I think I do "get" guns, maybe?

[Strange Famous]

I was thinking about this while having a conversation with this girl I know.

Now, I dont personally support gun ownership, but that isnt the point Im trying to make in this comment. When I get in a confrontational situation - such as someone shouting at me or getting aggressive, basically when I feel under threat: I instinctively rap my keys around my fist. I have a load of loose keyrings on the set of keys (not for this purpose, they just all got added over time adding and taking off different keys) and I can push each finger through one and basically form a fist with a set of metal keys draped over it.

Ive never hit anyone with my keys, but it makes me feel confident and safe I guess (and a few times people who have been walking towards me aggressively stop and back off when I did it) - because I just feel "if I pop someone, with 300-odd lbs behind the force of a jangled mass of metal, one punch is gonna finish it"... and it makes me feel not scared of the confrontation anymore.

To me, maybe thats the reason a lot of people carry around a metal or a knife... not because they really plan to ever use it, but just knowing that they have a means of defence makes them feel safer.

Of course, if everyone goes around carrying a metal then everyone is less safe, just like if I wrap a set of keys round my fist so the other guy pulls a blade we're both less safe - but I think it works on a subconscious level.

[Plan9]

Humans use tools. Weapons are just an extension of that practice.

[Willravel]

As much as the cold steel on your hip, your ankle, or under your arm makes you feel like god, I'm not sure if that's why people fight for gun rights. It's more the "don't tread on me" culture, imho.

[Jinn]

Half a dozen of one and six of the other, perhaps. The former ALLOWS the latter to exist, so they're both important.

[cj2112]

Nope....you don't get it.

I carry a gun to stop those that may want to harm me, or my family. It is simply one tool among many that I may use if necessary to defend my life. It is certainly not the only tool, nor typically the first tool I would use in every situation, but I am prepared to use it if necessary. Those tools include my brain, my size, my cell phone, my keys, and various items that the surrounding area happens to make available.

I don't carry a gun because it makes me feel powerful, as a matter of fact, I tend to avoid confrontations on the street more than I did prior to being licensed to carry.

[Strange Famous]

I said that I think people carry a metal or a big banger because it makes them feel safer, not more powerful.

[cj2112]

You're right, my brain substituted powerful for safer. I apologize for that.

I dunno that it makes me "feel" any safer. I don't make many decisions based on how I feel though.

Carrying was more of a decision based on my perceived responsibilities to my family. I live in a pretty rural area. I have seen coyotes within 50 yards of my home, we had a cougar within a few feet of the house a couple of nights ago. We also don't have 24 hour sheriff patrols in our area and even when we do, a deputy may be as far as 90 minutes away.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Of course, if everyone goes around carrying a metal then everyone is less safe, just like if I wrap a set of keys round my fist so the other guy pulls a blade we're both less safe - but I think it works on a subconscious level.

if the threat of lethal force (by way of the intended victim having an effective means of defense) is enough to stop violent assault, how does that make everyone less safe?

[KirStang]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

if the threat of lethal force (by way of the intended victim having an effective means of defense) is enough to stop violent assault, how does that make everyone less safe?

I think the proper scenario plays out, in the OP's post, such that A aggresses, B pulls weapon to stop A's aggression, A pulls out shotty and everyone shoots and dies. (The Escalation Scenario).

Of course, that's not the only weapon-involved scenario, just one in which a weapon may make every one less safe.

===============

I think the OP makes a good point. It certainly does not make gun owners feel like 'god.' BUT, there is certain security in knowing that I have a strong means of defense should someone attempt to rob me in some parking lot.

So, I'll concede: One factor in gun ownership, for me, stems from a sense of security a weapon provides.

[cj2112]

I wouldn't draw my weapon to protect property. Oregon doesn't allow me to use deadly force in defense of property, nothing I own is worth taking a life over, and frankly, I don't want to deal with the legal and psychological bullshit that I'd go through if I did use my firearm.
If somebody wants to rob me, they're going to find me a less than satisfactory target. I rarely carry cash, my size is somewhat intimidating, and I'm going to constantly be on the lookout for a method of escape from the situation.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Humans use tools. Weapons are just an extension of that practice.

Exactly. It's just a tool that gives me extra options. Instead of talking, then running, I can draw weapon (which might end the threat outright), or worst case scenario shoot. If a person doesn't conceal carry there options are very limited to the point that they have the option to talk run or be a victim.

