Guns don't kill people ....

[Happy Monkey]

Not entirely true.

[piercehawkeye45]

Yep, the safety of guns is directly related to the gun culture.

[Sundae]

I am one of the lucky few who has never had to confront a criminal in my own home.
Phew. With no gun I've no doubt I would have been bludgeoned to death every weekend for years save for this fact.

Anyway.

When I first heard about the shooting in Oak Creek I said confidently to Mum, "It'll be a community issue. Sikh on Sikh, personal. Because no-one messes with Sikhs." All the Sikh men I've known (bar one very extreme exception that proved the rule) were big, burly and radiated an inner peace-man-but-don't-fuck-with-me vibe.

I was wrong. Didn't mean I was any less shocked.
I had a Sikh temple in the road behind me when I lived in Leicester.
The idea of those people being gunned down makes me feel physically sick.

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by Sundae

I am one of the lucky few who has never had to confront a criminal in my own home.
Phew. With no gun I've no doubt I would have been bludgeoned to death every weekend for years save for this fact.

Anyway.

When I first heard about the shooting in Oak Creek I said confidently to Mum, "It'll be a community issue. Sikh on Sikh, personal. Because no-one messes with Sikhs." All the Sikh men I've known (bar one very extreme exception that proved the rule) were big, burly and radiated an inner peace-man-but-don't-fuck-with-me vibe.

I was wrong. Didn't mean I was any less shocked.
I had a Sikh temple in the road behind me when I lived in Leicester.
The idea of those people being gunned down makes me feel physically sick.

And I'm with you, Sundae. Someone who does something like that to other human beings is not fit to live among the rest of us humans. The same thing with the theater in Colorado.

Those of us who choose to take advantage of our 2nd Amendment right to own guns are not unfeeling, irresponsible or insane (as many anti-gun people want to you to believe) In fact, carrying a gun makes us MORE cautious and conscience of out actions. Example: I get into a shouting match with a guy in another car. He pulls over and so do I. A fight breaks out and he pulls a knife. I pull my gun and shoot him. Was I in my right to do so? Technically, yes. However, a judge would rule that, had I not pulled over, the fight would not have happened. Had the fight not happened, he would not have pulled the knife. Had he not pulled the knife, I would not have pulled my gun and shot him. I am someone who has read countless books about the legal issues associated with carrying a concealed weapon. See, we realize what a huge responsibility it is. We're not all trying to John Wayne.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

snip--

Those of us who choose to take advantage of our 2nd Amendment right to own guns are not unfeeling, irresponsible or insane (as many anti-gun people want to you to believe)

You sound like a whiny crybaby when you say things like this. Oh, waaah, they're calling me unfeeling, irresponsible, insane. If that kind of "attack" is a problem for you, there's a super easy solution--stop "taking advantage of (part of) our 2nd amendment right". Easy peasy.

Originally Posted by dmg1969

In fact, carrying a gun makes us MORE cautious and conscience of out actions.
--snip

Ahem.

Unless you're a fucking homicidal nutball like the asshole in CO and in WI. Your argument is faulty, sir. Carrying a gun does NOT make one MORE cautious and conscientious of one's actions. You may well be cautious and conscientious before and after carrying a gun, but it's not the gun that does it.

[dmg1969]

You sound like a whiny crybaby when you say things like this. Oh, waaah, they're calling me unfeeling, irresponsible, insane. If that kind of "attack" is a problem for you, there's a super easy solution--stop "taking advantage of (part of) our 2nd amendment right". Easy peasy.

Nice argument. When you start resorting to name calling, it's a sign you're losing the argument.


Ahem.

Unless you're a fucking homicidal nutball like the asshole in CO and in WI. Your argument is faulty, sir. Carrying a gun does NOT make one MORE cautious and conscientious of one's actions. You may well be cautious and conscientious before and after carrying a gun, but it's not the gun that does it.

Let me ask you a question. Have you EVER carried a concealed weapon? If not, your argument is faulty because you can't speak from experience. I've been through it, so don't pretend that you know what you're talking about. I had a road rage incident where the guy was literally pounding on the steering wheel trying to get me to pull over. Why didn't I pull over, smart guy? Because I was aware of something called disparity of force as escalation of force. I did not want to put myself in the situation of possibly having to use my gun so I used evasive driving and lost the guy. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to act like you do. You just look stupid.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

I did not want to put myself in the situation of possibly having to use my gun so I used evasive driving and lost the guy.

Then where's the fun in packing heat?

BTW, what did you do to piss him off, and did you do it because you knew, in the back of your mind, that you had a gun to back up your shit?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by BigV

... Unless you're a fucking homicidal nutball like the asshole in CO and in WI. Your argument is faulty, sir. Carrying a gun does NOT make one MORE cautious and conscientious of one's actions. You may well be cautious and conscientious before and after carrying a gun, but it's not the gun that does it.

