Guns urban vs urban? - Page 3

Spexxvet · 11-02-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

...However, he, for once, raises decent points...

Wait a minute. You actually read UG posts?

mrnoodle · 11-02-2006, 09:38 AM

Wow. People are really scared of guns. I've been around them my whole life, and I've only seen anyone act stupid with one a couple of times. Once was a newbie mistake, where a girl at one of our gun safety classes was still holding her riflein her hands and turned around to talk to someone. Don't ever do that. :cringe: She got blessed out (too hard) by the instructor and was in tears for 15 minutes.

A friend of a friend in hunting camp one year thought it would be a good idea to practice his "quick draw". He got made fun of instantly, which turned into genuine anger when it was discovered taht the gun was loaded.

Just recently, someone let someone else borrow their car and didn't mention that there was a loaded gun under the seat. That was marginally dumb, but not criminally stupid.

That's it, out of thousands and thousands of encounters with "dangerous armed gunmen". Oh yeah. My dad put a BB through the back of a couch while showing me the safe way to put away my new BB gun. Poor dad.

In his defense, the mechanism on that gun was complicated as hell, and it was impossible to get BBs out of the chamber without firing. Unsafe design.

Where does the fear come from? Stories? Ignorance (the dictionary definition, not the PC insult)? They can't hurt you on their own, and they're not more likely to hurt you when carried, unless the person has the intention of hurting someone. In that case, it's the person to be feared. It reminds me of a picture of me standing next to our horse Winterhawk. I was about 7, had never been around horses before, and was petrified. The thing was huge, and I was positive I would be devoured if I got closer than 6 feet. Of course, we became fast friends soon after (he was the world's smartest horse, you should know). But I still remember the sensations I felt when that pic was taken. I had been next to cows since babyhood, and was more cavalier around them than I should have been. But not horses. I had enough movie scenes of unbroken horses rearing up and stomping people in my head that I simply couldn't convince myself that he wasn't going to explode into violence as soon as I got within striking range.

I'm guessing fear of guns is something like that.

glatt · 11-02-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Glatt is unfortunately (and ignorantly, alas, also) subscribing to the discredited theory of "the evil gun," that certain types of firearm are inherently more wicked than others.

False. I don't think guns are wicked, and I'm not scared of them.

I'm subscribing to the idea that certain types of guns are more effective at killing humans than others. A gun is a tool. Yes. I agree. I don't mind tools that exist to kill animals and can also be used in a pinch to kill humans. A shotgun is great at home defense. I don't mind them, because they are hard for a criminal to carry down the street to use in crimes. (Yes, I know they can be sawn off to make them marginally more concealable.) I do mind tools that are designed primarily to kill humans, the way handguns are.

I wish there were no handguns. I realize that there are, in fact, handguns. I'd like to think that there is some way to regulate the amount of handguns out there. I don't know how to do that. What I do know is that when the guns rights supporters try to shut the conversation down by saying that violent crime would stay the same if guns were regulated or outlawed, they are shoveling a load of BS.

And finally, I don't think that the biggest cause of violent crime is the availability of guns. I think there are many avenues that can be pursued before trying to grab guns that will be more effective at reducing violent crime. A sane policy towards drugs would be a good first step.

Flint · 11-02-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

A sane policy towards drugs would be a good first step.

glatt · 11-02-2006, 10:47 AM

Crap. Was I that obvious? OK, forget the drugs comment.

Flint · 11-02-2006, 10:51 AM

It's a logical direction as any for this discussion to move in...

wolf · 11-02-2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Quite true. Also home defense is more reasonably conducted with long guns when the nearest public thoroughfare is half a mile down a rural driveway.

Although I know you're making a joke, I'd like to point out, in the interest of accuracy:

Home defense is about equally balanced between pistols and shotguns. Most instances of home defence invole a distance of less than 10 feet.

wolf · 11-02-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

So do ordinary people walk around in the US wearing a pistol?

Yep.

wolf · 11-02-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

rifles are designed to kill things

Interestingly, cars, ball peen hammers, and chainsaws* aren't designed to kill things, but often do anyway ... but never on their own. They don't just leap up and randomly massacre folks. Neither do rifles. Or handguns.

Okay, so maybe chainsaws* do on occasion, I may have picked a bad example)

Flint · 11-02-2006, 12:06 PM

This is an extreme tangent, but guns and chainsaws are intended to do physical harm or damage to something (hammers, too, if you consider a pneumatic nailgun to be the nail-driver of choice, and a hammer to be mostly a demolition tool) while cars are designed primarily to transport. While a car can cause harm, it isn't the primary purpose of the device. This really has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Carry on...

glatt · 11-02-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

While a car can cause harm, it isn't the primary purpose of the device. This really has no bearing on anything whatsoever.

Cars have bearings too. That's gotta count for something.

wolf · 11-02-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

This is an extreme tangent, but guns and chainsaws are intended to do physical harm or damage to something (hammers, too, if you consider a pneumatic nailgun to be the nail-driver of choice, and a hammer to be mostly a demolition tool) while cars are designed primarily to transport. While a car can cause harm, it isn't the primary purpose of the device. This really has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Carry on...

