Texting, then assulting ex cop, during movie equals death.

[phonyk]

So what you're saying is most UK citizens are just blood thirsty and have no self control?

2AM at your average town centre in the UK and it would be very hard to disagree with that statement..

 

[MatskiMonk]

Did you see the bit I posted about how most Americans don't own guns? It is a pretty easy for many to not even think about gun ownership.

No. Did you see the bit about there being 200-300 million firearms in the USA, and the right to own one being one of the principles your country was based on? I'm not saying Americans can't imagine life not owning a gun - just the the vast majority have never lived in a gun free environment. This was in relation to the suggestion that most Europeans are not qualified to speak about gun ownership etc. because it doesn't really exist in our society.

So what you're saying is most UK citizens are just blood thirsty and have no self control?

Don't know how you read that into what I said (though as @phonyk points out, it may not be untrue!). I have had cause to use all means available to defend myself before, as has an attacker had cause to attempt to use all force available at his (and his friends) disposal. None of us managed to muster lethal force, a situation that I'm sure would have been different had guns been involved.

 

[Danoff]

No. Did you see the bit about there being 200-300 million firearms in the USA, and the right to own one being one of the principles your country was based on? I'm not saying Americans can't imagine life not owning a gun - just the the vast majority have never lived in a gun free environment.

Thing is, it's hard to own just one. You own one, but then you start thinking - what if I have need of a different type. For example, I own a 38 special revolver with internal hammer. That's great and all, but it sucks for target practice, and I like to keep sharp. So then I have the 9mm, not quite as good for home defense, but way better at the range. Well those are fantastic and everything, but a shotgun makes for better home defense - not as portable, can't use it with concealed or open carry, but for at home it's hard to beat. So then you want a shotgun. But what about hunting? I don't do that, but hunting rifles don't often make for the best home defense rifles. And then there's antiques, I have several of those. But if you want to be prepared for a complete breakdown of society, a semi-auto rifle would be a better choice.

All tolled have 6 guns and am looking to acquire two more. So that's one person owning 8 of the 200-300 million (legal) firearms in the USA, and I am far from what you might call a gun collector or gun nut.

 

[Zenith]

You should see some of the people I know...

Many people collect guns. Guns, like cars, make good time pieces. Some people collect WWII propaganda as memorabilia, some collect guns that were used. The difference is that you shoot a gun.

 

[BobK]

No. Did you see the bit about there being 200-300 million firearms in the USA, and the right to own one being one of the principles your country was based on? I'm not saying Americans can't imagine life not owning a gun - just the the vast majority have never lived in a gun free environment. This was in relation to the suggestion that most Europeans are not qualified to speak about gun ownership etc. because it doesn't really exist in our society.

I'm sorry but I have to wonder if you'd even read Cody's post (or is that what the "no" means). To reiterate, yes it's true there's approximately one gun for each resident in the US. But most of the gun enthusiasts I've known have multiple guns, sometimes a dozen or more. That means that for every person who owns a gun there are several people who do not.

(somewhat treed by @Danoff here, who as usual makes the point far better than I)

 

[mister dog]

Thing is, it's hard to own just one. You own one, but then you start thinking - what if I have need of a different type. For example, I own a 38 special revolver with internal hammer. That's great and all, but it sucks for target practice, and I like to keep sharp. So then I have the 9mm, not quite as good for home defense, but way better at the range. Well those are fantastic and everything, but a shotgun makes for better home defense - not as portable, can't use it with concealed or open carry, but for at home it's hard to beat. So then you want a shotgun. But what about hunting? I don't do that, but hunting rifles don't often make for the best home defense rifles. And then there's antiques, I have several of those. But if you want to be prepared for a complete breakdown of society, a semi-auto rifle would be a better choice.

Sounds like a bazooka would be the solution to all your problems! It will blow anything away at any distance, and is as such ideal for home protection. Just watch out that you don't mistake the postman, or your kid sneaking back in the house late at night for a burglar

Damn i forgot i said i wouldn't post in this thread anymore, sorry for that!

 

[Famine]

Sounds like a bazooka would be the solution to all your problems!

Too much collateral damage to suit target shooting, home defence or hunting - sure, it'd cook the meat for you, but it'll be spread over a forty foot radius. Also very difficult to get a licence for, due to Colorado's gun laws.

