Glorifying Guns?

That's kinda my point exactly.

cjhsa,

It's a bold lie to say that you simply point at Australia as a bad example. You started a thread just to ridicule them and all of the following is from just that one thread:

After calling Australians stupid, you started to ridicule them.







When asked why:











Now the reason I bring it up is because of what seems like an obsession with them. For today you used the exact same joke you'd used 28 days ago to ridicule the Australians for their gun laws.

It is pathetic and simply makes you seem to seek validation of manliness through guns.

Yes - and that is the reason I generally do not bother to argue with you about your obsession.

You see, as I have said before, most people in most countries see nothing but terrible foolishness in people having casual access to such weapons.

Your, and that of others of your ilk, point of view on this matter is as incomprehensible to us, as ours is to you.

The chasm is too wide to communicate across, I think.

You - for a reason I still find utterly eludes me - equate wanting to own guns with courage and such - tell me, seriously, how on earth are the two related?

I urge people to go back and read the original post "Aussies, Hide Your Steak Knives".

Aside from that, I give up. I do not derive any manliness from gun ownership. In fact, I derive it from being able to hit a golf ball well over 300 yards and then drinking you under the table at the 19th hole, on your tab.

Yet you consistently accuse us of cowardice for not wishing to own automatic weapons.

I have asked you about why you equate these two things.

Given the ubiquity of your accusations, I assumed you had some rational reason for doing so, and would be able to give it.

there are also no major citys that have outlawed cars, there are those that have outlawed guns. there are reasons that "gun-nuts" are worried about there guns being taken away, it is happening in some citys.

to get a USAS 12 i have to pay a large tax for the transfer, but for a Saiga 12 i do not, it is these type of bad laws that worry me. i do not see the difference, the USAS 12 looks like a M-16 and the Saiga looks like an AK.

Is there a new development there? I haven't heard anything recently. I know Gun Owners of America had a big campaign about it, asking people to warn their Congresscritters not to send that bill to the President on pain of not getting elected next cycle, and it looked like it might be working.

And FWIW, I took the table diving statement to be a joke also.

I could be wrong about that AWB bill Tarantulas, the spin on what comes out of D.C. concerning this is enough to confuse anyone.

Here's a little something about it. Notice the term "assault-style weapons."


Link

And on the Free Republic website, there was this interesting comment:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roger wrote:
An unarmed "collective defense" is an interesting idea. I think I'm going to disagree, though.


But is it correct for me to say that the disagreement is about the viability or appropriateness of such a measure? And not necessarily a difference in terms of the end goals?

The end goal is to protect the citizen from injury, loss of life, and property, isn't it? So demonstrate that this can be accomplished by anything short of a total police state, and I believe you will have carried the argument. Now, I do enjoy shooting for it's own sake, but that's a different story.

I know you don't like riposte so feel free to ignore the rest as me just using the forums to express an opinion.

Aw, we all give in to the temptation to express an opinion. The problem is, if I've ever changed anyone's mind, I'm not aware of it.

Quote:
The person or persons against whom we might have to defend ourselves is the agressor. They chose to be agressors when they perceive themselves to be stronger than the victims. They may not always be correct, but the choice is theirs to make, not ours.

But the manner in which we decide to react to such threats is.

Okay, fine. I choose to be twenty-something, 6'20", athletic as hell, and make my main hobbies ju-jitsu and boxing. Realistically, though, I'm short, fat, and bald, not to mention crowding 50. What is the appropriate response to threats, not to mention the reality, of violent attack?
Quote:

With or without guns, it will normally be the stronger attacking the weaker. With superior weapons the weaker has the opportunity to defend him or herself.

Conversely guns also provide the criminals the opportunity to be the stronger party.

True, yet the penalties for misusing a gun are such that the typical crook is usually only carrying when he has a clear intent to use that gun. That's opinion, of course, but it really isn't good form to pop out of the car to slap hell out of some other stupid driver, and have old Betsy drop out of the waistband, even if she don't discharge.

Personally, I think that guns do more to empower criminals than their prey (mainly because they also can have an element of surpise that even when equally armed can give them the "stronger" position).

Absolutely right! I remember opinions supporting the arming of all airline passengers, immediately after 9/11. The gunny with the element of surprise on his side, and a willingness to die is almost impossible to stop, and there are apt to be more than one of them.
I really do understand the feeling of being the weaker and unarmed prey. Back in school I got sick of having weapons pointed at me and I started carrying guns for many of the same reasons.

Glad you recognize this, but understand that without the gun, there are still bigger and more experienced fighters in town than you or I, and they sometimes travel in packs.

