Redneck shoots up Pensacola with AK-47

[Robert_S]

Yep. Emotions, not statistics, fuel the debate.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ow ... erica.aspx


http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The main statistical trend is that the most vulnerable people are the least likely to buy a gun.
And vice versa. It's there in black and white. (literally)
.

I don't see it.

[Hermit]

This debate appears to have boiled down to:

Side A: I believe guns are too dangerous to be legal.

Side B: I don't think so.

Well, that is a complete nonsense from my point of view. I have tried to present a nuanced argument for certain restrictions, particularly to the widespread ownership of semi-automatic rifles and handguns with high capacity magazines, while still being perfectly happy with the concept of gun ownership in general.
Not all of us are locked into completely polarised positions...

Well, I don't think this post is of the "Yes,it is."/"No, it isn't." variety either. I wrote it in reply to a question by Seth, but he has ignored it.

[Gallstones]

So...making it illegal for women and blacks to own a firearm would help how?

No, if you look at the stats, white males in the South and East own most of the firearms.
I don't think MM is advocating that only they be allowed and blacks and females in the North and West be forbidden.

It is just that the "vulnerable" persons are the ones showing the least ownership.

That's what I guess.

[JimC]

This debate appears to have boiled down to:

Side A: I believe guns are too dangerous to be legal.

Side B: I don't think so.

Well, that is a complete nonsense from my point of view. I have tried to present a nuanced argument for certain restrictions, particularly to the widespread ownership of semi-automatic rifles and handguns with high capacity magazines, while still being perfectly happy with the concept of gun ownership in general.
Not all of us are locked into completely polarised positions...

Well, I don't think this post is of the "Yes,it is."/"No, it isn't." variety either. I wrote it in reply to a question by Seth, but he has ignored it.

Yes, I should have included you (and FBM, from a different angle) in the non black or white camp...

And many of the other pro-gun posters here have not really gone over the top either...

[FBM]

So...making it illegal for women and blacks to own a firearm would help how?

No, if you look at the stats, white males in the South and East own most of the firearms.
I don't think MM is advocating that only they be allowed and blacks and females in the North and West be forbidden.

It is just that the "vulnerable" persons are the ones showing the least ownership.

That's what I guess.

Yeah, I didn't mean making it illegal for "only" them, but if you make it illegal for everybody, then those "most vulnerable" people who "need it most" will have that avenue closed to them by the state.

And that takes us back to the old chestnut, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Unless you give each citizen an armed police officer as an escort 24/7/365, that would just be making all law-abiding citizens the "most vulnerable" people who "need it the most".

The best solution - disarming the outlaws first - is unfortunately, practically impossible. Until that unlikely event arises, it seems more practical to require potential gun owners to attend safety and skills training courses (which, if mandatory, should be free, otherwise you wind up with people who are too poor to afford their constitutional rights) or at least pass rigorous testing. I had to take a class, pass a written test and a performance test for safety and accuracy in order to get my concealed carry permit, and I think that's perfectly reasonable. At least, it's possible, which is something I can't say about disarming the criminals and wackos.

[mistermack]

Yeah, I didn't mean making it illegal for "only" them, but if you make it illegal for everybody, then those "most vulnerable" people who "need it most" will have that avenue closed to them by the state.

And that takes us back to the old chestnut, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Unless you give each citizen an armed police officer as an escort 24/7/365, that would just be making all law-abiding citizens the "most vulnerable" people who "need it the most".

Old piece of bullshit you mean. If you read those figures, it's perfectly clear that more than half of the American population, the more vulnerable half, survive, and live perfectly safe lives, without owning a gun. If you are arguing that a gun is necessary for personal safety, you are in denial of reality.

Why can't people admit that they like playing with guns, because it makes a weak person feel powerful, and a little bit like Clint Eastwood?
It's a fantasy thing, pure and simple. Why do people buy guns that look like machine guns, if they are single shot? Because it adds to the fantasy. Why do they buy camouflage clothes, if the guns are to protect their homes? Are their homes full of jungle plants?
It's fucking sad fantasising, and you all know it.
.

[FBM]

Yeah, I didn't mean making it illegal for "only" them, but if you make it illegal for everybody, then those "most vulnerable" people who "need it most" will have that avenue closed to them by the state.

