[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Then you should feel happy, I was addressing the member from the EU.

I think it does go both ways, I don't think you can appreciate the outside view either and probably don't care about the outside view. I am in a happy place that I can see, and understand both views. A gun lover and shooter living in a society that is a bit more restrictive of gun ownership then most of the US, but that's not even the right word, a society that offers more respect to what guns can do would be more accurate but not a Nancy pansy society like the EU that is terrified of guns.

There is a absolute cultural difference. Guns where and are a important tool in the Americas. We are nations spread out greatly over vast empty distances. Police protection is NOT a viable option in many places in the US and Canada so being armed is a significant importance. It is also a important tool for farmers when protecting animals from predators. Its a important tool in the bush to protect from wild life. Bears and Cougars in Alaska, BC, Washington, Alligators in Florida. What wild life does Germany have that can eat you. What vast wilderness is there in Germany where you are totally alone to fend for yourself. Does gun ownership in the urban cities make sense for the above reasons no except for those that venture out into the bush. But that's not the point. Its part of our culture. Many places in Europe have been Urban for a very long time so its not about the culture there.

We all also have better health care and it appears those in Europe cant comprehend how crappy American health care is which is why this keeps occurring over and over again disproportional to the rest of the world. Since it does happen everywhere. Australia mass shooting and a Canadian mass shooting both resulted in tougher gun laws in both countries. Didn't actually change anything.

Do you think any of that adds up to it earning a spot in the bill of rights (still, in modern times)? Just curious. As one of the few (only?) non-American* gun rights supporters, your perspective is very interesting to me. And there's a wide range of possibilities for gun rights to still exist, in a more limited form, far short of the elevated status on which we have them.

Me, I don't think it should still be in there. If there was a vote to amend it (with a sound replacement policy), I would vote for the change. But it's not the "gun" in "gun rights" that's more important, IMO. Undermining the whole "bill of rights" concept is a step in the wrong direction, and no mass killer is going to change that. Totalitarianism has killed more children than crazy ever will.

* edit: is "non-American" an ok term to refer to Canadians? Is there an alternative that means what I think it means?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Is there an alternative that means what I think it means?

Foreign.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I have to ask:
Why do you need/want 6 pistols?
Does it bother you at all that your daughters boyfriend carries a gun? Is that a factor in why she needs one too?
It continues to baffle me that people keep talking about "law abiding gun owners" in the same breath as mental illness. Mentally ill people aren't thinking about what the law is and whether they should break it or not, they're mentally ill!
Also, this whole 'don't punish the law abiding majority' line is a bit silly. If you handed out any kind of weapons to the populace, be it a grenade each, a pack of C4 each or a small nuke each, most of them wouldn't blow up their fellow citizens, yet these items remain more restricted than guns.

Why do some people need/want fast cars, which kill people in the hands of inexperienced drivers? The reality is, I don't need to explain, or justify, my wants and needs to you. It is legal for me to own as many guns as I want, and as such I'll buy what I want and use it legally, as I want. Maybe I like target shooting, but, as long as I don't break the law, you are not the arbiter of what my wants/needs are!

I never said by daughter's b/f carries a gun; I said he has a permit to, and actually rarely carries. Is that a factor in my daughter's wanting to own a gun? Maybe; I don't know, nor do I care. If she wants a gun, and she passes the legal requirements to own and carry if she wants to, that's her business, and more importantly, her right! I have 100% confidence in her and her boyfriend, as they're both adults. He likes to hunt, and we have lots of venison from his deer kills, which is fine by me. I have no desire to hunt, but if he wants to, he doesn't need to explain his wants/needs to me either, or you, or anyone else, as longs as he obeys the law!

There's nothing baffling about talking about law abiding gun owners and mental illness in the same breath. I agree 100% that more can, and needs to, be done about keeping deadly weapons of any kind out of the hands of mentally ill people. Mental health is still America's dirty little secret, and we need to start having a national conversation about how to actually help people with mental illness, without trying to assume I'm mentally ill just because I like to shoot guns, which I believe is actually an underlying cause of those who can't fathom gun owners wanting guns. They don't any research, but rather blather on about what groups like the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy center tell them to say. They don't like facts, including the ones like the fact that, despite the rapid rise in gun sales, and the large increase in number of states which allow their citizens to carry, one is still safer today than any time in the last thirty years, when far fewer people owned guns, and when only a handful of states allowed citizens to carry. My state, Michigan, went from a "may issue," which means that one has to prove a need to carry, to "shall issue," which means anyone can carry, as long as they meet certain criteria. That happened 11 years ago. While the change was being debated in the legislature, the newspaper opinion columns were aghast at the thought the carnage would occur, and people would be shooting others in road rage incidents, or because the parking spot they wanted was grabbed by someone else, etc. They couldn't fathom the change, but it happened, and the state went from a few thousand Concealed Pistol License holders to 350,000 today, yet the carnage never happened and Michigan (and all the other states that have gone "shall issue' in the last three decades) is not the Wild West that was predicted, and the reason is very easy to explain; emotional rhetoric doesn't equal reality. One can't make arguments based unsound emotional pleas! What a lot of people do, as I've already mentioned,is not think much through, because it's easier to grab low hanging fruit, than it is to do actual research. Many of the responses and posts in this thread, and anywhere this item is frequently discussed, are based on emotion (why do you wan't need 6 pistols, which then continues on to "there must be something wrong with you, to need so many guns). There is nothing wrong with me. I've never broken the law handling my weapons, and as long as that's the case, which it happens to be among the vast majority of the 80 million gun owners (who own approximately 300 million guns), that's all you need to know.

