Comments on: He feels unnerved. Others feel, well, like their guts were blown out of their bodies all over the lecture hall.

By: grieve

grieve — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:59:42 +0000

MartinM: And if people were going around force-feeding steak to others, that would be relevant.I guess you have never lived in Texas. ;)

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:40:30 +0000

I was put off by Eric’s statement, but in fairness, what I have heard or think he said may not bear much relation to what he actually said or thinks….My stance could be characterized this way: There is no reason to believe that a society has to be riddled with gun violence. Our society should not be. Also, and this is not really a stance as much as an anti-stance: I think that the typical positions out there that people tend to hold are mostly self serving and unrealistic, relying more on rhetoric than on actually working towards finding solutions. That applies to “both sides” (and there really does seem to be two sides).

By: grieve

grieve — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:19:26 +0000

No, I do not. Is there some reason that I must have a rigid stance, other than that everyone else seems to have one? Is this difficult for you?No it is not difficult for me. It actually makes your post and comments less confusing to me. There is no reason to have a stance rigid or otherwise on any particular issue, but living in an ambivalent state for an extended period of time can be frustrating.The passion of your post and comments implies that you have some stance on gun control, but maybe you just don't like Eric. ;)

By: R N B

R N B — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:42:15 +0000

Back to the original post – let’s look at the reported facts.We don’t even need to compare US with Canada or Europe. Even just in the case of Eric Thompson, the reports seem to suggest that so far his sales may have contributed to at least two mass shootings and untold single shootings. And so far the reported facts suggest that his sales have contributed to precisely zero terminations of mass shootings.As I’ve said elsewhere, increased gun ownership should result in increased chance of the very rare “dozen people mass shooting” being reduced to a “half dozen person mass shooting”, so on that point Eric is right. But it also produces increased chance of the much more common one-off shooting. There is undoubtedly a percentage of people who react violently to the slightest perceived affront, if more of them have guns then more people will be shot.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:46:44 +0000

Do you even know what your own stance is on gun control?No, I do not. Is there some reason that I must have a rigid stance, other than that everyone else seems to have one? Is this difficult for you?

By: grieve

grieve — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:37:51 +0000

Greg: You might be right about how an investigation would proceed, but without actual cases I would not assume it.As to assumptions and my argument, that is easy: I don't have an argument. I'm seeking answers.I can easily find out about the self-defense cases, then we can both stop making assumptions about it.I am a little confused. It sure sounds like you are making the argument that Eric Thompson should be stopped, don't you think? I mean it does end with a question mark, but I really assumed it was rhetorical. Maybe that was one of the assumptions that I made. Since you avoided telling what I assumed about you earlier I can only guess.In that case the answer is no. Eric Thompson should not be stopped from running a legal online business.The idea of it being "normal" for private citizens to mete out death via a personal firearm when other citizens do certain things is something I would consider an advancement.This is really confusing. At this point it just sounds like you are outraged at a mass killing (completely understandable), but your arguments (for?/against?) seem to be all over the place. Do you even know what your own stance is on gun control? And why are you so reluctant to just spell it out?

By: the real cmf

the real cmf — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:54:22 +0000

Greg, I think you mean an advancement of some argument, right? Otherwise, it sounds kind of chimp like to consider killing others an anvancement 8;-)BUt there was that case in Colorado where the security guard, a former MPD cop, wasted a would be killer who was going to gun down a church. Granted, security guards are paramilitary, but still, it was a church ( and you know th’ lawd works mysteriously).Too, there was that case two or three years ago in MPLS where [if memory serves me right] a concealed carry legal gun owner shot a bouncer in the back:http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=96950

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:34:22 +0000

The idea of it being “normal” for private citizens to mete out death via a personal firearm when other citizens do certain things is something I would consider an advancement.

By: Monado, FCD

Monado, FCD — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:56:07 +0000

This might be inappropriately humorous, but I like, “Accordions don’t play ‘Lady of Spain.’ People play ‘Lady of Spain.'”

By: Nomen Nescio

Nomen Nescio — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:34:16 +0000

if i were walking in the kind of woods where a moose-sized animal could just suddenly step out of the underbrush within arm’s reach of me before i noticed it… honestly, i’m not sure what manner of weapon i’d want to have with me, but i’d certainly not wish to go there unarmed.really, that’s pretty amazing. it’s either an unusually inattentive human or a very, very tight woods.