[prairiewind2]

Natalie - You are making the huge mistake of assuming that because we do not agree with you that we haven't thought about our positions deeply. That we haven't considered all sides. That we are just kneejerkers or plain stupid. Such prejudice and blindness on your part saddens me.

I can see your side. I understand it. I have considered the anti-gun folks' arguments. I am a very intelligent person. And I still do not agree with you. You (generic you here) have to consider that most subjects have at least two sides, and that at times, none of them are wrong. They are just coming at it from different life experiences.

It is this push and pull that helps keep our country on a wavering, but generally good, path. This dialog and disagreement is vital to our country's survival. But discounting the other side as stupid is definitely not helpful.

I read the NYT all the time. Believe it or not, I am not a Republican. Or a Libertarian. 'Course, I'm not a Democrat either! My beliefs cannot be defined by any one party, so I have never belonged to any of them.

The U.S. has tried to ban and/or control a couple of things over the years - alcohol and drugs. Banning alcohol led to some of the worst crime this country had ever seen, and to the rise of the Mafia. Banning drugs has led to some of the worst crime the country has ever seen, and contributed to the chaos and mass murder in Mexico. Banning or heavily controlling - at least in the U.S. - always has consequences, and rarely really works. It is a step not to be taken lightly.

Liz

[Blugal]

(regarding guns during a food/water shortage)
The problem is that going by the previous logic of LarkspurCO (not fooler's example), everyone with a gun becomes a one-man army and anarchist. Rather than trying to cooperate, share, come up with solutions as a group, etc.

Guns' pervasive, open presence would sow apprehension, suspicion, mistrust and fear, all emotions that are corrosive of community and civic cooperation. (from the NYT article)

[prairiewind2]

(regarding guns during a food/water shortage)
The problem is that going by the previous logic (not fooler's example), everyone with a gun becomes a one-man army and anarchist. Rather than trying to cooperate, share, come up with solutions as a group, etc.

Guns' pervasive, open presence would sow apprehension, suspicion, mistrust and fear, all emotions that are corrosive of community and civic cooperation. (from the NYT article)

Guns are pervasively present here and we do not suffer from corrosive or suspicious anything. We have a very cooperative community, very supportive. We stick together. Perhaps your community would react as the blogger thinks, but guns do not affect us that way. We are sensible people.

Liz

[Natalie]

Natalie - You are making the huge mistake of assuming that because we do not agree with you that we haven't thought about our positions deeply. That we haven't considered all sides. That we are just kneejerkers or plain stupid. Such prejudice and blindness on your part saddens me.

Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that everyone who disagrees with me hasn't thought about their positions--I simply said that anyone who refuses to even READ the article SIMPLY because of the source is closed-minded. I say that because I have, in the past, seen posters on here derisively tell others that they won't even "click on x-y-z" link because they can't be bothered to give that site traffic.

You are entitled to a difference of opinion. I'm not trying to change yours--I simply think that article I linked to is interesting because it challenges some basic assumptions the pro-NRA crowd has.

Also--I did not say anything about banning guns, nor does the article I linked to.

[Blugal]

Guns are pervasively present here and we do not suffer from corrosive or suspicious anything. We have a very cooperative community, very supportive. We stick together. Perhaps your community would react as the blogger thinks, but guns do not affect us that way. We are sensible people.

Liz

I was responding to LarkspurCO's post - she seems to think that everything would denigrate almost immediately into roving bands of armed bandits, fighting armed home-owners. That sounds entirely fear-based, suspicious and corrosive to me.

It is the fact that people expect this to happen, and are arming themselves pre-meditatively, which says to me, "I don't trust my neighbours. I want to hoard things for myself because that is the only way to ensure I will have them. They are mine and I will defend them with guns. I can't trust others to help if I were in need, and I can't trust myself to share and cooperate either."

[prairiewind2]

Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that everyone who disagrees with me hasn't thought about their positions--I simply said that anyone who refuses to even READ the article SIMPLY because of the source is closed-minded. I say that because I have, in the past, seen posters on here derisively tell others that they won't even "click on x-y-z" link because they can't be bothered to give that site traffic.

