So, I nearly got killed today...

May 23, 2006 1:53 PM

I don't own a gun, and I hope my neighbors don't either.
posted by jonson (226 comments total)

I love the collection of guns on the bathroom sink. Like it's just normal to have a few toothbrushes, maybe a bar of soap, and oh yeah, three guns laying around.
posted by mathowie at 2:01 PM on May 23, 2006

Must have been using a wall hack.
posted by bondcliff at 2:02 PM on May 23, 2006 [2 favorites]

This is exactly the reason why I only use rat-shot when playing Taxi Driver in the mirror.
posted by BeerFilter at 2:04 PM on May 23, 2006

Sometimes floss just won't cut it.
posted by yoink at 2:05 PM on May 23, 2006

When I was three and my family was living in Texas a shot careened through our walls, nearly hitting me and one of our dogs. My father, ex-military, went over with the shotgun to see just what the hell had happened, only to find the guy had panicked and fled his house. Hours later when he returned to sneak in, he found the police waiting. They were not happy with him. At all.

I own two firearms, and I'm religious about not having them loaded, cleaning them, and storing them properly. Just looking at this photo makes me wish people could be put in jail for being stupid.
posted by Vaska at 2:06 PM on May 23, 2006

Guns don't kill people- Playing Warcraft kills people.
posted by Gungho at 2:06 PM on May 23, 2006

Comments: "Downside: You almost died Upside: You're famous on the internet"
posted by Packy_1962 at 2:08 PM on May 23, 2006

I came into this thinking this would be some kind of anti-firearms post or something silly about how blah blah blah 2nd Amendment yakkity yak yak.

Thankfully it was a geek pissing himself over his neighbors stupidity. Oh, and current civil building codes.

Note to self: next apartment must have 2 foot thick concrete walls.

Addendum to note: find out if that guy who's getting evicted wants to sell any of his collection...
posted by daq at 2:09 PM on May 23, 2006

You know the game is getting too intense when the characters fire at you with real guns.
posted by caddis at 2:09 PM on May 23, 2006

This may be taking force feedback a bit too far.
posted by Skorgu at 2:10 PM on May 23, 2006

And they say World of Warcraft PvP needs improvement...
posted by NationalKato at 2:15 PM on May 23, 2006

Something similar happened to me back in Florida. The guy below me raised snakes, I didn't know much more about him until a bullet hole showed up in my floor and ceiling. Wood chips from the floor were embedded around the hole in the ceiling, like sunbeams in a childhood drawing. This happened when I was out, and I didn't notice until he came up to apologize for shooting through my apartment.
By not being home I was safe, the cat lived by being small and prone to sunny areas of the space.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 2:16 PM on May 23, 2006

You know the guy was playing quick draw in front of the mirror, probably quoting from Dirty Harry movies as he did so.
posted by LarryC at 2:16 PM on May 23, 2006

Good thing he didn't think he was blowdrying his hair.
posted by NationalKato at 2:18 PM on May 23, 2006

I have a friend who worked in a hospital moving patients around in New York. One day he came back to the apartment we were all living in at the time and told us he had two gunshot victims right in a row.

One DOA suicide. And one neighbor who took the same round in the shoulder while eating his breakfast. What a cruddy day that must have been for him.
posted by lumpenprole at 2:19 PM on May 23, 2006

LarryC: TOTALLY... I'm surprised the original poster didn't make that connection. How else would you fire a shot at hip level through a mirror?
posted by anthill at 2:19 PM on May 23, 2006

daq, the guy is in the military, recognized all those guns on sight, and probably owns a gun himself. Sorry if that screws up your convenient preconceptions.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:20 PM on May 23, 2006

Is that a beer-bottle cap next to the guns in the picture?
posted by exogenous at 2:21 PM on May 23, 2006

Holy fuck man shit glad he’s ok. Bummer though, man, fuck shit fuck man. Wow, shit fuck jeez man fuck. What an idiot fuck shit fuck. Unscathed, shit. Seriously though, fuck.

Why isn’t this guy standardizing his ammo?
Collectors are weird.
/and he leaves them in the bathroom?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:24 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]

Why would any civilian in any civilized nation ever need this many guns?
posted by Vindaloo at 2:26 PM on May 23, 2006

You know the guy was playing quick draw in front of the mirror, probably quoting from Dirty Harry movies as he did so.

Yeah, and he should get a little time to himself in a jail cell to play some more. I'm a pretty pro-2nd Amendment kind of guy, and I'm all for private gun ownership, but I wouldn't want to live next to this guy either.

Addendum to note: find out if that guy who's getting evicted wants to sell any of his collection...

Where the hell do you even put a Barrett .50 in an apartment, for crying out loud?
posted by me & my monkey at 2:26 PM on May 23, 2006

This really brings home the fact that in an apartment you live cheek-by-jowl with your neighbours. The first guy is blithely typing at his computer while three feet in front of him the psycho neighbour is pointing a gun at his face as he plays Dirty Harry.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 2:27 PM on May 23, 2006

he should have taken a photo of the brown stain he would have left behind on his chair.
posted by shmegegge at 2:27 PM on May 23, 2006

See!? Video games do inspire violence. The only solution is to ban WoW!
posted by loquacious at 2:30 PM on May 23, 2006

daq, the guy is in the military, recognized all those guns on sight, and probably owns a gun himself. Sorry if that screws up your convenient preconceptions.

... and he plays WoW. So he's still a geek. I think you misunderstood daq's comment. And, you know, preconceptions are convenient - why do people pretend otherwise?

Why would any civilian in any civilized nation ever need this many guns?

No one needs that many guns. None of this guy's guns fall into my own personal "need to have" category, for what that's worth. But that's the nature of collecting - people like to own things they don't need. Guns are no different from any other collectible in that regard, and a gun owned by a gun collector is probably less likely to be used in a crime than other guns.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:35 PM on May 23, 2006

Good thingToo bad he didn't think he was blowdrying his hair.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:35 PM on May 23, 2006

Why would any civilian in any civilized nation ever need this many guns?

Hell yeah. Have you not seen 24?
posted by bap98189 at 2:36 PM on May 23, 2006

I came into this thinking this would be some kind of anti-firearms post or something silly about how blah blah blah 2nd Amendment yakkity yak yak.

No one's going to argue about the second amendment here because it's cut-and-dry. An idiot jerking off to his arsenal in the shitter is pretty clearly a "well-regulated militia."
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:39 PM on May 23, 2006 [5 favorites]

awesome.
posted by shmegegge at 2:41 PM on May 23, 2006

More than one gun? How many cars/motorcycles does Jay Leno have? How many gold earrings does any woman have? How many computers does any geek have?
posted by Cranberry at 2:41 PM on May 23, 2006

Good fences make good neighbors. That, and two foot concrete walls and body armor.
posted by lekvar at 2:42 PM on May 23, 2006

...says the anagram for kevlar.
posted by horsewithnoname at 2:47 PM on May 23, 2006

I'm surprised the neighbor just let him go over there and take such an incriminating picture of his bathroom.
posted by Potsy at 2:48 PM on May 23, 2006

I wouldn't say this is reason to ban guns - though they are most certainly extremely dangerous and those types exist only to kill humans. The person who did it fucked up and it was fate he didn't kill his neighbor, and should be evicted and have charges brought up against him.
posted by Dean Keaton at 2:49 PM on May 23, 2006

FOR THE HORDE!
posted by freebird at 2:52 PM on May 23, 2006

I'm reminded of the Simpson's episode where Homer discovers the magic of gun ownership and casually uses it and its ammo to open beer bottles and accomplish other common household tasks.

'Cause if I had any guns, I'd so do that, too.

What was the point here? Also, this is my use of my one (1) allotted direct Simpson's reference during my tenure at MeFi.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:53 PM on May 23, 2006

I was wondering the same thing, potsy. Did computer guy call the cops, or did he just stroll over to the neighbor's, camera in tow, for a looksee?
posted by maryh at 2:55 PM on May 23, 2006

Good thingToo bad he didn't think he was blowdrying his hair.
Missed another shot (pun intended) at a Darwin Award. Well, maybe next year.

Why would any civilian in any civilized nation ever need this many guns?
Substitute vinyl records, Transformers, stamps, pr0n videos, garden gnomes, TV Guide back issues, cars, Wizard of Oz collectable plates, samurai swords, pictures of Condaleeza Rice or shoes and you have the essence of obsessive collectors around the world, 2nd Amendment or no. Fortunately, the only collections with which you may accidentally kill a neighbor with are the guns, cars, swords and shoes. And it's a lot harder with the swords.
posted by wendell at 2:56 PM on May 23, 2006

You know the guy was playing quick draw in front of the mirror, probably quoting from Dirty Harry movies as he did so.

i said almost the same thing to my wife upon seeing this, though like BeerFilter, i went with a Taxi Driver "Are you talking to me?" reference.

i own guns, several [many] in fact. In the several thousand rounds that i have fired over the years how many have been accidental? None. Why? Because when i play Taxi Driver/ Dirty Harry in front of the mirror, i always check to make sure the chamber is empty.

Amateur.

Glad the guy in the original post is ok though.
posted by quin at 2:56 PM on May 23, 2006

...and he leaves them in the bathroom?

My thoughts exactly. Stupid, stupid stupid.

No one needs that many guns. None of this guy's guns fall into my own personal "need to have" category, for what that's worth. But that's the nature of collecting - people like to own things they don't need.

I am in the camp of strongly supporting the second amendment but when I find guys with that many guns I start to think something else is up. It's going towards pathological. 'course I feel close to the same way about people who own hundreds of Star Wars action figures even though most dudes would have a hard time killing me at 10 meter with a Boba Fett.

If I was the brakeman on this roller coaster I would pass an edict that all citizens get three guns at birth. A shot gun, a rifle and a hand gun. And only three. Ever. Each would imprint your social security number on every round fired. You have the option of turning any or all of them in once you become of legal age to fire them (age 21) in exchange for monies that go to education. After that you get no more.

Elect me world dictator now.
posted by tkchrist at 2:58 PM on May 23, 2006

“Why would any civilian in any civilized nation ever need this many guns?”

...civilized nation?


I dunno, a Glock 10mm isn’t a bad option. And the MP-5 is always a handy item depending on the variant & options.

I wouldn’t want to use a .454 or .50 Desert Eagle in a firefight (much less a pair - the guy thinks he’s the Shadow on steroids maybe?).
The .50 Barrett....well, who wouldn’t want one of those....but the only guy who could probably afford one is probably the only guy who could miss with it.

I gotta go with me & my monkey the guy is just some schmo collector. And a very irresponsible one who should probably have his one of his guns dropped on his head.

No one needs that many guns from both sides of the equation - obviously because there is rarely a threat that requires that magnitude of response, but also because you only have two hands.

I mean, you don’t worry about a guy who has a bunch of big pistols and tough looking rifles to stroke off too, the guy you would have to worry about has standardized loads for several types of rifle so he has less to carry, perhaps some carbines or submachine guns with loads, maybe subsonic, that can be crossed for pistols in case he wants to kill silently; some assault shotguns for CQB, maybe a home loader, a weapons locker, cleaning tools - the guy who plans to use his firearms often and cares for them.
Not that I uh...*cough* know anyone like that.
*sweats*

Seriously though, what a jagoff, mirrors, loads, dual pistols - Mayor Curley is dead on.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:58 PM on May 23, 2006

Just owning twin Desert Eagles should be enough to get your firearms privileges taken away. I can’t think of a surer sign that someone is going to end up playing with their guns in the mirror. I bet he’s got a double shoulder rig for them as well.
posted by Tenuki at 3:00 PM on May 23, 2006

potsy, maryh: he says that his neighbor heard his "What the FUCK??" and came over and tried to bribe him with an invitation into his abode for free beer to encourage him not to call the cops.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:04 PM on May 23, 2006

Anyone who owns a gun but fails to practice trigger discipline should have their fingers cut off. Good luck with your legal handguns now, stumpy.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:05 PM on May 23, 2006

Paging Mr. Snopes...Paging Mr. Snopes.
Mr Snopes please pick up the white courtesy telephone...
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 3:07 PM on May 23, 2006

No, EB, you are allowed one Simpsons/Seinfeld/Star Trek/Doctor Who reference here per year. So, I think you still have credits from 2004 and 2005 (unless you've "yadda'ed" when I didn't notice. And if needed, you can purchase unused credits from konolia or quonsar. Not that there's anything wrong with tha..... D'oh! (I'm out 'til '08).

One more side thought... I only once lived in the same apartment building with a gun collector. One Friday night while he was out, his place was broken into and he supplied the L.A. Crips enough firepower to conquer two valley suburbs.
posted by wendell at 3:08 PM on May 23, 2006

Apparently his soon-to-be-evicted neighbor had one of these babies on order. Here's what it is:

A .50BMG anti-materiel* sniper rifle. It's designed to be used against light armoured vehicles.

posted by ooga_booga at 3:10 PM on May 23, 2006

potsy, maryh: he says that his neighbor heard his "What the FUCK??" and came over and tried to bribe him with an invitation into his abode for free beer to encourage him not to call the cops.

Jeeesis.
The mind simply reels, it does.
posted by maryh at 3:11 PM on May 23, 2006

[raid][antiotter]: guys i gotta go - people shooting through the wall over here.
[raid][megawarriar]: np ant take care of RL
[raid][megawarriar]: more dots
[raid][megawarriar]: MORE DOTS
[raid][megawarriar]: GET OUT OF THE WELP CAVE!!!! %)
DKP MINUS!!!!
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:11 PM on May 23, 2006

Fortunately, the only collections with which you may accidentally kill a neighbor with are the guns, cars, swords and shoes. And it's a lot harder with the swords.

wendell has clearly never seen my collection of fissile material. It's awesome; way better than a night light.
posted by quin at 3:11 PM on May 23, 2006

"wendell has clearly never seen my collection of fissile material. It's awesome; way better than a night light."

David Hahn, is that you? Are you being naughty again?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:17 PM on May 23, 2006

So the bullet went through the wall.... where's it end up?
posted by blaneyphoto at 3:19 PM on May 23, 2006

Two thoughts here:

1. Having a photo of the collection of guns is fishy. Why on earth would the guilty neighbor allow him in with a camera?

2. He was playing a human female when this happened. Later, after cleaning up the mess and collecting his wits, he's playing a male Tauren. Just sayin.'
posted by jeff-o-matic at 3:19 PM on May 23, 2006

Nothing clears the sinuses like a criticality excursion.
posted by Skorgu at 3:20 PM on May 23, 2006

So the bullet went through the wall.... where's it end up?

Is that a riddle or something?
posted by puke & cry at 3:21 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]

blaneyphoto - the bullet went through more than just the wall; first the mirror, then the wall, then the dresser on the other side of the wall, then the width of the bedroom, then the shared wall between apartments, at which point it ricochets up off the computer desk, misses the protagonist's head by 3 inches & lodges in the doorjam behind him.
posted by jonson at 3:23 PM on May 23, 2006

I bet he’s got a double shoulder rig for them as well.

Oh gAWD! If has that he likely has a Dolph Lungren poster above his bed. That's it. He must be eliminated.
posted by tkchrist at 3:26 PM on May 23, 2006

This really brings home the fact that in an apartment you live cheek-by-jowl with your neighbours. The first guy is blithely typing at his computer while three feet in front of him the psycho neighbour is pointing a gun at his face as he plays Dirty Harry.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 5:27 PM EST on May 23

I'll be thinking about that about 3 AM when I can't sleep.
posted by marxchivist at 3:30 PM on May 23, 2006

Korn is obviously at fault, he saw the Freak on a Leash video one too many times. Korn must be outlawed.
posted by substrate at 3:40 PM on May 23, 2006

- lodges in the doorjam behind him.