Much like you need a cross-head screwdriver for cross-head screws, a flathead screwdriver for flat headed screws, jeweller's screwdrivers for small, fiddly tasks, electrician's screwdrivers for electrical installations and a very large screwdriver to dual as a chisel and pry bar, a gun is only suited for the task it's best suited for. Suggesting a bazooka will do all the jobs is akin to suggesting that the only tool you need for home DIY is a sledgehammer - in which case I'd love to see your light fittings.

 

[mister dog]

Too much collateral damage to suit target shooting, home defence or hunting - sure, it'd cook the meat for you, but it'll be spread over a forty foot radius. Also very difficult to get a licence for, due to Colorado's gun laws.

Damn! There goes my theory..

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

How long does it take to pull a concealed gun, undo the safety,, point it at someone,pull the hammer and shoot compared to punching them?
for a trained cop i know they will be quick when it comes to upholstering the gun, but would it have been quicker than using your own fist as a weapon?

...yes cause every gun even concealed operates like this...please a little research on this subject goes a long way. You don't even need to be an avid shooter like me to know that they sequence of using a gun you described isn't correct. Also as amply put on this thread alone, most who are carriers know how to operate a gun and I've met plenty that operate them better than a cop. This notion that cops and FBI and most law enforcement are pro shooters, isn't reality, especially compared to a sportsman.

I see the point you are getting at here, but also consider the flip side. Guns are so engrained in your society, and the right to have one seems to have been drummed in with almost religious levels of determination - this simply doesn't exist here in the UK. As much as the typical Brit is unqualified to talk about gun ownership, I'd say the typical American simply cannot imagine what it's like to live in a society where gun ownership is pretty much illegal - and given this is a matter of perspective (I'm not claiming it as a matter of fact!), how much that can make Americans sound like gun-totin' nut jobs.

This is also vastly incorrect and if you did checking rather than taking the face value of what is said you'd know that there are many places in the U.S. where gun ownership is as bad as Europe. And the simple truth is the evidence has been easily laid out for you to put two and two together. My rights in AZ are greatly diminished when I take a trip 200-300 miles west into a place called California.

I'm pretty sure if guns were as legal and prevelant over here as they are over there, I would either be dead myself, or would have taken another human life by now - as it is now, neither is true, and I'm much more comfortable about that.

...and this sweeping generalization is quite ignorant, because I guess most of us talking from the U.S should be dead people walking.

 

[Kamdoon]

tl;dr Due to our unique history, guns are a part of our national fabric. To claim that "too many guns" and "lax laws" result in more violence is specious and unfair, and ignorant of American history.

Guns are so engrained in your society, and the right to have one seems to have been drummed in with almost religious levels of determination - this simply doesn't exist here in the UK.

They are, it has, and I will have to take your word for it.

Here's a very enlightening comic on the boundaries of self-defense.

Some of you really ought to read it.

Really. Read it. Anyone who wants to mention the US and guns in the same sentence will be quizzed on the information presented.

--@ Third Reign and Naughty Dog --
I'm going to leave aside your discussion with Famine regarding your thoughts that the prevalence of guns and the laxity of our gun laws here in the US directly contribute to a higher incidence of crazed behavior (for lack of a better term). Just so you know, I think that Famine does hit on some valid points which you should consider, namely that local law indeed often trumps federal law, and that laws and mores can be astonishingly different. Here in Ohio, most of us think that Texans and Floridians (stand-your-ground states) are, if not bandy-legged roustabouts, at least red-necked jackanapes. God only knows what they think of us.

Perspective: Land area of Spain: about 500,000 km2. Land area Germany: About 350,000 km2. Land area Texas: 130,000,000 km2. A few more zeros. The point being that, yes, even though we do have a somewhat homogenous national media, people who live over 3500 km away most likely aren't going to think alike, and therefore we have different laws representing that fact. I don't blame you for your perspective, as I'm sure most of your perceptions of us come from national and international media outlets who have both a political agenda and the need to express supremely complex topics in the course of 45 seconds. I may be wrong, and you may be American Literature philologists, but I'm not wrong when I say I'm not and you aren't.

I said I would leave aside the arguments about our "lax laws" and having "too many" guns, and I shall. But let me explain this not-quite middle-aged white male Ohioan raised-Catholic middle-class liberal-educated cat owner's opinion about guns as un-argumentively as possible. Call me out if I sound argumentative. Seriously.

