guns

[steveknapp]

We had a gun growing up and I don't have one now. But I'm seriously considering one, not to protect myself, but to shoot the bastard who starts the next gun thread.

 

So, what would you buy for that purpose?

[Matts_12GS]

It is the change-resistant side in such situations that succumbs to calling that change a forced will.

 

Truly, there is no place that has such unrestricted access. Otherwise, it might be called Texas!

 

It is the change-resistant side in such situations that succumbs to calling that change a forced will.

 

At least we could probably agree that both sides take this stance.

[WURTY]

OK TATERS..

U happy now...???

Look what U started

[tallman]

We had a gun growing up and I don't have one now. But I'm seriously considering one, not to protect myself, but to shoot the bastard who starts the next gun thread.

 

The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

 

So, what would you buy for that purpose?

[DavidEBSmith]

"strictly for elderly residents" Oooo....

 

See, this is why you can't do those long distance rallies. Reading comprehension. Only part of it was designed for elderly residents. The rest of it was designed for the usual unemployed, drug-smokin', cap-poppin' denizens of public housing that benefit so much from living among the elderly. If you think it's all old people there, we can drop you off at one end of the projects around midnight some Saturday night and you can go for a leisurely stroll among the old folks.

 

one of the people had a neighbor who shot himself in the hand while cleaning the gun. They all thought this was normal gun danger...

 

At least when I took Riflery in college, and one time I nearly shot the gunny sergeant who was teaching, I didn't actually hit him. It woulda just made him mad anyway.

 

But yah, it makes me wince to go into a gun shop and see all the morons pointing guns at each other, or at the clerks, or me . . .

[steveknapp]

See, this is why you can't do those long distance rallies. Reading comprehension.

 

Aw crap, I thought it was either having a life or my love of pie that kept me away...

[DavidEBSmith]

What the last two factors have in common, I believe, is a feeling of outrage that is absent from all the more common causes of death. People who own guns for self-protection, I would guess, have a greater sense of outrage at the thought of themselves or a family member being attacked than those who don't, and a greater sense of outrage at that particular type of death or injury than they would feel towards the more common causes.

 

I don't think it's outrage, I think it's control.

 

I don't think that people who obtain guns for self-protection then feel less of a sense of outrage that their family might be killed, and I don't think they feel less fear at whatever is lurking out there. I think they feel the outrage and fear just as strongly as ever. But the presence of the gun provides a sense of control over random violence. The random act of violence is something beyond your control (perhaps even beyond the control of society) but the gun restores control, quite literally to your own hand. Thus the pro-gun people still go on and on about threats - they feel the threats as strongly, but have the feeling of control over those threats to counterbalance (not eliminate) it.

 

This would explain why some people don't feel the need to have guns around. If they don't feel a sense of random threat, if they feel society pretty much has random threats under control, if they feel that it's strictly society's role to deal with random threats, if they feel they can keep random threats in check with a burglar alarm or a dog or by moving to a gated community, then they would not feel the need to maintain control themselves by having a gun around. (You may disagree with any or all of those evaluations, but that doesn't decrease their subjective validity for some people).

 

Of course, the interesting question this raises is whether the sense of control provided by having a gun around is legitimate or illusory. Part of the mental image supporting having a gun around is that when those armed intruders come through the door, you can take them on and vanquish them. The mental image would have to be that you're always victorious. Otherwise you would undermine your sense of control.

 

You could explain a lot with this theory.

[ghaverkamp]

At least we could probably agree that both sides take this stance.

 

Yes.

[Dave McReynolds]

But the presence of the gun provides a sense of control over random violence. The random act of violence is something beyond your control (perhaps even beyond the control of society) but the gun restores control, quite literally to your own hand.

 

If control is the motivation, then why don't these people exercise more control over the more common forms of death that I mentioned (not that some gun owners don't practice good health against heart disease, etc., but it probably isn't a higher percentage than the population as a whole)?

 

In other words, what motivates them to prepare against violence, but doesn't motivate them to prepare against the more common threats to their health?

