PDA

View Full Version : Guns are bad things owned by bad people who want to do bad things


ewarmour
08-21-2012, 9:20 AM
Interesting read...

About the only time the people where I come from thought about guns was when something terrible happened. A lunatic sprays into a crowd and we have the same conversation we always have: those damn guns and those damn people who insist on having them.

On the rack behind him, assault rifles stood stupid as pool cues, black and blocky, with long magazines protruding erotically this way and that.

"I'm kind of surprised you carry assault rifles," I said to Ron.

"There's no such thing as an assault rifle," he said. "These are 'military-style rifles' or 'modern sporting rifles.' "

"But they're assault rifles," I noted. I knew that much from TV.

"Assault is one of the worst things the media has ever done to us," he said. "Have any of these rifles ever assaulted anyone?"

Groups would form, strangers becoming neighbors, sharing stories. "I lost my wife in November," the man said. "Sixty years. Now my kids keep trying to get me to go live with them in California. My doctor said, 'What's your lifestyle?' I told him guns. He said, 'Stay in Yuma.


Other Arizona gun stores would not even entertain my request to visit and ask questions about selling guns and ammunition, but Richard without hesitation invited me to spend as much time as I wanted at Sprague's—behind the counter, in the back room, at the shooting range, anywhere I wished.

"I guess the most surprising thing is that everyone thinks guns are so normal," I said. I told him it wasn't like that where I come from, not like that at all.

"The people I hang out with back east don't talk about shooting bad guys as much as you folks do," I said one day to a gathering of customers and clerks.

"You depend on the government to protect you," said a middle-aged woman dry-firing a Ruger. She was admiring the smooth trigger action and regretting her clunkier Glock. "We depend on ourselves."

I do know the gadgetry of guns appealed to me. The clicking and the clacking, the feel of steel so expertly shaped to fit a human grip.

If anything like that happened to me or my kid, I definitely would want something capable of blowing a guy's face off.

I paid $450 for the Glock, a used one—a bargain.

All of it was so easy, and that really was the only confusing part about buying guns. So easy. And yet why should it be difficult? I wasn't a criminal. I wasn't going to commit a heinous act—not unless I had to defend myself or my family. Defending yourself and your family is what good people do. Getting a gun should be easy for good people and impossible for bad people. The only trick is telling the difference.


LOL
"The problem is, liberals are more feel than think. They don't understand logic, and so what the hell can you even do with that?"

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201209/gun-shopping-gq-september-2012?printable=true&utm_source=PolicyMic+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b8de3ef5c5-New_Newsletter2_29_2012&utm_medium=email

Tenamaxtle
08-21-2012, 9:28 AM
Read that last night, I guess the light in the authors face was so bright she became blind.

SilverTauron
08-21-2012, 10:24 AM
The article is a great read. It illustrates that what we are up against isn't something so simple as pro vs anti gun control;we're waging a cultural conflict between two different visions of America.

One vision holds that the individual is empowered to decide for themselves how to live and manage their lives within the law. The other holds that the Government has a better vision than the individual, and thus has the authority to decide for the individual what they should and should not do.

whatpain
08-21-2012, 10:48 AM
good read. although the only person i ever met from pensylvania was a republican conservative who was a great shot. she was in my unit. i dunno what part she was from. obviously not the same area as the author

rabagley
08-21-2012, 12:47 PM
The other holds that the Government has a better vision than the individual, and thus has the authority to decide for the individual what they should and should not do.

As someone who almost certainly leans further left than you, but still disagrees with the gun banners here, I don't think you understand the perspective on the other side. I can provide it, and if you choose to understand and learn from my statements, I think you will argue better in the future:

They believe that there should be no need for people to defend themselves in a modern and civilized country.

Violence in our culture is declining, it's safer and safer to walk around the typical US neighborhood at night, violent crime rates continue to fall (not necessarily year to year, but as a longer-term trend they are). One logical conclusion to draw from that is: at some point, the costs of gun ownership will be significantly higher than the benefits.

The problem appears when we take a look at when this value/cost turning point might happen. For a liberal who has not yet been attacked or threatened, it obviously has already happened. There is no need. But for people who have been attacked or threatened, or for those who actually understand risks, this value/cost inversion has most definitely not happened:

The police cannot protect you, and there still exists a healthy population of predators who wish to take from you and who will make sure that the police are not nearby when they attack.

