Open Carry by Wulfenstar

"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)

I'm torn on this one. Texas has been pushing - or at least certain elements in the state have been - for Open Carry for a while now. We've currently got Concealed Carry (with a permit), and we have thus far avoided becoming the wild wild west with bullets flying hither and yon.

Concealed carry just means you don't KNOW if someone is carrying or not, unless you're quite observant and case the joint first. Open carry would mean you WOULD know - unless we had both open AND concealed carry here. So would knowing that someone was armed decrease the chances that you're going to stick up that particular person or place, or does it just mean you'd better get the drop on them before they can get their piece out and fire back?

If we had open carry, I'd go for the permit, but I doubt I'd actually openly carry, unless I were "on patrol" as I needed to be in my old 'hood once in a while.

For me, open carry would be just one more thing for the cops to hassle a person about. You see someone with a gun on their hip, and while you might assume they're legally carrying it, you also might assume they AREN'T. Like I said, the way things look, if they do it here, it will be by permit and license (at least as far as I understand things on this issue locally), and that just gives every cop who sees you "reasonable cause" to dress you down and demand to see your papers. And frankly, who needs the hassle, if you can carry concealed and they don't have to know...

Now, would it freak people out? Depends. If I'm in the grocery store and see someone buying beer with a Glock on their hip, I'm a li'l nervous, and I'm going to be keeping pretty close tabs on them until they're out of the store and away from me. I do the same with cops if I'm at a Chili's, too. It's not the gun I don't trust - it's the guy behind it I'm not too sure about. :) Now, if *I* had a gun on me, I might feel a little more at ease - but then everyone else might be freaked out by THAT!

So, as you can see, there's pros and cons. And like I said, I'm a bit torn on this one.

Mike

Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:50 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Humans + automobiles = some humans + automobiles + booze, which = some deaths.

Humans + guns = some humans + guns + booze, and some humans + guns + lack of responsibility, and some humans + guns + booze + temper; which = some deaths.

I'm for minimizing the "deaths" part. The more people who walk around with guns, the more people who will lose their tempers, get drunk, find SOME reason to shoot at someone else...and what about the bystanders who happen to be nearby?

I don't buy ANY of the arguments for open or concealed carry. The odds of being attacked and needing a gun to protect yourself are what, compared to the odds of being shot if everyone carried guns? We won't know until a lot of people start carrying them, but I'll wager everything I've got that when and if people DO, we'll face a helluvalot more danger from those carrying guns ostensibly to "protect themselves" than we will from actual muggers/robbers/etc.

Thank gawd I (hopefully) won't be around long enough to see it, but I have no doubts. How many idiots out there would take a pot-shot at a cop who pulled them over? How many of those protesters, riled up as they've been, would you be SURE wouldn't fire off a round? How many people do you think are around who would be convinced they have the right to shoot someone because they're "in the right"? How many kids, if guns were prevalent, do you think would get into trouble? Don't give me TODAY's figure, guess on the premise that lots of people have guns around a lot of the time. Open or concealed, if you increase the number, you increase the violence. Period.

And don't give me the bullshit about you can kill someone with a knife or ANYTHING else. Someone with a gun feels more powerful than those around him; some with a gun will feel more powerful than even those around them with guns, or just plain won't THINK before acting. You got a knife handy, most people have to think twice about whether to strike out with it or not; with a gun, not so much. Don't talk to me about what YOU would do, think about all the idjits out there and tell me what THEY would do.

In one's home is one thing, hauling one around the streets is quite another.

I've heard all the stuff about "responsible gun owners"...I say flatly, for every responsible one you'll easily find five IRresponsible ones if everyone can carry guns.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:54 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Niki. You've been blessed never to need a weapon to defend your life.

Be thankful for that.

ETA: Seriously. Im not taking away anything from you by saying that. Just that this is a topic you *might* not have the history to talk about.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:03 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nope, I know I don't. The fact remains that the same can be said for the VAST majority of Americans. Therefore, to put guns in the hands of everyone makes no sense to me. I see far more potential danger in everyone being able to carry around guns than I do for those who actually MIGHT need them.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:07 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Then you must give up your cell phone.

Too many people drive while talking on them, causing too many accidents.

Its for your safety, dont you see? (snark)

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:35 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, you screwed up that one, kiddo, sorry. I don't have a cell phone. Wouldn't use it when I drive if I did. And yes, I don't think everyone needs a cell phone and I hate how they are abused.

Try again? You gotta come up with something that is really deadly if used by humans; something that can cause the death of others if they misuse it, and then draw a corollary to the NEED to have it...? Jim's talking about getting a cell phone lately--if we did, he'd carry it to work because he needs it if (as recently) he gets a flat on his bike; I might carry it when I go hiking, but that's all we'd use it for.

Cars and guns are about the only two things I can think of; both can be mixed with alcohol and/or temper and/or stupidity and cause the deaths of others as a result. Unfortunately, especially here in CA, everyone DOES need a car (what little rapid transit we have sux). Can you come up with anything else?

THAT'S why I'm not in favor of gun ownership.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:39 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

A butcher knife. Hell, a steak knife.

Used to have one taped to my back.

Meant to cut meat, and I damn well made sure it did.

ETA: Like I said before, Niki. This might not be the thread you want to be in on.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Uhhh, I did some editing on the above, just so's you know; I added some stuff.

However, as to your response, I already addressed it:

Quote:
And don't give me the bullshit about you can kill someone with a knife or ANYTHING else. Someone with a gun feels more powerful than those around him; some with a gun will feel more powerful than even those around them with guns, or just plain won't THINK before acting. You got a knife handy, most people have to think twice about whether to strike out with it or not; with a gun, not so much. Don't talk to me about what YOU would do, think about all the idjits out there and tell me what THEY would do.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:45 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ahh, and you added to yours, so I'll add rather than edit. I see no reason I shouldn't be in this thread; I speak for one side of the argument, you for another. That's what these discussions are about; differing opinions.

