Gun Ownership and Fear

[Shire Guy]

seems to be a fox in the henhouse

 

[Carl Reese]

Now your confusing me.

If you could answer this we can move on in this conversation

Do you believe every American has the right to defend him or herself with a fire arm if they feel that's what's necessary?

You've got some comments In your post that have me believing you don't believe that's true. Just trying to clear that up.

I absolutely believe in every human's right (sorry, not just Americans) to defend him- or herself with *all* tools at their disposal. Gun, knife, frying pan. I don't distinguish between tools here, because *that* is where we get into trouble.

"Every human being has a right to a life undisturbed, and should be allowed to defend themselves using whatever means necessary." I really think i made that unambiguous.

Separately from that, I believe guns can be used for fun.

And finally, I acknowledge that guns have a particular mission a frying pan or knife doesn't have. And that is terrifying to people.

 

[Carl Reese]

I dont agree with you

Nor do most people or the facts

The FACT of the matter is that the gun is used defensively over 750,000 times every year and almost all of the time without ever firing them........

Your assertion that the gun was designed to hurt people/animals is nothing more than an attempt to assign an emotion/feeling to an engineering project......the gun was DESIGNED to fire one or more projectiles of a specific caliber/charge in a manner that is safe for the operator.

For you to attempt to assign a motive to the above is nothing more than dishonest/inaccurate

Ahahaha, omg. And a car was designed to intake fuel and propel a mass a specified distance while under control of an operator.

If you don't agree, don't agree. Don't be obtuse, though.

 

[whacko]

Human beings are still human. Taking a life is a serious, and final, act. I imagine a good crowd from both the camps you describe will probably have nightmares for the rest of their lives.

I guess that's my point. Guns are fun. Yay. Guns are cool. YAY!

But they have a long, dark, awful history. We could, with all respect, at least acknowledge that.

Guns to me have history. Not necessarily the long dark and aweful one you describe. Yes taking a life is terrible and yes it changes a person mentally. I'm there.....I mean I'm actually there if you know what I mean. They are necessary to defend a way of life sometimes. That's my answer. That's my belief.

However......guns for me also have a wonderful history.....the guns that were handed down to me by my family that I hunt with and that I use to hunt with my boy. There is not a single bad story or aweful history in those guns. None. To say that all guns have aweful history is just naive.

 

[Carl Reese]

View attachment 301127
seems to be a fox in the henhouse

I wonder, with people who respond this way... Would me going green make you feel better, or worse? Better because you'd know I'm not an anti, or worse because a pro-gun person is being more thoughtful than you are?

Christ, no wonder we are losing on the issues. Can.. can you post a gif of a kid stomping his foot? 'Cause that's you.

 

[Matt_SERE]

But they have a long, dark, awful history. We could, with all respect, at least acknowledge that.

People have used guns and people have a history of providing sustenance and protection to ones family and country.

BTW, No pissing contests.

 

[Carl Reese]

Guns to me have history. Not necessarily the long dark and aweful one you describe. Yes taking a life is terrible and yes it changes a person mentally. I'm there.....I mean I'm actually there if you know what I mean. They are necessary to defend a way of life sometimes. That's my answer. That's my belief.

However......guns for me also have a wonderful history.....the guns that were handed down to me by my family that I hunt with and that I use to hunt with my boy. There is not a single bad story or aweful history in those guns. None. To say that all guns have aweful history is just naive.

Okay, I suppose that's fair. Hunting is not- in and of itself- a bad sport. I neglected that and I am sorry.

Still, the balance of gun history is just not pretty.

 

[whacko]

Okay, I suppose that's fair. Hunting is not- in and of itself- a bad sport. I neglected that and I am sorry.

Still, the balance of gun history is just not pretty.

Necessity is not always pretty

 

[Dennis in MA]

Complete aside - I remember reading some self-defense book (the ones you'd see advertised in the back of magazines - along with how you make your own machine gun, how to kill someone 18 different ways with nunchucks and such) that said that only a coward carries a gun. To truly master self defense you should be able to defend against an attacker and win with either your fists or a knife. Anyone can kill someone from 50-5,000 feet away - it takes a REAL man to kill someone face-to-face.

I'm sure he wrote that in the 1970's version of his mommy's basement. Even in HS, and before I was very pro-gun, I realized he was FOS.