You are entitled to a difference of opinion. I'm not trying to change yours--I simply think that article I linked to is interesting because it challenges some basic assumptions the pro-NRA crowd has.

Also--I did not say anything about banning guns, nor does the article I linked to.

So you are prejudiced. Anyone who doesn't read the blog is closeminded. Because you happen to like the blog.

I glanced at the blog (not an article) but didn't read the whole thing because I don't read blogs. Don't read editorials for that matter either. I have absolutely no interest in what random people think. I enjoy debates such as we are having here but find editorializing blogs incredibly predictable and boring!

Liz

[Donkerbruin]

Yes, that would be a horrifying situation in which to find yourself. People tend to think it won't happen to them, but it happened less than a decade ago in this country.

I find it sad that people who plan ahead for emergencies are mocked and vilified these days. That used to be just plain common sense.

Yeah, but some of these people are just SO mockable. Have you seen the Doomsday Preppers? Either on History or Discovery channel, can't remember. You can't tell me those folks aren't total nutbars.

My coworker tells me that her husband is currently stockpiling ammo because he is just sure that soon you won't be able to buy it and he's going to need it in the ultimate war between the people and the government. It's all I can do not to laugh in her face! Of course, this is the same woman who tells her children that babies are made by the mommy and the daddy praying really hard...

[Natalie]

Guns are pervasively present here and we do not suffer from corrosive or suspicious anything. We have a very cooperative community, very supportive. We stick together. Perhaps your community would react as the blogger thinks, but guns do not affect us that way. We are sensible people.

Liz

I definitely believe you (why would I not?) and am sure that this is the case in many other parts of the country.

HOWEVER--can I assume that your community is small, rural (or rural-ish) and naturally cohesive? (I grew up in a community that had some of these same characteristics, so I get it)

Now, put yourself into an urban setting--or a large, sprawling suburb made up of transplants who are mobile (people tend not to stay for generations and put down "roots"), less invested in the community, etc. Would you still feel at ease in a room full of people armed to the teeth?

You may very well disagree with me, but I think that your community is cohesive and supportive for reasons that stand outside of, and therefore transcend the fact that you are armed. This isn't possible everywhere, imo.

[prairiewind2]

I was responding to LarkspurCO's post - she seems to think that everything would denigrate almost immediately into roving bands of armed bandits, fighting armed home-owners. That sounds entirely fear-based, suspicious and corrosive to me.

It is the fact that people expect this to happen, and are arming themselves pre-meditatively, which says to me, "I don't trust my neighbours. I want to hoard things for myself because that is the only way to ensure I will have them. They are mine and I will defend them with guns. I can't trust others to help if I were in need, and I can't trust myself to share and cooperate either."

But that did happen in New Orleans. Roving people did prey on people. (So did the police, who actually killed people, so maybe a few more guns for the citizens would have been helpful!)

It is a fact that when there is almost no food or water, people will fight for what little there is. Survival is a powerful instinct. And no matter how much you love your neighbors or they you, no matter how well you cooperate with each other and share - there will always be predators out there who will not. They will want what you have and will take it if they can. You and your neighbors had best be prepared for this.

I am not one of those who thinks that sort of thing will really happen to me. But I do know that it can happen, because it has. Katrina taught us all a lot, I hope.

Liz

[prairiewind2]

Natalie - I didn't grow up here. I grew up in a midwestern city of several hundred thousand. My part of town wasn't the fancy part of town. It was ethnic and poor. There were lots of guns, though at the time (a long time ago), they were mostly shotguns, rifles and pistols. So I have been in an armed urban setting.

I have no problem if big cities want to ban guns. (The NRA might mind, but I don't belong to the NRA.) I just don't want city folk coming to my state and telling us what we can and cannot have.

Liz

[stolen virtue]

And the Colorado wildfires were somehow related to ... what?

