Guns

[MatskiMonk]

Fear might not be the right word... perhaps 'paranoia and vulnerability' would be a better phrase?

In Britain, the nobility, knighthood and church were always the arbiters of property, rights and the violence of their enforcement.

In the US - always lacking nobility, knights and state religion - the peasantry acting through democracy were always the arbiters of property, rights and violence.

So the US was born in violence, nurtured in violence, and maintained throughout its existence with violence wielded by the commons under the color of our democratic rights and duties. Gunpowder violence is embedded in our history, highest law (constitution) and in our very DNA. But not in yours.

Ain't gonna change anytime soon.

I also wonder, if the generations that grew up in the era of Mutually Assured Destruction during the 50's and 60's might have formed their opinions on self-defence based on the global situation at the time. There seem to be parallels between some of the arguments/attitudes for gun ownership and the need for a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the Soviet Union twice over.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Is getting life insurance fear of imminent death?

It isn't the ultimate retaliation, it's a plan for your family to have money if you stop making any.

 

[Exorcet]

That doesn't mean it can't be a sign of fear though. Is it?

I'd also hesitate to call owning or purchasing a gun retaliation. Shooting at something perhaps, but not simply having. It's more a case of putting a tool in the toolbox.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That doesn't mean it can't be a sign of fear though. Is it?

Lots of things are caused by the innate fear of death. Elevating the risk with mass gun ownership and then carrying your own ultimate solution for potential retaliation is the problem.

 

[RC45]

Lots of things are caused by the innate fear of death. Elevating the risk with mass gun ownership and then carrying your own ultimate solution for potential retaliation is the problem.

Criminals are already armed. How would disarming the general law abiding populace change that fact?

BTW, you might keep in mind that you might be addressing people who have either worked in the industry or have close relationships with people that do.

 

[Exorcet]

Lots of things are caused by the innate fear of death.

True, but I'd think the reason you brought it up was you thought the fear was significant or in some other way special when it comes to guns.

Elevating the risk with mass gun ownership and then carrying your own ultimate solution for potential retaliation is the problem.

How is taking responsibility and precaution elevating risks? It's the opposite.

 

[nocturnalgrey]

I can't speak for others of course, but I don't want those rights taken away at all. At the same time I don't believe that arming eveyone to teeth is going to help.

Everyone I consider a friend has at least one firearm with some having dozens. About half of them carry a sidearm at all times. Every single one of them is a decent, loving human being and are not only law abiding citizens, they contribute to the community in some form or fashion. They don't bully or engage in uncivilized behavior; nor do they display unhealthy arrogance.

We (and people like us) are exactly the type of persons this country needs "armed to the teeth". The gun owners who hope and pray their firearm will never be used in anger, but is ever so thankful the weapon is there... just in case.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Criminals are already armed. How would disarming the general law abiding populace change that fact?

Existing examples show that when guns are shunned by society and obtaining a gun is subject to heavy regulation then there are far, far fewer guns. Criminals are also far, far less likely to use firearms in the process of committing offences.

BTW, you might keep in mind that you might be addressing people who have either worked in the industry or have close relationships with people that do.

I believe you're throwing this post back at me. That's an interesting response; I worked in a part of the oil industry yet I believe in anthropocenic warming... I mentioned that as a counter to your assertion that renewable energy takes up far more land than oil and that it represents a far greater danger to the natural world. Here you're leading me to infer that you work in (or are close to someone who works in) the firearms industry. What might the point of that in this conversation be?

 

[Barra333]

BTW, you might keep in mind that you might be addressing people who have either worked in the industry or have close relationships with people that do.

It hasn't stopped you from ignoring all of hard data I gave you in the other thread.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Lord Obama said that congress should make it impossible for people on the no fly list to have access to buying firearms. Seems reasonable. Just put every American on it and poof. No more terrorism. Ever! Eh, Comrades?

 

[RC45]

It hasn't stopped you from ignoring all of hard data I gave you in the other thread.

I am 100% confident history will prove me correct and you incorrect.

When we dig this thread up in 2050 I hope you will have the integrity and humility to eat the necessary crow pie.

 

[Barra333]

I am 100% confident history will prove me correct and you incorrect.

When we dig this thread up in 2050 I hope you will have the integrity and humility to eat the necessary crow pie.

I'm done talking to you. You said your opinion, I refuted it with scientific data. Now you are 100% sure you are right based on what?
Science has been known to be wrong, but the case I am arguing is based on the best observations we have right now. I'm sure in 35 years you will deny any data we have then too.

 

[RC45]

I'm done talking to you. You said your opinion, I refuted it with scientific data. Now you are 100% sure you are right based on what?
Science has been known to be wrong, but the case I am arguing is based on the best observations we have right now. I'm sure in 35 years you will deny any data we have then too.

Not at all, because the data showing the seas have not risen by any significant amount, the data showing that the mean temperature changes across global systems has experienced a natural fluctuation and is in line with average changes over time and the extreme damage done to the global economies as governments scramble to figure out how to stop the economic bleeding will prove me correct.

I am basing that partially on the observation of the complete failure of all previous "global doom is pending" predictions and partially on the great work being done by scientists that show the 'settled science of MMGW' is not settled and highly biased.

