Don't you come round here no more Billy, momma's got a Dragunov Sniper Rifle.
March 20, 2002 2:58 AM Subscribe
Don't you come round here no more Billy, momma's got a Dragunov Sniper Rifle. Can someone please explain?
Makes the perfect Mother's Day gift! Seems clear to me.
posted by Dick Paris at 3:49 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by Dick Paris at 3:49 AM on March 20, 2002
- sorry - end of sentance missing due to badness - please explain why it's necessary to let small children fire machine guns, rifles and pistols.
posted by Spoon at 3:55 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by Spoon at 3:55 AM on March 20, 2002
omg. girls with guns make me so hot.
wait... that's not what this site is... damn it.
posted by jcterminal at 4:03 AM on March 20, 2002
wait... that's not what this site is... damn it.
posted by jcterminal at 4:03 AM on March 20, 2002
Yeah, you're probably thinking of G.G. Liddy's Stacked and Packed calendar series.
posted by alumshubby at 4:16 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by alumshubby at 4:16 AM on March 20, 2002
Spoon, that is like asking why is it necessary to teach children how to read, write and calculate arithmetic problems. It is called an education, preparing oneself for handing life's situations.
posted by mischief at 4:34 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by mischief at 4:34 AM on March 20, 2002
Awwwww...four-year-old with a gun. Isn't that the cutest little thing?
Only one thing on that page angers me and it's this:
Lori, Larry Mitchel's daughter having a "blast" (no pun intended) firing a 1919A4 on Dad Larry's private range in Kentucky.
No pun intended? Really?
posted by ColdChef at 5:00 AM on March 20, 2002
Only one thing on that page angers me and it's this:
Lori, Larry Mitchel's daughter having a "blast" (no pun intended) firing a 1919A4 on Dad Larry's private range in Kentucky.
No pun intended? Really?
posted by ColdChef at 5:00 AM on March 20, 2002
Dead Russian sniper
Didn't need this gun no more.
Happy Mother's Day.
posted by bclark at 5:15 AM on March 20, 2002
Didn't need this gun no more.
Happy Mother's Day.
posted by bclark at 5:15 AM on March 20, 2002
> please explain why it's necessary to let small children
> fire machine guns, rifles and pistols.
They have to be prepared to fight back when pa gets drunk and comes after them.
posted by pracowity at 5:48 AM on March 20, 2002
> fire machine guns, rifles and pistols.
They have to be prepared to fight back when pa gets drunk and comes after them.
posted by pracowity at 5:48 AM on March 20, 2002
My onetime Soviet Spetsnaz emigré friend snorted in disgust when I asked about the famous KGB sniper rifle: "Dragunov? Ah, that rifle is piece of shit." Real Russian snipers nowadays prefer high-tech, made-in-the-West weapons. Apparently the Drag isn't really any better than a "vanilla" service-issue M-14. (Not that the 14 is much to sneer at: I, who hadn't touched a long arm since Reagan was Prezdet, shot 106 at 600 meters, prone, rapid fire. I credit the rifle more than myself.)
I wouldn't mind burning thru a few mags on that Uzi. Especially if I could hang some other goodies on it, like a suppressor, a laser designator, a vertical foregrip, and an assault sling. Suh-weet!
posted by alumshubby at 5:59 AM on March 20, 2002
I wouldn't mind burning thru a few mags on that Uzi. Especially if I could hang some other goodies on it, like a suppressor, a laser designator, a vertical foregrip, and an assault sling. Suh-weet!
posted by alumshubby at 5:59 AM on March 20, 2002
bjgeiger I don't understand the love of guns some people have, but knowing how to use one correctly can come in handy
I am not sure if that also applies to home-made machine guns ...
Just a thought
posted by magullo at 6:09 AM on March 20, 2002
I am not sure if that also applies to home-made machine guns ...
Just a thought
posted by magullo at 6:09 AM on March 20, 2002
Some would argue that educating children on the dangers and proper use of firearms helps prevent them from being curious about guns and reduces the chance of an accidental shooting if they are exposed to one.
posted by Xkot at 6:18 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by Xkot at 6:18 AM on March 20, 2002
The Second Amendment Sisters have ">organized a chapter at Mt. Holyoke college, which article may help explain for Spoon. I'm not in their court, necessarily, but there's definitely a change in direction on the gun issue, with more grass-roots activism. They've whittled the number of states banning concealed-carry permits from the 20s down to six.
And the anti-gun movement continues to defend sloppy research supposedly backing up its positions. With friends like that, no wonder the movement is faltering.
posted by dhartung at 6:25 AM on March 20, 2002
And the anti-gun movement continues to defend sloppy research supposedly backing up its positions. With friends like that, no wonder the movement is faltering.
posted by dhartung at 6:25 AM on March 20, 2002
Argh - Mozilla textarea weirdness there. For Spoon, that link.
posted by dhartung at 6:26 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by dhartung at 6:26 AM on March 20, 2002
And the anti-gun movement continues to defend sloppy research supposedly backing up its positions. With friends like that, no wonder the movement is faltering.
As opposed to the pro-gun movement, which only uses reasoned discourse to make its positions, right? The anti-gun people had compelling arguments before Bellesiles, and they'll continue to have compelling arguments in spite of his apparent fraud.
Besides, with sites like this one, the pro-gun people make the anti-gun people's arguments for them. At first I thought it was a parody.
Nothing compares to a full auto though. I would rather have a full auto than Diamonds!
That's just comedy gold.
posted by anapestic at 6:41 AM on March 20, 2002
As opposed to the pro-gun movement, which only uses reasoned discourse to make its positions, right? The anti-gun people had compelling arguments before Bellesiles, and they'll continue to have compelling arguments in spite of his apparent fraud.
Besides, with sites like this one, the pro-gun people make the anti-gun people's arguments for them. At first I thought it was a parody.
Nothing compares to a full auto though. I would rather have a full auto than Diamonds!
That's just comedy gold.
posted by anapestic at 6:41 AM on March 20, 2002
Xkot: So I'm going to have my 4-year old drive the semi down the highway so that if he ever does it alone, he knows how to do it properly? (A private range with other shooters in it is still "public place" in my book) What kind of an argument is giving a child a gun so he can learn to avoid getting hurt with a gun? By exposing childs to guns, to grown-ups that enjoy playing with big, dangerous, useless toys (i.e. what is a military-grade home-made weapon in a private range other than a toy?), all we're are doing is conditioning them to our ideas. Don't kid yourself.
posted by magullo at 6:50 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by magullo at 6:50 AM on March 20, 2002
And the anti-gun movement continues to defend sloppy research supposedly backing up its positions.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer: a gun has no purpose other than killing things. In a civilised society there's just no justification for a normal civilian to carry such a thing. Self-defense? Paranoia, more likely.
posted by walrus at 6:56 AM on March 20, 2002
As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer: a gun has no purpose other than killing things. In a civilised society there's just no justification for a normal civilian to carry such a thing. Self-defense? Paranoia, more likely.
posted by walrus at 6:56 AM on March 20, 2002
There is some rationale in the idea that women - who are physically smaller than men and are therefore targetted by male criminals for a vareity of crimes - would be well served by being licensed to carry firearms and trained in their use.
they'll continue to have compelling arguments in spite of his apparent fraud
Although I am pro-gun, I have no objection to stringent requirements and registration. Once proven to be reliable and licensed, however, I think one ought to be able to carry. But the argument that guns should be banned fails to take into account the millions of guns currently in private ownership. I think getting those guns might prove...difficult, and the overall aim of a gun ban (as I understand it, ending gun violence, which means taking guns out of the hands of violent criminals) wouldn't much affect those who commit gun crimes.
A better start to effectively reducing gun violence would be to ramp up enforcement of current law, which is by and large pretty stringent. However, I'm still not sure how anti-gun proponents will get around the Second Amendment; despite the debate on "What the Framers intended," the text is pretty clear, and similarly clear Amendements brook no such debate. Barring an future amendment to the Bill of Rights (good luck with that), Americans will always enjoy the right to own firearms.
posted by UncleFes at 7:04 AM on March 20, 2002
they'll continue to have compelling arguments in spite of his apparent fraud
Although I am pro-gun, I have no objection to stringent requirements and registration. Once proven to be reliable and licensed, however, I think one ought to be able to carry. But the argument that guns should be banned fails to take into account the millions of guns currently in private ownership. I think getting those guns might prove...difficult, and the overall aim of a gun ban (as I understand it, ending gun violence, which means taking guns out of the hands of violent criminals) wouldn't much affect those who commit gun crimes.
A better start to effectively reducing gun violence would be to ramp up enforcement of current law, which is by and large pretty stringent. However, I'm still not sure how anti-gun proponents will get around the Second Amendment; despite the debate on "What the Framers intended," the text is pretty clear, and similarly clear Amendements brook no such debate. Barring an future amendment to the Bill of Rights (good luck with that), Americans will always enjoy the right to own firearms.
posted by UncleFes at 7:04 AM on March 20, 2002
I am pro-grenade. And I'm for shoulder-launched rockets. I also keep a little nerve gas handy just in case.
Anyone got any objections to me walking around town with this stuff? Any worries about living next to me?
posted by pracowity at 7:20 AM on March 20, 2002
Anyone got any objections to me walking around town with this stuff? Any worries about living next to me?
posted by pracowity at 7:20 AM on March 20, 2002
walrus: Forgive me, but when I hear the phrase "no-brainer" I automatically substitute "intellectually lazy."
It's all in your point of view. If you're basically a pacifist who'd prefer to deal with muggers, thieves and rapists by prudently looking over your shoulder, staying in lighted areas, having an alarm system, never going anywhere alone, etc., is that paranoia? Is it paranoia if you happen to have nonlethal forms of self-defense (martial-arts training, taser, pepper spray)? If the answer to any of the above is "no," than the distinction isn't paranoia but whether you think your own safety is potentially worth taking the bad guy's life.
Guns are power tools. They have to be kept and wielded knowledgeably and responsibly. The bullets don't care what they hit. But when you consider the moral and ethical question of whether deadly force is necessary, when you contemplate the responsibility of owning (and even carrying) a weapon, and understand the unremitting effort and vigilance of keeping the weapon and everyone around it as safe as possible 24/7, it's intellectually dishonest for to call the issue a "no-brainer" unless you're really not in the habit of thinking things through.
posted by alumshubby at 7:20 AM on March 20, 2002
It's all in your point of view. If you're basically a pacifist who'd prefer to deal with muggers, thieves and rapists by prudently looking over your shoulder, staying in lighted areas, having an alarm system, never going anywhere alone, etc., is that paranoia? Is it paranoia if you happen to have nonlethal forms of self-defense (martial-arts training, taser, pepper spray)? If the answer to any of the above is "no," than the distinction isn't paranoia but whether you think your own safety is potentially worth taking the bad guy's life.