Eventually I came to see guns as an intoxicating power to certain predisposed people and now think that it does more to empower criminals than their prey but in a place like America I like having a gun.

Uh, yeah, I never said everyone should have a gun, but how do you make the distinction without disarming everyone? For starters, you prohibit ownership by convicted felons, the mentally ill, and so forth. Then, you resolve to enforce those prohibitions.

Ironically, in a place like Brazil, where I was frequently the victim of crime I thought having a gun was less attractive/

This was mainly because the crime there is usually about money and not as much about gratuitous violence. Cooperating with certain kinds of criminals is the safest bet. I'd usually chat up the theives, and convince them to leave me with my documents, wallet and money to go home.

Whatever you feel is going to work in each particular instance is what you go with. Some people are flat crazy, though, with a short temper and no fear of consequences. They're not common, but I know of no sure way to distinguish before it is too late.

Once when being carjacked I convinced them to drop off my girlfriend at her home before they took me to the banks.

In those situations having a gun would have put me in more danger. But I understand the sense of protection against gratuitous violence that guns can bring. My last day in a Cali school I'd sold my guns and on my way home was beaten unconscious with an aluminum bat in a suprise attack from behind that had nothing but the attack as the goal.

That's the fear, of course. You have nothing worth stealing, you aren't bothering anyone, but suddenly. . . ! And in the situation you describe, carrying a gun wouldn't have helped anyway.

I woke up and saw the group walking away in the distance and wished I had a gun... or better yet... a nuke!

Clearly, they needed killin'. They are protected by law, at least when they are walking away.

Somehow I missed this post roger. I'm in a 'diarrhea of the keyboard' mood right now (prolly cause I get so few chances to discuss things with you) so thing is gonna be long.



I enjoy shooting a lot. Every since I was a kid I've loved anything involving aim, from slingshots to throwing rocks. I wasn't allowed to play with toy guns but David dlew Goliath with a sling so I had the Bible on my side for slingshots and was able to keep one for a few weeks before it broke.

When I started living alone I got my first shot at playing with guns and became an NRA member (I've a hunting uncle who is a member).

So my support for guns was always about the sporting aspect of it.

When I last returned to Brazil my opinion on guns changed. Brazil was tightening up their gun laws and making lisences to carry nearly impossible to get, which peeved me since I, well, I like guns.

But Brazil was also the place where I first shot at ranges and restricted sporting areas and realized that I could satisfy the sporting aspect even with gun control.

So now I think gun control is compatible with the sport of marksmanship. I'd not mind being restricted to specified areas.

I do think that the most valid argument against banning guns is personal safety. The sporting reason I think is invalidated by restriction to sporting areas and the defense against government I think is invalidated by the more advanced weaponry the governments now have (though I still think defense against government tyranny is a valid argument for my nuclear ambitions).

Now when it comes to self-defense it gets tricky. What is a 'police state' to you? For example, is Japan a police state? In some ways I'd say that it is (e.g. the police in Japan can enter a domicile with less restrictions than in America) but I can say that it didn't feel that way when I lived there.

It would be unfair to say that Japan's nearly absent crime rate is a result of not having guns around as their societal structures (e.g. they are conformist and embarassed to draw attention on average and this is an anti-thesis to crime) but I do think that it plays a part and if the illicit markets can be starved I think it can help.

I've also lived in Hong Kong and Singapore, both have much less crime than in America but I'm not sure whether you'd consider them police states as well. A case can be made for that, with things like chewing gum being illegal and such. But again, it didn't feel like that to me when I was there (everyone's mileage may vary, Michael Fay might think he was in a police state).

I disliked the societal structures in all three countries as my own personality is better suited for more individualistic western culture but I do think that they are examples of how nations can control guns and gun violence in a strict but not tyrannical state.

I don't think it would be possible to reach those levels in America for a few generations though, and I think our culture would have to change for such low levels of crime to become a reality. That's why I don't really advocate gun control in America.

But at the same time I don't think that is an inherent fault in the idea of gun control. I think it's a recogniztion of circumstantial factors in American culture that render strict gun control impractical.

I guess the short version of my tome (that only just begun) is that I think gun control only works well when it's enforceable. And while it is enforceable in some places it might not be in America.



I hear ya on the "feeling weak" angle. But that's not what I meant. I was talking about a societal response and not an individual response.

In an individual response my own feelings of weakness (and I've always been athletic) made me carry weapons illegally many times.

I got sick of being threatened with guns in US schools and slums so I carried guns.

I got sick of being robbed in Brazil and after being superficially stabbed I started carrying switchblades.

