I can't help but feel it will be a while before we no longer see every firearms related incident as front page news.

If the UK is any model to judge by, if guns suddenly disappeared, these stories would be replaced with stabbings, masonry based assaults and every other form of human-on-human fuckery you can imagine......

Edit-

The comments section on this and other articles around this shooting beautifully illustrate how divided we have become.....

Last edited by XregnaR (2012-08-13 15:40:15)

Emmeran wrote:

In China they stab rooms full of kindergartners

Those kids had it coming.

Watching the various news outlets stumble all over themselves on this one is just sad.  One article is saying nobody killed, one says a cop & a civilian, one says 2 cops.  Just another reason to despise this era of instant mis-information.....

phreddy wrote:

Texas A&M issued a Code Maroon

WTF?  Code Maroon?  Is Code Red no longer politically correct?

Indi---er Native Americans

fnord wrote:

Bigcat wrote:

phreddy wrote:

WTF?  Code Maroon?  Is Code Red no longer politically correct?

Indi---er Native Americans

I thought it was because Texas A&M is experiencing fag corruption!

I thought that was purple!  Dammit, I can't keep up.  Surely I am destined to commit a terminal faux pas.

ah297900 wrote:

I don't get this argument that "if there were no guns, we'd still have killings with knives, etc." We'd still have murder, but we'd have a lot less. Guns make killing a whole lot easier; otherwise, why give them to the military?

Liberal pansy.

ah297900 wrote:

I don't get this argument that "if there were no guns, we'd still have killings with knives, etc." We'd still have murder, but we'd have a lot less. Guns make killing a whole lot easier; otherwise, why give them to the military?

When I hear this anti-gun argument, I like to refer people to this opinion piece by Marko Kloos:

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gangbanger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an (armed) mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat. It has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation, and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Marko Kloos blogs at www.munchkinwrangler.com.

WCL, we all no that not all men are created equal, even when able bodied.  I'm 6'2" and can squat the front end of a 70s VW bug.  But I'm not match for a petite blonde with double Ds. Or a 9mm.

Taint wrote:

Phredster, as I've pointed out in posts before, I own a couple of rifles - a 30.06, and a .30-40 Krag. The former I own because it was useful back in Alaska, the latter for sentimental reasons. I firmly believe people should be allowed to own firearms. I do not believe everyone needs automatic weapons. I also believe that people should have to undergo training just as they would with a car. If they're found to be unfit or incapable of operating a gun safely, they shouldn't own one. If they're totally fucked in the head, they shouldn't own one. The vast majority of Americans don't need guns. You can go on and on about the need to protect ourselves from government tyranny or the hordes of bad men just waiting to rape our womenfolk all you want but, in truth, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't need them. They're luxury items, and not terribly useful ones, in most cases, at that.

Taint, as I recall, you live in California.  Anyone applying for a concealed weapons permit in this state goes through a rigorous process.  First, you must take a short gun safety class and exam before you can purchase a weapon.  Next, you must take 12 hours of concealed weapons training, including a live fire test to prove you can shoot and hit a target.  Then you must make an application through the Sheriff's department.  The application goes for an in-depth background check and a set of fingerprints is distributed for matches to prior crimes.  The permit is good for two years, after which you go through another four hour class and test and reapplication with the Sheriff.  [Edit]  Forgot to mention a one on one interview with a specialist at the Sheriff's Department where you are analyzed even further.

As a gay man, I would suspect there have been times when having a revolver in your pocket would have would have "enabled you to be unafraid" as Kloos says.

Last edited by phreddy (2012-08-13 19:25:47)

phreddy wrote:

When I hear this anti-gun argument, I like to refer people to this opinion piece by Marko Kloos:

...... I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. ......

Adding a gun to that mix just makes you afraid with a loaded gun in your pocket, not unafraid. You are no longer merely a danger to yourself, you also become a danger to others and to innocent bystanders. By they way, and I only ask because you seem to want to spray lead around the big city, aren't you also the guy who would deny me reasonable medical care after you miss the Boogie Man and shoot me instead?

Emmeran wrote:

(and if I hear one more idiot try to argue that if someone else had a pistol in the Batman Theater things would have been better I will blow a fucking gasket)

OK, how about: If we all simply accepted Jesus, we wouldn't have these problems?

phreddy wrote:

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

He's obviously not Jewish. 

He forgot 'guilt'.

Phwedd.  Why So Scared?  I ask all who walk around with a concealed weapon.  Every person who I have met who carries is basically afraid, and quaking.  So f'n sad.

whosasailorthen wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

He's obviously not Jewish. 