I repeat, I maintain that the VAST majority of Americans have no need whatsoever to carry a gun outside their homes. I'm not speaking about hunters (I won't, except to say hunting for food: good; hunting for sport: bad--my opinion), I'm talking about everyday folk walking around every part of America. Guns aren't NEEDED, and are dangerous. I know it's a hot-button topic, but that's my opinion.

I know the thing about "if guns are outlawed..."; outside the home, I don't buy it. Outlaws will always use weapons; the more guns out there, the more NON-outlaws will cause harm. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:49 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So your answer is to leave the innocent unable to defend themselves?

ETA: Outside their homes? So the innocent are supposed to huddle inside their homes, with their weapons, unable to go outside?

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:49 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

To quote Mike:

Quote:
If I'm in the grocery store and see someone buying beer with a Glock on their hip, I'm a li'l nervous, and I'm going to be keeping pretty close tabs on them until they're out of the store and away from me. I do the same with cops if I'm at a Chili's, too. It's not the gun I don't trust - it's the guy behind it I'm not too sure about.

That's it. For me, anyone who feels the need to carry a gun in public is DEFINITELY someone I'm not sure about. I don't know their attitude, sobriety, self-restraint, why they want to carry a gun, or anything else. So I immediately mistrust them.

We need more of that going around???

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:54 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"We need more of that going around???"

Yes.

A 110 lb woman is no threat to a 250 lb gangster.

If they both have guns, it makes the odds even.

Why is that so hard to understand?

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
So your answer is to leave the innocent unable to defend themselves?

I don't have an answer, I just don't think everyone carrying guns IS the answer. It's not black and white, not "everyone or no one".

It's impossible to stop guns in America, they're already here and the NRA is far too strong a lobby to ever be overcome. I just firmly believe it doesn't need to be increased to carry laws, and I think those guns which are obviously "overkill" should be eliminated. Some things are just plain stupid...automatic rifles among them. America's love-affair with guns is sad; the rest of the world looks at us askance for it, with good reason, but it's not gonna change. I just don't want to see it increased.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
A 110 lb woman is no threat to a 250 lb gangster.

If they both have guns, it makes the odds even.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Illogical. The MAJORITY of America is not a case of 110-lb women v. 250-lb gangsters. So why should the MAJORITY of Americans carry guns? That reasoning is even harder to understand.

And no, it definitely doesn't make the odds even, by a long shot! A gangster uses his gun, feels free TO use it--a normal 110-lb woman doesn't, maybe carries one to make her feel safe, but let's be realistic here: if the two collide, which one is going to win? It's not really even, surely you aren't saying that if you think about it?

Sure, by your reckoning, the woman would be educated on the use of her gun, would practice with it, etc. But HOW MANY WOULD?! If everyone carried guns openly, come on, be real, how many would just go out and buy a gun, probably go through some short mandatory education, period? An AWFUL lot of them, especially young people!

Let's add to that, how many would be careful with their guns? Woman carries gun in purse, drops purse, gun falls out...hmmm, someone seeing it grabs maybe...? Woman carries gun in purse to work, lays it down, maybe gun drops out, she leaves it behind, feeling safe. Youngster sees gun in purse, takes it...and on and on and on. The scenarios are endless.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:01 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You should visit the "rest of the world" then.

Like Britain, or Australia.

See how well their gun control has worked.

You know, even in Iraq, our soldiers gave them Ak's in exchange for their RPGs.

But like I said, your opinion is valid, in that its free speech. But you should chooses a topic you have experience with.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:06 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

You can't discount me because I haven't lived in the 'hood or something, or faced violence. Human nature is human nature, and we're debating ALL humans carrying guns, not just the 'hood or the outback.

I'm not saying guns should be illegal, obviously! Got news for you, tho', we're not the "arms dealers to the world" for nothing. If America weren't so gun-happy, you'd have to prove the rest of the world wouldn't proliferate with guns as much anyway.

Leaving aside that guns exist everywhere, I maintain one more tme: the VAST MAJORITY of the world doesn't need to carry guns, any more than the vast majority of America. So why should everyone carry one? You still haven't given me one good reason for that.

There's a blindness here, Wulf, that you're not seeing. Your reasoning seems to be "because I've been where violence threatens and I've needed a gun, it must be the same everywhere so everyone should carry a gun". That's not logical.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:10 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Or, its because... if you have a gun, you dont have to worry about the bastard who does.

In a way, its the theory of mutual extermination.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:13 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

p.s. you haven't responded to my questioning the 110-lb woman v. 250-lb gangster scenario, by the way. Are you TRULY saying that would make the odds even? And even so, are you truly saying all women should carry guns everywhere?

I'll check back, but right now I gotta get off, lost half a day again and promised I wouldn't. Gotta go do my exercises.

At present I have a scratched cornea, so can't use my contacts and only have one working eye. I have braces on both wrists (one for double-surgery broken wrist which will never heal and always be painful, the other I haven't seen the doctor about--because I JUST got put in a knee-high "boot" for achilles tendonitis). So I have both wrists in braces, one bad knee whose pain I just ignore, a boot on the other leg, one eye, bad back, and it's time I go do the exercises for those parts which are in physical therapy, and ice ankle and wrist. Then I gotta tackle housework. This place here is deadly, I haven't got the self-discipline to get away, dammit...!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:15 AM

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

"Niki. You've been blessed never to need a weapon to defend your life."