That's what I was looking for. Thanks.
posted by blaneyphoto at 3:42 PM on May 23, 2006

wendell has clearly never seen my collection of fissile material. It's awesome; way better than a night light.

There's nothing so comforting as knowing you've got Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:53 PM on May 23, 2006

I vote faked.

It's just too good. Dumbass Dirty Harry isn't stupid enough to let almost dead neighbor come in and view the bathroom/gun cabinet for a photo session.
posted by thisisdrew at 3:53 PM on May 23, 2006

"It shoots through schools."
posted by kirkaracha at 3:56 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]

Damn framesets. Let's try that again: Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:56 PM on May 23, 2006

Bathroom guy was obviously, and wisely, preparing for the inevitable zombie takeover.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:09 PM on May 23, 2006

kirkaracha - priceless.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:15 PM on May 23, 2006

*looks at solid brick wall behind this desk*

I'm safe!
posted by ninjew at 4:15 PM on May 23, 2006

Why would any civilian in any civilized nation ever need this many guns?
posted by jack_mo at 4:16 PM on May 23, 2006

I always pose in the mirror with my loaded gun.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 4:17 PM on May 23, 2006

eponysterical
posted by kyleg at 4:18 PM on May 23, 2006

Guns don't kill people, but bullets shot through walls certainly do.

fucking idiot.
posted by photoslob at 4:24 PM on May 23, 2006

If this happened to me, after I cleaned up the skidmarks, I would be MOVING MY COMPUTOR.

If you've got to spend time geeking out, at least do it out of the range of fire. Putting it back in the same place next to the same wall? No way. No way no how.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 4:34 PM on May 23, 2006

The neighbor screwed up big time. He ignored a bunch of firearm rules and ended up with a negligent discharge (yes, negligent, not accidental.) That really ticks me off as then we get people, like several in this thread, asking why anyone needs to own more than one, or any, gun(s.)

I own several firearms and operate them safely. I am OCD about gun safety. I know that if I forget, one time, to follow all the safety rules, I could kill someone.

Gun owners like that guy? Take his guns, charge him per the laws in his state.

Or you know, take his guns, charge him, and send me the Desert Eagle. I'd love one for my collection, even if I would shoot it maybe once a year.

As for why do people own more than one gun? I like to shoot different guns, so I own different ones. I love having my .22 Ruger to take to the range and be able to go through hundreds and hundreds of round without having to spend a mint on ammo. I have an XD 9MM subcompact that is my carry weapon. (I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.) I have others for other shooting purposes.

Having more than one gun is no different, than having more than one baseball bat, if you're a ballplayer. Or more than one type of computer game if you're a gamer. Different items for different purposes.
posted by SuzySmith at 4:37 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]

If this involved a drunken idiot nearly killing his neighbor with a motor vehicle, would this be mefi-worthy or traffic-generating (no pun intended) at all?

Oh, right, it involves a gun. Despite being less numerous, cars are more frequently seen in public than guns, making them more mundane. It's easier to be irrationally scared of the exotic than the mundane.

Carry on.
posted by Feral at 4:48 PM on May 23, 2006

Having more than one gun is no different, than having more than one baseball bat, if you're a ballplayer. Or more than one type of computer game if you're a gamer.

Or more than one section of rubber hose with concrete in the end of it if you're a mafia stooge. Or more than one ski mask if you're a b-movie bank robber. Everybody's got their thing, right?
posted by JekPorkins at 4:48 PM on May 23, 2006

Or, it's easier to be scared of things designed to kill other things, than, you know, things to get you to work on time.

SuzySmith: you could just have no guns, and then no one would have to worry about you forgetting anything. Because humans are so good at remembering all the things they need to know, all the time, always. Yep.

Different items for different purposes

I love my country...
posted by hototogisu at 4:54 PM on May 23, 2006

Man, you can get ganked playing World of Warcraft, or you can GET GANKED PLAYING WORLD OF WARCRAFT.
posted by ssmith at 5:10 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]

If this involved a drunken idiot nearly killing his neighbor with a motor vehicle, would this be mefi-worthy or traffic-generating (no pun intended) at all?

If someone drove a car into somebody's wall while they were playing WoW, and missed their head by three inches, and the person almost wiped out by that car posted pics to his livejournal?

Yes. Metafilter Worthy, and How. One-link-post worthy, even.
posted by eriko at 5:10 PM on May 23, 2006

Welll the primary purpose of a car is for transportation. The primary purpose for a gun is to kill/harm things.

I have no problems with responsible gun ownership and use. I don't think this is a case of that though.
posted by edgeways at 5:24 PM on May 23, 2006

I used to own a Ruger Ranch Rifle, a semi-auto civilian assault rifle grooved for scope mounts. Other than shamelessly coveting a toy like that to screw around with, my excuse to myself to have it had to do with the random packs of neighbor’s pet dogs that used to invade my farm and kill as many goats as they could get away with.

It must have worked, because the whole time I had it the evil pets stayed away... maybe their self-righteous neo suburban idiot humans warned them... too bad.

A firearm like that is an expensive tool that seldom or never sees actual use for its intended purpose. I had to kick that assault rifle out of my life when I caught it inducing Rambo fantasies.
posted by Huplescat at 5:32 PM on May 23, 2006

Damned Dells. They're always drawing fire.
posted by Kikkoman at 5:33 PM on May 23, 2006

An idiot jerking off to his arsenal in the shitter is pretty clearly a "well-regulated militia."

That made me laugh like hell. Thanks, Mayor.
posted by languagehat at 5:51 PM on May 23, 2006

If someone drove a car into somebody's wall while they were playing WoW

Someone drove into our wall while we were watching tv a few months ago. Seriously.

But they didn't bust all the way through. They knocked a divot out of the outer brickwork, and the impact fucked up a bathroom pretty good. I suppose if I'd been taking a leak, I coulda been hurt by the flying broken mirror.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:59 PM on May 23, 2006

You'll shoot your eye out, kid.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:07 PM on May 23, 2006

Often people who might be expected to have carry a gun really shouldn't.

One company worked for had secure areas and security guards. The guards used to be armed. As far as I know they never repeled any external threat.

But they did discharge their guns several times - mainly in the bathrooms when practicing quicdraws in the mirror or when their gunbelt got entangled while copping a squat.

So the guards were told they couldn't wear guns. However I'm sure there are still some lockers around the building containing weapon stashes in case the Weather Underground decides to invade and blow up the building.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 6:26 PM on May 23, 2006

If that guy stopped buying boutique handguns he could probably afford a house by now...
posted by bardic at 6:30 PM on May 23, 2006

I own several firearms and operate them safely. I am OCD about gun safety. I know that if I forget, one time, to follow all the safety rules, I could kill someone...I have an XD 9MM subcompact that is my carry weapon. (I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.) I have others for other shooting purposes.

I just don't understand america. By admission here, a gun owner is stating that a single *human* failure could kill, but seems not to question the risk of having all these dangerous weapons. (and I'll never have a car crash, or trip over or forget my keys...accidents and carelessness happen)
I'm not anti-responsible sport shooters, store your fire arm at the club house, and make it a sporting gun, not an AR-15 or something that will appeal to a criminal.
If you are a farmer, or enjoy hunting, keep your rifle or shotgun unloaded and under lock and key.
But really, it seems a bit much to suggest having a collection of loaded handguns in the home is simply a failure of safety protocols, it is dangerous and unnecessary.
And carrying a loaded, concealed handgun? Do you live in Tikrit?
posted by bystander at 6:31 PM on May 23, 2006

"rayguns don't kill Zyborgians, Zyborgians kill Zyborgians"... That just says it all.
posted by pezdacanuck at 6:42 PM on May 23, 2006

About the Barrett .50 - there are a LOT of people that purchased those rifles simply because they were facing a ban. Actually, they *were* banned here in supposedly free California. Shortly before the ban went into effect, sales of the .50 shot through the roof. Hundreds (maybe even several thousand) were sold and brought into the state. The reason for the ban was pretty flimsy too. It boiled down to "we, your legislators, think that these are evil looking and despite the fact that there are no records of anyone ever using a 50 cal rifle in a crime, we're going to ban them anyway."
The result: many many many more 50 cals on the market. And I think that Barrett now makes a .416 (or something) that is now legal in California. The .50s themselves were $3000-$5000. Definitely not a typical gangbanger gun, and not a whole lot of people owned them.

But I digress... this guy was clearly not a responsible gun owner and idiots like him give a bad name to those of us that ARE responsible.
posted by drstein at 6:53 PM on May 23, 2006

fake
posted by cellphone at 6:55 PM on May 23, 2006

not an AR-15 or something that will appeal to a criminal.

AR-15s don't appeal to criminals, because they're awkward and can't be concealed. Criminals need to travel in public, approach their target without alerting them, and then make a HASTY exit.

This is why very few crimes are committed with AR-15s, and nearly every death in America due to a .50cal sniper rifle has been a range accident (they generally weigh around thirty pounds - good luck running from the cops with one). Despite what Hollywood would have you believe, criminals don't want those weapons because people will see them and freak out - everyone carries cell phones these days and the cops will come down on them like a ton of bricks.

The people who want AR-15s for purposes of crime (as opposed to ranchers sniping prarie dogs which are lethal to cattle) are the real psychopaths like the D.C. sniper - and there's nothing to indicate he wouldn't have done just as well with a normal hunting rifle (in fact .308 is genuinely more lethal than the .223 that AR-15s use). Limiting semi-automatic and high-caliber rifles serves no real purpose in reducing crime - they look scary, but they aren't what's causing the deaths from a numerical standpoint.

Rather, it's the handguns and the illegal but increasingly common machine-pistols that make me worry. The problem here is that America is flooded with them and you will never effectively legislate them away. Ever.

(and I'll never have a car crash, or trip over or forget my keys...accidents and carelessness happen)

It's really simple - "Am I putting away my gun?" "Am I taking my gun out of its secured container?" "Am I doing pretty much anything with my gun other than firing it at the range?"

If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', then "Is my gun unloaded and the chamber clear?"

Between this simple mental association and trigger safeties it requires a special brand of stupidity to have an accidental discharge.

And carrying a loaded, concealed handgun? Do you live in Tikrit?

Yeah I'm not too happy about that. This is where I generally disagree with the NRA.
posted by Ryvar at 7:05 PM on May 23, 2006

I don't really have very strong feelings on the gun issue. I'm pro-gun-control, though I wonder why liberals like me are maximalists on the first amendment and minimalists on the second (as a technical, legal matter—on the basis of practical, common sense the distinction is reasonable).

However, sometimes I've thought I might like to have a handgun, for a couple of reasons. First, as little lethal machines, they have some morbid fascination for me. Second, the possible utility of that lethality. On a purely selfish basis, having superior firepower as a matter of personal doctrine is very reasonable to my sensibilities. Were I to decide to become a gun owner, it's not certain but likely that I'd be a very educated and responsible gun owner along with being proficient in its use. I'd also almost certainly take the position that the self-proclaimed responsible gun users here are taking.

American culture makes something that is unthinkable in many other places thinkable here. And, being thinkable, it is very significantly transformed in ways that those among the uninitiated cannot quite grasp. If it were routine here to shoot each other in formal duels as matters of honor, then what was unthinkable would be thinkable. Many of us horrified at the thought would find ourselves in this other world to be participants in gun fights and killings.

In this gun culture, it makes sense to own a gun in a way that it fundamentally cannot elsewhere because elsewhere the mere idea is outrageous. This is the power of cultural normatives.

The fact that I aim this to be a tepid defense of gun ownership but that it will be interpreted by those alien to the gun culture as implicitly a deep indictment...well, that just proves my point.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:14 PM on May 23, 2006

a gun owned by a gun collector is probably less likely to be used in a crime than other guns.

At least until somebody breaks into his gun locker bathroom and steals the gun.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:16 PM on May 23, 2006

Where the hell do you even put a Barrett .50 in an apartment, for crying out loud?

Duh, in the bathroom?
posted by Wet Spot at 7:32 PM on May 23, 2006

Pistols (because they're short) are by nature less safe because they can be turned in an unsafe direction more easily than a rifle or shotgun. Our family owns 5 (guns), but no handguns. We use them regularly to "discourage" things that like to harrass our poultry, which are caged at night. Handguns are a poor choice over 30 yards due to their short barrels, i.e., you cannot accurately shoot that far, even with a bench rest. I would submit that large bore handguns are predominantly an urban/contra human weapon, although I have several neighbors who have pistols, they're mostly .22s and they never use them except for plinking at cans, bottles, etc. Just a kind of rural perspective on all this gun paranoia stuff...
posted by primdehuit at 7:50 PM on May 23, 2006

I just don't understand america. By admission here, a gun owner is stating that a single *human* failure could kill, but seems not to question the risk of having all these dangerous weapons. (and I'll never have a car crash, or trip over or forget my keys...accidents and carelessness happen)

Well, that's not really a fair analogy. If I kept my car in the garage with no gas and the spark plugs pulled out and drove it only on an enclosed track to and from which I had it towed, then yes, I think the chances of having an accident would be pretty slim.

The nice thing about an armed populace is that it serves as a final check on the government. Anti-gun partisans like to mock this idea and point out that the government, with vastly superior firepower, isn't going to lose a gun battle with an individual, which is certainly true and is a good thing; clearly the government needs the ability to stop criminals by force. But I think Vietnam and Iraq show pretty clearly that if the situation in this country ever reaches the point where the majority are driven to resist the government, even the full might of the US military will prove remarkably ineffective unless the powers-that-be are willing to carpet-bomb or nuke our own cities. I suppose a lot of people will consider this paranoia, but I'm not so sanguine; violent dictatorships are depressingly common historically. When we were forbidden from leaving the country in the few days after the events of September 11, and when it seemed frighteningly plausible that Bush might resurrect World War II-style internment camps for Arab foreign nationals or immigrants, I was very glad that I knew people with lots of guns.

All that having been said, Dirty Harry here is a moron, and this is a kick-ass post.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:10 PM on May 23, 2006

By the way, here's the resolution of all this, from the .50cal thread:

May I ask why you have not pressed criminal charges against the neighbor? If you were to press criminal charges over his unlawful discharge of the weapon in occupied quarters, it could very well result in his loss of the right to own guns altogether. Those $20,000 worth of guns that you said he owned would need to be sold. IMO it is certainly something that you owe to yourself if not the rest of law abiding citizens and gun owners out there. I support gun ownership, but not among retards. =p
-----------------------
The landlord called the cops. When they found out he was military, they told him to call the MPs and hung up on him.

So he called the MPs. They said since it happened off-post, it wasn't their jurisdiction, and then they hung up on him.

More than anything else - be it handgun proliferation or tens of thousands of needless deaths every year from auto accidents that could be avoided through better safety features and mass transit - this kind of bullshit is what's wrong with America.

On preview: I agree with Ishmael Graves.
posted by Ryvar at 8:15 PM on May 23, 2006

ninjew - I was going to snark but I misremembered... apparently bricks will stop bullets that have gone through some drywall (and a jug of water) first.

(The rest of that site is pretty cool, too)
posted by porpoise at 8:15 PM on May 23, 2006

Well, that's not really a fair analogy. If I kept my car in the garage with no gas and the spark plugs pulled out and drove it only on an enclosed track to and from which I had it towed, then yes, I think the chances of having an accident would be pretty slim.