I own a few of them. I inherited them all from my father who is still alive, but my siblings and I deemed him unfit to have them in his house, and he sometimes agreed. A 30.06 Winchester hunting rifle, excellent for hunting deer in Pennsylvania but don't get caught using it in Ohio unless at a shooting range as Ohio is flat as a griddle-cake and with decent 180 grain bullets you might shoot at a coyote and hit farmer Jones six miles down the road milking his cow. A shotgun, which is great fun to shoot but I recommend you hold that mother tight against your shoulder or you will regret it. And a Sig 9mm which is truly one bad-assed gun and fun to shoot. Cinder blocks, mostly. Also a picture of Osama Bin-Laden, but that's more my cousin than me.

We keep them all locked up, the bolts are kept separate from the guns and we keep the ammo in a third location. All locked up for safety reasons which I'm sure you can appreciate.

I am against most types of gun-control. As the trope goes: if you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them; and at this point there are so many in the US there would be no feasible way to collect them all.

I have to say that the discussion about the "purpose" of guns is an interesting one, from a family of hillbillies I would have to say they are for shootin' things; from a patriotic standpoint it is obvious they are meant to kill threats to you or your loved ones. As I am sure you both are aware, our country was founded by numerous people at numerous times for numerous reasons but one thing which was "drummed in with an almost religious level of determination" is that if you give your government too much power, they will use it against you, and that if you are driven' your wagon train through Nebraska it might be days before you come upon anything civilized. It is still that way in Nebraska.

Whereas you guys had kings and emperors and dukes and cool stuff like that, you weren't allowed to have guns because a.) you'd get uppity, and b.) you would poach from the land owned by your feudal master (more likely). We had 10 million km2 of forest, swamp, prairie, desert and mountains with the nearest thing to government being 1000 km away. Hell, they WANTED us to have guns, because then we could fulfill the "Manifest Destiny" of inhabiting "From sea to shining sea," but there was the small problem of wolverines, angry badgers, grizzly bears and of course those pesky Indians (who in addition to being Godless savages, wanted to rape our women, send our children through the gauntlet, and feed our dogs without our permission. And who aren't really from India anyway, the poseurs).

Even from the beginning we had the Brits and Frogs and the Injuns. You weren't a patriot unless you had a gun you could whip out and defend your country, you weren't a man if you couldn't protect your land, and you wouldn't' get laid if you couldn't get that brace of quail for Thanksgiving. You guys were wading through the Napoleonic wars and we were shooting squirrels in Ohio. But we kept our guns and your government made you give yours back after thanking you for your service fighting your last war's ally. You moved back to your allotted land and we moved westward.

Finally we got to California and everyone had guns and gold and it was okay, except for LA, which is still a sheet-hole. Someone threw popcorn in your face and you would shoot the &*^ out of him. And then you would get arrested and do jail time, maybe, because that's just a ****ing stupid overreaction. Maybe you wouldn't. Depended on the sheriff and the laws and what rich people you knew, or were. But we all had guns. You needed a gun. You were a fool if you DIDN'T have a gun. And most of our laws reflect that. But as Famine pointed out (and read the cartoon, for God's sake, like I asked you) our laws are actually for the most part fairly reasonable and sane. A few states (well, Texas is technically its own country) have laws which I don't agree with, but I don't live there, and if I did I would vote.

One thing is for sure though. No sane country in the world would try to ground attack the US, knowing some 9 year-old has more experience wasting homies than the bravest soldier in your bunch. And we sure as hell would never have a situation like in Syria, or Ukraine. But we have guns as part of our national fabric, and it ain't changing soon.

Like I said, no arguments here, just some thought-fodder.
Sorry this is so long, I have to move two cords of wood and I'm trying my best to procrastinate.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm sorry but I have to wonder if you'd even read Cody's post (or is that what the "no" means). To reiterate, yes it's true there's approximately one gun for each resident in the US. But most of the gun enthusiasts I've known have multiple guns, sometimes a dozen or more. That means that for every person who owns a gun there are several people who do not.

You are correct I didn't read Cody's post, but again I'll stress that I'm not saying every person in America owns a gun. It's a matter of culture. Other than firing a shotgun a few times whilst shooting clay pigeons I've never touched a gun, I don't think I'd ever seen a real hand gun in the flesh - yet about 30 seconds after walking into a Bass Pro Shop in OKC last year I saw hundreds! (okay, maybe 10's) in a Superstore... Guns are very common in your society, and virtually non-existent in ours. That's the difference I'm trying to emphasize, and to be honest I don't really see how it can be disputed since you have 15 times the number of guns per capita than we do - and I guess that stat doesn't include illegal firearms.

