Koki on 22/2/2009 at 21:24
Quote Posted by dethtoll
jesus christ what the hell happened did a claw shrimp get loose in here
Wow it really must be bad if you're gonna try and derail the thread to a debate whether Penny Aracade is funny or not.
[Edit](
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sfIe_4lK3M) Page 7!
jtr7 on 22/2/2009 at 21:40
Send homos, guns, and ganja!
Quote:
if someone is trained to use guns in self defense, believes they are capable of defending themselves with a gun, and feels safer having a gun for the purposes of self defense why shouldn't they be able to?
If only that was the majority. I sure as heck don't feel safe around most
proud gun owners. Vigilante wannabes, many of them. I'd rather they played violent video games, instead of telling me "If a
Red Dawn scenario were ever to happen, we (the gun owners) would be the ones to have to defend you (the burdensome non-gun owners)," or "We need to keep firearms in the hands of good people."
Now, I've known some quiet and decent folk who I never knew owned firearms, until their child got ahold of one and nearly killed his brother, or while house-sitting for a responsible neighbor who responsibly told me about the firearm in the bedroom. Around here, most gun owners have them mainly for hunting purposes. And I heard recently that one of my uncles has finally collected all the firearms he always wanted. Huh. Well, he needs all the happiness he can get, suicidal as he can be...nice to know he might actually succeed in killing himself with the correct firearm, and not botch it.
I've had the misfortune of having a former landlord go and kill his wife at her work before killing himself, and I'd rarely ever heard them fight, and it was usually verbal and brief. The motive never came out, but one thinks of divorce or infidelity.
My brother's drug-buddy was murdered by his mother's boyfriend, who killed all but one family member with a shotgun before killing himself. The boy was shot in the living room by the couch, and lived long enough to stumble into the bedroom and die on the bed. Lots of drug and alcohol abuse in that family, all members involved, and the kid who wasn't home at the time didn't snap out of that lifestyle and seemed frighteningly unconcerned. I was stunned to hear about it, but not surprised, more saddened that these people had no chance.
I had a former roommate start packing heat at his convenience store night job, but knowing he's a psycho the police told him not to bring the gun to work, and I heartily agreed. He was most unstable and has gotten worse over the years. He had a good point, but he was not capable of responsible gun ownership, and he is a berserker when he gets excited at all.
Another former roommate also had a mental breakdown and would pace around carrying his pistol, and looking to win an argument that no one was even engaged in. I was brought in as his replacement, but lived with him for two weeks.
One thing many of the other gun owners I've known have in common, is they never seem to take note of who or what is behind their target, and it hits them as a revelation when it's pointed out. Yeah, I know it will be hard to think about that in a situation, but training and intent can help you not send bullets into neighbors or their houses if you start firing off rounds at an intruder.
I knew and conversed with a gas station attendant who was on my newspaper route back in the early '90's. After I saw he hadn't been coming in to work for a couple of days, I found out he had shot a burglar who broke into his home while he was there. Fine. But the unarmed burglar fled the scene, while this guy kept shooting him with his rifle as he ran down the street. The sixth and final round was fired into the burglar as he lay on the ground, with the homeowner standing over him. The burglar lived and the gun owner went to jail first. Lousy shot, ineffective choice of firearm, or destiny?
I had the primal terrifying experience of being the chosen victim of some kids practicing gangster scenarios. They were parked on the shoulder of the neighborhood mainstreet, and as I approached, they popped the trunk/boot open and one of them sat up brandishing a firearm. I floored it until I couldn't see them, and called the cops, who didn't seem to care. Yeah, it was a "BOO"-like scare, but still...
I'm hard-pressed to recall the stories of responsible gun-owners successfully defending themselves, though I know there had to be some. The last such story took a year in and out of the courts to resolve.
And this is nothing compared to the big cities.
Starrfall on 22/2/2009 at 21:44
Quote Posted by Muzman
Alternatively; what about if his/her inability to possess such a thing is a direct result of everyone else having a really hard time getting them. Thus generally reducing the risk of projectile weapon fire, changing the rules of engagement and cheering people like the cops up no end. Is John/Joan Q Minuteman's inconvenience not worth it?
Maybe one of the places we're not seeing eye to eye is on the availability of guns after a ban. I think if you have a general ban, not everyone is going to have a hard time getting them. I would be extremely surprised if we didn't have huge problems with gun-running, especially along the southern border. I think you also must allow guns in some situations (mountain lions, hunting) and so there'd be potential for abuse there. Chimpy's complaints aside, guns ARE tools for some purposes, but if you really disagree with that then we're just stuck.
