The Assault Weapons Ban by AnthonyT

I've acknowledged that you are not advocating an "Assault Weapon" ban. But for some strange reason you keep throwing in your experience with the criminal element (which seems to be more media influenced than anything else).

And yes, my reading comprehension may come into question. But it seems the personal attacks and misinformation indicate a further degree of ignorance on your part.

Sidenote: I was thinking about the people who'd be put in charge of protecting us. After attending a few trainings and listening to LEO's talk I'm not so sure I'd want some of them protecting me or my family. From the fanatic gun nuts to the Fife's who narrowly escape shooting thier toes off there is a definite need to better train Law Enforcement in specialty fields such as defense and firearm related incidents, human service, and common sense. For the others I commend the dedication they have to the people they protect and their fellow officers. Check out your local law enforcement agencies and ask about the training they are receiving. They might not be the fastest to respond but it will indicate the needed improvement for their service to the public and for the safety of you and your community.

ADD: Here here AT. If my statements edge on inflamitory I do aplologize. I have no need to break anyone or their opposing view point down. I hope to help educate folk who may not have access to information not influenced by indirect sources. And ignorance is not a negative thing unless one chooses it over education.

ADD PT2: OOOh-RaH!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:07 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Storymark has been mischaracterized as being AGAINST assault weapon/assault rifle ownership.

He is merely apathetic. It was an easy mistake to make.

He isn't against it, he's just not for it. He won't lift a finger to help or harm the cause.

We should move on, because at this point it's becoming a beratement of the fellow. While Apathy can be dangerous, it would be worse to make this man a foe.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Well, if it makes you feel better, a couple years ago, I was strongly anti-gun. So, I've come a long way toward apathy. Heck, I've even been considering getting a gun lately, so look how far I've come.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less."

A tool used to shoot and only to shoot. The BEST you can hope for from a gun is that it doesn't kill innocent people. Though, come to think of it, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and I don't see people being executed by firing squad. So, theoretically, everyone who dies of a gunshsot is innocent. And by your own admission, 'arms' are mentioned in the constitution, and cars aren't. That makes YOUR analogy even less meaningful. So, please don't compare guns to cars, or tobacco, or alcohol.

There are implict limits on the 'right to bear arms' which no one has addressed as far as I can see.

Babies and nukes ? Anyone care to comment ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:08 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

The image of a peaceful, responsible, competent gun owner isn't promoted a lot.

I'm a victim of this association myself.

It took me a while to recognize this instant association as wrong, and it always takes work to move beyond it when thinking about subjects like this.

Once I did, my opinions about gun control changed, as well.

And this bugs me quite a bit - the whole "the way they're portrayed means it's okay to think that way about guns and people who like them."

Tell ya what: try applying that logic to black people, and see where that gets you. Sure, they're portrayed a certain way in the media, so does that make it okay to be bigoted against them?

Just curious. It's interesting to watch people who supposedly have no prejudices actually reveal what theirs are. And we ALL have prejudices of some sort or another. I guess for some, it's just prejudice against gun owners that's okay and acceptable...

Mike

I'm sorry, are you attacking me for my post? I can't tell whether you are or not, but if you are, I'll be annoyed because I not only stated a prejudice I have but also that I recognize it and actively try to work around it. Can't ask for more than that, so direct your anger at someone else, thank you very much.

As for the racism comparison, most people operating under prejudices do not feel that they are. It's actually not that easy to recognize, because ultimately, many of our assumptions about the world come from very limited media-sources. Unless you examine something further, many of your impressionms will stay rudimentary and perhaps prejudiced.

So no one says it's "okay" to pre prejudiced because of media portrayal. It is simply the fact that many people are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 12:58 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Rue, I will confess where I diverge from most of my 'gun-nut' bretheren.

In a world where there is agreement that lawful citizens should be allowed to keep and carry armaments, I'd be happy to oblige certain 'common sense' legal requirements.

I'd be happy to be required to take a government sponsored training and certification course in gun handling and safety. I think it'd be a good idea to make such courses available as an elective in High School, with night/weekend classes available to adults of the community.

I'd be happy to have my identity checked at the time of purchase of a firearm, to be sure I haven't been legally deemed insane or a felon whose rights haven't been restored.

I'd be happy to have age requirements for different types of firearms, such that children under the age of 16 could only use rimfire weapons under the supervision of an adult, once the safety and handling certificates are earned.

I think these steps are good common-sense measures to make sure that the owners and users of firearms are competent and responsible.

However...

I acknowledge that I am in a world where there is no agreement that lawful citizens should be allowed to keep and carry armaments. In the world I live in, common-sense gun control measures are stepping stones to disarmament. In the world I live in, gun-control advocates have explicitly stated that their goal with each measure of law is to inch closer to their ideal of complete gun banishment.

In my world, the desire to disarm me makes it difficult for me to embrace gun-control, because I've already been told in no uncertain terms that each foot in the door is a step towards robbing me of my rights.

If the gun control advocates were prepared to acknowledge my rights to own and carry, I'd be prepared to go a long way in setting up reasonable training requirements and limitations.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 1:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AnthonyT

I think there should be explicit common-sense restrictions - considering there are implicit ones.

I'd go even further - I think military service should be mandatory, and after basic training where everyone is taught about guns - how to use them safely, how to clean them, how to store them - you may choose to serve your country either in community service (three-year tour) or in military operations (one year tour). That would eliminate what I think of as a dangerous bifurcation of populace - those who are interested in guns (for whatever reason) and those who aren't and are at a relative disadvantage.