Ya' know - that's the FIRST thing you say when anyone disagrees with you about guns. We went round and round over this a year ago - I know, b/c I've been reviewing your posts to see when you went off the rails. (Not snark - a statement of fact)

As I posted then, I've lived bad neighborhoods; walked, took the bus, or bicycled everywhere; had two places broken into, once when I was there; been stalked several times getting from here to there; seen people beaten up, cops pulling guns --- and I never needed a gun to be safe.

Deal with it.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh damn, another response. Okay, quickly:

Quote:
if you have a gun, you dont have to worry about the bastard who does. In a way, its the theory of mutual extermination

Bullshit. Just having a gun doesn't mean that, it means worrying about which one of you is more experienced and the better shot! It's never mutual extermination. Now I'm OUTTA here...!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:17 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"p.s. you haven't responded to my questioning the 110-lb woman v. 250-lb gangster scenario, by the way. Are you TRULY saying that would make the odds even? And even so, are you truly saying all women should carry guns everywhere?"

Yes. I am. In fact, should I have daughters, they WILL know how to shoot, and have the best weapons I can provide.

Because, you put a 110lb woman up against a 250 man... hell... the guy will win. But give the girl a gun?

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:19 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Rue, good for you.

Glad you had a lucky break.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:24 AM

Niki, in this case, you are in the wrong, and there ARE numbers to back that up. Cities with the STRONGEST gun control laws on their books are some of the highest crime areas in the nation (DC, anyone?). On the flipside, Frem will be along shortly, I'm sure, to quote chapter and verse on the little burg that made it a law that every household MUST have a gun - and crime went down in that area, and has stayed down. And its name escapes me, dammit.

So an armed society is not automatically a society bent on murderous rage, and an unarmed society is not one big happy festival of love. Sometimes there are going to be people who SEARCH for the "gun free zones" because they know it provides a target-rich environment of people who are, by law, unarmed and unable to resist.

As I said, I'm torn. Should EVERYONE have a gun? Doubtful. But so far, I've never had my head blown off by a cop having a bad day - and I HAVE run into cops having bad days!

I believe it was Heinlein who first said that an armed society is a polite society.

How do you feel about the Swiss? The Germans? Are they decent societies, overall? Are they murderous banditos hell-bent on killing you and yours in fits of road-rage?

Oh, and don't even get me started on cell phones. You think drinking and driving is a problem? Look into some of the studies on cell phones and drivine, texting and driving, etc. Should cell phones be banned? Should cars? Cars kill more Americans every year than guns. The flu kills almost as many people in this country every year as guns do - shall we mandate "flu control" by law, in the interest of public safety?

Mike

Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:31 AM

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

No lucky break. I stood out in the neighborhood. And as a young slight (though fit) female I WAS a target. I WAS stalked three times, each time while I was on foot, far from help, and the male was in car. So, there's the scenario just as you described - a small female on foot no less, and much larger male in a car.

So, AFTER being targeted, how do YOU think I managed without that all important gun ?

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

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:36 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You ran.

You were lucky enough to get away.

Or, maybe you "talked' your way out of it.

Either way, you were lucky.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:47 AM

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

I used being on foot to my advantage.

I put obstacles between myself and their cars.

I went around a corner and disappeared into a yard where they could not see me (it was at night).

I put myself in inaccessible spots where they would HAVE to get out of their car (none chose to).

I walked and talked myself out of danger.

If I had been physically confronted, I was mentally prepared to blind them for life and take whatever other pieces of them I could.

I KNEW I was in danger, and was prepared to defend myself as viciously as I could manage.

I ALWAYS thought that if it were one on one and THEY were unarmed, I would win, because I was willing to do more damage than they would expect.

Not lucky - street smart.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:50 AM

Nik,

good point. Of course if you didn't have one, you'd need another solution.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:54 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Rue. Thats my point.

You went through all of that.. when you COULD have just pulled a pistol.

And again, what would have happened if you hadnt been so lucky?

I hear you have back problems now..

(Not trying to be mean. Just trying to teach)

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:01 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

My state (Arizona) is an open carry state. I could walk down the street with a revolver strapped to my hip. If I wish to conceal, then I need a permit.

While it's refreshing to know I have the option, it is one I don't exercise. In general, I find that the presence of a fella with a gun makes most people uncomfortable.

I do not like making people uncomfortable, so I don't go heeled in public places. I used to have a concealed permit in Florida, now expired, that allowed me to take guns all over the place without bothering anyone. This is my preference.

To me, there's more to being polite than 'please' and 'thank you.' I prefer to exercise my gun rights in the most polite way available to me.

Now, if I was going somewhere populated by people who definitely wouldn't mind such a display (there is a diner in town where everyone is heeled) then I might strap one on if I felt like it. But the fact is, I feel safer in that joint than most other places, so I'm not compelled to carry when I eat there. I guess I'm wired differently than most folks, feeling better knowing that everyone around me has a gun.

It takes some of the pressure off.

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:02 PM

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

I COULD have just pulled a pistol - and then what ? Walked backwards for a mile trying to cover my exit ? Shot them for crime of being in their cars ?

You seem to think that once a pistol comes out, it's all over. In fact, it's now escalated into a confrontation, and it's just beginning.

If you confront someone, you might win.

If you escape, you always win.

As for what do the old and pained do - thank god for cell phones, IR home security detectors, and escape routes (all good for fires and other emergencies as well).

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

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Lemme carry that a little further, but short, as I have six tons of crap on my plate to handle right now (G20 mess).

Right, the primary "weapon" is what's between your ears, but damn me if I don't like having the proper tools handy in case of emergency.

