|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: for the record (re: guns thread) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2538 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Sorry but that is a strawman In our country, perhaps. Our police and military (military is based on my dad's experience with a sorry national gaurd unit) can use more training. But in a country where the private citizen is not allowed to even have a gun, how is it a strawman?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But in a country where the private citizen is not allowed to even have a gun, how is it a strawman? It is not illegal to own a handgun or rifle in England. It's far more difficult and there are additional restrictions, but it can be done. The facts of the discussion though concerned me, and why I carry, and why I consider myself to have a higher level of training and proficiency than the average policeman or soldier I might come in contact with. To say that there are people who are less trained or areas where such training is more difficult is simply irrelevant to the questions regarding why I carry or enjoy shooting as a sport. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
Jar,
Thanks for the series of actually rational posts on gun ownership. Glad to see you don't hold the belief that inanimate objects can be "evil". Guns are merely tools. That some people never had a use for a particular tool (due to their limited life expierence) does not mean it's not a tool. Guns are a very effective means of procuring food, unless you think it just shows up magically at the supermarket wrapped in plastic. As far as defense or protection goes, if they were not effective for that why would the Armed Forces and police use them? Well, they do, because they work. Martin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Not your average Joe who is more likley to get his kids shot in house hold accidental discharge than stop a mugging in the street. Sorry but somehow I missed this the first time through. I would say that there is no such thing as an "accidental discharge" and most of the gun owners I know would agree. An unintended discharge is not an "accidental discharge" it is a "negligent discharge".When a gun is fired, it is either intentional or negligent. Guns simply do not go off accidentally. Part of gun ownership is knowing that you are responsible for your actions and there are a few very simple, very basic rules that you must follow. If a gun goes off unexpectedly, you did not follow the rules. The rules really are simple.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You are most welcome.
Gun ownership is not a right that we should take lightly. Along with that right there is also responsibility. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
Larni,
This is an FYI post concerning some Americans. Me in particular. I belong to a UK forum on classic motorcycles, most members are from the UK. It seems every week someone over there has their car, bike etc. stolden. Seens strange to me as I've lived in the US nearly 58 years and have never had anything taken from me. Don't even ever lock my house (either the one in Wyoming or the other in Colorado).What do you think about that compared to where you live? Now I do own guns, and all of my immediate neighbors both in Wyoming and Colorado do as well. Know them all quite well, and it doesn't bother me in the least. In fact it makes my homes safer since I know others will respond as well as me if something happens. In Colorado if I called 911 and then ordered a pizza, the pizza would get there before the police. In Wyoming I can't even get the pizza. So if something bad happens, there is only us to take care of it. I understand it may not be like that were you live, but it is here. Police it seems to me show up to examine the crime scene, they rarely save someones life. You know, they can't be everywhere. I grew up in Upstate NY. I bought my first rifle when I was 13 years old. A Marlin model 99 .22 for squirril and rabbit hunting, still have it. Bought it myself. Didn't need my parents or anyone else. Just went in and bought it. That was 1962. Could have bought a British WW2 Enfield .303 for less than $20 by mail order, and had it shipped to my house. No big deal. Basically no gun control. Did you hear about massive school shootings then. No! So what's different now? We have a lot more gun control. Try this on as well. In 1967 I went to the Colorado School of Mines to get a degree in geological engineering. While I was there I could go down to the Golden Feed and Grain Store and for $7.24 buy 10 sticks of 70% Gelex(dynamite), 10 blasting caps and 50 feet of primer cord. Did it many times.Basically little or no control on buying dynamite, maybe you had to be 18 I don't remember. Did you hear about schools or Federal buildings being blown up then? No! So what's different today? The reason I ask is the laws are much more restrictive on what you can buy now, but it seems we are seeing more pointless violence. 40 years ago I could buy about anything I wanted. So is more gun control the answer or is it something else? BTW just so you know other uses for guns when I was a kid I worked on a farm every summer. Lots of times had to shoot rabbits which were eating the lettuce or woodchucks which loved young cauliflower plants, or crows that liked eating corn. On the rabbits I used my .22, on woodchucks my dad's 8 mm Mauser( these were long shots and .22 couldn't do it), and on crows a 12 gauge. On my place in Colorado occasionally I get tent catapillars in my aspen trees. Can't get up there with a ladder so just blow them away with my 410 shotgun. It works very well. Also I take care of the woodpeckers that like putting holes in my cedar siding the same way. Use a 30-30 for deer hunting, my 8 mm Mauser for elk, a 12 gauge for skeet shooting, and a 1911m1 Colt .45 ACP pistol for when the wife and I are out hiking. You see she got a little concerned when a jogger was killed by a mountain lion not to far from our place in Colorado. I understood since I've often seen mountain lion (and bear too) tracks or scat on my property. Oh! Sorry I forgot(sarcasm) the ONLY reason for having that 45 pistol is to kill people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Did you hear about massive school shootings then. No! So what's different now? Certainly not the number of shootings. Definitely the extent to which news media saturation in our lives brings such events to the collective consciousness. Oh, sorry. Did I basically just torpedo your whole point? Maybe you should have done some research. For instance, in the 1960's, there were apparently at least 2 such shootings that you never heard about.