Guns are power tools. They have to be kept and wielded knowledgeably and responsibly. The bullets don't care what they hit. But when you consider the moral and ethical question of whether deadly force is necessary, when you contemplate the responsibility of owning (and even carrying) a weapon, and understand the unremitting effort and vigilance of keeping the weapon and everyone around it as safe as possible 24/7, it's intellectually dishonest for to call the issue a "no-brainer" unless you're really not in the habit of thinking things through.
posted by alumshubby at 7:20 AM on March 20, 2002
I am pro-grenade. And I'm for shoulder-launched rockets. I also keep a little nerve gas handy just in case.
Well, if you are going to be using the first two in defense of your neighborhood, and are licensed for their use after undergoing training and background checks, I got no problem. That last one violates international law though, there, you might want to shelve that. Expensive too. :)
Simple fact is that the US Military trains 18-year-old kids to effectively and safely use both grenades and rocket launchers, you seem intelligent enough, I'm sure you could learn to use them safely and effectively and, since I trust you're a law-abiding sort of fella and the state police in your state can officially verify or disconfirm that trust, why would I mind?
posted by UncleFes at 7:26 AM on March 20, 2002
Well, if you are going to be using the first two in defense of your neighborhood, and are licensed for their use after undergoing training and background checks, I got no problem. That last one violates international law though, there, you might want to shelve that. Expensive too. :)
Simple fact is that the US Military trains 18-year-old kids to effectively and safely use both grenades and rocket launchers, you seem intelligent enough, I'm sure you could learn to use them safely and effectively and, since I trust you're a law-abiding sort of fella and the state police in your state can officially verify or disconfirm that trust, why would I mind?
posted by UncleFes at 7:26 AM on March 20, 2002
walrus: Forgive me
Ok I will. But I am far from intellectually dishonest. In fact, I find it a little bit disengenius to suggest as much. I may seem naive when it comes to ever-so-subtle arguments about gun control, but perhaps that's a side effect of living somewhere we've never carried them? Oh, there is gun crime in London, don't get me wrong.
There is some rationale in the idea that women - who are physically smaller than men and are therefore targetted by male criminals for a vareity of crimes - would be well served by being licensed to carry firearms and trained in their use.
Why not tasers?
the argument that guns should be banned fails to take into account the millions of guns currently in private ownership.
Yes, I can understand this viewpoint, but it doesn't make a compelling excuse. I concede that I am arguing from emotion. There's a great song, somewhere on my hard drive, which goes "life is too short: say no to guns". Perhaps it's a cultural thing (I'm English), but that song is by a band from Soweto, where I believe they also have a gun problem.
posted by walrus at 7:26 AM on March 20, 2002
Ok I will. But I am far from intellectually dishonest. In fact, I find it a little bit disengenius to suggest as much. I may seem naive when it comes to ever-so-subtle arguments about gun control, but perhaps that's a side effect of living somewhere we've never carried them? Oh, there is gun crime in London, don't get me wrong.
There is some rationale in the idea that women - who are physically smaller than men and are therefore targetted by male criminals for a vareity of crimes - would be well served by being licensed to carry firearms and trained in their use.
Why not tasers?
the argument that guns should be banned fails to take into account the millions of guns currently in private ownership.
Yes, I can understand this viewpoint, but it doesn't make a compelling excuse. I concede that I am arguing from emotion. There's a great song, somewhere on my hard drive, which goes "life is too short: say no to guns". Perhaps it's a cultural thing (I'm English), but that song is by a band from Soweto, where I believe they also have a gun problem.
posted by walrus at 7:26 AM on March 20, 2002
In a civilised society there's just no justification for a normal civilian to carry such a thing.
If we lived in a civilized society, maybe they wouldn't want to carry them, eh?
Guns are tools. And like it or not, there's a lot of them around. If you should happen to encounter one in the wild, you're a lot better off if you know what it can actually do than if all you know about guns comes from action movies.
In other words, knowledge is better than ignorance. And there's a word for "conditioning children to our ideas." It's called "parenting."
posted by Jart at 7:27 AM on March 20, 2002
If we lived in a civilized society, maybe they wouldn't want to carry them, eh?
Guns are tools. And like it or not, there's a lot of them around. If you should happen to encounter one in the wild, you're a lot better off if you know what it can actually do than if all you know about guns comes from action movies.
In other words, knowledge is better than ignorance. And there's a word for "conditioning children to our ideas." It's called "parenting."
posted by Jart at 7:27 AM on March 20, 2002
if you are going to be using the first two in defense of your neighborhood
Let me rephrase that: carrying a weapon obligates you to use it to defend unarmed fellow citizens from criminals/enemies. If you are comfortable with that obligation and understand the reponsibilities imposed...
posted by UncleFes at 7:28 AM on March 20, 2002
Let me rephrase that: carrying a weapon obligates you to use it to defend unarmed fellow citizens from criminals/enemies. If you are comfortable with that obligation and understand the reponsibilities imposed...
posted by UncleFes at 7:28 AM on March 20, 2002
Why not tasers?
DEFINITELY tasers.
Soweto, where I believe they also have a gun problem.
Soweto doesn't have a gun problem, it has a law problem, in that there are (were?) none.
Sorry about the multiple posts, I'll stop yakking.
posted by UncleFes at 7:31 AM on March 20, 2002
DEFINITELY tasers.
Soweto, where I believe they also have a gun problem.
Soweto doesn't have a gun problem, it has a law problem, in that there are (were?) none.
Sorry about the multiple posts, I'll stop yakking.
posted by UncleFes at 7:31 AM on March 20, 2002
I don't want to see guns banned, I just want to see them become obsolete.
I can see how a certain satisfaction can be attained from firing metal projectiles to destroy a target must give a rush. When I am doing any construction project, it's the tearing down that is often the most enjoyable part.
When I was watching Black Hawk Down, I was amazed at the firepower available from a single gun under a trigger finger. During the climax of the battle, when the Somali fighters picked up that infrared beacon, I shouted, "Don't pick that up!" They were then mowed down.
What was my point?
posted by Dick Paris at 7:34 AM on March 20, 2002
I can see how a certain satisfaction can be attained from firing metal projectiles to destroy a target must give a rush. When I am doing any construction project, it's the tearing down that is often the most enjoyable part.
When I was watching Black Hawk Down, I was amazed at the firepower available from a single gun under a trigger finger. During the climax of the battle, when the Somali fighters picked up that infrared beacon, I shouted, "Don't pick that up!" They were then mowed down.
What was my point?
posted by Dick Paris at 7:34 AM on March 20, 2002
Soweto doesn't have a gun problem, it has a law problem, in that there are (were?) none.
See? We have laws here about not carrying them, and proportionately less shootings, so I could say the same thing about you. It's all a question of scale.
Sorry about the multiple posts, I'll stop yakking.
Likewise.
posted by walrus at 7:36 AM on March 20, 2002
See? We have laws here about not carrying them, and proportionately less shootings, so I could say the same thing about you. It's all a question of scale.
Sorry about the multiple posts, I'll stop yakking.
Likewise.
posted by walrus at 7:36 AM on March 20, 2002
alumshubby If you're basically a pacifist who'd prefer to deal with muggers, thieves and rapists by prudently looking over your shoulder, staying in lighted areas, having an alarm system, never going anywhere alone, etc.,
What if you're a basically normal dude who's travelled the world, been to some pretty sketchy places (slums in S.E. Asia, NY's Central Park at night, middle of nowhere South America, etc.) and never once needed a weapon? Because I know plenty of people like that, including myself.
posted by magullo at 7:38 AM on March 20, 2002
What if you're a basically normal dude who's travelled the world, been to some pretty sketchy places (slums in S.E. Asia, NY's Central Park at night, middle of nowhere South America, etc.) and never once needed a weapon? Because I know plenty of people like that, including myself.
posted by magullo at 7:38 AM on March 20, 2002
walrus:
Truly spoken like someone who's never had to defend himself. I've been in self defense situations with a stun gun, and a Taser is worse - you get only one (two with some models) chance to defend yourself. Try using that on a crowd of five or six drunk people...
Just because you don't understand the value of firearms - the ability to defend oneself and your loved ones - doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read "More guns, less crime" by John Lott for an education.
I speak as someone who has had to defend himself and his 5 year old son with a firearm. And the other guy had a larger weapon - a 3000+ pound automobile.
As to the "why" for the website? Because some people like guns. They are legal, and they are constitutionally protected. Yes, even full-auto weapons.
posted by hadashi at 7:56 AM on March 20, 2002
Truly spoken like someone who's never had to defend himself. I've been in self defense situations with a stun gun, and a Taser is worse - you get only one (two with some models) chance to defend yourself. Try using that on a crowd of five or six drunk people...
Just because you don't understand the value of firearms - the ability to defend oneself and your loved ones - doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read "More guns, less crime" by John Lott for an education.
I speak as someone who has had to defend himself and his 5 year old son with a firearm. And the other guy had a larger weapon - a 3000+ pound automobile.
As to the "why" for the website? Because some people like guns. They are legal, and they are constitutionally protected. Yes, even full-auto weapons.
posted by hadashi at 7:56 AM on March 20, 2002
I'm also pro bow and arrow. Because they only have one use and that's for killing people.
Or was it archery practice.
posted by nedrichards at 8:15 AM on March 20, 2002
Or was it archery practice.
posted by nedrichards at 8:15 AM on March 20, 2002
spoken like someone who's never had to defend himself
You know something? I'm quite pleased about that.
I've been in self defense situations with a stun gun, and a Taser is worse
I'm not an expert on the ins and outs of tasers. Something which doesn't punch bloody great holes in people, was what I was trying to get at. Technology will produce something eventually, whether you like it or not.
Just because you don't understand the value of firearms - the ability to defend oneself and your loved ones - doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read "More guns, less crime" by John Lott for an education.
If you read carefully through my previous comments in this thread, you will understand that I consider my upbringing and circumstances to have been sufficient education in the value of firearms, or the lack thereof. The facts speak for themselves: that there are less shootings where less people have guns.
And lastly, I don't claim to know anything about you or your circumstances. It's a shame you found yourself in a situation such as you describe. However, I don't carry a parachute in case of sudden cliffs. Or a tent, in case the weather gets up. I maintain that I do not need a gun, and if I ever find myself in a situation where I do, then that will have been my mistake. I'm prepared to live with that for now.
posted by walrus at 8:15 AM on March 20, 2002
You know something? I'm quite pleased about that.
I've been in self defense situations with a stun gun, and a Taser is worse
I'm not an expert on the ins and outs of tasers. Something which doesn't punch bloody great holes in people, was what I was trying to get at. Technology will produce something eventually, whether you like it or not.
Just because you don't understand the value of firearms - the ability to defend oneself and your loved ones - doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read "More guns, less crime" by John Lott for an education.
If you read carefully through my previous comments in this thread, you will understand that I consider my upbringing and circumstances to have been sufficient education in the value of firearms, or the lack thereof. The facts speak for themselves: that there are less shootings where less people have guns.
