Trayvon Martin.

So why tell me I can't?

...

See my post above about Tough Shit situations.

 

Bodkin, good thing "pussy" has two meanings then.

 

Can someone carry a gun and treat it as a tool, an option - and an option that can be rejected? Yes, I'm sure they can and you may well be one of those people, Plan9. I don't know.

I suspect, however - and can't prove, so it's a bias I admit - that most people can't do that.

I believe that they have a greater emotional attachment to the weapon they carry and that, given the situation (which is statistically unlikely to arise) that they have to exercise that option, will have no fucking clue how to use it appropriately. Military guys may be an exception. However, it worries me to see the start of a confrontation (and confrontations are regular events in any area where there are women and alcohol and men in close proximity) when I consider that one or more of the potential guys involved may be armed. I don't hate guns. I don't want people carrying knives either.

 

Jeez Plan, for all I know you're a walking time bomb ready to detonate when the wind blows up from the South. You say you're not, but then again, I'm sure Zimmerman could be pretty convincing when it came to protecting his right to carry his firearm.

 

Hey, somebody has to fuck with you guys. It was getting to be a real echo chamber in here.

BONUS:

Fun reading for anti-concealed carry advocates.

 

I love being fucked with.

 

Nice article, Plan9. I thought it was balanced.

 

Ok, though I don't see the point of openly carrying an unloaded gun (except to intimidate an already intimidated citizenry) I can see the News Flash! The deceased was shot three times while attempting to load his own weapon or, the injured felt threatened by a group of young Hispanic men standing across the street and shot himself in the foot while attempting to load his handgun) and I agree that it's preferable to carrying and concealing a loaded gun.

Next.

 

I don't understand the overwhelming "guns are complex machines, operating them must be incredibly difficult" mentality, Joniemack. A competent shooter can draw from concealment and put round in a paper cutout at 7 yards in well under 3 seconds. I'm not talking super duper ninja military, I'm talking about some couch commando toting a beer gut with a little time at the target range. As many have alluded to in other threads, firearms are designed to be easy to operate because only total idiots ever use them. How else do you explain the number of babies the USMC has slaughtered?

Your inability to believe that a reasonable percentage of those that own and operate firearms are competent with their operation is confusing. I suspect you're a backseat driver as well. It's an interesting thing, the fear of the unknown as it relates to an inanimate chunk of metal and plastic.

As Zimmerman has demonstrated through the incident that lead to his arrest: guns are pretty goddamn easy to use most of the time. Point and click. As he's also proven: The hard part is deciding when to click. In this case? He totally failed. Score 1 for machines and 0 for human decision-making.

I challenge you, Joniemack, to better yourself by learning about firearms. I don't want you to purchase one, learn how to shoot, no, nothing of that sort. I want you to learn how to unload a gun (revolver and automatic) so that, should you be presented with a crazy 1% situation where a gun is lying somewhere dangerous, you can confidently safe it so that it doesn't randomly go off and kill an innocent Caucasian infant, as they often do.

Defusing situations. That's a real hero skill.

 

I don't have that mentality, Plan. I've discharged firearms before, handguns, rifles and a shotgun once. I'm not unfamiliar with them. I could probably justify owning a rifle or shotgun to keep in my home but not a handgun which could be taken and used against me far too easily because there's no real point in having one in my nightstand for protection against intruders unless it was loaded and available for instant and reactive use.

I'm not anti-gun. In fact, I think they're cool gadgets, I can see their value as collectibles, and it's good fun discharging them at a target range. I am also very aware of their power. They are weapons of death which do not require those on the other end of them to touch their target. They're unlike a knife which requires the wielder to come in contact with the victim and to feel the steel penetrating layers of flesh, muscle, and organs. They're unlike fingers around a throat where there are several moments available in which adrenaline can subside and a decision other than death can be made. A gun provides a sort of flesh anonymity and has no sympathy for regret. They are instigators and intimidators and can provoke an injurious or deadly situation as easily as they can be assumed to defend against one.

I'm super-glad you trust yourself to be a conscientious and thoughtful gun-carrier. Do you trust all gun-carriers equally? I don't. I don't want to be intimidated by yahoos, I don't want to be an innocent bystander who gets shot or injured in a situation where a gun yahoo decides this is his "moment."

This is how I feel and it has nothing to do with how I feel about guns. It has nothing to do with the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. It has everything to do with the fact that I have no idea how many assholes are out there with guns strapped to their beer bloated bellies.

 

I've heard this argument before and it's always struck me as one of the more ignorant and uniformed arguments I've heard.