He forgot 'guilt'.

Along with bribery, sexual favors and an infinite spectrum of other inducements. However, he may be more Jewish than you imagine. Who else would be more adept at straw golem building?

XregnaR wrote:

Sounds like another case of someone who shouldn't have been able to get a gun in the first place...

Clearly, you hate America.

Taint wrote:

OK, how about: If we all simply accepted Jesus, we wouldn't have these problems?

Sorry for the rant - I just can't understand why these folks can't accept that they won the argument.

I know this is going to piss you off but, "have" not "of". Sorry, I can't help it.

Bigcat wrote:

I know this is going to piss you off but, "have" not "of". Sorry, I can't help it.

Makes me crazy, too. There must be support groups for people like us.

phreddy wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Phwedd.  Why So Scared?  I ask all who walk around with a concealed weapon.  Every person who I have met who carries is basically afraid, and quaking.  So f'n sad.

The way I see it, those who say they are opposed to carrying a pistol have no confidence in their own judgment.  They are the ones who are truly afraid.  They fear themselves.  They would rather place their trust in the attacker's sense of mercy than take control of the situation.  Nothing says you must pull out your weapon and shoot someone.   Having the confidence to be in charge takes courage, not the other way round.

I don't carry a pistol because I'm afraid.  I am pragmatic.  Bad things happen and I speak from experience.  I have been robbed at knife point by a wild-eyed druggie.  Fortunately, it did not come to violence, but I learned that I would much rather have the option of escalation to violence be mine, and not his.  Hoping that a whacked out mugger will settle for your money is not a position you want to find yourself in. 

I see carrying a weapon the same way I see defensive driving.  Other people are fucked up and I will do what I can to prevent them from fucking up me and my family.  Skipping through life like Polyanna, counting on the good judgment of others is irresponsible, especially if you have a family looking to you for support and protection.

In other words, fear.

phreddy wrote:

You surprise me Em.  I assumed you wouldn't be one of the cowering ones fearing that pistol will take on a life of its own and shoot him in the foot.  Good luck when it comes your turn to negotiate for your life.  I hope your attitude will hold up against that other guy's Glock.  Fools come in all flavors I suppose.

A fuck I give not, I know and have lived both sides. 


Call me when you experience the reality of it, I'll have a beer and a cry with you.

It is weird for me to find myself in agreement with phred, but I am, one hundred percent.

This country does not really have a "gun problem."  This country has a serious mental health treatment problem, in that there ain't none except for the wealthy.  Send your thanks to Budget-Cuttin' Ronald Reagan, c/o Hell.

Bigcat wrote:

Is everyone here athiest but me? I'm surprised by the ratio everywhere. 
Go ahead....

It's spelled atheist, and no; most days I still believe in god.  The days I don't are still in the minority.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Goober I must of tapped into it for you, eh?  No reactive/defensive reaction like a reactive/defensive reaction.  Yep.  Fear based.

Every person who I have met who starts a statement with "Every person who I have met" is a total gobshite. It's a very convenient warning that you have to raise shields and filter everything they say through your rhetorical analyzer.

Sic Semper Hypocrita

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_R3xKYz0g2Zg/S … Police.gif

Still, it's FEAR, no matter what excuse you pull out your pimply ass or how much you obfuscate.

Last edited by Dmtdust (2012-08-14 21:33:13)

It's a control and mental illness issue.  Yes, the weapons are somewhat secondary, but if they were all muzzle loading muskets, this would be almost a non issue.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

then the derringer in your groin-holster

That's not a derringer but thanks for noticing.

Dmtdust wrote:

It's a control and mental illness issue.  Yes, the weapons are somewhat secondary, but if they were all muzzle loading muskets, this would be almost a non issue.

At the time the Bill of Rights were written a muzzle loading rifle shooting a Minnie ball WAS a state of the art military grade weapon, better than half of the armies of Europe. The Bill of Rights doesn't say that the people should only have blunderbus' and chasseurs, but modern guns are reserved for the military. At that time the common phrase "well regulated" meant well supplied and trained, and that means modern weapons in the hands of citizens that knew how to use them.

You don't like guns, don't own one. But don't stand in the way of people who do. Guns are like condoms. You "probably" don't need one when you are out on the town, but if you do it won't do you any good if it's at home in the drawer by the bed. Does having a condom in your pocket make you a rapist? Or do you eschew them because you aren't "afraid".