If you outlaw guns, then only....

[Urbane Guerrilla]

...except for the eating it for dinner part. This is done even by African big game hunters: hunter goes home with a distinctive souvenir of a unique time in his life and deeds and nearby villages get the meat. Hey, it's free... pygmy tribes near the Okavango Delta never had a recipe for elephant before the early twentieth century. The critters were just too damned big.

Pangloss, the language of gun aficionados is the language of the hobbyist. Compare the tenor of the prose of auto magazines, modelers' magazines, and gun magazines. The parallels will be striking if you haven't tried this comparison.

I shoot a little blackpowder myself -- a .54 caliber Italian Hawken replica.

Is the use and keeping of guns attacked by the anti-self-defense set? Without question. Would you expect anything other than a determined defense against such a determined attack? We have Spexxvet as an example of the hoplophobic complex, the mindset, of the ragers against defense. He displays every symptom of this problem that I can remember, and I don't know if he still expects persons of good morals for bad situations to be persuaded by his neurotic insistence, but we shall not submit, not now, not ten thousand years from now, nor ten million years from now. He shall yield, he shall be defeated, or he will be left in isolated absurdity, disregarded by all. Either outcome is acceptable to those of us actually happy with the idea of resisting evil regardless of its degree or its intensity.

Originally Posted by Hippikos

After all these gun-threads I still haven't seen one bit of proof that allowing civilians to carry concealed weapons makes the US a safer country. On the contrary...

I expect the usual suspects will use the widely critized junk-science of Lott and Mauser to proof that guns make the US a safer country. But the junk-science of these 2 people can be compared to a survey(*) in 1995 which suggests that 1,2 Mio US people have been in contact with aliens.


(*)A 1995 survey by NBC asked 1500 Americans "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?". Extrapolating the results (0.6%) to the entire US population would suggest that 1.2 million Americans have been in actual contact with aliens.

It is very simple, if you don't want to exercise your right to own or carry, don't.
See how easy?

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

If Noodle walked/ran away, nobody gets beat up or shot dead. Is "gear" worth killing?

You never know if you are going to be allowed to "walk/run away". Of that you have to "trust them" and I am not willing to do that with someone I already know is immoral & has a vested interest in not allowing me to do so, nope.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

Amen brother.

Originally Posted by 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).

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

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.

Most? Really?
Where are you getting these stats precisely, where most gun owners are buying assault weapons?
Guns are tools, nothing more. Most gun owners look at them that way and just have one or two in their homes for that purpose and that purpose alone. Collectors are in the minority and of them, those that purchase assault weapons are in the minority.
I really appreciate how you have shown us all exactly how much you know about this topic.

As I stated above... if you do not wish to exercise your freedoms, speech, gun ownership, voting, whatever.... just don't, but don't be a fascist and try to impose your narrow minded views on other free thinkers in this nation built on tolerance and freedom.
As always, being free means you are exposed to other's freedoms. That means hearing things you will not want to hear, being around things you don't like, business existing you don't approve of, etc.
It takes a special kind of person to be free and be ok with it... we used to raise them.
I don't think we do any longer.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

It is very simple, if you don't want to exercise your right to own or carry, don't. See how easy?

Except he has already surrendered his right to the state. That's why we hear such sour grapes trying to rationalize why it's better to be disarmed. European, you know...

(I don't think anybody who's Googling up stuff from the Brady Bunch and --oh, my ghod-- *Mother Jones magazine*should be talking about "junk science").

[tw]

Of course no one was talking about banning guns. There is this little thing about responsible people having guns. Hundreds of thousands of new weapons on the street being carried by that other guy. Therefore Iraqi streets are clearly safer.... From the NY Times of 30 October 2006:

U.S. Is Said to Fail in Tracking Arms for Iraqis
The American military has not properly tracked hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces and has failed to provide spare parts, maintenance personnel or even repair manuals for most of the weapons given to the Iraqis, a federal report released Sunday has concluded. ...

The answers came Sunday from the inspector general’s office, which found major discrepancies in American military records on where thousands of 9-millimeter pistols and hundreds of assault rifles and other weapons have ended up. The American military did not even take the elementary step of recording the serial numbers of nearly half a million weapons provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it impossible to track or identify any that might be in the wrong hands.

Exactly where untracked weapons could end up — and whether some have been used against American soldiers — were not examined in the report, although black-market arms dealers thrive on the streets of Baghdad, and official Iraq Army and police uniforms can easily be purchased as well, presumably because government shipments are intercepted or otherwise corrupted.