[steveknapp]

This would explain why some people don't feel the need to have guns around. If they don't feel a sense of random threat, if they feel society pretty much has random threats under control, if they feel that it's strictly society's role to deal with random threats, if they feel they can keep random threats in check with a burglar alarm or a dog or by moving to a gated community, then they would not feel the need to maintain control themselves by having a gun around. (You may disagree with any or all of those evaluations, but that doesn't decrease their subjective validity for some people).

 

There are those who feel the random threats are valid, and the solution is fewer guns. It's an easy leap, the shooter used a gun, if there weren't any guns we wouldn't have shooters... I'm afraid, make this a gun-free zone.

 

Of course, the interesting question this raises is whether the sense of control provided by having a gun around is legitimate or illusory. Part of the mental image supporting having a gun around is that when those armed intruders come through the door, you can take them on and vanquish them.

 

I think that depends a lot on training and perspective. Many gun owners, if I were to guess, aren't getting the values worth.

 

It's easy to pull the stories out about people like this woman at GAT who was just hired as a security guard, and as such needed a gun. When asked what she wanted "something cheap, light, easy to carry around". It was clear by her handling of the firearm she didn't have much if any experience with them.

 

I'm just not sure how much of that reflects the population as a whole.

[steveknapp]

If control is the motivation, then why don't these people exercise more control over the more common forms of death that I mentioned (not that some gun owners don't practice good health against heart disease, etc., but it probably isn't a higher percentage than the population as a whole)?

 

There are all sorts of people in any hobby. I've not seen the same bias you mentioned when I'm at the range. Then again I could use to loose a few pounds myself.

 

To be honest, the spread of people I've seen at shooting events is pretty similar to that of a motorcycle "unrally" type event.

 

And there is that aspect of randomness to death. I've seen unhealthy people live long lives, and healthy people die of heart attacks. That's also "natures" doing.

[Dave McReynolds]

And there is that aspect of randomness to death. I've seen unhealthy people live long lives, and healthy people die of heart attacks. That's also "natures" doing.

 

So what is it that makes you accept the one, but not the other? It's also nature's way for the strong to attack the weak.

[steveknapp]

So what is it that makes you accept the one, but not the other? It's also nature's way for the strong to attack the weak.

 

I was offering perspective on the others. Why they might choose to make a choice that seems so illogical.

 

For me personally? I don't think, short of the world ending, that my gun will do much other than be fun to shoot. I'm not preparing, but I'm enjoying learning.

 

It's not unlike the question "why do you ride fast?". Well, except my shooting is legal, unlike speeding. Might knowing how to ride well at speed save your hide someday? Sure, some crazy nut wants to run you off the road, you can get away. THAT happens all the time right?

 

As far as strong vs weak, that's I'm curious how you define strong... Strong of mind in being prepared and able to provide vs strong of body.

[Dave McReynolds]

As far as strong vs weak, that's I'm curious how you define strong... Strong of mind in being prepared and able to provide vs strong of body.

 

Like when a pack of dogs is running together and one dog gets caught in a fence or injured in some way, and the other dogs tear him apart. I've always been curious about why that happens. Or when a mountain lion kills every deer or sheep it comes across, just for fun, I guess. Or when a housecat plays with a mouse, and bats it to get it going again when it slows down. Or when a childless gorilla kills the mother of a gorilla baby so she can have that baby. Or when a factory owner keeps hundreds of workers in virtual servitude so he can have a high-rise penthouse in Hong Kong. Or when graveyards with hundreds of bodies of those who flunked drug trade 101 are found outside Tijuana. That's sort of what I had in mind when I made the comment about the strong attacking the weak.

[taters]

i had no idea i would start this wild fire...lol glad i did though as there are on average 20,000 murders each year in the u.s. in the last 20 years about 400,000 people have been murdered in america. so if you are a victim of a home invasion and these thugs threaten to do unspeakable things to your wife,little girl or little boy, you will never forgive yourself if you were not prepared. but if you heed this warning and get a firearm and take a course in how to handle it than you will be thanking taters forever!!!!!!1

[DavidEBSmith]

If control is the motivation, then why don't these people exercise more control over the more common forms of death that I mentioned (not that some gun owners don't practice good health against heart disease, etc., but it probably isn't a higher percentage than the population as a whole)?