And lastly, I don't claim to know anything about you or your circumstances. It's a shame you found yourself in a situation such as you describe. However, I don't carry a parachute in case of sudden cliffs. Or a tent, in case the weather gets up. I maintain that I do not need a gun, and if I ever find myself in a situation where I do, then that will have been my mistake. I'm prepared to live with that for now.
posted by walrus at 8:15 AM on March 20, 2002
But surely the less people that have guns, the less likely you are to be shot.
posted by Spoon at 8:16 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by Spoon at 8:16 AM on March 20, 2002
walrus, pardon my seeming disingenuity, but all I have to go by is what you tell me. Rereading what you wrote, it really seemed that you'd decided not to think about the subject and you were even a little proud and defiant about that decision -- and that you weren't distinguishing between self-defense and paranoia.
FWIW, law-abiding folks were carrying personal sidearms on your side of the pond back when we were still the Thirteen Colonies over here -- and put ours to use overthrowing British tyranny. I'll grant that your government hasn't provided a mandated guarantee that doing so would be legal in perpetuity. But just because you and your mates aren't packing heat over there doesn't mean it was unheard of or anything.
The overwhelming majority of us responsible, law abiding gun owners would heartily endorse the Soweto band's lyrics -- way too many of us have links to the law-enforcement and military communities, and we have too inimate and detailed knowledge of what kind of havoc firearms can wreak. But we live in a world where bad people try to hurt, rob and kill you sometimes. And we won't go like sheep to the slaughter.
When you get right down to it, I have a real love/hate relationship with guns myself, and when my six-year-old is at the right age, I'm going to try to demystify them to him and simultaneously scare him a little about what they can do in evil or inattentive hands. But if you think gun-control arguments are ever-so-subtle, come spend two weeks in the States with me and let me educate you in person too.
posted by alumshubby at 8:16 AM on March 20, 2002
FWIW, law-abiding folks were carrying personal sidearms on your side of the pond back when we were still the Thirteen Colonies over here -- and put ours to use overthrowing British tyranny. I'll grant that your government hasn't provided a mandated guarantee that doing so would be legal in perpetuity. But just because you and your mates aren't packing heat over there doesn't mean it was unheard of or anything.
The overwhelming majority of us responsible, law abiding gun owners would heartily endorse the Soweto band's lyrics -- way too many of us have links to the law-enforcement and military communities, and we have too inimate and detailed knowledge of what kind of havoc firearms can wreak. But we live in a world where bad people try to hurt, rob and kill you sometimes. And we won't go like sheep to the slaughter.
When you get right down to it, I have a real love/hate relationship with guns myself, and when my six-year-old is at the right age, I'm going to try to demystify them to him and simultaneously scare him a little about what they can do in evil or inattentive hands. But if you think gun-control arguments are ever-so-subtle, come spend two weeks in the States with me and let me educate you in person too.
posted by alumshubby at 8:16 AM on March 20, 2002
Hadashi, you are a budding Charlton Heston in telling British people not to have gun control. We don't want them, the police in cities more dangerous these days than New York don't want them, and books by single-issue gun toting loonies (no I haven't read it and no I doubt I will unless you can give me a reason other than "You need yaw ed-u-cayshun boy!) only serve to fill me with a murderous rage that should prevent me in any sane society worthy of the name from owning a gun.
It remains, as Walrus said, a question of scale. More guns in *any* given society equals a society with more gun related crime. After all, if a job's worth doing it's worth doing right and you do that by using the right tool for the job. Proliferation and all that.
Heston's arguments are cool though. He likes to talk about personal freedom to own guns. Freedom, the enshrining principles of the US. The same US which came into being after a war fought over the right to not contribute to your own defence. Now he would have us arm ourselves and, consequently, raise taxes to arm the police too. That Heston has some real *no-brainer* arguments, huh? The silly old fool must have too many loud bangs going off near his head or something.
We don't arm our police for the self same reasons we didn't used to have an army. Large bodies of armed men are considered dangerous in some places. Armed entire populations, well...
Most of this is tongue in cheek by the way, apart from the we don't want guns bit.
posted by vbfg at 8:21 AM on March 20, 2002
It remains, as Walrus said, a question of scale. More guns in *any* given society equals a society with more gun related crime. After all, if a job's worth doing it's worth doing right and you do that by using the right tool for the job. Proliferation and all that.
Heston's arguments are cool though. He likes to talk about personal freedom to own guns. Freedom, the enshrining principles of the US. The same US which came into being after a war fought over the right to not contribute to your own defence. Now he would have us arm ourselves and, consequently, raise taxes to arm the police too. That Heston has some real *no-brainer* arguments, huh? The silly old fool must have too many loud bangs going off near his head or something.
We don't arm our police for the self same reasons we didn't used to have an army. Large bodies of armed men are considered dangerous in some places. Armed entire populations, well...
Most of this is tongue in cheek by the way, apart from the we don't want guns bit.
posted by vbfg at 8:21 AM on March 20, 2002
What if you're a basically normal dude who's travelled the world, been to some pretty sketchy places ... and never once needed a weapon?
I maintain that I do not need a gun, and if I ever find myself in a situation where I do, then that will have been my mistake. I'm prepared to live with that for now.
It will always be your right, regardless of the laws on guns, to not carry one. But is it right, or even fair, to deny others the opportunity to defend themselves because you have been lucky and are betting that you'll continue to be? Is it right to force others to bet their lives on your limited experience? I think you're right to insist on competence; but otherwise, why hamstring everyone? Additionally, in the event that you are eventually confronted with a dangerous situation, wouldn't it be nice if someone around (if not you) had a weapon they were trained to use and understood the obligations associated with carrying it? I sure would.
But surely the less people that have guns, the less likely you are to be shot.
The problem with that is that the people most likely to shoot you are the people least likely to give up their guns.
More guns in *any* given society equals a society with more gun related crime.
Not true; states with concealed carry laws typically see a downturn in crime (warning: pdf link from Journal of Legal studies, download is a bit juicy)
posted by UncleFes at 8:28 AM on March 20, 2002
I maintain that I do not need a gun, and if I ever find myself in a situation where I do, then that will have been my mistake. I'm prepared to live with that for now.
It will always be your right, regardless of the laws on guns, to not carry one. But is it right, or even fair, to deny others the opportunity to defend themselves because you have been lucky and are betting that you'll continue to be? Is it right to force others to bet their lives on your limited experience? I think you're right to insist on competence; but otherwise, why hamstring everyone? Additionally, in the event that you are eventually confronted with a dangerous situation, wouldn't it be nice if someone around (if not you) had a weapon they were trained to use and understood the obligations associated with carrying it? I sure would.
But surely the less people that have guns, the less likely you are to be shot.
The problem with that is that the people most likely to shoot you are the people least likely to give up their guns.
More guns in *any* given society equals a society with more gun related crime.
Not true; states with concealed carry laws typically see a downturn in crime (warning: pdf link from Journal of Legal studies, download is a bit juicy)
posted by UncleFes at 8:28 AM on March 20, 2002
I'm afraid some of you are talking bollocks.
By teaching your children about guns you are perpetuating the myth that you need them, that they are of any use, and that you'll actually be able to put your hand on it when you want it, and if you do then you won't be the one that gets shot, which I believe for the most part, is the case in the US (ie: homeowners (and gunowners) pulling guns on intruders getting killed instead of just robbed)
- If you get robbed at gun point then give him your wallet - you stand less chance of being killed.
- Countries that don't allow people the right to bear arms have less gun deaths and shootings. This is the no brainer.
- The right to bear arms is an outdated right that should be repealed. You don't live in the wild west anymore, although clearly some of you think you do.
posted by Spoon at 8:33 AM on March 20, 2002
By teaching your children about guns you are perpetuating the myth that you need them, that they are of any use, and that you'll actually be able to put your hand on it when you want it, and if you do then you won't be the one that gets shot, which I believe for the most part, is the case in the US (ie: homeowners (and gunowners) pulling guns on intruders getting killed instead of just robbed)
- If you get robbed at gun point then give him your wallet - you stand less chance of being killed.
- Countries that don't allow people the right to bear arms have less gun deaths and shootings. This is the no brainer.
- The right to bear arms is an outdated right that should be repealed. You don't live in the wild west anymore, although clearly some of you think you do.
posted by Spoon at 8:33 AM on March 20, 2002
Just as an aside: basic chemical weapons are not expensive. They're ridiculously cheap, and even some of the nastier protein agents can be reasonably extracted from plant sources by a semi-skilled amateur teenager.
So, in many cases, you probably are living next to someone with chemical weapons in their basement.
...not that I'm saying anything about myself, of course. Certainly not.
posted by aramaic at 8:37 AM on March 20, 2002
So, in many cases, you probably are living next to someone with chemical weapons in their basement.
...not that I'm saying anything about myself, of course. Certainly not.
posted by aramaic at 8:37 AM on March 20, 2002
walrus: As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer: a gun has no purpose other than killing things. In a civilised society there's just no justification for a normal civilian to carry such a thing. Self-defense? Paranoia, more likely.
To this statement, my main objection is the phrase "civilised society" -- in the US I don't believe I live in one. I don't own a firearm, haven't ever shot one. However, I am beginning to feel that that lack of knowledge may be a bad thing.
This site is extreme and the attitude of the adults in regard to their children and guns is easily made into a joke, and extremely dark, unfunny joke. But we Americans are a paranoid lot, with good reason: many people around the world have stated publically that they would be happy to kill us.
If it comes to it, I for one am going to purchase my (constituionally guaranteed and legal) weapon, learn how to handle it safely, and fire back, thank you very much. And I will make sure my sons, nephews, neices and cousins know how to do so as well.
posted by mooncrow at 8:43 AM on March 20, 2002
To this statement, my main objection is the phrase "civilised society" -- in the US I don't believe I live in one. I don't own a firearm, haven't ever shot one. However, I am beginning to feel that that lack of knowledge may be a bad thing.
This site is extreme and the attitude of the adults in regard to their children and guns is easily made into a joke, and extremely dark, unfunny joke. But we Americans are a paranoid lot, with good reason: many people around the world have stated publically that they would be happy to kill us.
If it comes to it, I for one am going to purchase my (constituionally guaranteed and legal) weapon, learn how to handle it safely, and fire back, thank you very much. And I will make sure my sons, nephews, neices and cousins know how to do so as well.
posted by mooncrow at 8:43 AM on March 20, 2002
many people around the world have stated publically that they would be happy to kill us.
This is a slightly one sided view don't you think?
posted by Spoon at 8:47 AM on March 20, 2002
This is a slightly one sided view don't you think?
posted by Spoon at 8:47 AM on March 20, 2002
But surely the less people that have guns, the less likely you are to be shot.
I hate to be pedantic here, but the continued misuse of "less" in this thread is really grating on my nerves. The above sentence should read, "but surely the fewer people who have guns, the less likely you are to be shot." I wouldn't even mention it, but the mistake has been made by several people in this thread, and dammit, I can't help it, any more.
The right to bear arms is an outdated right that should be repealed.