What I don't understand is WHY the US has such a high gun death rate. What is it in our collective relationship with guns that makes us so much more likely to kill and maim with them than any other developed country on the face of the earth ?

Any thoughts ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 1:22 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The United States was born in the gun age. European countries predate guns. That's the only thing I can think of. From the inception of this country, the gun was a standard daily companion and a primary tool. It must be cultural.

That's all I can think of.

BTW, you sound a bit like Heinlein there. ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 1:31 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, if you are interested in owning a piece, Storymark, then I have three suggestions for you.

The reason I offer them is that I most especially would not like you running up into some of the bad advice and general nuttery (which I will not deny exists in unfortunate measure) and become disheartened with the idea.

The first is Kathy's site, cornered cat.
http://www.corneredcat.com/

It's a no BS educational site about use of firearms for self defense with factual and useful information uncluttered by the usual rhetoric and BS.

The second is Marc Macyoung's site.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/self-defense.htm

Of particular interest is it's focus on detecting and avoiding crime and conflict by knowing what to be aware of and avoiding or de-escalating the situation before it comes to violence, something usually not nearly stressed enough, or in enough detail when talking about these issues.

And third, what TO carry.

I reccommend the Bersa Thunder .380ACP concealed carry model.
http://www.bersafirearmsusa.com/detail_bersa380cc.php

It is entirely sufficient for personal defense, easy to use, reliable, lightweight at 23oz and quite inexpensive, retailing for only $315.00USD.

No harsh recoil, ear wrecking blast, or overcomplicated mechanisms to make cleaning a hassle - just a good, solid tool for the purpose of self defense and nothing more.

I might be quite harsh when it comes to discussing the right and the concept, but I will always, ALWAYS aid someone who's willing to see to their own defense as much as I can, because to do less would be unforgiveable negligence on my part.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 1:41 PM

You also have to consider that other countries that have high gun death rates are in constant turmoil, lack the means or ablity to track them, or it is so common place that reporting or gathering that information is redundant in their terms.

Also, there is a growing number of firearm related crimes/deaths in countries where firearms are a restricted. In America, it seems to be cultural. Plus the media almost overshares information on such things. They seem to want people fearful just so they can tune into the news to see what's happening. They always prompt some horrible story or finding of some study right before a commercial break. There always seems to be some story they want you to wait until the eleven o'clock show for.

Culturally Americans seem to be leaning away from physical prowess. People seem more prone to percieved power, self conscious attitudes, and self righteous reasoning. When I was growing up it was more about physical ability, turning the other cheek, and telling the truth. But watching other my age get older I saw the difference between the way I was raised and the cultural, social, and family dynamics they were shown. Even now I see the kids I work with or have had as clients in the past with ill concieved notions about the world and people in it.

Regardless if there is an "Assault Weapon" ban or not, dirty motherfuckers will continue to do dirty shit. They will prey upon the weak or unassuming or falsely secured with whatever weapon is handy. Our kids will continue to be bombarded with warped social commentary from whatever media they happen to see. I just hope for people to truly make informed descisions about such things before they make them.

ADD: I highly recommend people watch The Boondocks. It was an awesome representation if the twisted and warped perceptions of our youth regardless if they are black, white, or green.
http://www.adultswim.com/shows/theboondocks/index.html

And Kudos Storymark for the admission of mind changing from against to neutral. Not because you are closer to the Pro side, but because it is a difficult thing to move from one way of thinking to another.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 1:42 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Okay, for the SLOW: I AM NOT ADVOCATING AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN!

Capiche?

Is that clear?

I would not be upset by one, either. But am not advocating one, or trying to justify it. I do have a problem with some gun owners, and their mentality (and reading skills, apparently), but that isn't the same thing. Please, please try to actually read what I wrote, and not just assume you know my position.

I think we're somewhat more clear on your position, but it's taken a bit to get there. I don't for a moment assume I know your position; that's why I asked so many questions early on, so I can try to get a handle on where you're coming from, to build a basis for a real conversation about it, instead of just hashing back and forth over the old "guns are evil"/"guns are great" debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

The image of a peaceful, responsible, competent gun owner isn't promoted a lot.

I'm a victim of this association myself.

It took me a while to recognize this instant association as wrong, and it always takes work to move beyond it when thinking about subjects like this.

Once I did, my opinions about gun control changed, as well.

And this bugs me quite a bit - the whole "the way they're portrayed means it's okay to think that way about guns and people who like them."

Tell ya what: try applying that logic to black people, and see where that gets you. Sure, they're portrayed a certain way in the media, so does that make it okay to be bigoted against them?

Just curious. It's interesting to watch people who supposedly have no prejudices actually reveal what theirs are. And we ALL have prejudices of some sort or another. I guess for some, it's just prejudice against gun owners that's okay and acceptable...

Mike

I'm sorry, are you attacking me for my post? I can't tell whether you are or not, but if you are, I'll be annoyed because I not only stated a prejudice I have but also that I recognize it and actively try to work around it. Can't ask for more than that, so direct your anger at someone else, thank you very much.

As for the racism comparison, most people operating under prejudices do not feel that they are. It's actually not that easy to recognize, because ultimately, many of our assumptions about the world come from very limited media-sources. Unless you examine something further, many of your impressionms will stay rudimentary and perhaps prejudiced.

So no one says it's "okay" to pre prejudiced because of media portrayal. It is simply the fact that many people are.