Agreed, and a suitable place to store guns used for sport/hunting is sensible, and will reduce the risk to a perhaps acceptable level (similarly a bow and arrow could do somebody a nasty injury, but I am content to let archers and target shooters plink away at their gun/bow clubs).
But a locked up and unloaded target pistol is a very different risk proposition to a loaded, concealed, high calibre gun designed to shoot people.
I take onboard IshmaelGraves reasoning, and while I don't agree with it, it does at least follow logically. But perhaps there are better ways of restricting government power than the proliferation of firearms. It may be that you would only take up arms to resist a Hitler or Stalin, but the guys two cabins over printing their own money have already decided the government has gone too far.
So pretty quickly it becomes about lawlessness, where a functioning democracy (like the US has) is more appropriate to make sure the government stays in check, in the majority's opinion.
And the drawback of a well armed militia is lots and lots of guns, and consequently lots in the hands of irresponsible people, even under benign governments.
posted by bystander at 8:39 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]

I just don't understand america. By admission here, a gun owner is stating that a single *human* failure could kill, but seems not to question the risk of having all these dangerous weapons. (and I'll never have a car crash, or trip over or forget my keys...accidents and carelessness happen)
I'm not anti-responsible sport shooters, store your fire arm at the club house, and make it a sporting gun, not an AR-15 or something that will appeal to a criminal.

A single human failure while driving can kill, a lot more people than one shot from a handgun.

A single human failure while doing a lot of things can kill with things I don't see you asking to be locked up away from the home.

As for an AR-15, I don't own one. I own handguns. Other than the weapon that I am carrying, they are in a locked safe, unless being transported to the range I shoot at. Then they are in an I-Shot range bag, completely unloaded, as they remain until I am on the firing line.



And carrying a loaded, concealed handgun? Do you live in Tikrit?

Last time I checked, according to the laws in the state I live in, and the country I live in, I was perfectly within my legal rights to protect myself.

I've explained this on MetaFilter before. I live rurally, it can take forever for a police officer to get here, I'm not risking my life and wellbeing on the hopes that the local deputies are: a)close enough, b)fast enough, c)that I'm able to get to a telephone, if need be.

There are a lot of people who carry weapons, legally, in the USA. I imagine you probably even know a few, even if they haven't told you about it.
posted by SuzySmith at 8:39 PM on May 23, 2006

."..a Belgian 5.56mm FN-FAL..."

I didn't know they made a 5.56 FAL.

Sorry.
posted by MikeMc at 8:52 PM on May 23, 2006

SuzySmith, I think your handling of your sporting weapons is good, and I hope you use weapons designed for target shooting rather than people hurting.
This certainly would lower the risk of harming yourself or others accidentally.
As for carrying loaded handguns, I don't argue you do so illegally, merely that the law is foolish, and your reasons are spurious.
As citizens in society we have obligations to be civil. If there is crime in your rural area, arrange for the government to deal with it, don't decide to be a vigilante.
Do you know the police would not respond promptly if you were threatened? If so, why not vote them out? Or vote for a candidate that will deliver an effective police force?
If the majority in a democracy selects a government, why not accept this? By taking steps to arm yourself due to ineffective policing you are not creating an effective police force, and you are increasing the chances somebody will get shot.

But with a more focused examination, do you really think the chances of being a crime victim are higher than having an accident? In a remote area could medical help arrive in time if you had a gun accident?
And how do you determine who to shoot? Trespassers? Chicken rustlers? When was the last murder in your area? The police have training and protocols, and are full time law enforcers, yet they sometimes make mistakes. It seems likely that a civillian would be more likely to make a mistake.

Luckily, I can assure you nobody I come into contact with is carrying a concealed, loaded weapon, and I sleep a lot more comfortably knowing this.
posted by bystander at 9:05 PM on May 23, 2006

The nice thing about an armed populace is that it serves as a final check on the government.

Yes that plan worked well for the Branch Davidians and that militia group at Ruby Ridge.

While I have no problems with responsible gun owners lets not kid ourselves that the US military is quaking in it's boots about taking on the civilian populace should the need arise. Aside from the fact that they have things like guided missiles and helicopter gunships they would just have to turn off the water mains and the whole West would cave in a week. Turn off the heat in winter and the northern states would come into line. I don't know what they'd do for the south though- stop spraying for mosquitos? shut down regional food distribution? open the levee gates?

The days of an armed populace being any kind of self-regulating body are long gone.
posted by fshgrl at 9:11 PM on May 23, 2006

cellphone
posted by fake at 9:13 PM on May 23, 2006 [2 favorites]

A single human failure while cutting the Thanksgiving turkey can kill a lot more people than one shot from a handgun.

I note that the Canadian government is downsizing the firearms registry; long arms no longer require registration (but you do still need to take the training courses &c).
posted by five fresh fish at 9:22 PM on May 23, 2006

I think your handling of your sporting weapons is good, and I hope you use weapons designed for target shooting rather than people hurting.

There's no distinct line, bystander.

The blurb on the Remington 700 should make that clear - deer-hunting rifles are the perfect sniper rifles, since people and deer have remarkably similar requirements when it comes to being killed. Custom-built variants of the Remington 700 are frequently used in rifle shooting competitions as well, often achieving below .25 MOA (1 MOA is roughly the size of a quarter at 100 yards).

Likewise, an AR-15 makes a great prarie-dog rifle out in the Midwest (the holes they dig cripple and kill cattle), and is a semi-auto version of the rifle used by the world's most powerful military. It's worth noting that the standard issue M-16 (the M-16A2) does not have full-auto capability either - only semi-automatic and three-shot burst.

Shotguns are the perfect home defense weapon, a hunting weapon of remarkable utility, and also happen to be part of a balanced breakfast when going on a shooting spree in an office building, mall, or school.

Also - you appear to have little or no experience with American politics or cops. Especially not the cops. Many of the law and order candidates are exactly the people engineering America's slide into an Orwellian nightmare as far as NSA surveillance and similar activities are concerned. Calling American rural cops incompetent assholes is an insult to genuine incompetent assholes. You certainly can't vote a police force 'out' around here. Please have some idea about the realities of America before telling Americans how to defend themselves.

I note that the Canadian government is downsizing the firearms registry; long arms no longer require registration (but you do still need to take the training courses &c).

I wish America would do the same, re: training. I understand the NRAs opposition to full firearms registration, but mandatory training upon purchase of a new weapon just makes sense.
posted by Ryvar at 9:39 PM on May 23, 2006

[this is awesome]
posted by zekinskia at 9:42 PM on May 23, 2006

fshgrl: I can't speak for Ishmael Graves but I think he was suggesting something more in the way of an Iraqi insurgency-style resistance than a centralized rebellion. You're absolutely correct that the latter is impossible in America, but our military appears to be fairly inept at dealing with the former.

Admittedly, having what appears to be a functionally unlimited number of mortar rounds lying about to use as IEDs probably makes things much easier for the insurgents.
posted by Ryvar at 9:51 PM on May 23, 2006

When I mentioned sport waepons I specifically mentioned target shooting. I understand you *can* shoot targets with an AR-15, but I don't think you should. If the motivation is precision shooting, use low calibre professional target weapons. I linked to some target pistols earlier.
Ryvar is right that hunting rifles and shotguns are good for hunting, and I don't have any objections to responsible hunters having hunting firearms (keep 'em locked up and unloaded).
But it seems silly to have automatic weapons, or even semi-automatic weapons (why not a double barrel shotgun or a bolt action or lever action rifle for hunting).
And pistols designed to hurt people carried loaded aren't needed for sport.

Please have some idea about the realities of America before telling Americans how to defend themselves.
Agreed, I don't know about rural American politics, but arming yourself doesn't produce an effective police force, and it makes it more likely someone will get shot.
I don't understand why the response to poor policing is not to fix the poor policing. (but then I suppose the same is true for home schooling rather than fixing the schools or private health care rather than fixing poor public health care etc.)
I'll call it a mystery of the rugged american frontier that fosters individual responses rather than collective action, even when it seems blatantly clear that collective action would be a much more effective response.
But really, consider whether carrying a loaded handgun is really that necessary?
posted by bystander at 9:53 PM on May 23, 2006

Negligent discharge defined in contrast with accidental discharge.

It really is a miracle this guy wasn't a homicide statistic.

Stray bullets invading one's home, scary thought.

Looking at this list of military personnel killed in Iraq, I noted how many died in non-combat weapons discharge or accidents.
posted by nickyskye at 10:04 PM on May 23, 2006

I'm coming to this thread late - but a few thoughts and confessions:

Many years ago I accidentally fired a pistol which I was 100% sure was unloaded. I very nearly shot myself in the leg. I'm now convinced that it's the "unloaded" guns that cause all the trouble.

I have a friend who did the same. He was cleaning and playing with his "unloaded" glock in his living room. Making the cat chase the laser sight, that sort of thing. He aimed toward the dead bolt on his front door and pulled the trigger thinking it would be a dry fire - he blew the dead bolt out of the door. Again, he was 100% sure the gun was unloaded.

I grew up in the south where gun ownership isn't that big of a deal, but since moving out I realize that in general most people are bugged by it.

And now for some hypocrisy: I live in a building where firearms are strictly prohibited in the lease. I still own my pistol and I'm happy I have it - but I'm glad that my neighbors (in theory) don't have firearms.
posted by wfrgms at 10:12 PM on May 23, 2006

The reason for the ban was pretty flimsy too. It boiled down to "we, your legislators, think that these are evil looking and despite the fact that there are no records of anyone ever using a 50 cal rifle in a crime, we're going to ban them anyway."

I know this post was a while ago on this thread but this kind of thing really bothers me. REALLY. As if banning something because it isn't useful for ANYTHING but destruction of property and human life is a flimsy reason. Ok, granted no one ever committed a crime with one. Find me an instance where someone did something useful with one then. Nobody ever defended their lives with such a weapon. Nobody ever hunted with such a weapon. The simple fact is that for civilians, this weapon has no use whatsoever short of shooting for fun. And I can totally live with a ban that interferes with people's potentially deadly fun. Same way I appreciate that it's illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road in a hummer H1, despite that fact that it might be considered fun were you the one driving. Pipe bombs are illegal for the same reason, as is owning nerve gas, or hand grenades or any of the many other weapons deemed useless for self defence or other practical uses. You don't have the right to own a highly deadly "toy" just because it's fun to pretend you might ever need to shoot down a helicopter. Get over it.
posted by Farengast at 10:25 PM on May 23, 2006

Farengast your approach to deciding what should be banned and what should not is the kind of thing that really bothers me. REALLY. As if banning something for its potential rather than its actuality was a good reason.

It's the difference between a whitelist and a blacklist - I believe that civilized nations should begin from the position that all things are permissible and remove those that are harmful, rather than acting on fears and uncertainty. To approach it from the opposite direction smacks of totalitarianism.
posted by Ryvar at 10:40 PM on May 23, 2006

Ryvar, I agree with you in this matter on all things except weapons. This is human lives we are talking about. Even a single death due to a product which does nothing more than fan the egos of people who use it is a horrible tragedy. Do you want to be the one to inform the family of the first person to get killed by a Barrett .50 rifle that you just weren't certain it was dangerous to have in civilian hands until now? We just wait for something horrible to happen before we make a judgement on this issue? As if we aren't talking about a device which is designed and built to do horrible things?

When you are talking about things made for killing, you don't just "wait and see if it's really dangerous". Of course it's dangerous, it was made to be just that. Of course all guns are dangerous, but I can stand behind gun rights for useful firearms, for self-defence, hunting, etc. But a weapon which has no use to a civilian and is built to perpetrate atrocity shouldn't be floating around the public anymore than homemade nuclear bombs should just because one's never gone off on American soil. We all know damned well what nuclear bombs do same way we all know what can be done with even a single shot from something like a Barrett .50
posted by Farengast at 10:51 PM on May 23, 2006

Farengast: to say that a weapon like a .50cal sniper rifle has no use to a civilian is shortsighted. American politicians are only going to grow increasingly bold about their corruption as a result of the lack of response to current corruption. The slide into a police state of constant surveillance, indefinite detention without representation, and the possibility of torture without relief will only increase if current trends persist (and they most certainly will). If such a weapon prevents one politician from ending thousands of American lives in order to further line their pockets, can you seriously claim this is a bad thing? It is for this reason that such weapons are demonized by politicians and the media (at the behest of those who control it by virtue of ownership - because they are the only ones at significant risk from it. Given the state of, and trajectory of our national situation I do not believe this to be a bad thing.

Also, my use of the word 'dangerous' meant from a societal perspective. .50cal rifles are, relative to nearly all other firearms, not a threat to the general populace because they completely ill-suited towards actions which endanger said populace. 9mm handguns are, relative to all other firearms, a serious threat to the general populace. Automobiles are an even larger one, and one with a solution - improved safety standards and increased use of mass transit are realistically achievable goals. No amount of effort is likely to completely remove civilian access to almost any variety of firearm.

There are pragmatic considerations in this vein as well - semi-automatic handguns are fairly complex to manufacture because they have a number of intricate parts. Not so with .50cal sniper rifles - most of the companies that sell them began in the garage or basement, such is their simplicity.

All told, I'll start caring when .50cal sniper rifles account for even 5% of the deaths caused by 9mm handguns in a given year. Right now it appears that such a statistic will never happen.
posted by Ryvar at 11:10 PM on May 23, 2006

I'm no math major, but I bet that 9mm handguns will pretty much always account for 100% of the deaths caused by 9mm handguns, no matter how many people get shot by .50 cal sniper rifles. So maybe he's got a point!
posted by jonson at 11:14 PM on May 23, 2006

Way to address a typo at 2AM rather than my point, jonson.
posted by Ryvar at 11:16 PM on May 23, 2006

Ryvar, buddy, you are so on The Watchlist now.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:17 PM on May 23, 2006

I've written a similar rant something like ten times on MeFi, back before jonson stole my position as Captain of the Speech & Debate Club, so it seems unlikely my doors will be busted down over this one.
posted by Ryvar at 11:20 PM on May 23, 2006

The intent of the inventor of a machine is completely coincidental to any useful policy discussion. Guns are designed to kill, sure, and this design principle is no less true of bows and arrows than it is of full-autos, but it would be absurd to regulate both equally. A nugget of enriched uranium may have been created with the intent to supply nuclear power to the country of Lithuania, but that doesn't mean we should let any old civilian have as much as they want.

The intent of the person who created the gun is not what we need to be worried about - it's the intent of the person holding the gun. If you can demonstrate that a given law (registration, licensing, outright banning) will keep guns out of the hands of those with malicious (or merely moronic) intent, then I'll be right behind you. Unfortunately, if you want to see how effective the US government is at preventing the importation or cottage manufacturing and distribution of a highly dangerous yet highly in-demand good, you only need to look as far as the Drug War. With that kind of track record, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the government would do any better with guns.
posted by Feral at 11:21 PM on May 23, 2006

Pardon me, bystander, but just out of curiosity--what's the difference between pointing a gun at another human being in your own defence and paying someone else (ie., a police officer or a soldier or some other lethally armed government functionary) to point the gun for you?
posted by mountain_william at 11:22 PM on May 23, 2006

Farengast: One other thought - it's worth pointing out that extremely commonplace .308 weapons are not significantly less lethal than .50cal. The M82 (the specific .50BMG rifle in question) is the only semi-automatic rifle of that caliber of which I'm aware, while there are many easily accessible semi-automatic .308 weapons. Finally, the quality of .308 ammunition available to anyone is significantly better (read: more accurate) than that available for .50cal which is definitely a niche product.