My view: It is possible, that at some point in the distant future, crime rates really will be low enough that there is no self-defense value in owning a firearm. And it is also possible that the risks of having a firearm around the house will be high enough that the value provided by competition and stress relief and keeping governments honest and animal control can no longer be justified. But not today. And almost certainly not in my lifetime.

The people you're criticizing are idealists. Liberal gun nuts tend to be much more pragmatic on this issue than their uninformed/unattacked bretheren.

TimRB
08-21-2012, 1:04 PM
Violence in our culture is declining, it's safer and safer to walk around the typical US neighborhood at night, violent crime rates continue to fall (not necessarily year to year, but as a longer-term trend they are). One logical conclusion to draw from that is: at some point, the costs of gun ownership will be significantly higher than the benefits.

I disagree with your logic. I submit that as violent crime goes to zero, the cost of gun ownership also goes to zero.

Edit: I admit that I am ignoring accidental shootings, since I think we are talking about criminal use of guns here. The number of accidental drownings in swimming pools dwarfs the number of accidental shooting deaths. I also ignore suicide as being irrelevant to the discussion. I think it would be unfair to label suicide shootings a cost of gun ownership when, most likely, that death would have occurred regardless.

Tim

rabagley
08-21-2012, 2:10 PM
I disagree with your logic. I submit that as violent crime goes to zero, the cost of gun ownership also goes to zero.

Tim

I was thinking that the cost would be mostly accidents while the benefit would shift to keeping governments honest, entertainment and dangerous animals. I do, however, agree with your point: I think guns will always be a useful tool for humans, and that the utility vastly outweighs the cost both on an individual level and for society as a whole.

StormRaven
08-21-2012, 4:01 PM
The people you're criticizing are idealists. Liberal gun nuts tend to be much more pragmatic on this issue than their uninformed/unattacked bretheren.

Word. I think I just found my new custom forum title.

SilverTauron
08-21-2012, 4:28 PM
As someone who almost certainly leans further left than you, but still disagrees with the gun banners here, I don't think you understand the perspective on the other side. I can provide it, and if you choose to understand and learn from my statements, I think you will argue better in the future:

They believe that there should be no need for people to defend themselves in a modern and civilized country.

I submit that you did not complete the thought process behind the belief you stated. Put simply, WHY do they state there is no need for people to defend themselves?








Violence in our culture is declining, it's safer and safer to walk around the typical US neighborhood at night, violent crime rates continue to fall (not necessarily year to year, but as a longer-term trend they are). One logical conclusion to draw from that is: at some point, the costs of gun ownership will be significantly higher than the benefits.

This would make sense if the core premise of Gun control was reducing crime. It is not.

The lawmakers of the D.C. gun ban in 1979 knew full and well the moment they passed the law it wasn't going to stop one shooting or crime. Their goal for passing it was to incite a "national movement" of cities collaborating to ban firearms. The evidence of that ban AND the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons ban conclusively state that neither law had any effect at stopping crime. The NICS system has failed multiple times in detecting crazed shooters before they went on a spree.

No, the core purpose of gun control has nothing to do with public safety. The crime prevention angle is simply marketing to sell legislation with a far darker purpose.





The problem appears when we take a look at when this value/cost turning point might happen. For a liberal who has not yet been attacked or threatened, it obviously has already happened. There is no need. But for people who have been attacked or threatened, or for those who actually understand risks, this value/cost inversion has most definitely not happened:

The police cannot protect you, and there still exists a healthy population of predators who wish to take from you and who will make sure that the police are not nearby when they attack.

My view: It is possible, that at some point in the distant future, crime rates really will be low enough that there is no self-defense value in owning a firearm. And it is also possible that the risks of having a firearm around the house will be high enough that the value provided by competition and stress relief and keeping governments honest and animal control can no longer be justified. But not today. And almost certainly not in my lifetime.

The people you're criticizing are idealists. Liberal gun nuts tend to be much more pragmatic on this issue than their uninformed/unattacked bretheren.


Assuming an imaginary nation where every violent criminal in the nation was arrested and jailed, with future criminals ID'd and stopped using some form of PreCrime system out of Minority Report, there would still be an outcry to ban guns in some quarters of the nation.

Tying all the WHY's in the post together means stating this:its not about the guns at all. Its about the philosophy behind owning them which drives the persistent cause to outlaw them.

In liberal societies like Chicago, the individual has no basic value. In that system of living the first institution of value is the government ,which acts on behalf of ensuring everyone's collective welfare. When a conflict inevitably arises between the interests of the citizen versus that of the government, the government's interest take priority-in so doing devaluing the worth of the citizen.