Agent: In no way was I attacking you for your post; I was merely attempting to use it as an illustration for comparing viewpoints on different issues.

If it seemed like a personal attack, I'm deeply sorry. It was certainly not intended as such.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less."

A tool used to shoot and only to shoot. The BEST you can hope for from a gun is that it doesn't kill innocent people. Though, come to think of it, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and I don't see people being executed by firing squad. So, theoretically, everyone who dies of a gunshsot is innocent. And by your own admission, 'arms' are mentioned in the constitution, and cars aren't. That makes YOUR analogy even less meaningful. So, please don't compare guns to cars, or tobacco, or alcohol.

There are implict limits on the 'right to bear arms' which no one has addressed as far as I can see.

Babies and nukes ? Anyone care to comment ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Rue: You're right in that a gun is to shoot and only to shoot, although I know several people who collect guns and put a high priority on "New in box, never fired" weapons, which they acquire and then don't shoot. To those people, these are merely investments, financial instruments that have a history of appreciating in value.

I disagree that the BEST I can hope for is to not shoot an innocent person. The BEST I can personally hope for is to be able to improve my target-shooting skills and further hone them. In over forty years of shooting, I've never shot anyone, innocent or otherwise, either accidentally or on purpose.

And another BEST I can hope for is to be able to put fresh meat on my family's table if there comes a time when I can no longer afford to buy it.

Guns are for shooting, but that doesn't mean they have to be for murder and mayhem.

And I'd say that any "implicit" limitations on the right to bear arms also apply to any of the other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

As for babies and nukes, I'd say that comes down to common-sense limitations. But I could be wrong - we already put nukes in the hands of a moron (Bush), so anything's possible...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Rue, I will confess where I diverge from most of my 'gun-nut' bretheren.

In a world where there is agreement that lawful citizens should be allowed to keep and carry armaments, I'd be happy to oblige certain 'common sense' legal requirements.

I'd be happy to be required to take a government sponsored training and certification course in gun handling and safety. I think it'd be a good idea to make such courses available as an elective in High School, with night/weekend classes available to adults of the community.

I'd be happy to have my identity checked at the time of purchase of a firearm, to be sure I haven't been legally deemed insane or a felon whose rights haven't been restored.

I'd be happy to have age requirements for different types of firearms, such that children under the age of 16 could only use rimfire weapons under the supervision of an adult, once the safety and handling certificates are earned.

I think these steps are good common-sense measures to make sure that the owners and users of firearms are competent and responsible.

However...

I acknowledge that I am in a world where there is no agreement that lawful citizens should be allowed to keep and carry armaments. In the world I live in, common-sense gun control measures are stepping stones to disarmament. In the world I live in, gun-control advocates have explicitly stated that their goal with each measure of law is to inch closer to their ideal of complete gun banishment.

In my world, the desire to disarm me makes it difficult for me to embrace gun-control, because I've already been told in no uncertain terms that each foot in the door is a step towards robbing me of my rights.

If the gun control advocates were prepared to acknowledge my rights to own and carry, I'd be prepared to go a long way in setting up reasonable training requirements and limitations.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

I don't disagree with any particular point, sir.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
AnthonyT

I think there should be explicit common-sense restrictions - considering there are implicit ones.

I'd go even further - I think military service should be mandatory, and after basic training where everyone is taught about guns - how to use them safely, how to clean them, how to store them - you may choose to serve your country either in community service (three-year tour) or in military operations (one year tour). That would eliminate what I think of as a dangerous bifurcation of populace - those who are interested in guns (for whatever reason) and those who aren't and are at a relative disadvantage.

What I don't understand is WHY the US has such a high gun death rate. What is it in our collective relationship with guns that makes us so much more likely to kill and maim with them than any other developed country on the face of the earth ?

Any thoughts ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I'm not opposed to mandatory military service. If terrorism really is the threat that we're told it is, then compulsory military service and training would be the BEST way to fight it. Who invades a country where they KNOW with 100% certainty that every citizen is armed and trained how to fight? And what government would choose tyranny if such a population existed?

As for the WHY of the U.S. gun death rate, I have no answers. It ain't me, though - as I've said, I've never shot anyone. Well, at least not with anything more powerful than a BB gun. ;)

Maybe a part of it comes from people NOT being properly trained in firearms use and safety. Perhaps if more of us actually were trained, less of us would be killed.

'Course, I could say the same thing of cars... ;) Most fatal accidents are hardly unavoidable, if people would just pay attention. I guess asking people to be aware is just asking too much. And it never gets much traction when you try to point out to people that the most dangerous thing they're likely to do today is drive to work, and that it literally is a matter of life and death that they treat it as such.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 2:23 PM

So, to try to put this in some perspective and relate it to ANOTHER touchy subject, I'll interject this. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to ram guns down anyone's throat, my views are my own, and for the time being the government and the Constitution say they are valid ones, and completely legal...

Anyhoo, I'm a male on the back side of 40; I have no children, nor am I likely to ever have any. There's not much chance of an unwanted pregnancy in my future, or in the futures of any of my extended family (I have a 26-year-old niece who is pregnant, by choice and fully planned and hoped for). Why should I support a woman's right to choose? Like Storymark with assault weapons, I don't have a dog in this fight, so what's it to me if abortion is outlawed? And isn't the only point of abortion to remove the fetus, thereby killing it?

I bring it up only to try to get people thinking about things from OTHER viewpoints, to take them out of their comfort zones, to try to show that I will support your position, but I ask that you support mine, even though you may not gain anything by doing so.

