"Don't you think young people in their 20s frequently lack the maturity and common sense to be responsible with guns? I didn't say all, but I'm afraid this characterization of your average 20 something young man is true more times than it is false."
As a 23 year old gun owner I feel quite comfortable telling MikeB he's full of shit. I have family members who I 100% do not trust to be responsible with a firearm and that has nothing to do with age. Also, those who make that claim about young gun owners could replace the word "gun" with just about anything. Maybe we just don't have the common sense & sense of responsibility to exercize free speech or vote either. I know they hate the term, but these folks really are bigots.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Quote of the Day
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Do young men lack maturity more often than older men? Yup. Sorry, but getting older is mostly a process of looking back at yourself and thinking you were a dumbass. Is that important enough to fundamentally abridge their rights? Certainly not.
The more important thing with firearms is that young men more often lack experience, but that is something you get by doing and learning not by observing a calendar date. I've seen plenty of old guys who shoot casually or are just learning do damn fool things at the range. Drivers licenses are like that too. Teenagers get in more accidents because they haven't been driving very long, not because they're young. It's not age, it's experience.
That case has very little to do with age anyway. It has a a lot to do with the two young men being drunk. Guns and alcohol do not mix.
Good points Jeff. Young men do stupid crap. Lord knows I did my fair share, whether it was getting arrested for underage drinking or getting nabbed by the cops @ 3 times the speed limit. That's no reason to infringe upon my rights.
That said, We're either adults or we're not, and since we are in the eyes of the law we should be treated as such and enjoy all of the Constitutional freedoms of American citizens.
Most 18 year olds have little or no knowledge of politics, voting etc. and certainly not much experience, yet they can vote because it's their right.
And ultimately you're right. This was an issue of guns, booze, and stupid people. That's not a function of age at all.
They gave 18-year old's the Vote so they could capture the naive youth-movement types, the "proof" being that the drinking age is still 21, even for those in the Army preparing for battle who carry guns and drive tanks with even bigger guns.
I think people in their 20's may lack the maturity and common sense to be responsible with computers and on Facebook, but that's just a "think" and an ageist-opinion, not a fact or research-driven result.
The truth is kids who have grown up with and been taught to handle firearms from an early age know the vital importance of respecting a gun's power - as much as a boy who does woodworking knows the dangers of a saw or a girl who cooks knows the dangers of a 450-degree oven. It's a problem with "averages" as a straw-man argument.
dirtcrashr - what about the girl who's whittling, or the boy about to toss some cookies in the oven? ;)
Quick! Someone tell this girl to stop it now! I mean 12 years old is too young to be competing with firearms. All the instruction and support from her family doesn't make her safe around a gun.
And for Pete's sake, let's not teach young children gun safety! If we did, they might grow up a little bit more responsible and then we'd have less accidents or incidents. No, the best way to lower accidents is to make guns mysterious and hope really, really hard that young adults don't get a hold of them.
If the MikeB's of the world really cared about children, they'd inoculate them early in life. Sadly, MikeB is a believer in 'abstinence only' when it comes to icky guns.
No, the best way to lower accidents is to make guns mysterious and hope really, really hard that young adults don't get a hold of them.
Right Robb. Teaching is good when it comes to sex but EVIL when it comes to icky guns.
You said it, MikeW - pure and simple bigotry, at its finest. Stupid people come in all ages, sizes, shapes, colors, and backgrounds... Trying to make it all about one of those issues exclusively is straight-up discrimination, which, after all, is pretty much the stock-and-trade of the anti-rights folks of the world.
Linoge said, "You said it, MikeW - pure and simple bigotry, at its finest."
But, what Mike W. actually said is, "Also, those who make that claim about young gun owners could replace the word "gun" with just about anything."
Most young people in their 20s, unlike Mike W., lack the maturity and good sense that usually comes with experience and hard knocks to handle guns, or anything else, well.
Of course, good training can help, but some, not all, but some young people are dangerous with guns.
