If you outlaw guns, then only....

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Spexx, did you just blatantly ignore Griff's point, completely drop one side of the equation, and falsely amplify the other side of the equation to the worst possible outcome in order to win the argument?

That's some hard work!

Maybe it's the drugs. I try again later.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

When I was in Merced, CA, I was at the motel unloading my stuff. Because of the value of the items I was carrying in my vehicle, I carried a gun whenever transporting them. I took my suitcase up to the room, and when I returned, 2 guys approached my truck from different angles. One hopped over the fence by the pool and came from the rear, and the other was already peeking in the back windows when I came around the corner, so I don't know where he came from.

I'm normally pretty friendly to people when travelling, but these guys were up to no good. I said "how's it going" and started around to the passenger side to get the vehicle between me and them. They both moved to block me in, then suddenly they didn't seem interested in me at all. They took off running (literally) in 2 different directions. The reason? I had a Glock 21 on my hip that they apparently hadn't seen because of the stuff I was carrying in.

There was no cowboy music playing, I didn't feel like a tough guy nor did I feel overly freaked out or anything. I just went around to the desk and told the woman there that there were a couple of guys casing her customers. I dunno if she ever called the cops or not, or even if she understood me. I never saw the guys again, and the rest of the month went by without incident.

Did I "make the country a safer place" or "blahblahblah reduce crime blahblahblah"? No. But the presence of a weapon kept me from being a victim. And I don't care for people telling me that they don't think I should have that right. If other people are misusing their rights, take it up with them. I have nothing to do with it.

did you have that scary makeup on?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

First, he didn't "respond"
And second, "he had a moral obligation to respond"?!??! WTF? He has a "moral obligatio" to threaten someone with a gun, shoot someone, and/or kill someone? What kind of morals are they?

The kind of morals that require a decent human being from letting thugs make decent people cower in fear every time they leave their house.

You don't cower in fear when you leave your house? Thank moral people who won't let thugs run rampant over our society. No, I'm not talking about gun carriers, or even gun owners, necessarily.....I'm talking about people who don't.....

walked/ran away, nobody gets beat up or shot dead

.

People that stand up and say, NO, you're not taking over the streets....NO, you're not running roughshod over decent people......NO, you're no making me cower in fear. Those are moral people.

[MaggieL]

"Give up your weapons because defending yourself and your property is immoral. Make the world safe for criminals."

What a load of self-righteous utter garbage.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Is "stuff" worth more than the lives of those two guys?

Yes.

What value do you place on the lives of thugs? Why?

[Pangloss62]

Holy crap! 17 pages of argument and rancor about...GUNS! Imagine that. I think that speaks to the fanaticism of much of their owners (ok, and their opponents).

Since I started this thread, I think I can chime in now, 17 pages later.

Indeed...and do take that animistic idea that objects can be implicitly evil (rather than people) with you.

In regards to the above quote from the ever-lovable Maggie, I don't think I ever stated or even implied (I'm confused by her use of the word "implicitly" regarding evil objects) that guns, or any object for that matter, were themselves evil. I don't even believe in the concept of evil anyway.

It's always about people. All one has to do is look at the magazine rack at any major supermarket and see how obsessive gun owners can be. What cracks me up is that most of the guns they obsess over are assualt weapons. Let's face it, guns make people feel and be powerful, but I don't think it's the power to stop genocide like one cellarite said. I doubt he's gonna take his guns to Darfur to stop that one. But he says he's got my pansy, non-gun-toting back in case a genocide happens here. Should I laugh or cry?

I would insert my "neutral" emoticon after that last sentence, but Flint said he was getting bummed out by my overuse of it, so I will defer to him because he's one of the more rational posters here in what can at times be a very muggy (perhaps maggie) cellar.

[wolf]

Assault weapon? I have never clubbed anyone over the head with any of my firearms, not even the scary-looking, black ones.

(Assault weapon is a term that doesn't really have much meaning outside of the context of wanting to ban guns based on cosmetic characteristics)

[Pangloss62]

(Assault weapon is a term that doesn't really have much meaning outside of the context of wanting to ban guns based on cosmetic characteristics)

Well, I suppose it is somewhat rendundant when discussing guns, but I only wanted to make a distinction between, say, a .22 hunting rifle and an automatic machine gun with a carbon fiber stock and a titanium barrell. Hey wolf, I just guessed on that last one. Can I assume that carbon fiber and titanium are used in today's "guns?"

[wolf]

An "automatic machine gun" is not an "assault weapon."

Sure carbon fiber and titanium are used in today's firearms, including your hypthetical .22, which isn't much good for hunting anything other than small birds and cute little bunnies.

[Pangloss62]

Sorry, wolf, I'm just not good on guns. I actually have to talk and write about guns, but mostly Cilvil War ordinance (Minni Balls, etc.).

That said, what would you consider an "assualt weapon?" In your first comment, you implied that all guns are such; why, then, do we not arm our soldiers with .22 rifles?

My friend killed a deer with a .22 (shot to the head). And don't most fowl hunters use a shotgun anywaze?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I actually have to talk and write about guns, but mostly Cilvil War ordinance (Minni Balls, etc.).

If you're going to write about them, you might be interested in the correct spelling. They're named after their inventor.

Obviously any gun can be used to commit an assault. Some have more power than others.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

All one has to do is look at the magazine rack at any major supermarket and see how obsessive gun owners can be.

The accuracy of magazine covers in forming an understanding people who own guns is about as accurate as any other stereotype you would build from the same source. About single men, perhaps? Car lovers, body builders...what do they obsess about, according to magazine covers? How about married women?

If you want to actually understand gun owners, visit a shooting range. Perhaps even learn to shoot.

On the other hand, if all you want to do is reenforce your own preconceptions, the magzaine rack will do.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Let's face it, guns make people feel and be powerful, but I don't think it's the power to stop genocide like one cellarite said.

Genocide is only a series of murders. Armed people are harder to kill. Most genocodes begin with disarming the targets.

Here's an account of how this applies in Darfur, since that's the example you chose.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Sorry, wolf, I'm just not good on guns. I actually have to talk and write about guns, but mostly Cilvil War ordinance (Minni Balls, etc.).

That said, what would you consider an "assualt weapon?" In your first comment, you implied that all guns are such; why, then, do we not arm our soldiers with .22 rifles?

My friend killed a deer with a .22 (shot to the head). And don't most fowl hunters use a shotgun anywaze?

First, you need to understand the difference between a .22 and a .223, which is considerably greater than .003 inch. If a friend of your killed a deer with a .22, s/he is incredibly, incredibly lucky. From any good distance, a .22 to the head often won't to much more than bounce off the skull because the small, soft projectile flattens out and loses velocity quickly. Going deer hunting with a .22 is irresponsible ... the greater likelihood is that the animal would be wounded and suffer.

There are different types of rifles and shotguns which are used to hunt different kinds of animals. Shotguns are used to shoot fowl for a reason ... while you could bring down a bird on the wing with a rifle round, it involves more luck than skill. The spread pattern of shot is much better for birds. Rifles used for deer hunting tend to have larger, higher velocity ammunition so that it can penetrate skin, flesh, and sometimes bone.

Shooting a deer (or anything else) in the head is unreliable, and ruins the trophy. Center of mass is recommended for any target, animal or human.

[Hippikos]

and ruins the trophy

Now that would certainly spoil the fun...