So I'm doubtful that a realistic ban would really do much in terms of what the cops have to deal with - "bad guys" can still get guns, and "good guys" aren't the problem to begin with. AND you're inconveniencing the Mr. and Mrs. Minuteman and messing with their peace of mind. (Just because a gun wouldn't make you feel safer doesn't mean others are the same. Personally carrying a gun would NOT make me feel safer because I wouldn't know wtf I was doing with one. But again, others aren't necessarily the same.)
I also think that a lot of the people who use guns for crime are already not supposed to have them (repeat felons) so again that's already not allowed and you don't need an additional ban to punish them.
edit: although if we're talking realistic then I also think there's probably too many gun nuts around to get past that second amendment to begin with so
Quote Posted by jtr7
If only that was the majority.
I don't really have a problem with laws designed to ensure that that IS the majority.
Chimpy Chompy on 22/2/2009 at 22:40
Well the question is, where are bad guys getting their guns from?
for what it's worth I'd agree that a wide-scale ban in america seems pretty implausible. It's too awash with guns already and I'd guess smuggling them in is easier than in the UK.
Muzman on 22/2/2009 at 22:56
Quote Posted by Starrfall
I'm doubtful that a realistic ban would really do much in terms of what the cops have to deal with - "bad guys" can still get guns, and "good guys" aren't the problem to begin with.
Well, all else being equal a mass ban somewhere Stateside (dunno specific state laws these days) probably wouldn't do squat. I think California had more stringent laws than Australia in a lot of ways, prior to the buy back era anyway (and second amendment notwithstanding).
For something like that to work it might even take a generation, during which time a whole lot of people would be cross. And it'd have to be pretty much blanket, to prevent interstate smuggling. But eventually I reckon it'd get there (in the most pointlessly vague and hypothetical way, of course).
Hard to say if it's worth it, given the admitted effort involved. Still, I do think it works and it's rather difficult to explain why. The whole vibe is different (from what I gather); petty criminals have a hard time getting them and think very carefully about picking one up or waving it around at all, not least of all because the cops would come down on you like a ton of bricks no matter if all you stole was the donation jar and couple of giant snakes from the convenience store counter. You could say "Yeah, but that's the same here. Hell the cops would shoot you if the counter person didn't", which is true and underlines the problem of expanation. It's like once the guns largely leave the scene, and they're expensive conspicuous things guaranteed to cause an enourmous reaction, it's tacit that weilding one casually is for nuts; that pulling one out when it isn't absolutely necessary is escalating the conflict and you better know what that means. The cops and the public are generally safe to stand back a bit if there's a flare-up or anyone goes nuts and are cheered by the knowledge.
That doesn't help much, probably. But yes availability is a big part of it. And if there were a big ban then all the legal ones would have to go first, so people could get to work on the illegal ones. And that would take aaages.
Would it work? Not in a hurry at least. It it worth it? Dunno Is it necessary? Hmm, dunno about that either.
Alls I'm saying is there's situations like this in the world and they aren't simple equations of 'who's got the guns and who's the victims of those with the guns'. Where restricting guns does do something (plenty) to illegal possession. They're situations that grew out of completely different things and are likely incomparable, but they're there and all of that often gets missed in these slanging matches (not by yourself, I don't think. And we don't have any real NRA pamphleteers at the moment that I can see. But when it gets down to "Death crazed freaks!" "Servile scum!" I feel the need to put it out there)
PigLick on 22/2/2009 at 23:19
when the hell was the last time someone got killed by a mountain lion?
PigLick on 22/2/2009 at 23:51
and none of them had guns!
fett on 23/2/2009 at 00:18
Pig, you're a city slicker.
Where my in-laws live, they couldn't survive without guns. It's a regular thing to have to shoot a fox, wildcat, or wolf to keep them away from the cattle and horses. They're also used to put down sick or lame livestock. When I lived with them we were snowed in for about two weeks one time and couldn't get off the property. If my father-in-law hadn't gone deer hunting, we'd have been in a bit of trouble (no electricity=no refridgeration. Food doesn't keep for two weeks).
It's easy for people who have never lived in the country to assume things about rural life that aren't true. Guns really are tools in those situations. Plus the fact that when you live that far from civilization, its nice to know your wife has a shotgun or pistol in the house when you go out of town--it would take police 20+ minutes to get there, if they didn't get lost along the way.
Chimpy Chompy on 23/2/2009 at 00:49
Well I don't know a lot about guns so stop me if I'm getting this all wrong:
I'm thinking to fend off bears, tigers and velociraptors, some sort of shotgun or manual action rifle is sufficient? So we can still cut out both the pistol and the AK47 side of things? Which is what i'd be more worried about anyway.