My point is - at what point does a caliber become 'safe' enough to not be banned on general principle? Is it a question of range? Of accuracy? Of muzzle energy? What are your standards?
posted by Ryvar at 11:35 PM on May 23, 2006

Why is gun control an important issue in the stopping-gun-violence debate? I really hate guns, and would never consider owning one, but it's not hard for me to understand why people with different upbringings might feel differently.

The whole gun control debate seems misguided to me. It seems to me that gun control laws have been extraordinarily controversial and have had very little effect on curbing gun violence. Their largest success seems to be that they make it easier to send a person to prison. So why focus on it? I don't find it easy to dismiss the claim that gun laws primarily affect law abiding citizens simply because the data possibly supports the claim. You get random morons killing people in all sorts of ways. Sure, you can spend all of your energy fighting to outlaw being a moron, but the real epidemic is not because lots of people are morons. If you want to be safer in your home, I say make sure your neighbor doesn't have to worry about putting dinner on the table.

Sorry if it's a derail, but honestly, both sides make good points, and both seem concerned about the same issue. Why does everybody focus on the one possible solution that hasn't seemed to work and results in such hostility?

(To be completely honest, I definitely support quite a few gun control measures, probably without good reason).
posted by dsword at 11:39 PM on May 23, 2006

Farengast: We just wait for something horrible to happen before we make a judgement on this issue?

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
posted by Tenuki at 11:43 PM on May 23, 2006

Ryvar, none of these changes the fact that your definition of totalitarianism is nonsensical. Is the FDA totalitarian because they restrict drug sale based on the potential dangers rather than releasing everything for sale and seeing if anybody actually dies? Of course not, it's called public well-being with foresight. Your argument similarly supports the abolishment of all speed limits because they restrict the freedoms of drivers who may potentially be dangerous at high speeds but haven't actually hit anybody. And of course your argument also defeats itself. In that since we can't evaluate things on their potential, we also can't evaluate our government on it's potential, thus we shouldn't keep weapons of atrocity handy to fight a potentially counter-democratic incarnation of our own government. By your ideas, we need to wait for our own government to attack us before we may act upon something we could have forseen. You also totally glossed over the fact that lots of banned weapons would be useful when protecting oneself from a police state military, like aforementioned nuclear bombs and aforementioned nerve gas.
And as for protecting us from our government, if it gets to the point where one can use a Barrett rifle against the military and not be seen as a wacked out vigilante, then full scale bloody revolution is already in full swing and what and how many guns are amongst the public isn't going to make much of a difference as millions of people storm the capital. And anything less than that and the Barrett weilder is still just a nut job survivalist who has decided with his own (I would say questionable) judgement who needs to live and who needs to die for society to benefit.
posted by Farengast at 11:48 PM on May 23, 2006

In response to mountain_william asking why cops over an armed populace:
The reason we have a police force is to enforce the rule of law. Laws are made by representatives who are democratically elected, and despite Ryvar and IshmaelGraves fears that the government may in future go nuts, we should be able to generally agree that the laws reflect the community's view of right and wrong.
Peace officers are employed and trained to uphold those laws, are equipped with with tools and systems to increase their effectiveness, and receive daily experience in how to uphold those laws.
Importantly, a police officer is (should be) dispassionate, able to apply the laws even handedly and without favouritism. The police also have protocols to govern things like a proportional response (not shooting shop lifters, for example) and many other rules to make sure they act only in a controlled way as the community's agent of enforcement.
A vigilante, by definition, applies their own judgement to a wrong doer. They may have judgement that happens to exactly equal our laws, or they might over-react, or they might get hurt, or they might accidentally hurt someone.
It is certainly possible that a vigilante justice system could deliver as effective a response as a professional law enforcement system, but it seems pretty clear that were there a large number of vigilante instances, some would fail our community's standards for fairness, proportionate reactions etc.
Even with a professional police force there are failures, but with less community control and accountability, a vigilante system seems likely to lead to more failures.
You might trust your own vigilante judgement, but you can probably agree that there are people who would have clouded judgement, and who you would be reluctant to extend such judgemental powers. I am thinking particularly of victims of crimes and that loud drunken uncle who advocates shooting all the blacks. A professional police force has systems to reduce the harm those with clouded judgement may cause, a vigilante system has 'before the fact' controls.
Finally, by limiting those carrying arms to law enforcement we both reduce a criminals need to carry firearms for defense against a vigilante (if you are a burglar it seems more likely you would arm yourself in an armed community than one where only police have guns, assuming their protocols preclude shooting burglars) and reduce the number injuries caused by gun accidents or 'misapplied' vigilante-ism.
posted by bystander at 11:55 PM on May 23, 2006

Farengast: We just wait for something horrible to happen before we make a judgement on this issue?

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Aluminum pipes do not a mushroom cloud make. Judgement with foresight is useful when you aren't the kind of moron who thinks that aluminum pipes have no use other than centrifuging uranium. I can personally think of many other uses, even for exactly the size and shape of aluminum pipes that would be used for centrifuging uranium. Just because I think we should consider potential dangers doesn't mean I think we should be stupid about it as Condolezza was.

As for Ryvar wondering what caliber is too much. When is as much weapon too much weapon for a civilian? Well the answer is simple and evident around you right now. The (admittedly arbitrary) delineation is discussed and decided by our elected representatives when they make laws like this. Obviously there has to be a cutoff somewhere unless you really are advocating homemade nukes. So who better to decide where amongst a smooth gradient of increasing power to draw the line than the very same people we elected for the express purpose of making these decisions? The very same people who decide how fast is too fast when they make up speed limits and how much testing is adequate for new drugs to be deemed safe. Just about all of our public safety laws have an arbitrary delineation built into them. If everything could be decided with infallible logic alone we wouldn't need representatives in the government, just a couple philosophers.
posted by Farengast at 11:57 PM on May 23, 2006

Is he allowed to have in his posession such an amount of firearms? If so, I'm SHOCKED. Disgraceful.
posted by Haarball at 11:59 PM on May 23, 2006

Is the FDA totalitarian because they restrict drug sale based on the potential dangers rather than releasing everything for sale and seeing if anybody actually dies? Of course not, it's called public well-being with foresight. Your argument similarly supports the abolishment of all speed limits because they restrict the freedoms of drivers who may potentially be dangerous at high speeds but haven't actually hit anybody.

You're missing my point - we have experience with not having an FDA, and lots and lots of people died horribly due to poisoning from snake oil.

We have experience with no speed limit, and an even higher percentage of drivers than the current insane amount died due to accidents.

We have .50cal weapons. People are busy dying from nearly every firearm but because .50cal weapons are really inconvenient for crimes other than assassination.

And of course your argument also defeats itself. In that since we can't evaluate things on their potential, we also can't evaluate our government on it's potential, thus we shouldn't keep weapons of atrocity handy to fight a potentially counter-democratic incarnation of our own government. By your ideas, we need to wait for our own government to attack us before we may act upon something we could have forseen.

This is a complete distortion of what I was saying and has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. Let's be very clear here - I was referring to limitation of civilian access to certain classes of items and the approach a society should take towards it. I was not suggesting a sort of abstract approach to life in general where the potential for all things in a non-physical sense are evaluated without regard to potential. You are grossly and incorrectly expanding the scope of my statements.

You also totally glossed over the fact that lots of banned weapons would be useful when protecting oneself from a police state military, like aforementioned nuclear bombs and aforementioned nerve gas.

It's fair for you to turn my question about ammunition limitations back on me (although I'll point out that you haven't really answered it with anything specific). Where I draw the line is explosives. Civilian firearms operate on the principle that a contained chemical explosion drives a simple solid projectile that kills through tissue disruption via kinetic impact. However, when you start getting up into 20mm ammunition it becomes possible to put a useful amount of explosive material inside the projectile, and suddenly you have a weapon that becomes very useful for mass murder. Ditto fully automatic weapons - particularly automatic shotguns. There are good reasons why these things are classified as destructive devices. Current firearm ownership restrictions are based upon an attempt to balance out civil liberties and non-criminal utility with the potential number of deaths one person can cause with them.

On this scale a .50cal rifle is very much at the low end. The majority of them are not merely bolt-action, but in fact have no magazine whatsoever meaning that each individual round must be physically placed inside the chamber by hand in addition to the manual bolt-action. The raw lethality is not significantly greater than many other weapons, the accuracy is generally inferior to other long-distance weapons, and the inconvience of transporting one is extreme.

And as for protecting us from our government, if it gets to the point where one can use a Barrett rifle against the military and not be seen as a wacked out vigilante, then full scale bloody revolution is already in full swing and what and how many guns are amongst the public isn't going to make much of a difference as millions of people storm the capital. And anything less than that and the Barrett weilder is still just a nut job survivalist who has decided with his own (I would say questionable) judgement who needs to live and who needs to die for society to benefit.

There will never be a fullscale revolution with people storming the capital. Ever. Those in power have spent billions of dollars perfecting techniques by which to prevent exactly that. Even if riot suppression failed (and it would not), it would be naive in the extreme to believe that the government wouldn't simply open fire on civilians with heavy machineguns to save their own hides. Nevermind that Americans will never respond to the most extreme outrages with anything more than a shrug and a flip of the channel - any mass revolution is doomed to failure from the start.

The Iraqi insurgents have done an excellent job of demonstrating exactly what tactics work - a perpetual uncoordinated and decentralized resistance that blends with the civilian population and is unafraid to engage in asymmetric warfare. No other method of revolution would last a week.
posted by Ryvar at 12:29 AM on May 24, 2006

I was not suggesting a sort of abstract approach to life in general where the potential for all things in a non-physical sense are evaluated without regard to potential.

Sorry, mangled that sentence. I was not suggesting a sort of abstract approach to life in general where all things both physical and metaphysical are evaluated without regard to their potential effects.
posted by Ryvar at 12:32 AM on May 24, 2006

Is he allowed to have in his posession such an amount of firearms? If so, I'm SHOCKED. Disgraceful.

The Bushmaster M-4 clone is perfectly legit. While civilian versions of the other rifles exist, it seems awfully fishy to me - especially the MP5.
posted by Ryvar at 12:44 AM on May 24, 2006

Current firearm ownership restrictions are based upon an attempt to balance out civil liberties and non-criminal utility with the potential number of deaths one person can cause with them.

This is precisely my point. You are correct in asserting that .50 calibur rifles have not done any harm to society thus far. But since they have exactly zero non-criminal utility, ownership should not be a right. If even a single person is killed by something with zero non-criminal utility, that should be enough to throw the public safety balance toward banning the weapon. That's why I say we just skip that part where somebody has to die and decide that things that are made explicitly to be dangerous and that have no non-criminal utility be banned BEFORE somebody gets killed. Along this same line, perhaps I was not clear earlier. I understand that wanting the Barrett banned is my opinion and I'm not really arguing that it should definitely be banned, simply that being able to own one should not be a fundamental right. Being that citizens shouldnt' have a right to own such weapons, if the government still decides that they are safe for society, than so be it. I don't agree, but I accept that. To claim that people have a right to own such agregious weapons I think is totally wrong.

There will never be a fullscale revolution with people storming the capital. Ever. Those in power have spent billions of dollars perfecting techniques by which to prevent exactly that. Even if riot suppression failed (and it would not), it would be naive in the extreme to believe that the government wouldn't simply open fire on civilians with heavy machineguns to save their own hides. Nevermind that Americans will never respond to the most extreme outrages with anything more than a shrug and a flip of the channel - any mass revolution is doomed to failure from the start.

And if this is true than there will never be any use for civilian owned anti-military weapons, because the shooter is still exacting his own vigilante justice to the disagreement of most citizens. Is it alright to use such weapons against an oppressive government when you are the only one who thinks it is? If ten people think so? If a super majority of people supported violence to topple their own government, that government is gone. Once a government starts a war against it's own people as you posit would be over in weeks time, guess what? There's no country left to rule over. You can't run a country with only a military. Economics and information remain the most powerful weapons in the world. The vigilante who you think would do so much good shooting at military officials would do so much more good by providing information to those Americans who you say would just change the channel in the face of violence. A government simply cannot murder most of it's population and expect to have anything left afterward other than soreley weakened country susceptible to attack from any number of other countries. That's why disinformation and decpetion will always be the primary weapon of oppressive government. Even if it floats on a sea of lies, a government will always need its citizens support. Truth fixes a lot more governments than rifles do.
posted by Farengast at 12:52 AM on May 24, 2006

Oh yeah, and I'm going to sleep now. Pick this up tomorrow, if there's anything left that is....
posted by Farengast at 12:52 AM on May 24, 2006

I liked this post when it was more snarky Johnny Dangerously lines and less "that same old gun control debate".
posted by cavalier at 12:53 AM on May 24, 2006

Do you know the police would not respond promptly if you were threatened?

Absolutely, I know this.

I know a man who worked at a convenience store in this county. He was assaulted by a male, defended himself, the man left the store. He went to his vehicle and pulled out a shotgun and aimed it at him.

The clerk went to the backroom of the store, called the police (911), then his parents. His parents made it to the store prior to the police, from a further distance. The police, who were only 7 miles away from him, took 22 minutes to get there. (The surveillance camera showed the times.)

By the time they got there, the man was gone. And the police did not press charges.

22 minutes is a short time (unless it is you the gun is pointed at), this is a large, rural county. Had the officers been further out, how long would it have taken?

What if someone were to try and break into my home, right now? Should I wait a bare minimum of 20+ minutes for help? That's if they aren't on another call or on the far end of the county?

Would you want your mom/wife/girlfriend/sister left at the hands of an assailant unprotected? Even if it were the 20 minute and not an hour plus wait (which, rural area, it can be) do you want that?

I'd much rather be able to protect myself and I do.
posted by SuzySmith at 12:55 AM on May 24, 2006

Ryvar: While civilian versions of the other rifles exist, it seems awfully fishy to me - especially the MP5.

Well he is in the military so that makes purchase of automatic weapons a bit simpler. I wonder if the G3 was full auto as well.
posted by Tenuki at 12:57 AM on May 24, 2006

SuzySmith, if you were that sales clerk are you suggesting there would be a dead person now? Or are you suggesting two armed people pointing loaded weapons at one and other would then peacefully go on their way?
In this case it seems it was good the store clerk did not shoot the man, and if there were effective gun controls perhaps the intruder would not have been armed in the first place. A permissive legal attitude to gun ownership seems to have meant the assailant didn't break any laws by brandishing a weapon, so there was little the police could do.

I wouldn't want my loved ones to be in the hands of an assailant, I support an effective police force and programs to deter the baddies.
My loved *aren't* in the hands of baddies, so I can measure the risk of an armed populace against the risk of them being assaulted.
But in both cases, wouldn't gun control and a more effective police force be the best response?
posted by bystander at 1:07 AM on May 24, 2006

To claim that people have a right to own such agregious weapons I think is totally wrong.

Herein lies our fundamental disagreement: I simply don't understand what is inherently egregious about .50cal weapons. .308's no less fatal - it's the sniping round for nearly every SWAT team and the USMC. .50cal only sees special purpose deployment for extreme distance engagement when accuracy is not at a premium. Why not start singling out ammunition when it switches from kinetic impact to explosive? Which, heyo!, is what we currently do.

If a super majority of people supported violence to topple their own government, that government is gone.

A majority of people might support violence in theory as long as they weren't personally called upon to do anything more than post to Metafilter. Which is to say that we all - including me - are cowards. People only risk their lives when they have little left to lose otherwise, and despite the fact that the American economy is primed for a minor implosion in the next ten years, we're not going to be facing another Great Depression in the forseeable future. The nations and investment banks of the world are too firmly linked to our fate to allow that.

