Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
Wow... It's really quite frustrating when you say something in facetious way that normally is very effective at illustrating a point, and it's missed completely because people defensively fixate on the wrong thing. (sigh) 
Let's try again. If this still doesn't work, then I give up.
How can I say she's was responsible? Well, legally speaking, she was not being irresponsible, otherwise there would be a specific crime to charge her with. As we all know, a legal opinion is the only opinion that has teeth. You subjective opinion, or my subjective opinion, wont affect someone's life any more than my cat's opinion.
I can call you a thief, but unless the law agrees with that, it does not cause you to suffer the penalties a real thief would. There is no distinction in the lifestyle of an innocent person or a guilty person unless the law says you are a guilty person.
The point I'm trying to make is that under the only system of judgement that affects the real world, she did nothing wrong. If pro-gun people subjectively feel that ain't right (and it seems like many do), then I'd think they'd all be in favor of taking a look at making the laws more strict, so that there would be greater alignment between what sanctions can be imposed in the real world, and what sanctions they'd like to see imposed.
Yet, many (not all) of the people who vilify her are also quick to be hyper defensive at the first suggestion of any gun laws (and I'm NOT just talking about the silly 7-round-rule, I'm talking about ANY dialog regarding tightening things up, this thread has included more fundamental discussion points than just the NY law). It's like "stop right there, I wont even finish listening to what you have to say if if might come within a 1000 mile radius of any possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and I'm not open to legally revising it first either". You dont normally see that sort of, well, lack of appetite to consider negotiation, outside of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of gov.
Honestly, I think if someone suggested re-instituting alcohol prohibition, that would get less of a rise out of people than, "lets talk about your guns". |
As a responsible gun owner (I own just over 20 firearms, that are all locked in safes), I can not and do not consider anyone who doesn’t do the same a responsible gun owner. I concede it is very convenient for me to make that statement, but it is true and my guns have always been locked up.
The reason we gun owners are hyper defensive about anything that infringes on our rights is that the anti-gunners are using a tragedy to further their agenda. If they really cared about saving lives they would look at statistics and data and find that their proposals will do nothing, they are out for political equity and control. The cynic in me wonders what really shady back room deals are going down while we are all busy arguing about this.
We also see this as a ‘slippery slope’ and we want to stop these clowns before they can get any momentum.
I think I speak for most gun owners when I say, we don’t think that guns are the problem. Mental health and bad people are the problem. We should not allow these things to mix, but that seems to be a very small part of the discussion, and there are many problems there too.