Your opinion is appreciated, but you're not a part of this democracy, so you you have no place to say what is or is not outdated, nor what rights should be repealed, just as I have no right to tell you that guns should be made legal in the UK.
posted by syzygy at 8:50 AM on March 20, 2002
I hate to be pedantic here, but the continued misuse of "less" in this thread is really grating on my nerves. The above sentence should read, "but surely the fewer people who have guns, the less likely you are to be shot." I wouldn't even mention it, but the mistake has been made by several people in this thread, and dammit, I can't help it, any more.
The right to bear arms is an outdated right that should be repealed.
Your opinion is appreciated, but you're not a part of this democracy, so you you have no place to say what is or is not outdated, nor what rights should be repealed, just as I have no right to tell you that guns should be made legal in the UK.
posted by syzygy at 8:50 AM on March 20, 2002
[So I'm going to have my 4-year old drive the semi down the highway so that if he ever does it alone, he knows how to do it properly? ]
Alot of kids in rural areas learn to drive farm tractors or work trucks on private property before they're 9-10yrs old.
[A private range with other shooters in it is still "public place" in my book]
I'm glad I don't live in a country that shares your view.
posted by revbrian at 8:54 AM on March 20, 2002
Alot of kids in rural areas learn to drive farm tractors or work trucks on private property before they're 9-10yrs old.
[A private range with other shooters in it is still "public place" in my book]
I'm glad I don't live in a country that shares your view.
posted by revbrian at 8:54 AM on March 20, 2002
alumshubby: I can see how it could be read that way. Think I'll stay naive over here, thanks. I like to think of losing those rights as "progress". I think I could make a stretch to understand the logic of wanting a gun if everyone around me had one, but I'm really happier without.
just as I have no right to tell you that guns should be made legal in the UK
Actually, we both have the right to say whatever we like, so long as it isn't incitement to a crime.
posted by walrus at 8:58 AM on March 20, 2002
just as I have no right to tell you that guns should be made legal in the UK
Actually, we both have the right to say whatever we like, so long as it isn't incitement to a crime.
posted by walrus at 8:58 AM on March 20, 2002
the DRAG is a drag. Austria makes the best SR for my likes. I liked them crew served weapons they was firing.Uzis ride up to much and can jam easy. as a side note, when the Thompsom SMG came out (produced to late for WWI) no body bought them but Gansters. Local police thought that that much FP would kill too many innocents. and we know...the rest of the story.
posted by clavdivs at 8:59 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 8:59 AM on March 20, 2002
magullo: Maybe I'm not a sufficiently authentic advocate for concealed carry: I've never carried anything more deadly on my person than a Mark One Mod Zero "Don't Fuck With Me" stare, either. I don't know how to compare "a normal dude" or "sketchy places" but I've been hostilely approached only twice, both times by people who backed down once they realized I wouldn't be intimidated. I've lived in what have been considered some
But I'm not a 5' 1" 102-lb. woman, either. And if I were, and I had to walk in certain high-crime areas, I'd sure as hell want to be able to defend myself. Deadly force is the surest bet.
posted by alumshubby at 9:02 AM on March 20, 2002
But I'm not a 5' 1" 102-lb. woman, either. And if I were, and I had to walk in certain high-crime areas, I'd sure as hell want to be able to defend myself. Deadly force is the surest bet.
posted by alumshubby at 9:02 AM on March 20, 2002
many people around the world have stated publically that they would be happy to kill us.
Spoon: This is a slightly one sided view don't you think?
I'm not sure how you have missed this. I live in the US. I've heard and read this sentiment expressed toward the US on multiple occasions over the past few years, more so in the last few months. I read the news from many sources outside the US, actually much more than I read US-based sources.
Am I wrong in thinking that a goodly portion of Al Queda have made this their sworn aim? And made good on the threat on numerous occasions, both inside and outside the US?
posted by mooncrow at 9:03 AM on March 20, 2002
Spoon: This is a slightly one sided view don't you think?
I'm not sure how you have missed this. I live in the US. I've heard and read this sentiment expressed toward the US on multiple occasions over the past few years, more so in the last few months. I read the news from many sources outside the US, actually much more than I read US-based sources.
Am I wrong in thinking that a goodly portion of Al Queda have made this their sworn aim? And made good on the threat on numerous occasions, both inside and outside the US?
posted by mooncrow at 9:03 AM on March 20, 2002
Oops...."have been considered some questionable areas safety-wise." Dagnabit.
posted by alumshubby at 9:03 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by alumshubby at 9:03 AM on March 20, 2002
Actually, we both have the right to say whatever we like, so long as it isn't incitement to a crime.
Semantics... The UK has strict gun controls, and that's cool by me. And if you wish to argue that that policy is the better choice, that's also fine. The problem I have is with the overweening tone of moral superiority that oozes from some of these posts penned from lands other than the one in question.
As it stands, I support the right of law-abiding American citizens to own guns, but I don't presumptiously declare that the UK should recognize the same right, because I honestly don't give a damn...
posted by syzygy at 9:08 AM on March 20, 2002
Semantics... The UK has strict gun controls, and that's cool by me. And if you wish to argue that that policy is the better choice, that's also fine. The problem I have is with the overweening tone of moral superiority that oozes from some of these posts penned from lands other than the one in question.
As it stands, I support the right of law-abiding American citizens to own guns, but I don't presumptiously declare that the UK should recognize the same right, because I honestly don't give a damn...
posted by syzygy at 9:08 AM on March 20, 2002
Fair enough syzygy. I spoke because I consider this website to be my community as much as yours, and felt I had something to add to the debate. I don't mean to be overweening or sound morally superior. I am from a different background, and I feel genuinely stymied in understanding the apparent predilection for firearms in your society. Actually, I do care about people shooting each other, even if I don't know them. Sorry if that causes offense.
posted by walrus at 9:16 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by walrus at 9:16 AM on March 20, 2002
It is important that a populace be sufficiently well-armed such that they can collectively overthrow their government by force, if necessary. If you don't agree with this, I suggest that you consult your history books. Check under "R" for "Revolutionary War." (Or "C" for "Civil War," though I imagine that may be a poor example for many of you.)
posted by waldo at 9:26 AM on March 20, 2002
posted by waldo at 9:26 AM on March 20, 2002
Am I wrong in thinking that a goodly portion of Al Queda have made this their sworn aim?
Do you feel your government, waging a war against Al-Queda at present, is less prepared to do so than yourself? You don't trust your military? You think amateurs are better than proffesionals?
posted by magullo at 9:27 AM on March 20, 2002
Do you feel your government, waging a war against Al-Queda at present, is less prepared to do so than yourself? You don't trust your military? You think amateurs are better than proffesionals?
posted by magullo at 9:27 AM on March 20, 2002
Remember: Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.
just kidding, just kidding.....
posted by Spoon at 9:28 AM on March 20, 2002
just kidding, just kidding.....
posted by Spoon at 9:28 AM on March 20, 2002
It is important that a populace be sufficiently well-armed such that they can collectively overthrow their government by force, if necessary
Waldo, there's been some new rules instated in the past 200 years. Why, now you could be considered a terrorist for suggesting such things ...
posted by magullo at 9:29 AM on March 20, 2002
Waldo, there's been some new rules instated in the past 200 years. Why, now you could be considered a terrorist for suggesting such things ...
posted by magullo at 9:29 AM on March 20, 2002
I don't mean to be overweening or sound morally superior.
For clarification, my initial post was directed to Spoon, and I have not accused you personally of using an overweening tone. Both of those facts seem exceedingly clear to me, but I am getting the feeling that they were not as clear to you.
magullo:
"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."
posted by syzygy at 9:45 AM on March 20, 2002
For clarification, my initial post was directed to Spoon, and I have not accused you personally of using an overweening tone. Both of those facts seem exceedingly clear to me, but I am getting the feeling that they were not as clear to you.
magullo:
"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."
posted by syzygy at 9:45 AM on March 20, 2002
It is important that a populace be sufficiently well-armed such that they can collectively overthrow their government by force, if necessary
Well, thank God we'll all have our .22's when Ashcroft and Rumsfeld decide to nuke Pheonix, no?
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:50 AM on March 20, 2002
Well, thank God we'll all have our .22's when Ashcroft and Rumsfeld decide to nuke Pheonix, no?
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:50 AM on March 20, 2002
The right to bear arms is an outdated right that should be repealed.
*sigh* I just read a cogent explanation {3/20 post, no permalink} of how Europeans don't understand something that seems natural to Americans and somewhat more weakly to Britons:
Rights reside in the people, not in a document. The Constitution did not create rights. It explicitly acknowledges that those rights already exist. The Bill of Rights is not a bill that grants rights; rather, it guarantees them:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If you believe in individualism as being at the heart of the modern age of liberalism, this is an extremely important distinction. Government -- even democratic government -- is not the source of rights. These two seemingly fussy, officious afterthoughts have served us extraordinarily well these last two centuries, not just as stopgaps against randomly expanding laws, but as an important organizing principle of our democracy. The responsibilities of government are limited to those which the people delegate to it.
That said, I don't presume that we can't decide, collectively, to regulate that right -- "infringe" is an arguable word; nor to repeal the guarantee. But I suspect the latter is politically impossible even if it were deemed a good idea: 33 states would have to vote to overturn Amendment II. And that's after getting out of Congress or a Constitutional Convention. In the immortal words of Bush 41, Naaa Gaaa Haaaaaa -- uh, Dana Carvey -- not gonna happen.
posted by dhartung at 9:53 AM on March 20, 2002
*sigh* I just read a cogent explanation {3/20 post, no permalink} of how Europeans don't understand something that seems natural to Americans and somewhat more weakly to Britons:
Rights reside in the people, not in a document. The Constitution did not create rights. It explicitly acknowledges that those rights already exist. The Bill of Rights is not a bill that grants rights; rather, it guarantees them:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If you believe in individualism as being at the heart of the modern age of liberalism, this is an extremely important distinction. Government -- even democratic government -- is not the source of rights. These two seemingly fussy, officious afterthoughts have served us extraordinarily well these last two centuries, not just as stopgaps against randomly expanding laws, but as an important organizing principle of our democracy. The responsibilities of government are limited to those which the people delegate to it.
That said, I don't presume that we can't decide, collectively, to regulate that right -- "infringe" is an arguable word; nor to repeal the guarantee. But I suspect the latter is politically impossible even if it were deemed a good idea: 33 states would have to vote to overturn Amendment II. And that's after getting out of Congress or a Constitutional Convention. In the immortal words of Bush 41, Naaa Gaaa Haaaaaa -- uh, Dana Carvey -- not gonna happen.
posted by dhartung at 9:53 AM on March 20, 2002
syzygy "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."
That ceased to be true after 9-11! You're so in trouble! You're so going to Rumsfeld! And Bush!
posted by magullo at 10:01 AM on March 20, 2002
That ceased to be true after 9-11! You're so in trouble! You're so going to Rumsfeld! And Bush!
posted by magullo at 10:01 AM on March 20, 2002
Simple fact is that the US Military trains 18-year-old kids to effectively and safely use both grenades and rocket launchers, you seem intelligent enough, I'm sure you could learn to use them safely and effectively and, since I trust you're a law-abiding sort of fella and the state police in your state can officially verify or disconfirm that trust, why would I mind?
