Please note the poll I posted at the top right of the page. It will run for the next week. I just want to gauge the philosophy of visitors to New Trajectory.
Sometime soon I'm going to blog on a number of recent nationwide and regional polls, and would like to compare this one with those.
Please be honest and only vote once.
Those are some awesome results you're getting.
ReplyDeleteNice, equal opportunity poll options.
ReplyDelete(Gee, can you guess where I voted?) ;)
...Orygunner...
(sorry, I had accidentally deleted this at first - Baldr)
Very interesting results, indeed. So, if the poll results turn out in clear opposition to your viewpoint, can we expect that 1) the poll will disappear, 2) that you'll try to find a way to spin the results in your favor, 3) there will be claims that the poll was too difficult for the average person to understand, or 4) that maybe, just maybe, you'll open your eyes and see some reality?
ReplyDeleteAssuming that you mean "stricter" in the sense of even more controlling and repressive, I'm very much against it. That's done nothing to reduce crime, but makes for easier working conditions for criminals, having more victims unable to defend themselves. (See Chicago & DC.)
ReplyDeleteStricter in the sense of no, the gov't really *_can't_* infringe on our rights, No Matter What, I'd be all for.
No law has ever prevented a criminal from committing a crime.
None.
Ever.
If laws worked to prevent crime, there wouldn't need to be punishments for breaking laws.
Heck, we wouldn't need locks on doors, just signs saying "theft prohibited".
Thanks!
ReplyDeleteJohn the Leftneck
Bend, OR
i think the poll is making the logical statement here
ReplyDeleteI just bought another ar-15. Maybe I will buy two more evil Glock handguns tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteA few quick comments.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I occasionally hear proposals for gun laws and think "you know what, that sounds reasonable". But we can't have nice things. When you have people like Janet Reno and Diane Feinstein (a delicious hypocrisy on her part by the way, having admitted to carrying a gun in CA where it's ILLEGAL) openly saying that the end goal is the CONFISCATION of all firearms, do you really expect that anyone who owns guns will agree to "just one more" law? How about we start tightening up on that First Amendment? Can't have people getting each other riled up and spreading disinformation, or for that matter information that runs contrary to the greater good of the nation. If you want to lay blame and the mantle of "extremist" somewhere, lay it at the feet of those who took the gloves off first.
Your comment about Germany's low crime rate needs to be addressed. There are a lot more factors that play into violent crime than the availability of guns, as shown by the fact that violent crime has been at nearly an all time low since around the time the 1994 Clinton gun ban expired while gun ownership is currently at an all time high.
Maybe that's a coincidence, but it is not a coincidence that every time gun laws loosen, the predicted bloodbath of road rage and crime fails to materialize, and if anything crime DROPS. I guarantee you that at some point during your average day, you walk past someone who has a legally concealed handgun WITH ZOMG HIGH CAPACITY CLIPS!!!11!! Chances are that they are among the more polite people that you meet, because believe it or not, we don't carry guns to exert our will over you. We carry guns purely so that others cannot exert their will over us. Whenever I can I carry a gun and a small trauma kit, and I am highly trained with both. When the self-delusion that violent criminals victimize everyone else is shattered, you better hope there's one of us around.
Voted!
ReplyDeleteVery much against stricter legislation, and not just because of my views on the better returns from the prioritization of suicide risk identification and outreach. We already have too much legislation that is too strict as it is.
I know I left a conversation hanging with you and I apologize for the delay. My primary focus in life since July (and for the next 18 months) has been my health, and I needed to concentrate on that recently. I promise to return to our discussion soon; I picked up a copy of an old SF book that I just need to reread and better integrate into my current thoughts first (The Last Deathship Off Antares, by William Jon Watkins, in case anybody's interested; highly recommended, Ack Bob says check it out).
Why don't organizations like this sponsor firearms safety programs, rather than victim disarmament?
ReplyDeleteApply restrictions to criminals. Not to citizens who will defend themselves and others from this element. The Crime rate is the lowest in 50 years. This is because the public is armed. GET A CLUE! Before you or your family are a victim.
ReplyDeleteCurrently:
ReplyDelete514 opposing more gun control.
9 favoring gun control.
Hrm.
Well, that's 57:1. Given that NRA membership rolls outnumber Brady Campaign's around 90:1 I guess you're doing quite well!
Cheers,
Chris from AK
If that lunatic in Tucson had crashed his car into the crowd, killing and injuring the same number of innocent people, would you be advocating a ban on civilian ownership of cars, or perhaps banning fuel tanks that hold more than 10 liters of fuel?
ReplyDeleteTaking guns away from law-abiding citizens turn our communities into Criminal Empowerment Zones, where the criminals can kill at will, since no one will be able to fight back and defend themselves.
It is interesting that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and yet they have the highest crime. Coincidence? I think not!
In reference to the two anonymous posters, one suggested gun control is the reason for Chicago's high crime rate, and the other that our increasing rate of gun ownership is why crime is so low...
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, neither has any proof to back it up, and that is simply because gun ownership rates or gun control have NO proven consistent or significant effect on violent crime rates. Guns simply aren't the cause, so how can more or less guns (or gun control) have any effect?
...Orygunner...
Just to be explicitly clear -- when I say we already have too much legislation that is too strict as it is, I mean in general and overall, not just in terms of firearms.