By the way, I am fully in support of a woman's right to choose. What I'd like to know is, why should I be if it doesn't impact me in the slightest in any personal way?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 3:05 PM

I like that view point. The shadow of taking life is oft a hard discussion especially for reasonably intelligent human beings. (I tell everyone to stop calling me smart because I know better) It is just too big of an issue for most people to handle all at once. If discussion of reasons for gun control were made more open and honest I think there might be more of a posative response to descision making. I watched a video montage of why guns should be outlawed on YouTube a few minutes ago. I did feel a little bad because they threw in incidents, dates, and names of people inolved. What really threw me off was the incidents from inner cities and the Red Lake shootings a few years ago.

I attended and evaluated a course for Victims Advocates at the Fon du Loc tribal collage near Duluth a short while afterward. After meeting a few of the responders I felt genuine and heartfelt remorse for all the families involved.

What bothered me is the person making the video could hardly be bothered to mix in much color during the video. I saw mostly the flushed and fearful faces of white teenage girls. There was not a single image of the Red Lake people who endured their ordeal. There were very few blacks represented in the video which doesn't make sense since Washington feels fit to point the finger at poor low income inner city youth and their "gun violence".

Not to push any buttons, but is that our primary concern? White America's false sense of security? I'm not trying to make a racial issue out of this, but that video just set me off a little.
You Tube video Should Guns Be Illegal?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 4:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Somehow, I don't think training is the answer to US gun deaths. Maybe to accidental shootings, but not to drive-bys, armed robberies, armed car-jackings, and the like. These people intend to shoot other people, even if they're not terribly particular about who. And judging by the gun-murder rate, I'd say they know well-enough how to do what they want to do and more training would just make them better at it.

Something is off-kilter with the US. Why are we so homicidal ?

Oh, yeah - just to address the point about 'the best one can hope for ...' Yes, a lot of dead paper targets and beer cans is a good outcome, as is dead game (which you later eat). Though plinking on living things which some people do for sport and call it hunting - not so much.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 4:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Somehow, I don't think training is the answer to US gun deaths. Maybe to accidental shootings, but not to drive-bys, armed robberies, armed car-jackings, and the like. These people intend to shoot other people, even if they're not terribly particular about who. And judging by the gun-murder rate, I'd say they know well-enough how to do what they want to do and more training would just make them better at it.

Something is off-kilter with the US. Why are we so homicidal ?

Oh, yeah - just to address the point about 'the best one can hope for ...' Yes, a lot of dead paper targets and beer cans is a good outcome, as is dead game (which you later eat). Though plinking on living things which some people do for sport and call it hunting - not so much.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

See, Rue? We really can be one big happy when we talk things out! We're coming at this issue from widely disparate viewpoints, but we're chipping away at it and finding some middle ground.

Training will help with some people; others it will merely make better killers. I think the question has less to do with guns and more to do with what makes us such a murderous society in the first place. If people are going to continue to do drive-by shootings, though, I'd really prefer them to get at least ONE guy in the gang who can read the damned house numbers, so they'll quit shooting the wrong damn people in the wrong damn houses!

As for hunting, I currently don't. I do like that I have the right to, should I so desire, though. Killing animals for fun and calling it sport is NOT something I'd ever want to be a part of. I *like* guns, but I love and value living things. I could conceivably kill for self-defense or for food, but not for fun. Maybe that's why I've never killed anyone...

You want to strengthen the existing laws to firm up background checks to keep weapons out of the hands of those who absolutely shouldn't have them? You'll get no argument here. I'd like to free up some of the other weapons to folks who have demonstrated that they are no threat with such weapons at their disposal.

But at some point, I think we really need to get back to your question of why we're such a murderous bunch as a nation. Find the answer (or answers) to that question, and you'd go far to finding the solution(s).

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 4:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, I liked plinking when I did it. I liked archery when I did it. I still like tossing paper into wastepaper baskets. I'm just not about to get all righteous about doing any one of those.

And I don't see where an assault weapons ban (for the sake of argument, let's pretend it'll be a real ban on the right things instead of a stupid ban on the wrong things) is a slam-dunk DOA idea.

Especially given our current murderous culture.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 5:34 PM

AG05

Because you're trying to fix a bad behavior by removing on object that is occasionally used in that bad behavior. You take away the pbject, your not only punishing the few folks who actually used the banned object in the bad behavior, but you're failing to solve the deeper behavioral problem. It's like banning all the crayons at a school 'cause a couple of kids drew weiners on the classroom wall.

I agree that we have a big problem with violent crime in our society. and that problem needs to be addressed. We need to fix whatever social, economic, or whatever other problems we have that drive people to commit violent crime. But we have to do it in a way that will not take away the ability of law-abiding folks to defend themselves against these crimes.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 10:41 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Lemme refine that argument for ya just a little bit there AG...

It's treating tuberculosis with nyquil, addressing the symptom instead of the root cause.

There now, ain't that a lil simpler ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 4:20 AM

AG05

Maybe, but I don't see the presence of assault weapons as a symptom. The symptom is the crime, and the cause is the poverty/drugs/whatever else. The gun is just the most visible part of it.

It's like treating herpes by putting makeup over the sores.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 6:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Because you're trying to fix a bad behavior by removing on object that is occasionally used in that bad behavior."

Well, let's see --- which is more tolerable - bad behavior swinging a screwdriver around or bad behavior swinging an assault weapon around ? See the difference ? I truly hope so.