Information is only useful to the degree that it can be acted upon, and the US government no longer has any interest in paying attention to the desires or best interest of its citizens - we don't fund their parties, we don't attend their galas, and we're not going to do anything about it regardless of how hard we get fucked over.

Is Family Guy on? Stewie is so funny.
posted by Ryvar at 1:16 AM on May 24, 2006

Add this to my other irrational fears: the fear of accidently being shot through the walls of my house. Thanks, MeFi.
posted by Amanda B at 1:26 AM on May 24, 2006

Priests and druids can take care of that, dontcha know...
posted by bardic at 1:29 AM on May 24, 2006

You forgot Poland Paladins!
posted by Ryvar at 1:54 AM on May 24, 2006

It's hard to believe that guns make a home more secure from burglars if people are dying from accidents like this.

Anyone know the statistics for accidental deaths in the home with a hand gun compared to the statistics for hand guns used in the prevention of a burglarly?

It seems that a good home security system would be a lot safer than a hand gun. But it's not about public safety or constitutional rights. It's about money and business and the military industrial complex and peoples' (and Hollywoods) fascination with guns and violence.

And anyone who owns the number of guns that this guy's neighbour does, has a sickness. He's not a "collector"; nobody collects their guns by the bathroom sink.
posted by disgruntled at 2:14 AM on May 24, 2006

The nice thing about an armed populace is that it serves as a final check on the government.

Does anyone have any ideas on how many gun owners actually vote? That, it strikes me, might not be a bad start on putting a check on the government, and one coould escalate from there, perhaps...
posted by tannhauser at 3:13 AM on May 24, 2006

There were 42,884 deaths from automobiles in 2003.
In 2003 there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S.
Cardiovascular diseases claimed 910,614 lives in 2003.

Stop it. Just stop. The barbecue and the gas pump are killing us.
posted by ewkpates at 4:05 AM on May 24, 2006

1 MOA is roughly the size of a quarter at 100 yards

I never thought of it that way, but yeah. I've always used 1'@100yds=1"

Minute of angle at 100 yds is for all intents, one inch: Proof:

Circumference of a circle = 2r&pi. Radius is 100yds.

100 yards = 3600", 2rπ= 7200π" ~= 22618.8"

360 degress in a circle, 60 minures per degree, so, 21,600 minutes per circle

22618.8/21600 ~=1.047.

Therefore 1 minute of angle ~= 1".

Measuring a quarter, I get 0.95 -- which is about twice as incorrect, but still good to a tenth of an inch. Good enough for government work.
posted by eriko at 5:04 AM on May 24, 2006

eriko: actually it's just me parroting books and websites that discuss guns. The phrase "a quarter at 100 yards" is used so frequently to illustrate what an MOA is that I didn't even think about it when I typed it. But yeah, it's 1" at 100 yards.
posted by Ryvar at 5:35 AM on May 24, 2006

Does anyone have any ideas on how many gun owners actually vote? That, it strikes me, might not be a bad start on putting a check on the government

Are you wilfully missing the point? The guns are there for when the voting doesn't work any more. (Which, frankly, in this country has been more and more the case. Exhibit A, the 2000 election; Exhibit B, 99% reelection in Congress; Exhibit C, the increasing amounts of money needed to even contemplate a run for office. Good luck to Mr. Smith, the little guy who wants to go to Washington and do Good Things for the People.)

Like (I believe) EB and apparently others, I'm conflicted about this. I didn't grow up in a gun culture and the whole idea of people with guns in their bathrooms and on their persons makes me nervous as hell; on the other hand, the idea of an unarmed populace at the mercy of a well-armed government makes me even more nervous. If you think cops are automatically your friend, you're a fool, and if you think cops will magically protect you from the bad guys, you're an even bigger fool. Go read SuzySmith's latest comment and think about how it would feel to look out your window and see somebody who'd just been yelling at you getting a shotgun out of their vehicle.
posted by languagehat at 5:37 AM on May 24, 2006

All of you people are nuts.

Anti-gun people, here's a heads up: the police will not protect you if someone breaks into your home. They will show up in maybe half an hour if you're lucky and live in the rich, white part of town. If you live in the sticks or the "urban" part of town, you're lucky if they bother to show up at all. The police are there to write speeding tickets and bust people for drug possession. That's about it.

Gun nuts, especially wfrgms and his dumb friend: quit fucking playing around with your fake dicks. Hurr I was sure it was unloaded!

ALL GUNS ARE FUCKING LOADED AT ALL TIMES; THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNLOADED GUN.

Keep your goddamn finger off the trigger unless you are at the range, ready to fire at a target, or you are trying to kill someone who is a direct threat to your life. I swear to god when I say that you should be maimed for failing to practice trigger discipline, I mean it; if there's a picture of you on your MySpace or personal site or in your little gosh-look-at-all-mah-guns scrapbook, you should be treated like Johnny Pickpocket in Riyadh. You don't deserve to have hands.

Guess what? Guns don't kill people. But most people with guns are no better than five year-olds with squirt guns: you tell them, don't fucking play with it in the house, but oh no: you have to touch it, caress it, pose with it, maybe fire it a few times just for kicks. Here's an idea: stop being such fucking douchebags about your guns and getting your goddamn kids killed and getting them stolen and "accidentally" blowing someone's fucking head off and maybe the liberals will stop fucking bugging you about them.

There is no such thing as an accident when you are handling a weapon. All guns are loaded. Do not point a gun at anything you do not immediately wish to destroy. Keep your finger off the trigger unless you are trying to kill someone.

Why is this so fucking difficult for you?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:05 AM on May 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

I don't share SuzySmith's rationale for carrying a handgun, but that's easy for me to say as a large male, former martial-arts teacher, blah blah blah. Personally, in my current circumstances I feel that I can't justify the small (but very real) risk that I would use my weapon for a reason other than to kill someone in a legally justifiable manner. The fact that I live and work in a poor urban neighborhood where violence (including gun violence, but very rarely actual shootings) does occur really factors into this. There have been instances where my carrying a gun wouldn't have made me appreciably safer but might have gotten someone killed who really didn't need to die. I've never in 10+ adult years of living in poor (and at times very violent) urban areas found myself in a situation where I felt unprotected for not carrying a gun. Living in rural Appalachia (as an adult), however, was different. Though I've never drawn a handgun on a person, twice over a period of five years of rural living I was glad I had one legally concealed, and I wouldn't fault anyone who did.
posted by mrmojoflying at 6:29 AM on May 24, 2006

The nice thing about an armed populace is that it serves as a final check on the government.

Remember that apartheid-style system you used to have in America, not so long ago? I don't seem to recall Martin Luther King making an 'I Have A Gun' speech in his campaign to have it overturned. Or how about the British in India? Again, I must've missed the part where Ghandi helped topple the Raj with a machine gun in each hand. (Though that would admittedly make a good action movie: Kiss my homespun cotton-wrapped ass, Britisher motherfucker!)
posted by jack_mo at 6:38 AM on May 24, 2006

Are you wilfully missing the point? The guns are there for when the voting doesn't work any more. (Which, frankly, in this country has been more and more the case. Exhibit A, the 2000 election; Exhibit B, 99% reelection in Congress; Exhibit C, the increasing amounts of money needed to even contemplate a run for office. Good luck to Mr. Smith, the little guy who wants to go to Washington and do Good Things for the People.)

Well, gosh, I hope I wasn't missing the point, but I can be a little slow. Perhaps you could help me. Would you recommend shooting Diebold voting machines, or shooting the judges who declared Bush the winner in the 2000 election? Or is your point that Mr. Smith goes to Washington would be a better film if Jimmy S. had gone in loaded for near and dispensed some hot lead justice? It would have made the filibuster scene shorter, but certainly more dynamic.

So, let's assume for a moment that voting is no longer a functional way to deal with a government not responding to one's wishes. Could I further ask how many gun owners have so far joined a protest march, written a letter to their congressman... any of the things one is traditionally expected to do before deciding that democracy has gone for a Burton and it may be an appropriate time to lay hands on one's rifle and head for the hills.

My point being, I think, that the overlap between the set politically engaged defenders of individual freedoms and the set of people with guns may actually be smaller than you'd think, as is that between the set of people with guns and the set of people who would be happy to use those guns against a government that Metafilter has adjudged no longer acceptable. Compare, for example, the set of people who like to practice their quick draws in the bathrooom mirror while absolutely convinced that they had removed the bullets.
posted by tannhauser at 6:47 AM on May 24, 2006

I think the point, tannhauser, is that some people feel that not only is the government no longer representative of the people, but that it has been broken beyond repair.
posted by Ryvar at 6:55 AM on May 24, 2006

Ah, right - sorry, I'm clearly having a bit of a silly day. In that case might I ask whether these people are currently engaging in acts of armed resistance against said government, with the intention of overthrowing it and the assistace of those firearms they have been wise enough to stockpile? Or am I in the unfortunate position of being the only gooseberry in a community which is ably and dextrously juggling posting to Metafilter with the ongoing armed struggle? I'm going to feel like an awful twit if I am.
posted by tannhauser at 6:59 AM on May 24, 2006

The nice thing about an armed populace is that it serves as a final check on the government.

Damn right. Those freedom-hating kids in the Oklahoma Federal Building needed to know their place right quick.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:03 AM on May 24, 2006

Or is your point that Mr. Smith goes to Washington would be a better film if Jimmy S. had gone in loaded for near and dispensed some hot lead justice? It would have made the filibuster scene shorter, but certainly more dynamic.

The Simpsons did it...
posted by Cyrano at 7:03 AM on May 24, 2006

See my post where I call myself a coward.
posted by Ryvar at 7:04 AM on May 24, 2006

As someone who has Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, I wish people would stop saying things like this:

I am OCD about gun safety.

It doesn't even mean anything. "I am Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder about gun safety?" And, no you're not.
posted by agregoli at 7:04 AM on May 24, 2006

A problem American law has with guns is the difficulty in regulating in a meaningful way that addresses concerns from major population centers and rural areas.

Then you have a few million people living on top of each other in plasterboard crates guns are a greater liability. In a rural area not having a gun seems lie foolishness to me, not even due to human home invaders so much as persistent, pesky, and sometimes dangerous wildlife.

Where I grew up in NYC, people other then cops who had guns were uncommon. I know a few kids who were Boy Scouts and shot riffles in the Empire State games. Other then 1) Cops and 2) well organized community activities; there was only one reason to have a gun. The remaining guns in NYC were .22 snub nose “Saturday night specials” with tape on the handles left at a crime scene.

I moved out to Pennsylvania with a moderate phobia of guns, but let me tell you there are a lot more common in PA. Many more hunters living in the suburbs of Philly then I knew of in NYC. I saw guns more often and made more friends where were military/ex-military.

Bottom line, I am no fan of guns but the NRA folks are no the problem. Illegal gun sales and resale are the problem. The murder rate in Philly is crazy and getting worse, but it is never the collectors or NRA loyalists who are the problem. Plentiful and cheap pistols that flood the black market are. This is where the Left and the Right both get the whole thing screwy.

Fellow non-gun people, aside from the random asshat in the livejournal story, most of the gun death we deal with is not the accidental type. Its murders by people who are not even legal owners, and it’s cheap ass pistols flooding the street that cause the problem. Stop worrying about .50 cal riffles and start working with the people who LIKE their guns to choke of the illegal sales supply chain. Gun collectors or “Gun Nuts” are not the people increasing our murder rates. The more we rant, rave and ban things blindly the more we limit or chances to get anything real accomplished.

Dear NRA folks; Please drop the “an armed populace keeps the government from taking over” type arguments. The argument makes us think you are all just crazy as shithouse rats; and you’re not. When we are concerned that very many people are dying in gun battles in urban streets, and we want to limit the guns, it is not effective to tell us that you need to keep all the guns on the street so that one day you can shoot the ATF people who you think may come for your gun collection. In fact it makes us think we need to take your guns too. We don’t. You are NOT the problem we actually care about. You are not gang-bangers shooting each other and hitting children with the stray shots. And please stop blindly saying “The liberals want to take our guns.” Contact any urban Police Benevolent Association and ask what their stance is on gun control. Cops want gun control because we lose too many good men and women to vile gun crime. The desire for gun control has nothing to do with a vast conspiracy to curtail your freedoms. When you say “We need to keep guns to protect us from the gov’t” when we see COPS getting shot, it looks like you are standing to be counted with the gang-bangers and drug dealers.

NRA people loose it, quite rightly when idiots misuse firearms. Liberals and Cops hate to see people dying in ever increasing numbers due to gun violence largely from illegally gained firearms. Short of what politicians want us to believe about each other, what exactly is it that keeps us from working toward a common goal?
posted by BeerGrin at 7:10 AM on May 24, 2006

Ryvar: Quite so. So, I guess my question would be that, do we accept a) that guns are awfully useful for fighting an oppressive government, but b) we ourselves would not actually use guns to fight an oppressive government, then does it follow that c) there is no noble use for guns that we wish to indulge and therefore d) there is no positive purpose to be served by our possession of guns, unless e) we provide a more easily-raided source of firearms for the partisans who do take to the hills than official channels? If so, then f) the private ownership of firearms by those not currently using them against an oppressive government is actually an incitement to crime, and g) to use those guns we have to prevent that crime would be to risk stymieing the noble resistance to oppressive government forces that was seeking to use crime to procure guns for its cause, yes?

Gosh. This is complex.
posted by tannhauser at 7:15 AM on May 24, 2006

After reading Rvyar: Ryvar you are an asshat.

What precisely is the populace going to do with guns when government s not working?

Will guns fix schools? Will guns pave roads? Will guns get people healthcare? Will guns bring jobs back, or create good new jobs? Will guns resolve our trade deficit?

You want to fix something about our government? Find people who agree with you and try voting. You want a revolution? Refuse to work on Election Day until you ballot is cast. Convince you patriotic co-workers that they should do the same.
posted by BeerGrin at 7:17 AM on May 24, 2006

a) that guns are awfully useful for fighting an oppressive government

Let's be clear on one point here: not all guns are equal in this respect. As I've mentioned - an uncoordinated 'grassroots' assassination movement that blends with the public is the only method by which violence could hope to be effective. Ergo, rifles made to engage targets at extreme distances are the order of the day. Unfortunately America only has about a billion hunting rifles lying about.

b) we ourselves would not actually use guns to fight an oppressive government

That depends on what your definition of 'is', is. Even if I thought I could kill another human in cold blood - and in all truth I don't really believe I could - I'm sure as fuck not going to be the first person to stick my neck out. I'm too comfortable. The common affliction of aristocracy is that it is willing to overlook nearly any moral outrage for the sake of continuing its perfect lifestyle. The middle-class of America is not merely supremely distracted and afraid, it is also aristrocratic relative to the rest of the world in all the ways that pertain to this situation.

c) there is no noble use for guns that we wish to indulge

Despite the above paragraph I just wrote, I believe there is a societal breaking point. My dissatisfaction with myself and my fellow countrymen is that we have apparently not yet reached it. That I am incapable of practicing what I preach offends me but does not really surprise me.

d) there is no positive purpose to be served by our possession of guns

This does not follow because I don't grant c).

e) we provide a more easily-raided source of firearms for the partisans who do take to the hills than official channels?