This is also vastly correct and if you did checking rather than taking the face value of what is said you'd know that there are many places in the U.S. where gun ownership is as bad as Europe. And the simple truth is the evidence has been easily laid out for you to put two and two together. My rights in AZ are greatly diminished when I take a trip 200-300 miles west into a place called California.

I guess you meant incorrect? Sorry, but I'm not going to take the time to read the gun laws for every state, it seems Arizona are pretty lax, and California is somewhat tighter.. what conclusion do you want me to draw form that?

...and this sweeping generalization is quite ignorant, because I guess most of us talking from the U.S should be dead people walking.

What "sweeping generalisation" did I make? I was speaking solely about myself as I've been in at least one situation where I believe firearms would have a severe impact on the outcome.

One thing is for sure though. No sane country in the world would try to ground attack the US, knowing some 9 year-old has more experience wasting homies than the bravest soldier in your bunch.

Yeah, tell me more about how guns aren't engrained in your society

 

[kikie]

Why carry a gun to the movies in the first place? I still don't understand the need for carrying fire arms.

Chad Oulson said that he was texting his three year old daughter. She must be über smart, knowing how to text, read and write at the age of three.

 

[BobK]

Why carry a gun to the movies in the first place?

I guess you didn't hear about that shooter in a Colorado movie theater a little while ago?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I guess you meant incorrect? Sorry, but I'm not going to take the time to read the gun laws for every state, it seems Arizona are pretty lax, and California is somewhat tighter.. what conclusion do you want me to draw form that?

It's quite obvious, and they aren't somewhat tighter, that's a gross understatement. The point is you said that many American's don't have a clue what it'd be like to live in a society without guns, but many do know what it is like. As simple as the concept is laid out to the opposing you still seem to not understand, that U.S. should more so be looked at as a group of 50 sovereign almost Nation-States in a singular Federal system. In other words one "Nation"-State (CA in this case) largely knows what it's like to live and not process firearms and for the limited that do possess know the vast restrictions that make ownership almost cumbersome. While the other "Nation"-state (AZ) knows of a far great open policy that you and others painted all 50 states to know of, when in fact only states like AZ know of such open gun ownership and culture, and it becomes even more specific when you look at the cities and compare how more rural areas are more ingrained on it in AZ then say bigger regions.

Also as asked if you aren't concerned to read some of the most simple gun law stuff that can be found in a single website and doesn't take too long, then why post here? Why keep foaming trite (other than the ability to do so) about a subject that you care next to nil about and only make yourself look incoherent and obviously uninterested, other than possibly inflating the ego of others or trolling does it make sense.

What "sweeping generalisation" did I make? I was speaking solely about myself as I've been in at least one situation where I believe firearms would have a severe impact on the outcome.

Unless it was severe enough to where your life was in danger or you were harmed with a weapon can I see what you said being reality. I've been threatened and I own a gun and carry a knife with me as well, yet the person that threatened me didn't get stabbed or shot and neither did I. Yet you make it sound as if the opposite should have happened. As if this would be the case if European nations like the UK had more access to guns as a pubic entity, people would widely shoot each other.

It doesn't happen here as much as people on the outside think and the PEW center put out a report that supports it, as do others.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I guess you didn't hear about that shooter in a Colorado movie theater a little while ago?

Oh, right, because you're so likely to get shot at the cinema. By that logic I should make sure I'm a qualified pilot every time I fly as a passenger in case the flight crew all die.

 

[Danoff]

Oh, right, because you're so likely to get shot at the cinema. By that logic I should make sure I'm a qualified pilot every time I fly as a passenger in case the flight crew all die.

Amount of time required to learn how to operate a gun, practice with it, and become competent with it. 1 or 2 full days.
Amount of time required to learn how to fly a passenger aircraft and be competent at doing so - 5 years? More?

So... no that doesn't make sense. And knowing how to operate a firearm and having one with you is not only useful at the movies.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Amount of time required to learn how to operate a gun, practice with it, and become competent with it. 1 or 2 full days.
Amount of time required to learn how to fly a passenger aircraft and be competent at doing so - 5 years? More?

So... no that doesn't make sense. And knowing how to operate a firearm and having one with you is not only useful at the movies.