 

[Carl Reese]

People have used guns and people have a history of providing sustenance and protection to ones family and country.

BTW, No pissing contests.

Not much of a contest. ;-)

Putting food on the table is great. We do not, as a country, have a lot of *requirement* for that outside of rural areas. So your argument is belied by the idiots open carrying ARs and AKs in the middle of an urban area.

I mean... they going to take down a buffalo at the local mall?

 

[Carl Reese]

Complete aside - I remember reading some self-defense book (the ones you'd see advertised in the back of magazines - along with how you make your own machine gun, how to kill someone 18 different ways with nunchucks and such) that said that only a coward carries a gun. To truly master self defense you should be able to defend against an attacker and win with either your fists or a knife. Anyone can kill someone from 50-5,000 feet away - it takes a REAL man to kill someone face-to-face.

I'm sure he wrote that in the 1970's version of his mommy's basement. Even in HS, and before I was very pro-gun, I realized he was FOS.

Ahahaha, I love those. Remember Frank Dux? Got a damned movie out of that garbage. Granted, Bloodsport is a fun movie... but damn.

 

[whacko]

Complete aside - I remember reading some self-defense book (the ones you'd see advertised in the back of magazines - along with how you make your own machine gun, how to kill someone 18 different ways with nunchucks and such) that said that only a coward carries a gun. To truly master self defense you should be able to defend against an attacker and win with either your fists or a knife. Anyone can kill someone from 50-5,000 feet away - it takes a REAL man to kill someone face-to-face.

I'm sure he wrote that in the 1970's version of his mommy's basement. Even in HS, and before I was very pro-gun, I realized he was FOS.

Omg the martial arts magazines in the 1980s. f*** that trend was so stupid. I knew a few guys in school back then that read that shit and believed all of the crap. Now most of them are middle aged wastoids.

 

[Carl Reese]

The car WAS and CONTINUES to be engineered to transport people/cargo a specific range, using specific fuels.......do you have a point?

The gun similarly was designed to fire one or more projectile/charges some distance in a manner that is safe for the operator

Like the automobile its a TOOL

People choose the most effective/affordable TOOLS to perform some TASK

The overwhelming majority of firearms are CHOSEN by TOOL USERS to accomplish a DEFENSIVE purpose and statistics PROVE this year after year.

No no, do not move the goal posts. Let's stay awhile.

Fine, fine, let's play. Guns were designed to propel a projectile away from the operator safely... to what end? Where is that projectile going?

The car is going to drop the kids off, or deliver mail, or get groceries.

The projectile is going to end something. A life (animal, human, other), the structural integrity of a target... it destroys. That is ALL the projectile does.

So sure, we can take your sanitized definition and still logically come to the conclusion that guns are inherently dangerous and purpose-designed to destroy.

All your other points? Defense, offense, hunting, target? That has nothing at all to do with 'design'. Those have to deal with the operator.

So let me agree with you: Guns are machines, with no conscience or sentience. They do not pull the trigger on themselves. I absolutely 100% agree with you.

However: Guns are also machines designed specifically to be efficient at killing. They weren't designed to look pretty on a shelf or help your daisies grow. They don't really help when you need to hang a picture frame.

 

[Uzi2]

I absolutely believe in every human's right (sorry, not just Americans) to defend him- or herself with *all* tools at their disposal. Gun, knife, frying pan. I don't distinguish between tools here, because *that* is where we get into trouble.

"Every human being has a right to a life undisturbed, and should be allowed to defend themselves using whatever means necessary." I really think i made that unambiguous.

Separately from that, I believe guns can be used for fun.

And finally, I acknowledge that guns have a particular mission a frying pan or knife doesn't have. And that is terrifying to people.

Other people's emotions are nobody's problem but their own. I don't give two shits whether someone else is terrified of guns......that just makes THEM mentally unstable and I do my best to avoid mentally unstable people.

Their mental instability doesn't give them any right or high ground what so ever to demand the imposition of restrictions on the rights of others to be able to defend themselves.
If they are that mentally unstable and terrified, perhaps they should be confined within an institution.....with guards.

Did you just awaken to the world of guns?

 

[Carl Reese]

Other people's emotions are nobody's problem but their own. I don't give two shits whether someone else is terrified of guns......that just makes THEM mentally unstable and I do my best to avoid mentally unstable people.