I got a spare tire, I got a smoke alarm and fire extiguisher, I got a first aid kit, and I got a pistol, and I got ALL that stuff for the same damned reasons - IN CASE I NEED IT, HOPING I DON'T.

But if it comes to cases and you DO need it, which is statistically a viable enough possibility at least once over a lifetime - lacking it may be your death.

Remember I mentioned a class of fifty seven, giving hell over those physical tests...
Care to guess how many of those fifty seven are still alive now ?

One.

I do plan to stay that way - if it involves running away, I'll run away, if it involves blasting a couple corbon powrballs through someone who's intent on making me dead, I'll do that too - but my PREFERENCE is, as always...
TRY REASON FIRST
And if/when reason don't work, there's force, 70grains at a times worth, but it ain't the first thing I think of, oh hell no.

Why the hell do people act like just touching a firearm instantly turns people into flamin lunatics - that's the same attitude behind "Reefer Madness", and one look at that laughable piece of shit... will tell you EXACTLY what I think of the often expressed opinion that simply picking up a weapon would have the same instant and radical effect as the morons who made that horror thought one hit of weed would.

You ask me, that demonstrates a verifiable level of hysteria and insanity amongst those who argue against it, and given just how many people that I *knew personally* that vilification of self defense directly or indirectly had something to do it, I take a dim view of that opinion.

In fact, I take the SAME view of it, that I would a large disreputable man with obvious issues, holding a knife and twitching at the edge of my personal space, who told me to put my gun down for my own safety - that's EXACTLY how I look at the people making this argument, ok ?

Let's be crystalline clear about that.

-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, September 24, 2009 1:02 PM

Ah, here ya go - Kennesaw, GA:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Sorry the link is from WorldNetDaily, but it does raise a good point: The population has more than quintupled since they passed that ordinance, and in more than 25 years, there hasn't been a murder there. Not one gun death, it would seem.

Other places have apparently followed suit, or are considering doing so.

Oh, and according to the article, Kennesaw's crime rate has dropped by more than 50% since the "anti-ban" went into effect.

Mike

Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:44 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

We are now having 1 or 2 robberies every day in our county, and murders are up. Local govt is trippin over themselves to ban guns on all govt property. One carjacking/rape/torture/mass murder is on trial this week, of a dope dealer/addict fired from his job who could not pay rent, so he flipped out and went on a killing spree, to get a govt retirement pension to life in prison.
www.knoxnews.com/search/?q=christian+newsome&f=all&t=news

This week one store owner made the mistake a lot of shopkeepers make, of not wearing their gun (open or concealed), just leaving it behind the counter, often out in the open so every customer can see it -- and grab it. Or carry it in their briefcase full of cash (that way the thief gets both the cash and the gun).

Most such guns are too big to carry confortably. Their "logic" appears to be just looking at a big gun scares robbers. I beg to differ.

The local biz owner was killed by his own gun during a robbery. Police are refusing to release the security video (perhaps because the killer is a police informant with immunity from arrest, or a hitman hired by police-protected mafia).
www.knoxnews.com/search/?q=mullins+robbery+store&t=&sortby=date

The dead store owner's last name is Mullins, same same as a local chopshop carthief ex-cop arrested for concealing stolen property, with modus operandi of hiring hitmen to kill his competition in the govt towing business (according to hsi own employees), who I sued in a class action for stealing my 2 cars.

I discussed this murder today on a radio show I co-hosted about pro se law, which includes the law of citizens arrest. Gun owners should always carry handcuffs (plastic cable ties are probably best), because once they make a citizens arrest, it's very hard (and unsafe for everyone) to keep a gun pointed at the suspects until police arrive to transport to jail. Private security guards carry handcuffs and make citizen's arrests.

If you're gonna leave a gun out in the open, or open carry, it's best to carry a concealed backup gun. A concealed knife as backup never runs out of bullets, and is a silenced weapon.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:12 PM

AG05

Back on topic,

I'm in favor of allowing Open Carry in Texas, because it would be nice to have the option. Right now I can carry a concealed weapon no problems, but it would be nice not to have to worry about a jacket blowing open in the wind or wearing a cover shirt on a hot day.

That said, I'd probably not OC in town, if I could help it. It freaks some people out knowing a gun is there, so I'd rather they not know. I don't want to cause them undue stress (I'm tired of worrying about WHY an inanimate object causes them undue stress, so I don't anymore), and I don't want the hassle. Outside of town, in the various state parks I frequent, OC would be the way to go.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:12 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"If you confront someone, you might win.

If you escape, you always win."

Hello Rue,

This logic is tragically flawed. You assume success in an escape, while chastising the confrontation supporters for assuming success.

I am a big supporter of people trying to escape or de-escalate confrontations whenever doing so is less dangerous than having a confrontation.

It is easier to make this determination when you are alone. If you are with a party or persons, then escape becomes much more difficult. If we were walking down the street together, for instance, I do not think I would bolt and sprint away, leaving you to an uncertain fate. I'd be happy to cover your escape, however.

There is no logic in this. It's just how I feel.

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:59 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You should visit the "rest of the world" then.

Like Britain, or Australia.

See how well their gun control has worked.

You should visit the rest of the world too, rather than read the BS statistics that the NRA make up. I live in Australia and we have never, ever had gun ownership like the US, and now we have extremely strict gun laws. Our gun crimes per capita are no where near the US, not even in the same ball park and our murder rate, overall has been in decline for the past few decades.

Few people own guns - most would be farmers and sportsmen and women - I can say that as a city fringe dweller I know no one who owns a gun and never have even met anyone who owns a gun. I believe that our rates of violence are on a par with the rest of the western world, it's neither a paradise nor a place of acute danger in most places.