Out of the 1.25 billion movie tickets sold in America, name 10 instances where a gun was useful for a cinemagoer. The idea that a gun is useful at the movies strikes me as ridiculous. Are you really in fear of your life every time you go into a cinema? Cause if so, then there's something seriously wrong.

 

[mister dog]

@Kamdoon nice read, i had a mental image of red dead redemption in the meantime (love that game). The argument that Americans keep guns so their government can't get at them is a bit silly though, as 1: we had many upstandings and revolutions here since the Napoleon era, and 2: when public opinion turns a bit silly your government invades your privacy anyway, just look at the Bush era a while ago (but that's another discussion)

 

[Famine]

Out of the 1.25 billion movie tickets sold in America, name 10 instances where a gun was useful for a cinemagoer.

All tickets for all screenings of all films in all cinemas in the USA? Aurora, Colorado. Couple hundred instances right there.


Also, how else are you going to get the projectionist to skip the bloody previews?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

All tickets for all screenings of all films in all cinemas in the USA? Aurora, Colorado. Couple hundred instances right there.

Also, how else are you going to get the projectionist to skip the bloody previews?

I said was useful, not could have been. There's a big difference, it's very easy to say that a gun would have mad e a difference, but in reality it's not so simple. IIRC he was wearing body armour, there was confusion as to whether it was a stunt or a real attack, and he was heavily armed. I really do doubt that even a powerful handgun in trained hands would have stopped him.

 

[Famine]

That's why you go for the face. He even dyed his hair red to guide you to it.

Incidentally, it was the only cinema (of seven) in Aurora showing TDKR that night that forbade patrons to carry their handguns - including the two nearest Holmes' house. They may not have had to defend themselves with them, but the patrons of the other 6 found their handguns very useful indeed.

 

[MatskiMonk]

It's quite obvious, and they aren't somewhat tighter, that's a gross understatement. The point is you said that many American's don't have a clue what it'd be like to live in a society without guns, but many do know what it is like. As simple as the concept is laid out to the opposing you still seem to not understand, that U.S. should more so be looked at as a group of 50 sovereign almost Nation-States in a singular Federal system. In other words one "Nation"-State (CA in this case) largely knows what it's like to live and not process firearms and for the limited that do possess know the vast restrictions that make ownership almost cumbersome. While the other "Nation"-state (AZ) knows of a far great open policy that you and others painted all 50 states to know of, when in fact only states like AZ know of such open gun ownership and culture, and it becomes even more specific when you look at the cities and compare how more rural areas are more ingrained on it in AZ then say bigger regions.

Roughly speaking (and I am only going by Wiki, because it's quick and easy, because you're right, I don't care that much), gun ownership in CA was 21%, and 31% in AZ... and 6% in the UK. So forgive me, but that still sounds like quite a bit in California. And I say again, I'm not just considering actual ownership, it's about culture - you don't have to own a gun to live in fear/safety of one.

Also as asked if you aren't concerned to read some of the most simple gun law stuff that can be found in a single website and doesn't take too long, then why post here? Why keep foaming trite (other than the ability to do so) about a subject that you care next to nil about and only make yourself look incoherent and obviously uninterested, other than possibly inflating the ego of others or trolling does it make sense.

It's a 12,000 word document, not including looking up what the laws and legislation actually mean, yeah like I said I don't care that much. As for foaming uninterested, incoherent, ego inflating trolling.. sorry you felt you had to state this opinion. I'll refrain from stating my perceived opinion on your posting style.

Unless it was severe enough to where your life was in danger or you were harmed with a weapon can I see what you said being reality. I've been threatened and I own a gun and carry a knife with me as well, yet the person that threatened me didn't get stabbed or shot and neither did I. Yet you make it sound as if the opposite should have happened. As if this would be the case if European nations like the UK had more access to guns as a pubic entity, people would widely shoot each other.

Again, I did not even attempt to generalise, I spoke from individual experience - therefore I wouldn't necessarily expect your experience to reflect mine. My friend was was kicked to the ground and kicked in the head, and another guy was punching me in the head in order to try and do the same to me, did I feel I was in physical danger? Yeah I should say so, the guy even threatened to 'cut' me, though I never saw a blade. Blood was spilled on both sides. It's reasonably conceivable that if either party had a gun it would have been used - in the context of a thread about a guy who was shot dead for throwing popcorn, it doesn't seem that inconceivable to me?

Anyhow, yes you're right, on the subject of US gun control I'm not that bothered or educated. However, it does appear to me that citizens of the US live in much more of a gun culture than those in the UK. This is the original point I made, sorry if you disagree.