And this is a thread about guns, not sure why I need to be debating MMGW fantasies here - oh that's right, the same folks likely to want to disarm law abiding people and manage their lives in totalitarian socialist manner are also most likely to follow MMGW theory like a religion.

 

[jimipitbull]

Not at all, because the data showing the seas have not risen by any significant amount, the data showing that the mean temperature changes across global systems has experienced a natural fluctuation and is in line with average changes over time and the extreme damage done to the global economies as governments scramble to figure out how to stop the economic bleeding will prove me correct.

I am basing that partially on the observation of the complete failure of all previous "global doom is pending" predictions and partially on the great work being done by scientists that show the 'settled science of MMGW' is not settled and highly biased.

And this is a thread about guns, not sure why I need to be debating MMGW fantasies here - oh that's right, the same folks likely to want to disarm law abiding people and manage their lives in totalitarian socialist manner are also most likely to follow MMGW theory like a religion.

Excuse me, but if the world is flat, we shouldn't even use global terms.

 

[RC45]

Excuse me, but if the world is flat, we shouldn't even use global terms.

Nice try. I believe your post would meet the terms of troll in the AUP yeah?

 

[jimipitbull]

Nice try. I believe your post would meet the terms of troll in the AUP yeah?

I think what one believes, and proof that suggests otherwise are quite relevant to the current climate of discussion. There be no mention of metaphors in the AUP.

 

[RC45]

I think what one believes, and proof that suggests otherwise are quite relevant to the current climate of discussion.

And where did I say the earth was not a round ball of rock hurtling through space?

There is no proof that man is responsible for the CO2 increase as currently observed.

None.

There is no way of knowing that even without man the levels would not have risen on there own.

None.

It is all circumstantial.

And I am not willing to risk the entire global economic structure and progress of the human species on such specious suppositions.

Too often the world has knee-jerked in the name of some infant science only to pull back decades later after the damage has already been done.

MMGW folks are akin to the Salem witch hunters...

 

[jimipitbull]

And where did I say the earth was not a round ball of rock hurtling through space?

There is no proof that man is responsible for the CO2 increase as currently observed.

None.

There is no way of knowing that even without man the levels would not have risen on there own.

None.

It is all circumstantial.

And I am not willing to risk the entire global economic structure and progress of the human species on such specious suppositions.

Too often the world has knee-jerked in the name of some infant science only to pull back decades later after the damage has already been done.

MMGW folks are akin to the Salem witch hunters...

Progress is what got us into this mess. Human species is already devolving, current spate of mass shootings and failure of government to respond with reforms is clear evidence of that.

 

[LeMansAid]

Use for a gun #14677 - forcing you two over to the Global Warming thread.

 

[RC45]

Progress is what got us into this mess. Human species is already devolving, current spate of mass shootings and failure of government to respond with reforms is clear evidence of that.

Opposition to human progress, opposition to organized democratic governance and displeasure with the devolution of man - you sound like a prime candidate for recruiting into the Taliban or ISIS - it also sounds like you will be right at home amongst those Stone Age loving primatives.

Still not sure why you are ranting about non-gun issues in a gun thread.

 

[jimipitbull]

Opposition to human progress, opposition to organized democratic governance and displeasure with the devolution of man - you sound like a prime candidate for recruiting into the Taliban or ISIS - it also sounds like you will be right at home amongst those Stone Age loving primatives.

Still not sure why you are ranting about non-gun issues in a gun thread.

Which part of mass shootings are you having trouble understanding in the context of a gun thread?

Are you;
a) dumb enough to suggest someone who is against guns is a likely recruit for ISIS/taliban, or
b) deliberately trying to misleed others
c) part of a rhetorical statement, not a question.

 

[RC45]

Which part of mass shootings are you having trouble understanding in the context of a gun thread?

Are you;
a) dumb enough to suggest someone who is against guns is a likely recruit for ISIS/taliban, or
b) deliberately trying to misleed others
c) part of a rhetorical statement, not a question.

Are you seriously trying to pin a terrorist attack on MMGW and human technical progress and advances?

Quit while you are ahead - you are babbling an clutching at straws and cluttering up a thread with unrelated nonsense.

Oh, and being 'against guns' is no guarantee a person would not be ripe for recruitment into a radical anarchist type group - just witness tree hugging Eco-terrorists at work.

Now please stop polluting this thread.

 

[Imari]

How is taking responsibility and precaution elevating risks? It's the opposite.

The problem is that it's a prisoner's dilemma. The best situation is that civilians don't have firearms and very few criminals do either. But both parties think that they can get one up on the other by having firearms on their side, or feel that they need to in order to not be dominated by the other, and it ends up with the worst situation, a standoff with both parties armed.

I should be clear that I think that not having a gun isn't a valid solution in a country where everyone is already armed. You either get with it or pull your pants down and bend over.

But from the first principles perspective, there's something to be said for doing what will result in the best outcome for both parties and hoping that your opposite will do the same. The U.S. is kind of stuck with the gun thing like it or not, but if you're founding a new country tomorrow then I think there's a decent argument to be made for pushing people towards the altruistic solution to the dilemma.