[Shaddim]

Reminds me of college, in some ways. I had a wickedly sharp cavalry saber, in a scabbard propped next to the bed. A few people asked, "why do you have that?" I'd just tell them it was for defense if someone breaks in. It has no other purpose but killing folks, it's too dangerous for even mock combat. I was strong, agile, and if I swiped at someone they were going to die. Period. Somehow, everyone thought that was cool however, even the hippies. Fast forward 2 years and I was able to buy a handgun, so I did (a .45). The fact was, and still is, that the sword is a more lethal weapon at close range (I had a small 1br apartment), but it doesn't stir the same knee-jerk emotional response.

[Ω]

Really? That is your argument? How long would it take to kill 20 people with your "wickedly sharp cavalry saber"? Do you think the skill level involved between an automatic weapon and a "wickedly sharp cavalry saber" is similar? Really?

[Ω]

Maybe all Americans should carry rocket launchers to protect themselves. When does the ridiculous become ridiculous?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by o 

Really?  That is your argument?  How long would it take to kill 20 people with your "wickedly sharp cavalry saber"?  Do you think the skill level involved between an automatic weapon and a "wickedly sharp cavalry saber" is similar?  Really?  

Who said anything about an automatic weapon? I was talking about a .45 revolver. What a strawman. It did prove my point about knee-jerk emotional responses, though.

Killing 20 people in a small enclosed space? Hell, give me the sword, I'd cut through most of them before I could finish reloading the gun. Not much skill needed with a blade that's as sharp as a razor, either. Just start screaming and slashing, their panic will do the rest. You've probably never considered how hard it is to shoot people who aren't sitting still.

Edit: Actually, a true sub-machine gun is harder to use, and prone to jamming. Yeah, the sword is still more effective in that scenario.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Why do some people need/want fast cars, which kill people in the hands of inexperienced drivers? The reality is, I don't need to explain, or justify, my wants and needs to you. It is legal for me to own as many guns as I want, and as such I'll buy what I want and use it legally, as I want. Maybe I like target shooting, but, as long as I don't break the law, you are not the arbiter of what my wants/needs are!

Wow. Settle down fella, it was just a question. This is a completely over the top hyper-defensive response to a perfectly innocent enquiry.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I never said by daughter's b/f carries a gun; I said he has a permit to, and actually rarely carries. Is that a factor in my daughter's wanting to own a gun? Maybe; I don't know, nor do I care. If she wants a gun, and she passes the legal requirements to own and carry if she wants to, that's her business, and more importantly, her right! I have 100% confidence in her and her boyfriend, as they're both adults. He likes to hunt, and we have lots of venison from his deer kills, which is fine by me. I have no desire to hunt, but if he wants to, he doesn't need to explain his wants/needs to me either, or you, or anyone else, as longs as he obeys the law!

Again, completely over the top. Is it such a stretch for me to assume that someone (who you took the trouble to mention has a carry permit which you didn't really have to mention since you were talking about your daughter rather than her boyfriend) would then want to make use of that permit? I would have assumed that hunters don't tend to have a need to conceal a handgun if they have a rifle slung over their shoulder but perhaps there is a law against this, I don't know. I'm certain that if he is hunting deer with only a handgun then there is something wrong there.

You don't care if your daughter wants a gun because her boyfriend has one? Well it must be nice that you trust him so much I suppose, but it still strikes me as odd that you wouldn't care if she doesn't trust him not to shoot her during an argument. Again, it was just a question and a perfectly reasonable one under the circumstances. I'm an adult too btw and yet you don't seem to trust me enough to answer harmless questions. I couldn't shoot your daughter if I wanted to. And I think you know that I don't.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

There's nothing baffling about talking about law abiding gun owners and mental illness in the same breath. I agree 100% that more can, and needs to, be done about keeping deadly weapons of any kind out of the hands of mentally ill people.

The mentally ill are law abiding (and possibly not even mentally ill) until they lose the plot and start killing. Hence the reason to make the weapons more difficult to access for everyone, in case they cross the line into mental illness.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Mental health is still America's dirty little secret, and we need to start having a national conversation about how to actually help people with mental illness,

Its not just America that has problems with mental illness. There is a stigma attached to it in most countries. Its just that most countries don't have so many guns lying around.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

without trying to assume I'm mentally ill just because I like to shoot guns, which I believe is actually an underlying cause of those who can't fathom gun owners wanting guns.

I can see why you wouldn't like it, and while its not unthinkable that someone would collect guns in a perfectly healthy fashion, I'm pretty sure you have a lot of gun enthusiasts in your country who many would consider mentally ill. The whole "overthrow the government" line is highly suggestive of paranoia for one thing.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

They don't any research,

This is a fascinating response since I just asked you two perfectly reasonable questions about why you and your daughter wanted the guns you have/plan to get and you immediately clammed up and yelled at me for trying to tell you how to live or infringing your rights or whatever it was you thought I was doing. How are people supposed to fathom why gun owners want guns if all they get is "I'm allowed them so I'm going to have them and FU!"?