ReplyDeleteFrom one anonymous commenter:
ReplyDelete"Why don't organizations like this sponsor firearms safety programs, rather than victim disarmament?"
Actually, anonymous, Ceasefire Oregon does advocate for safe gun usage. For instance, advocating for gun locks and safe storage, and our ASK program:
http://www.ceasefireoregon.org/coef/ask.html
Gun locks and safe storage are no substitute for proper firearms training.
ReplyDeleteThis is America, it was founded with firearms.
ReplyDeleteYou anti gun people make me want to vomit.
What am I supposed to defend my family with, a baseball bat?!! Keep making it harder for law abiding citizens to keep and bare arms, but yet its never been easier for a criminal to obtain a gun....real smart.
", anonymous, Ceasefire Oregon does advocate for safe gun usage. For instance, advocating for gun locks and safe storage, and our ASK program:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ceasefireoregon.org/coef/ask.html"
No, Baldr. I believe what anonymous, and many many other pro-gun advocates are asking, is why anti-gun organizations don't promote, fund, or sponsor any clinics/workshops aimed toward promoting safe gun handling AWARENESS? You know, the "4 rules" of safe gun handling, child awareness (like the NRA's Eddie Eagle Program), and the likes?
How does the ASK program promote safe gun handling? Asking my neighbor whether or not he has firearms before letting my kid play at his house is a bit different than teaching an individual to always be sure of your backstop, always treat a gun as if it were loaded, never point a firearm at a target you don't intend to kill or destroy, etc... Very, Very different.
As usual, anti-gun initiatives only promote the very same ignorance which is more often the cause of firearms accidents. "Don't teach your kids about the responsibilities of gun ownership when you can just shield kids form guns so their curiosity is piqued and they remain ignorant to the dangers poor gun handling habits can cause."
In reality, anti-gun orgs can't afford to support ANY gun safety initiatives which promote firearms usage, even if safety is the goal. Rather, anti-gun orgs view gun safety initiatives as "conspiracy theories":
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/eddiekey.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nras-eddie-eagle-doesnt-f_b_572285.html
If reducing gun accidents and deaths is the goal, doesn't it make sense to EDUCATE people rather than promote ignorance? But then again, that Joyce Foundation money may become even more scarce than it's already becoming since it doesn't fit the agenda.
I voted very much against. That said, I suspect your poll will disappear shortly since it is damaging to your cause.
ReplyDeleteAs is the usual case gun control has no true grassroots support.
", anonymous, Ceasefire Oregon does advocate for safe gun usage. For instance, advocating for gun locks and safe storage, and our ASK program:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ceasefireoregon.org/coef/ask.html"
No, Baldr. I believe what anonymous, and many many other pro-gun advocates are asking, is why anti-gun organizations don't promote, fund, or sponsor any clinics/workshops aimed toward promoting safe gun handling AWARENESS? You know, the "4 rules" of safe gun handling, child awareness (like the NRA's Eddie Eagle Program), and the likes?
How does the ASK program promote safe gun handling? Asking my neighbor whether or not he has firearms before letting my kid play at his house is a bit different than teaching an individual to always be sure of your backstop, always treat a gun as if it were loaded, never point a firearm at a target you don't intend to kill or destroy, etc... Very, Very different.
As usual, anti-gun initiatives only promote the very same ignorance which is more often the cause of firearms accidents. "Don't teach your kids about the responsibilities of gun ownership when you can just shield kids form guns so their curiosity is piqued and they remain ignorant to the dangers poor gun handling habits can cause."
In reality, anti-gun orgs can't afford to support ANY gun safety initiatives which promote firearms usage, even if safety is the goal. Rather, anti-gun orgs view gun safety initiatives as "conspiracy theories":
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/eddiekey.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nras-eddie-eagle-doesnt-f_b_572285.html
If reducing gun accidents and deaths is the goal, doesn't it make sense to EDUCATE people rather than promote ignorance? But then again, that Joyce Foundation money may become even more scarce than it's already becoming since it doesn't fit the agenda.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteNone of that has anything to do with firearm safety, only firearm avoidance. Basically, just like the commenter said, victim disarmament. Does anyone at your organization even know what the standard 4 rules for safe gun handling are?
Gee, it's barely been a day & the poll is taken down.
ReplyDeleteOnly wanted to hear from anti-rights people, huh?
How is telling people to come vote in your poll "fraudulent mis-representation"?
Didn't you tell people who agreed with you to come vote? Or you're upset because they did... all 12 of them.
http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/search/label/polls%2Fsurveys
For that matter.
ReplyDeleteHave any pro-gun control supporters ever fired a gun?
Know anything about firearm safety?
Read anything extensively on the laws?
Know anything at all about guns??
How can you support restricting something you know nothing about?
Go to a local indoor range and take a handgun safety class which involves live-fire in a safe, controlled environment.
If you still feel the same way after...that is fine! At least you have something to back up your position.
I suspect you will enjoy it though and maybe even purchase your own firearm once you realize they are great for recreation and defense if you know how to use them safely.
Where's the poll? Did it not conform to your expectations? Maybe YOU are the one who is out of touch with reality. Just because you are of such low character and poor self control that you can't be trusted with firearms doesn't the normal people of this great nation should be disarmed.
ReplyDelete