[Willravel]

Shovels don't get their own ultra-powerful lobby or amendment in the Bill of Rights.

If only guns were just tools.

A well regulated landscaping team being necessary to the look of your front yard, the right of the People to keep and bear shovels shall not be infringed.

[KirStang]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Shovels don't get their own ultra-powerful lobby or amendment in the Bill of Rights.

If only guns were just tools.

A well regulated landscaping team being necessary to the look of your front yard, the right of the People to keep and bear shovels shall not be infringed.

It depends on what your definition of 'Tools' is. Under a liberal construction, all our sacred rights, First Amendment (Free speech), Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process), Fifth Amendment (Right against self incrimination), Fourth Amendment (No unreasonable search and seizure), are tools.

[FuglyStick]

There is a segment of the population which worships guns. These are the guys who have tons of pics with them posing with their babies, and they use their weapons to define their personality to an extent--without their guns, they have a gaping hole where their personality should be (this doesn't include active duty military--their weapons are a part of them, as that is how they are trained. Don't ever be caught without your weapon, or leave your weapon unsecured).

Unfortunately, the gun worshipers are the most visible of gun advocates, even though they represent a very small percentage of gun owners. For the overwhelming majority of gun owners, a gun IS a tool, and they would no more pose in tough guy pictures with their weapon than they would pose in pictures with their screwdrivers or blenders.

Carrying a weapon is not a "feeling" of security; it IS more secure.

[supersix2]

What most people don't understand is that people who conceal carry don't go around looking for opportunities to use their gun or act as vigilantes. A lot of anti-gun people think that everyone who owns a gun is just itching for someone to look at them wrong or step one foot on their property. If any one of them would sit through a concealed handgun class like I think most would change their attitude. The gun you carry is quite literally your last means of defense stop aggression against you. If you can get away or de-escalate the situation you do so. If someone just wants my wallet or my car, they can have it, I'm not going to shoot them over it. However, if in the course of getting robbed the person pulls a weapon (knife or gun) I then have to assess how life threatening the situation is, and if warranted use my gun to save my life. There is a catch in this situation since the would be robber most likely has the drop on me with his/her weapon there is probably little I can do aside from give up whatever property of mine they want otherwise I might get stabbed or shot while in the process of drawing my gun.

Plus, defense is only one aspect of gun ownership. Guns are a hobby for a lot of people, including myself. Sport shooting rifles, shotguns, and pistols is a lot of fun and a skill that takes a lot of time, patience, and practice to get good at. It's not about getting really good at shooting so you can go out and kill things, it is a challenge you present to yourself to shoot accurately and consistently. Guns can be collectible items and may never be fired. You can also customize and tinker with guns similarly to what people can do with cars. I see no reason why any law abiding citizen should have limitations on gun ownership nor should they have to pay unfair licensing and registration fees. Some states implement long and drawn out processes and fees to obtain gun licensing and registration to deter gun ownership. This does work in some cases but most people will just suck it up and absorb the extra costs/hassles so they can do something they like to do. At that point all you are really doing is taxing people who participate in certain activities.

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

For the overwhelming majority of gun owners, a gun IS a tool, and they would no more pose in tough guy pictures with their weapon than they would pose in pictures with their screwdrivers or blenders.

...sportscar / mud bogger / motorcycle would seem far more likely. Especially with their bikini-clad trophy wife posing next to / on the hardware. I think most males have genetic programming to desire these types of photos. "*grunt-grunt* Look at my stuff!" Stuff makes us happy... like rare steaks and skull poles.

I'll let you know if I ever see a HWM (heterosexual white male) posing with a blender.

*wanders off to see if he can find those pictures of his ex holding the SAR-1 AK47*

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Willravel

A well regulated landscaping team being necessary to the look of your front yard, the right of the People to keep and bear shovels shall not be infringed.

Wait a second, Will, we're not all members of a well regulated landscaping team. Why would the framers have included that part if they simply wanted everyone to have a right to own a shovel? And why didn't they mention ditch digging? I think this is an outdated amendment.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Shovels don't get their own ultra-powerful lobby or amendment in the Bill of Rights.

If only guns were just tools.

A well regulated landscaping team being necessary to the look of your front yard, the right of the People to keep and bear shovels shall not be infringed.

Nice troll there, although this whole discussion is really more suited for the politics board anyway.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by samcol

Nice troll there

It's a well formulated argument that happens to be shaped with a bit of humor. Don't get mad because you laughed.