And that takes us back to the old chestnut, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Unless you give each citizen an armed police officer as an escort 24/7/365, that would just be making all law-abiding citizens the "most vulnerable" people who "need it the most".

Old piece of bullshit you mean. If you read those figures, it's perfectly clear that more than half of the American population, the more vulnerable half, survive, and live perfectly safe lives, without owning a gun. If you are arguing that a gun is necessary for personal safety, you are in denial of reality.

Why can't people admit that they like playing with guns, because it makes a weak person feel powerful, and a little bit like Clint Eastwood?
It's a fantasy thing, pure and simple. Why do people buy guns that look like machine guns, if they are single shot? Because it adds to the fantasy. Why do they buy camouflage clothes, if the guns are to protect their homes? Are their homes full of jungle plants?
It's fucking sad fantasising, and you all know it.
.

OK. Whatever.

[Woodbutcher]

I'm a gun owner and I'm all for responsible gun ownership, but if I lived somewhere where it was necessary to carry a gun for personal safety I'd fucking well move. Unless my safety was threatened by bears or other four-legged predators, that I could live with. It's the two-legged predator that I can't abide.

[Gallstones]

Yeah, I didn't mean making it illegal for "only" them, but if you make it illegal for everybody, then those "most vulnerable" people who "need it most" will have that avenue closed to them by the state.

And that takes us back to the old chestnut, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Unless you give each citizen an armed police officer as an escort 24/7/365, that would just be making all law-abiding citizens the "most vulnerable" people who "need it the most".

Old piece of bullshit you mean. If you read those figures, it's perfectly clear that more than half of the American population, the more vulnerable half, survive, and live perfectly safe lives, without owning a gun. If you are arguing that a gun is necessary for personal safety, you are in denial of reality.

Why can't people admit that they like playing with guns, because it makes a weak person feel powerful, and a little bit like Clint Eastwood?
It's a fantasy thing, pure and simple. Why do people buy guns that look like machine guns, if they are single shot? Because it adds to the fantasy. Why do they buy camouflage clothes, if the guns are to protect their homes? Are their homes full of jungle plants?
It's fucking sad fantasising, and you all know it.
.

I have always said, in every one of these discussions, that I have guns because I like shooting them. I like explosions and seeing things get blown up too. It is just a personality affectation.

As regards my character and my mental state, my enjoyment of guns says nothing about either of those, despite your insistence in assuming it does. Trying to argue you out of your error is a worthless endeavor that I will not bother to waste any more time on.

[laklak]

I admit I like "playing" with guns, but not the Clint Eastwood wannabe thing. Who I really want to be is Lucas McCain. (a reference for you old folks out there)

[Seth]

Old piece of bullshit you mean. If you read those figures, it's perfectly clear that more than half of the American population, the more vulnerable half, survive, and live perfectly safe lives, without owning a gun. If you are arguing that a gun is necessary for personal safety, you are in denial of reality.

I haven't heard the argument that a gun is "necessary" for personal safety. A gun, however, is an excellent adjunct and tool to enhance personal safety. Also, any claim that the "more vulnerable half survive and live perfectly safe lives" is simply false. Crime statistics disprove that canard.

The reality is that any particular individual's chance of encountering a violent criminal may be quite small, and it may depend largely upon where one lives and how one goes about one's life, but the important question is whether the individual is to be permitted to decide what their individual risk is and how they will arm themselves against those risks, whatever they may be. Even if one lives in the most secure and safe place on the planet, where one's chances of encountering a violent crime necessitating the use of a gun for defense are so vanishingly small as to closely approach zero, being prepared against that eventuality is, or ought to be a choice for the individual to make, not the individual's government.

The bogus statistical argument that you present is a commonplace canard that is actually a diversion from the true issues involved, which are about public policy, personal liberty, and societal freedom, not one's statistical risks of being victimized.

As I've said before, self-defense is the primary reason for the RKBA, but the most important component of that right is not self-defense against criminals, it's self-defense against a tyrannical government and despotism because it is tyrannical governments and despots that have caused the most deaths to innocents in the shortest time throughout history, and which pose the greatest risk to any particular individual. Not being prepared against such despotism means becoming the victim of it. Therefore eternal vigilance and constant preparation is required to keep the citizenry armed and capable of putting down a tyrant, because if the citizenry are disarmed, they will be unable to do so at need. That, in fact, is why tyrants and despots always disarm the citizenry as their first priority...which makes it easy to detect potential tyrants: they are those who seek to disarm the citizenry.