I know I feel safe in my home without a gun - I have a dog, which is about 100% way of burglar proofing your home, and I feel safe driving around, walking around in daylight. I'd feel strange about public transport at night - mainly because Ive gotten nervous as I've gotten older. I have however, travelled throughout Europe by myself and used public transport extensively, day and night and never been harrassed. Most Americans I met were armed with mace. You're a nervous bunch.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:52 PM

Quote:
I live in Australia

So my many guesses were incorrect. But I did get you weren't from here ;)

I agree, no guns makes for a safer land, but only if the govt. is not roaming around with guns.

Historically, a dog is the best defense. I have a funny story about that I might repost...

King Tut had a dog, a greyhound, who died at the age of 7, and Tut buried him in a sarcophagus, with a letter to his dog, but the sarcophagus he made as a replica of the tomb of Anubis' dog. Anubis' tomb has never been found by us, but it was known to Tut, all we have really is the dog's tomb, on which he tells the story.

Contrary to egyptian mythology, Horus was Anubis' father, and led a military campaign to conquer/unite egypt. He kept with him a large gemstone which he may have believed to have power, as a good luck charm. He was killed on the campaign, and gave the stone to his son.

Anubis kept the stone, and when he conquered egypt, built a castle/tower/keep, in which he stored Horus' gemstone. Whenever people who sought to overthrow or thwart the union of egypt attacked the castle, Anubis and his men always knew the location of his attackers and were able to respond immediately. The egyptians began to think this was uncanny, even magical, and dubbed the stone "The Eye of Horus." The eye appears throughout western history, and even not so western. It appears as "the all seeing eye" in Scheherazade's compilation of persian folktales, written in her home of Samarkand (She was actually ruler of Persia, but not a muslim, during islamization, and she feared that the clerics would destroy the tales. Her painting of herself as prisoner is a satire of the arabian kings.) It also is on the back of our dollar bill, as the eye of the illuminati, a symbol used by the 14th c. masons who sought to free europe from the control of the roman catholic church.

This, Anubis says, is nonsense. He knew of no magic, but a dog, who he said was was the best friend a man could have, for he kept him company during the day, and safe during the night, and without the help of his dog, who could quickly find which wall or entryway was under attack and wake him and alert him to the invaders presence, the union of Egypt would never have survived.

... Anubis would later be revered as a deity, swept into the mideast pantheon, and as "Anu" under Sargon I, the ancestor of all gods, who on earth would be ruled by Enlil, last breath of Anu, or in the proto-Aramaic Ellil, or "El" for "the high one" meaning physically high, taken to be the air, the heavens. El is the high God of Israel, and is the El in its name, and refered to by name by Christ. As such, it can be said that the true word of God is "Get a Dog."

Masonsdaughter,

personally, I don't own a gun. I know people with guns, but there's no gun violence here, outside of suicides and drug-related crimes.

I have no need of protection in my home, no one possesses any will to steal. I suspect this is natural for humans given enough space, and you would find it in parts of Australia as well. I'm in NY, which you get to by going through back roads of 200 miles of uninhabited forest. No real crime there. My village has about 200 people in it. A friend of mine was killed a couple years ago in a drug conflict, about 30 miles from here. You don't find trouble here unless you go looking for it. I go to Europe often. One rule I learned is "Welcome to Europe: You will be robbed." I've run into gun violence here and in Europe, equally, though they have gun control, places like Austria and Slovakia, the govt. is not to be all that trusted with guns. The roughest place I've been is probably Hyde park, Chicago where Obama is really for all practical purposes, from. It's gotten much better there in just two years, but almost entirely because one of their own is now President of the United States, which will do a lot for a neighborhood.

Oh, and this forum is full of libertarians, I think it's not a representative sample of the population. Firefly definitely attracts people of that bent.

A few years back there was a fairly strong cult following of Farscape, which had a similar appeal. Though, I was very fond of it for it's total lack of a moral compass and the fact that everyone was essentially criminals. I have it on DVD, I would put it up there with Firefly easily, I wouldn't say more on this forum, because these guys have guns

But I'm curious what kind of following either show had/has in Australia?

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:25 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thanks for the story re the dog. I liked it. My pup has a ferocious bark when any stranger approaches, but truth is, he'd probably lick them to death. Nevermind, having a dog is a deterrent to burglars.

I think most rural places suffer from less crime - although here, the suicide rate is higher in the country - perhaps isolation plus more access to guns.

Our cities are like cities anywhere, with their fair share of violence and crime- little, however is gun related. The change in laws had little impact because gun ownership has always been limited - we have never had the same gun culture or associated gun ownership with rights.

I've always suspected the american association of gun ownership with freedom from tyranny as a load of bullshit - okay hyperbole if I am being nice, given that your government funds and controls the largest, most sophisticated and technologically advanced army in the world. Having a hand gun, rifle or even your own personal arsenal won't mean diddly squat against that sort of force. It's always seemed like an excuse for people to own guns, because really, they like guns. They're a big boys toy = albeit a deadly one.

Firefly had a cult following in Australia, and there are few libertarians here. There's actually something for everyone in Firefly and it has always interested me how politically diverse the fanbase has been - I post a lot over at Serenity Board, but RW lacks the oomph that it used to have, so I defect over here from time to time.

Nice chatting.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:52 PM

BYTEMITE

As I was reading this thread, I was wondering something. There's talk about being nervous on seeing a guy openly carrying, which is probably understandable.

Would people have the same reaction to a lady with a gun strapped to her side?

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:56 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Possibly not? I do think our society continues to live with sexist stereotypes.

I myself find a woman with a gun somehow sexier, for no reason I can name.