[Plan9]

I wasn't laughing. The Landscaping Second Amendment perpetuates minority labor! Racist!

[therealcat]

Of course, if everyone goes around carrying a metal then everyone is less safe...

Not so.

Here's an example: all my friends and I carry, some openly, some concealed. Even when we encounter differences of opinion, the last thing anyone's likely to see is a gun being drawn. How come? Because a.) we all understand what guns are all about, including their destructive power and the consequences of abusing it, and b.) we're all adults who understand feelings don't override morality.

I believe it was Robert Heinlein who remarked, "An armed society is a polite society." Having hung around gun shops and ranges roughly four decades now, I can tell you that's generally true.

That said™, there are some irresponsible people running around on the loose, and some of them carry knives, guns, clubs, et cetera. I've encountered two of them over the years. The first was actively attempting to rape and murder a woman. The second was attempting to break into a neighbor's house with a screw driver.

I sincerely hope I won't ever encounter a third.

[Plan9]

Will, you're in with the staff.

Have this moved to Politics or Nonsense.

[Willravel]

Hahahah... I'm in with the staff like Lieberman is in with the liberals.

[Plan9]

Chop, chop!

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Wait a second, Will, we're not all members of a well regulated landscaping team. Why would the framers have included that part if they simply wanted everyone to have a right to own a shovel? And why didn't they mention ditch digging? I think this is an outdated amendment.

you ARE a member of that team and it's time you took your duty and responsibility seriously. If you are not well regulated, that is your fault and you need to take every step necessary to rectify the situation. THAT is why that part was included, so that it would never be outdated.

[Zeraph]

Why can't I just like guns because I like them? Why is it guns always get psychoanalyzed by people with no business doing so? They're just cool! OK? I've always had a facination with them since I was a kid. They're a clever bit of technology for doing what they do, they're interesting, and they're just plain fun to look at and shoot.

Now think about how you'd feel if the government wanted to outlaw your favorite hobby or say cars. Or the internet. It'd get you pretty pissed and annoyed, ya?

[The_Jazz]

Zeraph, I couldn't help thinking about that thing that's ALWAYS on bash.org when I saw this.

<JonJonB> Purely in the interests of science, I have replaced the word "wand" with "wang" in the first Harry Potter Book
<JonJonB> Let's see the results...

<JonJonB> "Why aren't you supposed to do magic?" asked Harry.
<JonJonB> "Oh, well -- I was at Hogwarts meself but I -- er -- got expelled, ter tell yeh the truth. In me third year. They snapped me wang in half an' everything

<JonJonB> A magic wang... this was what Harry had been really looking forward to.

<JonJonB> "Yes, yes. I thought I'd be seeing you soon. Harry Potter." It wasn't a question. "You have your mother's eyes. It seems only yesterday she was in here herself, buying her first wang. Ten and a quarter inches long, swishy, made of willow. Nice wang for charm work."
<JonJonB> "Your father, on the other hand, favored a mahogany wang. Eleven inches. "

<JonJonB> Harry took the wang. He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wang above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end like a firework, throwing dancing spots of light on to the walls

<JonJonB> "Oh, move over," Hermione snarled. She grabbed Harry's wang, tapped the lock, and whispered, 'Alohomora!"

<JonJonB> The troll couldn't feel Harry hanging there, but even a troll will notice if you stick a long bit of wood up its nose, and Harry's wang had still been in his hand when he'd jumped - it had gone straight up one of the troll's nostrils.

<JonJonB> He bent down and pulled his wang out of the troll's nose. It was covered in what looked like lumpy gray glue.

<JonJonB> He ran onto the field as you fell, waved his wang, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground. Then he whirled his wang at the dementors. Shot silver stuff at them.

<JonJonB> Ok
<JonJonB> I have found, definitive proof
<JonJonB> that J.K Rowling is a dirty DIRTY woman, making a fool of us all
<JonJonB> "Yes," Harry said, gripping his wang very tightly, and moving into the middle of the deserted classroom. He tried to keep his mind on flying, but something else kept intruding.... Any second now, he might hear his mother again... but he shouldn't think that, or he would hear her again, and he didn't want to... or did he?
<melusine > O_______O
<JonJonB> Something silver-white, something enormous, erupted from the end of his wang

<JonJonJonB> Then, with a sigh, he raised his wang and prodded the silvery substance with its tip.

<JonJonJonB> 'Get - off - me!' Harry gasped. For a few seconds they struggled, Harry pulling at his uncles sausage-like fingers with his left hand, his right maintaining a firm grip on his raised wang.