Self-defense against criminality is next in importance, but the reason for allowing an armed citizenry for such defensive purposes is closely aligned with the primary purpose of an armed citizenry elucidated above.

No government that disarms its own citizens is a just or legitimate government, and all such governments must be destroyed and replaced with one that respects individual rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms in defense of the individual and society.

For a government to disarm its own people on the premise that society will be made safer is the same thing as disrespecting the individual rights of crime victims and turning them into acceptable casualties in the social experiment. Disarming the populace says that the individual who WILL BE victimized by an armed, violent criminal has no right to defend himself against that attack, and that the social policy needs of the collective outweigh the rights of the individual to effective tools of self-defense...against both criminals on the street and criminals within his own government who would enslave and oppress him. This says to the citizen "you are merely a statistic to the government. You have no intrinsic value to society, and if you are killed by a criminal, it is better that you be killed than that we allow everyone to be armed against such events, because your life is not worth the risks that society faces from having an armed citizenry."

That is tyranny and despotism made manifest.

The hallmark of a free society is the right to keep and bear arms, and wherever that right is taken away, tyranny and despotism follows, sooner or later...usually sooner.

So it's utterly irrelevant what the individual's particularized risk of being victimized by a criminal, whether self-employed or employed by the government, actually is. The only important consideration is that the individual have the freedom to make the choice for him or herself whether he or she wishes to be armed against such an eventuality, however remote it might be. It's no different than being allowed to make the decision whether or not to buy a fire extinguisher or homeowner's insurance. We allow people to assess their own risks and decide how they will respond to those risks as a component of fundamental liberty.

And when it comes to an armed citizenry, the risks of a despotic and tyrannical government enslaving them is the greatest risk they collectively face, and is why it is essential that a large body of the public be well-armed and well-trained in the use of those arms, so as to provide deterrence to potential tyrants.

You may choose to be so delusional as to trust your government so completely that you are willing to become its slave whenever it decides to slap on the chains, but we in America have seen that too many times to place that much trust in any government comprised of men.

Therefore, we rigorously protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and we accept whatever unfortunate consequences flow from that decision because whatever they may be, they are less dangerous and harmful in the long run and to the majority of citizens than allowing tyranny, or crime, to proceed unopposed.

Not that I expect you to be able to understand these concepts. After all, sheeple such as those in the UK are slaves already, and they are comfortable in their chains, so they stand around munching on the largess of government baaing and waiting for their masters to slaughter them whenever it pleases the tyrants to do so. That's their choice and I won't pity them in their slavish obedience to their masters.

For myself, I'll live with the wolves and decline to be a sheeple, and I'll ignore the baaing of the sheeple over my decision to live free or die.

[Seth]

I admit I like "playing" with guns, but not the Clint Eastwood wannabe thing. Who I really want to be is Lucas McCain. (a reference for you old folks out there)

Ah yes, the Winchester Repeater, the world's first "assault weapon." Believe it or not, California's definition of "assault weapon" includes the Winchester and other suchlike lever-action repeaters.

[Seth]

I'm a gun owner and I'm all for responsible gun ownership, but if I lived somewhere where it was necessary to carry a gun for personal safety I'd fucking well move. Unless my safety was threatened by bears or other four-legged predators, that I could live with. It's the two-legged predator that I can't abide.

Problem with your plan is that like rats, the two-legged vermin are everywhere, and you can never predict where or when you will run into one and need to do some pest control.

And these days you can even encounter the four-legged variety in unexpected places. Just the other day a woman in the suburbs of Colorado Springs was gardening when she looked up to see a coyote snarling at her. It bit her in the elbow and ran off when she threw a bag of potting soil at it. Now she has to take rabies shots...

Therefore, it's prudent to carry a gun.

[laklak]

Seth wins the prize!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSE0ff8j ... re=related[/youtube]

Careful, you'll be Branded as a Gunsmoke loving right-wing criminal, have to go hideout in the Big Valley, wearing Rawhide clothes and dodging Young Riders after the Bonanza of cash promised in your Wanted Dead or Alive posters.

[mistermack]

Old piece of bullshit you mean. If you read those figures, it's perfectly clear that more than half of the American population, the more vulnerable half, survive, and live perfectly safe lives, without owning a gun. If you are arguing that a gun is necessary for personal safety, you are in denial of reality.