MikeB, your reading comprehension is as lacking as your intelligence. The following quote is straight from Mike W.'s post (it occurs at the end, since you apparently did not read to the end of the post):
I know they hate the term, but these folks really are bigots.
So, what was it that Mike W. "really" said, again?
Bought my first gun at age 24, I was living with Mrs. Weer'd, who'd become my wife in about a year's time.
My wild years were well behind me.
Meanwhile MikeB is twice my age, invents a fake internet persona and trolls web pages spouting lies, and bragging about buying black-market guns.
Thousands of Boy Scouts shoot rifle and shoot gun every year at Summer Camps around the country.
Usually there are between 5 and 20 boys in each class with only 1 to 3 adult instructors.
Care to guess how many accidental deaths have been recorded during these activities ? None that I know of or have been able to find.
It isn't the age, it isn't the firearm. It is the maturity they have and the culture the "youths" are raised in.
You're a class act, Weer'd.
Linoge, I know Mike W. is as good at name-calling as you are. The point is that even he admitted 20-year-olds are sometimes lacking in the common sense and responsibiliy department, only it's not limited to guns.
You just do not get it, MikeB. You were wrong. You were demonstrably, factually, and obviously wrong. And yet you still deny it, and you still cannot admit to it.
Let me make this very simple for you: You are a bigot. It does not matter if "sometimes" young people are irresponsible - if you would deny rights to all young people (and that is what you are proposing), then you are a bigot. What you are proposing is no different than denying rights to all black people, just because some of them are criminals. That is what is commonly referred-to as "discrimination", and you are full-to-your-eyebrows of it.
Your continued reliance on the logical fallacy of "appeal to probability" simply is not going to work any longer, MikeB - find a new golden calf already.
I know Mike W. is as good at name-calling as you are.
I wouldn't characterize it as "name-calling" if it's backed up with solid evidence -- as it is about 99.44 percent of the time.
Exactly Pistolero. MikeB's objections notwithstanding, it is NOT "name calling" or a personal attack when I can back up the claim.
For example, I often call Mike a liar. Why? Because the man lies. He makes claims that are demonstratably untrue.
Oh, and as far as "sometimes young people are irresponsible" therefore they shouldn't have guns. You can apply that to ANY class of people.
There's not a man, woman or child in the world that doesn't qualify as "sometimes irresponsible."
Not to mention that under MikeB's criteria the 1st thing we should do is start door-to-door confiscations among blacks, since they're statistically far more irresponsible with guns than other groups.
Oh wait, doing that would be racist and bigoted?! Yup, and it doesn't cease to be bigoted if we change the target group.
Wow, MikeB Broke his "Only one troll per blog post" rule!
He didn't add any substance...but then again, water is wet, and this morning the sun rose in the East...
All right, I'm a bigot, but you guys are not. I have difficulty with reasoning, but you guys don't. Your name calling isn't wrong because you back it up.
The fact is you guys are guilty of everything you accuse me of. Bob S. explained at length how "turn the other cheek" doesn't mean that at all. That's great reasoning. Mike W. says I condone confiscation of guns. That's not exactly true. Linoge says I'm proposing to "deny rights" to all young people. That's not exactly true either.
There are many other examples, but the point is you guys have a weak argument notwithstanding the Constitution and the Bible which you continually retreat to. Your weak argument leads you to viciously insult people who disagree and to take liberties with the truth.
And then you blow smoke up each others asses, like telling Bob what a brilliant logician he is with his biblical rationalizations, and telling Mike W. he's right in doing personal insults as long as they are backed up.
Keep up the good work, guys. You're doing great.
MikeB, we have demonstrated your bigotry time and time again (replace "firearm owner" with "black people" in 90% of the things you say). We have demonstrated your lacking logic time and time again (most notably with your inability to see the similarities between your "hold all gun-owners responsible" argument and our child-pornography equivalent). We have demonstrated the faulty underpinnings of almost all of your arguments (mostly the "appeal to probability" logical fallacy and the "proof by vigorous assertion" logical fallacy - which, by the by, you are relying on in your above comment). And we have done this quite thoroughly, with documentation, repeatedly.