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:09 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

just out of curiosity...

what are the laws in Pittsburgh like re this topic

just wondering with this, and the G20 protests going on

you have a bunch of folk packing at the protest, then the cops do something crazy.............................

we have already seen people carrying at the healthcare townhalls, but I think the G20 would be a escalation, with predictable results

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:23 PM

I suspect the gun freedom thing is propaganda. I also suspect that the US military is a pawn army run for international interests, and not for america, we just pay the interest on the debt that running it incurs, and get to kill and die in its wars, which never seem to serve american interests.

Yes, Americans and the world now benefit from a free South Korea, but by no means in any way that was intended: They make great little gizmos.

The Australian govt. is often sending some token force to the US efforts, but I don't think either country benefits, or is intended to. I'm not even sure that the last time our countries IIRC fought side by side in serious numbers which I think would be to liberate Papua New Guinea from Japanese control, served any purpose at all. I'm not even sure that the people are better off for it, but that's for them to decide.

But the govt. in DC is not really in any way part of the US. Politically it grants itself microstate status, giving itself independent legal authority, and is funded by a private corporation, the Federal Reserve. I don't feel any more responsible for its actions than an Iraqi would for Saddam Hussein's. I'm not even convinced that President Obama has the power to stop the war. We are really in quite a mess here.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:27 PM

BYTEMITE

Interesting. That's kind of what I expected.

Would you also feel less threatened, and be more likely to assume that the woman has a reason for carrying?

Don't worry, I'm not making some absurd gender nature argument, I find stereotypes about male violence, aggression, and testosterone offensive.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:28 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I've always suspected the american association of gun ownership with freedom from tyranny as a load of bullshit - okay hyperbole if I am being nice, given that your government funds and controls the largest, most sophisticated and technologically advanced army in the world. Having a hand gun, rifle or even your own personal arsenal won't mean diddly squat against that sort of force."

Hello,

I doubt that any successful revolution could be staged without the support of some military assets.

That having been said, gaining the support of military assets is not entirely unrelated to those same assets being ordered to slaughter their countrymen wholesale. Such a slaughter being necessitated by the presence of armed and resisting citizenry.

--Anthony

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

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:17 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I suspect the gun freedom thing is propaganda. I also suspect that the US military is a pawn army run for international interests, and not for america, we just pay the interest on the debt that running it incurs, and get to kill and die in its wars, which never seem to serve american interests.

Yes, Americans and the world now benefit from a free South Korea, but by no means in any way that was intended: They make great little gizmos.

The Australian govt. is often sending some token force to the US efforts, but I don't think either country benefits, or is intended to. I'm not even sure that the last time our countries IIRC fought side by side in serious numbers which I think would be to liberate Papua New Guinea from Japanese control, served any purpose at all. I'm not even sure that the people are better off for it, but that's for them to decide.

But the govt. in DC is not really in any way part of the US. Politically it grants itself microstate status, giving itself independent legal authority, and is funded by a private corporation, the Federal Reserve. I don't feel any more responsible for its actions than an Iraqi would for Saddam Hussein's. I'm not even convinced that President Obama has the power to stop the war. We are really in quite a mess here.

Australia sent troops to Vietnam - we actually had conscription here as well during that time, and were also involved in the Korean war. Basically where you have been, we have been, but obviously we don't have anywhere near the military force that you do.

The reason we send troops is to maintain the military alliance with the US - in the hope that if someone invades you'll remember and help out - and also as a sort of payback for your assistance to us during WW2 when the Japanese invaded.

I believe that US troops are used to protect and enhance US economic interests, first and foremost, but there is something of a 'let's save the world from tyranny' mentality about your military actions from WW2 onwards. I'm not sure that the rest of the world sees your actions in the same way.

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

Friday, September 25, 2009 12:03 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Re: Escaping a situation.

You do know that for some of us, flight isn't always an option ?

Self-Defense is, in my opinion, a whole separate topic than the carrying of weapons is, because I am of the firm opinion that if you need to deploy your weapon it is because your other defenses have failed - which CAN happen through no fault of your own, especially as people are human and imperfect, both defenders and aggressors - case in point, someone wacked out on drugs to the point of hallucination and insanity isn't exactly reasonable, for example.

But Self-Defense is, to me, all about it never, ever GETTING to that point, situational awareness, de-escalation, all the things you do to prevent a "situation" from ever developing in the first place, as sensai said, the best way to 'win' a fight is make it never have happened.

On a rare occasion, this fails, it happens, no bones about it, and on those occasions having a stronger argument close at hand isn't a bad idea, no more than a spare tire or fire extinguisher is, just in case.

The problem with this argument in the first place is that those against the idea of carrying a weapon for personal defense tend to jump right over all the things someone who does carry also does in order to PREVENT ever needing that weapon - frankly, I'd reccommend some level of situational awareness and non-contact personal defense training/conflict avoidance, de-escalation and resolution for EVERYONE, and think that were it made part of the public school curriculum, it'd significantly reduce the violence in our society, and nowhere in that *requires* a weapon save as a plan B when all else fails.

But you know WHY every time I've brought that up to the educational system it gets shot down ?

Cause the way we treat our youth, adults very most certainly do NOT want them defending themselves against OUR abuses, cause then we'd have to start treating them as human beings, persons, instead of chattel.

And it is this very vilification of self defense, at all the developing portions of their life, which leads to compliant and easy victims for the criminal element, cause once trained not to resist authority or aggression, it becomes an easy lever for criminals to exploit - especially when reinforced by both the criminalization of resisting even a corrupt or abusive member of authority, and those some authorities advising nonresistance despite it's proven adverse affect on ones chances of successfully surviving an encounter with the criminal element.

And worse, it leads to the very fear and hysteria seen here, as if the very act of touching a gun is going to turn whoever does it instantly into a raving maniac intent on shooting up the local shopping mall, which feeds the cycle of lunacy by self-reinforcing a demonstrably false belief.