 

[Exorcet]

The problem is that it's a prisoner's dilemma. The best situation is that civilians don't have firearms and very few criminals do either. But both parties think that they can get one up on the other by having firearms on their side, or feel that they need to in order to not be dominated by the other, and it ends up with the worst situation, a standoff with both parties armed.

Well if we're sticking to hypothetically speaking at least, the best situation is armed citizen, unarmed criminal. How likely you are to get that is another thing, as you point out so I see what you're saying.

But from the first principles perspective, there's something to be said for doing what will result in the best outcome for both parties and hoping that your opposite will do the same. The U.S. is kind of stuck with the gun thing like it or not, but if you're founding a new country tomorrow then I think there's a decent argument to be made for pushing people towards the altruistic solution to the dilemma.

How you push people is important. I said this before, but I don't know how much attention was given to it:

One thing needs to be said clearly. Law enforced gun bans are morally unacceptable, but that doesn't mean that society can't regulate guns without government oversight.

If people want to push an arms reduction, I'm not necessarily against it. Just don't make it law. As far as having an armed populace goes, I think civilian responsibility is also the best way to promote safety. Teach, learn, and take responsibility. Don't just go along with something just because it happens to be legal, which might be what happens in some cases where someone who can't actually buy a gun ends up getting one anyway.

 

[Dotini]

It seems like every radio and TV is reporting skyrocketing gun sales. Not to mention Trump's poll numbers zooming.

It would seem that when a pair of apparently self-radicalized Muslims killed 14 and wounded 21 at a humble center for the disabled and elderly, that it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

This was in the central valley of California, where they shot the movie American Graffiti. Coming of age is much different now than it was then. On the one hand you could say we have come a long way...down. On the other, you could say that the good old days really weren't all that good.

 

[Danoff]

The problem is that it's a prisoner's dilemma. The best situation is that civilians don't have firearms and very few criminals do either. But both parties think that they can get one up on the other by having firearms on their side, or feel that they need to in order to not be dominated by the other, and it ends up with the worst situation, a standoff with both parties armed.

How is a standoff the worst situation? A standoff is peace. A standoff is nobody robbing or shooting anyone because they don't want to get shot. A standoff is a perfectly law-abiding society. The worst possible situation is one in which criminals have power over law abiding citizens that they can leverage to commit crimes.

 

[jimipitbull]

How is a standoff the worst situation? A standoff is peace. A standoff is nobody robbing or shooting anyone because they don't want to get shot. A standoff is a perfectly law-abiding society. The worst possible situation is one in which criminals have power over law abiding citizens that they can leverage to commit crimes.

How about a criminal with assault rifles that were purchased legally, vs law abiding citizen with a handgun in her handbag. Do you think she would even bother pulling it out?

What if assault rifles were restricted for military use only, it would certainly make it harder for criminals to obtain one.

 

[Blood Eagle]

"Assault Rifles" is a made up term to describe scary looking civilian counterparts of real ones like AK47 and M16 or M4s with either burst fire capabilities or fully automatic fire. Civilian AR and AKs are no different than any other semi auto rifle with a detatachable magazine. People are just afraid of them because they are ignorant to how firearms operate and because of the way they look. California has strict laws against high capacity ammunition feedind devices and also limits 10 rounds on civilian AR and AK rifles with magazine locks that require a tool to detatch magines to prevent quick reloading. It didn't work.

 

[Exorcet]

How about a criminal with assault rifles that were purchased legally, vs law abiding citizen with a handgun in her handbag. Do you think she would even bother pulling it out?

In truth, that could go a million ways. Even with assault rifles, a handgun can still kill you, so the deterrence factor is still real. Even if the criminal only had a handgun, that could still be lethal and the victim isn't automatically in a better situation.

Also consider that an assault rifle is more visible and cumbersome than a handgun, giving criminals a reason to avoid using them.

 

[Danoff]

How about a criminal with assault rifles that were purchased legally, vs law abiding citizen with a handgun in her handbag. Do you think she would even bother pulling it out?

She would if the situation called for it. Why would she not? Guns are not like muscles, the guy with the bigger gun doesn't automatically have an advantage.

What if assault rifles were restricted for military use only, it would certainly make it harder for criminals to obtain one.

You mean like body armor or explosives? It doesn't seem to have that effect.

An assault rifle is just a made-up term that usually describes a semi-automatic rifle. The difference between a semi-automatic rifle and something like a revolver (a semi-automatic handgun) is really only length - which in many of the circumstances people like to conjure up is actually a negative. The difference between a semi-automatic rile and a non-semi-automatic rifle is that the later requires an extra step (think of pumping a shotgun for example).

The only advantage a semi-automatic rifle has over a semi-automatic handgun (like a revolver) is accuracy over longer range. If two people are close together, a handgun is just as good or better.

Kennedy was famously assassinated by a bolt-action rifle, not semi-automatic. Sometimes for accuracy shooters like bolt-action guns better than semi-automatic guns because there are fewer moving parts, resulting in a more accurate shot. Some of the most accurate guns out there allow only a single bullet to be loaded directly into the chamber.