But - and this is just a hypothetical - what if the culture is as violent as it is BECAUSE of its relationship with guns ? Because of OUR relationship with guns. As an observation, it looks like a most of people here emotionally identify with their guns. That's certainly not a healthy either for individuals or for a society. And it may be the cause of the problem.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 6:37 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think that any artist, craftsman, or practitioner tends to develop an affinity for their tools.

You will often hear a chef talk about the finest knives, apparatus, or ingredients.

A woodcarver tends to have a strong opinion about his chisels and carving knives.

I remember in my video gaming heydey, I developed a particular affinity for a particular Logitech trackball. I've never found one quite as good as that particular model. I still remember it fondly.

Some car enthusiasts fall in love with particular makes and models, or even a particular individual car.

Someone who shoots regularly is bound to develop an affinity for their tools, the guns.

I don't think this is symptomatic of anything in particular, beyond human nature.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 6:46 AM

Again Rue, "Assault Weapons" are an illicit item for the regular citizen. They are considered a destructive device that a very, very small number of people in the US are capable of owning. Those who do are under the watchful eye of numerous government agencies for the rest of their natural lives.

I'm not worried because of the lack of true definition offered within this public forum. My sporting arms are safe as long as people educate themselves on the true nature of the item.

I'm worried because that same misdefined term is being thrown around as the new catch phrase all over again. If the statement made earlier was true, that minimal crimes are being committed with "Assault Weapons", than why worry about a ban on them seeing as they are used in less than one percent of violent crimes in the US.

Here is a link to the American Firearms Institute. At the bottom of the page there is a list of very helpful links to various government agencies including state laws and studies.
http://www.americanfirearms.org/laws.php

Wondering: Is your culture murderous? I don't see that in the people I am around.I don't even see that in popular culture. Portyals of murder in the media are mostly fiction, works of fantasy. Aside from news and true crime shows that is the goal, fantasy. Fantasy does not permit us to live in that manner. We decide for ourselves.

So what are your observations on this murderous culture we live in?

ADD: I just caught your last post. If you look at the relationship between laws and weapons, there have always been restrictions on the weapons we carry or posess. Check out the laws of blade and gun alike.

And regardless if the weapon is a screwdriver or an "Assault Weapon", neither is an acceptable choice. It is beligerant behavior and is unacceptable in any culture. Hurting people is hurting people. Bottom line.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 6:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AnthonyT

If guns were somethng that people used everyday as necessary tools, it would make sense that they develop a keen appreciation for them. But, with few exceptions (law enforcement, military) they're not.

What I read is peoplpe see them as symbols of independence, self-reliance, and even self-importance. It's a reworking of a frontier myth (which never existed in the form people assume it did) into some kind of personal mantra.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 7:03 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Wondering: Is your culture murderous?"

Yes

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-cap
ita

#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138
#5 Russia: 0.201534
#6 Mexico: 0.130213
#7 Estonia: 0.107277
#8 Latvia: 0.10393
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025
#18 Zambia: 0.070769
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006
#20 Poland: 0.0562789
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638
#24 United States: 0.042802
#25 Armenia: 0.0425746
#26 India: 0.0344083
#27 Yemen: 0.0336276
#28 Dominica: 0.0289733
#29 Azerbaijan: 0.0285642
#30 Finland: 0.0283362
#31 Slovakia: 0.0263303
#32 Romania: 0.0250784
#33 Portugal: 0.0233769
#34 Malaysia: 0.0230034
#35 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0229829
#36 Mauritius: 0.021121
#37 Hungary: 0.0204857
#38 Korea, South: 0.0196336
#39 Slovenia: 0.0179015
#40 France: 0.0173272
#41 Czech Republic: 0.0169905
#42 Iceland: 0.0168499
#43 Australia: 0.0150324
#44 Canada: 0.0149063
#45 Chile: 0.014705
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633
#47 Italy: 0.0128393
#48 Spain: 0.0122456
#49 Germany: 0.0116461
#50 Tunisia: 0.0112159
#51 Netherlands: 0.0111538
#52 New Zealand: 0.0111524
#53 Denmark: 0.0106775
#54 Norway: 0.0106684
#55 Ireland: 0.00946215
#56 Switzerland: 0.00921351
#57 Indonesia: 0.00910842
#58 Greece: 0.0075928
#59 Hong Kong: 0.00550804
#60 Japan: 0.00499933
#61 Saudi Arabia: 0.00397456

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 7:05 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes. Many types of weapons are banned or restricted in Canada.

Gun ownership rate is about 27% of households with great regional variations ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 7:15 AM

I asked about you culture, not the country as a whole. What is the murder rate where you live? Do you see concrete proof of those numbers for yourself? Have you experienced anything to state those numbers are true for your family?
Culture?
City?
County?
State?
How well are you connected to people locally?
Like charity, awareness starts at home. Facts and figures mean crap unless the numbers are closer tou your home.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 7:20 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

With all due respect... gun advocates would do well to stop using such poor analogies - it doesn't help your cause. When we send troops into battle, to breakdown doors and kill insurgents, we don't arm them with chain saws or track balls. We give them full auto, highly lethal guns commonly referred to "assault weapons." Acknowledging the primary design directive of a gun is to kill, and not pound in a nail or turn a screw shows that you are willing to have a fair and honest discussion on the subject.

I agree that the Assault Weapons Ban is a patch, even a cludge, it's more "feel good" than real, and it doesn't serve either side. It comes up after every high profile violent gun crime. Public outcry followed by Congress using the spotlight for some PR.