Make no bones about it, protecting yourself and your loved ones is a 24/7 job. It doesn't matter if you are getting paid for it or not. There is a LOT of work that goes into being a responsible gun owner, and a lot of money, on training, ammo, the fire arm it self. We are talking thousands of dollars, and lots of hours. Think of it like a Journeyman Program like electricians or plumbers go through. After a while, you earn the right to be considered a trade master. Now, you get people like Zimmerman who frankly show they are unable to do the job, and should have there ability to practice the trade denied. Getting paid or not, it's a full time job in a very real sense. So, until I can figure out a way to carry a cop on me, I'll carry a gun and do the job myself.

And the psychology for carrying concealed is a VERY healthy one. While open carry is a right I fully support, showing that you are armed can bring out that element of society that wants to prove how much of a bad ass they are and start a situation. People carry concealed to avoid just that sort of unintentional escalation by stupid blow hards, while still taking every step they can to protect themselves and their loved ones. That is not unhealthy. Unhealthy is the part of society that would rather let scum bags walk all over them and show how "civilized" they are by martyring themselves. Unhealthy is the people like Zimmerman, who seem to think that having a gun makes them a societal enforcer, and take it upon themselves to engage in confrontation situations while armed.

Everyone I know that carries concealed shares a similar mentality of wanting nothing more then to simply be left alone to live their lives in peace, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to protect that. I think that pretty much covers what a "real man" is.

I'll get down from the high horse now, though I reserve the right to beat it after it's dead.

 

As a person living in Houston, I understand a lot of people who want and have CHLs. The problem I have with some is that they aren't mature enough to handle a credit card, how are they mature enough to handle a firearm. To me, stand your ground laws, concealment laws, looser gun control laws, are not the problem. Its the people who try to cover themselves in illegal activity by using broad loose interpretation of these laws. Personally gun control is using the second arm to help steady the shot. The issue isn't firearms, its people who pass background checks but don't have the mental maturity to have a gun.

A few years a go there was a case in Houston of Joe Horn, who killed 2 robbers who were leaving his neighbors house. One shot in the chest, one shot in the back. One in the back was shot on the side walk. He wasn't charged with anything because the DA used the castle defense since his neighbor did tell him to watch his house and get his mail. To me, that becomes crap because then anyone with a gun feels they can shoot whoever and then try and justify it. The lack of crime scene evidence I have heard in the Zimmerman case has me thinking he will walk. Sadly, if he is not guilty, he really might need the stand your ground, due to nut job groups like the Neo Black Panther party putting a bounty on his head.

 

I am perfectly fine with the mentality that wants to have a gun around for protection. I really, truly do not care.
But I don't understand why those people feel the need to characterize those of us who don't as martyrs who let scumbags walk all over us. As if those are the only two choices in life.
Be a fine, upstanding gun owner. Or a spineless victim waiting to happen.
That kind of thinking marginalizes gun owners in mind, much like what is being discussed in the article that Plan9 posted. I would love to think that most gun owners, particularly those who want to carry, are safe, rational people but I glean plenty of evidence to the contrary. There is so much romance and import imputed to the gun and to what the gun implies about and even makes of the person who carries it. It's as foreign and bizarre to me as those my little pony people. A couple of weeks ago at work I was dealing with a loon who had to make sure that he impressed me adequately with the fact that he was carrying. And he was a fucking loon. Said it before and say it again, the gun lobby needs new PR if you want to impress a person like me. Otherwise I have absolutely no qualms about you losing your 'rights.' Make me care.

 

Well, since we're talking about all this in the context of SYG legislation, another aspect of the cold-dead-hands mentality I think causes a lot of issues will return to the question of why you aren't required to pass a competency exam to own a gun. If we expect it for driving a vehicle, and given the immediacy and finality of discharging a gun for self-defense, it seems a reasonable idea to make sure people have been trained in their use. I was lucky in the sense that my dad and uncles are all Nam vets, and I was raised learning gun safety and use, but a lot of people aren't. Without that instruction, it scares me to think that I could go to an authorized gun store, have a 5 minute background check run, and walk out with a .45 and ammo for it, with no real idea of how to load, maintain and properly fire a weapon.

This is all in addition to the particulars of the the Martin case, but the resistance on behalf of the pro-gun lobby to any reasonable legislation pretty much results in a situation where something like this is bound to happen. Granted, this does very little to curb illegal use and possession of firearms - but it certainly doesn't help either to have a pervasive sense in society that it's no big deal.
--- merged: Apr 28, 2012 at 12:43 PM ---

I don't understand this. Why would they hesitate? Concern for their neighbors? I don't understand why a law-abiding citizen, who presumably keeps a hand gun for protection in your scenario, would hesitate to use it? I presume that's the whole point of having it in the house/apartment/domestic living structure.

First, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your cousin.

I don't understand why you would allow someone to have a handgun in an apartment for self defense, and then prosecute them for missing their target in the event of a break-in. Regardless, it's probably not worth discussing too much because the conversation then turns to other ways society might protect itself in these situations (i.e. building security, etc) and we get way off topic. However, I find it unlikely that you're going to throw a knife or a boat through the wall of an apartment building.