The example I laid out was of someone storing food and water for their family in the event of a natural disaster, as a way to illustrate how firearms could be necessary to protect their life-saving stockpile of food and water. Nowhere did I mention stockpiling weapons.

The examples of government misdeeds are provided as food for thought and evidence of how power can and does corrupt, thus supporting the founding fathers' motives for writing the 2nd Amendment.

But you do not want to bother reading or thinking about what I wrote. You simply want to cast stones, however ill-conceived they are.

I reposted your post which babbles on about government turning on it's citizens. Your post is silly and more of the far right fear mongoring wrapped in the second Ammendment. I don't cast stones, I just call it out when it is fear mongoring and to think that the government will turn on it's people shows me how little you know about how this government works. Government is made up of it's people.

[Natalie]

So you are prejudiced. Anyone who doesn't read the blog is closeminded. Because you happen to like the blog.

I glanced at the blog (not an article) but didn't read the whole thing because I don't read blogs. Don't read editorials for that matter either. I have absolutely no interest in what random people think. I enjoy debates such as we are having here but find editorializing blogs incredibly predictable and boring!

Liz

Clearly you're reading what I write and then choosing to imply that I'm somehow stupid or closed minded.

Once again--I said that anyone who refused to even entertain the idea of reading anything on the NYTimes site simply because it is, the NYTimes was closed minded. I said NOTHING about actually reading the article. I get it...sometimes you read a few sentences, decide its boring, and move on. Whatever.

The point is--nothing I have written has actually been directed at you. CLEARLY, by not shutting me down simply because of the source I posted, YOU ARE NOT who I was referring to.

But, by all means, imply that I am "prejudiced" or somehow less intelligent than you. You seem like such a lovely person.

[Natalie]

Natalie - I didn't grow up here. I grew up in a midwestern city of several hundred thousand. My part of town wasn't the fancy part of town. It was ethnic and poor. There were lots of guns, though at the time (a long time ago), they were mostly shotguns, rifles and pistols. So I have been in an armed urban setting.

I have no problem if big cities want to ban guns. (The NRA might mind, but I don't belong to the NRA.) I just don't want city folk coming to my state and telling us what we can and cannot have.

Liz

Well you growing up there is neither here nor there. Once again though, I see you assuming that people here are talking about gun bans. I'm not, at all, especially in rural areas. I don't think that anyone here is.

[fooler]

I was responding to LarkspurCO's post - she seems to think that everything would denigrate almost immediately into roving bands of armed bandits, fighting armed home-owners. That sounds entirely fear-based, suspicious and corrosive to me.

It is the fact that people expect this to happen, and are arming themselves pre-meditatively, which says to me, "I don't trust my neighbours. I want to hoard things for myself because that is the only way to ensure I will have them. They are mine and I will defend them with guns. I can't trust others to help if I were in need, and I can't trust myself to share and cooperate either."

Throughout-out history this has been proven to be true. Desperate people do things they would normally not do. A break down of society is an opening for some to do what they wish.

At one time it was very common to have extra food stuffs on hand in case of natural disasters such as ice/snow storms, hurricanes, tornadoes. In fact at the annual USEA meeting in Charlotte, NC a vet who had worked for over a decadein the aftermath of multiple hurricanes advised everyone to plan first to take care of ourselves, second work with our neighbors and lastly our community. He was very clear that we should understand government assistance would be delayed and limited.

Not fear-based, just preparations based on experience and fact.

[Blugal]

Throughout-out history this has been proven to be true. Desperate people do things they would normally not do. A break down of society is an opening for some to do what they wish.

I wonder what a "break down of society" truly is. Is it a localized disaster such as Katrina or Sandy? It seems the arguments are covering both localized disasters and "end-of-the-world" government is collapsed, or going against its citizens, scenarios.

Secondly, maybe education and disaster preparedness would be a better thing for people to concentrate on, than arming themselves to the teeth.