Providing a source for firearms isn't really necessary. Production of accurate high-caliber rifles can be accomplished by a single individual using readily available machining tools - the legions of garage-level gunsmiths is ample evidence of that.

f) the private ownership of firearms by those not currently using them against an oppressive government is actually an incitement to crime

See c)

g) to use those guns we have to prevent that crime would be to risk stymieing the noble resistance to oppressive government forces that was seeking to use crime to procure guns for its cause, yes?

And see c).
posted by Ryvar at 7:33 AM on May 24, 2006

After reading Rvyar: Ryvar you are an asshat.

Come on, he's an asshat because you disagree with him? Both you and Ryvar have posted very civil and interesting points to this thread, don't undercut your earlier points by making denigrating remarks.
posted by quin at 7:35 AM on May 24, 2006

Find people who agree with you and try voting.

And? It doesn't accomplish anything. Our politicians have no interest in representing us, or legislating in our best interests. We don't fund their election campaigns - corporations and the people who own them do. The root problem with any freemarket republic is that conglomerations of individuals can act in a manner that negatively impacts their personal best interest.

When General Electric dumped tons of PCBs into the Hudson river, it was patently not in the best interests of their employees to do so, and yet it happened all the same because at each level in their decision-making heirarchy one person overlooked one different facet of a patently unethical action. To do otherwise was to incur the wrath of the shareholders, and each level assumes the other will be responsible and they won't have to stick out their neck. The only people who can and should know better are raking it in hand over fist - people who hold the positions they do precisely because their personal ambition is unbridled.

There were no mass arrests of or lifetime imprisonment for the upper levels of General Electric - merely fines and forced payment for recovery efforts. The people making these decisions are personal friends of those who create and enforce laws, and as such they will never answer for the atrocities of public health for which they are directly responsible. This is repeated in industry after industry - look at the rolling brownouts in California that evidence suggests were an intentional action by Enron to justify higher rates in the name of 'upgrading infrastructure.'

People died because of those power shortages, and the few executives getting jailed amongst the far greater number who are responsible will get a slap on the wrist at best.

To find countless similar examples of actions directly by the US government one only needs to read Metafilter - there are a few posts on the Iraq war you may find interesting.

Voting does not and will not accomplish anything - electing a Democratic president or Congress if that is even possible will merely reduce the rate at which our society is destroyed. Writing your congressman does not and will not accomplish anything - I have, and I enjoyed the form letter I got back - which means I was ignored out of hand. Protesting in the streets (or in the free speech zones) does not and will not accomplish anything - nobody in power gives a flying fuck about protestors unless they threaten their reelection. Your stupid blog and laughable pretentions of 'citizen journalism' does not and will not accomplish anything - information is only useful to the degree that it is acted upon, and the affluent people like me reading them aren't going to act anytime soon.

So what WILL accomplish something besides direct action?

I eagerly await your answer.
posted by Ryvar at 7:55 AM on May 24, 2006

Come on, he's an asshat because you disagree with him? Both you and Ryvar have posted very civil and interesting points to this thread, don't undercut your earlier points by making denigrating remarks.

Thanks, but he's probably right in that I'm being too strident by far and wholly unrealistic to boot (I've already admitted to flagrant hypocrisy). It's only that - as I just said - the other answer I see are even less realistic.
posted by Ryvar at 7:58 AM on May 24, 2006

That depends on what your definition of 'is', is. Even if I thought I could kill another human in cold blood - and in all truth I don't really believe I could - I'm sure as fuck not going to be the first person to stick my neck out. I'm too comfortable. The common affliction of aristocracy is that it is willing to overlook nearly any moral outrage for the sake of continuing its perfect lifestyle. The middle-class of America is not merely supremely distracted and afraid, it is also aristrocratic relative to the rest of the world in all the ways that pertain to this situation.

That's precisely why economic weapons are so superior to any rifle. Sure it takes just as much courage to decide you aren't going to show up to work. But if 20 or 30% of people simply skipped out on their jobs for a week. You can be damned sure the economic impact would be huge and the government would not be able to ignore it. All these civilian combating oppressive government fantasies always forget the same vitally important point: our government, no matter how oppressive, needs us. It can't function by itself. It needs people to work the factories, build infrastructure, build weapons, pay taxes on their starbucks lattes. Starving the beast has always been the best way to topple a government and it always will be. So sure people can be duped into doing things that aren't actually beneficial to them. But you'll gain a lot more ground spreading information than you will spreading bullets. Especially considering the aforementioned oppressive and dishonest government would paint you as a terrorist quite easily. The simple fact remains that if 100 million people decided not to pay their taxes, there's really not much the IRS could do about it. If 100 million people went on strike, the government would crumble without a shot fired. Thinking that you'll engage the government in long range guerilla warfare and actually remove it from power is a fairy tail. Money makes the world go round, and it makes it stop too.
posted by Farengast at 8:03 AM on May 24, 2006

Thinking that you'll get 100 million Americans to risk being fired is also a fairy tale - it only works when the population has little or nothing left to lose, which is you see illegal immigrants and the marginalized doing exactly what you say.

You don't see people with a sixpack and the Simpsons in highdef doing so.
posted by Ryvar at 8:07 AM on May 24, 2006

quinn: you are correct.

Ryvar: Thank yo for not rising to my negativity.

(On preview: If Americans are to lazy and booze addles to vote, is it possible they have the gov't they diserve, or more exactly the gov't they asked for?)

I strenuously disagree with your underlying idea and I find its implications both dangerous and deeply disturbing.

If it is an intellectual exercise, then it is sophistry that clouds underlying real issues of real people being killed by real guns.

If you are serious, I have to wonder at the practical application of your positions. “Defending” America against its Government in an armed conflict will result in the dame destruction of infrastructure that plagues any war torn nation. Power lines, power-generation, food distribution networks, banking, all the things that actually make America powerful will be greatly damages as in any insurgency.

The losses to the armed resistance are likely to be catastrophic. A government of the US is not going to be able to move against its own citizens without the accent or at least the complicity of the majority. Unlike our fight in Iraq, the resistance here would not have an automatic welcoming screen of faces to hide among.

If you were actually facing the American military on it’s own turf in anything less then overwhelming number then you are signing up for suicide. I am not sure what even your .50 cal will do against a tank, but I am guessing that without ordinance that tank is laughing at you.

To reach this state of conflict, you also have to believe that our military would disregard their oath to the constitution and obey an American dictator. Think of the military men and women you know and the honor they do their country before you blithely state that they would likely do so. If it is something short of a horrid dictatorship, then what exactly is it you think you will need to revolt against? Taxes? Social policy? If real elections still occur, then you are not in a position where you need to revolt to effect change.

If “all our elections are rigged” and “the military would turn on the people” then what are you doing here? Why live in such a horror state? Are you some kind of super hero living in a bunker waiting the moment to spring forth and save America from itself?

Can you see why, when living with a city with a real escalating murder rate with real people buying real illegal guns I might find this flight of fancy infuriating?
posted by BeerGrin at 8:28 AM on May 24, 2006

daq writes "find out if that guy who's getting evicted wants to sell any of his collection..."

No kidding, no crap at all though he appearently tends to the excess.

lumpenprole writes "one neighbor who took the same round in the shoulder while eating his breakfast. What a cruddy day that must have been for him."

I'd bet you could wangle at least one sick day though.

Vindaloo writes "Why would any civilian in any civilized nation ever need this many guns?"

Ditto wendell.

wendell writes "One more side thought... I only once lived in the same apartment building with a gun collector"

That you know of: wfrgms writes "And now for some hypocrisy: I live in a building where firearms are strictly prohibited in the lease. I still own my pistol and I'm happy I have it - but I'm glad that my neighbors (in theory) don't have firearms"

bystander writes "As citizens in society we have obligations to be civil. If there is crime in your rural area, arrange for the government to deal with it, don't decide to be a vigilante.
"Do you know the police would not respond promptly if you were threatened? If so, why not vote them out?"

When you live 35 minutes from the nearest paved road the goverment is not going to help you when a bear breaks in and destroys your kitchen. I don't care who you vote in or how much money you spend on law enforcement. Made a good blanket though.

Farengast writes "You are correct in asserting that .50 calibur rifles have not done any harm to society thus far. But since they have exactly zero non-criminal utility, ownership should not be a right."

Why are people buying them if they have zero non-criminal utility yet have never been used in crimes? And what is the "utility" of a beanie baby, spinner wheels or Elvis collector plates?
posted by Mitheral at 8:32 AM on May 24, 2006

Farengast writes "The simple fact remains that if 100 million people decided not to pay their taxes, there's really not much the IRS could do about it. If 100 million people went on strike, the government would crumble without a shot fired."

I used to think this way but the amazing durability of the War on Drugs, despite being obviously such a disaster on so many levels, makes me less sure.
posted by Mitheral at 8:39 AM on May 24, 2006

bystander writes "As citizens in society we have obligations to be civil. If there is crime in your rural area, arrange for the government to deal with it, don't decide to be a vigilante.
"Do you know the police would not respond promptly if you were threatened? If so, why not vote them out?"

Mitheral Writes
"When you live 35 minutes from the nearest paved road the goverment is not going to help you when a bear breaks in and destroys your kitchen. I don't care who you vote in or how much money you spend on law enforcement. Made a good blanket though."

Mithreal makes an excellent point and one that needs to be considered by lawmakers. Gun laws need to be regional. Rural gun laws do not need to be anywhere near as strict as urban gun laws.

The problem with blanket Federal gun legislation is that unless you have a very well crafted legislation (never happen) we end up with "one size fits none." I know that if guns are more available one state over that we sill have issues, but allowing States to apply a reasonable local standard to anyone who brings a firearm into the State or even into a defined region in a State is in my mind the first step to effective legislation that does not trample the 2nd.
posted by BeerGrin at 8:40 AM on May 24, 2006

To the majority of your post:

I've mentioned it a few times in this thread already, but to be absolutely clear what I've repeatedly said would be the only effective form of revolution is a long-distance assassination program. Tanks laugh off .50cal bullets with barely a scratch on the paint - but politicians do not. The murder of twenty or even two hundred politicians and business leaders by a few individuals does not destroy any city, shut down any services, engage the military in any way, or result in deaths outside of the politicians and business leaders in question. Any losses would be limited to the handful of would-be assassins. The worst that would happen to the general populace would be the imposition of martial law by the government for the duration of any such activities.

And yes, it is an intellectual exercise in the sense that I'm sorting through all the various options for fixing the American government and am focusing on one (strictly) hypothetical that is somewhat germane to the thread. Yes, there are real problems with guns - but no laws are going to stop illegal sales or the proliferations of handguns. I think we established that in this thread about a hundred posts back, although I apologize for my significant part in the derail (although gun control is pretty pertinent to the original post) - it's not fair to people who are just now seeing the post for the first time.

Gun laws need to be regional.

They are to an extent. California and New York City both have very restrictive gun laws compared to the rest of America. Rural states tend to have extremely loose ones - and even looser enforcement. Hence the Montana militia.
posted by Ryvar at 8:43 AM on May 24, 2006

Despite the above paragraph I just wrote, I believe there is a societal breaking point. My dissatisfaction with myself and my fellow countrymen is that we have apparently not yet reached it. That I am incapable of practicing what I preach offends me but does not really surprise me.

I'm rather liking this post-revolution world, though. It all feels rather John Christopher.

To restate, however: I can't help but feel that the triggers that make gun owners take up their weapons and take to the hills may not be the ones you expect, and may have very little to do with the erosion of civil rights or electoral fraud, as can be estimated by the current absence of armed insurrection. The argument seems to become that we should have everybody armed, because when some as-yet-unknown tipping point is reached, some as-yet-unknown impulse will lead to a popular uprising that will need plenty of weaponry readily available. Why we couldn't just wait for the fortnight before the revolution, if automatic weapons are as easy to make as you describe, does leave me a little confused, but this is an age of convenience.
posted by tannhauser at 8:51 AM on May 24, 2006

While I normally don't think calling people "fucking douchebags" advances the conversation, I just want to point out Optimus Chyme's brilliant rant as one of the best and most even-handed things anybody's written here.

This issue is obviously a difficult one, so let's try not to take one simplistic position, dig in, and insult the opposition. (Insulting people who treat their guns carelessly, on the other hand, is hunky dory.)
posted by languagehat at 8:53 AM on May 24, 2006

Ryvar: Ok. Playing with the hypothetical you provided then and not worrying about real guns.

I don't think capping a few suits, no matter how powerful they may be will make a difference. Your info says you're near Boston. you may or may not work in corporate America, but you at least see the drones on the freeway. Suits have a deep bench. You would cause a run on the market for sure, but at most long term you would be a benefactor to the guy 4th in line who thought he'd never see the big bucks.

If lard asses are still glued to Fox and drinking Duff, then the whole system is still in place. If you did shake up the masses enough for them to act, it would likely be less a revolution and more of a stampede of otherwise docile food-animals.

You have however won me over on one issue. I’m going to learn a lot more about actual gun legislation. Gut instinct tells me that if I want to reduce the boatloads of cheap, inaccurate Chinese made .22 snub nose murder tools that the NRA should not by definition be my enemy. We have very many rights that are subject to limits, just ask any property owner who has been subject to a nuisance complaint. The right to bear arms is not carte blanc “Please build a private army.”
posted by BeerGrin at 8:54 AM on May 24, 2006

I strenuously disagree with your underlying idea and I find its implications both dangerous and deeply disturbing.

...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

From the Declaration of Independence

I wonder why liberals like me are maximalists on the first amendment and minimalists on the second

I wonder why people seem to believe it doesn't say "well-regulated."
posted by kirkaracha at 9:08 AM on May 24, 2006

To Ryvar:

Short answer is that direct action will not accomplish anything as argued above. Follow up answer is if a public pushed to the brink goes non-violent , you get Ghandi. If they go violent, you get most of the African continent.

Both of us believe the public is generally lazy. You think that laziness calls for a direct cure. I think that laziness will crush those who try to act in a wave to derisive apathy. The public would turn those who act over to the gov't. The gov't and the corporations you quite correctly note are directly involved, are not lazy. They are free market predators who can move against single actors with ease, but lack the numbers to halt a stampede.

to kirkaracha:

I am not sure what point you are making.
Are comparing current American life with pre-revolutionary war life?

Do you feel your rights are seriously curtailed or that the gov't is destructive to your rights?

What would you rpleace this gov't with? Another Democracy? Americans seem to be disinterested in that. Would you replace it with a dictatorship? if you do, do we loose the right to overthrow you or does the Bill of rights somehow still apply?

I believe, unlike Ryvar that voting works, or could if people voted.

What I find disturbing is what I see as an adolescently simple quick fix put forward by some advocates of gun rights. "Things are bad or they soon will be, I need my gun it must be time to shoot people."
posted by BeerGrin at 9:18 AM on May 24, 2006

On a picky note kirkaracha: While the Declaration of Independence is a notable document and could be seen as a Declaration of War, it is in any case an instrument of foreign policy and not US Civil law.

If you are going to make an appeal to authority, cite an appropriate source.
posted by BeerGrin at 9:22 AM on May 24, 2006

I can't help but feel that the triggers that make gun owners take up their weapons and take to the hills may not be the ones you expect, and may have very little to do with the erosion of civil rights or electoral fraud, as can be estimated by the current absence of armed insurrection.

Agreed. It's extremely clear that the things which outrage me have little importance to most Americans, and thus I cannot reasonably predict what WOULD trigger any action.

if automatic weapons are as easy to make as you describe

Let's be clear: automatic weapons aren't easy to make (exception). Lots of intricate parts, colossal pain in the ass, breathe wasted ammunition, and are suicidal against the US military. Also very illegal if you get caught with one.