 

[Danoff]

IIRC he was wearing body armour, there was confusion as to whether it was a stunt or a real attack, and he was heavily armed. I really do doubt that even a powerful handgun in trained hands would have stopped him.

This is a misunderstanding of the situation. Someone could have fired at the ceiling while crouched behind a seat - it would have slowed him down enough to save several lives. You don't have to actually hit him, let alone kill him, to save lives with a gun in that situation.

...and that was the whole point behind mentioning that the couple of days you might invest in developing a skill for handguns would be useful not only in movies, but in any instance in your life. Likelihood you'll be attacked at the movies? Low. Likelihood you'll be attacked at all? Not as low.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

...and that was the whole point behind mentioning that the couple of days you might invest in developing a skill for handguns would be useful not only in movies, but in any instance in your life. Likelihood you'll be attacked at the movies? Low. Likelihood you'll be attacked at all? Not as low.

Likelihood that I'll be carrying my gun and will have time to draw it? Maybe not quite so high. Likelihood that carrying a gun will disturb, intimidate, or otherwise alienate people? 100%. People don't like guns.



(fictional show, real world messages)

 

[Danoff]

Likelihood that I'll be carrying my gun and will have time to draw it? Maybe not quite so high. Likelihood that carrying a gun will disturb, intimidate, or otherwise alienate people? 100%. People don't like guns.

Ok, so we're talking about concealed carry at a movie theater right? If it's disturbing, intimidating, or alienating people, then you're doing it wrong ("concealed").

(fictional show, real world messages)

Where to start.

First of all, citation needed on people being attacked on the streets having their guns used against them. I think I know the statistic they are using, and they're misusing it - someone using their own gun to commit suicide, for example, doesn't really factor into that discussion. Second of all, she obviously didn't know how to use her firearm. She held it wrong, it had a chambered round while in her purse, she pointed it at someone she didn't intend to shoot. Third of all, he didn't know how to use one either - that was not a remotely realistic disarm, and he held it wrong, and he pointed it at someone he didn't intend to shoot. Fourth, there wasn't a single valid point made about why it's somehow dangerous for her to be carrying a gun. Fifth, if you're going to carry a gun, you need to keep it on you or secure it - not leave it in your purse on the couch for someone's kid to grab.

Maybe you're wary of guns because you watch too many TV shows with people handling them irresponsibly.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Ok, so we're talking about concealed carry at a movie theater right? If it's disturbing, intimidating, or alienating people, then you're doing it wrong ("concealed").

If I knew my friend carried a gun, I would treat them very differently. It means, to me, firstly, that they're paranoid. The odds of being attacked at any moment are relatively low, and can be lowered by using common sense. Secondly, they could be engaged in illegal activity or something else which is dangerous and I don't want to get involved with. Second is probably not true, but still slightly possible. The first point stands. If you carry a gun around, you worry way too much. There is such a thing as being too prepared. anyway, if you have to carry a gun around someplace, and you're not paranoid, then I don't know what to say. That place must be pretty messed up if there are people getting assaulted left and right and you fear for your life on every street.

Where to start.

First of all, citation needed on people being attacked on the streets having their guns used against them. I think I know the statistic they are using, and they're misusing it - someone using their own gun to commit suicide, for example, doesn't really factor into that discussion. Second of all, she obviously didn't know how to use her firearm. She held it wrong, it had a chambered round while in her purse, she pointed it at someone she didn't intend to shoot. Third of all, he didn't know how to use one either - that was not a remotely realistic disarm, and he held it wrong, and he pointed it at someone he didn't intend to shoot. Fourth, there wasn't a single valid point made about why it's somehow dangerous for her to be carrying a gun. Fifth, if you're going to carry a gun, you need to keep it on you or secure it - not leave it in your purse on the couch for someone's kid to grab.

Maybe you're wary of guns because you watch too many TV shows with people handling them irresponsibly.

I'm not saying anything in there is accurate. Thing is, you act like everyone with a handgun is responsible, well trained, and mentally stable, which is not true. People aren't perfect, and do stupid things. I fa gun is involved, it's more likely that they'll hurt someone. Just today, a police officer shot himself somehow. Details are scarce, and I think he's okay, but it goes to show that stupid stuff happens all the time.