That's the same kind of "magical thinking" that pretends a 'gun-free zone' or mere words on paper is somehow going to stop a bullet, a foolish complacency which removes personal responsibility and situational awareness from the equation and results in a falsely framed "debate" designed to railroad a conclusion in complete disregard of the facts.

Personal Defense has in fact almost nothing to do with the hardware you may or not be carrying, and everything to do with never NEEDING that hardware in the first place.

Let's have THAT clear, or have it in another topic, thanks.

-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

Friday, September 25, 2009 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
As I was reading this thread, I was wondering something. There's talk about being nervous on seeing a guy openly carrying, which is probably understandable.

Would people have the same reaction to a lady with a gun strapped to her side?

I wouldn't. I would most likely assume she was a police detective.

Thanks for bringing that up; now I have to ask myself why my reactions would be different.

Maybe it's because female serial or spree killers are quite rare, so I don't assume an armed woman might go postal at a moment's notice.

But it's a good question, and food for thought.

Mike

Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black

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

Friday, September 25, 2009 7:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Late, as usual. Thank you for all the wonderful responses; I'm getting further and further into sleep deprivation because I'm wearing this huge "boot"--Achilles tendonitis--and it's tough wearing it to bed and getting any sleep, what with a 70-lb--last time we checked--husky insisting on sharing the bed, despite having his own, same-sized, same elevation, padded "bed" right beside it. What can I say? So I slept in.

Okay, here we go:

Quote:
Because, you put a 110lb woman up against a 250 man... hell... the guy will win. But give the girl a gun?

Wulf, again; not true. I described a number of scenarios where a woman carrying a gun is a negative possibility, and do NOT believe any woman who buys a gun would have an equal chance against a "gangster" carrying one. You haven't addressed that once, you just respond based on the assumption that it would be a fair fight. At this point you needn't bother, you're not hearing me.

Rue, bless your cotton-pickin' sweet little heart. You went on to make some of my arguments for me.

Quote:
that's the FIRST thing you say when anyone disagrees with you about guns.

I've noticed that too, just kept going out of the interest in debating, to counter his arguments...not that it got through (tho' he was quite reasonable in making them--how's THAT for all you guys who want to make him a total jerk?). Anybody ever think to mention self-defense? Yeah, against a gun, not so hot, but if you're going to insist on that 110-lb woman v. 250-lb gangster (and MANY of them don't use guns), I maintain there ARE other options.

I neglected to mention I've been in very bad neighborhoods, and at night, myself. Hell, folks, I lived in EAST PALO ALTO back in the '60s very briefly, with some Hell's Angels. We had kids crawling in the windows with knives. I walked alone. Yeah, I'm 6' and never saw 110 lbs since I was about 11, but there's a LOT to be said for how you carry yourself, how much of a victim your body language says you are...and to answer the inevitable question, no, I was ALONE, none of them along to "protect" me. Jim also works on Mission Street, a bad section of SF, and I've walked and bicycled to and from there more times than I can count, without my dog. No problem, and I've had guys follow me for a bit before they decided I wasn't a viable victim.

Usually when I walk places I've not felt particularly secure, I do so with my dog. I hike with my dog (and hey, anyone remember the Trailside Killer here on our Mountain?). My dogs have always been half shephard or half husky, and now full husky. Give me a dog to PREVENT a confrontation over a gun any day.

Mike:

Quote:
Cities with the STRONGEST gun control laws on their books are some of the highest crime areas in the nation (DC, anyone?).

Of COURSE they do! America's a lost cause; the bad guys all have guns, so if there's a STRICT gun law, only bad guys carry guns. I never said I was against gun ownership, only against EVERYONE carrying guns. We have to deal with what "is", not what "should be", but that doesn't mean we have to make it worse, which I believe open carry would do.

Quote:
I've never had my head blown off by a cop having a bad day - and I HAVE run into cops having bad days!

But it DOES happen, doesn't it? And three words: Cops are trained. Not only trained, supposedly well trained, and in many places given PC training, and know they lose their jobs and possibly face jail if they use them wrongly and know if they use them at ALL, there will be a serious investigation. Yet some of them still shoot people wrongly, don't they? And not even necessarily on a bad day. Your argument is fallacious.

Quote:
Heinlein who first said that an armed society is a polite society

Heinlen, first off, was a science fiction writer, which should be all that needs to be said. But second, he was a mysogynistic militarist. I've heard others argue that's not true; dunno where they get the impression he was neither, given his love of inserting beautiful women and sex all over the place and his constant harping on militaristic tactics. That's my opinion, and I've read everything he ever wrote (tho' many years ago).

Your entire argument, by the way, is moot. You agreed with me halfway through:

Quote:
Should EVERYONE have a gun? Doubtful.

I've been debating OPEN CARRY and the concept of everyone being armed, remember?

Rue made a good part of my argument. Only time I've ever had to defend myself, I did so by putting a spiked heel through a guy's foot. Worked great. If you abandon the basic premise that women are "helpless", even small women, and accept that there is a LOT one can do to get out of tight situations--like using one's brains, not looking like a target, knowing self-defense, being willing to do things most women wouldn't (which is a LARGE part of why women become victims), guns aren't the "only" answer.

Anthony also makes an excellent point. I have nothing really against concealed weapons--remember we've supposedly been debating OPEN CARRY, yes? Which, as with any debate gun-related, ended up pro- v. anti-gun in general, and pro- v. anti-EVERYONE having guns. I'm not in FAVOR of concealed weapons, but I'm on the fence about them; it's open carry I mostly disagree with, for some of the reasons he pointed out and because it's not the gun I don't trust, it's the person with the mentality that they need to, want to, or should carry openly. It's an invitation, and it's waaay to convenient if they're drunk, pissed off, etc. Not that concealed is much better in that respect.