My brother once stopped a robbery in brazil with a 1 inch blade, I think he must have made them laugh or something. But it does make you realize that when faced with unfair threats advantages of weaponry are comforting.

Heck, once my brother called me and said one sentence; "I'm at Paraiso. Bring a knife". It was a subway station a few blocks away so there I went bolting down the streets half clothed with two butterfly knives to his rescue. Tured out to be unecessary as some cops driving by scared off the theives but I cite this example because I obviously didn't decide to go armed with only my bare hands.

In the individual reaction to threat I've always wanted weaponry. When threatened I don't want a fair amount of weaponry in my corner, I want nukes.

But what I was getting at earlier is that sometimes what's good for the individual is not good for society. And in a nation with decent chances of eliminating guns I'd be willing to sacrifice my ability to carry guns for the increased societal security.

It's a tough sell to a guy like you. An improvement in societal security 100 years down the line means precious little to your individual security right now and that's reasonable. That's why I don't think we can change our course in America within my lifetime.

I don't think you are wrong to carry a gun at all. Of all the gpro gun crowds I know your defense of guns is the most defense-centric and wholly unrelated to bravado that I know.

I remember you once saying to me (I believe in a RR chat) that the best guns for defense are small and conveniently located. You might have even mentioned a gun hanging from the neck if my memory is correct.

I can't create any convincing argument for you not to carry a gun. But I still think that the collective survial angle of gun control needs to be recognzied because in some places it does work.



Hmm, I'm not sure of my opinion on this. I think it might be age-related. For example the career crooks might fit your description but the younger hoodlums who use guns as an extension of their puberty sure carried them everywhere in the ganglands of California. They'd be taking them to basketball courts making fouling more dangerous than it would have otehrwise been.

Tough call for me. The hoodlums in my age group seem to carry them much more but they also tend to leave the older generations alone so we may be at different ends of the perspective spectrum on this.



The element of surprise of crime is something that I think really takes the edge off of guns for self defense.

Maybe not to a sufficient degree that it invalidates the concept of guns for self-defense but I think to a significant degree. I'll offer another anecdote in what is an embarassing (and ongoing, there's more) string of em.

A friend of mine was sleeping (in Brazil) with a gun on his chest. His home was invaded by a van full of thugs (they'd been hitting our neighbourhood hard) and he woke up to see them walking his brother in at gun-point.

He threw the gun under the couch as they'd already capitalized on the element of surprise to the point where the gun was a liability.

During this string of robberies two other aquaintences who owned guns were robbed but neither time could guns be a factor.

The criminals had the routine down to a fine science and their MO was to watch for people pulling into their garages and then take the person hostage and invade the home.

Guns were no help then, though dogs might have been (another gun toting friend on the block was never robbed because he had higher walls and more and bigger dogs.

On that block, with all thr crime I saw what I wanted for my defenseless parents was a dog, not a gun.



Yeah, I've been hit with a pack of about 30, though it went well. They just wanted my jacket as I was wearing the wrong team's uniform at a soccer game.

I guess one thing I forgot to mention is that one of the reasons I don't advocate gun control much in America is the gratuitous crime. I've been robbed and assaulted dozens of times in many countries people started calling me "bandit magnet" (translated).

Everywhere but America the crime was almost never gratuitous (except the São Paulinos ganging up on me for the Corinthians jacket). Because of this it was more predictable and preventable and even once being in, it was easy to get through in one piece.

In Brazil the crimes were usually muggings where they just wanted a few bucks and they were gone. A doctor friend of mine once explained that he gave his wife 2 100 dollar bills instead of a gun because it was a better defense in Brazil. And I think he was right.

In Brazil, the muggings can get dangrous when they take you to the banks or if they try to hold you for ransom (in Latin America the first class is prey to kidnappings).

So in Brazil, the best defenses were:

Petty muggings: cooperation, I used to give em a couple bucks and leave on good terms
Car jackings: cooperation if you have no armour, armoured cars for the first class that are prey to kidnapping
Home invasions: private security and dogs combined with walls and glass.

Now private security was common in Brazil because it was cheap. Everywhere but the slums has private guards in "guard shacks" on every street.

It doesn't always work well, the neighbourhood I mentioned above where there was a string of crime had a motorcycle guard (the guards patrol all night blowing a whistle every five minutes, the whistle works better than a silent gun for prevention). He ended up naked twice. The gang of home invadors caught him both times and stripped him naked. He lived far away so it was a bit of a problem and he had to knock on doors asking for clothes.

Thing is, he was armed.