The US military also maintains an autocratic leadership structure and an inflexable set of rules governing engangement to ensure that these weapons are not misused. Furthermore, your 18 year old kid only has access to these weapons when he or she is acting as a professional soilder employed to protect national security. Similar controls simply do not exist in the civilan population.
posted by astirling at 10:21 AM on March 20, 2002
The US military also maintains an autocratic leadership structure and an inflexable set of rules governing engangement to ensure that these weapons are not misused. Furthermore, your 18 year old kid only has access to these weapons when he or she is acting as a professional soilder employed to protect national security. Similar controls simply do not exist in the civilan population.
posted by astirling at 10:21 AM on March 20, 2002
vbfg writes:
Hadashi, you are a budding Charlton Heston in telling British people not to have gun control. We don't want them, the police in cities more dangerous these days than New York don't want them, and books by single-issue gun toting loonies (no I haven't read it and no I doubt I will unless you can give me a reason other than "You need yaw ed-u-cayshun boy!) only serve to fill me with a murderous rage that should prevent me in any sane society worthy of the name from owning a gun.
Very nice tactic. "I have no facts, and I can't refute your facts. In fact, I refuse to even look at the facts!". So, instead, you attack the messenger.
Mr. Lott - I'll ed-u-cayt you since you seem intent on remaining purposefully ignorant of the situation - looked into the actual available facts (from government crime statistics, etc.) and came to the obvious conclusion: criminals stay away from armed citizens.
However, criminals - who don't obey laws - seem to still have no problem getting firearms whenever desired. You see - here comes some more of that 'Merkin ed-ucayshun - criminals DON'T OBEY THE LAW. I suppose that you've managed to create some magical law that the criminal element will obey on that side of the pond.
It remains, as Walrus said, a question of scale. More guns in *any* given society equals a society with more gun related crime. After all, if a job's worth doing it's worth doing right and you do that by using the right tool for the job. Proliferation and all that.
Hmm, criminals don't seem to be having any problem getting guns in the great gun-free-nirvana of Great Britain, pal:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/5/62251.shtml
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/may/19/dantre.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson12.html
Heston's arguments are cool though. He likes to talk about personal freedom to own guns. Freedom, the enshrining principles of the US. The same US which came into being after a war fought over the right to not contribute to your own defence. Now he would have us arm ourselves and, consequently, raise taxes to arm the police too. That Heston has some real *no-brainer* arguments, huh? The silly old fool must have too many loud bangs going off near his head or something.
I find it ironic that I am being lectured about what is and is not important from someone living in a country that has no right to free speech, no right to self defense... Where you can be put in jail for simply shooting an intruder in your own home who threatens you with a tire iron. So, tell me Mr. Answer Man, what are your plans for self-defense when a group of 5 or 6 "Yob youth" decide to smash in your brain pan? And what happens when running isn't an option for you?
We don't arm our police for the self same reasons we didn't used to have an army. Large bodies of armed men are considered dangerous in some places. Armed entire populations, well...
Yes, dangerous. Like... Switzerland.
Most of this is tongue in cheek by the way, apart from the we don't want guns bit.
Nice attempt at a disclaimer. However, your snobbery comes though loud and clear. It's too bad most of us - you know, the ones that have enumerated, protected rights - are laughing at you.
Here comes my disclaimer: believe it or not, I like Great Britain. I have a great deal of respect for her, and there are a number of things that she does well. However, this "being defenseless will make me safe" nonsense is beyond my understanding. All of my cynical, mean-spirited attitude is directed soley at vbfg's pride in his ignorance.
posted by hadashi at 10:33 AM on March 20, 2002
Hadashi, you are a budding Charlton Heston in telling British people not to have gun control. We don't want them, the police in cities more dangerous these days than New York don't want them, and books by single-issue gun toting loonies (no I haven't read it and no I doubt I will unless you can give me a reason other than "You need yaw ed-u-cayshun boy!) only serve to fill me with a murderous rage that should prevent me in any sane society worthy of the name from owning a gun.
Very nice tactic. "I have no facts, and I can't refute your facts. In fact, I refuse to even look at the facts!". So, instead, you attack the messenger.
Mr. Lott - I'll ed-u-cayt you since you seem intent on remaining purposefully ignorant of the situation - looked into the actual available facts (from government crime statistics, etc.) and came to the obvious conclusion: criminals stay away from armed citizens.
However, criminals - who don't obey laws - seem to still have no problem getting firearms whenever desired. You see - here comes some more of that 'Merkin ed-ucayshun - criminals DON'T OBEY THE LAW. I suppose that you've managed to create some magical law that the criminal element will obey on that side of the pond.
It remains, as Walrus said, a question of scale. More guns in *any* given society equals a society with more gun related crime. After all, if a job's worth doing it's worth doing right and you do that by using the right tool for the job. Proliferation and all that.
Hmm, criminals don't seem to be having any problem getting guns in the great gun-free-nirvana of Great Britain, pal:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/5/62251.shtml
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/may/19/dantre.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson12.html
Heston's arguments are cool though. He likes to talk about personal freedom to own guns. Freedom, the enshrining principles of the US. The same US which came into being after a war fought over the right to not contribute to your own defence. Now he would have us arm ourselves and, consequently, raise taxes to arm the police too. That Heston has some real *no-brainer* arguments, huh? The silly old fool must have too many loud bangs going off near his head or something.
I find it ironic that I am being lectured about what is and is not important from someone living in a country that has no right to free speech, no right to self defense... Where you can be put in jail for simply shooting an intruder in your own home who threatens you with a tire iron. So, tell me Mr. Answer Man, what are your plans for self-defense when a group of 5 or 6 "Yob youth" decide to smash in your brain pan? And what happens when running isn't an option for you?
We don't arm our police for the self same reasons we didn't used to have an army. Large bodies of armed men are considered dangerous in some places. Armed entire populations, well...
Yes, dangerous. Like... Switzerland.
Most of this is tongue in cheek by the way, apart from the we don't want guns bit.
Nice attempt at a disclaimer. However, your snobbery comes though loud and clear. It's too bad most of us - you know, the ones that have enumerated, protected rights - are laughing at you.
Here comes my disclaimer: believe it or not, I like Great Britain. I have a great deal of respect for her, and there are a number of things that she does well. However, this "being defenseless will make me safe" nonsense is beyond my understanding. All of my cynical, mean-spirited attitude is directed soley at vbfg's pride in his ignorance.
posted by hadashi at 10:33 AM on March 20, 2002
walrus wrote:
sounds like you need F-16s and all sorts then.
Ufez Jones wrote:
Well, thank God we'll all have our .22's when Ashcroft and Rumsfeld decide to nuke Pheonix, no?
Neither of these are realistic scenarios, of course. Thing of something more along the lines of the last few decades in Kosovo, and you'll get a better idea.
posted by waldo at 11:01 AM on March 20, 2002
sounds like you need F-16s and all sorts then.
Ufez Jones wrote:
Well, thank God we'll all have our .22's when Ashcroft and Rumsfeld decide to nuke Pheonix, no?
Neither of these are realistic scenarios, of course. Thing of something more along the lines of the last few decades in Kosovo, and you'll get a better idea.
posted by waldo at 11:01 AM on March 20, 2002
You're so in trouble! You're so going to Rumsfeld! And Bush!
You are Ted Rall and I claim my ten dollars.
posted by darukaru at 11:10 AM on March 20, 2002
You are Ted Rall and I claim my ten dollars.
posted by darukaru at 11:10 AM on March 20, 2002
Neither of these are realistic scenarios, of course. Thing of something more along the lines of the last few decades in Kosovo, and you'll get a better idea.
Then does your point about people being well armed (so they can overthrow governments if necessary) not apply to the U.S. Waldo?
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:28 AM on March 20, 2002
Then does your point about people being well armed (so they can overthrow governments if necessary) not apply to the U.S. Waldo?
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:28 AM on March 20, 2002
Ufez Jones wrote:
Then does your point about people being well armed (so they can overthrow governments if necessary) not apply to the U.S. Waldo?
Not at all. My point is that totalitarian government opression need not originate from a nuclear explosion or from the business end of an F-16. (Though I imagine that all ends of an F-16 are the business end.) Unless this imaginary fascist government had a goal of wiping out all American inhabitants (ridiculous, of course), I imagine they would rely on enforcement through intimidation and the occasional judicial use armed troops, a la Bloody Sunday. The goal would likely not be to eliminate the populace, merely oppress them. And to prevent that sort of a scenario, I believe that the populace should be sufficiently well-armed that military-based oppression could not succeed. Think something more along the lines of pre-Revolutionary War British troops' behavior and you'll get a better idea.
posted by waldo at 11:56 AM on March 20, 2002
Then does your point about people being well armed (so they can overthrow governments if necessary) not apply to the U.S. Waldo?
Not at all. My point is that totalitarian government opression need not originate from a nuclear explosion or from the business end of an F-16. (Though I imagine that all ends of an F-16 are the business end.) Unless this imaginary fascist government had a goal of wiping out all American inhabitants (ridiculous, of course), I imagine they would rely on enforcement through intimidation and the occasional judicial use armed troops, a la Bloody Sunday. The goal would likely not be to eliminate the populace, merely oppress them. And to prevent that sort of a scenario, I believe that the populace should be sufficiently well-armed that military-based oppression could not succeed. Think something more along the lines of pre-Revolutionary War British troops' behavior and you'll get a better idea.
posted by waldo at 11:56 AM on March 20, 2002
UncleFes: ...carrying a weapon obligates you to use it to defend unarmed fellow citizens from criminals/enemies.
How does that work if I'm the unarmed fellow citizen and you are my enemy? Are you obligated to shoot yourself? Maybe just hold yourself at gunpoint until police arrive?
Syzygy: "Less" pushed your pedantry button, but "disingenius" and "disingenuity" you let slide?
posted by joaquim at 12:02 PM on March 20, 2002
How does that work if I'm the unarmed fellow citizen and you are my enemy? Are you obligated to shoot yourself? Maybe just hold yourself at gunpoint until police arrive?
Syzygy: "Less" pushed your pedantry button, but "disingenius" and "disingenuity" you let slide?
posted by joaquim at 12:02 PM on March 20, 2002
I was in the army, and in the course of my tours, I fired M2 .50 cal,M16A2, M203 Grenade Launcher, AT4 Rocket Launcher, M60 Machine Gun and numerous others. Firing these types of weapons is fun, it's an unbelievable rush to shoot 1000 rounds on the M60 at night with tracers.