Consider ... when was the last time anyway called for a ban on cars, or tried to sue a car manufacturer because a drunk driver intentionally misused a perfectly legal and perfectly functioning product?

This is essentially the basis of the liability suits against gun manufacturers.

Flint · 11-02-2006, 12:21 PM

I'm not aware of liability suits filed on the basis of a gun simply existing, but if there are cases like that, I would hope they would be laughed right out of court. I assume cases against gun manufacturers to have some basis in the design or operability of the device, such as, in cars: seatbelts, airbags, etc.

mrnoodle · 11-02-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

A shotgun is great at home defense. I don't mind them, because they are hard for a criminal to carry down the street to use in crimes. (Yes, I know they can be sawn off to make them marginally more concealable.) I do mind tools that are designed primarily to kill humans, the way handguns are.

I wish there were no handguns. I realize that there are, in fact, handguns. I'd like to think that there is some way to regulate the amount of handguns out there. I don't know how to do that. What I do know is that when the guns rights supporters try to shut the conversation down by saying that violent crime would stay the same if guns were regulated or outlawed, they are shoveling a load of BS.

The reason why I disagree with this is because much of the argument is centered around the cosmetic. People think guns are somehow "worse" or more powerful if they are black and have a military look to them. The round in the chamber is what defines the gun's lethality -- to a lesser extent, rounds per minute. IMO, given 5 seconds to do as much damage as possible, a 12-guage shotgun will outperform any handgun ever created, and most so-called "assault" weapons available to the public. Concealability =\= lethality. Concealability =\= more ability to commit crime. All they have to do is get it from the car to the front door, and from there, concealability means nothing -- they have the damn thing out and are waving it around. It's an argument based on emotion, not practicality. If you have a handgun and I don't know it, I'm not in danger. If you have a gun pointed at my head, I am, concealability be damned.

Quote:

A sane policy towards drugs would be a good first step.

This is interesting. I hear so many people say drugs should be made more available, guns less available -- when half the time, the reason someone commits a crime is because they're high. [offtopic]Coincidentally, these same people often think life is more sacred for a person on death row than in the womb, or that habitat for the red-eared screeching jungle mouse is more important than someone being able to feed their family.[/offtopic]

BTW, I am not applying that to you. I agree with you. I just find some people's logic amazing.

Flint · 11-02-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The reason why I disagree with this is because...

...you didn't read it, and you wanted a jumping off point to rant about what you wanted to rant about?

11-02-2006, 09:38 AM	#32
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	Wow. People are really scared of guns. I've been around them my whole life, and I've only seen anyone act stupid with one a couple of times. Once was a newbie mistake, where a girl at one of our gun safety classes was still holding her riflein her hands and turned around to talk to someone. Don't ever do that. :cringe: She got blessed out (too hard) by the instructor and was in tears for 15 minutes. A friend of a friend in hunting camp one year thought it would be a good idea to practice his "quick draw". He got made fun of instantly, which turned into genuine anger when it was discovered taht the gun was loaded. Just recently, someone let someone else borrow their car and didn't mention that there was a loaded gun under the seat. That was marginally dumb, but not criminally stupid. That's it, out of thousands and thousands of encounters with "dangerous armed gunmen". Oh yeah. My dad put a BB through the back of a couch while showing me the safe way to put away my new BB gun. Poor dad. In his defense, the mechanism on that gun was complicated as hell, and it was impossible to get BBs out of the chamber without firing. Unsafe design. Where does the fear come from? Stories? Ignorance (the dictionary definition, not the PC insult)? They can't hurt you on their own, and they're not more likely to hurt you when carried, unless the person has the intention of hurting someone. In that case, it's the person to be feared. It reminds me of a picture of me standing next to our horse Winterhawk. I was about 7, had never been around horses before, and was petrified. The thing was huge, and I was positive I would be devoured if I got closer than 6 feet. Of course, we became fast friends soon after (he was the world's smartest horse, you should know). But I still remember the sensations I felt when that pic was taken. I had been next to cows since babyhood, and was more cavalier around them than I should have been. But not horses. I had enough movie scenes of unbroken horses rearing up and stomping people in my head that I simply couldn't convince myself that he wasn't going to explode into violence as soon as I got within striking range. I'm guessing fear of guns is something like that. __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

11-02-2006, 10:51 AM	#36
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	It's a logical direction as any for this discussion to move in... __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

11-02-2006, 12:06 PM	#40
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	This is an extreme tangent, but guns and chainsaws are intended to do physical harm or damage to something (hammers, too, if you consider a pneumatic nailgun to be the nail-driver of choice, and a hammer to be mostly a demolition tool) while cars are designed primarily to transport. While a car can cause harm, it isn't the primary purpose of the device. This really has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Carry on... __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

11-02-2006, 12:21 PM	#43
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	I'm not aware of liability suits filed on the basis of a gun simply existing, but if there are cases like that, I would hope they would be laughed right out of court. I assume cases against gun manufacturers to have some basis in the design or operability of the device, such as, in cars: seatbelts, airbags, etc. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

11-02-2006, 10:47 AM	#35
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	Crap. Was I that obvious? OK, forget the drugs comment.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)