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

They don't like facts, including the ones like the fact that, despite the rapid rise in gun sales, and the large increase in number of states which allow their citizens to carry, one is still safer today than any time in the last thirty years, when far fewer people owned guns,

30 years ago being around the time the NRA started campaigning for people to acquire more and more and bigger and bigger guns in the first place. I posted a link to an article about this. Here it is again:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

when only a handful of states allowed citizens to carry. My state, Michigan, went from a "may issue," which means that one has to prove a need to carry, to "shall issue," which means anyone can carry, as long as they meet certain criteria. That happened 11 years ago. While the change was being debated in the legislature, the newspaper opinion columns were aghast at the thought the carnage would occur, and people would be shooting others in road rage incidents, or because the parking spot they wanted was grabbed by someone else, etc. They couldn't fathom the change, but it happened, and the state went from a few thousand Concealed Pistol License holders to 350,000 today, yet the carnage never happened and Michigan (and all the other states that have gone "shall issue' in the last three decades) is not the Wild West that was predicted, and the reason is very easy to explain; emotional rhetoric doesn't equal reality. One can't make arguments based unsound emotional pleas! What a lot of people do, as I've already mentioned,is not think much through, because it's easier to grab low hanging fruit, than it is to do actual research.

I'm not going to deny these numbers, I can follow the logic too but it has a limit. Those numbers will not drop indefinitely, they will plateau. And the rate of gun deaths will still be higher than every other country on the planet (that isn't at war).

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Many of the responses and posts in this thread, and anywhere this item is frequently discussed, are based on emotion (why do you wan't need 6 pistols, which then continues on to "there must be something wrong with you, to need so many guns). There is nothing wrong with me. I've never broken the law handling my weapons, and as long as that's the case, which it happens to be among the vast majority of the 80 million gun owners (who own approximately 300 million guns), that's all you need to know.

Again, I get why someone would want to collect guns (though I worry that anyone who can't afford staff could afford the time to properly and safely and maintain and secure them all if they have a large collection), people collect all sorts of things, but if you wanted 6 guns just for self defence, then for me that is again verging on paranoid.
I find it a bit sad that even if the numbers that tell you clearly that having more guns around leads to more gun deaths aren't enough for you to relinquish all your guns, that you wouldn't want to get rid of some. If you had one for self defence and then one that you wanted to master which you then sold on so you could master another one, that would make sense to me. Or if you were competing in some kind of sport that required different classes of handgun or something. I don't know, you won't it explain it to me.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

*says a lot of stuff*

You have much fear in you, to quote the little sage from Dagobah. It's your primary motivation, I see that now.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by o 

Really?  That is your argument?  How long would it take to kill 20 people with your "wickedly sharp cavalry saber"?  Do you think the skill level involved between an automatic weapon and a "wickedly sharp cavalry saber" is similar?  Really?  

It doesn't matter at all whether someone can use it to kill, all that matters is whether someone has used it to kill. We all feel the need to "do something" about tragedies that have happened, not about how possible tragedies are to happen in the future. In a way that's logical, because the next crazy person is more likely to copy a previous crazy person than to think up a whole new scenario. But the way it's logical is not to examine the logic of the items themselves, that's pointless if you realize that we only care about what cats are out of the bag already and what aren't. A killer could use almost anything to kill lots of people, but until one of them actually does it the likelihood of it coming to pass is a lot lower.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You don't care if your daughter wants a gun because her boyfriend has one?

My girlfriend wanted a Mac because I had one... should her dad worry?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Again, I get why someone would want to collect guns (though I worry that anyone who can't afford staff could afford the time to properly and safely and maintain and secure them all if they have a large collection), people collect all sorts of things, but if you wanted 6 guns just for self defence, then for me that is again verging on paranoid.
I find it a bit sad that even if the numbers that tell you clearly that having more guns around leads to more gun deaths aren't enough for you to relinquish all your guns, that you wouldn't want to get rid of some. If you had one for self defence and then one that you wanted to master which you then sold on so you could master another one, that would make sense to me. Or if you were competing in some kind of sport that required different classes of handgun or something. I don't know, you won't it explain it to me.

Be honest... you have more than 6 computers don't you?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

My girlfriend wanted a Mac because I had one... should her dad worry?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Be honest... you have more than 6 computers don't you?

If I beat my girlfriend to death with one of my computers, I'd probably damage it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It doesn't matter at all whether someone can use it to kill, all that matters is whether someone has used it to kill. We all feel the need to "do something" about tragedies that have happened, not about how possible tragedies are to happen in the future. In a way that's logical, because the next crazy person is more likely to copy a previous crazy person than to think up a whole new scenario. But the way it's logical is not to examine the logic of the items themselves, that's pointless if you realize that we only care about what cats are out of the bag already and what aren't. A killer could use almost anything to kill lots of people, but until one of them actually does it the likelihood of it coming to pass is a lot lower.

If you do something that might have prevented the previous tragedy, it might prevent the next copycat which you acknowledge is likely. Is your argument really that banning guns and other weapons would just cause people to go on killing sprees with hair curlers and staplers?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You have much fear in you, to quote the little sage from Dagobah. It's your primary motivation, I see that now.