 

In other words, what motivates them to prepare against violence, but doesn't motivate them to prepare against the more common threats to their health?

 

I dunno. Why do people buy guns to protect themselves from the highly unlikely event of a home invasion and then go out and ride their motorcycles helmetless from bar to bar and get drunk? Or their snowmobiles from bar to bar and get drunk? I dunno. One thing they feel they can control and one they can't (or don't want to)? Wrong balance of risks? People are stupid?

[DavidEBSmith]

there are on average 20,000 murders each year in the u.s.

 

There are 73,000 deaths from diabetes. So stop eating all that sugar.

 

There are 30,000 deaths from suicide. So you are more of a danger to yourself than the bad guys are.

[taters]

very true grasshopper,,,,,but how about protecting your loved ones!!! now i am done with this topic

[Fugu]

Holy cow.

 

Every gun owner is a sexual deviant and is blood thirsty? Substitute a race for gun owner and see how bad that statement sounds.

 

Why do some people who advocate self defense not take care of themselves physically? Hardly tough to grasp- it's simple choice vs. coercion. I'm perfectly happy doing things that I know are bad for me but enjoying them anyhow- accepting the bad with the good, but if you try to take my life for my stuff, I will react violently.

 

If the constitution allows for infringement on the rights of others due to the exercise of one right, then it does for all the others as well. None are more important than the others.

 

Of course the argument I'm addressing there is based on the flimsy premise that possession = unlawful use, which is not the case. I can legally possess a fire extinguisher, but I'd be in trouble if I sprayed you in the face with it (if your face was not on fire).

 

Possession does not equal unlawful use, and there are already myriad laws that have passed constitutional muster regarding what is a lawful use of deadly force.

 

If the NRA decided motor vehicles (which kill more per year than guns ever will) should be banned, and that it would be worth it if it saved just one child, where would you all be? Filthy drug dealing outlaw biker trash, every one of you.

 

(see earlier comments re: characterization of gun owners if you don't get that)

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

We had a gun growing up and I don't have one now. But I'm seriously considering one, not to protect myself, but to shoot the bastard who starts the next gun thread.

 

So, what would you buy for that purpose?

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

But yah, it makes me wince to go into a gun shop and see all the morons pointing guns at each other, or at the clerks, or me . . .

 

Maybe if you took off your "FYYFF" hat...

[steveknapp]

Maybe if you took off your "FYYFF" hat...

 

Cammo "Team Waffle House" hat fits right in.

[steveknapp]

Like when a pack of dogs is running together and one dog gets caught in a fence or injured in some way, and the other dogs tear him apart. I've always been curious about why that happens. Or when a mountain lion kills every deer or sheep it comes across, just for fun, I guess. Or when a housecat plays with a mouse, and bats it to get it going again when it slows down. Or when a childless gorilla kills the mother of a gorilla baby so she can have that baby. Or when a factory owner keeps hundreds of workers in virtual servitude so he can have a high-rise penthouse in Hong Kong. Or when graveyards with hundreds of bodies of those who flunked drug trade 101 are found outside Tijuana. That's sort of what I had in mind when I made the comment about the strong attacking the weak.

 

Nature is interesting eh?

 

Gun owner or not, I'd like to think most people are more civilized than that.

[4wheeldog]

I've often noticed that people who live in rural areas are much more frightened of crime than people in the city, where the crime actually occurs. Yes, if you live in a rural area, you can't expect the police to show up in any reasonable time to prevent an attack and yes, if I lived in a rural area, I'd have guns around the house for protection. But it goes beyond preparation, there's an expectation of violence among people living in rural areas - there's a real belief that the violent hordes are lurking just around the corner. But the crime doesn't seem to happen to support that belief. (Yes, I know, the universal presence of guns in rural areas deters crime. But if it effectively deters crime, why are you still afraid?). Yes, there's meth problems in the country, but here in the city we've got crack and heroin and gangbangers that shoot each other for no apparent reason. I can tell you that when we go to Maine on vacation, people are worried about crime and there is none, and we we get back to the city, people don't obsess about crime and it's happening every day.