Did you hear about schools or Federal buildings being blown up then? No! So what's different today? The extent to which these incidents are repeatedly featured in the media. There's been little change in the number of buildings blown up by explosives. But did they have 6 24-hour news channels on TV in that time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
Crashfrog,
Boy you sure got me. I didn't know about the 2 school shootings in the 60s, just about the 17 since Columbine in 1999. Edit: I actually found a better source so that should be 36 school shootings since Columbine (if I counted correctly) The following table lists the worldwide school shootings from 1996 to the present. Find the date, location, and a short description of each incident. Edited by petrophysics, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
The safety rules for guns are virtually identical to the safety rules for power tools.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The safety rules for guns are virtually identical to the safety rules for power tools. I agree, we could certainly use more safety shields on our drill presses and belt sanders, but I don't see how this helps your argument in any way. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: ... I don't see how this helps your argument in any way. I didn't make any "argument". I made an observation based on somebody's comment that guns are tools. (By the way, neither drill presses nor belt sanders require safety shields. ) Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If though, on the off chance you were threatened, and like another poster here on EvC would rather wait for the police instead of accepting my help, no problem. Just let me know and I will gladly just walk on by. A while back in my home town there was a woman who was having a conflict in her home with her [ex?] husband. He was armed with a gun; she was not. The police had been called out to the house, and had set up station around the house. Before acting, however, they went to each house on the street and in the area, knocked on the doors, waited for the people to answer, and then escorted the families to an area outside of the 'danger zone'. While that woman waited for the police to bring people outside of their homes”which took a good part of the day, and where they would be more likely to get shot anyway than just staying inside”, her [ex?] husband was busy pumping lead into her helpless, defenceless self. What if when she saw him coming she could've grabbed herself a gun? What if there was one loaded in her night stand for her to run to when he started raising his voice? What if she had that gun and it had accidentally discharged”something so many folks here claim as being a major problem? Well, in the first two cases, she might've died, sure, but her chances for surviving this little run-in with her [former?] partner would've increased. In the last instance, well, the outcome wouldn't 've been much different than it was because she didn't own a gun. I wonder what she would tell us all if she were here. Sadly, however, she, and many people in a situation where having a gun would've saved their lives, cannot be here today. For you anti-gunners, I suppose it works well when all of the credible witnesses against your point of view are being killed off; however, there is a slightly more humane variety of person around. This variety isn't interested in watching all of their opponents die just so they can win an argument; instead, they care about the value of a meaningful human life. And with that, they care of the rights of the people. @anti-gunners:Which variety are you? Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What if she had that gun and it had accidentally discharged”something so many folks here claim as being a major problem? There is no such thing as an "accidental discharge" IMHO. There are intentional discharges and negligent discharges. The rest of your post is only minimally related to guns and more to the incompetence of the police and social system. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2518 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
To add to Nator's list of stuff Jon apparently didn't read:
Message 62:
Where did I EVER imply that disarming people would reduce violence? I make no claims about the number of violent incidents, I do however claim that a crazy person with a pointy stick is LESS dangerous than a crazy person with a gatling gun. A claim which you continue to attempt to refute with no success. Message 137:
You keep trying to frame the debate in completely black and white terms - either you are for guns or you are against anyone having guns. This is a total fallacy and no one on this thread has come close to stating that. Message 141:
No one is saying that "guns caused Cho to kill", what we are saying, and this goes back to the very first post, is that the increased lethality of weapons available means that when someone like Cho decides to enact carnage (sane or insane) the outcome is far bloodier. Message 182:
No one is suggesting that we ban all guns. The whole point of this thread was to point out that we have to draw a line someplace. Message 248:
No one is saying we take away ALL guns. We are saying it should be HARDER for people to get SOME KINDS of guns. NO. ONE. IS. SAYING. TAKE. AWAY. EVERYONE'S. GUNS. Message 260:
In this thread alone, I've had to say "We are not saying ban all guns" about 50 times. Clearly saying it with a even tone does NOTHING to get the point across. Message 294:
The REST OF US are having a discussion about LETHALITY. (ie Guns are more lethal than knives, Automatic pistols are more lethal than muzzle loaders.) NO ONE is trying to curtail violence in general - no ones been able to do it in the entire history of the world, why start now. What we are saying, for the 9,000 time is this: (Please use a dictionary if there are words you don't understand.) A violent person with access to highly lethal weapons is going to do more damage than he would if he only had access to less lethal weapons. At the end there the tone got a little out of hand, but there's only so many ways you can keep saying the same thing over and over and over again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2518 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Guns are fun. Sure. So are explosives, but you need a license to operate them because, in addition to being fun, they are very very dangerous.
Most gun owners also take guns very seriously. I wouldn't say "most". I would say "some". And if we differentiate into different catagories of guns, I think we'll see a startling breakdown. I suspect that we'll find that the owners of hunting guns, and target practice guns are much more careful about guns than the owners of saturday night specials.
When I carry a weapon, I am aware at all times that I do have a force multiplier, that use of the capability would have severe consequences, that I am prepared and trained to use it if necessary and that it really is a last resort capability. That knowledge influences me in several ways. I have a heightened situational awareness at all times. I consciously try to avoid situations where confrontation is likely, and when in such a situation, tend to shrug challenges off. I know that I can protect myself, and because of that, have nothing to prove. I am far more likely, based on my personal experience, to walk away from an insult, simply ignore the source as no more than an irritant. This is a fantastic way to be. I assume that you are an adult. I suspect that, if you didn't have a gun on you, you would still be able to shrug off challenges and walk away from an insult. However, the 22 year old with the pistol in his waistband may not have the same level of maturity as the 40 year old recreational shooter. He may be out looking for a fight. He most definitely has something to prove.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024