If I do the same to your post, but replaced "gun" with "wang":

Why can't I just like wangs because I like them? Why is it wangs always get psychoanalyzed by people with no business doing so? They're just cool! OK? I've always had a facination with them since I was a kid. They're a clever bit of technology for doing what they do, they're interesting, and they're just plain fun to look at and shoot.

Now think about how you'd feel if the government wanted to outlaw cars. Or the internet. It'd get you pretty pissed and annoyed, ya?

I hope you'll forgive me making a joke at your expense, but I am making an actual point. Just because you think they're "neat" and "fun" doesn't mean much to me. I've shot guns and I've driven a Formula 1-style car (Formula Dodge at Laguna Seca as a part of a racing school). Both of them require a lot of training and skill to operate safely, and you can see the outcome when idiots get ahold of either.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you ARE a member of that team and it's time you took your duty and responsibility seriously. If you are not well regulated, that is your fault and you need to take every step necessary to rectify the situation. THAT is why that part was included, so that it would never be outdated.

But it is outdated. Free elections, checks and balances, free press, free speech; these are necessary for a free state. Guns, once, would have made a great tool for insurrection against an oppressive government, but no longer. While I'm sure your proficiency with a gun would make you a bane to any criminal breaking into your home, you can't possibly think that you can stand up to state or federal military or police forces. Even if you had a respectable fighting force, the insurrection would devolve into terrorism (hardly well regulated) as soon as you realized that you can't take on the US military head on. As guns no longer are the key to revolution and maintaining a free state, the amendment no longer finds itself relevant. It's been reduced to either a cover for gun culture or for self-defense. You'll notice self-defense isn't named in the amendment as the reason guns are a right. If it were, I'd be formulating a completely different argument.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

...I've driven a Formula 1-style wang...

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Willravel

But it is outdated. Free elections, checks and balances, free press, free speech; these are necessary for a free state. Guns, once, would have made a great tool for insurrection against an oppressive government, but no longer. While I'm sure your proficiency with a gun would make you a bane to any criminal breaking into your home, you can't possibly think that you can stand up to state or federal military or police forces. Even if you had a respectable fighting force, the insurrection would devolve into terrorism (hardly well regulated) as soon as you realized that you can't take on the US military head on. As guns no longer are the key to revolution and maintaining a free state, the amendment no longer finds itself relevant. It's been reduced to either a cover for gun culture or for self-defense. You'll notice self-defense isn't named in the amendment as the reason guns are a right. If it were, I'd be formulating a completely different argument.

So doing away with the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 seemed like a great idea and the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 seemed like such a great idea. So long as all the money was rolling in, what was the point of such safeguards as the Glass-Steagall Act?????? I do not think we'd be in such dire straights if the bill was left intact.

You can't predict that guns won't be a useful element to revolution in the future just because some countries had peaceful revolutions in the recent past.

[KirStang]

Unless someone here has psychic powers and can see in to the future, analyzing firearm ownership in the narrow scope of rebellion is missing the point entirely.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Willravel

But it is outdated. Free elections, checks and balances, free press, free speech; these are necessary for a free state. Guns, once, would have made a great tool for insurrection against an oppressive government, but no longer. While I'm sure your proficiency with a gun would make you a bane to any criminal breaking into your home, you can't possibly think that you can stand up to state or federal military or police forces. Even if you had a respectable fighting force, the insurrection would devolve into terrorism (hardly well regulated) as soon as you realized that you can't take on the US military head on. As guns no longer are the key to revolution and maintaining a free state, the amendment no longer finds itself relevant. It's been reduced to either a cover for gun culture or for self-defense. You'll notice self-defense isn't named in the amendment as the reason guns are a right. If it were, I'd be formulating a completely different argument.

free elections, free speech, checks and balances, free press.......all can be done away with or seriously hampered by that federal government. Then what would you do? Don't sit there and say that the government would never do that, unless you've forgotten the last 8 years of Bush.

It is completely naive to think that we would deign to take on the military 'head on', but that's not what well regulated was or is about. Guns (all weapons basically) would be the key to maintaining a free state. Do you really think it would be as simple as calling for a vote?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

You can't predict that guns won't be a useful element to revolution in the future just because some countries had peaceful revolutions in the recent past.