 

It seems to me that both sides of the gun debate have a disconnect from reality. The world isn't as deadly as the pro-gun side thinks it is, and the world isn't as benign as the anti-gun side thinks it is. Neither hunkering down with a gun waiting for death to crash through the door, nor blithely skipping down ghetto streets assuming the government will protect you, is a healthy attitude to have.

 

But I also believe that both sides have too much mentally invested in being correct to be able to admit that they might be wrong.

 

I own and keep guns at the ready for the same reason I have a generator and 3000 gallons of water tanks in the ground with a gasoline pump. I believe I am responsible for my own (And my wife's) safety.

We live in the woods in a rural area. I cannot expect immediate response from emergency personnel, and when trouble really hits, they will likely be busy elseware. So I can fight a fire for a short while, or discourage/eliminate bad guys if necessary. We have never had a power outage for more than an hour or so, but I won't be sniveling to the power company for at least a few days if they don't get me up and running.

 

My wife has no interest in dealing with any of these things......She has shown no interest in learning how to start the generator or hook it up......Ditto the water pump. Goes without saying that she hasn't learned how to handle a shotgun, either. Not everyone has to feel as I do, but those that don't should be happy to have those that do around, so they don't have to.

[Fugu]

if you live in a rural area, you can't expect the police to show up in any reasonable time to prevent an attack

There is nowhere you could live where the police would be able to prevent an attack. If you lived inside a police precinct, they couldn't prevent an attack. All police can do is react.

[Agent_Orange]

True dat.

 

Two teens tried to rob police station

Two teens arrested after attempting to rob police station

By The Associated Press

 

 

Story Updated: Mar 13, 2008 at 4:16 PM EDT

 

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. (AP) - Two teenage boys are under arrest after they attempted to rob a police station.

 

Port St. Lucie police say the two boys - ages 12 and 14 - walked into the lobby of a regional station Wednesday afternoon and demanded money from an aide behind the glass enclosure.

 

Police say the 12-year-old hid one hand under his jacket as if he had a gun. Another aide ran into the back screaming for help.

 

Within minutes, a half dozen officers, some with guns drawn, burst into the lobby and arrested the boys. Both are charged with attempted armed robbery.

[ghaverkamp]

If the constitution allows for infringement on the rights of others due to the exercise of one right, then it does for all the others as well. None are more important than the others.

 

The rights may not be, but the interests in them are, and that's how the courts determine which rights win out. Some interests (self-government, for instance) are considered far more important than others (like advertising alcohol.) All of that assumes that you have a right to keep and bear arms, which might or might not be clearer in several months.

[Fugu]

All of that assumes that you have a right to keep and bear arms, which might or might not be clearer in several months.

 

I'm sure they are working feverishly to dodge the question.

[Timmer]

I'm sure they are working feverishly to dodge the question.

 

You can read the questions asked today by the Supreme Court HERE

 

All 89 pages of questions and answers....

[Paul_Burkett]

The right to bear arms has been clear for two hundred years, but now there is a generation that believes that guns are bad so in order to get rid of guns, we need to re-interpret the constitution. That is being done in California and other ultra-liberal states. It is the small vocal minority that often times get things to change locally, temporarily, but as so often times happens, it gets thrown out by the supreme court.

[Fugu]

I will check that out later. I just skimmed it and I hope I wasn't seeing what I was seeing...

 

It's now on the handy flash drive. Does the WSJ always put stuff like that up?

[HexHead]

An unrestricted right to bear arms imposes that will against those who would prefer to live in a society where people don't shoot at each other or where people would prefer not to get caught in the crossfire.

 

What an idiotic statement. I realize you live in an idealistic fairyland, but the fact is that in states with "shall issue" carry laws, licensed, responsible carry permit holders aren't doing any of the things you're so afraid of. None of the predictions of crossfires or the streets running red with rivers of blood have occurred.

 

And for the earlier poster that referenced not needing a gun because the police will protect you, they have no duty to protect you. The SCOTUS has already affirmed that and when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

[exwingnut]

We had a gun growing up and I don't have one now. But I'm seriously considering one, not to protect myself, but to shoot the bastard who starts the next gun thread.

 

So, what would you buy for that purpose?

 

 

Now we are getting somewhere...

