”

    you keep saying “gun laws”. i think you mean “gun owners”. you are not a “gun advocate” – you’re quite the opposite; you’re a “gun-control advocate”. law-abiding citizens are not the issue. law-abiding gun owners are not the issue. law-abiding gun owners are knowledgeable, dutifully renew their licenses, pay their yearly dues, keep their weapons clean, serviced, and properly stored, and are probably the best watchdogs and supporters for laws that decrease and prevent the sale of illegal/black market weapons. attacking this group of people would be like taking medical licenses away from doctors, telling them they can no longer practice medicine because they might kill someone. what are those odds? have you any research? show me the numbers, with reasonable variables calculated. i want evidence, if you’re going to claim that my owning a gun for my protection is so dangerous that you’re not going to let me have one or decide whether or not i want one. what if the thief/rapist brought his own gun? is he going to even bother taking my gun? is he going to shoot me with my own gun first and then with his own, for good measure? if i had a knife, would he take my knife from me first, stab me with it, then shoot me with his gun? what if i had a mechanical pencil…… See More

    as with every proposition to change the status quo (which is, my dear sir, what you are proposing), you must offer a counter plan, with measures to take to deal with fallout. for example, i am against abortion. of any kind, for any reason. however, i don’t see it ever becoming completely illegal, and i would never suggest it to be. why? women who want abortions will get abortions – by any means necessary. the harm that could come from that (disease, death…etc.) is not worth winning the argument (besides the fact many are for abortion). the same goes with an equally divisive subject as firearm ownership – those that want one will get one by any means necessary, and then it will be difficult if not impossible for the government/law enforcement to track gun ownership. is that sort of chaos worth the argument?

    many people think government and law are based solely on morality. unfortunately, what’s right and wrong isn’t so clear between people, and sometimes what is legal and illegal is not only decided by what is for the greater good, but also by what is enforceable. i submit that the stringent gun-control laws that many are pushing for will never happen, and private gun ownership will always be legal, due to the very simple fact that the government cannot stop it. if i am wrong, god help the poor bastard who gets it through… he’ll probably want a gun, but… whoops!

    well. that’s all i have to say. it’s obvious we aren’t going to agree, but that’s not news to us, is it steve? as you’ve said so many times, you can always bet on a lengthy political discussion from me! 🙂

    Like

  6. Gloria, you realize that implementing a “slippery-slope” argument is logically fallacious, right? Like, it’s a defined logical fallacy. And I’m not just bringing this up for rhetoric’s sake. I disagree that ‘a gun is a gun is a gun’ and I also do not believe that the possession of a letter opener will ever be made illegal, which is what I assume you were implying when you stated that even a letter opener can inflict a fatal wound. There seems to be a clear difference between a semi-auto weapon and a knife, or a semi-auto and a shotgun or handgun for that matter. Without getting technical, think about the physical force of the part of weapon that makes contact with target, speed and number of times the wound has the potential of being inflicted, distance at which the weapons can be used (think sniper), chance for victim to survive or escape. All of these things seem incredibly relevant to this discussion; and I think distinctions can be made between types of weapons, and restrictions can be implemented based on the necessity of owning different kind of weapons. No citizen needs a machine gun to defend him or herself from a home intruder…or the government for that matter…
    I also don’t see how your personal preference of being shot with a handgun instead of a shotgun because it is more ‘humane’/(induces a quicker death) is support for this idea that a gun is a gun is a gun, nor do I think that gun-control legislation should be drafted based on your personal preference or that I think you actually think this.
    It seems contradictory that you think the solution to all of this is more government regulation and government control of private property (and subsequently of businesses). Typically I’m all for things like this, but you?? Cool.
    Regarding your second post/response to Steve:
    You’re making a number of pretty big leaps here when comparing things to the risks of owning a gun/gun accidents, which I don’t really agree with:
    “if the argument for not doing something because it might backfire were a reasonable basis for making decisions, we would be doing nothing.”—I think the burger example was a little extreme, but more importantly, this same sort of reasoning that you’re criticizing Steve for using is this slippery-slope talk that you and so many anti-government folks espouse.
    and
    “attacking this group of people would be like taking medical licenses away from doctors, telling them they can no longer practice medicine because they might kill someone.—I don’t think you can reasonably compare a professional whose job it is to save lives, prevent, diagnose and treat illness–all actions which preclude or deter death, carried out by a health expert–with ‘law-abiding gun owners.’ What trait or certification makes a gun-owner who keeps his or her gun licenses renewed and his or her guns properly stored more able to prevent a gun accident from occurring? What makes them more able to make a sound judgment about when to use their weapon? They’re an expert of what? They certainly can’t prevent a homicide happening 10 blocks away from occurring. So you say that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem, yet you acknowledge there is a problem. You forfeit a reasonable solution to this problem; you claim that the ‘unlawful,’ irresponsible gun-owners are the majority of the problem. They will also do anything necessary to attain a gun. So what makes you think these unlawful citizens will go to special classes and check in with the government every year? Won’t they be undeterred by the new stiff restrictions you’re suggesting?
    Finally, in response to: “there will be difficult if not impossible for the government/law enforcement to track gun ownership.” Clearly you have not seen HBO’s acclaimed series, ‘The Wire.’ I highly suggest you get your jewelry-adorned hands on this immediately!
    This was fun. I was in the mood for a good debate. I’m looking forward to your response!

    Oh, and Evan..I don’t know if you’re still in this discussion, but (not to sound impertinent) what country do you inhabit? I agree the government has its hand in some horrible stuff and people are oppressed in very fundamental ways in this country, but I think the general public is largely unaware of this, generally pretty stupid and actually quite complacent (at least most upper and middle class Americans). And I don’t think any of our major issues can, will or should be solved with a semi-auto-led revolution. I’d also say that most people that own semi-autos with the intent of overthrowing the government (‘if necessary,’ whatever that actually means) are out of touch with reality (evident in their ineptitude at offering a realistic solution) and/or fucking crazy.

    Like

  7. **reposted from facebook**

    mandy – so glad you decided to re-post!

    i don’t know what the status of a general consensus on an argument of “slippery slope” is, but the phrase defined what i meant perfectly. one law/rule/ruling can set the precedent for future laws/rules/rulings. depending on what those are, “downhill we could go”. so… i don’t know what this assumed, assimilated populous ideal is, but that’s what i meant, and i’m stickin’ to it. as for my analogies… you know i’m prone to them. my post was supposed to be humorous…

    i stand by all my previous points. i really can’t afford to reply at the moment (i have a real estate final tomorrow and three more tests and a live presentation next week – i’m pulling an all-nighter. siiiiigh.). … See More

    and… debate? let’s say discussion. let’s not get heated; we’re all friends – intelligent, highly educated friends that happen to disagree. we know we’re not going to convince each other, and if i’m not mistaken, that’s not the goal.

    (yes, steve – no worm-can opening please…)

    Like

  8. haha, i think ‘debate’ gets a bad rep for bad reasons! i think it’s perfectly fine to argue and disagree even if things get a little heated, but i agree, we should keep this chill and civil.

    also, to clarify, the couple of times i used the term ‘slippery slope’ i intended to use it in its logical fallacy form, not just with the intent of using the same language as you, but because i thought your arguments fell victim to this fallacy. but we were using the term differently.

    good luck on your RE final!!!!!! [Information redacted for the purpose of self-preservation and the maintenance of my integrity.]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s