I think the smartest thing for gun advocates would be to do some "Akido Politicking." Be the ones leading the way by being the biggest advocates of gun registration, screening and mandatory training. It would be a great way to show everyone how much you respect the weapons you own in the context of public service, instead of just the context of your guns and your desires as an individual.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 7:28 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Facts and figures mean crap unless the numbers are closer tou your home."

Why ?

If I were running a news show, aside from crimes where police need potential eyewitnesses or need to warn a community about a problem, ALL I would report on crime are statistics.

As for crime statistics, of all crimes, murder numbers are considered the most reliable.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 7:32 AM

If you look at most responsible gun owners (you even see the opinion here) they have no problem with the mandatory background check every person purchasing a firearm must go through. Many already do advocate safety training for people whether they handle a firearm or not.

But it gets a little difficult when others say training equals more efficient killing. Safety training equals safer handling, nothing more. Just like the drivers test it outlines what to do and what not to do.

And the primary funtion of a gun is to fire a projectile.

Is the primary function of a hammer to crush plate armor of medevil knights?

So yeah, I think gun advocates already are the biggest supporters of the things you mention. Municipalities in many areas already require registering of firearms, background checks are enforced and waiting perods are still in effect all over the US, and mandatory training already is a defining factor for many clubs and organizations.

But then again that is the details from my culture within this city, county, and state. I wish more places could be more open to such things. It works well here but why is it harder for other places?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 7:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"But it gets a little difficult when others say training equals more efficient killing. Safety training equals safer handling, nothing more."

Nobody made that point. The word 'safety' was not in the original post. It's called a strawman argument, when you argue against a weak argument that no on has made (in order to 'win').

In addition, you skipped past the argument already made that most guns deaths are NOT accidents. Safety training might help alleviate accidental guns deaths, but won't put a dent in homicides, which are the issue.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 7:43 AM

Try not to get to wrapped up in those figures. Even the page you linked from Wiki stated that the numbers can't accurately be correlated due to the different types of reporting and laws. Manslaughter cases are sometimes thrown into those figures and domestic homocide figures are sometimes left out since the fall under different laws and penalties.

Media, again, really? Because we should believe all we see on TV. I was talking about you and the people in your immediate vicinity. What is your connection the the people in your neighborhood? Town? County?

So let us know how many drive by shootings and home invasions there have been in your neighborhood. What is the murder rate in your county? How about the recitivism rate of violent offenders and the correlation between them and drug crimes? Were you directly effected? These are the things that should matter more than what is on the news or what is reported for the nation. How can you consider those numbers to be numbers for your immediate vicinity unless you live in Cabrini Green, Watts, or Compton?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 7:52 AM

Hey now, I added "safety training" to add strength to you original argument. I like the fact you pointed out the lack of correlation between saftey and intent. People on both sides seems to have a problem making lines between the two.

And trust me, there is no win in this situation. When people die there is no true victory, just a false sense of security until the next fight comes along.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 7:54 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

I know and respect people on both sides of this.
I think the public face of the gun side is pretty bad. The NRA just seems combative and only interested in appealing to their own members, "they can have my gun when they peel it from my cold dead hands." That's seriously pretty infantile - and certainly not in league with the intelligence of the advocates or gun enthusiasts I know (or posting here).

Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
And the primary funtion of a gun is to fire a projectile.

... that kills it's target.

Talk to a gun designer - I'm sure amongst all of the tech details the biggest design element will be the consideration of stopping power, whether that is for an elk or a human. I'm ok with that - that's why I'd buy a gun.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 8:01 AM

But you gotta admit to giggling at the hammer thing.

Okay, guns kill, but not all are intended to.

And I always hated Chuck doing that and his Pinnoccioing his way through the NRA thing. Check out their page. Recently they have been a bit more combative but I was suprized to see them bumping up safety and awareness on their agenda.

Target guns put holes in paper. That is their function. That is what they are built for. Once they lose their accuracy they often end up on the scrap heap without ever doing anything but punching paper. Their bullets are even designed for accuracy, not terminal ballistics.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 8:13 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
With all due respect... gun advocates would do well to stop using such poor analogies - it doesn't help your cause. When we send troops into battle, to breakdown doors and kill insurgents, we don't arm them with chain saws or track balls. We give them full auto, highly lethal guns commonly referred to "assault weapons." Acknowledging the primary design directive of a gun is to kill, and not pound in a nail or turn a screw shows that you are willing to have a fair and honest discussion on the subject.

I agree that the Assault Weapons Ban is a patch, even a cludge, it's more "feel good" than real, and it doesn't serve either side. It comes up after every high profile violent gun crime. Public outcry followed by Congress using the spotlight for some PR.

I think the smartest thing for gun advocates would be to do some "Akido Politicking." Be the ones leading the way by being the biggest advocates of gun registration, screening and mandatory training. It would be a great way to show everyone how much you respect the weapons you own in the context of public service, instead of just the context of your guns and your desires as an individual.

Except...why should I register my gun when the gangbanger down the street doesnt? Why should I settle for a revolver when the stick-up men can use an AK? Why should I make myself publicly known to the government as owning a weapon, when none of the political/sports/movie figures do?

I dont respect the weapon. Its a tool. Its a means to an end. Perhaps the last means in an end.

However, I do agree they can take my gun ONLY from my cold dead hands.

And guess what?

It'll be empty.