That's not much of an argument. To use Jazz's substitution method (minus the wang):
You can't predict that slaves won't be a useful element to economics in the future just because some countries can get by without them recently.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Willravel

That's not much of an argument. To use Jazz's substitution method (minus the wang):
You can't predict that slaves won't be a useful element to economics in the future just because some countries can get by without them recently.

from what I understand slavery wasn't expressly written into the constitution in any shape or form. What was added to the constitution was to make sure that freed slaves were in fact the same EQUAL.

You can easily say that the economy you are talking about, are just that since the pittance of wages paid overseas are probably equal to the cost of upkeep of slaves since you had to house, feed, and care, for them.

But this is shifting, if the 8 years of bush continued to 32 years of bush, you'd sit there and just hope every election for an overturn?

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Willravel

But it is outdated. Free elections, checks and balances, free press, free speech; these are necessary for a free state. Guns, once, would have made a great tool for insurrection against an oppressive government, but no longer. While I'm sure your proficiency with a gun would make you a bane to any criminal breaking into your home, you can't possibly think that you can stand up to state or federal military or police forces. Even if you had a respectable fighting force, the insurrection would devolve into terrorism (hardly well regulated) as soon as you realized that you can't take on the US military head on. As guns no longer are the key to revolution and maintaining a free state, the amendment no longer finds itself relevant. It's been reduced to either a cover for gun culture or for self-defense. You'll notice self-defense isn't named in the amendment as the reason guns are a right. If it were, I'd be formulating a completely different argument.

I love this idea that because YOU believe it's outdated no one should even have the chance or right to do it. What's even funnier is small arms fire power is still a huge part in modern military operations. The most powerful army in the world still isn't invincible against a bunch of rag tag insurgents and terrorists who are armed with 50 year old rifles.

Guns are the key to freedom and always have been in America, and they are a symbol of freedom.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

from what I understand slavery wasn't expressly written into the constitution in any shape or form. What was added to the constitution was to make sure that freed slaves were in fact the same EQUAL.

My point was that the argument didn't really hold water.

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

But this is shifting, if the 8 years of bush continued to 32 years of bush, you'd sit there and just hope every election for an overturn?

That's quite a false choice you've got there. In the case of tyranny, either sit there or have guns.

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:32 PM ----------

Originally Posted by samcol

I love this idea that because YOU believe it's outdated no one should even have the chance or right to do it.

It's not a belief, it's something that can be demonstrated via precedent, such as the Waco Siege. The Branch Davidians were armed to the teeth but couldn't even hope to stand up to the FBI or ATF. It was a massacre. It still makes me sick to think about it.

[Plan9]

*weapons forum palmface*

You kids take your damn politics elsewhere!

I wanna talk specs and sports.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's not a belief, it's something that can be demonstrated via precedent, such as the Waco Siege. The Branch Davidians were armed to the teeth but couldn't even hope to stand up to the FBI or ATF. It was a massacre. It still makes me sick to think about it.

This is a somewhat poor example. we're talking about a group of people that did not WANT a fight. They repelled the first assault, effectively I might add, but then made many attempts to avoid violence.

On top of all of that, you had the DoJ in a rush to conclude the siege in any manner possible because of the mounting anger and possible backlash of hundreds of Texans who were outraged at what the feds were doing. If the feds had let that siege go on another couple of weeks, they would have been facing a much larger armed force NOT sitting inside that compound.

[Cynthetiq]

wait that something was expressly written into the constitution doesn't hold water? did I understand your statement correctly?

[samcol]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This is a somewhat poor example. we're talking about a group of people that did not WANT a fight. They repelled the first assault, effectively I might add, but then made many attempts to avoid violence.

On top of all of that, you had the DoJ in a rush to conclude the siege in any manner possible because of the mounting anger and possible backlash of hundreds of Texans who were outraged at what the feds were doing. If the feds had let that siege go on another couple of weeks, they would have been facing a much larger armed force NOT sitting inside that compound.

Quite frankly, it's a horrible example. When you parallel it over to the other freedoms in the bill of rights, by his argument if my petitioning of the government to end the wars in Iraq fails, no one else should be allowed to petition for anything (human rights, gay marriage, green intiatives, or whatever).



Sorry Will, your argument against gun rights is one of the worst I've heard in awhile.

[Willravel]

It's the only example I have. Every other opportunity for armed revolt in recent US history... well... nothing. Even when the government actually went from door to door stealing people's guns during Katrina, not one person fought back. Lotsa bark, no bite. I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that everyone, even gun proponents, agree with me.