There you go seeing again.


So you wandering around with a gun at all times has nothing to do with fear whatsoever?

Cue the inevitable "Its not at all times" response which doesn't actually answer the question....

[BadKosh]

So, teh liberals think GUNS are the problem?

PEOPLE are ALL good, and should not be examined on their mental state.
Is the assumption that ANYBODY can be a killer? But its not the real world.

It is the nut jobs who mass murder, and its the bad guys who don't care what the laws are that kill others.

I'm still wondering how liberals will get everyone to obey the law. More harsh language? All Caps?

We need non-emotional solutions, not the whining, hand wringing and knee-jerk stupidity provided so far.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by o 

Really?  That is your argument?  How long would it take to kill 20 people with your "wickedly sharp cavalry saber"?  Do you think the skill level involved between an automatic weapon and a "wickedly sharp cavalry saber" is similar?  Really?  

This happend the same day as Sandy Hook

China stabbing spree hurts 22 schoolchildren

No motive was given for the stabbings, which echo a string of similar assaults against schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50. The most recent such attack took place in August, when a knife-wielding man broke into a middle school in the southern city of Nanchang and stabbed two students before fleeing.

BTW : A Google search will show that the machete is becoming the weapon of choice theses days. (Juan Corona was convicted of killing 25 people with a machete in 1971. ) We need strict background check and licensing of machete purchasers. Imagine what Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman would have looked like if OJ had a machete instead of knife.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So, teh liberals think GUNS are the problem?
PEOPLE are ALL good, and should not be examined on their mental state.
Is the assumption that ANYBODY can be a killer? But its not the real world.

This makes no sense. Even your kind of "sense".

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It is the nut jobs who mass murder, and its the bad guys who don't care what the laws are that kill others.

Lets all play the repeat ourselves over and over game, yay!

The guns being used by the nutjobs are legally purchased by said nutjobs or their relatives. This means those terrible criminals you're so afraid of are actually looking after their guns way better than you do.
If you restrict the supply of all guns, you will eventually restrict the supply of illegal ones to criminals.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'm still wondering how liberals will get everyone to obey the law. More harsh language? All Caps?

Thats why some people prefer bans over restrictions. Policing manufacture and sale is easier than policing ownership.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

We need non-emotional solutions, not the whining, hand wringing and knee-jerk stupidity provided so far.

Your "Lets make it sound like we're trying to be constructive but differ in our opinion on how to achieve it until the libs give up and the status quo is maintained" approach is every bit as emotional. Its just a different emotion. Its toys-out-of-the-pram, get-ready-for-a-temper-tantrum instead of grief-fuelled sadness or anger.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you do something that might have prevented the previous tragedy, it might prevent the next copycat which you acknowledge is likely. Is your argument really that banning guns and other weapons would just cause people to go on killing sprees with hair curlers and staplers?

No, my point (with that post) was that the deadliness of the object has nothing to do with anything, so talking about it is pointless. If you want to ban the exact guns used in the previous shooting, or guns that bystanders think "look" the same, then don't pretend it's about the capability of the object (because it's not and so that line of reasoning will easily be shut down by anyone who bothers to think critically about it). Just admit that it's about copycats, and the past not the future, and maybe just maybe you might get somewhere with that. See, it's always easier to get what you want when you actually know what you want.

As a bonus, it might finally sink in that giving the killer exactly the attention he wanted to get might just not be such a good thing either.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This happend the same day as Sandy Hook
China stabbing spree hurts 22 schoolchildren

BTW: this was brought up ages ago. Notice it says "hurt" instead of "killed".

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The guns being used by the nutjobs are legally purchased by said nutjobs or their relatives.
This means those terrible criminals you're so afraid of are actually looking after their guns way better than you do.

HOW?

I still have my guns.
They have not been taken/stolen etc.
I'm also not a criminal.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Who said anything about an automatic weapon? I was talking about a .45 revolver. What a strawman. It did prove my point about knee-jerk emotional responses, though.
Killing 20 people in a small enclosed space? Hell, give me the sword, I'd cut through most of them before I could finish reloading the gun. Not much skill needed with a blade that's as sharp as a razor, either. Just start screaming and slashing, their panic will do the rest. You've probably never considered how hard it is to shoot people who aren't sitting still.
Edit: Actually, a true sub-machine gun is harder to use, and prone to jamming. Yeah, the sword is still more effective in that scenario.

There's a (much) bigger psychological barrier to cutting someone and having their blood squirt out all over you vs. shooting them or hitting them with a blunt instrument.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's a (much) bigger psychological barrier to cutting someone and having their blood squirt out all over you vs. shooting them or hitting them with a blunt instrument.

It might be a bad idea to rely on the protections of normal sane psychology to help protect us from the criminal and insane.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

My girlfriend wanted a Mac because I had one... should her dad worry?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Be honest... you have more than 6 computers don't you?

If I beat my girlfriend to death with one of my computers, I'd probably damage it.

The bigger risk is probably using them to take naughty photos of her which somehow get out onto the open internet. Every father's worst nightmare: he's innocently gawking at some anonymous boobies and at the end of the show he finally sees the face...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It might be a bad idea to rely on the protections of normal sane psychology to help protect us from the criminal and insane.