Right to remain silent? Unacceptable. The collective doesn't feel safe unless you tell the man with the badge and truncheon what you were doing.

Right to free speech? Clearly the people only need to know information which benefits the "greater good", with destablilizing and hazardous speech confined or controlled for the collective good.

Right to keep and bear arms? The Collective will ensure your safety. If some dangerous social function is served by the individual which benefits others such as money delivery or armored car service, clearly that man or woman has a use for a weapon which benefits the collective. Good and substantial cause proven, go direct to CCW permit.For everyone else, blanket denial. The only purpose for them carrying a gun is to defend themselves, and the community's perception of safety takes precedence over individual life.

Therefore strict gun control laws are a symptom of a much more poisonous condition: the warped & twisted perspective that a proper civilized American should surrender everything they have including their very lives to the greater undefined good of the collective around them.

Hence my statement regarding a conflict of culture.

Wernher von Browning
08-21-2012, 6:42 PM
The article is a great read. It illustrates that what we are up against isn't something so simple as pro vs anti gun control;we're waging a cultural conflict between two different visions of America.

One vision holds that the individual is empowered to decide for themselves how to live and manage their lives within the law. The other holds that the Government has a better vision than the individual, and thus has the authority to decide for the individual what they should and should not do.


And this author doesn't decide for us which of those two viewpoints is "correct." You have to give her credit for that. She doesn't preach.

I see a lot of positives in this article as well. The author tries to see this hot-button social issue through the other side's eyes. And at the end, she blows off some steam with a full-auto Uzi.

She bought an M&P15 and a handgun and had them shipped to her local FFL in Pennsylvania. How many raving-loony liberals would go through with that? "Guns baaad, m'kay?"

This is a person who, slowly but surely, comes around to appreciate the other side's viewpoint and, even odds, someday embrace that viewpoint.

Some more about the author. Lives in rural Pennsylvania. This article is one chapter of a book that will be out next month.

http://jeannemarielaskas.com/

"Hidden America
From Coal Miners to Cowboys,
an Extraordinary Exploration of the
Unseen People Who Make This Country Work"

jdberger
08-21-2012, 8:00 PM
Anyone notice that the kid in the cover photo is cross-eye dominant?

Rabagley- very well written post.

KWalkerM
08-21-2012, 10:24 PM
i thought it was a very insightful read.

Capybara
08-21-2012, 11:30 PM
"Should be" is a phrase that should be eliminated from the English language.

JoefromPA
08-22-2012, 1:46 AM
Anyone notice that the kid in the cover photo is cross-eye dominant?

Rabagley- very well written post.

And he has a really horrible grip.

SanPedroShooter
08-22-2012, 4:38 AM
I kept thinking about neighbors. You have this crazy family living next door. One day you go over with a pie, figuring if you just confronted the crazy, you'd understand it and find acceptance. Then you discover that all this time they think you're the crazy family. The more you try to explain yourself, the crazier you sound, and if you stay long enough, you probably will be.

These were burdensome thoughts, and I wanted to get rid of them. I rented an Uzi, fully automatic. I chose the male zombie. I think he was supposed to be a lawyer. He had a briefcase. I aimed for his left eyeball and pulled the trigger. The patter of thirty-two bullets lasted maybe three seconds, and then the eyeball was gone. The release felt like one gorgeous, fantastic sneeze, and the satisfaction reminded me of cold beer.

I was definitely expecting some over educated leftist trash about the 'real America' you know cowboys and ****... It says it in the title, but I was pleasantly suprised.

I like to think that the people in the Yuma gun store are still the majority in this country, regardless of the screeching liberals and gun grabbing swine in DC and Sac. I guess time will tell.

Is the very act of buying and owning a gun a political statement? I live in LA and I think it is, here anyway.

rabagley
08-22-2012, 9:27 AM
This would make sense if the core premise of Gun control was reducing crime. It is not.

The lawmakers of the D.C. gun ban in 1979 knew full and well the moment they passed the law it wasn't going to stop one shooting or crime.

I am talking about two separate groups here. There's the typical urban middle class non-gun-owner and then there's the gun-control advocate. I'm describing the non-gun-owner who hasn't thought about the costs and benefits of guns, doesn't really like them, and whose vote RKBA advocates and gun-control advocates are both trying for.

Like the author of the article linked in the OP.