On the other hand, the only thing you can present is "your arguments are weak!" No substantiation. No evidence. No sound logic. No acknowledgement of the past... or even the present. Hell, you cannot even bother agreeing with yourself from post to post - you have condoned the banning/confiscation of guns in the past (AWB and Katrina, for example), the impliciation of your argument is that you would like to deny young people the right to self-defense just based on the supposed irresponsibility of some of them, and you still have not demonstrated how the Bible is such a poor support of the right to self-defense (repeatedly saying it is is not proof). The delicious irony is that you repeatedly accuse pro-rights people of not conceding a single point, and yet here you are, factually wrong in this very comment thread, and you cannot even bring yourself to admit it. If that is not a classic case of projection, I will be buggered if I know what is.
Calling you a bigot may be insulting to you, but it is also a statement of fact, borne out by the countless discriminatory posts and comments you have made throughout the blogosphere. If you do not like that the word is so appropriate for your actions, I would suggest you change your actions.
So what were you trying to say again? Pulling the wounded martyr card will not work - sorry. Everyone present already knows your tactics, your methodologies, and how inherently flawed they are. Everyone present already knows that you live by casting doubts, aspersions, and innuendo against people and arguments without ever taking the time to back any of that up yourself (most of the time because no such substantiation exists). And everyone present knows you would love to do nothing short of infringe on and abridge our naturally-granted, Constitutionally-protected rights until nothing is left.
Try not to act so surprised and hurt when we point out how specious your arguments are, and how totalitarian your position is - you and I both know that you understand both, but you are playing stupid for crowd effect. And if there is anything worse than wanting to take away another human's rights, it might just be malicious, itentional ignorance...
For Heaven's sake, MikeB, it has already been systematically proven that you have no personal method of accurately determining facts, and yet you have the nerve to thrash us for daring to back up our positions with those nasty little fact things?
Give me a break.
I love it whem MikeB slits his own throat with his own stupidity.
Saves me typing.
Do it some more Mikey!
And then you blow smoke up each others asses
And if anyone would know about blowing smoke or other material up asses (or circle jerks, for that matter), it would be a child pr0n enabler, wouldn't it?
"....there's a red hooouse, over yonder, that's where my baby stays...." Ahhh, Jimi...
This is why you get called a liar so often--- you lie so often
Bob S. explained at length how "turn the other cheek" doesn't mean that at all. That's great reasoning.
I never "explained" that it doesn't mean that at all. I gave the PROPER meaning of the phrase. Backed up by research, can you point to any evidence of it meaning anything else?
So, you flat out lied again. You claimed something that isn't true, you lied and then you claim you don't lie.
I really don't think anyone has "proven" that I'm a bigot. Nor has anyone "proven" that I "lie." These may be your opinions based on your understanding of the comments exchanged. But, I disagree.
Again (because you NEVER answer this question....as in EVER) what statements about your bigotry have been untrue?
Your bigotry and your lying are NOT statements of opinion, but marked observations. I'll be the first to admit that observations can be wrong (I first observed you are curious, compassionate about gun laws...turned out that was completely untrue) but we need to know what about our observations are wrong.
Given that you never respond directly to the question, we are only further lead to believe that our accusations are true.
And of course your trolling method of "discussion" only further supports those claims.
Disagree all you like, MikeB, but you are the one who has already admitted to having no accurate and consistent method for determining fact from fiction. Considering how that is the case, your word on pretty damned near anything is completely and absolutely meaningless.
As I said before, replace the words "gun owners" with "black people" in 90% of the things you say... but, wait, you cannot do that, because that would be bigotry would it not?
Well, guess what, nitwit? It is bigotry to want to discriminate against law-abiding gun owners as well.
And in regards to your complete and utter lack of honesty, you lied in this very comment thread, and still have not retracted it or apologized for it.
Your words and actions have proven that you are nothing more than a lying bigot. Sure, you can disagree with that observation all you like, but the irony of doing so is that it is your own actions that make you the liar and the bigot. We are making nothing up, MikeB - we are only telling you how you behave.