Oh, I agree. I'm only commenting on why a hippie would find a sword less threatening than a gun, despite both having the express purpose of putting holes in someone.

[subego]

To put it another way, even a hippie can imagine shooting you.

[The Final Dakar]

It's easier to run from a sword, I imagine.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

To put it another way, even a hippie can imagine shooting you.

Good point. The "hippy reductionism" test.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Originally Posted by o 

Really?  That is your argument?  How long would it take to kill 20 people with your "wickedly sharp cavalry saber"?  Do you think the skill level involved between an automatic weapon and a "wickedly sharp cavalry saber" is similar?  Really?  

This happend the same day as Sandy Hook

China stabbing spree hurts 22 schoolchildren

It was pointed out when cgc brought it up two weeks ago that that is in fact a PERFECT example:

Making guns inaccessible results in crazies using knives instead. Similar circumstances as in Connecticut, minus guns: some injuries, ZERO dead.

You make a good argument.

(previous mention here: http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/496084/connecticut-every-day-is-the-day-to-talk-about-gun-control/200#post_4207714 )

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's easier to run from a sword, I imagine.

And as pointed out before, you want to go towards someone with a gun (though not in a straight line, and preferably from behind), because the prime advantage to a gun is range.


FWIW, there is absolutely no way you could get me to follow this advice.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

There you go seeing again.
So you wandering around with a gun at all times has nothing to do with fear whatsoever?
Cue the inevitable "Its not at all times" response which doesn't actually answer the question....

Nope. If that were the case, I wouldn't feel relief seeing other citizens carrying firearms.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The bigger risk is probably using them to take naughty photos of her which somehow get out onto the open internet. Every father's worst nightmare: he's innocently gawking at some anonymous boobies and at the end of the show he finally sees the face...

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Nope. If that were the case, I wouldn't feel relief seeing other citizens carrying firearms.

Relief from......?


(Hint: its fear)

I would argue my position is more about comfort. If I lived in a place where I needed to be afraid every time I left the house, I'd adjust my behaviour accordingly but you have to go out sometimes which means you are going to live a lot of your life being afraid. I'm very grateful that I live somewhere where I don't have to worry about being shot by someone. I'm guessing its kind of the same with you, but you need your gun to feel safe, and seeing other people who presumably at least look trustworthy carrying theirs gives you extra comfort. I'll admit that is incredibly alien to me, but I do get it. The part I really struggle to get my head around is that so many of you seem to prefer things being that way.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Relief from......?
(Hint: its fear)
I would argue my position is more about comfort. If I lived in a place where I needed to be afraid every time I left the house, I'd adjust my behaviour accordingly but you have to go out sometimes which means you are going to live a lot of your life being afraid. I'm very grateful that I live somewhere where I don't have to worry about being shot by someone. I'm guessing its kind of the same with you, but you need your gun to feel safe, and seeing other people who presumably at least look trustworthy carrying theirs gives you extra comfort. I'll admit that is incredibly alien to me, but I do get it. The part I really struggle to get my head around is that so many of you seem to prefer things being that way.

I like seeing citizens armed, taking their civic responsibility seriously. It reminds me of why I couldn't live in a country like England.

Your assumptions are entertaining, if you add some seeds and water you could get something to grow in them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I like seeing citizens armed, taking their civic responsibility seriously. It reminds me of why I couldn't live in a country like England.
Your assumptions are entertaining, if you add some seeds and water you could get something to grow in them.

What civic responsibility? I don't understand this at all.

The government storming your community with an army? Terrorists? Criminals? Are citizens responsible to do the job of law enforcement? To prepare for a Hollywood-style gun fight with some unknown entity? What?

This isn't the 1800s.

[Ω]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I like seeing citizens armed, taking their civic responsibility seriously. It reminds me of why I couldn't live in a country like England.

You are a downright scary individual. You like seeing people armed? Have you not got a the latest memo, a lot of "citizens" are ****ing nothing short of crazy. And you want them armed?

It is also one of the reasons why I have no interest in visiting the US and there are too many crazy people. Are you one of them, because your posting is not doing anything to disprove the theory.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I like seeing citizens armed, taking their civic responsibility seriously. It reminds me of why I couldn't live in a country like England.

Speaking from one of those countries that you all think has much better mental healthcare systems than you do, this is the sort of thinking that could earn you an appointment with that system.

I've heard more than one of you say that the rest of the world 'just doesn't get' America's attitude to guns, (this makes you sound like emo kids btw, "we're so complex and misunderstood"), but its not really that difficult. We can see why the amendment was put in, you'd just overthrown a mad tyrant who was governing you badly from thousands of miles away. We can see better than you apparently can that a considerable amount of the pro-gun propaganda from the NRA and other sources is just the gun makers throwing their money around to influence policy like other big business does. We can see that you just really love shooting stuff. In short, we do get it. Its not that complicated.

The bit we don't get, is that you are willing to pay the price for it and so eagerly.

Any parent who wouldn't prefer to raise their kids in a place where no-one needs to carry a gun.....? Social services or mental health, take your pick.