500,000 more guns. Clearly as number of guns increased, then the violence decreased.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Spexx, did you just blatantly ignore Griff's point,

Originally Posted by Griff

Was he going to be allowed to walk away and maybe contact authorities? Why let the criminals decide whether or not Noodle spends the rest of his days on a respirator? Noodle did not initiate force, but they chose to at a minimum intimidate and their further intentions were not clear, he had a moral obligation to respond.

I responded to his moral obligation to respond assertion. Would he be allowed to walk away? I don’t know. Could he have avoided the conflict better? Probably. He allowed himself to be cornered. They chose at a minimum to intimidate? Intimidation is not a cause of death, as far as I know.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

completely drop one side of the equation,

Which side would that be?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

and falsely amplify the other side of the equation to the worst possible outcome in order to win the argument?…

I would never amplify the other side of the equation to the worst possible outcome by saying something like:

Originally Posted by Griff

Noodle spends the rest of his days on a respirator?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

Why do we even have police and a legal system, then?

Bruce, have you ever been shot or shot someone during a crime (whether you were committing the crime or were the victim? )

[Undertoad]

The side of the equation you dropped was the one where bad guys are doing bad things. The side you amplified was the one where noodle shoots and kills somebody, which didn't happen:

He has a "moral obligatio" to threaten someone with a gun, shoot someone, and/or kill someone?

Griff was forced to respond to your imagined amplifiction of one side of the equation, by posting an imagined amplification of the other side, and then you called him on it.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

...You never know if you are going to be allowed to "walk/run away". Of that you have to "trust them" and I am not willing to do that with someone I already know is immoral & has a vested interest in not allowing me to do so, nope...

If you come out of your house and a thug is stealing your son's wagon, do you just shoot him? After all, he's taking your stuff. And he might be armed - you can't be assured that he will let you "walk/run away". So, do you shoot him?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The side of the equation you dropped was the one where bad guys are doing bad things.

So every bad guy that does a bad thing should be threatened with a gun, shot, and/or killed? Is there ever a case where good guys do bad things? Maybe by mistake? (I thought that was our friend's truck and Noodle was stealing out of it. I would apologise, but Noodle shot me dead.)

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The side you amplified was the one where noodle shoots and kills somebody, which didn't happen:

You've read the supporters posts. They all say that you shouldn't draw your weapon unless you're willing to shoot and kill the person that you feel threatened by.

BTW, hasn't the other side amplified their side? Thanks for calling them on that.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Griff was forced to respond to your imagined amplifiction of one side of the equation, by posting an imagined amplification of the other side, and then you called him on it.

Wait a minute. I thought I amplified, etc. in response to Griff's post. Now you're saying he was being forced by my amplification, which came after his amplification?

Taken to its logical conclusion, Noodle *has* to be willing to shoot the thug dead, right? (just ask Maggie) If they didn't run away, what would have happened? Let's see.... Noodle draws his gun. Perhaps one of the thugs has a gun and draws it - after all, he's a bad guy. Noodle shoot, killing him. Sure, it didn't happen that way, but it very well could have, and if you ask around the cellar, it often happens, and to some, it *should* happen.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

If you come out of your house and a thug is stealing your son's wagon, do you just shoot him? After all, he's taking your stuff. And he might be armed - you can't be assured that he will let you "walk/run away". So, do you shoot him?

Go read the justification law. (Obviously you still havent done that.)

It actually explains this stuff.

[Undertoad]

"Taken to its logical conclusion" requires a little more logic and a little less fantasy. The "logical conclusion" other people note is that the bad guys end up armed and nood ends up unarmed, and they take his stuff and kill him.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

"Taken to its logical conclusion" requires a little more logic and a little less fantasy. The "logical conclusion" other people note is that the bad guys end up armed and nood ends up unarmed, and they take his stuff and kill him.

Also imagination.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Go read the justification law. (Obviously you still havent done that.)

It actually explains this stuff.

I don't care what the law says, as it doesn't explain what you would do. What would *you* do, Maggie? Can't you understand a plainly stated question? Or would you do something hypocritical and illegal, or are you just embarrassed and afraid to say what you would do?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't care what the law says, as it doesn't explain what you would do. What would *you* do, Maggie? Can't you understand a plainly stated question? Or would you do something hypocritical and illegal, or are you just embarrassed and afraid to say what you would do?

I've explained this before. You aren't listening, because you can't cooerce me into playing speculative hypotheticals with you.

Once again: my actions would be guided by the law and my reasonable belief about the intentions of the person I confront. See what the law says about what behavior I must accept from thieves and thugs, and what I may reasonably and legally do to defend my self, my loved ones, and my property.