I will use every last bullet to prevent folks from making me helpless against either my government or the random scum walking the street.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 8:20 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"If guns were somethng that people used everyday as necessary tools, it would make sense that they develop a keen appreciation for them. But, with few exceptions (law enforcement, military) they're not. What I read is people see them as symbols of independence, self-reliance, and even self-importance. It's a reworking of a frontier myth (which never existed in the form people assume it did) into some kind of personal mantra."

Hello,

I assume you extend that to the golfer's favorite golf club, the archer's favorite bow, and the fencer's favorite sword. Since they don't use these things as necessary tools, their affinity for these items is symptomatic of a psychological condition?

You know... This all reminds me of Chivalry.

Originally, you see, there were just men with swords who butchered people rather indiscriminately. They fought wars, sure, but during peacetime these folks were generally just murderous scum with armor and swords who killed lesser men without compulsion. They fought duels to the death almost on a whim, depleting the ranks of good soldiers who might be needed during the next war. It was something of a mess.

Chivalry, and Codes of Honor in general, are invented pieces of fluffy myth. Idealized visions of warrior culture, they were created to inspire these brutes to a better standard of behavior. Courtesy, Hospitality, Protection, blah blah blah. Knights of the Round Table, Shining Armor, Paladins, all that crap. It's just a myth. But for those that take it to heart, the myth becomes real. The noble knight in shining armor can exist, Rue, if the man in the armor chooses to be noble in thought and deed.

It's not the people who develop an affinity for their guns that you need to worry about. It's not the people who yearn for that nonexistant frontier mythos. It isn't the people who save up money to get that special firearm, and then oil it carefully and look forward to the day when they can take it out to the range. It's certainly not anyone who has a sense of independence and self-reliance. You are directing your concern entirely at the wrong group, because these are not the folks who perform drive-by shootings. These aren't the folks who murder someone in the street and throw their 'gat' in the bay. You've somehow lumped the baby in with the bathwater on this issue.

And if you ever wondered, there is indeed a modern 'Code of Chivalry' for the upstanding gun owner. An ideal to which they aspire. You've probably heard it before, in another context. Rest assured, though, gun afficionados have, by and large, adopted these simple words and taken them to heart. I first read these words in a gun magazine as a child.

"Wherever I go, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there.
Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend.
Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 8:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Try not to get to wrapped up in those figures. Even the page you linked from Wiki stated that the numbers can't accurately be correlated due to the different types of reporting and laws."

And yet - even if you put in a fudge factor of 15% (which would be high) it still puts the US in a very, very bad light - FAR above and beyond any other developed western country. Sorry, you can't erase the differences - or the facts - no matter how hard you try to shuffle them away. BTW that Wiki page ALSO says that murder rates are THE most reliable and comparable crime statistic there is. But, if you want to insist that crime statistics are unreliable, I will take you at your word and remind you of that should you try and claim X number of crimes were prevented due to guns, or indeed, should you try to use any other crime statistic.

If your argument can't stand up to the data, you don't have a good argument. So rather than try to dismiss the facts, maybe you should come up with a better argument.

Media ? I have no idea what your point is. You are the one who brought up the media. I was saying I would do their job differently, and, if you didn't get the implication, that I think they are doing a bad job. By sensationalizing and over-representing violent crimes they are causing people to assume things are worse than they are. And by not providing STATISTICS they let people assume things are true that aren't or that aren't true that are.

As to my relationship with my neighborhood, county or state, I don't see why that matters. And aside from reiterating it at least three times, you've come up with no reason why I should respond.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 8:57 AM

Reason you should respond? Let's see, what is your actual experience with violent crime, gun violence, or guns in gerneral. I may have missed something in you previous posts for which I am sorry. But you've given no reason other than figures which relate you to the rest of the US. Not your neighborhood, municipality, or even the direct culture you live in. Unless it is of course your culture, the TV and internet news and facts.

Remember, Wiki is made up of submissions from regular people, rarely the fact finders themselves. It is regulalry disputed and changed.

So if you are getting all of your argument from indirect sources how can you possibly believe it unless you've seen it with your own eyes.

Please exuse me if it seemed I was prying. But it is becoming harder and harder to listen to any argument or opposing view point until people truly invest themselves with what they are saying.

ADD: It was the Nationmaster Stats I was contesting. Got them mixed up. My bad.
But Wiki is still weak.
And thanks for pointing out the shortcomings of the media. Some of them truly are teh sux

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 9:05 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
But you gotta admit to giggling at the hammer thing.

Hey, I want one of those hammers. I did some thinking when I moved into a house for the first time, of what would be the best case, close up, home defense weapon. The main part of it was built around a hammer/battle axe. Points on both ends, swivel handles with spiked guards, blades on the shaft so if someone tried to wrestle it out of my hands they'd get sliced. You could pound, stab or slash someone into submission. Trouble was no matter what I came up with a gun could always beat it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 9:12 AM

People should be more afraid of knives. Really. They don't run out of bullers, easier to conceal, and their damage is unidirectional. Many people die of less than lethal GSW's because they panic. They believe they will die because they saw it on TV. They learned that GSW's=Death.

By the way, great idea in the Hammer/Axe PDW. I actually drew up plans for a assault shield with a spear hole. Bullet resistant, blocks a doorway, and offers a pokey little reinforcer to get the hell outta my house because I like keeping my bullets for good clean fun.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 9:12 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Statistics such as the ones Rue uses are valid to a point, and potentially more valid than regional experience.

Look, I have no experience with getting struck by lightning, but I know it happens, and there are statistics which tell me how often it happens.