Thirdly, my recollection of the 1998 ice storm in eastern Canada (if we're talking about localized disasters) did not include the dire predictions of this thread of desperate people fighting and killing each other over scarce resources.

[prairiewind2]

Clearly you're reading what I write and then choosing to imply that I'm somehow stupid or closed minded.

Once again--I said that anyone who refused to even entertain the idea of reading anything on the NYTimes site simply because it is, the NYTimes was closed minded. I said NOTHING about actually reading the article. I get it...sometimes you read a few sentences, decide its boring, and move on. Whatever.

The point is--nothing I have written has actually been directed at you. CLEARLY, by not shutting me down simply because of the source I posted, YOU ARE NOT who I was referring to.

But, by all means, imply that I am "prejudiced" or somehow less intelligent than you. You seem like such a lovely person.

I went back and reread what you wrote, and I apologize. I did misunderstand what you were saying.

However, nowhere did I say anything that implied you were less intelligent than I am, so maybe there is some mutual misunderstanding going on here! And just in case there is any confusion - being prejudiced (which I am no longer saying you are!) has nothing to do with intelligence. I've known very intelligent people who were prejudiced against various things/people.

I believe there are people in this discussion who are advocating banning guns. I'm glad you are not one of them, and I apologize if I have misunderstood what some of these other folks are wanting.

Liz

[prairiewind2]

Well you growing up there is neither here nor there. Once again though, I see you assuming that people here are talking about gun bans. I'm not, at all, especially in rural areas. I don't think that anyone here is.

You seemed to assume I was unfamiliar with an armed urban setting. I was just pointing out I grew up in an armed urban setting.

Liz

[fooler]

I reposted your post which babbles on about government turning on it's citizens. Your post is silly and more of the far right fear mongoring wrapped in the second Ammendment. I don't cast stones, I just call it out when it is fear mongoring and to think that the government will turn on it's people shows me how little you know about how this government works. Government is made up of it's people.

I know how this government works. "We" have to be aware of who we have elected and how those people respond to being in office. Many vote only for those who benefit themselves, be it corporate or individual welfare.
People are imperfect, therefore government are imperfect.

[prairiewind2]

I reposted your post which babbles on about government turning on it's citizens. Your post is silly and more of the far right fear mongoring wrapped in the second Ammendment. I don't cast stones, I just call it out when it is fear mongoring and to think that the government will turn on it's people shows me how little you know about how this government works. Government is made up of it's people.

The government did turn on its citizens after Katrina. I'm not talking about the lack of quick government response. That's a whole different debate. I'm talking about the cops who killed innocent citizens. They represented the only government present at the time. And many of them definitely turned on the people.

Liz

[Natalie]

I went back and reread what you wrote, and I apologize. I did misunderstand what you were saying.

However, nowhere did I say anything that implied you were less intelligent than I am, so maybe there is some mutual misunderstanding going on here! And just in case there is any confusion - being prejudiced (which I am no longer saying you are!) has nothing to do with intelligence. I've known very intelligent people who were prejudiced against various things/people.

I believe there are people in this discussion who are advocating banning guns. I'm glad you are not one of them, and I apologize if I have misunderstood what some of these other folks are wanting.

Liz

Apology accepted. And, I in turn apologize for assuming that you implied I was less intelligent.

And look, for full disclosure on how I feel--I am not comfortable with firearms, and find the "arm yourselves" mentality to be frightening, in large part because of what I frankly see as nothing but paranoia on the part of many who advocate this. I, for one, do not want any part of a society that arms grade school teachers or say, nurses.

So, on a personal level, I would be perfectly fine with guns being largely unavailable to the average person (I'm fine with hunting rifles and the like).

BUT--I recognize that we live in a democracy where not everyone agrees with me, AND respect the existence of the Second Amendment. So, personal feelings aside, I DON'T ADVOCATE for a ban on all firearms. I just think that all sane people, both gun owners and enthusiasts as well as those who are, um, less enthusiastic about them can agree that finding ways to keep dangerous weapons away from people who have no business with them is something we need to do as a nation.