Again Rue says it for me:

Quote:
You seem to think that once a pistol comes out, it's all over. In fact, it's now escalated into a confrontation, and it's just beginning.

Bingo. See above.

Frem, you've led a violent life, where guns are part of it and need to be. We're talking open carry for everyone, whole different ballgame.

Quote:
Why the hell do people act like just touching a firearm instantly turns people into flamin lunatics.

If you're talking about me, never anywhere did I say so. I said merely possessing a gun can be as dangerous as it can be protective, FOR MOST PEOPLE. You're trained, you can handle yourself; that's also a whole different ballgame. I spoke of "possibilities", not guarantees, and never said anyone with or without a gun was a "flamin' lunatic". Some are responsible; some drink; some are irresponsible adn some are just plain dumb. You REALLY trust everyone out there to carry a deadly weapon? Then we just have to agree to disagree.

Magon, bless YOUR heart up and down the street. That's exactly what I maintain. I don't say gun laws will help in America, we're too far beyond that. I do maintain that, if we hadn't started out that way, if the NRA wasn't such a powerful (and effective propagandist) lobby, it wouldn't be as BAD as it is today. Many guns out there have no purpose being there except as penis enhancements and for criminals, but ANY effort to change that is useless.

Quote:
we have never had the same gun culture or associated gun ownership with rights.

That's our problem in a nutshell. And

Quote:
It's always seemed like an excuse for people to own guns, because really, they like guns. They're a big boys toy = albeit a deadly one.

That's my opinion in a nutshell. We call big huge oversized-tire trucks "penis enhancements" too, given that 99% of the people who drive them are white males who drive aggressively and NEVER had need of them for any purpose under heaven. "Men and their toys" is bottom line, except it's too late to change it 'cuz so many are armed here. Shame, that.

I was working at a law firm in SF when the 101 California shootings went down, anyone remember that? We worked on the case, along with other firms. We had, amazingly, some actual success, but the gun manufacturers just changed the gun and got past it, as they always do. Anyone remember how many people that guy offed with just one little gun?? Columbine, and all the subsequent copycats. They are all examples of my very point; the more available guns are, the more chance for some idjit with a "grudge" or just crazy or whatever to do a LOT of damage with one little gun.

I have no problem with guns in the home, if treated responsibly. Jim has several; at one time it was a bone of contention (as was his pornography, until I was older and realized all men are screwed-up that way). The only time any of his guns was a problem was when Jo stole one and threatened suicide with it. She's borderline; they're given to fake threats to get attention and she made many. But we've always had dogs, never had a break-in, and that's the reason, not the guns.

Thanks for the Anubis thing, DT; smart man. Very smart man, and I agree with him 100%. He knew what he was talking about.

Quote:
this forum is full of libertarians, I think it's not a representative sample of the population. Firefly definitely attracts people of that bent.

MUCH better deterrent than any gun could ever be, and deterrence is far preferable to a shoot-out!

As to your question, Byte:

Quote:
I myself find a woman with a gun somehow sexier, for no reason I can name.

pretty much says it all. See above reply to Magon.

Gino also nailed my feelings on open carry, especially the recent set-up display of same:

Quote:
you have a bunch of folk packing at the protest, then the cops do something crazy

...or even someone got just a little too heated in a confrontation with someone on the other side...just some idjit, crazy about their "cause" just like some anti-choice folk already HAVE BEEN...THAT's my single biggest problem with open carry at this time in history.

Magon:

Quote:
The reason we send troops is to maintain the military alliance with the US - in the hope that if someone invades you'll remember and help out - and also as a sort of payback for your assistance to us during WW2 when the Japanese invaded.

I believe that US troops are used to protect and enhance US economic interests, first and foremost, but there is something of a 'let's save the world from tyranny' mentality about your military actions from WW2 onwards. I'm not sure that the rest of the world sees your actions in the same way.

Absofrigginlootely. We kinda know that's why most of our allies go with when we have a need of troops--and it's played upon to say "See? It's not just us..." It's a sick game. If we had to go it alone every time we start something, maybe...or maybe not, who knows...sigh...

Lastly, again Frem, you're overblowing the situation:

Quote:
it leads to the very fear and hysteria seen here, as if the very act of touching a gun is going to turn whoever does it instantly into a raving maniac intent on shooting up the local shopping mall, which feeds the cycle of lunacy by self-reinforcing a demonstrably false belief.

Not a single person here has demonstrated "hysteria" or suggested that touching a gun is going to turn anyone into a raving maniac. It's totally reasonable to say there are those out there, tho', and that arming them along with the rest of the population isn't sensible, and that they're a reason not everyone should OPENLY CARRY a gun. Yeah, seeing someone with one on would make it less likely they'd have the chance to open fire like a raving maniac, but that doesn't change any of the arguments people have VERY REASONABLY made. Your view is tinged, and always is in discussions. There's nothing wrong with that, and your focus on abuse of children is valid and enlightening, but always going to that and/or to violence tends to weaken your arguments, in my opinion.

PN I didn't even read, nor do I ever, so no response is moot.

Okay, I'm caught up...would apologize for it being so long, except it's the only way I can get back into the conversation where it stands currently. Damned sun, it's all its fault! Well, damned boot too, but that's temporary (tho' not NEARLY as temporary as I'd like it to be...)

Oh, the remark about the leanings of people on these types of forums...I can't find it again, dammit, but I agree. I noticed it about the other forum I was on, and here as well. It's interesting.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:49 AM