It's futile and useless to try discuss a legal point (which, whether it suits your rhetorical purposes or even whether you like it or not, this is) with someone who's too lazy (or unwilling for more nefarious reasons) to read and understand the law.

You're just itching to set up a hypothetical where threats seems nonthreatening, and thefts seem trivial, to support your assertion that I'm bloodthirsty because I own weapons. My stance is that nobody who enters my property uninvited, to threaten me, my family or my guests, or steal my property should have any expectation of being cut any more slack than the law actually provides...because I'm highly unlikely to be charitably inclined towards them.

And if you read the law, you'll see how much slack that actually is. I'm guessing it's a lot less than you think. Perhaps it will dissuade you from pursuing a life of crime yourself, since you seem to be rooting so hard for the thugs and thieves.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I thought that was our friend's truck and Noodle was stealing out of it. I would apologise, but Noodle shot me dead.
Taken to its logical conclusion, Noodle *has* to be willing to shoot the thug dead, right? (just ask Maggie) If they didn't run away, what would have happened? Let's see.... Noodle draws his gun. Perhaps one of the thugs has a gun and draws it - after all, he's a bad guy. Noodle shoot, killing him. Sure, it didn't happen that way, but it very well could have, and if you ask around the cellar, it often happens, and to some, it *should* happen.

You don't shoot people until you know their intentions. Standing around my truck and trying to bracket me in is threatening, but not immediately life-threatening. Yes, I would have shot them if my life had been in danger. Luckily, the presence of a firearm discouraged them from making the decision to continue their plan. I wasn't anything special to them, just a target of opportunity. When the potential cost of robbing me became too great, they moved on. Thieves are lazy.

You ask, what if they had a gun? There's no way to answer that in one sentence. The outcome would differ depending on several tactical and practical (rhyme unintended) considerations: If I see a weapon out already, there's no need to walk into the situation. The cost of replacing my truck and its contents is far less than the cost of exchanging bullets in a parking lot. If I don't know that he's armed, but he pulls a gun from concealment when they approach from 10 feet away, it's too late to extricate myself from the situation. I'd yell "DROP IT NOW" and he would have about .5 second to comply. At that point, a victim should no longer be concerned for the welfare of his or her attacker. He has already demonstrated the willingness to use a gun on you to commit a crime, so any hesitation on your part from that point on constitutes suicide.

If you have been properly trained (and there are many many civilian firearms safety and self-defense courses that do the job marvelously), you have the upper hand in any encounter of that kind. You're not just walking around with a gun, reacting violently to any perceived threat. You should practice situational awareness during every waking moment, whether or not you ever own a gun. Any instructor worth his or her salt will tell you that this awareness is your first line of defense, always. You should hold your head up and look people in the eye when you walk past them (with a smile of course). Victims are often unaware of danger because their eyes are on the ground in front of their feet. They're often selected for that very reason -- they don't give off an aura of confidence and strength, and they are easy to sneak up on. You should briefly catalogue everyone you see: their location, direction, speed, demeanor, what they're wearing, whether they are talking. As soon as you walk into a room, you should note the exits. This isn't paranoia or some kind of pseudo-militaristic behavior. This is the kind of awareness that all animals have, and the kind that humans used to have, before we started queueing up for Starbucks, avoiding eye contact in the elevator, and basically becoming more like cattle than men and women. Once you've practiced it, it becomes automatic and runs completely in the background. You will defuse many, many situations before they ever become dangerous because your senses will guide you away from things or people that don't look right.

When something like my little encounter occurs, you should already know where cover and concealment is, what is behind the target (your attacker, presumably), and if there are multiple targets, which one presents the greater threat and will thus be the first one to engage. You will have a much better idea of whether to run or to stay and fight. If and when you draw a weapon, it will be for a damn good reason, and you will have a far greater ability to control the outcome. You will know that there is absolutely no justification for any kind of fancy wannabe trick shooting. You are going to get tunnel vision, your heart will be racing, and you will in no way be able to pull off some kind of Hollywood "shoot the gun out of his hand" bullshit. You will be lucky to hold it together enough to put the front sight on the center mass and squeeze off a round without jerking the barrel of the gun off target.

There's more to it than what I've haphazardly described here, but the point is, the general perception of guns and what gun owners represent is totally inaccurate. Most of us are extremely serious about the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm, and are always mindful of the potential consequences of a mistake. I wish more people would take advantage of the training that's available. One of the last classes I took was split about 50/50 genderwise, and the ages ranged from 25 to 70. It was a good feeling to know at the end of the course that 10 more citizens were that much better equipped to keep themselves and those around them safe, whether or not they had a gun.