The fact is that guns change the way people relate. The add fear to the mix, and that can escalate things very quickly. I know a girl who was driving through a bad part of Pittsburgh, stopped at a red light. She saw two guys talking on the corner, and noticed that one of them had a gun. She said she had never been more scared in her life. She wasn't in any danger, but it still made her more than uncomfortable.

 

[Danoff]

If I knew my friend carried a gun, I would treat them very differently.

Well, if you knew they were currently carrying a gun, they're not practicing proper concealed carry technique. If you knew that they carried regularly, then I would treat them differently too, but not how you would.

It means, to me, firstly, that they're paranoid.

To me, it means they want to take personal responsibility for their safety and the safety of their loved ones.

The odds of being attacked at any moment are relatively low, and can be lowered by using common sense.

None of which changes when you have a gun.

Secondly, they could be engaged in illegal activity or something else which is dangerous and I don't want to get involved with. Second is probably not true, but still slightly possible.

In the UK, I presume they'd be breaking laws already, and so the likelihood of them breaking other laws probably does go up. In the US there are many areas where they might not be breaking any laws at all, and so assuming that they're more likely to be a criminal doesn't make any sense.

The first point stands. If you carry a gun around, you worry way too much. There is such a thing as being too prepared.

Try not to think of it as worrying, and instead think of it as taking control of your life and circumstances.

anyway, if you have to carry a gun around someplace, and you're not paranoid, then I don't know what to say. That place must be pretty messed up if there are people getting assaulted left and right and you fear for your life on every street.

When I bought my last car, I had it delivered. The delivery truck wanted to meet me in south central los angeles - where he was going to be in the middle of the night. I can tell you I was very sore that it was against the law to carry a gun to meet someone in gang territory LA in the middle of the night.

I'm not saying anything in there is accurate. Thing is, you act like everyone with a handgun is responsible, well trained, and mentally stable, which is not true.

But it's FAR more true than you think. You need to go visit a US gun range, talk to people, and really get a sense of just how many of these people really are well trained, mentally stable, and responsible people who aren't carrying or owning a gun out of fear, but out of a recognition of the fact that it is an act of a responsible adult to take personal responsibility for your safety and the safety of the people you love.

People aren't perfect, and do stupid things. I fa gun is involved, it's more likely that they'll hurt someone.

Citation needed. People tend to do stupid things with objects that they DON'T think will kill them. In my experience stupid people tend to be quite respectful of the power of guns, and less respectful with other deadly things - like cars.

Just today, a police officer shot himself somehow. Details are scarce, and I think he's okay, but it goes to show that stupid stuff happens all the time.

Sure does.

The fact is that guns change the way people relate. The add fear to the mix, and that can escalate things very quickly. I know a girl who was driving through a bad part of Pittsburgh, stopped at a red light. She saw two guys talking on the corner, and noticed that one of them had a gun. She said she had never been more scared in her life. She wasn't in any danger, but it still made her more than uncomfortable.

Perhaps because she realized she should have been armed.

 

[BobK]

If I knew my friend carried a gun, I would treat them very differently. It means, to me, firstly, that they're paranoid. The odds of being attacked at any moment are relatively low, and can be lowered by using common sense. Secondly, they could be engaged in illegal activity or something else which is dangerous and I don't want to get involved with. Second is probably not true, but still slightly possible. The first point stands. If you carry a gun around, you worry way too much. There is such a thing as being too prepared. anyway, if you have to carry a gun around someplace, and you're not paranoid, then I don't know what to say. That place must be pretty messed up if there are people getting assaulted left and right and you fear for your life on every street.

You realize that what you say here applies equally well to insurance*, right? You'd have to be paranoid or you wouldn't have it. The odds of getting in an accident are relatively low, and can be lowered by using common sense. If they're driving a car they might be engaged in some illegal activity. Probably not but they might be, right?

*actually insurance is mandatory now, of course. I'm thinking of when it wasn't, which wasn't a terribly long time ago. Most everybody had insurance anyway even though it wasn't required.

Incidentally, I'm as unconcerned about the possibly of being shot as you probably are of being stabbed. Or concerned, take your pick.

 

[mister dog]

In the news today;

Oakland family says 14-year-old fatally shot his sister in argument over bleached clothes

http://www.startribune.com/nation/241762051.html

(I didn't went looking for this article; it was in the Belgian newspaper i read this evening).

 

[Tornado]

You don't watch The Newsroom for the pretentious, preachy "messages." You watch it to see Jeff Daniels shout at people for an hour every week.