Shaddim earlier asserted that the rest of the developed world (!) has f***ed up by allowing ourselves to be disarmed, well its not a f***-up until the policy bites us in the ass. How is your policy doing? It looks to me like an average of about 10,000 americans a year are killed by guns. Thats going back to the 70s, but if it holds up for an extra 10 years, thats half a million Americans in 50 years.

[ghporter]

In the U.S., the courts have firmly established that the police are not necessarily there to defend each and every citizen. Defending oneself is essentially a right, but one that needs to be enforced by the individual, not the state. However, this, like active and effective participation in the democratic process, is up to the individual. If you want to walk along through life hoping that nothing bad will happen to you, good luck. If you take reasonable precautions like locking your doors, wearing a seat belt, looking both ways before crossing the street, etc., then you'll be head and shoulders above the masses who expect someone to hold their hand when they cross the street, and even higher above the ones that never even consider that the street is a place cars tend to go on.

I won't say that I am armed at any particular point in any particular day. But here in Texas, that appears to be useful in keeping the individuals that victimize others from seeing me as an easy target. I am not, whether armed or not, but they don't know that.

And once again, I'm not advocating that everyone be armed. Far from it! I am, however, advocating for the right of those who choose to be, who take the time to become familiar with and safe with whatever firearms they are interested in, to defend themselves, to enjoy making holes in paper wayyyyyyy far away, or whatever other safe recreation they wish to participate in.

I am suspicious of several members of Congress in their excessive zeal to clamp down on the Second Amendment rights of everyone, and I think that this tragedy is a good example of capitalizing on the emotions of the public for political gain (much as the Obama campaign shamed the Romney campaign for doing after Bengazi). There are laws throughout the U.S. against funeral directors taking advantage of family members when arranging funerals and burials for a reason. Hopefully the political process here will be as glacial as usual, allowing us to put things in better context. Having more information about what happened, what caused it, and where things broke down, along with time to balance the risks of such events (statistically it's still much more likely for you to be injured while you drive in your home town than in any form of shooting) with the cost to society, and unfortunately to also evaluate who's planning to profit from stricter laws (hint: some of them just plain want to stay in office and don't care how they do it).

[Waragainstsleep]

I was just reading a piece talking about the immediate comments made in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. The pro-gun people instantly came out with "Its inappropriate to politicise this tragedy", thereby immediately politicising the tragedy.

Of course, its not at all inappropriate. The piece I read quite rightly pointed out that if a large number of people were killed by collapsing roads or bridges, then people would talk about improving roads and bridges, if it was an act of terrorism, then people would talk about improving security. Its entirely appropriate to deal with it while its fresh, that way you get the biggest number of voices contributing on either side of any debate, rather than letting apathy set in again and leaving the debate to the few who shout loudest, spend most and have more permanent interests in the outcome.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

if it was an act of terrorism, then people would talk about improving security.

I think the entire war on terror® is bullshit. Do you support it?

I'm not saying I don't understand why people react that way, I'm saying that the terrorists did too and they got exactly the reaction they were shooting for. Same with these nutcases who terrorize a school, I'm sure they want nothing better than to be a part of history enshrined by legislation and god knows what else.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I was just reading a piece talking about the immediate comments made in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. The pro-gun people instantly came out with "Its inappropriate to politicise this tragedy", thereby immediately politicising the tragedy.

Of course, its not at all inappropriate. The piece I read quite rightly pointed out that if a large number of people were killed by collapsing roads or bridges, then people would talk about improving roads and bridges, if it was an act of terrorism, then people would talk about improving security. Its entirely appropriate to deal with it while its fresh, that way you get the biggest number of voices contributing on either side of any debate, rather than letting apathy set in again and leaving the debate to the few who shout loudest, spend most and have more permanent interests in the outcome.

You're not catching what's being thrown. "Politicization" is code for "liburul knee-jerk response".

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think the entire war on terror® is bullshit. Do you support it?

I'm not saying I don't understand why people react that way, I'm saying that the terrorists did too and they got exactly the reaction they were shooting for. Same with these nutcases who terrorize a school, I'm sure they want nothing better than to be a part of history enshrined by legislation and god knows what else.

I don't agree with the war on terror either, why would the terrorists want increased security and special forces hunting them down on foreign soil? I don't like conspiracy theories, but something just never added up. At the least I suspect the problem as been exaggerated by the government for its own ends.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't agree with the war on terror either, why would the terrorists want increased security and special forces hunting them down on foreign soil?

What they wanted was for the collateral damage from our disproportionate response to hurt ourselves more than they could have hurt us directly. And they got it. You might care that "they" were hurt even more than we were, but I don't because that's the same way "they" take their accounting, that it doesn't matter how much it costs "us" so long as it costs "them" more. I reject that doctrine.

[Waragainstsleep]

I see where you're coming from, but I still think Al Quaeda is nothing more than a branding exercise. It might have been thought up by the terrorists, but the government are the ones who realised they were on to something with it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I see where you're coming from, but I still think Al Quaeda is nothing more than a branding exercise. It might have been thought up by the terrorists, but the government are the ones who realised they were on to something with it.

Ok but another way to say the same thing is that the government (at least the part of it that played that game) should be considered a part of "them."