Within gun-control advocate circles, I even believe that most of those people are misguided idealists who fervently believe that if they were successful in eliminating civilian ownership of guns that the US would be a better place. I've met several, and they're nice people. Just deeply ignorant and unwise.


Therefore strict gun control laws are a symptom of a much more poisonous condition: the warped & twisted perspective that a proper civilized American should surrender everything they have including their very lives to the greater undefined good of the collective around them.

Hence my statement regarding a conflict of culture.

With respect, I don't think you understand the perspective of people who disagree with you on this topic. These people are not malicious and they don't think that government is the solution to all problems. They're just going about their day to day business, haven't experienced or understood the rare NEED for a firearm, and so are ignorant.

Ignorance is fixable, stupidity is forever. If my experience taking liberals to the gun range is any indication (maybe 35 taken shooting over 9 years in LA, 12 still freaked out about guns, 12 new gun owners, 3 liberal gun nuts), most of the culture problem can be solved with a non-threatening introduction to firearms, just to eliminate the mystery.

But the malice and control you're attributing to these people I just don't see.

The War Wagon
08-22-2012, 9:37 AM
Quote:
About the only time the people where I come from thought about guns was when something terrible happened. A lunatic sprays into a crowd and we have the same conversation we always have: those damn guns and those damn people who insist on having them.



Soooo... you come from the Planet STOOPID, and that's supposed to impress me... HOW? :rolleyes:

rabagley
08-22-2012, 9:43 AM
Soooo... you come from the Planet STOOPID, and that's supposed to impress me... HOW? :rolleyes:

Is the statement stupid or ignorant? I submit that it's ignorant, since a little information in the right spot can fix it, and if you can fix it by discussing or taking them to the gun range, you should. Also, by the end of the article, she is singing a different tune.

She also said:

Getting a gun should be easy for good people and impossible for bad people. The only trick is telling the difference.

Which is what we've been saying about gun control since before I was alive. This article is awesome. It's incredibly helpful in showing liberals the way towards personal responsibility for your own self-defense.

The Gleam
08-22-2012, 1:24 PM
I own guns and I want to do bad things;

well, not bad things with guns, but many bad things with Kate Beckinsale.

SanPedroShooter
08-22-2012, 4:29 PM
I am talking about two separate groups here. There's the typical urban middle class non-gun-owner and then there's the gun-control advocate. I'm describing the non-gun-owner who hasn't thought about the costs and benefits of guns, doesn't really like them, and whose vote RKBA advocates and gun-control advocates are both trying for.

Like the author of the article linked in the OP.

With respect, I don't think you understand the perspective of people who disagree with you on this topic. These people are not malicious and they don't think that government is the solution to all problems. They're just going about their day to day business, haven't experienced or understood the rare NEED for a firearm, and so are ignorant.

Ignorance is fixable, stupidity is forever.

I see your point and sort of agree with it, but leftists on the fence will happily vote for people that do have "the warped & twisted perspective that a proper civilized American should surrender everything they have including their very lives to the greater undefined good of the collective around them.".

So what does that make them? Ignorant or collaborators? I guess doing what you have been doing is the way to find out. I can respect a persons choice to be disarmed, well not respect it, but thats on them. The choice to disarm me is evil. It just is. I suppose someone either understands that or they dont.

wjc
08-22-2012, 11:54 PM
I see your point and sort of agree with it, but leftists on the fence will happily vote for people that do have "the warped & twisted perspective that a proper civilized American should surrender everything they have including their very lives to the greater undefined good of the collective around them.".

So what does that make them? Ignorant or collaborators? I guess doing what you have been doing is the way to find out. I can respect a persons choice to be disarmed, well not respect it, but thats on them. The choice to disarm me is evil. It just is. I suppose someone either understands that or they dont.

It makes them slaves. Free men don't accept that argument.

"Long live the Fighters!" -- Paul Muad Deeb

rabagley
08-23-2012, 9:58 AM
I see your point and sort of agree with it, but leftists on the fence will happily vote for people that do have "the warped & twisted perspective that a proper civilized American should surrender everything they have including their very lives to the greater undefined good of the collective around them.".

Yeah, they do vote for the wrong people. It would be nice if the wrong people weren't even running. My goal is to always have the democratic candidate in any contest around me lean Blue Dog, especially for RKBA. So if both candidates are pro-RKBA (B- or better NRA rating), then we can all start discussing other issues and agree/disagree just like civilized people do.

I'm just happy that you "sort of agree" with the rest of the argument. The people who are ignorant about guns (and who cause us so much grief at the voting box) can 1) be informed about guns and 2) learn to care about gun rights.