Since I left the miltary 8 years ago, I have fired zero weapons. Me personally, I don't want to own a gun. I am ambiguous about guns, I can see the reasoning behind both sides. But if you own a weapon, you have a tremendous responsibility. If you believe that you have the gun to protect yourself, you are wrong. More likely than you shooting an intruder, your child will shoot him/herself. Or your neighbor's kid will steal it.
posted by patrickje at 12:19 PM on March 20, 2002
Since I left the miltary 8 years ago, I have fired zero weapons. Me personally, I don't want to own a gun. I am ambiguous about guns, I can see the reasoning behind both sides. But if you own a weapon, you have a tremendous responsibility. If you believe that you have the gun to protect yourself, you are wrong. More likely than you shooting an intruder, your child will shoot him/herself. Or your neighbor's kid will steal it.
posted by patrickje at 12:19 PM on March 20, 2002
As to kids having gun training, I think that's the only responsible thing to do if you have guns in the house. They have to understand that guns are not toys.
I think I fired my first rifle at age 6 or 7...and because of both the recoil and the considerable noise, I didn't have any burning desire to touch one again until I was 10 or 11 and started going to the skeet range with my dad. My sister was a sharpshooter by the time she was 12 or so. I've done target practice using human sillouettes, and I know how big the holes bullets can make are. Gods forbid I should ever have to shoot another human, but I'm grateful I know how, should the need arise. (Granted, the need would have to be a question of me or them...but I'm going to pick me every time. )
posted by dejah420 at 1:10 PM on March 20, 2002
I think I fired my first rifle at age 6 or 7...and because of both the recoil and the considerable noise, I didn't have any burning desire to touch one again until I was 10 or 11 and started going to the skeet range with my dad. My sister was a sharpshooter by the time she was 12 or so. I've done target practice using human sillouettes, and I know how big the holes bullets can make are. Gods forbid I should ever have to shoot another human, but I'm grateful I know how, should the need arise. (Granted, the need would have to be a question of me or them...but I'm going to pick me every time. )
posted by dejah420 at 1:10 PM on March 20, 2002
Probably going off on a tangent from the original article, but I still wanted to respond to comments:
Xkot:Some would argue that educating children on the dangers and proper use of firearms helps prevent them from being curious about guns and reduces the chance of an accidental shooting if they are exposed to one. Worked for me! (I'm female) My father collected guns, did target practice, went hunting, taught hunter safety courses, and taught my sister and I how to safely handle and fire rifles and handguns, even how to reload our own ammunition. I don't actually feel a NEED to carry a gun or even own one at the moment, but I'm perfectly confident in my abilities to handle one and do not spend a lot of 'fear time' worrying about them.
walrus: As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer: a gun has no purpose other than killing things. Makes an excellent paperweight! Seriously though, I've had a lot of fun with target practice - my sister was even in the High School Rifle Club and entered state-wide competitions. I was in the archery club in college, as well. All target practice, all fun. Not killing anything but a paper bulls-eye - on a good day. Although I can see it's not everyone's cup of tea, and that's cool. But ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, whether it was created as such or not - just as ANYTHING can be made into an enjoyable passtime. (No - I've not thought this through TOO much - LOL - but you get the idea.)
alumshubby:when my six-year-old is at the right age, I'm going to try to demystify them to him and simultaneously scare him a little about what they can do in evil or inattentive hands. When my grandfather was first teaching my mother how to drive, they got in the car and the first thing he said was, "You're now in charge of a lethal weapon." That kind of thing will certainly make you pay attention!
Spoon: By teaching your children about guns you are perpetuating the myth that you need them, that they are of any use, and that you'll actually be able to put your hand on it when you want it, and if you do then you won't be the one that gets shot... My experience runs exactly counter to this, as I've mentioned above. Just offering another POV.
Spoon: The right to bear arms is an outdated right that should be repealed. You don't live in the wild west anymore, although clearly some of you think you do. If we think we do, then it must be true! ;-) Seriously though, I DO live in the wild west - miles to the nearest neighbor, a half hour drive to the closest gas station. I've got coyotes and wild boar running through our back yard almost every night, even had to call our landlord (who DOES own guns) to kill a wounded boar in a nearby cattle field once. He carries a handgun with him on his ranch because many times packs of coyotes can get out of hand - tore apart one of his sheep once. And a handgun is often easier to carry on you when you're out working the ranch instead of a rifle. Just mentioning this all as another use for handguns that DOESN'T necessarily involve killing other people.
Dejah420 - what you said. :-)
posted by thunder at 1:24 PM on March 20, 2002
Xkot:Some would argue that educating children on the dangers and proper use of firearms helps prevent them from being curious about guns and reduces the chance of an accidental shooting if they are exposed to one. Worked for me! (I'm female) My father collected guns, did target practice, went hunting, taught hunter safety courses, and taught my sister and I how to safely handle and fire rifles and handguns, even how to reload our own ammunition. I don't actually feel a NEED to carry a gun or even own one at the moment, but I'm perfectly confident in my abilities to handle one and do not spend a lot of 'fear time' worrying about them.
walrus: As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer: a gun has no purpose other than killing things. Makes an excellent paperweight! Seriously though, I've had a lot of fun with target practice - my sister was even in the High School Rifle Club and entered state-wide competitions. I was in the archery club in college, as well. All target practice, all fun. Not killing anything but a paper bulls-eye - on a good day. Although I can see it's not everyone's cup of tea, and that's cool. But ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, whether it was created as such or not - just as ANYTHING can be made into an enjoyable passtime. (No - I've not thought this through TOO much - LOL - but you get the idea.)
alumshubby:when my six-year-old is at the right age, I'm going to try to demystify them to him and simultaneously scare him a little about what they can do in evil or inattentive hands. When my grandfather was first teaching my mother how to drive, they got in the car and the first thing he said was, "You're now in charge of a lethal weapon." That kind of thing will certainly make you pay attention!
Spoon: By teaching your children about guns you are perpetuating the myth that you need them, that they are of any use, and that you'll actually be able to put your hand on it when you want it, and if you do then you won't be the one that gets shot... My experience runs exactly counter to this, as I've mentioned above. Just offering another POV.
Spoon: The right to bear arms is an outdated right that should be repealed. You don't live in the wild west anymore, although clearly some of you think you do. If we think we do, then it must be true! ;-) Seriously though, I DO live in the wild west - miles to the nearest neighbor, a half hour drive to the closest gas station. I've got coyotes and wild boar running through our back yard almost every night, even had to call our landlord (who DOES own guns) to kill a wounded boar in a nearby cattle field once. He carries a handgun with him on his ranch because many times packs of coyotes can get out of hand - tore apart one of his sheep once. And a handgun is often easier to carry on you when you're out working the ranch instead of a rifle. Just mentioning this all as another use for handguns that DOESN'T necessarily involve killing other people.
Dejah420 - what you said. :-)
posted by thunder at 1:24 PM on March 20, 2002
patrickje writes:
But if you own a weapon, you have a tremendous responsibility. If you believe that you have the gun to protect yourself, you are wrong.
Please provide proof of that. Sorry to be so pedantic, but if you are going to make such bold statements then I'm going to have to ask your proof.
More likely than you shooting an intruder, your child will shoot him/herself
Sorry, wrong:
Gun Accidents (and Kids & Gun Accidents)
Or your neighbor's kid will steal it.
Again, your proof? You have numbers to back this up, right?
Keeping guns out of the hands of children is a simple matter of making sure you have a gun safe or a locking (non-display) gun cabinet and practicing basic control of the keys or the combination. Simply putting a trigger lock on the weapon is not satisfactory.
posted by hadashi at 1:34 PM on March 20, 2002
But if you own a weapon, you have a tremendous responsibility. If you believe that you have the gun to protect yourself, you are wrong.
Please provide proof of that. Sorry to be so pedantic, but if you are going to make such bold statements then I'm going to have to ask your proof.
More likely than you shooting an intruder, your child will shoot him/herself
Sorry, wrong:
Gun Accidents (and Kids & Gun Accidents)
Or your neighbor's kid will steal it.
Again, your proof? You have numbers to back this up, right?
Keeping guns out of the hands of children is a simple matter of making sure you have a gun safe or a locking (non-display) gun cabinet and practicing basic control of the keys or the combination. Simply putting a trigger lock on the weapon is not satisfactory.
posted by hadashi at 1:34 PM on March 20, 2002
The evidence about Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) is sketchy at best. The most wide ranging study was done by Gary Kleck. And researchers found serious flaws with his sampling and questions (example question: have you used a gun for self-defense in the last five years--no followup questions). The difference between Klecks results and others are exponential.
You say that keeping guns out of reach of children is that simple, a gun cabinet, with basic control of the keys. Do you really think that will stop a 15 year old?
I don't believe banning guns is the answer to ending crime, in fact most gun/crime researchers agree that gun availability has no net positive effect on violent crimes(if guns were illegal, crime would not subside). In fact in my original post, I stated that my feelings were ambiguous on guns, I am more in favor of 'common-sense' gun laws.
The question I ask myself is: would I feel safer with a gun in my house to protect my children? And the answer is no, I believe that my family would be safer without a gun in the house. A gun is a very dangerous thing. It is so much easier to kill something with a gun.
I grew up in north-central Montana, so everyone I knew had guns. Gun cabinets were a place to store your guns, not to safeguard them. Besides everyone also had gun-racks in their trucks.
posted by patrickje at 2:24 PM on March 20, 2002
You say that keeping guns out of reach of children is that simple, a gun cabinet, with basic control of the keys. Do you really think that will stop a 15 year old?
I don't believe banning guns is the answer to ending crime, in fact most gun/crime researchers agree that gun availability has no net positive effect on violent crimes(if guns were illegal, crime would not subside). In fact in my original post, I stated that my feelings were ambiguous on guns, I am more in favor of 'common-sense' gun laws.
The question I ask myself is: would I feel safer with a gun in my house to protect my children? And the answer is no, I believe that my family would be safer without a gun in the house. A gun is a very dangerous thing. It is so much easier to kill something with a gun.
I grew up in north-central Montana, so everyone I knew had guns. Gun cabinets were a place to store your guns, not to safeguard them. Besides everyone also had gun-racks in their trucks.
posted by patrickje at 2:24 PM on March 20, 2002
hadashi, ill give you yer impircal on Patrickjes' point, i have a friend whom has had two weapons stolen. a romanian AK and a russian maka.. something, WWII surplus...nasty hole that makes. HE DID not secure his weapons. it is not a matter of just securing in a contaniner as in keeping educating the children and telling the neighbors? if the neigbors rob you, perhaps one needs a weapon due to circumstances. unless you buy a weapon, load it and tuck it away, someone will find out. Even by having the weapon in your say...toliet tank or special wall-kick spot is not gonna help one if one gets...rushed, fast break-in. And kids are almost natural sneakers at times, they will find things (an example is the 1st grader who was killed by another 1st grader in my county. had tv helecopter floating around city in a matter of minutes, led story for two three nights on them big network...deals. GO LOOK IT UP) the key is education and respect/fear of the damage this thing will do. and the best, not to have one.
posted by clavdivs at 2:34 PM on March 20, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 2:34 PM on March 20, 2002
sorry, PJE ,must have typing at the same time, didnt mean to butt insky.
posted by clavdivs at 2:36 PM on March 20, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 2:36 PM on March 20, 2002
In the immortal words of Bush 41, Naaa Gaaa Haaaaaa -- uh, Dana Carvey -- not gonna happen.