But many people knock up custom long-range rifles of a wide variety of calibers in very rough shops or out of their homes - similar to drag-racing enthusiasts who build their own cars. None of the above negatives about automatic weapons apply to what are essentially tricked-out hunting rifles. Snipercentral.com, where I get a not-insignificant amount of information, is a perfect example - they offer extremely accurate custom rifles based on the Remington 700 that are made by only a few people (originally just one). If memory serves Barrett Firearms Manufacturing itself was a fairly rude operation initially.

Here's a quick visual comparison: .50cal sniper rifle vs AK-47 internals, and they're fairly easy to manufacture as assault rifles go.

See what I mean?
posted by Ryvar at 9:22 AM on May 24, 2006

Thanks BeerGrin, that's exactly the point I was about to make. We've had presidents assassinated before, and absolutely nothing changed afterward. Ryvar's plan doesn't actually solve the problem. The government doesn't function without citizens mostly in support of it as in institution if not in any particular instance of policy. Assassinating politicians in an opressive government does nothing to solve the real problem of disinformation and propaganda. Unless you fix those, killing is totally fruitless. If W were assassinated tomorrow, Cheny would talk about how the world is different after 9/11, W was killed by terrorists because he loved freedom so much, blah blah you all know what these speeches sound like now. And his assassination would simply serve as ammunition to help get someone just like him elected again. Maybe it's unrealistic to expect masses of people to dodge their taxes in protest or stop going to work, but I think it's a far sight more realistic than masses of people risking their lives to take up arms against their own brothers and sons in the military.
posted by Farengast at 9:25 AM on May 24, 2006

Farengast: let me make one thing extremely clear - I do not, and never will, advocate killing the President or directly associated persons. Never. There are many people who are far more directly involved in exploiting America, and it is they who are the problem.
posted by Ryvar at 9:35 AM on May 24, 2006

BeerGrin writes "I don't think capping a few suits, no matter how powerful they may be will make a difference. Your info says you're near Boston. you may or may not work in corporate America, but you at least see the drones on the freeway. Suits have a deep bench. You would cause a run on the market for sure, but at most long term you would be a benefactor to the guy 4th in line who thought he'd never see the big bucks."

I think a well thought out, targeted campaign could be felt. Top flight CEOs like to have their shareholders believe that they are worth their 100 million dollar salaries. If any given assistant vice president could step up and fill their shoes their earning potential is going to be reduced. If the CEO and CFO of Dow or GE or Glock was to be assinated three times in two years recruitment is going to be difficult. Plus if a CEO knew that letting one of his plants kill a hundred poor people in Africa would put him on a hit list they might act differently.
posted by Mitheral at 9:37 AM on May 24, 2006

Mitheral:
"Plus if a CEO knew that letting one of his plants kill a hundred poor people in Africa would put him on a hit list they might act differently."

Agreed. Wound the corporate animal and it will react, but not the way anyone wants it too. Cap the CEO's and then the top 1% of the food chain feels they are in danger. Those folks who own the grand majority of assets (More and under our current Prez) will react by pushing legislation to either let Law Enforcement go after you more or to let Blackwater's private army go after you.

Welcome to an escalated conflict where you have no resources, no mandate and no public support. In the process, you have managed to get the corporate animal to pay the gov't to further curtail rights. the public, now more afraid of you then of the gov't will probably keep watching Fox and be thankful that they have a strong Prez who took decisive action.
posted by BeerGrin at 9:43 AM on May 24, 2006

Plus if a CEO knew that letting one of his plants kill a hundred poor people in Africa would put him on a hit list they might act differently.

Yes, they would cancel the company picnic and hire Federally subsidized private security contractors.
posted by mrmojoflying at 9:43 AM on May 24, 2006

Ryvar, they are a problem better dealt with by exposing them and their treachery so that people can learn from it and ensure that the treachery isn't repeated the next time. Simply removing the problematic person doesn't solve the problem. It just leaves a fat void to be filled by the next problematic person in line. That's why freedom of the press is inifinitely more important for maintaining democracy than the right to bear arms is. If problems are to be solved, actually solved, then people need to know that there is a problem. How many Microsoft employee's would one need to remove to turn the company away from monopolisitc market practices? The answer, or if there even is one, doesn't matter. Just think about the effect of assassination on the company. Do you really think it would change the direction of the company?

Assassinating "problem people" is still vigilante justice which has no place in a proper democracy (not to say I think we have one of those, but we have much less of one when we ignore economics and take up arms) and that cutting the head off the snake only works on snakes, not companies or governments.
posted by Farengast at 9:46 AM on May 24, 2006

Thanks, Mitheral - even if you don't agree with me you're the first person who seems to grasp the nature of my hypothetical. No engagement of the military whatsoever, and no deaths outside of those who spearhead exploitation at the expense of the public well-being.

Welcome to an escalated conflict where you have no resources, no mandate and no public support.

How could the conflict escalate? We're talking about a single shot from a wooded area three quarters of a mile off by an anonymous person with a rifle. Even assuming the person was caught - how is escalation possible? Why would you need resources, or public support?
posted by Ryvar at 9:47 AM on May 24, 2006

Ryvar, they are a problem better dealt with by exposing them and their treachery so that people can learn from it and ensure that the treachery isn't repeated the next time.

How do you ensure that if those responsible are never held accountable and corruption is to pervasive for that fact to change?
posted by Ryvar at 9:49 AM on May 24, 2006

However Mitheralis onto something when he mentions shareholders. One of the more interesting economic weapons being used recently is a shareholder revolt. Interested parties buy- into target companies, hold the shares overtime and pro-actively make their will made known to the board of directors. There is not much the CEO can do when it works, as the shareholders own the company. You can't legislate this away without also curtailing all stock ownership rights that are enjoyed by the top 1%.

It's a truth as old as Rome, War in all it's forms is primarily a matter of money.
posted by BeerGrin at 9:50 AM on May 24, 2006

“How could the conflict escalate? We're talking about a single shot from a wooded area three quarters of a mile off by an anonymous person with a rifle. Even assuming the person was caught - how is escalation possible? Why would you need resources, or public support?”


If you kill one target, then you have not addressed the deep bench. If you plan to kill more than one target, you need to survive. If you plan to kill enough targets before they can react and change their MO to compensate for your attacks, you need a fairly large network.

If only one person acts, no change occurs and life rolls on. Any actions of large enough a scale to generate change will require logistical support, supply and the ability to hide.
posted by BeerGrin at 9:53 AM on May 24, 2006

I didn't say it was going to be a desirerable effect. Your right though that a successful, multi year, assasination program against CEOs by more than just an isolated whack job or two would basically gut the right to bear arms. Look at the laws enacted in the wake of Brady being shot. Could you imagine if the people in power of RIAA, MPAA and Disney felt threatened and redirected their lobbying efforts against guns instead of trying to protect the mouse for another 20 years?
posted by Mitheral at 10:00 AM on May 24, 2006

Beergrin: Logistics are about $100 worth of match-quality ammo. Hiding consists of working your 9-5 job. There's no real defense against an extremely patient sniper - that's why they're used in assassination. Ferreting out insurgents embedded with the populace is really tough - as Iraq amply demonstrates. The only way for targets to react is to go all Howard Hughes - acoustic signature detectors with directional capability can help, but not at those ranges and only after the fact. Private security's effectiveness decreases exponentially with range.

Any notable start is going to trigger copycats, who will have no association with each other. An organization-wide rollup is impossible where there is no organization.

Look at the laws enacted in the wake of Brady being shot. Could you imagine if the people in power of RIAA, MPAA and Disney felt threatened and redirected their lobbying efforts against guns instead of trying to protect the mouse for another 20 years?

Such a crackdown works directly in the favor of those performing the assassination as NRA die-hards see their worst fears realized, and stand witness to effective tactics.
posted by Ryvar at 10:06 AM on May 24, 2006

Guns are for cowards. Oh yeah, and idiots.
posted by Decani at 10:22 AM on May 24, 2006

BeerGrin: Fellow non-gun people, aside from the random asshat in the livejournal story, most of the gun death we deal with is not the accidental type. Its murders by people who are not even legal owners, and it’s cheap ass pistols flooding the street that cause the problem.

Actually the majority of firearms deaths in the U.S. are suicides, almost 60%. Between 1999 and 2003 there were 142,334 firearms deaths 84,069 were suicides.
posted by Tenuki at 10:25 AM on May 24, 2006

I am not sure what point you are making.

The idea of overthrowing the government if it violates the rights of its citizens didn't originate with Ryvar, but is a fundamental idea in the founding of the country. Also, I didn't endorse the idea of overthrowing the government or claim it was the law.

Do you feel your rights are seriously curtailed or that the gov't is destructive to your rights?

Absolutely.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:27 AM on May 24, 2006

"Any notable start is going to trigger copycats."


History does not bear that idea out. Honestly, I think you are overestimating the effectiveness of a single sniper. I think you are underestimating modern Law enforcements ability to locate the individual. I think reliance on copycats is wishful thinking. (failure to plan being a plan to fail.)

As neither of us are interested in a feild test of this idea we are more or less at impasse.
posted by BeerGrin at 11:06 AM on May 24, 2006

kirkaracha if your rights are being destroyed, I beleive your best hope to to find enough people that agree.

Your comments on the declaration reminds me of the truisim "Any revolution carries with it the seeds of it's own destruction."

"Rights" are funny things. So far my stdy of law leaves me agreeing with legal positivists. You have all the rights that enough people agree that you have, and that you can afford to defend.

Hohfeld's concept is pretty solid. Your "Rights" entail a "Duty" by other people to bnot act in a way that violates the "Right." There are no rights without correspnding duties. The absence of duties and of rights is liberty.
posted by BeerGrin at 11:11 AM on May 24, 2006

"Actually the majority of firearms deaths in the U.S. are suicides, almost 60%. Between 1999 and 2003 there were 142,334 firearms deaths 84,069 were suicides."
Tenuki

Ok, but 84,069 firearms suicides do not make 58,265 non-suicide deaths by firearm more acceptable.
posted by BeerGrin at 11:16 AM on May 24, 2006

Ryvar, I understand the allure of hypothetical situations and whatnot but now you are just out to sea, man. A single sniper hoping for copy cats and calling that a recipe for regime change? That is crazy. So one honorable sniper starts taking out CEOs who are bad for society, are the copy cats going to be so honorable? Do they even know what the killings were about? Or are they just going to start sniping CEOs, any CEOs? This hypothetical situation started out pretty weak and has gotten much weaker. A bunch of copy cat snipers don't undermine anything but people's faith in firearms as a means of self-defence. Not only do you not change the political temperature of your society/government with that, you probably don't even have any kind of organization about who is killed and what they are being killed for and why it is necessary to democracy that it be done. You simply have a string of murders and no cogent dialogue for change. Even Bin Laden provides cogent dialogue for change. You wouldn't know it from listening to Cheny, but Osama has very specific ideas about economics and the US's role in global economics and how that effects the mid east. And he's still a lunatic because he thinks killing people is the best way to get his economic message out. You are proposing something at least as crazy and probably more so since a group of copy cats has no cogent message to start with.
posted by Farengast at 11:27 AM on May 24, 2006

It seems that a good home security system would be a lot safer than a hand gun.

Perhaps you have never heard of home invasions. Where you home and the alarm is not on. This is a growing trend in rural areas where the Meth problems are acute.

This paranoid attitude about guns is a good sign. It means most of you all lead safe little insulated urban bourgeois lives. But the argument is self contradictory. If you say "Statisiticaly you don't stand that big of chane of being assualted" or what ever. Then you ALSO don't have that big of chance of being SHOT by a lawful gun owner either, do you.

You have to remember though. A lot of people don't live like you do. A lot of people can't live like you do. And many just don't want to.

Small townships are in greater decay than ever. My Grandma lived 60 miles form the nearest city services in South Eastern Idaho. Her fire department was all volunteer and even most of those people have to assemble thirty 10 miles away. The country seat sheriff was about thirty miles away. She was on her own.

Yet there were meth labs littered the BLM land all around her farm.

She was a fairly robust healthy 88 years old. While she had farm hands and some cousins near by she stayed by herself. As an independent woman of the west that is how she wanted it.
But 88 is old and no match for any tweeker. So she had a couple of guns. She grew up hunting and shooting and wa an excellent marksman. At about age 75 the shotgun (she did shoot it once over the heads of some young men stealing farm equipment) became too much for her to wield accurately so she had a revolver for protection.

I own one hand gun. It's in pieces in a lock box. I don't need any more. But if I think for a second that guns will be banned I will buy as many as I can.

Why? Not because I entertain delusions of starting a Red Dawn "Wolverines" insurrection in the mountains but because I CAN. because no matter what if guns get banned the oligarchs, the millionaires and people with power will STILL have guns.

Bill gates will still have dudes with MP5's. Rosey O'Donnel will STILL have her Uzi toting body guards. Karl Rove will have life long SS protection.

Because they know one inarguable fact. Criminals will STILL get lethal weapons if they want them. And even without guns younger stronger men still can pose a threat to life and limb.

And we will have to fend for our selves.

Fuck that. And even if there is no threat. I like the idea of having a freedom. If you don't. Fine. Don't exercise it.

Firearms are a fact of life. They will not be un-invented. Some feel they need them. Some of these people are assholes.

So what. We can't illegal-ize assholes.
posted by tkchrist at 11:41 AM on May 24, 2006

A single sniper hoping for copy cats and calling that a recipe for regime change? That is crazy.

On reflection, yes. The copy cats idea is garbage. Toss it. A small group (say, twenty people) working from the same hitlist would be more effective than an individual - I just don't like that idea very much because it only takes one of them slipping up to roll up the whole group.

I don't think there is all that much need for a cogent dialogue (and bin Laden provides more of a monologue than a dialogue), however. By and large Americans would not be comfortable with the idea and would be unwilling to listen to a group of assassins for nearly the same reason they don't listen to bin Laden - and they won't differentiate between exploitative CEOs and civilians. If there's no audience, then why is there a need for dialogue? Your actions can speak for you, and your true audience - those with power - will get the message very quickly.

Like I said - this is a hypothetical stemming from a completely open-ended search for an effective method for fostering change. I'm not particularly tied to operational details and you make some valid points. It's just speculation along the lines I've mentioned - namely that if all peaceful methods are ineffective, then what violent ones would be?

In reality, the wife and I are putting money aside for the purpose of emigration, and we're about three years out. Sanity dictates that taking your ball and going home is the right course - but it's not something I can easily accept as I don't like losing. Hence my thinking along these lines.
posted by Ryvar at 11:51 AM on May 24, 2006

So, your grandmother was never actually assaulted, never suffered a "home invasion" and I imagine never saw one of these meth labs? The worst thing that could possibly have happened to her without a gun would have been the theft of some farm equipment? That is a terrifying vision of a world gone mad, tk. Thanks.
posted by tannhauser at 11:58 AM on May 24, 2006

Nice post. I was actually thinking about something like this a few weeks ago, since I'm renting an apartment (middle of a triplex) for the first time ever, and late one night I could hear the engaged couple on the other side of my bedroom wall having an argument.

Nothing serious, but I wondered 'What if they get really into a fight? Is something going to come through the wall?'

An idiot jerking off to his arsenal in the shitter is pretty clearly a "well-regulated militia."

The Mayor has never been better than that.

If this involved a drunken idiot nearly killing his neighbor with a motor vehicle, would this be mefi-worthy...? Oh, right, it involves a gun.