DarkSoul
08-23-2012, 10:23 AM
It makes them slaves. Free men don't accept that argument.

"Long live the Fighters!" -- Paul Muad Deeb

WJC, not to be too nit picky, but its spelled Muad'Dib :D , and its sort of ironic that you quoted that phrase, if you read the whole DUNE series (all 18 books :P ), Paul, who was the "hand of god" incarnate in the universe; as he became more powerful, he formed a zealot army, they swept across the universe and did several things, they disarmed everyone and they also made transportation, short of walking and horse drawn wagons illegal. The rational is that if you could not be armed, and you could not move large groups of people, i.e. armies, then the universe would be at peace, there would be no war, because you couldn't transport armies. Remember we are dealing on a universal scale here, not a planetary one.

This of course was a failure after a few generations, because people ultimately dont want to be told what they can and cannot do, who/what they have to believe in, and where they can and cannot go all within reason of course.

I think ultimately, this goes right along with what the thread is addressing in regards to gun rights, but Paul Muad'Dib's "fighters", ultimately, became, as was always his intention, to be the very thing that all of us definitely do not want, ultimate control "for our own collective benefit" regardless of what we want as individuals.

Arguably the best SciFi books ever written, and scarily enough, they are hitting home a little too close now for what IS going on in our world.

CBruce
08-23-2012, 10:49 AM
I own guns and I want to do bad things;

well, not bad things with guns, but many bad things with Kate Beckinsale.

I reject your classification of these things as "bad". They would be very, very good things.

CK_32
08-23-2012, 11:36 AM
Good read I always laugh at people who preach house horrible guns are..

And I always say you are like dr Phil tell people how to live a perfect life but have been divorced 2 times and all the guys in office who cut down prostitution and get caught with one. Or anti gay and come out being gay.. You never sin but everyone else who's different does.. Simplistic thinking that should have died out in the 17th century.

Surprised half of anitgunners don't still push people off cliffs swearing they were witches..

Zartan
08-23-2012, 11:41 AM
Thanks, good readin'

CBruce
08-23-2012, 12:03 PM
The constant misuse of the term "assault rifle" annoys me to no end.

wjc
08-23-2012, 1:39 PM
WJC, not to be too nit picky, but its spelled Muad'Dib :D , and its sort of ironic that you quoted that phrase, if you read the whole DUNE series (all 18 books :P ), Paul, who was the "hand of god" incarnate in the universe; as he became more powerful, he formed a zealot army, they swept across the universe and did several things, they disarmed everyone and they also made transportation, short of walking and horse drawn wagons illegal. The rational is that if you could not be armed, and you could not move large groups of people, i.e. armies, then the universe would be at peace, there would be no war, because you couldn't transport armies. Remember we are dealing on a universal scale here, not a planetary one.

This of course was a failure after a few generations, because people ultimately dont want to be told what they can and cannot do, who/what they have to believe in, and where they can and cannot go all within reason of course.

I think ultimately, this goes right along with what the thread is addressing in regards to gun rights, but Paul Muad'Dib's "fighters", ultimately, became, as was always his intention, to be the very thing that all of us definitely do not want, ultimate control "for our own collective benefit" regardless of what we want as individuals.

Arguably the best SciFi books ever written, and scarily enough, they are hitting home a little too close now for what IS going on in our world.

I was on my 12th beer at the time I wrote that. :D

DarkSoul
08-23-2012, 2:30 PM
I was on my 12th beer at the time I wrote that. :D

LOL..... good stuff, I have to say, I do like that quote, and I love the movie (although it has very little in common with the book).

quiet-wyatt
08-23-2012, 9:53 PM
My view: It is possible, that at some point in the distant future, crime rates really will be low enough that there is no self-defense value in owning a firearm. And it is also possible that the risks of having a firearm around the house will be high enough that the value provided by competition and stress relief and keeping governments honest and animal control can no longer be justified. But not today. And almost certainly not in my lifetime.

My view: That is FAR too optimistic a view on human nature. How many thousands of years have humans been around, and how little (if any) change has there been in human behavior.
We are NOT progressing toward a utopian society - We are just cycling around government tyranny and lawlessness for the umpteenth time...

Don the savage
08-23-2012, 10:13 PM
LOL..... good stuff, I have to say, I do like that quote, and I love the movie (although it has very little in common with the book).

Tj- your sig pictures are awesome, that was an epic thread. Tj over