I haven't heard the argument that a gun is "necessary" for personal safety. A gun, however, is an excellent adjunct and tool to enhance personal safety. Also, any claim that the "more vulnerable half survive and live perfectly safe lives" is simply false. Crime statistics disprove that canard.

The reality is that any particular individual's chance of encountering a violent criminal may be quite small, and it may depend largely upon where one lives and how one goes about one's life, but the important question is whether the individual is to be permitted to decide what their individual risk is and how they will arm themselves against those risks, whatever they may be. Even if one lives in the most secure and safe place on the planet, where one's chances of encountering a violent crime necessitating the use of a gun for defense are so vanishingly small as to closely approach zero, being prepared against that eventuality is, or ought to be a choice for the individual to make, not the individual's government.

The bogus statistical argument that you present is a commonplace canard that is actually a diversion from the true issues involved, which are about public policy, personal liberty, and societal freedom, not one's statistical risks of being victimized.

As I've said before, self-defense is the primary reason for the RKBA, but the most important component of that right is not self-defense against criminals, it's self-defense against a tyrannical government and despotism because it is tyrannical governments and despots that have caused the most deaths to innocents in the shortest time throughout history, and which pose the greatest risk to any particular individual. Not being prepared against such despotism means becoming the victim of it. Therefore eternal vigilance and constant preparation is required to keep the citizenry armed and capable of putting down a tyrant, because if the citizenry are disarmed, they will be unable to do so at need. That, in fact, is why tyrants and despots always disarm the citizenry as their first priority...which makes it easy to detect potential tyrants: they are those who seek to disarm the citizenry.

Self-defense against criminality is next in importance, but the reason for allowing an armed citizenry for such defensive purposes is closely aligned with the primary purpose of an armed citizenry elucidated above.

No government that disarms its own citizens is a just or legitimate government, and all such governments must be destroyed and replaced with one that respects individual rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms in defense of the individual and society.

For a government to disarm its own people on the premise that society will be made safer is the same thing as disrespecting the individual rights of crime victims and turning them into acceptable casualties in the social experiment. Disarming the populace says that the individual who WILL BE victimized by an armed, violent criminal has no right to defend himself against that attack, and that the social policy needs of the collective outweigh the rights of the individual to effective tools of self-defense...against both criminals on the street and criminals within his own government who would enslave and oppress him. This says to the citizen "you are merely a statistic to the government. You have no intrinsic value to society, and if you are killed by a criminal, it is better that you be killed than that we allow everyone to be armed against such events, because your life is not worth the risks that society faces from having an armed citizenry."

That is tyranny and despotism made manifest.

The hallmark of a free society is the right to keep and bear arms, and wherever that right is taken away, tyranny and despotism follows, sooner or later...usually sooner.

So it's utterly irrelevant what the individual's particularized risk of being victimized by a criminal, whether self-employed or employed by the government, actually is. The only important consideration is that the individual have the freedom to make the choice for him or herself whether he or she wishes to be armed against such an eventuality, however remote it might be. It's no different than being allowed to make the decision whether or not to buy a fire extinguisher or homeowner's insurance. We allow people to assess their own risks and decide how they will respond to those risks as a component of fundamental liberty.

And when it comes to an armed citizenry, the risks of a despotic and tyrannical government enslaving them is the greatest risk they collectively face, and is why it is essential that a large body of the public be well-armed and well-trained in the use of those arms, so as to provide deterrence to potential tyrants.

You may choose to be so delusional as to trust your government so completely that you are willing to become its slave whenever it decides to slap on the chains, but we in America have seen that too many times to place that much trust in any government comprised of men.

Therefore, we rigorously protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and we accept whatever unfortunate consequences flow from that decision because whatever they may be, they are less dangerous and harmful in the long run and to the majority of citizens than allowing tyranny, or crime, to proceed unopposed.

Not that I expect you to be able to understand these concepts. After all, sheeple such as those in the UK are slaves already, and they are comfortable in their chains, so they stand around munching on the largess of government baaing and waiting for their masters to slaughter them whenever it pleases the tyrants to do so. That's their choice and I won't pity them in their slavish obedience to their masters.

For myself, I'll live with the wolves and decline to be a sheeple, and I'll ignore the baaing of the sheeple over my decision to live free or die.

Bollocks