If we could take a trajectory back towards the thread topic, I posit that a spree shooter shares the same motive as a terrorist (to get a disproportionate reaction), and any official who gins up that response, especially if it enhances state power or reduces individual power/freedom, should also be considered a part of "them," the terrorists who are interested in exploiting our revulsion. They're gaining from the costs to "us" that we give up in order to hurt "them."

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Wow. Settle down fella, it was just a question. This is a completely over the top hyper-defensive response to a perfectly innocent enquiry.

I didn't think so, and I wasn't all wound up answering it. It was what I see as a perfectly logical response. I don't get emotional over guns; I use facts.

Again, completely over the top. Is it such a stretch for me to assume that someone (who you took the trouble to mention has a carry permit which you didn't really have to mention since you were talking about your daughter rather than her boyfriend) would then want to make use of that permit?

Apparently it is a stretch, and it wasn't any trouble at all.

I would have assumed that hunters don't tend to have a need to conceal a handgun if they have a rifle slung over their shoulder but perhaps there is a law against this, I don't know. I'm certain that if he is hunting deer with only a handgun then there is something wrong there.

What are you talking about?

You don't care if your daughter wants a gun because her boyfriend has one?

I don't recall saying she wanted one because her boyfriend has one. She's wanted a gun for years, long before she met her boyfriend. And even if she wants one because her boyfriend has one, what's wrong with that? Maybe he let her shoot one of his weapons, and she decided she wanted one. I don't care.

Well it must be nice that you trust him so much I suppose, but it still strikes me as odd that you wouldn't care if she doesn't trust him not to shoot her during an argument.

I do trust him completely. Some adults are able to discuss their issues without getting into arguments and fights. My daughter and her boyfriend, who have been together six years, have never been in a loud altercation.

Again, it was just a question and a perfectly reasonable one under the circumstances. I'm an adult too btw and yet you don't seem to trust me enough to answer harmless questions. I couldn't shoot your daughter if I wanted to. And I think you know that I don't.

You seem to make a lot of inferences out of something that was typed on an internet forum.

The mentally ill are law abiding (and possibly not even mentally ill) until they lose the plot and start killing. Hence the reason to make the weapons more difficult to access for everyone, in case they cross the line into mental illness.

I don't disagree that weapons need to be made more difficult to obtain, but, after better screening, I'd posit that there wouldn't be a statistically significant difference in the number of people who could own them. In such a large population, you simply can't guarantee safety. If the government took away all the guns from legal gun owners, I'd bet that the murder rate wouldn't drop significantly. This seems to be a point that's lost on the anti-gun crowd; I'm not going to shoot anyone, as I've always been a law abiding citizen (unless it's in justifiable self defense). Those of us who legally own guns arent' the problem, and taking guns away from us isn't going solve anything.

Its not just America that has problems with mental illness. There is a stigma attached to it in most countries. Its just that most countries don't have so many guns lying around.

Please tell me where my guns are "lying around."

I can see why you wouldn't like it, and while its not unthinkable that someone would collect guns in a perfectly healthy fashion, I'm pretty sure you have a lot of gun enthusiasts in your country who many would consider mentally ill. The whole "overthrow the government" line is highly suggestive of paranoia for one thing.

A lot of people have differing ideas as to how the government should be run, and there is a fringe on every side of any issue. The "overthrow the government crowd you want to use as projection for the rest of us is extremely small, and out of a population of 80 million gun owners, statistically insignificant.

This is a fascinating response since I just asked you two perfectly reasonable questions about why you and your daughter wanted the guns you have/plan to get and you immediately clammed up and yelled at me for trying to tell you how to live or infringing your rights or whatever it was you thought I was doing. How are people supposed to fathom why gun owners want guns if all they get is "I'm allowed them so I'm going to have them and FU!"?

It may have been fascinating to you, but it seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me. I responded by asking a similar question to you, about automobiles. I can't fathom why anyone would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a car, but the difference between me and you, from what I see, is that I leave it at that, because that's their choice, and it really doesn't concern me, other than a cursory question. I don't pursue it to the end of the earth, unlike the anti-gun crowd. There is no satisfactory answer to them, because what they're really after is to get rid of private gun ownership, and no matter how many reasons you give, their answer is always the same; "I can't understand why you want guns." They don't, and never will, understand, because their whole agenda isn't to get a reasonable answer; it's to get rid of private gun ownership. Facts matter little to them, so they keep asking one more question, even though they'll never get an answer that will satisfy them.

30 years ago being around the time the NRA started campaigning for people to acquire more and more and bigger and bigger guns in the first place. I posted a link to an article about this. Here it is again:
So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker

