Guns urban vs urban? - Page 4

Aliantha · 11-01-2006, 09:58 PM

OK then, by that philosophy, people who live in cities are either 'more criminal' than people who don't, or that cities are more populated and therefor crime must be higher.

Where are you getting your stats from UG? I'd like to know what the ratio is for urban areas.

mrnoodle · 11-02-2006, 10:38 AM

Wow. People are really scared of guns. I've been around them my whole life, and I've only seen anyone act stupid with one a couple of times. Once was a newbie mistake, where a girl at one of our gun safety classes was still holding her riflein her hands and turned around to talk to someone. Don't ever do that. :cringe: She got blessed out (too hard) by the instructor and was in tears for 15 minutes.

A friend of a friend in hunting camp one year thought it would be a good idea to practice his "quick draw". He got made fun of instantly, which turned into genuine anger when it was discovered taht the gun was loaded.

Just recently, someone let someone else borrow their car and didn't mention that there was a loaded gun under the seat. That was marginally dumb, but not criminally stupid.

That's it, out of thousands and thousands of encounters with "dangerous armed gunmen". Oh yeah. My dad put a BB through the back of a couch while showing me the safe way to put away my new BB gun. Poor dad.

In his defense, the mechanism on that gun was complicated as hell, and it was impossible to get BBs out of the chamber without firing. Unsafe design.

Where does the fear come from? Stories? Ignorance (the dictionary definition, not the PC insult)? They can't hurt you on their own, and they're not more likely to hurt you when carried, unless the person has the intention of hurting someone. In that case, it's the person to be feared. It reminds me of a picture of me standing next to our horse Winterhawk. I was about 7, had never been around horses before, and was petrified. The thing was huge, and I was positive I would be devoured if I got closer than 6 feet. Of course, we became fast friends soon after (he was the world's smartest horse, you should know). But I still remember the sensations I felt when that pic was taken. I had been next to cows since babyhood, and was more cavalier around them than I should have been. But not horses. I had enough movie scenes of unbroken horses rearing up and stomping people in my head that I simply couldn't convince myself that he wasn't going to explode into violence as soon as I got within striking range.

I'm guessing fear of guns is something like that.

Flint · 11-02-2006, 11:51 AM

It's a logical direction as any for this discussion to move in...

Flint · 11-02-2006, 01:06 PM

This is an extreme tangent, but guns and chainsaws are intended to do physical harm or damage to something (hammers, too, if you consider a pneumatic nailgun to be the nail-driver of choice, and a hammer to be mostly a demolition tool) while cars are designed primarily to transport. While a car can cause harm, it isn't the primary purpose of the device. This really has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Carry on...

glatt · 11-02-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

While a car can cause harm, it isn't the primary purpose of the device. This really has no bearing on anything whatsoever.

Cars have bearings too. That's gotta count for something.

wolf · 11-02-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

This is an extreme tangent, but guns and chainsaws are intended to do physical harm or damage to something (hammers, too, if you consider a pneumatic nailgun to be the nail-driver of choice, and a hammer to be mostly a demolition tool) while cars are designed primarily to transport. While a car can cause harm, it isn't the primary purpose of the device. This really has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Carry on...

Consider ... when was the last time anyway called for a ban on cars, or tried to sue a car manufacturer because a drunk driver intentionally misused a perfectly legal and perfectly functioning product?

This is essentially the basis of the liability suits against gun manufacturers.

lookout123 · 11-05-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

Consider ... when was the last time anyway called for a ban on cars,

shut the hell up! do you want to give that glue-sniffer Gore another cause so he can stay in the news???

Flint · 11-02-2006, 01:21 PM

I'm not aware of liability suits filed on the basis of a gun simply existing, but if there are cases like that, I would hope they would be laughed right out of court. I assume cases against gun manufacturers to have some basis in the design or operability of the device, such as, in cars: seatbelts, airbags, etc.

Urbane Guerrilla · 11-03-2006, 09:57 PM

There is also the fact that in-home self defense with pistol shots fired will cave your ears in much less than trying the same shots with a rifle -- rifle cartridges, anyway. It's a similar story with using shotgun loads, especially light loads as is recommended: basically skeet loads of powder and large shot. All you need is to damage the invader satisfactorily; there's no need to bring down the ceiling plaster.

It's a good idea not to cut loose with too powerful an arm, so as to contain or reduce problems with overpenetration. Do not shoot a Barrett Light Fifty in your living room. A .380 is a better bet.

A gun intended for fighting humans is hardly an unprecedented piece of equipment: consider the sword. A sword is not, properly speaking, a knife; even its fighting technique is completely different from that of a knife.

For me, it's the intent behind the fighting that saves or condemns. It is not sensible to concentrate exclusively on the hardware, for the reasons of effective opposition that I gave earlier. It is entirely in that part of the combat that contains the volition -- and the arm is emphatically not that.

MaggieL · 11-04-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Do not shoot a Barrett Light Fifty in your living room.

You can't shoot a Barrett in your living room. You can only shoot it *through* your living room. :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

A .380 is a better bet.

That might be going a little too far in the other direction.

Spexxvet · 11-05-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You can't shoot a Barrett in your living room. You can only shoot it *through* your living room. :-)
...

I guess you think an innocent person getting injured or killed by a bullet coming out of a house is funny? You like to joke about death and injury, huh?

lookout123 · 11-05-2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I guess you think an innocent person getting injured or killed by a bullet coming out of a house is funny? You like to joke about death and injury, huh?

sensitive much?

MaggieL · 11-06-2006, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I guess you think an innocent person getting injured or killed by a bullet coming out of a house is funny? You like to joke about death and injury, huh?