Unfortunately, while statistics can sometimes tell you what, and potentially tell you when or how often, they leave you to guess as to why.

Why does a country where virtually every household has an assault weapon in it have less gun crime than a country where only a percentage of the households have guns? Why does the violent crime rate tend to increase after guns are outlawed? Why do Japanese people have a higher suicide rate than Chinese people or American people?

Statistics themselves can be debated according to methods of data collection and exclusion, but even moreso the conclusions can be debated.

Still, pretending that the statistics don't matter at all seems invalid. It conveys the mindset of, "Well, if it hasn't happened to me or someone I know, then it can't be happening." Which is rather close minded.

For my own part, I actually have had some personal exposure to gun crime. Most people, thankfully, have not.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 9:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA

The reason I give those statistics little credence is that the folk concocting and using them all too often list shot-dead perps killed in the process of trying to do harm as "victims of gun violence" and similar screwery to bulk up the numbers and inspire panic to feed their agendas cause.

I don't care for that crap when folks try to scare me with terrorism, and I do not care for it when folks try to make an inanimate object a source of fear.

Tell me, if you were locked in a room full of guns, ALONE - would you be afraid ?
Quaking in fear, petrified even ?

Ain't guns that are dangerous, it's other people that are - and that being the case, those people will STILL be dangerous whether they're packing an AK or a sharp number 2 pencil.

As to chivalric code as a mythos used to encourage self-regulation of behavior...

Imagine for a moment my mothers dilemma, raising a child noteably hostile to other human beings thanks in equal part due to mistreatment by them and having no emotional bond to them.

Her answer to this was to instill the chivalric values of a knight errant, who did not necessarily need to be part of a society when acting for it's benefit, and it worked pretty well, did it not ?

If you really wanna get down to the basest root of why our society and culture is so vile, you need look no farther than how we treat our children and the (*gag, hack*) "values" we instill in them, that wonderful stuff like racism, sexism, hate, avarice, suppression of human feelings and behavior, rewarding and encouraging sociopathic behavior as a learned protective measure, etc etc etc

No matter what we give lip-service to, what we REALLY teach them is our example, isn't it ?

The very worst of it however is forcing them to suppress their own human feelings, nature and empathy in order to survive this hell we call a society, cause the more you suppress that, the more warped the form in which it finally expresses itself, and it WILL express itself, the same way a tree root does to a sidewalk.

I *know* where the root of this problem lies, it's something I spend nearly every moment I can spare to do so - trying to mitigate or address in useful fashion.

And in the meantime, I very much plan to defend my right to protect self, home and hearth from the end results of the twisted monster factory we've distorted childhood into here in the US.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 9:21 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Except...why should I register my gun when the gangbanger down the street doesnt?

You register so the police won't harass you. You stay off their radar so they can go after the unregistered gangbanger. At least that's the theory.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Why should I settle for a revolver when the stick-up men can use an AK?

I think you're pretty well f*cked if you come up against people with AKs - you may buy some time but you will eventually end up with your empty gun scenario. If you have people armed like that in your neighborhood I'd seriously consider moving - no joke.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Why should I make myself publicly known to the government as owning a weapon, when none of the political/sports/movie figures do?

They should have to register, plain and simple.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 9:28 AM

Quote:
For my own part, I actually have had some personal exposure to gun crime. Most people, thankfully, have not.

Too right and well said Anthony.

Numbers do matter. But if I am discussing a big matter such as this I don't want numbers of people I may never have contact with, that don't effect me, and aren't in my immediate vicinity. Proper threat assessment is pretty important to me. If the numbers were a concern to me I might fight to own actual "Assault Weapons". But it is wrong to require such things with the relative amount of peace there is around me. It should be the same for folk with little or no threat of bad things happening to them.

This is what I am looking for. Personal exposure and experience. I can talk to a Mall Ninja all day about battle tactics and weapons and go home with one absolute truth; he/she had no idea what they are talking about. But if I am to talk tactics and weapons with combat veterans their truth lays with their personal exposure and experience.

There are too many people on both sides of the argument who are merley talking through their asses about things they know nothing about.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 9:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

" Let's see, what is your actual experience with violent crime, gun violence, or guns in general."

I've lived and worked in very bad neighborhoods that looked like your typical slum. I've been seriously stalked on the street three times, assaulted (beaten up) on the street once, had my home broken into (while I was at home) once, had my home broken into (while I was away from home) several times ... and that's not counting daily low level harassment and intimidation. That was across the country from where I live now.

I now live in a neighborhood that doesn't look like your typical slum, in fact it looks old-town settled, serene and well-kept. But talking with my neighbors, over the last 6 months they ALL had attempted night-time break-ins while they were home.

I also know people who live in those 'drive-by' neighborhoods so I now what it's like, at least second-hand.

I lived a fair bit in Toronto, Canada, and spent some time visiting other towns and cities in the province.

My experience is that Canada is far, far safer than anywhere else I've ever lived. A female can walk the streets alone at 3 AM and not just feel safe, but be safe. I didn't feel that way in my slum-neighborhood even at 10:00 AM (when one of the stalkings and attempted kidnappings occurred), nor do I feel that way in my quaint neighborhood after dark, even at home.

In sum, the US is far and away the most threatening and violent culture I've experienced.

And, not surprisingly, that experience is reflected in the statistics.

Though how my first-hand experience adds to or subtracts from the statistics is beyond me. Because those statistics are simply the documented and compiled first-hand experiences of many people, and they shouldn't be trivialized.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2008 9:40 AM