I respectfully disagree BigV. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts and the fact is that you can't read the minds of people while they are carrying guns to know whether or not they take the responsibility seriously enough to adjust their behaviors accordingly.

I've carried concealed firearms both off duty and on duty, both in the US and other countries as a representative of the US. I've always had a heightened sense of the ramifications of my actions due to the complexities that carrying a lethal weapon introduces into my routine, ramifications that aren't there when I'm not carrying.

I also have a heightened sense of the ramifications of my actions when I'm driving a car as opposed to riding a bicycle, roller skating; or, jogging as I know that running into someone with a car is far more likely to have serious consequences in the way of morbidity and mortality.

The situation is similar when using power tools and I believe it applies to most people. These behavior trends don't just disappear for the sake of a position in a debate. Using those people who are exceptions in the aforementioned situations to extrapolate a generality discredits the position for me.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Sundae

When I first heard about the shooting in Oak Creek I said confidently to Mum, "It'll be a community issue. Sikh on Sikh, personal. Because no-one messes with Sikhs." All the Sikh men I've known (bar one very extreme exception that proved the rule) were big, burly and radiated an inner peace-man-but-don't-fuck-with-me vibe.

I see this incident less as a gun story than a how unbelievably stupid the folks in the neo-nazi movement are story. This is apparently the story of failed education from school through Fort Bragg where he apparently hooked up with the White Power movement and was actually involved in psy-ops. Dude was on law enforcements radar because of his racist music. I am more concerned with race terrorism than guns.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

And I'm with you, Sundae. Someone who does something like that to other human beings is not fit to live among the rest of us humans.

Originally Posted by Griff

I see this incident less as a gun story... I am more concerned with race terrorism than guns.

Completely. I didn't come here to raise a gun issue.
Just wanted to comment on slaughter, however it was achieved.

Sadness.

[BigV]

Your complaints sound whiny. There's no "argument".

Am I losing my other "argument" by calling the shooters in CO and WI "fucking homicidal nutball assholes"? Just curious.

Let me ask you a question. Have you EVER carried a concealed weapon? If not, your argument is faulty because you can't speak from experience.

I have not carried a concealed weapon.

I do not concede the point that a lack of direct experience means my argument is faulty. You and I both live our lives, speak and act correctly and with confidence in a multitude of situations where we have no direct experience. It is not a deal breaker. We can debate this point, but only if you insist.

I've been through it, so don't pretend that you know what you're talking about. I had a road rage incident where the guy was literally pounding on the steering wheel trying to get me to pull over. Why didn't I pull over, smart guy? Because I was aware of something called disparity of force as escalation of force. I did not want to put myself in the situation of possibly having to use my gun so I used evasive driving and lost the guy.

What I think you're saying is that by having your gun with you, you knew there was a pretty good possibility you might have to shoot to kill if you faced off with him, and you didn't want that to happen, so you took other measures. Does that sound right? Here's my question: what the fuck does the gun have to do with anything in that situation with respect to being more cautious and conscientious? If you didn't have your gun, would you have pulled over and taken your chances? If you didn't have your gun could/would you have used evasive driving and lost the guy?

Are you less cautious and conscientious when you are not carrying your gun? That's my question.

If your answer is yes, then you fucking scare me. "I need my gun to keep me calm". JFC.

If your answer is no, then your argument is invalid. You're cautious and conscientious WITH your concealed weapon, AND you're cautious and conscientious WITHOUT your weapon. Which was my original point. It isn't the gun. (and if it is, and I think it might be for some people, heaven help us all).

So, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to act like you do.

There are lots of things I don't know--talking about them is part of how I learn about them. There are lots of things I know *some* stuff about, and I talk about them too. This subject falls into that category. Specifically, what makes people cautious, and what doesn't make people cautious; things that are dangerous and things that are less dangerous. So, I'm clear to speak and act in this kind of discussion, with authority. I do know what I'm talking about.

You just look stupid.

By your own logic, you're losing your argument. Unless you just think I look stupid. Which is fine, no? You sound whiny, and I look stupid. I'll make you a deal--you stop looking at me and I'll quit listening to you.

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by BigV

Your complaints sound whiny. There's no "argument".

Am I losing my other "argument" by calling the shooters in CO and WI "fucking homicidal nutball assholes"? Just curious.



I have not carried a concealed weapon.

I do not concede the point that a lack of direct experience means my argument is faulty. You and I both live our lives, speak and act correctly and with confidence in a multitude of situations where we have no direct experience. It is not a deal breaker. We can debate this point, but only if you insist.


What I think you're saying is that by having your gun with you, you knew there was a pretty good possibility you might have to shoot to kill if you faced off with him, and you didn't want that to happen, so you took other measures. Does that sound right? Here's my question: what the fuck does the gun have to do with anything in that situation with respect to being more cautious and conscientious? If you didn't have your gun, would you have pulled over and taken your chances? If you didn't have your gun could/would you have used evasive driving and lost the guy?