It's not interesting to me that a gun was involved, it's that he got attacked while playing Warcraft. If he was playing, say Grand Theft Auto III when a drunken idiot in a car drove through his living room, that would be worthy.

It's almost too good to be true. And this (Apparently his soon-to-be-evicted neighbor had one of these babies on order.) makes me agree with thisisdrew and cellphone that it's probably made up.
posted by lelilo at 12:05 PM on May 24, 2006

That is a terrifying vision of a world gone mad, tk.

yeah. that's what I was saying. [rolls eyes]

I don't care if she wanted a gun because of the unlikely event Munchkins were going to march out of your ass and shave her bald. It's irrelevant.

She was no where near any kind of LEO/City service presence and owning a fire arm was a purely rational and reasonable response to that. Like owning a fire extinguisher.

If anything it's you knee jerk anti-gun people who lived gripped with fear of a world gone mad. So tell me do you still fear my now deceased grandmother might shoot you?
posted by tkchrist at 12:09 PM on May 24, 2006

BeerGrin writes "I think you are underestimating modern Law enforcements ability to locate the individual."

The beltway sniper was only caught because they were foolish enough to use a dirty gun. Serial killers routinely hit double digits before getting caught and those are the guys we know about.
posted by Mitheral at 12:11 PM on May 24, 2006

No, tkchrist, but the Munchkins are gettiing restless. I fear they may turn on me. I need a firearm for hair defence.

Mitheral - true, but he was killing randomly and opportunistically, yes? I imagine that if one were seeking out targets fitting a particular profile, it would be easier to narrow you down. We're probably back to visibility versus impact here, and I think also to whether Iraq is a very good model for an insurgency on American soil.
posted by tannhauser at 12:29 PM on May 24, 2006

A few more points to make. This guy was US Military. Active duty folks are often allowed to make firearm purchases that us civilians cannot.

So, while he has a .50, he is not a civilian. Important thing to remember.

And for those of you that are on the high horse while attacking SuzySmith, also note that Alaska and Vermont have no restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon. Unlike 48 other states, you do not need a permit to do so. Has blood been flowing in the streets in either state? Nope.
California has the most restrictions on law abiding citizens & firearms. We also have some of the highest crime rates in the country. Go look up the FBI stats and do the math. Whether or not you're for or against firearm ownership or whether or not you think 'guns make me upset - nobody needs to own them' is irrelevant. The numbers are right there in black & white.
Oh, and also remember that many of the firearms that are illegal in the United States are simply coming over the border from Mexico.
posted by drstein at 12:32 PM on May 24, 2006

No, tkchrist, but the Munchkins are getting restless. I fear they may turn on me. I need a firearm for hair defence.

Then you best use it now - preemptive-wise. Double tap. Center of mass. At that range you can't miss.

With this latest smart ass dodge I take it you concede my superior argument and I rest my case. I win. Whoo hooo!
posted by tkchrist at 12:39 PM on May 24, 2006

Watching that tiny angelic smile as you experience the sensation of feeling like a winner is perhaps reward enough for speaking to you in the first place, tkchrist. If you can actually manage to put together an argument apart from "imaginary meth labs didn't menace my granny - FOR HOME DEFENCE", you might get a complementary case to rest it on or in.

DrStein: Would you happen to know why Alaska and Vermont have no laws against concealed weapons? The difference, again, between the US and Canada might be interesting here, legislatively and socially. Maybe we need to look at population density as an aggravating factor in firearms ownership - that and, of course, it being bloody cold, which might argue for some firearms to be kept inside outerwear. when travelling. There may well be a rural/urban divide, as mentiioned by Beergrin - not the imaginary meth labs, but dangerous animals, although how much that affects concealed weapons is debatable.
posted by tannhauser at 12:55 PM on May 24, 2006

“This guy was US Military.”

Wow, that makes it worse. Who trained him?
On the other hand, while ignorance can be fixed, stupidity lasts forever.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:15 PM on May 24, 2006

drstein: I agree that gun control laws don't work the way they are supposed to. I grew up in DC, which has very strict gun laws, and you can see how well that worked out. That being said, I think the causal relationship goes this way: places that have high gun violence enact strict gun laws to try to curtail said violence. I just hope you aren't trying to make the argument that Alaska and Vermont have lower crime rates *because* they have lax gun laws.

My reaction to SuzySmith (and I think this may be true of some of those to responded to her) stems from imagining myself carrying a concealed weapon, and coming to the conclusion that it would be much more likely to get me killed than to protect me. I had a gun pointed at my head earlier this year. Two, actually. I live in New Haven now, and my fiancee and I were walking around at night in what seemed like a decent part of town, and ended up getting mugged. There is no way my having a gun would have helped that situation. There were three of them, they drove up in a car and totally took us by surprise. What could I have done? Tried to put a bullet through their back windshield as they drove off? We gave them our money and they went away.
posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld at 1:23 PM on May 24, 2006

There's a decent part of town in New Haven?
posted by JekPorkins at 1:30 PM on May 24, 2006

Watching that tiny angelic smile as you experience the sensation of feeling like a winner is perhaps reward enough for speaking to you in the first place, tkchrist. If you can actually manage to put together an argument apart from "imaginary meth labs didn't menace my granny - FOR HOME DEFENCE", you might get a complementary case to rest it on or in.

Niiiice.

The larger point, the one you are working so hard to obfuscate, is that people in rural areas (some of at arguable "at risk" classification due to age and isolation) cannot depend on LEO emergency response. Right?

And those rural at risk people bare little threat to society at large by having hand guns. (Side Note: I never mentioned concealment or carry.)

You predictably dodge the argument with your barely disguised adhoms and insults. Instead you make it about "meth labs." Which you know it is not. Now quit being a dick and simply admit you have no grounds to dispute my point. Or just shut up and never respond to me again.
posted by tkchrist at 2:16 PM on May 24, 2006

“There is no way my having a gun would have helped that situation. There were three of them, they drove up in a car and totally took us by surprise. What could I have done? Tried to put a bullet through their back windshield as they drove off? We gave them our money and they went away.” -posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld

Allow me to take exception to this point as a matter of practical experiance. First - let me commend you on surviving. Whatever the “what if’s” may be, the simple fact that you are alive proves that you responded correctly to the situation.
That said - it is precisely the situation in which there is no other possibility of surviving that a gun would help.
I train people to do exactly what you stated you did: give them the money and let them go away.
If you had a firearm (sorry, saying ‘gun’ all the time I picture a howitzer) and were trained in it’s use - you could have (and should have) responded as you did in that situation. Pistol or no pistol you would have survived.
A weapon is obviously not for machismo, self-esteem, but it is a common misconception that a firearm should be used to protect your property. In very select and limited circumstances this can be true.
The only valid purpose in using a handgun is in the defense of your or someone else’s life.
The introduction of one in any situation is dictated by your response - having a weapon does not in and of itself mean you must use it. Knowing when using a firearm is the most important discipline in learning how to use one.
Obviously retaining a lethal weapon is critical, but as you stated they already had a pistol.
The firearm itself does not dictate any particular response on your part. It merely expands your response options and gives you the threat of lethal force as well as the force itself.

Important distinction there as well. A person may believe I’m extraordinarily dangerous - ready and able to defend myself and/or my loved ones or I’m just talking tough. A firearm in my hand eliminates that ambiguity.

Once it’s understood in that perspective it becomes much clearer how much of a disservice is done to firearms and responsible firearm owners when the inference is that having a gun means you should use it to shoot out someone’s window after they rob you or some such silly act.

Having the power to take a life means exactly that much more responsibility for your actions.

What is not at issue is that some people are delinquent in that responsibility.

But as been said above - that happens with or without a firearm in the equation. And delinquence on the part of someone else should not endanger any rights and privileges I enjoy because I’ve acted responsibly.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:16 PM on May 24, 2006

/wasn’t the same logic behind prohibition? Some jerk-asses can’t handle the booze and it’s bad for you to drink too much so no one should have a drop of it ever. ...although I believe “Satan” was brought up in there somewhere by the WCTU.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:18 PM on May 24, 2006

I don't own a gun, and I hope my neighbors don't either.

Me too.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:27 PM on May 24, 2006

/wasn’t the same logic behind prohibition?

It's hard to kill someone else with liquid. Not impossible, but a lot harder than with a gun.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:29 PM on May 24, 2006

SuzySmith, if you were that sales clerk are you suggesting there would be a dead person now?

I don't know, possibly. I wasn't there though. Had I been armed, it's very likely. If a criminal were to pull a shotgun and point it at my head? Yeah, I'd probably shoot him

There is no such thing as an accident when you are handling a weapon. All guns are loaded. Do not point a gun at anything you do not immediately wish to destroy. Keep your finger off the trigger unless you are trying to kill someone.

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I call this a negligent discharge, not accidental. Accidental is if the gun fires without a human finger on the trigger. If your weapon is kept up properly (with modern firearms) this does not happen.

I don't share SuzySmith's rationale for carrying a handgun, but that's easy for me to say as a large male, former martial-arts teacher, blah blah blah

Exactly. I'm a short, disabled woman. I could not physically fight off an attacker due to my disability and size.

Short of what politicians want us to believe about each other, what exactly is it that keeps us from working toward a common goal?

I'm not a member of the NRA and I am way to the left on everything except gun control. I'd love to see firearms out of the hands of criminals. But, I will not give up my right to own them to do that. There are thousands upon thousands of gun laws to stop criminals from having them.

Enforce the laws that are there, now. Don't add more stupid laws to the books. Just like the banning of the .50 caliber Barrett. Do any of you have a clue about how big those are? They're huge, no criminal is going to be concealing that on his person. You're talking 5+feet long and weighing 40 pounds.

Banning that (in CA) did what exactly? Not a damn thing, it's something to make those against guns to feel better. It sure didn't take anything from the bad guys.
posted by SuzySmith at 8:55 PM on May 24, 2006

So, we're back to why the Barrett .50. Presumably legislature is not created for reasons of sheer perversity, so why ban a gun that, although fearsome-looking, has almost no utility in street crime. Is there an issue here that those in favour of gun control have to be careful of not being too enthusiastically in favour of gun control, and that it is far easier to restrict the gun ownership of enthusiasts who are unlikely to cut up rough than attempt to impose prohibitions on handguns which will be demonstrably ineffectual?

Alternatively, is this an attempt at pre-emptive legislation? Current owners of Barrett .50s were not compelled too hand them in under AB50, which presumably means that the idea is that dedicated sports shooters would have bought them before anyone who had caught on later to the idea that they could be used against Ryvan's sensitive targets - so, it was closing off an avenue for potential misuse rather than saying anything about those who already owned them. On the other hand, it was Barrett who decided to refuse to service .50s owned by the LAPD, which seems a little bad-tempered of them. Should one wait for a specific brand of firearm to be used in a felony before speculating as to whether they could be used in felonies, and if you're legislating on likelihood of being involved in felonies should kitchen knives not be the first target? At which point the functional devotion of the firearm to lethality probably comes into play, but how much of that is just attitude - as said, a .50 Barrett is designed for pure lethality more than a kitchen knife, but a kitchen knife is probably far more of a problem in a bar-room brawl. There seems to be a lack of coonsistency here - is it, as Keene said at the time, legislation agaisnt things that look scary rather than things that actually are frightening?

Oh, tkchrist: You don't seem to have a game to raise, but you might want to think about how your "bad people carry guns" message sits ill with your tales of the land of the imaginary meth labs, in which the only person carrying a gun is your grandmother. Just a thought. Troll it as you will.
posted by tannhauser at 9:31 PM on May 24, 2006

There's a decent part of town in New Haven?

No.
posted by oaf at 12:52 AM on May 25, 2006

tannhauser: Realistically? On the lawmakers part I'd guess it's a bit of preemption prompted by understanding exactly who is at risk from such a weapon (themselves), and a heavy dose of 'appearing to do something' ala the whole partial-birth abortions bit. If they're trying to accomplish something substantive it eludes me.
posted by Ryvar at 1:58 AM on May 25, 2006

There's also the reports of a .50 being used at Camp Davidian - I can't find any corroboration of that with pictorial reference, so is it a case of a firearm being "smeared"? To return to your idea of the possessor of a long-range rifle as a potential opponent of the status quo (which I think has been discussed fairly thoroughly above), someboody wanting to see gun control as the removal of the right to defend oneself from the civilian population by an ultimately acquisitive government or military could make a relatively easy sell of a case using a firearm with limited criminal applications (or at least street crime applications) but which could be used against light armour which could resist handgun fire...
posted by tannhauser at 2:35 AM on May 25, 2006

The waco nuts used a Browning .50 caliber "Ma Duece" machine gun, apparently obtained under a collector's license. It was fully automatic.
posted by IronLizard at 4:36 AM on May 25, 2006

Re: Waco - No civilian should ever own an M2. Ever ever ever.

but which could be used against light armour which could resist handgun fire...

.308, .300 WinMag, .338 Lapua, .50 will all blow straight through most body armor (don't have time today to google up the links but this will do) , and the only ones that might have difficulty (.308, .300) have extremely high-quality ammo available at such reasonable prices that a good shooter can be expected to bypass armor entirely via accuracy alone. For what it's worth, you may find the graphs at the bottom of this page useful.
posted by Ryvar at 5:18 AM on May 25, 2006

Light armour = armoured personnel carrier, for reference, not body armour.
posted by tannhauser at 6:29 AM on May 25, 2006

I wouldn’t want to use a .454 or .50 Desert Eagle in a firefight
(much less a pair - the guy thinks he’s the Shadow on steroids maybe?).

Actually, isn't that the standard Tomb Raider armament?
(and who hasn't role-played a little Laura Croft in their bathroom mirrors on occasion)
posted by milovoo at 11:55 AM on May 25, 2006

“It's hard to kill someone else with liquid. Not impossible, but a lot harder than with a gun.” - posted by mrgrimm

Well, yeah. But my point was in reference to the methodology and form of argument behind getting something banned, not a comparison of the thing(s) in question.
And I’m probably more lethal with my hands or a blade than with a firearm. Certainly more sure (I can more easily confirm someone’s dead if I crush their trachea or cut their carotid artery vs. shooting them center mass) if not as ‘easy’. But easy is a matter of practice really. So, what, I have to chop off my hands? We ban martial arts? Knives?

And one could argue the damage done to society by alcohol has been greater than that by handguns. (And certainly the application of either greatly multiplies any damage potential or actual being done to society (e.g. drinking and driving; drinking and shooting, driving and shooting; driving, drinking and shooting; gambling and shooting; gambling and drinking; etc. etc.)
But much like the arguments on crime rates and handguns, it’s not an easily settled arguement, so no real point in heading that direction.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:09 PM on May 25, 2006

That said - it is precisely the situation in which there is no other possibility of surviving that a gun would help. -Smedleyman

I agree. That is the one situation I probably would probably want to have a gun. Sorry, firearm. But that being said, being a calm, law abiding individual, I think the odds of my getting into such a situation are very low (even in D.C. or New Haven). In fact, I'm not sure I would trust myself to decide that I was in such a situation. I would much rather take my chances and not have to bear the weight of carrying this deadly object with me.

I also don't believe that I would ever use a handgun as a "threat of lethal force". I think the assumption has to be that whoever you are threatening is also armed, and that kind of escalation seems like a great way to get killed. Even if the muggers had pulled a knife on me, I don't think I would have pulled a gun.

Shooting out the back window is obviously not something I would advocate. It would be a possibly fatally stupid thing to do. But people do stupid things all of the time, and try being cool and rational when someone is pointing a gun at your head.
posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld at 4:30 PM on May 26, 2006