Don't get me wrong, as previously stated I have guns in my house and know how to use them, and would use them to defend myself or my loved ones if necessary. However, I think when it comes to gun ownership and particularly packing in public we could and should do a better job of regulating that activity. Or else just get rid of driver's licenses, truck licenses, medical licenses etc. I think the gun lobby has too much power proportional to the amount of liberty they exact from our politicians in light of other activities which have the potential to affect others in society around the gun owner.

edit: I successfully tricked plan into liking the entirety of my post with the help of the automerge feature. I can now say something to the effect that all gun owners with smooth spots like to rub their taint with peanut butter and have the house cat lick it clean (some people have sandpaper issues, what can I say?), and he will have liked that too. Possibilities are endless.....

double-edit: Ok, I'm apparently blowing my entire 2012 post-wad today, but I did want to chime in one last thing: I think the characterization of all people who carry as pencil-dicked pussies is a bit harsh. That'd be like saying that all women in tight, low-cut shirts and mini-skirts are whores who deserve misogynistic treatment and to be treated like prostitutes. There are a myriad of reasons why someone might want to carry, and some of them legit. I know people that have to work in shady places who need to pack. I know the guys at one of the liquor stores are required to carry at work because they've had a series of break-ins. I had a friend who was involved in insurance adjustment in a sketchy part of Atlanta who was advised by law enforcement to carry. He was also adviced to get trained, which he did. Regardless, I guess my point is that not everyone who carries wants to be Steven Seagal, even before he became over-the-top douchebag material. (Sorry if you're reading this Steve...just calling it like I see it) I just see this application of SYG as being problematic and too easily taken advantage of - in addition to the way this case has been handled.

Damn, I need a smoke and a nap after that session.

final edit: just did the same thing to stang. Aspiring lawyer gun enthusiasts are well known to have mild seagal obsessions, unhealthy to the point of insisting on wearing bad pony-tail wigs in their intimate encounters and insisting on never moving their backs before, during or after intercourse. I'm glad we all agree.

 

...I hate you.

 

Personally, I never cared much for guns. And I say this as someone who spent most of his life in a city where the homicide rate is orders of magnitude larger than the most violent city in the US.

But I also think that most restrictive forms of gun control are a waste of policy. Not based on whether they actually remove guns from the street, but because, in terms at least of broad societal impact, it simply does not make much of a difference .I might feel differently about this had I been involved on a gun related incident on either side, but in terms of broad impact, the effects of guns on crime, either pro or con, is pretty limited and not worth the political capital needed to implement it. Unlike most rabid advocates pro and con would claim, guns simply do not matter as much. And there are simply bigger fish to fry.

Of course, I am talking about the most restrictive forms of gun control. I strongly support the rights of schools, employers and many public or private venues to restrict guns inside their premises. And though I have absolutely no issues with most guns and gun owners, I do think that people who feel it is absolutely necessary (to the point of lobbying legislatures) to carry a gun in a classroom, place of employment, concert or bar are generally either douchebags on powertrips or severely paranoid persons.

That said, and to bring this back to topic, I am against stand your ground laws. Not because I don't believe people should try to defend themselves, but because SYG laws try to solve a problem that simply does not exist. It is not like in states without them you have to bend over and take anything anyone tries to do to you in public, and if anything the cases where someone used SYG to mean "right to escalate" are more common than unjust convictions for self defense. And I think Florida law is specially egregious given the nature of the immunity granted in these cases, which cover not only criminal but also civil issues. And I dislike this for the same reasons I dislike legislatively mandated minimum sentences. I tend to like the whole "jury" thing and don't like unneeded interferences with it.

 

Zeraph Trolling Protip: Unlike Button. Then you quote his post and change a bunch of shit he said to suggest he gargles cocks.

Hey, Detroit is still part of the US.

 

enjoying this superb discussion.
i went up & down the rows and liked a slew of posts.
my admiration of the articulates is tinged with a robust smidgeon of envy.

 

That particular characterization is aimed not at your average "don't like guns, don't want one" person, but the asshole like the Brady Bunch that want to push their be a victim mentality on the rest of us. Truth be told, a lot of us pro gunners would love nothing more then to sit quietly in on the side and leave everyone else the hell alone about our views. All we as is the anti crowd does the same. I fully support other peoples decision not to own a gun. There are many other means to defend yourself. However, until the brady campaign and others like them stop trying to push to take away my rights, I really feel I have no choice but to speak out against them and the mentality that tries to marginalize us.

And yes, just like any other group, we do have some loons. No more then any other group though.

 

Yep, ever since the zombie apocalypse started. I don't know about you, but I need a break. Isn't it someone else's turn on stag?