Gun control is now a dead issue in United States politics at the federal level, except for meaningless flamefests like this one. Forty-eight percent of the people that voted in the November 2000 election owned at least one gun, and almost all of them considered their 2nd Amendment rights to be one of their top issues. (Translation: they didn't vote for candidates they considered "gun-grabbers.") Of the other 52% of the voters, however, only a small minority of them considered gun control a top issue. Do the math.
It does remain an issue at the state level, but as dhartung noted above, that's only because the pro-gun people are in the process of completely dismantling the state-by-state gun bans. Basically, gun control was tried in this country. The electorate has decided it was and is a total failure, and is getting rid of it and going back to the old system. It'll probably still be a few years before California and New York get won over, though.
posted by aaron at 4:19 PM on March 20, 2002
Gun control is now a dead issue in United States politics at the federal level, except for meaningless flamefests like this one. Forty-eight percent of the people that voted in the November 2000 election owned at least one gun, and almost all of them considered their 2nd Amendment rights to be one of their top issues. (Translation: they didn't vote for candidates they considered "gun-grabbers.") Of the other 52% of the voters, however, only a small minority of them considered gun control a top issue. Do the math.
It does remain an issue at the state level, but as dhartung noted above, that's only because the pro-gun people are in the process of completely dismantling the state-by-state gun bans. Basically, gun control was tried in this country. The electorate has decided it was and is a total failure, and is getting rid of it and going back to the old system. It'll probably still be a few years before California and New York get won over, though.
posted by aaron at 4:19 PM on March 20, 2002
Waldo is right. The Second Amendment was included in the Constitution as the most extreme of the "checks and balances" we're taught so much about in Civics class. An armed populace is the only absolute defence against tyranny. Its not a left-wing/right-wing issue, or it shouldn't be. And yes, if the storm troopers come kicking down my door, I know that a couple of guns won't do me much good. But before they take me out I can at least make sure that their numbers will be smaller when they move on to my neighbor's house.
And Waldo, you were perfectly justified in mentioning the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclaimation came halfway through the war, when the North was suffering from low morale and internal divisions about the war. Lincoln and Co. declared war not based on any humanitarian or moral concerns, but because they believed that the Confederacy did not have any right to secede from the Union. History was written by the victors, and the victors chose to portray the Civil War as a moral crusade. Freeing slaves spins better than breaking the will of a people who wanted to exercise their right to self-determination.
posted by hipstertrash at 4:32 PM on March 20, 2002
And Waldo, you were perfectly justified in mentioning the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclaimation came halfway through the war, when the North was suffering from low morale and internal divisions about the war. Lincoln and Co. declared war not based on any humanitarian or moral concerns, but because they believed that the Confederacy did not have any right to secede from the Union. History was written by the victors, and the victors chose to portray the Civil War as a moral crusade. Freeing slaves spins better than breaking the will of a people who wanted to exercise their right to self-determination.
posted by hipstertrash at 4:32 PM on March 20, 2002
If you believe that you have the gun to protect yourself, you are wrong. More likely than you shooting an intruder, your child will shoot him/herself. Or your neighbor's kid will steal it.
Why are you assuming that the only way to use a gun to defend yourself or your house is by shooting someone with it? Guns are primarily used as a deterrent, be it by criminals, law enforcement, or citizens.
posted by jaek at 4:55 PM on March 20, 2002
Why are you assuming that the only way to use a gun to defend yourself or your house is by shooting someone with it? Guns are primarily used as a deterrent, be it by criminals, law enforcement, or citizens.
posted by jaek at 4:55 PM on March 20, 2002
It's just a gun.
My uncle lives in upstate New York. He has at least one brown bear on his property, and it is a lot friendlier with his house than he would like it to be. It totally destroys his bird feeders, for example.
While his main reason for owning guns is to hunt, the bear is another very good reason. There's no reason to scare it away, since 55 acres should be enough for two humans, two dogs, and a bear to share. But the bear does damage his property, and it does occasionally threaten his dogs, and it responds surprisingly poorly to yelling and body posture. He's not a man to put himself unreasonably in harms way, and owning a gun is one way of ensuring that.
Personally, when I grow older I hope to own a .50 cal. something-or-other. They're beautiful pieces of machinery, and just about the coolest toys imaginable. And all for the bargain-basement price of $3,000.
posted by Ptrin at 5:01 PM on March 20, 2002
My uncle lives in upstate New York. He has at least one brown bear on his property, and it is a lot friendlier with his house than he would like it to be. It totally destroys his bird feeders, for example.
While his main reason for owning guns is to hunt, the bear is another very good reason. There's no reason to scare it away, since 55 acres should be enough for two humans, two dogs, and a bear to share. But the bear does damage his property, and it does occasionally threaten his dogs, and it responds surprisingly poorly to yelling and body posture. He's not a man to put himself unreasonably in harms way, and owning a gun is one way of ensuring that.
Personally, when I grow older I hope to own a .50 cal. something-or-other. They're beautiful pieces of machinery, and just about the coolest toys imaginable. And all for the bargain-basement price of $3,000.
posted by Ptrin at 5:01 PM on March 20, 2002
patrickje writes:
The evidence about Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) is sketchy at best. The most wide ranging study was done by Gary Kleck. And researchers found serious flaws with his sampling and questions (example question: have you used a gun for self-defense in the last five years--no followup questions). The difference between Klecks results and others are exponential.
References, please. Otherwise this is hearsay.
And clavdivs writes:
the key is education and respect/fear of the damage this thing will do. and the best, not to have one.
You'll pardon me if I disagree with you on the last portion but you do make a good point; the key is education. The key is also effective control of the weapon. And respect for what it can do. And a number of other variables.
I find it odd that these problems didn't seem as rampant in the 50's when there were no background checks, no laws regarding age, etc. The problem is that kids are curious - and if you don't help guide them in their curiosity then they will find other ways to explore - and a lot of parents want to use the TV as the nanny instead of doing the job themselves. This statement certainly applies to more than firearms.
Lest is seem like I am myopic; there is more than one way to help secure safety for yourself and your family. Moving to a safe neighborhood. Watching your environment - who is around you, etc. Being more careful at night. Alarm systems. A dog that barks when someone comes to the door. Proper lighting around the house.
The key is to pick the combination that is proper for you; I certainly don't claim that anyone should be forced to own a firearm if they don't want to - that's just as bad as telling me I can't. However, making up claims about "your kid is more likely (insert phrase here) if you buy a gun" does not actually help anyone. Please note that patrickje did not refute my earlier slam dunk of his claim that having a gun in the house means you are putting your child in grave danger - instead, he chose to attack Mr. Kleck's research without actually giving any references or statistics of his own. I can only presume that he will never, ever let his children near any body of water considering the much higher risk of death than a firearm.
My reference:
Who is Gary Kleck?
posted by hadashi at 5:50 PM on March 20, 2002
The evidence about Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) is sketchy at best. The most wide ranging study was done by Gary Kleck. And researchers found serious flaws with his sampling and questions (example question: have you used a gun for self-defense in the last five years--no followup questions). The difference between Klecks results and others are exponential.
References, please. Otherwise this is hearsay.
And clavdivs writes:
the key is education and respect/fear of the damage this thing will do. and the best, not to have one.
You'll pardon me if I disagree with you on the last portion but you do make a good point; the key is education. The key is also effective control of the weapon. And respect for what it can do. And a number of other variables.
I find it odd that these problems didn't seem as rampant in the 50's when there were no background checks, no laws regarding age, etc. The problem is that kids are curious - and if you don't help guide them in their curiosity then they will find other ways to explore - and a lot of parents want to use the TV as the nanny instead of doing the job themselves. This statement certainly applies to more than firearms.
Lest is seem like I am myopic; there is more than one way to help secure safety for yourself and your family. Moving to a safe neighborhood. Watching your environment - who is around you, etc. Being more careful at night. Alarm systems. A dog that barks when someone comes to the door. Proper lighting around the house.
The key is to pick the combination that is proper for you; I certainly don't claim that anyone should be forced to own a firearm if they don't want to - that's just as bad as telling me I can't. However, making up claims about "your kid is more likely (insert phrase here) if you buy a gun" does not actually help anyone. Please note that patrickje did not refute my earlier slam dunk of his claim that having a gun in the house means you are putting your child in grave danger - instead, he chose to attack Mr. Kleck's research without actually giving any references or statistics of his own. I can only presume that he will never, ever let his children near any body of water considering the much higher risk of death than a firearm.
My reference:
Who is Gary Kleck?
posted by hadashi at 5:50 PM on March 20, 2002
fair enough, a combo of all the above is probably the best. i did move from the high crime. I dont know about the stats reference but to me not having the weapon around seems the most logical way to avoid the calamity you described. Personally, I've had several weapons, and choose not to keep them around. I do feel people do have a right to the guns and do not frown upon those who have them around.
posted by clavdivs at 6:07 PM on March 20, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 6:07 PM on March 20, 2002
The other side of the coin - what guns should you have?
-a .22 long-barrel pistol, for target practice and keening the eye;
-a 9mm automatic pistol with a large-capacity clip as a primary personal defense gun;
-a .25 automatic pistol for those occasions where a big-ass 9 mil is going to stick out like a hand-cannon;
-a 12 gauge short-barrel pump action shotgun for home protection; this, not your glock, is your primary home defense weapon, since it covers a wide area, you don't need to be a marksman to hit something with it, and the snick-snack of the pump jacking that first shell into the chamber is often enough to send any burglar skittering out the same window he came in, which is what you want anyway;
a .22 clipped fixed sight rifle for small-game/bird hunting and general non-hunting utility needs;
-a 12 gauge long barrel automatic shotgun for medium-sized game hunting;
-a 20 gauge long barrel shotgun for game bird hunting;
-a .30-30 or .30-06 scoped rifle for large-game hunting;
-a semi-automatic military style assault weapon, probably in 7.62mm (any AK or M variant will do); for in case of Red Dawn. This, you train for a half day, once a year, then put it away. You never know.
Feel like I'm forgetting something...? In any event, I have exactly one of these, so I suppose I'm not quite the 2nd Amendment champion I thought I was :)
posted by UncleFes at 8:56 PM on March 20, 2002
-a .22 long-barrel pistol, for target practice and keening the eye;
-a 9mm automatic pistol with a large-capacity clip as a primary personal defense gun;
-a .25 automatic pistol for those occasions where a big-ass 9 mil is going to stick out like a hand-cannon;
-a 12 gauge short-barrel pump action shotgun for home protection; this, not your glock, is your primary home defense weapon, since it covers a wide area, you don't need to be a marksman to hit something with it, and the snick-snack of the pump jacking that first shell into the chamber is often enough to send any burglar skittering out the same window he came in, which is what you want anyway;
a .22 clipped fixed sight rifle for small-game/bird hunting and general non-hunting utility needs;
-a 12 gauge long barrel automatic shotgun for medium-sized game hunting;
-a 20 gauge long barrel shotgun for game bird hunting;
-a .30-30 or .30-06 scoped rifle for large-game hunting;
-a semi-automatic military style assault weapon, probably in 7.62mm (any AK or M variant will do); for in case of Red Dawn. This, you train for a half day, once a year, then put it away. You never know.