To use Pistolero's colorful word, you guys are the perfect circle jerk. I've raised some legitimate concerns and sometimes backed them up with legitimate sources. You guys argue your side of it until it becomes clear that you're either losing the argument or at best achieving a stalemate, then you turn nasty. Personal attacks, name calling, these become your daily fare.
Read Sevesteen and Sebastian for how it can be done.
Ahh, and now comes the bleeding martyr in addition to the continued lying.
Fabricating numbers out of whole cloth is not a "legitimate concerns". Blaming all gun owners for the actions of criminals are not "legitimate concerns". Focusing exclusively on the inanimate tool is not a "legitimate concern". The Brady Bunch are not a "legitmate source". The VPC is not a "legitimate source". Anything funded by the Joyce Foundation is not a "legitimate source".
And that pretty much covers darned near every single one of your comments and posts.
Then you turn around, "prove" your arguments by the logical fallacy of repeating your arguments over and over and over again, and tell us that we have lost? Yeah... remember that whole inability to determine fact from fiction problem you have, MikeB?
Oh, and by the way, pointing out your discrimination, bigotry, intolerance, and illogic is not a "personal attack", nor is it "name calling" - it is simply a statement adequately and accurately describing your arguments and the methods you use to create them. On the other hand, referring to other people as "the perfect circle jerk" while attmepting to call those people out over their "name calling" is the height of irony.
Again a responce with no substance, and again a bit of name calling, and now an attempt to divide by deriding us and praising Seve and Sebastian. We're all good people on a good side, Mike, why not attempt to support your side?
There's obviously a reason why you consistently don't.
you guys are the perfect circle jerk.
Please explain, oh peerless circle-jerk expert.
The perfect circle jerk would be approximately synonymous with blowing smoke up each others asses.
In other words, when one of you says something questionable or even wrong, you all pitch in with support. When the enemy, someone like me says something that makes sense or contains proof, you all deny it and twist it around to make it wrong. And in both cases you all pat each other on the back the whole time.
you all pitch in with support
But here's the thing: unlike a circle-jerk, it's not about making each other feel good. We base our assertions on hard evidence. Such as, for example, your blog postings and assorted comments. And I have yet to see any real pats on the back beyond comments like, "exactly, Pistolero." When I see things like that they're always followed with yet more proof to back up what was said before. It's almost like just an interjection. An afterthought, even.
you all deny it and twist it around
If by "deny it and twist it around" you mean "give it an honest assessment by holding it up to basic logic, facts and other principles that can't be honestly denied" then yes, that's exactly what we do.
Again no examples of what we have said that is incorrect or dishonest.
Nope just more whining and name-calling.
Any reason why you're avoiding the discussion, Mike, but still commenting?
In other words, when one of you says something questionable or even wrong, you all pitch in with support.
Could that be because the facts are on the side of rights and freedoms? No, that is not it... obviously this is all a massive, grand conspiracy put together to keep the poor crusaders like MikeB ground into the dust, right?
When the enemy, someone like me says something that makes sense or contains proof, you all deny it and twist it around to make it wrong.
Your brain simply does not understand the concept of "examples", does it?
More maligning claims without a shred of support. More ironic, hypocritical namecalling. More MikeB being nothing more than a lying troll.
I have to admit, if you ever wanted to prove you were not a liar, and not a spineless troll, this thread was not the way to do it. Speaking of, I still see no apology for your lie in this very thread... interesting, that.
Young people are dangerous with cars too. This is why the restrictions on young drivers keep increasing in some states.
Mike W, I disagree with you sometimes (as you would me, I'm sure), but I think you're right on this one. I've been shooting and hunting on my own since I was 14 or 15, and the only thing that got hit unintentionally by one of my bullets was a robin. That was intended for a blackbird when I was 16 or 17.
I bought a pistol the day I turned 21, got my carry permit 3 months later, and have carried everyday since. No one has gotten hurt, and my weapon has not even been reached for, even when someone ticks me off. It's not even a thought.
Maturity can be related to age, as experience does teach, but maturity is not a function of age.
Post a Comment