[HexHead]

To shamelessly steal from Neil Steinberg again because I can't find the column online to quote, do we really expect little Susie to pull a Glock out of her Hello Kitty book bag and plug the next maniac who starts shooting up a school? Or, to put it another way, do we want little Susie's learning experience in college to include being constantly on the alert for a gunman to appear so she can whip that Glock out of her Hello Kitty bag and take someone's life? Some people might want to shield their children from that part of reality for a while, even if it puts them at increased risk of harm. (Just like some parents choose to allow their small children to ride small motorcycles, even if it puts them at increased risk of harm).

 

Why do the anti-gun nuts always dream up these ridiculous scenarios with no basis in reality to try and make their point? "Little Suzy" would have to be at least 21 in most states to have a carry permit or to even be able to buy that Glock. So she wouldn't be a child but an adult and why shouldn't an adult be able to defend themselves?

 

You live in IL, so how's that gun free state working out for ya? Maybe you should ask those women at Lane Bryant?

 

 

[Fugu]

The right to bear arms has been clear for two hundred years

 

Yup. I guess the founding fathers were sexually deviated blood thirsty maniacs.

[baggerchris]

In 1970 or early 1971 when visiting Manson's ranch up Goler wash, my Partner probably saved 4 person's lives with his Winchester 32-40 when confronted by a crazy old man living on the next ranch. You do what you want to, but I for one am always protected when traveling or camping. "In order to have peace, you must prepare for war"

I would always rather have it, and not have to use it, then to truly need it and not have it. Proper training however is essential.

[DavidEBSmith]

What an idiotic statement. I realize you live in an idealistic fairyland . . .

 

You live in IL, so how's that gun free state working out for ya? Maybe you should ask those women at Lane Bryant?

 

And the pro-gun folks can't figure out why the rest of the country calls them "gun nuts" . . .

 

But it's nice to see you can present your position in an intelligent, respectful manner. Yes, that's exactly the kind of cool-headed attitude I want to see in a person carrying a deadly weapon.

[Timmer]

I will check that out later. I just skimmed it and I hope I wasn't seeing what I was seeing...

It's now on the handy flash drive. Does the WSJ always put stuff like that up?

 

You really need to read entire transcript to get the flavor of the exchange between the attorneys and the justices. Questions from the different justices could be interpreted either to show support for, and rejection of, gun control.

 

It'll be interesting when they publish their decision.

 

Yes, the WSJ frequently publishes transcripts and other legal documents relating to high interest news items. It's always interesting to me to read the transcript, and then the news media summary. Sometimes you wonder if all of the parties concerned were on the same planet...

 

 

[4wheeldog]

An unrestricted right to bear arms imposes that will against those who would prefer to live in a society where people don't shoot at each other or where people would prefer not to get caught in the crossfire.

 

What an idiotic statement. I realize you live in an idealistic fairyland, but the fact is that in states with "shall issue" carry laws, licensed, responsible carry permit holders aren't doing any of the things you're so afraid of. None of the predictions of crossfires or the streets running red with rivers of blood have occurred.

 

And for the earlier poster that referenced not needing a gun because the police will protect you, they have no duty to protect you. The SCOTUS has already affirmed that and when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

 

+1. Gun violence has dropped on average where licensing of concealed weapons is allowed. And those carrying legally are very underrepresented in actual use of their weapons. But criminals do not know who is packing, and who is not. So everyone is safer.

An armed society tends to be polite.

[Paul_Burkett]

We have always had and always will have lunatics that kill others because of the reason that they deem justifiable. We have always had and will have people that in a moment of anger or bad judgment commit acts of violence that they would have never thought themselves capable of doing. Criminals have always had a tool best suited or most readily available to accomplish their task. Right now the best tool is a gun, the easiest to conceal is a pistol, and in the future it will be something else, and there will be forces out to ban that weapon. The bullet kills the person, the gun delivers the projectile and it is the lunatic that gets the press coverage. The boys in Columbine HS wanted to be remembered as well as the shooters in many of the horrible murders we have had to endure. Perhaps their names should never be mentioned, no honor or notoriety. Can you imagine what the parents and families of these criminals will have to endure for the rest of their lives? For a parent to question them self as to what they did or what they missed that caused their child to do this horrific thing. I don't know where this thread is going to end up, there will be no resolution where all parties will be happy, but I do know this, criminals will always find a weapon, you can only hope to never cross their path, but if you do cross paths, that someone is there to stop them.