Feel like I'm forgetting something...? In any event, I have exactly one of these, so I suppose I'm not quite the 2nd Amendment champion I thought I was :)
posted by UncleFes at 8:56 PM on March 20, 2002
Why are you assuming that the only way to use a gun to defend yourself or your house is by shooting someone with it? Guns are primarily used as a deterrent, be it by criminals, law enforcement, or citizens.
And lets not forget bears, cougars, coyotes, and raccoons. All of which have made visits to my to my property in the last year and were very effectively deterred by firearms.
posted by Tenuki at 9:46 PM on March 20, 2002
And lets not forget bears, cougars, coyotes, and raccoons. All of which have made visits to my to my property in the last year and were very effectively deterred by firearms.
posted by Tenuki at 9:46 PM on March 20, 2002
Unclefes:
Personal preference:
Mossberg 500 shotguns for home defense. I have a 500 Bullpup stock and a standard stock version. The SO prefers standard, I like Bullpup. Either way it's actually the same shotgun - one is just shorter than the other.
7.62x54 bolt action (or similar) for target shooting. I can expect to get a lot of ribbing from my ex-marine boss at work when I get a scope for mine because "real riflemen don't need scopes".
A .22 semi-auto rifle for plinking/small game.
And I prefer .45 ACP for personal protection - single stack magazine so it is less bulky. Not a criticism of the 9mm - just my preference. The SO prefers .357 Mag wheel guns.
As to the military-style - none yet. Thinking an Armalite AR10-T in .308. Expensive, but nice.
Barrett .50 cal for fun. Oh, and an MG-34, a .22 Calico, a few M-60s. No, I don't own these. I just know someone in Nevada who does. But they won't let me fire the 40mm AAA gun, though. :(
posted by hadashi at 10:47 PM on March 20, 2002
Personal preference:
Mossberg 500 shotguns for home defense. I have a 500 Bullpup stock and a standard stock version. The SO prefers standard, I like Bullpup. Either way it's actually the same shotgun - one is just shorter than the other.
7.62x54 bolt action (or similar) for target shooting. I can expect to get a lot of ribbing from my ex-marine boss at work when I get a scope for mine because "real riflemen don't need scopes".
A .22 semi-auto rifle for plinking/small game.
And I prefer .45 ACP for personal protection - single stack magazine so it is less bulky. Not a criticism of the 9mm - just my preference. The SO prefers .357 Mag wheel guns.
As to the military-style - none yet. Thinking an Armalite AR10-T in .308. Expensive, but nice.
Barrett .50 cal for fun. Oh, and an MG-34, a .22 Calico, a few M-60s. No, I don't own these. I just know someone in Nevada who does. But they won't let me fire the 40mm AAA gun, though. :(
posted by hadashi at 10:47 PM on March 20, 2002
Here comes my disclaimer: believe it or not, I like Great Britain. I have a great deal of respect for her, and there are a number of things that she does well. However, this "being defenseless will make me safe" nonsense is beyond my understanding. All of my cynical, mean-spirited attitude is directed soley at vbfg's pride in his ignorance.
You criticise my choice of words and then come up with "being defenceless will make safe" nonsense. Nice. :) Actually, not nice. Pathetic in fact.
What I said was I believe societies in which guns do not proliferate have less crime. You point out Switzerland, a sheltered non-urban society whose centuries long stance on neutrality has led to her being sheltered and protected from outside by her neighbours. Can you name any others?
My irate choice of words comes from the FACT that I HATE arrogant lecturing from people in other countries on the nature of our own laws and customs. A point you ignored so you could do it again. Insert your local expletives here.
posted by vbfg at 2:22 AM on March 21, 2002
You criticise my choice of words and then come up with "being defenceless will make safe" nonsense. Nice. :) Actually, not nice. Pathetic in fact.
What I said was I believe societies in which guns do not proliferate have less crime. You point out Switzerland, a sheltered non-urban society whose centuries long stance on neutrality has led to her being sheltered and protected from outside by her neighbours. Can you name any others?
My irate choice of words comes from the FACT that I HATE arrogant lecturing from people in other countries on the nature of our own laws and customs. A point you ignored so you could do it again. Insert your local expletives here.
posted by vbfg at 2:22 AM on March 21, 2002
I should point out that I live in Bradford, one of the poorest of the UK's large (for here) cities. It was the scene of the worst rioting this country has seen in twenty years last summer and also has the amongst worst incidents of violent crime in western Europe. I walk everywhere (I hate cars too - don't get me started on cars!) and I'm a white guy with a shaved head which, given the nature of much of the violence here, makes me a particular target for it. I still don't believe in guns, nor do I know anyone who does.
What would I do if six guys tried to smash in my brain pan? I honestly don't know. The closest I've come to these situations, which I would hope is more often than you come close to them hadashi, is to be stopped by a large groups of young Asian (which as a PC-label to us means Indian / Pakistani / Bangladeshi) youths. This last happened immediately after last years riots and I blagged it. I got home safely and so did they. It's not the only time this has happened and I doubt it will be the last. I could avoid it by learning to drive.
I suppose ultimately this comes down to which you value higher, the rights of the individual or the sanctity of society. I believe in the former, but where it conflicts with the latter the latter wins. Everytime. As I said, I believe a society that proliferates with weapons is inherently dangerous. A society like both mine and yours where there is a long history of urban living, unemployment, social exclusion, etc. Village communes in the Alps count but in not quite the same way.
BTW, slagging off Charlton Heston's grasp of logic is not meant to be a dig at the USA. (Calm down). I can distinguish between the insane ramblings of an old man and a country. That you then have to list your rights in some kind of pissing contest is a bit odd to me. Firstly they're already written down and second, someone who's as quick to anger as you seem to be... Well, guns and all that again...
posted by vbfg at 2:54 AM on March 21, 2002
What would I do if six guys tried to smash in my brain pan? I honestly don't know. The closest I've come to these situations, which I would hope is more often than you come close to them hadashi, is to be stopped by a large groups of young Asian (which as a PC-label to us means Indian / Pakistani / Bangladeshi) youths. This last happened immediately after last years riots and I blagged it. I got home safely and so did they. It's not the only time this has happened and I doubt it will be the last. I could avoid it by learning to drive.
I suppose ultimately this comes down to which you value higher, the rights of the individual or the sanctity of society. I believe in the former, but where it conflicts with the latter the latter wins. Everytime. As I said, I believe a society that proliferates with weapons is inherently dangerous. A society like both mine and yours where there is a long history of urban living, unemployment, social exclusion, etc. Village communes in the Alps count but in not quite the same way.
BTW, slagging off Charlton Heston's grasp of logic is not meant to be a dig at the USA. (Calm down). I can distinguish between the insane ramblings of an old man and a country. That you then have to list your rights in some kind of pissing contest is a bit odd to me. Firstly they're already written down and second, someone who's as quick to anger as you seem to be... Well, guns and all that again...
posted by vbfg at 2:54 AM on March 21, 2002
You have reashed a page that no longer exists.
posted by canoeguide at 3:22 AM on March 21, 2002
posted by canoeguide at 3:22 AM on March 21, 2002
I got mugged by two guys about a year ago. I got home safely and so did they.
However, I really wish I would have been carrying a gun, and been trained to use it, so that I could have killed them. A taser just wouldn't work. Also, the idea that I might have paralyzed them for life has a lot of appeal. Or just rendered them mentally retarded, perhaps.
posted by bingo at 3:43 AM on March 21, 2002
However, I really wish I would have been carrying a gun, and been trained to use it, so that I could have killed them. A taser just wouldn't work. Also, the idea that I might have paralyzed them for life has a lot of appeal. Or just rendered them mentally retarded, perhaps.
posted by bingo at 3:43 AM on March 21, 2002
vbfg:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here; it is certainly possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to two completely different opinions.
Of course, I'm still right. ;)
posted by hadashi at 8:14 AM on March 21, 2002
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here; it is certainly possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to two completely different opinions.
Of course, I'm still right. ;)
posted by hadashi at 8:14 AM on March 21, 2002
hadashi...a 40mm...man, you'd be fun at a party. I had the honor to rip off a few clips of MP-5. a beaUtiful weapon, little kick and one can direct the fire to some degree without riding. my fav would be that or the M-249. Having the weapon wont do a damn bit of good unless you intend to use in a defence situation...and pointing it at people really doesnt cow them. A warning shot will usually get things rolling.
posted by clavdivs at 8:36 AM on March 21, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 8:36 AM on March 21, 2002
I'm with Fes. The firearm that won the west...is still the best. Shotguns rule because you can do a damn good job of hitting your target, even in a high stress situation. It's the only weapon I own. I clean it once a year, but haven't fired it in ten. It'd be fun to get out to the trap/skeet range, though. I'm always meaning to do that.
posted by gnz2001 at 8:44 AM on March 21, 2002
posted by gnz2001 at 8:44 AM on March 21, 2002
I suppose ultimately this comes down to which you value higher, the rights of the individual or the sanctity of society. I believe in the former, but where it conflicts with the latter the latter wins.
I guess I just have to ask what the value of society is if it does not hold the rights of the individual as it's highest merit? I value the rights of the individual above the sanctity of society any day. Any society which does not value the individual above all else is inherently ripe for tyranny. If we wanted to have society valued above all else we could have just not bothered to fight fight WWII - Adolf Hitler would have given us a truly sanctified society with no thought of the individual.
posted by RevGreg at 3:01 PM on March 21, 2002
I guess I just have to ask what the value of society is if it does not hold the rights of the individual as it's highest merit? I value the rights of the individual above the sanctity of society any day. Any society which does not value the individual above all else is inherently ripe for tyranny. If we wanted to have society valued above all else we could have just not bothered to fight fight WWII - Adolf Hitler would have given us a truly sanctified society with no thought of the individual.
posted by RevGreg at 3:01 PM on March 21, 2002
Oh, but just to piss over the smouldering ruins of this flame-fest, the 'rights reside in the people, not a document' argument is, of course, bullshit. It's a textual fiction, encoded by... a document! (Show me the self-evident freedoms of mankind in, say, Zimbabwe.) Just as the wonderful supporters of 'intelligent design' have their self-evident truths of divine intervention encoded by... a (biblical) document! It's a collective act of belief. It's a fucking myth! Glory hallelujah!
posted by riviera at 5:20 PM on March 21, 2002
posted by riviera at 5:20 PM on March 21, 2002
riviera, the fact that a description of something has been written down doesn't make it textual fiction. And the whole point of the phrase "self-evident" in this context is that those rights don't have to be encoded anywhere to begin with; they simply are.
posted by bingo at 6:03 PM on March 21, 2002
posted by bingo at 6:03 PM on March 21, 2002
« Older Send Them Packing! | Wife Beater T-Shirts: Misogyny or Comedy? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by bjgeiger at 3:47 AM on March 20, 2002