Date: Dec 19, 2012 1:15 PM
Author: kirby urner
Subject: Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Gary Tupper <email@example.com> wrote:
> It is not surprising to me that gun legislation is not very effective.
> Sort of like "Zero Tolerance" policies. What might be more effective is a
> social perspective that guns are rather tacky: before allowing their child
> to sleep-over at little Johnny's, the parents would require that there are
> no fire arms in Johnny's house - before inviting a couple over for drinks,
> or a get-together at a restaurant, the hosts would confirm that the guests
> weren't 'carrying'. Namely, gun-possessors would gradually become pariahs
> in society. The ultimate aim being that gun-users would ultimately be
> limited to law enforcement officers and violent criminals. Legitimate
> hunters would still be able to use their hunting rifles. Gun clubs & rifle
> ranges would still exist, but the local police stations would store the
> Gary Tupper
I agree that having guns in the wrong place at the wrong time should be
seen as tacky, disrespectful, dumb.
Adults carry banned (by Disney) weapons onto the Disneyland campus (private
property) or any private campus that bans them, are committed a huge social
faux pas, even if they don't "get caught" and even if the state around this
property says carrying with a permit is OK in public spaces. Much as
members of the public are invited into these private spaces, they remain
The case of Disneyland:
In this post, you see an angry airline pilot saying to hotel management "I
would never come back to this hotel were it really your policy not to allow
me to have a gun in my room".
So that what it comes down to, lodging a protest. There's no reason entire
hotel chains shouldn't market themselves as "gun free". You must check
them, like a hat or coat, if carrying. Some gun totters and the NRA have
the right to eschew this hotel chain, to complain.
Ditto for Disneyland.
Ditto for university campuses.
Unwelcome vandal - vagrant gun owner types can complain they're not allowed
to deface private property with their presence, but if they flaunt the
private property rights of the property owner, they should be exposed and
their identities published to a list of violators.
If Disney wants to ban people for life for a transgression, of a hotel
wants to throw someone out who is tacky and disrespectful and a disgusting
specimen of a human being, I say go for it.
Let the hotel tell that airline pilot to pack his bag and his gun and head
off down the the street, never come back, and cancel any agreements with
his airline. If the NRA protests, wear that as a badge of honor. Any
hotel the NRA doesn't like will attract loyal fans who consider that a sign
On 12/19/2012 6:14 AM, Robert Hansen wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2012, at 8:01 AM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> All of the above seems to be simple enough logically for anyone to
> understand who has been able to understand the logic of simple arithmetic,
> algebra, and the like.
> Well, it didn't work in India, did it? It didn't work in Chicago. It
> didn't work in DC. That tells me that it isn't simple. What would be your
> next step in India? I mean, since the gun ban didn't work.
> Bob Hansen