[ghaverkamp]

The right to bear arms has been clear for two hundred years, but now there is a generation that believes that guns are bad so in order to get rid of guns, we need to re-interpret the constitution. That is being done in California and other ultra-liberal states. It is the small vocal minority that often times get things to change locally, temporarily, but as so often times happens, it gets thrown out by the supreme court.

 

I guess I'm going to have to differ with you. If it had been clear, there wouldn't be an issue. The fact of the matter is, it hasn't been clear. Two hundred years ago, a state could have banned gun ownership without batting an eye, and there wasn't a law that would stop it.

[ghaverkamp]

What an idiotic statement.

 

A link just for you.

[Paul_Burkett]

Greg, I would like to discuss this further with you, but I can not find a copy of the amendment on the web, and this cold medicine is making me woozy. Perhaps tomorrow.

[ghaverkamp]

Greg, I would like to discuss this further with you, but I can not find a copy of the amendment on the web, and this cold medicine is making me woozy. Perhaps tomorrow.

 

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

Now, I assume your quarrel is with my suggestion that the states could have banned guns. I'll just point out as I have before, except where the Constitution restricts the rights of the states, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the states were not restricted by the restrictions that applied to the federal government.

 

More importantly, no one has ever determined just what it means. The amendment is ambiguous, and it was passed in three different forms, with varying numbers of commas. What does it mean to keep and bear arms? Any arms? And what's all that stuff about militias, and how does that apply?

 

Perhaps I'm prone to idiotic statements, because I'm prepared to say I don't have the definitive answers to all of those questions. No one does. As I stated either in this thread or another recent thread, I just think it's important that folks try to get clear on what the law is and what it isn't.

 

I will await the departure of your wooziness.

[DavidEBSmith]

More importantly, no one has ever determined just what it means. The amendment is ambiguous, and it was passed in three different forms, with varying numbers of commas. What does it mean to keep and bear arms? Any arms? And what's all that stuff about militias, and how does that apply?

 

Personally, I'm going to expend zero effort arguing about the meaning of the second amendment, since the Court's gonna tell us in few months anyway.

 

Not to mention that since my employer filed an amicus brief in the case, I obviously agree with everything in that brief.

[Whip]

Interesting.....

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031801354_pf.html

[Fugu]

it's nice to see you can present your position in an intelligent, respectful manner.

 

How can you even type that with a straight face given your earlier comments in this thread?

 

Pot, meet kettle.

[Fugu]

You really need to read entire transcript to get the flavor of the exchange between the attorneys and the justices. Questions from the different justices could be interpreted either to show support for, and rejection of, gun control.

 

Gura actually perpetuated that ridiculous myth about plastic handguns made to avoid detection in court for crying out loud. Cue Bruce Willis from Die Hard II talking about the mythical Glock 7, the ceramic gun that goes right through metal detectors.

 

The questions from the justices were mildly encouraging, but this is far too important a case to have people at the helm who don't know their butts from a hole in the ground when it comes to the topic at hand.

As summed up by the Oregon Firearms Federation:

 

HELLER CASE HEARD IN SUPREME COURT TODAY.

 

What may be the most important case dealing with gun rights in many, many years was heard today in the Supreme Court.

 

While this case may determine the future of gun rights nationally, it seems that virtually no one involved,either arguing, or hearing the case, knew anything about firearms.

 

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/03.18.08%20heller.html

 

 

I don't have a good feeling about this.

[Fugu]

The amendment is ambiguous, and it was passed in three different forms, with varying numbers of commas. What does it mean to keep and bear arms? Any arms? And what's all that stuff about militias, and how does that apply?

 

It seems that every time you argue this here, you leave out part of the amendment, and it's a very important part.

 

...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

A bright spot in the transcripts posted by the WSJ are that some of the Justices are aware of this part of the second amendment.

[ltljohn]

I seem that we have been having this discussion for a looooong time.

 

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."

-- Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878