Are you less cautious and conscientious when you are not carrying your gun? That's my question.

If your answer is yes, then you fucking scare me. "I need my gun to keep me calm". JFC.

If your answer is no, then your argument is invalid. You're cautious and conscientious WITH your concealed weapon, AND you're cautious and conscientious WITHOUT your weapon. Which was my original point. It isn't the gun. (and if it is, and I think it might be for some people, heaven help us all).


There are lots of things I don't know--talking about them is part of how I learn about them. There are lots of things I know *some* stuff about, and I talk about them too. This subject falls into that category. Specifically, what makes people cautious, and what doesn't make people cautious; things that are dangerous and things that are less dangerous. So, I'm clear to speak and act in this kind of discussion, with authority. I do know what I'm talking about.


By your own logic, you're losing your argument. Unless you just think I look stupid. Which is fine, no? You sound whiny, and I look stupid. I'll make you a deal--you stop looking at me and I'll quit listening to you.

Big V, we will agree to disagree. You'll just twist any explanation I counter with to paint me as a gun-toting psycho. So, we'll just leave it there.

[BigV]

To others reading this thread:

I have not said I think anyone posting here is a gun-toting psycho, nor do I think it without saying it. I think dmg, for example, is cautious and conscientious. I believe the overwhelming majority of gun owners are. Were it otherwise, we'd have a lot more horror stories like the ones in the news recently.

Though dmg has withdrawn, I'd like to take the point he made, the one that is made by others all over the place "I'm more cautious with my gun" (paraphrasing). I honestly believe that's true, but it's true because any reasonable person understands that the presence of a gun makes any given situation more dangerous, therefore justifying more caution. Because of the steepness of the transition between threat and death with guns, reasonable people take extra care. That's a very good thing.

But because it is more dangerous with guns around, that extra caution should include PREcautions. There are many precautions possible. Training, locks, locked cases, strict attention are some examples. I should also include careful consideration of who gets access to guns. And I believe they should be restricted to cautious, conscientious people, like dmg. To attempt to say the presence of a gun makes things safer is just faulty. It isn't the gun that's the danger, right, it's the person. So it should be the person that is subject to much greater scrutiny, if safety truly is one's goal.

dmg, I'm happy to disagree with you, but I think we're not arguing the same point.

[Lamplighter]

Saying that having a gun makes you more cautious is like saying
that carrying a match in the forest makes you more cautious,
or having an electrical wire in your hand makes you more cautious.
It's superficially true, but in the heat of an event such caution can be lost.

This "Having my CCL (gun) makes me more cautious" argument is literally
making the rounds on the internet among gun-advocate web sites,
and Joe Zamudio is their latest CCL-hero.
They say that he exercised caution and good judgment when he
came to the aid of Rep Gifford in Arizona.
Some of their statements are factual wrong.
And they don't expose one important detail...

MSNBC
Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man
— it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
The gun the older man was holding had been wrestled away from the shooter.
Police later identified 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner as the suspect.

"I could have very easily done the wrong thing and hurt a lot more people,"
said Zamudio, who helped subdue the suspect until authorities arrived.

I'm not denigrating Joe Zamudio. In fact, I was very impressed by him
in interviews at the time where he said his frame of mind was that
he was prepared to his gun, and was only stopped by the shouts of the crowd.

My point is that it is only fantasy to suggest that having a gun will
make a person cautious and rational.
I think it's just as easy to imagine a fantasy of a Mexican Standoff,
or shooting an innocent person... or yourself.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Saying that having a gun makes you more cautious is like saying that carrying a match in the forest makes you more cautious, or having an electrical wire in your hand makes you more cautious. It's superficially true, but in the heat of an event such caution can be lost.

Can lose caution? 1% of situations where people losing caution is a hell of a lot different than 99% of situations. Your statement has no merit since you are using anecdotes and what if scenarios. In the vast majority of situations, the scene will not be complete chaos.


Seriously, to both sides, it all depends on gun culture. When some people (lets call them Type A) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon they are holding and will become more cautious. They will not do anything stupid and will avoid confrontations unless absolutely necessary. Guns in the hands of these people, in general (I repeat....in general), will make society safer.

When other people (lets call them Type B) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon and power trip. They will be very confrontational and will enforce their status with guns. Gun in the hands of these people, in general, will make society more dangerous.


Both sides of the gun debate argument talk about different types of people.

Also, complete gun control in the US is a fantasy due to our gun culture. Both Type A and Type B people prefer guns and banning will just push guns further underground, as it did with drugs and alcohol.

To make the US safer with guns, it has to strictly regulated. In order to possess a firearm, classes and licenses (like driving) need to be obtained. If you are caught with a firearm without a license, the penalty should be harsh since there should be NO excuse for carrying without a license.

This is not a perfect solution but both sides need to acknowledge that their views are far from ideal as well.