Richer neighbourhoods had armoured guardshacks with holes for their guns but all these defenses never really worked as well as walls and dogs did. IMO against fiscally motivated crime things like a remote controlled garage door opener are better than guns.

But in America there's a lot more gratuitous crime and violence, and that's harder to predict and protect against and I think guns make more sense here.

In a third world home invasion it's usually just a matter of losing all your things and a gun would mean losing lives.

In America there are a lot more gratuitous sex-based home invasions and then gang thuggery on the streets.

I think the different nature of crime makes guns more sensible in America but at the same time contributes to the culture that spawns such crimes.

Tough one to call, reducing me to story telling...

But you seem to be in sync with what I'm getting at based on these responses.



Yeah, I hear ya. My best defense against predictable financially motivated crime was to watch what I wore, carried and such. But gratuitous crime is the great unknown factor.

In a nation less prone to gratuitous crimes I'd say that it makes more sense to avoid guns and use other measures to prevent being a victim because the crimes are so predictable.



I agree that they shou;dn't have guns but I also think that it's less practical to try to deny just their gun carrying ability than it is to starve the market by shutting off manufacturing and importing.

But in America I don't think starving the market would be possible till the culture changes to be less resistant to the idea so I'm all out of answers on this one.

I wish it were possible to get the people to a level at which they are willing to give it a try. But I don't think we can ever get the right political climate to take it all the way and without taking it all the way it can be pointless.



I can't speak for others but you've changed my mind dozens of times. The most signicant changes affected fundamental thiught processes of mine.

Around 4 years ago in a Raven's Realm chat someone made you comment on a variation of the emperor's new clothes argument. You said that people sometimes said to you that you were too smart to be a Republican and that you resented it.

Prior to that day I frequently used the rhetorical argument that "anyone with half a brain....." but stopped doing so that day and try to watch for that in my thinking.

You also intruduced me to the "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" quote here on A2K and the subsequent introspection changed my thought in a fundamental way.

Perhaps you don't notice it, but it happens, and you should talk more (and I in turn less).

There's a way around this. I heard a story several years ago about a cop who always had her gun with her, even off duty. She pulled into the carport one night and had her pistol under her arm as she always did when she got out of the car. A mugger hit her from behind. She turned around and pulled out her gun and they shot each other. The mugger was killed and she was only injured. So I took that story to heart and remembered it every day. No one can sneak into my garage without me seeing them, and I have my gun in hand when I get out of the truck. I close the garage door, stick the gun under my arm, grab my briefcase, and go into the house. If someone's in there holding my wife at gunpoint, they will soon be at gunpoint too.

This is complete overkill for my quiet little neighborhood, but I always like to keep a mindset of being alert just in case. Many people cruise through life without noticing what's around them. They make great prey for robbers.

Tarantulas,

That would not have worked in the situations I describe, remember it was a gang for home invasions, not a sole individual. They came in groups of nearly 10 in several vehicles. Shooting the first one would be a bad move.

There are a few other things I did not describe well enough for you to picture, the garages are very different not at all like the ones here and most people need to get out to open theirs. So they are on the streets for that part.

Just having had a remote controlled garage door would have been enough for most of them. Especially the many others who just had their cars targeted (keys in ignition, car still in street, owner out of the car....).

That makes sense. I can see how getting out of your car to open the door would make you vulnerable. Sounds like quite a hefty street crime problem.

That's a hefty understatement. ;-)

But my experience is atypical and makes it seem worse than it really is.

My brother was robbed and assaulted much fewer times than I was, for example.

Wow, remind me never to visit Brazil. I saw a documentary, I think it was about Brazil, and they showed a power pole that was accessible from a rooftop. It had hundreds of wires running off in all directions, hooked up by people so they could steal electrical power.

Strangely enough, with all the bullets flying everywhere and the Indians shooting arrows at everyone and the Confederate soldiers still running around town with their bayonets, I have never been assaulted or robbed in my entire life. Just lucky I guess.

Well, Roger and Craven - if that isn't the best gun discussion I have ever seen, I'll shoot myself.




I would just like to ask all the anti-gun-control folk here if they have ever successfully defended themselves against an attack by another human being with their gun/s?

I have not, but I do not carry, I work at a hospital, and can not bring a gun into the building. I would not feel comfortable with my gun locked in the car all day.

I would like to ask if any of you gun-control folk have defended your self with only your mouths?

Nice to see that you wish to keep the discussion civil--as it happens, i read the original passage: "gun-control freaks"--before you came back to edit that word. Try to play nice, Emclean, it's a subject of sufficient controversy as it is.

Yep.

Several times.

And my knees - and once a bicycle.