Their mental instability doesn't give them any right or high ground what so ever to demand the imposition of restrictions on the rights of others to be able to defend themselves.
If they are that mentally unstable and terrified, perhaps they should be confined within an institution.....with guards.

Did you just awaken to the world of guns?

Last part first: no, but I did just plunge into ownership in MA and all the garbage that came with it. I now have 'skin' in the game.

You have a very pragamatic viewpoint. You are right, you are not responsible for allaying anyone else's fears.

But non-gun owners outnumber gun owners. You ever read 'I am Legend'? Great book (the Will Smith film is garbage). In it, an infection spreads and everyone is turned into a vampiric monster. Except one guy. So he takes it upon himself to destroy the monsters, hide from them, describe them in horrifying terms.

He is captured, of course. The monsters point out that since *they* are all vampires now... it really is the last human who is the monster. He cannot abide that, so he commits suicide.

Now, you can moralize all you'd like on that outcome. But the guy never tried to communicate, or live peaceably. He made an assessment that his humanity was the only humanity worth having.

Both antis and pros often cross that line. I'm just gonna leave that there. You either get it and agree, or you don't, as is your right.

 

[Uzi2]

Last part first: no, but I did just plunge into ownership in MA and all the garbage that came with it. I now have 'skin' in the game.

You have a very pragamatic viewpoint. You are right, you are not responsible for allaying anyone else's fears.

But non-gun owners outnumber gun owners. You ever read 'I am Legend'? Great book (the Will Smith film is garbage). In it, an infection spreads and everyone is turned into a vampiric monster. Except one guy. So he takes it upon himself to destroy the monsters, hide from them, describe them in horrifying terms.

He is captured, of course. The monsters point out that since *they* are all vampires now... it really is the last human who is the monster. He cannot abide that, so he commits suicide.

Now, you can moralize all you'd like on that outcome. But the guy never tried to communicate, or live peaceably. He made an assessment that his humanity was the only humanity worth having.

Both antis and pros often cross that line. I'm just gonna leave that there. You either get it and agree, or you don't, as is your right.

I don't have the time to type an education out for you. You will learn....but not at my expense.

 

[Emacs]

But they have a long, dark, awful history. We could, with all respect, at least acknowledge that.

 

[Matt_SERE]

However: Guns are also machines designed specifically to be efficient at killing. They weren't designed to look pretty on a shelf or help your daisies grow. They don't really help when you need to hang a picture frame.

You need additions to your collection. Guns are engraved, manufactured, color hardened or sprayed or anodized and they are left to be seen on a mantle or coffee table. Also, if you don't have an empty $50.00 revolver you can pound in a tack nail to hang a picture, or crack a nut you should.

 

[ISOTOX]

 

[Carl Reese]

I don't have the time to type an education out for you. You will learn....but not at my expense.

There is nothing to learn. Anyone who honestly believes we are going to have open civil war in the US is deranged. You will *never* fire a gun in the street as some New Minutemen. Can we dispense with the odd notion that we are in some way preparing for Red Dawn or the zombie apocalypse?

Similarly, although the bravado runs high, open defiance of the authorities taking your gun away will not result in heroic martyrdom. It will result in having your skull caved in by a baton *if you are lucky*. If you are unlucky, you and all the innocents around you (wife, kids, dog) are going to be cut down with you. And that will be the story of you.

So political action is the only valid avenue. You want to educate me? Educate yourself. Perhaps you should start with civics.

This is stupid. The argument that we needs guns because the government will take them is self-defeating. Do you honestly believe we are going to be shooting in the streets any time in the predictable future?

 

[Carl Reese]

You need additions to your collection. Guns are engraved, manufactured, color hardened or sprayed or anodized and they are left to be seen on a mantle or coffee table. Also, if you don't have an empty $50.00 revolver you can pound in a tack nail to hang a picture, or crack a nut you should.

Well... to paraphrase Doc Brown... "why not do it with a little style?"

I will keep that in mind when I buy a revolver. Anyone have an old blued S&W model 19? Haha

 

[NewGuyRay]

No no, do not move the goal posts. Let's stay awhile.

Fine, fine, let's play. Guns were designed to propel a projectile away from the operator safely... to what end? Where is that projectile going?

The car is going to drop the kids off, or deliver mail, or get groceries.