No, I'm joking about why anyone would consider using a weapon that weighs about 40 pounds (so heavy it really, really needs a bipod), is 57 inches long and makes holes in engine blocks at an effective range in excess of a mile for indoor household defense. It would be like trying to swat a fly with a 20-lb sledge.

It's a ludicrous idea, which why I smilingly pointed out that you literally cannot shoot it in a living room.

Flint · 11-04-2006, 02:56 PM

People who are high are sitting on a couch, being high. Getting enough money to stay high is the challenge. And, on to of that, coming down from a high is what would make someone irritable and aggressive (the opposite of euphoric and complacent). So, then you have an aggressive person who needs money (or more drugs). I don't have any statistics to support this, but I agree that more crimes would be committed at that point.

Beestie · 11-05-2006, 12:55 AM

In Virginia, you can carry a gun in a holster in broad daylight. The crime rate in the suburban DC part of Virginia is very low - very low. The crime rate in DC is astronomical by comparison. DC is fond of blaming their crime problem on the availability of guns from Virginia.

Which is DC's way of saying that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Oops.

11-01-2006, 09:58 PM	#1
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	OK then, by that philosophy, people who live in cities are either 'more criminal' than people who don't, or that cities are more populated and therefor crime must be higher. Where are you getting your stats from UG? I'd like to know what the ratio is for urban areas. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

11-02-2006, 10:38 AM	#2
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	Wow. People are really scared of guns. I've been around them my whole life, and I've only seen anyone act stupid with one a couple of times. Once was a newbie mistake, where a girl at one of our gun safety classes was still holding her riflein her hands and turned around to talk to someone. Don't ever do that. :cringe: She got blessed out (too hard) by the instructor and was in tears for 15 minutes. A friend of a friend in hunting camp one year thought it would be a good idea to practice his "quick draw". He got made fun of instantly, which turned into genuine anger when it was discovered taht the gun was loaded. Just recently, someone let someone else borrow their car and didn't mention that there was a loaded gun under the seat. That was marginally dumb, but not criminally stupid. That's it, out of thousands and thousands of encounters with "dangerous armed gunmen". Oh yeah. My dad put a BB through the back of a couch while showing me the safe way to put away my new BB gun. Poor dad. In his defense, the mechanism on that gun was complicated as hell, and it was impossible to get BBs out of the chamber without firing. Unsafe design. Where does the fear come from? Stories? Ignorance (the dictionary definition, not the PC insult)? They can't hurt you on their own, and they're not more likely to hurt you when carried, unless the person has the intention of hurting someone. In that case, it's the person to be feared. It reminds me of a picture of me standing next to our horse Winterhawk. I was about 7, had never been around horses before, and was petrified. The thing was huge, and I was positive I would be devoured if I got closer than 6 feet. Of course, we became fast friends soon after (he was the world's smartest horse, you should know). But I still remember the sensations I felt when that pic was taken. I had been next to cows since babyhood, and was more cavalier around them than I should have been. But not horses. I had enough movie scenes of unbroken horses rearing up and stomping people in my head that I simply couldn't convince myself that he wasn't going to explode into violence as soon as I got within striking range. I'm guessing fear of guns is something like that. __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

11-02-2006, 11:51 AM	#3
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	It's a logical direction as any for this discussion to move in... __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

11-02-2006, 01:06 PM	#4
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	This is an extreme tangent, but guns and chainsaws are intended to do physical harm or damage to something (hammers, too, if you consider a pneumatic nailgun to be the nail-driver of choice, and a hammer to be mostly a demolition tool) while cars are designed primarily to transport. While a car can cause harm, it isn't the primary purpose of the device. This really has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Carry on... __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

11-02-2006, 01:21 PM	#8
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	I'm not aware of liability suits filed on the basis of a gun simply existing, but if there are cases like that, I would hope they would be laughed right out of court. I assume cases against gun manufacturers to have some basis in the design or operability of the device, such as, in cars: seatbelts, airbags, etc. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

11-03-2006, 09:57 PM	#9
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	There is also the fact that in-home self defense with pistol shots fired will cave your ears in much less than trying the same shots with a rifle -- rifle cartridges, anyway. It's a similar story with using shotgun loads, especially light loads as is recommended: basically skeet loads of powder and large shot. All you need is to damage the invader satisfactorily; there's no need to bring down the ceiling plaster. It's a good idea not to cut loose with too powerful an arm, so as to contain or reduce problems with overpenetration. Do not shoot a Barrett Light Fifty in your living room. A .380 is a better bet. A gun intended for fighting humans is hardly an unprecedented piece of equipment: consider the sword. A sword is not, properly speaking, a knife; even its fighting technique is completely different from that of a knife. For me, it's the intent behind the fighting that saves or condemns. It is not sensible to concentrate exclusively on the hardware, for the reasons of effective opposition that I gave earlier. It is entirely in that part of the combat that contains the volition -- and the arm is emphatically not that. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course. Last edited by Urbane Guerrilla; 11-03-2006 at 10:02 PM.

11-04-2006, 02:56 PM	#14
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	People who are high are sitting on a couch, being high. Getting enough money to stay high is the challenge. And, on to of that, coming down from a high is what would make someone irritable and aggressive (the opposite of euphoric and complacent). So, then you have an aggressive person who needs money (or more drugs). I don't have any statistics to support this, but I agree that more crimes would be committed at that point. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

11-05-2006, 12:55 AM	#15
Beestie -◊\|≡·∙■·∙≡\|◊- Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Parts unknown. Posts: 4,081	In Virginia, you can carry a gun in a holster in broad daylight. The crime rate in the suburban DC part of Virginia is very low - very low. The crime rate in DC is astronomical by comparison. DC is fond of blaming their crime problem on the availability of guns from Virginia. Which is DC's way of saying that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Oops. __________________ ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)