You're correct, it was about 30 years ago that the focus of the NRA changed, towards more private ownership of guns, and I'm fine with that. We have indeed seen rising gun ownership, at the same time as we've seen a steady decline in violent crime, and homicide. Those who are against private ownership of guns have repeated, ad nauseam, ever since, that carnage would ensue any time another state let it's citizens own more guns, and/or conceal carry. It doesn't matter to the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center, two of the main anti-gun groups, that they've been consistently wrong, and the homicide rate, and numbers, have declined consistently over those thirty years, despite a growing population owning more guns. Apparently they have enough funding from those who have one intent, to get rid of private ownership of guns, regardless of the facts. They are the type of people that I refer as "I just know," and no matter how many facts you present, their ears are set to tune you out, and they'll go to their graves insisting that they're right, even as the evidence clearly points other wise. One can find these type of people in any field of interest. They were around (and a lot of them still are) when black people got uppity and decided they wanted to vote. They were around when women got uppity and decided they wanted to vote, and dog forbid, even do man's jobs. They were around (and more than a few still are) when blacks got uppity and decided they could marry white people. There are a lot of them around today, who predict the end of Western civilization because Mary got uppity and decided she wanted to marry Suzie. Jerry Falwell no doubt went to his grave 100% convinced that the end of the world as he knew it was coming because gays were allowed to marry in a very few places. Pat Robertson, Brian Fischer, and a few other well-known "ministers" will no doubt go to their graves thinking the same, and indeed are still preaching that, despite the fact that, even as more gays are allowed to marry, the states and countries where it's been allowed haven't fallen apart. They blame hurricanes and other natural disasters on gay marriage; because it's a convenient way to bring lots of money in from people who use emotion to support their positions. The Brady Campaign, again, is emotion based. Logic has nothing to do with this.

I'm not going to deny these numbers, I can follow the logic too but it has a limit. Those numbers will not drop indefinitely, they will plateau. And the rate of gun deaths will still be higher than every other country on the planet (that isn't at war).

Logic has no limit. I'm not even going to argue that the numbers are correlated. As I see it, you're subtly implying that, in the end, you're still going to be right. Is the rate of gun deaths higher than other countries? Probably so, but I don't live in another country, and the one I do live in still allows me the right to own and carry a gun, for reasons that I don't have to explain to any one else (and that's not an emotional response, but fact). Actually, if you want to know some more truth, the number may plateau, because younger generations aren't interested in guns as much as us older people. Perhaps some day the gun ownership issue, as seen by those who are anti-gun, may solve itself. I have my own theory on why we are such a gun loving culture, but that's for another time.

Again, I get why someone would want to collect guns (though I worry that anyone who can't afford staff could afford the time to properly and safely and maintain and secure them all if they have a large collection), people collect all sorts of things, but if you wanted 6 guns just for self defence, then for me that is again verging on paranoid.

I never indicated what I wanted the guns for, but, as I've already pointed out, I'm not really concerned what you think, as I've done nothing illegal, and never will. If I want to take my .45 caliber pistol out and shoot 100 rounds into the side of a hill, safely, at $1.00 a bullet, that's my right.

I find it a bit sad that even if the numbers that tell you clearly that having more guns around leads to more gun deaths aren't enough for you to relinquish all your guns, that you wouldn't want to get rid of some.

I don't find that sad. None of my guns have been used in a violent fashion. That's not a concept I have a hard time understanding. By your rationale, we should outlaw knives, because some of them are used to kill and maim people. We should outlaw ropes, because someone was dragged behind a pickup truck to their death. The list could go on and on.

If you had one for self defence and then one that you wanted to master which you then sold on so you could master another one, that would make sense to me.

Until you become my superior and I'm forced to obey your laws, it doesn't have to make any sense to you. Only me.

[qutote]Or if you were competing in some kind of sport that required different classes of handgun or something. I don't know, you won't it explain it to me.[/QUOTE]

I've explained it all I'm going to. Your mind seems to be set up to hear no more. You remind me of one of those who "just know," and that's an honest, non-emotional response.

[Chongo]

Mom did not use an an assault rifle, still

Ga. mom shoots intruder Paul Ali Slater 5 times, hides children | MyFOX8.com – Greensboro, High-Point, Winston-Salem News & weather from WGHP Television FOX8

LOGANVILLE, Ga. — A Georgia mother hid her two 9-year-old twins and shot an intruder, Paul Ali Slater, several times during a home invasion on Friday, according to multiple media reports.
The Loganville mother said she didn’t initially answer when someone knocked on her door around 1 p.m. Friday. When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at work, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
He then dialed 911 and his 37-year-old wife gathered their 9-year-old twins and hid them in a crawlspace inside the home.
According to the report, the intruder then forced his way into the home and started “rummaging” through the family’s belongings.
When the suspect went into the closet where the family was hiding ,the woman fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I like seeing citizens armed, taking their civic responsibility seriously. It reminds me of why I couldn't live in a country like England.

Americans don't hold a candle to the Brits when it comes to civic responsibility.

I find it amazing you think owning an arsenal in case of "the collapse of civilization" is a form of civic responsibility.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Ω 

Really? That is your argument? How long would it take to kill 20 people with your "wickedly sharp cavalry saber"? Do you think the skill level involved between an automatic weapon and a "wickedly sharp cavalry saber" is similar? Really?

I don't know what your point is, talking about "skill level." Certainly it takes way more skill to kill weaker folks like the recent K-4 school deaths using auto/semi-aut guns than using edged weapons. Any strong young crazy male could have killed more kids & K-4 teachers with a "wickedly sharp cavalry saber" + a combat knife because the lack of gunshots would have slowed the alarm.

[Ω]

My point was that any crazed muppet can take a gun and kill many people, and can do it very quickly. Try that with a sword. Have you never heard "bringing a knife to a gun fight"? Tends to imply that you are woefully overmatched, or out of your depth. 99% of the time I would place my money on the gun.

Or maybe you are right and America should give their police officers knives instead....