The projectile is going to end something. A life (animal, human, other), the structural integrity of a target... it destroys. That is ALL the projectile does.

So sure, we can take your sanitized definition and still logically come to the conclusion that guns are inherently dangerous and purpose-designed to destroy.

All your other points? Defense, offense, hunting, target? That has nothing at all to do with 'design'. Those have to deal with the operator.

So let me agree with you: Guns are machines, with no conscience or sentience. They do not pull the trigger on themselves. I absolutely 100% agree with you.

However: Guns are also machines designed specifically to be efficient at killing. They weren't designed to look pretty on a shelf or help your daisies grow. They don't really help when you need to hang a picture frame.

Is this really a debate over the distinction between killing and murder?

Firearms are very effective tools for killing. Firearms are often the best choice of tool when the job to be accomplished is killing (we could have a long discussion as well about killing where other tools are a better choice, i.e. bomb, knife, hands, car,...). The firearm has no knowledge of how it is being used. Using a firearm to intentionally kill someone in an act of malice is far different from killing someone with a firearm accidentally or in an act of self-defense. The first is an act of murder, the others are not.

A motor vehicle is a very effective tool for transporting people and stuff. In some cases, a motor vehicle can be an excellent tool of choice for killing people (see Nice, FR). Running over people with the intention of killing them is murder. Killing someone with a motor vehicle in the circumstances of an accident is not murder and in many instances is not a crime at all. Killing someone while driving drunk is not murder because of the lack of malice.

I guess my question for you is whether you would feel worse using a firearm to kill someone in an act of self-defense versus falling asleep at the wheel of your car and killing a pedestrian in a crosswalk? Does a justifiable use of a firearm for its intended purpose mean you should feel especially bad because .. firearms, as opposed to misusing an object having a different primary purpose to kill someone?

 

[Carl Reese]

Again, you're assigning a personal/emotional attribute/use to the tool as it was designed.

This is the problem with your entire train of thought

No, the problem is that you are trying to divorce the human element from the machine.

But without the human element (emotion, motive), the machine has no purpose. The machine wouldn't even exist without the motive.

Or do you think swords, bows, crossbows, cannons, long guns and handguns just sprang from some sort of True Neutral ether? Some guy was sitting around thinking, "you know what would be fun? Inventing a machine that can put a bolt through plate armor... yeah, I mean... *I* just want to build beautiful things... *I* can't be held responsible if someone actually uses it to punch a hole in armor."

Does that not sound *incredibly* naive to you? I mean, if not, fine. We are clearly done having a discussion, because you are taking an intractable (and untenable) position.

 

[Carl Reese]

Is this really a debate over the distinction between killing and murder?

Firearms are very effective tools for killing. Firearms are often the best choice of tool when the job to be accomplished is killing (we could have a long discussion as well about killing where other tools are a better choice, i.e. bomb, knife, hands, car,...). The firearm has no knowledge of how it is being used. Using a firearm to intentionally kill someone in an act of malice is far different from killing someone with a firearm accidentally or in an act of self-defense. The first is an act of murder, the others are not.

A motor vehicle is a very effective tool for transporting people and stuff. In some cases, a motor vehicle can be an excellent tool of choice for killing people (see Nice, FR). Running over people with the intention of killing them is murder. Killing someone with a motor vehicle in the circumstances of an accident is not murder and in many instances is not a crime at all. Killing someone while driving drunk is not murder because of the lack of malice.

I guess my question for you is whether you would feel worse using a firearm to kill someone in an act of self-defense versus falling asleep at the wheel of your car and killing a pedestrian in a crosswalk? Does a justifiable use of a firearm for its intended purpose mean you should feel especially bad because .. firearms, as opposed to misusing an object having a different primary purpose to kill someone?

No no. You misunderstand. I am not debating killing over murder. At all.

I am saying that it is incredibly disingenuous to say things like, "cars kill more people than guns". People do not *fear* cars. Right or wrong, they do not. And that is because cars were not designed to kill people and animals. They can, but there isn't 250 years of car history extolling the virtues of how this 4,700lb Cadillac can take out game at 300 yards, or create f***ing 'wound channels'.

Back in 07-08, when gas hit $4 a gallon, some Republican douche actually said in an interview, "Milk is more expensive."

Yes, but I don't drink 20 gals of milk a week. Do you see? Apples and oranges. Guns are oranges. People need to stop pretending they are apples. The apple arguments don't work. They sound stupid. Even if handguns are used to prevent more crimes than they facilitate, they are still guns. Good guy, bad guy... bullets don't care.

 

[Emacs]

No, the problem is that you are trying to divorce the human element from the machine.

But without the human element (emotion, motive), the machine has no purpose. The machine wouldn't even exist without the motive.

Or do you think swords, bows, crossbows, cannons, long guns and handguns just sprang from some sort of True Neutral ether? Some guy was sitting around thinking, "you know what would be fun? Inventing a machine that can put a bolt through plate armor... yeah, I mean... *I* just want to build beautiful things... *I* can't be held responsible if someone actually uses it to punch a hole in armor."

Does that not sound *incredibly* naive to you? I mean, if not, fine. We are clearly done having a discussion, because you are taking an intractable (and untenable) position.

Do you have a liberal arts degree from a school like Hampshire, Williams, Oberlin, etc?

 

[Carl Reese]

Your entire argument is predicated on emotion instead of based on the facts

the fact that firearms continue to be used DEFENSIVELY over 750k times per year without ever being fired in almost every instance while being used criminally a very small fraction of times negates your assertion that its all about killing using your own emotional approach.

Guns are used to SAVE lives in almost every instance which negates your flawed assertion regardless

Your argument is based on incredibly misleading statistics.

No one gives a crap how often a gun was used for 'good'. Jesus, really? Really. You know what literally *NO ONE* has ever says after some f***er drives a vehicle into a bunch of people? "Cars were deployed 20 million times last year in a responsible manner, and Ambulances save lives."

What? Wh-what the shit does the 'good' have to do with any of it?

Here you are, claiming my argument is based on emotion. While you cite a single statistic based on HUMAN BEHAVIOR.

Dude, this is getting mildly embarrassing. This is why antis look at us like we are f***ing Neanderthals.

 

[Carl Reese]

Do you have a liberal arts degree from a school like Hampshire, Williams, Oberlin, etc?

Computer Science. B.S., thank you.

 

[NewGuyRay]

Your entire argument is predicated on emotion instead of based on the facts

the fact that firearms continue to be used DEFENSIVELY over 750k times per year without ever being fired in almost every instance while being used criminally a very small fraction of times negates your assertion that its all about killing using your own emotional approach.

Guns are used to SAVE lives in almost every instance which negates your flawed assertion regardless

I think we are wasting effort trying to make reasoned arguments to counter an emotional response to the mystical powers of firearms. I can't manage to distort my powers of reasoning enough to see his point. When I see reliable evidence showing that people die a more peaceful death when they take their last breath thinking, "At least I wasn't killed with a firearm", then I'll try to understand Carl Reese's viewpoint.

 

[Carl Reese]

I think we are wasting effort trying to make reasoned arguments to counter an emotional response to the mystical powers of firearms. I can't manage to distort my powers of reasoning enough to see his point. When I see reliable evidence showing that people die a more peaceful death when they take their last breath thinking, "At least I wasn't killed with a firearm", then I'll try to understand Carl Reese's viewpoint.

Maybe this will help you: that last comforting thought, facetious as it may be? At least that person got to have it.

It isn't really guns that scare people, you know. You feel better with one. Okay. Well, everyone else now knows you can kill them. You can take away their life, time with their families...

And you seriously think it isn't your responsibility to allay those fears?

 

[whacko]

Your argument is based on incredibly misleading statistics.

No one gives a crap how often a gun was used for 'good'. Jesus, really? Really. You know what literally *NO ONE* has ever says after some f***er drives a vehicle into a bunch of people? "Cars were deployed 20 million times last year in a responsible manner, and Ambulances save lives."

What? Wh-what the shit does the 'good' have to do with any of it?

Here you are, claiming my argument is based on emotion. While you cite a single statistic based on HUMAN BEHAVIOR.

Dude, this is getting mildly embarrassing. This is why antis look at us like we are f***ing Neanderthals.

Your speaking in absolutes. Dont use absolutes like "nobody" or "everybody" in a debate. There is no way you can substantiate that statement and it shows you are not taking other opinions into consideration....only yours.

I care that fire arms are used upwards of 3/4 of a million times a year for defense. It tells me they are being used for their intended purpose in my opinion.